Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Hillary Clinton ridicules mental health patients after man interrupts speech to warn of carcinogenic EMFs in classrooms

Tuesday, November 11, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) 2016 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she has no respect for the mentally challenged after she sounded off in response to a heckler during a recent speech. Reports indicate that Clinton, taken aback by a protester who tried to warn about the dangers of electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) in school classrooms, retorted in jest that some folks "miss important developmental stages."

Clinton had been asked to give a 30-minute speech at a recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) conference that took place in San Diego, California. During her speech before more than 3,000 pediatric medical professionals, Kevin Mottus, a resident of West Los Angeles, pulled out a bullhorn and began heckling Clinton about ignoring the dangers of mobile phone radiation, which resulted in his immediate ejection from the auditorium.

According to KGTV ABC 10 News in San Diego, Mottus sounded his bullhorn and a corresponding siren in an attempt to raise awareness about the health effects of EMFs, which was appropriate in light of the topics being discussed, mainly involving technology and children. As Mottus was being escorted out of the auditorium, a startled Clinton made a highly offensive jab at mental health patients, likening them to those who disagree with her politics.

"You know, there are some people who miss important developmental stages," she arrogantly quipped, receiving laughter and a standing ovation in response.

Media ignores Clinton's offensive statements against people with mental illness

Many media reports glossed over this outrageous statement, clearly siding with Clinton's brazen brushing-off of the issue. But Mottus got what he wanted, which was national attention to a very important issue that affects the vast majority of America's school-age children.

"What I said was, 'Wireless classrooms are causing cancer,'" explained Mottus to 10 News. "It was really ignorant," he added, referring to Clinton's careless response, "but if she understood the very serious reason I was interrupting that speech, she wouldn't have made that comment."

Specifically, Mottus hoped to draw attention to legislation signed by Clinton's husband during his presidency that barred local communities from discussing the dangers associated with EMF exposure. Known as the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the legislation prohibits localities from discussing the health and safety issues of mobile phone communication towers, which were just beginning to hit the American landscape at that time.

"I wanted national attention to this issue," added Mottus, who is deeply concerned about how the radiation from cell phone towers is affecting childhood development and learning.

Hillary Clinton shilling for childhood health to advance her own bid for presidency

Though Clinton addressed various other topics related to childhood health, including the overuse of personal electronics like iPhones and iPads, her true focus was elsewhere: on her own presidency. Commenting on the content of Clinton's speech, San Diego State University history professor Beth Pollard told U-T San Diego that it reeked of politicking.

"She started to talk about the erosion in our leaders and people working hard to make ends meet," Pollard, also a pediatrician, is quoted as saying. "She was beginning to distance herself from this administration."

Clinton also reportedly pushed a new "literacy tool kit" to provide government guidance on how to advance the verbal development of young children. This kit, which seeks to convince more parents to rely on pediatricians rather than their own families for how to best raise children, will reportedly be distributed to the roughly 62,000 members of the AAP.

Sources:

http://www.10news.com

http://www.breitbart.com

http://www.utsandiego.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047599_Hi...#ixzz3IzbGTjDh

Seriously? Hillary Clinton Could Be the Youngest Democrat Seeking Nomination in 2016

20 November 2014

Grandmother Hillary Clinton, 67, is vying to become one of the oldest world leaders in history. In order to achieve that goal, however, she may have to defeat a slate of Democratic challengers who are even older than she is.
That sounds hard to believe, but it’s true. In addition to Clinton, the 2016 Democratic field could include: California governor Jerry Brown, Vice President Joe Biden (the presumed frontrunner), and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.
In such a scenario, Brown would be the oldest Democrat in the race; he’ll be 78 in 2016. Biden will be 73. Sanders will be 75. Hillary, who will be 69 on Election Day, would be younger by comparison. If Elizabeth Warren decides to run, she would be the youngest Democrat, thought not by much. Warren will be 67 in 2016.
Read More: http://freebeacon.com/


Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/11/ser...mination-2016/


SHOCKING: Hillary Clinton Could Be the Youngest Democrat Running in 2016

BY: Andrew Stiles

November 18, 2014 2:36 pm

Party of the future.

