Friday, October 28, 2016

BREAKING=> Julian Assange: NEXT LEAK Will Lead to Arrest of Hillary Clinton!

Gateway Pundit ^ | October 28, 2016 | Jim Hoft 

The sky is falling in on the Clinton Campaign!

RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 7 #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails7
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 14, 2016
Wikileaks has released 35,594 Podesta emails since October 7th. They have 50,000 Podesta emails to publish.
WikiLeaks #PodestaEmails
-Started: October 7 -Releases to date: 21 -Emails published: 35,594 -Total emails to be published: 50,000+
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 28, 2016
Julian ASSANGE says the next email leak will lead to the arrest of Hillary CLINTON!
Via Russia Today reporter in London:
“He will release more material in what he says will provide enogh evidence to see Hillary Clinton arrested.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Doesn’t Clinton Embarrass Democrats?

Wall Street Journal via Yahoo ^ | 27 Oct, 2016 | JAMES FREEMAN 

Donald Trump wears his character flaws on his sleeve. Hillary Clinton seeks to prevent documentation of hers, even when the law requires it. Yet despite her best efforts, facts about Mrs. Clinton that are now public should trouble voters more than any of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
Not that it’s easy for Republicans to appear on a ballot with Mr. Trump, especially since media folk spend days after each controversial remark demanding responses from other GOP candidates. The objective is to force them to endorse or condemn Mr. Trump and suffer the consequences.
Fair enough, but reporters don’t force down-ballot Democrats to take a position on each new Clinton email revelation. The result is wall-to-wall media coverage focused on whether GOP voters can possibly support their candidate. But why should Republicans have all the fun? Democratic voters have every right to be ashamed of their nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Must see video on Vote Fraud in Texas!

Direct Action Texas via YouTube ^ | 10/27/16 | Direct Action Texas 

Sorry but no two minute instant gratification here.

But how about an organized vote fraud scheme netting 20,000 to 40,000+ mail in ballot votes In just one county. And using voter registration groups. And most likely involving election officials themselves(pretty good case made for that).

Imagine that this scheme actually allows harvested signatures to be used over and over again in multiple elections. And imagine the legal system in Texas is laid out in such a way that it protects these Cheaters by normally and legally destroying the evidence before it can seen. Yet this is now A serious official Texas investigation.
How do the vote harvesters get those signatures? Do they pray on the elderly and minorities?
While the video just released by "Direct Action Texas" on the vote fraud in Texas is long. I can tell you that you have never seen anything like it. once you get into it you will be in total AWE by what their investigation found.
And it is all supported by real evidence that they show you. They show you real ballots and real documents that will not leave you questioning their results. They explain how the investigation began and how it progressed.
This is not about this years election specifically(Much right before it) as they don't even have the data for that yet. But this has been happening for years. And it is a growing enterprise. And it is not limited to Tarrant county according the the author. You may not have time to watch it right away. But it is a good thing to put on your "To Do" list.
Also Here is a link to a thread posted last night by "GOPe Means Bend Over Spell Run". I am afraid that people just neglect the video when they see it is long, But I can not emphasize enough that the article is not where the real story and amazement really is. IT IS IN THE VIDEO!

A Presidency From Hell? ^ | October 28, 2016 | Pat Buchanan 

Should Donald Trump surge from behind to win, he would likely bring in with him both houses of Congress.

