This presidential election cycle is turning out to be quite entertaining. Look at any national media outlet/publication/TV or alternative sites and the pages are filled with dozens of stories surrounding all candidates. There is certainly no shortage of issues to cover regarding where each of the candidates stand. However, the behavior of the presidential contenders is the stuff that graces the pages of fluff magazines. As it turns out, the key focus for the dog and pony show is character, integrity, and mud-slinging.
On the Democratic Party side, let us begin with Hillary Clinton. This woman has more scandals surrounding her than the greatest soap opera villain could ever hope to pull off without getting caught. Other than Obama, no another candidate has lied more, in the past or present. To add insult to injury, Hillary claims she doesn’t know whether she has lied or not. In the spirit of “what difference does it make,” Hillary lies habitually like Obama, but doesn’t do as good of a job. Her biggest lie has to be that the Benghazi attack was the result of a protest to a video insulting Mohammed, may pig’s blood be flung upon him and a ham stuck in his mouth. Where the truth is concerned, there is no difference between Obama and Hillary — a lie is as good as or better than the truth.
The same can be said for scandals. While those surrounding Obama are more numerous, one can expect Hillary to continue that same glorious tradition. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton denied Ambassador Chris Stevens’ repeated requests for additional security at the Benghazi compound. Four Americans lost their lives during the attack at Benghazi as she promoted a lie. Scandals are nothing new to Clinton. A distinguished long list follow her and Bill going back to their Arkansas days like a bone secured to a dog’s collar. And, someone ordered American troops to stand down that could have assisted at Benghazi. More than likely, Hillary knows who it was. Hillary follows in the tradition of Obama by surrounding herself with Muslim terrorist organization supporters. In fact, Hillary herself supports Islam to the detriment of America.
Where character and integrity are involved, Hillary Clinton scores an “F.” As far as mud-slinging toward other candidates, Hillary has limited hers to Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. Hillary has a talent for misrepresenting her opponents’ beliefs and their past when she perceives a threat. Others might not declare it mud-slinging, but lying; however, those involved in her campaign do the majority of digging up and flinging dirt.
Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist, listed as an independent, running for nomination as a Democrat, has done his share of telling falsehoods. In fact, there is a video of Bernie Sanders presenting six lies in less than five minutes. Watch and see if you can identify the lies. Sanders has not quite mastered the art of lying like Hillary and surely cannot hold a candle to Hussein Soetoro’s mythomania. However, Bernie is still a politician, which requires one to be able to lie with a straight face to the public.
Short on scandals, Bernie still has questionable ethics. The good socialist that he is, Bernie funneled campaign funds and money from nonprofits under his control to family members. According to the Washington Free Beacon, those who benefitted from this socialist prestidigitator were his wife, his stepdaughter, and “the son of a former colleague in city government whom Sanders has described as a close friend.” Yet, this “man for the people,” as one individual has described him, is now boasting an “anti-corruption” platform. Not surprisingly, a question of complete financial disclosure hangs around the neck of Bernie.
James O’Brien, a political consultant and former publisher of Campaigns & Elections magazine, investigated and analyzed the financial disclosure report all candidates for president are required to file. O’Brien found a discrepancy. The lamestream media usually quotes Bernie’s net worth at around $700,000; however, O’Brien found his net worth is closer to $1.2 to $1.5 million. Moreover, Bernie’s wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, left her job as president of Burlington College under questionable circumstances, receiving what many would term a “golden parachute” as her severance package, which benefitted Bernie’s net worth. Now, Mrs. Bernie is being accused of federal bank fraud.
O’Brien maintains the financial disclosure forms are incomplete, citing Sanders’ failure to disclose the “value of real estate holding,” which includes two homes — one generating rental income in Vermont and one near Capitol Hill. Sanders is not required to disclose the value of real estate holding. However, Brien backs up his claim saying, “For someone who doesn’t care about money, he goes a long way to cover up his true net worth.”
Bernie’s mud-slinging is very subtle, if he engages at all. Early on, Sanders criticized Hillary for her positions on climate change, international trade agreements, and the Iraq War. “He even took a personal shot at Clinton’s wealth, suggesting that the millions of dollars she earned in recent months may influence ‘her perspectives on the struggles’ of working-class Americans.” For the most part, Bernie has tried to focus on the issues, directing some of his rhetoric toward young American voters when it comes to controversial ones like marijuana legalization.
Where character and integrity are concerned, Bernie Sanders scores an “F.” He fares much better in the mud-slinging department but that could change based on the outcomes of the primaries as they unfold.
These are the choices for the Democratic Party and those in the nation who have registered as Democrats. Neither candidate possesses good character. Both lack integrity. And, the mud-slinging each does is done differently but it is there — sometimes subtly done. For Democrats, they have a choice between a self-proclaimed socialist without good character or integrity and who subtly gets in jabs most don’t recognize and a Democrat who is a closet socialist/communist possessing atrocious character and no integrity that will bury someone in mud or throw him in quicksand. There is no “lesser of two evils” here — only two evils. The question each Democrat must ask is, “Which evil can I tolerate the most?” Either way, Democrats will be voting for communism/socialism, meaning the only difference will be in delivery — devastating or catastrophic.