Is this just a hearing aid, or did Hillary Clinton cheat by wearing an earpiece during last night’s presidential forum?

Both of these images are from actor James Woods:

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/773805863400148992/photo/1

earpiece


https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/773807636403806209/photo/1

earpiece-2


September 8, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , . Politics. 4 comments.

How is this not a sign that Hillary Clinton has dementia?

The New York Times just reported the following about Hillary Clinton:

In a 3½-hour interview with the Justice Department’s top counterintelligence officials…

… Dozens of times during her interview, Mrs. Clinton said she did not remember details…

How is that not a sign of dementia?

Also, the Weekly Standard just reported:

Hillary Signed She Received Briefing on Classified Info, But Told FBI She Hadn’t

See the two conflicting documents.

Either Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI or she lied on a State Department form as she began her tenure as Secretary of State. This conclusion appears inescapable after Friday’s FBI document release related to the Clinton email investigation.

As revealed by those FBI documents, Clinton told agents that she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information”.

But the second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” A composite of the FBI documents and the nondisclosure agreement is shown below:

Hillary Clinton training documents

 

Again, how is that not a sign of dementia?

 

 

September 2, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , . Politics. 1 comment.

The first debate should confirm or debunk the claim that Hillary Clinton is seriously ill

There have been claims by Hillary Clinton opponents that she has at least one serious medical condition that could impact her ability to serve as President. Clinton says the claims are false.

I currently do not take sides on this issue. However, once the first debate airs, I will pick a side, based on what she does or does not do at the debate.

This writer seems sure that she has a major illness. If he is correct, it should show up at the first debate:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/hillarys_coughing_and_the_debates.html

Hillary’s Coughing and the Debates

August 25, 2016

Hillary’s flacks maintain that she has no serious health problems, but there is an increasingly public amount of evidence that they are lying. Her coughing fits, for example, have gone on for minutes during interviews and speeches and debates. The leftist establishment media has totally ignored this running story, but there is one venue in which her uncontrollable coughing and hacking cannot be hidden from the American people: the presidential debates.

Because her health seems to getting worse all the time and because she has never appeared in a nationally televised presidential debate (indeed, even her few debates with Bernie Sanders were scheduled to avoid large audiences) the stress of standing before 100 million or so Americans watching her live should make the chances of her descending into minutes of coughing, gagging, and hacking while the world watches very real.

What happens then? Well, consider if she keeps coughing for two or three minutes, as she has several times. It will interrupt whatever point she has been trying to make and focus instead on her inability to speak. A debater affects audiences as much by his demeanor and voice as by what he actually says.

Images matter, as the haggard-looking Nixon proved in the 1960 presidential debates. He looked tired. He looked old. He had five o’clock shadow. Those who heard Nixon and Kennedy on the radio actually thought Nixon won the debate, but those who watched them on television thought Kennedy won.

The sound and sight of an old, fat, sick coughing woman beside a healthy and vigorous man speaking confidently and clearly can only hurt Hillary and help Trump. Whether this is “fair” or not we can leave to leftists obsessed with “fairness,” but most Americans, who want a strong and robust leader, eschew these silly notions.

Hillary’s uncontrolled coughing will be the story coming out of the debate, no matter what the candidates actually said, and that will make her health an issue that may not go away until Election Day. If voters go into the ballot booth really wondering if she is healthy enough to be president, that negates all the arguments her campaign is making that Trump is temperamentally unsuited to be president.

The greater danger for her is if the coughing jags show up in the first debate, then reappear in the second debate and the last debate. If Hillary starts coughing in the first debate, then she will be quite conscious of that problem in the second debate, which will actually make it more likely that anxiety will bring on another attack. If she has an uncontrollable coughing fit in the second or third debate, that may well be the biggest story of the campaign – except, of course, for another story.

If Hillary clearly appears to have serious health problems, then that means she and her staffers have been lying through their teeth to the American people. That is not news, but this would be the sort of lie that everyone can see with his own eyes and can understand with no help. Moreover, denying that she is really sick will compound the lying because ordinary Americans will think she is treating them like idiots.

So what could she do? Hillary could say that she really is sick and was hiding the extent of her problems but is still fit to be president. There are two problems with that. First, Clintons thrive by lying with a straight face and never coming clean. Admitting that she had been lying about that would grant new focus on all the other lies Hillary has told us. Second, who will believe that she really is healthy enough to be president, no matter what she says?

