The Kick-Off: Hillary Clinton The Bogus Women’s Advocate

Roger Stone The Daily Caller's Men's Fashion Editor
Font Size:

Hillary Clinton unveiled the broad themes of her candidacy for president in an address on Roosevelt Island. Hillary, once one of the most polarizing figures in American politics, is running as an advocate for women and girls as well as an advocate for the poor while vowing to reign in the excesses of wealthy hedge funders and others on Wall Street.

These claims would be laughable if so many in the mainstream press didn’t buy this absurd narrative. Hillary Clinton is an advocate for women as long as you are not one of Bill Clinton’s rape victims, girlfriends or Vince Foster’s widow. If you were a woman who was one of Bill’s serial sexual assault victims you were vilified as a “slut,” “whore,” “bitch,” or “trash” by Hillary Clinton. There is also solid evidence that it was Hillary who engaged the heavy-handed private detectives who terrorized and silenced Bill’s victims lest they retard the Clintons’ grasp for power.

Hillary’s newfound advocacy for children probably does not include the 18 children murdered by federal agents in Waco Texas.  Hillary Clinton’s handpicked Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell entered the command center to convey Hillary’s “go order.” The investigator for the House Committee that investigated the Waco incident wrote that Hillary Clinton had given the final order.  Senator Arlen Specter who chaired a Senate investigation into the Waco killings said there was substantial testimony proving that Hillary Clinton, acting as a virtual co-president at that time, gave the order that resulted in the deaths of 18 children. Most of the victims of Hillary’s tragic command to begin the final assault on the Branch Davidians were women and children. Of the 76 people who were murdered at Waco on April 19, 1993, 46 were females, 28 were males and 2 were babies in the womb. Thirty people were under the age of 21 years; an astounding eighteen of the dead were children who were 8 years old or younger.

Hillary and her husband have lined their pockets with exorbitant speaking fees from the toast of Wall Street. A close and reasonable examination of these enormous fees provide strong circumstantial evidence that they are in fact payoffs related to official acts in the Secretary of State’s office.

The Clinton Foundation, a slush fund for grifters and a holding pen for Clinton political operatives, has taken in millions from the very investment banks Hillary rhetorically vilifies. Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, Chevron, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank AG have all chipped in. Why should we believe that Hillary will “rein them in”? The only thing she seems interested in reining in is their enormous speaking honorariums.

Lest anyone despair that the “child” Chelsea Clinton will get embroiled in this political crossfire, it is vital to recognize that Chelsea is now an adult and co-conspirator with her parents. NBC paid her $600 thousand for nothing when their parent company General Electric had a multi-million dollar defense contract on Secretary of State’s Clinton’s desk for approval. When Bill Clinton ended his controversial $2.2 million a year “government consulting” business affiliation, Chelsea Clinton demanded $30 million from the company and a 33 percent equity stake in the business. Like her mother, Chelsea is about the money.

The idea that Hillary Clinton or her husband have any understanding of working people or the poor is also laughable. Worth $200 million combined, Bill Clinton made $35 million while Hillary made $25 million last year. The Clinton Foundation provided $6.5 million in luxury travel for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Hillary refuses to stay in any hotel that is not five-star or to fly in any aircraft that is less than a G-5. She lives in rarefied air rarely coming into contact with anyone other than servants or staffers. Hillary is in the one percent that is fueling her campaign for the White House.

Hillary and her handlers know they have a problem. Voters see Hillary as untrustworthy, dishonest, devious and conniving. They also correctly perceive her as haughty, arrogant, aloof and short-tempered. Americans are also about to learn she is physically abusive, foul mouthed and entitled. During Bill Clinton’s White House years White House staffers were instructed to look down and avoid her gaze if they encountered her in the halls. As Richard Nixon told me after meeting Hillary “She’s cold — cold as ice”.

A truly great political reporter is a born skeptic. Constantly being fed a narrative by campaign operatives, a solid political reporter takes it with a grain of salt, taking the time to examine actions and history as well as current rhetoric. Not so Amy Chozick of the New York Times.

Spoon fed by the Clintons, Chozick reports in a front page story “It took a long time for Hillary Rodham Clinton to fully understand the story of her mother’s devastating childhood. But now, four years after her death, Dorothy’s story is forming the emotional foundation of her daughter’s campaign for President.” Chozick fairly gushes. The mother narrative is a contrived and scripted political device being used to shield Hillary from her long record of abuse and exploitation of women and children but Chozick refuses to examine any narrative but the one supplied by Hillary’s handlers.

The Clintonistas fully understand the desperate need to warm up Hillary’s image and need to appear more likeable. Now they are trying to base Hillary’s new advocacy for women and girls on the difficulties her own mother experienced. It is, of course, a canard. Hillary has never spent three minutes thinking about anyone other than herself and her unquenchable drive for money and power.

Chozick also reported that “Mrs. Clinton will explain how her mother’s experience shaped her life and inspired her to be an advocate for children and families at the Children’s Defense Fund, and as a first lady, senator and secretary of state.” Did Amy Chozick put in a call to Kathy Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, or Paula Jones to ask what Hillary did to them after they had the unfortunate experience of being sexually assaulted by her husband?

Then Chozick really demonstrates that she is shill for the Clinton campaign by quoting longtime Clinton operative Ann Lewis: “She couldn’t go back and do more for her mother, but she could do more for other children who need protection or who need a better chance.” Did Amy wonder about those children at Waco and whether they deserved protection?

Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign is built on a lie. Sidney Blumenthal a long time political dirty trickster on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation (why does a charitable organization need a hit man?) has convinced Hillary to abandon the electoral model of her husband which included welfare reform and pro-business elements to at least rhetorically move left. Her claims about women, children, Wall Street and the poor are bogus. Thanks only to Citizens United, the American people are likely to learn this.