Hillary Clinton accepted her nomination as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president Thursday night. True to form, her speech was riddled with mistruths, equivocations, and lies. Assembled below are some of Clinton’s most veracity-challenged statements.

[lz_jwplayer video= “BPVjfu38″ ads=”true”]

The approach to the speech differed markedly from the speech delivered by Donald Trump in Cleveland last week. Trump leveled with the American people and told them he would honor them with the truth. Clinton on the other hand laid out a fantastical image of herself, President Obama’s record, the state of America and her intentions for the presidency.

“That conversation [Bill and I] started in the law library 45 years ago is still going strong.”
The notion that Bill and Hillary Clinton share anything remotely resembling a healthy, loving relationship is absurd. Bill Clinton’s career has been swamped by sexual scandal, from a high-profile affair while in office with intern Monica Lewinsky, to numerous rumored dalliances, to allegations of rape and sexual assault. The only thing that’s been going strong for 45 years is Bill Clinton’s sex drive.

“America is stronger because of President Obama’s leadership” and “our economy is so much stronger than when [Obama] took office.”
It’s difficult to discern by what reasoning Clinton reached her conclusion. Under President Obama, more Americans have left the workforce than ever before, race relations are the worst they’ve been in decades, and America’s global clout has diminished. The military now appears to prioritize addressing transgender rights over adequately training troops, ISIS threatens the world — largely thanks to Obama’s desire to arm “friendly” anti-Assad rebels — and a shocking rise in violence is gripping major cities across the country.

To Bernie Sanders supporters: “Your cause is our cause.”
The idea that Hillary Clinton shares the same priorities as Bernie Sanders and his supporters is laughable. Clinton’s record has been generally pro-monilithic free-trade agreements and favorable toward Wall Street, which has doled out vast sums of money to hear her speak and to her campaign. Clinton is also a foreign policy hawk, and is generally favorable toward the idea of flexing U.S. military might — something anathema to the Sanders crowd.

The look on Sanders’ face made it devastatingly clear he didn’t believe Clinton’s claim of solidarity either.

[lz_jwplayer video=”I3sgEXyT” ads=”true”]

“And by the time they left Philadelphia, they had begun to see themselves as one nation. Our founders embraced the enduring truth that we are stronger together.”
Clinton clearly requires a history lesson. While the Federalists certainly believed this, the Anti-Federalists most certainly did not. Founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Randolph were not ideologically inclined to be favorable towards a strong, centralized state. Indeed, many founders viewed the “nation” as a group of individual sovereign states. This irrevocable ideological divide, which was a central undercurrent of early American politics, would not be fully resolved until the Civil War.

“Now we are clear-eyed about what our country is up against.”
If Clinton recognized clearly the danger facing America presently, she would not look so favorably toward an unsecured border, nor would she favor President Obama’s policy of allowing Syrian migrants to enter the U.S. In addition to the obvious danger of increased drug cartel activity invited by unsecured borders and a politically handcuffed Border Patrol, it is not uncommon for illegal aliens from the Middle East, including those with terror connections, to enter the country through the southern border.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Her actions in and views toward Libya, Egypt, or Syria suggest a foreign policy view concerned with keeping Americans safe, and she certainly wasn’t clear-eyed about what our country was up against in Benghazi.

[lz_jwplayer video=”qhzzoU41″ ads=”true”]

“We will build an economy where everyone who wants a good-paying job can get one.”
This statement was followed immediately by Clinton’s enthusiastic promise to “build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants.” These two goals are mutually incompatible. The U.S. already has an unemployment problem, and many have given up looking for work completely. If Clinton wished to build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one, the last thing she should be doing is advocating legalizing the presence of those who are already taking jobs away from Americans.

“I will be a President for Democrats, Republicans, and independents.”
The rest of Clinton’s speech suggested this is extremely unlikely. Clinton promised to pursue policy which goes against much of what Republicans and, polls suggest, many independents wish for the country. Clinton advocated amnesty for illegal aliens. She said that blacks and Latinos face “systemic racism,” showing an intention to continue Obama’s legacy of racialist identity politics, defended LGBT rights, and vowed to make “Wall Street, corporations, and the super-rich” start “paying their fair share of taxes.”

[lz_jwplayer video=”cDbcoWWl” ads=”true”]

“I believe that when we have millions of hardworking immigrants contributing to our economy, it would be self-defeating and inhumane to kick them out.”
The only immigrants who anyone is suggesting should be “kicked out” are illegal aliens. Clinton’s clear implication is that illegal aliens are a general net positive for the U.S. economy. This is entirely false. A February 2016 Government Accountability Office report revealed that $54 billion in remittances was sent abroad. The report noted that “with regard to the likelihood of remittances, one study of Mexican migrants finds that unauthorized immigrants are more likely to remit.”

Moreover, a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that “Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state, and local level” in 2013. This works out to an average of $1,117 per American household.