A recent New York Times headline: “Peter Thiel Defends His Most Contrarian Move Yet: Supporting Trump.” Isn’t it time people started defending their support for Hillary Clinton?
Why aren’t Hillary’s backers made to explain how they can vote for a candidate who promised not to trade access for money while she served as Secretary of State, but then did it anyway?
Who vowed to reveal all monies collected by the Clinton Foundation from foreign entities while she was in office but failed to do so?
AN "AVALANCHE OF EVIDENCE" MAY NOW BURY HILLARY
Who has lied innumerable times to the American people and who has time and again revealed herself as lacking a moral compass?
Whose campaign has engaged in dirty tricks, colluding with the DNC and with the media?
Shouldn’t we question those who are putting their money behind Hilary Clinton, the first person to run for the presidency while subject of a criminal investigation? Whose natural instincts are to lie, about matters serious and inconsequential? Whose greed outweighs incandescent ambition?
Who offers voters nothing but enraged disparagement of her opponent?
It’s a reasonable question that should be asked: how can anyone with good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton?
Thiel, the successful founder of PayPal, sinned against the liberal establishment by donating $1.25 million to the Trump campaign. He has come under withering criticism from Silicon Valley elites, followed by “demands that Facebook drop him from its board of directors and that Silicon Valley’s leading start-up incubator, Y Combinator, sever ties with him.” This, for supporting the standard-bearer of one of America’s main political parties; a candidate who has a real shot at winning.
The shunning comes from those accusing Thiel of condoning “racism and intolerance”, says the Times, an organization that seems to being doing its best to further such associations. Indeed, the liberal media, exposed through numerous leaked emails as colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign, has done a terrific job of turning Trump backers into pariahs.
But shouldn’t we question those who are putting their money behind Hilary Clinton, the first person to run for the presidency while subject of a criminal investigation? Whose natural instincts are to lie, about matters serious and inconsequential? Whose greed outweighs incandescent ambition?
Despite decades of scandal, Wall Street tycoons and Hollywood eminences gather to promote the Good Ship Hillary, happy to sail with the progressive tides. Even as cranky investigators expose icebergs in their path. And no one calls them to account.
Many take solace in following President Obama, who has not stinted in his efforts to elect Clinton. Obama, who remains popular with those who absolve him of his lies about the Iran deal, ObamaCare, Benghazi, and now about his professed ignorance of the Clinton private server, is out campaigning for Hillary, whom he has repeatedly called “the most qualified candidate in history.” He does not call her the most trustworthy, or the most genuine, or respectable or moral; the man is not a total idiot. He describes her as tough and says she has tenacity. That we know.
Obama isn’t campaigning for Hillary Clinton because he likes her; he’s out there hustling for votes because if Donald Trump is elected, Obama’s cherished legacy will melt away faster than ice cream in August. ObamaCare? Gone. Amnesty for undocumented immigrants? Gone. Overreaching EPA rules that will set our power costs soaring? Done for. The Iran deal? Well, chances are that collapses regardless of who succeeds him.
Obama knows that Hillary is the protector of the status quo and of his legacy. He also knows she cannot be trusted. When she joined his cabinet, Hillary was required to sign an agreement aimed at minimizing her pay-to-play opportunities while she served at the State Department. She vowed that she would not personally participate in any matter that could impact the finances of the Clinton Foundation or the earnings of her husband, Bill. In a separate agreement, she agreed to reveal all foreign donations to the foundation.
We know she broke these promises. In just one of many such examples, after Hillary intervened to solve a tax problem for Swiss banking giant UBS (an unusual gig for Secretary of State), the bank paid husband Bill $1.5 million in speaking fees and donated generously to the foundation. Even more alarming, there were 1,100 foreign donations funneled through the Clinton Foundation’s Canadian affiliate that were received while Clinton was in office but never reported. Clinton’s memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House specifies that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (the Canadian branch) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.” It did not.
The estimated net worth of Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2006 was $34 million. In 2015, it was $111 million. Hillary did not rack up such wealth. After all, during her four years as Secretary of State her salary was only $186,000. Filings suggest her net worth in 2006 was about $30 million; in 2015, it was nearly unchanged at $31 million. In 2006 Bill’s wealth was about $4 million; by 2015 that had soared to $80 million. Note that during those years the U.S. financial markets endured one of the worst downdrafts ever, which lopped off a sizeable slug of the country’s wealth. By 2015 financial markets had recovered, but it is safe to conclude that Bill Clinton’s good fortune did not come by way of investment returns.
No, Bill made a fortune giving speeches, often to groups also funding the Clinton Foundation, and who had business before the U.S. government. It was a seamy arrangement – seamy enough to apparently invite scrutiny from FBI agents who were then blocked from pursuing an investigation.
Donald Trump is no Boy Scout. His business history is checkered and his personal manner is off-putting. But, the portrayal of him as racist and dangerous has been overblown by Hillary’s team, because they have nothing else to talk about.
Hillary fears the appeal of a fresh-start candidate, and especially one who is willing to challenge the status quo and push back at the politically correct idiocy ensnaring our national discourse. Trump is offering voters a real choice, which doesn’t happen often.
President Obama campaigned on hope and change, but delivered neither. It is possible – likely, even – that it will take an outsider to shift the direction of the country, to upend the corrupt politics of Washington, to stem the unbridled expansion of the federal government and return power to the people, which most Americans seem to want. That outsider, in this cycle, is Donald Trump.
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.