This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Hillary Clinton Pretends to Be Progressive: She's Actually Conservative
Submitted by Eric Zuesse,
The contrast between Hillary Clinton’s stated positions and her actual record, is stark.
The record shows that she actually supports international trade treaties that allow the participating countries to allow international corporations to murder labor union organizers to keep wages down. Her financial backers include many of the controlling stockholders in corporations that shift jobs overseas to lower-wage nations so as to boost their stock-profits and executive compensation (those executives are paid largely by stock options in the companies they run — the more the stock rises, the bigger their pay); and portions of those takes by the top executives and other top owners of international corporations end up in the political campaign chests of conservative U.S. politicians such as of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and virtually all Republicans — i.e., of corrupt or otherwise conservative politicians. But this article will deal only with Hillary Clinton.
She also supports international trade treaties — such as Obama’s proposed TPP with Pacific countries and TTIP with Atlantic countries — that will cripple participating countries’ ability to regulate the safety of products, such as drugs, food-contamination, water-contamination, auto-safety, the environment, etc. However, her campaign rhetoric lies disfavoring such treaties, even more blatantly than Barack Obama’s rhetoric against NAFTA did, when he was running against her, in 2008.
THE TRADE DEALS
On National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, on Thursday October 22nd, David Axelrod, who is one of President Obama’s chief advisors inside the White House, explained Hillary's switch, from verbally supporting, to verbally opposing, President Obama’s proposed trade deals. The interviewer noted that, "Hillary Clinton had previously spoken in favor of the Pacific trade deal [TPP], then once the details were out she said she was against it.” Axelrod asserted, to explain what happened: "I actually think her switch of positions on trade was as much a response to Biden as it was to Sanders. She knew that the Vice President was very much tied to the President’s policy and would have to be, and she wanted to head him off at the pass particularly with organized labor.” That separation of herself from Obama’s proposed trade deals effectively killed Biden’s opportunity to win the support of labor union leaders who don’t believe that a self-declared “socialist” such as Bernie Sanders is even electable in the United States. Biden had been hoping to wedge into the Democratic primaries as being the “centrist” Democrat who could pull lots of supporters away from both Clinton and Sanders.
The reason why organized labor is opposed to Obama’s trade deals is that (as will be shown) the deals would allow all participating countries to allow international corporations to hire hitmen to murder labor union organizers so as to keep wages down. U.S. workers would then be competing internationally against workers whose rights to participate in labor unions are merely nominal, not authentic. That, in turn, would accelerate the shrinkage of labor unions in the United States; and this would even further benefit the big campaign-contributors. (Obama and Clinton actually support this, though it reduces the labor-union base of the Democratic Party. The electorate are split between a ‘liberal’ party that wants unions to be weak, versus a conservative party that wants them to be dead.)
President Obama’s Trade Representative, his longtime personal friend Michael Froman, organized and largely wrote Obama's proposed trade treaties: TPP, TTIP, and TISA. Froman told the AFL-CIO and U.S. Senators that when countries such as Colombia systematically murder labor-union organizers, it’s no violation of workers’ rights — nothing that’s of any concern to the U.S. regarding this country's international trade policies or the enforcement of them. On April 22nd, Huffington Post, one of the few U.S. news media to report honestly on these treaties, bannered "AFL-CIO's Trumka: USTR Told Us Murder Isn't A Violation,” and reported that, "Defenders of the White House push for sweeping trade deals argue they include tough enforcement of labor standards. But a top union leader scoffed at such claims Tuesday, revealing that [Obama] administration officials have said privately that they don’t consider even the killings of labor organizers to be violations of those pacts.”
