Hillary Clinton Campaign Emails Leaked – Wikileaks – Clinton Vs Trump – Making Money, Fox News via YouTube, October 10, 2016
(Please see also, Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells” — DM)
Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category
Hillary Clinton Campaign Emails Leaked – Wikileaks – Clinton Vs Trump – Making Money
October 11, 2016Liberals Wanted to Talk about Islamophobia at the Debate, but the Real Problem is Terrorism
October 10, 2016Liberals Wanted to Talk about Islamophobia at the Debate, but the Real Problem is Terrorism, Conservative Review, Nate Madden, October 10, 2016
Amid the tawdry, ad hominem cacophony that was the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were forced to contend with the implications of a supposed “rise in Islamophobia.” However, a quick look at the facts show that the question and implication really need some context.
Sunday night’s debate was, as expected, laden with pro-Clinton bias from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. However, several of the questions submitted by the randomly-selected panel of undecided voters on the stage also carried the hallmarks of prepared layups for the Democrat nominee.
One such topic in particular, asked by one of the attendees, Gorbah Hamed, put the candidates on the spot about how they would deal with “Islamophobia” as president (per the Washington Post):
There are 3.3 Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being a threat to the country after the election is over?
To his credit, Trump bridged the question directly to recent terror attacks, and the importance of Muslims patrolling their own communities. Meanwhile, Clinton criticized Trump’s views on immigration from Muslim-majority nations while hypocritically espousing religious freedom for foreign nationals from those nations, despite her own deplorable positions on free exercise for anyone who disagrees with her views on marriage and abortion.
Furthermore, while Clinton made a very big point of agreeing with Trump’s premise that American Muslims need to be “part of our eyes and ears” on the front lines, and bragged about her work with Muslim groups in the U.S. and how she intends to use that experience to defeat ISIS. But she failed to differentiate how her approach to the Muslim community is going to differ from President Obama’s, whose analogous “countering violent extremism” program has already been found as a “catastrophic failure,” according to a recent report.
But I digress. While the issues of Middle Eastern immigration and jihadist terror in the 2016 election cycle have sparked a chorus of concern from the Left over so-called “Islamophobia,” the concerns ignore reality of how big a threat it actually is.
The question hearkens back to a few weeks ago when the Hamas-and-Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in the wake of a jihadist stabbing that they were afraid of the blowback from the attack.
“We are concerned about the potential for backlash,” CAIR’s Minnesota executive director Jaylani Hussein said, per NBCNews.com, following last month’s Minnesota mall stabbing. “[Muslims] are being made to suffer for [the terrorists’] acts. They are minorities in our faith. Islam is peace.”
Well, here’s the real story about that blowback.
According to FBI data, ACTUAL incidents of Islamophobia pale in comparison to incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. Numbers from December indicate that in the previous year saw, 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, and the rate of Jewish victims was nearly four times that of Muslim victims at a proportion of roughly 57 percent to 16 percent.
Even in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — the deadliest Islamist attack in American history — 2002 data from the FBI shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes totaled a grand total 174 for the year. These are, of course, dwarfed when compared to the 1,084 cases committed against Jews, and the 237 committed against “other.”
And it doesn’t stop there: America’s college campuses have become seething hotbeds of anti-Jewish activity. Meanwhile, a report from February finds, attacks on free exercise of religion across the board have doubled in the waning years of the Obama administration.
There was no mention of how America’s Jewish population (with nary a notable terrorist attack attached to its name) is under increasing fire — and has been so for years. Furthermore, recent jihadist terror attacks in San Bernardino to Orlando to Manhattan have taken scores of American lives and have left all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, under siege.
Yet, the question that both candidates were forced to contend with is one that clearly targeted the Republican nominee’s focus on the security concerns that mass migration from Muslim-majority countries generates in relation to America’s national security.
When we look at this issue earnestly, the real threat to American Muslims from the specter of Islamophobia are far less than the threats faced by all Americans from the threat of global jihadism. They’re far less than what American Jews have to deal with both on and off the university campus. And they’re far less than what anyone who runs afoul of the government’s views on marriage, abortion, and contraception face on any given day.
Finally, when it comes to the havoc created by ISIS and other terror organizations that commit atrocities in the name of Allah, President Obama and company are quick to point out that most of the victims of jihadist violence around the world are Muslims themselves. But when it comes to the the same threat posed to those on our own soil, such concerns are nowhere to be found. Rather, they find themselves drowned out by those that worry about a so-called “Islamophobia” epidemic rather than the threat faced by every person in the civilized world, Muslims included, when they leave their homes every morning.
What exaggerated concerns about “Islamophobia” actually do, however, is dull, silence, and distract from the message of those who actually voice that there is indeed a centuries-old problem within Islam — that it creates legitimate security concerns, and that these realities have to be addressed in bold and earnest terms. Those terms might hurt someone’s feelings, after all.
In sum, the “Islamophobia” question was endemic of a host of concerns that the Left has thrown at anyone who dare raise questions about the Islamic nature of jihadist terrorism, or about the safety of the Obama administration’s immigration and refugee policies. However, in light of the numbers and the real security threats faced by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, that the debates chose to focus on “Islamophobia” really ought to be put into context.
