Posted tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy’

The Selling of America—by the Clinton Campaign

October 17, 2016

The Selling of America—by the Clinton Campaign, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, October 16, 2016


While the American public is having their brains numbed by endless retellings of Donald Trump’s decades-old putatively unwanted sexual advances, the media is almost entirely, in many cases deliberately, ignoring the far more significant revelations being made by WikiLeaks. What does the media care? It doesn’t affect them, just the common folk. And the disclosures might impede the coronation of Queen Hillary.

Many stories have drifted by almost without notice — including confirmation that the president of the United States lied when he claimed he learned  of Hillary Clinton’s private email server only when the public did. He had been communicating with her on it for over a year on multiple occasions under a pseudonym. (If a President Trump had done such a thing, the cries for his impeachment would drown out the Super Bowl.) Andrew McCarthy has cited this as the reason the FBI was prevented from recommending the prosecution of Clinton. To have done so would have implicated the president himself.

Today’s “Podesta Emails” revelations from WikiLeaks bring up another matter—money. The foreign kind. As the Federal Elections Commission notes, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.”

The reasons for this should be obvious—foreign subversion of our national interest, etc.—but, as we shall see, the crew at Hillary Clinton HQ evidently wasn’t convinced these risks were serious, not serious enough anyway to merit observing the federal regulation known to all.

(These are the same people—it should be noted—who blather on about the danger of Russia and insist that Putin & Co. are responsible for their computer break-ins rather than their own embarrassing [and hugely perilous] cyber idiocy.  Unfortunately, there is now evidence that the culprits were notalways the FSB or the Chinese or even the Iranians, but in some cases a couple of twentysomethings  in North Carolina known as the “Crackas With Attitude.” Working with UK teenagers they were, among other things, able to the break into the emails of CIA Director John Brennan, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, turning the results over to Wikileaks. Doesn’t sound much like the NKVD to me—though it does sound as if a lot of people should be fired…. If you read the link, hacking into Brennan’s account was the most simple of all.)

But back to today’s revelations, wherever they came from originally. An email chain–subject line: “RE: Registered foreign agents“—that wound up in the lap of Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri tells a tale of greed over national interest straight out of H. L. Mencken’s famous remark: “When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”

On the cc. line and responding at various points were many of the usual suspects: Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, Huma Abedin (no identification necessary), John Podesta (ditto), campaign general counsel Marc Elias, national finance director Dennis Cheng, and quite a few others.

The issue at question was what to do about donations  from representatives of several dozen countries, some, not surprisingly, misogynistic and homophobic, few democratic.  Included are Iraq, Egypt, Libya, UAE,  Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,  National Security Council of Georgia, Hong Kong Trade Dvelopment [sic] Council, Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Peru, Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Colombia (of Clinton Cash fame) and something called the Breaux Lott Leadership Group for Government of Taiwan that appears to have been bought by a group connected to the Embassy of China.

This only touches the surface because early in the chain Karuna Seshasai, also an attorney,  writes: “This is only 23 names of the first 350 prospective bundlers we looked at pre-launch. I anticipate more coming down the pipeline.

More do. And there follows a debate about what to do. Can they get away with it?  Can they disregard the inconvenient federal regulations proscribing foreign donations? Finally, campaign manager Robby Mook steps forward to clear up the legal and moral issues at hand:

Marc [campaign counsel Elias] made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don’t really get you anything…that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So…in a complete U-turn, I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?

And after that “U-turn,” Ms. Palmieri wraps things up with this succinct comment: “Take the money!!

Yes, the two exclamation points are hers.  Don’t believe me?  See the whole chain for yourself at the link below.

But before you do, before you go around assuming our country is being sold out to foreign despots by Democratic Party crony capitalists and that in a society that observed the rule of law these clowns would be up on RICO charges,  just remember what’s really important: Donald Trump may have kissed a woman on the lips on Mother’s Day at Mar-a-Lago.  Now go ahead and read.