Much of his agenda -- tax cuts, deregulation, border security, deportation of criminals here illegally, repeal of Obamacare, appointing justices like Scalia, unleashing the energy industry -- could be readily enacted.
On new trade treaties with China and Mexico, Trump might need economic nationalists in Bernie Sanders' party to stand with him, as free-trade Republicans stood by their K-Street contributors.
Still, compatible agendas and GOP self-interest could transcend personal animosities and make for a successful four years.
But consider what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like.
She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.
Reports of poor health and lack of stamina may be exaggerated. Yet she moves like a woman her age. Unlike Ronald Reagan, her husband, Bill, and President Obama, she is not a natural political athlete and lacks the personal and rhetorical skills to move people to action.
She makes few mistakes as a debater, but she is often shrill -- when she is not boring. Trump is right: Hillary Clinton is tough as a $2 steak. But save for those close to her, she appears not to be a terribly likable person.
Still, such attributes, or the lack of them, do not assure a failed presidency. James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.
Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it.
Consider. Because the tapes revealed he did not tell the full truth about when he learned about Watergate, Richard Nixon was forced to resign.
In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan faced potential impeachment charges, until ex-security adviser John Poindexter testified that Reagan told the truth when he said he had not known of the secret transfer of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras.
Bill Clinton was impeached -- for lying.
White House scandals, as Nixon said in Watergate, are almost always rooted in mendacity -- not the misdeed, but the cover-up, the lies, the perjury, the obstruction of justice that follow.
And here Hillary Clinton seems to have an almost insoluble problem.
She has testified for hours to FBI agents investigating why and how her server was set up and whether secret information passed through it.
Forty times during her FBI interrogation, Clinton said she could not or did not recall. This writer has friends who went to prison for telling a grand jury, "I can't recall."
After studying her testimony and the contents of her emails, FBI Director James Comey virtually accused Clinton of lying.
Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them.
During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation.
Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us.
Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches.
What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?
Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?
"There's a lot of smoke and there's no fire," says Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.
If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, grand jury or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's.
And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.
The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton's first term.
There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.
What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Cong. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.
And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, Russians, Taliban, North Koreans and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea -- and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.
This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.

Trump praises 'courage' of FBI to reopen Clinton email probe!

Daily Mail ^ | Oct. 28, 2016 | David Martosko 

Donald Trump took a victory lap Friday following news that the FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton's classified email scandal.
'The FBI has just sent a letter to Congress informing them that they have discovered new emails pertaining to the former secretary of state Hillary Clinton's investigation,' he said.
About 1,600 supporters in Manchester, New Hampshire erupted in a chant of 'Lock her up!'
'And they are reopening the case into her criminal and illegal conduct that threatens the security of the United States of America,' Trump said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Furious liberals lash out at Comey

The ^ | 10/28/16 | Jonathan Easley 

Democrats are lashing out at FBI director James Comey for opening a new review into Hillary Clinton’s emails just days before the presidential election, accusing him of malfeasance that threatens to hand the White House to Donald Trump.

Comey on Friday sent a brief letter to Congress stating that the FBI was investigating newly found messages that appeared to be related to its investigation into how Clinton handled classified material as secretary of State.

That bombshell report, coming 11 days before the election, provoked prominent liberals like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich to question the timing of the release and to fume over the lack of details.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Megyn Kelly 'bemused' but 'not angry' after Murdoch about 'deep bench' able to fill her job!

The Daily Mail ^ | 28 October 2016 | Chris Spargo 

Full title: Megyn Kelly keeps calm: Fox News host 'bemused' but 'not angry' after reading Rupert Murdoch interview about 'deep bench' able to fill her job during $20M contract negotiations.

Megyn Kelly reportedly got quite the shock earlier this week when she read an interview Rupert Murdoch gave about her private contract negotiations just before she was set to tape her live news program, The Kelly Report.   Murdoch made the decision to make the negotiations very public by granting an interview to one of the newspapers his company News Corp. owns, The Wall Street Journal.

Variety spoke with a a person familiar with Kelly’s thinking who said that the host was 'bemused' by Murdoch's actions but not so upset that she would consider leaving Fox News because of his questionable negotiating strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump's Path to 270 Is Easier Than You Think ^ | October 28, 2016 | Frank Cannon & Jon Schweppe.

"It's over. Trump can't win." That's the narrative the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media have relentlessly promoted over the past several days. The problem with that narrative is that it is a bald-faced lie. This election is nowhere near over. Not even close!
Let's take a look at the electoral map. Remember, to become the next president of the United States, Trump needs to win 270 electoral votes. Conversely, he needs to hold Hillary Clinton to 269 electoral votes because, with a Republican House of Representatives, a 269-269 tie is likely to also result in a Trump presidency.
Trump's baseline amount of electoral votes is 158. Let's assume Clinton's baseline is 239 — we will generously cede her Virginia (13), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), New Mexico (5), and three of Maine's four electoral votes.
If this is a fixed reality, Trump must win the following states to get to 265 electoral votes (ordered from easiest to win to most difficult):
Utah just became a battleground state as Independent candidate Evan McMullin has been surging recently. It truly is a three-way race at the present. The most recent poll, conducted on October 23 and 24 by Heat Street/Rasmussen, gave Trump a narrow 32-29-28 lead over McMullin and Clinton, respectively.
Georgia is close, but Trump has led in 14 of the last 15 polls dating back to early August (and the other poll was a tie). While his lead is within the margin of error, barring a Clinton blowout, Trump should safely win here.
Iowa is one of several states that suffers from a lack of polling. The most recent poll from Quinnipiac, released on Thursday — the first public poll in three weeks! — showed Trump and Clinton tied at 44 percent. Iowa is poised to be the true bellwether state this election cycle, and without more data, it is difficult to tell which way Iowa is preparing to break.
The five most recent polls out of Ohio show Trump tied with Clinton or leading. He has performed well here since the end of August. While the race is still very close, Trump's working class appeal is likely to help him win a blue collar state that Mitt Romney could not.
Arizona hasn't seen a whole lot of polling, but the latest poll from Monmouth showed Trump up by 1 percent, 46-45, conducted October 21 through October 24. Arizona is typically a "red state", but polls have consistently shown it as a true toss-up.
I have never seen such a blatant effort by the mainstream media to call a state that is polling within the margin of error. It's absolutely crazy to me. Florida is one of the most swingy swing states out there, yet pundit after pundit has declared the race over in the Sunshine State. Ridiculous. It’s very close. Clinton has never led by more than five in any poll taken since August, and in the most recently released poll by Bloomberg, Trump led by two points, 45-43. Trump can easily win Florida.
Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll, which may help explain some of the wild fluctuations between polls — two credible polls conducted last week over the same time period came up with Clinton +7 and Trump +3. Still, Nevada is a state that Trump probably needs to win, and he appears to be within striking distance of doing so.
North Carolina
North Carolina has been polled frequently, as it is one of the more high profile battleground states. Clinton has led 17 of the last 18 polls in North Carolina dating back to late September, but never by more than six points, and never by more than four points in October. This is very close.
If Trump can pull all of this off, that would get him to 265 electoral votes. He is within three points in each of the states just mentioned.
Then we have three states (and a district) remaining:
If Trump wins Pennsylvania, it gives him room to lose one of the smaller battleground states above, like Nevada or Arizona. It would be a big win. And the Trump campaign clearly believes they can win in Pennsylvania. They appeared to abandon the state in the first week of October, but that turned out to be a head fake, and in the past two weeks they have spent nearly $3 million on TV ads. The last four polls have all shown Clinton ahead by between four and seven points, but Trump is still very much competitive here. If a few things break his way, he could win.
Like Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign believes they can win Colorado, and they have invested significant resources into the state. There is a reason for that. The most recent poll, released by Remington Research last week, a Republican polling firm, shows Clinton leading by just two points, 45-43. This poll follows an October spending blitz where the Trump campaign spent nearly $2 million on TV ads. Colorado is in play.
New Hampshire and Maine's 2nd Congressional District
We are lumping New Hampshire and Maine's 2nd Congressional District (ME-2), which is worth one electoral vote, together because of their demographic similarities and because together they would bring Donald Trump to 270 electoral votes. The most recent survey out of ME-2 gave Clinton a one point lead, 38-37. The most recent survey out of New Hampshire showed Clinton up four, 46-42.
As you can see, even if we accept the conventional wisdom that polls are always correct — they aren’t — and that pollsters completely understand how the 2016 electorate will shake out — they don't — during an election that every self-proclaimed pundit and political professional has gotten wrong from the very beginning, Trump still has a very reasonable, though difficult, path to victory. Even in this scenario, one would have to assume he has a 20 percent or greater chance to win on November 8.
But what if we challenge some assumptions?
Imagine that these polling turnout models are oversampling Democrats by a couple percentage points, overestimating turnout for Hillary Clinton and plugging in numbers that would even exceed President Obama's historic turnout in 2008 and 2012 — and when you investigate the cross-tabs on some of these polls, you absolutely see evidence of this taking place.
What if the polls are getting it wrong, even slightly?
And what if there is a true Bradley Effect taking place with Donald Trump that is impacting polling results, i.e. a statistically significant number of Trump voters who are afraid to publicly announce, even to an anonymous pollster over the phone, that they are Trump voters in fear of social backlash, especially following the aggressive attempts by the radical left to intimidate and silence Trump voters by using charged language and even by threatening violence? Are we really sure this is an impossibility?
These factors combined could be worth two to four percentage points. Maybe more.
Suddenly, Trump could very well have the 265 electoral votes locked down and be within striking distance in Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, needing to win just one more state to become president.
We aren’t saying the polls are wrong. They very well might be correct. But the point stands — even if the polls are 100 percent correct, Trump is still a stone’s throw away from winning this election. And if they’re wrong? If there are faulty assumptions in the turnout models that are inadvertently discounting Trump support? Well, then we should be having an entirely different conversation.
The conventional wisdom says Trump is done. We’d bet against.

