HILLARY CLINTON: First Woman to Run For President to be Indicted

Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information by using her private, unsecured server to store sensitive documents makes it look more and more as though a criminal case is being developed against her by the FBI.

One by one, her campai...

HILLARY CLINTON AND THE F.B.I: Will her cash deals with dictators catch up with her?

As Barack Obama finishes his final year, his attorney general, in all likelihood, will execute the greatest instance of prosecutorial discretion in the history or our nation.


Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American l...

PROTECTING AMERICA'S BIGGEST WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL,HILLARY CLINTON, SO SHE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT AND BILLARY CAN GO ON LOOTING BRIBES THROUGH PHONY SPEECHES!

February 29, 2016

Brace yourself for the greatest prosecutorial discretion event in history

By James Longstreet

As Barack Obama finishes his final year, his attorney general, in all likelihood, will execute the greatest instance of prosecutorial discretion in the history or our nation. Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power
on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion has also been described as a type of legal “triage.”  When the ability or capacity to prosecute is curtailed or restricted, the cases that are the most egregious are moved to the top the list, and
those less so are dismissed, thus the discretion. (In traffic court, there are ten speeders and only the capacity to
prosecute five.  Those over the speed limit to the greatest degree are prosecuted.)


Of late, prosecutorial discretion is in high use within the illegal immigration crisis regarding the limited numbers of courts and judges.


But what indeed is required is reasoning and legal ground to employ the “discretion.”  As time passes, as the Democrat nominating convention nears, the reason that eventually will be employed for this discretion
gains weight.


Loretta Lynch has already broken the seal on her foray into the morass of  prosecutorial discretion.  She dismissed the IRS investigation.

Justice Department officials used “prosecutorial discretion” to shelter former IRS official Lois Lerner
from a grand jury after she was held in contempt of Congress. “I believe that in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the matter was handled and was resolved,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the House Judiciary Committee[.]

Lerner is just the beginning.  The IRS dismissal, large enough on its own scale and importance, will be but a side event in this attorney general’s career.  For the longer the Hillary email “scandal” plays out, the more protracted the discovery and analysis by the FBI, and the deeper into the campaigning and nomination process we go, the less likely any indictment of Ms. Clinton.  It will likely involve a discretionary event by Loretta Lynch.


The more Hillary becomes the likely nominee, the greater the political aspects of the FBI’s work.  To now dethrone the Democrat nominee with an indictment is much more difficult than if it had been done after the Iowa caucus.  And the closer we get to the convention, the more distasteful and difficult any action against Hillary.


Just as Bill Clinton’s lying to a grand jury could not bring impeachment, for it would be too difficult for the country, we might just have his wife creating a very similar “difficulty” for the country.  “What would it say of our system, our country?” will be the mantra if she is indicted at the 11th hour.  The compliant media will assist in developing such reasoning and afford Loretta Lynch her justification for prosecutorial discretion and a dismissing of any charges that might prohibit Hillary from further campaigning or serving as president.


Hillary’s popularity and the “no harm, no foul” argument will be used.  And that is only if Mr. Comey goes the distance.



Brace yourself.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/brace_yourself_for_the_greatest_prosecutorial_discretion_event_in_history.html#ixzz41aaX17zA

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

"I SERVE OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS - YOU WILL TOO IF I'M ELECTED!" - Clinton sweeps South Carolina primary as turnout plunges

Clinton sweeps South Carolina primary as turnout plunges


HILLARY'S PHONY CHARITY IS FUNDED BY DICTATORS 

SHE SERVED AS SEC. OF STATE, OBAMA'S CRONY 

BANKSTERS AND CRIMINAL BILLIONAIRES, LIKE THE 

ONES BILLARY HANDED PARDONS FOR BRIBES AS HE 

LEFT OFFICE!

Sanders has attacked Clinton for her close ties to the major banks, demanding that she release the transcripts of speeches to audiences at Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, for which she received six-figure fees. He told a campaign rally Thursday, “I do not receive many millions
of dollars from Wall Street or the pharmaceutical industry or other powerful, wealthy interests in this country, and have not given speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street.”

Clinton sweeps South Carolina primary as turnout plunges

By Patrick Martin


29 February 2016

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the South Carolina
Democratic primary Saturday by a huge margin, defeating Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders by 74 percent to 26 percent. Clinton won 39 delegates to
the Democratic nominating convention, compared to 14 for Sanders.

It was Clinton’s first substantial victory in the campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination, following narrow wins in caucuses in
Iowa and Nevada and a sizeable defeat in the first primary, in New
Hampshire. She now leads in total elected delegates, 91 to 65, with some
2,500 required for nomination.

Clinton ran up huge totals amongAfrican-American voters in the state, with an overall margin of 86
percent to 14 percent, including a 96 percent to 3 percent margin among
black voters over 65. Sanders won only two demographic groups tracked in
exit polls: white voters and voters under age 30.

Clinton had the support of virtually all the state’s Democratic Party officeholders,
including its only Democratic congressman, Jim Clyburn, the deputy
minority whip, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, and a member of
the Congressional Black Caucus, which also endorsed Clinton.

Voter turnout plunged in the South Carolina primary compared to 2008, when
Clinton was badly beaten by Barack Obama. Clinton won fewer votes in the
two-person contest with Sanders than Obama won in a three-way contest
with Clinton and John Edwards eight years ago.

The total vote in South Carolina primaries for both big business parties, held a week
apart, was 978,000 in 2008 and 999,000 in 2016, but the balance between
the Republicans and Democrats shifted dramatically. In 2008, 532,000
voted in the Democratic primary and 446,000 in the Republican. This
year, only 361,000 voted in the Democratic primary while 738,000 voted
in the Republican contest, won by billionaire demagogue Donald Trump.

Sanders poured significant resources into the state, including 200 volunteers
and nearly $2 million in campaign advertising, but effectively conceded
the contest earlier this week as polls showed Clinton with an
insuperable lead.

The main focus of the Clinton campaign was to appeal to identity politics, based on Clinton’s gender and her pastclose ties with the black Democratic Party establishment, while claiming
that Sanders’s rhetorical attacks on Wall Street and economicinequality made his a “single issue” campaign.

Sanders has attacked Clinton for her close ties to the major banks, demanding that she release the transcripts of speeches to audiences at Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, for which she received six-figure fees. He told a campaign rally Thursday, “I do not receive many millions
of dollars from Wall Street or the pharmaceutical industry or other powerful, wealthy interests in this country, and have not given speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street.”