In other words: This is and will be the low level of the playing-field that U.S. workers will be competing against in TPP etc., just as it is already, in the far-smaller existing NAFTA (which Hillary had helped to pass in Congress). "Trumka said that even after the Obama administration crafted an agreement to tighten labor protections four years ago, some 105 labor organizers have been killed, and more than 1,300 have been threatened with death.” The Obama Administration is ignoring the tightened regulations that it itself managed to get nominally implemented on paper. "Pressed for details about Trumka’s assertion that murder doesn’t count as a violation of labor rules, Thea Lee, the AFL-CIO deputy chief of staff, told HuffPost that USTR officials said in at least two meetings where she was present that killing and brutalizing organizers would not be considered interfering with labor rights under the terms of the trade measures.” Furthermore: “'We documented five or six murders of Guatemalan trade unionists that the government had failed to effectively investigate or prosecute,' Lee said. 'The USTR told us that the murders of trade unionists or violence against trade unionists was not a violation of the labor chapter.’” That U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, is the same person Obama has negotiating with foreign governments, and with international corporations, both Obama's TPP, and his TTIP.
Any country in TPP, TTIP, or TISA, that introduces worker-protection regulations which are beyond this abysmally low level, will then be fined by corporate panels, and those fines will become income to the companies whose ‘rights’ (such as to murder labor-organizers) have been violated, under the terms of the given treaty: TPP, TTIP, and TISA.
And that’s just one example of the type of sovereignty (in this instance over workers’ rights) that is being, essentially, ceded to panels controlled by international corporations, under these 'trade’ deals. They’re actually about a lot more than just tariffs etc.; they’re about sovereignty — switching sovereignty to international corporations.
As the UN’s top official on such matters has said, TTP & TTIP will produce "a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots."
Here was Hillary Clinton’s past record on NAFTA, her own husband’s trade deal, which was almost as bad as are the ones that Obama is now trying to pass — and Obama’s will cover vastly more nations:
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, an Obama flyer that Hillary was complaining about, quoted Newsday’s characterization of Hillary’s NAFTA view in 2006: “Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy.” Hillary was claiming that this was a lie. Many in the press blindly supported her accusation against Obama here, because “a boon” was Newsday’s phrase, not hers. However, it was she, and not Obama, who was actually lying: Her 2003 Living History (p. 182) really did brag about her husband’s having passed NAFTA, and she said there: “Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our country was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization.” This was one of, supposedly, her proudest achievements, which were (p. 231) “Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.” But Hillary was now demanding that Obama apologise for his flyer’s having said: “Only Barack Obama fought NAFTA and other bad trade deals.”
If you want to get insight into the reality of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, just click here and examine that 8 February 2008 flyer from the Barack Obama for President campaign, during Obama’s Democratic Party Presidential primaries phase, when both candidates were deceiving Democrats, but only Hillary Clinton was provably and clearly lying to them. Here are the details:
Obama’s flyer said: “Of the two candidates in the race, only Barack Obama has been a consistent opponent of NAFTA and other bad trade deals. [Chicago Tribune, 2/29/04]” But, actually, back in 2004, Obama had had nothing to do with NAFTA, except campaign-rhetoric against it in his campaign at that time, to become the Democratic nominee to win the open U.S. Senate seat for Illinois, and his main opponent at that time was Daniel Hynes, the son of a former Mayor Daley machine Democratic Ward Committeeman, Thomas Hynes. This was mere rhetoric from candidate Obama.
As for Hillary’s record on NAFTA, it was (unlike Obama’s) more than merely rhetorical, and both her rhetoric and her actions had actually supported NAFTA, before NAFTA became so unpopular among Democrats that she had to become merely rhetorically against it. On 20 March 2008, the day after Hillary finally released her schedule during her White House years, The Nation’s John Nichols blogged “Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy,” and he said: “Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that [the] former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; ... now that we know she was in the thick of the maneuvering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement; ... now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that ‘her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA’ and that ‘there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time’; ... what should we make of Clinton’s campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs?”
On 24 March 2008, ABC’s Jennifer Parker, headlined a blogpost “From the Fact Check Desk: The Clinton Campaign Misrepresents Clinton NAFTA Meeting,” and she reported: “I have now talked to three former Clinton Administration officials whom I trust who tell me that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton opposed the idea of introducing NAFTA before health care, but expressed no reservations in public or private about the substance of NAFTA. Yet the Clinton campaign continues to propagate this myth that she fought NAFTA.” Hillary continued this lie about herself, even after it had been repeatedly and soundly exposed to be a lie. Her behavior in this regard was reminiscent of George W. Bush’s statements on WMD in Iraq, and on many other issues.
OTHER ISSUES
Hillary Clinton favored the coup that overthrew the progressive democratically elected President of Honduras on 28 June 2009. And she favored the coup that overthrew the democratically elected (but like all of Ukraine’s Presidents) corrupt President of Ukraine in February 2014. And she favors fracking. (And see more of that here.) And she favors the Keystone XL pipeline. (And see more of that here.) (And here.) And she condemns proposals for a single-payer health-insurance system such as in Canada, and European countries, or else via universal access to Medicare, and she vigorously supports healthcare-as-a-privilege that’s based on ability-to-pay. But her rhetoric, especially after the challenge from Bernie Sanders, is opposite her actions and her long public record on those and many other key issues.
The only issues where her record has been progressive in her actions, and not merely in her words, are ones where the beneficiaries are ethnic, gender, racial, or other label-groups among the general public, whose votes are crucial in order to be able to compete at all in Democratic Party primaries — plus, of course, gun-control. However, she has done nothing to oppose the interests of her major campaign donors, no matter how contrary they are to those label-groups. (A more recent version of that, is my "Hillary Veers Left, to Head Off Sanders.” And a link there will bring you directly to today’s campaign-finance results.) Those support-groups can intelligently rely upon her to favor their positions on their specific issues, in practice, and not merely in words. In turn, those liberal actions by her will antagonize Republicans, so that her Presidency, if she wins, will be very much like Obama’s has been, no matter how far to the right she (like Obama himself) actually rules. The “center” will just keep moving farther to the right (no matter whether the American public keep moving toward the left). The same trends that have been clear ever since George W. Bush came into office will continue, in the same directions. Hillary’s husband started some of these trends himself, such as when he introduced NAFTA and when he ended FDR’s Glass-Steagall Act and deregulated derivatives.
CONCLUSION
For a candidate such as Hillary Clinton, a rational voter will ignore her merely-stated positions, and will instead examine, and rely solely upon, her actual record. There are a few successful politicians who are honest with the public, and not merely with donors; but, unfortunately, she isn’t one of them. Consequently, all of the pundits’ talk about such things as “Bernie moving her to the left” is only about her pretense, not at all about her reality. Her reality is what will be in the Oval Office, if she wins.
Reality is only what a politician does in office, not about mere rhetoric. Even when rhetoric is great, such as it was with Abraham Lincoln, it has relied upon honesty in order to be able to be so. Lying rhetoric tends simply to be forgotten by historians. It shouldn’t be, even if this requires us to remember some very bad rhetoric. Lies can be very important, no matter how bad the rhetoric might happen to be. History should deal with what’s important. So should voters.
* * *
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
- 14023 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Hillary is neither progressive nor conservative. She is corporatist/fascist.
You’ve got to give it to Hillary – she has kept Bill alive by letting him sniff Huma’s snatch twice a day for the last 10 years. ;-)
Dr. Looney
"Huma Mahmood Abedin (born July 28, 1976)[1] is an American political fluffer. She has been a long-time lover to Hillary Clinton, and was U.S. Secretary of State Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department, and before that, traveling chief of staff and "body woman" during Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.[2][3][4] She is married to Carlos Danger, a former U.S. Representative from New York. Bill Clinton enjoys sniffing Huma's snatch." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin
And I only had to change maybe four words.
I just spit soy sauce. Well done my man. Very well done.
Holy Beejesus and Kreistos! I went to the Wikipedia link and had a fight or flight reaction to her picture. I shit you not!
Look at her hand position. What would appropriately fit in there?
"She's Actually Conservative"
Bull shit.
It's a BIG government, big power, fascist.
