You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘ethics’ tag.
For anyone who celebrated Thanksgiving and is not going out to shop this weekend, below is a set of films allowing you to revisit the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. (Sorry, no Clint here, only politics.)
I’ll leave it to you to decide which is which.
These will keep you occupied for a day. So, grab a turkey sandwich, a piece of pumpkin pie and settle in for hours of revealing information.
The following Objectified programme was broadcast on Friday, November 18. TMZ wanted to do a companion piece on Hillary Clinton, but she refused. The original idea was to show two Objectified episodes, one with each candidate, prior to the election so that voters would have a better idea of who Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in private life.
I highly recommend everyone see this episode, especially if they do not particularly like Trump. You’ll see and hear a fascinating story of his life from Trump Tower (39 min). The interviewer chooses various objects in his home, and Trump discusses their significance:
The following clip (41 sec) is from Rona Barrett’s show in 1980. Rona Barrett interviewed all the celebrities that decade. Her programme was very popular. Here, Trump explains why he doesn’t want to run for president — he’d have to be nice all the time:
Here is a clip from Oprah Winfrey’s 1988 interview with Trump on the subject of the presidency. Note how quiet and interested the audience is (3 min):
Reddit has a fascinating post with endless contributions from people who knew or met Trump from his schooldays to the present. I only read half of it, and that took three hours. Once you start reading (be sure to click ‘load more comments’), you can’t stop. Everyone said he was really nice.
Also included in that thread are anecdotes about Mitt Romney. Everyone said he’s also very nice.
I had not seen the following films until a few weeks ago. I highly recommend them in the following order.
These involve input from Larry Nichols, who is dying from cancer. He was a Clinton insider in Arkansas for several years and helped them to hone the election and PR strategies they still use today.
First, an overview of the Clintons from their Arkansas days through to 1994, the second year of Bill’s administration (1 hour, 44 min):
Next, a shocking, in-depth look at Bill’s time in Arkansas and elsewhere, revealing not only murder but also unusual political leanings in his university days (1 hr, 52 min):
Finally, an update from 2015 (33 min), narrated by Larry Nichols in which he describes the ’86 Plan he created with the Clintons — playing the long game. Note that, as early as last year, he said that the New York Times was the PR machine for the couple. Even though they were the first paper to break the email scandal, they would then turn that around to make Hillary look like the underdog. Nichols says in the film that nothing would ever come of the email scandal. And, lo, it came to pass in 2016:
The following video is of the 1998 60 Minutes interview with George Soros.
In 2016, the Hillary campaign’s Correct The Record (CTR) team said that Soros never betrayed the Jewish people during the Second World War. Yet, here he is, admitting his sins with a smile. As he tells the interviewer, if he hadn’t done it, someone else would have. He has done that throughout his life, as the film shows.
He clearly states that he meddles in other countries’ business with no view of social or economic consequences (13 min):
Words fail me, so I’ll sign off here.
Enjoy the films. You won’t be disappointed. I look forward to comments!
Stand Firm is a traditional Episcopalian/Anglican site with excellent articles not only on the Episcopal Church but also on American politics.
A S Haley is a regular contributor to Stand Firm and wrote a great column which I recommend to all my readers. Excerpts and a summary of ‘The Professor Is Right Again’ follow.
This is why so many American voters are happy (emphases mine):
Professor Helmuth Norpoth of Stony Brook University on Long Island correctly called this election for Donald Trump back in February, when everyone—and I mean everyone—was confident that Trump would lose by a big margin. Later in the season, he was joined by a different professor using a different model, but who went contrary to the popular trends and predicted the same result.
The biggest loser in this election was not Hillary Clinton. She lost, and lost decisively, to be sure—but the professors’ models predicted she would lose, and they’ve been infallible in past elections for decades.
No, the biggest loser—actually, losers (to use a term beloved of our President-elect)—are (1) the Beltway elite; and (2) the mainstream media—who gave it everything they had, and still fell way short.
Haley posted his article on November 9 and prepared his readers for what we see now: the narratives that Trump will be harmful to America.
He then reminded us of what we can look forward to:
the mainstream media will lose ever more and more of their readers and listeners, to the point where they, too, will have to look around for other lines of work.
And last but not least, James Comey’s stalwart agents in the field may finally be able to investigate some people worthy of their attention: start with Comey’s former boss, Loretta Lynch, and her attempts to squelch the ongoing investigations into Hillary’s violations of our secrecy laws; move on to Patrick Kennedy and the whole corrupt bunch at the State Department who lied about Benghazi and then have been enabling and hiding Hillary’s outrageous and dangerous disregard for our security; then to the IRS and its illegal targeting of conservative non-profit groups; then to Eric Holder and his scheme of gun-running, while also letting others get away with voter intimidation; and … oh, yes—did I mention a certain former Secretary of State? And her husband? Who together enriched themselves by selling access and favoritism at this country’s expense? And broke all the laws about charitable organizations in the process?
Who knows where all this is going to lead, indeed? Certainly not the entrenched elite, nor their lapdogs, the mainstream media.
That said, whilst Trump’s victory is a blessing despite his imperfections:
And no one can assure us that a shakeup of this magnitude will be totally beneficial in all ways—some things that are truly good may perish along with so much else that is so bad, and deserves to come to an end. As I have maintained throughout this campaign, America is under God’s judgment—which is why we were presented with the Hobson’s choice we had. We are not out from under that judgment yet, because America has not yet turned back from its ways, and repented of its manifold sins and wickedness. Whether it will do so under its new government remains to be seen.
So fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a riveting ride.
It will indeed be a riveting ride. I, for one, can hardly wait.
I predict with confidence based on what I have been reading outside Big Media that 2017 will be the year of evil exposed in the United States and beyond. Good people, especially devout Christians, will find these exposés unbelievable because they will be so utterly disturbing in content.
The Trump transition begins. There’s even a new website!
Warmest congratulations go to Kellyanne Conway, the Trumpwhisperer, who is the first woman to manage a victorious presidential campaign in the United States. She was responsible for refining Trump’s stump speeches and for putting the kibosh on his excessive tweeting. No one else could do that! Furthermore, her internal polls were spot on. Conway is one tough tigress, make no mistake. She is also married, a mother of four and a practising Catholic.
Also noteworthy is that Hillary Clinton spent nearly twice as much money per vote as Trump and lost: $8.80 to $4.57. Trump has decisively proven you do not need big money to win an election!
President-elect Donald Trump and his wife Melania flew to Washington DC on Thursday, November 10 to meet with the Obamas as well as top Republican congressional leaders Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence was also in Washington. He met with his outgoing counterpart Joe Biden, in what Pence described as a ‘warm reception’. Pence also had a telephone conversation with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who tweeted:
Just spoken to US VP-elect
@mike_pence. We agreed on importance of the special relationship & need to tackle global challenges together
Trump’s son-in-law — Ivanka’s husband — Jared Kushner was also with the Trumps. During their private meetings, he spent time with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, who gave him a tour of the Rose Garden. Kushner has been a close adviser to his father-in-law throughout the campaign and is expected to remain so after the inauguration.