But he hasavoided any discussion of foreign policy, and particularly the
aggressive preparation by the Obama administration for wider military
action in the Middle East and provocative deployments against Russia and
China, confining his criticism to Clinton’s vote 14 years ago for war
in Iraq.

There are 11 states with Democratic Party contestsTuesday. Clinton is heavily favored in polls taken in the six Southernstates voting March 1—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and
Virginia—which account for two-thirds of the delegates to be selected
that day.

Sanders has focused on the other five states, where heis in the lead or competitive: primaries in Massachusetts, Oklahoma andVermont, and caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota. He addressed a seriesof large rallies this week, including 10,000 in Austin, Texas, 8,000 in
Dallas and 7,000 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, finishing Saturday by speaking to
supporters in Rochester, Minnesota.

Because of proportionalrepresentation, Clinton would not be able to clinch the nomination even
if she wins the vast majority of the states on Super Tuesday. Unlike the
Republican contest, there is no winner-take-all provision at any stage
in the Democratic primary process.

In multiple appearances onSunday morning television talk shows, Sanders dismissed suggestions that
a poor showing on Super Tuesday would mark an end to his campaign,
declaring that he had many states ahead for potential victories,
including California, the most populous state and the last to hold a
primary on June 7.

Judicial Watch Releases New Document in Criminal Corruption Case against Hillary Clinton in Whitewater Affair

Judicial Watch Releases New Document in Criminal Corruption Case against Hillary Clinton in Whitewater Affair: Highly Detailed ‘Order of Proof’ Names Over 100 Witnesses, Outlines Evidence To Be Used At Trial (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released an unprecedented accounting of the evidence that would have been used at a criminal trial against Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater case. The April 1998 memo by the Office of Independent Counsel,...

Highly Detailed ‘Order of Proof’ Names Over 100 Witnesses, Outlines Evidence To Be Used At Trial

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released an
unprecedented accounting of the evidence that would have been used at a
criminal trial against Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater case. The April 1998 memo
by the Office of Independent Counsel, titled “HRC Order of Proof,”
includes the names of 121 witnesses, discussions of evidence, and
aspects of grand jury testimony to be used at trial, forming a virtual
road map to the sweeping criminal case against the Whitewater
conspirators.


Prosecutors ultimately decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton,
calculating that they could not win the complicated, largely
circumstantial case against such a high-profile figure.  But while the
general outline of the case is known, the “Order of Proof” is definitive
and highly detailed, nailing down a number of disputed issues. Among
them:

• The cover-up of Clinton financial misdeeds in Arkansas began in earnest on a specific date: March 7, 1992.

• Documents from the Rose Law Firm—Mrs. Clinton’s former employer at the center of the  growing scandal—were passed to a campaign aide
  in the firm’s “parking lot that night,” demonstrating that Mrs. Clinton
  and her Rose Law Firm Partners—Webster Hubbell and Vincent Foster—were
  early participants in the cover-up.

• There was a furious Clinton effort to locate documents and shut down witnesses.

• Media coverage of the Clintons led to renewed interest by the
  Resolution Trust Corp. in the corrupt bank at the center of the story,
  Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. Madison was “already on the list of
  S&Ls to be revisited,” having been the subject of earlier probes and a prior criminal case.

• Tulsa-based senior Resolution Trust Corp. investigator Jean Lewis—later
  the subject of a vituperative campaign of personal destruction by the
  Clinton side—was dispatched “by her local supervisor and someone in
  Washington to go to Little Rock to determine if Whitewater had caused
  [Madison] a loss.”

• Lewis visited Little Rock in April 1992, and drew up Criminal Referral C-0004, which was sent “directly to the Little Rock U.S. Attorney and Little Rock FBI on 9/1/92.”

• U.S. Attorney Paula Casey—a Clinton associate—and the Little Rock FBI office agreed to hold the criminal referral “in abeyance until after the election.”
  Meanwhile, the FBI and RTC investigations moved forward. Nine more RTC
  criminal referrals involving Madison-related schemes were drawn up.

• A Justice Department
  probe was underway on July 20, 1993, when search warrants were obtained
  in Little Rock for Whitewater-related investigations.  That night in
  Washington, Vincent Foster, the former Rose Law Firm partner serving as
  both the Clintons’ personal lawyer and White House deputy counsel,
  committed suicide.

• Two senior Justice Department officials—David Margolis and Philip Heymann—are
  on the “Order of Proof” witness list. In the immediate aftermath of
  Foster’s death, Margolis and Heymann received White House Counsel
  Bernard Nussbaum’s consent to search Foster’s office. Then Nussbaum
  “reneged.”

• Heymann—the Deputy Attorney General of the United States—was “[v]ery upset over the matter” and “[a]sked Bernie what he was trying to hide.”

• Numerous witnesses would testify they saw documents being removed
  from Foster’s office, including papers that resembled the Rose Law Firm
  billing records—under subpoena at that time and nowhere to be found.

Judicial Watch Chief Investigative Reporter Micah Morrison reported on the new document today at the Daily Caller.

HILLARY'S SHIT ON THE WAGE GAP - ECONOMIC INEQUALITY TIMES GREATER UNDER OBAMA THAN BUSH!

Wage gap: 'Average' CEO salary less than one Hillary speech

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's charge that corporate CEOs earn 300 times more than their workers isn't just wrong. It hides another very real wage gap: She earns more in just one speech than the average American CEO in a year.

Mark J. Perry, a University of Michigan professor and author of the American Enterprise Institute's popular Carpe Diem blog, did the fact-checking of Clinton's numbers and came up with that result.
The average CEO, using Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, makes $216,100. On the stump, Clinton's agent, the Harry Walker Agency Inc., charged $275,000 a speech and packaged three for Wall Street's Goldman Sachs at $675,000.

Perry used the BLS average salary for all CEOs, not just the top ones Clinton likes to cite. He also found that the average worker salary is $48,920, about what it was in 2009. That translates into an apples-to-apples wage gap of 4.4-to-1.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY UNDER OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN UNDER BUSH - NOW HILLARY WANTS TO HAND 40 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS EVEN MORE OF OUR COUNTRY!

Income inequality grows FOUR TIMES FASTER under Obama than Bush.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/12/obamanomics-at-work-depressed-wages-and.html


“Behind the orgy of profit-making and stock speculation sustained by the policies of the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve, broad masses of the American people remain in the grip of the deepest social crisis since the Great Depression.”

HAS THE BANKSTER-FUNDED DEMOCRAT PARTY DESTROYED THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS AS IT EXPANDS MEXICO'S LA RAZA SUPREMACY WELFARE STATE IN OUR OPEN BORDERS??? - Once again on Sanders and socialism

Once again on Sanders and socialism

Once again on Sanders and socialism

20 February 2016

At a town hall event Thursday night in Las Vegas, jointly hosted by
the MSNBC cable channel and Telemundo, Democratic presidential
candidate and self-described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders was
asked by one of the moderators to explain what he meant by socialism.

Sanders
has attracted broad support from working people and youth by basing his
bid for the White House on denunciations of social inequality and the
political domination and criminality of Wall Street. His claim to be a
socialist, far from alienating many workers and youth, has attracted
them to his campaign, an indication of the growth of anti-capitalist
sentiment. According to one prominent poll released on Friday, he trails
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nationally among Democratic
voters by only 3 percentage points.

In reply to the question about
socialism, Sanders said: “When I talk about democratic socialist, you
know what I’m talking about? Social Security, one of the most popular
and important programs in this country, developed by FDR to give dignity
and security to seniors… When I talk about democratic socialist, I am
talking about Medicare, a single payer care system for the elderly. And
in my view, we should expand that concept to all people…

“When I
talk about democratic socialist, I’m not looking at Venezuela. I’m not
looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden…”

This
response bears careful scrutiny. It makes clear that, despite his talk
of a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” Sanders is
not an opponent of the capitalist system or the two-party political
monopoly through which the American corporate-financial elite has ruled
for more than 150 years.

There is nothing anti-capitalist in
Sanders’ so-called “socialism.” Socialism is not a reform of capitalism,
it is its opposite. It is based on the abolition of private ownership
of the means of production—the major industries, transport,
telecommunications, banking—and their transformation into public
utilities under the democratic control of the working people. It
replaces production for private profit based on the surplus value
extracted through the exploitation of workers under the wage system with
production for the benefit of society as a whole. It supersedes the
anarchy of the market by organizing economic life on the basis of
rational planning.

It overcomes the contradiction between
globalized production and the nation-state political framework of
capitalism by uniting workers internationally in the struggle for a
world socialist federation. It is a revolutionary change that can be
achieved only through the independent political mobilization of the
working class and the establishment of a workers’ government.

Sanders
opposes all of this. He contends, in the name of “socialism,” that the
existing economic and political set-up can be reformed along the lines
of the programs that were instituted in the 1930s (Social Security) and
the 1960s (Medicare). Neither of these programs, while representing
significant gains for working people, challenged the basic class
interests of the American ruling elite. Precisely because the economic
and political power of the ruling class was left intact, these programs
have been under constant attack. They have been increasingly whittled
down and are now targeted for extinction.

Where, moreover, did
these programs come from? They were not the result of the beneficence of
the American capitalist class. They were wrenched from the ruling elite
in the course of bitter and bloody struggles of not only the American,
but also the international working class. The most important factor
behind the enactment of the social reforms of the 1930s and 1960s in
America was the socialist revolution of 1917 that established in Russia
the first workers’ state in world history.

That world-transforming
event provided a mighty impulse to the struggles of workers in the US
and around the world, and it inspired in the ruling classes of every
capitalist country fear of something similar happening to them. The
outbreak of the Great Depression in 1929 discredited capitalism in the
eyes of millions in the US and internationally and fueled a growth of
class struggle that erupted in general strikes in three major American
cities—Toledo, San Francisco and Minneapolis—in 1934.

This was the
context in which Franklin D. Roosevelt, a resolute defender of the
capitalist system and the interests of the American ruling class, felt
compelled to implement a series of social reforms, including Social
Security, whose basic purpose was to avert social revolution in the
United States.

The next major social reforms, Medicare and
Medicaid, the government health programs for the elderly and the poor,
were enacted under conditions of rising social struggles and mounting
political discontent. This was the period of the mass civil rights
movement, which was, in essence, an extension of the class battles that
gave rise to the industrial unions in the 1930s, and which was animated
by an egalitarian ethos. It coincided with anti-colonial struggles that
shook Asia and Africa. It was accompanied by urban rebellions that swept
America’s cities, militant strikes of industrial workers and the first
stirrings of the anti-war movement.

But even at the height of its
global economic dominance and political influence, American capitalism
was unable to overcome endemic poverty, unemployment and oppression. In
1964, Lyndon Johnson proclaimed his “War on Poverty,” but that quickly
collapsed as American capitalism was overtaken by its international and
internal contradictions. Since then, the Democratic Party and the ruling
class as a whole have shifted ever more violently to the right,
abandoning any policy of liberal reform.

The past 30 years have
been dominated by a relentless ruling class offensive against the
working class, which has been escalated, under the Obama administration,
in the aftermath of the capitalist breakdown of 2008. Sanders often
notes that in America today, the richest 20 individuals own more wealth
than the bottom 50 percent of the population—more than 150 million
people. Yet he embraces and praises the president who has overseen the
greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich in
history.

As he said Thursday night, “Bottom line is, I happen to
think that the president has done an extraordinarily good job. I have
worked with him on issue after issue.”

In recent days, pro-Clinton
economists such as Paul Krugman and Jared Bernstein have attacked
Sanders’ reform proposals, including free tuition at public colleges and
universal government-provided health care, as wildly impractical and
unrealizable. This is an attack on Sanders from the right, based on the
standard lie that “there is no money” for social programs. However,
Krugman and the others are correct in one critical regard. Sanders, no
less than his pro-Clinton critics, accepts and defends the existing
economic system. Proceeding from that starting point, his reform
proposals are indeed utopian.

Outside of a mass struggle that
directly challenges the bases of capitalist rule no genuinely
progressive changes can be achieved.

As for Sanders’ supposedly
“socialist” models—Denmark and Sweden—both have for the past two decades
been busy dismantling the welfare states established after World War II
and imposing ever harsher austerity measures on the working class.
Their turn to social and political reaction is exemplified by their
savage attacks on refugees. Sweden last month announced it would expel
some 80,000 people fleeing the imperialist wars in the Middle East, and
Denmark announced plans to seize the assets of asylum seekers.

Sanders
does not represent the growing opposition of the working class to
inequality, war and repression. He does not articulate the growth of
anti-capitalist sentiment among the masses. He represents a response by
the ruling class to these developments. His central political function
is to prevent the emergence of an independent political movement of the
working class by channeling social discontent back behind the Democratic
Party.



Barry Grey

HILLARY POINTS HER WITCHY FINGER AT BERNIE. DID SANDERS CAUSE ALL HER DIRTY SECRETS?

