Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Murders and The Clinton's. BLM Attracts anti-Semites and Has Lost All Credibility If It Ever Had Any. Kim and Pat and The 1st Amendment!

See Wikileaks information in 1 below

                                                                                            Mysterious deaths continue to occur to those who
                                                                               attack the Clinton's. (See 2 and 2a below.)
All too often benign sounding causes are simply a cover for anarchists, fascists and anti-Semites.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made  handsome livings off corporate America largess by shaking down their board rooms  and those directors too timid to resist for fear of backlash.

The below article was written several days ago by a friend and fellow memo reader and highlights a further problem, ie. ignorance of history by those whose hearts bleed because their heads are full on concrete. 

And another take on the BLM matter. (See 1, 1a and 1b  below.)

Daniel Greenfield's article: Black Law Enforcement Lives Don't Matter

I have been against the Clinton's from their very earliest days because I concluded they were dishonest, power hungry and dangerous.  Well over 60 people, who have attacked and/or been involved with them,  are
no longer breathing and now we have other strange events of a persons who provided information about them being recently killed.

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Says Recently Murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich WAS HIS WIKILEAKS INFORMANT

(VIDEO)Wikileaks Founder Embarrasses Liberal Host

I guess the fact that I am still above ground is testament to the fact that I have proven totally ineffective. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Sowell asks whether elites will ever learn the threat imposed by Hillary and ideas about our choices.(See 3 and 3a below.)
Obama misleads by suggesting Netanyahu has come around vis a vis The Iran Deal and Caroline Glick asks how many more billions will Obama transfer to Iran? (See 4, 4a and 4b below.)
Hillary's tactics etc. (See 5 and 5a below.)
Pat Condell tends to support what  Kim Srassel maintains/explains in her new book.

Remember Kim will be in Savannah, Nov. 1, to discuss the election, her book and to sign same.

Then I am taking her to Atlanta, Nov. 2 to do the same where she will be introduced by Bernie Marcus.
1) Black Lives Matter -The Anatomy of Bias 

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Over the past week we have seen clearly how a domestic movement for human rights in the United States gets co-opted to become a forum for Israel bashing and then becomes a draw for disaffected American Jewish youth.  If it was not true it would be unbelievable.

Here is the process.

As a result of what is clearly a continuing situation of racial bias in the United States, 150 years after the elimination of slavery and 50 years after the reforms of the Johnson administration, a new movement for racial equality springs up named “Black Lives Matter.”  The movement generated as a result of statistics that were outlined in a recent study by USA TODAY:

• Blacks are more likely than others to be arrested in almost every city for almost every type of crime. Nationwide, black people are arrested at higher rates for crimes as serious as murder and assault, and as minor as loitering and marijuana possession.

• Arrest rates are particularly lopsided in some pockets of the country, including St. Louis' Missouri suburbs near Ferguson. In St. Louis County alone, more than two dozen police departments had arrest rates more lopsided than Ferguson's. In nearby Clayton, Mo., for example, only about 8% of residents are black, compared with about 57% of people the police arrested, according to the city's FBI reports.

• Deep disparities show up even in progressive university towns. USA TODAY found police in Berkeley, Calif., and Madison, Wis., arrested black people at a rate more than nine times higher than members of other racial groups. Madison Police Chief Michael Koval said most of the arrests happen in the poorest sections of the city, which are disproportionately black, and where some residents have pleaded for even more police presence. 

• Arrest rates are lopsided almost everywhere. Only 173 of the 3,538 police departments USA TODAY examined arrested black people at a rate equal to or lower than other racial groups.

Rightfully so, the leadership of America’s black community has risen up and formed a movement, Black Lives Matter, to call attention to the problem and make suggestions for changing the status quo.

Last week the leadership published a policy platform with demands in six areas, with specific proposals on the state and federal levels.  Their objective, which should be applauded, was to move from slogans and rallies to tangible policies.

And then, as often happens, the leadership got co-opted by those in the United States who see everything bad that is happening there as being caused by America’s traditional support of Israel.  As a result their policy platform adds, as well, a hateful, biased and totally unrelated position on Israel, calling Israel a perpetrator of “genocide” and an “apartheid state.”  In a word, the leadership of Black Lives Matter, whose goal is ostensibly to cure the ills of racial inequality in the United States, chose to focus its attention on Israel, while  choosing not to link its message with any of the many countries in the world who do, indeed, practice racial discrimination as a matter of government policy.  Ari Hart, in an op-ed in “The Forward” notes, for example, that in Mauritania, Somalia, Eritrea and the Sudan, there are an estimated over 1 million black bodies actually enslaved – as in chains, whips and forced labor.”

LGBT folks are executed in Iran, dissidents tortured in North Korea, civilians starving in Venezuela…yet none of that was worth a mention.

But we have seen this type of convoluted reasoning before so it does not come as any big surprise, disappointing as it might be.  The real downside is how American Jewish young people are buying the argument and becoming anti-Israel themselves.

Ally Little and Michelle Weiser, two young American Jews, members of the LGBT community, in an op-ed objected vigorously to the fact that the Boston Jewish Community Relations Council disassociated themselves from the Black Lives Matter group over their position on Israel.  Why do they feel that way?  Because, in their words, “The Platform explains that racism and exploitation don’t stop at U.S. borders, and notes that funding that could be used for domestic social services in instead being used to kill Palestinians abroad.  It specifically calls for an end to U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, outlines American citizens’ complicity in the state-sanctioned violence and discrimination against Palestinian people, and calls to find the increasing amount of anti-BDS legislation that restricts Americans’ right to free speech and protest.”

Once again, no evident concern at all for any other country in the world where (a) governments are regularly putting their citizens in jail, (b) where LGBT people are being routinely executed as we saw last week in Iran, and (c) where national leaders like Assad in Syria are prepared to kill hundreds of thousands of their own people so that they can stay in power.  None of that is of any concern to these young people. Only Israel is the target of their disappointment and that of Black Lives Matter.  And as a result, these two young people conclude “It’s not 11 words in the Platform, but the occupation itself that compromises the values and integrity of our community.  Boston JCRC, we call on you to retract your statement condemning the Movement for Black Lives Platform.”

It is both depressing and scary to contemplate what will happen to the American Jewish Community when these young people become the leaders there in the years to come.   We Jews have a long history of being in the forefront of those social movements that are inimical to our long term survival.  Someone in America needs to sit these young people down and educate them about our history and what we have learned about living as guests in another country.  We know the risks of getting too complacent about our place in an alien society but we seem to have failed in our ability to transmit that knowledge to the next generation.

George Santayana said “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  But we Jews know that we do not  have the luxury of repeating history…..we absolutely must learn from it and act accordingly.  That is the challenge today’s youth who are tomorrow’s leaders present to us.  Let’s hope we up to the task, but I have my doubts.

Sherwin Pomerantz is a 32 year resident of Jerusalem, president of Atid EDI Ltd., an economic development consulting firm, and former National President of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel.


Black Lives Matter’s Jewish Problem Is Also a Black Problem

The civil rights group’s newly published platform holds that societal reforms in America are somehow related to the Arab-Israeli conflict
Chloe Valdary has been a frequent speaker at National ZOA events.

On Aug. 1, the Black Lives Matter coalition (BLM) of groups and partners published a platform of objectives and demands ostensibly constructed to correct heavy-handed policing, educational negligence, and economic inadequacy in black communities.
That platform did no such thing.

Instead, organizers offered up a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas in the service of creating a new world order, one in which defunding police, releasing all political prisoners from jail, and redistributing of land are imperative. 

Moreover, apparently believing that societal reforms in America’s inner cities are somehow related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, BLM included a section on Israel in its list of demands. With trite talking points, the group called for a divestment from the Jewish state as it is allegedly “complicit in the genocide against the Palestinian people.”

What this means is unpleasant to contemplate. An organization formed to confront systemic prejudice against black Americans—which predates the reestablishment of the state of Israel—is now intimating that such prejudice is caused by the Jewish state’s supposed genocidal tendencies (which, according to census reports, have led to a population increase among Palestinians).

Though I find no intrinsic value in “rebutting” crackpot conspiracy theories, it’s worth demonstrating how far removed BLM is from honoring the legacy of its ancestors by reminding readers just how pro-Zionist prominent leaders in the black community have been throughout history—and how Zionism helped shape black politics in America.

Edward Wilmot Blyden, founder of the 19th-century American Pan-African movement, famously wrote,“[I have] the deepest possible interest in the current history of the Jews—especially in that marvelous movement called Zionism.”

W.E.B. Dubois, founder of the NAACP, declared in 1919, “The African movement must mean to us what the Zionist movement must mean to the Jews, the centralization of race effort and the recognition of a racial front. … For any ebullition of effort and feeling that results in an amelioration of the lot of Africa tends to ameliorate the conditions of colored peoples throughout the world.”

Marcus Garvey, founder of the Back-to-Africa movement, stated in 1920: “When a Jew says, ‘We shall have Palestine,’ the same feeling comes to us when we say, ‘We shall have Africa.’ … Africa remains the heritage of black people, as Palestine is of the Jews.”

Even Malcolm X favorably declared, the year before he was assassinated, that, “Pan- Africanism will do for the people of African descent all over the world the same that Zionism has done for Jews all over the world.”

Not only has Zionism influenced black political movements throughout American history, Israel has long been used as a symbol of black liberation and freedom. By denigrating the memory of this legacy, BLM disrespects black American heritage and betrays the hard-won freedom it claims to stand for.

To make matters worse, BLM cites the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as a source and an inspiration for its own movement—that is, declaring itself to be akin to a movement whose co-founder Omar Barghouti has called for the dismantling of the Jewish state, and a “right to resist [Israel] by all means”—i.e., terrorism. This is an insult to the memory of black leaders and the tradition of our struggle: a struggle that has been rooted in recognition of the rights and dignity of all human beings as well as love for peoples everywhere.

“Let no man pull you so low as to hate him,” stated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Empathy and compassion for the other—even while being unjustly treated—were not words in manifestos but ideas that informed and contributed to the success of the civil-rights movement. Black Americans did not stab innocent 13-year-old girls sleeping in their beds or run over white men with their cars; they were the victims of such heinous acts. Yet still, even after four little girls were brutally murdered in a church, the black community decided to love, and to practice and preach nonviolence.

Perhaps BLM’s ugliest display of hypocrisy is in its claim to stand with black Americans while promoting movements whose Gaza-based heroes actively engage in the African slave trade. In 2013, CNN Berlin correspondent Frederik Pleitgen detailed Hamas’ involvement in the African slave trade in a piece titled, “Human Trafficking in the Sinai: To Fight It We Need to Know It.” According to Pleitgen, “Some of the major traffickers, including Abu Ahmed and Abu Khaled, have declared in interviews reported in the media, to be part of Hamas.” Pleitgen also reported that arms caches owned by Hamas have been “bought with profits from the slave and human-organs trade” in the Sinai Peninsula, according to EveryOne Group, an Italian based nongovernmental organization working for the preservation of human rights.

Human-rights activist Calev Meyers provided further details. In a 2014 article in theTimes of Israel, Mr. Meyers relayed how, according to Israeli court documents, Sudanese and Eritrean men and women were kidnapped near the Israeli border, and tortured by Bedouin tribesman. Being freed required that they pay ransom money to their kidnappers. Hamas officials were complicit in extorting funds from the victims.

“Israeli court records describe a complicated network built to smuggle the funds out of Israel and into the hands of the traffickers,” Meyers wrote. “Once the family members pay up, the ransom funds move to the hands of Hamas operatives in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus. From there, the funds flow into the Gaza Strip to Abu Jamil, a Hamas operative who pockets a tax and smuggles the funds. Jamil helps move the funds through Hamas’ network of underground tunnels running under the border between Gaza and Sinai, with the tunnels reaching within a few kilometers of the very buildings in which the abductees are held.”

Hamas has played a serious role in the human bondage of black Africans, yet this seems to go unnoticed by BLM. In contrast to the institutionalized racism that characterizes Hamas’ government, and their miserable mistreatment of Africans, it’s worth highlighting and celebrating a people that take the notion that black lives matter seriously: Israelis. That’s why, as Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon explained recently in the pages of The Wall Street Journal: “The Israeli government has announced a multimillion-dollar plan to strengthen its economic ties with Africa,” and on his recent trip, “the heads of 70 Israeli companies joined the prime minister to help strengthen African relationships.”  That’s why, as reported in The Towermagazine, Israelis “extended aid to Guinea during its fight against Ebola in 2014, donating $10 million to the international UN fund to combat the disease.” That’s why through its desalination efforts and cutting-edge drip-irrigation technology, Israelis are developing what author Rowan Jacobson calls “resilient well systems for African villages and biological digesters that can halve the water usage of most homes.”

The fact that Israel puts its money where its mouth is by cultivating social and economic innovation in Africa through direct foreign investment and people-to-people outreach in addition to state-to-state ties is one big reason why Benjamin Netanyahu was greeted so warmly by African heads of state and by ordinary people during his recent visit to the continent.  Perhaps in its revised manifesto, BLM will take note.

Chloe Valdary is a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Wall Street Journal.


The Anti-Israel Left and the Dems


SHOCK:Hillary Body Count Explodes… 5 DEAD, Linked to DNC and Clintons

Posted by 

A string of mysterious deaths linked to the Democratic National Committee and Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is raising eyebrows and sparking a host of theories — all of which should make anyone close to the Clintons extremely nervous.

Seth Rich, operations director for voter expansion at the Democratic National Committee, was shot dead in the Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale on July 10. Rich, 27, was walking home when he was shot multiple times.
Mary Rich, Seth’s mother, told NBC News that police told her he was the victim of an attempted robbery.


Three Anti-Clinton Officials Found Dead In One Month

Over the last month three anti-Clinton officials have been found dead under suspicious circumstances, amid a widespread media blackout.

DNC staffer, Seth Rich, who had blown the whistle on widespread election fraud within the Democratic Party was found murdered near his home earlier in July. Victor Thorn, a prominent writer and vocal critic of the Clinton’s, was shot to death at the beginning of August. And Shawn Lucas, an official who served the DNC with election fraud papers, was found dead on August 2nd.
On August 1st, Victor Thorn, a seasoned Clinton researcher and writer for American Free Press, was found dead from a gunshot wound on a mountaintop near his home. It was his birthday. He would have been 54 years old.
His death is being called a suicide.
Best known for his investigate research on the Clintons, Thorn wrote the Clinton trilogy —three definitive works that delved into the history of the power couple including their sordid scandals, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults of multiple women, and the drug running out of Mena, Arkansas while Clinton was governor of the state.

Four days later, and no official press releases have gone out on Thorn’s “apparent” suicide.
Dave Gahary of AFP interviewed Victor’s (whose real name is Scott) brother William J. “Bill” Makufka about Victor’s death, but never straight out asked the burning question of whether or not William thought his brother may have been the victim of a professional hit, as commenter William Dietrich pointed out:
You failed to ask the obvious question. How can Brother Bill be so certain it was not a professional hit? Professional assassins can make a hit look like a suicide. That’s what they did to Vince Foster. You get two strong muscular guys who pin him down and force a gun in the mouth or side of head and squeeze the trigger. How can the Brother be so absolutely positive that was not done? He was not there. How can he be so certain it was not a professional hit?
The very next day, on August 2nd, another anti-Clinton activist was found dead.
Shawn Lucas, who was recently featured in a video (below) personally serving the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz with a nationwide class action lawsuit at the DNC HQ accusing the DNC and its former chairwoman of committing fraud by favoring Hillary Clinton and rigging the primary process in her favor over Bernie Sanders, was found dead from so-far “unknown causes”.
His girlfriend found his body on his bathroom floor and called 9-1-1, but there were no signs of life by the time paramedics showed up. His cause of death has still not been released, but rumors have been floated that the young man suddenly died in sleep… on the bathroom floor?
So that’s two dead anti-Clinton men in the course of two days. Coincidence?
The mainstream press isn’t saying a word.
But Lucas and Thorn aren’t the only two bodies that are piling up around Hillary this election season.
Just a few weeks ago, DNC staffer Seth Rich, a 27-year-old in charge of the DNC’s voter expansion data, was gunned down around 4 a.m. while out walking near his home in D.C. He was shot twice in the back and was found with bruises on his face, his hands, and his knees.
So far police claim that there are no suspects, no witnesses, and no motive.
A few weeks prior to that on June 23rd, former United Nations official John Ashe died while lifting weights. The UN reported Ashe’s death as a heart attack, but local police reported his throat had actually been crushed when he supposedly accidentally dropped a barbell on himself working out. (Interestingly, an episode of Columbo called “An Exercise in Fatality” features a plot where a murderer drops a barbell on a victim to kill him, staging it to look like a weightlifting accident.)
Ashe was set to testify in a bribery scandal that might have led back to the DNC and, you guessed it, the Clintons.
Via WND:
“The death by barbell of disgraced U.N. official John Ashe could become a bigger obsession for conspiracy theorists than Vince Foster’s 1993 suicide,” the report by Richard Johnson said.
It’s because Ashe was scheduled to testify in just days with Chinese businessman and co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, who was accused of smuggling $4.5 million into the U.S. and lying that it was to buy casino chips and more.
The New York Post said Ng earlier was identified in a 1998 Senate document “as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration.”
“One source told me,” Johnson wrote, “‘During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”
How close was Ng to the Clintons? According to a 2015 article in The Daily Beast:
Ng being the mega-rich Chinese national who used a proxy to pour more than $1 million into the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore campaign back in 1996. Scandal was joined by embarrassment when it turned out that Ng had been favored with 10 visits to the White House, including an elevator ride with Hillary Clinton.
Hm… Did Ashe know too much?
If he did, he won’t be talking too much, at all, anymore. Kind of ironic that, of all things, his throat was crushed. If this was a mafia movie, Ashe’s cause of death would send a pretty strong message to any other potential snitches out there about the importance of not talking, now wouldn’t it.
Four dead people in just six weeks.
One thing is certain. A lot of bodies are starting to pile up (again) around the Clintons. Makes one wonder…
Just how many more people have to die while the country is forced to pretend to elect Hillary?
3) New Critics of Trump
By Thomas Sowell

A year ago, in August 2015, this column called "The Donald" the Democrats' Trump card. It is hard to imagine any other Republican candidate who could rescue a thoroughly discredited Hillary Clinton from a devastating defeat in this year's election.
Now 50 prominent Republicans with foreign policy and national security experience have taken the unprecedented step of publicly and collectively announcing that they cannot vote for Donald Trump because they believe that he would be "the most reckless president in American history."
Why? Not only because he has "demonstrated repeatedly that "he has little understanding" of the nation's "vital national interests" but because "Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself."
Indeed, Donald Trump has shown little real interest in anything besides Donald Trump.
His response to these criticisms has been completely predictable. Trump has not even tried to answer the charges or to assure the American people on something as important as their survival and the survival of this nation. Instead, there is the standard Trump tactic of launching unsubstantiated charges against his critics.
Even if all his charges against his critics were 100 percent true, that is no assurance to the American people on the vital issues they raised-- and for which there are innumerable examples of Trump's own words and deeds to make people worry about what he would do in the White House.
The strongest argument -- indeed, the only argument -- for voting for Trump is Hillary Clinton. For both candidates, the danger is not simply that we might have one bad administration to live through. The far greater danger is that either of them can create an irretrievable catastrophe.

With Hillary Clinton in the White House, there is no question whatever that she will nominate candidates for the Supreme Court who will destroy both the First Amendment right to free speech and the Second Amendment right to armed self-protection. And that will undoubtedly be just the beginning of the dismantling of the Constitution.

Hillary has already announced her desire to have an existing Supreme Court decision -- "Citizens United versus FEC"-- overturned because it said that both corporations and labor unions have a right to free speech.

If the government can make free speech illegal, there is virtually nothing else it cannot do, because people will no longer be free to expose their misdeeds. Mrs. Clinton has a long record of concealing her misdeeds, going back to her husband's administration in Washington, and in Arkansas before that.

Why not vote for Donald Trump then, since he has no known agenda for undermining Constitutional freedoms?

There are few things worse than being deprived of our basic Constitutional rights, on which our freedom ultimately depends. But one of those few things is being deprived of life itself by the reckless decisions of a volatile, ill-informed, immature and self-absorbed President in a nuclear age.

All too many of Donald Trump's words and actions thus far make him a candidate for the title of the oldest man who has never grown up. Nothing he says against his critics can change that.

The folks speaking out against Trump are helping me make up my mind a little more every day!
Is he the Perfect Candidate whose thoughts mirrors mine on all fronts?  NOPE
Does he say everything the way I wish he would say it?  NOPE
Am I absolutely sure that his motives are absolutely Pure?  NOPE
Can I point to any other Dem Politician that I like better?  NOPE

 Am I going to sit home, refuse to Vote, and let Hillary win; because he is NOT Perfect?  NOPE
Do I like what I have seen for the last 7-1/2 years with the current person who sleeps in my White House?  NOPE
Do I like the "fundamental changes" that same person has brought about in MY America?  NOPE
OK, your turn to decide what you are going to do in about 4 months!
Trump's presidential qualifications…

Obama is against Trump... Check

The Media are against Trump... Check

The establishment Democrats are against Trump... Check

China is against Trump... Check

Mexico is against Trump... Check

Soros is against Trump... Check

Black Lives Matter is against Trump... Check

Move On is against Trump... Check
Planned Parenthood is against Trump....Check

Hillary & Bernie are both against Trump ... Check

Illegal aliens are against Trump ... Check

Islamist are against Trump ... Check

Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump.. Check

It seems that Trump COULD BE the Best Qualified Candidate we could ever have.

If you have so many politicians and left wing NUT CASES--- all SCARED TO DEATH, that they all speak out against him at the same time!
And, it will be the People's Choice...

He's not a Lifetime Politician...Check
He's not a Lawyer.....Check
He's not doing it for the money...Check

He's a Natural Born American Citizen born in the USA from American parents. . .

Some Bonus Points !

Whoopi says she will leave the country...

Rosie says she will leave the country...

Sharpton says he will leave the country...

Cher says she will leave the country...

Cyrus says she will leave the country...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevail....

The budget might be balanced in 8 years....

Americans will have first choice at jobs.....

You will be able to keep your gun(s) if you qualify... 
(Not a criminal or crazy, etc.)

Only living, registered U.S. citizens will be able to vote....


You can have and keep your own doctor.....

You can say whatever you want without being called a racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc....
And He will try and  make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN !

3b) 25 Reasons Not to Vote for Hillary Clinton
By John Hawkins

Note: Given Hillary Clinton’s disgusting and corrupt track record, this could easily have been a much bigger list. In fact, I’m not even sure you could adequately cover how unfit Hillary is for the Presidency in a 200 page book, much less a column. With that in mind, I decided to keep this list at 25 items to make it more easily digestible.

1) Hillary Clinton is almost 69 years old; she had a serious head injury after passing out in 2012 and she’s had a much remarked upon uncontrollable cough throughout much of this year’s campaign. The presidency is an enormously demanding job that visibly ages the person in the Oval Office. If someone who simply isn’t well enough to be President becomes the leader of the Free World, it could lead to devastating consequences as she futilely struggles to do the job.

2) If you really want a telling indication of what type of person Hillary Clinton is when she’s not lying or coughing in public, know that Secret Service agents considered being tasked with guarding her to be a form of punishment.

3) “Hillary demanded White House workers never speak to her and hide behind the drapes when she appeared.” You think someone like that cares about you? At all?

4) Hillary is so mentally unstable that she believes she had discussions with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi.

5) She is so out of touch she hasn’t driven a car since 1996.

6) When she was practicing law, Hillary Clinton defended a man who raped a 12 year old girl. She tore the little girl apart on the stand, got the rapist off with a light sentence and later laughed about it with a reporter.

7) When her husband was governor, she took a $100,000 bribe that was paid to her via shifty dealings in the cattle futures market.

8) Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department did favors for a number of nations that either paid Bill Clinton ENORMOUS sums to do speeches or gave large gifts to the Clinton Foundation. That’s unethical on its face and it seems likely that the Clintons were receiving outright bribes, but as was mentioned earlier in reference to her email scandal, Hillary Clinton seems to be above the law.

9) Considering the sometimes shady dealings the Clinton's have had with foreign governments, Bill’s inability to keep his pants up around willing women and the fact that Hillary Clinton’s private email server appears to have been hacked, she will be uniquely vulnerable to blackmail by other nations.

10) This is a woman who has publicly declared that Republicans are her enemies. With someone like that in the White House, there can be nothing other than hatred, gridlock and vicious political infighting from the first day she takes office until the day she leaves.

11) Some people may not like Republicans or Bernie Sanders fans chanting “Lock her up,” but Hillary Clinton didn’t just lie over and over to the American people about her email server; she broke the law and deserves to go to jail. When you take someone who is the living personification of “Important people are above the law” and make her President, what message does it send to the rest of the country? How should we trust a woman who doesn’t even deserve to have a security clearance with the Presidency? Why should anyone else follow the laws when Hillary Clinton gets to skate?

12) She claimed multiple times that she had to run for her life because her plane landed under SNIPER FIRE in Bosnia. Actually, when she landed there was a greeting ceremony and an 8 year old girl read her a poem.

13) She hasn’t accomplished anything that shows she’s qualified to be President. She got elected as senator in New York because her husband used to be the President and she did nothing of consequence while she was in office. Then she became Secretary of State where she did “little good and much harm.” Why is she qualified to be President? Because she married the right guy? Because she has lady parts?

14) What message would it send to young women if someone as corrupt, dishonest and incompetent as Hillary Clinton were elected President? That morals don’t matter? That you should hang in there with a husband who’s banging everyone in town but you because it may benefit you? That you should be handed everything in life despite your lack of qualifications or aptitude because you’re a woman who married the right man? Hillary is a loathsome human being and no parents should want her as a role model for their daughter.

15) Hillary Clinton is habitually hostile to business, successful people or wealthy Americans who aren’t giving her money. She’s practically guaranteed to tank the economy and make it even worse than it is today. This is a woman who has said, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs," and “I can’t worry about every undercapitalized business” in reference to the Nationalized Health Care Bill she supported killing small companies. She’s also said, “You know, we can’t keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God’s creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” Then there was the time she said, “Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” You should start saving money now because if Hillary becomes President, it’s only a matter of time until the economy goes in the toilet.

16) Hillary Clinton helped create the Iranian nuclear deal that is allowing a terrorist-supporting, anti-American nation to get nuclear weapons despite the fact that we are a nation it’s most likely to use them on and the fact that it will create a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

17) She is planning to expand on Obama’s unconstitutional waving of immigration law for young illegal immigrants. She wants to reward illegal immigrants for breaking the law with American citizenship; she’s essentially calling for an end to deportation for anyone other than violent criminals and she doesn’t plan to improve our completely ineffective border security because she says the border is already secure. In addition to all of that, Clinton is also promising an amnesty bill within her first 100 days in office.

18) When she was Secretary of State, there were more than 600 requests for additional security in Benghazi. Those requests were mostly ignored and 4 Americans are dead because of it.

19) Despite the strong likelihood that ISIS will be able to slip agents into the Syrian refugees Obama is taking in and the fact that somewhere around 90% of them will end up on government assistance, Hillary Clinton supports bringing them here and wants to increase their numbers by 500%.

20) Despite the fact that America is deep in debt, running a deficit and may be less than a decade away from being unable to pay out Social Security or Medicare benefits that have been promised to seniors, Hillary Clinton is proposing 3.5 trillion dollars in new spending along with a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut.

21) After the death of the late Antonin Scalia, Hillary would have the opportunity to shift the court to the Left for a generation by choosing his replacement. Incidentally, it’s unlikely that would be Hillary’s last selection in that Stephen Breyer is 77, Anthony Kennedy is 80 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83.

22) Her judgment on foreign policy is terrible. Not only did she get people killed in Benghazi, she supported our intervention in Syria which has blown up in our faces and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya which led to radical Islamists taking over the country.

23) “I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned (about Islam) has come from my daughter. (As) some of you who are our friends know, she took a course last year in Islamic history.”  Hillary Clinton | Let’s put the person who said that in charge of protecting us from Al-Qaeda, the war on Al-Qaeda and the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Middle East. That makes perfect sense, right?

24) Like most Democrats, Hillary realizes she can’t push an outright ban of handguns. So, she promotes extreme backdoor methods of gun control. She has called for a 25% sales tax on guns along with controversial new regulations that could make it difficult for many poor or lower middle class Americans to buy guns at all. She’s also pushing the insane idea that gun makers and sellers should be held liable if they sell a gun that’s later used in a crime. If this bizarre idea were to ever come to fruition, every gun dealer and arms manufacturer in America would be sued out of business when criminals inevitably use their products in the commission of a crime. Can you imagine applying this standard to any other product? How about letting people sue GM or Ford if a car is used in a crime? What about suing Nike if a criminal is wearing its shoes when he breaks the law?

25) After Americans spent the last 8 years being called racists every time they disagreed with Obama, do we really want to spend the next four years being called a sexist every time we disagree with Hillary?

Barack Obama’s Munich

Editorial of the New York Sun 

It seems to be the view of the Obama administration that if Israel wants America to help the Jewish state maintain its qualitative military edge, Jerusalem had best shut up in respect of Munich. That has emerged in the uproar over President Obama’s suggestion that Israel somehow had come to agree with the articles of appeasement the President agreed to with the regime in Iran. In Mr. Obama’s version, the military and intelligence communities in Israel were on his side on the Iran pact.

The suggestion, of course, is misleading. There may be some dissidents in Israel’s vibrant democracy, but the democratically elected leadership of the country opposed the Iran deal and still does. The prime minister opposed it at the time. The defense minister did as well. And so, incidentally, did the very liberal leader of the opposition Zionist Union, Isaac Herzog (the son of a president of Israel). So did a majority of both houses of the United States Congress. None has changed its mind.

Israel’s defense ministry, now headed by Avidgdor Lieberman, put out a statement noting that the Munich pact “didn’t prevent the Second World War and the Holocaust precisely because its basis, according to which Nazi Germany could be a partner for some sort of agreement, was flawed.” It marked the fact that “the leaders of the world then ignored the explicit statements of Hitler and the rest of Nazi Germany’s leaders.” Those things, the ministry said “are also true about Iran, which also clearly states openly that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel.”

This reportedly infuriated the President — so much so that, according to dispatch in the Jewish Press, the American envoy in Jerusalem, Dan Shapiro, told Mr. Lieberman “directly” that “unless he wants his name on the failure of the American military aid deal, he must apologize ASAP.” The result was an apology, of sorts, from Mr. Lieberman, who claimed that his ministry’s earlier statement “was not intended to make a direct comparison, neither historically nor personally” with the Munich pact.

“We are sorry if it was interpreted otherwise,” the statement said, adding that the dispute does not diminish Israel’s “deep appreciation” for America. To us, at least, it is shocking that the Obama administration takes such umbrage at criticism of the Iran pact. Mr. Obama started this latest imbroglio by trying to palm off on a noble public the idea that Israel supports the pact. It doesn’t support it. And the degree of umbrage he took over the analogy to Munich is an over-reaction. The President protests too much.

No one has suggested Mr. Obama is an anti-Semite or disloyal to America. Just that he entered into an appeasement with similarities to Munich. Both Munich and the Iran appeasement excluded from the parley the enemy’s target — Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Israel today. The exclusion from the Czechs from participation in Munich lead to Jan Masaryk to utter his immortal warning: “If you have sacrificed my nation to preserve the peace of the world, I will be the first to applaud you. But if not, gentlemen, God help your souls.”

President Obama could have insisted on a formula that would have addressed that feature of Munich. The lineup against the Iranians included the five permanent members of the Security Council plus — of all countries — Germany. Why not, we’ve asked, Israel? The answer is that the administration did not want, or dare, to include Israel. It was treating with an enemy of Israel. It was prepared to sacrifice Israel for its wider goal of appeasing the ayatollahs. It would be more honest for it to admit the truth than to explode at Israel — and threaten its aid — for pointing out the obvious.

Print Edition
HOW MUCH more money from the ‘Great Satan’ for Iran? ‘Since the Iranians received their payment, they have taken three more American citizens hostage, as well as several other Westerners,’ notes the author..(Photo by: REUTERS)

Obama, Clinton and the power of mendacity
According to the FBI, Clinton’s private server was less secure than a Gmail account... there is every reason to believe that Clinton’s email server was hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services
Over the weekend, the Iranian regime unexpectedly announced it executed its former nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri. As reports of Amiri’s demise make clear, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton may very well be partially to blame for his death. Amiri spent several months in the US between 2009 and 2010, when he returned to Iran. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton claimed at the time that Amiri came to the US willingly.

US government sources told the media that Amiri, who worked on Iran’s nuclear program, was a longstanding US intelligence agent. Amiri, they said, received $5 million for his information. He left the funds in the US when he returned to Iran.

For his part, Amiri claimed he was kidnapped by US officials during a religious pilgrimage to Medina and brought to the US against his will. Amiri alleged that he was tortured during his time in the US, but that he refused to betray his country.

During his time in the US, the regime reportedly threatened to harm Amiri’s young son, who remained behind in Iran with Amiri’s wife. In July 2010, Amiri went to the Iranian interest section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington and asked to be repatriated. Amiri received a hero’s welcome upon arriving in Iran. He was later sentenced to 10 years in prison for traveling to the US.

He had served five years of his sentence when he was charged in a secret trial for espionage, found guilty and hanged.

It is impossible to know what caused the Iranians to suddenly execute Amiri.

But if the Iranians had harbored doubts regarding whether Amiri or Clinton were telling the truth about his arrival in the US, those doubts were dispelled last summer with the publication of Clinton’s emails.

Two of those emails outed Amiri as a US agent. In one, sent to Clinton nine days before Amiri turned himself over to Iranian authorities, Richard Morningstar, a former State Department special envoy informed Clinton, “We have a diplomatic, ‘psychological’ issue, not a legal one. Our friend has to be given a way out. Our person won’t be able to do anything anyway. If he has to leave so be it.”

The second email was sent to Clinton by Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff. Sullivan warned her that Amiri’s decision to turn himself in would embarrass the US. He wrote, “The gentleman… has apparently gone to his country’s interests section because he is unhappy with how much time it has taken to facilitate his departure. This could lead to problematic news stories in the next 24 hours.”

Had Clinton been using a government server, both those communications would have been classified and secured.

According to the FBI, Clinton’s private server was less secure than a Gmail account. According to intelligence experts, there is every reason to believe that Clinton’s email server was hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services.

The best excuse that Clinton was able to come up with to defend her reckless behavior was that she did it for the sake of convenience. In a 2010 email to her senior staff, Clinton explained that the true purpose of the server was to prevent her correspondence from becoming public.

Although deeply significant, Amiri’s execution was “the other Iran story” this week. The main story was Wall Street Journal’s revelation that on January 17, the day the US’s nuclear deal with Iran came into force, the US sent an unmarked cargo plane to Tehran loaded with $400 million in cash.

Five US citizens held hostage by Iran were released that day.

In a press conference last Thursday, Obama dismissed the clear implication that the cash payment was ransom. But his statements were exposed as a lie by former hostage Pastor Saeed Abedini.

Abedini told the media that the hostages waited for hours at the airport before being permitted to board their flight to freedom while the Iranians were waiting for another plane to land.

US law prohibits the payment of ransom for hostages because it is widely acknowledged that paying ransom merely encourages America’s foes to take still more Americans hostage. Since the Iranians received their payment, they have taken three more American citizens hostage, as well as several other Westerners.

Obama’s lies and the plight of the hostages is an additional reminder that critics of his Iran policy were correct to criticize him. A year after Obama agreed to the nuclear deal with the Iranian regime, and six months after it formally entered into force despite the fact that the Iranians never formally accepted its provisions, Iran is more dangerous than it was before.

The hundreds of billions of dollars it has received from sanctions relief have enabled it to vastly expand its support for terrorist organizations and fund and direct insurgencies against US allies. Iran sponsored the overthrow of the Yemini regime. It is the engine behind the war in Syria. It controls the Lebanese government and the Iraqi regime.

Its terrorists are on the ground in Europe. The terrorist who committed the massacre last month in Munich was trained in Iran.

As for the deal’s purported limitations on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, over the past year we learned that Obama lied when he promised the nuclear deal would stem Iran’s nuclear advance. The unprecedented inspections regime he promised was a lie. The one-year nuclear breakout time was a lie. Even the limitations on centrifuge development were a lie.

In defending his miserable agreement with the mullahs last Thursday, Obama continued to lie.

He went so far as to say that Israel now supports the deal. This of course, is also a lie, as both the Defense Ministry and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were quick to note.

Obama and Clinton choose lying as a strategy because it works for them. The influential media outlets barely cover their lies. Indeed, they often go out of their way to cover up their misdeeds.

The New York Times for instance, sufficed with a wire story to report that Israel rejected Obama’s claim that it now supports his nuclear deal with Iran.

The Washington Post insisted that Clinton’s email couldn’t possibly have influenced Amiri’s fate because six years ago Clinton had already announced that he was a US agent. As for Clinton’s email server, the New York Times failed to report that Clinton lied last Sunday when she told Fox News the FBI concluded that she had spoken truthfully about its use. She then repeated the lie twice and the New York Times continued to ignore her dissimulation.

The media cover for Clinton and Obama because they care more about advancing the Left’s policy goals than about reporting the dire, dangerous consequences of those policies. That is, they are propagandists rather than journalists.

Over the years, many commentators and observers have argued that Clinton is less dangerous than Obama. Obama they say is an ideologue whereas Clinton is driven by a simple lust for power and, of course, her own convenience. Consequently, she causes damage in little ways – like endangering the lives of US agents – while Obama clears a path for Iran to rise as a regional hegemon and nuclear state.

The problem with this assessment is that it ignores their symbiotic relationship. Clinton has decided that her interests lie with acting like a loyal Democrat and implementing Obama’s policies.

Like Obama, she doesn’t need to worry about the consequences of those policies for the US and the world. Because like Obama, she is sheltered from criticism by a loyal media.

Amiri is dead. Iran is building nuclear plants with Russia. But as the New York Times explained on Monday, “Nobody knows better than President Obama how easy it would be for Donald J. Trump to reverse the policies of the past eight years if he defeats Hillary Clinton this fall.”

Nobody, that is, other than the New York Times, and the Washington Post and CNN and Clinton.

And so they will continue to work together with Obama, to ensure that the public is kept in the dark about the nature of those policies and their horrible consequences for the US and the rest of the world.

4b) Netanyahu rejects Obama’s assertion

that Israel now supports Iran accord
By Raphael Ahren and Eric Cortellessa
PM politely says Israel’s position on nuke deal unchanged; Defense Ministry bitterly compares it to Munich Agreement with the Nazis
Israel on Friday firmly rejected US President Barack Obama’s claim that its officials now support last year’s nuclear deal with Iran. Far from accepting Obama’s assertion, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s stance had not changed, while the Israeli Defense Ministry compared the accord to the Munich Agreement signed by the European powers with Nazi Germany in 1938.
Obama said Thursday that Israeli defense officials are now behind the deal signed by world powers and Iran, and that they recognize the efficacy of the accord. The “Israeli military and security community … acknowledges this has been a game changer,” Obama said. “The country that was most opposed to the deal.” 
In a statement issued Friday by his office in response, Netanyahu stressed that Israel “has no greater ally than the United States” but made plain nonetheless that Israel’s position on the Iran nuclear deal “remains unchanged.”
What mattered most now, Netanyahu went on, however, was to ensure that supporters and opponents of the deal alike work together for three goals: “Keep Iran’s feet to the fire to ensure that it doesn’t violate the deal; confront Iran’s regional aggression; and dismantle Iran’s global terror network.”
Netanyahu said he “looks forward to translating those goals into a common policy, and to further strengthening the alliance between Israel and the United States, with President Obama, and with the next US administration.”
A top minister close to Netanyahu, meanwhile, directly contradicted Obama’s assertion that Israeli security officials now back the accord. “I don’t know to which Israelis he (Obama) spoke recently. But I can promise you that the position of the prime minister, the defense minister and of most senior officials in the defense establishment has not changed,” Tzachi Hanegbi told The Times of Israel.
“The opposite is the case. The time that has elapsed since the deal was signed proved all our worries that, regrettably, we were justified before the deal was made,” said Hanegbi, a minister who works in the Prime Minister’s Office and who until recently chaired the Knesset’s powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
The Defense Ministry used more emotive language to contradict Obama.
“The Israeli defense establishment believes that agreements have value only if they are based on the existing reality, but they have no value if the facts on the ground are the complete opposite of those the deal is based upon,” the Ministry said in a statement.
When the deal was signed last summer between Iran and world powers, Yisrael Beytenu party leader and current Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman compared it to the 1938 Munich Agreement, calling the deal with Tehran “total capitulation to unrestrained terrorism and violence in the international arena.”
The Defense Ministry employed similar language in Friday’s rejection of Obama’s claim.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman before the weekly cabinet meeting at PM Netanyahu's office in Jerusalem on March 13, 2016. (Marc Israel Sellem/POOL)
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman (Marc Israel Sellem/POOL)
“The Munich Agreement didn’t prevent the Second World War and the Holocaust precisely because its basis, according to which Nazi Germany could be a partner for some sort of agreement, was flawed, and because the leaders of the world then ignored the explicit statements of [Adolf] Hitler and the rest of Nazi Germany’s leaders,” the ministry said.
“These things are also true about Iran, which also clearly states openly that its aim is to destroy the state of Israel,” it said, pointing to a recent State Department report that determined that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.
The Defense Ministry further said the deal reached “only damages the uncompromising struggle we must make against terrorist states like Iran.”
Some high-level former and current Israeli defense figures have spoken out in sometimes conditional defense of the nuclear deal. Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot said warily in January that it could present “opportunities” in the future but also raised concerns at the “challenges” it poses. But lawmakers from the ruling coalition have continued to criticize the agreement, citing continued ballistic missile tests banned under an attendant UN agreement, and pointing to Tehran’s continued anti-Israel rhetoric and support for terror groups.
Netanyahu remains openly critical of the agreement, which he says paves Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal.
The nuclear agreement “removes the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program based on dates certain, rather than on changes in Iran’s aggressive behavior, including its support for terrorism around the world,” a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel two weeks ago. “The deal doesn’t solve the Iranian nuclear problem, but rather delays and intensifies it.”
The accord, which began its formal implementation in January, will expire in 15 years.
Obama also said Thursday that those who had been most critical of the deal should make mea culpas and admit they were wrong.
“What I’m interested in is if there’s some news to be made, why not have some of these folks who were predicting disaster come out and say, ‘This thing actually worked.’ Now that would be a shock,” he said.
“That would be impressive. If some of these folks who said the sky is falling suddenly said, ‘You know what? We were wrong and we are glad that Iran no longer has the capacity to break out in the short term and develop a nuclear weapon.’ But that wasn’t going to happen.”

Trump’s Antics and Hillary’s Lies

No comments: