Hillary Clinton and the seven dwarfs

By Tom Quiner

The name Hillary Rodham Clinton engenders waves of revulsion in the typical conservative.

The root cause of this animus isn’t partisan politics; it is phoniness. Ms. Clinton drips with insincerity.

When God handed out the integrity gene, He seems to have bypassed the Clintons. To conservatives, it is clear that Hillary Clinton (and her husband, too) are in politics to serve themselves, not the greater good. Their passion for power trumps the public desire for a more perfect union.

The list of scandals, moral corruption, and arrested rectitude associated with the Clintons is long. For the sake of brevity, I will only list a few:

√ Whitewater.

√ The magical reappearance of the Rose Law Firm’s billing records.

√ The Vince Foster suicide.

√ Sworn testimony before Congressional investigators as first lady when she said she didn’t know or didn’t remember not once, not twice, but 250 times.

√ Travelgate.

√ Vast right wing conspiracies.

√ Benghazi.

As Hillary Clinton gets older, she just keeps getting better, at least in terms of her ability to keep the scandals coming.

In recent days and weeks, we have learned that the Clinton Foundation has accepted buckets of money from foreign countries. Is it possible these nations were buying a little bit of influence? NO, roared the Clintons. They promised on a stack of Arkansas bibles that NO DONATIONS WERE MADE DURING HER TIME AS SECRETARY OF STATE.


The truth came out that they did, just as they sold stays in the White House back in the 90s to court big campaign donors. The Wall Street Journal reported on the sleaze:

“Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany, and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL Pipeline.”

Hmmm, do you think these nations wanted anything from the American Secretary of State?

Some of these donors have even been known to fund terrorism. Bad form, Ms. Clinton, something we’ve come to expect from the Clinton clan.

This story broke a couple of weeks ago, and it’s not even the freshest Clinton scandal. The New York Times, famous for their biased, left-wing reporting, uncovered fresh, new dirt on Ms. Clinton. To their credit, they reported that Secretary of State Clinton violated the law by using a personal e-mail account.

There are two components to this story. The first is obvious. Ms. Clinton desired to cut corners and retain control of her own e-mails. Why? To avoid leaving behind evidence that could come back to bite her when she runs for president. Select e-mails would definitively establish what Clinton knew, and when she knew it, when the Benghazi attacks occurred.

The truth is Hillary Clinton’s enemy. Always. Deceit is her ally.

The second component to the story is Clinton’s willingness to compromise national security by increasing the possibility of having her e-mails hacked with a private e-mail account rather than a more secure government one.

Every single e-mail she sent as Secretary of State belongs to the American people. Ms. Clinton has doled out some 55,000 of the e-mails to the American people. How many has she retained? We’ll never know.

Her actions raise the question we always ask with this woman: what is she hiding?

Ron Fournier, who writes for the liberal National Journal, and who acknowledges that the Clintons have been good to his family, nonetheless was critical of the latest bout of Clintonian sleaze:

“We’ve had sleazy and stupid—and, now, with these emails, suspicious. If she [Hillary Clinton] runs, are we going to have a full Seven Dwarfs?





The answer, of course, is yes.

The last thing this country needs in our next president is a sleazy, stupid, suspicious, seedy, sanctimonious, self-important, and slick person sitting in the Oval Office.

If we elect Hillary Clinton, that is what we will get. There will be no surprises. Her public life to this point has shown us that.

What’s the saying? A tiger can’t change its stripes … just as a dwarf can’t count on a growth spurt.














  1. Shawn Pavlik on March 4, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    I wouldn’t call her “stupid”. She knows exactly what she is doing.

    • quinersdiner on March 4, 2015 at 3:17 pm

      “Stupid” is Ron Fournier’s word. You make a good point, Shawn, but in some respects, she isn’t very bright. Perhaps “tone deaf” would be a good term. Some of her utterances are so transparently false that you wonder what in the world is was thinking.

  2. mamaemme on March 5, 2015 at 7:54 am

    I usually refer to the Clintons as Ahab and Jezebel. Who is the more evil of the two?

    • quinersdiner on March 5, 2015 at 7:59 am

      They both have demonstrated a shocking lack of integrity, that’s for sure.