Ready For Hillary!

Hillary has demonstrated great investment savvy. She could erase the national debt overnight.

ScreenHunter_8553 Apr. 12 09.42

Business | Hillary Clinton Invested $1,000, Netted $100,000 Through Trading | Seattle Times Newspaper


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Ready For Hillary!

  1. ozspeaksup says:

    saw this at Rense, seems fitting
    (damn it wont paste the pic)
    the header pic at Rense today folks 🙂 enjoy!

    • omanuel says:

      Hillary and Bill Clinton rank close to Obama in effectiveness at dismantling the United States Constitution with “politically correct propaganda”.

      I was and remain a liberal environmentalist that once voted for both HC and BO. But the main issue facing humanity today – respect for the basic rights of humans to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – cannot be resolved by voting Liberal vs Consertative, Republican vs Democrat, Communism vs Capitalism. Since the end of WWII, both political parties have given us a steady diet of LIES, LIES and more LIES !

      That said, HC, BC & BO are probably no more evil and selfish than the rest of us. They just happen to have the political power to inflict more damage than most of us.

      • Neal S says:

        Oliver claims “HC, BC & BO are probably no more evil and selfish than the rest of us. ”

        I take offense at such a kind characterization of those actors. There are huge differences both in degree and kind between them and most of us.

        • omanuel says:

          I speak only for myself, but I am absolutely convinced it would be a GREAT disservice to society to invest time and effort trying to punish all those forced to serve totalitarian world leaders after WWII.

          No matter where we worked, we were probably all helping to advance Big Brother’s agenda.

          We need to focus our efforts instead on restoring the ability of our government to assure the rights of every citizen to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  2. gator69 says:

    Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.


    Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

    How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

    Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

    The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

  3. omanuel says:

    Hillary and Bill were two of the most useful puppets in dismantling the US Bill of Rights.

  4. Steve Case says:

    I have nothing nice to say about Mrs. Clinton. “Travelgate” said a lot about what she is all about.

  5. SMS says:

    The fact that Bill had to go outside his marriage to find satisfaction with so many other women says a lot about Hillary. Politics is the only thing that olds the Clinton marriage together. If not for politics they would have been divorced a long time ago. Which is a form of payback. They’ve been making each other miserable for decades to advance each others political careers.

    • Most men desire lots of women outside of marriage…. women have these desires as well… but more in terms of romance…

      Most erectile dysfunction is caused by the wife… having the same woman, the same body over and over… put a hot, horny, willing and sexy 25yr old in front of all these guys with ED… and miraculously…. the ED goes away with this new ‘treatment’… LOL!!

  6. mikegeo says:

    Personally I think both the Clintons are very highly functioning sociopaths. Neither has a moral compass but rather decide whatever is good for them personally is to be pursued regardless of who gets used or discarded.

  7. Hugh K says:

    How to stop Hillary? Put a ban on pantsuits.

    • gator69 says:

      Thanks alot Hugh! I was minding my own business, enjoying my Sunday, grass cut, taxes done, and then THIS!

      The only way to fix the rest of the weekend for myself, and my other nauseated and offended brothers, is with a little palate cleanser…

      Mmmmm…. legs…..

  8. Vote for Hillary….

    She can DELETE the National Debt just like she wiped all her emails from the server…

    Vote for Hillary..

  9. Andy DC says:

    I think we all need to re-read “The Clinton Chronicles” at this point to remind ourselves what the Clintons are really like. Why would anyone in their right mind want to put them back in power?

    • Disillusioned says:

      Progressives – a non sequitur, antithetical term that liberal fascists chose to begin describing themselves in the 19th century (before they hijacked the term “liberal” for themselves) – are not in a right frame of mind. They cannot be bothered with empirical facts about their leaders; only their political enemies.

      It’s not much different than their arrogant, and yet stupid, misunderstanding of climate science. Empirical facts be damned. If it helps to centralize power, that’s all that really needs to be known. They’re addicted to the notion that centralized planning is a good thing.

  10. Regrettably, this post and the comments support what acidistasz claimed here:

    My observations about the pervasive red baiting, not-so-subtle racism and pathetic Tea Party mentality …

    Are you attacking a white woman just because she’s the wife of the first black President? This is not subtle at all. And if you can’t overcome your Tea Party mentality, can’t you at least disguise it by showing racial solidarity with a white female Presidential candidate?

  11. gator69 says:

    Video: Rand Paul Storms from Interview; Shuts Off Lights on Reporter

    It’s been amusing watching the media concoct their narrative about Rand Paul being this misogynistic and ill-tempered person. When the media make silly attacks like this, you know they’re afraid of something and view Rand as a threat.

    Recently, The Guardian was able to get in a little interview with the Senator. Paul told the interviewer that he only had time for one more question. The reporter asked his question, Rand answered it, and then he had to leave for another interview, one with Dana Bash.

    Somehow this got interpreted as “Rand Paul Walks Off Interview With The Guardian .” And then they even blamed Paul for turning out the lights. As if Paul wanted to leave so badly, because he was just too afraid of the interviewer’s next question. These media people give themselves way too much credit.

    Paul had to leave to get ready for the next interview. And he wasn’t even the one who turned out the lights. That was the CNN crew, who wanted a different lighting setting for their interview with Paul. But when you’re dealing with the media, facts don’t matter.

    The Guardian wasn’t the only one pushing this story. Here’s Politico:

    “Sen. Rand Paul walked out of a Guardian U.S. interview being conducted via the live streaming app Periscope on Friday.
    Guardian reporter Paul Lewis was asking the Kentucky Republican and 2016 Republican presidential candidate about criminal justice reform.
    “One more question for you, sorry we have to sometimes be a bit forceful, when you stand for president you get pressed and questioned and you understand that,” Lewis said, before mentioning that at Paul’s campaign launch on Tuesday he got an enthusiastic response to his calls for criminal justice reform.
    “You’re standing for the Republican nomination, all the research shows that Republicans, white Republicans who will determine the outcome of this race, don’t think criminal law is applied in an unfair way, so how are you going to win the nomination with this…” Lewis asked before being cut off by Paul.
    “I think your premise is incorrect,” Paul said. “I think I can take that message into a white Evangelical church anywhere in Iowa and give the exact same speech and be received well.”
    Lewis then tried to quote a recent Washington Post and ABC poll, before Paul pointed at him, looked at his staff, said something unintelligible and walked out.
    Lewis got back in front of the camera to explain what happened when the lights in the room were turned off.”

    Later in the Politico article, the author tried to connect this “incident” with Paul’s recent interviews, which have, according to media personalities, shown him to be a woman-hater with a bad attitude. I think it’s refreshing having a candidate like Rand who isn’t afraid to put the media in their place. If the reporters are too cowardly to deal with someone like Rand, then they should either start asking real questions, or leave the interviewing to others who are more qualified.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s