And she giggled like a school child when Khadafi was killed. Not presidential material.
Klein added that the friend ‘said it was even hard to understand what she was saying, she was crying so hard’
And she giggled like a school child when Khadafi was killed. Not presidential material.
Klein added that the friend ‘said it was even hard to understand what she was saying, she was crying so hard’
My left-leaning friends may not accept hearing this from me. Just as economic Marxists apriori dismissed arguments by people of the wrong economic class (via dialectical materialism), today’s cultural Marxists apriori dismiss arguments of the wrong ethnic/gender class (via all the invisible flavors of racism).
So here is a person from one the “good” classes making the same argument:
WHERE PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL VIEWS SHOULD START
The cat’s been out of bag on Haidt’s morality research for a while, but it deserves a reminder. It could not be more timely.
People with different political views should start by identifying where they and they’re adversary lie on Haidt’s chart.
It’s the best (only?) language I know for discussing politics scientifically, freeing us from the “good/bad” language typically used to shroud the intuition embedded in our genes.
Our intuition makes us sensitive to different types of problem. We’re all blind and biased. Start here.
We shouldn’t stoop to defining the other side by the worst of its members. I will stoop a little, however and point out that only the left has proven hoaxes (http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/11/election-night-hijab-attack-false), and more incriminating raw footage of real physical violence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnQNFBHHs6w).
and let’s say nothing of the riots.
Haitians voted Trump. Cubans voted Trump. A smaller % of whites voted Trump 2016 than for Romney 2012 (58% vs 59%). A higher % of blacks and latinos.
There was no “white lash,” at least not at the voting booths. The “white lash” is what will happen in 2020 if the left doubles down on their “everyone is racist” religion.
This is absurd, but it seems unavoidable when 300 million people are sanctioned to tell each other how to live. Two solutions:
a) Deny people access to political power.
b) Minimize the role of government in our lives.
States rights accomplish both of these things, at least to a limited extent.
“I was at the main hub where Hillary was supposed to give her victory speech. Jesus Christ it was the WORST experience of my life. My mom dragged me along because she wanted to witness history and be there when the first woman president addressed the country. I KID YOU NOT, Every time (and I’m fucking serious i mean EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.) it was announced that another state had voted trump, maybe around 4 women would collapse, or just straight up bodyslam themselves to the ground and begin to either convulse, scream their heads off with tears streaming down their faces as if they’ve just been stabbed, or pretend to faint and lay on the ground for like 20 seconds like an idiot playing dead. I’d even hear screams from women across the crowd yell out “Oh my god, she’s having a heart attack, someone call 911!” meaning that it wasn’t just happening around the area I was standing. There was so much fucking screaming from the women near the end (like emotional screaming, not cheers) that I almost left before it was over. I even remember seeing one white chick screaming so hard that her whole head and eyes were bloodshot red, veins throbbing on her neck and everything. I moved my mother and myself towards the back of the crowd when they were going to announce the final vote because I knew the exits would be clogged up by more retards pretending to be ill or some shit causing the only exits to be blocked and everyone unable to leave. I wasn’t wrong. Luckily I was one of the first ones out. Godamn it, even when we were walking down the hallways to get to the parking lot, there were so many fucking women sitting on the ground against the wall slumped over with people fanning their faces with homemade Hillary Clinton posters, screaming “Give her some air! Move away and give her air!”. The whole thing was fucking wild, like what could you possibly change by acting out like that?” Anonymous /pol/
I appeared in the “really hits you hard bro” video.
The statement regarded “the party of Regan” supporting Trump. The reason this is happening is because academia and political elites are showing extreme contempt for Europeans, even calling for physical violence against them, though more often they are simply JUSTIFYING and IGNORING it rather than openly advocating it.
It is communist ideology except economic classes have been replaced by cultural/ethnic/gender ones.
So this is why “the party of Regan” is rallying around Trump.
This is why, for the first time ever, White people are not splitting their votes 50/50, but 55/45.
Contrast that with almost any other group — Asians, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks — who always vote left from 60/40 to 90/10, depending on the group.
We are seeing the rise of white identity politics, and it is comes in response to an ideology explicitly hostile to Europeans.
This isn’t racism. This is whites beginning to do (55/45) what other groups have been doing forever.
(Anecdotes are great excuses to ignore data.)
As an example of the completely Machiavellian communist tactics of the left. Think back to the 80s.
Before the left started preaching TOLERANCE, they used to urinate on crosses, defecate on icons of the Virgin Mary, burn flags, and ridicule the family. And they congratulated themselves as champions of free speech.
Now that they’ve seized control of political discourse, academia, and media, they’ve become a tolerance cult. This only happened after they’d RIDICULED and DESECRATED family, church and nation.
Just to restate the context of this discussion, I was reacting to expressed bewilderment at “the party of Regan” is supporting Trump. I started with an example of how even supposedly conservative journalists are calling for the destruction of European communities, and the left is doing much worse. I thought this was obvious, but now I’m doing the work of trying to make everyone see it.
This matters MOST in lower class communities.
It matters LEAST among upper classes, and in commerce where people have incentive to cooperate.
(Cultural clashes also seem lessened when people do not have access to political power, or when the government adopts a “night watchman” model and remains distant.)
> Not sure what you mean by Europeans. Are you talking about people of “European” descent? If you mean white people, why not just say white people?
There are many reasons I prefer Europeans. It’s dangerous to use the left’s vocabulary, because they’re completely Orwellian with it. For example, they’re trying to redefine racist to mean something that only Europeans people can be, claiming not other group can be racist. Crazy, right?
The answer to the question is, incentives.
> Most democrats are white (60%, according to the Washington Post). Why would people be anti-themselves?
You miss my point.
We are seeing the rise of white identity politics. For the first time, Europeans are splitting their vote 55/45%.
Blacks usually vote 80-90% left.
Latinos around 70% left.
Jews and Asians 60-65% left.
Anyway this is kind of a tangent. Interestingly (though probably predictably), married Europeans and single European men vote right. Single European women vote left.
> Wanting inclusivity and compassion for all isn’t “anti-white.” It’s pro-humanity.
Well bless your heart!
Do you ever advocate for inclusivity of Europeans in non-European communities? When you talk about diversity does it ever reflect a desire for more Europeans, or does it always reflect a desire for fewer Europeans?
I would love mutual inclusivity and compassion. But I am being asked to extend it to people who not only fail to reciprocate, but actively advocate my destruction.
What kind of man would I be if I accepted this?
> the last op ed you posted on my wall as evidence of a massive conspiracy against working class whites was a willfully disingenuous piece that misrepresented ONE innocuous comment by a single conservative writer.
Here’s the President of South Africa singing a song about killing Boers:
Here’s a University lecturer talking about the blessings of eliminating white people:
Can you imagine what the reaction would be if races were reversed? If some European said these things about Africans, or about Jews?
Tolerance, as promoted by the left is a one way street.
I believe I was still in Iowa when the “get whitty night” happened:
Though you don’t need to look back to 2010 to see that kind of behavior. You don’t even need to look back to last month.
You can also look at the three articles I posted earlier in this thread. Tim Wise makes a living as a “diversity consultant.”
Hatred of Europeans is openly advocated and deeply entrenched in academia and the media.
Yes, it would be nice if we were all kind to each other, but I control what I can control. A lot of people are sick of the bs, and there’s a rebellion underway.
> 3. 4.
I think this is the type of thing where unless you start to care and look into it yourself, no amount of data will prevent you for being able to say “but . . .”
You can look into the ideological roots of Cultural Marxism. Marxists were frustrated with the working classes reluctance to rebel and concluded that culture needed to be undermined.
Like everything else, there was a confluence of interests, but it was led an intellectual vanguard that moved from Frankfurt to NYC. Columbia University was their center. They created the ideology.
What statistics would you look for?
You can look at crime statistics. You can look at welfare statistics. How about immigration statistics? You’ll see that it’s very EASY to get into Europe or the US if you’re African or Muslim, and damn near impossible if you’re Ukrainian or a Boer from S. Africa. It’s also extreme hard for Arab Christians to get into the US – probably the most endangered group in the Middle East.
Why do you think that is?
With this and many other questions, the organizing principle seems to be a hatred of Europeans, Christians, men, and Western civilization.
I’ve tried many time to adopt other more palatable explanations – but none of them have the explanatory power of this.
Why doesn’t diversity always mean fewer European, and never more Europeans?
If all cultures are equal, how can you claim that European cultures are uniquely evil?
Why doesn’t anyone care or notice when people advocate violence toward Europeans?
Why is the media less concerned about Muslim migrants raping thousands of women, and more concerned with people noticing?
> Everyone on the left was voiding themselves on religious symbols and burning flags?
That’s another palatable explanation that doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Did you see many Qurans or stars of David burned? No.
Hatred of Christianity and Western Civilization has much more explanatory power.
I wish it didn’t.
> And what exactly is wrong with tolerance? There is nothing cultish about that. Tolerance helps me put up with friends posting alt-right nonsense on my news feed. ;) Tolerance is the normal human condition and it will soon be a determining factor for our survival as a species. Each year we make less room on this planet as we expand. We all have to learn to put up with each other. Anyone born on this planet has the same right to be here, and there is enough for everyone if we can learn to share. What is cultish about sharing? Are you saying you would rather live in a world with intolerance?
Very sweet. Bless your heart.
If you are tolerant of people advocating your destruction, then you are not a man.
I am making the point why a rebellion of the right is brewing. I started by pointing it out, which I deemed sufficient, but received such profound pushback, that I’m now engaged it explaining its very existence.
I’m astounded that something which seem so obvious is anathema to people whom I consider intelligent and well informed. I’ll respond to your comments, and this will be my last post. Please follow up with what will be the last word.
(Very long post coming. Brace yourself.)
Firstly, I’m not alone:
—“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”—
Perhaps having studied communism so closely, I am inoculated against the left’s propaganda, and more sensitive to it as well.
The tectonic shift underway, of which Trump is just a part, is that a lot of people like me are checking out and deciding they are not going to participate in lies.
We have been declared barbarians and outsiders, and so we will be barbarians and outsiders. The fact that someone like me is now “red pilled” should be a canary in the coal mine. I went to war three times and cooperated will all colors of people. I had their back and they had my back. I was the great diplomat in my battalion, so full of good will and respect that learned Arabic to better converse with locals. I grew up in NYC, in one of the most diverse zip codes in the US (Woodside Queens). I was totally into the “diversity is our strength” idea that my public school teachers taught me. I loved rap music, and could have told you how LL Cool J was taking out all rookies (so forget Oreos, eat cool J cookies). And then I heard rap music promoting violence against Europeans, and the world stopped making sense.
This cultural Marxist ideology is going to backfire in a bad way. The experiment with Universalism may be nearing an end.
> [Iowa State Fair / “Get Whitey Night”] wasn’t confirmed to be racially motivated in any reputable press I could find. Apparently the police couldn’t determine that. And even if it was racially motivated against white people, that is one incident.
The level of denial and deceit is mind boggling. You can find monthly, perhaps even weekly stories about black criminals specifically targeting Europeans.
I think it really takes effort not to notice.
One of the most glaring examples happened in August when a Milwakee rioter beseeched her fellow rioters to “burn down white people’s stuff”, and CNN reported that she “called for peace.”
One typical form of denial is just raising the bar on evidence as high as needed. So unless the body of the victim comes with a signed letter by the perpetrator explaining that he was racially motivated, it isn’t a racist attack.
The New York Times and Slate used this sort of rhetoric to claim the knockout game doesn’t exit.
By the way – There’s a lot of eye witness testimony about “Get Whitey Night” on youtube as well as local news coverage. Some raw footage too. Europeans were specifically targeted.
You don’t have to look back to the Iowa State Fair. This is a monthly, if not weekly occurrence.
But the street level violence is only the manifestation of an ideology that’s fueled by pseudo-intellectuals in academia. I’m more interested in the ideology and in those promoting it. (Strike the root.)
Unlike Cultural Marxism, Christianity (which the left hates just as much as they hate Europeans) seems to encourage cooperations, as Congressman Allan West points out.
Commerces encourages cooperation.
And denying people access to political power would reduce conflict as well.
> How many unarmed black people have been shot by officers of the law since 2010? There were over 100 in 2015 alone. That’s actual deaths of minorities by representatives of the government, and not just a “possible” situation of a punches thrown by a random group of drunk young people.
This is nominally true, but the narrative is false. Police are less likely to shoot blacks than Europeans because of fear of losing their jobs or political outcry.
I would rather you sought out the raw data, because you will think that I’m being biased, but nevertheless:
Meanwhile police are the constant subject of harassment, threat and violence in many black neighborhoods. How many cops have been killed recently?
But again, street violence is the leaves. The more damaging thing is the ideology. Christianity, commerce, natural integration instead of forced integration, the idea that North Sea Europeans invented civilization and pulled the rest of the world (including Ukraine) out of ignorance poverty and disease, the idea that Europeans ended slavery. All of these would be pacifying. But that’s not useful to the left.
The left, as always, is rallying unsuccessful people by giving them two very appealing things:
1. an excuse for failure.
2. an enemy.
This was as true 100 years ago with economic Marxists, as it is today with cultural Marxists.
So, school children are taught that European racism exists all the time, everywhere, and that explains everything.
Black conservative Walter Williams rails against this ideology by pointing out that the problems in the black community are all recent ones. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965. Now, it’s 75 percent. Unemployment has shown a similar rise. So the explanatory power of racism and slavery (which YOU invoke) are very limited.
I’m just posting this to dispel the myth that slavery/racism is at fault. Walter Williams blamed the culture of dependence created by the Welfare state and I agree.
But I no longer consider it my business. The big shift underway has a lot of people checking out and entrenching. Taking care of their families and waiting for catastrophe.
> Please start posting something that is actual evidence on my wall to support your claims or I’m going to just delete things like this instead of wasting my time debunking them. . . . You make this claim and do not support it. None of the things you have posted as evidence in any way substantiate this absolutely WILD accusation.
What prominent people are saying (and able to say) is a huge part of it. You brush this off way to easily. You also seem to brush off the obvious hypocrisy and malice of widely cirulated ideas.
I posted a University Professor talking about the extermination of Europeans.
A German member of parliament talking about Germans are intrinsically evil and celebrating their replacement.
The president of Africa’s largest economy signing “kill the Boers.”
A well known diversity consultant writing about how Europeans are a plague upon on the world.
A rioter calling specifically for violence against Europeans. CNN lying about it.
A Huffington Post article with a dangerous conflation of terms, calling for “wounding” of Europeans.
These are not fringe figures. These are well established people who directly influence policy.
The reason the term is “red pilled” is because we are so saturated with one world view, that resolving the dissonance between it and what one observes in the world causes a profound and irreversible shift in one’s thinking.
> One song in S. Africa, a Harvard Professor out of context, and a single incident of teens gone wild in 2010 does not equal a “deeply entrenched” conspiracy in academia and the media.
“Deeply entrenched” = there are many academics and NGO workers who’ve built careers out of promoting Cultural Marxism. It’s an enormous apparatus. I’m really astounded that you can’t see it.
> Rebellion against what? 78% of the country is white.
Rebellion against Cultural Marxism which sees the world as straight European men oppressing everyone else, and tirelessly promotes this world view and creates policy accordingly.
> Well, I would be happy to start looking at any actual data that supports a conspiracy against whites, if you care to provide it.
I don’t think you’re interested, and that’s okay. I don’t enjoy spending my energy on these topics either.
Nevertheless, if you want check out any of these books:
“The Diversity Myth” about Stanford in the 90s, co-authored by legendary investor Peter Thiel.
“China Girl in the Ghetto” by a Chinese immigrant in Oakland.
“Into the Cannibals Pot” about South Africa.
“Don’t make the Black Kids Angry” by Collin Flaherty, an award winning journalist who first made a name for himself by getting a black man who’d been falsely accused of rape out of jail.
Immigration policy is a dead give away too. The demonstrated goal of immigration policy is to leave NO European communities anywhere on Earth. Little Swiss alpine villages need to be invaded. Baltic countries with populations of just a million people need to be invaded.
Mind you, Europeans are just 10-15% of the world’s population.
Look at the fact that Ukrainian, S African Boers, and Christian Arabs have a very hard time getting into the West, while Muslims and Africans have a very easy time.
> See, stuff like this isn’t data. It’s conjecture, cherry-picked historical references, crackpot theory, and wishful (or more like fearful) thinking. This isn’t intellectual or scientific, and it’s certainly not Christian (if that is what you claim to be).
The stated intentions and world views of prominent people who directly influence policy is not trivial.
> Crime statistics show that you are almost 3 times more likely to be shot in a police encounter if you are black (even after removing all other factors).
This is not true.
—”even with white officers who do have racial biases, officers are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.
It’s a complex subject, dating back to a 1974 study which concluded that “the police have one trigger finger for whites and another for blacks.” A 1978 report found that 60 percent of black suspects shot by the police carried handguns, compared with 35 percent of white suspects. In 2001, a statistical study showed that black people comprised 12 percent of the population but committed 43 percent of the killings of officers.”—
> Infant mortality rates for minorities are higher than for whites, as are overall mortality rates. Poverty is much higher among minorities. Literacy is lower. I could go on and on. These data confirm again and again that, as a group, whites have it better in the USA. End of story.
If white racism everywhere, all the time, explains everything, then how do you account for the following facts:
Jews, who’ve been discriminated against vastly outperform non-Jewish Europeans.
Asians, who’ve been discriminated against vastly outperform Europeans.
Blacks from the West Indies, who are indistinguishable from other blacks, have an average income slightly higher than the average American.
Armenian in Turkey, who have even faced genocide, are much better off economically than Turks.
Chinese people in Malaysia, who face all manner of discrimination, are much better off economically than Chinese.
Married European men, have an average income that is 60% than single European men.
Do you suppose that employers are discriminating against single European men in favor of married European men? Or do you think there are other factors at play?
In-equality never does, never has, and never will reflect injustice. It’s just another completely dishonest plank in the facade of Cultural Marxism, but they’re willing to tell any lie.
No matter how thoroughly you expose one, they just move onto the next.
I’m taking the trouble here because I respect your integrity. Though I think conservatives need to stop reasoning with liars. They have whole university departments churning out bullshit far faster than an honest person can shovel it away.
There’s a fantastic book called “Explaining Post-Modernism” about the left constantly refactoring its ideology. I will not let my son set foot on a University campus until he reads it.
> First show me that this data exists (and not just because you say it’s so), and then let’s talk about the reasons why such limitations may be imposed. Based on all the incredibly weak threads you have been trying to string together, I think it’s safe to assume that you have been looking to your “organizing principle” first, and then trying to find evidence that supports it later.
—”And while asylum seekers from other war-torn countries have seen their applications overwhelmingly accepted in the European Union — 95 percent of Syrians, for instance, and 89 percent of Eritreans get full refugee status — Ukrainians have either seen their applications languish or faced rejection.
In 2014, of the 2,985 Ukrainian asylum applicants whose cases were processed in the European Union, only 150 were granted full refugee status; 2,335 were rejected; and the rest got other forms of protection — an acceptance rate of only 22 percent.”—
—”Over the past five years of Syria’s civil war, the United States has admitted a grand total of 53 Syrian Christian refugees, a lone Yazidi, and fewer than ten Druze, Bahá’ís, and Zoroastrians combined. That so few of the Syrian refugees coming here are non-Muslim minorities is due to American reliance on a United Nations refugee-resettlement program that disproportionately excludes them.
The gross underrepresentation of the non-Muslim communities in the numbers of Syrian refugees into the U.S. is reflected year after year in the State Department’s public records. They show, for example, that while Syria’s largest non-Muslim group — Christians of the various Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions — constituted 10 percent of Syria’s population before the war, they are only 2.6 percent of the 2,003 Syrian refugees that the United States has accepted since then. Syria’s Christian population, which before the war numbered 2 million, has since 2011 been decimated in what Pope Francis described as religious “genocide.””—
> (especially the glaring, obvious evidence like, oh, I don’t know, whites are 78% of the population)
> “Why doesn’t diversity always mean fewer European, and never more Europeans?” Again, 78% white.
How about diversity in other countries? Does anyone complain that S. Africa is losing its diversity? Does anyone complain that Hong Kong, or Japan, or Mexico, or Nigeria is insufficiently diverse?
Again, you offer a very palatable explanation. It is both easy and comfortable to believe what you propose. But it doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
Once again, a disdain of Europeans does have the explanatory power. What’s more, a lot of influential people are saying it explicitly. They’re not hiding their intention of eliminating European societies.
> What are you talking about, dude? I never claimed white cultures are uniquely anything, let alone uniquely evil. I never said anything of the kind.
I am not accusing you. This isn’t personal. I am trying to convince you (and Bryan) that the ideology exists and that the Trump phenomenon is a push back against it.
It’s a central thread in the books “Explaining Post Modernism” and “The Diversity Myth” if you want further proof that the ideology exists.
> “Why doesn’t anyone care or notice when people advocate violence toward Europeans?” People care and notice violence against whites all the time. . . . Google “Missing White Women Syndrome.”
1. “advocate violence” I said “advocate”.
2. You’re grasping at straws. If you look at street violence the level of denial and deceit is outrageous.
> ”But the Cologne assaults – near the city’s iconic cathedral – were the most serious, German media report. At least one woman was raped, and many were groped.” So there was one reported case of rape, and the rest was mainly assaults and groping.
This has been contradicted by hundreds of eye witness accounts, and by the actually crime reports which were since released. Police and journalists have come forward talking about a deliberate cover up.
Police ordered to remove the word “rape” from reports:
> This was a gang of about 1,000 men (not all immigrants)
—“The authorities tried then to deny that the culprits were recent migrants. Most extraordinary, to me, was that the left-of-center press and the BBC then had to run with the story, albeit five or six days after it happened. In the end the BBC even had to admit that the alleged assailants were Middle Eastern, not drunken Teutons.:—
And the next year, the BBC celebrated “ONLY” 22 sex attacks. They said police refuse to disclose the identity of the perpetrators, and just for good measure, the BBC posts a picture of a European in handcuffs: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35502223
Three weeks after the attack, a full count of police reports was leaked. There were over 1000 victims of everything from pick pocketing to robbery to gang rape.
If EVERYONE had to be tolerant, accepting and peaceful, I’d be fine with it. But it seems Europeans are being asked to be tolerant, accepting and peaceful, while the verbal hostility, ideological hostility, and physical hostility of other groups if being whitewashed.
> Lucky for me I don’t base my self-worth (nor my gender identity) on a reactionary fear about what people may or may not be saying.
Ha! Nice dig. :-) I still love you man.
Peter Thiel is “not gay”.
Margaret Thatcher does not represent Women.
Thomas Sowell is “not black”.
With a warm smile, Sandra told us that she was initially enthusiastic about working with the Clinton Foundation. She pulled out a smart phone and showed us pictures of the 2013 launch party for the “Acceso Oferta Local” program, a foundation effort directly supported by Canadian financier Giustra to match poor entrepreneurs — farmers, fishermen, candy-makers, flower vendors and others — with big buyers, like multinational hotels.
She thumbed past a shot of Giustra to show us a photo of herself with Bill Clinton. The former president and the female entrepreneur had megawatt smiles.
“The idea was that they would help small stores and small fisherman,” she said. “And that’s what it did, but only at the start.”
Sandra said she received no money from the Clinton Foundation and, in fact, took out a large bank loan at its urging. Paying this loan proved to be a tremendous burden, she said. Even worse, within months the head of the Acceso project told her that she should no longer deal directly with buyers. Instead, she would sell her fish directly to Acceso — at sharply reduced prices — and Acceso would resell them. In other words, the Clinton Foundation would act as a middleman and profit from margins supplied by the people it was supposed to be helping. . . .
Its staggering $2 billion haul, according to a Washington Post estimate, has come from American moguls, foreign governments, international capitalists and multinational organizations, including tentacles of the World Bank and United Nations. . . .
When we met him in his wood-paneled office in Colombia’s Capitol building in May, his desk was stacked high with papers related to Pacific Rubiales’s labor practices, the result of years of investigative work by his staff. He did not see the Clinton Foundation and its partnership with Giustra’s Pacific Rubiales as either progressive or positive. “The territory where Pacific Rubiales operated,” he said, thumbing through pages of alleged human-rights violations, “was a type of concentration camp for workers.” . . .
To meet these requirements, the Clinton Foundation and Giustra launched a job center (with more funding from USAID). It is said to have trained hundreds of indigenous peoples to work on the port construction.
But visits to each of the Clinton Foundation projects — and interviews with the publicized beneficiaries — reveal a wide gap between the public descriptions and reality. . . .
In November 2012, Sen. Lopez and his aides made the six-hour trek from Bogota to Campo Rubiales, the oil field operated by Pacific Rubiales, to investigate allegations of labor abuses.
His convoy was stopped at a military roadblock before he could reach the camp’s entrance. The soldiers manning the blockade said they were under orders not to let the group pass through. When Lopez asked what authority the military had to prevent Colombian citizens from driving down a public road, one of the soldiers replied: “We don’t work for Colombia. We work for Pacific Rubiales.”
While union leaders and human-rights campaigners complained, Bill Clinton flew in for a Pacific Rubiales pro-am golf tournament at Bogotá Country Club in February 2012. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos came to play a few holes with Clinton as a crowd of spectators gathered around the green. . . .
“Bill Clinton didn’t come here to play golf,” Robledo, the progressive Colombian senator, said to us about the fundraiser, his lips in a tight smile. “Clinton opened doors for Giustra to do business here.”Hillary Clinton has also had little to say about Colombia during her presidential campaign. She was last seen in the country in 2012, dancing and drinking a beer at a Cartagena nightclub called Havana during the Summit of the Americas. The free-trade agreement went into effect a month later. . . .
Hillary Clinton resigned from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2015, citing growing complaints about the apparent conflict of interest with her current campaign. The legal entity continues to bear her name. She recently said the foundation will continue to operate if she is elected, although it will place new restrictions on donations from non-U.S. citizens.
Clinton and her campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In response to questions about ethical concerns, Clinton has promised “complete transparency about donations” to the foundation. She has not detailed any reforms to its operations or regrets about its failures in Colombia.
Sandra Valdivieso still appears on the Clinton Foundation’s website, its poster child for the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, months after we asked a foundation spokesman to comment on her criticism and experiences.
The good times would not last for Pacific Rubiales. Although the company’s stock climbed steadily after the Clinton Foundation announced operations in Colombia, it never poked above that $35-per-share price in November 2010. Its shares have since lost most of their value. Pacific Rubiales changed its name to Pacific Exploration & Production Corporation in 2015. It filed for bankruptcy in May 2016.
In 2001, the Clintons were moving out of the White House to make way for the Bush Administration. Not only did the Clintons steal furniture on their way out of the White House, but they did something far worse. It’s yet another reason why they should not be allowed to step foot in the White House AGAIN!
Besides the stolen furniture, Hillary Clinton and her lackeys defaced walls, stole a presidential seal dating back to the Eisenhower years, damaged furniture they deemed not expensive enough to take, and left a huge mess in the offices, making it look like a rave party had taken place there.
They left behind offensive and derogatory statements about Bush, defaced keyboards so the letter W could not be used, stole doorknobs and other small items, and left behind prank signs as well as many other immature acts. Apparently, the Clintons are petty, reckless, and have no respect for the taxpayers or the donations they give to for president’s household and office.
A complete list of all the damages is in the GAO 02-360 ‘The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition,’ an official document of the aftermath of the Clinton Administration. So, liberals can’t chalk this up to a conspiracy theory.