If you believe what’s currently going on with Hillary’s campaign is an indication that the Clinton political prowess has begun to falter, you’d better think again.

It may not seem like it, based on what the media and political pu...



If
you believe what’s currently going on with
Hillary’s campaign is an indication that the Clinton political
prowess has begun to falter, you’d better think again.

It may not seem like it, based on what the media and political pu...

February 19, 2016

Hillary using Sanders for political cover

By Keith Edwards

If
you believe what’s currently going on with Hillary’s campaign is an
indication that the Clinton political prowess has begun to falter, you’d
better think again.



It
may not seem like it, based on what the media and political pundits are
saying about Hillary’s campaign losing ground fast to Bernie Sanders,
but everything is going exactly as planned by the Clinton campaign
strategist.

The
Clinton team knew from the beginning that Hillary was an unappealing
presidential candidate for anyone except the hardcore Democrat base. 
They also knew she carried the negative political baggage of lingering
problems with her emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation.



Knowing
all this, the Clinton team knew that Hillary would never make it for
all those months as a front-running candidate with a big target on her
back.  So the strategy has always been to keep Hillary under the media
radar – at least long enough for her to get the Democrat presidential
nomination.  It took a while for Bernie to gain some traction, but once
he did, the spotlight dimmed on Hillary and began to light him up. 
Didn’t anyone find it odd that questions about Hillary’s emails and her
other simmering scandals dried up all of a sudden?  Could it be just a
coincidence?  Not with the Clintons.



Every
bit of news coming from the media about the Democrat primary these days
is highlighted by Bernie’s surprisingly successful campaign.  The media
spouts that Bernie’s growing popularity could spell big trouble for
Hillary.  But no one is happier about this seemingly bad news than
Hillary’s campaign, because this is exactly the kind of “trouble” they
prefer Hillary to have – all the way to the Democrat convention.



Bernie
Sanders is the perfect shill in the Democrat presidential primaries. 
And so far, he is working exceptionally well for Hillary’s “low profile”
campaign strategy.  The higher Bernie climbs in the polls, the better
his chances are of staying longer in a primary battle with Hillary.  And
the longer he stays in the primary, the longer Hillary’s shady
political past stays under the media radar – and out of sight of the
American electorate.



But
there’s not a political pundit on the planet who believes that Bernie
Sanders has a snowball’s chance of winning the Democrat presidential
nomination.  If you care to check out the delegate count as of today,
Hillary is well on the way to being nominated.  And getting to the
nomination unscathed by any of her “real” political (and legal) troubles
is the key to Hillary’s success.



When
Hillary accepts the Democrat nomination for president, Bernie Sanders’s
valiant effort will become a big political feather in her hat.  The
media will say: Wow – that Hillary sure is a fighter!  (You do know her slogan is “Fighting for Us,” right?)



And
when the Republicans, and their beleaguered and battle-worn
presidential nominee, finally get around to campaigning against only
Hillary, all those questions and allegations they’ll be making about her
emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation will be noted and branded
by the leftist media as old news, anti-woman, and you guessed it –
another right-wing conspiracy.



Good luck with that, Mr. Trump.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/hillary_using_sanders_for_political_cover_.html#ixzz40e87QTsX


Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

HILLARY LIES! As she hispanders and promises 40 million Mexicans Obama's amnesty, she then tells black Americas they get the jobs the Mexicans can't stomach

As she sees the presidential nomination slipping away from her once again, Hillary Clinton plumbs new depths of craven race-pandering, ginning up racial resentment with a bizarre invocation of racism.  Shushannah Walshe and Liz Kreutz of ABC New...



As
she sees the presidential nomination slipping away from her once again,
Hillary Clinton plumbs new depths of craven race-pandering, ginning up
racial resentment with a bizarre invocation of racism. 
Shushannah Walshe and Liz Kreutz of ABC New...





SHE
HAS HISPANDERED TO THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA "The Race" FOR
YEARS, PROMISING THEM 49 MORE MEXIFORNIAS, OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY AND
NO ID to VOTE FOR MORE.



BUT FOR BLACK AMERICAS???



SHE'S NEVER DONE ANYMORE THAN LA RAZA OBAMA!!!

February 17, 2016

Hillary’s race pandering hits a new low

By Thomas Lifson

 

As
she sees the presidential nomination slipping away from her once again,
Hillary Clinton plumbs new depths of craven race-pandering, ginning up
racial resentment with a bizarre invocation of racism.  Shushannah
Walshe and Liz Kreutz of ABC News report:

 Hillary Clinton
stepped up her attacks today against Republicans vowing to block
whomever President Obama nominates to the Supreme Court, accusing them
of racism and bigotry.

“The
Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates no
matter how qualified. Some are even saying he doesn't have the right to
nominate anyone, as if somehow he's not the real president,” Clinton
said during remarks at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black
Culture in Harlem, referring to the recent passing of Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia.

“You
know that's in keeping what we heard all along, isn't it?" she
continued. "Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers
and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest
impulses of the paranoid fringe,” she continued. “This kind of hatred
and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.

"The president has the right to nominate under the Constitution,” she added to cheers.

There are no limits to her venality.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/hillarys_race_pandering_hits_a_new_low.html#ixzz40S152AcS

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

THE CASE of HILLARY CLINTON and HER PAYMASTERS AT GOLDMAN SACHS

Poor Hillary! It turns out that there is a price to being a lying hypocrite.  That’s just so unfair. After all, Bill got away with posing as a feminist champion while assaulting, groping, and exploiting women for decades.  But when Hi...

Poor
Hillary! It turns out that there is a price to being a lying hypocrite.
 That’s just so unfair. After all, Bill got away
with posing as a feminist champion while assaulting, groping, and
exploiting women for decades.  But when Hi...

February 11, 2016

Hillary’s no-win situation at Goldman Sachs worsening as content of her paid speeches leaking out

By Thomas Lifson

Poor
Hillary! It turns out that there is a price to being a lying hypocrite.
 That’s just so unfair. After all, Bill got away with posing as a
feminist champion while assaulting, groping, and exploiting women for
decades.  But when Hillary tries to match Bernie Sanders on a comparable
pose as anti-Wall Street, she gets herself in a no-win situation.



Goldman
Sachs people are leaking out what she said in her $675,000 worth of
three paid speeches, and it is now clear that releasing the transcripts
of her talks will expose her hypocrisy. But of course, refusing to
release them raises all sorts of worse suspicions. Shades of Nixon’s
missing 13 minutes of tape.



