The Horrors of Hillary

by Veronica Tash on November 5, 2016


On October 28, Bill Maher gave a long monologue about “false equivalency” between Trump and Clinton, denigrating the best informed generation of voters this election, millennials, of not being educated on the candidates and falsely equating Trump and Hillary as equally evil:

“I am so tired of hearing: ‘I know Trump’s a creep but Hillary doesn’t seem genuine.’  Grow the fuck up, she is a civil servant, not a craft beer.  You know, whenever I’m out with my millennial friends, chasing the Pokéman or getting our nipples pierced, shaving our pubes or raging action figures while sending out dick pics, when the talk turns to election I hear some version of ‘Ugh.  They’re both bad’ or ‘Ugh.  They deserve each other’  or ‘There’s an election?’

“Republicans have one path to victory in this election and it’s called false equivalency.  They can’t deny Trump is horrible – it’s on tape – so they want voters to believe Hillary is just as bad and in pursuit of that goal they have a very powerful ally: lazy people.  People who like to say: ‘They’re all bad’ because when you say that you don’t have to do any homework; say ‘They’re all the same’ and then you can sound justifiably jaded by the entire process when really you just don’t know anything.

“You say you’re cynical about politics?  Don’t flatter yourself.  Cynical comes when you know too much; you, on the other hand, haven’t bothered to learn anything – which Americans, by the way, are capable of.“

Well Bill, it is you flattering yourself – at the expense of others wiser than yourself no less.  With all the talk of millennials going around this election I had to do some research on where generational divides actually are, given that I recall as a kid being told I was in Generation Y.  Apparently the current subjective breakdown of generations puts Generation X ending in 1984 and Millennials beginning in 1982.  So, being born in 1982 I am one of the oldest millennials alive.  I’ve also gotten my BA in Political Science from Wayne State University and have been in various leadership positions in the Socialist Party USA for over a decade and that includes 7 years elected onto their National Committee before I resigned from the party to focus on writing.  I chaired their 2008 Presidential Campaign.  It’s safe to say I know something about politics.

Your monologue reminds me of what Hillary supporters were saying in the primaries: “Do your own research,” ironically parroting Hillary.  Bernie supporters had done their own research, extensively, which is how they gravitated to a candidate who was receiving practically no press until he won the Iowa Caucus.  So let us do an extensive homework session into why Clinton is not only a bad choice, but the worst mainstream presidential candidate ever – including such horrible candidates as Donald Trump and Andrew “Trail of Tears” Jackson.

Before we dive in, however, I would like to make my biases clear.  The candidate I would most like to see in the Whitehouse is Mimi Soltysik, an honest working class hero with a law degree.  I know him personally, was invited to his wedding – though I didn’t have the money to fly to California at the time – and I know his integrity.  However, he also campaigns openly that if he was somehow elected he would resign, along with his VP, which is why I ended up deciding that I will vote the lesser evil for the first time since 2004 when I voted for Kerry out of fear of Bush – a vote I have regretted for over a decade.  I will be voting for Jill Stein, who, along with her party, has some strong faults though being anti-vaccination is not among them.  I would vote for Gary Johnson and his various horrible economic proposals or some of the various, democratic centralist candidates, such as Gloria La Riva or Monica Moorhead, before I’d vote for Donald Trump.  However, I’d still vote for Trump before I voted for Hillary, knowing full well there’d be a good chance I, personally, would end up dead or imprisoned by 2020.

Hillary’s “Experience”

One of the lines that is constantly repeated by Hillary’s supporters is that she is “the most qualified candidate for President ever.” Of note, the exact wording, and particular certainty, wasn’t used by those quoted at the convention, but is said verbatim by Hillary supporters elsewhere, paraphrasing President Obama.  What is cited by those who utter these words is not her judgment, her vision, her conviction, nor any particular skills but rather her experience.  Never mind Franklin D Roosevelt in 1944, having served 12 years as President prior) or his cousin Teddy who had served 8 years before his run in 1912, nor Thomas Jefferson who had years as a legislator for Virginia, 2 years as governor, a delegate to the Continental Congress, a member of the US’s first Congress under the Articles of Confederation, Minister to France, Secretary of State, Vice President, and 4 years as President when he ran in 1805.

Hillary has certainly been there with Bill through his political career, right up to when he was President.  She was First Lady for 8 years – and it is only fair to point out that she was the only First Lady to date to be strongly involved in developing and promoting policy.  She then served 8 years as a US Senator before leaving office to be Secretary of State for another four.  There is no doubt that she has a long resume, and experience, though still paling in comparison to the experience of other presidential candidates in the past.

Experience can certainly help someone perform a job; the presumption is that experience has taught you things that might not be learned otherwise.  However, experience can be either qualifying or disqualifying; in the case of Hillary, it is the latter.  If you happen to be scoffing at the notion that experience can be disqualifying, consider this: you happen to own a business and Donald Trump has decades of experience running businesses – do you let him run yours?  I certainly hope not; his experience has been that of destroying the businesses he runs as well as several cases of fraud.

Rather than focusing on Hillary’s advocacy of horrible ideas, such as the mandatory minimums that destroyed communities when coupled with a racist judiciary, let us focus on her foreign policy.  In 2003, she voted in favor of a war in Iraq – publicly claiming it was a mistake.  Of course, the Iraq War had particular problems, beyond having nothing to do with the event invoked justify it, was that we displaced a despot holding together a powder keg without a sensible or informed plan to hold it together once he was gone.  Out of the chaos, a civil war erupted among various factions including one deemed “Al Qaeda in Iraq.

However, Hillary absolutely failed to learn from this experience.  In 2011, she was instrumental in pushing the Obama Administration to try to overthrow the regime of Mumar el-Qaddafi in Libya.  Qaddafi was certainly a mixed bag, having both made significant steps toward improving the lives of Libyans while being a clearly brutal strongman at the same time.  Much like Bush did in Iraq with Saddam Hussein, Hillary had exerted her influence in Obama’s administration to take out Gaddafi’s regime, creating the same power vacuum with no plan to legitimately fill it, creating the same safe space for violent jihadist extremists – as opposed to the idea of jihad as a purely peaceful theological pursuitcreating a much worse problem than the one supposedly fixed.  At least Bush could say it was his first time making such a mistake.  It is important to remember that this was Hillary’s war, and she made sure to highlight that it was hers: “We came, we saw, he died.”  President Obama didn’t come to see the aftermath at that point – Hillary did.

With the fragile stability of the Middle East coming undone in Iraq and Libya, Hillary was not yet done.   Syria was next on her list as she wanted Assad removed from power.  Some might be led to believe that it was due to his use of chemical weapons, but alas, that wasn’t why.  In fact, this may bring into question whether Assad used them at all.

One of the Wikileaks bombshells was an e-mail dropped explaining why Hillary was pushing for overthrowing Assad.  The war is to specifically create a region-wide sectarian war amongst Sunnis and Shiites which will make it easier to take military action against Iran in order to help Israel.  The idea certainly has not been dropped since then, as a related leak reveals.

This isn’t even a matter of a third strike on the matter.  The goal is to destabilize the entire region into a bloody world war – because this is on the scale of the two world wars, only based in the Middle East instead of Europe – so that the world’s largest violator of international law can maintain its unofficial nuclear monopoly in the region.  This is a bit confusing as Pakistan officially has nuclear capabilities.

The new giant terrorist threat supposedly comes from what Hillary helped turn Al Qaeda in Iraq become by destabilizing Libya and Syria.  The group often inappropriately called the Islamic State (IS), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – but properly called DAESH – will grow stronger under a Hillary Administration.  If her experience leads her to repeat these same mistakes, to seemingly recreate the world of George Orwell’s 1984, quite possibly intentionally, that is disqualifying experience.

Both a Public and Private Position

Bill, you cited this on your show the same night, or at least tried to cite it.  Hillary didn’t say she has a public and private face as we all are conditioned to adapt, she said: “But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

She did, then, go on to connect the idea with William Seward of Lincoln’s Administration, which isn’t all that innocent.  President Obama saw Abraham Lincoln as his role model – Hillary is citing Seward as hers.  Specifically, what does she say about Seward?

“[A]nd he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be.”

This isn’t so much Obama’s obsession with trying to bring disparate views together but rather an explanation of how his administration took a sharp right turn after he took office.  A separate leak  or two or three showed that Hillary’s confidantes essentially were the ones now handling Obama since her primary loss to him.  She called in some her lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal and the rest is history. (Links here were quickly located via this Politico article)

What this shows is that Obama was looking for his Team of Rivals and she took advantage of that.  Hillary called some of her lobbyist friends and essentially created the great disappointment and disillusionment that led to poor turnout in the midterms, ultimately leading to the Republicans retaking the House and Senate both.  We could expect a repeat in 2018.

However, it wasn’t simply that she framed herself so well with these words; it’s that she fleshed these words out with other examples in these speeches.  We don’t have the full text of any of these speeches – we have a damage control document prompted by an article by Dan Friedman of the Washington Examiner citing a leaked contract for a speaking engagement.  The parts that they wanted to be prepared for, if the speeches were leaked, were neatly laid out.

Her public position, via her  campaign website, is “[t]he financial crisis showed how irresponsible behavior in the financial sector can devastate the lives of everyday Americans—costing 9 million workers their jobs, driving 5 million families out of their homes, and wiping out more than $13 trillion in household wealth. Hillary Clinton has a plan to reduce the risk of future crises and make our financial system fairer and more accountable.”

However, her private position, as she told Goldman Sachs in a speech on October 24, 2013, is “[t]hat was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ’09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom.”


While publicly framing herself as someone who will take on the banks to hold onto the supporters of Bernie Sanders, she privately framed herself in an October 2014 speech as trying to be like Teddy Roosevelt, who “took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic [read: populist] reaction.”

Yes, she wants to hold back our reaction against those who impoverished us.  One way she wants to do this is to have Wall Street write their own regulations.  In an October 2013 speech she stated: “There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”

Hillary says she is against the Keystone Pipeline and that she didn’t have a position on it before she came out against it.  For some reason, Politifact rated this statement as true in October 2015.  However, in a June 2014 speech in Canada, funded by the Canadian banks funding the Keystone Pipeline, her campaign secretly thought she took a stance for the Pipeline when she stated: “So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that’s what I would like to see us do.”

In fact, the whole point of this e-mail being made in the first place was to highlight places where Hillary was contradicting, in private, her public positions.  Pay attention to how this e-mail begins.  “Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below.  There [are] a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with [p]olicy.”

That E-mail Scandal

Oh, everyone in the Democratic Party wants to ignore the issue as if there was nothing there.  However, the executive branch of the US Government has been very concerned about information security for a very long time, and not only for the type of high level classified information to which Clinton was privy.

The recordkeeping law, which applies to all federal agencies from the Department of State to the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, to the US Forest Service, at the time of Clinton’s tenure, read:

“The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.”

With so much experience, Hillary Clinton should have known that having a private e-mail server to conduct State Department business would involve either unlawful removal or failure to “make and preserve” the records in the first place, depending on if the record was created first inside or outside of the appropriate network and e-mail system.  In fact, a 2011 Presidential memorandum issued directly to heads of agencies, as Hillary was at that time, demanded a focus upon proper record maintenance.  Her unlawful practices continued well past this date to the end of her tenure.

Beyond this, the Computer Security act of 1987 requires regular training on security threats highlighting the security issues with using the technology inappropriately with department business.  The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), in 2009, forbade personal digital assistants, such as her blackberry, unless it was in an area with solely unclassified information.   In 2008, before her tenure, it clarified that approval was required before installing any personal computer, which would include her server.  Of course, as Wikileaks has shown,  the Clinton team’s internet security is very, very less than perfect.  The leaked speeches e-mail also includes quotes about how she knew her blackberry was a security issue.

It is often forgotten that the FBI is not the only agency which reviewed Hillary’s e-mail practices.  In 2015, shortly before James Comey initially let her off the hook, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General released a lengthy report on the issue.

The report states that “The requirement to manage and preserve emails containing Federal records has remained consistent since at least 1995,” and that in 2009, early in Hillary’s tenure, the Code of Federal Records was updated to interpret the law to state “[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

The report determined that Hillary, as well as Coleman Powell before her and John Kerry after her, to a lesser extent, violated the rules in using private e-mail and also not providing those e-mails to the agency upon separation.  They even filed requests with their ISPs to see if the records could be retrieved at that late date.

Clinton had provided 55,000 printed pages representing 30,000 e-mails, which had notable gaps of approximately 2 months for received e-mails and 3 months for sent e-mails at the beginning of the her tenure.  Clinton had asserted that she had e-mailed employees at their work e-mails so the agency should have these records.  However, beyond asserting this was not proper maintenance, did not include external contacts – to which they notably cited e-mails between her and Gen. David Petraeus and an unnamed external contact.  They also noted that close staff of hers, seemingly including Huma Abedin, frequently used private accounts and did not even bother to respond to questionnaires sent about the matter.

They cite that “[t]hroughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS, yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.  […] Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business.  […] DS and IRM did not – and would not – approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.”

Alternatives to her use of a blackberry were discussed with her Undersecretary, who liked the answers, but it seemed to die there – presumably because Hillary said no.

Two employees reported that the issue of her private email server was raised in meetings of the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM), part of the agency, specifically that it may include federal records which legally must be preserved, but which aren’t being preserved.  The director of IRM responded that it was approved by the agency’s legal staff – which it wasn’t – and directed employees to not discuss the matter further.  The order was not restricted to the meeting in question, but was a gag order to not discuss it period.

Though her former Chief of Staff gave a rather unenlightening interview consisting essentially of “not that I’m aware of,” Secretary Clinton refused to give an interview to the OIG.  In other words, she did not cooperate with the investigation here.

One passage that is of concern is her response to problems with her private e-mail interfacing with the agency, and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations’ suggestion that she get a state e-mail or take action to make sure her e-mails didn’t go to spam – which I should note would be federal records which were not received and preserved even by the logic of Clinton’s excuse.  “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

It is important to note that Hillary did not use [email protected] address prior to her tenure as Secretary of State; the domain,, was registered on January 13, 2009.  An employee of the IRM, was separately paid, on several occasions, directly by the Clintons for services regarding maintaining this e-mail server.  This is in addition to federal pay, apparently because it was doing work that was not agency work.

When records were finally provided to the agency, they were not provided in an electronic format which would allow them to be easily searched, indexed, and so on.  Rather, Secretary Clinton put through significantly larger effort and cost on her part to provide paper hardcopies of the files.  This makes them impossible to verify through DomainKeys Identified Mail, or DKIM, and requires much more manpower to search the documents.

This is extremely strong evidence that Hillary had intentions from the beginning to mix official agency business with personal gain.  She did not want records of her activity outside of her direct control, seemingly to be specifically related to outside contacts where there would be no record, in any sense, which could be accessed later and used against her.  We will get into shortly in our next section.

In the separate FBI investigation, there were several irregularities.  Amongst the multitude of them is the very surprising fact that her server was not simply suddenly seized in a raid, as it would be normally.  Rather, Hillary was given time in which she could remove, unsupervised, documents which she deemed to be personal.  In other words, she was given liberty to delete the majority of those e-mails by just taking, on her word, that the content was not relevant to the search.  She destroyed evidence.  Despite Comey stating there was no evidence of an intent to obstruct justice – she obstructed justice.

What’s more, she did not personally remove the e-mails she felt were personal.  Rather, she provided access to these federal records to her personal attorneys who, officially, deleted the records based only on the subject line.  However, the use of attorneys leads to a dilemma.  Either the attorneys did as reported and likely illegally destroyed federal records or they actually went into the body of the e-mails and accessed federal records without permission, some of which included classified information.  In fact, we know that she had even told an aide to sidestep internal security measures to prevent the transfer of classified information outside of the federal government by removing features which signified the material as being classified.

There is no secret that Hillary feels she is above the law, and it is illustrated excellently through this scandal.  Laws were violated and those closest to the Secretary ensured that they were covered up by any means necessary.  In her defense, though she may feel she is above the law, the FBI recommendation is evidence that she is also correct: Clintons are above the law.

The Clinton Foundation

I wrote an extensive article on the Clinton Foundation already, so I won’t recap the entire issue again.  The article deals with the scandal focusing on trying to lay out an explanation of what the potential benefit could be.  I originally wrote it on October 5, but my inexperience with freelancing led to it taking until October 24 for it to be published.  Three days later, Wikileaks released emails relating to one of those benefits: Doug Band, who was a paid employee of the Clinton Foundation, working as their chief fundraiser, was also using those connections to get Bill Clinton paid speaking engagements.

This does not rule out my theory, but it wasn’t quite what I suggested.  I focused more on favors owed to the Clintons once out of their employ and employment to pay back favors owed to individuals.  However, this does show a significant overlap of duties and the culture breakdown when Chelsea (“cvc” in the emails) tried to make things legit.

I promised to discuss the hesitancy of Clinton to use a government server for her State Department communication and how it relates to this issue.  If she is arranging pay to play arrangements, a matter she would claim is “personal,” she doesn’t want there to be a chance for the e-mails to be discovered while she is working out the details, or after.  Automated searches can turn up problematic e-mails on government serversl; in fact, that is how individuals have often been busted under the Hatch Act for using government resources, i.e. email services, for partisan political reasons as simple as a forwarded viral political message.  While her likely violations would not be under the Hatch Act, they would be activity she would want to hide just the same.

The key issue with the foundation is the laundering of bribes from individuals and foreign states for preferable treatment – treatment which may very well continue afterwards.  The foundation notably took donations from Saudi Arabia, and one of her top advisors is already pushing for attacking Iran in order to assist Saudi Arabia in keeping its influence over Yemen.  This is separate from the drive to attack Iran in order to maintain Israeli nuclear supremacy mentioned before.

The Orwellian Effect

One of the great issues with Clinton in general is that she seems to be trying to recreate the world in George Orwell’s 1984.  One of the parts of the book that left the greatest impression on me was where chocolate rations were cut, yet there were mass demonstrations thanking Big Brother for raising those chocolate rations.

We have had over a decade to get used to FOX News completely misinforming viewers through implications of false news – “I’ve heard people say…” and the like.  We have also seen the right wing blogs echo each other’s made up stories about scandals that didn’t exist.  However, with Clinton, we see the introduction of the same with sites promoting the Democratic Party – many of them recently popping up.  Patheos recently listed a slew of these sites as poor sources.

The one site that rung the largest bell for me was DailyNewsBin.  I had been exposed to it constantly when one of my Facebook friends was tagged constantly in political posts by his boss.  The site is suspected by some of being simply a front and a person I made contact with, an attorney, had recently commented that he had communicated with Bill Palmer who admitted on a Facebook post that the site was sponsored by Hillary.  I have not seen the post.  Another chance encounter had someone led to a claim they know one of the writers who admits their entire purpose is to promote Hillary.  This is, of course, hearsay at this point, but the actual actions of the site certainly leads you to the same conclusion.

During the primary season, it was dedicated to deflecting any Hillary scandal and slamming Bernie Sanders as much as possible.  After the primaries ended, they replaced Bernie with Trump – someone whose legitimate scandals should be sufficient, but not for this site.

Snopes has debunked one of their articles which attempted to claim Bernie Sanders had refused to release his private speeches to banks and a second one which claimed it was proven that Wikileaks was leaking altered e-mails.  These are the only two reviews of their claims to date by Snopes.  It is also important to remember that they got their reputation from debunking rumors against the Clintons, so they are by no means a hostile source.

However, I would like to point out another article from December 2015 which made claims that presumably every American voter can now say is undeniably false.  The ridiculous claim was that there was no FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, period.  Though beginning by referencing Benghazi, it makes clear in its second paragraph that it is speaking about the Hillary email servers – obvious disinformation.

Amongst the Podesta emails included evidence that there was collusion from the beginning of her campaign, or rather just before it began, with key media figures who helped dismiss scandals against her and ensure Bernie Sanders did not get news coverage.  At the same time, she had enough influence to make sure that Donald Trump was promoted as a legitimate candidate, which seems to be why he received so much air time.  This was two months prior to his declaration of candidacy.

CNN staff, Donna Brazile, had leaked her debate questions beforehand, resulting ultimately in Brazile being let go by CNN, very publicly.  However, it is important to note that these leaked questions did not apply so much to the debates against Donald Trump, but rather to the April 14 debate against Bernie Sanders.  By the time of the debates against Trump, Brazile had her contract with CNN suspended since she was taking on the role of the DNC interim chair.

Notably, the only person to publicly claim any of the Wikileaks emails were fake is Donna Brazile when she was pressed on the issue of leaking this question.  Unfortunately for her, the email in question was one which could be undeniably undoctored due to DKIM.

The rest of the Clinton campaign has kept steady to the message, when questioned on any leaks, that Russia hacked the emails.  They do not deny claim any particular email was doctored or fake; but they do make sure to suggest that they could have been doctored.  Of course, they know they weren’t doctored, but the FOXesque implying something without explicitly stating it is much more effective than admitting they are all legitimate and actually addressing legitimate concerns.  Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent article, as expected, as to why the leaks are an excellent source even if the Russians are behind the hacking.

Recently, the Daily Beast, whose parent company has Chelsea Clinton as a board member, ran a hit piece on Jill Stein criticizing her retirement savings.  Jill had a well crafted but much less publicized response to these accusations.  They were reminiscent of attacks on Bernie Sanders for buying a home which is easily affordable based on his $174,000/yr senate income.

Other Clinton Supporters are not much better.  Facts do not matter; conclusions do.  As the Democratic Party has moved to the right, it adopted not only the policies of the Republican Party, but the tactics as well.  I have seen Politifact and the New York Times referred to as hate sites for reporting the facts about how FBI investigations are run – in defense of the claim that the FBI was not investigating Hillary Clinton.

This is an extremely dangerous situation for whatever we might be able to say exists of American democracy.  We have a populace which is increasingly intolerant to facts.  Meaningful public discourse falls apart when reason is absent from that discourse.  It is entirely conceivable that Hillary Clinton could give a giant tax cut those with the top incomes and there will be considerable masses of people who will be insisting she raised taxes instead.  Such influence over the media and demonstrated use of that power to these ends cannot be tolerated.

Progressive or Regressive?

There has been much talk about how amazingly progressive Hillary is despite what we have actually learned.

Charlie Schumer, the presumptive Senate Majority Leader if the Democrats take the Senate back, came out pre-election to announce that he, Paul Ryan, and Hillary Clinton were all in favor of a plan to make permanent corporate tax cuts – because negative effective tax rates are not enough.  Is this what passes for progressive?

Hillary had called the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that President Obama has been working on for the gold standard for trade deals.  We have heard many disturbing rumors about what is included in the agreement over the past few years and over the past few months certain parts of the agreement have been leaked by Wikileaks.  This agreement gives immense power to corporate entities, particularly international entities, to sue governments over regulations that reduce their profits, put dangerous protections for intellectual property, and was rumored to privatize health systems at the request of the US.

We can tie this into Hillary’s private Wall Street speeches where she talked about how important free trade was to her.  Once the election is over, there will be nothing to keep her from saying she’s going to pass the TPP, perhaps after saying it was renegotiated despite no significant changes.  Wikileaks has also leaked provisions of the Trade in Services agreement which is being negotiated with the other half of the world.  We can also probably all remember NAFTA pushed by Bill in the 90s that destroyed many US manufacturing centers and disempowered unions.

We already know that her likely treasury secretary is pushing to privatize Social Security.  It strikes me as the progressive action to strengthen Social Security, not to make it generate revenue for Wall Street.

She had pressured for one of Sanders’ appointments to the Platform Committee to be removed because of her union ties – and then it was leaked that she was very hostile to the union itself, calling it “not real.”

Let us go back to those speeches again that you thought were a non-issue Mr. Maher.  She was calling not for Wall Street professionals to submit to congressional hearings to help shape legislation, she was looking for them to write it.  It reminds me of a quote from Adam Smith, the “father of capitalism,” in his book Wealth of Nations: “Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.”

Having the masters regulate themselves is not progressive – especially in the age of Game of Thrones where we have the catch line “Kill the masters!”  Opposing unions is also not progressive.  None of this is progressive.  Just because she was politically pressured to campaign on a platform which includes many of Sanders’ platform planks does not mean she will carry through with them in any way.  Her history strongly suggests she will reneg on all of these promises, not carry them out.

War, Hmphh, Good God Y’all, What is it Good For, Helping Israel

We have already discussed in detail how Hillary has intentions of destabilizing the Middle East to aid Israel and likely Saudi Arabia as well.  This is a huge issue and is ultimately the reason why I feel that Donald Trump is less scary than Hillary – and we have never had a presidential candidate that I know of who I have heard of who I think could make me think Trump is less scary.  Remember that I said that I may be dead or in prison if Trump is elected.  His vice president – who he likely told could basically run the country – is Mike Pence.  I am a trans woman who will be criticizing Trump throughout any Trump presidency – my personal safety is at risk.  Do not take lightly that I think Donald Trump is less dangerous.  He has very violent people who feel empowered by his campaign, neonazis and klansmen, who hate trans people.

Hillary is a notorious war hawk who has pushed consistently for military intervention in the neoconservative tradition.  She is actively creating turmoil throughout the Middle East in order to aid her allies.  While the Middle East is half a world away with an ocean between us, the commonly used northern border for the Middle East is Russia, a nuclear power who we have recently broken off diplomatic relations with, prompting them to run big stick policy military drills and preemptively announce the Satan 2 nuke which is not a deterrent for us until 2018 when it becomes operational.  By all means, this should have been secret until it went into operation.  Do you think they are okay with a giant religious war taking part along their southern border, especially when they have had separatist movements from Muslim populations, such as in Chechnya.

Neither Hillary nor Putin admit mistakes nor do they back down.  I do not know which one of them will launch first, but I sincerely believe that it is not only possible, but probable that a Hillary presidency will lead to a nuclear war with Russia.  If you are familiar with Mutually Assured Destruction, we are the two powers who have enough weapons to destroy all complex life on Earth in a nuclear fireball.  It is almost certain that we will have at least a nuclear scare as we did with the Cuban Missile Crisis – an event that only was resolved without the end of humanity because a Russian admiral decided to disobey express orders from the Kremlin and backed down.  You do not fuck around when it comes to the end of the world.

Yes, we know that Trump is not the most consistent person in the world and no I don’t trust him with nuclear weapons either.  However, he is friendly towards Russia who is the only other nuclear power that could prompt Mutually Assured Destruction.

Now, I started writing this based on watching your show; I don’t have the time to address so many other issues, such as the selection of Tim Kaine, her stance of neutrality on the issue of violating a treaty to run the Dakota Access Pipeline through sovereign American Indian lands – as if we would be calling for all sides to be heard if Mexico wanted to dump its toxic waste in our borders – her history of strengthening systemic racism or her fake support for women’s issues.  If I had a month or two I could write a book on why not to vote for Hillary Clinton, but there is less than a week to the election.  You may disagree with this, you may mock it after the election, but you cannot legitimately say that it is uneducated on the issues.

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

Louis Proyect November 5, 2016 at 11:20 am

This is a well-researched article but the section on Syria is deeply flawed. In fact as the uprising began taking place in 2011, Clinton referred to Assad as a reformer:

“There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

–Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on “Face the Nation,” March 27, 2011

Furthermore, referring to the “red lines” over Sarin gas, the statement that “In fact, this may bring into question whether Assad used them at all” is dead wrong. It suggests that the rebels gassed their own families in order to create a “false flag” that would lead to regime change. This not only portrays the rebels as being indifferent to their loved ones to a degree that defies common sense, it also ignores the physical evidence of modified Vulcan rockets that were identified after the attack–a weapon that the regime possessed but not the rebels. Finally, if the rebels were so bloodthirsty so as to kill their own women and children, why wouldn’t they continue to use them against regime-held positions?

I say this as a NS editor who accepts the possibility that there are different POV’s on Syria. In fact, that this is what is offered by CounterPunch on a daily basis has not dissuaded me from writing for it. I only urge that people who write about Syria do a better job of researching it.


Veronica Tash November 5, 2016 at 8:22 pm

The e-mail exposing her plans was in 2012, meaning that her plans may have changed from 2011 to 2012. If Israel approached her in that period, they could easily change her mind. There’s also the issue that Hillary has a habit of saying one thing and then doing another.

As for the false flag issue, US or Israeli agents could have pulled something like that off – could have. It draws the official narrative into question, it doesn’t by any means disprove the official narrative.


Louis Proyect November 5, 2016 at 8:56 pm

Veronica, Occam’s Razor would seem to apply in this instance. The Syrian military had massive supplies of Sarin gas, the missiles to deliver it, and a pattern of indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations.


Veronica Tash November 6, 2016 at 3:51 am

If I have learned anything over the past 34 years, it would have to be that Occam’s Razor should be discarded. Given multiple solutions, the simplest answer probably the wrong one.

Take the case of President Obama: Occam’s Razor would suggest that he was just no different than Hillary to begin with and he had no intention of being any different than Hillary. However, when we get more information, it turns out the truth is much more complex: his administration was screwed by his needing to rely upon Hillary’s network to fill slots in his administration, driving his policy to the right.

Take the case of prohibition of substances: Occam’s Razor would suggest that making them illegal would decrease use. However, when we get more information, it turns out that making alcohol illegal in the US led to more people drinking than before or after Prohibiition and legalizing illegal drugs leads to use rates to either remain the same or drop, never rising.

Take the case of the death penalty: Occam’s Razor would suggest that it would deter capital offenses. However, when we get more information, it turns out that capital punishment actually increases violent crime, including those which carry a penalty of death.

I didn’t read William of Occam’s original work, but it seems to be just a feeling and not a proposition with any actual usefulness in the real world.


Quite Likely November 5, 2016 at 12:03 pm

This was a long article for the conclusion to end up being that you’re judging between the major party candidates solely based on which one is friendlier with Russia. I agree with most if not all of what you say about Clinton, but she’s not going to start a nuclear war. Saying you’re voting based on that extreme edge case being more likely under her than Trump is a cop-out.


Veronica Tash November 5, 2016 at 8:25 pm

I’m judging between the two, not based on their relations with Russia, but based on their likelihood of triggering a nuclear war with Russia. If I thought Hillary would just not get along with Putin that would be one thing, but she is provoking Putin wildly, and she is still holding back for appearances so she can get elected. Her actions will likely prompt a nuclear war – you need at least one cool head between the two, but both are two peas in a pod.

I would be voting for Stein regardless of the two – I’m not voting for Trump. But he is the lesser evil here, so Hillary supporters rounded in might as well vote Stein and we have a chance of bypassing them both.


Richard Winger November 7, 2016 at 5:50 pm

I am in favor of legalizing illegal drugs. But the objective evidence about alcohol during the U.S. experiment with prohibition is clear that drinking declined. This is based on several different types of evidence, including liver disease incidence. Not only did alcohol consumption drop during 1920-1933, it remained somewhat lower after prohibition was repealed for the remainder of the 1930’s decade.


Veronica Tash November 8, 2016 at 5:03 am

It would be nice to know your source(s) here. Though I could easily accept your word as gold on ballot access, not really for prohibition.


温泉宿 November 22, 2016 at 11:40 pm

Appreciation to my father who informed me concerning this blog,
this weblog is genuinely awesome.


Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: