A few days ago the Wall Street Journal published a very powerful piece titled, The Million-Dollar Donors. What you’ll see should sufficiently dash any and all fantasies that Hillary Clinton is for the average person.
Here are a few of the graphics:
I’m not one to shy away from Hillary Clinton related controversies, but this whole Spirit Cooking topic just seemed too far over the top to not have a good explanation. As such, I’ve avoided writing about it, hoping that someone from the Clinton team would come out and put all the craziness to rest. That has not happened.
Indeed, the topic was trending at #1 for much of the morning on Twitter, and continues to trend at #3 many hours later. All day, I’ve been trying as hard as possible to disassociate my confirmation bias about the Clintons, from this story. As such, I’ve been waiting for a good “debunking” piece to come out, but have yet to see one.
For those of you who are interested in the topic, here’s a measured take from The Washington Times:
The following is just a brief clip from the full interview, which will be released on Saturday.
Enjoy.
These are some pretty damning results for the mainstream media. Not only does the American public see the media as a bigger threat to election results than Russian hackers, it’s not even close.
The Washington Examiner reports:
Voters fear the media far more than Russian hackers when it comes to tampering with election results.
According to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is “the primary threat that might try to change the election results.”
While most Americans were captivated by last night’s World Series Game 7, some very, very big news broke. Normally, I’d summarize the news and provide my perspective before highlighting source text, but in this case I want to provide the information first.
The real blockbuster came from Fox News’ Bret Baier, who released some serious information courtesy of two sources at the FBI. Real Clear Politics summarized Bret’s primary conclusions based on his conversations:
With neither the racist nor the Putin-puppet label sticking to Trump, team Clinton and its lobotomized surrogates have regressed back to square one: playing the woman card.
As I noted in a post earlier this week, a professor of linguistics at Berkeley just published an article at Time claiming (with zero evidence of course), that the Hillary Clinton email server scandal only exists because she is a woman. Here’s a brief snippet of what she said:
‘It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman’
I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.
The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.
It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general. Of course, in the year 2016, no one (probably not even The Donald) could make this argument explicitly. After all, he and his fellow Republicans are not waging a war on women. How do we know that? They have said so. And they’re men, so they must be telling the truth.
I know. It’s really hard to believe the above is real, but it is.
Moving along, President Obama himself is now getting in the mud.
Here’s what he had to say today in Ohio, according to NBC:
When it comes to the Clintons, where there’s smoke, there’s usually a structure fire. I doubt Haiti is any different.
With that in mind, I wanted to flag an article published earlier today at the BBC, What really happened with the Clintons in Haiti?
Here are some excerpts:
Donald Trump has said the work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in Haiti was a “disgrace”. What really happened?
“The Clinton family, they are crooks, they are thieves, they are liars,” says Haitian activist Dahoud Andre.
For a long time now, I’ve felt that no matter who wins this election, the U.S. is in for extremely difficult times over at least the next 4 years. The reason is twofold. First, when you combine Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters (the latter didn’t just disappear), a majority of the population is in full on revolt against the status quo. This mood isn’t going anywhere. Combine this backdrop with the very high likelihood of an economic downturn, and you have a recipe for mayhem. This isn’t even taking into account the possible end to a multi-decade secular bull market in sovereign bonds, the ramifications of which represent a financial extinction-level event for much of the Western world.
When I look at the financial markets and note that they appear totally unwilling to even flirt with the very real possibility of a Trump victory, I conclude that the current status quo assumption is not only that Hillary will win, but that after she wins, the social mood will get better. I, on the other hand, think it will get far, far worse, as disgusted Trump and Sanders supporters push back relentlessly from day one. As I noted earlier today on Twitter:
Last Friday, I published a post titled, John Podesta’s Sister-in-Law Lobbied For Raytheon While Hillary Was Secretary of State, which understandably got totally buried in the madness surrounding the latest FBI news. Here’s the first paragraph of that post:
The Podesta family seems particularly adept at earning extraordinary sums of money via selling out the American public. Earlier this year, I highlighted how John Podesta’s brother Tony was paid $140,000 per month by the medieval monarchy of Saudi Arabia. After all, who cares about women’s rights when the pay is good?
Indeed, it’s not just relatives of Podesta who know how to rake in the cash. John is no slouch either, as Politico explained in an article published earlier today.
Here are a few excerpts:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, last year signed a $7,000-a-month contract with the foundation of a major Clinton donor who made a fortune selling a type of mortgage that some critics say contributed to the housing collapse, hacked emails show.
Today’s college-related article is not about safe spaces, macro aggressions and trigger warnings. Rather, it’s about a remarkably stupid claim made by Robin Lakoff (a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley), that the entire email scandal plaguing Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a vast patriarchal driven conspiracy manufactured by men for the sole purpose of taking down a strong and powerful woman. No, I’m not kidding.
Here are a few excerpts from the delusional Time published article, Hillary Clinton’s Emailgate Is an Attack on Women:
‘It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman’
I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.
The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.