Legitimizing Hillary’s Crimes

“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.” – Fredrick Douglas

I was humored to see the socialist-communist Bernie Sanders talking of America’s “democracy” on stage during the CNN Democrat debate. He did this while playing games with Hillary Clinton in an attempt to lead the opposition by legitimizing crime through un-American propaganda.

Apparently, Americans have forgotten that our veterans died fighting against the very ideologies that are now tolerated from the likes of Sanders and Clinton in our Constitutional Republic (Article 4 Section 4 of The United States Constitution).

These people attempt to play sleight of hand with the American people’s God-given rights to keep and bear arms (Article 2, Bill of Rights) in hopes that someone will actually believe that what they are attempting to debate away is actually legitimate.

To hear Hillary talk of her transparency, I have to tell you that it was a good thing I was sitting down for that one.

Transparency? Like her counterpart, Barack Hussein Obama, who had in excess of 19 million fake Twitter followers, 56% of Clinton’s Twitter followers were created out of thin air. In other words, they create the support that they do not have.

We know that the only ones who show up to her speeches are the state-controlled media in an attempt to make her campaign look legitimate. This is nothing more than a Saul Alinsky tactic: Cause the enemy to believe that there are more of you than there really are.

And what of scandal, after scandal, after scandal concerning both of the Clintons?

Per a report at MRC TV:

Chinagate – The Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 allegedly took bribes from Chinese banks and their government to help their dwindling poll numbers.

Travelgate Scandal – Catherine Cornelius, a 25-year-old cousin of Bill’s, was allegedly promised the position of director of the travel office. Hillary Clinton then (indirectly) fired seven employees from the United States travel office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas. Records were either nowhere to be found or incorrectly filed. And, there’s a reported attempt to give a White House airline contract to friend. Hillary had the FBI investigate Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, ruining his career who was found to do nothing wrong, but was then audited by the IRS for three years after.

Whitewater Scandal – Hillary and her husband were partners in a shady real estate development firm called Whitewater Development Corp in Arkansas. Accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others soon surfaced, regarding improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits. Clinton’s friends and majority owners, James and Susan McDougal were jailed for fraud, Clinton’s successor, Governor Jim Tucker, was jailed for fraud along with municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh who worked with James McDougal. The Clintons walked away unscathed, having apparently done nothing wrong.

Vince Foster Jr. Mystery – Questions cloud the suicide of Vince Foster, former colleague, friend, and White House aid of Hillary’s who had connections to Travelgate, and the Whitewater scandals.

Filegate Scandal – Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security “improperly” accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals.  Mrs. Clinton called it a, “completely honest bureaucratic snafu.”  Many of these files were on people from previous Republican administrations. Hillary Clinton hired Livingston and is alleged to have looked at the files and requested this move. She was accused by Republicans of violating privacy rights of individuals she viewed as political adversaries.

Lootergate – Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so.

Drug Dealer Donor Scandal – Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton’s campaign that he was invited to the White House without Secret Service present.

Ponzi Scheme and Political Favor Scandal – Norman Yung Yuen Hsu was a convicted pyramid investment promoter, and major Democratic donor. He contributed an undisclosed amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

“He was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison in 2009 by a judge who accused him of funding his fraud by manipulating the political process in a way that ‘strikes at the very core of our democracy.’”

Benghazi, the email scandal, Arkansas drug dealing, dead bodies strewn across the path of the Clintons, and the list goes on and on concerning who she is and what she is truly about.

We were warned by George Mason in Article 3 of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights:

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

In spite of all of this, the American people continue to put up with the very things that they complain about (Jeremiah 5:31).

How right on Albert Einstein was when he stated: “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

The Economics Of Hillary Clinton

In a recent Labor Day speech to union workers in Illinois, Hillary Clinton declared that if she is elected president of the United States, she would make sure that “some employers go to jail for wage theft and all the other abuses they engage in.” Her incendiary comments were obvious “red meat” for the audience, but it also helped to clarify her own economic views and how she would govern if elected.

Even though Clinton is somewhat mired down in a scandal involving her email servers used while she was at Foggy Bottoms, it seems that she will survive it — as she and her husband have survived every other scandal that has defined their political careers — and be the official Democratic Party nominee. Given the current state of US politics and given the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a Republican challenger who can stand up to her star power, at least from this current vantage point, it seems Clinton will slide into the office for where she has been “destined” since 1992.

Given that there is a very good chance Clinton will march into the White House in January 2017, we should scrutinize her economic beliefs and her proposed economic policies, as we may well have to be living them in less than two years. Not surprising for people interested in economics of liberty (or, better put, the economics of prosperity), Hillary’s policies will disappoint and disappoint greatly.

If one combines that Clinton line with other things she has said about economic policy, as well as what is written on her website about what she calls “the economy of tomorrow,” a picture emerges that does not bring confidence to anyone who understands the role freedom plays in a market economy. Like Bernie Sanders, whose policies and viewpoints I already have covered, Clinton takes a hardcore statist approach to economic policies.

When she was First Lady, Clinton spoke of “channeling Eleanor Roosevelt.” In the current campaign, at least what she declares on her website and in her stump speeches, she also channels Eleanor’s husband, Franklin. Although Clinton claims that her proposals are part of “the economy of tomorrow,” the hard reality is that they essentially are the economy of the New Deal, and the part of the New Deal that created so much damage that a Congress dominated by Roosevelt’s own party repealed much of it. Like her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, Clinton is trying to revive a second New Deal.

While Franklin Roosevelt placed his policies under the umbrella of the “Four Freedoms,” Clinton has characterized her proposals under the aegis of the “Four Fights” in which she promises to “fight” for this and “fight” for that. She especially claims to be fond of the American middle class, so we should see how her plans advance middle-class prospects.

Actions vs. Rhetoric

Before examining Hillary Clinton’s economic proposals, however, I remind readers that this is not another screed to satisfy the Hillary-phobia Republicans and what they have expressed in the past two decades. This opinion piece does one thing: scrutinize her economic ideas, and allow readers to make their own decisions about her candidacy.

We also need to separate Clinton’s rhetoric from her own actions, and especially the economics of her current life, for there are no greater champions for what is derisively called “crony capitalism” than Clinton and her husband, and perhaps no two people in current public life have benefited from this economic hybrid more than the Clintons. Hillary Clinton will champion the middle class in her rhetoric, but the dynamics and the history of crony capitalism tell us that the middle class and the poor suffer the most from such an arrangement of political economy.

The Crony-Capitalist Clintons

(To the credit of some on the Left, a couple of Progressive outlets have exposed Clinton’s close ties with the firms that dominate an industry that she denounces in her campaign rhetoric.)

When Bill Clinton left office, he and his wife essentially had a negative net worth, as their legal liabilities well outstripped their personal assets. Thanks to some outside help, they were able to find lodging in the tony Hamptons, which is not exactly a middle-class suburb; and soon afterward, money began to fill their bank accounts. Because Hillary was tied to her US Senate salary, having been elected to office by New York voters in 2000, the couple depended upon Bill making speech after speech and collecting huge fee after fee.

The focal point of the Clintons and crony capitalism is not the huge speaker fees that both Bill and Hillary received (after Hillary left the State Department), however, but the role that the Clinton Foundation has played in turning the Clintons into multi-millionaires. To be blunt, the Clintons essentially ran a protection racket through the foundation that would have made Don Corleone blush.

When she was at State, Hillary would grant a firm some legal or administrative favors, and then the firm would make large contributions to the Clinton Foundation or had Bill make a speech with an accompanying honorarium that could take care of numerous middle class families for a year. For example, there was the case of the Swiss Bank UBS, as noted in a recent posting by The Atlantic:

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs.The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

Not only did UBS pay Bill directly, but it also contributed more than $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and this hardly was the only time something like this happened. There are no direct examples of the quid pro quo in which someone might have hard evidence that Hillary sold favors at State, but one cannot help but look suspicious.

The critics of Hillary’s actions correctly note that trading favors for large sums of money and running a populist campaign do not go together. Furthermore, as this article examines her “populist” economic platform, one suspects that competition from Bernie Sanders and the shadow of Elizabeth Warren in the background have had a lot to do with Clinton’s newfound “discovery” that Wall Street has some shady characters (including those who have donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill and/or Hillary a tidy speaker’s fee).

There is no doubt that Clinton, like Sanders and Warren, has a “zero-sum” view of economic activity, and thus believes she is fully-justified in promoting her own versions of economic statism. Furthermore, she and her husband, along with about everyone else in her circle, has done well personally by pushing “protection racket economics,” and has come to see businesses and business owners as bottomless wells from which to draw funds both for herself and for her pet projects.

Clinton, Alinsky, and “New Era” Politics

Unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinksy, the radical Marxist who employed social activism as a means of destroying both private and governmental institutions so that a “new era” could take its place. Like so many other radicals, Alinksy was a master of destruction and knew which buttons to push and how to organize people to demand favors for themselves; but he had absolutely no understanding of how economics works, and, he had no interest in finding out. The entrepreneur, in his view, was a bloodsucker, and eliminating that parasite was foundational to all of his activism.

While Hillary is not as ideological in her economic approaches as are Sanders and Warren (and even Barack Obama with his “you didn’t build that” mentality to entrepreneurship), she is just as destructive. An examination of her economic proposals on the campaign website demonstrates that hard fact. While she does not claim to be an outright socialist like Bernie Sanders (who apparently believes he can turn the entire country into Sweden, or at least Minnesota), nonetheless it is clear that Sanders — and Elizabeth Warren — have greatly influenced her campaign.

Campaigning for a New New Deal

Like Sanders, who wants our future to look a lot like the era of eighty years ago, Clinton’s “Economy of Tomorrow” looks a whole lot like FDR’s economy of 1937, as she channels Bernie Sanders (and maybe Eleanor Roosevelt again) for the newest edition of the New Deal:

  • Build “Infrastructure”: Once again, a Democrat trots out the “infrastructure” line complete with the promise of the massive public works programs that are reminiscent of the old Public Works Administration (PWA) and, of course, the Works Progress Administration (WPA);
  • “Invest” in Research and Education: One is reminded of Bill Clinton’s old stump line, “We’re gonna invest in education and the environment.” That means Hillary looks to increase federal appropriation for government-directed research and federal education programs that are dominated by standardized testing;
  • Raise the Minimum Wage: While not endorsing $15 an hour, Clinton still repeats the old saw that raising the minimum wage magically raises all worker’s pay, suddenly making everyone wealthier;
  • Bring Back the Unions: No Democratic presidential campaign is complete without a call to return to the 1950s, when a vast swath of the US economy was dominated by labor unions. It also was a time when massive strikes and deadly labor-oriented violence ruled the day. Clinton has vowed to do whatever is possible to shore up the generous-but-usually-underfunded union pensions;
  • Further Subsidize Higher Education: A Hillary administration promises to vastly increase student subsidies for college and “forever make college affordable and available.” How she will pay for this vast new entitlement is not on the website;
  • Expand Day Care: This has been standard Democratic presidential fare since Michael Dukakis based his 1988 campaign on day care for working mothers. Enough said;
  • Promote Universal Healthcare: What people were calling HillaryCare in 1994 is now ObamaCare, and Clinton promises to protect and expand it, all while both trying to “slow the growth of overall health care costs and deliver better care to patients”;
  • Expand Social Security Benefits: Increase Social Security payouts and bring more people under the SS umbrella. Again, Clinton does not state how her government will fund this huge new entitlement.

So far, the proposals look to be something akin to New Deal Lite. However, unlike Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who has declared in no uncertain terms that regulations place no hardships whatsoever on small or even large businesses, Clinton at least gives lip service to some of the difficulties small businesses face. Unfortunately, she also continues her party’s attack language on businesses in general, especially larger corporations.

  • “Cut Red Tape for Small Business”: Clinton says she will offer regulatory relief for small business enterprises and entrepreneurs. However, this is puzzling, given her open disdain for private enterprise, including her infamous remarks given earlier this year at a rally in Massachusetts: “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
  • Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses: She is not specific, but claims her administration will lessen tax burdens for small businesses, but not for “big corporations that can afford lawyers and lobbyists.”
  • Tap New Markets: Clinton promises to aid businesses in expanding domestic and overseas markets. She claims to support innovation, yet has brutally attacked the “sharing economy,” which has been a large creator of new wealth;
  • Improve Access to Capital: Clinton promises to bring together the “the best ideas from the private sector and government” to bring about more capital directed toward small business. The problem, of course, is not a lack of “ideas,” but rather the fact that so much capital has been misdirected, thanks to both Federal Reserve System policies and direct governmental interference;
  • Force Investors to Hold onto Stocks and Bonds: Clinton has resurrected the bogus criticism from the 1980s that market participants are myopic and only short-term in investment outlook, while politicians and bureaucrats care more about the long-term future. Commentator George Will even called for a law requiring anyone who purchases stock to hold onto those shares for a minimum of two years. (Economist Robert Higgs has noted that when governments are overtly hostile to private enterprise, business owners become uncertain about the future and are forced into making short-term decisions in order to survive the ordeal.);
  • Expand Employee Benefits and Force Up Minimum Wage: Clinton claims on her website, “When workers feel secure, they are more productive, efficient, and successful,” and proposes to require employers to add family leave and other benefits as well as increasing the minimum wage;
  • Rein in Wall Street: There is rich irony here, as few people have benefited more from Wall Street largess than Clinton and her husband. She defends the Dodd-Frank Act and vows to defend all its particulars, despite the fact that Dodd-Frank actually has favored larger and more politically-connected banks over the smaller community banks that Hillary claims to favor. In other words, she supports the supposed intentions of regulatory measures but quietly favors the results which turn the intentions upside down, all the while feigning outrage at the inevitable outcomes;
  • Promote “Green Energy” at the Expense of Conventional Energy Sources: This is standard fare for many in the political classes who claim that the “clean energy” sector is “creating jobs.” In reality, the new “green jobs” gobble up far more resources per unit of output than do conventional sources of energy and kill employment opportunities elsewhere.

Despite Clinton’s newfound populist rhetoric, her economic agenda reflects her own lifestyle of practicing crony capitalism. Other than her promise to remove “red tape” for small business startups, Clinton’s economic propositions follow the same depressing line that we have seen from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: private enterprise extracts wealth from the economy, while the expansion of government power builds wealth and employment opportunities.

If one briefly can summarize Clinton’s policy-making viewpoints, it is this: Hillary Clinton believes that an economy should be a tool of the state and reflect the political interests of Washington. Anything else is called “greed,” or “profits before people.” Private employers and business owners should not seek to be profitable, but rather to be virtuous, with the necessary virtue being decided by Clinton herself.

Hillary Clinton, a beneficiary of the very worst aspects of crony capitalism, has decided after all that she is an economic populist who wants to “share the wealth.” No one is mistaking her for Bernie Sanders or even Huey Long; but, nonetheless, she is a thoroughgoing statist telling voters that the way to improve the economy is to make it more difficult to produce things and force up business costs.

She clearly is not claiming to be a free-enterpriser and stands by her view that state control of economic exchanges will result in more exchanges and improved employment prospects and increased income. What she does not say is that the very economic burdens she promises to lay upon businesses will further erode the prospects of the American middle class she claims to support.

The economics of Hillary Clinton are first and foremost about expanding the power and scope of the US government, and as government gains more control, the more employers and business owners need to be in the good graces of American politicians. To be blunt, Clinton believes that people like herself can continually loot US businesses, with business owners paying their protection money without complain. After all, Hillary knows best; just ask her.

This commentary originally appeared at Mises.org and is reprinted under a Creative Commons license


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

America, Who Told You That Hillary Is Gonna Win In 2016?

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false.”  William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Over and over again at each event that I speak at across the country, I always highlight how this administration is using Saul Alinsky’s tactics against the American people.

“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” – Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals,” p. 126

This past week, we saw Hillary Clinton had only 50 women show up at one of her presidential fundraising campaigns. Ultimately, she allowed men in due to the pitiful turnout. Yet, Americans are told that she is leading the presidential candidate polls. America, who told you that?

This, of course, comes to you directly from America’s tolerated “useful idiots” who work for the lying, state-controlled media. If you think I’m joking about the media, just take a look at the following quotes.

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” -Richard Salant, Former President of CBS News

“The New York Times is deliberately pitched to the liberal point of view.” -Herman Dismore, Foreign Editor of the NY Times

“We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.” -Richard M. Cohen, Senior Producer of CBS Political News

I also try to reiterate that people need to be told things twice (people need to be told things twice) (Genesis 22:1, Exodus 3:4 ), especially in America because we are inundated with lie after lie 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

So, here we go with a bit of a flashback so you can understand how those who mean to rule over you with the use of the state-controlled media operate.

If you remember, CNN’s president resigned 2 years ago due to the low viewership it received. Maybe this will shed some light as to why he resigned. Amber Lyon, former news anchor for CNN, said she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration, and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network. Lyon said CNN was paid by U.S. and foreign governments for reporting on some events and not reporting on others. She also stated that the Obama Administration pays for CNN content. The New York Times actually blurted out the truth in their confusion (to their credit, I might add) that all information coming out of the Obama administration is first vetted.

Or what about MSNBC? I’m sorry I even have to bring them into the equation; but their slogan during the election campaign happened to be “Lean Forward,” which is directly derived from the communist playbook. MSNBC parades people like radical lesbian Rachel Maddow, the shameful uncivil rights want-to-be leader Al Sharpton, and Chris “it’s a terrible place to be when you’re brains are in someone else’s head” Matthews.

MSNBC’s ratings can’t get any lower than a snake’s belly, and that is just where they happen to be right now. These outlets are the ones that are attempting to remind those who do not have enough common sense to know right from wrong that Barack Hussein Obama has the support of the majority of Americans.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Don’t you remember that in the 2010 elections, 63 Democratic representatives were unseated?

Do you remember that Barack Hussein Obama had to move the 2012 Democratic Convention from a 74,000-seat arena to a 20,000-seat arena, and he still couldn’t fill the seats by giving away free tickets?

Do you remember when it was reported in Milwaukee that people filled up an 18,000-seat arena to see Barack Hussein Obama when, in fact, there were only 5,000 seats available?

Do you remember that 70 percent of Obama’s Twitter followers were found to be fake accounts, created out of thin air?

Do you remember when Stevie Wonder couldn’t get 200 people to show up for a fundraiser for Barack Hussein Obama?

Did you forget that during the 2013 inauguration, there weren’t even enough people in Washington, D.C. to fill up the hotel rooms?

And, of course, you surely haven’t forgotten the massive voter fraud that took place in the United States in the last election.

Communist dictator Josef Stalin said: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

But, America, you already knew this–unless, of course, you are watching MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, or FOX News.

To show that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9) and that what happened under Adolph Hitler’s rise to power is in stride with what is happening in America today, read this quote, which is often attributed to Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Fredrick Douglas summed this column up perfectly when he stated: “Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Website Exposes This Gigantic List Of Clinton Scandals

Almost as soon as she gained national prominence as America’s first lady, Hillary Clinton has been embroiled in scandal after scandal. Admittedly, some were caused – or at least initiated – by her husband; however, as she has continued to make a name for herself as a political heavyweight, controversy continues to hang over her head.

Pundits on both sides of the aisle continue to opine regarding the repercussions of recent scandals – most notably, her use of a private email server while secretary of state and suspicious donations made to her family’s non-profit foundation. One conservative news site, however, is shining a light on some of the White House hopeful’s previous ignominies.

WND recently published a list of “Hillary’s 22 biggest scandals ever,” a list that included more prominent and timely issues as well as incidents that occurred more than two decades ago. The list, as ordered in the WND article, includes the following controversies:

  1. Clintons turn IRS into ‘gestapo’

During Bill Clinton’s second term, reports surfaced that prominent conservative groups had been subjected to audits while there was no indication that any corresponding organizations on the political left had been targeted by the IRS.

  1. Covering Bill’s dirty deeds

Amid allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton that cast a negative light on the political power couple, Hillary reportedly aided her husband not only by publicly defending him, but by using shady – and potentially criminal – tactics in an effort to delegitimize his accusers.

  1. Looting the White House

After Clinton’s second term came to a close, the couple reportedly attempted to take roughly $190,000 worth of furniture and other items from the White House – on top of causing about $14,000 in vandalism damage to the presidential mansion.

  1. Filegate: FBI files on GOP enemies

The Clintons reportedly gained confidential tax records on many of their political rivals, a scheme in which Judicial Watch claimed Hillary played a central role.

  1. Hillary’s ‘Muslim Brotherhood princess’
Image Credit: Twitter/@MediaJuggernaut

Image Credit: Twitter/@MediaJuggernaut

Huma Abedin, a confidant who served as Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood – specifically through the al-Qaeda connections of both her mother and father.

  1. Vince Foster’s 1993 death

Family friend and White House counsel Vince Foster was himself embroiled in at least a few of the Clintons’ early scandals until his suspicious death. Initially ruled a suicide, the circumstances of Foster’s death have led to significant speculation in the decades since.

  1. Emailgate: ‘She should go to prison for this’

One of the more recent scandals involves Hillary Clinton’s admitted use of a personal email server to share official correspondences during her stint as secretary of state.

  1. Chinagate: Sale of high-tech secrets

Judicial Watch initially released a report suggesting Chinese corporations supported Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection effort in exchange for technology secrets.

  1. Travelgate: Always room for friends

During the Clinton administration, the Clintons reportedly laid off the White House travel office staff so that they could fill the department with family members and friends.

  1. Whitewater: Jail for friends, but not Clintons

One of the most identifiable Clinton scandals involved an investigation into a real estate deal that later encompassed accusations of improper campaign donations and the couple’s potential involvement in Foster’s death.

  1. ‘Landing under sniper fire’ in Bosnia
Image Credit: Twitter/@mrgeology

Image Credit: Twitter/@mrgeology

Hillary Clinton has faced criticism for her since-debunked 2008 claim that, more than a decade earlier, she was touring war-torn Bosnia in a helicopter as it sustained sniper fire. While she described a very dramatic landing, news footage of the event showed no such threat existed.

Image Credit: Twitter/@mrgeology

Image Credit: Twitter/@mrgeology

  1. Hillary’s ‘missing’ law firm billing records

More than 100 pages of pertinent information went missing ahead of a 1994 federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Watergate scandal. When the documents did surface two years later, it was revealed that she was in contact with many of the scandal’s central figures.

  1. Pardongate: Hillary Senate contributions

The wife of one convicted tax cheat pardoned by Bill Clinton at the end of his second term responded by becoming a major contributor to Hillary’s 2000 campaign to become a New York senator.

  1. Hillary’s cash cows and 9,987 percent profit

A series of investments in cattle futures was seriously profitable for a young Hillary Clinton. Between 1978 and 1979, a $1,000 investment turned into a nearly $100,000 profit, a success subsequently linked to a Clinton supporter who also happened to be a high-level player at Tyson Foods.

  1. Clinton body count: ‘You find dead people’

Foster was not the only suspicious death linked to the Clintons. In addition to those who met an untimely end after crossing the powerful couple, many others on their wrong side also ended up behind bars.

  1. Hillary’s radical pal, Saul Alinsky

Reports indicate community organizer and author of Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky, was a major influence on a young Hillary Clinton. She was involved in Alinsky’s group, Industrial Areas Foundation, for decades after the radical activist’s death.

  1. Hillary laughs about defending child rapist

Audio unveiled decades after it was recorded revealed Hillary Clinton celebrating the fact that an accused child rapist she represented was set free in 1975 – despite the fact that she insinuated that she believed him to be guilty of the crime.

  1. Hillary ca$hes in: Iranian fundraising

The Clinton Foundation reportedly received numerous financial contributions from a group accused of serving as an agent of the Iranian government.

  1. Clinton Foundation: Scandals keep coming

The Clintons’ nonprofit organization has faced controversy far beyond the Iranian connection, including accusations of tax fraud and a secretive deal believed to have facilitated the release of nuclear material to Russia.

  1. Benghazi: 4 American lives lost

A scandal that continues to incite passions involves then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, lambasted for her perceived inaction before, during, and after a 2012 attack that killed four Americans in Libya.

  1. Peter Franklin Paul: Another Hillary friend goes to prison

Paul was an entertainment executive and major financial supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate bid. He has since become an outspoken critic after accepting a plea deal and serving three years in prison for what he contended was retaliation for calling attention to fraud within Clinton’s fundraising methods.

  1. Watergate: Fired for being a ‘liar’

As a House Judiciary Committee staffer in 1974, Hillary Clinton helped investigate the Watergate scandal that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation. She was soon fired by a supervisor who described her as an “unethical, dishonest lawyer.”

Does Hillary have too much baggage to win in 2016? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: The Whitehouse-White House Inquisition Against Global Warming ‘Deniers’

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse recently had a Huff-Po tantrum. The Rhode Island Democrat was miffed that people criticized him and equally liberal Senate colleagues Barbara Boxer (CA) and Ed Markey (MA) for attacking skeptics of dangerous manmade climate change like Spanish Inquisition tormentors.

He says the skeptic community’s “overheated” response mischaracterized their motives and muddled their important messages: Global warming is the most serious threat we face today.  Financial incentives can affect behavior, which is why the public and Congress need to know who funded the skeptics’ research. And companies that produce harmful products want to foment uncertainty about well-established health and safety risks: fossil fuel interests and climate chaos skeptics are just like the tobacco industry.

These senators are abusing their power of office to threaten and silence honest scientists, and destroy their funding, reputations, and careers. It’s pure Saul Alinsky, as practiced by Greenpeace, Harry Reid, and the other White House: “In a fight almost anything goes. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” And the vilified scientists and their friends are just supposed to take it, the senators seem to think.

In reality, the only thing overheated is Mr. Whitehouse’s temper – and the increasingly preposterous rhetoric about an overheating planet. Climate change is altering our music. A 0.1 degree Celsius change in ocean temperatures has caused whales to migrate a month earlier than 30 years ago. Warming oceans will mean the end of fish and chips! Lord knows what other “disasters” await – all because of fossil fuels.

The absurdity of this fraudulent fear mongering and its total irrelevance to our daily lives explains why Americans consistently put climate change at the bottom of every list of concerns. The very idea that governments can decree an idyllic climate is equally crazy; that has happened only once in human history.

No wonder Mr. Obama is repackaging the climate issue under the equally false and ridiculous mantras of “ocean acidification” and “carbon pollution” causing allergies and asthma. Our oceans are not becoming acidic. It’s not “carbon” – it’s carbon dioxide, the miracle molecule that makes all life on Earth possible. And neither CO2 nor planetary warming has anything to do with allergies or asthma.

Climate science was supposed to examine the effects that humans might be having on Earth’s climate. But anti-fossil fuel activists turned it into the notion that only humans affect the climate – and that the powerful natural forces that caused countless, sometimes devastating climate fluctuations in the past no longer play a role. Climatology was also supposed to be about the scientific method:

Pose a hypothesis to explain how nature works. Test the hypothesis and its predictions against real-world evidence and observations. If the premise is valid, the evidence will back it up. If the data and evidence are out of synch with the carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas thesis, come up with another hypothesis.

By now, it’s obvious that the “dangerous manmade global warming” thesis, and computer models based on it, do not explain what is happening in the real world. The planet stopped warming 18 years ago, despite rising fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. The models don’t work; their predictions are completely out of whack with reality. Instead of more hurricanes, no Category 3-5 has hit the USA since late 2005.

So the alarmists changed their mantra to “climate change” and “weather disruption.” But this is bogus: it tries to blame every change and event on fossil fuels. The thesis can never be proven or disproven, which means it’s a religious tract, not a scientific analysis. Alarmists don’t have a leg to stand on scientifically.

That’s why they refuse to debate the science and vilify climate crisis skeptics. It’s why Democrats became so frustrated with Dr. Judith Curry’s expert testimony at a recent House Science Committee hearing that they left the room. They couldn’t stand it when she said the “central issue” is the extent to which recent (and future) planetary warming or other climate changes are driven by manmade greenhouse gas emissions, “versus natural climate variability caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.” And they really couldn’t tolerate her noting that President Obama’s pledge to slash U.S. emissions by 28% will reduce warming by just 0.03 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Climate change and extreme weather risks are real, but carbon dioxide doesn’t cause them today any more than throughout history. Aside from Pleistocene-style ice ages, we can adapt or respond to events – including storms, droughts, heat waves, and extreme cold – if we have affordable, reliable energy, strong economies, and modern technologies. The real threats to jobs, health, welfare, and lives come from anti-fossil fuel policies imposed on the pretense that they will stabilize weather and climate. Forecasting future climate changes will be equally impossible if we remain fixated on carbon dioxide, and ignore the solar, ocean circulation, cosmic ray, and other powerful natural forces that actually affect Earth’s climate.

Senator Whitehouse’s suggestion that climate chaos skeptics should be tarred and feathered with tobacco industry apologists is despicable demagoguery. So are his comments about funding realist research.

The skeptics’ funding was never secret. It was always an open book, available to anyone who cared to look. But since he brought up the money issue, let’s look at a few aspects that he studiously ignores.

Alarmist research is all about carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, and fossil fuels – precisely because financial incentives can and do affect behavior. Alarmists get a thousand times more money than skeptics. Climate Crisis, Inc. received hundreds of billions of dollars in government, industry, foundation, and other money during the past couple decades. The US government alone spent over $186 billion in tax dollars on climate, “clean energy,” and renewable energy projects from 2009 through 2014. Applicants know they won’t get grants if their theses and conclusions do not support climate alarmism and regulatory agendas.

Billions more went to government agencies that coordinate these programs and develop anti-hydrocarbon regulations. These bureaucrats don’t merely search health and scientific files to cherry-pick papers that support their agenda. They deliberately hunt only for supportive documents (many of which they pay for) and actively ignore, suppress, and vilify research that focuses on (or even just discusses) natural forces.

Then the EPA and other agencies pay the American Lung Association, scientific advisory committees, and other activists millions of dollars a year to rubberstamp their regulatory decisions. Even more destructive of our scientific method and political process, countless millions are also being funneled to climate chaos researchers and Big Green pressure groups via secretive foundations, laundered through front groups from Russian oil interests and employed to further enrich billionaires like Warren Buffett.

The scandalous system has turned hardcore environmentalism into a $13.4-billion-per-year operation and represents an unbelievable abuse of our hard-earned tax dollars and the tax-exempt status of numerous foundations and activist groups. Cooperate and get rich; resist, and get the Whitehouse inquisition.

As a result, instead of science, we get opinion, propaganda, spin, pseudo-science, and outright fraud – all designed to advance a anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy agenda that kills jobs and economic growth, endangers human health and welfare, and puts radical regulators and pressure groups in control of our lives, livelihoods, and living standards. It also further corrupts our political system.

These Big Green companies, foundations, pressure groups, and government unions give our politicians millions of dollars in campaign cash and in-kind help, to keep them in office and the gravy train on track.

The League of Conservation Voters collected $90 million in foundation grants from 2000-2013; the LCV Education Fund pocketed $71 million more. The LCV, Sierra Club, NRDC, SEIU, AFSCME, Kleiner Perkins, and allied groups are all big Whitehouse (and Obama White House) campaign donors.

Do Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Markey plan to investigate those financial incentives and abuses?

Concerned citizens should ponder all of this the next time they vote.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth