Hitlery Campaigns to Violate Constitution and Make Law Herself if Elected As People Applaud

 

freedomoutpost

 

hillary-clinton-400x301

It’s up to the americans to decide if they want a true leader in the White House or this clown that will make the United States of America a joke to laugh about among the world leaders.

By Freedom Outpost
Trend setters. You know who they are. These are the individuals who parade out in thrown together garb; then, next thing you know, everyone is wearing it. It happens with hairstyles too — men and women. Anything that someone who is highly visible in the media, such as Holly Weird dimwits, begin to parade around in, with or on becomes a trend for emulation. Unfortunately, it works that way in politics as well.
Unfortunately, it works that way in politics as well.
With Obama’s ever increasing use of executive orders and fiats to change law or enact law to get what he wants, many called at each violation for the impeachment of Obama or else a precedent, read trend, would be established for future occupiers of the office to act like a dictator. The calls to impeach were ignored by Congress due to Boehner disagreeing with impeachment and Gowdy wondering if anyone had met Joe Biden. A complicit Congress has made it so that 2016 Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, stated she would use executive orders to do a work around Congress to force Republicans to respond to her agenda.
Obama has had such success with his “lawmaking” abilities through executive orders that Hillary Clinton is campaigning, promising and declaring to use the same to “execute her domestic policy agenda on issues such as gun control, ending corporate ‘inversion’ deals and immigration, where she promises to shield more people from deportation.” She has repeated this intention on three different occasions. Appearing on the NBC Today Show, Hitlery stated in regards to gun control, “I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints. I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president,” to impose her agenda.
On corporate inversion deals, where US companies buy foreign companies then moves it headquarters abroad to avoid US taxes, Hitlery called for the need to use executive action, decree, to “get the job done” if Republicans on Capitol Hill would not. Granted, the issue of corporate inversion is a problem and it might appeal to many citizens to support Hitlery in her idea. However, it is a usurpation for her to do so.
Speaking at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, she stated, “This is not only about fairness, this is about patriotism. If Congress won’t act, then I will ask the Treasury Department when I’m there to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.”
Regarding immigration, Clinton declared her intent to go further than Obama to protect illegal alien invaders’ rights through executive action.
Speaking at a Democratic Fundraiser in Iowa, Hitlery said, “I am going to back and support what President Obama has done to protect [young immigrants] and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation. And I have said that if we cannot get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy — then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families.”
Republicans have huffed and puffed at Obama regarding his use of executive order to make law and end run around Congress. The presidential memorandum, a form of executive order, has been used by Obama more times than any other president in history. As Obama navigates around Congress using the memorandum and executive orders, Republicans cry “foul” yet refuse to follow the law and impeach the man. Instead, Republicans filed lawsuits challenging a few of Obama’s orders, such as the recess appointments and the unilateral delay of the employer mandate of Obamacare. The Supreme Court found Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. It didn’t matter. The House refuses to do their duty and file articles of impeachment.
Hitlery has taken notice. Now, she can campaign on a pledge to violate the Constitution, with impunity, as Republicans will not bring impeachment against Obama, and be the Democratic front-runner for the nomination. She has skirted any charges in the Benghazi attacks. Email-gate will go nowhere. Nothing will stop her; therefore, she proudly pledges to violate the Constitution, commit treason, and people applaud this woman.
It was predicted by many that Congress’s failure to hold Obama accountable by filing articles of impeachment would result in future presidents violating the Constitution in the same manner, which basically means a dictatorship. Just so happens, Hitlery is now campaigning on that platform — the use of executive “decree” to enact law without Congress — to act as a dictator. People are applauding in support of this intention. She is admitting she will violate the Constitution, break the law and the oath of office should she be elected.
Make no mistake; she’ll use dictatorial edict on more than the three issues she’s mentioned while campaigning.
In response, Congress will remain silent in complicity. They would not impeach Obama for whatever lame reason given to the public. More than likely, it was due to being blackmailed, coerced or threatened, while believing the media would slam-dunk them using the term “racist.” Should Hitlery win the presidency, Congress will follow the same pattern as with Obama. Only this time, the accusation would be “sexist.”
With what America has witnessed during the Hussein administration, it is obvious that Republicans have squarely placed themselves in bed with Democrats/Communists/Socialists. Nothing changed when Republicans were given a majority in the Senate to match the House. The same game was played with different players. Americans can expect the same thing in 2016 and forward from Congress as an emboldened Obama moves along with the agenda.
Unfortunately, many in America have become stupid, ignorant, lazy, and brainwashed due to indoctrination that they applaud someone declaring to violate the law. These people cannot be helped. And, voting Republican will change nothing. Again, the same game will be afoot with different players.
 
With Obama’s ever increasing use of executive orders and fiats to change law or enact law to get what he wants, many called at each violation for the impeachment of Obama or else a precedent, read trend, would be established for future occupiers of the office to act like a dictator. The calls to impeach were ignored by Congress due to Boehner disagreeing with impeachment and Gowdy wondering if anyone had met Joe Biden. A complicit Congress has made it so that 2016 Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, stated she would use executive orders to do a work around Congress to force Republicans to respond to her agenda.
 
Obama has had such success with his “lawmaking” abilities through executive orders that Hillary Clinton is campaigning, promising and declaring to use the same to “execute her domestic policy agenda on issues such as gun control, ending corporate ‘inversion’ deals and immigration, where she promises to shield more people from deportation.” She has repeated this intention on three different occasions. Appearing on the NBC Today Show, Hitlery stated in regards to gun control, “I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints. I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president,” to impose her agenda.
 
On corporate inversion deals, where US companies buy foreign companies then moves it headquarters abroad to avoid US taxes, Hitlery called for the need to use executive action, decree, to “get the job done” if Republicans on Capitol Hill would not. Granted, the issue of corporate inversion is a problem and it might appeal to many citizens to support Hitlery in her idea. However, it is a usurpation for her to do so.
 
Speaking at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, she stated, “This is not only about fairness, this is about patriotism. If Congress won’t act, then I will ask the Treasury Department when I’m there to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.”
 
Regarding immigration, Clinton declared her intent to go further than Obama to protect illegal alien invaders’ rights through executive action.
 
Speaking at a Democratic Fundraiser in Iowa, Hitlery said, “I am going to back and support what President Obama has done to protect [young immigrants] and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation. And I have said that if we cannot get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy — then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families.”
 
Republicans have huffed and puffed at Obama regarding his use of executive order to make law and end run around Congress. The presidential memorandum, a form of executive order, has been used by Obama more times than any other president in history. As Obama navigates around Congress using the memorandum and executive orders, Republicans cry “foul” yet refuse to follow the law and impeach the man. Instead, Republicans filed lawsuits challenging a few of Obama’s orders, such as the recess appointments and the unilateral delay of the employer mandate of Obamacare. The Supreme Court found Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. It didn’t matter. The House refuses to do their duty and file articles of impeachment.
 
Hitlery has taken notice. Now, she can campaign on a pledge to violate the Constitution, with impunity, as Republicans will not bring impeachment against Obama, and be the Democratic front-runner for the nomination. She has skirted any charges in the Benghazi attacks. Email-gate will go nowhere. Nothing will stop her; therefore, she proudly pledges to violate the Constitution, commit treason, and people applaud this woman.
 
It was predicted by many that Congress’s failure to hold Obama accountable by filing articles of impeachment would result in future presidents violating the Constitution in the same manner, which basically means a dictatorship. Just so happens, Hitlery is now campaigning on that platform — the use of executive “decree” to enact law without Congress — to act as a dictator. People are applauding in support of this intention. She is admitting she will violate the Constitution, break the law and the oath of office should she be elected.
Make no mistake; she’ll use dictatorial edict on more than the three issues she’s mentioned while campaigning.
 
In response, Congress will remain silent in complicity. They would not impeach Obama for whatever lame reason given to the public. More than likely, it was due to being blackmailed, coerced or threatened, while believing the media would slam-dunk them using the term “racist.” Should Hitlery win the presidency, Congress will follow the same pattern as with Obama. Only this time, the accusation would be “sexist.”
 
With what America has witnessed during the Hussein administration, it is obvious that Republicans have squarely placed themselves in bed with Democrats/Communists/Socialists. Nothing changed when Republicans were given a majority in the Senate to match the House. The same game was played with different players. Americans can expect the same thing in 2016 and forward from Congress as an emboldened Obama moves along with the agenda.
 
Unfortunately, many in America have become stupid, ignorant, lazy, and brainwashed due to indoctrination that they applaud someone declaring to violate the law. These people cannot be helped. And, voting Republican will change nothing. Again, the same game will be afoot with different players.
 
It’s time for Americans to begin to hate the game and the players. Politicians are playing a game that is about to finish the transformation of this nation from a constitutional republic to whatever they have decided. The players are set and the people being the pawns are moved about with little difficulty. Either American citizens support, uphold and defend the Constitution in its entirety, whether agreeing with all tenets or not, or be prepared to live under a government decreed to us. Remember, it is not the Constitution that is the problem. It is those in government, who are violating it, that are the problem.

The Clinton Chronicles

hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480

Madame Clinton winking…

Clinton’s presidential chances threatened by her own blundering

A popular theme on Planet Clinton is that poor Hillary is always in danger of being undone by her charming cad of a hubby. Michael Goodwin argues there might be more to the story.

On a long list of possibilities, that scenario must be included. But my reading of the Clinton Chronicles points to a much bigger threat to the restoration of the family monarchy.

That would be the stumbling performance of the lady herself.

Human Abedin, Clinton’s long time top aide, said her boss is “often confused” and needs plenty of guidance to understand her schedule according to fresh  e-mails revealed . Who would vote for a president that is “often confused” ? Most likely the terrorists would be willing to vote for her, even meeting with her at the White House.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, released new e-mails from Abedin that show concern among State Department staff that then-Secretary of State Clinton didn’t know who to call.  In one-email exchanged from June 26, 2013, Abedin asks fellow staffer Monica Hanley whether Clinton knows to call then-Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

On top of the tactical blunders, there was an overarching reason why sure victory eluded Hillary Clinton in 2008. She simply was not a very appealing candidate, offering neither charisma nor a compelling message. She ran with a sense of entitlement that the Oval Office was owed to her. Abedin stresses the importance of reviewing the schedule with Clinton: “Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.”

It’s not the first time the word “confused” has been used to describe the Democratic presidential front-runner. Clinton herself has admitted in e-mails that she gets “confused” and even apologized to her staff for mix-ups while she was secretary of state.

If anything has changed, it’s a well-kept secret. Already, her run this time is marked by mistakes, gaffes and reports of ethical corner-cutting, which adds up to watching the same bad movie twice.

It’s a strange way to make a fresh start given the dreary end of her time as secretary of state. To describe her four-year tenure as empty of accomplishment doesn’t do justice to the damage. She was complicit in the foreign-policy disasters now erupting around the world.

Remember her clever Russian reset? Benghazi, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel, China — the list of things that got worse on her watch is long, while it is a challenge to name one significant advance in America’s favor.

That record is who she is. Once viewed as a smart, passionate woman whose brilliance would shine when she was liberated, she is, at 67, getting long in the tooth to be talked of in terms of potential.

To justify faith in a big upside from here, there should be abundant evidence of recent “excellence”. But what has she accomplished other than winning two elections as senator and losing one for president?

There’s no breakthrough doctrine or novel idea or even a successful policy or law identified with her. After 25 years in the circus, she’s still a celebrity guest, not a star performer.

Her new campaign is more of the same. Instead of offering coherent principles and establishing a message, she’s running the Rose Garden strategy of a favored incumbent.

Let the other candidates scrape for attention by responding to the world’s woes. She’s still giving paid speeches, believing she can float above it all like a giant balloon in the Thanksgiving Day parade.

In another sign that she sees herself as president-in-waiting, she’s got a reported 200 advisers, suggesting she’s already staffing an administration.

I wouldn’t bet the house she’ll get the chance. Sure, she’s a lock for the nomination — unless another Barack Obama comes along. Far-lefty firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running, but any more head-shaking revelations about the Clinton Foundation’s sleazy fund-raising could change her mind.

The foundation accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments while Hillary was America’s top diplomat, The Washington Post found. It said that at least one gift, $500,000 from Algeria, violated loose ethics rules drawn up by the Obama administration to separate her duties from the foundation.

The Wall Street Journal also found a suspicious pattern of corporate giving. General Electric, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft and Boeing were among 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure and donated a combined $26 million to the family foundation, the paper reports.

It found several cases where her lobbying of foreign governments on behalf of specific American firms came just before or after those firms made hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation or another nonprofit she created, Vital Voices. Walmart gave to both groups, and to a separate fund Clinton established at the State Department.

Any claim that there was no quid pro quo should be made under oath. Most of the corporations have their own foundations, so why would they give their money to the Clintons to spend? Who suggested they do so?

Because a black hole doesn’t yield much information, Clinton beat reporters often turn spin into news. A New York Times story went big with the “news” that Clinton would “spotlight gender” this time.

Wow, stop the presses. The Times must have missed that 2008 movement to “shatter the glass ceiling” and the talk of the “pantsuit posse.”

In fact, gender pitch redux shows Clinton once again waving group identity as her chief qualification. In that case, she should go all the way and just say this: I want to be president because I deserve it.

That at least has the virtue of honesty.

451287667

Madame Clinton

 

 

Hillary Clinton’s Stonewalling of Peace Agreement with Libya: Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings on Benghazi

 

hillary-clinton-old-hag-5

Hillary Clinton, 68 yrs old

 

As Hillary Clinton further delays the announcement of her 2016 run for the White House, more news has broken regarding her role in the 2011 disastrous intervention in Libya, which set the stage for the 2012 Benghazi attacks where we lost four brave American lives.

Two new stories from The Washington Times expose some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlight the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war. You can listen to tapes of discussions between Pentagon staffers, former Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and the Qaddafi regime for yourself.

This news also validates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) 2014 interim report, which exposed that Muammar Qaddafi had offered truce talks and a possible peaceful abdication to the United States, which Washington turned down.

“[The article] also makes it clear that the Benghazi investigation needs to be broadened to answer the question: ‘Why did America bomb Libya in the first place?’” commented Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.), a key source for the CCB’s interim report who was also quoted by the Times.

“Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed,” reads Kubic’s statement for our report from last year. You can watch here, from a CCB press conference last April, as Admiral Kubic described his personal involvement in the effort to open negotiations between Qaddafi and the U.S. government.

Now we learn that the likely source of the stonewalling came from the State Department—and Secretary Clinton—herself. “On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal,” reported the Times on January 29.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates indicated in his book, Duty, that he was opposed to the war for national security reasons. He highlighted a division among White House advisors—with Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power “urging aggressive U.S. action to prevent an anticipated massacre of the rebels as Qaddafi fought to remain in power.” Add to that list the former Secretary of State.

“But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention,” reported The New York Times on March 18, 2011, the day after UN Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no fly” zone in Libya was voted on and passed.

“Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day.”

The Washington Times now reports that “In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya ‘is all Secretary Clinton’s matter’ and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed” about a humanitarian crisis that didn’t exist. However, one must wonder just how much President Obama implicitly supported Clinton in her blind push to intervene in what was once a comparatively stable country, and an ally in the war against al Qaeda. While this new report is certainly damning of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, and appears to place the blame for the unnecessary chaos in Libya—which ultimately led to Benghazi—on her shoulders, President Obama shares the blame as the ultimate Decider-in-Chief.

“Furthermore, defense officials had direct information from their intelligence asset in contact with the regime that Gadhafi gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels, according to the asset, who survived the war,” reports The Washington Times in its second of three articles. Saving those in Benghazi from a looming massacre by Qaddafi seems to have been a convenient excuse made by the administration for political expediency. Could it be, instead, that President Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton, put greater value on the rise to power of an “Arab Spring” government with Muslim Brotherhood connections? And, as the CCB interim report shows, the U.S. government was willing to go so far as to facilitate the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in order to ensure that Qaddafi fell.

Will the mainstream media pick up on these new revelations, or will they cast them aside as another “phony scandal” to throw into their dustbins filled with other stories that might possibly embarrass the Obama administration, or prove to be an impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s path to the White House?

“It’s critical to note that Qaddafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House,” noted CCB Member Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, regarding the failed truce talks. “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking, ‘Why?’ for well over a year now.”

“It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them,” she said.

Clinton, through House Democrats, has indicated that she is willing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) recently indicated that the Committee must first examine her emails from the State Department before questioning his witness. This complicates the issue of her testifying, since Mrs. Clinton is in the process of calculating when she will announce her presidential run.

Do the emails that Gowdy has requested from the State Department even extend back to 2011?

Chairman Gowdy identified three “tranches” that his potential questioning would fall under in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren:

  • Why was the U.S. Special Mission Compound open in the first place?
  • What actions did Clinton take during the attacks?
  • What was Clinton’s role during the talking points and Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show visits?

A fourth tranche should be: Clinton’s push to intervene in Libya and how it set the stage for an insecure country and strong jihadist movement willing—and able—to attack the Americans posted there. And while he’s at it, Rep. Gowdy should ask Mrs. Clinton to explain why all of the very legitimate requests for increased security in Benghazi were turned down, and why were Ambassador Chris Stevens’ personal security staff, from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) directed to store their weapons in a separate location—not on them—on the night of September 11, 2012?

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.