Hillary Clinton has once again made a fool out of herself. I’m sure by now that last sentence has been used in enough news stories from journalists on both sides of the aisle to no longer hold any shock or surprise. The question now is how did she do it this time?
During a speech at a town hall meeting in Iowa on Wednesday, she claimed to be unaware of ever having received money from the fossil fuels industry. Okay, let’s think about that for a second. Don’t most of the lobbyists who work for her have current or past ties to oil and/or gas companies? The answer to that question would be, yes. So she’s either lying or she’s completely oblivious to the fact that her Foundation has received millions of dollars from the oil industry.
The question came from a man in the audience who was clearly more against her than he was for her. Even if he leans left, the man deserves a high five for making Hillary look stupid . . . even though that’s becoming increasingly easy to do. The question had to do with whether or not she would be joining Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley in signing a pledge to not accept money from the fossil fuel industry.
Read what happened next on the next page.
Either it skipped her mind or she is getting senile. Either way I don’t want her in our Oval Office. How does one ‘not know’ whether money was ever taken from Big Oil companies??? This woman must have a very low opinion of American citizens if she thinks her lying is going to be accepted any further.
Benghazi Buzzard
You didn’t know or care they needed help in Bengazi either! You should not be president
The lies never and.
The Clintons’ foundation received money from foreign governments while Hillary was secretary of state. Hillary used her own private e-mail system, and not the official and secure government e-mail system, to conduct government business as secretary of state. She whines about the problems of paying the mortgage(s) on her house(s) as a way to draw sympathy from the middle class.
The stupidity and arrogance of Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton must appall Democrats, who find themselves manacled to her. They have to wonder what else will come out before November 2016. The simmering scandals are bad enough, but what else may emerge? Almost everything we eventually learn about the Clintons is smug and ugly.
The defense of the Clinton scandals follows a predictable path: cheerleaders angrily blame some “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” or they pretend to respond but really ignore the question, or they lie. (Recall Bill’s angry red face as he tells America that “I did not have sex with that woman” – a blatant, utter deception proven by forensic evidence of the most repulsive nature.)
Bill Clinton has been grandly portrayed by the leftist establishment media as a clever politician, but Democrats must see things differently. Bill Clinton cost Democrats control of both houses of Congress and of most state governments; he won two presidential elections with less than half of the popular vote; he was impeached; he was disbarred; he was found in contempt of court.
His imagined legacy of “successes” is based upon (1) adopting Republican congressional plans for welfare reform, (2) exploiting the national horror of the Murrah Bombing for crass political ends to divert attention from the 1994 midterm disaster; (3) defeating a really lame Republican presidential challenger, Bob Dole; and (4) surviving his impeachment trial. Wow! What brilliance! What skill!
Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, has been nothing more than a sock puppet for the leftist establishment media, the real source of leftist power in America. When the sock puppet anointed by the left tries to be more than that, when it assumes self-importance, like Al Gore or John Kerry, leftists lose elections. When the sock puppet plays along, hides ignorance and incompetence, and acts “cool,” then the leftist establishment can laugh over ethical lapses, kid about sex with young interns, and generally ignore everything that shows the sock puppet as he really is.
Is Hillary more like Presidents Clinton and Obama, or is she more like failed candidates Al Gore and John Kerry? Is there any honest doubt that Hillary is even duller than Gore and even more puffed up than Kerry? Is there any question in anyone’s mind that if she were not Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, this boorish old woman would not seriously be considered as a candidate for president at all?
There remains only her gender to recommend her to voters. Is that a winning strategy? No. Just consider the 2014 midterm races. Democrats nominated five women as gubernatorial candidates to run against Republican men – in Texas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Rhode Island. The Democrat women beat Republican men in only two of the five races (and, indeed, almost lost all five). Republican women beat Democrat men in three states – New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. In each of those three races, the Republican woman was pro-life and conservative.
The same pattern emerged in Senate races in 2014. Democrats ran women against Republican men in Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and New Hampshire. They won, in a close race, only in New Hampshire. Republicans ran women against men in Michigan, Oregon, and Iowa, and Republicans lost each race, save Joni Ernst in Iowa. There were twelve 2014 senate races in which a man faced a woman; the men won ten of those
She’s so full of$#%&!@* she can’t remember if she lied about it or not
LYING
You have as well as foreign governments you lie yet again
She didn’t lose anyone in Libya either
Just keep lying you POS !