Who recorded the Pu**y Gate conversation? Who released it now and why?
October 9, 2016Who recorded the Pu**y Gate conversation? Who released it now and why? Dan Miller’s Blog, October 9, 2016
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
The private conversation between Billy Bush and Donald Trump was surreptitiously recorded by someone. It was provided to NBC approximately eleven years later and shortly before the October 9th presidential debate. We have not been told by whom or why, but it’s not difficult to figure it out.
As reported in an October 7, 2016 Washington Post article titled An unlikely Bush finally did some damage to Donald Trump: Billy Bush,
Billyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9uf1AqoBOw Bush is first cousins with former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who was favored to win the Republican nomination before Trump came along and started calling him “low-energy” and attacking him daily on the stump.
That means Billy Bush is also first cousins with former president George W. Bush, who Trump has suggested is to blame for 9/11 and who started an Iraq War that Trump has labeled a disaster.
And he’s a nephew of former president George H.W. Bush, who has reportedly said he will support Hillary Clinton over Trump, and former first lady Barbara Bush, who has said “I’m sick of” Trump and that she doesn’t know how women can vote for him.
None of the Bushes is backing Trump in this campaign. And those who have tried have failed to halt his momentum.
But they continue to try.
I don’t know who recorded the Trump-Bush conversation or why. Nor do I know who released the recording or why. However, according to Wikipedia,
After working as a correspondent on Access Hollywood, a syndicated entertainment-news show from 2001 to 2004, Bush was a primary anchor from 2004 until 2016, when he left to become a co-host of the third hour of The Today Show.
Although there has been speculation that NBC might fire Bush as a Today Show anchor, that apparently will not happen.
An NBC executive said Saturday Billy Bush would remain a “Today” show host despite his role in a shocking 2005 video with Donald Trump in which they discussed groping women.
“There are no plans to take Billy off the show Monday, and there have been no discussions of any type of disciplinary action,” the exec said.
Another well-placed executive said Saturday that it would be difficult to take action against Bush because the vile talk with Trump happened 11 years ago. [Emphasis added.]
“What are they going to do, suspend him? For something that happened a decade ago?” the executive said. “There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since then.”
In any event, Bush was Trump’s host on the Hollywood Access bus where they had their conversation. To speculate that he recorded their conversation, apparently without making Trump aware that he was doing so as NBC has acknowledged, and/or had principal access to the recording, and that he or another member of the Bush Clan released it to NBC just before the next Trump-Clinton debacle debate would not be over the top. Writing at American Thinker, Greg Richards says outright that
This was a conversation meant to be private. The person disgraced by this conversation isn’t Trump; it is Bush. First recording and then publishing this conversation are the actions of a person with low or no character, a bottom-feeder never to be trusted with anything.
He is probably correct. In any event, guy talk of the sort in which Trump and Bush engaged is harmless — unless and until it has been made public. Then, it can damage the reputation of the jokers but also females about whom they were joking. It probably won’t harm the female in the case, because she rejected Trump’s advances. Good for her.
The Clintons’ hypocrisy
Bill Clintons predatory conduct toward young women was substantially more damaging to them than to either Clinton. Hillary’s disparagements of, and threats to, Bill’s victims are in a different class altogether than anything Trump did or said or has even been claimed to have done or said.
I did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky:
According to Hillary, it’s all about Hillary:
Not really:
Ms. Lewinsky talks a lot about “public shaming.” Has Trump been “publically shamed” for his guy talk? The Clinton campaign, the media and some Republicans are doing just that.
Here’s a link to a list of other female victims of “Slick Willie” and “Crooked Hillary.”
Conclusions
Today (October 9th), Democrats told Trump to leave Bill Clinton out of tonight’s debate because it’s old news. Yet Trump’s guy talk eleven years ago should apparently be fair game and they want to “focus on the issues.” Right.
Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi struck a similar chord in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd, saying that she did not believe Trump would bring up the former president. “No, because you know why? Elections are about the future. They’re about the future. He’s talking about something, Bill Clinton, he’s not on the ballot.”
But Hillary, Bill’s enabler and enforcer, is on the ballot. And she is dangerous.
We don’t know why the guy talk tape was released shortly before the October 9th debates but in ample time for trump to be publicly shamed by it, but it’s not difficult to figure out why. As noted here,
[I]f you want to destroy someone’s reputation or credibility or both, you simply accuse him of the same type of thing you have been doing yourself and with the help of a compliant and prostitute media you can usually bring it off and appear to be taking the moral high ground, when actually your “high” ground is usually lower that that of the person you are trying to drag through the mud. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[T]he whole deal here is to make Trump look horrendous to the public at large right before the next presidential debate, which is tonight, October 9th. Why they had to hold one of these things on a Sunday is beond me. They couldn’t have waited until Monday? They had to drag this thing into the Lord’s Day?
That the intent of this tape is to portray Trump as the scum of the earth there can be no doubt. And its effect has been demonstrated among the gutless wonders that parade as Republican politicians as they rush to distance themselves from Trump on so-called “moral” grounds. Most of them owe their souls to the Ruling Republican Establishment and so never wanted Trump to begin with, as his candidacy threatened to disrupt the CFR/Trilateralist agenda of their bosses for moving this country toward One World Government. [Emphasis added.]
