Exposing Hillary Clinton’s Concealed Transparencies!
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. -Luke 2:2
I can absolutely say, without reserve, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a fraud from the top of her head to the soles of her feet. The way that she portrays herself, in contrast to who she really is, are two different revelations.
FRAUD, n. [L. fraus.] Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; an attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means, particularly deception in contracts, or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.
From her boastful (criminal) record to her contrived and fabricated support, with her answers and comments, it is not hard to detect that she is a fraud.
Much of last night’s debate was spent on her accusing her opponent of crimes of which she is guilty.
You can pretty much count on the fact that whatever she says, the opposite is true, even when she gives her answers to her pre-scripted questions where it speaks in contrast to the point that she is trying to make. She is talking out of both sides of her lying mouth (Proverbs 19:5).
During the debates on Wednesday, we had the misfortune of seeing Hillary Clinton for who she really is (John 8:44; 1 Timothy 4:2).
One of the low points was when she spoke about gun control, which is unconstitutional and clearly runs in against the Bill of Rights.
The Federalist.com reported:
When pressed by Wallace to explain her opposition to 2008’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Clinton went through a checklist of platitudes before landing on the following:
You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case. Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns.
Hillary brought up “toddlers” a few more times, because little children are mostly adorable and no one wants to see them shot.
The thing is, the Heller case revolves around Richard Heller, a then 66-year-old police officer in Washington DC, who was allowed to carry a gun in a federal office building to protect politicians and strangers, but not in his home to protect himself, his family, or his property. Also of note, the Heller decision had nothing to do with toddlers or saving toddlers’ lives or toddler gun safety or even toddlers shooting at each other. The word “toddler” doesn’t appear anywhere in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case.
After she was done fearmongering, Hillary went on to say this:
But there’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.
No, she does not. Heller ended Washington’s “total ban on handguns” — which was SCOTUS’s description of the gun-control laws in DC. It codified the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Hillary admits she supports an effective ban on all handguns (for the toddlers), which is what instigated Heller. What “application” of the decision does she oppose if not the individual’s right to own a gun?
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
When it came to the topic of abortion, remember the toddlers for whom she expresses such great care?
She plainly stated that she would continuously support the unconstitutional act of abortion through Planned Parenthood, as well as the corrupt that have illegally sanctioned the murder of the innocent in the womb by supporting Roe vs. Wade (Proverbs 6:17).
She said, “Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make.”
Fifty-seven million innocent babies have been murdered, and they are still attempting to justify it.
- 1% Rape or Incest
- 6% Potential health problems (Mother or Child)
- 93% For social reasons (Unwanted or Inconvenient)
“The most merciful thing that a large family does for one of its infant members is to kill it.” –Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Women and the New Race. (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) (Proverbs 12:10)
Cecile Richards, in an attempt to defend Planned Parenthood after being exposed on video for harvesting baby parts, said that the people who caught them are the real monsters, also murderers and terrorists, but don’t ask us for evidence (Revelation 12:10).
She went on to hypocritically say that government has no business telling people what they are to do concerning their choice to murder their babies.
Americans, knowingly or unknowingly, have been funding abortion through an illegal allocation of taxpayer dollars on behalf of a government that has been ruling through force far too long concerning issues for which it has no constitutional authority.
Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. –George Orwell (Mark 8:15)
Furthermore, 95% of the issues brought up during the debate had nothing to do with what the government has a constitutional right to do in the first place. Government doesn’t have a future without the chaos it creates.
Concerning the likes of Hilary Clinton, this is only the tip of the iceberg concerning the expose of her concealed transparencies.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.