Ben White of Politico reports on the leaks from Goldman:

She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It
was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said.
“It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a
rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing
director.”

At
another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New
York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that
caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the
landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working
and what wasn’t.

“It
was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended
that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look
really bad.”

My
read is that Hillary will choose to continue to keep the transcripts
secret, preferring to let people imagine what they will. She is so
surrounded by sycophants and so contemptuous of those who criticize her
that she is unaware of how damaging her secrecy will be.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/hillarys_nowin_situation_at_goldman_sachs_worsening_as_content_of_her_paid_speeches_leaking_out.html#ixzz3ztBfCJVu






Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

CARL BERNSTEIN: HILLARY'S SHADY PAST CATCHES UP WITH HER

And the Hillary Clinton is really flailing and looking for an opening. And the real opening, I think, is the record of her life. Mistakes, excess baggage, all of it. But the distrust question, truthfulness is killing her right now.” 

Carl Bernstein: Sanders ‘Character and Principle’ is ‘Clobbering’ Hillary

by Pam Key10 Feb 2016114

Wednesday on CNN’s “Newsroom,” Watergate-famed journalist Carl Bernstein said Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is losing to her opponentSen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
because of character, to which he described has led to him as “clobbering her.” Bernstein said, “Well, I think it might not be wise if it literally is to be more aggressive about Bernie Sanders. She is running a terribly flawed campaign as a terribly flawed candidate. And she has got to find her voice and get her record and her persona out there. It’s a great record of a lifetime. He has put forth his character, his movement, and it’s gotten traction. And he’s clobbering her. This is an election between the two of them that really is about character and principle. Obama just gave a great speech in which I would think he was saying to both the Democrats and the Republicans, hey, calm down. Let’s have a fact-based debate. And right now, Sanders has run a campaign that seems to have captured the zeitgeist. And the Hillary Clinton is really flailing and looking for an opening. And the real opening, I think, is the record of her life. Mistakes, excess baggage, all of it. But the distrust question, truthfulness is killing her right now.” 

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Carl Bernstein

BILLARY'S WOMAN, HILLARY: America's pathological liar

During a recent debate, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton gave us a sneak-peek coming attractions preview of what to expect from their presidencies, if elected: it'spretty scary, folks.

Quick to attack any and all opposition with her you...

February 9, 2016

The Sanders/Clinton Rocky Horror Show: A Sneak Peek

By Lloyd Marcus

During a recent debate, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton gave us a sneak-peek coming attractions preview of what to expect from their presidencies, if elected: it'spretty scary, folks.



Quick
to attack any and all opposition with her you're-abusing-me-victim
card, Hillary claimed Sanders victimized her with a “very artful smear.”
As president, Hillary will exploit her gender to the max.



The
mainstream media will help the first woman president further their
shared progressive/socialistic agenda; ready on demand to hand Hillary a
red hot branding-iron to burn an “S” for sexist on the forehead of
anyone who dares to oppose her. Petrified of allegations of sexism by
the MSM, the GOP establishment will respond to Hillary's executive
orders and unconstitutional actions with a humble, “Yes, Madam
President.” Haven't we seen this movie before with a black guy in the
lead role?



GOP
presidential contenders Cruz and Rubio have not cited being Hispanic as
a reason to vote for them. Black contender Dr. Carson is running on the
content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Note that
the MSM have been mute regarding the historical aspect of electing
America's first Hispanic president. The MSM have been relentless in
their attempts to convince voters that Dr. Carson is not authentically
black; the guy thinks too white, void of a victim chip on his shoulder.



Meanwhile,
the MSM, Democrats and Hillary promote that her gender alone is a moral
and just reason to put the first woman in the White House, placing
gender above all else, including character, qualifications, and agenda.



Out
of one side of her mouth Hillary says considering her gender is sexist.
Out of the other side of her mouth, Hillary says vote for me because
I'm a woman.



As
I stated, Hillary's number one political weapon is to portray herself
as a victim, suffering aggression from powerful white men. Early in the
campaign, Hillary hit Sanders with her sexism card. Embarrassingly,
Hillary spins every challenge into an invasion of her space, a case
of beating-up-on-the-girl.



This
morally bankrupt woman is a political version of “Sybil.” One Hillary
personality angrily screams, “I am woman, hear me roar!” When
confronted, another Hillary takes over, “Be nice to me because I'm a
woman.” When caught lying, a third Hillary surfaces, “Gee, I didn't know
and cannot be held accountable.”



If
this is Hillary's behavior during the campaign, rest assured she will
be ten times worse in the White House. Americans would relish a strong
female leader like a Margret Thatcher. The last thing our country wants
is another compulsive-liar, whining, manipulative, and pathetic
victim and Buck-passer-in-Chief.



Bernie Sanders said he has a real problem
with people earning $200,000 for an hour's work. Folks, Sanders'
mindset is un-American. Given the power, this man will destroy the very
foundation upon which our country was built -- the freedom to pursue
your wildest dreams without limits on your ability to achieve. The
pilgrims tried socialism and it failed. 



William
Bradford realized everyone working together, receiving an equal share
was not working. Some folks worked hard while others were slackers (my
cousin Vernon). Well, duh! Anyway, Bradford gave everyone their own land
to work for their families. The results were spectacular. Suddenly, the
pilgrims produced so much that they began trading and selling
(capitalism). Clearly, Sanders is clueless regarding capitalism and
supply and demand. We cannot allow Sanders' un-American vision anywhere
near our Oval Office, folks.



I
remember when baseball superstar Cal Ripken, Jr. signed a 3-year
contract for $12 million. Critics had a cow. They said it was immoral to
pay a baseball player so much more than a teacher. While this sounds
good to those consumed with class envy, their reasoning is severely
flawed. Ripken's performance on the field, leading the Orioles to the
World Series, generated mega-millions to his team and the Baltimore
economy. Isn't it reasonable that Ripken participate in the bounty from
his excellence, his hourly wage exceeding far above that of a teacher?



Sanders
appeals to voter's base instincts, covetousness (class envy). He
desires centralized government power to control peoples' behavior,
spreading mediocrity equally. Liberalism is like a pot of Maryland blue
crabs. They grab the legs and pull back any crab that tries to escape to
freedom; to achieve more. In Sanders' America, no one has more than
anyone else. Government mandates that we drive tin-can deathtraps while
liberal elites travel in limos and private jets; simply writing a check
for carbon credits.



Another
disturbing truth about Sanders and his Democrat homeys is their
divisiveness, always encouraging Americans to envy and hate. Democrats
promote hating police, white men, achievers, employers, Christians,
football, Republicans, and Conservatives.