So let’s attempt to put this into perspective, looking at the situation as it pertains to Trump and the Clintons. For Trump, this is one comment he made eleven years ago. As far as the prostitute press is concerned he might as well have said it ten minutes ago, but he said it eleven years ago. And he has apologized for it. Not that this makes any difference to the managed media. The comment is touted and the apology ignored. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
So here we have something that Trump said, but it was only talk, lewd locker room talk admittedly, but still talk. Kind of like the talk we hear about Hillary being indicted for her corruption–just talk.
Yet we are now supposed to concentrate totally on Trump’s talk and totally forget all about Hillary’s thoroughgoing corruption over the decades. And we are also supposed to disremember all things pertaining to her “significant other” and what he did to all those women whose names you all have seen in the news over the years and we are all now supposed to forget how Hillary was basically an enabler for her husband’s activities and how she tried to silence all the women that brought rape allegations against Bill. We are all supposed to forget Monica Lewinsky and the “blue dress” and all that like it never happened. None of that is to be remembered tonight at the debate–only Trump’s eleven year old statement. All Klinton indiscretions are to be forgotten–wiped out of memory as surely as Hillary’s email servers were wiped off and Trump is to be raked over the coals not only by Hillary, but also by the supposedly neutral “moderator” who, in reality, will be the second person on Hillary’s debating team. [Emphasis added.]
Yep. And most Republicans appear to think that’s what’s going on. According to a survey of 1,549 registered voters, including 1,390 likely voters, which was conducted on Saturday by Politico/Morning Consult poll,
While 70 percent of Democrats called on Trump to leave the 2016 race, only 12 percent of Republicans said the same. And of those Republicans, only 13 percent of women said Trump should drop out.
A substantial majority of Democrats want Trump to drop out. Might that be because they have a sense that he will defeat Hillary?
PU**YGATE: Horrors! Trump Caught in Guy Talk!
October 8, 2016PU**YGATE: Horrors! Trump Caught in Guy Talk! Dan Miller’s Blog, October 8, 2016
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors.– DM)
The left apparently believes that the Trump campaign must end in disgrace because, in 2005, Trump was recorded (apparently surreptitiously) bragging in a private conversation with George H.W. Bush’s nephew, Billy Bush, about how he tried (but failed) to get a Hollywood starlet to have sex with him. For shame! Wait a minute. That’s “guy talk” and most healthy males occasionally engage in it when not in mixed company. Methinks I smell a bit of hypocrisy.
“Girl talk?” I don’t know. Do they discuss how sexy voting should be?
Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bill Clinton’s “alleged” rape victims, had this to say about Trump’s words:
“How many times must it be said,” she tweeted Saturday morning.
“Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! (Hillary Clinton) threatened me after (Bill Clinton) raped me.”
Broaddrick’s dose of perspective comes as the mainstream media has been silent and uninterested in the ongoing accusations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s attempts to silence his accusers.
But in the last 24 hours, they’ve reported ad nauseam about Trump’s 2005 locker room talk caught on a hot mic.
I agree with this statement in an article at Kingsjester’s Blog:
This has to be one of the biggest exercises in hypocrisy that I have ever seen.
Modern American Liberals are the same ones who brought us a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it, applauding them both as avant-garde art and the “artists” who created those vile exhibits as “artistic geniuses”.
The same followers of the political philosophy who have been supporters of relative morality and situational ethics, are now acting so grossly offended by an 11-year-old video of Donald J.Trump engaging in a private conversation with a friend, in which he used a word that can be heard in every men’s and boys’ locker room across this nation, that they are curled up in their safe spaces, clutching their pearls and their blankie, sucking their thumbs, and crying out for their Mommy to “make the bad man stop”. [Emphasis added.]
The overwhelming hypocrisy of it all is that they want Americans to be so reviled by Donald Trump’s use of that word that they overlook the documented fact that Bill Clinton is a Serial Adulterer and that Hillary Clinton swears like a drunken sailor and has admitted in documents released by Julian Assange yesterday that she is “far removed from the troubles of Middle Class Americans”. [Emphasis added.]
I stole this cartoon from that article, and it fits:
I also agree with this article at Canada Free Press titled Liberals are Prudes — Who Knew?
Recently much ado has been made of some crude comments that Donald Trump made some years back. Media mavens are all aflutter with outraged disgust. I do not know what convent these shocked sisters came from, but I have heard similar male braggadocio my entire adult life. Perhaps they need to get out more. [Emphasis added.]
Apparently many of the pundits we watch on TV have been closet Puritans all this time – who knew? Many of them are the same ones that informed us that displaying Christ crucified in a jar of human urine is art; that murdering fetuses in order to harvest their organs is not obscene, and who insist that our children be taught the ins and outs of fornication at younger and younger ages (pun noted)—so one can be forgiven for being somewhat surprised by their air of affronted prudery. Poor dears, one does wish them a speedy recovery – hand out the smelling salts please.
So Donald Trump has feet of clay—guess what? I like him that way! I am so sick of polished, slick talking, glad-handing, backstabbing, dishonest corrupt politicians that I could scream. I’ll take the real deal—I’ll take Trump with his rough edges and sharp elbows, warts and all, over any of the oh-so-refined thoroughly corrupt bought-and-paid-for globalists being shoved down our throats. Now they are disgusting.
