"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
LLOYD BILLINGSLEY - CORRUPT CLINTON CRONY MOUNTS A CHARGE FOR CONGRESS
“My opponent is an implant. She doesn’t represent anybody.”
That was Maria Elvira Salazar, 56, the Republican candidate in Florida’s 27th congressional district, about her Democrat opponent Donna Shalala, 77. In her first run for elected office, Shalala is being touted as an easy winner for the seat formerly held by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and a marker for the Democrats to retake the House. On the other hand, Salazar, a journalist, is wrong that her opponent doesn’t represent anybody. First and foremost, Donna Shalala represents Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In 2015, as Hillary Clinton ramped up her presidential run, the Clintons tapped Shalala to run the Clinton Foundation. “I don’t know in my long life that I ever worked with anybody who had quite the combination of policy knowledge and concern, political skills, a personal touch with people, a sense of innate fairness,” former president Bill Clinton told reporters. “She’s a remarkable person.”
Shalala’s stint at the Clinton Foundation was not her first service for the Clintons. President Clinton, doubtless with Hillary’s input, tapped Shalala as federal Health and Human Services boss and she headed HHS for eight years. The squat bureaucrat had already made a name for herself as the queen of political correctness.
Shalala worked at HUD during the Carter administration then went on to head Hunter College before becoming chancellor of the University of Wisconsin in 1988. There she proclaimed “The university is institutionally racist. American society is racist and sexist. Covert racism is just as bad today as overt racism was 30 years ago.” The remedy was her “Madison Plan,” which as the inaugural issue of Heterodoxy noted, was the academic version of a Stalinist five-year plan, hostile to free speech and heavy on racial and ethnic quotas. And Heterodoxy was hardly Shalala’s only critic.
“She’s basically an authoritarian personality who is politically savvy enough to create an appearance of consensus,” explained UW history professor Theodore Hamerow. “She exercises a great deal of pressure to ensure conformity with her views.” Shalala’s quota plan caused a “measurable decline” in academic excellence because it made “race or ethnic origin the prime consideration and not merit.” According to Hamerow, Shalala’s plan constituted “a kind of resegregation of American education, with a program for blacks, a program for Asians and so forth.”
For Washington Post columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “the complaint against Shalala is that she embodies two of the worst transgressions by today's liberals flying in the face of American tradition: quotas and speech control.” Shalala’s speech code punished students for what she perceived as “racist” and “sexist” remarks to other students. Shalala shrugged off the First Amendment as a dodge but in 1991 U.S. District Judge Robert Warren declared the speech code unconstitutional.
As Evans and Novak noted, the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan spoke at the campus but UW halted conservative Paul Weyrich’s National Empowerment Television network, “by insisting on controlling the program’s content.” Shalala was “the epitome of today’s wholly politicized educator,” doubtless why the Clintons tapped her for HHS, where she was “a pillar in the administration’s Hillary wing.”
True to form, the feminist Shalala defended Bill Clinton when he was accused of having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinski. As Ken Starr notes in Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation, Shalala signed on to a statement that the allegations were “completely untrue.” The HHS boss later claimed she confronted the president about the affair during a cabinet meeting.
When Shalala moved on to the University of Miami, Miami New Times proclaimed, “the Cagney and Lacey of the Clinton administration are now in South Florida.” Clinton attorney general Janet Reno had sent Cuban refugee Ilian Gonzalez back to Fidel Castro’s Communist dictatorship. Now Reno could tell stories with fellow “Beltway vixen” Donna Shalala.
After 14 years at UM, pals Bill and Hillary picked Shalala to head the Clinton Foundation, which one wag described as a “bribery clearance center” and whose fathomless corruption Peter Schweizer charted in Clinton Cash. Bill is on record that “Donna did a fabulous job.” For her part, Shalala told reporters, “I was able to lead the foundation and do some things that needed to be done. It was fun.”
