Radioactive Hillary

It's as easy as yellow cake—highly prized uranium—to know which U.S. presidential candidate Vladimir Putin supports. Despite the MSM tall tale, that's not unpredictable, tough guy Donald Trump. If the Russians want to interfere in America's presidential contest, it's clearly in their country's best interest to support the one they can readily push around: lying, corrupt Hillary Clinton.

Unlike Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton has a well-established history of bartering high level government favors to specifically benefit the USSR. Therefore, Mr. Putin knows Hillary can be cheaply bought. As Mr. Obama's former Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton rubber stamped the Uranium One “deal” in which 20% of U.S. domestic uranium production was ceded to Kremlin control. Per a bombshell New York Times article back in April of last year, Canadian records show that Uranium One's chairman made four donations totaling $2.35 million to Mrs. Clinton's sham of a charity. A real windfall for the Soviets! If that payoff's not blatant enough, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with government ties promoting Uranium One stock.

That's Putin's big carrot to dangle before greedy, immoral Hillary anytime he wants something. After all, formerly “dead broke”—now part of the 100 million dollar club in less than 15 years—Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated as long as she's living as large as the billionaire class she aspires to, what does she care for the 93 million unemployed fellow citizens (read: the “little people”) left to foot the ruling elites' escalating spending, the nation's $19.4 trillion debt?

If the carrot mysteriously doesn't work, there remains for Mr. Putin a Trump card. A big stick: manipulation and blackmail. Recall Server-gate, Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal servers chock full of highly classified material and American secrets. Does anyone seriously believe that foreign powers like the Russians or the Chinese have not stolen those 33,000 deleted emails, and would not use that information against her (and us)? Donald Trump certainly thinks so.

Despite her repeated, pathological denials of any wrongdoing, she has committed treasonous acts more than once. As a true-life Orwellian Big Brother figure, Barack Obama not only doesn't hold her accountable for her clear law-breaking, but also he laughably promotes her as “most qualified” to proceed him. Thus, solely for personal gain—an ever growing slush fund accumulated via her bogus charity—Mrs. Clinton has permitted the foundational material used to make nuclear bombs to be monopolized by Russia? To further this nefarious equation, as the Soviets have business relationships with Iran—the greatest state sponsor of ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism—does it really take a nuclear scientist to connect all of these dangerous dots? What's to stop Russia from sharing its cache of American-acquired uranium with Iranian Imams (with their burgeoning nuclear ambitions and their desire to bend the will of the world to Islam)? Precisely nothing.

Hillary Clinton is a menace of the highest order. Make no mistake, she belongs in the big house not the White House. Seriously, should she be given free access to the “blank check” treasury—and the entire latitude of the U.S. government? Is branding—the irrelevancy of her husband's name—and the superficiality of her gender enough to reward this amoral creature with the keys to the kingdom? America doesn't need another polarizing, anti-American president. Likewise someone who promises a virtual Obama third term and a continuation of his eight disastrous years.

People complain about Donald Trump's unfiltered speech, but wholly ignore what Hillary has actually done? In the final analysis, what any person does is more important than what any person says. Given First Amendment protections of unpopular or controversial speech, no statement should disqualify any candidate from being president. Yet, based upon Mrs. Clinton concrete track record of unequivocal poor judgment and criminal misbehavior, she's not qualified to be dogcatcher. This is the truth despite her empty resume of impressive titles and her uncanny, Clintonian ability to slither out of multiple scandals.

Self-serving she has no love for America. Because of her lies, her unchecked lawlessness and her complete absence of moral fiber, she's a toxic candidate. Indeed, she's as dangerous and as destructive as the foreign hands now holding the radioactive uranium she sold access to. One can scarcely imagine the untold damage wrought on our country by this immoral influence-peddler from the Oval Office. Speaking of branding, the presidential ballot should come with a warning: the skull and crossbones symbol next to Hillary Clinton's name.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Democrat primaries: Soviet style

Your name is Hillary Clinton. You run for president. 6 different dead-locked precincts tossing tie-breaking coins all fall your way. Per Las Vegas oddsmakers, six consecutive appearances of heads-or-tails is a statistical probability of 1.5%. That's 64-to-1 against, an exceedingly lucky outcome. For Democrats, there is no hand–wringing, no equivalent “hanging chads” controversy. Unlike Bush/Gore in 2000 in Florida there are no multiple re-counts demanded, no cadre of lawyers dispatched to Iowa, no lawsuits filed. Mrs. Clinton claims victory before all the results were tallied, ultimately managing a microscopic victory of 4 delegates. That's people not percentage points. (Does she know something the rest of us don't?)

In New Hampshire Bernie Sanders—an avowed Socialist who took his blushing bride to Russia for their honeymoon—gave madame real shellacking by 22 percent. A Donald Trump-like primary performance. That translates into 15 delegates for him to her 9. However, despite the Iowa virtual tie and the clear New Hampshire win, it turns out today that Bernie's been burnt. That's because in the all-important delegate count—the convention electors who ultimately select the Democrat's presidential nominee—she leads him going into Clinton-friendly South Carolina 394 to 44.

Non-existent in the Republican Party for the very good reason that they can easily thwart the voters' intentions, the discrepancy lies in little-understood Democrat superdelegates. These are the “important” people, party insiders like Bill Clinton (no nepotism there). Instituted in 1982—no doubt in large part to Ronald Reagan's landslide 1980 victory over unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter—superdelegates are designed to prevent brokered conventions and their result: weak or insurgent candidates. They make up 712, a whopping 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Importantly, unlike Republicans, the Democrat's modern election “process” is ironically autocratic not democratic. Superdelegates may ensure a unified decision-making process, but it is top-down and based upon the party's stamp of approval rather than a generalized expression of whom the voters want. In this way, a top-down process is antithetical to the traditional bottom-up process the Founding Fathers intended: common people choosing informed electors who in turn chose the nominee.

But it's worse than that. Superdelegates beholden to no one—save the party itself—make this nominating process inherently corrupt, based upon back-room dealing completely removed from the American people's influence. Case and point is New Hampshire. With 2 uncommitted, 6 of the 8 superdelegates support Hillary. That evens the scale in the contest to a tie of 15 apiece. Indeed, months before a single vote was cast, Hillarystarted the race with 15% of the total she needs.

Simply put, Hillary wins even though she loses. Superdelegates prove the fix is in, the creeping Clinton coronation is actually in full swing. Likewise, the MSM-moderated debates are a complete sham, extended political commercials peppered with softball questions. In the final analysis, how is this any different then Russia when Vladimir Putin is the only name on the ballot?

Apparently untroubled, debate handshaking Bernie comfortably plays his role in this “Democratic” farce that guarantees Hillary the nomination.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976