Trump’s “nasty” talk was hardly unique. Here are some audio cuts of former presidents, and even the current president for whom Ms. Dunham thought voting for would be sexy, being “nasty:”
In one of his many addresses to his troops during World War II, General George Patton commented that “a man who won’t f**k won’t fight.” The quote is from a 2011 Washington Post article titled “No sex, please. We’re soldiers.” That address, like many of General Patton’s others, was well laced with profanity; it helped to motivate the troops and they loved it. Would today’s “metrosexuals?” They would not likely admit it even if they did.
Patton’s grim expression did not change. “There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily”, he roared into the microphone, “All because one man went to sleep on the job”. He paused and the men grew silent. “But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did”. The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, “An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!”
The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn’t let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!
“We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world”, Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, “Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we’re going up against. By God, I do”. The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the “Old Man’s” choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army’s history and they would become the bible of their slang.
. . . .
He could, when necessary, open up with both barrels and let forth such blue-flamed phrases that they seemed almost eloquent in their delivery. When asked by his nephew about his profanity, Patton remarked, “When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can’t run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn’t fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.” [Emphasis added.]
I remember that many years ago (1959 or 1960) when I was in ROTC at Yale — then an all-male college — an instructor (an Army captain) mentioned that he hadn’t seen one of the cadets with his date much over the weekend. The cadet responded, “even the best ***** gets moldy.” We all laughed.
From the Washington Post article linked above,
As late as the 1980s, officers’ clubs on military bases in the United States and abroad regularly featured performances by strippers. “I think we used to call them exotic dancers,” Scales recalled.
Some things have changed in our current enlightened age. Obama is gung-ho for diversity in the military and wants as many women and “others” as possible in combat branches. While the left still praises “art” such as “a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it,” it finds guy talk and cartoons depicting Mohammad disgusting.
Paul Ryan was apparently “sickened” by Trump’s remarks.
He decried Trump’s newly revealed comments in stark terms.
“I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”
Congressman Ryan must be “sickened” quite easily, but then perhaps there was never any guy talk in his presence, lest he “sicken.” Assuming that many others also are unaware that men engage in guy talk when women are absent and find Trump’s insulting comments outrageous, perhaps they should keep in mind that he is an equal opportunity insulter. Although he does not likely engage in guy talk with women and does not have sex with men, otherwise he treats men and women the same.
Leftists insist that we be politically correct and say nothing that they find offensive — No cartoons depicting Mohammad, no disparaging references to Sharia law, Islamist persecution of non-Muslims, sex slaves and even Muslim females, no “racist” comments that “Black Lives Matter” is racist, and no opposition to uncontrolled, unvetted immigration and resettlement of refugees from Islamic areas where Sharia law and Islamist violence are endemic. And, of course, there must be no mention of Hillary’s many lies, her corruption, the Clinton Foundation, or her foul treatment of Bill’s bimbos. That would be “sexist” or something. Boo hoo.
Debating Hillary: 6. Provocations
October 8, 2016Trump’s dirty talk versus Hillary’s corruption
October 8, 2016Trump’s dirty talk versus Hillary’s corruption, American Thinker, Jack Hellner, October 8, 2016
In the past week:
– Justice drops the case against a gunrunner from Hillary’s Libya fiasco whose testimony would certainly have harmed Obama and Hillary.
– Evidence surfaced that the White House participated in the cover-up of Hillary’s violation of national security laws with her private server even though they said they absolutely knew nothing about the server and would not interfere with an investigation.
– We have learned more this week about how the investigation of Hillary by the Justice Department and FBI was a pure sham as they gave immunity to so many, took so much stuff off limits, and even carried out the destruction of evidence. The email investigation was pretend, just like the IRS investigation and any supposed investigation of the Clinton Foundation. It is clear that the White House, Justice Department, State Department, and IRS are working specifically to protect Obama and Hillary instead of working for the American people.
– Aleppo and Syria are deteriorating rapidly despite Obama and Kerry being extremely tough and telling Russia and Assad to stop it.
– Obama partially blamed the Civil War in Syria on a drought he says was caused by humans. That is one of the most ignorant statements ever. The war is because Assad is a tyrant, and the Mideast is essentially a desert that has had continued droughts for millennia.
– An NBC News man topped Obama’s stupidity by saying the worthless Paris climate agreement would stop hurricanes.
– Obamacare is collapsing rapidly. The multiple lies to pass the law are more obvious every day. The law is greatly harming the middle class and small employers and reducing the potential for full-time jobs.
– An NSA contractor who committed the same crime as Hillary by keeping classified documents at home on several nonsecure devices is under arrest. Why isn’t Hillary?
The media, of course, don’t focus on any of these things. Instead they trot out a tape of Trump talking dirty about women eleven years ago. I know that no other men would ever talk like that on a bus, in a locker room, at a bar, or at a bowling alley. The media and Hillary are absolutely shocked. According to Hillary, no one who ever talked like that or treated women like that can ever be president. (That is really rich coming from the wife of Bill.)
Of course, every night on TV, people can see Trump’s language compounded. (I have heard that the Girls show starring Hillary supporter Lena Dunham is especially sweet and pure.)