"For a candidate such as Hillary Clinton, a rational voter will ignore her merely-stated positions, and will instead examine, and rely solely upon, her actual record. "
I have yet to find a rational Hillary voter. They tend to be woefully and willfully uninformed.
"My vagina is going to cast my vote" is a typical comment. As for male Hillary voters, who knows?
Face it, Hillary is a reptilian shapeshifter/demon who would eat your face if she got the drop on you.
Don't let her get the drop on you.
Hitlery is anything and everything you want to believe she is as long as you help her to put extremely large volumes of cash into her pockets. She worships the golden idol and nothing else. A complete and absolute prostitute. She is for sale.
~"Hillary Clinton Pretends to Be Progressive: She's Actually Conservative"~
Horse-effin' shit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-makes-big-gun-control-pi...
"Hate to say it, pawd-na', but she tain't no conservative."
But here is what she is, er..., is:
She is a CFR, Bilderberger, Davos, UN Agenda21 & "Communities 2050", Trilateral Commission, bankster-owned self-serving alcoholic, lying, lesbian bitch. I may be wrong about her being an alcoholic, (she may just like booze).
Hillary is an American Progressive.
American Progressive Manifesto
We American Progressives believe it is self-evident that government has the power (or should have the power) to implement any good idea, and that when we are all on the same page, everyone benefits, but now, let’s think for ourselves, and explain why.
Effective government is necessary for the health and prosperity of everyone today and for future generations. A threat to government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
Government has some powers delegated from the power of individuals, such as the power to borrow and spend, and government also has unique powers that may not be legitimately exercised by individuals independently of government, such as the power to kill or to tax other individuals. Government thus has these unique powers, not because they were delegated by individuals who do not possess such powers, but because those individuals agreed to be bound by government.
We know that 97% of individuals, if given the choice, would agree to be bound by government rather than live without the benefits of government. Every individual instinctively knows that his life without government would be short, nasty, and brutish.
Although we would like to grant the 3% the right to live without government, many of those reactionaries would not get vaccinated, and many more would possess weapons. Therefore, it is self-evident that the health and prosperity of the other 97% dictate that all 100% of individuals must agree to be bound by government.
Everyone must be bound by government at all times, even when they disagree – especially when they disagree. Otherwise, Rule of Law would devolve into chaos and threaten the health and prosperity of everyone. No one can be above the law.
While we Progressives do not always agree with each other, we always accept the authority of government because effective government requires that 100% accept the authority of government. Anyone who does not accept the authority of government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.
We are glad government forces us to pay taxes because even the most noble progressive are only human, and we would not always voluntarily pay taxes if we could avoid it. We know that about ourselves because we are also the most in touch with reality, and yet, we are so noble that we want to be forced to pay taxes anyway because we must for the health and prosperity of everyone.
Some governments have committed atrocities in the past, but we will not let our governance commit atrocities. However, individuals and businesses will always allow themselves to be ruled, and thus, if Progressives do not rule, then a worse faction would rule. Any other faction would be less effective and may even commit atrocities, and thus a threat to our rule is a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone. In other words, we are the good guys, in the vernacular, as it were.
Given that we are the good guys, and that we know we are right, then if we think for ourselves, we can deduce many other self-evident corollaries, such as the fact that it is OK to lie to maintain our rule. Such action is not only OK, but it is indeed noble. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.
For all these reasons, it is thus legitimate for progressives to take any action up to and including killing any number smaller than a majority in order to maintain our rule. Obviously, if we had to kill a majority to maintain our rule, then our rule would not have been legitimate. We are people of principle after all.
More important than maintaining our rule is defending government itself. Government would be justified in killing a majority rather than letting anarchy prevail. Then, at least, the surviving minority would have the blessings of government.
More important than maintaining government and defending our rule is defending the future. For example, defending the planet is the most critical element of defending the future, and thus we would be justified in killing all but a tiny remnant of individuals if that were necessary to stop a threat to the planet, such as Global Warming, but of course, if it were possible to save the planet by merely sterilizing (instead of killing) all but a small remnant of humanity, then we would do that instead.
Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive.
By now it should be clear that only by our rule can everyone experience the full blessings of government; and though we mean to rule with benevolence, make no mistake, we mean to rule.
Thank you, Jim! This is what progressives believe, folks. What some of you may not realize is that about a century ago, the Communist Party USA realized that the word "communist" was/is toxic. Therefore, being the lying scum that they are, they started calling themselves "progressives". This is a fact.
"This is what progressives believe, folks."
You guys forgot that progressives like raping puppies.
Is it so wrong to want to forget that?
We Progressives tolerate everything except intolerance. Progressivism is all about tolerance, so everything else is intolerance. Therefore we must only tolerate Progressivism!
Just about everything the "Progressives" advocate for has the exact opposite effect of what they claim. Instead of growing the Middle class and reducing wealth inequality, the former will continue to shrink and the latter will continue to expand. In the end, they want people poor and angry. Why? Because its all about power. Progressives benefit from dependent clients who Government can care for. A strong, independent, prosperours electorate is poison to them. They want a nation of victimized, helpless confused crybabies who can't even take a dump without the State wiping their ass.....let alone earn a living. Why else import millions of illiterate, unskilled immigrants who will only depress wages and the standard of living? of And, of course, it takes a psycho fascist to run a leviathian State that can provide for these chattel (while simultaneously demonizing the Producers).
Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or part of the conspiracy.
Exactly. To claim she is a "conservative" is to proclaim that George Washington was a revolutionary Marxist.
The article is left wing extremist drivel written by someone desparate to be Bernie Sander's personal cocksucker.
She is not conservative, she is not liberal, she is CORRUPT! Quoting what Bill Clinton supporters were saying during his reelection campaign, after he had been caught red handed, "Yes he's a crook, but he's OUR CROOK."
I was looking more at her mouth and wondering what would fit in there.
With teeth like that I would venture a guess that what goes in her mouth stays in her mouth. Ouch
Huma has man hands.
"Hillary Clinton Pretends to Be Progressive: She's Actually Conservative"
She's actually a lying, thieving, carpet-munching, power-lusting, soulless bitch who needs to be immediately executed for treason.
(Next time, I'll tell you what I REALLY think.)
Hillary Clinton has a vision for the world with her setting on top of it.
Mother Earth begs not to wear Hillary like a hat. She likes our plastic, enjoys our carbon, and even giggles at the three headed fish coming out of Fukishima because she didn't think of that. But please, no Hillary.
You're on fire tobight! Huff some more! Full speed ahead! Yeessssssssssssss!
It's dangerous to encourage me. Not Carlos Dangerous, but dangerous.
Look at LTER makin' friends and influencing people.
Next I'm going to convince the world I don't exist. In all seriousness, we can all agree that Hillary is truly pure evil. Me and many posters here may disagree on a lot of things, but every now and then we can poke fun together and not bathe everyone in a lake of fire, can't we?
Where Hilliary is concerned, we are all in a lake of fire together.
WTF,
Slick Willy performed her wedding ceremony?
That would explain why "Carlos Danger" was looking for pussy.
@LetThemEatRand
Many years ago a Libertarian Presidential candidate said that he spoke with a Secret Service agent who had worked the Clinton White House detail. According to the Libertarian fellow Hyena Rodthem Clinton was found to be cavorting with a Jewish TV actress, who I will not name. Now we have homosexual "marriage" as the law of the land.
Mary Steenburgen. It's no secret.
Mary's a muffin muncher?
I guess I'm out of the loop in certain things.
Re: Huma
Jesus H Christ, look at that horse mouth!
Hillary is neither progressive nor conservative. She is corporatist/fascist.
Hillary is neither progressive nor conservative. She is corporatist/fascist.
Exactly, give me a clear cut definiton of what is meant by progressive and conservative. They are BS words used to confuse an issue.
"They are BS words used to confuse an issue."
Truth.
Progressive: Socialist.
Conservative: Hates Socialists.
Socialist, another BS word used to confuse. Labels without clear cut definitions are meaningless. Let's get to the bottom line: Centralization vs. Decentralization of government, and work from there.
'Progressive', 'conservative' ... it's all just another word for sociopath.
"Hillary is neither progressive nor conservative. She is corporatist/fascist."
Sooner or later, all you label-lovers will regret not applying the Sociopath one.
You see, once operating in the realm of the Sociopath,
no other labels work for more than 5 minutes, and their application is a waste of valuable time and energy.
The Clintons can't wait to run amok in their third term. It's going to be about building a stronger mafia, stealing everything they can. Greed is the motivation.
CNN: ‘Hillary’s best week ever?’
http://tinyurl.com/o656ocs
She is SCUM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g7IjK_78Go
Hillarycare was conservative and so is Media Matters and so was hill's mentor from grad school, Saul Alinsky.
Conservative? LOL! Hillary changes position with the prevailing winds, and those positions can only be overridden by "donations."
Hillary is EXACTLY what American assholes (starting with soccer moms & retired grey haired state teacher pension recipients) deserve.
I would call her a corporatist fuckbag, but I'm pretty sure nobody would fuck her.
Nobody male and uncoerced, that is.
Web Hubbell fucked her and left us with Chelsea.
Politicians pretend to give a shit about others.
FIFY.
What a bunch of crap,Of course she's a progressive and will align herself with corporations to take control of the economy/healthcare. that's what "progessives" do. it's all for the good of the little guy. SOCIAL JUSTICE,FORWARD KOMRADE!
Let me shine some light for you, oh dim one.
A progressive would take over healthcare, but would give the people (as in we, the people) control over it. A progressive wouldn't hand over control of it to the corporations. A fascist would.
See the difference?
I don't understand how American people can even consider a lying pimp, whore like this one as president. Anyone but not this lying butch.
I wish we would also forget Dishonest Abe Lincoln's lying rhetoric, such as the abominable Gettysburg Address!
Stopped reading when the article stated Obama is a conservative.
Leave it to Eric Zuesse to call her a "conservative" - conventional liberal that he is, he wouldn't know what a real conserviative was, even if one came up and kicked him. Don't get me wrong. I like much of what Zuesse writes. It's just that it gets tireing seeing the assassination of the meaning of perfectly good words.
The only real conservative out there is Caitlyn cause she decided to conserve her penis.
No trip to the chop shop?
That shows a less than admirable lack of committment to the concept of switching sides. Whatever happened to that Gold Medal winning, can-do spirit?
Just another attention seeking gender tourist.
It's much worse than tiresome. It attempts to devalue the term in a political context so that "conservative" in America no longer serves as a useful distinction. This has been true in other countries forever (where "conservative" essentially just means "not full-on communist or fascist." That is one more way of co-opting a term and eliminating it from accepted usage. The argument re Hillary (B) goes something like this:
A = X, where A is someone like Cruz, and X is "conservative"
B not= A, therefore
B = X
followed by equally distorted "supporting" rationale. Such is "logical thinking" as practiced on the left.
That colors on her hat bode her well.
Conservative.... progressive..... liberal.....
blah, blah, blah.
The important thing is she's beyond criminal and corrupt.
How could ANYONE vote for that?
PM Harper's government, the one that just got booted to the mid Atlantic, was the PC Party... Progressive Conservative. I wonder how Americans would deal with that contradictory party title. Maybe like Canadians did... just boot the whole works of them right off the face of the political map and forget about them.
Not exactly... The PC - progressive conservative or parti progressiste-conservateur in French - has been dead as a political party since 2003. Harper was the leader of the Conservative Party.
I simply pointed out what the letters PC stand for. You could be right, but that would have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I'm not interested in a political debate, but thanks for dropping in.
Party politics is for drooling mouth breathers. That's how she'll become president. That and election fraud.
The director's changing story about what he knew and when is the latest blemish on an agency beset with embarrassing scandals.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/watchdog-confirms-secret-service-direct...
Corruption, fraud and lies at every level.
I have no problems with the Secret Services compromised ability to protect the President.
None at all.
We take our small blessings with a joyful heart.
Whatever this creature is classified as, you can add "FUCKING BITCH" to the title.
What is so sacrosanct about "democratically elected" regime leaders that they should not be overthrown ?
The obomination was "democratically elected", and the hillary bitch will be too. Are you a fool who believes that overthrowing these "democratically elected" sociopaths would be wrong ?
Only if Anthony's got your Weiner!
With all the immigrants now in America you may see Hyena Rodthem Clinton as the next President.
She recently called, as Obama did, for Australian gun laws for the USA. Yet in 2008 when Obama made his remarks about gun control she came out as a "2nd Amendment supporter" which anyone familiar with her husband's war on the 2nd Amendment knew was a Big Lie.
Her open cavorting with her female aides in Colombia a few years ago while Secy of State, dancing and guzzling booze, with female staffers. It was open lezbo exhibitionism, and of course the MSM looked away.
She is an evil creature, soulless, as is Billy boy.
The Indoctrination Game, Part 2: Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality
Regardless of what she pretends to be, there is one thing she most definitely is - a pathological liar and sociopath. One perusal of her record and lifestyle vs. her utterings to get elected just makes it obvious to anyone with the mind of a 7th grader.
She knows she'll never get fucked sexually so all she has to look forward to is money and power.
The Hildebeest got fucked at least once, probably under protest. The result was Chelsea Clinton.
She's actually a Diesel Dyke Bitch. Nuff said.
Fascist does not equal conservative. Hillary is a Fascist.
She is clearly to the Right of Eisenhower...
100% KLEPTOCRAT.
I think it is great that Hitlery is lying about being progressive now.
I have convinced many women to not vote for Clinton by showing them what a big fat Obama she is.
Keep up the good work Clinton. And by good work I mean gutting your formerly 'solid base' with the endless prevaricating.
She is a run of the mill conniving criminal. There is nothing conservative about her. The rapist's spouse deserves to be put in Leavenworth for the rest of her years topside the planet.
Do dykes have a political persuasion?
Hitlery Clinton is the Spawn of Satan and the Bride of the Antichrist.
The Hildebeest is also, to paraphrase Harry S. Truman, a shifty-eyed goddamn liar who talks out of both sides of her mouth and lies out of both sides too.
I'm an atheist, but if this evil bitch is elected President, I suppose I'll have to concede that (1) God does exist, and (2) God has forsaken humanity for all of eternity.
God claims he's not responsible for Wellesley College.
That's strictly Satan's domain.
"Proudly creating Progressive Lesbians since 1870".
No wonder politicians can't keep their stories straight. Every time they sit down they have to shit a pretzel. After a while, they tie their own assholes in a knot.
"Huma Mahmood Abedin (born July 28, 1976) is an American political fluffer. She has been a long-time lover to Hillary"
Hillary has to have her companion around. Billy boy always has wandering eyes and hands. He likes the women with big melons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emASwbDHAHI
Hillary ben Clinton
She pretends to be human but is a bad witch.
If that cankling, carbuncle infested, land crustacean, isn't indicted, all HELL is going to break loose.
My Mother thinks Hillary is a lesbian! That's FINE, just declare it!
You just watch the vapor lock, in equities next week.
Bitchez
HRC is a fully vetted member of the team, consisting of large financial interests that shape domestic and foreign policy, their functionaries- elected and unelected people in federal and local government, the enforcers- military and criminal justice system- police, courts and prison complex and lastly the ministry of propaganda- corporate media. The primary goal of the Team is to maintain wealth distribution and class structure. Hillary will not disappoint.
This makes her "conservative" how? She's definitely not a "liberal" in the classical sense (when did that word get mangled? Rush?). Possibly a "radical"? In that she wants to destroy the country she's elected to govern. That's pretty radical.
