Gaypocrisy & Hillesbianism

Gaypocrisy & Hillesbianism

Well, I’m a little slow posting because this is quite a bit different than Blogger. I’m getting it though, slowly but surely.

Ever notice how quiet the homosexual/lesbian/transgender/various other freak rights groups are about how much money the Clintons take from regimes who imprison gays just for being gay?

The Clinton Foundation has accepted millions from Middle Eastern and other foreign governments that criminalize homosexuality – but prominent gay rights groups in America have stayed silent on the apparent disconnect between Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric and the donations.

“Unquestionably, they’re not standing up for their principles,” said Human Rights Foundation President Thor Halvorssen.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee frequently talks about her support for the LGBT community, while ripping what she describes as discriminatory policies in the U.S.

“It’s outrageous that, in 2015, you can still be fired for being gay,” she told the Human Rights Campaign in an October 2015 speech. “You can still lose your home for being gay. You can even be denied a wedding cake for being gay.”

But published reports and figures provided by the Clinton Foundation on its website show the group has accepted millions from countries that prosecute and imprison gay people – and worse. The following is an overview of those contributions, as well as policies from donor nations as detailed by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).

I doubt that anyone is seriously surprised at the Clintons’ hypocrisy. And by the way, Mrs. Clinton, nobody was “denied a wedding cake.” That couple had bakeries offering to make their cake for free. No, they and their loving, tolerant leftist buddies wanted to make an example of Christian owners simply because they disagreed.  Why is the ILGA silent on this issue? Gosh, you don’t suppose they’re hypocrites too?


Her Supreme Obliviousness, Hillary Clinton

Her Supreme Obliviousness, Hillary Clinton

Tweet offered without comment, because no comment is necessary….

If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.

….and besides, Instapundit beat us all to it.

Yeah, anyone under FBI investigation is super sketchy. 

And who do does the GOP nominate but the only candidate capable of losing to this nitwit.  Unbefrakkinglievable.

The 2016 Blue Plate Special On Orlando Jihad

The 2016 Blue Plate Special On Orlando Jihad

….in two tweets.

“Ladies” first:

“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Kinda puts the “d” in “delusional,” doesn’t it?  Although it also bears the mark of Her Nib’s trademark hamfisted, pandering, rote recitations, like she cut & pasted it from the leftwingnut catchphrase list and shot it out into the cyberether like her pantsuit was on fire.

But as with pretty much everything else Mrs. Clinton has done and said in this campaign, it has the reek of “been there, done that, got the t-shirt” to it.  There’s no blasting of Commissar Upside-Down Legs that hasn’t been blasted countless times before over the past quarter-century.  She is what she is, we’ve said about it and her what we’ve said, and frankly continuing to whale away, while necessary, is excruciatingly tedious and, by this time, rote recitation in and of itself.

That’s one more thing that makes Donald Trump’s bullshit so much more of a fresh and inviting target:

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

First of all, if he didn’t want the congratulations, he wouldn’t bring up how much he basks in that imagined glory from it.  Second, and more to the point, he thinks he merits congratulations for making the most basic recognition of established fact: Islamic Fundamentalists are trying to kill us all.  Kinda resembles a “degree” from Trump University, doesn’t it?  And thirdly, and even more to the point, what has he proposed as countermeasures other than insincere vigilance – the Muslim immigration ban he floated and then hastily retreated from last fall – and “bombing the shit” out of ISIS and “taking their oil,” which just so happens to line right up with the Left’s smear of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism?  The primary campaign pander that he has little remaining interest in pushing in any case, as evinced by his followup tweet that “many, many Muslims are wonderful people”….until they’re not.  Which is kind of the point of the vigilance he purports to tout.

But as a practical matter, while keeping out any more Muzzies, wise as that would be, is certainly a prudent step – or would be if Trump actually meant it – there is the matter of what to do with the ones already here, which a Muslim immigration ban does not address and would not have prevented the jihadist assault in Orlando yesterday morning.  What are the coiffed crusader’s “bold, brash, tell it like it is” big ideas on reining in the jihadists already in our midst?  Is he holding them back until more pats on the back are forthcoming, because his thinking on this topic is as mile-wide and inch-deep as it is on every other, or because he’s actually as Islamophilic as pretty much every other New York liberal?

Trump wanted to be GOP presidential nominee; this is the kind of seriousness and gravitas that designation, as well as his overhyped reputation, requires.

To quote Loki….

McAuliffe-gate Lands In Hillary Clinton’s Lap

McAuliffe-gate Lands In Hillary Clinton’s Lap


This has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation. This was an allegation of a gentleman who gave a check to my campaign. I didn’t bring the donor in. I didn’t bring him into the Clinton Foundation. I’m not even sure if I’ve ever met the person, to be honest with you,” [Virginia Democrat Governor Terry] McAuliffe told reporters. “I know the folks that worked at his company.”

Other shoe landing in five, four, three, two, one:

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe invited the [Red] Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of [Injustice, Revenge & Coverup Commissariat] investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s personal Washington, D.C., residence.

Wang Wenliang, a [Red] Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook [Mrs.] Clinton’s hand at the September 30th event, a representative for Wang told TIME. An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to McAuliffe’s campaign three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million.

The fundraiser was one of at least three interactions between Wang and McAuliffe, according to the businessman’s representative. [emphases added]

Pay, play.

After a quarter-century of this corrupt crapola, there’s not a whole lot I can say that wouldn’t be excruciatingly redundant, so I’ll let the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review do the honors:

Wang Wenliang is a [Red] Chinese citizen. He has permanent resident status in the United States and is chairman of Dandong Port Group. Mr. Wang also controls a New Jersey construction firm whence the donation originated. While federal law prohibits foreign donations, McAuliffe says Wang’s green card entitles him to contribute.

Oh, did we mention that Wang also is a delegate to the [Red] Chinese parliament? And as Jim Geraghty makes the point in National Review Online, that makes Wang an “agent of a foreign principal.”

“I don’t care what Wang’s visa status is,” Mr. Geraghty says. “How on God’s green Earth can it be legal for [Red] Chinese government officials to donate to American candidates for governor?”

Simply put, it’s not. And this could be the tip of an iceberg, considering reports that the McAuliffe inquiry might be an outcropping of the outcropped investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email mess. McAuliffe, of course, is a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton[oid]. [emphases added]

To answer J-Ger’s rhetorical question, I don’t think it was legal for then-President Bill Clinton to accept ChiComm campaign donations back in 1996, either, but he eagerly deposited their checks anyway.  Compared to that, Governor McAuliffe’s transgression is a peccadillo.  It’s also as inevitable as the sunrise, since McAuliffe has always been a top La Clinton Nostra bagman, and nobody has any excuse to believe that he was going to put that “career” on hold when he moved into the big mansion in Richmond.

This is why, on the one hand, it baffles me as to how Donk crooks like Terry McAuliffe keep getting elected to high office in this country in areas, like Virginia, where they really shouldn’t be all that competitive, and on the other hand, the fact that they do keep getting elected reinforces the reality of how tiny a minority constitutional conservatives really are in this country.  And that was before the rise of Trumpmania torched much of what strength we had and ground we held.  The implications for November are sufficiently obvious that I feel no need to elaborate.

This should also underscore why I have adopted the hashtag #NoneOfTheAbove.  Clarity, and all that.  Not that those who huddle under its umbrella will ever get credit for it or not be smeared as “Hillary-enablers” and such rotgut, but we have left them no cover for that lie.

Exit question: Who would a President Trump have summarily executed without trial first?  McAuliffe or Wang?

UPDATE: Guess who donated twenty-five grand to Hillary’s bagman’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign?  You get three tries, and the first two don’t count.