“You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time” Abraham Lincoln
A concept lost on Hillary. On Saturday, Dec. 22nd, Hillary pronounced that just electing her President will cut the price of oil. When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America”s incentive to develop alternative energy. That’s preposterous! She offered this jewel after delusional claims of unique experience that qualifies her as the best candidate for the presidency. Of course she failed to mention what experience.
Could documents in Bill’s library specify the experience? I doubt it since her experience consists of unethical and criminal conduct, abuse of power, financial and fund-raising scandals, narcissistic decisions that led to fiascos, “flip-flops” on positions and constant re-writes of history. It would take volumes to chronicle them so let’s examine a few.
Liberal author Carl Bernstein described Hillary as obsessively secretive and in a perpetual state of anger. He wrote, “During Bill’s presidency the members of the White House legal team joked that in deciding which course to take, the best approach was to ask themselves what Hillary would do, and then do the opposite. And for good reason!
Hillary”s Task Force on National Health Care Reform was a disaster. Bernstein noted, “She ran it with military-like secrecy unprecedented for a peacetime domestic program”. Hillary insisted on secrecy until a federal court ruled against her. Her arrogance alienated everyone, including democrats in Congress.
Hillary’s advice on economic policy resulted in failure for the liberal agenda. Bernstein noted, “Bill’s economic advisors pushed for cutting taxes, the deficit, and government programs. Hillary opposed their advice and informed Bill he didn’t get elected to do Wall Street economics.” Bill listened to Hillary and the republicans won control of congress, cut taxes, cut the deficit and forced Bill to sign Welfare Reform legislation.
Hillary’s experience with the White House Travel Office was another fiasco. Bernstein noted, “Hillary’s scheme to fire employees of the Travel Office began as a ploy to obtain favorable press by portraying them as dishonest.†She used the FBI to fabricate a criminal prosecution against Billy Dale. This abuse of power resulted in a quick acquittal and more bad press.
During the investigation into Whitewater the White House counsel advised Hillary to release the Whitewater documents to diminish the negative impact. Hillary refused, which prompted the appointment of the special prosecutor. She was advised to release her “cattle futures” trading records and refused. Both events created more bad press and she was eventually forced to release the documents anyway.
Hillary’s interference in the lawsuit brought by Paula Jones is perhaps the best example of her calamitous decision-making experience. She opposed Bill’s legal advice to settle the lawsuit and Bill followed her advice. Her advice had disastrous results with exposure of Bill’s sexual assaults on Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Wiley, sexual misconduct with Monica Lewinsky and ultimately impeachment.
Dick Morris noted, “By 1996, Bill finally figured out that listening to Hillary would doom his presidency, pushed her aside and did not speak to Hillary very much about anything.” Yet, Hillary continues to promote the myth of experience in a co-presidency, which comes as no surprise. Bernstein writes, “Since her Arkansas years, Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth.
It’s definitely not a resume that represents good leadership. A logical question is why would moral and decent people support a candidate who lacks relevant experience and exhibits evil and abusive tendencies? Dick Morris offers a valid explanation. He suggests that Liberals support her because don’t necessarily hear government experience but focus on her campaign experience instead. They see her as a winner that can defeat the hated republicans and that attracts democrat voters. That’s a sad but plausible explanation.
Leave a Reply