There is only one way this could fail to shift enough votes to win the White House for Trump. If Hillary starts coughing and it is clear that this is going on for a few minutes, Donald Trump needs to say nothing at all in words or body language except, perhaps, to ask sympathetically if she needs help or would like a short break.

Even the next day, the Trump campaign ought to say nothing more than “we hope Mrs. Clinton is doing better today, and we hope that she is able to well for the next debate.” Nothing snide, nothing editorial, and nothing more.

August 25, 2016. Tags: , , , , . Politics. 3 comments.

Hillary Clinton spokesperson admits that Clinton lied when she said that none of her 30,000 deleted emails were work related

In March 2015, ABC News reported the following about the 30,000 emails that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had deleted from her private server:

“We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department,” she said, adding that all other emails were personal and pertained to matters such as “yoga routines,” “family vacations,” and “planning Chelsea’s wedding.”

In July 2016, Donald Trump said:

“I will tell you this — Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That’ll be next. Yes, sir.”

Hillary for America senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan responded by saying:

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent… That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

So, which is it?

Are all of the emails private and not related to work?

Or, are they a matter of national security?

They can’t be both.

So which is it?

July 28, 2016. Tags: , , , , , . Politics. 5 comments.

Donald Trump Could Be the Military-Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-could-be-the-military-industrial-complexs-worst-nightmare/

Donald Trump Could Be the Military-Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare

The Republican front-runner is against nation building. Imagine that.

By William Greider

March 23, 2016

Let’s admit it. As political provocateur, Donald Trump has a dizzy kind of genius. He feints to the right, then he spins to the left. Either way, the hot subject for political chatter becomes Donald Trump.

This week, while people everywhere were fretting over his violent talk, the candidate came to Washington and dropped a peace bomb on the neocon editorial writers at The Washington Post and the war lobby. Trump wants to get the United States out of fighting other people’s wars. He thinks maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. He asks why Americans are still paying for South Korea’s national defense. Or Germany’s or Saudi Arabia’s.

“I do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work. And we have a different country than we did then. You know we have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting probably on a bubble, and, you know, it’s a bubble that if it breaks is going to be very nasty. And I just think we have to rebuild our country.”

Will anybody give him an amen? Yes, lots of folks. People who read The Nation (myself included) have been saying something similar for a long time. So have libertarian Republicans on the right. But this sort of thinking is mega-heresy among the political establishment of both parties. The foreign-policy operators consider themselves in charge of the “indispensable nation.”

This new Trump talk is definitely career-threatening for the military-industrial complex. It was particularly playful of Trump to choose The Washington Post as the place to drop his bomb; after all, it’s the Post that has made itself such a righteous preacher for endless war-making.

The Donald, usually bellicose in style and substance, is singing, “Give peace a chance.” What does his detour portend for national policy? We can’t know for sure, since Trump also has a tendency to casually contradict himself before different audiences. Later on the same day, he addressed AIPAC’s convention and sounded like a warrior for Zion. He got thunderous applause after making the ritual promises that candidates from both parties always make at AIPAC meetings.

But Trump has, in his usual unvarnished manner, kicked open the door to an important and fundamental foreign-policy debate. It is far more profound than the disputes we usually hear between hawks and doves. He’s proposing a radical standard for testing US policy abroad, both in war and peace: Is it actually in America’s interest? Or has US global strategy become a dangerous hangover from the glory years, when Washington armed and organized nations for the Cold War?

Whatever happened in past decades, Trump insists that this US ambition always to be in charge is now actively damaging our country, wasting scarce treasure and drawing us into other people’s conflicts. The Post opinionators must have choked on his words.

“I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up,” Trump told the editors. “And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times. And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn.… at what point do you say hey, we have to take care of ourselves. So, you know, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that but at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially in the inner cities.”

Trump has thus shrewdly articulated what ought to be a vital subject for debate in 2016. Instead, I suspect, he will be inundated with lordly rebukes by the policy elites. And the editorial writers will explain how half-baked and dangerous his ideas are to the future of mankind.

We can imagine the labels they’ll haul out from history: Protectionist. Nationalist. Isolationist. America Firster. His challenging proposition reminds me of my childhood, because I grew up in idyllic small-town Ohio, where those skeptical views of “foreign entanglements” defined the Republican Party (there weren’t many Democrats in my home town, and they mostly kept quiet).

As teenagers, we grew up as Robert A. Taft Republicans and deeply suspicious of the “Eastern Establishment,” who looked down on us as Midwestern bumpkins. The decisive election was 1952, when Taft lost the GOP nomination to a genuine national hero, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower. We were heartbroken. In the Midwest we lived in the middle of a great big country and could reasonably feel that we should stay out of other people’s troubles. The Cold War pretty much destroyed that common sense.

Ike’s victory ratified America’s commitment to developing a new world order of global alliances and foreign military deployments. That order seemed like the right thing to do 60 years ago, but now it falls to an outsider named Trump to demand fundamental reconsideration.

I suspect most Americans would agree with Trump’s tough questions, but are not sure of the answers (neither, perhaps, is he). Plus, in these insecure times, people do not wish to sound unpatriotic. In my hometown, we quickly fell in love with Eisenhower the moderate Republican, who resisted the party’s hard right (who thought Ike was a commie).

At the end of his second presidential term, Eisenhower, the general who won World War II in Europe, was warning us about the dangers of something he called the “military-industrial complex.” I wonder what he would tell us today.

June 23, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Military. 1 comment.

Obama allowed a Clinton Foundation donor with no intelligence experience to be on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board

People are supposed to get on these kinds of government boards based on their relevant qualifications, not on their pocketbooks.

This, by itself, means that neither Obama nor Clinton has either the moral or practical qualifications for being President.

I’m genuinely surprised that ABC News had the decency to report on this before the election. I mean, if this was a Republican, then yeah, sure. But for the Democratic candidate? Before the election? A mainstream source such as ABC News? Wow!

With just this one article, ABC News has already done more vetting for Clinton before the election, than it did with all of its articles on Obama before the election combined:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board

June 10, 2016

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

Fernando’s history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific — and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.

The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show.

And he continued to donate to Democrats, and to Clinton. He emerged as one of the first “bundlers” to raise money for Clinton’s 2016 bid. And in July 2015, he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton at his Chicago home. Fernando has also continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation. He now is listed on the charity’s website as having given between $1 million and $5 million.

June 10, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Politics. Leave a comment.

Way to go Bernie Sanders!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-22-2016-sanders/

“Frankly, what the Democratic Party is about is people running around to rich people’s homes and raising obscene sums of money from wealthy people.”

– Bernie Sanders, May 22, 2016

 

May 23, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Bernie Sanders, Politics. Leave a comment.

If you go to the book section at amazon and search for “Hillary Clinton accomplishments”

If you go to the book section at amazon and search for “Hillary Clinton accomplishments” (without the quotes), the third item listed is my new 99 cent kindle book called “1,202 well sourced examples of Barack Obama’s lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.”

I wanted to give it away for free, but amazon made me charge 99 cents.

The free preview at amazon contains the first 100 items, and I am perfectly happy if people write reviews based just on the free preview. Click the words “look inside” on the image of the book’s cover to read the free preview. (Of course I also don’t mind if you actually buy the book.)

Here’s the book search for “Hillary Clinton accomplishments”

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=hillary+clinton+accomplishments

April 16, 2016. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Books, Politics. 6 comments.

Hillary Clinton allegedly threatened to shut down a comedy club for showing this three minute video

Here’s the video, which contains profanity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n083eytJe5g

National Review reports:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427354/hillary-clinton-laugh-factory-comedians-threats

Hillary’s Campaign Ordered a Comedy Club Not to Make Fun of Her — Someone Should Tell Her This Isn’t China

The campaign actually threatened to shut the club down.

November 19, 2015

Hollywood’s Laugh Factory posted a three-minute video of comedians telling jokes about Hillary Clinton on its website…

… her campaign called the club demanding that it take the video down and give them the personal contact information of every single comic who appeared in it…

Club owner Jamie Masada reports that the campaign actually threatened to put the club out of business if he did not heed their demands…

The same information has also been reported by the Blaze and Judicial Watch.

However, I haven’t been able to find any mainstream media sources that have reported this information.

So, one of the two following things must be true: either the information is false, or, the mainstream media has failed to do its job.

If it is true, then this, by itself, is enough to convince me that Clinton does not support the Bill of Rights, and, therefore, should not be President. It also makes me wonder why the mainstream media has chosen to avoid reporting it.

If it’s not true, then the Laugh Factory owes Clinton a big apology.

 

November 19, 2015. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Politics. 2 comments.

Hillary Clinton’s newest campaign promise: “Former presidents won’t have to declare their criminal history.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrFcuk5WDM4

 

November 5, 2015. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Politics. 2 comments.