Fun-loving Donna Shalala may eventually show up in the more than 30,000 emails the former First Lady and Secretary of State destroyed before congressional investigators could have a look. FBI boss James Comey refused to press a criminal case but Hillary went on to lose the 2016 election to Republican Donald Trump. Two years later, the former Clinton Foundation CEO is running for Congress her own self.
Shalala proclaims she will be “ready on Day One” but the queen of political correctness is not openly pushing speech codes or college admission quotas. The former Clinton HHS boss is relying on name recognition and thinks she has a read on the voters. “There’s no question about it,” Shalala told reporters. “In all their experience, Trump is their worst nightmare.”
At this writing, a new poll shows Salazar leading Shalala 44-42, as Florida Politics noted, “another sign that Shalala’s position in the race is not as strong as Democrats had hoped.”
As the president says, we’ll see what happens on November 6.
BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER and their CRONY BANKSTER
PAYMASTERS…. Still at it!
They Destroyed Our Country
“They knew Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic (perhaps irreparable.)”
Several Democrats are saying former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is viewed as the “kiss of death” among Democratic candidates running in the 2018 midterm elections.
The Democrats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, voiced concerns that Clinton’s presence would threaten the party’s chances at retaking the House and Senate in 2018, forcing Clinton to keep campaigning to a minimum and only appearing at low-key fundraisers.
“Hillary Clinton is the kiss of death and she represents the part of the Democratic Party that led to historic losses and that elected Donald Trump president,” one leading Democratic strategist told the Washington Examiner.
“Democrats don’t want her to campaign for them because everywhere she goes she carries this stench of death and is the only political figure in America that is less popular than Donald Trump,” the strategist added. “That’s a real testament to her.”
“When I think of people who have been part of our push to retake the House, I just don’t think of them at all. I think it’s a very good thing that they’re not being visible. It wouldn’t help our candidates,” a House Democrat said.
But despite objections from some Democrats, Clinton continues to make her presence known in the media.
The former presidential candidate and secretary of state told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that cultural changes in issues like gay marriage caused Republicans to “seek the kind of leadership that will limit freedom,” referring to President Trump as that leader.
Victor Davis Hanson makes an important point in his American Greatness column, "One Ford Narrative Too Many." Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Judge Kavanaugh was deeply unethical.
I am confused by the bipartisan outrage solely directed at Senator Dianne Feinstein's or her staff's lowdown leaking of Ford's name. Of course, it was unethical and so typical of the twilight years of the senior senator from California. But, then again, so is authoring an anonymous hit piece without any corroborating evidence but with misleading written assertions (such as how Ford sought "medical treatment" for the assault – without disclosing she meant marriage counseling 36 years after the fact.) It seems far less noble to charge Kavanaugh with sexual assault anonymously than to have come forward at the outset and demonstrate the charge transparently. The cloak of anonymity does even more damage to the idea of jurisprudence than does the unethical removal of it by a would-be enabler.
Indeed, it is wicked to ruin a man's life with an anonymous note.
It is unethical to destroy the career and reputation of an outstanding man over something as small as being jumped and groped at a drunken teenage party. Blasey Ford wants us to believe that the episode was a rape attempt by two strong boys, in which her clothes were not removed, she was not raped, and she was easily able to run out of the room without opposition. Nothing actually happened except that she was scared something would happen.
It is unethical to humiliate a good man and his family before the nation.
It is wicked to rob someone of one of the greatest and happiest days of his life, a day he worked hard for his entire life, yes, from those very teenage years.
It is unethical to purposely besmirch the honor of the nation by besmirching a revered and precious institution with gutter politics.
How wicked that it was done to protect federal backing and funding of abortion without limit!
It is wicked to lie in order to make your charges seems more plausible. Ford wanted us to believe that such an episode haunted her for life – or haunted her after she recalled it in marriage counseling thirty years later. She claimed before the nation that it restricted her ability to live in a normal house (a lie), fly in airplanes (a lie), or have a healthy marriage.
Bearing false witness is of the utmost seriousness as a moral breach. It breaks the Ninth Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." It is right up there with murder and stealing, because it partakes of both.
The warning against bearing false witness is so important it is repeated 30 times in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It is so important that it is repeated twice at Mount Sinai: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment."
It is one of the six commandments Jesus cites as the most important of the Ten Commandments, if one wishes to be saved (Matthew 19:19). It is one of the seven things the Lord hates (Proverbs 6:16-19): "a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
At the end of his life, Moses spells out in detail God's teaching on how to safeguard an innocent man from false accusations. One witness is not sufficient to lodge an accusation. Two witnesses do not suffice. There must be three witnesses.
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."
Moses also spells out the need for consequences – that is, punishment – for bearing false witness.
If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
The Jewish Kabbalah tradition teaches that he who lies against the true witness lies against the entire Bible.
Politicians do not operate in the realm of ethics. They can't even tell a false witness from a credible one, if it seems politically risky.
If Judge Kavanaugh had not stood up for his own innocence with righteous indignation, the scumbags would have triumphed.
The Democrats think anything goes ethically in their drive for power, because they have defined their desire to rule as ethical in itself, and their political opponents as evil. We have just experienced what happens when a just cause – to end sexual abuse and assault – is twisted to serve a partisan political purpose.
America has become morally confused. Good and evil do not lie along party lines. To follow that moral reasoning leads to horrors.
The American conservative community is rejoicing over the belated news that Hillary Clinton supposedly volunteered to surrender her high-level security clearance back in August at the same time the clearances of five of her staffers were lifted. Those of you thinking we might have finally skunked the queen of political skunks had better take a deep breath and realize that, once again, the Clintons are attempting to pull another fast one on the American public.
While the employable dollar worth of Hillary's five staffers' is now seriously reduced by the loss of those high-level clearances, the Queen of Sore Losers is not negatively impacted in any way. How can this be, you ask? Well, she isstill married to predator-in-chief, Bill Clinton, who presumably still has his access to the inner sanctums of American intelligence operations, as do most ex-POTUSes. Frankly, I don't know how broad or deep this ex-POTUS privilege of access to current intelligence is because the principle of need to know generally limits the dissemination of classified material to those who have a role in acting on such intelligence. But there is no doubt in my mind that the Clintons, thoroughly practiced grifters that they are, as well as their increasingly shady daughter, will not hesitate to use such classified information as they may be able to access for personal and political enrichment. They've been doing it for decades, and they're not about to stop now.
A question niggling at me right now is, what is the security clearance status of Huma Abedin? Was she, as Hillary's constant consort, one with close familial connections to the militant jihadist organization in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of those with access to top-level American intelligence who lost that privilege? If not, that is a lapse in our own national security that needs to be addressed immediately, when one takes into consideration the rock-bottom morals of her pedophile predator, weenie-wagging husband, who absolutely should never have any sort of access to any intelligence feeds.
Lastly, our knowing bwa-ha-ha-ha's of disbelief simply will not be loud enough to counter this latest Clinton misinformation campaign to convince the American public that their family, and by extension the party they have long led, is not a completely corrupt political and criminal enterprise, one that the devious Democratic Party leadership and a compliant mainstream media recently tried to foist on this country as the best choice to head our national government. So we must look at this most recent Clinton maneuver for what it is: just more misdirection from reality to make it appear that Hillary graciously surrendered her security clearance. Trust your own common sense: there is no way the avaricious Hillary would have voluntarily surrendered something as commercially valuable as a high-level security clearance if she didn't have an ulterior motive as well as a safe fallback position. The more likely truth in all this is that Clinton is looking at possible prosecution for federal felony security and corruption charges from her secret server security violations. So this ostensibly sacrificial act by Hillary is no more than a way to head off the negative implications of an announcement by the DOJ of her top-level clearance's revocation, possibly ahead of a future criminal indictment.
It is wicked to lie in order to make your charges seems more plausible. Ford wanted us to believe that such an episode haunted her for life – or haunted her after she recalled it in marriage counseling thirty years later. She claimed before the nation that it restricted her ability to live in a normal house (a lie), fly in airplanes (a lie), or have a healthy marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment