An article by American Thinker about Hillary Clinton.... Past deeds...not nice... to say the least..

When Bill Clinton was president I had friends who I respected from Arkansas who knew him as governor. The best thing they could say about him was, "back stabbing low life lying POS". Later I had friends who were with the secret service who were assigned to the Clinton White House that said pretty much the same thing... So my opinion of the Clintons is bias to say the least.

I came across this article by The American Thinker about Hillary and some of her past deeds. There will no doubt be those who will vote for her if she decides to run in 2016 just because she is a woman or has the official D after her name. For those who think that way, know who you are voting for.

americanthinker.com...

From Wellesley she went to Yale law school after which she moved to Washington, D.C. to take a job with the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate. She was fired from her job and from that point on distinguished herself as a public master of mendacity.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of the 27-year-old, fired her, and has explained why:
"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."
At about the same time, Hillary failed the District of Columbia bar exam, hardly one of the more difficult bar exams in the country. What difference does it make? I realize that many voters have uncritically adopted Bill Clinton's description of her as "the smartest woman in the world", but except at deceit, self-promotion, and self-enrichment she is a repeat, proven failure whenever tested.
In 1978 she turned a $1,000 cattle commodity trading account into $6,300 overnight and within 10 months into a $100,000 profit. While she first lied and claimed she learned how to make this incredible investment profit in the riskiest of endeavors by educating herself on commodity futures, in fact she was the beneficiary of preferred treatment by an Arkansan when her husband was Arkansas attorney general and slated to become that state's governor, when in other words Bill was a person in a position to provide favors in return.

From the beginning of the Whitewater controversy, Hillary Clinton has maintained a public posture seemingly at odds with her actions. She was reluctant to release records during the 1992 campaign. She fought David Gergen's recommendation to turn over all the records in 1993. She led White House opposition to the appointment of a special counsel in early 1994.

There is much more to the article than I have posted here so if interested please follow the link. As I said in my opening statement I am not a Clinton fan so I guess the new catch all will be, instead of raciest, must be a right wing woman hater or some such B.S. if you do not love this woman's incompetence.

Myself I hope both parties are decimated in the coming elections and new people who have honor and the country before self interest are elected. www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

reply to post by 727Sky

Hillaryus!

Seriously though, preaching to the choir here me thinks. Not bad to remind us all though!

reply to post by 727Sky


I love it. This was on the occasion of her receiving a Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Center.

Surprisingly, these things are are not handed out exclusively to those the Framers would consider the most abhorrent fiends ever to befoul their principles. I mean, James Watson and Francis Crick received it in 2000; Lech Walesa in 1989.

And then there's a list of mostly benighted automatons and the predictable minions: CNN International (1997); Kofi Annan (2001); Colin Powell (2002); Hamid Karzai (2004).

A few major offenders: G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton (2006); Tony Blair (2010).

And—for some odd reason—Muhammad Ali (2012)....

David Geffen, media mogul and one time supporter of the Clinton's, gave a statement to NYT about Hillary and Bill's habitual lying. "Everybody lies in politics, but the Clinton's do it with such ease, troubling."

www.nationalreview.com...

To think that she has a chance of winning the 2016 election gives me shivers up my spine. The lady is very dangerous and has sold out America for the interests of Saudi Arabia.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Kofi Annan

My personnel favorite by far !!

Possibly one of the most successful failures the U.N. has ever produced.

He was always there for them when corruption and failure was necessary !!

He worked wonders for Syria.
Kofi "Mr Coffee Klatch" Annan

Definitely one of the most famous of International bandits and pirates.

reply to post by 727Sky


From your article.

"Because she was a liar"

reply to post by Erica1631

To think that she has a chance of winning the 2016 election gives me shivers up my spine. The lady is very dangerous and has sold out America for the interests of Saudi Arabia.

"Dangerous" in Capital Letters !!!

She is the property of Globalist NWO interests and Agenda 21.

I wouldn't imagine the American Thinker would write a terribly pro-Clinton piece.

Same old story. Thanks for the news.

American Thinker is a cesspool of full of insane inanities.

That is not opinion; it is fact. It is one of the ugliest of the uglies.

More than enough said.

rnaa
American Thinker is a cesspool of full of insane inanities.

That is not opinion; it is fact. It is one of the ugliest of the uglies.

More than enough said.

Yes when people who are interviewed who she had contact or worked for and tell their story.... you are correct it is ugly...

reply to post by 727Sky

Thanks for the info, it will be helpful when debating anyone who actually try's to defend this...........person.

Yes there will be the fools that think "Oh, the history" and to hell with the country and it would seem most woman follow Hillary blindly like the black folks do Obama but maybe just maybe there will be enough people that know enough about her and Slick Willie that it will be to much for the rigged "electric" voting machines to handle.

You know, I have read that she has a Billion dollars in her coffers this time, I find that hard to believe when she still owes for her last fail.....................a Billion dollars buy's a lot of lies.

reply to post by rnaa


As usual, hate filled rhetoric from the left with no facts to back it up.

Please, enlighten me with why AT is so horrible and by all means tell me why I should vote for Hillary.

reply to post by Battleline

Please, enlighten me with why AT is so horrible

American Thinker maintains an outlook of overt racism, mysogyny, poison pen rumor mongering, and pornographic sensationalism. It is anti-American and anti-Constitution; even while pretending to be a super-patriot. It misquotes, cherry-picks, and twists meanings of words and sentences into a word salad that bears no resemblance to reality. When it can't find something to twist beyond all recognition, it just makes sh*t up.

At least the National Enquirer was entertaining with its "space aliens ate Elvis" stories and you could use the paper to wrap up last nights left overs before they went into the garbage. So at least it had that going for it. You can't say that for the American Thinker.

AT is not alone in that space, of course. Its just the one quoted in this thread. And it is full of the stuff you are likely to find coming out of the south end of a north bound horse.

and by all means tell me why I should vote for Hillary.

I don't give a rats pattootie whether you vote for Hillary or not. Sorry, you'll have to make up your own mind about that. I'd like to suggest that you avoid reading AT and similar trash while doing that, but it seems you have already made up your mind and you don't even know if she is going to run nor whether she will win the nomination if she does.

Of course if you listen to AT, they will convince you that Obama is going to cancel the Constitution and continue his "Presidenting while Black" act for life, so why are you worried about Hillary anyway?

reply to post by rnaa


All of what you said is your opinion, nothing about what is untrue in the article that got you on such a rant.

When I read anything from any website it is nothing more then researchable material to verify truth or opinionated rhetoric like yours, "poison pen rumor mongering" really? Is there anything you can point out about the article that falls in that category or will you just come back like most progressive's with hate filled accusations about how stupide I am if I can't see it you are not going to point anything out to me.

Look, its obvious you can't defend Hillary so you like most all progressives bash the site that put out facts about her, if you had anything other then race baited hate filled opinion you would have produced it already.

xuenchen
reply to post by Erica1631

To think that she has a chance of winning the 2016 election gives me shivers up my spine. The lady is very dangerous and has sold out America for the interests of Saudi Arabia.

 

"Dangerous" in Capital Letters !!!

She is the property of Globalist NWO interests and Agenda 21.

Oh yeah, none of our past presidents weren't anything along these lines, huh??

We will all be dancing to the same puppet masters come 2016 that have been in control since the beginning, but people care too much about that one PERSON....It has nothing to do with that one person!!

It will probably never sink in for most of you, not only that your vote doesn't matter, but the names change and nothing else does!!

If every person in the USA stayed home and didn't vote, we would still have a winner I can assure you!

Chrisfishenstein

xuenchen
reply to post by Erica1631

To think that she has a chance of winning the 2016 election gives me shivers up my spine. The lady is very dangerous and has sold out America for the interests of Saudi Arabia.

 

"Dangerous" in Capital Letters !!!

She is the property of Globalist NWO interests and Agenda 21.

Oh yeah, none of our past presidents weren't anything along these lines, huh??

We will all be dancing to the same puppet masters come 2016 that have been in control since the beginning, but people care too much about that one PERSON....It has nothing to do with that one person!!

It will probably never sink in for most of you, not only that your vote doesn't matter, but the names change and nothing else does!!

If every person in the USA stayed home and didn't vote, we would still have a winner I can assure you!

If everyone stayed home and did not vote then the results would be a landslide mandate to the declared winner who got the party line votes.. Better idea might be to vote for anyone with out a repub or dem label... At least that way we would have something to complain about if they had an unforeseen accident once in office.

reply to post by Battleline

All of what you said is your opinion, nothing about what is untrue in the article that got you on such a rant.

Correct.

You want I should list every article ever published by them that I found objectionable? Darn near all of them. But I don't in general read them, so that's a pretty worthless statement.

In this article in particular, I note that in the third paragraph the author issues a particularly stupid dogwhistle: that Clinton wrote a college thesis on Saul Alinsky, but they did not provide any justification for why that was a good or bad thing (because, you know, EVERYBODY knows that Alinsky is the anti-Christ and why is Clinton praising him)?

The fact is that Clinton's thesis criticized Alinsky strongly. Whether or not you like Alinsky, Clinton condemned him and his so-called "tactics" (specifically his 'power/conflict model') as unworkable and worthless on scales larger than small communities.

This is typical of the "American Thinker" writer (NOT unique to AT by the way): turn perfectly benign stuff to exactly its opposite, not so benign meanings, then spew it out all connected to all kinds of other twisted crap, and say it all over and over and over, until it turn into code that you can string together to say stuff with plausible deniability.

This author didn't say any thing bad or good about Clinton's thesis or Saul Alinsky. He didn't have too; it is already code for something 'bad', even if those who understand the code don't realize that Clinton was actually criticizing the same boogie man that is being invoked.

Crap like that stops me from reading further. They are dishonest in the extreme. That dishonesty carries over into everything they write. Their racist, misogynist bias oozes into everything they write.

Its fine to have opinions. It is not fine to lie about facts, turn facts on their heads, and twist the meaning of words to try to make the world match your own Private Idaho.

American Thinker is one of the uglies. Not the only ugly, and not the ugliest, but ugly just the same.

Is it true or gossip that Vince Foster was murdered? My liberal family scoffs....

When did ATS become a site for Republican shills? It's starting to smell like the Yahoo comments section around here.

Def Youth
When did ATS become a site for Republican shills? It's starting to smell like the Yahoo comments section around here.

...not really Def, Yahoo is very liberal. Look at the trashy stories they put up every day. And Yahoo is
gossip central. They're BHO friendly.


God bless you Def Youth,



colbe