Thursday, October 17, 2019

ELIZABETH WARREN - ANOTHER REMINDER THAT LAWYERS OR PATHOLOGICAL LIARS AND SOCIOPATHS!

When Does Serial Lying Become Disqualifying, Liz?


Right now, the three leading candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination are all septuagenarians.  On Election Day next year, Bernie Sanders will be 79, Joe Biden will be 78, and Liz Warren will be 71.  It may be over for the two oldest.  Bolshevik Bernie just suffered a heart attack and had two stents inserted.  (Now he's Bionic Bernie.)  Joe, often fumbling for words, has appeared "frail" from the get-go.  And we shouldn't forget the appearance of influence-peddling in Ukraine and China.  That leaves Liz, who by comparison to the other two is a spring chicken.  But Senator Warren has her own issues.
On October 7, Fox News's Tucker Carlson aired a montage of Warren on the campaign trail where she repeatedly asserts that she was "visibly pregnant" and that her employer "wished me luck" and then "hired someone else."  Watch the video montage and notice how similar her deliveries are.  At each venue, she retells her story with the same well rehearsed inflections and mannerisms.  These canned performances are all the more embarrassing because they repeat a lie.
Earlier on October 7, the Free Beacon ran "County Records Contradict Warren's Claim She Was Fired over Pregnancy" by Collin Anderson.  The article included the 12 pages of the minutes of the school board meeting in an easy-to-navigate SCRIBD box where the parts concerning Warren are circled:
Minutes of an April 21, 1971, Riverdale Board of Education meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show that the board voted unanimously on a motion to extend Warren a "2nd year" contract for a two-days-per-week teaching job.  That job is similar to the one she held the previous year, her first year of teaching.  Minutes from a board meeting held two months later, on June 16, 1971, indicate that Warren's resignation was "accepted with regret."
Also on October 7, the Media Research Center's NewsBusters ran "Nets Ignore Warren's Tall Tale She Was Fired from Job over Pregnancy" by Kristine Marsh:
Just like in 2016, the networks have done their best to ignore Democrat presidential candidate scandals and lies while harping on everything surrounding Donald Trump.  After capitalizing on her grossly exaggerated Native American ancestry, frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has been caught in another lie, by her own words from twelve years ago. However, you wouldn't know this if you only watched ABC, NBC and CBS. ... Only Fox News has been covering the story, thus far.
On October 8, the Media Research Center ran "Warren Doubles Down on Claims She Was Fired in '71 for Being Pregnant" by Brittany M. Hughes.  The article embeds two tweets Warren made on Oct. 8 where she sticks to her story.  Hughes writes: "Now, it seems she's again grasping at anecdotal evidence for why she was allegedly fired from her teaching job, suggesting she simply assumed she was let go for being pregnant (despite previously indicating she'd left of her own accord)."
On October 9, Legal Insurrection ran "Elizabeth Warren's Pregnancy Discrimination Fib Uncovered by Bernie-Supporting Socialist, Not 'Right Wing' as Warren Claims" by William A. Jacobson, professor of law at Cornell, who reported that the genesis of this latest "fib" of Warren's was Meaghan Day, writer for the socialist magazine Jacobin.  The controversy seems to have started on October 1 with a Twitter war.
On October 10, National Review ran "The Media Scramble the Jets for Elizabeth Warren's Lies" by Kyle Smith, who gives a rundown of how the establishment media have been covering for Liz's latest lie: "The more the media behave like the DNC's propaganda arm, the more Americans will dismiss them as such."
Maybe Liz is suffering from some memory issues.  After all, she's old.  Or maybe she's just a chronic and habitual liar.  Indeed, maybe she engages in compulsive or pathological lying.  Regardless of the etiology for Lyin' Liz's stories, we need to get a better idea of what kind of character and temperament this woman has and whether she's fit to be president.  That's why Tucker's video montage (above) is so damned damning: Liz is quite the little actress.
It's depressing that so many Americans buy Warren's kind of politicking.  She sashays on stage like some celebrity, waving to those assembled, and then embraces some supporter, some local stooge whom I doubt she knows.  Campaigns should be more like job interviews than fan fests.  Folks need to develop a better "sense" about others, especially our celebrity politicians.
So who is the real Liz Warren?  Maybe she's like that leopard up on Mt. Kilimanjaro.  No one knows what it was doing up there; maybe it was up to no good.
On January 30, Bloomberg aired "Sen. Elizabeth Warren Says Capitalism without Rules Is Theft," a video interview conducted by Joe Weisenthal, who asks the senator about her wealth tax, which she had unveiled six days earlier.  Warren displays her usual antics as she explains her new tax and tries to justify grabbing trillions of dollars from the tiniest sliver of Americans.  As a former special needs teacher, perhaps Liz thinks Weisenthal has a disability, because she's rather condescending, talking about the "tippy top" paying their "fair share."
In March of 2018, the Mises Institute ran "Another Reminder that Elizabeth Warren Is a Fraud" by Tho Bishop:
Elizabeth Warren's entire career has been based on a lie.  I speak, of course, of the notion that she's some sort of expert on the financial sector.  Not only is the Senator from Massachusetts bad on basic economics ... but she is ignorant of basic facts that played out during the financial crisis.
Now we're getting to Liz's "Big Lie" — that Warren is an expert on finance, business, and the economy.  But what business has Warren ever run, much less created?  Warren wants to "break up Big Tech," but what does she know about technology?  Warren is a lawyer, and as an affirmative action hire at Harvard Law, we might wonder just how good of a lawyer she really is.
On October 9, the Wall Street Journal ran "Elizabeth Warren Vows to Remake Capitalism. Businesses Are Bracing" by Greg Ip and eight other writers.  You see, Warren has lots of plans for "remaking" American capitalism.  Warren doesn't want to fine-tune and improve our system; she wants to replace it.  Liz is more concerned about social justice, equality, redistribution, the damned climate, and expanding the size and scope of the central government than she is with the production of the goods and services that private enterprises work to provide.
Liz seems nothing less than a wrinkled older version of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  But although she is on board with all the socialist programs of the other Democrat candidates, Warren has nonetheless repeatedly assured us, "I am a capitalist to my bones."  Right, but why on Earth would anyone believe her?


HILLARY CLINTON: THE LIFE OF A VERY DISTURBED AND VERY DISHONEST SOCIOPATH

In the book, Byrne describes her as “distant, cold, dishonest, and a habitual liar.” When asked about this, he told American Thinker, “Americans need to know that Mrs. Clinton is not a leader. She displays a holier-than-thou attitude, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ When I heard her say Bill Clinton would work with her on the economy, my first thoughts, ‘what steps will she take to protect young women working at the White House from him?’ Her pattern is
reflection, deception, and lies.”

In June 2010, several of his companies received deals or concessions from the Colombian government following back-to-back meetings that Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had with the President of Colombia. Giustra has given tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation since 2005.

So Hillary Clinton is the éminence grise behind Elizabeth Warren?



Up until now, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, have always been reported as two aging leftists unable to stand each other. "Friends now, trouble ahead," reads some of the headline of a 2016 Politico news story.
Get a load of how those times have changed, according to NBC News:
The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren's launch has been previously reported — according to several people familiar with their discussions who spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of private interactions.
And the pair have been talking a lot, to the point of Hillary Clinton seemingly backseat-driving the Warren campaign. According to NBC:
It’s hard to know exactly how many times they’ve reached out to each other — or precisely what they’ve discussed — in part because neither camp wants to reveal much of anything about their interaction and in part because they have each other's phone numbers, and there are many ways for two high-powered politicians to communicate that don’t involve their staffs.
One source was aware of just one additional call between Warren and Clinton since then. But a person who is close to Clinton said the contact has been substantial enough to merit attention, describing a conversation between the two as seemingly recent because it was "front of mind" for her.
Very typical Clintonian - which is to say behind the scenes and non-transparent.
And while the two share the same left-wing extremism, and their blonde-white-woman brand of pantsuit suburban socialism (Hillary was always much farther left than her husband Bill), the Warren relationship is probably more about exerting political muscle.
Warren may still not be able to stand Clinton, but Clinton is useful to Warren for rigging the Democratic nomination.
According to NBC:
More important, an explicit or implicit blessing from Clinton could help Warren if she finds herself battling for delegates and superdelegates at a contested Democratic convention next summer.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention," said Deb Kozikowski, the vice chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
So instead of Democratic voters choosing their candidates freely, quite unlike the 2016 fiasco where Hillary Clinton's operatives rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, Clinton is doing the same thing she did in 2016, putting her thumb on the scale of Democratic party politics, this time for a willing and ambitious Elizabeth Warren, to put the fix in on delegates. That ought to go over real well for Democratic turnout once they realize another fix is in.
Meanwhile, Warren is now useful for Clinton, who still wants to be president, but now can't be. In Warren, she now has a useful puppet for getting her agenda and surrogates into the White House. That would not only get her the socialism she craves, it would also protect her from the long arm of the law.
The personnel issue is interesting because "the slots" have always been of paramount importance to Hillary, ever since she fired the White House travel office staff because "we need the slots."
Back when the pair couldn't stand each other, Warren was backseat-driving to Clinton's campaign, vetoing Clinton's "people" in a battle over "slots." Politico reported:
But there’s tension on the horizon: If Clinton wins, Warren has promised to rattle the gates of a Clinton White House — as she did to President Barack Obama — pushing for progressive, anti-Wall Street crusaders to fill posts as top economic advisers and, most importantly to her of all, Treasury secretary.
Warren and her staffers have already been feeding to the Clinton campaign lists of individuals they would consider appropriate for those posts — and signaling in unsubtle terms those whose appointment they would fight to block.
The reverse could be just as true, with now Clinton backseat-driving who the appointments would be, who's in, who's out, as the pair plan a socialist takeover.
None of this is good news for the Democrats. A jurassic political powermonger, and a far-left fake Indian trying to come off as having sane ideas, doesn't represent a bright new generation with fine fresh ideas, just the same old machine politics, rendered worse by extremism.
If the Democratic emails get hacked again this year, oh, what a story those emails of this alliance of two leftists who secretly loathe each other might just tell.
Image credit: Tim Pierce, via Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0


Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for 


reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the


Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of 


all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is 


reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, 


Joule, which he did not disclose.  PATRICIA McCARTHY


Hillary Clinton's Impossible Dream


Hillary Clinton, still suffering from delusions of adequacy, has a dream.  It is that Democrats will beg her to run again and be their savior.  After all, she recently celebrated her historic 2016 win against President Donald Trump during an interview with Judy Woodruff.
Yes, the psychosis has progressed that far.
Still, the lineup of Democrat candidates is so awful that Clinton is actually tied with Andrew Yang in third place in the PredictIt political prediction market.
The betting market is responding to Clinton's not so subtle odor of desperation, as well as the apparent weakness of the field.
Far too many Republicans and Democrats alike view Clinton as the real-life incarnation of Jason Voorhees of Friday the 13th fame, although this is perhaps unfair to Jason, since it was safer to be acquaintances with the machete-wielding psychopath.
Jason was the un-killable evil force.  Just when the brave and plucky heroine finally incinerated him, he popped back up with his hockey mask on and creepy music in the background to teach her the error of her ways.
With Clinton, her political immortality is purely an illusion.  In fact, there are only two Americans who really want her to run: Clinton herself and President Donald Trump.  You could perhaps add Bill Clinton to that list if it would keep her away from the mansion a bit longer.
In light of the Left's outraged attacks on Ellen DeGeneres for not pushing George W. Bush out of the press box of a football game, perhaps the only remaining issue that can unite Republicans and Democrats is loathing of the corruption queen.
Usually, losing candidates see their approval ratings improve.  Not Clinton.
Conservatives detest her even more now than they did in 2016 thanks to her starring role in the first administrative coup attempt.  They are joined in disgust by a sizable percentage of liberals, who will never forgive Clinton for losing that election.
The problem for Clinton is that every day for the Democrats brings a fresh reminder of what they lost in 2016.  The Democrats were within a hair of locking down full ideological control of America, likely forever, and Clinton fumbled away their perverse dream.
Think about what this moment meant for America, particularly if you were a liberal.
If Clinton had won, liberals would have a 6-3 majority on the high court, with almost no possibility for conservatives to win back the court in our lifetime.  That would have been lights out for America.
Clinton singlehandedly brought about the greatest mass outbreak of schadenfreude in human history.  That's not an easily forgiven achievement for liberals.  Democrats blame her and are decidedly not with her this time around.
Clinton was left chucking lamps at staffers while John Podesta was giving his version of Winston Churchill's "Fight Them on the Beaches" speech to the world's saddest victory party.  Clinton didn't even have the decency to thank her supporters since it was never really about them.  With a Cilnton, it is always only about that Clinton, raw political power, and insatiable greed.
Clinton is waiting for Joe Biden to implode with the hopes that she will get drafted to replace him as the Democrat establishment choice.
Biden might oblige her.  He was already in deep trouble, but the latest revelation that he may have also collected a small fortune from Ukraine may seal the deal.  "Make the Bidens Richer Again" is not resonating as a campaign theme despite the triggered media's best attempts to black out any mention of Biden and Ukraine in the same sentence.  Poor Joe may have no other choice in 2020 but to cast his ballot for President Trump to protect his ill begotten loot from the Cherokee maiden's wealth tax.
But even if Joe crashes, there will be no outcry for Hillary to take his place.  Should she enter the race, she will be destroyed.  Democrats do not reward presidential losers.  The last Democrat nominee to get two shots was Adlai Stevenson, who got trounced twice by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s.
Democrats always put their losers out to pasture.  Sure, a John Kerry might occasionally pop up like a whack-a-mole to whisper sweet words of treason in an Iranian mullah's ear, but Democrat general election losers are effectively done as national candidates.
If a candidate was ever going to buck this trend, it would have to be one that commanded broad respect, had strong charisma, and was viewed to have a good chance of winning.  That's not Clinton.  Her approval rating outside of the Clinton house is stuck somewhere between horrible and abysmal.
The absolute best thing that could happen for Republicans is if Democrats really do draft Clinton into the race.  They won't.  If you think the Bernie Bros were mad in 2016, the Cherokee's tribe will go on the political warpath if Warren is denied the nomination by Clinton chicanery.
One theory posited is that Clinton could be a compromise candidate chosen at the convention should no other candidate claim the nomination outright.  Perhaps if it were still 2016.  But the Democrats changed their rules after 2016, making this far less likely.  A candidate has to win support from only a majority of the pledged delegates on the first ballot, when superdelegates cannot vote.  The laws of political momentum suggest that no more than two candidates will dominate the field once voting starts.  So if there is a road where Clinton could take advantage of the rules to sneak back in, it is a microscopic one that would require such a confluence of events as to be nearly impossible.
On the unlikely scenario that the first ballot is close but doesn't produce a candidate, I'm guessing that the superdelegates will throw their weight behind either the top performer in the first ballot or whoever is closest to an "establishment" candidate, which will likely be Biden.
Many Democrats are already suffering buyer's remorse on Warren, even though they haven't actually bought her yet.  So there will be attempts to draft an alternative.
If not Clinton, then who is first in line to be drafted?
If Warren is Bernie Sanders 2.0, then the biggest threat to Warren would be Clinton 2.0, which is not Hillary.  That would be Michelle Obama.
She is newer, fresher, and not despised as a loser by most of her party.  She is also the candidate best poised to appeal to all the factions in the Democratic Party.  Socialists will love her since they will strongly suspect she is one of them.  The establishment would back her, assuming she is preferable to Warren.  She wouldn't suffer from Warren's real and perhaps campaign-fatal problem with black American voters.  Her approval rating is at its high water mark.
I would be surprised if she is not fielding phone calls urging her to enter the race.
Regardless, Clinton will continue to chatter from the sidelines, hoping for one last shot at her dream.  But, as a national candidate, she is done.  That impossibly morbid dream is over.
Fletch Daniels blogs at deplorabletouchdown.com and can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.




Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List Of Suspicious ‘Charities’




GRIFTER AND PHONY CHARITY FOUNDATION FRAUDSTER HILLARY CLINTON’S LONG SERVICE TO AMERICA’S MOST EVIL BANKSTERS


The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”


“Clinton also failed to mention how he and Hillary cashed in after his presidential tenure to make themselves multimillionaires, in part by taking tens of millions in speaking fees from Wall Street bankers.”



VIDEO:
THE FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION EXPOSED.
PAY-TO-PLAY FROM THE FIRST DAY!


Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds?  There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all.  What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.


“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.

The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”

"But what the Clintons do is criminal 

because they do it wholly at the expense of 

the American people. And they feel 

thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use

it to enrich themselves and their friends. 

They are amoral, immoral, and venal. 

Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and

money. That should be clear to every person 

on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia 

McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
///

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/google-rigged-it-so-illegals-would-vote.html

1.     Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”

2.     Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An executive nearly broke down crying because of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.

3.   Immigration: Maintaining liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.

HILLARY CLINTON’S GLOBALIST VISION:

SURRENDER OF OUR BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX AND SUCKING IN GLOBAL BRIBES FOR THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION


Even though it has gone virtually unreported by Corporate media, Breitbart News has extensively documented the Clintons’ 
longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the Los Angeles Times observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for 
globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are 
speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.


THE OBAMA – CLINTON RUSSIA CONNECTION

WITH THESE TRAITORS, JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!

How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.

THE SHADY POLITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON and her PAY-TO-PLAY MAFIA
The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion. 

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose.  PATRICIA McCARTHY

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY



GEORGE SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS
*
NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist, unnecessary wall.”
*
*
“Obama would declare himself president for life with S oros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
*
“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became disabled?”




“There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,” states a separate interview memo attached to the submission.

“Bill Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.

HILLARY CLINTON: Serving the super-rich and filling her bottomless pockets as she does!
*
"And this being Hillary, with her stated presidential ambitions still remaining, it's also a distinct possibility that donations to the Clinton Foundation are still being sought, especially since they have dropped to nearly nothing now that Clinton has no influence to sell.  With Hillary, it's always about money.  Her stint as secretary of state was completely about pay to play, after all." MONICA SHOWALTER – AMERICAN THINKER

Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds?  There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all.  What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.

*

No comments: