Hillary’s Public Vs. Private Positions – Deceit?

In a recently-leaked speech from 2013, Hillary Clinton said that it is important to take both public and private positions on each issue. Is this the language of the typical politician, or something even more deceptive? How does that explain her positions on Syria and Saudi Arabia?

Ron Paul: Hello everybody, thank you for tuning in to The Liberty Report. With me today is Daniel McAdams. Daniel, it’s nice to see you.

Daniel McAdams: Good morning, Dr. Paul. I also want to say good morning to our live viewers out there.

Ron Paul: Wonderful.

Daniel McAdams: They’re growing, and they’re watching us. A lot of them watch us every day, so we’re thrilled to have them.

Ron Paul: Very good, welcome everybody. Well, today, I would like to visit with you and our viewers, and all those viewers who will come later in the day, to deal with something Hillary Clinton said in the debate; but she’s said it before, too. And that has to do with this issues which can be confusing, and I hope we can help clarify this and figure out what this means. And that is, she said that the politicians should have a public and a private position on all issues. At first glance, that may have one meaning, and I’ll talk about that a little bit. But you saw this, what came across your mind when she started talked about this, how did this come about? Didn’t she mention this in the debate the other night?

Daniel McAdams: It did come up in the debate, and I think she tried to explain it. But originally what happened was, she gave a speech back in 2013 to the National Multifamily Housing Council, and it was a secret speech so she didn’t want it released. But the Wiki Leaks came out just before the debate, and they released sections of the speech. Like you say, your first thought was, “Okay, public and private positions, that makes sense”. But actually what she was saying was very different. She was arguing for a kind of Straussian neo-con deceptive. I’ll just read the quote, and maybe you can react to it. Here’s what she told the group: “You have to sort of figure out how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. Politics is like sausage being made, it’s unsavory, and it’s always been that way. But we usually end up where we need to be, but if everybody is watching, you know, all the backroom discussions and deals, you know, the people get a little nervous. So you need both a public and a private position”.

Ron Paul: Well, to tell you the truth, that’s quite a bit different than what I thought when I saw the headline: “Public and private position”. This issues came up during the presidential campaign, and they were asking, “What is your private position, what are your religious values?” and this sort of thing. And I thought it was legitimate. I think voters are entitled to know what a candidate’s personal views are, and what his private views are. One form of government that I’m always criticizing is a theocracy. If you have a theocrat or an atheist who is on a mission, I don’t think we need that in politics. Matter of fact, the Founders understood this and they wanted to exclude this. But I think you can have private positions; what kind of language you use, and whether you are a believer or not, the voters have a right to know that.

But, really, the important thing isn’t so much that as what is the position of the politicians on the First Amendment, are you a tolerant person, are you going to recognize that you can read books and practice religion if you want, or no religion if you want? That is a private position. But that first impression I had was a completely wrong impression, because when I looked at this, this is built on total deceit. It’s revealing exactly the way they think, even though we always suspected it and we knew it happens from experience in Washington (what you say in public). But it’s eternal. Just think of the names of the legislations coming up, and you can be sure, like “The Bank Secrecy Act”. The Bank Secrecy Act means there’s no privacy with your banking account. And then there’s the PATRIOT Act: “Oh well, yes, I’m a patriot and I’m a freedom lover”. That’s how they always paint it.

After the years went by, I was certain that if you look at the title and you know what to do, because it’s exactly opposite of what they’re saying is what they’re really up to. That, so often, is the case, but it’s deceitful. I think the public policy, what the politicians are saying, and what they don’t say, or they say behind the scenes … When she was talking about this to the home builders, she was letting them know, “Look, this is what I’m going to say, and this is the reason I’m saying it. But, what my private policy is, my secret policy that we don’t want to tell anybody is, I’ll take care of you guys”. I think that’s what is going on, so it’s a very devastating quote, even though if somebody hears this casually, they might think, “Oh yes, everybody has a private opinion like we have a private opinion about certain things, but I wouldn’t impose it on anybody else”.

And that would be legitimate, you can have the same position of somebody’s opinion, which is arbitrary and subjective. But put it on everybody else and put it into law, that’s quite a bit different.

Daniel McAdams: This is the sort of the thing that people hate most about politicians. She’s saying, “Okay, you can’t tell Joe Sixpack what you’re really going to do, so you just tell him, ‘Here’s our real policy, we’ll do it behind the scenes, we won’t advertise it, and it will move ahead'”. The neo-cons are great about this, they openly advocate that you got to tell the “noble lie”, as they call it, to the people.

Ron Paul: I think about when she was giving these speeches to the establishment, her donors, people who give money to her foundation and different things, that she’s getting awfully close to exposing the Deep State. She was talking to them like they were a participant in what happens behind the scenes, what the lobbyists talk bank and how the staff people work, and how there’s a pretense in Washington. That’s why the political process there isn’t where I ever thought the answers were, it has to be exposure of what they’re doing, and letting people know how it’s working and let people adapt to different viewpoints and show that you don’t need people doing this. But are you going to do it by reforming people by saying, “Okay, the solution is we’re going to elect only honorable people who won’t participate in the private position, in the secret position, in the conniving position, we won’t have it”.

But I’m not that confident that they can find those people, and I think the solution, so often, to curtail the power of the Deep State and this behind the scenes deal, is shrinking the size and scope of government. If they don’t have this power, if the individuals in Washington have no authority to draft regulations and laws and taxes and benefits and spending money, why would they spend money on lobbying? Maybe they’d spend it on R&D, maybe they would spend it on better salaries, who knows what they would do. But no, just think of the billions and billions of dollars. The campaigns now are billions of dollars, and it’s all because there is this private position that who’s going to control the private position, and I think that’s what it’s all about. That’s why people get annoyed with me, because this election isn’t a big deal. It’s this private position, the position behind what’s happening.

It’s not just what she’s talking about, a much bigger deal would be the Fed, who controls that, hardly anybody. Even when we had committee hearings, can I get the truth out of them being on the Banking Committee? No. We want to audit the Fed to expose them, and that was up front, they said, “Oh no, we have to be independent, we don’t want to have any political influence”, which is nothing more than a lie. But what they really wanted was secrecy of what they were doing behind the scenes, that’s what they argue for, and that’s what she’s arguing for, and that’s quite a bit different than having a private opinion about a social issue that they have a right to go one way or the other, but has nothing to do with legislation. She’s talking about influencing secretly the legislation and assuring her friends in powerful places, “I’ll take care of you guys”.

Daniel McAdams: You’re absolutely right, though, if there was no U.S. intervention in Syria, there wouldn’t be a need to have two different positions. When we were talking about doing this public versus private position topic, we looked at a couple of recent events that demonstrate that she actually puts this in practice, this isn’t just a theoretical position for her. If you’ll indulge me, I’ll read you a couple of things. “Public Clinton versus private Clinton” on Syria, for example; on the no fly zone. In the debate she said, “When I was Security Of State, I advocated, and I continue to advocate today, no fly zones and safe zones in Syria”. That’s what she said in the debt just a couple of days ago. Well, here’s what she said in another secret speech, this time to Goldman Sachs, I believe also in 2013.

She said, “To have a no fly zone, you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk, we’re going to have to kill a lot of Syrians”. That’s what she says in private, but in public she talks about safe zones and safe passages and things.

Ron Paul: She is participating in the noble lie, but she certainly participated in that when it came to Libya. How many times did she have a public position, but what was she doing behind the scenes, and how outraged she would get if somebody would even challenge her on that.

Daniel McAdams: Or remember that famous time when Senator Paul asked her, and this turns out to be such a prescient thing, and it was such a pivotal moment when he simply asked, “Were you sending these weapons from Libya to Syria?” At the time people were thinking, “This is kind of on the edge”. If anyone was saying it at the time, that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Ron Paul: I wonder what would happen if she said, “Which answer do you want, my public answer or my private answer?” Or whether the member of Congress would say, “Okay, I know you have a public and a private position on this, I don’t want your public position, I want your private, your secret position. What are you doing behind the scenes?”

Daniel McAdams: I think he’d have to pay for that, that’s not for free.

Ron Paul: Oh yes, you have to donate to her foundation, then you can participate.

Daniel McAdams: Here’s another one on Saudi Arabia. We were just mentioning it, we were talking about the Saudis and the Qataris. This was an email she sent on August 17, 2014 to her now campaign manager, John Podesta, who at the time was a senior advisor to President Obama. She admitted that Qatar and Saudi Arabia “are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIS and other radical Sunni groups in the region”. That is an incredible admission, and yet, at the same time, the Clinton Foundation has taken up to 25 million dollars from the Saudis, and up to 5 million dollars from the Qataris.

Ron Paul: Yes, they’re doing it, and people know about this, but they take our money much more directly. This is part of our money, because we support these people and we give them weapons and all this. But we support ISIS in Syria because they’re against Assad and they rationalize this, but that’s probably part of the private position about that. You know about it, but you don’t actually have that admitted.

Daniel McAdams: But can you imagine, if you knew that Saudi Arabia was actively supplying ISIS, how can you continue to work with them, accept their donations, and call them your partners?

Ron Paul: Well, you know, they go back, and you still have people defending the position that supporting the prelude to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the individuals there, we gave them money outright. And they brag about it, “Oh, that brought down the Soviets System”. So, if this works, and tomorrow Assad gets defeated, which isn’t going to happen because they’re up against a different wall. When we were fighting a secret war in Afghanistan, the Soviets then realized that this was a worthless battle, so they left. And yet, there was no victory. We didn’t have to have a shootout war, but there was no victory. We’re still there, we take that Afghanistan war as lasting 15 years, but we were there in the 1990s supporting the Mujahedeen, and, of course, Bin Laden was involved in that, too.

Daniel McAdams: In the whole U.S. intervention against ISIS was a noble lie, or an innoble lie, depending on how you look at it in this case, because the real target has always been Assad. That’s underscored by the fact that we know that the Saudis were helping ISIS, yet we used ISIS as a pretext two years ago for U.S. intervention; another private position.

Ron Paul: You know, it seems so logical to us that our position makes sense: Why don’t we just quit this stuff? But do you want to postulate on why you think that the people put up with this, why aren’t we doing a better job? We do our best, but it doesn’t seem like much is happening. Do you think there’s a possibility that we are reaching more people than we know about, because sometimes you can’t document exactly those people are thinking our way.

Daniel McAdams: Well, I think politics is breaking down completely, the parties are breaking down completely. And I think the best we can do is to provide some philosophically based alternatives, and hope that people will listen.

Ron Paul: I’m grateful that we have an outlet, we’re not CNN, but I think our members are getting close.

Daniel McAdams: We’re getting better.

Ron Paul: Yes. At least we do have the outlet, and there’s reason to believe that other people are coming our way, but I think they’re with us naturally. I think the big thing is, and we’ve talked about this so often here, how the propaganda machine works; how the government officials talk about public policies and lie to the people. And then, who perpetuates the lie, and we’re trying to sort out and challenge these lies. But the media is on the side of perpetuating lies. You have a republican TV station, you have a democrat TV station, but there’s no difference when it comes to big issues. Which station is anti Federal Reserve? Which station is really literally anti drug war, and which stations is against our troops all around the world, and which station says that the danger of the radical Islamists jihadists is way overblown?

You’re not even allowed to say that, I mean, then you’re like the greatest enemy of America possible for trying to get the truth out?

Daniel McAdams: And which station would even have someone on who would say some of those things?

Ron Paul: Yes, people have lost their jobs over taking this position. I think it’s still worthwhile, obviously we’re going strong, and our numbers keep going up, and our viewership goes up. They used to kid me in Washington, somebody would come up say, “You’re voting by yourself again”, and then they would say, “Well, I guess you sleep better at night”. I believe that is the case, if you’re working to try to relate to the people and try to straighten some of this out and try to point out the lies and try to point out now today the difference between public and private, I think that is so important. We’re going to continue to do it, and we want to thank our listeners very much for tuning in, and please come back soon to The Liberty Report.

»crosslinked«