Saturday, May 14, 2016


The following piece was written by someone who obviously has no problem trying to confuse their readers.

The headline says it all given that it refers to speeches made the "Clinton's" with the implication they are referring to Hillary while actually commenting on Bill.

They then proceed with a condescending piece about how "celebrities" like the Clinton's are son much in demand that organizations would throw money at them just to appear at their functions.

But most blatant (and damaging to Hillary) of all is that they admit that the Clinton's pander to those who pay them while at the same time trying to convince readers that it's no big deal.

Such as;

"I have no doubt that Hillary does not want to release the transcripts of those speeches because those pouring through them for a gotcha news story or to prove a point, will surely find praise for the institutions she was speaking on behalf of. In this political climate, that would be a bad news cycle for her. I also have no doubt that she also showered glowing praise on the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of. Does anyone really think her speech to the US Green building council in 2013 was fair and balanced about negative aspects of what the Green building council has done? No. These are performances for a purpose."

Read more of it at :I have personally been to a closed door corporate Clinton speech. This is what I experienced 

A performance indeed. Which is why voters do not trust Hillary and suspect she is just "performing" for them in order to get their vote. The last thing America needs in the Oval Office is a professional speech maker who sells to the highest bidder.

Oh, by the way. It would still be interesting to see the transcripts of these $200,000. speeches and see what's so valuable about them. Just curious.