AI System Predicts Trump Landslide – More Popular Than Obama in 2008 ^ | Oct 28th, 2016 | Jim Hoft 

An artificial intelligence (AI) system that correctly predicted the last three elections puts Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton. The AI system found enthusiasm for Donald Trump is higher than the numbers for Barack Obama in 2008.

CNBC reported:
An artificial intelligence (AI) system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race to the White House.
MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, the founder of Indian start-up It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions.
The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democrat and Republican Primaries.
Data such as engagement with tweets or Facebook Live videos have been taken into account. The result is that Trump has overtaken the engagement numbers of Barack Obama’s peak in 2008 – the year he came into power – by 25 percent.

Media Bias Is One Thing; Its Complicity Is Another ^ | October 28, 2016 | David Limbaugh 

We keep reading that if Donald Trump's personal issues weren't sucking up all the media oxygen, his campaign might get more traction against Hillary Clinton from the WikiLeaks disclosures, but is that really true?
Let's concede that the ongoing allegations against Trump are a distraction and damaging to his campaign. Those matters are being litigated, figuratively and literally, so it is hard to argue that news of these allegations is being suppressed.
But could we please put a pin in this for a minute and look at the Clinton scandals? Despite claims to the contrary, one is not automatically defending or covering for Trump by raising issues of Clinton corruption. Somehow Bill and Hillary Clinton always get a pass on their own misconduct by turning the allegations on their accusers and attributing them to smears by their political opponents, benefiting from an unconscionably protective liberal media phalanx.
So talk about allegations against Trump all you want, but don't use them as a license for Clinton's misconduct, and don't always try to besmirch the character of people seeking accountability from the Clintons by saying they are indifferent to women's claims against Trump.
I'm not indifferent to those claims, but I'm also not going to be deterred from calling out liberal media bias for fear that some on my side will say I'm just flacking for Trump. Nonsense. The issue of Hillary Clinton's corruption is vitally important, as is the role of the liberal media in suppressing it.
The Hill reported that in viewing recordings "of each major network's evening newscasts, which are watched by an average total of 22 million to 24 million people nightly, the newest batch of WikiLeaks revelations was covered for a combined 57 seconds out of 66 minutes of total air time on ABC, NBC and CBS. ... On the other hand, allegations from four women of unwanted sexual advances by Trump were covered a combined 23 minutes."
This is what Newt Gingrich and others mean when they complain that liberal media are covering allegations against Trump 24 times as much as those against Clinton. And we wonder why the Clintons are able to skate through their lives with impunity.
Are we to assume from this that allegations against Hillary Clinton are about 4 percent as important as those against Trump on the matter of fitness for office? You can't be serious. So what, then? Why would the liberal networks so shamelessly smother genuinely disturbing allegations against Clinton by highlighting allegations against Trump? Clinton gets a twofer here, a pass on the WikiLeaks bombshells and hyper-focus on claims against her opponent.
Can you imagine how the media would react if the facts were flipped -- if the sexual allegations were against Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, email erasure, Benghazi and other scandals were connected to Trump? We would see liberal media in full war mode, and there would be no end to their caterwauling about Trump's corruption and the national security threat that he would pose as president. Note: This hypothetical is not quite fair to Trump because there actually are sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton and ample evidence that Hillary was not just his enabler but an accessory after the fact, in terrorizing Bill's victims. The media have never cared about that. I repeat: My bringing these up doesn't mean I'm excusing behavior Trump may or may not have engaged in. But that's not the point here.
The liberal media aren't stupid. They know their coverage is biased, distorted and outrageously unbalanced. But that doesn't faze them, because they are liberals and the highest ethic is pursuing their shared agenda, no matter how corrupt their means. There is no other rational explanation.
This is one of the things that scare me tremendously about a third Obama term through Hillary Clinton. Liberal media are thoroughly in the tank for these people and are helping them fleece the American people. Look at their brazen apathy concerning the Obamacare premiums debacle, which they are lying about because they want to protect Obama and his agenda, they agree with his and Clinton's goal of single-payer and want to help in advancing this nefarious goal, and, above all, they won't do anything that might decrease Clinton's chances of winning the election.
If the liberal media don't care about their darling presidential candidate's accepting from foreign governments donations to the Clinton Foundation -- along with personal gifts on the side, as we're now discovering, for influence (or even possible influence) -- if they don't care about Obama and Clinton's self-serving lie that the terrorist attacks in Benghazi were inspired by a video, if they don't care about her commingling government emails with her own emails and recklessly exposing classified information, if they don't care about her intentionally deleting 33,000 emails under subpoena, if they don't care about her and Obama's egregious lies on Obamacare, if they don't care about the targeting of political conservatives by the IRS, if they don't care about Clinton's assuring donors in private that she favors open borders and would protect Wall Street as president while telling the public the opposite, and on and on, can you imagine what kind of free rein Clinton would have if elected?
It's one thing for conservatives to drone on about liberal media bias, which we've done for decades, but have we reached the point that it is becoming a threat to the republic as we have known it?

