Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The signature is Hillary powering her resurrected dream from when BC was running the place of: Canadian style, Single Payer Health Care. Demented Bill leading the charge, ready to blather to his care takers in his full time nursing rubber room (former first lady quarters) once she sets it up.
American people? Who cares!! I got my legislation finally the law of the land that will never be taken away.....
Great quote. McCain is very funny in small venues that I've attended where there is no media.
That would be sweet.
The FBI Allowed Clinton Aides to Do What?
Political Editors · Oct. 6, 2016
That Hillary Clinton remains in the running for president is the most concrete affirmation of our descent into lawlessness. Not only did the FBI grant immunity to certain key witnesses in the Clinton email scandal; those same witnesses promptly returned the favor by asserting their Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress and, in one case, by utterly ignoring a congressional subpoena. In addition, the Bureau agreed to destroy the laptops of former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson.
Just as revealing, the FBI agents limited their search to documents authored before January 2015, relinquishing "any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State," stated a letter sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).
Amazingly, it gets worse. This side deal was made even though the laptops could have been obtained via a subpoena with no conditions attached. And when classified government documents are found on a computer, that computer legally becomes government property.
Furthermore, Mills — despite being the subject of a criminal investigation, and despite having been caught in a bald-faced lie about when she became aware of Clinton's private email server — was allowed to participate as one of Clinton's lawyers, with the concomitant assertion of attorney-client privilege, during Clinton's unrecorded holiday weekend "interview" with the FBI. "This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law," explains former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
In other news, Barack Obama's White House coordinated with Clinton's pre-campaign in early 2015 on how to handle her budding email scandal. We can only assume that "coordination" extended through undetectable channels to the Justice Department.
And as The Wall Street Journal sums up, "[T]he FBI and Justice gave Mrs. Clinton and her entourage special political treatment. No grand jury that the public knows about. Immunity. Special side deals. No hard digging into contradictory testimony. An FBI interview only at the last minute. Public exoneration by the FBI director when that isn't his job. FBI summaries released on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day. No wonder millions of Americans think the system is rigged."
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45233
Clinton's Phony 'Random Audience Member'
Nate Jackson · Oct. 7, 2016
We all know that presidential campaigns are scripted and staged to whatever extent a candidate can control it. Hillary Clinton is perhaps better at this than most. Heck, she got the questions in advance for an interview with daytime talk-show host Steve Harvey — not exactly a deep-digging journalist. But even when real journalists are asking the questions, they’re Clinton’s biggest enablers, asking softball questions and applauding the candidate. In short, they serve as her biggest super PAC.
The latest evidence of this scripting comes from a town hall in Haverford, Pennsylvania, where Clinton staged a question from a “random” girl in the audience … who just happened to be a child actor. And whose father just happens to be a Democrat Pennsylvania state senator. Brennan Leach reads from a cue card (unlike other questioners) to ask about girls' body image and how Clinton would undo the damage done by Donald Trump’s habit of saying mean things about women. Clinton acts surprised and grateful, but she knows her daughter Chelsea, seated right next to her, will also want to address the question. She then used it as an excuse to re-highlight her debate attack regarding Trump and Miss Universe, which the Leftmedia gleefully trumpeted. We’re still waiting for the question from a young girl wondering why anyone would trust the Clintons after Bill’s history of sexual assault and their own general war on women.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45262
Clinton's Phony 'Random Audience Member'
Nate Jackson · Oct. 7, 2016
We all know that presidential campaigns are scripted and staged to whatever extent a candidate can control it. Hillary Clinton is perhaps better at this than most. Heck, she got the questions in advance for an interview with daytime talk-show host Steve Harvey — not exactly a deep-digging journalist. But even when real journalists are asking the questions, they’re Clinton’s biggest enablers, asking softball questions and applauding the candidate. In short, they serve as her biggest super PAC.
The latest evidence of this scripting comes from a town hall in Haverford, Pennsylvania, where Clinton staged a question from a “random” girl in the audience … who just happened to be a child actor. And whose father just happens to be a Democrat Pennsylvania state senator. Brennan Leach reads from a cue card (unlike other questioners) to ask about girls' body image and how Clinton would undo the damage done by Donald Trump’s habit of saying mean things about women. Clinton acts surprised and grateful, but she knows her daughter Chelsea, seated right next to her, will also want to address the question. She then used it as an excuse to re-highlight her debate attack regarding Trump and Miss Universe, which the Leftmedia gleefully trumpeted. We’re still waiting for the question from a young girl wondering why anyone would trust the Clintons after Bill’s history of sexual assault and their own general war on women.
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45262
The FBI Allowed Clinton Aides to Do What?
Political Editors · Oct. 6, 2016
That Hillary Clinton remains in the running for president is the most concrete affirmation of our descent into lawlessness. Not only did the FBI grant immunity to certain key witnesses in the Clinton email scandal; those same witnesses promptly returned the favor by asserting their Fifth Amendment right not to testify before Congress and, in one case, by utterly ignoring a congressional subpoena. In addition, the Bureau agreed to destroy the laptops of former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson.
