Hillary isn't pro-middle class or pro-woman. Here's why.

In her “Hillary for America” campaign, Hillary Clinton paints herself as a pro-American champion of the middle class and women. But does she really live up to these claims?

Since her days of supporting “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky – who advocated socialism to take down the middle class – Hillary has nurtured a long-simmering war against basic American values like capitalism – a system that’s done more to lift people out of poverty than any other in history. Yet in “championing” the middle class, Hillary has vowed to wipe out the “One Percent”, starting with her campaign attack on CEO income.

As part of the One Percent herself, though, Hillary’s an odd choice to criticize income inequality considering she makes six times the annual average household income per hour for her speeches, at $300,000 each. Hillary received $8 million and $14 million advances for her two memoirs, respectively, and since leaving the White House, has earned well over $100 million with her husband.

How nice that “Hillary for America” benefits immensely from capitalism, but wants to force un-American wealth redistribution on everyone else at the expense of not just the wealthy, but the middle class who would much less likely have the jobs the supposedly evil (but now bankrupt) CEOs would otherwise provide.

Unlike the CEOs she targets, Hillary doesn’t employ many people, nor produce anything except income for herself. In Hillary’s socialist world, profiting from speeches and books is good. Profiting from running a business is bad.

If Hillary really cared about average working people, she’d campaign on reducing the regulation and taxation that have strangled our economy for years, resulting in millions of lost middle-class jobs. But Hillary will play the class warfare card because she knows it appeals to that ever-growing part of the electorate that votes on emotions over facts, like the fact that her socialist policies would only hurt the people she’s promising to help.

In considering her long list of baggage, though, it’s hard to believe anything Hillary promises. Since her work on the Watergate investigation, where her then-supervisor Jerry Zeifman described her as “an unethical, self-serving, dishonest lawyer,” Hillary’s been at the epicenter of scandals. Space doesn’t permit full detail of Chinagate, Travelgate, FBI Filegate, Whitewater, Lootergate, the drug dealer scandal, Ponzi schemes, Vince Foster’s mysterious death, etc., but the pattern of corruption trumps Hillary’s desire for our trust.

As Senator, “middle class champion” Hillary accomplished little more than to vote against middle-class tax cuts - twice. As Secretary of State, “Hillary for America” carried out disastrous foreign policies resulting in global chaos and reduced national security; committed serious illegal email activity; and denied repeated requests for security to our U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the murder of four Americans. When questioned about that, Hillary notoriously hissed, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” I bet the grieving loved ones would beg to differ.

In her latest scandal, Hillary accepted millions of dollars from foreign countries for personal profit through the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State, allegedly in return for preferential treatment to these foreign countries from her State Department. Crookedness follows Hillary once again, who, by the way, dismissed the allegation as a “distraction” without actually denying it.

So which traits do Hillary supporters truly think would make her a good president? Or is the prospect of the first female president all that matters (as long as she’s a Democrat)?  No doubt Hillary will deliver great gender-based soundbites designed to excite women. But is Hillary really pro-woman, or just an ambitious power-seeker who’ll play the gender card to win votes? Think about it.

Was Hillary pro-woman when she defended the rapist of a 12-year old girl and then laughed about getting him off lightly though she suspected he was guilty -- while depicting the victim as a mentally unstable girl who engaged in romantic fantasizing? Is being beaten into a five-day coma, as the victim was, Hillary’s idea of a romanticized sexual experience? Imagine the uproar had a conservative male presidential candidate done as “champion of women” Hillary did.

As “pro-woman” Hillary rode to the White House on her husband’s coattails, she viciously smeared, investigated, and threatened the women who accused Bill Clinton of philandering, sexual harassment and rape. To Hillary, it was all just “bimbo-eruption management” and a “vast right-wing conspiracy”, despite that Bill eventually admitted to most of the accusations.

When conservative men, like Clarence Thomas, are accused of sexual harassment, outraged feminists demand blood. But when Senator Bob Packwood, a liberal Republican, was accused of sexual harassment, Hillary dismissed the “whiny women” because she needed the famously pro-abortion senator on healthcare.

Speaking of abortion, how is Hillary's rabid support for it really pro-woman considering the physical and emotional consequences of it, not to mention the fact that millions of future women never have been nor will be born because of it? Then again, when it comes to so-called "reproductive rights", Hillary doesn't believe women can manage it on their own. She believes other women must be forced to pay for it, even if it violates their deeply held religious beliefs (religious beliefs, by the way, that Hillary recently announced should be eliminated as "obstacles" to "reproductive rights".)

And finally, how can Hillary claim she’s truly for “women’s rights” when she accepted millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation from Middle Eastern countries known for their abominable treatment of women, without even denouncing their brutality? 

Hillary talks a good gender game, but in her lust for the White House, she’ll flatter or discard women as she sees fit. When it comes down to it, the only woman Hillary truly advocates for is Hillary herself. Don't buy in to the garbage she's selling. We deserve better than this.

If we ever do have a female president, shouldn’t it be one we can trust and be proud of, one who supports all of America -- not just preferred groups through stale policies that hurt all of America? How about we choose a president not because of gender, race or any other first, but because he or she embodies true American values and integrity. That’s what our country needs. We certainly don’t need Hillary.