We have certainly had many examples of presidents that do and say whatever they think will get them elected, and then destroyed the liberties of the people for their own gain. Will the 2016 election produce another one?
The 2016 presidential campaign brought out more than 20 contenders, including some candidates that never officially entered the race. It’s amazing that some of these candidates actually thought they could be elected president.
Deciding on which candidate to vote for can be very difficult. Some of the more obvious reasons not to vote for a particular candidate are listed below.
- A Candidate that is a Traitor to the American Republic —
Hillary Clinton — Should be in Prison
- A Candidate that is Controversial —
Donald Trump — The Populist Candidate
We frequently hear that politics is a dirty business, but what does that mean? For one wealthy individual that wanted to be around powerful people, it meant making illegal contributions because “nobody will even talk to you. That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system.” Sant Singh Chatwal, a hotel magnate, plead guilty to making more than $180,000 of illegal campaign contributions to three candidates that were not named. He also taught someone how to lie about the contributions.
According to the Justice Department, there was no evidence the candidates participated in the scheme or were even aware of it.
Mr. Chatwal had been donating to Democratic candidates since 2004. He donated more than $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Have you ever wondered how political candidates spend the campaign contributions they receive? In New York, since 2005, $7 million in campaign funds has been spent by more than 40 lawmakers to pay for attorney fees to handle scandals. The $7 million includes $2 million spent in 2016! The New York Assembly’s former speaker has spent $1.5 million since his January arrest for corruption.
Politicians at all levels of government have used campaign funds to hire attorneys to defend them against serious charges, including U. S. Senators and state governors.
If you donate money to a political campaign, is this how you want your hard-earned money spent?
Raising sufficient campaign funds can be difficult. Some candidates have found a disturbing way to raise funds that apparently is fairly common. The personal contact information of campaign supporters is rented to “data brokers” that distribute the information to other political campaigns or causes. Sometimes the “data brokers” are companies that also work for marketing companies that are both commercial and nonprofit. Now you can understand how you get mail from companies you would never have anything to do with.
The amount of money generated by renting lists varies. The 2012 election committee for Rick Santorum earned approximately $281,000 during a two-year period. As of March 31, he still owes $450,000 in campaign debts from 2012. In January, Client Strategy for Targeted Victory paid more than $1.1 million to rent Mitt Romney’s list information. Newt Gingrich has earned approximately $434,000 by renting lists to help pay off his $4.8 million debt from his 2012 presidential campaign. Gingrich’s list contains 449,813 names.
Hillary Clinton has also rented lists. A former Clinton committee earned approximately $200,000 in 2012 from list rentals, with $62,782 of that coming from Obama’s re-election committee.
Lists of personal contact information aren’t the only lists rented by political campaigns. There are lists of voters that attend campaign rallies, lists of what voters consider an important issue, etc. Any information given to a political campaign, including a volunteer that rings your doorbell, can be turned into a list to rent to support the campaign.
In short, when trying to pay off debts, campaigns will do just about anything. Information candidates gather on political donors just becomes a commodity. There’s no such thing as private information.
While political campaigns will rent information about their donors to other campaigns, supporters making substantial contributions can remain anonymous through super PACs.
Super PACs frequently create “ghost corporations” that make donations to the super PAC. Sometimes a super PAC is created as a trust and formed in Delaware, where a level of secrecy can be maintained about the corporation. The identity of the owner of the trust is unknown.
Many of the super PACs are formed days before making contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Although legal experts say this violates federal restrictions, the Federal Election Commission can’t decide if investigations should be conducted in these types of cases.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, one out of every eight dollars contributed to super PACs have been made by 680 corporations totaling approximately $68 million. This sounds like a lot of money, but it’s only 12% of the $549 million raised by the super PACs.
Inaction by the FEC seems to have emboldened some of the creators of super PACs. In 2015, Children of Israel LLC, was formed in California by a real estate agent whose company assists Chinese buyers looking for homes in Silicon Valley. When the super PAC was formed, the secretary of state required a form be submitted that listed the type of business Children of Israel conducted. The type of business listed was “Donations.”
THE CANDIDATES —
A CANDIDATE THAT IS A TRAITOR TO THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC —
HILLARY CLINTON — Should Be in Prison
Hillary is making her second run for the presidency in 2016, after failing in 2008. Interestingly, in 2016’s two-person Democratic race, Clinton is getting fewer votes than she did in 2008 when she was in a three-way race.
Hillary Clinton is the former U. S. Secretary of State (2009 – 2013), and a member of the secret society Council on Foreign Relations.
Amazingly, Clinton was not Constitutionally eligible to be appointed Secretary of State in 2009. The usurper in the White House appointed a usurper to be Secretary of State.
As stated in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” This means a Senator or Representative can’t be appointed to a position in the government if the salary of that position increased while the person was a Senator or Representative. Clinton began serving as a Senator on January 4, 2007, and her six-year term would expire in 2013. Yet, Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009, after the salary of Secretary of State had been increased in January 2008.
Everyone in government thinks they are above the law. This especially includes Hillary.
According to documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, a draft of a 451-page indictment of Clinton lists “overt acts” committed by Clinton, as well as criminal misconduct in regards to the Whitewater scandal is being withheld by the Obama Administration. Other documents detail a criminal cover-up by Clinton and her associate, Webb Hubbell, which involved lying under oath when questioned by federal authorities, and destroying pertinent documents.
The Whitewater Development Corporation scandal concerned some failed real estate investments in Little Rock, Arkansas, and involved Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as their financial partners Jim and Susan McDougal. At the time, Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, and Hillary worked at the Rose Law Firm.
The McDougals were convicted on SEC charges and sentenced to prison in 1997. Jim Tucker, the governor of Arkansas following Bill Clinton, was convicted of fraud in the Whitewater scandal. Three different investigations of the Clintons did not find enough evidence to prosecute them. Yet, according to the documents recently obtained, prosecutors did have evidence in 1998 that Hillary and Hubbell had committed criminal fraud, as well as a criminal cover-up of the evidence.
In 1998, while still in prison, Jim McDougal decided to testify for the prosecution, allegedly against the Clintons. McDougal had a heart condition and was on daily medication. The night before he was to testify in court, he was moved to a different prison cell. Somehow, his heart medication was lost while he was being transferred to the new cell. The next morning he was found dead. Susan McDougal was sentenced to two years in prison for refusing to testify. She’s still alive.
Clinton is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, as is the usurper in the White House. Alinsky was a Marxist community organizer (sound familiar?) that wanted to cause social change by overloading the welfare system. Alinsky’s plan is being implemented through the Cloward-Piven strategy, named after two sociologists from Columbia University, Obama’s alma mater. The goal of the strategy, created in 1966, is to end poverty with a guaranteed annual income instead of welfare.
Clinton wrote her 1968 college thesis about Alinsky after meeting him a few times. Some reporters thought she was infatuated with Alinsky. Hillary has said Alinsky had a “compelling personality” and “exceptional charm.” They corresponded periodically while she attended Yale Law School.
In 1971, while working at a left-wing law firm in Berkeley, CA, that specialized in radical politics and counted the Black Panthers as clients, Clinton sent a letter to Alinsky where she told him she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.” Clinton added, “The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration.”
After Bill Clinton became president in 1993, Hillary requested that her alma mater hide her thesis from anyone requesting to see it. According to the author of Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary had to hide her thesis because she “does not want the American people to know the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.”
Alinsky is the author of Rules for Radicals. According to Alinsky, “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” Incredibly, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer! Alinsky said,
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.
