I have called Hillary Clinton an unrepentant criminal before, but murder? Apparently that isn't beneath her:
True Pundit:
Deemed “CableGate,” [Wikileaks founder Julian] Assange planned to release confidential cables, or communications, unveiling damaging internal conversations between State Department personnel and its foreign assets and allies.What a lovely woman she is! “Can’t we just drone this guy?”
Prodded by the looming CableGate, [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton met with staff on Tuesday November 23, 2010 shortly after 8 a.m. on Mahogany Row at the State Department to attempt to formulate a strategy to avert Assange’s plans to release an enormous batch of 250,000 secret cables, dating from 1966 to 2010. Assange had professed for months to rain the internal cables down on Clinton and President Obama. The collective fear was the context of the secret cables would hamper U.S. intelligence gathering and compromise private correspondences and intelligence shared with foreign governments and opposition leaders. Splashing such juicy details on television news shows and the front pages of major newspapers in the country was great for the media but lousy for intelligence and foreign policy. Many, including Clinton and her elected boss, expressed fear these revelations would embarrass and expose intelligence allies of the United States and set America’s already fragile foreign policy back decades.
Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.
“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.
Think about this for a moment. She wasn't suggesting killing an Osama bin Laden here. Assange isn't responsible for any deaths (at least not that we know about). His crime was the potential release of potentially classified information. Note that was the crime of which Clinton was guilty in the email scandal. So she thinks this crime is worthy of the death penalty?
Let's be honest about this: That isn't what bothers her. It is the potential embarrassment with which she will have to deal. So she has no qualms about using the lethal force of the U.S. government to commit murder for the crime of embarrassing her?
This woman says Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president? I would argue that Clinton is worse than Trump, because she knows exactly what she is doing.
Speaking of Clinton...
Fox News:
Hillary Clinton had glowing words for the General Motors plant in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, when she traveled there in 2011 as secretary of state to announce the joint venture -- of GM and an Uzbekistan state-owned firm -- as a finalist for a State Department award.Clinton's response?
“It is a collaboration between Uzbek and American companies, and it will serve as a symbol of our friendship and cooperation,” Clinton said, touting the plant’s “newest, most advanced technology.”
The visit came a year after the General Motors Foundation had contributed $684,455 in vehicles to the Clinton Foundation.
Fast-forward several years, and GM-Uzbekistan is now embroiled in a massive scandal, reportedly facing charges of fraud, money laundering, and embezzlement, a legal case that has reached high-ranking government officials in the country.
Clinton isn’t tied to any of the allegations. But it’s another example of how Clinton Foundation donations and subsequent State Department actions have put the Democratic presidential nominee in an awkward position. The 2011 praise wasn’t a one-off, either. Clinton’s State Department again made GM Uzbekistan a finalist for the Award for Corporate Excellence in 2012.
Asked for comment, Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin noted the U.S. government had honored GM well before Clinton served as secretary of state -- referencing that in 2006, GM’s joint venture in Colombia actually won the award. It was merely a finalist under Clinton.
“While GM did receive the Secretary of State’s 2006 Award for Corporate Excellence from the Bush administration, it did not receive the award while Secretary Clinton was in office,” Schwerin told FoxNews.com. “Further, it appears that the legal issues you refer to began several years after Clinton left office. The fact remains that Hillary Clinton never took action as secretary of state because of donations to the Clinton Foundation.”That answer doesn't explain why Clinton went there, nor does it explain the two nominations for the State Department award. Saying "Bush did it too" is childish. The article doesn't mention any donations Bush got from GM. But even if he did, that doesn't excuse Clinton's "banana republic"-like behavior.
In other news...
CNN:
Pope Francis reaffirmed his disagreement with teaching gender identity in schools on Sunday, after earlier calling it a "war against marriage."This is a tough issue. The key is in the "tendency": Introducing children to the concept invites them to assume it themselves, even when no such tendency may exist for them. As the Pope properly points out, gender identity is not a choice. It is part of your self-identity, and may be different from your actual identity. But you can't turn it on and off like a light switch.
On a return flight to Rome at the end of a three-day trip to Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Pope recounted a meeting with a French father whose young son wanted to be a girl after reading about it in a textbook.
"This is against nature," he said. "It is one thing when someone has this tendency ... and it is another matter to teach this in school."
"To change the mentality -- I call this ideological colonization," the Pope said.
The Pope said he still spends time with transgender people, leading them closer to God.
In August, the Pope called the teaching of gender identity theory "terrible."
"Today, in schools they are teaching this to children -- to children! -- that everyone can choose their gender," Pope Francis said.
The problem comes in teaching it like that. Young children are especially impressionable. What happens if a child assumes he/she can switch their gender easily? If that becomes part of their permanent sexual identity, this could screw them up for life.
This is why schools should concentrate on the basic skills needed for life, and not this politically correct B.S.
Ironically, even a group which criticizes the Pope's comments unintentionally proves his point:
New Ways Ministry, a Catholic LGBT advocacy group, criticized those remarks.That was EXACTLY the Pope's point. By teaching this to young children, we risk them getting the wrong message.
"The pontiff's remarks are further evidence that church officials need desperately to educate themselves about the lives and experiences of LGBT people," said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry.
"Nobody chooses a gender identity. They discover it."
On to another CNN article...
CNN:
This article has some outstanding quotes from the Supreme Court justices:
"We never realized what was the promise of the '60s," she said, responding to a question about recent killings. "With all the equality legislation, the Fair Housing Act [of 1968], the Voting Rights Act [of 1965], Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964], we still live in a highly segregated society. Black communities and white communities. Black schools and white schools."Speaking of quotable...
...In earlier cases, [Chief Justice John Roberts] referred to "a sordid business, this divvying us up based on race" and insisted, "The way to stop race discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
Sotomayor turned that view against him as they tangled in 2014, saying, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race."
New York Times:
Spaniards, Exhausted by Politics, Warm to Life Without a Government
With that circumstance in mind, comes this wonderful quote:For the past 288 days, Spain has plodded along without an elected national government. For some Spaniards, this is a wonderful thing.
“No government, no thieves,” said Félix Pastor, a language teacher who, like many voters, is fed up with the corruption and scandals that tarnished the two previous governing parties.
Mr. Pastor, a wiry, animated 59-year-old, said Spain could last without a government “until hell freezes over” because politicians were in no position to do more harm.
After two grueling national elections in six months, and with a third vote possible in December, no party has won enough seats or forged the coalition needed to form a government. For the first time in Spain’s four decades as a modern democracy, this country of 47 million people has a caretaker government.
That has produced an unprecedented public spectacle: Politicians scheme and plot but reject the difficult compromises needed to form a government. Voters watch ruefully with a mix of fascination and contempt.
“We already knew that politicians were corrupt, but now we also see that they can’t even make politics work,” said Ana Cancela, a civil servant...Who knew Spain would be a libertarian paradise?
No comments:
Post a Comment