"This makes her "conservative" how?.... "radical" destruction, mayhem, confusion, murder, dishonor and chaos...hmmm sounds like a prog to me.
Both are big government Authoritarians.
We're doomed.
I think people are misunderstanding the progressives. I am no fan of the progressives, but I understand them, and they are definitely anti war. Sanders is a better representation of a progressive. Obama and Clinton are not a part of the progressive wing of the Democrats.
Ms Clinton has always been PRO WAR-and a friend of the Military Industrial Complex-that kind of makes her equaity of gender issues null and void
Tyler probably understands colloquialisms better than I do?
Anyhow. I'm adding to my position. Doesn't mean much. \
Zero Hedge turns communists into realists. lol
From Amazon, regarding this hacks book: "in this path-breaking book, which settles, once and for all, the question of whether there’s any significant economic difference between the two Parties. Not only is there a difference, but – shockingly – it always runs in favor of Democrats in power. There might be other types of reasons for voting Republican, but all of the economic reasons favor voting for Democrats. Regarding economic performance, the two Parties aren’t even close."
I'm speechless. Total BS!
HRC is actually a total cunt, right up there with Yellen
Holy shit, coffee hurts when shooting out my nose. Succinct post.
HRC is a totalitarian opportunist. Whatever issue that is raised that yields the opportunity for total government or monetary control by her to be the ruling authority (a single entity) is in her objectives. The propagandas of the American press will by controlled by her governing party and all forms of rights by the general public will be restricted in order to perpetuate her governing party. To meet this object there will be no end to lies, deceit and corruption that spew from her in order to save the control over the state by her governing party.
Hillary takes millions in "donations" from Saudi Royal despots who behead women for sorcery and then bitches that Trump is a misogynist. She clanks out claptrap about making working America stronger and then pockets checks for $3Million from Tata and Infosys. Everyone hates her guts except for a handful of women CEO's equally craven as herself. If she is the Democratric candidate there will be tumbleweeds in the voting booths come election day. No one is going to be arsed enough to stand in line for an hour to pull the lever for the Witch of Wallstreet.
You finally fgured it out, huh. I said long ago that Hitlery was the best repubican candidate.
I love how the hard left seeks to relocate the middle barely right of full Marxism, leaving most everybody as a conservative. Such a ridiculous and transparent idea.
Hill and Bill are in favor of any position that increases their personal wealth. End of story.
"a rational voter will ignore her merely-stated positions"
What makes you think a rational voter exists among her supporters?
When I first wrote the below, it was 100 hits, now it is 10,000 hits.
I encourage each one of you to send this link to your local newspapers and TV stations. CBS, WJS, and other "main stream media" are starting to carry radiation stories.
we need this exposed to millions of people.
It's time to TIPP it good, folks, but I need your help.
Also expand the reach through Facebook and Twitter.
----------------------------------------------------------------Only 100 hundred people viewed this article I wrote last night, I would have though it would be viral, and be seeing 10,000 hits.
The EPA intentionally shut off almost all the Beta Radiation monitors in the USA, blaming it on cell phone towers, and cost reductions.
Gamma is hard to read, hard to interpret and integrate all 9 energy bands. Beta is simple to understand as a chart.
Beta will detect Strontium 90 which if 100 times worse than Cesium.
As Fukushima there was AS MUCH strontium 90 as Cesium 137
Now its all on the west coast of USA.
And EPA shuts off the Beta monitors. Folks, this word needs to get out, put it out on Facebook, twitter, everything you got.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/10/fukushima-is-here-this-mont...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo
"For a candidate such as Hillary Clinton, a rational voter will ignore her merely-stated positions, and will instead examine, and rely solely upon, her actual record." Exactly what percentage of the voting public makes up rational voters, i.e. voters that actually do their homework on candidates?
THe author of this article is misinformed on what "Conservative" means. Conservatives NEVER supported NAFTA. It was NeoCons, NeoLibs and corporatists who supported it.