In 1973, Hillary graduated from Yale Law School. One year later she was part of the impeachment staff assisting the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal, even though she had failed the Washington, D.C. bar exam. As a result of the Committee’s work, President Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974,
Hillary’s supervisor while working for the Committee was Jerry Zeifman, who was chief counsel to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Zeifman thought Hillary was, “a liar . . . an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” He wanted to fire Hillary, but didn’t have the authority. He did make sure that Hillary was not hired permanently and was terminated because she was no longer needed.
If she was viewed as a liar, unethical, and not abiding by the rules in 1974, think what she’s like now!
In 2009, Hillary Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award. Clinton said, ”I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life.”
What was Margaret Sanger’s vision that Clinton admires so much? It includes the following statements made by Sanger:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
“Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Apparently that also includes giving birth.
President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Apparently that also includes giving birth.
When talking about Hillary, a former mistress of Bill Clinton’s said, “She had several abortions before she had Chelsea and it was only because Bill convinced her that if they were ever going to move up in politics that they had to have a child because that is what the political analysts had said. They’ve gotta see her as a human. They have to see her — I think in society they always say, ‘If you were a mother, you can’t be half bad. There has to be some love or gentleness or compassion within if you birth a child,’ but that’s not true.”
Perhaps that’s why, when appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Hillary said, “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.” She also said third trimester abortions would be possible as long as “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions.”
Clinton’s statements alienated both pro-choicers and pro-lifers because legally, “person” signifies a certain status and rights, and would mean abortion is homicide.
Yet, Clinton equates pro-lifers to terrorists:
“Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be president of the United States. Yet they espouse out of date and out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward. We are not going back.”
Incredibly, Clinton said during an interview that the book that has been most influential on her is the Bible. “At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it.”
Clinton has reportedly committed adultery, had abortions, has lesbian affairs, is an accomplished liar, was complicit in the murders of four Americans at Benghazi, and committed numerous other crimes. Just what version of the Bible has been a big influence in her life?
It must have been the Satanic Bible, according to recent WikiLeaks revelations. According to an insider, Hillary regularly attended a Los Angeles witch’s church while Bill Clinton was president. Most FBI agents think Hillary is “the Antichrist personified.”
Clinton is confused about who her family is. While giving speeches Clinton frequently mentions how “All my grandparents, you know, came over here and you know my grandfather went to work in lace mill in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and worked there until he retired at 65. He started there when he was a teenager and just kept going,”
In a 2014 speech, Clinton said:
“My grandmother on my father’s side, Hanna Jones Rodham — by the way, insisted on using all three names despite what people in Scranton, Pennsylvania, might have thought at the time ― was one of those tough Methodist women who was never afraid to get her hands dirty. She traced her Methodism back to the Wesley brothers themselves, who converted her great grandparents in the small coal mining villages of Southern Wales. She immigrated with her family as a young girl to Scranton and went to work — very young ― in a silk mill, and then she met and married my grandfather, who had also come to this country as a young man from the coal-mining area in Newcastle, in England. He’d been laboring in the nearby lace factory since he was 13. They worked hard, they kept the faith, they lifted themselves up into the middle class, they brought property; and my grandmother Hanna managed the tenants and collected the rent. I have vivid memories of her final years when she was going blind, still braiding my hair in the morning, still reciting old hymns and giving me the direction for what I was to do that day. The world had changed so much during her lifetime, but it’s also changed during ours.”
In reality, only one of Clinton’s grandparents was an immigrant. Hugh Rodham Sr., came to America as a child. Her grandmother was born in America.
Clinton also seems to be confused about how to speak, since her accent seems to change with her hairstyles.
A Fake Advocate for Children’s and Women’s Rights —
Early in Clinton’s legal career, she defended a man accused of raping and trying to kill a 12-year old girl. In an audio tape of her talking about the case several years later, she is heard laughing about how she got a guilty man off on a technicality.
Would an advocate for children’s rights defend someone accused of raping a child?
Hillary Clinton frequently speaks about equal pay for women being “long overdue,” and even gives speeches on the subject. “I feel like [equal pay] is something that’s long overdue. It is way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job,” she told a recent audience. Surely this means Clinton has set an example for others to follow. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
According to a review of IRS tax filings, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation pays female executives 38% less than male executives. In addition, there are approximately three times less female executives than male executives, and they earn $109,000 more that the female executives, on average.
Incredibly, the pay disparity is worse at The Clinton Foundation.
The eight male executives earn $200,000 or more, with $484,000 being the top salary. Only one of the three female executives earned $200,000, and one earned $169,000.
According to the June 2015 Clinton campaign payroll payments, the annual salary for women was going to be approximately $7,000 less than for men.
Clinton also short-changed women working in her Senate office, paying them just 72 cents on the dollar compared to what men were paid. During the time period analyzed, 2002 to 2008, the median salary for men was nearly $16,000 higher than what women were paid.
Clinton’s campaign did not argue the accuracy of the findings, but said private salary information would be more accurate than the publicly available information used in the analysis. When the information provided by the campaign was reviewed, amazingly the median salary for both men and women was $40,000. Yet, the campaign would not make their information public.
According to Census data that Clinton has used herself, women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.
After CNN aired a documentary about rapes on college campuses, Hillary Clinton tweeted support for rape victims. The tweet included a link to a webpage containing a quote from a September speech Clinton gave. She said, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.” Unless, of course, the victims are accusing her husband of rape, then they are liars.
Hillary’s Health Concerns —
During the week of December 9, 2012, Secretary Clinton became ill at home and fell, resulting in a concussion. On December 13, the State Department said the concussion was “not severe.” On December 15, the State Department said Clinton had been dehydrated from a stomach virus and that’s why she fainted.
The State Department announced that Clinton would be working from home the following week. However, she remained at home two more weeks.
On December 30, 2012, it was announced that Clinton was back in the hospital after a blood clot was discovered during a follow-up exam. The blood clot was described as being in “the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear.”
On January 2, 2013, Clinton was discharged from the hospital, and went back to work on January 7. Later that day, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, “judging by the woman we saw this morning and the workload that she’s got she seems to be fully recovered.”
Yet, 18 months later, Bill Clinton revealed it took “six months of very serious work” for Hillary to recover from fainting and the resulting complications.
Early in January 2013, Clinton was scheduled to testify before Congress on Benghazi, but couldn’t appear until near the end of the month.
The health and fitness of Hillary Clinton has always been a concern. According to a 2013 email sent by her aide Huma Abedin, Clinton was “often confused'” as secretary of state, and continually needed help with her daily schedule.
Clinton also seems to have a problem with oversleeping. Four days after the Libyan ambassador and three other Americans were left to be killed in Benghazi in 2012, Clinton missed Obama’s daily national security briefing. Another aide emailed Clinton that morning at 9:17 a.m. advising her that a senior adviser to Obama had “some sensitive items that he would like to personally show you when he arrives.” Clinton responded at 10:43 a.m. saying, “[J]ust woke up.”
In February 2016, the press reported they were not allowed to film Clinton as she boarded a plane. According to one reporter, “Clinton staff won’t allow press to film HRC boarding her charter. We must get on our plane before she gets out of car.”
On August 22, 2016, a warm day (75°F) in Nantucket, MA, Hillary appeared at an outdoor fundraiser wearing a heavy coat.
Later, she used a private jet to travel 20 miles. A helicopter would have been more appropriate to use, because a jet would not reach cruise altitude for such a short trip. Would being in a helicopter exacerbate Hillary’s health problems?
In these amazing videos, Hillary appears to be having several types of seizures at different times. The most disturbing video shows Hillary fainting and collapsing while waiting for her car after leaving a 9/11 memorial ceremony. The worst part of the video is that her aides and the Secret Service act like this happens all the time!
Are these the videos of a person that is physically fit to be president?
At a Cleveland campaign rally in September 2016, the rally began more than one hour late. During that time, EMTs wheeled a stretcher into the tent where Hillary was preparing to speak at the rally. The EMTs appear to be wearing bulletproof vests. Why would paramedics wear bulletproof vests?
Why was an ambulance called to the campaign rally? It wasn’t. It was part of her motorcade!
When Hillary finally appeared at the rally and gave her speech, she suffered a four-minute coughing fit.
Do We Really Need Another President That is an Anti-American Communist?
Liberal progressives are Communists, and Hillary even dresses like them on occasion!
A picture of preparations for a Clinton primary election night party on February 9, 2016, appears to show American flags tossed on the floor. As we all know, the flag is never supposed to touch the ground. Is this how a patriotic candidate would treat the American flag, or is it how a Communist candidate would treat the American flag?
The Democratic National Convention to nominate a candidate for president began on July 26, 2016, in Philadelphia.
The true roots of the Democratic party, Communism, were on full display. Supporters of Bernie Sanders marched down the street carrying Soviet flags. Inside the convention center, Palestinian flags were waved.
Disturbingly, there was one flag missing in the convention center — the American flag!!!
On July 28, 2016, it was noticed that the U. S. flags that are usually on top of the Philadelphia City Hall had been removed for “safety reasons.” According to the communications director for the city of Philadelphia, “Every time we needed to lower them to half-staff, we needed to get a roofer down here who would then have to use 2 ladders to get to where the flags were. Given the thunderstorms, expected flash floods and extreme heat we’ve experienced this week, we didn’t feel it was safe.” Yet that evening, the flags were on full display on the Democratic National Convention stage.
Why couldn’t the Democratic National Convention buy their own flags?
On July 30, 2016, Hillary had a campaign rally in Pittsburgh. Pictures were again taken of another pile of American flags on the floor that had been “confiscated.”
We already know what Communism does to America, because we’ve been living under Communist rule since 2009! Are you better off now than you were in 2008?
Hillary Clinton is Part of the 1% and You’re Not —
Clinton claims to represent “everyday Americans” because “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” As with all politicians, actions speak louder than words.
In a 2014 speech Hillary gave at the New America Foundation (a NWO org), she said Americans “are still barely getting by, barely holding on, not seeing the rewards that they believe their hard work should have merited.” She even complained that those in the top 0.01% have had their wealth rise “sharply over the last generation.” She has first-hand knowledge of the 0.01%.
Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign was significantly funded by huge megabanks and corporations. The PACs of the banks and corporations included JPMorgan Chase (a NWO corp), Citigroup (a NWO corp), Morgan Stanley (a NWO corp), Merrill Lynch (a NWO corp), Emily’s List (a NWO corp); DLA Piper (a NWO corp); PricewaterhouseCoopers (a NWO corp); Microsoft Corporation (a NWO corp); Time Warner Inc. (a NWO corp); General Electric (a NWO corp), and Lehman Brothers (a NWO corp) and Goldman Sachs (a NWO corp), both of which were involved in the 2008 collapse of the economy.
Clinton has given speeches at some of these companies, so undoubtedly they are helping fund her 2016 presidential campaign.
Yet, in April 2008, Hillary claimed she had borrowed $11.2 million of her own money to help fund her campaign and still owed at least $9.5 million. How can she have any outstanding debts when she and her husband earned more than $100 million after January 2001 when they left the White House?
Incredibly, in November 2012, Hillary was still paying off her 2008 campaign debt, even though in 2010, the Clintons had two JPMorgan accounts worth $50 million!
Supposedly her 2008 campaign debt amounted to $25 million in June 2008. Approximately $73,000 remained outstanding on September 30, 2012. What to do, what to do. We’ll send out another email asking for donations again!
On November 28, 2012, Bill Clinton sent out this email, ”There is nothing I enjoy more than good conversation with good people, which is why I’ve enjoyed it so much whenever we’ve brought one of Hillary’s strongest supporters to New York to spend the day with me — and I’m happy to tell you that I’ve asked to do it again.” Donations had to be received by December 6, 2012.
According to financial disclosures filed by Hillary, in 2012 the Clintons had amassed $5.2 million to $25.5 million in wealth. However, this does not include the value of two homes, gifts made to Chelsea, or savings account amounts since 2012.
The Clintons also reported a single cash account with a value of $5 million – $25 million at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (a NWO corp). In a 2010 federal disclosure, their two JPMorgan accounts amounted to about $50 million in wealth.
Hillary Clinton left the State Department in February 2013, and during the next 16 months she earned $12 million giving speeches, writing a book, and making personal appearances.
Some of the organizations that paid Hillary to give a speech had also paid Bill Clinton to give a speech, including Goldman Sachs and the National Association of Realtors. Bill Clinton has earned more than $100 million giving speeches since January 2001 when he left the White House.
In November 2012, 41% of all voters earned less than $50,000. In May 2013 mean wages for all jobs was $46,440. Hillary Clinton, who complains about the gap between the rich and poor is in the top .001% of the 1%!
In October 2013, Hillary gave speeches at two separate Goldman Sachs (a NWO corp) events. Her speaking fee is $200,000, so she made $400,000 from the premiere Wall Street investment bank. Earlier in the year, Hillary appeared at the annual investor meeting of KKR (a NWO corp) where co-founder Henry Kravis (BB, CFR) asked her questions. She also spoke at a shareholders meeting of the Carlyle Group (a NWO corp), chaired by David Rubenstein (CFR), a founder.
Hillary Clinton created a firestorm of controversy when she claimed in June 2014 that she and Bill Clinton were in debt when his presidential term expired in January 2001. “We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.” she said. She has had to explain those comments many times since she said them. A few days after she made the comments she explained, “. . . everything in life has to be put into context. As I recall, we were something like $12 million in debt.”
Yet she failed to mention the $190,000 worth of gifts, including china, flatware, rugs, and sofas, they took from the White House when they left. One month later they paid $86,000 for some of the gifts and returned $28,000 in gifts. If they were “dead broke”, where did the $86,000 come from?
After leaving the White House, Bill Clinton rented office space in New York City with an annual cost of $790,000. This was paid for by the taxpayers, of course. When controversy about this arose, the Clinton Foundation offered to pay for $300,000 of the rent.
In reality, during the first 12 months after leaving the White House in January 2001, the Clintons had liabilities of $2.3 million – $10.6 million and assets of $781,000 – $1.8 million. Bill began collecting his $150,000 pension, and Hillary became a freshman senator earning $145,000 a year. In addition, Hillary had an $8 million book deal. At the end of the first 12 months, their assets were $6 million – $30 million, and liabilities were $1.3 million – $5.6 million.
A few weeks after Hillary made those comments, Bill defended her by saying that the comments were “factually true.” Bill Clinton then mentioned stories about Hillary helping those in need throughout her career. One example he mentioned was how Hillary had once offered free legal servces to those that couldn’t afford it. He also mentioned that in the 1970s, 45 years ago, Hillary had been a proponent of paid maternity leave.
Hillary only made matters worse when a few weeks later she said that “unlike the truly well off,” the money she and Bill Clinton have was achieved “through dint of hard work” and they “pay ordinary income tax.”
A few weeks after Hillary claimed she and her husband were “dead broke” when his second term as president ended in January 2001 and they left the White House, they went on vacation to an $18 million house in the Hamptons they rented for three weeks. The cost was a mere $100,000, half of what they paid in 2013 for a rental in Sagaponack.
Several months later in an interview, an official with the Ready for Hillary super PAC tried to boost Clinton’s progressive pedigree by mentioning some examples of her “lifetime record of being a leader.” He mentioned her work in the 1960s, more than 50 years ago, with the Children’s Defense Fund, trying to increase accessibility to health insurance, and how she’s trying to reduce income inequality. It’s odd that he would mention income inequality since Clinton has historically paid female employees less than men, sometimes even below the national average.
In just two years, 4/2013 – 3/2015, Hillary made $21,667,000 from “speaking fees” and a $5 million advance for her disastrous 2014 book Hard Choices. Her speeches were primarily given to financial-services corporations such as Goldman Sachs (a NWO corp), Morgan Stanley (a NWO corp), and Deutsche Bank (a NWO corp). Healthcare and pharmaceutical companies also wanted to hear her speeches, including corporations such as Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society.
In January 2016, Hillary said she would increase taxes for the wealthy by closing tax loopholes that are currently legal. Interestingly she didn’t mention how she is using the loopholes to hide part of her New York home’s value from estate taxes. As previously reported, in 2010 residence trusts were created to transfer ownership of the home into and ultimately to Chelsea, which would make an increase in the value of the house not taxable. This could result in hundreds of thousands of dollars being saved in estate taxes paid in the future. In addition, life insurance trusts the Clintons own will also reduce future taxes owed.
As president, Bill Clinton vetoed legislation to eliminate the estate tax, saying Congress should “proceed on grounds of fiscal responsibility and fairness.”
Clinton again demonstrated her world-class skill as a hypocrite when she gave a speech on inequality in April 2016, while wearing a $12,000 Giorgio Armani jacket.
According to federally required campaign disclusures, since January 2014, the Clintons have made more than $30 million. This makes the Clintons part of the 0.01%!
According to a review conducted by CNN, the Clintons earned more than $153 million for 729 speeches given from 2001 to 2015. The big banks paid the most, including approximately $8 million for 39 speeches, and Hillary received approximately $2 million for eight speeches.
At a Democratic debate in February 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said to Hillary, “What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests.” Clinton replied, “Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough.”
When Hillary Clinton travels to give a speech, she has just a few requests, in addition to her typical $300,000 speaking fee. The requests include staying in the presidential suite of hotels, being picked up in a 16-passenger Gulfstream or larger private jet, traveling with an entourage of travel aides and other staff, and paying for meals and other costs for Clinton and her entourage.
Language in the contract for her speaking at an event includes, “It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks.” In addition, Clinton will only be at an event for 90 minutes, and will only allow a maximum of 50 photos to be taken with a maximum of 100 people. Also, no recording of the speech by any means, and no press coverage. What is she trying to hide?
The Clinton Foundation Scandal — Make a Donation and Whatever You Want Will Be Yours
The Clinton Foundation was founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation to “strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.” It has evolved into an umbrella group that raises money for various causes and includes the Clinton Global Initiative that matches corporate sponsors with various charitable projects.
Nearly all of the 30 corporations that constitute the Dow Jones Industrial Average have donated to various Clinton projects and their charities. Some of these companies donated $60 million to the State Department when Hillary was Secretary of State to pay for the U. S. exhibit at the 2010 Expo in Shanghai.
Members of the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation include at least four criminals. The financial crimes these four have been convicted of or charged with include fraud and bribery. The most well-known of the four is Vinod Gupta, founder and chairman of InfoUSA. Gupta was a foundation trustee, and paid a $3 million “consulting fee” to Bill Clinton. This resulted in shareholders suing him, which ultimately cost the company $13 million, according to the new book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
The book also reported that the Clinton Foundation is so different from a real charity, that a watchdog group refuses to evaluate the Foundation due to an “atypical business model.”
According to federal law, the secretary of state is “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of military weapons and services to foreign governments. In 1995, President Clinton issued a directive that when deciding if a foreign country should be allowed to purchase American military equipment, human rights records of the countries must be taken into consideration.
Decisions Hillary made as secretary of state (1/2009 – 1/2013) seemed to depend on whether a donation was made to the Clinton Foundation, or involved other connections to the Foundation. A few of the many examples include the following:
- According to emails, Hillary tried to have the Foundation handle an earthquake recovery project in Haiti. At the time, Bill was involved in recovery and reconstruction efforts for Haiti since he was a special envoy for the UN. The Foundation raised more than $30 million.
- At a 2010 Clinton Global Initiative meeting Hillary announced a public-private partnership program for the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves that the United Nations Foundation would run. However, she instructed a state department employee to contact Norway for a contribution. Norway pledged $600,000 for the first year, and an additional “substantial amount for this endeavor” at another time. After Norway joined, several other countries also joined. The Clinton Foundation has reeived donations of up to $500,000 from the Alliance. Contributions of up to $25 million have been made to the Foundation by Norway.
- An idea for establishing schools in Haiti was enthusiastically received because it was made by the boyfriend of Clinton’s chief of staff and member of the Foundation’s board of directors, Cheryl Mills.
- In 2010, Secretary of State Clinton went to Russia to convince a state-owned company to purchase passenger jets made by Boeing. One month later, Clinton announced Boeing’s $2 million (increased from $1 million) donation towards the U.S. exhibit at the Shanghai world’s fair. A few months later, a $900,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation for rebuilding Haitian schools was made by Boeing. The Russian contract Boeing received was for $3.7 billion.
- In 2010, the Algerian government was criticized by the State Department because it placed “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association.” The government was also criticized for not trying to stop “arbitrary killing” and “widespread corruption,” among other things. Yet, after a $500,000 donation to the Foundation, the State Department approved a 70% increase in the exportation of military equipment to Algeria for 2011. Some of the equipment included “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” even though these items had not been authorized for exporting to Algeria the year before. While Clinton was secretary of state, military hardware and services sold to Algeria totaled more than $2.4 billion. This was approximately triple the amount of equipment authorized during the Bush administration. The Foundation did not make this information available until 2016, which violated an ethics agreement.
- In 2011, a $675 million sale of Hawker Beechcraft military equipment to Iraq was authorized by the state department. The approval came two months after Bill Clinton was paid $200,000 to speak at a Goldman Sachs event. Goldman Sachs was part owner of Hawker Beechcraft at the time, and also donated more than $250,000 to the Foundation.
- In 2011, the State Department approved the sale of advanced fighter jets valued at $29 billion to Saudi Arabia, who was complicit in the 9/11 attacks on America. A longtime aide to Hillary called the deal a personal “top priority” for Clinton. No surprise since the Saudis had contributed more than $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary became secretary of state. Weeks before the completion of the deal, Boeing, one of the jet manufacturers, made a $900,000 donation to the Foundation. As Secretary of State, Clinton approved deals for $151 billion in military equipment to 16 countries that also made contributions to the Foundation. This was a 143% increase of sales to those countries compared to what the Bush administration had done. Many of the Middle Eastern countries receiving the arms deals were criticized by the state department for human rights violations, corruption, handling political opponents harshly, and not fighting terrorism. But it was okay since all of the countries had made up to $141 million in contributions to the Foundation. It’s illegal for foreign governments to make campaign contributions if they are trying to get State Department approval to buy weapons.
- In January 2013, it was announced that Rosatom, the atomic energy agency of Russia, had obtained Uranium One, a Canadian uranium-mining company that included one-fifth of the United States capacity for uranium production. How could that have happened? Because of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Uranium has been deemed a strategic asset because of national security considerations. As such, numerous government agencies had to approve the deal, including the State Department. While the Russian government was acquiring Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Uranium One’s chairman. Donations from other associates of Uranium One amounted to possibly more than $5 million. The Russian government paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow after it was announced Russia would acquire Uranium One.
Sales of military equipment would sometimes involve contractors that were also Foundation donors, including Lockheed Martin (a NWO corp), General Electric (a NWO corp), Boeing (a NWO corp), Honeywell, and Hawker Beechcraft. While Clinton was secretary of state, the companies making military equipment were identified as contractors in 114 instances of arms sales.
In November 2011, NBC, at the time partly owned by General Electric, hired Chelsea Clinton to work as a network correpondent. Estimates are that Chelsea was paid more than $1.5 million while working at NBC.
Bill Clinton was also a beneficiary of Hillary being secretary of state. He made approximately $625,000 in speaking fees from some of the same companies manufacturing military equipment for exporting.
Approximately 85% of countries that received increased military equipment exports made Clinton Foundation contributions. This indicates how massive conflicts of interest have become during the Obama administration.
The Clinton Foundation has been the recipient of donations from numerous media organizations over the years. The organizations have included NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasting, Google (a NWO corp), Time/Warner (a NWO corp), Newsmax, and Reuters. These organizations have contributed between $10,000 and $5,000,000.
Some well-known media individuals have also made Foundation contributions. These individuals include Carlos Slim, the largest The New York Times Company shareholder; James Murdoch, COO of Fox News parent company 21st Century Fox; and George Stephanopoulos (CFR), ABC news anchor. These individuals donated between $75,000 and $5,000,000.
Google now admits it hides negative search results about Hillary. So much for impartiality of the media.
Four Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia who is complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, have contributed approximately $40 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2001. Other investigations have estimated the donations have topped $100 million. Saudi Arabia donated between $10 million and $25 million, making it a top 20 donor. Saudi Arabia is well known for its mistreatment of women, executing homosexuals, and human rights violations. Yet, Hillary portrays herself as a champion of women’s rights.
Apparently a hefty donation to the Clinton Foundation makes everything alright!
In May 2015, the Clinton Foundation said that in the future donations will only be accepted from six Western governments. Bill Clinton emphatically said the new policy does not mean accepting donations from Saudi Arabia was wrong. He added, “It’s an acknowledgement that we’re going to come as close as we can during her presidential campaign to following the rules we followed when she became secretary of state.”
Clinton also said, “There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy. That just hasn’t happened.” In addition, he will not quit his very lucrative speaking career that has taken him to China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Turkey, Taiwan, and India, as well as other places. The speeches have been sponsored by corporations from all sectors of the economy, including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank, all NWO corps.. The majority of the money Clinton earns from speaking fees is for speeches given in foreign countries.
“I gotta pay our bills, and I also give a lot of it to the foundation every year,” Clinton said. Well, since they didn’t follow any of the rules when Hillary was secretary of state, it will be business as usual.
Where does the money go that is raised by the Clinton Foundation? Apparently most of it goes to provide a lavish lifestyle for the Clinton’s.
More than $50 million was spent on travel expenses between 2003 and 2013. In one year, approximately $12 million was used for travel.
Approximately 13% of 2010’s travel budget and 10% of 2011’s, amounting to more than $1 million, were for Bill Clinton himself. During 2011 alone, the Foundation travel costs amounted to more than $4 million, while more than $7 million was used by the Clinton Health Action Initiative.
The Foundation has received significant criticism for its travel costs, including a first-class flight to a Foundation function for actress Natalie Portman and her dog.
To try and placate critics, Bill Clinton had the finances reviewed by lawyers. Their conclusion was that even though the Foundation raised $214 million in 2012, it was running an $8 million deficit. The travel costs could have contributed to the problem.
A financial analyst on Wall Street conducted a six-month investigation into the Clinton Foundation and concluded it appears to be a get-rich quick scheme. The analyst says the Clinton Foundation leadership mismanaged required reporting for charities, and it could have been intentional.
According to the analyst, “The numbers that the Clinton Foundation supply to the global public in its legally mandated filings do not add up, are frequently incorrect and overall appear to be materially misleading.” This was a result of using inconsistent policies when making “consolidated” financial statements. The analyst says he has identified a pattern of deceptive reporting conducive to criminal fraud. He also believes technical violations of tax-exempt foundation laws were used to camouflage the fraud.
According to Chelsea, a credo of her father’s that she embraces fully is, “it is always better to get caught trying than to never have tried at all.” Trying to do what, exactly?
Benghazi Scandal — Blood on Her Hands
In August 2012, a month before the attack, the madia reported an “emergency meeting” Benghazi consulate. The classified State Department cable contained “the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.'” The conclusion reached at the meeting was that a “coordinated attack” on the consulate would be successful. The cable also stated the consulate would be requesting additional security.
Additional security requests were made to the State Department, but Clinton denied ever seeing them, because it had been a “procedural quirk” that they had been addressed to the secretary of state. Yet in Congressional testimony, Defense Secretary Panetta (CFR) and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dempsey testified they had been briefed on the contents of the cables, as Clinton continued to deny seeing them.
The Obama Administration would later claim the attack came without warning.
After it had been announced that Ambassador Stevens had been murdered, a Clinton statement said, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted to the Internet.”
Yet, soon after that Hillary emailed Chelsea telling her that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked by an Al-Qaida type terrorist group. Clinton’s email, which used the pseudonym Diane Reynolds, stated, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.” This information was revealed during Clinton’s testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015.
Contrary to what the Obama administration officials and Pentagon officials would later testify to, on September 11, 2012, the State Department was told by a Defense Department official that “forces that could move to Benghazi” were available during the attack on the consulate and could arrive at 7:19 p.m. What kind of monsters were in charge of the State Department that would just let four Americans be killed without trying to save them? This information was in an email revealed in December 2015.
Later the same night, Clinton called the Libyan president and told him the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia, an Al-Qaida affiliate, was “claiming responsibility.”
The next day, September 12, 2012, Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister that, “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”
Yet, on September 16, 2012, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice (CFR, TC) appeared on several talk shows claiming the video had in fact been part of the reason for the attack. No objections to Rice’s claims were made in emails of Clinton’s aides. One aide wrote to Clinton, “She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” However, just one week later, the aide said, “You never said spontaneous or characterized the motives,” in a September 24, 2012, email to Clinton.
A memo obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request in 2015 explains why Susan Rice so adamantly insisted the video was partially responsible for the attack. White House Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes sent the memo to senior administration staff saying that Rice needed “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader failure of policy.”
On September 14, 2012, the State Department was advised against pushing the video excuse for the attack by the U.S. Embassy in Libya. The embassy felt that mentioning the video was fanning the flames of anti-American sentiment. According to an embassy official, “[O]ur view at Embassy Tripoli is that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions. [I]f we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.”
On September 14, 2012, Clinton and Obama stood in front of four American flag-draped coffins at Andrews Air Force base and comforted grieving family members. Relatives of three of the murdered Benghazi victims publicly said Hillary told them, “we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.”
Yet, in a December 2015 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos (CFR), Hillary said:
Stephanopoulos: Did you tell them it was about the film? And what’s your response?
Clinton: No. You know, look I understand the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced with the loss of these four brave Americans. And I did testify, as you know, for 11 hours. And I answered all of these questions. Now, I can’t — I can’t help it the people think there has to be something else there. I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um, between the time that, uh, I – you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information; we were, uh, giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it. This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war and I think most Americans understand that.
On September 17, 2012, it was reported by the media that, according to a source, there had been no protest in Libya.
On September 25, 2012, Obama addressed the United Nations and condemns “a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” This was 13 days after he was aware the video had nothing to do with the attack.
Incredibly, on September 27, 2012, the maker of the video, Innocence of Muslims, is arrested on a “probation violation” and held without bail.
Al Qaeda in Iraq was reported in October 2012 as being responsible for the Benghazi attack. According to CNN, “The revelation that members of al Qaeda in Iraq are suspected of involvement in the Libya attack comes at a time when there is a growing number of fighters from that group also taking part in the Syrian civil war,”
In January 2013 testimony before Congress, Clinton said, “I hurried to appoint the Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Pickering (CFR, TC) and Admiral Mullen so we could more fully understand from objective, independent examination, what went wrong and how to fix it. I have accepted every one of their recommendations.”
In March 2013, the anonymous computer hacker “Guccifer” hacked Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal’s (CFR) AOL email account and found an email stating “wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia” had funded the Benghazi attack, according to an intelligence source in the French security services. Other emails listed sources “with direct access to the Libyan National Government, as well as the highest levels of European governments, and Western intelligence and security services.”
The intelligence source also said that, “During July and August 2012, these financiers provided funds to AQIM contacts in Southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania.” AQIM is Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. The email also said, “These funds were eventually provided to Ansar Al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region” to bankroll the attack. Ansar Al Sharia later declared they committed the attack. According to reports, Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula also participated in the Benghazi attack.
In January 2014, a report about the Benghazi attack was released by the Senate. According to the report, the State Department’s official minimum security standards were not met by the Benghazi consulate, thus requiring special waivers that could only have been signed by Secretary of State Clinton. One of the waivers Clinton had to personally sign off on was allowing State Department and intelligence personnel to reside in separate locations.
The Senate report also identified some top deputies of Clinton’s as the officials that denied some of the Benghazi consulate security requests. Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy was specifically mentioned as having rejected the idea of guard towers being built at the Benghazi consulate. He also approved the removal of a special forces team that is frequently stationed at U.S. embassies to fight against attacks that may occur.
In 2014, Hillary released a book, Hard Choices, that included a chapter about events that happened at Benghazi. Clinton acknowledges accountability for the “horror” of the four Americans that were killed in Benghazi, but said it was one of “the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make.” She also wrote in her book that misinformation and speculation have been significant, but new information has been forthcoming from “a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” Yet, Hillary knew on 9/12/2012 exactly what happened on 9/11/2012!.
She insists an investigation to determine what transpired at Benghazi was ordered nine days later. The review board that conducted the investigation made 29 recommendations, and Hillary said she implemented each one of them.
Incredibly, Hillary still insisted that the anti-Islamic video was “indeed a factor,” and cited The New York Times as proving that with a “later investigation and reporting.” In the book Clinton wrote, “There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives. It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions deny not only the evidence but logic as well.” Not to mention still covering for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who was still using the video excuse five days after the Benghazi attack occurred.
Not surprisingly, this is a direct contradiction of the facts. Prior to excerpts of the book being released, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), a member of the House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi Select Committee said, “We know that intelligence analysts on the ground knew instantaneously that this was Al Qaeda and its affiliates who had led this attack. And yet it took an awfully long time — indeed today, it’s still not clear this administration has acknowledged the depth and the risks associated with what it means to have an Al Qaeda affiliate actually take down an American [consulate].”
In covering for Rice, Clinton wrote that existing intelligence was used by Rice to form her statements. Yet in testimony two months before the book was released, Mike Morell (CFR), former CIA deputy director, said Rice herself made the connection between the video and the attack at Benghazi. He added that CIA analysis did not include the video.
The video appears to have first been mentioned in the retweet of a story that appeared on Russia Today. The retweet was posted on September 12, 2012, at 9:12 a.m., the day after the attack! Interestingly, an independent analysis of thousands of social media messages conducted in December 2012, revealed that the video had no effect on what transpired in Benghazi.
Hillary then wrote, “Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people.There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”
Yet in his testimony, Morell said that on September 18, 2012, the Libyans had advised them that the attack was a direct assault based on their review of a security video of the area. This did not stop the Obama administration from continuing to use the “hateful video” to explain what happened in Benghazi.
Even the liar-in-chief perpetuated the disinformation when he addressed the United Nations one week later. Obama said, “There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”
While publicizing her book, Clinton was interviewed by Diane Sawyer (CFR) of ABC News. When questioned about security for the Benghazi consulate, Clinton said, “I’m not equipped to sit and look at blueprints to determine where the blast walls need to be, where the reinforcements need to be. That’s why we hire people who have that expertise.”
In referencing the report of the Accountability Review Board, which Clinton always points out she appointed nine days after the attack, Sawyer said, This is the ARB: the mission was far short of standards; weak perimeter; incomplete fence; video surveillance needed repair. They said it’s a systemic failure.” Clinton said, “Well, it was with respect to that compound.” Later Clinton said, “I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions.”
When asked by Sawyer, “Did you miss the moment to prevent this from happening?” Clinton’s reply began with “No, but …”
In another interview promoting her book, Clinton said, “My own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the video had nothing to do with it — it may have affected some people, it didn’t affect other people. This was the fog of war.”
In March 2015, it was disclosed that a “secret spy network” run by Sidney Blumenthal was “funneling intelligence about the crisis in Libya directly to the Secretary of State’s private account starting before the Benghazi attack.” The spy network did not appear on the payroll of the State Department. Another member of Clinton’s spy network was the former CIA chief in Europe, Tyler Drumheller. While working for Clinton, Drumheller was also a CBS News consultant, where he assisted in shaping the coverage of Benghazi.
When questioned, a spokesman for CBS said, “Tyler Drumheller was not involved in any way on the Benghazi story.” CBS would not comment as to whether they knew Drumheller was working for Clinton at the same time he was working for CBS, if he was involved in covering national security issues, and if Clinton had unfairly been given preferential coverage.
In October 2015, Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Several times Clinton was questioned about security requests from the Benghazi consulate being denied. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked, “Why were there so many requests for security equipment and personnel, and why were those requests denied in Washington? What did our leaders in Washington do or not do, and when?” Again Clinton took the blame for the attacks, and again lied about personally approving or denying security requests. Yet, a January 2014 Senate report stated that a waiver had to have been signed because the Benghazi consulate security was below minimum standards. Only the secretary of state could have signed the waiver.
A friend of Clinton’s, Sidney Blumenthal, regularly supplied her with intelligence assessments, even though the Obama Administration would not let him work at the State Department. Blumenthal had worked in President Clinton’s Administration.
Some Committee members questioned Clinton as to why she would respond to Blumenthal emails, but not emails from Ambassador Stevens. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) asked why over 600 security requests from staff at the Benghazi facility were unanswered by Clinton and Ambassador Stevens didn’t know her email address, but she corresponded with Blumenthal. She was even asked why supply requests for Libyans were sent to her, yet Ambassador Stevens security requests were not. She replied that Ambassador Stevens was in contact with her staff and, “He did not raise security with the members of my staff. He raised security with the security professionals.”
Clinton said it was appropriate to have security personnel handle all security issues, including requests from ambassadors.
Yet Clinton also testified that Ambassador Strvens was expected to “make a lot of judgments on the ground” concerning his safety and the duration of his Benghazi trip. “We were really counting on Chris to guide us and give us information on the ground,”Clinton said.
Clinton also blamed Ambassador Stevens for the quality of security at the consulate. Yet, according to a January 2014 Senate report, Clinton had to personally sign waivers allowing the substandard security at the Benghazi consulate. Clinton testified, “Chris Stevens had an opportunity to reach me directly any time he thought there was something of importance.” Then why didn’t she give Ambassador Stevens her email address?
Clinton actually testified that, “I believe to this day the video played a role.” Yet on September 12, 2012, the day after the attack, she advised the prime minister of Egypt that, “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”
During a Democratic presidential debate in March 2016, Clinton was asked if she had lied to the families of the four Americans killed at Benghazi. In 2015, Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith who was killed in Benghazi, said, “Hillary and Obama and Panetta and Biden and all of — and Susan Rice, all told me it was a video, when they knew it was not the video. And they said that they would call me and let me know what the outcome was.” Ms. Smith also said that several times she was told she was not part of the immediate family.
Clinton’s spurious response to whether she lied to the families was that Ms. Smith was “wrong… absolutely wrong,” due to the fact that information regarding the cause of the attack was changing “literally by the hour” from “the fog of war. ” Yet, on on September 12, 2012, the day after the attack, she advised the prime minister of Egypt that, “we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”
Clinton asnwered the question by saying the following:
You know, look. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can’t even imagine the grief that she has for losing her son, but she’s wrong. She’s absolutely wrong.
I and everybody in the administration, all the people she named, the president, the vice president, Susan Rice, we were scrambling to get information that was changing, literally by the hour. And when we had information, we made it public. But then sometimes we had to go back and say we have new information that contradicts it.
Why did the attack happen? The CIA was moving weapons for Al Qaeda from Libya to Syria, then to Iraq for ISIS, with the assistance of Ambassador Stevens. According to a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, “a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and [Turkish Prime Minister] Erdoğan administrations,” was described. “It pertained to the rat line [transferring weapons from Libya]. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria,” according to a Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative journalist.
The United States and other Western countries have been arming terrorist organizations directly, and the U.S. has been secretly training ISIS at a Jordanian base.
In May 2015, recordings made in 2011 were released concerning the war against Libyan leader Gadhafi in 2011. In the recordings, Clinton is criticized by top Pentagon officials for orchestrating a “march to war” through the State Department by working with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB), comprised of retired military leaders, current anti-terrorist experts, and others, said the recordings confirm their conclusion that the Obama administration had refused an offer by Gadhafi to step down as leader of Libya because they had “changed sides” and chose to supply the al-Qaida-affiliated militia with weapons to force Gadhafi from power.
A CCB member and retired four-star admiral said an admiral had negotiated a deal in March 2011 for Gaddafi to step down. “The release of the Pentagon secret tapes by the Washington Times today validates the CCB interim report that the Libyan war was totally unnecessary, since it now has been validated that Gaddafi was willing to abdicate and that he had no intention of causing a humanitarian crisis, as promoted by Hillary’s State Department,” according to the admiral.
A CCB founding member and retired Air Force general said, “It becomes obvious these Pentagon tapes reveal a starting point by the Obama administration to start switching sides by taking down Gaddafi when all informed analysts knew that Benghazi was the incubator for radical Islam in sending suicide bombers to Iraq to kill American troops. Why the administration wanted to do this is bewildering, but the evidence continues to grow.”
According to a former CIA operations officer, “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking ‘Why?’ for well over a year now. It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them. The war in Libya was a manufactured war produced in part by the influence the Muslim Brotherhood exerted on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the Muslim Brotherhood penetrating her office through the influence of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime deputy chief of staff, who transferred to the State Department to serve as Clinton’s aide.”
Defense and State Department documents declassified in May 2015, show Hillary Clinton and the State Department were directly involved in the expansion of ISIS, but the Obama administration covered up that information. The State Department was arming the Sunni jihadists fighting the Assad regime in Syria by having Ambassador Stevens ship weapons from Benghazi.
According to the documents the purpose of the attack was to be a prisoner exchange. The terrorists wanted the “blind sheik,” currently serving a life sentence in prison for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and thought a kidnapped Ambassador Stevens would be exchanged for the sheik. Remember, 2012 was a presidential election year. Another reason for the attack was a U. S. drone strike that killed an al-Qaida leader in Pakistan.
Another Defense Department document dated September 12, 2012, stated al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman had planned the Benghazi attack. The document was sent to Hillary Clinton and other Defense Department and White House officials.
Another document proves the Obama administration knew weapons were being shipped through Benghazi. According to the report:
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the (Qaddafi) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
The information in the report was confirmed by a Defense Intelligence Agency document:
The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]
On October 20, 2015, it was reported that documents retrieved following the Benghazi attack revealed illicit shipments of weapons authorized by the State Department were being monitored by consulate staff. One shipment was for a Libyan group trying to remove Gaddafi from power, the Transitional National Council.
In 2011, a Fresno, CA company, Dolarian Capital Inc., had been licensed by the State Department to ship weapons to Libya, including rocket and grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million bullets. The weapons were to be shipped through Kuwit, but were stopped at the last minute for reasons unknown.
“Zero Footprint” was the name occasionally used to refer to the U. S. government’s illegal gun-running operation. Apparently the government was trying to circumvent the U.N. Resolution 1973 which included a weapons shipment embargo for Libya.
On January 13, 2013, investigative journalist Sharyl Atkisson reported that, “We also spoke to sources and have some email evidence that talks about special forces that were not far away in Europe that we were told were assigned to respond in the event of a case just like this, and yet were turned back according to witnesses. This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway. They could have gotten there. According to experts and people that have information we spoke to, they could have gotten there before the last two Americans died. Those attacks went on for eight hours. We spoke to, again a CIA team leader expert, an anti-terrorism expert who says the only person who stops those forces that spun up automatically without waiting to be told—the only force is the commander in chief, slash the White House, an authority that comes from him.”
Does She Believe in the Constitution?
Clinton only believes in part of the Constitution, obviously.
Some parts of the Constitution are just confusing for her. In a talk show appearance she said, “We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns. But there’s also a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country — where we are able to protect our children and others from this senseless gun violence.”
In reality, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. If she cared about this country, she would know the difference. Also, if she believes there is a Constitutional right to life, why does she support abortion?
She does not believe in the First Amendment.
In 2015, Clinton gave a speech at the Women in the World Summit. She said, “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”
Yet in 2014, she said, “At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it.”
She also believes in paying women less than men, although she campaigns on the idea of equality in pay.
She does not believe in the Second Amendment, and hasn’t for quite a long time.
In 1993, as First Lady of the United States, Clinton testified before the Senate Finance Committee and endorsed a 25% sales tax on guns. She also endorsed a gun dealer fee increase of up to $2,500. “I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that,” Clinton said.
In a 2014 town hall event, Clinton was asked about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. She replied, “We cannot let a minority of people – and it’s, that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” The viewpoints of a minority of people that terrorize the majority of people are liberal progressives, of which Clinton is one.
In 2015, Clinton said she would do whatever it takes, including executive orders, to implement new gun laws to make sure dangerous people can’t get guns. While campaigning in New Hampshire one week after a shooting at an Oregon school killed nine she said, “How many people have to die before we actually act, before we come together as a nation?”
Clinton’s new laws would include stricter background checks, a military-style weapons ban, and allowing gun violence victims to sue gun manufacturers and dealers by repealing a 2005 law. Vaccine manufacturers are exempt from lawsuits even though they injure and kill millions of people, unlike guns.
Clinton then criticized the Natrional Rifle Association by saying, “Ideally, what I would love to see is gun owners — responsible gun owners — [and] hunters form a different organization and take back the Second Amendment from these extremists.”
Perhaps she’s not familiar with the Second Amendment. It says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How would imposing new gun laws to “take back the Second Amendment” not be infringing on the right to bear arms, and therefore unconstitutional?
Clinton thinks a gun buyback program is “worth considering on a national level”:
“You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.
In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of … weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach.
But they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to, you know, curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”
In January 2016, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump pointed out the hypocrisy of Clinton’s gun control desires. “Hillary said that guns don’t keep you safe. If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!”.
At a campaign event in April 2016, a member of a panel discussion on gun control said, “Citizens are the terrorists, right? We’re so worried about terrorism but we have terrorism on our own soil.” Clinton nodded numerous times while the woman spoke. However, the woman was correct in saying we have terrorism in America, and we have Hillary, among others, to thank for it.
In an interview, George Stephanopoulos, who worked at the Clinton white house, asked Clinton, “Do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right? That it’s not linked to the service in the militia?” She deflected the question by saying, “I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right—as we do with every amendment—to impose reasonable regulations.”
The bottomline is Clinton believes the government can regulate all amendments to the Constitution. Isn’t regulating the Constitution the purpose of the amendments in the first place? Is it really necessary to regulate regulations?
Do gun control laws work in other countries? In France, which has restrictive gun laws, there have been at least three terrorist attacks since 2015. In the first attack, 12 people were killed, and more than 130 were killed in the second attack. In both of these attacks, experts believe the guns were illegally purchased on the black marked and then smuggled into France. In a third attack, more than 80 people were killed, although most of them were killed with a truck.
Gun control laws are designed to take guns from law-abiding citizens and make them unable to defend themselves, because criminals will always be able to illegally obtain guns.
A website lists some of the opinions of Hillary Clinton, and all the candidates, on specific issues, such as immigration, national security, and the economy.
BOTTOM LINE —
Negatives: Member of the secret society Council on Foreign Relations.
Positives: As a member of a secret society whose goal is the destruction of the sovereignty of the U.S., there are no positives, not to mention all the crimes she has committed and has never been held accountable for them.
A CANDIDATE THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL —
DONALD TRUMP — The Populist Candidate
Donald Trump is a real estate developer and businessman. He is considered an outsider to the political process because he has never held any political office.
Trump has four siblings. The oldest of the five, Maryanne, was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by President Reagan in 1983. She was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1999 by President Clinton.
In May 2016, Trump said that his mostly self-funded campaign had been sufficient to carry him through the primaries, but it would not be enough for the presidential race as the Republican nominee. Therefore, he was going to be utilizing some of the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) existing infrastructure in certain states,
Some Republicans expressed concern that the RNC might be too involved with the presidential race to offer assistance to other races, such as congress and governors.
Trump signed an agreement with the RNC that he would provide donors that can contribute up to $449,000. He also agreed to the use of super PACs to raise additional funding.
What Would a Donald Trump Presidency Be Like?
Donald Trump has made many promises about what he would do as president. The majority of things he has said he would do are not possible for a president to do by himself. That’s because they involve changes to existing laws/agreements, or new ones have to be written. Either way, they would have to be agreed to by Congress before the president can review them and decide if he wants to approve them, or reject them.
Trump said he would eliminate some environmental policies so the oil and coal industries could recover to stimulate the economy and strengthen national security and energy independence by eliminating the necessity to import oil from the Middle East.
It has been estimated that regulations cost the economy more than $2 trillion each year. Regulations cost the typical company 21% of its payroll each year. Reducing the number of regulations companies have to comply with would certainly provide a much-needed boost to the economy.
The regulations Trump has said would be impacted include the U.N. global climate accord tentatively agreed to in 2015. This accord involves a carbon tax of $100 billion every 10 years. Global warming does not exist and no amount of money will solve an imaginary problem, but that won’t stop the U.N. from assessing a tax anyway.
Trump has also said he would approve the Canadian Keystone XL oil pipeline. It has been estimated this would add thousands of jobs into the work force and stimulate the economy.
In August 2015, Trump told an interviewer that U.S. ground troops should be in the Middle East so they can seize oil revenue from the Islamic State. Approximately 10% of Iraq’s oil rigs are controlled by ISIS, who then sell the stolen oil on the international black market. This would shut off a source of revenue for ISIS, and hopefully cripple their operations by limiting the amount of weapons they could buy.
Trump feels that American soldiers that were wounded in Iraq should be given “something” from the old fields.
Trump has always campaigned on the idea of building a wall on the U.S./Mexico border, and having Mexico pay for the wall. On March 3, 2016, the finance minister of Mexico said, “Under no circumstance will Mexico pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing. Building a wall between Mexico and the United States is a terrible idea. It is an idea based on ignorance and has no foundation in the reality of North American integration.”
What exactly did the finance minister mean by “North American integration”? Was he referring to the Noreth American Union that would make one country out of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico? It would be like the European Union that the countries are now trying to get out of after England voted to leave.
Trump has said that to revive the economy he will cut taxes and regulations. This would also help to save Social Security, Medicare, and other important government programs. Reducing taxes and regulations would be a significant step towards improving the lives of citizens.
Currently, regulations cost the economy more than $2 trillion each year. A 2016 survey was conducted of the corporate tax rates in 188 countries. The United States has the third highest tax rate, at 38.92%, out of 188 countries! The U. S. has the highest tax rate of the 35 industrialized nations that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
A high corporate tax rate is why manufacturing that used to exist in the United States has moved to Mexico, China, and Vietnam. The tax rate in Mexico is 30%, in China it’s 25%, and in Vietnam it’s 22%. Compare those rates to 38.92% in the United States. Trump wants an across-the-board tax rate of 15%. Reducing the corporate tax rate would bring most, if not all, of those jobs back to the United States, because it would be cheaper to manufacture in the United States than in any other country. This is desirable to make America self-sufficient again.
Trump also wants to reduce government waste and fraud by eliminating some departments of the federal government, including the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Regulations written by the EPA are the most costly for businesses to comply with.
Trump frequently mentions his desire to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare if he becomes president. Insurance companies are fleeing Obamacare because it has proven to be a complete failure in improving healthcare and reducing the cost of health insurance. Some experts have said they believe it will implode in 2017 and Congress will have to step in and take action.
Part of the problems with the healthcare system involves giving healthcare to illegal aliens. According to Trump, “Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.”
Treasonous Trade Agreements —
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a “trade” agreement between the United States and 11 other countries. Only 20% of the agreement involves trade. The rest of the agreement is about transferring American sovereignty to foreign corporations, significant restrictions on the internet and intellectual property use, unlimited immigration, no labeling of GMO ingredients on food labels, enforcement of climate change regulations, no more due process or presumption of innocence, and other anti-American policies. According to Sen. Sessions (R-AL), one of the few members of Congress that actually read the agreement, it will create global governance.
After the TPP, there are two more trade agreements, the TTIP and the TiSA, that will destroy any remaining national sovereignty anywhere in the world, and complete the implementation of global governance.
To make the process of approving the trade agreements faster, Obama requested Congress transfer their Constitutional authority on trade policymaking to the White House. This is accomplished by a process called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also referred to as Fast Track. This has been done many times in the past, beginning with President Franklin Roosevelt.
In May 2015, Trump publicly said he is against the TPP. He has continually said he is against the TPP.
Does He Believe in the Constitution?
Trump has said he supports the Constitution many times, particularly the second amendment. “I’m a very strong 2nd Amendment person,” Trump has said.
He has correctly identified one of the most frequent causes of gun violence in America. “It’s not a question of the laws, it’s really the people,” Trump said in an interview after two reporters were shot in Virginia in August 2015. “This isn’t a gun problem, this is a mental problem. In the old days they had mental institutions for people like this because he was really, definitely borderline and definitely would have been and should have been institutionalized.”
Trump is a gun owner for personal defense, and has a concealed carry permit.
Another component of dealing with gun violence is, “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump said. He’s right about that. If criminals aren’t going to be prosecuted according to the law, why are we a nation of laws?
A website lists some of the opinions of Donald Trump, and all the candidates, on specific issues, such as immigration, national security, and the economy.
BOTTOM LINE —
Negatives: He has New World Order operatives as some of his advisors, and a questionable vice presidential candidate.
Positives: He is a Constitution-loving patriot that wants to restore America to the way she used to be to improve the lives of all citizens.
Source Materials —
Alinsky, Saul, Rules for Radicals (Vintage Books Edition, October 1989)