Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton demonstrated what one must admit were impressive rhetorical abilities. Beneath these appealing words lies the endemic liberal hypocrisy and the very specific and incomparable hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton. Whether it be the denigration of Wall Street, the tough-on-terror attitude, or her defense of Senator McCain, Mrs. Clinton’s actions paint a far different picture than last night’s words.

She attacked those on Wall Street as greedy, she said that they have to share their profits and not hoard it for themselves (paraphrasing). She said that we can never again allow Wall Street to ruin Main Street. From these words, from her speeches, and from her debates against Bernie Sanders, one may begin to believe she is a stoic defender of the little guy from the evil companies of Wall Street. Her actions, though, might make you question that impression. In January of this year, the Huffington Post reported that “Hillary Clinton [received] $200,000 an hour or more to speak to [Goldman Sachs’] executives and investors.” Despite this action she has the audacity to claim that Republicans are in the pocket of Wall Street. She has the gall to condemn the financial services industry as being greedy, and acting as if she would in some way save us from them. If anyone is in the pocket of Wall Street, it’s Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Though her anti-corporate words may be very appealing to Bernie supporters, I would imagine that her actions may leave some of them questioning their new-found loyalty.

In regards to terrorism, in her speech she laid out a very forceful and, I think one might be persuaded to say, reasonable stance on defeating ISIS and radical terrorism (one mustn’t say Islamic terrorism). She said, to paraphrase, we’re going to attack strategic positions from the air and support anti-ISIS fighters on the ground; we’re going to use all information available to prevent attacks from occurring (I assume this includes the illegal collection of phone data) and work with our allies to destroy ISIS and other terrorists. What information she did not share with the electorate was that it was the policies of her party, while she was secretary of state, that led to the rise of ISIS in the first place. It was her party’s policy of removing U.S. soldiers from Iraq before a stable government was put in place that created the void that allowed ISIS to come into existence. It was her government’s backing of Syrian rebels that gave ISIS the funds, the weapons, and the cause for which to unite, that allowed them to make extensive progress in very little time. And if you think that she was honest in that she was going to be tough on these terrorists, I would refer you once again to her record. In 1999 Mrs. Clinton was instrumental in the clemencies given to 16 FALN terrorists (members of a Marxist, Puerto Rican terrorist organization guilty for crimes including a bombing that killed four men at New York City’s Fraunces Tavern in 1975) 14 of which accepted the clemency and were allowed to roam free. This was done for political expediency as Mrs. Clinton prepared for her run for Senate in 2000. Hillary had few ties to New York and sought to endear herself to its relatively large Puerto Rican community. This should lead anyone with half a mind to at least ask themselves whether this woman should be trusted with the task of defeating terrorism. I think Mrs. Clinton would be the first person I called if I were looking to start a terrorist organization, not if I were looking to wipe one from the face of the earth.

One of her final displays of shameless hypocrisy was her bashing of Donald Trump over his comments about Senator John McCain. Though the comments Mr. Trump made about Senator McCain and his military service were deplorable and inexcusable, the fact that Hillary donned the robes of McCain’s defender was laughably insincere. She acted as if she wasn’t standing along side those who, in 2008, claimed that Mr. McCain was old, decrepit, and unfit for the role of commander in chief. Pointing out Trump’s idiotic remark is one thing, but to feign being appalled by a comment that was little worse than those hurled at McCain in 2008 is truly appalling.

Last nights display was not the first example of Hillary’s hypocrisy, and it most certainly will not be the last. It was, however, a shining display of the quality of morals and values that a candidate for the highest office embodies. If a she is willing to be so insincere in her first official speech as a candidate for the presidency, one must ask one’s self: How trustworthy would she be as president?

Originally published on WesternFreePress.com