Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

The Clinton/Obama system to discredit Donald Trump, by Thierry Meyssan

How the strings are being pulled on the campaign to oust President Trump, by Theirry Meyssan at voltairenet.org:

This article is a warning – in November 2016, a vast system of agitation and propaganda was set up in order to destroy the reputation and the authority of President Donald Trump as soon as he arrived in the White House. It is the first time that such a campaign has been scientifically organised against a President of the United States, and with such resources. Yes, we are indeed entering a post-Truth age, but the distribution of rôles is not what you may think it is.

David Brock is considered to be one of the masters of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda) in the 21st century. A personality devoid of scruples, he is able to defend a cause as well as destroy it, according to the needs of his employer. He is at the head of an empire of mass manipulation.

The campaign waged against the new President of the United States by the sponsors of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the destruction of the Greater Middle East is on-going. After the Womens’ March on 22 January, a March for Science is scheduled to be held not only in the USA, but also throughout the Western world on 22 April. It’s goal is to show that Donald Trump is not only a misogynist, but also an obscurantist.

The fact that he is the ex-organiser of the Miss Universe pageant, and that his third wedding was to a model, is apparently enough to prove that he holds women in contempt. The fact that the President contests the rôle played by Barack Obama in the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (a long time before his Presidency) and rejects the idea that climatic disturbances are caused by the expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere attest to the fact that he understands nothing about science.

In order to convince US public opinion of the President’s insanity – a man who says that he hopes for peace with his enemies, and wants to collaborate with them in universal economic prosperity – one of the greatest specialists of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda), David Brock, set up an impressive system even before Trump’s investiture.

To continue reading: The Clinton/Obama system to discredit Donald Trump


She’s Back, by Andrew P. Napolitano

It’s escaped widespread public notice, but new information has surfaced about 300 Hillary Clinton emails that fell into the hands of at least three foreign governments, two of them hostile. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

The criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton is back front and center now that the FBI has released proof that her failure to safeguard state secrets caused the secrets to fall into the hands of foreign governments, some of which wish the United States ill.

Even though the case against her — which was closed and then reopened and then closed again — is old news and she obviously is no longer a candidate to become president of the United States and has been staying below the radar for the past two months, recent developments have regenerated the case.

Here is the back story.

On July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced publicly that the FBI would recommend against seeking an indictment of Clinton for espionage — the failure to safeguard state secrets that had been entrusted to her. He argued that though the case against her was strong — as secretary of state, she had been extremely careless with secrets; exposed hundreds of materials that were confidential, secret and top-secret; and used non-secure mobile devices while in the territory of hostile governments — no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.

Why was the decision of whether to prosecute Clinton left to Comey?

The FBI’s job is to gather evidence of federal crimes and to present that evidence to career prosecutors in the Department of Justice for evaluation. The FBI has numerous investigative tools available to it. One of those tools is presenting evidence to a grand jury and requesting subpoenas from it. Another is presenting evidence to a federal judge and requesting search warrants from the judge. A third is obtaining the indictment of someone who is in the inner circle of the person who is the true target of the investigation and then persuading that indicted person to become a government witness.

None of those tools was used in the Clinton case.

To continue reading: She’s Back

From Russia, With Karma, by Jack Perry

If you yell “Russian hackers!” long and loudly enough, maybe people will forget what it is they supposedly hacked. That’s the whole point of this exercise. From Jack Perry at lewrockwell.com:

Let me begin this article with a parable: Little Billy came crying home one day, went right up to his mother and cried out, “Mommy, mommy! Timmy punched me in the eye in front of the whole class! And now I’ve got a black eye! Do something, mommy! Do something!” But Billy’s mother said unto him, “Billy! What did YOU do to him to cause him to risk suspension from school by punching you in front of everyone like that?!”

Now, here we go again with the latest Election Gate scam from the Democrats and Establishment Republicans. Right, Russia must have hacked the election! They broke into the Democrats’ computers and revealed secrets. Because, gosh, that’s the only way Hillary could have lost the election, right? This smells suspiciously like the time the United States government hectored and badgered the Palestinians to hold elections and so they finally gave in and had elections. Then they elected Hamas and the United States sat there and bawled like five-year-olds that stubbed their toes and insisted the election was a fraud.

I have three things to say to the United States government: Karma, you reap what you sow, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How many times have you, U.S. government, boasted of toppling other governments through regime change? How many times have you demanded other countries bend to your will or risk being overthrown and having a U.S. puppet government installed? What, and if the regime change here is on the other foot through an election, now you want to sit and whine about it like babies that lost their pacifiers? No bedtime story for you!

The Mainstream Media is Asking for a Government Bailout Via Censorship, by Michael Krieger

Having fully revealed itself during the election as irretriveably corrupt and untrustworthy, the mainstream media wants to go after the mostly Internet media that had the temerity to question the party line. From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate over Wikileaks — not because the email were untrue but because they proved what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to combat what will be declared “fake” news or propaganda. It is only the latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually embrace censorship.

– From Jonathan Turley’s: Washington Post Issues Correction To “Fake News” Story

Watching Hillary Clinton attack “fake news” and calling for legislative action against free speech she doesn’t like got me thinking. Why is she doing this? Yes, it’s obviously related to her notorious personality trait of never taking responsibility for anything and attaching herself to an invented controversy in order to deflect blame for her monumentally embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. But there’s more going on here. A lot more.

To set the stage, we need to examine the types of people who are most jumping on the “fake news” meme. What you’ll find is that it’s a who’s who of the most contemptible and corrupt people in America. As Glenn Greenwald so accurately noted in his piece published earlier today:

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

To continue reading: The Mainstream Media is Asking for a Government Bailout Via Censorship

Hillary Reemerges, Slams “Dangerous Epidemic” Of Fake News, by Tyler Durden

Unfortunately Hillary Clinton, as the headline notes, has reemerged from whatever isolated but luxurious retreat to which she had repaired. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Having disappeared from the public scene for almost a month (with the occasional backwood spotting thrown in for dramatic effect), today Hillary Clinton reemerged from a self-imposed social quarantine, and in a exquisitely choreographed Podesta special, addressed the nation from Capitol Hill. What was first and foremost on the mind of person who the “impartial” media declared had a 90% chance of being America’s next president: was it some intense introspection; perhaps it was some idea of how to reform and fix the imploding Democratic party; or maybe it was her finally accepting responsibility for her actions and her loss?

None of the above.

Instead, the one thing that appears to have preoccupied the former Secretary of State is the proliferation of so-called “fake news”, a phenomenon she called an “epidemic.” It was not immediately clear if she also lumped in the Washington Post into that bucket: recall that last night, in an editorial note to the WaPo’s fake, slanderous story about “Russian Propaganda Fake News”, the newspaper distanced itself from its primary source, PropOrNot, itself a source of propaganda, when the WaPo admitted it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.”

Speaking on Capitol Hill, Clinton said that “the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year — it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences.” Like, perhaps, poring through thousands of emails which the co=opted and captured mainstream press – especially those who had dinner with John Podesta to offer their PR services to the Clinton campaign – would not touch, revealing the crony and illicit dealings of the Clinton Family foundation, leading to – among other things – Clinton losing the presidency?

To continue reading: Hillary Reemerges, Slams “Dangerous Epidemic” Of Fake News

Why America Called ‘Bullshit’ On The Cult Of Clinton, by Brandon O’Neill

SLL has long maintained that all varieties of statism amount to religions, since statist faith has been so repeatedly contradicted by the often horrifying performance of governments throughout history. Liberalism and progressivism are statist sects, and the Clintons have had their own creepy little cult. From Brandon O’Neill at reason.com:

The one good thing about Trump’s win? It shows a willingness among Americans to blaspheme against saints and reject the religion of hollow progressiveness.

If you want to see politics based on emotionalism over reason and a borderline-religious devotion to an iconic figure, forget the Trump Army; look instead to the Cult of Clinton.

Ever since Donald Trump won the presidential election, all eyes, and wringing hands, have been on the white blob who voted for him. These “loud, illiterate and credulous people,” as a sap at Salon brands them, think on an “emotional level.” Bill Moyers warned that ours is a “dark age of unreason,” in which “low information” folks are lining up behind “The Trump Emotion Machine.” Andrew Sullivan said Trump supporters relate to him as a “cult leader fused with the idea of the nation.”

What’s funny about this is not simply that it’s the biggest chattering-class hissy fit of the 21st century so far — and chattering-class hissy fits are always funny. It’s that whatever you think of Trump (I’m not a fan) or his supporters (I think they’re mostly normal, good people), the fact is they’ve got nothing on the Clinton cult when it comes to creepy, pious worship of a politician.

By the Cult of Hillary Clinton, I don’t mean the nearly 62 million Americans who voted for her. I have not one doubt that they are as mixed and normal a bag of people as the Trumpites are. No, I mean the Hillary machine—the celebs and activists and hacks who were so devoted to getting her elected and who have spent the past week sobbing and moaning over her loss. These people exhibit cult-like behavior far more than any Trump cheerer I’ve come across.

Trump supporters view their man as a leader “fused with the idea of the nation”? Perhaps some do, but at least they don’t see him as “light itself.” That’s how Clinton was described in the subhead of a piece for Lena Dunham’s Lenny Letter. “Maybe [Clinton] is more than a president,” gushed writer Virginia Heffernan. “Maybe she is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself,” Nothing this nutty has been said by any of Trump’s media fanboys.

“Hillary is Athena,” Heffernan continued, adding that “Hillary did everything right in this campaign… She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second.”

That’s a key cry of the Cult of Hillary (as it is among followers of L. Ron Hubbard or devotees of Christ): our gal is beyond criticism, beyond the sober and technical analysis of mere humans. Michael Moore, in his movie Trumpland, looked out at his audience and, with voice breaking, said: “Maybe Hillary could be our Pope Francis.”

To continue reading: Why America Called ‘Bullshit’ On The Cult Of Clinton


They Said That? 11/18/16

Two letters to the editor from today’s Wall Street Journal:

It appears liberal elites have learned nothing from Donald Trump’s victory if Democratic pollster Ann Greenberg is representative (“Groups of Women Voters Hurt Clinton,” U.S. News, Nov. 12). She concluded that there are women “who are skeptical about women’s political leadership” and that “we still live in a sexist country.”

As an older woman, a former clerical worker, who voted for Mr. Trump, I understand why blue-collar women voted as they did. I voted for him not because I am irrationally prejudiced against female leadership, but because I examined Mr. Trump’s policy positions and compared them to Hillary Clinton’s. Mrs. Clinton is a liberal progressive and made clear she would carry forward Barack Obama’s program. This would be contrary to my principles, which are free market and conservative. Mr. Trump spoke to my own policy concerns. Hillary did not. It’s that simple. My vote was hardly based on sexism.

We live in a country where progressive elites disdain ordinary women. They just cannot believe we are anything other than biased and ignorant.

Ellen Pollack

Once again the experts have dropped the ball. Women aren’t skeptical about women’s political leadership. They are skeptical about Hillary Clinton’s political leadership. Do the experts regard it as remotely possible for someone, regardless of gender, to vote against a woman without being “sexist?” Who indeed is being sexist here?

Mark Quinn
Naperville, Ill.