Democrats
try to guilt-trip Americans into hating keeping score at school
sporting events -- kids playing dodgeball and tag -- anyone proud to be
an American, anyone proud of being heterosexual, those who oppose
murdering babies and selling their heads, white parents who read bedtime stories
to their kids, those who own guns to hunt and protect their families,
those who believe in traditional marriage, and those who believe in
absolute right and wrong.



I
could go on and on with examples of how Democrats seek to destroy every
principle, value, and institution that have made America great and that
most Americans hold dear. Democrats hide their evil
socialist/progressive intended transformation of America beneath a
shroud of faux compassion. Everything coming out of the Democratic Party
is either anti-God or anti-American.



I unequivocally trust only one GOP presidential candidate to aggressively act to turn our country around, Ted Cruz.



Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American



Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee



LloydMarcus.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/the_sandersclinton_rocky_horror_show_a_sneak_peek.html#ixzz3zhBwXXz0

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

And the Hillary Clinton is really flailing and looking for an opening. And the real opening, I think, is the record of her life. Mistakes, excess baggage, all of it. But the distrust question, truthfulness is killing her right now.” 

Carl Bernstein: Sanders ‘Character and Principle’ is ‘Clobbering’ Hillary

by Pam Key10 Feb 2016114

Wednesday on CNN’s “Newsroom,” Watergate-famed journalist Carl Bernstein said Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is losing to her opponentSen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
because of character, to which he described has led to him as “clobbering her.” Bernstein said, “Well, I think it might not be wise if it literally is to be more aggressive about Bernie Sanders. She is running a terribly flawed campaign as a terribly flawed candidate. And she has got to find her voice and get her record and her persona out there. It’s a great record of a lifetime. He has put forth his character, his movement, and it’s gotten traction. And he’s clobbering her. This is an election between the two of them that really is about character and principle. Obama just gave a great speech in which I would think he was saying to both the Democrats and the Republicans, hey, calm down. Let’s have a fact-based debate. And right now, Sanders has run a campaign that seems to have captured the zeitgeist. And the Hillary Clinton is really flailing and looking for an opening. And the real opening, I think, is the record of her life. Mistakes, excess baggage, all of it. But the distrust question, truthfulness is killing her right now.” 

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Carl Bernstein

HILLARY CLINTON'S RUTHLESS QUEST FOR POWER AND MORE MONEY HIDDEN IN THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION OF BRIBES

 Hillary Clinton cares only about power, and she will do anything for power's sake.


Hillary Clinton cares only about power, and she will do anything for power's sake.  Most of America already knew that ugly fact, but now, perhaps, the leftists so in love with Bernie Sanders will begin to see this creepy crone as her true se...

February 9, 2016

What if Sanders supporters see a crooked Clinton?

By Bruce Walker

Hillary Clinton cares only about power, and she will do anything for power's sake.  Most of America already knew that ugly fact, but now, perhaps, the leftists so in love with Bernie Sanders will begin to see this creepy crone as her true self: an amoral monster.

The Clintons cheat.  Sanders supporters seem to suspect that Clinton has cheated Sanders out of a victory in Iowa. 

Two stories of delegate fraud by Clinton supporters against Sanders have emerged in Iowa Precinct 43 and then in Ames District 1-3.  Six times, coin tosses decided how deadlocked precincts would go, and – surprise! – Hillary won all six of the coin tosses.  Given the microscopic lead Clinton had in the Iowa caucus of 49.9% for Clinton and 49.6% for Sanders, any fraud could have cost Sanders a victory, for which his supporters had campaigned so hard.


So all those voters who drove long hours in Iowa winter nights to hear Sanders speak might have been cheated by corrupt party hacks controlled by the Clinton machine.


What will happen if Sanders really feels that he was cheated out of  victory?  What will happen if the enthusiastic supporters and volunteers for Sanders begin to believe, and to tell Sanders directly, that the Clinton machine is lying and cheating its way through the nomination battle?


Bernie Sanders, so far, has scrupulously avoided challenging Hillary on her honesty, but it is only his personal decision to maintain this position that protects Clinton.  Sanders, not actually a Democrat, has gone to great lengths to remain loyal to that political party he caucuses with in the Senate, although he clearly has no duty to act that way.  Sanders owes the Democratic Party nothing.  If Sanders or his supporters begin to directly attack the honesty and integrity of Hillary Clinton, then she could face the convergence from three different directions of such attacks.

The more the Republican nomination winnows out candidates, the more  Republicans will focus their attacks on Hillary as a venal and corrupt politician who can be trusted with nothing.  Candidates have already begun to shift fire from fellow Republicans to Hillary, who is anathema to conservatives. 


The field for these Republican attacks is vast.  Remember: Hillary has never run in a national campaign against Republicans before, and she has  run only in very safe races in general, like as a senator from New York or in Democrat primaries.  She has not even begun to feel the full fury of a Republican campaign in a general election.


What if, for example, if a Republican candidate asked Hillary if she believed Juanita Broaddrick?  Wouldn't Hillary say something obviously false – for example, that she had never heard the allegation that her husband is a brutal rapist?  What if family members of the Americans slain in Benghazi begin to tell the nation in political ads that Hillary lied to them? 


People like Hillary (that is to say, sociopaths) lie all the time.  They compound their lies with more lies.  Hillary and her husband, so far, have gotten away with lies because they reflectively blame Republicans or a "vast right wing conspiracy."  That argument fails if Sanders supporters also begin to tell America that Hillary is dishonest.

Worse will follow if the Obama FBI recommends criminal indictments against Hillary or Huma Abedin or other flacks regarding the use of private email servers for highly secret government communications.  Hillary's lying about everything on that subject – a completely different matter from enabling the nastiness of her husband – will be yet a third serious attack on the honesty of Clinton, this time from Obama's Justice Department.


These will be completely separate stories on different subjects, with the only common connection being that Hillary is a liar and a crook.  If Hillary responds, as she doubtless would, that the Obama FBI and the socialist Senator Sanders are both toys of the RNC, then a fourth story could arise: Hillary is lying to the American people about who is challenging her ethics.

