Hillary Clinton v. Obama

Obama, hypocrite in chief at the National Prayer Breakfast, and orchestrator of a bodyguard of lies
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Yesterday Hillary Clinton flew her true colors. She holds the American people in the utmost contempt. She insulted our intelligence. She finally ordered us to take her word on everything. In so saying, she disqualified herself to be President. Barack Obama happens to agree. But he agrees for a reason not only wrong, but monstrous.

Hillary Clinton and the e-mails

Yesterday (March 10), she scheduled a press conference at 2:00 p.m. EDT at United Nations Plaza. She kept the world’s people waiting at Turtle Bay for forty-five minutes. Then Her Majesty graced the podium with her august presence. And told a tissue of bald-faced lies. Pinocchio would have envied her more than a nose that did not lengthen with every word.

The Associated Press used to apologize for her, as they tend to do for liberals. Now they have become one of her most implacable enemies. They announced today they will sue, under the Freedom of Information Act, to see the infamous e-mails. They also published this list contrasting what she said, with the facts. She offered lame excuses, like “others have done it.” The AP refuted even those. (And even had they not, Hillary Clinton cannot excuse herself on that ground. Not if she wants to be President, she doesn’t.)

Hillary Clinton is in trouble with her old boss.

Hillary Clinton. Photo: US Department of State

Worse than that: Bill Clinton refuted one of those lies. She said the private server originally belonged to Bill Clinton as a former President. But Bill Clinton said he sent only two e-mails in his life. (See also here.)

Hillary Clinton even contradicted herself. She said she preferred to carry only one device, so she used one e-mail account. First, anyone can easily guard more than one e-mail account on one mobile device. (Your correspondent guards two e-mail accounts on his Motorola Droid Razr M and could easily guard ten or more.) Second, in a TV interview, Hillary Clinton said she owned both an Apple iPhone and a RiM Blackberry!

She also specifically told her employees at State to use government e-mail accounts. Yet she did not. The law makes no understood or unwritten assumptions about rank having its privileges.

And before she left, she refused all access to this private server.

A word about that private server. By what authority does she have one? Alan Colmes has always defended her consistently. He specifically dared anyone to show evidence of a private server in her home. Now Hillary said she had one. No one has asked Alan Colmes what he has to say about that.

Why should this raise so many eyebrows? Because anyone wanting to run a Web site or an e-mail domain has four choices of remote hosting: shared-server account, semi-dedicated server account, Virtual Private Service, or fully dedicated server. The last choice usually costs two thousand dollars a year. To have a server in one’s own home or office costs thousands more for dedicated high-bore pipelines to the Internet. In short, no one but a rank amateur runs a home or office server with no connection to the Internet faster than the Public Switched Telephone Network or a coaxial cable. Usually one uses T1 or even T3 connections.

All of which to say: this took advance planning. Bear this in mind when remembering this: her private e-mail server went live on the very day she appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Relations to apply to them for confirmation as Secretary of State.

What Barack Obama has against Hillary Clinton

Any other President would have this against Hillary Clinton above all: she compromised his own correspondence. As John Hayward explains: she must have corresponded with the (de facto) President. So those e-mails reside on her server, too. That server is only as secure as she could make it. And how secure can that be? Does she even know? (In fact, at least one person boasts to have hacked her.)

Valerie Jarrett, la grande vizière, seems to back Hillary Clinton up in that lie. “I know of no one who received an e-mail from her,” she says. How likely is that?

Brian Darling at Human Events bluntly called Clinton’s performance “a public-relations disaster.” And one can certainly see why. Hillary Clinton told the American people to do everything but eat cake. (Or something viler than that.)

But Barack Obama does not have it in for Hillary Clinton for that reason. Of course, if he did, he would have to explain why he never suspected anything untoward the whole time she served as SecState. But he has another, darker reason.

Ed Klein has been part of the Clinton “machine” for years, going back to the Bill Clinton administration. This morning he flatly blamed Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett for everything that’s happening to Hillary Clinton now. Klein accused Jarrett of leading no fewer than six separate investigations of Hillary Clinton.

And for what motive? Hillary plays her politics too much to the center. Obama and Jarrett worry a Hillary Clinton would work with an all-Republican Congress, just as Bill Clinton did. Obama does not want that. He wants his “legacy” to stick.

Dick Morris knows another reason: Elizabeth Warren. If Hillary Clinton cannot run, leading Democrats will beg Elizabeth Warren to run.

That might be what George Soros, high financier of the Democratic Party, wants. Because Elizabeth Warren echoes Barack Obama’s “You didn’t build that” rhetoric.

Rush Limbaugh expressed another fear. Suppose Obama decides to suspend elections? Limbaugh fears the Republicans would do the most cowardly thing one could imagine: calling special sessions of Congress and the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States to pass a simple, but deadly, Constitutional amendment:

The twenty-second article of amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.

Which would mean Obama could repeat Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s performance of serving a third term. And maybe a fourth.

So do not suppose all who oppose Hillary Clinton, do so from a pure motive. They do not.

<a href="https://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hillary-clinton-v-obama/question-4742812/" title="Hillary Clinton v. Obama">Hillary Clinton v. Obama</a>

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.