Grandmother Hillary Clinton, 67, is vying to become one of the oldest world leaders in history. In order to achieve that goal, however, she may have to defeat a slate of Democratic challengers who are even older than she is.
That sounds hard to believe, but it’s true. In addition to Clinton, the 2016 Democratic field could include: California governor Jerry Brown, Vice President Joe Biden (the presumed frontrunner), and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.

In such a scenario, Brown would be the oldest Democrat in the race; he’ll be 78 in 2016. Biden will be 73. Sanders will be 75. Hillary, who will be 69 on Election Day, would be younger by comparison. If Elizabeth Warren decides to run, she would be the youngest Democrat, thought not by much. Warren will be 67 in 2016.

Democratic leaders in Congress, meanwhile, are also very old. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will be 76 years old in 2016. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid will be 77.

UPDATE: Following the publication of this post, the Free Beacon was notified of a “mayor trolling fail [sic].” Former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, the prospective Democratic frontrunner if Biden declines to run, is also older than Hillary. Webb will be 70 years old in 2016. God bless Dave Weigel for alerting us to the error.


http://freebeacon.com/blog/shocking-...nning-in-2016/


Interesting how the lower picture tries to make her look like Margaret Thatcher, well Hillary dear you are no Margaret Thatcher.. You are the Benghazi Butcher.. But what difference does that make right!!!!

Relaxation Therapy

I only watched this once and it DID work!!
I feel so much better.

I can hardly wait
'til tomorrow to continue with my stress reduction!

A little something to ease
your pain.................... click

Serenity

Obama: Americans Want “New Car Smell” in 2016 & Hillary Would Be a “Great President”
- Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/EPyIH


Obama: Americans Want “New Car Smell” in 2016 & Hillary Would Be a “Great President” - Freedom Outpost
ow.ly
Obama: Americans Want New Car Smell in 2016 & Hillary Would Be a Great President


Obama: Americans Want “New Car Smell” in 2016 & Hillary Would Be a “Great President”

Melissa Melton 16 hours ago

I think the president chose a bad day to stop sniffing glue. Or maybe a bad day to start.
In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Obama spoke from Las Vegas the day after he announced his executive amnesty move on the 2016 presidential election.

Obama said voters want quote “a new car smell” in the 2016 presidential race, because indeed, “They want to drive something off the lot that doesn’t have as much mileage as me.”

(Because Obama obviously knows what Americans want. Also, is it just me, or does it seem like the people in charge have, more and more, begun openly talking about the American public like they’re a bunch of simple-minded, adolescent morons?)

Continuing on with more lame puns than my grandfather for as long as possible without inducing horrible gastrointestinal symptoms, Fox reported that Obama acknowledged the “dings” in his own political career (groan!), then talked about how the Democrats have so much to offer via “terrific” presidential candidates two years from now…but he only mentioned Hillary Clinton specifically by name.

“He said she would be a ‘formidable candidate’ and make ‘a great president’ if she decides to run a second time,” Fox reported.

Then, hilariously, the news outlet wondered, “Would she have that ‘new car’ scent for voters?”

Well guys? What do you think Hillary smells like as president?
*Insert the sound the gets played when someone loses on The Price Is Right here.*



New car? Hillary?

More like one of those Pintos from the 1970s that had to be recalled because the dash caught on fire at stoplights and the back floorboard rusted out, and because the owner was broke enough to only afford an exploding Pinto to begin with, he or she could only afford to place the floorboard with plywood and chicken wire, so every time it rained and the owner drove over a puddle, the backseat would fill up with water but it would not drain, causing the whole car to smell like an expired African safari of mildew and proliferating mosquitoes.

(P.S. – The other side of the carpet is flaunting the idea of Jeb Bush running against Hillary; in fact, the Bush family is reportedly “fired up” at the idea. So really, new car smell is totally out. It’s set to be the same old stale bread and circuses the American people have sadly grown accustomed to. Not even sure how the nation will pretend to get excited or care at this point. New car smell? We’re not even to 2015 yet, but the closer we get to the next presidential election, the more it smells like a dog poo…that’s been baking in the hot July sun for a few hours…taken by a dog the size of Godzilla…)

Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/ob...LTS1UkHJT4X.99



THE BENGHAZI BUTCHER FOR PRESIDENT???? REALLY????? ARE YOU AWAKE YET AMERICA!!!!!!

Clinton State Dept. Blew $18.5 Mil to Renovate Unused Afghan Jail
Posted by National Director, Dee on November 26, 2014
at 2:44pm in Obama Administration ~View Discussions~

~EXCERPT~
While this doesn’t compare to the Benghazi terrorist attacks, here’s yet another State Department scandal that occurred under Hillary Clinton; the agency blew $18.5 million to renovate a prison in Afghanistan that remains unfinished and unused years after the U.S.-funded work began.

It gets better;….
I Think We Need to REJECT… Not Elect This B*tch!!!

Read The Entire Article @
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673:Topic:3289243&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_ share_topic



[IMG]http://api.ning.com:80/files/f1OMKnU6Zmdv0NKQTpC9JjP2HPoqpP2IlhxBBOlDCkT75pIETo ay22Z4-2*nOpE1gQq0*zWyrZRyDDTAEBYuHGv3bRn61CiJ/477446608.jpeg?xgip=50%3A0%3A299%3A299%3B%3B&width =64&height=64&crop=1%3A1[/IMG]


Clinton State Dept. Blew $18.5 Mil to Renovate Unused Afghan Jail
Posted by National Director, Dee on November 26, 2014 at 2:44pm


While this doesn’t compare to the Benghazi terrorist attacks, here’s yet another State Department scandal that occurred under Hillary Clinton; the agency blew $18.5 million to renovate a prison in Afghanistan that remains unfinished and unused years after the U.S.-funded work began.

It gets better; the State Department officer overseeing the multi-million-dollar boondoggle was corrupt and convicted for accepting bribes from an agency contractor, according to a scathing report issued by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). With that kind of supervision, is it any wonder that only half the contracted work got done and that it was subsequently determined to be defective by an independent firm. This includes failure to backfill trenches, improper roof flashing, soil settlement issues and the failure to connect six back-up generators to the prison’s power grid.

Meanwhile, the Afghan compound, Pol-i-Charkhi prison, remains empty after American taxpayers doled out all that cash to fix it. Built in 1973, the jail is Afghanistan’s largest correctional facility and is supposed to house about 5,000 prisoners. The Soviet Union funded the original structure, which was built by a contractor from India. In the summer of 2009 the State Department awarded a $20.2 million renovation gig to Afghanistan-based Al-Watan Construction Company (AWCC). The money flowed through the agency’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), which gets billions annually from congress to combat international crime and illegal drugs. In fiscal year 2013 more than $600 million went to Afghanistan to strengthen its justice and corrections systems and renovate prisons in high-insurgent areas, the INL Budget Guide shows.

In the case of Pol-i-Charkhi, the millions provided by Uncle Sam were supposed to reconfigure prisoner holding areas into smaller cells so that it could house a larger population. Each cell was to have a sink and one or more eastern-style toilet depending on cell size. The renovation contract also called for electrical and plumbing improvements, remodeling several structures including the prison industries building and kitchen facilities, building two septic/leach field systems and procuring and installing six refurbished back-up power diesel generators.

But more than five years and $18.5 million later only half of the work has been completed according to contract requirements, the SIGAR audit states, and the deal has been “terminated for convenience.” Furthermore, the work that has been done is shoddy and fails to meet the standards set by the original agreement. It will cost millions more to right this wrong, according to the State Department, which estimates around $11 million to finish renovations and another $5 million to construct a wastewater treatment plant.

read more:


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...te-dept-blew-1...

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/to...sg_share_topic

December 01, 2014, 08:20 am

Another paid speech for Hillary Clinton?

By Peter Sullivan





Getty Images
Hillary Clinton appears set to give another paid speech amid controversy over the appearances and questions as to when they will stop if she is indeed running for president.

Clinton will deliver a keynote address at the Winnipeg Convention Center in January as part of a series sponsored by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, according to The Winnipeg Free Press.

The speech comes in addition to a Feb. 24 appearance at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women.

Clinton is traditionally paid for these type of speeches, a practice that has come under criticism. It is expected that Clinton will stop giving paid speeches once she announces a run for president. The appearances early next year could mean the announcement of a presidential run is not coming until later in 2015.

That timing is later than some expected and runs contrary to the timeline given by close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, who said last month that the decision would come within 60 days.

Clinton's paid speeches, and the trappings around them, run the risk of making her appear out of touch, as she faces pressure from the left to be more populist and emulate liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The money does go to the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons' philanthropic group.

The Washington Post reported last week on the details of a $300,000 speech Clinton gave at UCLA in March. Emails with organizers reveal the extensive requirements from Clinton's team. Her staff wanted "prestaged" group photos so Clinton would not have to wait for people, and specified that there should be "crudite, hummus, and sliced fruit" in the green room.

The Republican National Committee has seized on reports of Clinton's travel expenses, labeling her "High-flying Hillary" for her use of private jets to travel to events.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/225559-hillary-clinton-appears-set-to-give-another-paid-speech

EXCLUSIVE–Rand Paul: 'Benghazi Was the Definition of an Intelligence Failure'



by Sen. Rand Paul 1 Dec 2014, 7:01 AM PDT 72 post a comment
The House Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited Benghazi report Friday, claiming, “There was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.”


This one sentence tells us how seriously we should take this report.

Benghazi was the definition of an intelligence failure. It was, in fact, one of the worst intelligence failures in our history, a strategic blunder that resulted in the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans.

The ultimate blame lies with the Obama Administration and more directly with Hillary Clinton who oversaw this tragedy during her tenure as Secretary of State. No rational person has ever disputed that our government failed horribly in protecting the U.S. embassy and our diplomats.

Americans just wanted to know who was responsible.

Now, a Congressional Committee chaired by Rep. Mike Rogers is telling us no one is responsible because there was no intelligence failure to begin with.

It might be time to rename the House “Intelligence” Committee.

This administration has changed the talking points and ignored important questions about Benghazi throughout—when the administration knew what was happening, why did it happen, was it terrorism, who ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens security requests, who told Susan Rice the consulate was secure, the list of questions goes on. These questions remain unanswered or insufficiently answered and are crucial to getting to the bottom of what really happened.

The Associated Press claims the report debunks, “A series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”

None of these accusations contain even a modicum of truth?

Three CIA security members have said their team was intentionally delayed by the administration in conducting a rescue effort. Are they being untruthful, or is this report perhaps not telling the full story? Multiple highly-respected news outlets reported on arms possibly being smuggled from Libya to Syria, before and after the attacks in Benghazi. Were all these stories fabricated? Or did they contain some useful or pertinent information related to this investigation?

The Obama Administration has tried to paint members of Congress who ask these questions as somehow being extreme or crazy—and perhaps the House Intelligence Committee will now follow suit,

But remember, this is the same administration that called the investigation into the IRS scandal a product of a “conspiracy theory.”

When Clinton was asked during her Benghazi testimony almost two years ago who first floated the story about an anti-Islamic video supposedly being the catalyst for the attacks, she shot back, “What difference at this point does it make?”

It makes a huge difference, Mrs. Clinton. All of these questions make a difference—about your judgment and the basic competency of this administration. They make a difference to the families of the victims.

They make a difference to the American people who deserve to know the truth.

From the beginning of this controversy, Obama officials have used smoke and mirrors at every opportunity to evade blame. They have ducked and weaved to avoid anything that could possibly cast the administration in a bad light.

“C.Y.A.” is a term many Americans are familiar with that was invented by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War. This new Benghazi “intelligence” report is little more than a C.Y.A. attempt designed to protect incompetent politicians and government agents at the expense of justice for the victims of September 11, 2012.

They will continue to cover up. I will continue to seek the truth until those at the top of this two-year chain of deception are finally held accountable.

And yes Hillary, it still matters.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/29/Benghazi-Report?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email &utm_content=Breitbart+News+Roundup%2C+December+1% 2C+2014&utm_campaign=20141201_m123359986_Breitbart +News+Roundup%2C+December+1%2C+2014&utm_term=More

Action needed here!!!! LETS ROLL!

http://www.alipac.us/f8/stop-these-g...ictate-315410/

Hillary Clinton Will Never Be President

Her ship has come in, but has it also sailed? (Yes, it has)

BY: Andrew Stiles

December 3, 2014 2:11 pm

Never.

Until recently, the conventional wisdom among Beltway elites was that Hillary Clinton would waltz, or at least walk unassisted, to the Democratic nomination in 2016. Now that narrative has come under attack, amid mounting evidence that Hillary’s most recent quest for power has already failed.
Consider, for example, the embarrassingly sparse crowd at Georgetown University on Wednesday, where Clinton delivered a lecture on “Smart Power: Security Through Inclusive Leadership.”




M. Scott Mahaskey ✔ @smahaskey
Follow
As Hillary Clinton takes stage for policy speech at Georgetown Univ, scores of student seats, balcony are empty.
7:38 AM - 3 Dec 2014 Washington, DC, United States



M. Scott Mahaskey ✔ @smahaskey
Follow
View from balcony as Hillary Clinton speaks at Georgetown Univ. in DC.
7:53 AM - 3 Dec 2014 Washington, DC, United States

Dan Merica ✔ @danmericaCNN Follow Tickets to Clinton's Georgetown event were offered to all students. School says less interest is byproduct of last week of classes/finals.
8:28 AM - 3 Dec 2014

This is precisely the demographic Hillary will have to turn out in large numbers to be successful in 2016. Anyone who thinks she can come close to inspiring the same amount of enthusiasm among people as Barack Obama is kidding themselves. In fact, Hillary has been struggling to draw crowds of all ages. Gov. Deval Patrick (D., Mass.) has said the sense of inevitability surrounding Hillary’s candidacy is “off-putting to voters.” The American people view inevitability as a sense of entitlement, Patrick said on Meet The Press, and prefer candidates who make an affirmative case for themselves. “The American people want–and ought to want–their candidates to sweat for the job, to actually make a case for why they are the right person at the right time,” he said.

Meanwhile, recent polling suggests Hillary’s aura of inevitability is fading. She is only slightly ahead in matchups with potential GOP challengers with much lower name recognition.




Andrew Stiles ✔ @AndrewStilesUSA
Follow
Inevitable
8:39 AM - 1 Dec 2014

Prominent left-wing blogger Ezra Klein thinks Hillary is “not inevitable” because she is too focused on “expansive ambitions of radical jihadists” and “takes a hard line on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Financial Times columnist Edward Luce recently suggested that Hillary faces a “rickety bridge” to the White House, in part because “Democrats have remarkably little new to say about the future of America’s middle classes.” Hillary’s close ties to Wall Street and big corporate donors, Luce argued, will likely hinder her ability to “ignite the passion” of liberal voters, potentially paving the way for a populist challenger such as Elizabeth Warren.

Hollywood has taken notice. Acting juggernaut Mark Ruffalo, star of 13 Going on 30, recently tweeted his support for Warren. The momentum may prove unstoppable.




The Washington Post, among others, is beginning to wonder if Hillary will even run at all. The fear of losing, for example, may preclude her from running. Just think how embarrassing that would be. She’s not as popular as she used to be. She’s also considerably older than she was in 2008. Even bill Clinton has acknowledged that his wife’s heath is a “serious issue.”

The New Republic’s Alec MacGillis poses a compelling question: If Hillary is truly preparing to run in 2016, why is she still giving so many highly paid speeches?

Alec MacGillis @AlecMacGillis Follow
Good @NBCFirstRead q: "If she is truly eyeing 2016, as we believe she is, why is Hillary still giving paid speeches?" http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/jeb-bushs-trial-balloon-if-he-runs-its-his-own-n259691 …
9:38 AM - 2 Dec 2014
Jeb Bush's Trial Balloon: If He Runs, It's on His Own Terms

Boy, there's plenty of 2016 news this morning -- from Hillary Clinton, Rob Portman, and Rand Paul. But we begin with the trial balloon that former Florida Go...

NBC News @NBCNews

The obvious answer is that Hillary firmly rejects the Obama adage that “at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.” Considering that she has barely tried to hide her voracious greed since quitting her job at the State Department, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that she will choose to continue making millions of dollars rather than run for president. After all, being leader of the free world pays just $400,000 a year. On the public speaking circuit, Hillary can make that much in less than a hour.
The evidence, as presented, is overwhelming: Hillary Clinton will never be president.




http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clinton-will-never-be-president/


Oh well, now they want Elizabeth Warren, hmmm What difference does it make, they are all the same on both sides of the fence!!! The only choice we have on any of these political hacks is the choice they put out so in effect, it amounts to NONE, NADA.. "What Difference Does it make" is about right.... Time to Wake Up America we need to stand up loud and strong and let them know just how we feel. Vote them all out over and over and over again till they get it right...and it will be hell till then.