Just as revealing, the FBI agents limited their search to documents authored before January 2015, relinquishing "any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton's unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State," stated a letter sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).
Amazingly, it gets worse. This side deal was made even though the laptops could have been obtained via a subpoena with no conditions attached. And when classified government documents are found on a computer, that computer legally becomes government property.
Furthermore, Mills — despite being the subject of a criminal investigation, and despite having been caught in a bald-faced lie about when she became aware of Clinton's private email server — was allowed to participate as one of Clinton's lawyers, with the concomitant assertion of attorney-client privilege, during Clinton's unrecorded holiday weekend "interview" with the FBI. "This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law," explains former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
In other news, Barack Obama's White House coordinated with Clinton's pre-campaign in early 2015 on how to handle her budding email scandal. We can only assume that "coordination" extended through undetectable channels to the Justice Department.
And as The Wall Street Journal sums up, "[T]he FBI and Justice gave Mrs. Clinton and her entourage special political treatment. No grand jury that the public knows about. Immunity. Special side deals. No hard digging into contradictory testimony. An FBI interview only at the last minute. Public exoneration by the FBI director when that isn't his job. FBI summaries released on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day. No wonder millions of Americans think the system is rigged."
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45233
Some call it fear of the uncontrolled. The man sleeps three hours each night. He has a difficult time completing a sentence (much less a paragraph unless written for him) and has to make odd declarations and repeats the half sentence along the way. The establishment on both sides are frightened by him. Hillary should never be President, period. Should be in jail along with Bill. But they have power and nothing will happen. Trump should retire and hope his 'empire' isn't completely destroyed by his 'political' attempt. If he won, I would fear of what the country's enemies would do to his properties around the world and the people that would suffer as a result. So to me, we're between a rock and a hard spot and don't anticipate a positive outcome. BO Care is crashing and Shrillary will force us into Canadian style, single payer health care. If the Canadians are fleeing to the US for care in masses, where will they go then?.......
The only hope I see is that the House remains in Republican control, the Senate has a Republican majority by one or two so nothing will happen for four years. The down side is Shrillary will continue to cover BOs criminal activities in office and will continue the executive orders flow to avoid the parties coming together and producing more effective legislation that actually helps all of America. Don't see a productive outcome. I see Shrillary's quest of the "One World, open doors" agenda, accelerated by BO, to continue. As she says in her secret Wall Street speeches, I have to maintain a public side and a private side.
It won't happen.
I would be screaming about the Foundation too. Should be audited. Their Haiti 'gift' that was laundered back to them. Another easy, well documented topic and part of their massive portfolio of illegal activity schemes throughout the years. It's a lot of 'work' to live off other people's money one's whole life. One really has to know how to BS everyone.
we all knew this......
> >>>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> >>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
> >>>> If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
> >>>> If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
> >>>> If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
> >>>> A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
> >>>> A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
> >>>> If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
> >>>> A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended."
> >>>>
and one more: if a republican has a proposal that's on a ballot defeated by the voters, he accepts it and tries to get it on the ballot again in the next election.
a democrat will protest and march in the streets because he didn't get his way.
we all knew this......
> >>>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> >>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
> >>>> If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
> >>>> If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
> >>>> If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
> >>>> A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
> >>>> A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
> >>>> If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
> >>>> A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended."
> >>>>
and one more: if a republican has a proposal that's on a ballot defeated by the voters, he accepts it and tries to get it on the ballot again in the next election.
a democrat will protest and march in the streets because he didn't get his way.
Tough job and has to have the support team to do it.
Too bad we can restart the process over again. Get BO out, put Biden in until we get this sorted out...... How about David Petraeus instead of Biden. Get law and order and national security in place and give it another go.
A guy who loves women vs. a life long blood sucking tick on the back of our country.
Yes, more bizarre than today.
excerpt:
So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]
Uhhh, Hillary, as President, your husband legalized the bundling and trading the mortgage backed derivatives that were full of B paper loans leading to the financial crisis.
Wouldn't vote for Shrill if my life depending on it.
HRC Paid Speeches (easier to read from this link below:)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
From:tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, slatham@hillaryclinton.com, kschake@hillaryclinton.com, creynolds@hillaryclinton.com, bfallon@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2016-01-25 00:28 Subject: HRC Paid Speeches
Team, Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy. In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-speeches-are-cozy-for-wall-streeters-but-closed-to-journalists/article/2553294/section/author/dan-friedman *CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH* *Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14] *CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY* *Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”* CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13] *CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS* *Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.”* “That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] *Clinton: “Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.” *“Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14] *CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET* *Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” *“Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14] *Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.”* “I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] *CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING* *Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. *“Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] *Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.”* “So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder now.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14] *CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR* *Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14] *Clinton On Wall Street: “I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People Who Do It.” *“Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] *CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE* *Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.* “SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13] *CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE* *Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be “Moderate.” *“URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14] *Clinton: “Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth. It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side.”* SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened. We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13] *Clinton: “The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have Growth.”* CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13] *CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES* *Clinton: “At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across The U.S. Government.”* CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're trying to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean, really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14] *Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most -- Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry.” *“I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most -- or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn't have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14] *Hillary Clinton: “We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our Personal Devices” Off The Plane In China And Russia. *“I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we'd leave them on the plane.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14] *Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices.”* “You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14] *Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can’t Bring Your Phone And Computer When Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A Special Box. *“And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can’t bring your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes. Now, we didn’t do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It’s what’s the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it. We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13] *Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In Technology, Saying “People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of Security Issues.” *“Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about the credit market, our personnel policies haven’t kept up with the changes necessary in government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting—when I got to the State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20th Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and ‘10.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13] *CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE* *Clinton: “So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…” *“So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]
*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28] *Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. *“Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32] *CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER* *Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times.” *“If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13] *Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.* “You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
Hacked emails appear to reveal excerpts of speech transcripts Clinton refused to release
Hillary Clinton’s paid closed-door speeches to Wall Street banks apparently included her dreams of “open trade and open borders” and a suggestion that bankers are best positioned to know how the industry should be regulated, according to hacked emails made public Friday by WikiLeaks.
The comments are drawn from an email describing speech transcripts that Clinton has refused to release despite months of intense criticism.
The email, apparently hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, shows a staffer in the early stages of Clinton’s primary campaign against Sen. Bernie Sanders this year flagging speech excerpts that could be politically problematic.
Sanders had questioned what Clinton had said to the financial institutions that paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees between the end of her tenure as secretary of state and the start of her run for the White House.
The excerpts highlighted by the aide included comments on two front-burner election issues — Wall Street regulation and trade — on which Clinton has been on the defensive at times. Both Sanders and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump have attacked Clinton for her past support of global free-trade deals, tapping into a growing sentiment among many voters that such agreements have hurt their communities.
Clinton, for instance, described her free-trade ambitions during a 2013 appearance before the U.S. arm of a Brazilian banking group. Records show the group, Itaú BBA USA Securities, paid her $225,000.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said, according to an email first reported by BuzzFeed.
The Clinton campaign on Friday night refused to authenticate the hacked emails, instead attacking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been openly critical of Clinton. The site released hacked Democratic National Committee emails over the summer that U.S. intelligence officials on Friday accused Russia of stealing.
“We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton,” Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin said. He referred to doctored emails that have appeared on websites linked to Russian intelligence recently as proof that “documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign,” although Caplin did not say that the emails released Friday concerning Clinton’s speeches had been faked.
The FBI did not immediately say if the Russians were behind the alleged hack.
The new revelations about Clinton’s paid appearances before big banks, coming two days before her next debate faceoff against Trump on Sunday, threaten to revive an issue that has dogged the Democratic candidate for months and hampered her ability to energize some Sanders backers and other liberals she needs to mobilize on Election Day.
Sanders aggressively attacked Clinton during their primary battle for the speaking fees she got from major banks, particularly the $675,000 she was paid by Goldman Sachs for three appearances, bolstering his populist challenge and portraying her as cozy with Wall Street. He repeatedly challenged her to release the speech transcripts.
Clinton, who was paid more than $20 million for speeches between 2013 and 2015, had said she would “look into” releasing the transcripts — but she never has indicated any plans to do so. While Clinton has attacked Trump for refusing to release his tax returns, some critics have pointed to the speeches by Clinton as evidence that she, too, has not been fully transparent with voters.
One possible vulnerability identified in the emails was a 2014 speech to Deutsche Bank in which she gave remarks that a Clinton staffer characterized as suggesting, “Wall Street Insiders are what is needed to fix Wall Street.”
“How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?” the email indicates that Clinton said in the speech, speaking of Wall Street regulation. “And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” Records show Clinton was paid $260,000 to address Deutsche Bank in 2014.
In another speech to Goldman Sachs in Arizona in 2013, Clinton fretted that “part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.” She was paid $225,000 for the Arizona speech, records show.
The campaign staffer cited other worrisome passages that touted Clinton’s relationship to Wall Street, including an acknowledgment that she needed Wall Street’s financial support.
The emails appear to have been hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account and appear to span almost a decade. According to a WikiLeaks tweet, the release represented the first 2,050 documents of 50,000 it has hacked from Podesta.
Podesta, 67, is a longtime aide to Clinton and a powerhouse in Democratic politics. A former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton, Podesta was a founder of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and as campaign chairman has been at the center of every major decision as Clinton has dealt with political struggles over her use of a private email server and fundraising by the Clinton Foundation.
The hacked emails appear to offer insights into the campaign’s handling of some of those controversies.
In one October 2015 exchange, staffers appear to discuss ways to capitalize on Sanders’s comment during a Democratic debate that people were sick of hearing about Clinton’s “damn emails.” Adviser Joel Benenson appears to have suggested that Clinton could make a joke about her testimony before a Republican-led committee investigating the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. “I was kind of expecting around hour #8 Bernie Sanders would burst in and shout--’enough about your damn emails Hillary!!’ ” But Podesta nixed the idea. “I defer if others think this buys us good will with Sanders people, but email jokes in Iowa usually end up badly and don’t we want to move on?” he wrote back.