UPDATE:  Apparently Hillary was not told of this decision—to take foreign money—but read about it in the paper.  However, she DID NOT move to stop it, just wanted to weigh in on choices. From Law Newz:

After this whole discussion over the course of several days of emails and at least one conference call, nobody told Clinton what the decision was. That turned out to be a mistake, because it got reported anyway. From campaign chairwoman Huma Abedin to Mook (Podesta is ostensible CCed):HRC read in paper that we are taking FARA money

We are going to discuss today in Elias meeting

talked to Elias

Flagging for you

Mook was slightly taken aback:

She doesn’t want to?

Abedin calmed him down:

she just didnt know that we had decided to accept it

wanted to know who the individuals are and wants to weigh in

karuna sending list for meeting

As Law Newz concludes, “And that was that, at least as far as the emails show.”

Feminists Blazed The Trail For Donald Trump’s Vulgarity

October 12, 2016

Feminists Blazed The Trail For Donald Trump’s Vulgarity, The Federalist, October 12, 2016

(Perhaps interestingly, The Federalist seems to post more articles of the Never Trump genre than anything approaching Pro Trump articles. — DM




Smut in service to a good cause is fine with the great and the good. All the handwringing and shrieks of distaste over Trump’s swaggering has nothing to do with the sorry content of his bluff. It is simply a minesweeper to clear a path for the looming obscenity of another Clinton presidency.


We are no longer drifting Left. The polls tell us we are hurtling hard-left on class warfare rhetoric and its handmaiden, gender demagoguery. Meanwhile, networks and pundits are in a frenzy to tut-tut over Donald Trump’s jock-strap bravado.

You want locker room talk? Forget Trump. His old-style cisgender crudity is as outdated as a codpiece. On a bus that fateful day 11 years back, he did not know that “pussy” was not getting grabbed any more. No, the grabbing had been going the other way for a full decade by then.

Dirty talk acquired cultural cachet some 20 years ago when it wrapped itself in the banner of female empowerment. Eve Ensler updated a seamy genre with “The Vagina Monologues” and got a Tony Award for it. Her vulgarity won an Obie for Off-Broadway excellence in 1996 and subsequently earned her a Guggenheim Fellowship.

Ensler repackaged soft-core discourse and marketed it as an achievement for women’s voices. Girly smut emerged as a tool to combat violence against women. A supposed kick in the groin to misogynistic oppression, “The Monologues” were hailed in the New York Times as a significant piece of political theatre. The format consisted of a series of soliloquys, each with its own thematic caption. A few samples: “Reclaiming Cunt”;  “The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy”; “My Angry Vagina”; and my very favorite: “The Little Coochie Snorker That Could.”

Trump’s attention was directed to grown women. Ensler, by contrast, was not above making copy out of an interview with a six-year-old girl. She asked the child to describe her vagina—sight and smell—and to tell what it might say if it could talk. (Simply explaining that makes me wince more than anything on the Trump tapes.)

Ensler acquired standing as a feminist heroine with a desire to bring “a culture of vaginas” into the light: “. . . to speak of them out loud, to speak of their hunger and pain and loneliness and humour, to make them visible.” Her eulogizing runs along anthropomorphized lines like this: “The heart is capable of sacrifice. So is the vagina.”

The Vaginas Are Still Talking

But this is old news now, yes? No, unhappily, it is not. “The Monologues” endure. Each year brings a new version, addressing the latest issue on which vaginas have something to say. (2004 featured an all-transgender cast, each chattering vagina played by an altered male. Ventriloquism sells.) Ensler’s magnum opus remains a staple in popular productions by amateur actors in local colleges and community centers.

Anywhere that men gather is a mission territory for evangelists of the vagina. This past May, after a run in several women’s prisons, it was time to bring the act to two men’s prisons. Quartz, an online venture of Atlantic Media, publisher of The Atlantic, covered the event at Queensboro Correctional Facility in Long Island City. The article opens:

‘My vagina is angry!’ a woman’s voice loudly echoed through a large gym at a minimum security prison in Queens, New York. Minutes later, the gasping and moaning of an imitated orgasm filled the space, accompanied by the loud, uncomfortable laughter and knee slapping of the men in the audience.

To prepare inmates to re-enter society, the productions all-female cast, including two former female prisoners, held forth on sexual pleasure and sexual violence:

They heard detailed descriptions of the female anatomy, of visiting the gynecologist’s office, and of being abused.

The men laughed, throwing their heads back when they heard actors unabashedly spitting out descriptions of vaginas: ‘New Jersey twat,’ ‘split knish,’ ‘poonani,’ or when they saw them mime examining their private parts in a mirror. They shook their heads in disbelief when hearing about genital mutilation of young girls. Every once in a while a guard’s walkie-talkie would go off, reminding everyone of their place.

Smut in service to a good cause is fine with the great and the good. All the handwringing and shrieks of distaste over Trump’s swaggering has nothing to do with the sorry content of his bluff. It is simply a minesweeper to clear a path for the looming obscenity of another Clinton presidency.

Clinton’s ‘foreign intervention’ hypocrisy

October 11, 2016

Clinton’s ‘foreign intervention’ hypocrisy, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, October 11, 2016

During the second U.S. presidential debate on Sunday night at Washington University in St. Louis, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton did her best to sidestep the issue of the tens of thousands of emails she deleted from her private server.

This she tried to accomplish by urging listeners to”fact-check” on her web site.

But then, co-moderator Martha Raddatz asked a question — posed by a social media user — surrounding alleged excerpts, released by WikiLeaks, from her exorbitantly paid speeches. In one such address to Wall Street bigwigs, Clinton purportedly said to the hosts she pretends in public to revile, “You need both a public and private position on certain issues.”

Is it okay, Raddatz asked on behalf of the person who had submitted the question, “for politicians to be two-faced?”

Clinton’s response was to compare her double-dealings with America’s 16th president — or at least to Steven Spielberg’s rendition of Abraham Lincoln in the Oscar-winning film.

“I was making the point that it is hard, sometimes, to get the Congress to do what you want to do,” she said. “And you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln, [in] trying to convince some people … used some arguments; convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great … display of presidential leadership.”

This analogy was so ridiculous that even Hillary knew she had better squirm her way out of it. “But, you know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, Martha,” she said, self-correcting and diverting attention to her Republican rival. “Because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks — the hacking of American accounts — to influence our election.”

Indeed, she declared, “We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election, and … they’re not doing it to get me elected. They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump.”

One could almost hear Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei laughing out loud at this assertion. Why in the world would they want to throw a wrench into the good thing they have going with America in a state of weakness? What could possibly possess them to wish to rock the boat? Iran is getting billions of dollars in cash and renewed business deals; Russia is starting to realize its dream of becoming a superpower again. Furthermore, with a Clinton White House, radical Islamists would have an easy time entering the U.S. — as “refugees” — to wreak havoc on the “Great Satan.”

Now, Hillary may be no dummy, but she is a great hypocrite. This was evident during the debate not only in her assault on Trump’s escapades with women and wealth. Even more striking was her shock and awe about foreign powers attempting to influence the upcoming U.S. election.

As a former member of the Obama administration, she ought to know a thing or two about such a practice. Yes, her pals in the White House and State Department invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a concerted campaign to prevent the re-election last year of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They did this by funneling “grant” money to a far-Left, pro-Palestinian nongovernmental organization called OneVoice.

A Senate investigation revealed that the activities and political leanings of OneVoice were well known. In addition, as the Washington Free Beacon reported in July, a senior State Department official admitted that he had deleted several email exchanges pertaining to the administration’s coordination with OneVoice, whose grants and oversight were done by then-U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Michael Ratney.

“It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed … against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who chaired the subcommittee that investigated the fiasco.

Not to worry, though. Private money from Hillary’s billionaire friends, such as the virulently anti-Israel George Soros, was also spent on the effort to keep Netanyahu from winning the election. Another organization, established specifically for this purpose, was V15 (victory 2015).

Founded by an Israeli named Nimrod Dweck, V15 hired U.S. consulting firm “270 Strategies” — comprised, as the website World Net Daily reported — mostly of former top staffers for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Dweck told World Net Daily that it was OneVoice that persuaded him to hire the firm.

The attempt to topple Netanyahu by bolstering the Israeli Left failed abysmally, much to the dismay of Obama and cohort Democrats. But theirs was a blatant example of foreign intervention in the election process of another country.

I guess Hillary thinks that’s okay, as long as it’s her team running the interference.