Trump and Obama had a 90-minute discussion, far exceeding Trump’s expectations.
Melania and Michelle shared tea together, discussed raising children and talked about what it is like to live in the White House.
The Mail has a great set of photos from the day.
Afterwards, Trump tweeted:
A fantastic day in D.C. Met with President Obama for first time. Really good meeting, great chemistry. Melania liked Mrs. O a lot!
Questions have been asked about the Trumps’ entrance by a side door and the two couples not posing together for a photo in front of the White House. Things were different eight years ago with Bush 43 (i.e. 43rd president):
Breitbart had more on the matter:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest refused to explain the details of the decision but denied the story.
“Not true,” he said, during the White House press conference, when asked about the report. He also denied that the lack of a photo opportunity had anything to do with First Lady Michelle Obama not wanting to be photographed with the Trump family. He argued that it was not a “snub” of the Trumps, but rather a different strategy of press access.
The press pool was allowed into the Oval Office on Thursday, to photograph Trump and Obama together after their 90-minute meeting. The two men met alone, with no staffers present.
But Obama snubbed the press by telling Trump not to answer any of their questions after the meeting.
“Here’s a good rule. Don’t answer any questions,” Obama said to Trump after reporters shouted questions at the pair.
Despite the pleasantries exchanged between the two political foes, Earnest specified afterwards that Obama still believed that Trump was unsuitable to be president …
Earnest’s remarks contrasted with Obama’s welcome of Trump at the White House, promising to meet the standards set by President George W. Bush …
Earnest hinted that the White House might release a photo of the two couples meeting.
Independent Bernie Sanders pledged his support to Trump. The Daily Caller reported:
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media,” Sanders said. “People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer” …
In his statement Sanders went on to say: “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him …”
The Democrats’ wounds are still raw. Despite Big Media’s attempted character assassination of Trump and the voter fraud — which is why his popular vote isn’t higher — he prevailed once again. (Are we sick and tired of winning, ladies and gentlemen? Never!)
Business Insider reports that the Democratic Party is in disarray.
It looks very likely that the DNC will replace current interim chair Donna Brazile. A White House staffer yelled at her for being ‘part of the problem’ in Hillary Clinton’s loss.
No party leader calls have been set to map out a plan ahead, and no signal has come from the White House or from Clinton’s team about what comes next. The phone lines were silent, only slowly picking up, and escalating to a fever pitch as the defeated nominee prepared her morning speech and interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile sat on the silent 9:00 Acela [train] from New York to Washington.
The Washington Post says that Minnesota Muslim congressman Keith Ellison or former Vermont governor Howard Dean are tipped to lead the DNC. The Huffington Post says Brazile could stay on until March, however, based on the aforementioned yelling:
Thursday’s meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.
Early in the morning of Wednesday, November 9, Clinton’s team had to get pervy John Podesta to address campaign workers. This is because Clinton had been weeping ‘inconsolably’, according to Ed Klein author of the recent book on the Clintons, Guilty As Sin. Klein appeared on a radio show later that morning and said:
“She couldn’t stop crying.
“Her friend said — her female friend from way, way, back — said that it was even hard to understand what she was saying, she was crying so hard.
“This is Hillary we’re talking about,” Klein said.
Clinton appeared two hours later dressed like Batman’s The Penguin in black and purple. Earlier, Podesta had told everyone to go home. Yet, after Hillary spoke, there was applause. I read somewhere that the delay allowed travel time for a new audience of those closest to her: big wigs.
The New York Times has highlights of her concession speech and Obama’s remarks.
Before I go into detail on the protests — all previously organised, none are ‘organic’ (spontaneous) like Big Media are telling you — Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse has a theory about Obama/Clinton and the demonstrations and riots taking place:
If the ridiculous election protests continue again tonight, then President Obama has not called them off. That means he and Clinton received no substantive assurances, and are worried about being held to account – prosecuted and investigated.
If the ridiculous election protest do not happen again tonight, then President Obama has called them off. That means he and Clinton feel more comfortable they will not be held to account – prosecuted and investigated …
Ultimately the Machiavellian political gamesmanship then evolves toward how does Obama/Clinton “feel” about the success of their initial probing for terms.
Demonstrations and riots around the US continued the night of November 10.
After this post, I will be mentioning them as little as I can. They do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, to borrow Margaret Thatcher’s phrase.
However, I do want everyone to understand what is happening here.
Americans should note that there are laws on riots — 18 U.S. Code § 2101 — as being criminal rather than examples of freedom of speech. In part:
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— 
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
I would not hold my breath expecting anyone to be prosecuted. However, after the inauguration, watch for this law to be enforced in future.
The demonstrators in Austin, Texas, who marched not far from the state capitol building, arrived by bus:
Not only that, but they were paid.
At least one ad appeared on Craigslist:
Here’s another Craigslist ad, this one for Manhattan, from a European television network (I’m curious):
Earlier on November 10, a panellist on Fox and Friends actually asked if George Soros was funding these demos and riots. This is good, because Big Media never do this. In case the YouTube in the previous link is removed, The_Donald reproduced the exchange:
Brian: “There were no protests for Al Gore, there were no protests for John Kerry, there were no protests for Mitt Romney. What’s going on?”
Steve: “Well, back then, George Soros wasn’t funding these things. Is he behind this? Don’t know!”
Many people say that when Soros dies, all this seditious activity — explained here in detail — will die with him. Not true. His children are every bit as committed to it as he is. One also appears to be involved with the Clinton Spirit Cooking dinners.
A wide network of organisations affiliated with MoveOn are involved.
In March, after the cancellation of Trump’s rally in Chicago, Independent Sentinel listed several groups allied with MoveOn and added:
The billionaire George Soros and other liberal donors bankroll a new $15 million campaign to mobilize Latinos and other immigrants this fall, hoping to channel outrage at Donald J. Trump and other Republicans into a surge of votes for Democratic candidates in November …
And now that has failed on a national scale, they have today’s violent protests, such as this riot in Portland, Oregon. (More here.) If these anarchists and maladjusted folks aren’t driving sceptical Americans into the Trump — and gun — camp, I don’t know who is.
Another group to watch for is Socialist Alternative, one of whose directors is a union man, born and bred in Britain, who has lived in Chicago for many years. They, too, have a list of demonstrations.
A number of the protesters are carrying professionally printed signs. One of The_Donald’s contributors has seen some that read revcom.us on the bottom, indicating another Soros-funded communist organisation.
It also looks as if Aaron Black — featured in this James O’Keefe Project Veritas video about bird dogging (inciting Trump supporters to violence) — is part of the protest mix. He makes sure everyone is kitted out with signs and whatever else they need. He is supposed to be a background man and says no one should be able to easily identify him at protests.
On Chicago’s West Side, a man was dragged out of his car at an intersection and was brutally assaulted. This post has a YouTube video of young men pulling a motorist out of his vehicle, beating him up, stealing items from his car — all abetted by a woman shouting instructions nearby. This tweet has a video of what happened next: the young men got into the car, the man was able to grab onto a door frame and they all sped off around the corner, with the man holding on for dear life. The Chicago Tribune caught up with him afterwards (photo at link). Emphases mine below:
David Wilcox, 49, said he was about to turn left from Kedzie Avenue to Roosevelt Road around 1 p.m. Wednesday when a black sedan pulled up and scraped the right side of his Pontiac Bonneville.
“I stopped and parked. And I asked if they had insurance, and the next thing that I knew they were beating the s— out of me,” Wilcox said Thursday …
“They were beating me to have me let go of the car,” Wilcox said. “The guy went to 70 and 80 mph. If I let go, I was dead. He slowed to 45. … He tried to push the door open. …So he stepped on it again.
“He stepped up back to 70 and 80, swerved again,” Wilcox said. “The wheels on my side left the ground, up to 2 inches. … Then he slowed down. I was looking at oncoming traffic. He probably slowed to about 45. God was watching over for me. I rolled about five or seven times into the oncoming traffic lanes.
“There was a parole officer with a gun and bulletproof vest,” he added. “He turned left, and he told me just sit down and wait for the police to come.”
Wilcox filled out a police report, but no one was reported in custody Thursday afternoon. Police said they were investigating the beating and who made the “politically divisive” statements in the video.
I wonder if he got his car back. It should have DNA.
Pray for David Wilcox’s recovery. He must be undergoing trauma, even if it doesn’t show.
If that is not a hate crime, I do not know what is. They could have killed him, directly or indirectly. This got little to no coverage outside of Chicago!
In California, a female high school student near San Francisco was beat up by another classmate — also a girl — for supporting Trump online:
Cellphone video captured the moment a female student attacked sophomore Jade Armenio.
“This girl comes up to me and she said, ‘Do you hate Mexicans?’ and I was like, ‘no,’ and she said, ‘You support Trump. You hate Mexicans.'”
Armenio says the girl hit her, threw her to the ground, pulled out her earrings and hair. She was left with a bloody nose and scratches and bruises …
The princip[al] of Woodside High School issued a statement that reads in part the recorded incident was investigated in conjunction with law enforcement and appropriate disciplinary action has been taken …
Armenio[‘s] parents say they are keeping her out of school until they know she’ll be safe.
Let’s pray for her, too.
Meanwhile, a story that did get nationwide coverage turned out to be false. A university student in Lafayette, Indiana, accused two Trump supporters of tearing off her hijab and stealing her wallet. Thankfully, she confessed to a lie. She should be charged:
The story made national headlines and was featured in The New York Times, The Huffington Post and other national media outlets. Messages of love and support were found all over UL Lafayette’s campus after news of the attack spread.
It’s unclear whether the student will face charges for filing a false police report.
In closing, here is an interesting exchange from 2013. The_Donald calls it ‘the tweet that started it all’:
You can’t stump the Trump!
And, finally, a great summary of the past few weeks, also from The_Donald:
Protests aside, the next four years are going to be an exciting — and positive — time for all Americans. Trump has a Republican Congress and Senate to help him to restore the Great Republic. Outspoken radio show host Michael Savage says:
God’s hand is all over this election.
I truly believe it is.
The site 4chan has had several AMAs (Ask Me Anything) threads featuring one or more agents going loosely by the name FBI Anon.
He — or they — are all working on ‘the Clinton case’.
What follows over the next few posts are FBI Anon’s comments from the following threads:
- July 2 (before either the Republican or Democratic National Conventions and just after Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton had their conversation on her plane) — today’s focus
- September 25 (just before the first debate) — future post
- October 17 (the most recent) — future post
A language alert applies to all three. However, what FBI Anon says cannot be completely discounted, even if some disinformation — perhaps 10% — is mixed in. The agent includes the disinformation in order to keep his job. It is unlikely that it pertains to big ticket topics, but smaller ones.
A number of 4chan participants do not believe what FBI Anon says, but the guys at The_Donald are confident that what he says is mostly accurate and should be noted.
N.B.: After this, you will never think of the Democratic Party or the Clintons or their foundation in the same way again. When I first read these threads, I thought about them for days afterward. I am presenting this information to you to help you and yours make an informed decision on November 8.
I shall do my best to divide everything up by topic. I have edited out the foul language and corrected some spelling and grammatical errors. Emphases mine below.
Reference is made below to a SAP — Special Access Program — which FBI Anon defined as follows (July):
A Special Access Program is an intelligence program classified above top-secret. They are held on closed servers at secret locations. The only way to get one is if you are specifically read on to a program, have a need to know, then you must physically go to a location and pass through several layers of security to even look at the program. A good example in non-classified terms would be the locations and operations of our intelligence operatives around the globe, or our missile silo locations.
FBI Anon introduction
I am a person with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case. I will answer as many questions as I can without giving too much away.
Why FBI Anon went to 4chan in July
Sent home, awaiting word about the [chaos] Lynch just caused.
Chances of Hillary Clinton being indicted or brought to justice
There is intense pressure for us not to do so. I am posting from a position of near anonymity and enough plausible deniability to evade prosecution, as we have all been given gag orders.
There is enough for her and the entire government to be brought down. People do not realize how enormous this whole situation actually is. Whether she will be or not depends on how much info about others involved gets out, and there are a lot of people involved.
She had SAP level programs on her server, which if made public, would literally cause an uprising and possibly foreign declarations of war.
There already is enough to indict. Comey has been trying to stall because he does not want to face the Clinton Machine, as well as the rest of Washington D.C. But this case would explode into a million other cases if fully brought to light, and then we would be one agency competing against the entire government and a hoard of other interests. It is a very tense and uncomfortable position.
What Lynch is saying is she will accept whatever they do and make her determination as she will. Nothing about her responsibilities has changed, she is simply trying to keep her hide intact.
We have no power to prosecute, we simply hand over the data to the DOJ for them to prosecute. And we do not have the authority to hand over all of the data because of its sensitivity. And some of the data will lead into other cases of corruption.
Making a recommendation is not the same as actually prosecuting. We only say “here is the data, you need to get XYZ” and then the DOJ acts.
We have our hands tied. My message to you and everyone on this board is do not get distracted by Clinton’s e-mails. Focus on the Foundation. All of the nightmarish truth is there. The e-mails will pale in comparison.
All I can tell you about the SAPs is HRC had them, and she did not have proper authority to have any of them. They were leaked to her by someone, and she did sell them to overseas donors. Possessing them alone makes her guilty of treason.
Sec. [of State] CAN have access. That does not mean he/she WILL. SAP is granted on a need to know basis, and HRC did not have any need to know any of the programs on her server.
Public knowledge of issues influencing continued investigation
Before the Clinton-Lynch meeting, I would have said 0%. Now it looks more likely because the public now sees the Clintons trying to cover their asses. More questions will add pressure for the investigation to continue.
The Clinton Foundation (CF)
The real point of interest is the Clinton Foundation, not the e-mail server. We received the server from Benghazi, then from the server we found data on the CF. Then we realized the situation is much worse than previously thought.
Killing HRC would not cause this problem to go away. The problem is with the Clinton Foundation as I mentioned, which you should just imagine as a massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people. Though I do not have a high opinion of Hillary, she is just a piece -albeit a big piece – of this massive [horrible situation].
Obama is loosely tied to the CF, but much more tied in with the same people who donate to the CF.
BC likely wanted LL to focus on the e-mail server and shy away from prosecuting the foundation.
[The Foundation] Sold influence, intel, favors, and people to anyone willing to pay.
(next comments from continuation thread)
The people under the magnifying glass do have an affinity for children.
Pedophiles and sex traffickers everywhere. Many politicians trade girls like cattle.
Why no one else is brought to justice
The DOJ is most likely looking to save itself. Find everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation, from its donors to its Board of Directors, and imagine they are all implicated.
My opinion is the entire government is guilty of treason, which is why HRC’s death would not cease the investigation or prevent further scandals. Many, many people are involved.
If we recommend, we literally hand over documentation implying the entire government is involved in treason at the highest levels and everyone is about to duck and cover, as well as some sensitive details of SAPs which would obliterate national security.
[Then again] If we do not recommend, it will look like a cover-up and Trump will use the perception to bolster his message. I did work in PsyOps once, and Trump’s use of confirmation bias is legendary.
We could do it tomorrow if we wanted. [But …] There are too many political players involved.
Your moral inclinations may look good on the internet, but in real life the situation is complicated. You cannot possibly ask the entire government to prosecute itself. Lynch has also given to the Foundation, and has many ties to many people she should not. Remember that Bill appointed her. She is a great prosecutor, but she did not get where she is by simply being good at her job.
The problem is with the entire government. HRC is one component of that government.
… you do not have the breadth of info that I have that would make your eyes fall out of your skull if you knew what all was going on.
Soros is at the heart of all of this.
He is the kingpin.
Ideologue. Believes he and his cohorts are the answer to ending all world wars. Todd Huizinga’s book The New Totalitarian Temptation reveals the mindset quite adequately.
Soros funds, instructs, and influences every layer of US government, right down to the tax code.
Agents fearing for their lives, including Clinton retaliation against them
We are all worried about that.
My bosses have the benefit of being in the limelight. Their disappearances or silences would be accompanied by questions. Mine would not.
I do not want to post any information about me or where I am, because if any hint got out that I posted anything, I would be fired and blacklisted. Possibly killed.
Does Hillary kill people?
People have a way of dying around her.
Hillary and Obama’s relationship
Obama and HRC do hate each other. HRC hates black people and Obama dislikes recklessness. As far as the investigation, some details are correct. As to the outcome, no one knows.
Obama is a liberal atheist who is willingly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Stephen Coughlin’s book, while not totally accurate, does shine light in the right direction.
(next comment from continuation thread)
Michelle is a woman.
Who else has the emails?
Foreign powers are in possession of some of the documents we have analyzed, because they were hacked from the Clinton server. Trump has some files as well, and likely plans to leak them and use them to his advantage soon.
The leaks will have to be made in a non-transparent fashion.
What about Russia?
I am not sure, but some of my war strategy buddies are estimating a high probability that Russia will leak all of the info they have to the world, since Clinton wants to go to war with them and they have no desire to be in conflict with the US.
(next comment from continuation thread)
Russia wants Ukraine back, and then they want to be left … alone to invest. Russia is more a paragon of freedom and nationalism than any other country.
Other foreign relations implications
[HRC responsible for selling] Weapons, favors, intelligence, and people.
It benefits her because her donors have paid for it.
Canada has no business telling us how to run intel. Trudeau makes you [Canadians] all look like fools, and already his intel departments are coming to us for help doing … everything.
Germany is not involved. Merkel likes HRC though.
(next comments from continuation thread)
Get rid of Trudeau. He has no experience managing or running a country.
Mexico is actively trying to undermine the US.
Mainstream media is [dire]. Who cares what they say. They are attempting to distract by putting the focus on HRC’s emails and not the Foundation.
If Hillary wins
We will go to war with Russia and possibly China if she wins.
The entire government is corrupt. No one is clean, not even Trump.
Trump has donated to the Clinton Foundation in the past, though for fairly innocuous things like building permits and such. He is smart, so his tracks are covered well. But if any prosecutor wants to go very in-depth Trump would be brought on bribery charges. He could easily get out of them, but he would be charged nonetheless.
I do not know of Trump’s record, but from the case he definitely knew to limit his exposure and make it only look like a donation.
If Trump wins, HRC will be prosecuted.
Trump has very good people advising and leaking to him.
Trump is not a Clinton plant. He believes they are disgusting animals.
[Sidney] Blumenthal is attempting to get dirt on and strategize against Trump.
(next comment from continuation thread)
I support Trump. He is a good candidate. Not perfect, but good. I used to work in PsyOps, and Trump’s campaign is exactly how the textbooks train. It will be studied by agents forever.
Most of us are pro-Trump.
HRC hates that Trump makes the media profitable, so they have to keep covering him.
I will put it to you this way: You have three choices,
A) turn over all of the information to the DOJ, make public a recommendation, the truth comes out, the entire world realizes how much the US is meddling in foreign affairs and we go to war, the civilian population realizes how much foreign money influences our government, and a civil war begins.
B) You cherry-pick the data to implicate the people already in the eye of public opinion, so the chips fall on the heads of a select few and the whole system does not crash.
C) you do nothing and watch the unstable political climate to gauge how you will respond.
I am confident if Trump wins she will be going to jail.
… most of us are of the opinion that HRC will not be president, and having Trump in office makes our job that much easier. But right now we have to carefully wade through the mud.
A is not going to happen.
Revolutions are much longer and more violent than you think. And if a civil war breaks out, foreign powers will immediately get involved, prolonging any conflict.
[In general] People can integrate if done in a healthy and constructive way. Not by force.
The agents and 4chan (/pol/ — political threads)
The FBI is rather fond of /pol/. We study more than we investigate.
/pol/ is an amalgamation of minds from various geographic and demographic factions. We study very intensely the ideas which emanate and gain prominence on the board, as well as which ideas other organizations try to promote which ultimately get defeated (JIDF, for example, is highly unsuccessful as making /pol/ pro-israel). And most of us just enjoy the posts in general. We like to see how close to the truth everyone is. And we occasionally let our true nature slip.
(from continuation thread)
Alex Jones is a useful idiot. He does believe what he says, though.
What the public can do
Post about HRC everywhere you can. Focus on the Foundation. Do not let her e-mail server be the sole focus of media attention. Follow the Foundation. Her e-mails are a small bite compared to the CF.
Promote and discuss it everywhere. Ask questions. Read the news on it. Post articles everywhere. Pirate Jerome Corsi’s book (so people can’t say I am shilling) because he does have some things right.
If you dig hard into the foundation and make it the sole point of your focus, you will remember this thread when the truth is revealed.
(next comment from continuation thread)
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. There is a lot of greatness in America, and there is still plenty to love. Society and culture are dependent on man. You are in control of society, not the other way around.
Tomorrow: more FBI Anon
Since the 2005 Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape was leaked last Friday, timed with the Wikileaks drop of the Democrats’, including Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Deplorables have resolved to fight on — with or without the GOPe.
WARNING: This post has Clinton-related content and some links with language unsuitable for children. I apologise in advance, but the truth must come out, no matter how distasteful.
The Deplorables’ situation
It is essential to understand what the Deplorables experience in American life.
Many worry how they will get by. Tax increases are a huge issue.
One Pittsburgh resident — an ex-Hillary supporter — describes what he and his family members experience. Excerpts and a summary follow. I have edited spelling and grammar.
How is it there is not enough tax to make sure homeless veterans are taken care of, yet the United States can afford to send countless mobile phones to Africa? There are more sanctuary cities for notional refugees, yet there is not enough tax revenue to finance Social Security for older Americans.
Taxes continue to increase, but (emphases mine):
Burden is shared. I have no say … Where does that money go? Same thing with the lottery; where is that cash? Tax tax tax … My school dropped German and French. My dad gets 1700 a month social security. He has no 401k. He had six kids all of whom pay lots of taxes. He always paid his taxes. My mom became a nurse once dad [left]. She has some money but how many people know it was under Clinton that food was excluded from COLA? I said from the beginning Obamacare was about privatizing Social Security. Demand you pay for health care, we can demand you pay for retirement. Think of the money. Trillions to be made: what choice would you have? You might support a homophobic misogynist regime like Saudi Arabia every hour you worked and paid a tax as Supreme Court ruled Obamacare went through; why not retirement?
Then, there is the elite’s perception of these Americans, from 2008 to the present. The main author of The Crawdad Hole — ex-Clinton supporters for the most part — has a Twitter description which sums it up perfectly:
Obama called me a bitter clinger. Hillary called me deplorable. Terrorists call me an infidel. Trump calls me an American.
I do not know how many of my readers have seen the following tee shirt, which originated with Infowars, but a lot of anti-Hillary voters are wearing it:
After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape was released, the GOP elite denounced Trump.
Trump was supposed to appear in Wisconsin last Saturday, October 8, but a sanctimonious Paul Ryan — Speaker of the House — rescinded his invitation to the state’s annual GOP fundraiser.
Attendees paid $30 apiece to get in. They expected to see Trump.
ELKHORN, Wisconsin — In a jarring illustration of the chaos now engulfing the Republican Party, supporters of Donald Trump clashed bitterly with GOP leaders at a rally here Saturday — booing elected officials, heckling Paul Ryan, and angrily demanding greater establishment support for their beleaguered presidential nominee …
When, early in the event’s program, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel tried to address the recently leaked video that has sent Trump’s campaign into a tailspin, the crowd erupted in angry protest.
“Get over it!” one heckler yelled.
“Trump! Trump! Trump!” others chanted.
Appearing taken aback by the reaction, Schimel made a brief nod toward support for the nominee — “Donald Trump will appoint judges that will defend our Constitution” — and then quickly changed the subject.
Other elected officials became more combative with the audience. When Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner talked about how voters had been coming to the Fall Fest for years to support Ryan and other local Republicans, hecklers shouted, “Not anymore!” and, “I’m for Donald Trump!”
“Why don’t you listen to what I have to say instead of interrupting me?” Sensenbrenner snapped. Soon, the 73-year-old congressman was in a shouting match with the Trump supporters in the crowd. “Listen to me, please,” he kept repeating, before ordering the audience to “clean up your act.”
By the time it was Ryan’s turn to speak, the mood had grown indisputably hostile. He took the stage to scattered boos, and shouts of, “What about Donald Trump?” and, “Shame on you!” …
Trump supporters are now unlikely to vote down ticket for Republicans who have shunned their candidate.
This is audience reaction to Ryan’s speech:
One young man wore a RAPE shirt with Bill Clinton’s image on it — another popular Infowars product.
Alex Jones is giving between $1,000 and $5,000 to anyone who can get captured on camera with it at a rally. More money is given to those who can stay on camera for several seconds and mention Infowars.
Alex is looking forward to hearing from this man who turned up at Clinton’s October 11 rally in Detroit. Not only will he receive $5,000, but he will be invited for an interview on the Infowars show:
How he was able to get one of the privileged places on the podium will make for an interesting story.
Townhall has a really clear close up.
Amazingly, the woman with the slogan ‘Stronger Together’ and who is a self-described tireless advocate of minorities had this reaction:
Hillary Clinton sarcastically laughed as the man was shoved down the stairs and she told people outside the event to “follow him” and “stage an intervention.”
Wow! I hope the man stayed safe.
I bet Big Media will ignore that story.
At an Obama rally for Clinton, a man and a woman paraded beneath the stage in Greensboro on Tuesday, October 11. Each wore homemade ‘Bill Clinton Rapist’ tee shirts (8 seconds in).
An American Lookout article says that Obama was interrupted again by other protesters:
The second and third times by people yelling about Bill Clinton and rape.
The article continues (emphases in the original):
These protesters are everywhere!
Will the mainstream media finally do some reporting on what these people are saying? On what they’re willing to get arrested for to say? …
It’s become counter-cultural to be Conservative. Conservatives are now the rock stars. The punk rockers of politics.
And these are courageous citizens! They’re standing up against Obama, the Clintons and the Mainstream Media to shout the truth!
At the weekend in Bakersfield, the city’s local Business Conference took place.
Hundreds of people showed up to hear conservative commentator Laura Ingraham (LifeZette) speak in support of Trump.
Gateway Pundit has a brief excerpt of the crowd cheering:
THIS IS AN AMAZING VIDEO–
Thousands of voters at the Bakersfield Business Conference tell the GOP to stand by Donald Trump and FIGHT!
The same day that Trump supporters booed Wisconsin GOPe types, Nevada Rep. Joe Heck disavowed the candidate. The audience booed him:
Breitbart reports that Heck has fallen prey to the George Soros funded Common Defense PAC, notionally comprised of military veterans, and a MoveOn.org petition hidden within (emphases mine):
Common Defense PAC has a simple mission statement: “As veterans, we swore to protect the rights of every American. We continue to fulfill this promise by standing against Donald Trump.” Its “leadership team” page on its website lists sixteen military veterans with no contact information for them.
On its Facebook page, the PAC features a video from a different super PAC in which a mainstream reporter asks Nevada congressman Joe Heck if he trusts Trump having the nuclear codes.
“Watch this. Share it. Then sign the petition to tell Congressman Heck to disavow Donald Trump,” says Common Defense PAC, with the link to the petition: fornevadasfuture.com/heck.
But the petition is actually a MoveOn.org petition called “Joe Heck: Disavow Donald Trump.”
One can be pretty sure that Heck and the rest of the GOPe don’t know the men behind the PAC:
Common Defense PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission at a P.O. Box in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The group’s treasurer is Jonathan Matthew Smucker, a Berkeley doctoral student, activist, and radical writer who did not return a request for comment for this report.
The PAC’s July quarterly filing report with the FEC only lists one donor: a Baltimore IT consultant named Marjorie Roswell who gave $20,000 on June 30.
Perry O’Brien is the group’s director. O’Brien is a longtime left-wing activist.
O’Brien was a medic in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne and received a discharge in 2004 for being a conscientious objector.
Perry O’Brien personally started a MoveOn.org petition called “Tell GOP leaders to disavow Trump and his attacks on veterans.” The petition, which has 121,242 signatures as of this writing, is “To be delivered to Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Paul Ryan, and all GOP leaders.”
Well, there you go. It worked. Don’t Republicans investigate these things? It took me a simple Internet search.
What Deplorables will remember
On Tuesday, October 11, Laura Ingraham analysed the disparity between GOPe and their core voters:
The vast majority of Republicans want Donald Trump to be president … they have come together in an effort to save the country from Hillary Clinton.
A small minority of Republicans do not want Donald Trump to be president. They prefer Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for most of the Republican Party, this small group of angry dissenters includes many of the people at the top of the party — officeholders, major donors, “strategists,” and “conservative” pundits. These people have been able to leverage their connections with the mainstream press to repeatedly attack Trump — even though they refuse to say anything nice about Hillary.
… instead of having an honest discussion as to whether the GOP should be a globalist party or a nationalist party, everything dissolves into personal attacks.
When this election is over, the vast majority of Republicans are going to remember that their supposed leaders — the same officeholders, millionaires, and pundits who told them that they had to “come together” and support John McCain and Mitt Romney — refused to do the same for Donald Trump. They will know that what they have long suspected is true — the Republican Party is led by people who have more in common with the Clintons than with the GOP base. And that knowledge will affect the future of the GOP for years to come.
The biggest irony in all this is that, as one pro-Trump Rep. Steve King of Iowa said, quoting a fellow congressman:
“He said, ‘If you are so worried about a sexual deviant in the White House, helping Hillary Clinton will put Bill Clinton in the White House,’” King paraphrased.
Very true, indeed.
At a congressional hearing on September 28, 2016, FBI director James Comey said:
You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels.
Apparently, no one used that word against Comey or the FBI. He came up with that himself.
Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Mr. Comey’s psyche. Dr. Freud would say he protests too much. Why does the FBI Director compare himself—and the now perhaps forever tarnished organization he heads—to a pack of weasels? Guilty subconsciousness perhaps, Herr Doctor?
Recall, the FBI’s motto is Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Once important American ideals, today reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Consider the bureau’s former principled reputation of incorruptibility: of holding the powerful to account without fear or favor.
Well, I had forgotten the FBI motto. Did I ever know it? A high school buddy of mine used to go on and on about J Edgar Hoover’s personal life such that I never had any interest in the FBI.
As for the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton or anyone else involved in the email scandals, Hunter says:
… the fix was in before that. Specifically, when spouse Bill Clinton had an “unplanned” chinwag with Attorney General Lynch. Both in different private planes which by “sheer coincidence” crossed paths on the same tarmac in Phoenix. So the nation’s top prosecutor meeting privately with the spouse (an ex-president) whose wife is the prime subject of a then looming criminal indictment isn’t a colossal conflict of interest? Moreover, is it any surprise that just days after that infamous meeting AG Lynch announced that Hillary would face no criminal charges?
It’s a big deal, because:
Those unsecured, illegal devices likely hacked by bad actors in which Mr. Comey stated 110 emails were classified—and 48,000 (read: 33,000 originally reported and an additional 15,000 recently uncovered) were destroyed.
And some Hillary voters need reminding of more:
If the email scandal wasn’t malfeasance enough, there is the Clinton Foundation “charity”: a pay-for-play scheme involving high-level political favors in exchange for a personal Clinton slush fund (while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State). The 238 million the Clintons have “earned” after being “dead broke” 15 years ago doesn’t even factor in the 2 billion dollar foundation they control. By his own Freudian omission, Mr. Comey’s a weasel, but the crooked Clintons are far worse: unapologetic rats who make Richard “Watergate” Nixon look, by comparison, like a church mouse.
Enough of the church mouse mentions in the same sentence as Watergate! 😉
You know, if Hillary were a Republican, Big Media would be all over her 24/7 for all her scandals.
Imagine if Donald Trump were guilty of all that.
But, instead, Big Media give Hillary a pass and go to town on Trump over his taxes.
Edward Klein has more on Comey, Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in his new book, Guilty as Sin: Uncovering New Evidence of Corruption and How Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Derailed the FBI Investigation.
I wrote about it the other day in connection with Hillary’s health.
On October 3, the New York Post featured an excerpt from the book which explains how and why Comey let Clinton off the hook.
Ultimately (emphases mine):
Comey knew that if he recommended an indictment of Hillary — something that was fiercely opposed by the president, the attorney general, the Democrats in Congress, and the mainstream media — he’d ignite a firestorm and go down in history as the man who traumatized the country’s political system. What’s more, if after all of that, Hillary was found not guilty by a jury, it would blacken Comey’s reputation for all time to come.
So, here’s what happened.
On June 27, Bill Clinton was just about to fly out of Phoenix when his Secret Service agent told him Loretta Lynch was about to land:
“Don’t take off!” Bill barked.
As his plane skidded to a halt and then headed back to its parking space, Bill grabbed a phone and called an old friend — one of his most trusted legal advisers …
“Bill said, ‘I want to bushwhack Loretta,’ ” the adviser recalled. “ ‘I’m going to board her plane. What do you think?’ And I said, ‘There’s no downside for you, but she’s going to take a pounding if she’s crazy enough to let you on her plane.’
Americans were, rightly, angry that she allowed him on her plane, but the adviser who spoke with Edward Klein for his book explained:
He wanted to intimidate Loretta and discredit Comey’s investigation of Hillary’s emails, which was giving Hillary’s campaign agita.
Bill had the Secret Service agent ring Lynch, who was on the plane with her husband Stephen Hargove. Lynch agreed to allow him on board:
“Bill said he could tell that Loretta knew from the get-go that she’d made a huge mistake,” his adviser said. “She was literally trembling, shaking with nervousness. Her husband tried to comfort her; he kept patting her hand and rubbing her back.”
They did talk about grandchildren and golf. The adviser told Klein that the subjects of conversation didn’t matter because, in his words, all Bill wanted to do was to:
send a message to everyone at Justice and the FBI that Hillary had the full weight of the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party, and the White House behind her.
And so it turned out to be, because the following week Obama gave her a lift on Air Force One to a campaign rally in North Carolina.
Klein explains that Obama would never have offered to have her as a passenger on the presidential plane if she were in danger of being indicted.
The following day, Comey gave a long speech at a press conference about the email investigation. Lynch watched it in her office, accompanied by her closest aides.
The longer Comey went on about the results of the investigation, the more he was making a case for prosecution. Lynch was ‘livid’, Klein tells us, because:
Lynch had promised President Obama and Valerie Jarrett that Hillary would not be indicted.
Then, finally, Comey concluded:
Hillary, he said, shouldn’t be prosecuted for her handling of classified information — even though it wasn’t his job to make prosecutorial decisions. That was up to the prosecutors in the Justice Department. There was no evidence, he said, that Hillary had intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled secret documents in order to harm the United States.
“Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
Klein ends with this:
Hillary was clearly guilty as sin, and the right thing would have been for Comey not only to say so — which he did — but to make her pay for her sins.
But he didn’t.
If this woman is elected in November — either by legitimate votes or a fix — the end of the Great Republic is nigh.
During the first presidential debate on September 26, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of sexism and came out with several of his most outrageous anti-women quotes.
One of them concerned the 1996 Miss Universe, Venezuela’s Alicia Machado. Trump was less than flattering about her subsequent weight gain.
Hillary made a big deal about this, and she would have had a point were it not for two reasons.
1996 Miss Universe
Machado, who became a US citizen this year, sailed close to the wind with the law in 1998 in her native country. She was not indicted because of lack of evidence. The Daily Mail reports:
… two Associated Press reports from 1998 have revealed the Machado was accused of aiding attempted murder and threats to kill in Venezuela.
DailyMail.com has asked the Clinton campaign whether they knew about the accusations, which do not appear to have ended in conviction, before the candidate spoke about her at the debate.
The campaign also organized a conference call for reporters on Tuesday with the now 39-year-old actress, in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish to continue the attacks on Trump.
The Mail has the full story.
The article also says that, during her time as Miss Universe, Machado gained 35 pounds. Trump owned the Miss Universe pageant at the time.
Beauty pageant winners have to comply with certain terms and conditions during their tenure, weight gain being one of them.
Here is a CNN interview of Trump with Machado and her trainer in 1997. A CNN article that appeared at the same time explained she had gained 60 pounds during her reign. She was losing weight to appear in that year’s contest to crown the new winner. If there is a reference to Miss Piggy the Muppets star (all the rage at the time), I missed it. There is also no animosity between Machado and Trump:
On September 28, another Mail article appeared about her career in porn and relationship with a drug lord. The Conservative Treehouse also has a set of links. Gateway Pundit has a Florida Declaration of Domicile for her daughter who was born in Miami.
Hillary portrays herself as a champion of women’s rights, but, as I wrote earlier this month, in 1975 she successfully defended a middle-aged man who raped a 12-year-old girl in Arkansas. She even laughed about it. The audio recordings are available to the public at the University of Arkansas. Also:
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Two decades later, she was in the White House and the ‘bimbo eruption’ took place.
If you find that term offensive, you should know that an advisor to Bill Clinton — a woman and feminist — coined it. Betsey Ross Wright came up with the words:
to describe rumors alleging extramarital affairs by Clinton.
Wright met Bill and Hillary — unmarried, but an item — in 1972. In August 2016, The Daily Beast posted an excellent article by Professor Gil Troy who teaches History at McGill University and wrote The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s. Excerpts follow:
… these three new friends relished the possibilities they were starting to envision, a more open, liberal, egalitarian, and female-friendly world.
“It was a nascent feminist movement then,” Wright would tell Bill Clinton’s biographer David Maraniss. Wright believed “that women were the ethical and pure force that American politics needed.” And Wright, a big, bold, bawdy powerhouse, recalled being “less interested in Bill’s political future than Hillary’s. I was obsessed with how far Hillary might go, with her mixture of brilliance, ambition, and self-assuredness.”
Bill’s presidential campaign rolled around 20 years later with (emphases mine):
Hillary Clinton and Betsey Wright determined not to let Bill Clinton’s promiscuity harm his White House bid. Wright, who monitored each piece of gossip – and frequently bullied Bill’s “exes” – coined the crude phrase “bimbo eruptions.” The term mocked the accusers and the reporters who believed them. Just a few years ago, Americans were more censorious about affairs but more forgiving about such sexist dismissals of victimized women.
Gil Troy explains that ‘bimbo’ comes from bambino and originally denoted stupid men. By the 1920s, it began being used to describe women. A song of that decade was called My Little Bimbo Down on the Bamboo Isle. In the 1930s, ‘blonde’ prefaced the word. I knew a man in the 1980s who often referred to a group of women out for a night on the town as ‘the bimbo squad’, but I digress.
Gil Troy concludes:
The ironies abound. Betsey Wright the feminist boosting a sexist slander. Hillary Clinton, the betrayed wife, not just standing by her man but trashing his accusers – no matter how true their story. Wright’s odd contribution to history, then, is sharpening the Clinton conundrum: how can a couple so committed to doing good behave so badly so often? Wright’s tale highlights the moral blind spot of the Clintons and their enablers. Their idealism, their liberalism, their faith in the good they hope to do, makes them excuse all kinds of lapses, from libeling innocent women to following their own rules regarding emails and government secrecy …
The investigation into the Whitewater scandal, which ran deep once Kenneth Starr was in charge, brought out more details about philandering which dogged Bill’s presidency. Then there was the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1998, Hillary appeared on Today — NBC’s breakfast show — and said this:
I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.
The following year, the New York Post featured this quote:
I don’t know who created the graphic, by the way.
Last year, a book called The Clintons’ War on Women was published. The Political Insider summarised the detailed work done by authors Roger Stone, a Republican strategist and Trump insider, and Robert Morrow.
I strongly urge everyone to read The Political Insider article, most of which I cannot quote here because of the adult content. Here are two excerpts:
For 41 years, Hillary Clinton has worked tirelessly to discredit and destroy women like that. Since 1982, she has been hiring private detectives to look into their lives and find anything that could embarrass them …
Juanita Broaddrick was alleged raped so severely that he nearly tore off her upper lip, then raped her a 2nd time …
Donald Trump must make it calmly crystal clear at the next debate that Hillary Clinton is no women’s advocate. Whilst he should not discuss Miss Universe, he can mention other topics. For a start, Europe’s mass immigration problem has brought with it a large increase in sexual attacks on women. Yet, Hillary wants to up migrant intake from the same countries in the Middle East. American women will be at risk.
The rest of us can spread the word about her misogyny in the remaining weeks before the presidential election.
It is essential that younger voters be aware of the Clintons’ past. Sexual crimes are only one part of it. As one of my readers says, it would take a lifetime to chronicle all their evil. More to come tomorrow.
When the explosive device went off in the Chelsea area of New York on Saturday, September 17, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump called it a ‘bomb’.
News reports were later edited to show footage of Trump saying ‘bomb’ and Clinton advising caution. British media carried this same omission on Sunday’s news. I watched Channel 4, by the way.
Media analyst Mark Dice has full coverage of both using the word:
Trump’s running mate Mike Pence gave an excellent radio interview on Monday, September 19, to Sean Hannity. Early in the segment, Pence referred to the events in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota as ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. In order to combat that, he said that America needs a change of leadership:
That morning, Fox and Friends interviewed Trump, who also gave an outstanding interview on the terror threat as well as a variety of other topics, such as John Kasich’s lack of endorsement, despite having signed the Republican Party candidate pledge to support the nominee.
Fox and Friends rightly credited Trump for saying last year that the United States could expect more terror attacks.
Trump ably discussed the weekend’s attacks and lauded Israel for its profiling policy:
On profiling, CNN deliberately distorted Trump’s words. At no time did he ever mention ‘racial profiling’. He spoke only of ‘profiling’.
Scott Adams, Dilbert’s creator, rightly called out Clinton News Network:
This is yet another example of distortion in Big Media reporting.
Are you picking up on the bias? I know a lot of people offline who aren’t.
Add to that the blame Clinton piles on Trump — a private citizen:
On a brighter note, this is a great little video featuring Germaine, a Starbucks employee, taking drinks and food to New York policemen investigating last Saturday’s bombing:
New York is a great city with great people. Long may it remain so.
Carl Bernstein, along with Bob Woodward, did forensic work over 40 years ago in exposing Watergate.
Today, we have something much greater in Hillary Clinton’s scandals. They make Watergate look like Boy Scout camp.
What have we heard from Bernstein about this? Take a look at the Clinton Foundation:
And let’s look at Watergate versus the Clinton email scandal:
In my churchy naivete, I always believed that Bernstein was an objective investigative reporter.
But, no, he’s in the tank for Hillary. No questions asked.
Not a peep from him this year.
Now imagine if it had been Donald Trump who deleted 30,000 emails. Bernstein would have had plenty to say and write about that.
Carl Bernstein only has something to say when it concerns GOP scandals, never his own party.
Deplorable? Yes, that’s a description that fits him, Hillary and the Democrats.
Hillary Clinton’s poll ratings largely halved last week.
Successful visits to Mexico and Detroit just before Labor Day boosted Donald Trump’s polling in many states as well as nationally.
Meanwhile, several questions hang over Clinton: her emails, her health and, until last Tuesday, her general reclusion, at least from the press and the public.
Team Trump have brought these — and other — questions to light. Kimberley A. Strassel wrote about these on Thursday, September 8, in ‘The Trump Blitz Begins’ for The Wall Street Journal (emphases mine):
Think of it as the moment when Donald Trump truly learned to throw a (campaign) punch. It came about three weeks ago, amid the latest swirl of stories on the Clintons’ ethics …
The Trump campaign pounced. It began blasting out every new revelation about—or editorial-board comment on—Mrs. Clinton’s shady dealings. It unleashed surrogates, in particular the former prosecutors Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, to make the legal case against her. Mr. Trump devoted a significant portion of a speech in Texas to detailing the lies she had told about her server, and the pay-to-play allegations at the foundation. Within a few days the campaign had cut a web ad hitting her for “corruption” and calling the foundation a “slush fund.”
Mrs. Clinton’s slip in the polls is a direct result of the latest flood of scandal. Less noticed is the skillful way that Team Trump is making those hits land. The Republican nominee’s campaign has been doing more right lately, though nothing more so than this. When it comes to the dissection of Mrs. Clinton’s misdeeds, the Trump campaign is firing on 16 cylinders …
Strassel points out that Trump supporters have been waiting months for this opportunity. Many of us thought he was going to start after the GOP convention. But he did not. Perhaps he is too gentlemanly. Perhaps he knew when he wanted to pounce. However, it all seemed to happen once he reshuffled his campaign team. Strassel says the wait was:
frustrating if only because Mrs. Clinton’s venality is the concrete with which Mr. Trump must pave his road to the White House. This is a woman whom close to two-thirds of voters view as untrustworthy. She has based her entire campaign around the argument that she is more credible and competent to lead the nation—a claim utterly undermined by revelations about her foundation’s business model, her cavalier handling of classified information, and her inability to “recall” most of her tenure as secretary of state.
Turning voters away from Mrs. Clinton is the groundwork. Mr. Trump still needs to give voters a reason to turn toward him. His sober approach of recent weeks is a start. A challenge will be to translate what has so far been campaign-engineered press releases and speeches into an on-the-fly prosecution of Mrs. Clinton during the presidential debates. Mr. Trump is right that Hillary is unfit to be president. Now, to keep proving it.
However, CNN reported that same day — September 8 — that she began peppering her up her campaign addresses with:
what animates Clinton — faith, children and families …
So, in Kansas City:
… she discussed her faith and humility at a Baptist convention.
Addressing a largely African-American congregation here, Clinton said, “I’ve made my share of mistakes” — and deliberately chose not to once utter Donald Trump’s name.
“Humility is not something you hear about much in politics, is it? But you should. None of us is perfect,” Clinton said. “I have learned to be grateful not just for my blessings but also for my faults — and there are plenty” …
Clinton rarely touches on the issue of her faith and how it motivates her to serve. “It would have been easier to follow many of my law school classmates to a high-powered New York law firm, but the call to service rooted in my faith was just too powerful,” she said.
The raw truth of the matter follows!
I pray those good Baptists are not sucked in by false witness!
Hillary was unable to be a high-powered lawyer because she failed the law exam — in Washington DC.
In 2003, she stated in her memoir, Living History:
“Despite the satisfaction of my work, I was lonely and missed Bill more than I could stand,” Clinton wrote. “I had taken both the Arkansas and Washington, D.C., bar exams during the summer, but my heart was pulling me toward Arkansas. When I learned that I passed in Arkansas but failed in D.C., I thought that maybe my test scores were telling me something.”
So much for ‘service rooted in faith’!
For another example of ‘service rooted in faith’ and concern for ‘families’, as a practising lawyer in Arkansas in 1975, Hillary successfully defended a man who raped a 12-year-old girl.
This video explains the sad, tragic case:
The Free Beacon explains more about the case in July 2014:
The Free Beacon reported in June on previously unpublished audio tapes from the 1980s that revealed Clinton laughing while discussing her successful effort to secure a plea bargain for her client and suggesting she believed the 41-year-old man was guilty of rape.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.
The audio recordings are part of a collection of interviews with the Clintons conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s, which are housed at the University of Arkansas special collections library. They were opened to the public in January.
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Words fail me.
Voters should not believe a word Hillary Clinton says, even — especially — when it concerns Christian faith and families.