Flawed grammar sign

Congress: Attorney General Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments

Free Beacon ^ | October 28, 2016 | Adam Credo 

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.
In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.
The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Clinton fails to contain damage from email leaks

The Hill ^ 

Hillary Clinton has failed to effectively contain the damage from the release of thousands of campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal emails, giving new ammunition to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
The fallout from the daily releases have raised concerns among Democrats that even if Clinton is elected president, the controversy will follow her into the White House.
The Clinton campaign has refused to confirm the authenticity of the emails and has sought to cast doubt on them at every turn, noting that the exchanges were stolen by Russian hackers and could have been doctored. They have sought to deflect attention from the contents of the emails by describing the hacks as an unprecedented interference in the U.S. election by foreign adversaries that threatens the nation’s sovereignty.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Michelle: Hillary Is On Drugs!

Townhall ^ | 10-28-16 | Ed Klein 

Michelle Obama, widely acknowledged as Hillary Clinton’s most effective campaign surrogate, is concerned that the Democrat presidential nominee’s health is so fragile that she depends on stimulant drugs to get her through the grueling race for the White House.
Both Michelle and Barack Obama have been concerned with the state of Hillary’s health since her presidential campaign began. The Obamas know that Hillary suffers from a slew of severe and debilitating health issues, all of which I have exposed in my latest New York Times bestseller Guilty as Sin. According to a guest who stayed overnight in the White House and was present in the Family Residence during a discussion of Hillary’s health, Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett, the president’s chief adviser, agreed with the first lady that Hillary has relied on booster drugs during her campaign rallies and three debates with Donald Trump. They came to that conclusion after a recent meeting with Hillary in the White House, where Hillary made an effort to persuade the president and first lady to coordinate their public appearances with Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager.
When Hillary suggested that the president and the first lady submit their speeches in advance to Mook in order to make sure they were on the same page as Hillary’s campaign, Michelle Obama broke out in derisive laughter.
“During the heated discussion over campaign coordination,” the source continued, “Hillary suddenly broke out in a coughing fit.
“The president became so alarmed that he summoned one of the five doctors who rotate on duty 24/7 in the White House Medical Unit. The doctor rushed to the Oval Office.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary’s Wild Spending Binge of Taxpayer Dollars

Donald J. Trump ^ | October 27, 2016 | Donald J. Trump 

Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery

Now, in another new report, we are learning that Hillary Clinton’s State Department wasted hundreds of millions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a wild spending binge. Here are some of the shocking revelations about Hillary’s spending habits. These are all State Department expenditures during her tenure:
--$5.4 million on a no-bid contract for Crystal Stemware
--$167.5 million on cost overruns at the Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan
--Over $200 million on mostly unused police training facilities in Iraq
--$79,000 to buy copies of President Obama’s books
--$53,000 to polish marble at the Brazilian Embassy
--$630,000 to try to make State Department Facebook pages more popular
--$216,000 to hire an event planner for a 4th of July party in Madrid
--$88,000 to send three comedians to India
--more than $250,000 to purchase art in Mexico
--$410,000 to purchase art in China
The elites in government like Hillary Clinton believe they are entitled to do whatever they want. Hillary Clinton has never earned an honest dollar in her life – she lives the high life at your expense, making money off the rigged system.
This is an election between the small handful of people who benefit from the corrupt system, and the great majority of American citizens who are the victims of that corruption. Those who benefit from the corruption will say and do anything to keep change from happening.
Washington Insiders, including the corrupt media, look down on hardworking people who make an honest living. The Corrupt Political Class takes pride in ripping off the American people. Now these same elites – the people who brought us every disastrous foreign war and every disastrous trade deal – are spending millions to try to put Hillary in the White House so she can keep skimming from the American people.
The Clintons left the White House dead broke, and now they’re worth over $200 million. They didn’t create anything, produce anything, invent anything – all they did was sell favors, sell access, and sell out the American worker.
Hillary even sold out our nation’s security with her illegal private server – knowing full well it would put you and your family in danger. As moms across this nation put their children to bed each night with a prayer for safety and peace, Hillary was knowingly putting those same families at risk by putting our confidential secrets on an illegal private server.
But for Hillary, it seems anything is OK as long as it increases her power.
I’m running to put a stop to the theft of American prosperity. I’m running to put an end to the corruption. I’m running to expose the crimes of our ruling class, and to give this country back to the middle class.
Hillary pushes trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that enrich her donors and strip the jobs out of your community.
She wants to raise your taxes, even as she used those taxes to spend lavishly on wasteful projects at the State Department.
She pledges “open borders,” in secret to her donors, even as it causes the loss of millions of American jobs and thousands of American lives.
She talks about the values of tolerance, yet proposes to issue massive numbers of visas to places where women, and gays, and minorities are horribly oppressed and brutalized. She then takes money from these regimes, without apology, and doesn’t worry about how extremism brought onto our shores will affect the quality of life for you or your family.
Hillary has access to the best doctors in the world, but wants you and your children to live under Obamacare.
I am running to end the rule of this corrupt ruling class, and to give the government back to the people.
I want the entire corrupt Washington establishment to hear and to heed the words I am about to say. If we win on November 8th, We Are Going To Washington, D.C. And We Are Going To DRAIN THE SWAMP.

Clinton Inc. — Still More Clinton Foundation Sleaze Exposed

Investors Business Daily ^ | 10-28-16 | Editorial 

Scandal: Hillary Clinton must be glad the election is only 11 days away, because every day we learn more about the depth of sleaze and corruption of the Clinton Foundation.

The Foundation has been under suspicion for more than a year for being a "pay to play" operation while Hillary was Secretary of State, in which governments and big wigs gave money to the Clinton's charity in exchange for access or favors from the State Department.
One of the defenses mounted against such criticisms is that the Clinton's never personally benefitted from the Clinton Foundation. "They get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it," is how Clinton defender Hilary Rosen put it.
But now we know that this, too, is false.
A 13-page memo written in late 2011 by Douglas Band describes work he'd done to raise money for the foundation, and how he pushed foundation donors to cough up big bucks for Bill in addition to the money they gave his so-called charity. Band perfectly described this as "Bill Clinton Inc."
In one case, Band notes how his business partner, Declan Kelly, got financial services giant UBS to donate money to the foundation and "invite President Clinton to give several paid speeches." Elsewhere in the memo, Band notes that UBS paid Clinton $900,000 for two speeches that year.
He goes on to detail how the Dubai-based GEMS Education gave $780,000 to the foundation and how "that relationship has growth into a business relationship for President Clinton."
Then there's Laureate International Universities, the scandal-plagued for-profit college that gave more than $1.4 million to the foundation. This "evolved into a personal advisory services business relationship for President Clinton," in which Clinton got paid $3.5 million a year to serve as the company's honorary chairman.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

On the Pursuit of Happiness

Article V Blog ^ | October 28th 2016 | Rodney Dodsworth 

Let’s step back for a moment from the depressing media-generated noise and nonsense surrounding this presidential election season. Forget that a crime family might be installed in the highest reaches of power. Instead, let us take refuge and solace in an uplifting first principle of our Declaration and Constitution.
An occasional criticism of Thomas Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence is the substitution of ‘pursuit of happiness’ for that of ‘property.’ Both are Lockean terms well-suited for our Lockean Declaration. While we may never know precisely why this was done, the pursuit of happiness conceptually encompasses a wider universe of unalienable right, and thus governmental responsibility for protection thereof. Along with the unalienable rights to life and liberty, government is charged with securing The Pursuit of Happiness. But, what is the Framers’ concept of happiness and why must government protect our right to pursue it?
While related, happiness is not to be confused with the selection of pleasure over pain, or simply one sensation as being more immediately desirable than another. Compared to happiness, pleasure is shallow and fleeting. Simple pursuit of sensory pleasure is done without consideration of future consequences.
Since man is God’s creation, our Maker has a special right to demand we do His bidding. Being set by God above beasts, man is capable of, and is expected by Him to pursue a higher order pleasure, that which our Founders knew as happiness, or equivalently, fulfillment. In the pursuit of happiness, we control our destructive passions and desires to seek this ennobling sense of satisfaction. As John Locke wrote,

As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness, so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness is the necessary foundation of our liberty.
Constant pursuit of “happiness is the necessary foundation of our liberty.”
Being imperfect, man is prone to error and may misapply his intellect in the choice of pursuits that lead to happiness. Here, God provided guideposts along the way of life that point us toward fulfillment; they are the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God as cited in our Declaration. From them, we find that happiness is found in living the plan that God has for each of us. To find our place necessitates freedom of worship. From Locke, “God has not created this world for nothing and without purpose, for it is contrary to such great wisdom to work with no fixed aim.” Common to all in the pursuit of happiness is to be productive, raise our families and obey God.
Since happiness is found when one lives the life planned by God, and government is charged with securing our pursuit of happiness, reason demands that manmade statutes ease and facilitate finding the plan that God has for each of us. The facilitation expressed in our Declaration is found in the Preamble of our Constitution as well. Through promotion of the general welfare, society’s compact commands the government of its creation to take active measures that keep civil society and free government.
Government is to sustain an environment through its institutions that encourage us all to find our place, our happiness in God’s world. It isn’t to be a brake, a dead weight that burdens and prevents its citizens from honest employment of one’s faculties, religion and labor that do not violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. THIS is promoting the general welfare. Few laws are necessary to regulate personal behavior when government encourages and protects the unalienable right of all to pursue happiness. A content society doesn’t immerse itself in widespread sensual pleasure and its attendant self-destructive behavior.
Our increasingly centralized government not only doesn’t keep the Constitutional compact; it works towards ends that are in opposition to its purpose. Presidential elections are not to select the man or woman who can best enrich themselves and their cronies, but rather to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Among the President’s Constitutional duties are to promote the general welfare and the people’s pursuit of happiness.
We are the many; our oppressors are the few. Be proactive. Be a Re-Founder. Join Convention of States. Sign the COS Petition.

Vote For Hillary So She Can Start War With Russia ^ | Oct 27th, 2016 



The Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-28-2016 | Kimberley A. Strassel 

The Clintons don’t draw lines between their ‘charity’ and personal enrichment.

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.
This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.
It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.
The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief.
The cross-pollination is flagrant, ..
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Heaven and Hell


I did not say...


Back in style!


In 100 years...


Can you hear me now?




Nailed shut




Running out the clock!


Stand by your friends!


A few bugs!








An Arm!




The Exorcist






The Poor


A sting!




Got a bill


Paying Attention