• Days of Our Lives

    June 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Categories

  • History of the Seven Hills

  • Administration

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,643 hits

WoW! If Hillary’s supporters want this, what will she do?

                                                                      hillary-witch.jpg

If anything was obvious in Tuesday’s Democrat debate, it was that Hillary Clinton seethed with anger. She was visibly angry and the inflection and tone in her voice attested to it. Judging by first hand accounts of various advisers and officials close to the Clintons over the years, I would expect that some volunteer had to be the one grabbing their ankles Tuesday night.

To those who have actually listened to former associates of the Clintons, Hillary’s anger is nothing new. To those who are “new” to the Hillary experience and have chosen to not see her as she has always been, was Tuesday a wake up call?

Are some of the people who were Hillary supporters before the debate, at least a tiny bit hesitant about her being an emotional Kilauea? We worry about regular schmoes in everyday life who walk around with a smile on their face while the blood coursing through their veins is a cool 300 degrees. Why not worry about someone who has these characteristics and is running for President? I certainly do.

Hillary supporters don’t seem to mind their candidate being slightly unhinged though. Of course, it’s not their candidate who is the problem, it’s the guy who asked her a question, the guy who called her on something she had said, Tim Russert’s fault. The blame always lies with others on the Hillary campaign trail. One Hillary supporter, who participated in a Wednesday conference call with the campaign made her intentions known. According to The Hill.Com,

Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call.

When you have supporters who have feelings like that, watch out my friend! The best part about Hillary’s meltdown in front of the country, is that she HAS done this before, but she has always done it behind closed doors, now it won’t be so easy to hide that wicked witch like anger she has been bottling up for awhile. We all know what happens when people bottle up their anger, the pressure build until it can’t be held in any longer and we see complete meltdown.

The cool thing is, Hillary will probably be the Democratic nominee and she will be hopefully facing more folks like a Tim Russert, who do not hold back on any candidate, Republican or Democrat. We need people to ask the tough questions and then continue to hammer that nail if they see where someone tries to get away with being on both sides of an issue. 

In closing, watch out for Hillary supporters out there, they just might think you need to be shot. 

Hillary Clinton, The Convenient Anti-Racist

Hillary

During a campaign visit to South Carolina, Senator Clinton announced that she would like to see the Confederate battle flag removed from the Statehouse grounds. The Associated Press article describing the event quoted Hillary,

“I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day,”

“I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds,”

Knowing full well that the press in this country cannot be trusted to tell the whole story, it is with caution that I assume that Hillary did not say she wanted the flag to be taken down because it is represents the racism to many in this country. Then again, why should caution be used in assuming this? Hillary’s statements are classic Clinton excrement. Her statement shows the fake campaign promise nobility that she and the former excrement in chief are so good at. Clinton had the perfect chance to take a stand against the Confederate battle flag but decided that might be to polarizing and detrimental to her campaign. She chose to deny black people a true ally in the fight against the symbol of racism that flies in their faces everyday, just to not offend too many supporters (constituents) of the flag.

The funny thing is, it is nothing new. Hillary has been doing this for a long time now. She is after all, married to Bill Clinton. When Bill was the Governor of Arkansas his reaching out to African-Americans was over and above,

“In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. (the preeminent leader of the civil-rights movement) and Robert E. Lee (the general who led the Confederate army) state holidays on the same day. Of course, the word “segregation” never passed Clinton’s considerable lips, but the (uncoded) message he was sending to certain of his white constituents could not have be clearer. His support for the Lee day seems as bad — if not worse — than a gaffe at an old man’s birthday party and Lott’s opposition to an MLK day.”

“Clinton had a Confederate flag-like issue of his own. Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, provides as follows:

(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as ‘Confederate Flag Day’ in this state.

(b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America. [Emphasis added.]

(c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

This law existed on the books and in twelve years as Arkansas Governor, he never sought to have it repealed.

“Governor Clinton was among three state officials the NAACP sued in 1989 under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. “Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks,” the Arkansas Gazette reported December 6, 1989. It added: “the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated.”

“During his 12-year tenure, Governor Clinton never approved a state civil-rights law. However, he did issue birthday proclamations honoring Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He also signed Act 116 in 1987. That statute reconfirmed that the star directly above the word “Arkansas” in the state flag “is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.” Arkansas also observed Confederate Flag Day every year Clinton served. The governor’s silence was consent.”

“Clinton praised Arkansas’ late Democratic senator J. William Fulbright, a notorious segregationist who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He also signed the Southern Manifesto, which denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown vs. Board of Education school desegregation decision in 1954. Clinton called Fulbright “My mentor, a visionary, a humanitarian.”

All of this, yet The Democrat Party is silent, liberals are silent.

Hillary was always and is silent to racism that she sees and participates in because of the spineless silence she exhibits when presented with an opportunity to fight against it. The votes that giver her power mean more to her than, the pain and suffering of those who have been beaten down and torn by the reality of racism.

Hillary a fake? Everyone already knows this!

Today’s Wall Street Journal included an opinion column that points out the wavering, flip-flopping, unsteady mind of Hillary Clinton over the past 5 years. This kind of thinking and logic is very infantile and coming from someone who presents herself as a leader, is an absolute joke!

Here is what the Journal pointed out,

October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. “The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” she declares, citing Saddam’s record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. “As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets,” she continues, adding that Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”

While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, “I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.”

December 15, 2003. It is clear by now that no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton tells the Council on Foreign Relations that “Yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. . . . We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the President, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice.”

She adds, “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote.” As for Iraq’s prospects, she declares herself “a little optimistic and a little pessimistic . . . We have no option but to stay involved and committed.”

April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: “I don’t regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.” Asked whether she thinks she was “fooled,” she replies: “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction.”

October 2005. Antiwar fervor on the left is picking up, and activist Cindy Sheehan compares her to Rush Limbaugh after Mrs. Clinton tells the Village Voice: “My bottom line is that I don’t want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”

November 2005. Mrs. Clinton posts a letter to constituents that marks her first dovish turn. “If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed,” she writes. But invoking retired General Eric Shinseki’s estimate of more American troops necessary to pacify Iraq, she demands not withdrawal but a new plan: “It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor–not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war.”

August 3, 2006. Mrs. Clinton calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as Defense Secretary, asking for “new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it’s too late.”

December 18, 2006. Her march left gains speed. On NBC’s “Today” show, Mrs. Clinton renounces her war vote unequivocally for the first time: “I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

January 13, 2007. From Baghdad, Mrs. Clinton responds to Mr. Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad: “I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work. And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?”

January 17, 2007. Mrs. Clinton calls for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying she will introduce legislation to do so. And while she says she won’t block money for the troops, she suggests withholding funds for the Iraqi government. It is precisely such a funds cut-off to the South Vietnamese government in 1975 that led to the final U.S. flight from Saigon.

January 27, 2007. On the campaign trail in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton demands that President Bush “extricate our country from this before he leaves office.” And she promises that, if elected, she will end the war quickl