Contradicting Adam Parkhomenko

Adam Parkhomenko recently wrote a brief political Opinion piece which was published on the website Today’s Big Stuff dot com and entitled “This might be our last chance to listen to Hillary.”

Full Disclosure: Mr. Parkhomenko is a 30-something political consultant/strategist who has an extensive record of support for Hillary Clinton, worked briefly on the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 as an Assistant Campaign Manager during the Democratic primary, and in 2003, while then a 17-year-old student at Northern Virginia Community College, established the candidate-unaffiliated website VoteHillary.org, an in an effort to convince voters to support her 2004 campaign to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee. He promoted his piece on Twitter, writing that, “I haven’t written about Hillary Clinton in a few years but I hope you will take three minutes and read this and retweet to pass it on. I worked for her for over a decade and I think what she’s saying is important and we should listen to.”

Young Mr. Parkhomenko’s ardor for his preferred candidate could be understood in the light of his obvious zeal for her, and overlooked, or even forgiven, since such eagerness often overlooks another’s flaws, because often, when in love, “the object of one’s desire can do no wrong.”

Mr. Parkhomenko couches the introduction of his threadbare piece as Hillary being a political prophetess or seer by using metaphoric imagery such as “time machine,” “villagers,” and “danger that was coming.” Naturally, that presupposes that the “villagers” are morons, or at least seriously daft in some manner.

Of course, one could suppose where he was headed with such colorful descriptors, which is the shaming “but they didn’t listen,” the I-told-you-so taunt of “it turned out she was right,” along with a repeat of the earlier “and the villagers are ignoring her again.”

Next, he takes square aim at blaming external factors, rather than a flawed candidacy, by writing pointedly, “first of all because she’s a woman. And second of all because her name is Hillary Clinton.”

I suppose her name could have been “Rapunzel,” or “Juliet” and she would have been blamed for cakes and biscuits not rising, or any other such nonsensical tripe. That’s not to say that women have not been subjected to some type of sex-based discrimination, for they have. But to blatantly assert or claim, that she was “repeatedly invited by the national media to just go away despite,” he further attempts to spread blame so thinly that it’s quite easy to see through.

It also reminds one a childhood moralistic tale entitled, “The Remarkable Story of Chicken Little,” in which the protagonist, a hen character named “Henny Penny,” had an acorn to fall on her head, and then loudly, though erroneously, warned exclaiming that, “THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!”

Mr. Parkhomenko seems to express bafflement, and befuddlement that his favorite candidate never won the nation’s highest political office, and quoted her, writing that “I’m astonished that more people don’t see, or can’t face…” That quote, of course, was a statement made in agreement by Ms. Clinton in a non-challenging, puff-piece interview with Jennifer Senior, a staff writer at The Atlantic during the Atlantic Festival, where she appeared “virtually” live, Thursday, September 30, at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Mr. Parkhomenko added his own remarks which echoed a similar sentiment by writing “why in the world would the villagers ignore someone who…,” and similarly “why would they ignore someone who…”

So let’s examine just a few things, as he has, in order to allow him – or, anyone else – to more clearly see a picture which apparently, has not yet emerged.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Though I loathed her, and still do, I voted for Hillary Clinton over the Republican candidate, because: 1.) She had some experience in politics, and was 2.) “The devil you know,” whereas the Republican candidate was utterly inexperienced politically, and was “the devil you didn’t know.”

First, like it, or not, Hillary is a lightning rod. And to remind our readers, a lightning rod is a metal stick placed vertically atop elevated structures in order to DRAW lightning, and thereby allow it to be run (conducted) to ground through circuits and conduits in order to prevent damage to the structure. Again, a lighting rod attracts lightning, which is a powerful, and natural destructive force. And that describes Hillary to a ‘T’ — a lightning rod.

To be characterized as a “lightning rod” – a thing which draws powerful, troubling and destructive forces – is not a good thing.

Didn’t Feel The Bern? It Was Because Of Hillary.

Donna Brazile, publicity photo

There are probably plenty of reasons to dislike Donna Brazile, the twice-former interim DNC Chair – not the least of which was the discovery that, following a WikiLeaks email dump, she’d been sharing debate questions with Hillary, and subsequent to a second release of the tranche, she resigned in shame from her position at CNN as a political commentator/pundit.

Perhaps she was trying to redeem herself, or, maybe she was trying to hold a light illuminating the damning evidence of HRC’s unethical behavior and corruption (though not illegal), or maybe she was hoping to drive another nail into Hillary’s political coffin, or “throw some others under the bus,” and even if it was a cathartic political “kiss and tell,” her motivation for what she wrote is not the question.

It is ~what~ she wrote in her book “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House” that tells the story.

She discovered that because of the party’s fiscal indebtedness, a backroom deal had been struck with Hillary and the DNC in August 2015, just

When Will Hillary Go Away?

Hillary Clinton continues to show her ass, and her most recent inane comment via Twitter (“Either Tim Kaine and I had a very vivid shared hallucination four years ago or Maureen had too much pot brownie before writing her column again.“) about Maureen Dowd’s column just proves how classless that conniving, subterranean racist, political wanna-be is. She might as well have called her a “racially disparaging term beginning with the letter ’N’ and ending with the letter ‘R’.”

Why?

Well, it was under her husband’s administration that private prisons popped up like mushrooms after a spring shower, which were then just as quickly populated with Blacks and Hispanics courtesy of his “Three Strikes” law – a law he championed which mandated a life sentence for anyone convicted of a violent crime after two prior convictions for any crime, including drug crimes – many of whom had been arrested on low-level, nonviolent drug charges – most typically as marijuana possession.

Mass incarceration was a Clinton concept.

He later admitted it was a bad idea and said, “I signed a bill that made the problem worse and I want to admit it.”

Brother Bill also was the architect behind the idea to “end welfare as we have come to know it,” which was formerly a robust social safety net.

So yeah… my opinion of them both is lower’n a snake’s belly.

Of course, there’s been “bad blood” between Dowd and Hillary for quite some time.

The Daily Mail wrote that “In 2014 Dowd wrote a series of articles about

Remember When Hillary Said Russians Are Grooming Tulsi Gabbard As 3rd Party Spoiler?

Ed. note: This entry was written shortly after HRC made her remarks, found transcribed herein, but remained unpublished. As of publication today, Wednesday, 11 March 2020, Tulsi Gabbard remains a candidate to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential Nominee, though her viability as a candidate is practically non-existent, while Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are the two major candidates remaining in the race.

Tulsi Gabbard, Official Portrait

In the recent edition of the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe,” (Google podcast link) the former 2008 Obama campaign adviser interviewed Hillary Clinton on a wide range of topics, primarily about strategy and tactics that Trump and Republicans will most likely use in an attempt to defeat the 2020 Democratic party presidential nominee.

In the hour-long, often-rambling podcast, guest Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom was the 2016 Democratic nominee for POTUS, a former U.S. Secretary of State, and a former United States Senator from New York, obliquely and surreptitiously accused Tulsi Gabbard, a current Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, current Hawaii U.S. Representative (D-CD2), and Iraq War Veteran, of being a “Russian asset.”

The shocking incredulity which Hillary accuses a fellow Democrat of being – an open traitor to our nation, not merely a “faithless” candidate – could possibly be taken seriously, if not at face value – but for at least two things:

Tulsi Gabbard, Promotion to Major

1.) Tulsi Gabbard is a Major in the Hawaii National Guard, and as such, has sworn an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”;

2.) Tulsi Gabbard is an Iraq War Veteran, and;

3.) Tulsi Gabbard is a current Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District, and in that capacity has similarly sworn an oath of fealty – fidelity to and support of the Constitution.

If what Hillary surreptitiously claimed, suggested, or intimated (she did not mention Rep. Gabbard by name) were true (which it is not), Tulsi would be an open traitor – and she is not.

The seriousness of such charges are not to be taken lightly, which is also why, in large part, that they’re incredulous. Hillary’s claims are not even specious, they are fully unjustified, and wholly unwarranted. And so, they should not, and cannot be taken seriously.

Most American journalistic and media outlets have hardly taken notice, save for a nominal categorical mention on Twitter, and a CBS Evening News report by Norah O’Donnell, and one, or two other stories, including Fox News Tucker Carlson’s brief interview with Tulsi Gabbard about the ordeal shortly after it came to light.

Even Chuck Todd, the marshmallow-soft replacement for the late, take-no-prisoners attorney/host Tim Russert on NBC’s once-revered Sunday newsmaker program Meet the Press, only had a passing interaction on the subject with South Bend, Indiana “Mayor Pete” Buttegieg, who is also a Navy Iraq War Veteran and Democratic candidate to be the party’s Presidential Nominee. Their brief exchange follows:

CHUCK TODD: Before I let you go, I was curious if you had any reaction to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implying that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard might be a Russian asset.

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG: What I’ll say is, I’m not going to get into their dispute. What I will say is we know right now –

TODD: Is that appropriate?

BUTTIGIEG: Well, I suppose when you become a private citizen you can say whatever you want. But…

TODD: I understand that, but she’s a sitting member of Congress. She served.

BUTTIGIEG: Well, I certainly honor her service. As we saw in the debate, I also have strong disagreements with her on topics like Syria. But the bigger issue here is Russia is working to interfere with our elections right now. And we know a big part of how they’re going to do it is exploiting divisions among the American people, with their information operations. We’ve got to become a harder target and as president, I will make sure using all of our tools, diplomatic, economic, and security there is enough deterrence that Russia, or any country, would never again calculate that it is in their interest to mess with our democracy.

TODD: I just wonder if you are comfortable at all – I mean, throw a charge out there making her deny it. That’s a Trumpian move.

BUTTIGIEG: Well, we got to focus on the task at hand right now. And that includes making sure that this presidency comes to an end. That is my focus. That, and what happens after this presidency comes to an end.

TODD: So, you’re comfortable with Hillary Clinton’s critique of Tulsi Gabbard and how she went about it?

BUTTIGIEG: No, I’m not. I’m also not getting in the middle of it because we as a party and as a country have to focus on the future.

NBC’s Chuck Todd was asking “Mayor Pete” Buttegieg about the exchange with David Plouffe and Hillary Clinton in which she spoke about the possibility of another unexpected potential outcome like 2016 (in which the Vladimir Putin-run Russian government significantly meddled online using false narratives and “bots” to alter the outcome according to their wants, thereby getting Donald Trump elected), and the likelihood of Trump’s re-election in conjunction with the possible strategy and tactics they’ll use against the Democratic nomine.

The pertinent part comes about 35 minutes into the one-hour interview. After her controversial remarks, the podcast took a break. In context, and in pertinent part, she said the following:

Hillary: A Woman Can’t Be Elected As POTUS

Fareed Zakaria, host of the CNN public affairs/news-talk show GPS, interviewed Hillary Clinton on an episode which aired Sunday, March 8, 2020 at 10:00 ET.

In that interview with Mr. Zakaria,

Hillary Clinton said that a woman couldn’t get elected as President of the United States.

Read the pertinent portion of the transcript below:

ZAKARIA: Do you think, given that we now have two – two men in the late 70s running for the Democratic Nomination, it’s essential that the Vice President be a woman that the Vice Presidential Candidate be a woman?

CLINTON: I’m going to

How And Why Bernie Will Defeat Trump

Crooked Hillary…

Everyone who pays attention to the news – especially political news – has heard the phrase uttered by the Current White House Occupant, sometimes also known as POS45. There’s even a Wikipedia page of the nicknames he gives folks.

Que sera, sera… eh?

Nevertheless, recall the 2016 General Election?

Why, of course you do!

Who could forget it, right?

I mean, it was a choice between “the devil you know, and the devil you don’t know.” Either way, it was a devil. But at least with one, you could half-way predict what that devil might, could, or possibly would do.

Not so with the other devil.

Or, put another way, a known quantity versus an unknown quantity.

And, time has proven it to be the case.

But for all the investigations which have been launched against her, or about her, and her dealings, nothing has stuck. So maybe she’s the “Teflon Don,” rather than her husband “Blowjob Bill,” eh?

Remember Donna Bazile, the twice-former, interim Democratic National Committee Chair? Recall how she’d been discovered having sharing debate questions with Hillary after a WikiLeaks email dump, and during a second such revelation resigned in shame from her position at CNN as political commentator/pundit?

Yeah… THAT Donna Brazile.

And, perhaps you may recall how she later revealed in her book, an excerpt of which was made into a Politico article, what she’d found when she was briefly DNC chair, specifically, how a back-room deal was struck between Hillary and the DNC a year before the 2016 election campaign season began.

So, let’s recap.

Here’s two of the article’s first three paragraphs, which are excerpted from her book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House:

“I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

“So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

Focus upon that last sentence – “It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

“…for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”

That, my friends, is a classic example of a quid pro quo – giving one thing of value in exchange for another thing of value. Legally defined as a type of valid contract, the quid pro quo is not an illegal act in and of itself, per se, and must be considered within context to determine if it was an illegal act, or not.

There’s little-to-no question that it was unethical, at the very least, and certainly hasn’t reflected positively on the party, nor upon Hillary.

But how did it get to that point?

After the convention, Ms Brazile called Gary Gensler, Chief Financial Officer of Hillary’s campaign, who told her that the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

Stewardship of the party’s finances was in shambles, to say the least, and it was due in significant part, or so she claims, from her predecessor Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Representative from Florida’s 20th Congressional District.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, as you may recall, also later resigned as DNC Chair after a tranche of WikiLeaks emails showed she had given significant help to Hillary during her Presidential campaign, rather than remain a supportive, yet independent observer. So perhaps it was for the best, anyway.

Not everyone in the party had been happy with her at the helm, either. Lis Smith, a longtime campaign operative, former Communications Director, and former Deputy Campaign Director for candidates like Martin O’Malley, Bill de Blasio, Claire McCaskill, and Barack Obama, said of Wasserman-Schultz’ resignation that, “Her resignation is good news for Democrats, and great news for anyone who believes the DNC needs wholesale reform. Hopefully we can all learn from her little experiment this past primary season and never repeat it as a party.”

Senator Sanders was more diplomatically circumspect in his remarks, saying that, “While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people. The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race.”

But, back to the story at hand.

Ms. Brazile wrote that while she was interim DNC Chair that, “I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him.” But in her search for the “smoking gun,” after diligent efforts, speaking with numerous party lawyers and officials who feigned knowledge or responsibility, she continually came up empty-handed… until later. She wrote:

“When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook [Hillary’s Campaign Manager] with a copy to Marc Elias [General Counsel for Hillary’s campaign]—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

She wrote that while she was the interim DNC Chair, she experienced some unusual events, which at the time, seemed nothing more than purely odd, if not curious, but certainly not suspicious, nor even eyebrow-raising. One of those trifling matters was that, as chair of the party, she was hamstrung from doing anything the party chair would have normally done, such as write press releases, unless

Who’s Zoomin’ Who? Corporate/BIG MONEY Democrats Try To Abort Bernie’s Campaign.

Tom Perez, Democratic Party Chairman

It has occurred to me that Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez and other Corporate/BIG MONEY Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, et al, are most likely the ones behind the anti-Bernie movement within the party -AND- were most likely the ones who changed debate participation rules mid-stream to anoint multi-billionaire Bloomberg to counter Bernie+Liz… a process through which omitted Tom Steyer, also a billionaire – albeit one with a conscience.

James Carville (RIGHT) with Bill Clinton in 1999 at the White House.

They (the C/BM Dems, and their corporate media masters/handlers, including Pete Buttigieg and Bill Clinton strategist James Carville) attempt to portray themselves as “centrists” or “moderates” and Bernie as “radical,” or “communist” (like Bloomberg did), ostensibly to court voters, especially including (they claim) fence-sitting Republicans, and undecided Democrats. But it’s “an inconvenient truth” that the very words they use also happens to be the Republican party line and anti-Democrat talking point.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) at his “Conversation with Cory” campaign event at the Nevada Partners Event Center February 24, 2019 in North Las Vegas.

Julian Castro speaks to media members in Miami, FL, June 27, 2019.

Naturally, Julian Castro, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Andrew Yang, and others, have loudly and justifiably complained about Tom’s hypocritically unilateral decision to

Do You Want What Your Enemy Wants For You?

Should you want what your enemy wants for you?

That’s essentially the question that many should be asking themselves.

Our enemies, America’s enemies, the enemies of freedom, desire our destruction.

That’s a given.

Knowing that they desire to see America destroyed, they all have various tactics and strategies which they hope will accelerate, and prove successful in their effort to destroy America.

Should America do what our enemies want us to do?

Should America cower and coalesce to them?

Or, perhaps, should America stand firm in the beliefs and practices which made us strong?

The answer, I think, is obvious.

We should stand firm in the in the beliefs and practices which made us strong.

So, here’s a very real quandary.

It’s the first page in the report.

This is NOT a Republican “thing,” nor is it a Democratic “thing” – it’s an American thing.

Our nation’s Intelligence agencies have ALL unanimously concluded that

Woman Is STILL The Nigger Of The World: Violence Against Women, A Global Problem

What do Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Angela Merkel of Germany, Brigitte Macron of France, Aung San Suu Kyi of Indonesia, and Sonia Gandi of India have in common?

If you guessed that they are subjects of Italian artist Alexsandro Palombo, then you’d be correct.

In the images, all the women all have black eyes, numerous additional wounds to their face, cuts and bruises to their neck and upper torso, including fresh blood… it is explicitly clear that they all have suffered at the hands of an abuser.

Fortunately, the pictures are pure fiction.

In each of the images of the women, the artist digitally altered photographs of them to make it appear as if they all have been victims of savage assault.

The artist Alexsandro Palombo‘s work is on display in Milan, Italy, and his FaceBook site is linked to his name.

Using a computer software to alter the images, the

“Let’s be honest. Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes Democrats want to vomit, not vote.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz should get out of politics. She has ruined any semblance of good will with voters of any political stripe, particularly and especially among Democrats. Her blatant covert violation of party policy and rules which was exposed by WikiLeaks still smarts among Democrats. It was corruption on the same level as that of Trump. Pure & Simple. Both parties are sadly corrupt, and virtually no one has the people’s back.

—//—

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (D, FL-23), was former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and was forced to resign in disgrace following revelation that she and others exerted influence upon the party’s Presidential nomination process against Bernie Sanders (VT-I), who campaigned under the Democratic party ticket.

Toxic Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Appear at Leadership Blue Gala

By Leslie Wimes
June 13, 2017 – 10:00am

Clearly the new regime at the Florida Democratic Party learned nothing from the chorus of boos that Debbie Wasserman Schultz received at the DNC convention.

The resounding chants of “shame” spewed at the disgraced former DNC chairwoman, forced to resign in infamy, hasn’t convinced the failing party that putting the most divisive figure in recent Florida Democratic political history on stage at its biggest fundraising event will be a big mistake.

Whose idea is this? Wasserman Schultz’s?

Is she still pulling the strings in the party? If the new chair, Stephen Bittel, thinks this is a great idea, then perhaps his judgment has to be seriously questioned.

We already are questioning