The emails include a series of internal conversations in May 2015 about how to respond to a book by conservative author Peter Schweizer called “Clinton Cash,” which tracked donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. In one email, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri told other Clinton staffers that Clinton had raised the topic of the book with her. “It was a difficult conversation,” Palmieri wrote. “My impression is she wants a much stronger response. Which means engaging more on details that we have to date not found in our interest to do so.”
Friday’s WikiLeaks release underscored a rapidly escalating concern among U.S. intelligence officials — and the Clinton campaign — about information hacked by foreign intelligence operations.
The Podesta emails surfaced on the day that the U.S. intelligence community officially accused the Russian government of attempting to interfere in U.S. elections by deliberately leaking the DNC files and other hacked emails.
Intelligence officials have identified WikiLeaks and other sites as among those receiving or publishing information from Russian intelligence, a claim that Assange has dismissed in the past.
Clinton campaign officials have had their hands full responding to questions about hacked emails.
In the previous 24 hours, the website DCLeaks.com had released a batch of communications from the Gmail account of a lower-level and longtime Clinton aide Capricia Marshall. She served as the State Department’s chief of protocol under Clinton. Intelligence officials think her email account may have been hacked by Russians as well.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-emails-appear-to-reveal-excerpts-of-speech-transcripts-clinton-refused-to-release/ar-BBx9MHB?li=BBnb7Kz
Hacked emails appear to reveal excerpts of speech transcripts Clinton refused to release
Hillary Clinton’s paid closed-door speeches to Wall Street banks apparently included her dreams of “open trade and open borders” and a suggestion that bankers are best positioned to know how the industry should be regulated, according to hacked emails made public Friday by WikiLeaks.
The comments are drawn from an email describing speech transcripts that Clinton has refused to release despite months of intense criticism.
The email, apparently hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, shows a staffer in the early stages of Clinton’s primary campaign against Sen. Bernie Sanders this year flagging speech excerpts that could be politically problematic.
Sanders had questioned what Clinton had said to the financial institutions that paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees between the end of her tenure as secretary of state and the start of her run for the White House.
The excerpts highlighted by the aide included comments on two front-burner election issues — Wall Street regulation and trade — on which Clinton has been on the defensive at times. Both Sanders and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump have attacked Clinton for her past support of global free-trade deals, tapping into a growing sentiment among many voters that such agreements have hurt their communities.
Clinton, for instance, described her free-trade ambitions during a 2013 appearance before the U.S. arm of a Brazilian banking group. Records show the group, Itaú BBA USA Securities, paid her $225,000.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said, according to an email first reported by BuzzFeed.
The Clinton campaign on Friday night refused to authenticate the hacked emails, instead attacking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been openly critical of Clinton. The site released hacked Democratic National Committee emails over the summer that U.S. intelligence officials on Friday accused Russia of stealing.
“We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton,” Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin said. He referred to doctored emails that have appeared on websites linked to Russian intelligence recently as proof that “documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign,” although Caplin did not say that the emails released Friday concerning Clinton’s speeches had been faked.
The FBI did not immediately say if the Russians were behind the alleged hack.
The new revelations about Clinton’s paid appearances before big banks, coming two days before her next debate faceoff against Trump on Sunday, threaten to revive an issue that has dogged the Democratic candidate for months and hampered her ability to energize some Sanders backers and other liberals she needs to mobilize on Election Day.
Sanders aggressively attacked Clinton during their primary battle for the speaking fees she got from major banks, particularly the $675,000 she was paid by Goldman Sachs for three appearances, bolstering his populist challenge and portraying her as cozy with Wall Street. He repeatedly challenged her to release the speech transcripts.
Clinton, who was paid more than $20 million for speeches between 2013 and 2015, had said she would “look into” releasing the transcripts — but she never has indicated any plans to do so. While Clinton has attacked Trump for refusing to release his tax returns, some critics have pointed to the speeches by Clinton as evidence that she, too, has not been fully transparent with voters.
One possible vulnerability identified in the emails was a 2014 speech to Deutsche Bank in which she gave remarks that a Clinton staffer characterized as suggesting, “Wall Street Insiders are what is needed to fix Wall Street.”
“How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?” the email indicates that Clinton said in the speech, speaking of Wall Street regulation. “And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” Records show Clinton was paid $260,000 to address Deutsche Bank in 2014.
In another speech to Goldman Sachs in Arizona in 2013, Clinton fretted that “part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.” She was paid $225,000 for the Arizona speech, records show.
The campaign staffer cited other worrisome passages that touted Clinton’s relationship to Wall Street, including an acknowledgment that she needed Wall Street’s financial support.
The emails appear to have been hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account and appear to span almost a decade. According to a WikiLeaks tweet, the release represented the first 2,050 documents of 50,000 it has hacked from Podesta.
Podesta, 67, is a longtime aide to Clinton and a powerhouse in Democratic politics. A former White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton, Podesta was a founder of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and as campaign chairman has been at the center of every major decision as Clinton has dealt with political struggles over her use of a private email server and fundraising by the Clinton Foundation.
The hacked emails appear to offer insights into the campaign’s handling of some of those controversies.
In one October 2015 exchange, staffers appear to discuss ways to capitalize on Sanders’s comment during a Democratic debate that people were sick of hearing about Clinton’s “damn emails.” Adviser Joel Benenson appears to have suggested that Clinton could make a joke about her testimony before a Republican-led committee investigating the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. “I was kind of expecting around hour #8 Bernie Sanders would burst in and shout--’enough about your damn emails Hillary!!’ ” But Podesta nixed the idea. “I defer if others think this buys us good will with Sanders people, but email jokes in Iowa usually end up badly and don’t we want to move on?” he wrote back.
The emails include a series of internal conversations in May 2015 about how to respond to a book by conservative author Peter Schweizer called “Clinton Cash,” which tracked donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. In one email, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri told other Clinton staffers that Clinton had raised the topic of the book with her. “It was a difficult conversation,” Palmieri wrote. “My impression is she wants a much stronger response. Which means engaging more on details that we have to date not found in our interest to do so.”
Friday’s WikiLeaks release underscored a rapidly escalating concern among U.S. intelligence officials — and the Clinton campaign — about information hacked by foreign intelligence operations.
The Podesta emails surfaced on the day that the U.S. intelligence community officially accused the Russian government of attempting to interfere in U.S. elections by deliberately leaking the DNC files and other hacked emails.
Intelligence officials have identified WikiLeaks and other sites as among those receiving or publishing information from Russian intelligence, a claim that Assange has dismissed in the past.
Clinton campaign officials have had their hands full responding to questions about hacked emails.
In the previous 24 hours, the website DCLeaks.com had released a batch of communications from the Gmail account of a lower-level and longtime Clinton aide Capricia Marshall. She served as the State Department’s chief of protocol under Clinton. Intelligence officials think her email account may have been hacked by Russians as well.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hacked-emails-appear-to-reveal-excerpts-of-speech-transcripts-clinton-refused-to-release/ar-BBx9MHB?li=BBnb7Kz
How about the Clinton, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said,
How about the Clinton, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said,
More opportunities for the Clinton Foundation to laundry money back to itself.
Clinton scam articles in Haiti:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/hillary-helped-crook-get-10-million-for-haiti-scam/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-213110
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/report-clinton-foundation-enriched-ripping-off-haiti-2010-earthquake/
http://truthfeed.com/video-clinton-foundation-failedtaxaudit-exposes-the-clintons-evil-haiti-scam/27048/
(looks like the video my have been censored.)
Easier to read from link
How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians
by Dinesh D'Souza
It filtered money through Haiti and back to itself.
(easier to read on link)
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article is excerpted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.
In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.” Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute. The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States. Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation. The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.” I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way. Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world. Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable. The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan. Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality, no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have been taken over by squatters. The Schools They Never Built USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S. trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation. For example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-building activity.” The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, ‘built’ is a term with a very loose interpretation. USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative. A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding. Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion. The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy — and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti. In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian market. The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S. taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians. Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile program. By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the cell-phone market in Haiti. Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011. Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams. In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton — 100,000 new jobs in Haiti. The project was funded by the U.S. government and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single allocation of U.S. relief aid. Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property. Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated. Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built. Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work, but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers around 40 percent. The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged. But former Haitian prime minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still, Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the benefits. Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22 million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him. “I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times. “I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million personally on the deal. Unfortunately, his application didn’t go through. Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and prison guard. The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value. They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50 years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to the company that had hired Hillary’s brother. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to exploit the Haitian people.” Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as these projects match their own private economic interests. They have steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit to themselves. No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters. Each time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen. They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR. For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party. — Dinesh D’?Souza is the author of Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/
How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians
by Dinesh D'Souza
It filtered money through Haiti and back to itself.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article is excerpted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.
In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.” Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute. The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States. Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation. The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.” I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way. Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world. Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable. The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan. Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality, no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have been taken over by squatters. The Schools They Never Built USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S. trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation. For example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-building activity.” The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, ‘built’ is a term with a very loose interpretation. USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative. A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding. Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion. The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy — and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti. In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian market. The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S. taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians. Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile program. By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the cell-phone market in Haiti. Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011. Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams. In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton — 100,000 new jobs in Haiti. The project was funded by the U.S. government and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single allocation of U.S. relief aid. Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property. Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated. Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built. Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work, but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers around 40 percent. The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged. But former Haitian prime minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still, Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the benefits. Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22 million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him. “I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times. “I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million personally on the deal. Unfortunately, his application didn’t go through. Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and prison guard. The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value. They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50 years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to the company that had hired Hillary’s brother. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to exploit the Haitian people.” Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as these projects match their own private economic interests. They have steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit to themselves. No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters. Each time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen. They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR. For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party. — Dinesh D’?Souza is the author of Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/
Resverlogix To Host Research & Development Update Featuring Key Opinion Leaders in Cardiovascular and Renal Disease
newsalerts@resverlogix.mediaroom.com
Today, 4:02 AM
News Release Issued: Oct 4, 2016 (5:00am MDT)
Resverlogix To Host Research & Development Update Featuring Key Opinion Leaders in Cardiovascular and Renal Disease
CALGARY, Oct. 4, 2016 /CNW/ - Resverlogix Corp. ("Resverlogix" or the "Company") (TSX:RVX) will host R&D update events in New York, NY and London, UK, featuring presentations from two internationally recognized key opinion leaders.
New York Event Details:
Date:
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Time:
12:00 – 14:15 EDT
Location:
The Yale Club of NYC, Roof Top Restaurant
22nd Floor, 50 Vanderbilt Avenue at 44th St
Webcast Link:
http://services.choruscall.ca/links/resverlogix20161013.html
Presentations will be available on the Company's website immediately prior to the start of the event at: http://www.resverlogix.com/media/events.html#.V-0_0_ArKUk. An archived replay of the webcast will also be available on the Company website by clicking on this link.
London Event Details:
Date: Monday, October 17, 2016
Time: 12:00 – 14:15 BST
Location: Innholders Hall
30 College Street
Featured key opinion leaders presenting at both events:
Professor Kausik Ray, MBCHB, MD, MPHIL, FACC, FAHA, FESC, FRCP. Professor of Public Health, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK. Chairman, Resverlogix BETonMACE Clinical Steering Committee.
Dr. Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, MD, MPH, PhD. Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, Pediatrics and Public Health, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine. Chairman, Resverlogix Renal Clinical Advisory Board.
Resverlogix senior management presenters will include:
Mr. Donald J. McCaffrey, President and Chief Executive Officer
Dr. Ewelina Kulikowski, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Research & Development
Dr. Michael Sweeney, M.D., Senior Vice President of Clinical Development
Only registered guests that have RSVP'd in advance will be permitted to attend the event.
To RSVP, please send an email to: sarah@resverlogix.com.
About Resverlogix
Resverlogix is developing apabetalone (RVX-208), a first-in-class, small molecule that is a selective BET (bromodomain and extra-terminal) inhibitor. BET bromodomain inhibition is an epigenetic mechanism that can regulate disease-causing genes. Apabetalone is the first and only BET inhibitor selective for the second bromodomain (BD2) within the BET protein called BRD4. This selective inhibition of apabetalone on BD2 produces a specific set of biological effects with potentially important benefits for patients with diseases such as high-risk cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, Orphan diseases, and peripheral artery disease, while maintaining a well described safety profile. Apabetalone is the only selective BET bromodomain inhibitor in human clinical trials, currently in a Phase 3 trial, BETonMACE, in high-risk CVD patients with type 2 DM and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL).
Resverlogix common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:RVX).
Follow us on Twitter: @Resverlogix_RVX (https://twitter.com/resverlogix_rvx), or on our blog at http://www.resverlogix.com/blog
SOURCE Resverlogix Corp.
For further information: Investor Relations, Email: ir@resverlogix.com, Phone: 403-254-9252, Web: www.resverlogix.com
This email is being delivered to you by:
Resverlogix Corp.
300, 4820 Richard Road SW
Calgary, AB T3E 6L1
E: info@resverlogix.com
Ph: 403-254-9252
Entertainment as Indoctrination
Two current TV shows illustrate the Left's fundamental transformation of culture.
Robin Smith · Oct. 3, 2016
In October 2008, when presidential candidate Barack Obama declared, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," few had the imagination of how radically dramatic and devastating that would prove to be. Just a few days ago, Bernie Sanders joined Hillary Clinton at her rally to woo the impressionable youth with the right to vote with the familiar rhetorical posit, "Is everybody here ready to transform America? You've come to the right place."
Clearly, "progressive" means the ever-progressing destruction of traditional American values. This includes fundamentally transforming family, church and synagogue, neighborhood, schools, marriage, authentic Liberty and, sadly, even the truth. And the Left regularly chastises the Right for not going along with this "tolerance." Such chastisement comes from Saul Alinsky's Rule # 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
For example, we'll look at two TV shows that show how our entertainment industry seeks to affect the outcome of redefining marriage and a sense of self.
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham offered the case in point in their analysis of the ABC TV show, "Modern Family." The gents framed up what we've long called entertainment as indoctrination quite nicely by walking readers through the liberal success of portraying same-sex marriage as commonplace. Despite about 500,000 same-sex marriages as reported by USA Today in June this year, compared to the more than 60 million traditional marriages reported in 2015, a 1% occurrence has been defined as commonplace on TV.
Until the 1970s, entertainment mirrored our society. Today, entertainment works to chisel away at the bedrock of morality, decency and even commonsense, to have society model its sad display of everything from excessive sexuality and objectifying women to the outright disdain for manhood.
The writers of "Modern Family" weren't satisfied with portraying same-sex marriage as common, so they're now introducing a transgender character — and a child, no less.
In their scrutiny, Bozell and Graham noted the Disney-owned ABC, along with many other hard Left activists who dominate the entertainment industry, is exposed as a cultural deconstructionist with an agenda not to entertain but to indoctrinate. An eight-year-old Atlanta actor selected to "play" the transgender boy will allegedly press the homosexual characters of the show to examine if their tolerance is elastic enough. Translation: The new normal is not only same-sex marriage but the further reaches of gender disorientation pathology.
"Modern Family" doesn't stand alone. Arguably more insidious is ABC's "Once Upon a Time," because it's a show marketed to families. The show features fairy tale characters transported into our world, and it's a clever jumble of Snow White, Prince Charming and the Evil Queen, along with Rumpelstiltskin, Hook, Robin Hood and the Wicked Witch of the West, to name a few. Most of the fun is harmless. Except when it's not.
In an episode that originally aired this April, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz shared a romantic storyline with Little Red Riding Hood, ending with "true love's kiss" breaking a sleeping spell. In an interview with "Entertainment Weekly," the co-creators Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz lay out the lesbian-themed story plainly and clearly: It was "just another example of how in a fairy tale, as in life, love is love. Our goal is to make it as we see it in the real world, just as normal and as a part of everyday life as it should be."
It's the embodiment of the Left's "love wins" slogan. They weren't winning by claiming rights, so they had to change strategies. Once it became about love, they had a winning formula. Unsuspecting families watching "Once Upon a Time" find themselves identifying and sympathizing with two lesbian characters who are simply following their hearts. What could be so wrong with that?
Every single day this battle for the minds of our children and culture at large is being waged. And, sadly, the militant Left is winning. They're winning by portraying falsehoods as reality, even if it is fairy tale based. They're winning by creating emotional narratives around a weakness in our society — the confidence in one's own identity.
The last few generations of our children have been exposed and trained up with the philosophy that self-esteem is the most critical element in the success of child-rearing and development. We now have millions of youth and young adults who believe they are, indeed, very important. So important that they should have free college tuition. They are entitled to a safe space where their "gender identity" is fluid and must be validated by everyone around them. And "love" — however they define it today — is an end in itself.
In using the term "culture," we connote it to be the anthropological composition of accepted values, habits, knowledge, beliefs and behaviors that are manifested in arts and entertainment, families, religions, government, business, the media and "journalism" and educational systems. Our culture has been inarguably changed over the years with these seven entities being weaponized to create a culture, instead of reflecting a society.
Let's for a moment view "culture" in the sense of an artificial medium rich with nutrients and resources in a controlled environment that feed organisms devoted to replication. Once this culture of like-minded creatures has colonized sufficiently and are introduced into a host environment — the aforementioned venues — the insult begins and the host can and will be overwhelmed.
What's the cure? Not more of the same!
Entertainment as Indoctrination
Two current TV shows illustrate the Left's fundamental transformation of culture.
Robin Smith · Oct. 3, 2016
In October 2008, when presidential candidate Barack Obama declared, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," few had the imagination of how radically dramatic and devastating that would prove to be. Just a few days ago, Bernie Sanders joined Hillary Clinton at her rally to woo the impressionable youth with the right to vote with the familiar rhetorical posit, "Is everybody here ready to transform America? You've come to the right place."
Clearly, "progressive" means the ever-progressing destruction of traditional American values. This includes fundamentally transforming family, church and synagogue, neighborhood, schools, marriage, authentic Liberty and, sadly, even the truth. And the Left regularly chastises the Right for not going along with this "tolerance." Such chastisement comes from Saul Alinsky's Rule # 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
For example, we'll look at two TV shows that show how our entertainment industry seeks to affect the outcome of redefining marriage and a sense of self.
Brent Bozell and Tim Graham offered the case in point in their analysis of the ABC TV show, "Modern Family." The gents framed up what we've long called entertainment as indoctrination quite nicely by walking readers through the liberal success of portraying same-sex marriage as commonplace. Despite about 500,000 same-sex marriages as reported by USA Today in June this year, compared to the more than 60 million traditional marriages reported in 2015, a 1% occurrence has been defined as commonplace on TV.
Until the 1970s, entertainment mirrored our society. Today, entertainment works to chisel away at the bedrock of morality, decency and even commonsense, to have society model its sad display of everything from excessive sexuality and objectifying women to the outright disdain for manhood.
The writers of "Modern Family" weren't satisfied with portraying same-sex marriage as common, so they're now introducing a transgender character — and a child, no less.
In their scrutiny, Bozell and Graham noted the Disney-owned ABC, along with many other hard Left activists who dominate the entertainment industry, is exposed as a cultural deconstructionist with an agenda not to entertain but to indoctrinate. An eight-year-old Atlanta actor selected to "play" the transgender boy will allegedly press the homosexual characters of the show to examine if their tolerance is elastic enough. Translation: The new normal is not only same-sex marriage but the further reaches of gender disorientation pathology.
"Modern Family" doesn't stand alone. Arguably more insidious is ABC's "Once Upon a Time," because it's a show marketed to families. The show features fairy tale characters transported into our world, and it's a clever jumble of Snow White, Prince Charming and the Evil Queen, along with Rumpelstiltskin, Hook, Robin Hood and the Wicked Witch of the West, to name a few. Most of the fun is harmless. Except when it's not.
In an episode that originally aired this April, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz shared a romantic storyline with Little Red Riding Hood, ending with "true love's kiss" breaking a sleeping spell. In an interview with "Entertainment Weekly," the co-creators Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz lay out the lesbian-themed story plainly and clearly: It was "just another example of how in a fairy tale, as in life, love is love. Our goal is to make it as we see it in the real world, just as normal and as a part of everyday life as it should be."
It's the embodiment of the Left's "love wins" slogan. They weren't winning by claiming rights, so they had to change strategies. Once it became about love, they had a winning formula. Unsuspecting families watching "Once Upon a Time" find themselves identifying and sympathizing with two lesbian characters who are simply following their hearts. What could be so wrong with that?
Every single day this battle for the minds of our children and culture at large is being waged. And, sadly, the militant Left is winning. They're winning by portraying falsehoods as reality, even if it is fairy tale based. They're winning by creating emotional narratives around a weakness in our society — the confidence in one's own identity.
The last few generations of our children have been exposed and trained up with the philosophy that self-esteem is the most critical element in the success of child-rearing and development. We now have millions of youth and young adults who believe they are, indeed, very important. So important that they should have free college tuition. They are entitled to a safe space where their "gender identity" is fluid and must be validated by everyone around them. And "love" — however they define it today — is an end in itself.
In using the term "culture," we connote it to be the anthropological composition of accepted values, habits, knowledge, beliefs and behaviors that are manifested in arts and entertainment, families, religions, government, business, the media and "journalism" and educational systems. Our culture has been inarguably changed over the years with these seven entities being weaponized to create a culture, instead of reflecting a society.
Let's for a moment view "culture" in the sense of an artificial medium rich with nutrients and resources in a controlled environment that feed organisms devoted to replication. Once this culture of like-minded creatures has colonized sufficiently and are introduced into a host environment — the aforementioned venues — the insult begins and the host can and will be overwhelmed.
What's the cure? Not more of the same!
https://patriotpost.us/articles/45150
You have to wonder why she's always so pissed off. Focusing on Trump seems to keep her distracted from her own life.
Nice Santa suit Shrill.....
Recent campaign posters in NYC.....
Or this:
Personally, will never vote for Shrillary. Impossible.
It seems it comes down to this:
Agree. And we'll have a ton more POTUS anarchy regulations thrown at us until he's finally gone. 3000 recently. Who knows how high that number really is.
Supreme Court denies Obama request to rehear major immigration case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to rehear a bid by President Barack Obama's administration to revive his plan to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4-4 in June.
In a brief order, the court rejected the administration's long-shot request, meaning the justices' June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place a lower court decision that had blocked the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect. The court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia.
Obama's plan was designed to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.
In a July 18 filing, Obama's Justice Department had asked the court to take a second look at the case once it had a full complement of nine justices.
The Republican-backed Senate, in an action with little precedent in U.S. history, has refused to consider Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama's successor should make the appointment.
In November 2014, Obama acted unilaterally, by executive action, and bypassed the Republican-led Congress to try to put his plan in place. Obama had aimed during his presidency to overhaul a U.S. immigration system he calls broken and to help resolve the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. Obama leaves office on Jan. 20.
Obama's plan was rapidly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that he overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress.
As a result of the high court's 4-4 split, a 2015 lower-court ruling invalidating Obama's plan was left in place. Obama's plan never was implemented because the lower courts had blocked it.
Obama took the action after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives killed bipartisan immigration legislation that was passed by the Senate in 2013.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration-idUSKCN1231FS
Supreme Court denies Obama request to rehear major immigration case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to rehear a bid by President Barack Obama's administration to revive his plan to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4-4 in June.
In a brief order, the court rejected the administration's long-shot request, meaning the justices' June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place a lower court decision that had blocked the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect. The court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia.
Obama's plan was designed to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.
In a July 18 filing, Obama's Justice Department had asked the court to take a second look at the case once it had a full complement of nine justices.
The Republican-backed Senate, in an action with little precedent in U.S. history, has refused to consider Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama's successor should make the appointment.
In November 2014, Obama acted unilaterally, by executive action, and bypassed the Republican-led Congress to try to put his plan in place. Obama had aimed during his presidency to overhaul a U.S. immigration system he calls broken and to help resolve the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. Obama leaves office on Jan. 20.
Obama's plan was rapidly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that he overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress.
As a result of the high court's 4-4 split, a 2015 lower-court ruling invalidating Obama's plan was left in place. Obama's plan never was implemented because the lower courts had blocked it.
Obama took the action after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives killed bipartisan immigration legislation that was passed by the Senate in 2013.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration-idUSKCN1231FS