Watching the MSM jump on the Hillary bandwagon for months now, not ever bringing up the subject of past accusations, past fines by the election commission, or anything that went on during her tenure as First Lady, I thought that maybe it was time that we all had a reality check on the darling about to be crowned queen of the United States by the media.
First, let me say that I don't support any of the candidates, except for maybe Ron Paul, but even that support is waning in light of recent revelations. Just the facts here, no spin.
Beginning with the about to break Peter Paul scandal, and the forthcoming movie that proves, in my mind, serious violations of both election laws and of ethical conduct, the one part of that tale that sticks out in my mind is the part of the movie in which Mrs. Clinton is on tape, with a roomful of witnesses, clearly involved in the upcoming fundraiser for her Senate race every step of the way. When the few media outlets tried to get to the bottom of what happened, there were denials from both Clintons that they even knew the man, which was an obvious lie. But let's dismiss that entire affair as a former business partner with an axe to grind.
Moving along, and bearing in mind that we are looking for a refreshing breath of honesty in American politics, here's a question that Hillary will not answer. In 1978, Clinton invested 1,000 dollars in cattle futures at the Chicago Mercantile exchange. In ten months time, she walked away with over 100,000 dollars, a sum so high, its a return of 10,000 per cent. Why won't she answer this question?
How does Mrs. Clinton explain away her fingerprints being on the missing billing records from the office of Vince Foster, who committed 'suicide', during the Whitewater investigation?
Were you aware that at the end of former President Clinton's term, that all of those 140 pardons he doled out like school yard candy were all the work of Hillary's brothers, Anthony and Hugh Rodham? Or that they actually brokered these deals for huge sums of money? How much did Hillary and Bill benefit from these deals? No answer.
David Rosen, Clinton's former campaign manager, has testified in court, under oath, that Mrs. Clinton knew all about 2 million dollars in illegal campaign contributions, but has consistently denied all knowledge of any such money.
Also, let's not forget the ethics violation complaints filed by Judicial Watch against Hillary since 2001. All but forgotten in the rush to crown this woman and continue the dynastic rule over our people, are the little things. Such as the 190,000 dollars worth of flatware, furniture, clothing, jewelry, etc., some of which came directly from Denise Rich, the wife of pardoned criminal, Marc Rich. These gifts received and accepted by Mrs. Clinton are clear violations of Senate rule 35.1, but why quibble about the small change?
Let's ask her about her current campaign and the money she's proudly receiving from lobbyists, Corporate interests, and hucksters. She doesn't like to talk about any of this, except to say that this is the way it's done in America. Oh? So, deceit, lying to the people, not showing up almost all of this month at her Senate job to vote on critical issues, breaking laws, sending goon squads after your detractors, defrauding the elderly, (see May 25th edition of the Corruption Chronicles), accepting millions of dollars in contributions from known criminals, (May 3rd edition, Corruption Chronicles) having a La Raza head as a major player in your campaign for President, clearly indicating that she could care less about the people's wishes on the subject of illegal immigration, and so many other things that add up to this being the most corrupt Democratic candidate in a slew of corrupt candidates, tells us to shun this woman and run the other way. Bush-Lite? Oh no. Not correct at all. This is Bush in female form and the only ones that should vote for her are the same people who want a continuation of the Bush agenda. If you'd like to know what's really going on in American politics, some good sources of information are Judicial Watch, (an equal opportunity political basher), The Corruption Chronicles, or the anti web pages of any of the candidates. They all have them, such as Hillary Watch, etc.
And so, we must decide who is telling the truth, as the people look fondly back to the relative prosperity of the 90's. But as we look back in time, don't fall for the rose colored glasses, soothing approach shucked out there by the Clinton campaign. Remember something called NAFTA, CAFATA, and other 'free trade' agreements signed into law by her husband. And her answer during the MSNBC debate in which she hemmed and hawed when asked about her policies on this should she become President. This push for Hillary is nothing more than a three card monte shill game being played by both the media and the corporations to sighingly placate the people with someone who looks like a duck, walks like a duck, but is really a rat. Batmanchester