Everyone knows that politicians say one thing in public and another in private. Based on recently leaked emails, we know, for example, that Secretary Clinton admitted in private that this was true, saying you need a "public and a private position," as if these two should be different. We also know that things are caught on a "hot mic," as Donald Trump has learned.
<noscript>Watch the latest video at &amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://video.foxnews.com"&amp;amp;amp;gt;video.foxnews.com&amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;gt;</noscript></p> <p>As an aside, why is Trump's disgusting hot mic commentary considered more relevant to the American public than <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE" target="_blank">the "hot mic" revelations of President Obama?</a> What Trump said about women is disgraceful. Not to dismiss it, but it was over 11 years ago and is basically very bad locker room talk as he was bragging on his machismo. Immature for certain and a possible insight into the way he thinks and worse, the way he acts. The question then becomes, do his actions match his rhetoric? The case is being made that this reflects misogynistic attitudes, but have they shown up in his hiring practices, for example? Are there women complaining about the sort of sexual assault he described, or was he simply bragging, as disgusting as that is? <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/249102-trumps-most-notable-insults" target="_blank">Most would agree that Mr. Trump has displayed a potty mouth through his career, but it is not solely directed at women as even his male political opponents can attest.</a> He seems to have been an equal opportunity offender, at least in his language.</p> <p>Interestingly, <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/ben-carson-donald-trump-asked-god-for-forgiveness-prayed-with-james-robison-170650/" target="_blank">Mr. Trump apparently prayed for forgiveness over this sin as recently as Sunday</a>. And, the hypocrisy of the Clinton Camp is almost incalculable. <a href="http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/08/25/the-filthy-mouth-of-hillary-clinton/" target="_blank">Mrs. Clinton is well known by insiders for her use of course language in private.</a> <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/09/hillary-clinton-treated-bill-clintons-female-accusers-lewinsky-broaddrick-flowers-hamzy-stephanopoulos/" target="_blank">And the treatment of women by President Clinton and the former First Lady is legendary</a>. In that case, the claim was that it didn't matter because even though <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clinton081898.htm" target="_blank">the President was being "serviced" by a White House Intern in the Oval Office</a>, he was busy at work for the American people. <strong><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/08/opinion/op-26718" target="_blank">So his actions were a private matter</a>, but Trump's words are disqualifying? That seems pretty hypocritical. </strong></p> <p>https://www.youtube.com/embed/_3UeM0pKiuQ</p> <p>Dr. Everett Piper wrote a powerful piece titled <a href="http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2016/10/selective-outrage-left/" target="_blank"><em>Why the Selective Outrage from the Left?</em></a> This is the same Dr. Piper of Oklahoma Wesleyan who famously said his school was "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/30/college-president-rejects-safe-spaces-writing-this-is-not-a-day-care-this-is-a-university/" target="_blank">a University, not a daycare</a>." <a href="http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2016/01/trumping-morality/" target="_blank">He is no fan of Mr. Trump's antics</a>. But he knows hypocrisy when he sees it. And he calls it out fairly.</p> <p>Given that, <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/did-operation-hot-mic-predict-obamas-flexibility-putin" target="_blank">the "hot mic" incident we should be talking about has to do with Obama's promise to Vladimir Putin AFTER the election.</a> <strong>This suggests that the President of the United States was purposely telling the American people one thing in public planning a completely different policy for afterward. And he wanted Putin to know that.</strong></p> <p>Similarly, we see the same hypocrisy displayed in the latest batch of Clinton emails. For example, we see <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/" target="_blank">the former Secretary of State fully aware that ISIS was being funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar</a>, two nations who were <a href="http://prospect.org/article/clinton-foundation-donor-list-released" target="_blank">big donors to the Clinton Foundation</a>.</p> <p><strong>The emails also reveal that Clinton told Wall Street banks one thing in private that she admitted was contrary to her public stance.</strong></p> <p>And, we saw today that <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillarys-leaked-speeches-confirm-russia-funded-anti-fracking-groups/" target="_blank">Secretary Clinton has known that Russians were funding environmental groups to stop fracking and pipelines in the United States</a>. <a href="https://globaleconomicwarfare.com/2012/09/can-environmental-rules-be-secret-weapons-part-2/" target="_blank">That is something we have told you repeatedly but has been largely ignored</a>. So here's a question. <strong>Why didn't the government call the Russians out on this when they knew it was destroying American industry and jobs, making energy more expensive around the world??? If she knew this and said nothing, is she complicit?</strong></p> <p>You should notice that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/31/clinton-blaming-russia-emails-dnc-hack" target="_blank">Clinton and the Administration have no problem in calling out Russia for the alleged hacking of the Democrat National Committee (DNC)</a>. We have warned about <a href="https://globaleconomicwarfare.com/2016/07/foreign-manipulation-of-american-elections/" target="_blank">Russian hacking our elections</a>, but also about <a href="https://globaleconomicwarfare.com/2012/08/can-environmental-rules-be-secret-weapons/" target="_blank">Russian attempts to ban fracking globally</a> so at least we are consistent. And if we are so certain that Russia was using the Internet to interfere in American elections, <a href="https://globaleconomicwarfare.com/2016/09/are-we-really-going-to-give-away-the-control-of-the-internet/" target="_blank">why were we so willing to give away Internet oversight knowing that Russia was hoping we would?</a> <strong>And, what happened to the <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/russia-pushes-reset-button-mocks-hillary-releases-health-record/" target="_blank">"reset button"</a> that Clinton was pushing? <a href="http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/10/10/joe-lieberman-hillary-clintons-two-biggest-mistakes-as-secretary-were-the-russian-reset-the-iran-nuclear-deal/" target="_blank">According to former Democrat VP candidate and Senator Joe Lieberman, it was a total failure.</a></strong></p> <p><strong>Now, remember that it usually pays to "follow the money."</strong> <strong>The leaked emails prove that Clinton knows how badly Putin wants to ban fracking and hamper American energy development. Now stop for a moment and ask which candidate, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/22/trump-attacks-clintons-politically-motivated-opposition-fracking-energy-production/" target="_blank">Trump or Clinton, is more likely to stop American energy development?</a></strong> Does Putin really want Trump in power? Or would he rather have Clinton who wanted a "reset" button with Russia. Wouldn't he rather have the woman who architected <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/06/why-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons-matters/" target="_blank">the failed "red line" policy in Syria </a>(<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/live/second-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-hillary-clinton-says-gone-obama-issued-syria-red-line/" target="_blank">and yes, despite what she says she did</a>) that was all talk and no action? Wouldn't Putin prefer the candidate who promises to continue the flexible Obama policies (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE" target="_blank">that we know from the "hot mic" incident are designed to fool Americans but please Putin</a>)?</p> <p>https://www.youtube.com/embed/4JpPU-SwcbE</p> <p>We also now know that <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/heres-what-we-learned-wikileaks-new-clinton-related-emails" target="_blank">Secretary Clinton does understand that bringing in Syrian refugees is a national security risk because they cannot be properly vetted</a>. Yet, it is clear that <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-open-borders-kass-1012-20161011-column.html" target="_blank">her policy and the policy of the Administration has been to admit as many refugees as possible</a>. <a href="http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/whoops-congressman-accidentally-reveals-democrats-really-want-amnesty/" target="_blank">Many fear this a plan to reshape the electorate with a true open borders policy</a>. And, in private <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-open-trade-open-border-immigration-policy-for-migrants-2016-10" target="_blank">Clinton has endorsed open borders</a> regardless of the economic and national security impact. <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263873/george-soross-open-border-foundations-joseph-klein" target="_blank">This is George Soros policy</a> and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/14/wikileaks-e-mails-reveal-clinton-taking-marching-orders-george-soros/" target="_blank">Soros is one of Clinton's largest supporters</a>.</p> <p><strong>The point is that Secretary Clinton has been exposed for saying one thing in private and another in public. Mr. Trump has been exposed as being crude in his private conversation, more graphic for sure but not all that dissimilar to his crude public statements. So which is more disqualifying?</strong></p> <p>One new revelation came from an email written by Clinton team leader John Podesta. He suggested that Clinton <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-hated-phrase-everyday-americans-wikileaks-emails-show-article-1.2826916" target="_blank">hates the phrase "everyday Americans."</a> Perhaps she prefers the term "deplorables"?</p> <p>My personal hope is that Mr. Trump's repentance and request for forgiveness is genuine. Similarly, I would appreciate if Secretary Clinton would repent and apologize for deceiving the American people. Unfortunately, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/10/hillary-clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-belong-in-basket-of-deplorables.html" target="_blank">she has publicly called a large swath of America (half of Trump supporters) a "basket of deplorables."</a> At the time, Trump had about 45% support, so this would suggest that she labeled 20-25% of Americans as deplorable. <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/live/second-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-no-hillary-clinton-not-apologize-basket-deplorables/" target="_blank">Contrary to her assertions, she never apologized for using the term</a>. Instead she suggested that maybe the number was less than initially asserted.</p> <p><strong>This is a very serious election with huge implications for the pillars of America. Can we believe the sincerity of Donald Trump in his repentance on issues of morality? Can we trust that Secretary Clinton won't continue the private immorality she justified in her own family? Mr. Trump has taken many positions and built a team that should help grow our economy and strengthen national security. Will he follow through? I believe he will IF he puts that team in place. Which Clinton would govern? The one campaigning, or the one exposed as duplicitous by leaked emails?</strong></p>