The fallout could be devastating.  If Hillary hobbles to the nomination despite the FBI's recommendation to prosecute her, then millions of independent voters inclined to Hillary may stay home, and if Sanders's supporters feel defrauded of the fruits of their labor for Sanders, then millions of those voters may stay home, too.  Not only would this cost Hillary the White House, but it could produce just the sort of electoral landslide in political races down the ballot that could lead to a true conservative political revolution

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/what_if_sanders_supporters_see_a_crooked_clinton.html#ixzz3zh7zSw95

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

HILLARY CLINTON: AN AVOWED SERVANT OF THE SUPER RICH

"For years, Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Walmart who was targeted in the largest gender-discrimination class-action lawsuit in US history.  She fought against an increase in the minimum wage in Haiti where thousands of poor Haitian women work in Levis, Hanes and Fruit of the Loom factories.  And she actively lobbied for support of DOMA which set LBGT rights back by 7 years until the Supreme Court reversed the law in 2005." 

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: CAN AMERICAN SURVIVE THE MASSIVE TRANSFER OF THE ECONOMY TO THEIR CRONIES?


"The Obama administration, which Hillary Clinton served for four years as Secretary of State, has accelerated the growth of social inequality
through bank bailouts and cuts to social spending."



Hillary Clinton covers for Obama and Democrats in Flint water crisis

Hillary Clinton covers for Obama and Democrats in Flint water crisis

By Shannon Jones


8 February 2016

The visit by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to
Flint, Michigan on Sunday was an effort at damage control aimed at covering up the criminal role of the Democratic Party in the lead
poisoning disaster and cynically using the tragedy confronting residents to boost her own campaign.

Speaking at the House of Prayer Missionary Baptist Church, which has a
mostly black congregation, on the North side of Flint, Clinton sought
to gloss over the culpability of local and state Democratic party
officials in the Flint water crisis, while strongly implying that the
poisoning of Flint residents was a racial, not a class issue.

Despite her professions of outrage, Clinton only raised the issue of
lead poisoning after it became an issue in the US and global press in
January. Her visit to Flint, only days before the New Hampshire primary, where polls have her trailing US Senator Bernie Sanders, is atransparent attempt to shore up her flagging poll numbers by using local residents as a backdrop.

The stopover in Flint was little more than a photo-op. After a
15-minute speech the Democratic candidate was hustled out of the city
along with her sizeable press and Secret Service entourage.

In her remarks Clinton touted a paltry $200 million in federal aid
proposed for the city of Flint via legislation sponsored by
Congressional Democrats. This is $400 million less than the inadequate
$600 million in federal emergency relief proposed earlier by Democrats
in an amendment to an energy bill pending before Congress. Conservative
estimates of the cost of replacing Flint’s antiquated lead pipes range
up to $1.5 billion. This does not include a price tag on the
incalculable cost to the health of Flint residents, whose children have
been permanently scarred by exposure to lead-tainted water.

Clinton’s proposal is slightly more than the reported $153 million in speaking fees she and former president Bill Clinton have pocketed since leaving the White House in 2001.

Underscoring the unserious nature of Clinton’s professions of
sympathy for Flint residents, the Democratic aid proposal does not even
match the $1 billion spending package to replace lead pipes in Flint
advanced by Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller.

Viewed from another perspective, the amount of aid Clinton cited for
Flint is little more than the cost of a single F-35 fighter jet. The
policy of both Clinton and Obama is clear: unlimited funds when it comes
to bombing Iraq and Syria, but no money to address the life-or-death
social ills facing working people.

Speaking at a black church, Clinton declared, “if what was happening
in Flint had been happening in” the mostly white Detroit suburbs of
“Grosse Pointe or Bloomfield Hills, we all know we would have had a
solution yesterday.”

The attempt to portray the crisis in Flint as a racial issue is
absurd, given the fact that nearly half the population of Flint is
white. Meanwhile the majority of the largely-Democratic local elected
and appointed officials who presided over the disaster are
African-American.

While the Republican administration of Governor Rick Snyder and
Democrats attempt to shift blame for the crisis, Flint residents
continue to confront elevated levels of lead in their drinking water. To
date, not a single lead pipe in the working class city of 100,000 has
been replaced in the aftermath of the crisis.

The response of the Obama administration to the Flint crisis recalls
the notorious indifference shown by the George Bush administration in
the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. In the
aftermath of the storm that killed 1,800, Bush, abetted by the
Democrats, rejected any serious efforts to rebuild devastated New
Orleans and Gulf Coast cities, leaving the area to rot.

Now, in the wake of Flint, a man-made disaster, the response of all
levels of government is essentially the same. The message of Clinton was
unmistakable: residents of Flint are on their own.

This was expressed in Clinton’s praise of inmates at the Ionia state
prison who volunteered to donate one-third of their meager $10 monthly
stipend to aid the citizens of Flint. Instead of a multibillion federal
public works effort to rebuild Flint’s infrastructure, Clinton touts
donations from prisoners.

Her only other concrete proposal to help Flint was to send AmeriCorps
volunteers to the city. This is a slap in the face to Flint parents,
whose children will need, not untrained volunteers, but rather highly
qualified professionals to deal with the debilitating effects of lead
poisoning.

Clinton absurdly attempted to portray Michigan Democrats as champions
of the people of Flint. She declared, “I thank the elected officials
who are here and I appreciate greatly the work they are doing at the
city, the county and the federal level. I had the opportunity to be with
your friend [Senator] Debbie Stabenow who is working hard with your
friends Senator Gary Peters and the Congressmen Kildee, Levin and others
who are trying to get support and help from the federal government.”
She recited the names of the Michigan Democratic Congressional
delegation in the same breath as that of professor Marc Edwards of
Virginia Tech, who was one of the first to expose lead in the water of
Flint, and Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician who raised the alarm
about the lead poisoning of Flint children.

While Edwards and Hanna-Attisha showed genuine perseverance and
courage, Michigan Democrats can make no such claim. The emergency
manager of Flint, Darnell Earley, who oversaw the switch of the water
supply of Flint from Detroit to the polluted Flint river, was a
Democrat, as was the mayor of Flint at the time. Indeed, the Flint mayor
and Democratic city council toasted the criminal decision to send
highly corrosive Flint River water into the homes of the city’s
residents.

As for the Michigan Democratic Congressional delegation, including US
Representative from Flint Dan Kildee, no one paid heed to the
complaints of Flint residents until after the exposure by Marc Edwards.

Just as criminal as the role of the Snyder administration were the
actions of Obama-appointed officials in the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The top EPA official for Michigan, Susan
Hedman, silenced a lower-ranking employee who tried to raise warnings
about lead in Flint’s drinking water. Instead Hedman colluded with state
officials to keep reports of elevated lead levels from the public for
months, until Edwards’ research exploded the cover-up.

Over the past several decades there has been a vast transfer of
wealth from the working class to the richest 1 percent or one-tenth of 1
percent of society. General Motors extracted massive profits off the
backs of the working class in Flint before largely abandoning the city
in the 1980s, leaving a legacy of toxic wastes and poverty.

The Obama administration, which Hillary Clinton served for four years as Secretary of State, has accelerated the growth of social inequality
through bank bailouts and cuts to social spending.

HILLARY AND HER PHONY EMPATHY BANDWAGON: Hillary Clinton covers for Obama and Democrats in Flint water crisis

Hillary Clinton covers for Obama and Democrats in Flint water crisis

Hillary Clinton covers for Obama and Democrats in Flint water crisis

By
Shannon Jones


8 February 2016

The visit by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to
Flint, Michigan on Sunday was an effort at damage control aimed at covering up the criminal role of the Democratic Party in the lead
poisoning disaster and cynically using the tragedy confronting residents to boost her own campaign.

Speaking at the House of Prayer Missionary Baptist Church, which has a
mostly black congregation, on the North side of Flint, Clinton sought
to gloss over the culpability of local and state Democratic party
officials in the Flint water crisis, while strongly implying that the
poisoning of Flint residents was a racial, not a class issue.

Despite her professions of outrage, Clinton only raised the issue of
lead poisoning after it became an issue in the US and global press in
January. Her visit to Flint, only days before the New Hampshire primary, where polls have her trailing US Senator Bernie Sanders, is atransparent attempt to shore up her flagging poll numbers by using local residents as a backdrop.

The stopover in Flint was little more than a photo-op. After a
15-minute speech the Democratic candidate was hustled out of the city
along with her sizeable press and Secret Service entourage.

In her remarks Clinton touted a paltry $200 million in federal aid
proposed for the city of Flint via legislation sponsored by
Congressional Democrats. This is $400 million less than the inadequate
$600 million in federal emergency relief proposed earlier by Democrats
in an amendment to an energy bill pending before Congress. Conservative
estimates of the cost of replacing Flint’s antiquated lead pipes range
up to $1.5 billion. This does not include a price tag on the
incalculable cost to the health of Flint residents, whose children have
been permanently scarred by exposure to lead-tainted water.

Clinton’s proposal is slightly more than the reported $153 million in speaking fees she and former president Bill Clinton have pocketed since leaving the White House in 2001.

Underscoring the unserious nature of Clinton’s professions of
sympathy for Flint residents, the Democratic aid proposal does not even
match the $1 billion spending package to replace lead pipes in Flint
advanced by Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller.

Viewed from another perspective, the amount of aid Clinton cited for
Flint is little more than the cost of a single F-35 fighter jet. The
policy of both Clinton and Obama is clear: unlimited funds when it comes
to bombing Iraq and Syria, but no money to address the life-or-death
social ills facing working people.

Speaking at a black church, Clinton declared, “if what was happening
in Flint had been happening in” the mostly white Detroit suburbs of
“Grosse Pointe or Bloomfield Hills, we all know we would have had a
solution yesterday.”

The attempt to portray the crisis in Flint as a racial issue is
absurd, given the fact that nearly half the population of Flint is
white. Meanwhile the majority of the largely-Democratic local elected
and appointed officials who presided over the disaster are
African-American.

While the Republican administration of Governor Rick Snyder and
Democrats attempt to shift blame for the crisis, Flint residents
continue to confront elevated levels of lead in their drinking water. To
date, not a single lead pipe in the working class city of 100,000 has
been replaced in the aftermath of the crisis.

The response of the Obama administration to the Flint crisis recalls
the notorious indifference shown by the George Bush administration in
the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. In the
aftermath of the storm that killed 1,800, Bush, abetted by the
Democrats, rejected any serious efforts to rebuild devastated New
Orleans and Gulf Coast cities, leaving the area to rot.

Now, in the wake of Flint, a man-made disaster, the response of all
levels of government is essentially the same. The message of Clinton was
unmistakable: residents of Flint are on their own.

This was expressed in Clinton’s praise of inmates at the Ionia state
prison who volunteered to donate one-third of their meager $10 monthly
stipend to aid the citizens of Flint. Instead of a multibillion federal
public works effort to rebuild Flint’s infrastructure, Clinton touts
donations from prisoners.

Her only other concrete proposal to help Flint was to send AmeriCorps
volunteers to the city. This is a slap in the face to Flint parents,
whose children will need, not untrained volunteers, but rather highly
qualified professionals to deal with the debilitating effects of lead
poisoning.

Clinton absurdly attempted to portray Michigan Democrats as champions
of the people of Flint. She declared, “I thank the elected officials
who are here and I appreciate greatly the work they are doing at the
city, the county and the federal level. I had the opportunity to be with
your friend [Senator] Debbie Stabenow who is working hard with your
friends Senator Gary Peters and the Congressmen Kildee, Levin and others
who are trying to get support and help from the federal government.”
She recited the names of the Michigan Democratic Congressional
delegation in the same breath as that of professor Marc Edwards of
Virginia Tech, who was one of the first to expose lead in the water of
Flint, and Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician who raised the alarm
about the lead poisoning of Flint children.

While Edwards and Hanna-Attisha showed genuine perseverance and
courage, Michigan Democrats can make no such claim. The emergency
manager of Flint, Darnell Earley, who oversaw the switch of the water
supply of Flint from Detroit to the polluted Flint river, was a
Democrat, as was the mayor of Flint at the time. Indeed, the Flint mayor
and Democratic city council toasted the criminal decision to send
highly corrosive Flint River water into the homes of the city’s
residents.

As for the Michigan Democratic Congressional delegation, including US
Representative from Flint Dan Kildee, no one paid heed to the
complaints of Flint residents until after the exposure by Marc Edwards.

Just as criminal as the role of the Snyder administration were the
actions of Obama-appointed officials in the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The top EPA official for Michigan, Susan
Hedman, silenced a lower-ranking employee who tried to raise warnings
about lead in Flint’s drinking water. Instead Hedman colluded with state
officials to keep reports of elevated lead levels from the public for
months, until Edwards’ research exploded the cover-up.

Over the past several decades there has been a vast transfer of
wealth from the working class to the richest 1 percent or one-tenth of 1
percent of society. General Motors extracted massive profits off the
backs of the working class in Flint before largely abandoning the city
in the 1980s, leaving a legacy of toxic wastes and poverty.

The Obama administration, which Hillary Clinton served for four years as Secretary of State, has accelerated the growth of social inequality
through bank bailouts and cuts to social spending.