Shows that use dirty language win all sorts of awards, and now the media pretends words spoken eleven years ago are a disqualifier. I think everyone should watch the Rob Lowe roast on Comedy Central to see truly repulsive stuff.
The Clintons divert massive amounts of money from Haiti for their Foundation and friends, which left the poor more vulnerable to the hurricane than they should have been. And then there were those kickbacks to the Foundation and Bill himself to sell a big chunk of our uranium reserves to the Russians.
And the media say Trump is the disqualified person.
Hillary and Kaine continually brag about her being in the Situation Room for Osama when she wasn’t needed, but why weren’t Hillary and Obama in the Situation Room the night of 9/11/12, when Americans were under attack in Benghazi? They had no idea how long the attack would last, yet they did absolutely nothing to save the Americans. They did have time to concoct a lie to protect their political power before the election. Why isn’t the media curious as to what President Obama did that night?
Bill Clinton was accused of rape, and he mistreated and lied about many women to destroy their lives. Hillary sought to destroy any woman who dared tell the truth about Bill. Bill also used a cigar on an intern and got fellated from the same intern in the sacred Oval Office suite – and Hillary has the gall to say Trump talking dirty disqualifies him to be president.
I have heard the CBS radio news a few times since the tape came out, and they mention the tape prominently. Somehow, they have not mentioned the Wikileaks documents that came out within a few hours of the Trump Tape. It must be as accidental as all the selective editing done by the supposed fact-tellers in the media. In the leaked documents, Hillary essentially kisses up to investment bankers and others who are paying her $250,000 per speech. She also says absolutely that she is for open borders and open global trade. Hillary and Kaine are campaigning on the lie that she is for more secure borders and very strict trade agreements.
And the media say Trump is unfit to be president.
I am absolutely not defending what Trump said eleven years ago, but if bragging about conquests with women were a disqualifier, at least Kennedy and Clinton would never have been president. Hillary should be declared unfit because she lies continuously, committed perjury, has taken kickbacks throughout her public life, tried to destroy women and any other people who got in her way, violated multiple security laws and other laws, and left Americans to die. Other people have been dispensable throughout Hillary’s and Bill’s lives. Basically, everything the Clintons have done is to increase the power and wealth for themselves. They certainly have little thought for the rest of us.
I have never seen a media so in the tank. The media show every day their bias by what they report, how they report, and especially what they choose not to report. Our freedoms are in danger, and since they have no actual accomplishments to tout for their chosen candidate, they have to destroy the other. They also sought to destroy Bush, Palin, McCain, and Romney, so they have been at the personal destruction game for a long time.
Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign
October 6, 2016Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign, Israel National News, Lee Kaplan, October 6, 2016
President Harry Truman once said that any politician who became wealthy as a result of being in public service was a crook. As the American presidential election looms near, Hillary Clinton is showing the former president’s statement to be true.
On leaving the White House at the end of her husband’s presidency, Hillary Clinton cried poverty. Yet today, after her stint in Congress and as the U.S. Secretary of State, her net worth is in excess of 100 billion dollars. To this day Mrs. Clinton has not openly told the truth about where all the money is coming from. Most of this largesse is the result of donations from foreign dictators (notably the Gulf Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to which these dictators belong.
What is the OIC?
It is a consortium of the Gulf Sheiks that also became a part of the United Nations. One of its key purposes of late is to try and have blasphemy laws created in the West and worldwide when criticism of Islam is voiced. It is also designed to get the Gulf Sheiks whatever they want from pusillanimous diplomats in the West.
The crux of the matter is how Hillary Clinton criticizes her presidential opponent by trying to suggest he is xenophobic, or more specifically “islamophobic” ( a silly term touted and promoted by UC Berkeley Hamas apparatchik Hatem Bazian, who also called for an “intifada” in America). She says this is anathema to her humanitarian concern for Syrian refugees with which she wants to flood American shores.
Whereas Barack Obama brought in 10,000 such refugees and seeks to double the numbers, Ms. Clinton insists she wants this number increased to 550,000 or possibly even 600,000. Voters should note not only the fact that such a large number is bound to have many more refugees who are not vetted for security purposes – as is already being discussed in the Press. In fact, her insistence on these increased numbers is a glaring example of her engaging in “Pay for Play”:
The OIC pays her and she promises them she will absorb the refugees so OIC member nations won’t have to do it.
And one doesn’t need a deleted email to see this. To date, not one Gulf sheikh who donated to her foundation has offered to take in even one Syrian refugee. The Saudis, incredibly, have housing and bedding for three million refugees in their country. Originally created to house visitors for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca every year, these domiciles have air conditioning, running water and all the facilities to take in more than the 600,000 refugees that Hillary is proposing.
But that might interfere with the solid gold faucets planned for the next palace. Just as American boys can die to save Kuwait, so to can the American taxpayer absorb the flotsam and jetsam of the Arab world.
As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a state department that somehow lost 3 billion dollars in tax dollars that are unaccounted for according to the GAO, that spent other tax dollars on building mosques overseas through USAID, that funds UNWRA “camps” where Palestinian children are taught they are to be the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists, and that pays salaries to convicted terrorist murderers in Israel jails. Those salaries are sometimes greater than many Americans earn. USAID also funds 100% of Palestinian television that incites Arabs to murder the Jews.
In fairness, many of these things were started under the Bush administration, but just as many others were started or propagated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
As Secretary of State she could have stopped much of this, but she chose not to do so. She let the Arab world indirectly have the US as a piggy bank for totalitarians, letting the Saudis fund world terrorism and rule the roost in Washington. All of this was part of “Pay for Play” as she solicited funds from the Sheikhs for her foundation.
One campaign clip had Clinton saying “We must not insult Islam!” This was spoken like a true IOC campaigner and an example of a politician pandering to her money source. As terrorist attacks come to the U.S. in St. Cloud, in Phoenix and New York, we can hear Hillary carrying on about how the US must swallow up 600,000 more Muslim refugees – because she must have promised this to the Shieikhs. That’s real play for the pay.
Every one of those Syrian refugees will cost the US taxpayer dearly as well. They will require government health care that we can ill afford, plus food, education and other benefits. Even those who have no terrorists connections will bring with them anti-Semitism and a support ideology that will promote the Sheikhs and other totalitarian enemies of the United States, just as President Obama has done in surrendering nuclear control over Iran. Remember – Hillary presided over that one too. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton will be paying back her funders at the expense of the American taxpayer as billions pour into her foundation in the form of funds that she can ultimately draw on, starting with daughter Chelsea.
Harry Truman obviously knew what he was talking about.
Voter Fraud Rising
October 4, 2016Voter Fraud Rising, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, October 4, 2016
Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care — and many of them go further, arguing that voter fraud is an imaginary problem.
Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens – millions of whom are registered to vote – is widespread. . . .
****************************
There is already evidence that voter fraud is being perpetrated in critical battleground states like Virginia and Colorado a month before Election Day.
Voter fraud is commonplace. Completely eliminating it is impossible. The most policymakers can do is create laws and policies that attempt to minimize it.
Voter fraud is unlawful interference with the electoral process in an effort to bring about a desired result. Voter fraud is also called vote fraud, election fraud, and electoral fraud. It refers to fraudulent voting, impersonation, intimidation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process.
Reasonable people can disagree over how serious a problem voter fraud is in today’s America, but the evidence it actually exists cannot be ignored.
This is where people on the Right and Left differ. Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care — and many of them go further, arguing that voter fraud is an imaginary problem.
News of the illegal voting in Virginia and Colorado comes as Republican candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed in campaign speeches that the system, including the electoral system, is “rigged.”
Trump has been issuing this warning about the election for months. After a series of anti-voter fraud laws were struck down in several states by federal courts, the candidate raised the possibility that people will vote over and over in the election, voting for which is already underway in many states.
“There’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged,” Trump said two months ago. “I would not be surprised. The voter ID, they’re fighting as hard as you can fight so that they don’t have to show voter ID. So, what’s the purpose of that?”
People will be able to vote “multiple times,” he said. “How about like 10 times. Why not? If you don’t have voter ID [requirements], you can just keep voting and voting and voting.”
In fact the Left has made it easy to commit voter fraud. Bill Clinton’s Motor-Voter law of 1993 opened the floodgates to fraud.
Nowadays the Left unfairly influences election outcomes by fighting electoral integrity laws in the courts, often enjoying great success. On Sept. 9, a federal appeals court blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas. This year alone federal courts have blocked voter ID laws to varying extents in North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.
The danger of the national vote being compromised is real, according to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson who has acknowledged that cyber attackers could engage in massive electronic vote fraud. At least 18 states have asked Johnson’s department for help. The agency says the electoral systems of more than 20 stateshave been targeted by cyber criminals.
Now Americans are learning that there are at least 1,046 non-citizens on the voter rolls in eight counties in Virginia, according to a new report released jointly by the Virginia Voters Alliance and the Public Interest Legal Foundation. No proof of U.S. citizenship is required in Virginia to register to vote.
“Virginia election officials don’t seem to care that thousands of aliens have corrupted their voter rolls,” by unlawfully registering to vote, J. Christian Adams, the former Department of Justice lawyer who now heads the Public Interest Legal Foundation told Breitbart News. “Even worse than doing nothing about it, they are trying to cover it up,” he said.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a longtime Hillary Clinton crony, instructed election officials to ignore inquiries about possible electoral irregularities, Adams says. This summer after the Supreme Court of Virginia threw out McAuliffe’s blanket clemency order, the governor defiantly restored voting rights to 13,000 felons and vowed to take that figure to 200,000.
Just a few illegal votes can affect the outcome of an election. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) defeated Mark Obenshain (R) in 2013 by just 165 votes out of 2.2 million votes cast.
The thousand-odd non-citizens currently on the rolls, all identified by name in the report, may be the tip of the iceberg. The problem “is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities.”
“Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls,” the report states. “Each one of them is likely a felony.”
And in Harrisonburg, Va., local officials and the FBI are investigating after 18 to 20 potentially fraudulent voter registrations were filed in the names of dead people. Democrat Andrew Spieles reportedly admitted filing the documents.
Recent reports also indicate the dead have been voting in Colorado. There are at least 78 dead people currently registered to vote in the Centennial State.
Obviously, fraudulent and inaccurate voter registrations open the door to fraudulent voting.
A 2012 Pew Center on the States study revealed around 24 million — one out of every eight — U.S. voter registrations are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. About 2.75 million people are registered to vote in more than one state and more than 1.8 million dead people are still on voter rolls.
Left-wing activists who don’t care about voter fraud register millions of voters every election, sometimes with potentially disastrous results. For example, in 2008, ACORN collected more than 1 million voter registrations and 400,000 of those applications “were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms, and fraudulent submissions,” the New York Times reported at the time.
The infamous left-wing activist group ACORN and at least 54 individuals connected to it have been convicted of voter fraud and related offenses, as I reported in my 2011 book, Subversion Inc.
Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens – millions of whom are registered to vote – is widespread, according to a report released two years ago by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va.
“We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections,” the professors say, adding that non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.
“Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress,” the authors write. They estimate that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008, followed by 2.2 percent of non-citizens in 2010.
Indeed, Al Franken (D) triumphed over incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R) in Minnesota in 2009 by a mere 312 votes after a protracted, suspicious recount presided over by leftist Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D). Illegally cast ballots may have put Franken over the top.
As Trump suggested, double-voting and triple-voting are distressingly common.
In California’s presidential primary this year, “in just three counties, Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara, 194 people voted twice, suggesting the abuse statewide might run into the thousands,” the East Bay Times reported.
Earlier this year, Robert Monroe was sent to jail in Wisconsin after being charged with 13 counts of fraud, including multiple voting and voting twice in the 2012 presidential contest.
Pasco Parker, a Tennessee man was discovered to have who voted in the 2012 presidential election three times in three different states — Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee. “It’s too easy to vote twice; it comes down to your honor,” Jay DeLancy of the North Carolina-based Voting Integrity Project, which caught Parker in the act, told Fox News. DeLancy’s group found another 148 cases of suspected double-voting and turned its files over to authorities.
In 2013, Cincinnati community organizer Melowese Richardson was jailed for illegally voting five times in different elections. In 2011, Mississippi NAACP executive Lessadolla Sowers was imprisoned for 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots.
Voter fraud is easy to commit as video journalist James O’Keefe III, the ACORN slayer, has proven over and over again. The Project Veritas founder had little trouble uncovering fraud and questionable election practices in Colorado, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
This summer O’Keefe set out to show that voter impersonation takes place at the polls. He gave the names of four well-known Michiganders including rapper Eminem to election officials and was offered a ballot in all but one case. In 2012 an O’Keefe colleague gave the name of then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in Holder’s own voting precinct in Washington, D.C. and was offered his ballot.
Some on the Left are in denial about voter fraud and many of the rest know the truth but lie anyway. Earlier this year U.S. District Judge Lynn S. Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a Bill Clinton appointee, claimed that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs” in Wisconsin and that “no evidence suggests that voter-impersonation fraud will become a problem at any time in the foreseeable future.”
The Left’s voter fraud denial industry, underwritten by radical billionaires like George Soros and the leftist groups he funds such as Center for American Progress, Demos, Media Matters for America, and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, routinely misrepresent the facts about voter fraud and spread propaganda.
If you believe voter fraud exists, you are smeared by these leftists as a racist and a kook.
Which means there are millions of Americans who are about to get smeared by the Left.
Trump should propose real debates
October 4, 2016Trump should propose real debates, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 4, 2016
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
The first presidential “debate” was a farce. The next presidential “debates” will likely be as well. Rather than submit to biased mainstream media moderators (but I repeat myself), Trump should propose real debates, in addition to or as substitutes for those currently scheduled. The article is also a bit of a rant about Ms. Clinton.
In a real debate, one resolution is proposed. The candidate in favor of the proposition speaks first and gets a specified amount of time to say why it’s a good idea. Then the candidate against the proposition gets a specified amount of time for rebuttal and the other candidate a specified amount of time to respond. A timekeeper would alert the candidates when time is almost up and then up. There would be no moderator to help one debater and to trash the other; the debaters would be on their own. Both would know the issue in advance and could prepare to address it however they please and with or without prepared notes. Were our presidential debates so conducted, viewers might well learn about the candidates’ positions on the issues by how the candidates address them, rather than via the moderator.
Here are a few possible debate propositions, for illustrative purposes only:
Latin American Immigration
In a recent article, in Spanish, Hillary wrote
that no other region in the world is “more important” for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.
“There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage,” Clinton said, adding that the “interdependence” of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.
“We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it,” she said, a clear reference to her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has promised more than once to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico if elected to the White House.
Ms. Clinton has disagreed with Trump’s assertion that “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.”
A real debate grounded on the following resolution would deal with the matter raised by Ms. Clinton. Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative:
Resolved: no other region in the world is more important for the prosperity and security of the United States than Latin America.
There is power in our proximity, which means we are not only close geographically but also in our values, interests and in our common cultural heritage. The interdependence of the economies of the two regions, as well as the ties between communities and families, is a tremendous advantage.
We shouldn’t build a wall between us because of that truth, but rather accept it. The wall along our southern border would keep our the good immigrants we need and there is a right to immigrate to America.
Trump would probably point out that his wall would prevent not even one legal immigrant from coming to the United States. He might also suggest that were our immigration laws and procedures more rational (like those of Mexico?) and reflected American interests as well as those of the immigrants, it would be much easier for the immigrants we want to come, legally: those who haven’t committed significant law violations, can soon become self-supporting instead of relying on welfare, do not have serious contagious diseases and appear likely to accept American values rather than, for example, joining gangs and/or importing drugs. Trump could easily provide legal support for the proposition that there is, in fact, no legal right to immigrate to America.
Islam, the religion of peace, tolerance and women’s rights
There has been substantial discussion in the few media outlets providing an “honest discussion” of Islam about the extent to which Hillary and her colleague Huma Abedin have similar views on Sharia law. Under a Clinton presidency, Huma would likely have a high place at the White House, if not as Secretary of State.
Even if Huma were to state that she disagrees with her father, mother and other close relatives about Islam and Sharia law, would she tell the truth or engage in Al-taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims to advance Islamist doctrine)?
worked on an Islamist journal for 12 years, beginning the year she became a White House intern. She hasn’t commented on that job.
. . . .
In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other members of Congress requested information about the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and individuals in the U.S. government, including Abedin, who worked for 12 years as an assistant editor of an Islamist journal that spewed extremism.
Abedin’s tenure at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs began in 1996, the year she began working as an intern at the White house.
While it is certainly possible to disavow the ideology of one’s parents, Abedin has remained silent on their extremism as well as her work with on journal. It remains to be seen whether or not she will repudiate these new findings.
. . . .
Syed Abedin, Huma Abedin’s father who died in 1993, was a Muslim scholar connected to the Saudi Arabian government. According to exclusive video footage from 1971 recently obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Syed Abedin advocated the following:
As Muslim countries evolve, he said, “The state has to take over. The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the sharia.”
In addition, he is quoted as saying, “The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam. Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”
Abedin’s mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist ties. She is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.
In 1999 and three years after Huma began working for the journal, the journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations.”
The book states that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad, apostates are to be put to death, adulterers should be stoned or lashed, freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command, “even if she is not in the mood.“
In addition, the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice,” according to an analysis by the Center for Security policy.
The book advocates against laws to assure equality of women, saying, “Man-made laws have in fact enslaved women, submitting them to the cupidity and caprice of human beings. Islam is the only solution and the only escape.”
In terms of women working in high positions, the book states, “Her job would involve long hours of free mixing and social interaction with the opposite sex, which is forbidden in Islam. Moreover, women’s biological constitution is different from that of men. Women are fragile, emotional and sometimes unable to handle difficult and strenuous situations. Men are less emotional and show more perseverance.”
As noted in an article titled PIGGY-Headed,
Honor killings of their own maimed and maltreated women. Forced conversions and kidnappings and abductions of whole school-loads of girls and women. Selling these captives on the open market as slaves for the slugs who then abuse the women and girls unto death. Not to mention torture as a rule, not exception, for captured women. Nor, of course, the overall banning of women from driving, traveling alone, working outside the home, or suing for their own lives, domestic arrangements, or unheard-of gay right to not have a male husband/overlord.
For all these, the “Ms. Piggy”- quoting smartest woman in the world has done and said…nothing.
What do Muslims worldwide believe?
How about,
Resolved: America is not merely a Judeo-Christian nation and Islam is no less peaceful and tolerant than Christiany and Judaism. To become more diverse, we need more Muslim refugees and should strive to accommodate them by making our laws less offensive.
Hillary could take the affirmative and Trump the negative.
Conclusions
Trump should offer Ms. Clinton an opportunity to provide additional resolutions for debate which he might support.
Were Trump to propose supplemental or replacement debates along these lines, Hillary would very likely reject his offer because she needs support from the moderators and would understand the dangers a real debate would present. If Ms. Clinton declines Trump’s offer, he should feel free to decide whether to participate in the partisan “debate” farce as currently established.
Bill Clinton bashes Obamacare as ‘crazy system’ on campaign trail
October 4, 2016Bill Clinton bashes Obamacare as ‘crazy system’ on campaign trail, Washington Times, Douglas Ernst, October 3, 2016
“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage …
Former President Bill Clinton stumped for his wife’s campaign on Monday in Michigan by deeming the Affordable Care Act a “crazy system.”
President Obama’s signature piece of legislation was framed as nonsensical public policy that punishes middle-class Americans by doubling their health-insurance premiums, according to video footage of the event.
“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Mr. Clinton told voters. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.”
The footage was immediately posted on the internet by the Republican Party, which has made similar critics of the industry overhaul since its inception. Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act when it was passed in 2010.
“The people that are getting killed in this deal are small businesspeople and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies,” the former president added.
Mr. Clinton’s comment are reminiscent of remarks he made before a Spokane, Washington, audience in March.
The former commander in chief said Americans should vote for his wife as a way to “put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash.”
Angel Urena, a spokesman for Mr. Clinton, issued a statement to USA Today shortly afterward saying the comments were meant as a critique against Republicans.
“When Republicans controlled the White House, their trickle-down approach drove our economy to the brink of a collapse. After President Obama was elected, Republicans made it their number one goal to block him at every turn,” Mr. Urena told the newspaper March 22.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments