Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton – “I’m Proud to Say Henry Kissinger is Not My Friend”

Screen Shot 2016-02-12 at 11.02.14 AM

He’s a thug, and a crook, and a liar, and a pseudo-intellectual and a murderer. Ok? Those things are factually verifiable.

Kissinger deserves vigorous prosecution for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.

A good liar must have a good memory: Kissinger is a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory.

– Quotes by Christopher Hitchens

One of the more bizarre memes that continues to be parroted by the establishment media is this idea that Hillary Clinton is so much stronger than Bernie Sanders when it comes to foreign policy. Sure, if your definition of “strength” consists of cheerleading for the cataclysmic Iraq War and propagating a series of war crimes and international fiascos as Secretary of State, then I suppose that’s true.

For some of Henry Kissinger’s greatest genocidal hits, I turn to a fantastic article published in the Nation last week titled, Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace:

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

America’s Corrupt Media – How Reporters Took Direct Orders from Hillary Clinton’s Staff

Screen Shot 2016-02-12 at 9.04.00 AM

It is the job of the Fourth Estate to act as a check and a restraint on the others, to illumine the dark corners of Ministries, to debunk the bureaucrat, to throw often unwelcome light on the measures and motives of our rulers. ‘News’, as Hearst once remarked, ‘is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising’. That job is an essential one and it is bound to be unpopular; indeed, in a democracy, it may be argued that the more unpopular the newspapers are with the politicians the better they are performing their most vital task.

– Brian R. Roberts from a October 29, 1955 article in the London periodical “Time & Tide”

A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.

– H.L. Mencken

If you really want to know how weak Hillary Clinton is as a candidate, you merely have to appreciate that the U.S. media essentially acts as her own personal PR firm, yet the public still recognizes her as a dishonest crook. Brace yourself for the following story, it’s huge.

Earlier this week, we learned from Gawker that at least one U.S. reporter traded content in his article for information from Hillary Clinton’s staff while she was Secretary of State. In what is an almost hard to believe exchange, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic,  agreed to insert specific words and imagery into his article in return for a copy of Hillary’s upcoming speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.

We have the exact exchange thanks to emails released from a 2012 Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA). Gawker reports:

The emails in question, which were exchanged by Ambinder, then serving as The Atlantic’s politics editor, and Philippe Reines, Clinton’s notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere, turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and which we are currently suing the State Department over). The same request previously revealed that Politico’s chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen, promised to deliver positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate exchange, permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department for Politico’s Playbook newsletter. Ambinder’s emails with Reines demonstrate the same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In them, you can see Reines “blackmailing” Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech as “muscular” in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words, Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of Clinton’s own staff.

On the morning of July 15, 2009, Ambinder sent Reines a blank email with the subject line, “Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?” His question concerned a speech Clinton planned to give later that day at the Washington, D.C. office of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential think tank. Three minutes after Ambinder’s initial email, Reines replied with three words: “on two conditions.” After Ambinder responded with “ok,” Reines sent him a list of those conditions:

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Video of the Day – See What Happens When College Kids Face Microaggressions

If you’ve had enough of the pc police on college campuses and need a good laugh, this video is a must watch.

Brilliantly done.

For some of my previous thoughts on college cry bullies, see:

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Lines Around the Block to Buy Gold in London…Banks Placing “Unusually Large Orders for Physical”

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 8.48.11 AM

First, let’s look at the improved fundamentals. Gold bugs will exasperatingly proclaim that fundamentals have been great for the past four years yet the price plunged anyway, so who cares about fundamentals? To this I would respond with two observations. First, large institutional investors and sovereign wealth funds have been anticipating a rate hike cycle for a very long time now. They didn’t know when, but they expected it. The fact that the gold bugs never believed this is irrelevant; what matters is that big money believed it, and it was perceived to be very gold negative. In their minds, this anticipated rate hike cycle would confirm that things were getting back to normal, and if things are normal you don’t need to own gold, right?

The problem is that this assumption is quickly being called into question. Sure the Fed hiked rates once, but it is starting to look more and more like a policy error. Meanwhile, other major central banks around the world are going in the opposite direction, toward negative rates. I am a huge believer in market psychology, and the psychology dominating the minds of most institutional investors over the past few years has been that things were slowly getting back to normal. This has weighed on institutional demand for gold in a big way, and been a meaningful factor in the bear market (manipulation aside). If this psychology shifts, the shift back into gold could be very meaningful.

While that backdrop is interesting in its own right, what may make the move into gold that much more explosive is the lack of alternative investments…

– From the February 3, 2016 post: GOLD – It’s Time to Pay Attention

What a difference a couple of weeks can make. The Telegraph is reporting the following:

BullionByPost, Britain’s biggest online gold dealer, said it has already taken record-day sales of £5.6m as traders pile into gold following fears the world is on the brink of another financial crisis.

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Must Read – “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote”

Why the black community supports Hillary Clinton is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps someone can rectify my ignorance in the comment section, but it appears irrational to support a person so single-mindedly focused on her own wealth and power, as opposed to someone genuinely interested in helping poor and struggling communities.

Perhaps it’s merely a name recognition thing, or the fact that her husband was so popular with the black community. I don’t know, but what I do know is Hillary Clinton is running for President because she wants the Presidency. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is running because he sees America in deep trouble. There’s a huge difference.

– From the post: Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders

Earlier today, we learned that Ta-Nehisi Coates will be voting for Bernie Sanders. A few hours later, a hugely important piece written by Michelle Alexander at the Nation began making the rounds titled: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote. Taken together, these two revelations could represent a major turning point with regard to Bernie Sanders’ success within the black community. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her lead among blacks cut in half over the next few weeks. It’s about to get real.

Here are a few excerpts from the fantastic Nation article which outlines how disastrous the Clinton administration was when it came to the black community.

Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Did Hillary Clinton Really Win More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders Despite a Landslide Loss?

Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 11.36.36 AM

There’s a meme going around highlighting the fact that Hillary Clinton actually walked away with more delegates from New Hampshire than Bernie Sanders despite her landslide loss. The reason for this relates to the fact that she already has hundreds of pledged “super delegates,” several of whom hail from NH.

For example, the Daily Caller is reporting the following:

Though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide over Hillary Clinton, he will likely receive fewer delegates than she will.

Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary. 

New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.

Technically this is true, but while the super delegates are “pledged,” they aren’t actually awarded until the Democratic convention in July. So while at 15% of total delegates, the super delegates could potentially decide who is the nominee is, would they actually go against the popular vote at the convention?

I read a great article by Shane Ryan at Paste Magazine analyzing this entire process, which does an excellent job of explaining why everyone should stop talking about total delegates and focus on the individual primaries. Here are a few excerpts from the piece:

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Top U.S. Official Admits – Government Will Use “Internet of Things” to Spy on the Public

Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 9.56.57 AM

You can’t say you weren’t warned. The writing on the wall that “smart devices” would prove to be manna from heaven for spy agencies and hackers around the word has been obvious for a very long time.

A year ago, I published two articles on this topic. The first highlighted the revelation that Samsung’s Smart TV can and will listen to your conversations, and will share the details with a third party. The second had to do with the release of a high-tech Barbie that will listen to your child, record its words, send them over the internet for processing. If you missed these posts the first time around, I suggest you get up to speed:

A Very Slippery Slope – Yes, Your Samsung Smart TV Can Listen to Your Private Conversations

Big Barbie is Watching You – Meet the WiFi Connected Barbie Doll that Talks to Your Children and Records Them

Moving along to today’s article, we learn that the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, admitted that the government intends to use the “Internet of Things” for spying on the public. As Trevor Timm of the Guardian notes:

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

What Clinton Said in Her Speeches – “She Sounded More Like a Goldman Sachs Managing Director”

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 2.50.44 PM

What’s even more interesting is to compare what Hillary said last night to what she stated as a New York Senator in 2008 in the midst of the banker bailout debate. Specifically, as the battle for TARP was raging, she admitted on radio:

“I think that the banks of New York and our other financial institutions are probably the biggest winners in this, which is one of the reasons why, at the end, despite my serious questions about it, I supported it.”

Of course she supported it for the banks. She did it to shore up the people who have bankrolled her entire career and continue to do so. It has nothing to do with terrorism, it has to do with the fact that Wall Street owns her lock, stock and barrel.

– From the post: A New Low – Hillary Clinton Claims 9/11 is the Reason She’s Owned by Wall Street

The following revelation is the last thing Hillary Clinton’s team wanted to emerge at a time when her campaign is in the midst of a complete and total meltdown.

From Politico:

NEW YORK — When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks. 

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Desperate for Hillary – Feminist Icon Gloria Steinem Claims Young Women Support Sanders to Attract Boys

When people get desperate, they do desperate things, and Hillary Clinton supporters are very, very desperate.

Indeed, it’s now become clear the Hillary support team understands it can’t win the argument with the American people on the issues, so it’s focusing all of its energy into guilting women to superficially supporting her simply based on gender.

Just yesterday, I highlighted how that tactic is offensively playing itself out on the campaign trail in the post: Clinton PANIC – Madeleine Albright Says “There’s a Special Place in Hell for Women Who Don’t Help Each Other”. If you missed that post, check it out, it’s a must read.

Moving along, just when you thought Clinton supporters couldn’t get any more condescending, feminist icon Gloria Steinem went ahead and made the following insulting and sexist comment about young American women on television:

“They’re going to get more radical as they get older,” Steinem said. “And when you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.”

Getting beyond the fact that she stated young American women aren’t capable of thinking outside of their pants, she mentions women “get more radical as they get older.” This directly implies that activism consists of voting for someone based on gender as opposed to the issues. This is supposed to be feminism?

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.

Clinton PANIC – Madeleine Albright Says “There’s a Special Place in Hell for Women Who Don’t Help Each Other”

Screen Shot 2016-02-06 at 5.59.15 PM

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

– From the article: A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

This might be it. The moment that finally drives home the point regarding how incredibly low the Clintons, and the establishment that supports them, are willing to go to win the Presidency.

We’ve all seen Hillary’s shadiness on display time and time again throughout the campaign, but one thing that hasn’t been said enough is that with the Clintons, you don’t just get the Clintons. You end up electing a cadre of some of the most villainous and corrupt corporate criminals, manipulators and unethical political mercenaries America has to offer.

With Hillary in the White House, the American people are also signing up for an all-star roster of associated cronies who have spent much of the last few decades raping and pillaging both Americans at home, and innocents abroad.

As a prime example of how low some of these characters are willing to go, this is what former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, had to say today on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

According to NBC News:

Read the Full Article »

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1


 Follow me on Twitter.