Happy Anniversary …
Then there are reports from tomfernandez28’s Blog that now Julian Assange is ready to leak some more deleted emails from the DNC and Hillary’s private server, and sources close to WikiLeaks have released data on the dark web about what it entails.
Samples of what HILLARY and friends are really thinking from the email:
“Donald Trump’s white trash blue collar voters are the same as “the Jews” and will be easy to convert back into our camp.
Because they’re stupid. They cling to their guns, their bibles and they’ll believe anything we tell them.”
– DNC or Hillary Clinton email, what difference at this point does it make?
The media and the government have protected Crooked Hillary for decades, but thanks to patriots like Julian Assange and Judicial Watch, the people are finally seeing the evidence to support our claims that she is a corrupt liar.
Guccifer 1.0 is the original hacker from Russia that started this trend in 2011. After he was caught and arrested for hacking Clinton’s server, he allegedly gave the information to the authorities, but he also gave it to several others hackers, even Julian Assange.
What we uncovered was that the State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton, approved a massive weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Qaddafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place.
These documents were only recovered because they were retrieved from the burned-out compound in Benghazi after Hillary finally sent it reinforcements to help.
The documents indicate that US diplomats in Benghazi were closely monitoring several US-sanctioned shipments to allies, and a plethora of them were headed to the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to overthrow Qaddafi.
So, we can see a pattern. Hillary approved weapons sales to Libyan Islamic radicals to supply them for their mission to oust Qaddafi, but it backfired as they later attacked our Benghazi compound and killed four Americans with the weapons Hillary supplied them!
We don’t have the full inventory list, but several State Department officials have indicated that the shipment included hundreds of rocket and grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns, and 8 million rounds of ammunition.
Dolarian Capital, a member working with U.S. intelligence, confirmed one of its licensing requests to ship weapons via Kuwait to Libya was approved by the State Department in spring 2011 and then randomly denied before they could carry out the transaction.
Thanks to a leaked document from a burn-bag, we can confirm that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department directly approved a weapon sale to place weapons into the hands of Islamic terrorists seeking to oust Gadhafi.
Multiple former CIA officials have stated publicly that Hillary and Obama are lying about supplying terrorists with weapons, and that this was a a covert program that Hillary orchestrated and wants to bury it now. The issue remains highly sensitive because there was a United Nations ban on weapons shipments to Libya at the time.
It was heavily reported in 2011 by Reuters and The New York Times that Obama authorized this covert transaction, but now he has stepped away from it because it has been linked to Benghazi. Obama and Hillary never thought this information would leak back after the terrorist overthrew Qaddafi, but when they used in on the Benghazi attacks, their entire master plan backfired.
On March 17, 2011, the U.N. passed Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and also established a panel of experts to monitor the arms embargo approved by the US. However, on March 27, 2011, Clinton argued that the arms embargo could be disregarded if shipping weapons to rebels would help protect civilians.
The weapons list revealed where and when arms were brought to both terror and jihadi groups in Libyan cities including the rebel fortress of Benghazi by the country of Qatar. It did not detail the weapons’ point of origin, but in February 2012 Qatari officials sent a letter to the U.N. “categorically” denying they had “supplied the revolutionaries with arms and ammunition’s.”
Tape recordings obtained and released by The Times earlier this year depicting secret calls between a U.S. intelligence asset and members of the Qaddafi family revealed the then Libyan regime believed NATO was helping Qatar and other countries illegally smuggle arms across their country’s borders to aide rebel forces in an attempt to destabilize Libya.
Hillary Clinton endorsed the idea of using arms merchants to help the Libyans one month before they supplied them the arms deal. The State Department used Dolarian Capital because they have worked with U.S. intelligence over the years to move covert shipments into hot spots around the globe such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria.
Hillary approved ONE shipment to Libya because she wanted to be discreet. After all, she is a career criminal with years of experience skirting the law. She knew what she was doing, she just didn’t want to get caught. Dolarian Capital had a legal license with the State Department, so this wasn’t an issue of Hillary illegally supplying weapons to them.
This is an issue of judgement. Hillary Clinton supplied massive quantities of powerful arms to a small terrorist group so that they could overthrow Qaddafi. After they accomplished their mission in 2011, they obtained more weapons and formed a terrorist group in Libya with al-Shabaab.
Now, after they used these weapons to attack our consulate in Benghazi, they pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2014 and operate a hub for them in Libya. Since Obama and Hillary overthrew Qaddafi and his government, there hasn’t been anyone to run the country except ISIS. ISIS runs that country and they are still using the arms Hillary and Obama supplied them.
Hillary lied to the faces of the Benghazi families and she is still lying to the American people to this day. How can she challenge trump’s judgement when she armed terrorists that then turned around and not only killed four Americans with those weapons, they are now a major affiliate of ISIS and run the country of Libya?
It is Hillary that has committed treason and deserves to be fitted for a bright orange jumpsuit. We cannot allow anymore bad deals like this to ever happen again. We must all unite as patriots and say enough is enough. We cannot elect this woman to destroy this country any more than she already has.
Remember these images of Hillary Clinton with those strange lumps on her back under her roomy, loose-fitting coat-jacket, which are suggestive of a defibrillator vest? (See “Strange bulges under Hillary’s coat suggest a defibrillator vest”)
This was at a private fundraiser on the evening of February 24, 2016 in the home of Lisa and Joseph Rice in Charleston, SC. (The Rices’ palatial home) is actually in Mount Pleasant, a suburb of and part of the Charleston municipality.)
Joseph Rice, 62, is a prominent attorney, the co-founder and co-owner of the law firm Motley Rice LLC. A 2008 article in The Post and Courier described him as:
“Rice shook down Big Tobacco for nearly $250 billion, brokered billions more in asbestos suits and has represented clients whose family members died aboard the Sept. 11 flights. In the process, he has made himself a millionaire many times over.”
Here’s a video of the fundraiser event in the Rices’ home. Pay special attention to Hillary’s back in the beginning of the video:
Did you notice those strange bulges on her upper back, although she was wearing a roomy coat-jacket?
Here’s a screenshot from the video, with painted red arrows pointing to the bulges:
Below are more (cropped) screenshots from the video highlighting the pronounced bulges with yellow arrows and circles:
Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit thinks Hillary’s bulges are from a defibrillator vest.
Wearable defibrillator vest:
Now a photo has cropped up, showing what appears to be a catheter beneath her right pant leg.
The photo of Hillary at a campaign rally on August 10, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa, was taken by Steve Pope of Getty Images. (Note: FOTM is publishing the Getty image under Section 107 of the US Copyright Law’s “fair use” of copyrighted material.)
Look at Hillary’s right thigh.
This one is cropped and enlarged to get a better view of her right thigh. See that strange tube-shaped line running from the groin area, diagonally across her right thigh to above her right knee?
Sure looks like a Foley catheter:
A Foley catheter (named for its designer, Frederic Foley) is a flexible tube passed through the urethra and into the bladder to drain urine. It is the most common type of indwelling urinary catheter.
The tube of a Foley catheter has two separated channels, or lumens, running down its length. One lumen is open at both ends, and drains urine into a collection bag. The other lumen has a valve on the outside end and connects to a balloon at the tip. The balloon is inflated with sterile water when it lies inside the bladder to stop it from slipping out. Foley catheters are commonly made from silicone rubber or natural rubber….
Foley catheters are used during the following situations:
A Foley catheter would explain why Hillary was late getting back to the Democratic presidential debate on December 19, 2015, in Manchester, NH. After the ABC telecast returned from a commercial break, only two of the three participants were onstage — Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. Missing was Hillary Clinton, who strolled in moments after the action resumed, re-positioned her microphone and said “Sorry,” but did not explain her absence.
This raises a lot more questions about Hillary’s apparent health issues. Will the media ever demand she release her real health records, because voters deserve to know what’s really going on behind those poopie-pants.
Photos of multiple staffers helping Hillary Clinton up stairs to a house were recently making the rounds on social media…these photos have raised questions about Clinton’s health. Twitter is all abuzz over the photos which show Clinton struggling to get up the stairs. What’s up with this or is it no big deal?
Hillary has a history of trip and fall…
On July 3, 2016, Shawn Lucas and filmmaker Ricardo Villaba served the DNC Services Corp. and Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz at DNC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the fraud class action suit against the Democrat Party on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters.
Shawn Lucas was thrilled about serving the papers to the DNC before Independence Day.
** This was before Wikileaks released documents proving the DNC was working against the Sanders campaign during the 2016 primary.
According to Snopes Lucas was found dead on his bathroom floor.
We contacted Lucas’ employer on 4 August 2016 to ask whether there was any truth to the rumor. According to an individual with whom we spoke at that company, Shawn Lucas died on 2 August 2016. The audibly and understandably shaken employee stated that interest in the circumstances of Lucas’ death had prompted a number of phone calls and other queries, but the company had not yet ascertained any details about Lucas’ cause of death and were unable to confirm anything more than the fact he had passed away.
An unconfirmed report holds that Lucas was found lying on the bathroom floor by his girlfriend when she returned home on the evening of 2 August 2016. Paramedics responding to her 911 call found no signs of life.
This follows the death of 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich who was murdered in Washington DC on July 8. The killer or killers appear to have taken nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.
And on June 22, 2016, former UN official John Ashe “accidentally” crushed his own throat and died a week before he was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and Democrat Party.
“How many more people must die before the country is forced to pretend to elect Hillary Clinton?”
A U.S. citizen has come forward offering conclusive proof of voter fraud in the recent Democratic primaries.
Elliot Crown says that all of the NYC counties that Hillary Clinton won, were won using this special black box.
After delving into the investigations of mathematician and numerical control engineer Richard Charnin, FBI journalist investigator Greg Palast and election investigator and analyst Bev Harris, an Italian observer of American politics becomes persuaded not only that statistical methods can show when fraud has taken place, but that in fact the American electoral system is structured to allow it and hide it. He unpacks some statistical concepts to explain this to his brother, a naturalized American, and he in turn passes the information to us.
My brother Marcello and I have been talking about electoral irregularities for months. He’s an astronomer by training, a software engineer, and an avid follower of American politics. I’m a microelectronic engineer and a finance person living in the United States for the past 20 years. As Italians we both look at American politics with a great deal of curiosity and sometimes disbelief. As a naturalized American, I worry.
Recently, Marcello became interested in the sort of calculation that could actually detect electoral fraud having heard about so many indications of electoral rigging in these past democratic primaries. After delving into the investigations of mathematician and numerical control engineer Richard Charnin, FBI journalist investigator Greg Palast, and election investigator and analyst Bev Harris, among others, he is persuaded not only that statistical methods can show when fraud has taken place, but that in fact the American electoral system is structured to allow it and to hide it. He spent a few days unpacking a few statistical concepts for me regarding this proposition and I will try to convey them to you.
First we should be aware that exit polls, the polls of voters taken immediately after they have exited the polling stations, are the only way to check against fraud in elections while keeping the vote confidential. A discrepancy between the declared vote (recorded vote) and the vote extrapolated from the exit polls is an indication of fraud when it is above a margin of error of 2% within a confidence level of 95%.
Here is how it works. When statisticians try to measure the ‘real vote’ they not only estimate the final vote count but they also analyze the entire distribution of the data they gathered from the exit poll voter sampling in order to determine the reliability of their final determination. When fluctuations in the data are due to randomness they will follow a statistical distribution that follows the shape of a bell curve, the Gaussian curve. The reliability or unreliability of the sample data doesn’t depend so much on the trustworthiness of those who collect the exit poll voter sampling, but it’s rather intrinsic to the shape of the distribution. From this shape an ‘interval of confidence’ is determined within which we can unquestionably claim our confidence that we got it right with a probability of 95% — always 95%. This interval of confidence is also called ‘margin of error’ (MoE).
Poorly informed ‘experts’ frequently argue that the statistical analysis of exit polls can be misleading because it assumes that real life data is randomly distributed (as in the Gaussian curve) when that’s not always the case. And here is where they are missing a central point. The expectation that sample data will be randomly distributed ALREADY takes into account all possible relevant factors in a practical observation in real life. When extraneous factors intervene, a discrepancy will make the recorded value fall outside of the interval of confidence signaling only one possibility: a systematic error. When this occurs statisticians make further analysis to determine the causes, and either remove the cause or include it into the ‘margin of error’. After 59 years of fine-tuning this process in countless elections around the world statisticians have reached a point where exit polls have become extremely reliable. If the final ‘Recorded Vote’ falls outside the interval of confidence one can assume with a high degree of certainty that the systematic error is intentional. This is why we say that we have a high probability of fraud.
The fact that such a high probability of fraud is so apparent in the comparison of exit polls and recorded vote is partially masked by the way electoral results are obtained in the United States. The results of most democratic elections around the world are obtained with a 95% confidence level within a margin of error of 2%. In fact, these are the parameters that the U.S. government normally uses to oversee elections in other countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_elections). But this is not true in the U.S itself — which nobody thinks of supervising.
Election results in the United States are obtained with a 95% confidence level within a 3-4% margin of error. This is because relatively recent laws in the United States have intentionally rendered reference data less reliable (HAVA, Bush 2002). By law exit polls must be adjusted to match the final recorded vote, which means that evidence of fraud is suppressed. Exit poll results, already partially manipulated, must disappear after a given election and become public only 5 years later. When such data has become available in its unadjusted complete form, it has been used to cross-check voting results with other independent methods. The results have not only shown that the numbers were internally coherent but also that they corroborated original suspicions of fraud.
In the 2016 democratic primary elections unadjusted exit polls show that Bernie Sanders has been robbed of the following percentage of votes: Alabama 6.1%, Arizona 22.1%, Georgia 5.5%, Massachusetts 4.0%, Mississippi 4.7%, Ohio 5.0%, South Carolina 5.2%, Texas 4.2%, Wisconsin 6.9%, West Virginia 6.0%, New York 5.9% (CNN New York exit polls indicated that Bernie Sanders may have done better than 48% there).
Although a discrepancy of -4.6% in Oklahoma turned out to be in favor of Bernie, it doesn’t affect our analysis because so far the discrepancies shown in all of the above final results have been consistently larger than the MoE in favor of Hillary in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability of this happening without fraud is 1 in 77 billion (6.8-sigma). In other words, one can expect something this improbable to happen less than once since the extinction of dinosaurs — if elections were to be a daily event.
One can also search for trends to check for fraud. One of the most revealing methods, the Cumulative Vote Share Analysis, searches for a correlation between the size of a discrepancy (between recorded vote and exit polls) and the size of a precinct. When no fraud has taken place the trend tends to be quite regular. When the discrepancy tends to manifest as the size of the precinct becomes larger than a certain value, it is a strong indication of fraud, according to Richard Charnin. Roughly speaking the reason for this behavior is that electronic rigging is implemented strategically in order not to become obvious. The discrepancy caused by the rigging is “better” distributed between those precincts that are big enough to be worth the effort.
In fact, in the recent democratic primaries we can observe a noticeable divergence in trends between the Clinton and Sanders votes when the precincts are larger; the larger the size, the higher the percentage of the votes that go in favor of Clinton. This has been evident in Massachusetts (>10%), Michigan (>3%-10% according to the type of machines), Missouri (>0.05% the size is small but the trend unequivocal), New York (>10% and possibly >20%). Charnin’s diagrams (see below) are self-explanatory.
In Kentucky Hillary’s cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of the smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO.
All in all electoral anomalies have been apparent in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Delaware, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky and Oregon. But electoral fraud has been particularly evident in strategic elections such as those in Arizona and New York. They were meant to kill the Bernie Sander’s momentum. And they did just that with the help of the media.
Disenfranchisement — widespread in New York and Arizona — has been more widely reported so I will not discuss it here. But in any case it must be added to other forms of electoral fraud.
According to the recorded vote the Sanders-Clinton competition is currently at 43.5-56.5% with a lead of 3 million votes in favor of Clinton. But actual votes in caucus states have not been included, and the fact that unadjusted exit polls have indicated that voting machines were hacked has not been considered. According to Charnin, if we take this into account we would have Sanders at 47.9 and Clinton at 52.1%, with a lead of 1.3 million votes in favor of Clinton. Furthermore, if we also take into consideration that voter rolls were manipulated and that long lines and severely shortened polling station hours reduced voter turnout in areas favorable to Sanders, we would need to add a 10% to Sanders’s votes and subtract 5% from Clinton’s. That would put Sanders in the lead at 51.5-48.5% with a lead of 780,000 votes in his favor.
Sanders’s supporters have barely begun to speak about electoral irregularities and already the DNC has started to accuse them and Sander’s campaign of inciting “violence” among supporters by promoting allegations that the primary process is rigged in favor of his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
There’s much more to say. This is only a piece of the larger story of how fraud has become part and parcel of American elections, which has been at work since the 1960s, reaching extraordinary highs after the year 2000. Most notable have been the elections stolen from Al Gore by 6 million votes, from Kerry by more than 10 million and the landslide vote margins stolen from Obama both in 2008 and 2012. But if until now the biggest share of electoral rigging has come from the Republicans by far, it looks like the Democrats are more than willing to step up to the plate if an un-corrupt candidate dares to challenge their establishment.
The people trying to say ‘what’s there isn’t actually there’, are starting to look more than a little silly. It’s beyond obvious something was removed (cut out) from Hillary Clinton’s tongue. It’s clear in the before and after pictures.
What was it?
Picture at the DNC Convention in Philadelphia:
How much money has the Clinton Foundation raised globally? Wall Street financial expert Charles Ortel says it’s a “$100 billion criminal conspiracy”.
Join Greg Hunter as he goes on a One-on-One, MUST WATCH interview with Clinton Foundation investigator Charles Ortel.
It’s now been totally exposed the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rigged the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. This is a turning point that says no way Clinton can be elected without nearly half the Democrat voters that supported Bernie Sanders. A WikiLeaks email dump at the beginning of the CCCP, Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia showed clear evidence the DNC committed fraud and collusion against all candidates and rigged the Primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Outraged and disenfranchised Sanders voters are protesting by the thousands, and yet, the mainstream media, by and large, will not cover the protests taking place outside the DNC convention. These are mostly young people who voted or worked diligently for the Sander’s campaign. Greg Hunter says Clinton will get only a small percentage of Sander’s voters, and the rest will vote for Donald Trump, another candidate or simply say home. Hillary is toast and will not become the President of the United States.
A big part of the fraud and rigging of the DNC Primary, which it repeatedly denied, came with the help of the disgraced mainstream media (MSM). The WikiLeaks email dumped from the DNC servers showed collusion with many MSM outlets. The Washington Post was trying to do a fundraiser for Clinton. A Politico reporter was getting script approval from the DNC before his own editors looked at it. Both NBC and CNN were taking suggestions and direction from the DNC to get favorable coverage for their candidate, Hillary Clinton. In short, the entire Democrat Party Primary process was rigged from the beginning with the help of the MSM. This is shameful conduct from groups that tout they are “news organizations” that are supposed to be fair and objective—NOT.
Watch Greg Hunter summarize this weeks CCCP in America Presidential Convention here
Democrats manipulate polling numbers to make it easier to steal elections without the public realizing the voting machines were rigged.
If the Democrats are able to make the voting public believe that the Republican candidate for President trailed the Democrat from the Conventions to Election Day, the public will easily be suckered into believing that the Democrat—in this case, the most despised and mistrusted liar in America, Hillary Clinton—somehow pulled 35 to 40 million more votes than her opponent, Donald Trump in the Nov. 8, 2015 general election. That, after all, is how the American people were conned into thinking that first term US Senator and civil rights huckster Barack Obama [D-IL] won in 2008 when 96,822,000 lawfully registered voters theoretically cast the 132,618,580 ballots which were stored in the voting machines across the nation, and counted as valid votes even though there were 35,626,580 more votes than voters. (This data was taken from the FEC election return which the Obama Administration arrogantly posted, as a a rebuttal to Orly Taitz‘s Quo Warranto lawsuit against him, on the White House website where I found it on Nov. 28, 2009). The form was removed sometime between Nov. 30 and Dec. 9—as was the official filing from the FEC website. The one page form, which is required by federal law, was replaced with a multi-page document which merely showed the numbers of votes counted in each State for Congressmen, Senators and Obama and Sen. John McCain [R-AZ].)
In 2008 the leftwing media hype declared that Barack Obama was more popular than Muhammad Ali and Harriet Tubman combined. He wasn’t. The leftwing media also claimed that Obama generated the largest young vote in history. They lied. What the vote thieves love about electronic voting machines is that they leave no trace of where the votes were stolen from. They only record totals, not trails. But when you have 35 million more votes than voters the one thing you do know is that the overages are votes by theft. But later, as Obama planned for the Election of 2012, journalists noted that Obama hoped to attract the minority votes who failed to materialize in 2008.
Without going into detail, the same thing happened in 2012. Federal law requires the conspicuous posting of the following: the number of registered voters in the country; the number of registered voters who voted; the percentage of registered voters who voted, and, finally, the number of votes cast.
In 2012 Obama used his own made-up FEC election returns form so you could not look at it and see the vote fraud. The data which was required by law to be conspicuously posted, now appeared to be spread out, and reported separately in different media, concealing—as best they could—the fraud. In 2012, 90,682,968 registered voters somehow delivered 126,985,809 ballots. Of them, 36,302,841 were fraudulent votes. Obama won by 6 million votes. The Democrats datamined 6 million GOP votes in 2012. What that means is that, in 2012, even by dismissing the 36.3 million stolen votes, had the Democrats not illegally voted 6 million American voters, stealing their right to vote by casting that person’s ballot before election day. Obama would still have lost the election by well over 6 million votes (i.e., taking 6 million off Obama‘s total and adding that amount to Romney‘s.
By the way, thanks to Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the political shyster who masterminded the art of datamining both Democrat and Republican voters when he was Chairman of he Democrat National Committee during the Clinton years, used datamining in 2012 to early vote Republicans, casting those ballots for Obama. While I don’t think datamining the Republican voting history is illegal, I know that posing as someone else and early voting their name is a felony. Now, thanks to a Washington State grandmother and Democrat voting advocate, we now know for a fact that the voting machines triggered massive electronic vote fraud in 2008 and 2012.
On July 21 California-based attorney Dr. Orley Taitz cited that there has been a noticeable shift in polling positions since April when twice as many people polled said they would most likely vote for Clinton over Trump. On July 13 the Rasmussen Poll showed Trump leading Clinton 44% to 37%. The LA Times-USC poll (the third most liberal newspaper in the country, puts the July 13 poll as Trump-43%, Hillary 42%. Imagine that. Even in La-La land, Hillary loses.
Lawyer Taitz noted in her “Defend Our Freedom Foundation” website that Fox News contributor, left-leaning RealClearPolitics.com collaborator, and one of the founders of left-leaning Wikipedia, Larry Sabato (who Fox News considers to be the guru of polling averages) was caught removing polls from the RealClearPolitics.com website which showed Trump leading Clinton. Taitz said Sabato was observed removing the July 19 LA poll from the site.
Taitz said she personally wrote to RealClearPolitics.com and demanded that they add the LA Times poll (which shows Trump leading) back on the site. If Orly is correct (and she does her due diligence very well) and RealClear is deleting or failing to acknowledge every poll that favors Trump, then it’s easy to see why every major media company in the United States is fostering the falsehood about how good Hillary is doing and, conversely, how bad Trump is doing.) According to Taitz, the website put the LA Times poll up—for all of 24 hours. The following day, she understood, someone “…leaned on them…” and the poll was taken down.
Today, according to the Quinnipaiac University Poll (7/13) Trump held a 3% lead in Florida (42 to 39%); a 2% lead in Pennsylvania (43% to 41%) and tied with Clinton in Ohio with 41% each. Peter Brown of the Quinnipaiac University Poll noted that Trump went into the Republican Convention with a slight lead in three of the most important swing States in the race. But, you aren’t hearing that on Lie TV (not Li”v”e TV—leftwing TV) where tongue-in-cheek spinmeisters believe you are buying their garbage rhetoric when they tell you how bad Trump is doing and how well the “Queen Liar” is doing.
The top 25 liberal newspapers together with the ground-based TV networks and satellite systems owned by the major TV brands: ABC-TV, CBS-TV, CNBC, CNN-TV, MSNBC-TV, NBC-TV, are owned or controlled by America’s princes of industry and barons of banking and business. Like the New York Times which carries the brand as a trademark—“We print the news that’s fit to print,” which, translated, means “we print or broadcast the news we want you to hear and we bury the rest.”
The liberal media will never give a non-liberal candidate unbiased coverage. Trump‘s much maligned (by the Washington Post) acceptance speech surprised the left. They felt—and hoped—that presidential nominee Trump would pepper his acceptance speech with the anti-establishment and anti-competitor rhetoric used by challenger Donald Trump. When he didn’t, Trump frightened the Washington Post‘s editorial team that’s already having a hard enough time ignoring Clinton‘s sins and crimes, knowing that when Trump returns to campaign mode the Trump rhetoric will once again slice and dice his opponent, forcing the media to examine the sins and crimes of Hillary Clinton—or discover that not even Jeff Bezos‘ vast Amazon.com fortune can keep them alive without readers.
Interestingly, when the Justice Department announced it was not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton for violating 12 federal laws dealing with mishandling federal documents (18 USC § 371, 18 USC § 641, 18 USC § 793. 18 USC § 798, 18 USC § 1031, 18 USC § 1343, , 18 USC § 1346, 18 USC § 1505, 18 USC § 1519, 18 USC § 1924 and 18 USC § 2071 which prohibits anyone convicted of this crime from ever holding any job in the federal government—including the job as President of the United States) Hillary‘s standing in the polls in Florida dropped when that news report hit the small screen. This suggests some Florida Democrats who likely want to believe she’s innocent, also felt she should face a federal court judge and show why she’s not guilty of the allegations from the GOP leadership in Congress. It will likely drop even more based on how the leftwing print media handles the early CNN and Fox News story on Wikileak’s release of some 20 thousand emails between the Clinton campaign hierarchy and the Democratic National Committee and from the DNC to Clinton campaign managers on strategies to undercut Bernie Sanders and torpedo his campaign.
As the Republican and Democratic Campaign of 2016 ramps up, the media will highlight the sins of Donald Trump as it conceals the crimes of Hillary Clinton. In doing so, they will also erase any poll which shows The Donald is leading so when they use labor union controlled electronic voting machines in about 82% of the polling places in the country, and steal 40 million or more votes through rigged voted machines, they can tell the American people the vote turned out the way the polls said it would. Nothing happened that the polls didn’t predict, particularly the liberal media fraud.
Hillary Clinton goes into convulsions during interview, then appears to try to play it off as a joke afterward. Is it possible she has some sort of illness, or thinks it is funny to mock people with seizures?
Citing his “15 year background in drug discovery and pharmaceuticals,” Shkreli asserts that the videos of Hillary’s strange facial movements and her difficulties with walking are “pretty unmistakable signs of Parkinson’s disease.”
Explaining that a stroke or a concussion wouldn’t explain the symptoms, Shkreli says that Hillary’s walking difficulties are a “cardinal symptom of Parkinson’s disease” and what is known as “freezing gait”. Shkreli adds that he helped develop a drug to treat the problem.
Hillary’s “on-off episodes” are a result of dopamine depletion, according to Shkreli, which is impacting Hillary’s movement.
“We’ve all seen the videos of her kind of making these perplexed facial movements,” says Shkreli, noting that Hillary’s over-reaction to balloons at the DNC was “unusual” because it betrayed an “inability to control her facial movements”.
However, Hillary’s seizure-like behavior in response to reporters asking questions in another clip was even more odd because she “made this involuntary movement for about ten seconds which was truly unusual,” states Shkreli, identifying the condition as a form of Parkinson’s-induced dyskinesia.
“This ia classic symptom….if you showed someone that symptom and said ‘name the disorder’ it’s not a seizure….that is simply involuntary movement, it’s PD-LID, no doubt about it in my mind,” adds Shkreli, concluding that when matched with Hillary’s “freezing gait,” it “explains everything.”
Shkreli emphasizes the fact the he is non-partisan and has given more money to Democrats than Republicans.
Despite his controversial background (Shkreli was once labeled the “most hated man in America” for raising the price of the drug Daraprim by 5556 per cent), his voice adds to the innumerable health experts and doctors who have been asking serious questions about Hillary’s ill health.
We highlighted Hillary’s bizarre behavior and her health problems in a video last week that has since gone viral and received well over a million views.
Suspicions over Hillary’s health have raged in recent days, with the Drudge Report running a series of headlines highlighting her numerous falls and difficulties walking.
Other questions continue to swirl, including claims that one of Hillary’ “handlers,” who calmed her during the recent interruption of one of her speeches, carries around a an auto-injector syringe for the administration of the anti-seizure drug Diazepam.
According to Shkreli, the syringe “may be an Apokyn pen, used to treat Parkinson’s,” noting that it was the same color.
The Clinton Foundation is a “massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people,” according to an anonymous insider who revealed why the FBI stopped short of indicting Hillary Clinton.
The verdict, which fell just hours before the International Women’s Day, is considered “historic” by some experts and advocacy groups for women’s rights.
“This is a great leap forward for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia,” concludes Jane Austin, spokeswoman for the Women’s Liberation Action Network. “It may seem too little, too late, but it is truly a milestone event for all women in the region,” she says, visibly excited. “From now on, women will be considered as members of the mammal class, whereas before women shared the legal status of an object, similar to that of a home appliance,” she admits.
The recent verdict could completely upset all laws currently enforced in Saudi Arabia believes Jillian Birch, spokeswoman at Amnesty International.
“This verdict shows the incredible progress the women’s rights movement has made in the past 50 years,” she admitted in a press conference this morning. “Finally, women will no longer be simply considered as objects without souls, but as full-fledged mammals, with the same rights as other animals of their species such as camels and goats,” she said, visibly emotional. “Women are still far from being considered 100% human, but their condition will improve drastically with this decision,” she firmly believes.
The verdict, which fell like a ton of bricks on the Saudi state, has clearly not found unanimous support among religious authorities and the political elite, concede experts.
“It could create significant turmoil in the current legal state of affairs and the judiciary system of Saudi Arabia,” says political analyst specialized in the Middle East, Anthony Bochstein. “If before women had the same rights as a chair or a table and were seen more as individual property, they now have an equivalent status to certain animal species, and thus must receive, at the very least, feeding, watering and be conferred a minimum of attention and respect, which was not the case previously,” he explains.
According to the expert panel that ruled on the matter, women are still devoid of a soul but have been shown to possess qualities common to the mammal species, which would explain their ability to procreate and breastfeed, as well as why they are equipped with seven cervical vertebrae, a characteristic unique to the mammal species.
Christian Times Newspaper has learned that Guccifer, the Romanian hacker currently being held on charges for hacking Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, has been found in his Virginia jail cell, dead of an apparent suicide.
Guccifer, also known as Marcel Lazar Lehel, was extradited to the United States to face charges after openly admitting to repeatedly hacking Hillary Clinton’s email server. This claim occurred in the midst of an FBI probe that was concluded this morning by Director Comey.
Lehel claimed that the server was “like an open orchid on the Internet” and that it “was easy … easy for me, for everybody.”
After the FBI cleared Clinton of any charges Tuesday morning, a rumor began circulating that Guccifer was missing from his jail cell. Tuesday night, reports began spreading that the Romanian hacker was found after the evening’s dinner hanging from a rope in his personal cell.
Comey, in his statement Tuesday morning, alluded to the fact that American enemies and individual actors most likely accessed Hillary Clinton’s emails, but Guccifer was the only person to come forward with knowledge of their contents.
Reports are still developing, and CTN is waiting on statements from authorities.
It is worth noting that the Clinton White House faced allegations that Hillary and her aides were involved in the questionable suicide of White House employee Vince Foster in 1995.
two days prior … ((really happened))
Call it conspiracy theory, coincidence or just bad luck, but any time someone is in a position to bring down Hillary Clinton by testifying they wind up dead. In fact, there’s a long history of Clinton-related body counts, with scores of people dying under mysterious circumstances.
Perhaps the most notable is Vince Foster. Foster was a partner at Clinton’s law firm and knew the inner workings of the Clinton Machine. Police ruled that death a suicide, though it is often noted that Foster may have been suicided.
Now, another official has found himself on the wrong end of the Clintons. That John Ashe was a former President of the United Nations General Assembly highlights the fact that no one is safe once in their sights.
And as you might have guessed, there are major inconsistencies with Ashe’s death. It was not only conveniently timed because Ashe died just a few days before being set to testify against Clinton in a corruption case, but official reports indicated he died of a heart attack.
The problem, however, is that police on the scene reported Ashe died when his throat was crushed during a work-out accident.
The New York Post’s Page Six reported that after Ashe was found dead Wednesday, the U.N. claimed that he had died from a heart attack. Local police officers in Dobbs Ferry, New York, later disputed that claim, saying instead that he died from a workout accident that crushed his throat.
Adding to the mysterious nature of Ashe’s death was the fact that he had been slated to be in court Monday with his Chinese businessman co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, from whom he reportedly received over $1 billion in donations during his term as president of the U.N. General Assembly.
And then there was this: During the presidency of Bill Clinton, Seng illegally funneled several hundred thousand dollars to the Democrat National Committee.
It must be coincidence, right?
If former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne is to be believed, this is business as usual for the Clintons. Excerpt via Zero Hedge:
BYRNE: I feel so strongly that people need to know the real Hillary Clinton and how dangerous she is in her behavior. She is not a leader. She is not a leader.
SEAN: She does not have the temperament?
BYRNE: She doesn’t have the temperament. She didn’t have the temperament to handle the social office when she was First Lady, she does not have the temperament.
SEAN: She’s dishonest.
BYRNE: She’s dishonest, she habitually lies, anybody that can separate themselves from their politics and review her behavior over the past 15 years…
Byrne is the author of the newly published book Crisis Of Character – a first-hand Clinton exposé.
Emails released under court order Wednesday to Judicial Watch show that in December 2010, State Department technical staff had to disable software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. The reason: The State Department was trying to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Hillary Clinton’s private server.
Deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and Hillary both used Clinton’s private server, and as AP reports, both had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received. “This should trump all other activities” Ken LaVolpe, a senior technical official told other IT employees in a December 17, 2010 email. Days later another email was sent by State Department official Thomas W. Lawrence saying that Abedin was personally asking for an update about the repairs.
After technical staffers turned off security features at the State Department, Lawrence cautioned in an email “we view this as a band-aid and fear it’s not 100 percent fully effective.” State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified that the emails describe “a series of troubleshooting measures to the department’s system, not Secretary Clinton’s system, to attempt to remedy the problem.”
On January 9, 2011, a personal aid with no security clearance was forced to shut down Clinton’s server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us.” The worker then went on to write “we were hacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min” in what was one of several occasions where email access to Clinton’s blackberry was disrupted because the private server was down according to the documents.
AP went on to add that last year it reported that on August 3, 2011, Clinton received infected emails disguised as speeding tickets from New York. The emails instructed recipients to print the attachments, however opening any attachment would have allowed hackers to take over control of the victim’s computer.
* * *
So to recap, Clinton’s private server was being hacked, and the State Department decided that it was a good idea to disabled security software on its government systems just to allow Hillary and Huma’s emails through. This begs the question of how far the hacking goes, did the State Department just allow hackers unlimited access when it disabled security software to accommodate Hillary?
As a reminder, the State Department did release a report slamming Hillary for ignoring internal guidance that her email set up broke federal standards. Alas, it is clearly too little, too late at this point. Also of note, although Judicial Watch is making headway in gaining access to email documents such as AP reported on above, no further answers will be revealed in the sworn testimony of Brian Pagliano, the man believed to have set up and maintained Clinton’s private server. In a deposition as part of one the civil cases involving Judicial Watch, Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination more than 125 times.
This is bombshell announcement! Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) just shared damning news for Hillary Clinton on The Steve Malzberg Show just now:
The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.
“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said Monday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”
“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”
Clinton is under FBI investigation for her use of a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state. But some Republicans fear any FBI recommendation that hurts Clinton will be squashed by the Obama administration.
DeLay, a Texas Republican and Washington Times radio host, said:
“One way or another either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign. One way or another she’s going to have to face these charges.”
Team Hillary is already admitting this will likely happen. Amazingly, the Clinton campaign has been busy accusing Obama’s intelligence Inspector General, Charles McCullough, of coordinating releases of information to help Republicans. (!) McCullough’s investigations found Clinton was sharing documents which were “beyond top secret”… a crime that should not only disqualify Hillary Clinton from the White House, but should carry a lengthy prison sentence!
Here is Tom DeLay sharing the major news:
Yet as media outlets across the ideological spectrum have confirmed and verified the book’s explosive revelations about Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State and the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign sources into the Clinton Foundation, the nation has learned much it did not know. Subsequent reporting by national news outlets has expanded on the book’s findings using its investigative methodology.
Indeed, the dizzying flurry of resulting Hillary Clinton Foundation scandals has been difficult to keep up with. As CNN’s John King put it on Sunday, “You can’t go 20 minutes in this town, it seems, without some sort of a story about Clinton Foundation that gives you a little bit of the creeps.”
Early on, as Clinton Cash bombshells began appearing in the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought to calm nervous campaign donors by announcing the creation of a special “rapid response” War Room aimed at combating a book, an unprecedented move in the annals of modern presidential campaigning. The Clinton campaign team built a website called “The Briefing,” issued memos, and tasked an eight-person team to create videos featuring embattled Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon as he awkwardly and unsuccessfully attempted to smear Peter Schweizer. Team Clinton’s message: all of Clinton Cash’s revelations are incorrect or merely “coincidences.”
Yet as the nation’s largest news organizations began to confirm finding after finding, the Clinton campaign did the only thing it could: it gave up in its attempts to refute the swelling avalanche of now well-established facts. Indeed, the Clinton campaign’s last video response on its “The Briefing” YouTube page is dated May 5th—Clinton Cash’s official launch date.
To date, Hillary Clinton has yet to substantively answer a single question from the mountain of Clinton Cash questions that continue to pile up with each passing day.
The result: according to Tuesday’s CNN poll, the “Clinton Cash Effect” has rendered Hillary Clinton historic new lows in her favorability with American voters.
Below we chronicle just 21 of the myriad Clinton Cash-related revelations that have emerged since the book’s publication—all of which have been confirmed and verified as accurate by national media organizations.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank—two of the Keystone XL pipeline’s largest investors—fully or partially bankrolled eight Hillary Clinton speeches that “put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate’s pocket,” reports the Huffington Post.
Moreover, according to Clinton Cash, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Bill Clinton delivered 10 speeches from Nov. 2008 to mid-2011 totaling $1.8 million paid for by TD Bank, which held a $1.6 billion investment in the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Clintons’ speaking fees windfall, which has infuriated environmental groups, have yet to be addressed by Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton refused to give a speech for a tiny nonprofit seeking to raise money for tsunami victims until the group agreed to pay a $500,000 speaking fee to the Clinton Foundation. The Times reported that the Clinton Foundation “sent the charity an invoice,” which “amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds—enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.”
When “the Clinton Foundation wound up on a ‘watch list’ maintained by the Charity Navigator, dubbed the ‘most prominent’ nonprofit watchdog,” reported New York Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, “the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member.”
“Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data,” reports IBT. “That figure—derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012)—represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.”
Clinton Cash revealed five hidden foreign donations. On the heels of the book’s publication, the Washington Post uncovered another 1,100 foreign donor names hidden in the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—a Clinton Foundation initiative Bill Clinton erected with controversial billionaire mining executive Frank Giustra.
“A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration,” reports the Washington Post. “The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.”
In a follow-up story, the Post reports that only 21 of Frank Giustra and Bill Clinton’s secret 1,100 foreign donors have subsequently been revealed. If and when the other 1,079 hidden donors names will be revealed is presently unclear—and will be the subject of forthcoming investigative reports by Breitbart News.
“Public records alone reveal a nearly limitless supply of cozy relationships between the Clintons and companies with interests before the government,” reports Vox. “There’s a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but “X” (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.”
When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, two of her biggest fundraisers were conducting massive Ponzi schemes. One was Hsu, who posed as a garment tycoon, and is now serving a 24-year sentence in federal prison in Milan, Michigan. The other, Hassan Nemazee, is serving a 12-year sentence in Otisville, New York, for bank fraud. He used fake documents and nonexistent loans to trick bankers into extending him more credit,” reports Ben Smith of BuzFeed. “Those two convictions cast light on a central perplexity of the 2016 presidential cycle, and its ‘Clinton Cash‘ phase: Why are shady people with murky interests always hanging around political superstars, and particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton?”
“The Clinton global charity has received between $50,000 and $100,000 from soccer’s governing body and has partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on several occasions, according to donor listings on the foundation’s website,” reports The Daily Beast. “Qatar 2022 committee gave the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014 and the State of Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million in previous, unspecified years.”
“The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances,” reported the AP. “The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a ‘pass-through’ company designed to channel payments to the former president.”
Hillary Clinton has yet to release the names and amounts of the payments that flowed through the hidden WJC, LLC, company.
“An examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years,” reports the Times. “While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation…and worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.”
The New Yorker confirms Clinton Cash’s reporting that Bill Clinton bagged $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.”
“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the New Yorker. To date, Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have answered that question.
“In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative—an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.”
“Asked whether he attends CGI meetings to explore personal business opportunities, Rodham responded, ‘No, I go to see old friends. But you never know what can happen.’”
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Tony Rodham said according to a transcript of his testimony obtained by The Times. “That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law [Bill Clinton], because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.”
Clinton Cash revealed that Canadian mining tycoon Stephen Dattels scored an “open pit mining” concession at the Phulbari Mines in Bangladesh where his Polo Resources had investments. The coveted perk came just two months after Polo Resources gave the Clinton Foundation 2,000,000 shares of stock—a donation the Clinton Foundation kept hidden.
In a 4,000-word front-page New York Times investigation, the Times confirmed in granular detail Clinton Cash’s reporting that Hillary’s State Dept. was one of nine agencies approving the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government. “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States,” reports the Times.
The Times then published a detailed table and infographic cataloging the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation made by uranium executives involved in the Russian transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium.
Even as Hillary Clinton and Democrats continue to blast for-profit colleges and universities, Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to stonewall questions about how much Bill Clinton was paid by Laureate International Universities, one of the largest for-profit education companies in the world—and an organization that has underwritten Clinton Foundation events. As soon as Clinton Cash revealed Bill Clinton spent years on Laureate’s payroll, the former president quickly resigned.
According to an analysis by Bloomberg: “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
Hillary Clinton has refused to answer questions about the Clintons’ income from the for-profit education company.
Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation—donations that were never revealed until Clinton Cash reported them and the New York Times confirmed them.
Hillary Clinton has yet to answer a single question about Uranium One.
According to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”
The Post added: “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”
Clinton political operative-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos infamously hid his $75,000 Clinton Foundation donation from ABC News viewers before launching a partisan attack “interview” with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer.
Roundly condemned by numerous journalists, Stephanopoulos apologized and received zero punishment from ABC News. Hillary Clinton’s campaign then used footage from the Stephanopoulos’ attack “interview” with Schweizer in its political campaign videos.
“It was outrageous,” said former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson.
Hillary Clinton has yet to answer whether her campaign coordinated with Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos.
In a highly embarrassing CNBC grilling, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock well before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. greenlit the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to the Russian government in 2010.
However, according to his company’s, U.S. Global Investors, own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company did, in fact, still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later conceded.
“The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event,” reports Politico. “But in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of ‘arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.’”
ABC News similarly confirmed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of the unseemly funds.
Hillary Clinton has refused to substantively answer a single question related to the above 21 revelations, or the scores of others not reflected above.
In answer to a question about Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton said the book “won’t fly.” The book has remained on the New York Times bestseller list three weeks in a row after debuting at number two.
Now, with Hillary Clinton’s poll ratings at all-time lows, Americans and the nation’s journalists eagerly await the chance to hear Hillary Clinton’s answers to the growing mountain of Clinton Cash-related revelations, investigative findings that have consumed and imperiled her candidacy.
Clinton Video Transcript:
“Mexico is such an important problem. Mexican government’s policies are pushing migration north. There isn’t any sensible approach except to do what we need to do simultaneously. You know secure our borders with technology personnel physical barriers. If necessary in some places and we need to have tougher employer sanctions and we need to product incentivize Mexico to do more if they’ve committed transgressions of whatever kind they should be obviously deported.”
U.S. Ambassador Lewis Lukens’s sworn testimony in the case of Hillary Clinton’s privatization of the U.S. Secretary of State’s email is the first evidence to be released in the Clinton email cases, and it was published on May 26th at the website of Judicial Watch, the organization that originally brought the suit. Headlining “First Deposition Testimony from Clinton Email Discovery Released”, it reported that:
Judicial Watch today released the deposition transcript of Ambassador Lewis Lukens, former deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department’s executive secretariat. The transcript is available here. Amb. Lukens was deposed last week as part of the discovery granted to Judicial Watch by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, non-government email system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Lukens is the first of seven depositions of former Clinton top aides and State Department officials that Judicial Watch has scheduled over the next four weeks. Also to be deposed are Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, as well as top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano.
In his testimony, Lukens described his State Department role:
I’ve been a Foreign Service officer for 27 years. I’ve served in Southern China; in the Ivory Coast; in Sydney, Australia; in Dublin, Ireland; in Baghdad; Vancouver, British Columbia; Dakar, Senegal; and three tours in Washington, D.C., as well as my current position in San Francisco.
While Clinton was Secretary of State, his role was heading “logistics and management support” and he had “roughly 110 employees working for me” including the “IRM” or Information Resource Management team. Also, during his questioning, he was asked “You traveled with Mrs. Clinton on all of her foreign travel?” while he was employed there, and he answered: “Yes.”
Representative excerpts from his testimony will be presented here:
While Clinton’s office was being prepared for her:
Q: Do you know if Mrs. Clinton — if the IRM office set up an e-mail address for Mrs. Clinton?
A: I don’t believe they did.
Q: Do you know why they didn’t?
A: I don’t think it was asked for.
Q: Would Mrs. Clinton have — was it required for Mrs. Clinton to ask for an e-mail address for one to be assigned to her?
Q: Was it unusual — at the time did you think it was unusual that Mrs. Clinton didn’t want an e-mail address assigned to her?
Q: Why not?
A: I’m not aware of former Secretaries of State having e-mail addresses on our system.
In other words: her having an e-mail address assigned to her was “required,” but the custom at the U.S. Department of State was to ignore this ‘requirement’.
(AUTHOR’S NOTE: Regardless of whether violating the regulations or even the law has been ignored in the past, violations are supposed to be punished or prosecuted. Prior refusal to prosecute does not constitute legal excuse for continuing refusal to prosecute: it instead constitutes a government in which some persons who are supposedly in the service of, and who are definitely being paid by, the public, are, in practice, above the regulations or even the laws — in other words, a dictatorship. However, this aspect of the questioning was not pursued.)
Lukens then said that her violation on that matter was ignored and that a “BB” or Blackberry account was instead requested by “HRC’ Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lukens’s notes indicated that he had asked HRC’s agent, “On the BB for HRC, can we chat this morning?” and “I may have thought of a workaround [to evade the State Department’s regulations] but need more info on her BB use.” He explained during this questioning of him: “So the crux of the issue was that BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the Secretary’s office suite, so the question was, how is the Secretary going to be able to check her e-mails if she’s not able to have the Blackberry at her desk with her.”
Q: And so what did you — did you propose a solution at that point?
A: So my proposal was to set up a computer on her desk, a standalone computer [not part of the State Department’s system], for her to be able to access the Internet to check her e-mails [privatized — and therefore not subject to FOIA requests or historians’ investigations].
However, Clinton’s agent insisted on a private computer also being set up “across the hall” “for her to check her BlackBerry” even though no private BlackBerry was allowed on the premises. This was to be the “workaround.”
In an email, Lukens had written, and the questioner referenced it:
Also think we should go ahead, but will await your green light, and set up a standalone PC in the Secretary’s office connected to the Internet, but not go through our system, to enable her to check her e-mails from her desk.
That proposal was accepted and was done. Then:
Q: Do you know if this setup would have been any different from the setup of other employees?
A: Yes, this would have been different.
Q: How would it have been different?
A: My understanding is that most of the employees’ computers in the State Department are connected through the State Department’s OpenNet e-mail system …
Q: So this would have been separate from the OpenNet system?
He was asked why he had proposed this solution, and he said it was “For ease of access” and, “as far as I knew, there was no requirement for her to be connected to our system” (even though he had earlier said that her having an email address assigned to her in the State Department’s system, the OpenNet system, was “required”). He said that the “ease of access” would be because of there being “fewer passwords.”
He was asked whether doing things this way was necessary in order for her to be able to access the Internet from the State Department, and he said, ”the Internet is available” to employees at the office, just as anywhere.
He was asked about the inconvenience of the State Department’s passwords system, and he said that he eliminated her need for any passwords:
A: She wouldn’t have had a password.
Q: So the computer would have just been open and be able to use without going through any security features?
Though he was paid by U.S. taxpayers, apparently his only concern was to please his superiors, whom he trusted unquestioningly despite their evident unconcern about “security” etc.
In further questioning of Mr. Lukens, it became clear that he never gave any thought to what the purpose behind the State Department’s regulations was: he didn’t even notice that Hillary Clinton’s buddy and top aide Huma Abedin at the Department was also using only a private email account — even though he regularly had been communicating via email with her.
* * *
And then the Daily Caller adds the following:
Shocking Deposition: Hillary Clueless On Using Computer Emails
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton never used a password to protect her computer emails, and she was clueless about how regular emails work on a conventional computer, according to a deposition of a foreign service officer at the State Department.
She also continued to push for the use of her personal Blackberry phone in the Secretary’s highly-secured government suite even though National Security Agency (NSA) regulations barred its use in that office.
The revelations came as part of a May 18 deposition released Thursday by Judicial Watch, the nonprofit government watchdog group, of Lewis A. Lukens, a veteran 27-year foreign service officer at the State Department who served as the deputy executive secretary and executive director of the Office of the Secretariat from 2008 to 2011.
From the start of her term in January 2009, State Department officials grappled with Clinton’s ignorance of the use of basic computers. In a January 24, 2009 email from Lukens to the department’s Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, the foreign service officer said Clinton didn’t know how to use a computer for emails.
Citing a conversation Lukens had with Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, he wrote, “She says problem (sic) is HRC does not know how to use a computer to do emails — only Blackberry.” HRC refers to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha asked Lukens if State Department policy barred the use of personal cell phones in the Secretary’s official office suite, which is one of the most tightly secured facilities in government. Lukens explained the prohibition: “So the crux of the issue was that BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the Secretary’s office suite, so the question was, how is the Secretary going to be able to check her emails if she’s not able to have the Blackberry at her desk with her.”
The NSA rebuffed multiple attempts by Clinton to carry her Blackberry into her office.
Lukens also said Clinton did not use a password to protect her stand-alone computer from unwanted intruders such as hackers. During the deposition, Lukens volunteered that the stand-alone computer adjacent to her suite did not have a password for protection “She wouldn’t have had a password.”
Bekesha asked, astonished, “So the computer would have just been open and be able to use without going through any security features?”
“Correct,” Lukens replied.
He added that to the best of his knowledge, Clinton never received a waiver to use the Blackberry in the State Department headquarters.
“Do you know if — do you know if waivers or exceptions were made for State — or employees of the Office of the Secretary to use their State Department BlackBerrys within the executive suite within the office of the Secretary,” Bekesha asked.
“I’m not aware of any waivers that were made,” Lukens replied.
Mills eventually was able to set up a room “adjacent” to her secure office to allow her to look at her unsecured Blackberry emails. But it appears that Clinton rarely used the room.
Instead, the Secretary of State would go into a hallway to use her blackberry.
Lukens said in the deposition he saw Clinton using her blackberry in the hall “maybe a half dozen times.”
The official said that he thought Clinton wanted to use the Blackberry “to stay in touch with family and friends,”
He said he didn’t know if she was conducting official business on a private server or with a non-governmental email address. Clinton used an email domain address “clintonemail.com.”
As late as 2011, State Department officials were still trying to get Clinton to use a government-issued blackberry. But Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, shot it down, saying in an August 30, 2011 email “let’s discuss the State Blackberry, [it] doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
Bekesha, asked Lukens if Abedin also used a non-state department email address.
“Do you recall if Ms. Abedin used non-state.gov e-mail accounts to correspond with you,” Bekesha asked.
“Well, the answer is yes,” he replied.
Lukens displayed a great lack of curiosity about Clinton’s use of prohibited electronic devices.
“Did you ever think about whether or not she was going to use that equipment to conduct official government business,” asked the Judicial Watch attorney.
“I did not,” he replied.
Judge Sullivan, the State Department’s Inspector General and the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the State Department’s examination of the Clinton emails, as well as its failure to identify classified materials on her server.
The inspector generals, unlike State Department officials, found at least two dozen emails contained either “Top Secret” designation or the highest government classification called “Special Access Programs,” or SAP. They found up to 1200 emails contained some form of classification material.
Lukens, as executive director of the executive secretariat for the State Department, said he was only trained once to handle documents under the Freedom of Information Act — in 1989 — when he first joined the department. He’s never had a refresher course in the years since that first training.
“Do you know if any point after 1989 you received updated guidance or training about the use of email as it related to federal records and the Freedom of Information Act,” Bekesha asked.
“Not that I recall,” replied Lukens.
The State Department official also revealed that he routinely deleted official emails “to clear out space in my inbox.”
He said he “kept files for various trips and things where I would keep e-mails until trips were over, but after trips were over I would often delete the files to clear — to clear out space in my inbox.”
Most Americans know it’s respectful to stand during the national anthem. Many supporters of Hillary Clinton apparently didn’t get that memo.
Prior to a rally with Bill Clinton in Edison, New Jersey on Friday, a high school choir attempted to lead the few hundred attendees in a rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.
But a video from the crowd shows many people sitting down, talking with their neighbors or staring at their phones — and completely ignoring the song.
FIRST, if you have not followed the “Tripwire Series” this update might take a while to fully digest. There are key indications the real presidential decision-makers have shifted.
I would strongly suggest you watch this video before continuing, and remind yourself that Andrea Mitchell is Alan Greenspan’s wife (this is one of the “keys” moving forward).
The video is Mika Brezinski outlining the latest State Department report on the Hillary Clinton E-Mail Scandal: “it feels like Hillary Clinton is lying”…
Last year, against tremendous opposition, we outlined what would happen if two specific occurrences took place: #1) If Donald Trump secured the GOP nomination; and, #2) If Hillary Clinton crossed a particular threshold and appeared “unelectable”.
What we stated then, eerily remains today.
If Trump won (he has), and it appeared Clinton was too weak to defeat him (looking possible), the power-brokers who ultimately control U.S. elections (Wall street) would move to replace Clinton with an alternate candidate. They’d have no choice.
Who the alternate candidate doesn’t really matter. The reasoning we have continually evidenced within expanded explanations about the Congressional Legislative Agenda being dictated by Wall Street interests.
♦ The influences who control the legislative agenda have already put in place, convinced and paid for, the politicians needed to advance their interests (the legislative priorities).
♦ Those interests don’t care about who occupies the White House so long as that occupant is incapable of derailing their objectives.
♦ There is only one current candidate who is a risk to that Wall Street goal, Donald Trump. The second candidate, be it Hillary or Bernie, does not represent the same risk.
♦ Bernie cannot disrupt the legislative agenda because he is external to the party structure who currently control the construct (Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan).
♦ Only Donald Trump can disrupt the agenda because he would also carry an electoral mandate and allegiance with elements inside structure of the party apparatus.
In essence Trump can block them, Bernie cannot.
SIGNALS – What we are now seeing is a shift:
♦ Trump is polling equal to, or ahead of, Hillary Clinton. That’s a bad indicator for those Legislative Priorities.
♦ Clinton is looking more and more weak. Her failure to defeat Trump would eliminate the ability of the Legislative Priorities to advance.
♦ Clinton’s E-Mail scandal now looks toxic to her ability.
Globalists VS Nationalists.
♦ Last night on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel the question was raised about Donald Trump debating Bernie Sanders. Why ABC? Who owns ABC? Answer = Disney Corp., a specific corporate benefactor (and constructionist) of the Wall Street Legislative Agenda.
♦ MSNBC now questioning Hillary’s candidacy. Specifically Andrea Mitchell (wife of former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan), a specific tool of the Wall Street Legislative Agenda.
♦ Alan Greenspan is antithetical to a Donald Trump candidacy.
These signals are NOT disconnected.
Also, Senator Elizabeth Warren is attacking Donald Trump. When we outlined the risk to Clinton’s nomination, Elizabeth Warren was predicted to join the Bernie Sanders ticket as the Vice-President pick. They need a ticket which can defeat Donald Trump.
Remember, with republicans in control of the House and Senate, and with the hundreds of millions already spent to secure the agenda items, only Donald Trump represents the risk.
There are literally trillions of dollars at stake.
Do you really think Barack Obama is remaining in Washington DC in 2017/2018 because his kid needs to finish High School?
Buried in a footnote and text of the scathing report by the State Department’s Inspector General (IG) about Hillary’s emails is evidence that the private email server that carried America’s top secret information to and from the Secretary of State was installed, maintained, and partially operated by a civilian aide to Bill Clinton who lacked any security clearance and did not even work for the government.
This extensive reliance on a close assistant to Bill Clinton raises questions about the handling of classified material by the Secretary of State. If General David Petraeus was held accountable to passing secret information to his biographer and mistress, what are we to make of the routine access to potentially all secret information granted to Hillary’s husband’s aide?
While not named in the report itself, the “non-Department” aide referred to is apparently Justin Cooper, longtime aide-de-camp to the former president. Cooper had no security clearance and no expertise whatsoever in safeguarding computers. He helped Bill Clinton research two of his books, frequently traveled with Clinton, was involved in Clinton Foundation fundraising, and, at the same time, worked for Teneo — the sprawling investment banking, political consulting, and PR firm that started on Hillary’s tenure. Teneo paid Bill Clinton, Huma Abedin, Doug Band, Justin Cooper. The firm was founded by two former State Department employees and then hired four more.
It was Cooper who initially opened and registered the private server and it was he who apparently maintained its security. But that wasn’t the end of it.
The Inspector General report indicates that on two occasions, Cooper suspected that the server had been hacked and that, on one of them, he actually took it upon himself to shut the entire server down. (Hillary’s aides deny that it was ever hacked, but emails from Cooper belie that assertion). Indeed, both hacking attempts came while Hillary was traveling abroad in locations of dubious security — the UAE, Bosnia, Serbia and Algeria. Her server was especially vulnerable to hacking on her foreign travels when she carried and used her Blackberry which was linked to her server.
The IG Report states that on Jan. 9, 2011, the Bill Clinton aide who registered the clintonemail.com domain — who was Justin Cooper — “notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations [Huma Abedin] that he had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in I didn’t [sic] want to let them have the chance to.’”
Cooper wrote another email to Abedin later in the day stating that, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” Abedin emailed another top Clinton aide the next day urging them to not email “anything sensitive” to Clinton. She also offered to “explain more in person.” Abedin did not report any of the hacking issues to anyone at the State department, as was required.
Cooper obviously had the authority, access, and ability to access and shut down the server used by State Department employees, diplomats, and ambassadors to communicate with the Secretary of State. And apparently the server was also used by Bill Clinton’s aides for his business, as we reported last September.
The Clintons are very interested in Cooper’s legal issues. Columnist Monica Crowley reported that the Clintons are now paying Cooper’s legal bills. That’s interesting, isn’t it?
The “all in the family” approach of the Clintons to the operation of the private server makes a mockery of security. Not only could anyone with even minimal levels of skill hack into her server through her Blackberry (that she carried with her into high risk countries despite the explicit warnings of security officials that she wrote about in her own books), but an aide who worked for a former president, who was aggressively courting foreign countries for donations and for a private consulting firm soliciting foreign governments as clients had access to the State Department email server.
But the broader implications of the IG Report about Cooper’s intimate connection with the Secretary of State’s email server suggest that the Hillary and the former president operated an off-the-shelf rogue operation out of Bill Clinton’s office — and possibly the Clinton Foundation — that had the potential access to all the government’s secrets that passed through the Secretary of State.
Hillary went to great lengths to keep the server secret and out of the reach of the State Department and the Freedom of Information Act.
What’s even more astounding is that Bryan Pagliano, who is obviously the second “technical adviser, “a political appointee” of the Secretary referred to in the Report, kept his work on the Secretary’s server a dark secret from his State Department bosses.
Remember, Pagliano was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in exchange for his testimony.
But whatever he actually did for Hillary was on the QT, because according to the Report, his direct supervisors said: “they did not know that he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working hours. They also told the IG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during working hours, given his capacity as a full time employee.”
Yet Hillary’s attorney, David Kendall, said that Pagliano performed technical assistance for the Clinton family and was compensated in various amounts at various times by wire or check.
So what was he doing?
This massive conflict of interest opens up an important new line of investigation: Did Cooper — or anyone else in the Bill Clinton orbit — access any of the actual emails, and, if so, did they share the content with Bill Clinton or anyone at Teneo? These are the kind of questions that the indiscriminate sharing of the email server with the Clintons’ entire official family invites.
The OIG Report raises lots of questions beyond its unequivocal conclusion that Hillary did not seek permission for the use of a private email server and would not have been granted permission in any event. Moreover, the Report certifies that she violated Federal Records requirements and failed to protect the server from cyber strikes.
The Report verifies what we already knew: Hillary is a chronic liar who deliberately lied about her email server cover-up.
Let’s hope the FBI picks up where the OIG left off.
PALM BEACH, Florida – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has received more than $21 million in just two years for giving speeches to large banks and corporations, and that could be the key factor in her potential political plunge, according to talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.
“I think this is shocking,” Limbaugh declared on his Monday broadcast, citing a New York Post report on Sunday documenting the massive amount of money the former secretary of state raked in.
“I’m telling you, folks: $21 million over two years for 20 or 25 minutes? There’s nothing that screeches ‘out of touch’ more than that,” he said.
“I don’t think you’re gonna see this story in the New York Times or the Washington Post. I don’t think any of the nightly newscasts are gonna make a big deal of it. It’s gonna be the kind of thing that, if she loses, in their postmortems they’re gonna go back to and say, ‘You know what? We missed this when this happened, but the exit polling will show it, that people thought she was inexorably tied to corporate America.’”
The Post reported that from April 2013 to March 2015, Mrs. Clinton “collected $21,667,000 in ‘speaking fees,’ not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, ‘Hard Choices.’ Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance ‘honoraria,’ and the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the former first couple – who, according to Hillary, were ‘dead broke’ when they left the White House in 2001 with some of the furniture in tow – can finally make ends meet.”
Limbaugh noted that in recent years, many leftists in the U.S. have been voicing nothing but hatred for banks and large corporations, and that attitude cannot help Hillary politically:
You know how much they hate corporate America on the mainstream left, and the reason is the Democrat Party has made corporate America its number one enemies list. The Democrat Party, for as long as I’ve been alive, has been targeting “Big” this and “Big” that, and they have been drumming up hatred and suspicion and revulsion for all of these big corporations. That’s why Citizens United is so despised. That’s why you have leftists running around saying, “Corporations are not people!”
They hate them. Here’s Hillary Clinton: $21 million in two years. These Democrat voters? No way. Ten to 12 of ’em combined are never gonna earn $21 million in their lifetimes. And they’re gonna ask, “What is she doing that’s worth all that? I’ve seen her speak. I wouldn’t pay 10 cents for it. What?” People are gonna ask all these kinds of logical questions, and they’re gonna see all the banks. They hate the banks every bit as much as they hate corporations. They despise the banks. I mean, Occupy Wall Street was drummed up because of the banks. They hate ’em, folks. I mean, really hate. Not just dislike.
The Post itemized how much Mrs. Clinton was paid for her 2013-2015 speeches:
4/18/2013, Morgan Stanley, Washington, D.C.: $225,000
4/24/2013, Deutsche Bank, Washington, D.C.: $225,000
4/24/2013, National Multi Housing Council, Dallas, Texas: $225,000
4/30/2013, Fidelity Investments, Naples, Florida: $225,000
5/8/2013, Gap Inc., San Francisco, California: $225,000
5/14/2013, Apollo Management Holdings LP, New York, New York: $225,000
5/16/2013, Itau BBA USA Securities, New York, New York.: $225,000
5/21/2013, Verizon Communications Inc., Washington, D.C.: $225,000
5/29/2013, Sanford C. Bernstein and Co. LLC, New York, New York: $225,000
6/4/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Palmetto Bluffs, South Carolina: $225,000
6/6/2013, Spencer Stuart, New York, New York: $225,000
6/16/2013, Society for Human Resource Management, Chicago, Illinois: $285,000
6/17/2013, Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, Michigan: $225,000
6/20/2013, Boston Consulting Group Inc., Boston, Massachusetts: $225,000
6/20/2013, Let’s Talk Entertainment Inc., Toronto, Canada: $250,000
6/24/2013, American Jewish University, Universal City, California: $225,000
6/24/2013, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company LP, Palos Verdes, California: $225,000
7/11/2013, UBS Wealth Management, New York, New York: $225,000
8/7/2013, Global Business Travel Association, San Diego, California: $225,000
8/12/2013, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Las Vegas, Nevada: $225,000
9/18/2013, American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Illinois: $225,000
9/19/2013, American Society of Travel Agents Inc., Miami, Florida: $225,000
10/4/2013, Long Island Association, Long Island, New York: $225,000
10/15/2013, National Association of Convenience Stores, Atlanta, Georgia: $265,000
10/23/2013, SAP Global Marketing Inc., New York, New York: $225,000
10/24/2013, Accenture, New York, New York: $225,000
10/24/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, New York, New York: $225,000
10/27/2013, Beth El Synagogue, Minneapolis, Minnesota: $225,000
10/28/2013, Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, Illinois: $400,000
10/29/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group, Tucson, Arizona: $225,000
11/4/2013, Mase Productions Inc., Orlando, Florida: $225,000
11/4/2013, London Drugs Ltd., Mississauga, Canada: $225,000
11/6/2013, Beaumont Health System, Troy, Michigan: $305,000
11/7/2013, Golden Tree Asset Management, New York, New York: $275,000
11/9/2013, National Association of Realtors, San Francisco, California: $225,000
11/13/2013, Mediacorp Canada Inc., Toronto, Canada: $225,000
11/13/2013, Bank of America, Bluffton, South Carolina: $225,000
11/14/2013, CB Richard Ellis Inc., New York, New York: $250,000
11/18/2013, CIIE Group, Naples, Florida: $225,000
11/18/2013, Press Ganey, Orlando, Florida: $225,000
11/21/2013, U.S. Green Building Council, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: $225,000
01/06/2014, GE, Boca Raton, Florida: $225,500
01/27/2014, National Automobile Dealers Association, New Orleans, Louisiana: $325,500
01/27/2014, Premier Health Alliance, Miami, Florida: $225,500
02/06/2014, Salesforce.com, Las Vegas, Nevada: $225,500
02/17/2014, Novo Nordisk A/S, Mexico City, Mexico: $125,000
02/26/2014, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Orlando, Florida: $225,500
02/27/2014, A&E Television Networks, New York, New York: $280,000
03/04/2014, Association of Corporate Counsel – Southern California, Los Angeles, California: $225,500
03/05/2014, The Vancouver Board of Trade, Vancouver, Canada: $275,500
03/06/2014, tinePublic Inc., Calgary, Canada: $225,500
03/13/2014, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Orlando, Florida: $225,500
03/13/2014, Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies, New York, New York: $250,000
03/18/2014, Xerox Corporation, New York, New York: $225,000
03/18/2014, Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, Montreal, Canada: $275,000
03/24/2014, Academic Partnerships, Dallas, Texas: $225,500
04/08/2014, Market° Inc., San Francisco, California: $225,500
04/08/2014, World Affairs Council, Portland, Oregon: $250,500
04/10/2014, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada: $225,500
04/10/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment, San Jose, California: $265,000
04/11/2014, California Medical Association (via satellite), San Diego, California: $100,000
05/06/2014, National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, Washington, D.C.: $225,500
06/02/2014, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, Denver, Colorado: $225,500
06/02/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment, Denver, Colorado: $265,000
06/10/2014, United Fresh Produce Association, Chicago, Illinois: $225,000
06/16/2014, tinePublic Inc., Toronto, Canada: $150,000
06/18/2014, tinePublic Inc., Edmonton, Canada: $100,000
06/20/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment, Austin, Texas: $150,000
06/25/2014, Biotechnology Industry Organization, San Diego, California: $335,000
06/25/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment, San Francisco, California: $150,000
06/26/2014, GTCR, Chicago, Illinois: $280,000
07/22/2014, Knewton Inc., San Francisco, California: $225,500
07/26/2014, Ameriprise, Boston, Massachusetts: $225,500
07/29/2014, Coming Inc., Coming, New York: $225,500
08/28/2014, Nexenta Systems Inc., San Francisco, California: $300,000
08/28/2014, Cisco, Las Vegas, Nevada: $325,000
09/04/2014, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, California: $225,500
09/15/2014, Caridovascular Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.: $275,000
10/02/2014, Commercial Real Estate Women Network, Miami Beach, Florida: $225,500
10/06/2014, Canada 2020, Ottawa, Canada: $215,500
10/07/2014, Deutsche Bank AG, New York, New York: $280,000
10/08/2014, Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), Chicago, Illinois: $265,000
10/13/2014, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Colorado Springs, Colorado: $225,500
10/14/2014, Salesforce.com, San Francisco, California: $225,500
10/14/2014, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California: $335,000
12/04/2014, Massachusetts Conference for Women, Boston, Massachusetts: $205,500
01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc., Winnipeg, Canada: $262,000
01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc., Saskatoon, Canada: $262,500
01/22/2015, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Whistler, Canada: $150,000
02/24/2015, Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Santa Clara, California: $225,500
03/11/2015, eBay Inc., San Jose, California: $315,000
03/19/2015, American Camping Association, Atlantic City, New Jersey: $260,000
A caller to Limbaugh’s show, a recent graduate from the University of Connecticut, affirmed the host’s position. He explained that during his commencement May 8, a speaker suggested there could be a Mrs. Clinton in the White House soon.
“The whole crowd, the whole gymnasium – Gampel Pavilion at the University of Connecticut – blew up, erupted in boos. It was the craziest thing. I couldn’t believe it happened,” the caller, Michael from Glastonbury, Connecticut, said.
“The whole crowd booed,” he continued. “I have a video of it on my Twitter page. I put it up; it got over a thousand retweets. The amount of messages I got … The whole place – student section and people watching – just erupted and booed. It was insane. … It only surprised me because it’s Connecticut, and the University of Connecticut. We’re by no means a conservative school.”
Nothing could better underscore Hillary’s lack of the proper base of knowledge to be president than her statement that she would assign the economy and job creation to her husband. That admission of economic ignorance essentially says that she will continue as the de facto Secretary of State and let Bill resume his duties as president. But, this time, it is not Bill who is running for president.
Hillary’s intention to delegate the essential work of managing the economy, stands in sharp contrast to Bill’s 1992 commitment to “focus like a laser” on fixing the economy. Could you imagine a candidate for president who says, in effect, that running the economy is not her thing, but don’t worry, her husband will take it over?
The fact is that Hillary is right — she has no credentials to show any real knowledge of the economy. Her work on the problems effecting women and children — providing stoves to African families — is as skew to economic policy as it is to foreign policy.
The complexities of interest rates, bond trading, derivative regulation, deflation and inflation, long term unemployment, and the migration of our labor force to the ranks of the welfare dependent, are all terra incognito for this presidential candidate. To the extent that she addresses economic concerns at all, she approaches them as social justice questions. Ask her about equal pay for equal work or family friendly workplace policies or health care benefits and she is in her element. But about job creation, international competition, protecting our industrial secrets, the business cycle, automation, the erosion of our manufacturing base, and trade deals she is at sea.
Send for Bill.
Even if it were legitimate for a candidate for president to have such blind spots in her knowledge base, what a slender reed Bill Clinton would be to rely on! In his currently depleted physical condition and seemingly limited energy level, the Bill Clinton of 2016 is not the man we elected in 1992. He has aged faster and more tragically than his wife. And most of his ideas have aged as well.
“So I’m going to speak out. I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA,” Clinton asserts.
“And we’re going to do whatever we can. I’m proud when my husband took them on and we were able to ban assault weapons but he had to put a sunset on it so, 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them.”
“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton urged.
“Here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
“The location and date of the recording are unknown. It sounds like an intimate room and was likely recorded on a cell phone or similar device. The Republican National Committee, which posted the clip on YouTube, has not provided additional details,” writes Kyle Olsen.
Hillary’s appetite for gun control has cropped up on the campaign trail numerous times.
Last month during an event in Philadelphia, Clinton vehemently agreed with a supporter who urged her to use executive orders to restrict the Second Amendment.
During a round table discussion in New York, the former Secretary of State nodded along vigorously as a member of the panel described gun owners as terrorists.
“Citizens are the terrorists, right?” the woman states as Hillary nods multiple times. “We’re so worried about terrorism but we have terrorism on our own soil,” she continued.
Hillary’s daughter Chelsea also gave a speech following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia urging Democrats to exploit his absence to pass strict new gun control laws.
Given the fact that a snowball has a better chance in hell than the American public ever seeing a transcript of Hillary Clinton’s various million-dollar speeches to Goldman Sachs employees, K.J. Noh, Counterpunch’s resident satirist in chief, unleashes his best guess at what was said.. and if not, what was implied… Liberty Blitzkrieg’s Mike Krieger excerpts the true meaning of Clinton:
CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Lloyd [Blankfein], and thanks to everyone at Goldman Sachs for welcoming me today. I’m delighted to be back among friends, colleagues, collaborators, supporters, kindred spirits…
Let me jump right in. You know, over the past few months, there have been popular concerns about an economy that still isn’t delivering for the majority of Americans. It’s not “delivering” the way that they feel it should, that they feel entitled to. Most Americans that you speak to, speak a populist rhetoric that claims it is stacked for those at the top, that those of you here have it too good.
But we know the hopes that the little people have for their future — things like school, job, food, clothing on their backs– all of those little things would not be possible without your leadership and innovation. Since the time of the Medicis, even before, and the financing of the first joint stock companies in the transatlantic slave trade, we know that finance and banking is what makes our capitalist economy not just grow but tick…
Previous generations of Americans built this economy and a middle class on a collective illusion: that they do productive work, this creates wealth, and that this builds the economy. We all know how misguided that is. We know that it’s really due to your investing, credit, and economic stewardship, that they have been able to work at all, that they are able to put food on their tables. It’s due to you and other banking, trading, investment houses that we have an economy that works at all. You are why we are a truly 21st century economic power.
For decades, people have argued that if we give more wealth to those at top by cutting taxes and letting you and other corporations write the own rules, it will trickle down, it will trickle down to everyone else. And it has! My speech here is an example!
(Cackles, Waves Check)
Some will say that you are simply parasitic on those who labor at menial physical production—these are people who still subscribe to 18 Century notions of value production–and that you skim off profit without doing anything meaningful or of value. Those people are misguided: we know that if money never sleeps, that’s because you keep it awake! You have—if I may use a metaphor–injected money with caffeine, Adderal, crack, meth, with LSD so that it can dance the crazy dance and grow a crazy thousand psychedelic feet tall in a rainbow minute! Money was a lazy b*tch, until you put it to work! And look how it works! Look how it grows! Materializes out of nowhere!
(Waves check again, dances, cackles).
Some people have said that it was your irresponsible financial engineering, risk-taking, and profit-seeking, that led to the 2008 crash; that you shorted your own toxic mortgages in the most brazen securities fraud in financial history, dynamiting and imploding the global economy; and that the exorbitant bonuses paid from tax payer money, the financial bailouts, the non-prosecutions created moral hazard, rewarded avarice, incompetence, corruption and vice. You and I know it is nothing of the sort. As leaders, innovators, captains of finance, you will always be subject of the jealous resentment, the petty tantrums of the unwashed masses, the insolvent, the irresponsible, the invidious, the losers. They will envy you, your successes, they will despise you, but they secretly want to be like you!
As you know, my husband tried very hard to change the culture of this misbegotten underclass, by kicking them off the government teat, by poisoning their milk with harsh, bitter regulation, and by disciplining them with the most arbitrary, racist, punitive, devastating criminal laws in US history, laws which Richard Nixon, the Southern strategists, the slave catchers, could only have dreamed of. He also passed NAFTA, which told them in no uncertain terms that they needed to discipline themselves as workers, and learn to be competitive in the global sweatshop, or face certain extinction. But they have not learned their lesson.
The effects prove themself. Under President Clinton — I like the sound of that!— America saw the longest, most prodigious reaming of the undesirable classes in our history, putting them firmly in their places. And they loved it! He felt their pain! And relished it! Because he was inflicting it!
And I will too!
Books like “The Spirit Level” and organizations working for equality, certain politicians, spew a ridiculous myth of populism and the benefits of equality. But the fact is, we can’t create profitable businesses without exploitation, and we can’t grow the economy without speculation and inequality, and we certainly can’t boost our economy into the stratosphere without allowing you to exercise your amazing financial intelligence and acumen in fiscal number-crunching, speculation, numbers-running and fraud!
Let’s tell the truth: America is struggling—despite the endless fabrication about “the recovery”– because we are not yet running the way we should. Banks are still over regulated. It’s over-regulation that creates financial catastrophe! Despite your huge paychecks and squirreled away assets, I know that you are worried: worried that some “socialist” demagogue might come along and confiscate it all and put you all in jail. With president Obama, you were in good hands: he’s one of us. (Good thing you ponied up $981K for his campaign). He took good care of you, had your back, covered your financial rear. But populist sentiment is rising up again, more strongly than before, and the unwashed masses are full of resentment, anger, jealousy. They are angry that they don’t have jobs, that they are in debt, that they can’t scrape a living together, even though they are working, 2,3,4 jobs to put shelter over their heads. That their children are starving. That they cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel. They are angry about the 100 million people driven into the brink of starvation and the global food riots that they claim you caused with your commodity futures speculation. The $5 Trillion of value lost from the markets that they claim you collapsed. The millions who lost their homes and are now on the verge of homelessness. The trillions funneled to you in loans, write-offs, bribes to keep the system going. Even when I was working for Barry (Goldwater), I felt that same irrational resentment. Now it’s at an all time high. Irresponsible single mothers, uneducated immigrants, lead-drinking ghetto-strutters, homeless, crying, babies, starving senior citizens, obnoxious, entitled African Americans who object to having bullets pumped into their bodies by police: all these people are angry, entitled, and making noise, and they are endangering our democracy and economy, our greatness.
I hear this everywhere I go. A single mother, with three children—wants to go to college, find enjoyable, well-paid work and also enjoy the emotional luxuries of motherhood—all at the same time. Everyone feels entitled to everything. She even wants housing. Now even I couldn’t do all these things, despite my incredible privilege and intelligence. But they want it all, now. Three children?
A grandmother, playing with children—it makes her happy like a cow, but she still feels entitled to be paid. Because she wants to feed her drug habit, she wants to sell them for more money….she wants it all!
A student, with an unmarketable degree in women’s studies, specializing in medieval feminist villanelles, wants debt forgiveness, and a high-paid job putting her non-existent skills analyzing romance language texts to use and profit in a rewarding cause. She also wants a pony, a sensitive but dominant lover, a villa on the Riviera, and World Peace!
Millions of working sad-sack Americans have similar fantasies. They want more money. More pay. Decent wages for hard work. They think it grows on trees. They think that money will grow and nuzzle up to them in their sleep, when they have no money-appeal. They think they can tax Other People’s Money to get what they want. They don’t realize Money has to be jacked up the ass, stuck in the veins with meth, dragged out and pimped to make more! You have figured out how to make your money work, turned it into a profit-generating prostitute! The future expected earnings of a profit-generating prostitute! That you’ve shorted! These people, idiots, all of them, they expect money to come to them! Without Scheming! Without reaming others! By working hard and being good! Like puppies and ponies! Like flowers after a downpour! Like the lilies of the valley! Like utopian visions of a drug-addled socialist!
Because what’s best for Wall Street is what’s best for the US. What’s best for Goldman Sachs is what’s best for the planet. I promise to take on this challenge against the clamoring, whining, agitating babies demanding for major changes in our economy and the global economy, demanding for equity and justice. These demands are stupid beyond belief.
As president, I will work with you to turn the tide of populism, to make these currents of change infeasible, impossible. We don’t hide from change; we subvert, hijack it, appropriate it.
Let me tell you straight: I want to be the presidency of, by, for Goldman Sachs, and I mean it. I’ll make sure to line my cabinet with your people, like everyone else. Lloyd, name your position!
And I know it’s not always how we think about this, but another engine of strong growth should be the TPP and the TTIP, and the TISA.
I want you to hear this. Creating a global neo-liberal enclosure of the entire world economy that pretends to be about “free trade” won’t do much for the total economy—perhaps a tiny percentage point of growth—but I guarantee it will line your pockets like nothing else. Think trillions in your coffers. Quadrillions, once we force all the Asian-Pacific economies to suspend their financial uptightness restricting wild casino gambling! Financial liberalization forced on Asia will result in Quadrillions! Bazillions! And remember, the house—that’s us—we write the rules—never loses!
You know, all this speculation adds up. And for you, it’s trillions every day. Now I am well aware that for far too long these practices have been challenged by socialistic demagogues.
Well, those days are over.
The current President Obama gave you and your colleagues 17 Trillion of free money, and endless zero-rate loans, but he still had to pretend to take you and your colleagues to the woodshed. Dodd-Frank. Sarbanes-Oxley. The return of Glass-Steagall. Other annoying, pesky legislation and regulations. Too many of you are bound and wrapped in red tape: shadow banking, money laundering, hedge funds, high-frequency trading, non- bank financing, interest rate manipulation, all done in the shadows, because of vicious, irrational regulations that marginalize and oppress you.
I will appoint you to every regulatory position of power! Too big to fail is too big not to give control over the entire government!
That’s what I’ll do as president. I will seek out and welcome any good idea that is accompanied by a large check!
Brushes check suggestively against cheek)
Thank you all. Thank you. I just want to leave you with one more thought. I want every banker, financier, trader, hedge fund manager to reach their God-given potential to rule the universe. Please join me in that mission — let’s do it together!
Is there anything he left out?
Today, child labor and trafficking are endemic in Haiti, particularly in the country’s manufacturing sector, which is outsourced to foreign companies.
In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers.
Read the rest at Snopes.com
Color From Judge Napolitano’s Chambers In January, 2016
Color From Judge Napolitano’s Chambers In February, 2016
Color From Judge Napolitano’s Chambers In March, 2016
Hillary Clinton Likely to Be Indicted by May 2016 for Breach of National Security
FBI – INDICT HILLARY CLINTON | CAMPAIGN 2016 – GAME OVER | FULLY EXPOSED
To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway: How did you lose your Republic? Two ways, gradually and then suddenly. The Romans experienced this when their Republic was extinguished by Empire.
The erosion of the Republic was gradual: slowly but surely, the lower classes’ representation in governance was curtailed; the Oligarchy of the wealthy and powerful cemented their privileges at the expense of the many; Oligarchs rose above the laws that were supposed to apply to all, and executive power was consolidated in top administrators and the wealthy at the expense of the Senate.
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army to seize control of Rome, the Roman Republic ceased to exist. Gradually and then suddenly: this is how Republics become Empires.
We find ourselves in a parallel moment in history: the American Republic has been hollowed into a shell that is maintained for PR purposes. Beneath the propaganda, the Establishment runs the nation for its own benefit. The people are ignored, because they are powerless in this hollow shell of democracy: their only role is to provide bodies, talent and blood for the Imperial armed forces, pay taxes if they have any money, and be content with their food stamps if they don’t.
Here’s the proof:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
Here are two articles in the same vein:
The United States has reached a crossing the Rubicon moment: either Hillary Clinton is indicted for knowingly violating statutes regarding State Department security, or the rule of law and the Republic are dead. This is a binary moment: we either let Hillary evade the laws that were established to protect the security of the nation and confess there is no rule of law now for the Oligarchy, or the agencies tasked with defending the nation indict her.
There is no middle ground. If Hillary isn’t indicted, the rule of law, i.e. no one is above the law, is dead.
If you believe Hillary that she didn’t really do anything to violate the spirit or the letter of security laws, please review these statutes:
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12 – Diplomatic Security
12 FAM 531.1 Top Secret Storage
12 FAM 531.1-1 Domestic
(Uniform State, USAID, OPIC, TDP)
2 FAM 558 CRIMINAL LAWS
Incidents involving intentional or grossly negligent release or mishandling of classified information may be subject to criminal penalties. An illustrative list of criminal statutes establishing penalties of fine and imprisonment for the release of classified information is set forth in 12 FAM 558 Exhibit 558.
Once the Oligarchy is above the law, the Republic is already dead. Once the people have lost the ability to influence the central state’s policies and decisions, the Republic is dead. Once the elected officials can no longer impose the nation’s statues on the Oligarchy (or have lost interest in doing so because they are all corrupted cronies), the Republic is dead. Once the nation’s agencies of law enforcement are stayed from indicting, prosecuting and jailing members of the Oligarchy, be they super-wealthy politicos like Hillary or super-wealthy Wall Street bankers, the Republic is dead.
The Democratic Party bosses and special interests have already selected Hillary as their shoo-in candidate for the Presidency, and these Oligarchs and special interests won’t let any pesky details like laws protecting the security of the nation stand in the way of their Not So Quiet Coup.
The nation’s Deep State, which I have covered extensively, has at least grudgingly approved Hillary as the next neo-conservative (never met an Imperial entanglement or drone strike she didn’t like), neo-colonial (we’re going to put the “little people” in their rightful place, i.e. under our management) Imperial President.
A vote for Hillary, unindicted Oligarch, is a vote in favor of the destruction of the rule of law and the Republic. This is the Rubicon every voter must decide to cross or refuse to cross: vote for Hillary (destroy the Republic and surrender to Imperial Oligarchy) or refuse to vote for an unindicted Imperial Oligarch.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is coming for your guns.
Oh, don’t expect her to say that during a campaign speech covered by the media or in an op-ed in The New York Times. But when she’s among friends and doesn’t realize she’s being recorded, she’s apparently a little more open about her plans.
The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained an audio recording of Clinton’s remarks to what was obviously a liberal, anti-gun crowd at a “small private fundraiser in New York” — which is the only kind of crowd to be found at a Clinton fundraiser in New York, most likely.
Clinton told donors that the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment.”
“And I am going to make that case every chance I get,” she added.
Clinton must have felt right at home with the enthusiastic crowd and her Greenwich Village host, convicted felon John Zaccaro. Perhaps after her remarks she sought his advice as to which minimum security federal prisons had the best cafeterias, but that’s only speculation.
Clinton has expressed support in the past for a ban on “assault weapons” similar to the largely ineffectual ban passed by Congress and signed into law by her husband, President Bill Clinton. That ban was allowed to expire under President George W. Bush.
“I was proud when my husband took (the National Rifle Association) on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.
That’s because Bush knew that such bans do little more than impinge upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans — something Clinton, despite her constant claims to be the “experienced” candidate for president, doesn’t appear to have figured out yet.
Clinton also criticized the NRA and promised to work to counter the lobbying influence of the organization.
“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA,” she said. “And we’re going to do whatever we can.”
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” Clinton added.
What she didn’t explain was “why.” Why, exactly, is this idea “just despicable”? How many gun owners have legally carried an AK-47 or similar weapon into a supermarket and committed a crime? Have there been 100 such crimes? A dozen?
And if the answer is none — and one would think she’d be spouting examples left and right if she had any examples to spout — then what exactly would the point of a ban on such behavior be?
I think we all know the answer to that question, but you can listen to her comments here (if you can stand it) and decide for yourself:
Hey kiddos, it’s time for Uncle Bill to read a story– its a charming tale about a super breed of woman, a true leader from birth, Hilary Clinton! Gather round!
On Sunday former presidential candidate Ben Carson told Fox News the disruption at Donald Trump’s Chicago rally last week is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook.
“If you read some of the left-leaning writings of people like Saul Alinsky, you understand exactly what they’re doing. This is part of the plan,” Carson said.
Alinsky’s infamous “Rules for Radicals” does not explicitly encourage violence. However, according Alinsky protégé Nicholas von Hoffman, in private “he would say that violence has its uses.”
Clinton was a follower of Saul Alinsky and met the Chicago community organizer several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis (“An Analysis of the Alinsky Model”).
“Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969,” writes Alana Goodman for The Washington Free Beacon.
Alinsky was fond of the young law student Clinton. “Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” replied Georgia Harper, Alinsky’s secretary, in response to a letter (see below) Clinton sent inquiring about his book, “Rules for Radicals.”
Shortly after Bill Clinton was elected the White House instructed Wellesley to bury Hillary’s thesis. “After the call from the White House, Wellesley’s president, Nannerl Overholser Keohane, consulted with lawyers and closed access to any thesis written by a U.S. president or first lady, a rule affecting only Hillary D. Rodham’s thesis,” writes Bill Dedman for NBC News.
On Saturday political insider Roger Stone told Alex Jones the disruption and violence at the Trump rally was a false flag staged by Hillary Clinton to discredit rival Bernie Sanders.
“The entire conflagration in Chicago is a Hillary Clinton operation,” Stone said during a phone interview. “Frankly, I can’t see Bernie Sanders having anything to with it… this is not his handiwork.”
In addition to Clinton, Stone implicated George Soros, MoveOn, David Brock and Media Matters for America and “the reclusive millionaire, Jonathan Lewis.”
What is the worst possible outcome for the presidential election of 2016? Assuming that an election will actually take place, that is an easy question to answer – Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next president of the United States. She is truly evil in every sense of the word, and the implications of what four (or eight) years of Hillary would mean for our nation are almost too terrible to imagine. That is why it is so depressing watching what is happening to the Republican Party right now. The civil war in the Republican Party is ripping it to shreds, and as a result of all this warfare every plausible scenario for what will happen the rest of the way ends with Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election.
According to the Associated Press, here is how the Republican delegate count stands as of right now…
Donald Trump: 384
Ted Cruz: 300
Marco Rubio: 151
John Kasich: 37
Ted Cruz looks like he is within shooting distance of Trump, but that is an illusion. The early part of the schedule was full of states where Cruz was expected to do well, but now the map is going to work very much against him.
At this point, the only candidate that looks like he may be able to accumulate 1,237 delegates before the convention is Trump, and that is far from guaranteed. So far, Trump has won approximately 44 percent of the delegates during the caucuses and primaries. By the time it is all said and done, he will need to have slightly more than 60 percent of all the delegates awarded during the caucuses and primaries to guarantee himself the nomination before the Republican convention. That is because there are hundreds of delegates that are not awarded during the caucuses and the primaries, and almost all of those delegates are members of the Republican establishment.
Trump can still get there by racking up large delegate totals in winner-take-all states such as California, but it will be a challenge. The entire Republican Party establishment, Fox News, Glenn Beck and a significant number of other prominent conservative voices have all declared war on Trump. In fact, there are super PACs that are going to spend tens of millions of dollars doing nothing but trying to destroy Trump.
If the Republican Party actually wanted to beat Hillary Clinton in November, they should be rallying around Trump and trying to help him, because he would definitely need a lot of help to win the general election.
According to Real Clear Politics, the latest three polls all have Trump losing to Clinton by at least 5 points. In key states such as Michigan, the numbers are quite a bit more dismal. Over the next few months, those numbers are likely to get even worse as Trump is savagely assaulted by the Republican establishment and relentlessly bombarded by tens of millions of dollars of negative attack ads. Meanwhile, Clinton is cruising along virtually unscathed.
Of course in a just world Hillary Clinton would have already been arrested and put in prison. There is no possible way that she should be running for president of the United States. Unfortunately, we live in a deeply corrupt society, and this is the way that things work.
If by some miracle he does survive to become the nominee, a significantly weakened Trump would then have to face the full power of the Clinton political machine. It is estimated that a billion dollars could be spent on the Democratic side this time around, and Trump does not have the resources to match that. Normally big Republican donors rally around the nominee, but in this case the big money is fighting like crazy to defeat Trump. In a general election matchup, it really would be David vs. Goliath, and Trump would not be Goliath.
If Donald Trump does not accumulate 1,237 delegates before the convention, then we would be headed for what is known as a “brokered convention“. The rules are very complicated, but the key thing to remember is that the delegates are only bound for the first vote. After that, they can vote for whoever they want.
And it is very important to note that the campaigns don’t pick their delegates. Becoming a delegate is a long and tedious process in most states, and most of them are party loyalists.
In the end, a “brokered convention” would almost certainly result in an establishment candidate being chosen as the nominee. Needless to say, the names “Trump” and “Cruz” would not be on that list.
Have you noticed that Mitt Romney has started to put himself out there lately? His verbal attacks on Trump have been absolutely scathing, and he told Fox News that he would not say no if he was “drafted” to become the nominee at the Republican convention…
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and the Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee, repeated remarks from last week, telling “Fox News Sunday” that he wouldn’t launch an eleventh-hour campaign for president. But he declined to reject being “drafted” at the GOP convention in July to be the party’s general election candidate.
“It would be absurd to say that if I were drafted I’d say no,” Romney said.
Behind the scenes, much more is going on. In fact, CNN is reporting that Romney’s team is actively working on a plan to steal the nomination from Trump at the convention…
Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney’s inner circle says.
The 2012 GOP nominee’s advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising.
“It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention,” said the source.
If Romney does emerge as the nominee, does anyone actually believe that he will defeat Clinton?
Of course not. Trump’s millions of supporters will be absolutely infuriated, and many of them would absolutely refuse to cast a vote for Romney in the general election.
In the end, it would be the same result – a victory for Hillary Clinton.
The next few weeks are going to be very interesting. If Trump wins Florida and Ohio, there is going to be a lot of pressure on Marco Rubio and John Kasich to get out of the race, and the path to 1,237 delegates would appear to be clear.
However, Mitt Romney could attempt to derail the Trump bandwagon by jumping in the race after March 15th. Romney’s goal would be to capture enough delegates in winner-take-all states such as California to keep Trump from getting to the magic number of 1,237. If Romney could do that, he knows that he would likely come out of a brokered convention as the nominee.
But no matter what happens on the Republican side from this point forward, it is going to take a miracle of epic proportions to keep Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency. Every plausible scenario ends with her in the White House, and that is a truly horrible thing to imagine.
More proof that you’re either indoctrinated or mentally ill to cast a vote for Clinton
State of the 2016 Race
A column for The Hill analyzing the current state of the 2016 presidential race.
It is the beginning of the end of the House of Clinton:
1. There is the stench of political death around Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and the entire House of Clinton.
2. You could feel it when Republican front-runner Donald Trump hit back — hard — over the “penchant for sexism” charge by basically calling Hillary Clinton an enabler in the former president’s sexual shenanigans.
3. When have we ever seen the Clintons back off? But they did.
4. Then came further reports about an expanded FBI probe of her handling of secure information; the nexus of State Department favors for donors to the Clinton Foundation; and the story that Hillary Clinton or her staff might have lied to FBI agents in this probe.
5. All of this has raised the speculation, yet again: Will President Obama stop the Department of Justice (DOJ) from indicting her if the eight-person DOJ team working with over 100 FBI agents recommends criminal charges?
6. The president will be in an odd situation: He ran against the Clintons. He is known to loathe Bill Clinton. He apparently does not want the Clintons back in charge of the Democratic Party (thus removing the thousands of Obama acolytes with cushy patronage jobs).
7. So: If the DOJ recommends an indictment and he K.O.’s it, he will have his own legacy smeared with a permanent taint of having covered up for the Clintons.
8. If he allows an indictment to move ahead, that will be the end of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Period. She may think she can march on despite charges, but that would be self-delusional. Her campaign will be finished the day charges are filed by Obama’s Justice Department.
9. She can’t claim “politics as usual” or that old “right-wing conspiracy” nonsense as this will be Obama’s Justice Department — not a Republican-controlled entity — bringing these charges.
10. Now, even without an indictment, Hillary Clinton’s fortunes are rapidly sinking.
11. As of today, she is on track to lose both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — to an unelectable 72-year-old Vermont socialist!
12. That tells us how politically weak and out of it the Clinton machine has become.
13. It is no coincidence that Vice President Joe Biden has suddenly resurfaced — first in a Hartford, Conn. TV interview stating that he regrets not running “every day,” and then by softly criticizing Hillary Clinton for not leading on the anti-1 percent front.
14. Biden may very well be warming up in the bullpen for a possible emergency entry into the Democratic field once Clinton is charged and has to withdraw.
15. In the meantime, we see a frantic, panic-stricken Clinton family out on the stump hitting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on healthcare and guns. But they’re hitting him from the center on healthcare — not the left, where the votes are.
16. They are running national TV ads on guns on MSNBC; there are ads every few minutes. If Team Clinton members think they can turn around her negative trajectory over guns, they are sorely mistaken.
17. Economics is the main issue.
18. And Hillary Clinton is seen as being in the tank for corporate interests, while Sanders has stood up to them. Period. That is the race.
19. The 2016 campaign is a political revolution.
20. The House of Bush is also falling.
21. So is the Establishment of both political parties.
22. Who is more establishment than the Clintons and the Bushes?
23. Who has milked the political system for more money, gigs, access and cushy jobs for cronies than the Clintons and the Bushes?
24. But this is the year that the public is standing up to the status quo.
25. We are witnessing history: the fall of the Houses of Clinton and Bush.
26. Who is rising?
27. The outsiders.
During the lest Democratic debate on January 17, Hillary Clinton made several populist comments that aimed to show she is “one of the people” and that, like all other candidates, she would aggressively pursue not only bank fraud, but would go after bankers themselves. As we tweeted at the time, these were some of her more prominent soundbites:
And then there is the reality: as none other than the NYT reported two days ago, Goldman Sachs alone paid Hillary $675,000 for three speeches in three different states, a fact Hillary’s main challenger, Bernie Sanders, has highlighted repeatedly.
As the topic of her speeches, covered her extensively over the past year, has gained prominence, on Friday, Clinton was asked by New Hampshire Public Radio how the “average person should view the hefty speaking fees?”
“I spoke to a wide array of groups who wanted to hear what I thought about the world coming off of my time as secretary of state,” Clinton said, defending her decision to make money from speaking fees. “I happen to think we need more conversation about what’s going on in the world.”
Very well paid conversations as the following list of her 92 private speeches raking in $21.7 million in just the past three years reveals:
Of course, calling these “speeches” a bribe and payment for future goodwill, would not look very good for a candidate who is so desperate to appear as “one of the people” so Hillary decides to pander to the stupidity of Americans: “I think groups that want to talk and ask questions and hear about that are actually trying to educate themselves because we’re living in a really complicated world.”
But at the end of the day, the question is whether Hillary – the person many believe is the most likely next US president – promised banks, and especially Goldman Sachs, something very different from what he is telling the American people now.
In an attempt to get some clarity, the Intercept’s Lee Fang, approached Hillary after she spoke at a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Friday, and asked her if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Her response: “ha ha ha ha ha“
Much has been made of the questionable actions and connections held by Clinton’s foundation enterprise over the last year. Many allegations have been made but what is entirely undebatable is the fact that the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation works closely with Wall Street banks and is also heavily funded by them. As Ellen Simon of Investopedia sums up,
Bill Clinton started a public health non-profit in 2002 that has since grown into The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Global Initiative, which holds forums for international leaders, was separately incorporated from the foundation in 2010 at the request of the Obama Administration while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. After she stepped down as secretary of state, the two funds were reunited.
The Clinton Global Initiative discloses its donors by range, not by specific amount. Barclays Capital, Citi Foundation and Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund have all given the Clinton’s foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Bank of America Foundation, Barclays PLC, Citigroup Inc., McKinsey & Company and UBS Wealth Management USA have given between $500,000 and $1 million. Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Americas, Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust Inc. have all given between $251,000 and $500,000.
The Clinton Foundation(s) are notoriously mercurial. Funding comes in and funding goes out but no one is ever that clear on the details of where it came from, where it is going, and/or what it is being used for. Labeled an “atypical business model” by “charity watchdog” group Charity Navigator, the Clinton Foundation has earned its position on the list of “suspicious charities.”
As Hotair.com wrote, the Clinton Foundation had a “pass-through rate in 2013 [that] was a scandalous 6.4%, and during Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State it averaged somewhere around 15%. At least 60% of the foundation’s income goes to pay administrative costs, and in at least one year they spent as much on private and first-class air travel as they did in programmatic grants.”
Aside from its known donations from Wall Street, however, the Clinton Foundation – during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State – was a documented and undoubtable national security risk. This is because of the money – much of it hidden – was being received by not only industrial, banking, and corporate interests but also by foreign governments at a time when the executor of that foundation had an open door of communication with the US Secretary of State. In this instance, that open door of communication was no less than the husband of the Secretary of State. In other words, the Foundation likely served as a conduit for funds provided by foreign governments that would have seen the Secretary of State directly benefit financially from those donations.
Consider the report provided by James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus of The Wall Street Journal who reveal the donations received from six foreign governments by the Clinton Foundation. Grimaldi and Ballhaus write,
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. . . .
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin expands on the report in her article entitled “Foreign Donations To Foundation Raise Major Ethical Questions For Hillary Clinton,” where she states,
The foundation of course provides luxury travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility platform and access to mega-donors. She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest.
If former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R) might go to jail for receiving lavish gifts for a donor for whom he made a few phone calls, what would be the remedy if, once in office, Hillary Clinton extended her office not only to make calls but also to approve policy and financial arrangements worth billions back to these countries? How will the American people ever be satisfied we are getting her undivided loyalty? No matter how much she protests, her judgment would be questioned as influenced by gratitude toward the foundation’s wealthy patrons. And, of course, a president cannot recuse himself or herself from dealings, so there is no practical way to avoid the conflict.
It is bad enough when Clinton takes gobs of money in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, oil and chemical companies, and other titans of industry — although that, too, raises the potential for conflicts of interest. But a foreign government should never have any claim on the loyalty of a U.S. president, which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. We cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a “foundation,” not a PAC or campaign entity.
Yet the initial reports only told part of the story. These six countries were not the only national governments who donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Other donations came rolling in from China and donors who were also closely connected to Chinese intelligence.
As Julianna Goldman wrote for CBS News on March 16, 2015,
A CBS News investigation has found that at least one foreign company with close ties to its government has been giving generously to the foundation run by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
Since its founding, the Clinton Foundation has invested millions each year for work in fighting AIDS and empowering women, but its recent uptick in donations from foreign governments has been raising questions about the potential influence on Hillary Clinton, as she gets ready to run for president.
The foundation has raised at least $42 million from foreign governments – and according to an analysis by CBS News – at least $170 million from foreign entities and individuals.
One donor – Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation’s endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament. Public records show the firm has spent $1.4 million since 2012, lobbying Congress and the State Department. The firm owns a strategic port along the border with North Korea and was also one of the contractors that built the Chinese embassy in Washington.
That contract is a direct tie to the Chinese government, according to Jim Mann, who has written several books on China’s relationship with the U.S.
This donation is significant not only because of conflict of interest allegations and lobbying efforts but also because foreign governments tend to rely on companies that have close domestic intelligence connections when deciding who builds embassies overseas.
Of course, no foreign source of donation to an American political or government official would be complete without sizable donations from the Israelis and the Israel lobby.
Although not an official emissary of the Israeli government, Haim Saban, a billionaire of “dual-citizenship” and an open Zionist, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State.
As Jillian Kay Melchior summarizes in her article “Why Is An Israeli American Billionaire Pouring Millions Into the Clinton Foundation?”
Weeks after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the State Department objected to a proposed consultancy arrangement offered to Bill Clinton by media mogul Haim Saban, citing concerns about conflict of interest. Nevertheless, public records show that Saban’s nonprofit gave millions to the Clinton Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure.
Saban, a billionaire best known for creating Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, has dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship and has spent heavily to support Israel. “His greatest concern, he says, is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United States-Israel relationship,” The New Yorker noted in a 2010 profile of Saban. At a conference in Israel, the article said, Saban had outlined three methods for influencing American politics: “make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.”
Again Saban’s foreign-policy activism did not escape the attention of the State Department. The agency’s designated ethics adviser, James H. Thessin, wrote in a memo that his objection to the proposed consultancy was “based on the fact that Haim Saban, a founder of this entity, is actively involved in foreign affairs issues, particularly with regards to the Middle East, which is a priority area for the Secretary.”
Thessin’s memo, one of 1,017 pages of records obtained by Judicial Watch, was the only instance in which the Department of State objected to one of Bill Clinton’s proposed speaking engagements or consultancy agreements.
Yet between 2009 and 2013, as Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, the Saban Family Foundation paid the Clinton Foundation more than $7 million, and listed $30.5 million in “grants and contributions approved for future payment,” according to nonprofit records filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
The donations accepted by the Clinton Foundation, while duplicitous on a number of different levels were often done with the approval of the Obama White House. However, even with the pathetic and weak rules imposed on the Foundation by the Obama administration, the organization managed to run afoul of the agreement.
Thus, it is reasonable to ask now whether Hillary Clinton is not only beholden to major corporations and banks residing inside the United States, but whether she is also beholden to foreign governments?
On New Year’s Eve, 3,000 emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server were released.
One of them confirms – an email dated April 2, 2011 to Clinton from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal – that:
“Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver.”
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French. franc (CFA).
(Source Comment [This is in the original declassified email, and is not a comment added by us]: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:
- A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
- Increase French influence in North Africa,
- Improve his internal political situation in France,
- Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
- Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)
While the Sunnis and Shias have been competing for more than a thousand years, they have largely co-existed peacefully until recently.
Why are they involved in an open war across multiple countries now?
Is this true of the Sunnis-Shia war?
Yes, the U.S. and its allies are backing the Sunnis against the Shias … in order to wage war for oil.
And it turns out that the lion’s share of oil in the Middle East happens to be located in Shia countries … and in the Shia-minority sections of Sunni-majority countries.
Specifically, as Jon Schwartz reports this week at the Intercept:
Much of the conflict can be explained by a fascinating map created by M.R. Izady, a cartographer and adjunct master professor at the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School/Joint Special Operations University in Florida.
What the map shows is that, due to a peculiar correlation of religious history and anaerobic decomposition of plankton, almost all the Persian Gulf’s fossil fuels are located underneath Shiites. This is true even in Sunni Saudi Arabia, where the major oil fields are in the Eastern Province, which has a majority Shiite population.
As a result, one of the Saudi royal family’s deepest fears is that one day Saudi Shiites will secede, with their oil, and ally with Shiite Iran.
This fear has only grown since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq overturned Saddam Hussein’s minority Sunni regime, and empowered the pro-Iranian Shiite majority. Nimr himself said in 2009 that Saudi Shiites would call for secession if the Saudi government didn’t improve its treatment of them.
Source: Dr. Michael Izady at Columbia University, Gulf2000, New York
As Izady’s map so strikingly demonstrates, essentially all of the Saudi oil wealth is located in a small sliver of its territory whose occupants are predominantly Shiite. (Nimr, for instance, lived in Awamiyya, in the heart of the Saudi oil region just northwest of Bahrain.) If this section of eastern Saudi Arabia were to break away, the Saudi royals would just be some broke 80-year-olds with nothing left but a lot of beard dye and Viagra prescriptions.
Nimr’s execution can be partly explained by the Saudis’ desperation to stamp out any sign of independent thinking among the country’s Shiites.
The same tension explains why Saudi Arabia helped Bahrain, an oil-rich, majority-Shiite country ruled by a Sunni monarchy, crush its version of the Arab Spring in 2011.
Similar calculations were behind George H.W. Bush’s decision to stand by while Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in 1991 to put down an insurrection by Iraqi Shiites at the end of the Gulf War. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained at the time, Saddam had “held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia.”
So the Sunni Gulf monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait are single-mindedly going after Iran and the Shia world – because the Shias are sitting on the oil and gas resources – and doing everything they can to start a Sunni-Shia war across the entire MENA area (Middle East and North Africa) in order to “justify” a resource grab.
Clinton says one thing and does another all in the name of getting elected.On “Justice,” Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s newly unveiled homeland security plan.
Pirro said that Clinton poses a greater danger to national security than the head of a terrorist cell.
She criticized Clinton for saying we need to defeat offshoots of al-Qaeda after refusing, as head of the State Department, to label Boko Haram — the Nigeria-based Islamic group that captured hundreds of schoolgirls in 2014 — a terrorist organization.
Pirro cited reports of Clinton’s “relationship with a Nigerian land developer who gave your family’s foundation 5 million dollars.”
“And we should trust you? With the presidency of the United States?”
Pirro also criticized Clinton for saying “we can’t afford another major ground war in the Middle East” after spearheading a mission to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi.
“You instigated a good deal of what you and others call the Arab spring, which has turned out to be a nightmare for millions of Arabs who’ve been slaughtered.”
Pirro said Clinton’s new plan amounts to “shallow slogans” after failing to make a difference as Secretary of State before ISIS became the most powerful terror organization in history.
On November 28th, 2015, Alaska State Judge Anna von Reitz (Anna Maria Riezinger) addressed an open letter to all federal agents, including the FBI and US Marshals to arrest Congress, the President and the Secretary of the Treasury. She goes into incredible detail on the fraud that has been committed. Anyone who reads this is sure to learn at least something. Below is the text and you can open the original PDF here. This has been encouraged to be shared widely.
Anna Maria Riezinger (Anna Von Reitz)
November 28, 2015
Big Lake, Alaska
Dear Federal Agents:
I am addressing this letter in this way, because it is my understanding that it will be read by members of both the FBI and the US Marshals Service. It is also my understanding that you have available for examination a wet-ink signed copy of the illustrated affidavit of probable cause entitled “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” as back-up reference and evidence.
Since the publication of the affidavit a plethora of new supporting documentation and evidence has come to light. We found, for example, that on June 30, 1864, the members of Congress acting as the Board of Directors of a private, mostly foreign-owned corporation doing business as “The United States of America, Incorporated” changed the meaning of “state”, “State” and “United States” to mean “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation”. Like the 1862 change of the meaning of the word “person” to mean “corporation” cited in our affidavit, these special coded meanings of words render a drastically different picture of the world around us.
It turns out that your “personal bank account” is actually a “corporate bank account”. The “Colorado State Court” is actually the “Colorado District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Court”. If you are shocked to learn these facts, you are not alone. So are millions of other Americans. These changes were made 150 years ago and tucked away in reams of boring meeting minutes and legalistic gobbledygook meant to be applied only to the internal workings of a private governmental services corporation and its employees.
There was no public announcement, just as there was no public announcement or explanation when Congress created “municipal citizenship” known as “US citizenship” in 1868. Properly, technically, even to this day, this form of “citizenship” applies only to those born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other Insular States, so there was no real reason to educate the general public about the topic. As Congress was secretively using the labor and the private property assets of these “citizens” as collateral backing the corporate debts of “The United States of America, Inc.” there was plenty of reason to obscure this development.
At the end of the Civil War it would have been very unpopular to reveal that they were simply changing gears from private sector slave ownership to public sector slave ownership. You may be surprised to learn that slavery was not abolished by the Thirteenth or any other Amendment to any constitution then or now. Instead, slavery was redefined as the punishment meted out to criminals. Look it up and read it for yourselves. It remains perfectly legal to enslave criminals, and it was left to Congress to define who the criminals were, because Congress was given plenary power over the District of Columbia and its citizenry by the original Constitution of the Republic and could do whatever it liked within the District and the Washington, DC Municipalities.
A child picking dandelions on the sidewalk could be arbitrarily defined as a criminal and enslaved for life by the renegade Congress functioning as the government of the District of Columbia and as the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, but for starters, Congress simply defined “US citizens” as debt slaves under the 14th Amendment of their corporation’s articles and by-laws—-which they deceptively named the “Constitution of the United States of America”.
The actual Constitution was and still is called “The Constitution for the united States of America”, but most people untrained in the Law and trusting what they believed to be their government didn’t notice the difference between “The Constitution for the united States of America” and the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Are you beginning to see a pattern of deliberate deceit and self-interest and double-speak and double-dealing? And are you also beginning to catch the drift—the motivation—behind it? Let’s discuss the concept of “hypothecation of debt”.
This little gem was developed by the bankers who actually owned and ran the governmental services corporations doing business as “The United States of America, Inc.” and as the “United States, Incorporated”. When you hypothecate debt against someone or against some asset belonging to someone else, you simply claim that they agreed to stand as surety for your debt — similar to cosigning a car loan — and as long as you make your payments, nobody is any the wiser. Normally, it’s not possible for us to just arbitrarily claim that someone is our surety for debt without proof of consent, but that is exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Conference of Governors did in March of 1933.
They named all of us and all our property as surety standing good for the debts of their own bankrupt governmental services corporation during bankruptcy reorganization—-and got away with it by claiming that they were our “representatives” and that we had delegated our authority to them to do this “for” us. The exact date and occasion when this happened and where it is recorded, is given in our affidavit. In order to pull this off, however, they had to allege that we were all “US citizens”, and therefore, all subject to the plenary power of Congress acting as an oligarchy ruling over the District of Columbia and the Federal Territories.
They did this by abusing the public trust and creating and registering millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, used our names styled like this: John Quincy Adams—-and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it.
They couldn’t enslave us, but they could enslave a foreign situs trust named after us— that we conveniently didn’t know existed— and by deliberately confusing this “thing” with us via the misuse of our given names, they could bring charges against what appeared to be us and our private property in their very own corporate tribunals. And so the fleecing of America began in earnest. The hirelings had our credit cards, had stolen our identities, and were ready to begin a crime spree unheralded in human history.
They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR sent his henchmen around to collect it—-when as millions of Americans can attest, people gave up their gold in preference to being shot or having to kill federal agents. They chose life for everyone concerned over some pieces of metal, and for that, they are to be honored; unfortunately, their decision gave the rats responsible an excuse to claim that Americans wanted to leave the gold standard and wanted the “benefits” of this New Deal in “equitable exchange” for their gold, their identities, the abuse of their good names as bankrupts and debtors, the loss of allodial title to their land and homes, and their subjection as slaves to the whims of Congress.
According to them—that is, those who benefited from this gross betrayal of the public trust— we all voluntarily left the Republic and the guarantees of the actual Constitution behind, willingly subjected ourselves to Congressional rule, donated all our assets including our labor and property to the Public Charitable Trust (set up after the Civil War as a welfare trust for displaced plantation slaves), and agreed to live as slaves owned by the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation in exchange for what? Welfare that we paid for ourselves. Social Security that we paid for ourselves.
The criminality of the “US Congress” and the “Presidents” acting since 1933 is jawdroppingly shocking. Their abuse of the trust of the American people is even worse. They have portrayed this circumstance as a political choice instead of an institutionalized fraud scheme, and they have “presumed” that we all went along with it and agreed to it without complaint. Thus, they have been merrily and secretively having us declared “civilly dead” as American State Citizens the day we are born, and entering a false registration claiming that we are “US Citizens” instead. We are told, when we wake up enough to ask, that we are free to choose our political status.
We don’t have to serve as debt slaves. We can go back and reclaim our guaranteed Republican form of government and our birthright status if we want to—- but that requires a secret process in front of the probate court and expatriation from the Federal United States to the Continental United States and all sorts of voo-doo in backrooms that can only be pursued by the few and the knowledgeable and the blessed. Everyone else has to remain as a debt slave and chattel serving whatever corporation bought the latest version of corporate “persona” named after us.
So let me ask you, as members of the FBI and as US Marshals—- does this sound like something you want to be involved with enforcing on innocent people, or does it sound like something you want to end as expeditiously as possible? The frauds that took root in the wake of the Civil War and which blossomed in the 1930’s have come to their final fruition.
Employees of the “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation” and its United Nations successors are being used as jack-booted thugs to throw Americans into privately owned “federal correctional facilities” when those who need correction—- the members of the American Bar Association and the euphemistically named and privately owned and operated “DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”—continue to ignore the fact that Americans DO have a choice and that by the millions we are demanding our freedom from all these pathetic false commercial claims and presumptions.
We are standing up before the whole world and telling these privately owned “governmental services corporations” to go bankrupt like any other corporation that doesn’t do its job and mind its budget. These entities deserve to go bankrupt and worse. They have spent money and credit that was never theirs to spend. They have defrauded millions if not billions of innocent people and they have prevented Americans from claiming their birthrights for far too long.
These people— the members of Congress and the various “Presidents” of the numerous “United States” corporations — have acted as criminals. They deserve to be recognized as such. The members of the American Bar Association have attempted to wash their hands while profiting from the situation and obstructing justice. They stand around shrugging and saying, “Well, it’s a political choice. We don’t have anything to say about that.”—–yet at the same time, they refuse to correct the probate records to reflect our chosen change of political status when we plainly identify ourselves and enunciate our Will for them.
They, too, deserve to be recognized as self-interested criminals and accomplices to identity theft, credit fraud, and worse— which is why we have recently issued a $279 trillion dollar commercial obligation lien against the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. All our assets— our bodies, homes, businesses, lands, and labor—have been signed over into the “Public Charitable Trust” by con men merely claiming to represent us. Then, when we object to their lies and entrapment, they use the same fraud against us as their excuse for bringing more false claims against us and throwing us in jail. Enough is enough.
The British Monarch and the Lords of the Admiralty have promoted this fraud against us at the same time they have claimed to be our trustees, allies and friends in perpetuity. It’s time to clear the way for us to politely and peaceably exit from any presumption that we are or ever were “US citizens”, willing participants in the “Public Charitable Trust”, or willing “sureties” for the debts of any private bank-run governmental services corporation merely calling itself the United States of Something or Other.
We repudiate any presumption of private municipal citizenship or obligation to the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation or any successor thereof, and demand an immediate and permanent correction of the civil record to reflect our birthright status as American State Citizens, nunc pro tunc.
As for you, as “Federal Agents”, you have a lot to think about. For starters— who really pays your paycheck? Is it the goons in Washington, DC? Or does it all come from the American people you are supposed to be serving? Do you believe for one moment that anyone just lined up and gave their gold to FDR voluntarily? Do you believe that anyone gave away all their property and the guarantees of the actual Constitution for the “privilege” of paying for Social Security? No? Wake up and smell the java and start doing your real jobs. If anyone complains—arrest him.
We are reopening the American Common Law Courts expressly for the purpose of settling disputes related to living people and their property assets in excess of $20 as mandated by the Seventh Amendment. We, the American people, are the ones holding absolute civil authority upon the land of the Continental United States, and we give you permission to arrest the members of Congress, the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and any other politician or appointee pretending to speak for us so as to enslave us and bring false claims against us via this institutionalized fraud scheme.
We want it recognized for what it is and dismantled and repudiated tout de suite. Any court that is caught arresting and prosecuting Americans under the presumptions just described to you— such as bringing charges against foreign situs trusts with names styled like this: John Quincy Adams, or Cestui Que Vie trusts styled like this: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, or Puerto Rican public transmitting utilities styled like this: JOHN Q. ADAMS—-it is your responsibility to make sure that any individuals being addressed by these courts were actually born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, or one of the other Insular States and that they are not ignorant American State Citizens being falsely registered and railroaded.
Do you understand? Is it now completely clear who the criminals are? Your actual employers and benefactors are being attacked and defrauded by criminals pretending to act as their elected representatives and accomplices in black robes who are serving as enforcers of this fraud for profit. This has been happening right under your noses. This whole circumstance has escaped broad scale public understanding because it was being pursued by private governmental services corporations owned and operated by international banking cartels who claimed that these “private arrangements” were none of the public’s business, despite the grotesque and far-ranging impact these cozy understandings have had upon the people of this and many other countries.
Let it be perfectly clear to you that the business of these private corporations has become our business because they have operated in violation of their charters, in violation of the treaties allowing their existence, and in violation of the National Trust. The American Bar Association and the Internal Revenue Service have both been owned and operated as private foreign bill collectors and trust administrators by Northern Trust, Inc., in violent conflict of interest. They are not professional associations, non-profits, nor units of government. They are con artists and privateers whose licenses expired as of September 1, 2013.
The United States Marshals Service is enabled to act in the capacity of constitutionally sworn Federal Marshals and we invoke their office and service as such; failure to accept the public office means rejection of all authority related to us. The same may be said of the FBI. Either you do your jobs as constitutionally sworn public officers, or you act as private mall cops in behalf of the offending corporations and under color of law when you pretend to have any public authority or function.
This is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Judge Anna Maria Riezinger
Alaska State Superior Court
Everyday I am asked, “Are you a ‘real’ judge?” Judge Anna von Reitz has eloquently answered this question for her own constituents. I share her answer and re-post it here. Thank you, Anna.
— Cindy Kay Currier
On Apr 28, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Anna von Reitz firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
To answer that question and give you the fair full depth of it, you have to learn a lot of history and learn it right now. I am sick and tired of having people say I am not a judge and asking me in what sense I am a judge and coming up with all these silly suppositions and accusations, so I am going to answer you and then I am going to post this letter and let everyone else read it to their heart’s delight.
Please bear in mind that if you feel stupid or overwhelmed at the end, that’s normal, and we all go through that in the process of waking up. Just realize that you were intentionally defrauded and kept uninformed, so it isn’t your fault that you never knew any of this. You simply weren’t told. So let’s begin.
From the founding of this country onward the jurisdiction over the land was split from the jurisdiction over the sea.
The Continental United States — the actual geographically defined states with physical borders, etc.,– were given jurisdiction over the land, and their Citizens known as American State Citizens are the ones protected by The Constitution for the united States of America and vested with all powers of the civil government on the land.
The Federal United States was created (and limited) by The Constitution for the united States of America and given jurisdiction over the international jurisdiction of the sea. Circa 1868, the Federal United States started operating as a corporation doing business as the United States of America, Inc., and published its corporate charter as a look-alike, sound-alike “Constitution” we are all familiar with as the Constitution of the United States of America.
This is a different kind of document (a corporate charter) as well as being a different document in and of itself. As part of this reorganization the Federal United States created “State franchises” for itself. These are “States of States” such as you find described in the Uniform Commercial Code’s Definitions section. They exist only on paper and are corporate franchises in the same sense as your local Dairy Queen is a franchise of the national parent corporation.
Thus, you have the Ohio State (land jurisdiction) and you have the State of Ohio (sea jurisdiction) operating side by side, one being the natural jurisdiction owed the living people on the land, the other being a corporate franchise in the business of delivering governmental services and administrating the affairs of the Federal United States, its employees, and service contracts– all operating in the international jurisdiction of the sea.
The Continental United States is under the plenary (complete) control of the living People– the so-called “birthright” American State Citizens. We each have more civil authority on the land than the entire federal government.
The Federal United States is British-controlled and always has been:
All those “courts” that you think are your courts are not your courts, if you are an American born on the land of the Continental United States. They are a mish-mash of corporate administrative tribunals and martial law courts operated by the Federal United States and the Washington DC Municipality, all operating in the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea.
For example, THE SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA is run by the ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, INC., which is a federal corporation doing business as the “THE SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT” — a privately owned and operated for-profit corporate franchise which is under contract to act “FOR” the STATE OF ALASKA which is another private, mostly foreign-owned corporate franchise of the UNITED STATES, INC., which is owned and operated by the IMF, which is an agency of the UNITED NATIONS, INC.
Now, does the local Burger King franchise have any right to haul you over to the side of the road and demand that you produce a license? No? Not unless you are a Burger King employee. Does the local Sears franchise have authority to foreclose upon you and kick you out of your house? No? Not unless you have a valid fully disclosed contract with Sears allowing them to do that.
It’s the same with the situation above. The fraud is that these yahoos are merely local franchises of national-level governmental services corporations—not the actual government at all, yet they are pretending to operate as public institutions.
How do you know that what I am telling you is true— that these really are nothing but private, for-profit corporations? They are listed on Dunn and Bradstreet. They have Employer Identification Numbers. The “laws” they use in these “courts” are all under private copyright. Just open up one of their “State Statute” books and look. Since when are public documents subject to copyright? They aren’t. If these crooks represented the actual State, all the documents would be Public Domain.
So, what kind of Judge am I?
I am their worst nightmare. I am a Judge of the actual Alaska State, one of the Several States of the Continental United States. I occupy the actual public office and operate the actual Alaska State Superior Court.
Note the difference:
Alaska State = actual State on the land, actual public office, using actual Public Law and operating under the American Common Law, which is the law of the land.
State of Alaska, STATE OF ALASKA, ALASKA = all various corporate franchises, private offices, operating under either administrative (purely private in-house corporate “laws”) or international law in the jurisdiction of the sea.
Judge Jeanine Pirro opened her Fox News Channel show “Justice” Saturday with a monologue ripping Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama for the Benghazi investigation.
Media mogul questions lack of reporting on leading Democrat presidential candidate
As the media continues to expose the alleged sexual victims of former beloved comedian Bill Cosby, Matt Drudge, the independent proprietor of one of the most organically trafficked news sites on the web, is asking why no journalists are probing into the rumored sordid life of one of the next possible leaders of the free world: Hillary Clinton.
Drudge admitted, during a special, rare appearance on the Alex Jones Show Tuesday, he’s seen as a “right wing gossip monger” by the left “mainly because of Lewinsky and those years, which,” he says, “by the way are back.”
“Where I’ve had a lot of success is I’m getting people from both sides of the aisle,” Drudge said. “They’ve always said, ‘oh, he’s a right-wing gossip monger,’ mainly because of Lewinsky and those years–which, by the way, are back.”
“Why aren’t we seeing Hillary’s lovers? … Where’s the coverup on this?” Drudge highlighted. “So many issues that are suppressed on a daily basis.”
The former secretary of state, currently running for president despite being embroiled in a slew of scandals, has been accused frequently in the past of homosexual activity.
In 2013, Gennifer Flowers, reportedly “one of the most high profile mistresses in America,” told the UK’s Daily Mail about the time she’d spent with former President Bill Clinton, who allegedly confided in her that “Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care.”
“I don’t know Huma or the Weiners,” Flowers said, referring to two Clinton confidants. “I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know.”
“He said Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had,” Flowers claimed.
During an appearance on the Alex Jones Show in June, legendary Clinton insider Larry Nichols, who was at one time appointed marketing director for the Arkansas Development Finance Authority by then Governor Bill Clinton, also claimed Hillary had “had more women than he had.”
“It was hard enough to cover up for the affairs of Bill, but it was extremely difficult to cover up for Hillary and her lesbian affairs,” Nichols said. “And It was tough and she was tough. She’s a butch.”
Nichols also described an instance in which Secret Service agents in the White House heard commotion emanating from the upstairs living quarters, and entered to find Hillary in bed with Night Court actor Markie Post.
“They were in bed together and Bill pulled up a chair and wanted to watch and Hillary was throwing ashtrays and laughs at him,” Nichols claimed. “That’s the sicko people we call the Clintons.”
Drudge also highlighted how Democrats are having trouble finding young, viable candidates, referring to Hillary’s possible presidency as the “brain in the jar” in the Oval Office.
“You’ve got to be the greatest you can be now–now,” Drudge told Alex Jones. “Before this country is so completely altered and we’re left with Hillary’s brain in the Oval Office in a jar. Cuz that’s what we’re getting. She is old and she’s sick. She is not a contender. They’re making her a contender with these propped up Saturday Night Live things; it’s like a head on a stick. And then on the Today show with [Savannah Guthrie]–a head on a stick. She is not a viable, vibrant leader for this country of 300–including the illegals, 380 million–Americans. So the media is trying to put us to sleep.”
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” host Mika Brzezinski stated it “looks” as though Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary Of State to guide business to the Clinton Foundation, in reaction to a released email from Hillary Clinton proposing to aide Cheryl Mills regarding possible Clinton Foundation work in Haiti on Tuesday.
Brzezinski said, “She’s just getting some things over to the Clinton Foundation that might be helpful to Haiti, I guess.” After she was asked what she thought about this, Brzezinski stated, “I think that’s probably — I don’t know because it’s not enough. it’s not enough.”
She was then asked, “what do you think about the fact that a secretary of state is using her position to guide business to the Clinton Foundation? What do you think?” Brzezinski responded, “It looks that way. There’s only one email, but that definitely was a concern that I thought, what are we going to see in these emails? I bet you one of the reasons why a private server was set up is so they could crisscross interests, which is, you know, probably not what should have been done. But secondly, something you want to think about, when you are looking at how she leads, fair?”
I could not figure out why Liberals support Hillary with all the baggage she brings with her. Then it dawned on me….maybe a lot of them don’t know her story. Well….here it is in Reader’s Digest form!
Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) announces she’s running for president in a social media video co-starring her husband, Bill Clinton (Darrell Hammond) on SNL.
Anyone who missed Pant Suits yesterday give her spin on why she is so special that no one dare question her was in for a treat. The whole presser is out there, but I think this one sums it up completely. I have to give the press credit. There were a few who were willing to ask real questions. For some reason I don’t think Trey Gowdy may be in agreement.
The attitude on this video is just astonishing. She was shaking her head so much in response to the question about deleting emails, I thought her head was going to spin completely around. Of course, she then admitted she had done just that to about half of her emails. Of course, only the “private” ones…
She claimed all the server has on it now is her private emails with her husband. So the “server will remain private”.
Of course, Bill’s spokesman just said he doesn’t send email, that he’s only sent two in his life, while he was president.