Three days before the convention started the documentary movie 'Clinton Cash' was released for free viewing by everyone. This film purports to show astronomic levels of corruption by Bill & Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. You can watch the film Here (It may take a few seconds to load).
Then it became news that the Democratic National Committee (DNC), for their convention, had erected an 8 foot, 4 mile fence around their convention location. Many, including me, felt this to be somewhat hypocritical.
Now, back in March 2016 the FBI warned the DNC of the potential for a 'hack' on their email system. The FBI asked that the DNC make available data so the FBI could check things out. The DNC refused and, thus, they were hacked.
Refusing the let the FBI help protect your system? Sounds like something really phishy going on here. (And a slight aside, if you understood the last sentence to be both a joke and having factual implications, you are going to have to face some facts about yourself. You are - at least - a little bit "geeky", no matter what you may think!)
The fans of ole Bernie, upon learning of these emails, became irate. It got so bad that when Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, tried to give a breakfast meeting speech to the Florida delegation she was booed off the stage, as it were. Click Here for that little episode. Eventually, she had to be escorted from the event by security.
To give an indication of the feelings of the Bernie crowd, take a look at just some of the posters seen at the DNC convention:
The chants of "Bernie was cheated" and the like had fuel poured on the fire when it was uncovered that the DNC had stonewalled the paperwork necessary to nominate an alternate to H. Clinton's pick for VP.
Due to this latest unveiling of damaging insights into the workings of the DNC, Ms. Schultz has submitted her resignation as head of the DNC effective upon the conclusion of the convention.
I don't wish to bring up the subject of "hypocrisy" too often, but...
The NDC has accused and denounced Russia for responsibility for the email hack, citing outrage that trying to influence an election is not to be tolerated.
I think this political cartoon, as to the DNC's accusations, pretty much says it all:
Now, of course, I don't wish to infer any corruption here, but, . . .
When questioned about the DNC emails indicating favoritism toward Clinton, she replied like THIS.
But, Clinton hired Wasserman Shultz almost immediately to work on the Clinton campaign. Or, "Pay no attention to the Clinton behind the curtain; there's no payola here!"
For some reason this next issue bothered me the most.
During the invocation - THE INVOCATION! - once Hillary Clinton's name was mentioned people were booing and cheering trying to drown each other out.
In the old South there was a saying: "That's Simply Not Done!"
As a consideration, whether one is a Liberal/Progressive or a Conservative, it may be wise to consider the group with whom you wish to be aligned.
A portion of the internet has been abuzz about there being no apparent American Flags on display at the convention. There actually were such displays. However, when looking at a wide-angle view of the crowd, none can be seen. Here's a pic of a wide-angle view PLUS some small American Flags found by the cleanup crew - IN THE TRASH !!!.
During day 1 of the Democrats' convention there were, of course, many speakers. There were 3 main speeches given by Elizabeth Warren, Michelle Obama, and Bernie Sanders.
But, before offering these speeches it may be worth noting that the DNC actually broke federal law during the first night of their convention. The DNC invited two persons here in this country illegally. I believe this is called "aiding and abetting".
Further, there were some 61 speeches given on day 1. How many times was "ISIS" mentioned? ZERO! So, what do the Democrats think is a serious threat to humanity and civilization? No clue, have I.
Perhaps the greatest example of 'Never Let the Truth Stand In The Way Of A Good Story" came from Elijah Cummings. Among MANY non-factual offerings by him, my two favorites were, number 1, his attribution of voting rights for BLACKS to the Democrat party (his statement is found at 3 minutes 2 seconds into this linked video).
Voting rights for ALL were provided by the 15th Amendment to our Constitution. Not a single democrat voted for this; the ONLY votes for this amendment were by Republicans.
And, coming in at number 2 was his citing Obama as being responsible for making health care a "right" of the American people. (see the portion starting at 7 minutes, 9 seconds in the above-linked Cummings video.) Obama did NOT do that. What Obama "gave" us was a mandated, forced health care system - NOT a right.
Later, during Obama's speech (see below) he reiterated the same thing: “After a century of trying, we declared that health care in America is not a privilege for a few, but a right for everybody.” He was wrong also, the health care act is a forced LAW - it is not a "right".
Now, for the main speeches:
"..for people who play by the rules."? She's kidding, right? Hillary Clinton by no means plays - or has ever played - by the rules and, yet, she is the Democrat's nominee for president. I'd call that opportunity on steroids. OH! Sorry, I wasn't clear on my opinion. What I meant was H. Clinton has never 'played by legal and non-corrupt rules'.
The rest of her speech was punctuated by heckling and statements so far from the truth as to render the whole thing BS. Want some proof?
Here is a quote from Ms. Warren speaking of Donald Trump: “What kind of a man roots for an economic crash that cost millions of people their jobs, their homes?” Being a seasoned businessman, Trump would NEVER be for an "economic crash"; common sense tells us that.
But, Ms. Warren, you know who does thrive on "economic crashes"? George Soros, that's who. He's a major backer of all things Democrat Party, including you, Ms. Warren.
In fact, Soros is most ruthless. He seeks "A New World Order" controlled by the very wealthy, a world without borders of any kind, and where only the "elites" rule. And, these elites "ain't" you or I.
Back to Elizabeth Warren's speech, I don't wish to appear rude; so, I won't mention that during the early portion of her speech she looked like a "bobble-head" one often sees through the back windows of some cars.
Upon hearing that immediately brought to mind this.
The most hypocritical aspects of her speech were her accolades for Hillary Clinton.
On Bernie's speech, well, Bernie was classic Bernie. His supporters seemed the most animated and engaged of all the people there - BY FAR. Signs supporting him were everywhere. Hillary signs? Almost nowhere to be seen.
A portion of his speech could have been given by Trump. Especially, when he spoke of what this election is truly about.
Like Bernie's political positions or not, he gave a solid, decent speech.
Day 2 of the convention was far less chaotic. The fans of Bernie still were very disgruntled. The results of the delegates was: Clinton - 2,838, Sanders - 1,843. What with the full, inappropriate support of the DNC against Bernie from the start, the Sanders supporters felt/feel cheated - and, echoed what many are saying: "Rigged Election". And so, they, en masse, walked out of the convention in protest after the delegate tally.
The only speech of day 2 of any note was that of Bill Clinton. I found it tedious, at best. He tells a good story, for sure. But, in my opinion, much of it was just that, a story.
In Bill Clinton's speech he offered glowing accounts of his wife's accomplishments and experiences. As I said earlier, he tells a great "story". The actual facts do not support his opinions.
Next, one of the speakers, Lena Dunham, spoke to "fellow sexual assault survivors". She, of course, had claimed she was raped. The facts are that she faked the rape and her accusations were found to be a hoax.
On the subject of "fellow sexual assault survivors", they should have had a few of Bill Clinton's alleged "conquests" as speakers.
The last example I'll give, and there were others, is that the DNC brought to the stage mother's of black men shot by police. The facts, of course, are that these men were criminals, the police found innocent of all charges.
Now, to be fair we have to ask if the DNC brought forth mothers of family members killed by illegal aliens. Well, did they? OF COURSE NOT! Doing so would not fit the Democrat's narrative that the illegals are just hard working people looking to better their lives. Or, is it that illegal aliens help bolster the Democrats' voting numbers? Not that any person in this country would actually try and vote if they were not entitled to do so! Nor would the Democrats use illegal aliens to help alter the results of the Electorial College!
At the end of day 2 Bernie Sanders announced that he was leaving the Democrat party. He's to revert back to his roots as an Independent. Many in the DNC have claimed that ole Bern never really was a Democrat. And, they do have some legitimacy on their side for saying such. However, if the DNC truly believed this, they should NOT have allowed him to run as a Democrat.
As one might expect day 3 featured many speakers. I felt only two were worthy of mention. The first, of course, was that given by Barack Obama; the second was from Tim Kaine.
If you desire, you can watch both by clicking on the below links (Note: both videos may take a few seconds to load).
He must have really poor people judgement skills saying that. He is a most audacious progressive. For an example, he believes that gun store owners/dealers should be held responsible for crimes committed with guns they sell. Well, Timmy, how about this?
Some have argued that Kaine is guilty of corruption because he accepted approximately $160,000 in gifts. Personally, I feel such assertions are bogus - and, here's why.
Day 4, of course, had as its feature speaker was Hillary Clinton.
As you might guess I have a few comments on her speech. But, first, . . .
Apparently not all were pleased with her speech. A very vocal group of Haitians seemed to be somwhat upset with the results of Bill Clinton's, Hillary Clinton's, and the Clinton Foundation's experiences in Haiti. Their results in Haiti are mentioned at length in the 'Clinton Cash' documentary linked at the top of this article. For a picture of the Haitians' protest:
In one of the speeches a gentleman, a Muslim, spoke about losing his son while fighting ISIS. He talked about sacrifice. He asked 'what has Donald Trump ever sacrificed for America?' We might well ask 'what has Hillary Clinton ever sacrificed for our country?'
This same gentleman asked if Donald Trump has ever read the US Constitution - especially the part about equal treatment for all under the law. While I am truly saddened for him on the loss of his son, or for anyone who looses a child for that matter, he has got to be kidding with that one! The FBI's handling of the Hillary Email Scandal should be proof that it's not Trump who should be "schooled" on the Constitution and equality under the law.
But, who exactly is this Muslim gentleman? Maybe more than we were led to believe. Click Here to find out. The linked article may offer a clearer understanding of just why this guy and his wife were chosen to speak.
Bill Clinton seemed to be enjoying his wife's speech so much that he fell asleep. Click Here To See Him Dozing.
OK! To be fair on this one, Hillary's speech was almost an hour long, he had probably heard it 100 times while she rehearsed it, and Bill was probably legitimately tired - a campaign such as this can wear one out. BUT, the optics were pretty funny.
Hillary, currently, has the highest untrustworthy perception in the history of a presidential candidate in recent memory - 68%. H. Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, offered, “...the American people will have to observe Hillary as president before fully trusting her”. Isn't that like Nancy Pelosi's remark on the health care bill: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it..."?
Well, it was passed. What followed? 20,000 pages of rules & regulations for which no one voted and for which no test of Constitutionality was effected. And, I won't even bring up massive health care cost increases, loss of desired coverage for many, and penalties for those who don't properly sign up for "sufficient" health care coverage.
I truly can't wait to find out the trustworthiness of H. Clinton! Sarcasm intended!
Now, on to my comments about Hillary and her speech.
She spent the entire 57 minutes, in my opinion, pandering to her base. Nothing necessarily wrong with that as long as one is offering facts and the truth. But, we're talking about Hillary Clinton; so, don't hold your breath.
For example, she offered: "Bernie Sanders and I will work together to make college tuition-free for the middle class and debt-free for all."
Let's assume that she truly meant what she said. Nowhere in her speech, or anywhere else, did she or does she explain how such will be paid for. In fact, even her statement is misleading. She indicated "tuition" but failed to mention the costs of books, other fees, room & board, and a host of other things that cost money to attend college. Exactly how she intends "debt-free for all" to happen is only mystical at this point.
OH WAIT! I have the answer. She'll institute new and higher taxes. Of course! Why didn't I see that one coming?! Increasing all our taxes will certainly help the middle class and the less affluent among us - NOT!
On the ISIS situation she offered: "I've laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS. We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country. It won't be easy or quick, but make no mistake - we will prevail."
This, essentially, is the exact strategy used currently by Obama. It is totally ineffective and a waste of money. ISIS grows stronger every day. Next, we're likely to see Muslim Brotherhood members in her cabinet - as have we seen surrounding Obama. Remember, the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.
On the economy she told us this: "In my first 100 days, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good paying jobs since World War II."
What exactly does that mean, for goodness sake? Is this another "stimulus bill" such as was done by Obama? We all know how that roughly $900 billion worked out. Obama promised "shovel-ready jobs" with his stimulus. How many were there and what did we, the taxpayers get for our $900 Billion? ZERO. The $900 billion was spent, however, with no jobs to show for it. Oh, some of the money went to "green jobs" like the Solyndra Company that went bankrupt. Otherwise, NADA!
Most of her speech was railing against Donald Trump. My personal favorite of these railings was when she said:
"Ask yourself: Does Donald Trump have the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief? Donald Trump can't even handle the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign. He loses his cool at the slightest provocation. When he's gotten a tough question from a reporter. When he's challenged in a debate. When he sees a protestor at a rally. Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."
How superSilious can one person be?! (NOTE: I purposely misspelled the word as a play on words.)
History has shown that when Trump reacts to a statement he feels is unfair or wrong or insulting, he responds in kind. That doesn't imply that he would use nukes because of some perceived insult.
Let's take me for example. If you insult me or someone for whom I care, I, more likely than not, am going to reply with something even more insulting. I might even question the genetic heritage of your Mother. BUT, I am NOT going to shoot you. And, we are supposed to take her comment seriously? I hope the American people, as a whole, are way smarter than that and not nearly as silly.
Oh, by the way. Hey, Hillary and the DNC. How is it that no one brought up what a wonderful job the Clinton Foundation is doing for people in need across the globe? Could it be that the documentary 'Clinton Cash' has pointed out that your foundation is nothing more than a slush fund for you? And, is it because that records show that only 15% of foundation-collected monies go to charitable causes?
And, another 'by the way'. Hillary Clinton is self-promoting that she is the first woman to be a party-sponsored nominee for the office of President of the United States. And, all the media outlets are going along with her. However, she is not the first. ,P> That honor belongs to Victoria Woodhull, a candidate from the Equal Rights Party. It seems Hillary can't even keep from lying about that! Or, it could be that Hillary is ignorant of women in American History - among many other things.
She, of course, spoke on immigration. Her pronouncement went like this: "And we'll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are already contributing to our economy! "
What she meant, of course, is creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants - those who broke our laws entering our country. This is exactly what Obama has done and tried to do for years. Many of these contributors to our economy are guilty of crimes, sometimes repeatedly, some violent, with no - or little - justice being brought to bear.
These illegals are, for the most part, lower skilled people who are in no way affluent. The majority is or will wind up on government assistance. This, of course, means you and I will pay for these uninvited "guests" via taxpayer dollars. I don't know of anyone who voted for this - do you?
It is a well-known fact that the majority of Democrats are the less affluent among us. Increasing citizenship for illegal immigrants is not done for altruist reasons. It is done to swell the ranks of the Democratic party.
Why would this be so? Actually, it's fairly simple to understand. And, it can be understood by this article combined with the below picture/graphic.
By combining the statistical information from the graphic and the article we can see that as wealth increases people tend to vote more often than their less affluent friends. And, the wealthier one is the more likely one is to vote Republican/Conservative.
Therefore, in order to have a maximum of actual votes cast for Democratic candidates, the greater number of less affluent persons there must be. It really is that simple.
Further, this also may be the answer to why Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrats are so opposed to voter ID laws. THEY NEED THEIR KIND OF VOTERS - independent as to whether such voters are here legally or not.
Now, with that simple logic one might ask do the Democrats truly offer the less affluent a betterment in their lifestyles. The answer may be seen by some data from the Obama administration - see the below graphic.
As one can see, things under Democrat leadership isn't that great. For Blacks, some of our less affluent population, things actually are pretty bad. Now, just consider this. Of the nearly 14,000,000 no longer in the workforce, are these people the rich or the economically less fortunate of us? Are the Democrat elites really for the less fortunate?
BUT!!! There can be a problem if the less affluent (i.e., specifically those dependent on government assistance) become too numerous. What problem? We might get a clue by interviewing, if we could, the French monarchy or the Tzars of Russia.
So, how do the Democrats, Hillary included, strategize keeping the correct balance? They work at having and supporting programs, government-funded if possible, that will facilitate the "balance". This article may offer some insight. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.
Yet Hillary and the rest of the Democrats rail against the big banks, Wall Street, and the like asserting that the rich are taking advantage of the poor. A question should be answered by the Democrats.
Why would Wall Street, a supposed foe of the Democrats, plow money in truckloads to the Democrats? And example of this is a survey of hedge fund companies found that they provided donations in the amount of $123 million to Hillary Clinton and only $19 thousand to Donald Trump. And, as with most things, to find the truth one only need to "follow the money". If Hillary and the Democrats were truly against "big money", why would they get the biggest donations from the "big money" people/organizations? The answer to that one should be fairly obvious!
People, including Hillary Clinton, herself, and her husband, like to tout her foreign relations experience. Well, she does have that - all of it bad; which anyone who tries can look up.
Let's take an overview look, just with a few examples, at exactly what her foreign relations experience have engendered.
Her "leadership" brought about the rise of ISIS due to our early withdrawal from IRAQ, she engineered the infamous "Iran Deal", she authorized Russia (i.e., Putin) to now own 20% of our uranium resources, and let's not forget "Benghazi".
On the "Iran Deal", why would a sitting Secretary of State (i.e., Hillary Clinton) negotiate for a deal with what even her own-led State Department identifies as the prime state funder of terrorism? Plus, the "Deal" gives Iran access to some $150 billion in funds to continue their terrorism pursuits. On whose side is this administration?
Yeah, please give me some more of that! Again, sarcasm intended!
And, let's not leave out the recent divorce from the civilized world by Turkey. The Obama administration, which included Hillary Clinton, and its reluctance to adequately confront radical Islamic terrorism gave sufficient room for Turkey's leadership to move backwards toward being an Islamic State. That we can all lay at the doorstep of the current administration. For a more detailed look at the situation in Turkey, what with the recent coup attempt, Click Here.
OK! Enough of things about yet another liberal/progressive trying to destroy our nation.