Hillary Clinton’s remarks, often laced with condescension, have garnered excessive accolades from Liberals, making it challenging to voice opposition. While she may lack substance, her enduring presence and substantial financial resources keep her in the spotlight.
It seems that no matter how much we wish to be free from her influence, she resurfaces like an unwelcome itch at the most inconvenient times. In 2015, we find ourselves grappling with yet another resurgence of Hillary. It’s as if this saga has been ongoing forever.
Flashback to 1997, when an intellectual Progressive gushed about Ms. Clinton, insisting that her limited intellect would lead us toward a brighter future. We’re uncertain what became of that optimistic soul—perhaps he’s still advocating for democracy while disregarding the impact on those around him. Regardless, Hillary persists. We’ve learned to adapt.
Instead of getting irritated by her expression on the evening news, we find ourselves marveling at the dramatic changes in her appearance. It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what has transpired, but the result is decidedly unsettling.
Above All
One of the more entertaining aspects of national politics lies in presidential elections. Despite the widespread cynicism surrounding them today, elections still hold their value. They offer a unique opportunity to witness the antics of candidates as they vie for your attention and vote.
The spectacle they present can prove more entertaining than anything devised by Hollywood scriptwriters. It’s a parade of clowns, cads, and charlatans, all stumbling over one another in pursuit of your support.
Observing the absurdities that accompany a presidential election is a mixed blessing for those who look on critically. One moment you might be doubling over with laughter, and the next, you could find yourself feeling nauseated.
As we gear up for the 2016 presidential election, the lineup of schemers and chatterboxes certainly provides plenty of entertainment. Candidates like Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush certainly add their share of humor to the race.
Yet, it’s Hillary Clinton who steals the spotlight. Hardly a day passes without her making headlines for her dubious proclamations, all while pretending to be a champion for the public good.
Hillary Clinton Duh? No Duh!
When it comes to Hillary, it’s crucial to follow the money to uncover her questionable dealings. This isn’t unique to her; many politicians engage in similar practices. However, over the years, Hillary and her husband, Bill, have mastered the art of profiting from politics. The Salt Lake Tribune details some of the latest controversies surrounding them.
“The vast range of contributors to the Clinton Foundation—and those who paid the Clintons for speeches—provides endless fodder for critics and media alike: funding from a uranium mining company that sought State Department approval; arms sales approved for foundation donors; the numerous lobbyists connected to the foundation; undisclosed donors from the foundation’s Canadian affiliate; payments for speeches from Keystone XL pipeline financiers; fees charged to charity organizations for tsunami relief assistance; and relations with countries known for poor human rights records.”
Alongside these suspicious financial dealings, Hillary’s performance as Secretary of State, particularly regarding the 2012 Benghazi attack, remains notable. She conducted official business on a personal server and, when pressed to surrender it for an independent review, wiped it clean, permanently deleting all emails.
What irritates most about Hillary is her perception of her own intelligence. It would be one thing if her estimation were accurate, but it’s not; her capabilities are merely average.
In her latest attempt to mislead, she delivered printed copies of the emails she had deleted, totaling 55,000 pages, rather than the electronic files the State Department requested. This necessitated weeks of effort to convert hard copies back into digital files—at taxpayer expense, no less.
Duh?
Hillary seems to believe we lack the capacity to connect the dots. Yet, even those of us less astute can see through the facade. The personal server was established to evade scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. Once confronted, she printed selective copies, wiped the server, and erased any emails she didn’t want the public to access.
After all, email is, by its very nature, electronic.
No duh!
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
