You are here

About Hillary Clinton

See also: Major Media Keep Propagandizing for Hillary Clinton (4/5/15) by Eric Zuesse.

In the video embedded below,
Hillary Clinton bursts out into
laughter after her fellow inter-
viewee says, "then we ought
to take [Iran] out" - Feb 2012

Hillary Clinton is not a liberal - no more than Bill Clinton was a liberal - these people have absolutely no moral compass or political principles. They are opportunists of the worst kind - they are virtual psychopaths who will do anything and say anything in order to obtain power. Hillary Clinton was a "goldwater girl" back in 1964 - she was a right-wing Republican. But when she found it more convenient to pretend to be a liberal in order to obtain power, then she pretended to be a liberal. But make no mistake - the Clintons have NO principles at all.  1 



Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full Movie

Published 10/9/13


Hillary Clinton: We created Al-Qaeda

Published 27/2/13


Follow us on Facebook |

In this video Hilary Clinton admits that the US government created and funded Al-Qaeda in order to fight the Soviet Union, and she even considers that as a good thing. But she claims that the Americans are fighting Al-Qaeda nowadays.

Well, if you really fighting Al-Qaeda, then who are the scum and terrorists you used in order to topple the government of Gaddafi in Libya?...

The American media describes "Aldel Hakim Belhaj" as an x-terrorist or as an x-jihadist. How funny and hypocritical!


Al-Qaeda didn't leave the US government bed ... Let us review the history and see that Al-Qaeda acts served only the US foreign policy ... Al-Qaeda terrorists are multipurpose fighters who are being used efficiently by the US government ...

Follow our Facebook on:


1. ↑  This comment, about the video by Steven Yourke embedded immediately below, was published '3 months ago', as of 19 May 2015. The length of the video is 1:30:16.


Hillary Clinton article

Well, I watched the second movie in this article on Hilary, "Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full Movie."

It was obviously made by conservatives and neocons. They fear that Hilary would try to bring in national health care and national education, which they believe is socialism and for them that is beyond the pale. She is termed in the movie as 'the closest thing in America to a European socialist' - seen to be a bad thing. They also cast doubt on her ability to commit to defend America - by which they mean to further US aggression and domination globally. Then they describe a number of scandals - some very unsavory and involving court cases - that the Clintons were involved in. They accuse Hillary of being a psychopath and she may very well be one; the examples given were fairly convincing - but it isn't like the film-makers didn't have their own political agenda.

Despite the professed concerns that Hilary would not commit to war strongly enough, I am personally very worried by Clinton because of what seemed a very stupid, insensitive and gung-ho approach to war in her book, Hard Choices; a willingness to purvey war propaganda. I did come away with the impression that Hillary Clinton is a psychopath. If she were to maintain the position she puts in her book, then I would say that she would make WW3 all that much closer.

That said, is there anyone else in America likely to win who is not a raging narcissist and paranoid warmongerer? Is it indeed possible to be a multimillionaire and not psychopathic? But that doesn't make Hillary okay.

[Note: I have edited this comment a bit the next day by including the title and link to a review of Clinton's book.]

Sheila Newman wrote:

... is there anyone else in America likely to win who is not a raging narcissist and paranoid warmonger? Is it indeed possible to be a multimillionaire and not psychopathic? ...

We must not forget that for all the grave flaws of America's democracy, including its presidential election system, at least three great people, of good intention and opposed to the interests of the corporate elites, were elected to the office of President since the middle of the 19th century – Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and John F Kennedy (JFK). In 1968, JFK's younger brother Robert Kennedy (RFK or Bobby Kennedy) was suspiciously murdered just as he was about to win the Democratic Presidential primaries in 1968. Had both RFK and Jim Garrison, who was working to prosecute one of those who had conspired to murder JFK (as portrayed in Oliver Stone's JFK of 1991), thought to work together that murder could well have been prevented. Bobby Kennedy would then almost certainly have won the elections of 1968, and in doing so, have brought the bloody Vietnam war to an end five and as half years before it was eventually to end in May 1975.

These examples show that, for all the shortcomings of the American Presidential system and for all the perils faced by candidates not in the pockets of the corporate elites, it is still possible for a good candidate to win.

The only course of action that could possibly cause any good to come out of the American Presidential elections, not just for Americans, but for the rest of humanity, which also has a stake in the outcome, is to support any candidate who stands for principled domestic international policies. One such candidate is Bernie Sanders.

Given the advantages the Internet gives anybody with evidence and logic to back up his/her viewpoint, and the existence on that Internet of large independent anti-corporate, anti-war newsmedia, both inside America and overseas, it should not be precluded that a good candidate such as Bernie Sanders may well be elected president, whether as an endorsed Democrat or Republican, an Independent or a Green.

Even if Bernie Sanders were not to win, a large grassroots campaign in support of Sanders could well make it much harder for the winner to implement his/her plans to serve his/her corporate masters and extend the United States' global hegemony.

From 'Hillary Clinton is the most dangerous presidential hopeful from a war standpoint' (16/4/16) | RT interview:

Hillary Clinton is the most dangerous candidate of those running from a war standpoint, says Lew Rockwell, American author, chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She promoted the destruction of Libya and killing people in Syria, he adds.

Since the start of the NATO intervention in Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the country has suffered through instability and political chaos.

RT: Why does Hillary Clinton refuse to take at least some responsibility for the Libyan bombing campaign? 2011 was right bang in the middle of her stint as US Secretary of State.

Lew Rockwell: She is a liar. That’s why she won’t. She is attempting to wiggle out of what she did. She promoted the destruction of Libya, the murder of Gaddafi, and murder of many thousands of people in Libya, sending all kinds of horrendous arms with the approval of the US to the Syrian so-called rebels, to kill people in Syria. This was a criminal act and an imperial act. She was cheering it on… You can’t believe her, she is a liar and now she is trying to wiggle out, but she was, if we want to put this in legal terms, she was an accessory before, during and after the fact. Yes, Obama had the final decision. She was egging him on, she was cheering him on, she was pressuring him and she went right along with it and she is co-responsible for all those deaths, for all that blood and destruction, all the families destroyed, all the mountains of corpses in Libya. Just as of course she is co-responsible for what George W. Bush did in Iraq. She is a very nasty lady.


See also: Michael Savage: Only Trump Can Beat Hillary Clinton (23/11/15) | RT video interview (in this interview, author Michael Savage opposes open borders that Obama and Clinton have imposed on the United States and which Angela Merkel has imposed on Germany), Clinton's vow to tackle 'systemic racism' is a sick joke (15/4/16) | RT.

Australian Detective: Clinton Foundation Stole Millions Of Aussie Tax Money
January 17, 2018
Baxter Dmitry

The FBI is investigating details involving multiple allegations against the Clinton Foundation corruption and mishandling tens of millions of dollars of Australian tax payers’ money, according to an investigative journalist who is a retired police

I have been asked to provide the FBI with further and better particulars about allegations regarding improper donations to the CF funded by Australian taxpayers,” c, the former detective, told

At the center of Smith’s complaints are former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and multiple Australian government officials, including senior diplomat Alexander Downer, that government’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom.
: Downer hit U.S. headlines recently when he was reported to have told the FBI of a May 2016 conversation he had with George Papadopoulos, then a campaign aide to President Donald Trump. Downer told U.S. law enforcement officials that Papadopoulos
told him Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times claimed in its Dec. 30, 2017, story that the information Downer gave the FBI was a major factor in the bureau’s
decision to investigate allegations of collusion between Russian interests and the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI last year.
The materials Smith is giving the FBI focus on a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the Australian government and the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton HIV/AIDs Initiative (CHAI). Smith claims the foundation received a “$25M financial advantage dishonestly
obtained by deception
” as a result of actions by Bill Clinton and Downer, who was then Australia’s minister of foreign affairs.
Also included in the Smith materials are evidence he believes shows “corrupt October 2006 backdating of false tender advertisements purporting to advertise the availability of a $15 million contract to provide HIV/AIDS services in Papua New Guinea on
behalf of the Australian government after an agreement was already in place to pay the Clinton Foundation and/or associates.”