Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 22282930313233343536 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 379
Like Tree13Likes


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #311
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hillary’s Book Sales Keep Plummeting

    BY: Andrew Stiles // July 2, 2014 4:28 pm

    Hillary Clinton’s most recent memoir is not doing so well. Hard Choices sold only 26,000 copies in its third week on the market, down 46 percent from the previous week.
    It’s currently number 51 on the Amazon Best Sellers List, which is worth putting into context. Here are a few of the books that are ranked higher than Hard Choices:
    (#50) Jesus Calling: Enjoying Peace in His Presence

    “Uniquely inspired treasures from heaven for every day of the year by missionary Sarah Young.”
    (#47) The Doctor’s Diet: Dr. Travis Stork’s STAT Program to Help You Lose Weight & Restore Your Health

    “The Doctor’s Diet is the cure to unhealthy eating — an American epidemic with a death toll higher than that of car accidents, drug abuse, smoking, and gun violence combined.”

    “It’s time to wire up and get connected to one of the most complex areas of Minecraft–Redstone. Redstone experts guide you through all aspects of working with Redstone including mining, smelting, using repeaters, circuit components and circuit designs.”

    Ah well. It’s not like she needs the money.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (AP)

    What difference does it make, right Hillary!!!!

  2. #312
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

  3. #313
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Who Really Killed Ambassador Stevens And What It Has To Do With The UN Takeover Of The US

    Monday, July 7, 2014 6:51

    The Benghazi scandal will eventually find the light of day. It is the story that will not die because some very powerful people are determined that the truth be brought out in order to promote regime change related to the Obama administration.

    Cries for Help Ignored

    Three times Ambassador Chris Stevens begged for more military protection and three times, then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, denied Stevens cries for help. Clinton did not respond to requests for help by saying no, she responded by not responding to the pleas through official channels.
    Stevens had long been a CIA asset who had run guns to al-Qaeda for the purposes of gaining assistance for the CIA inspired led regime changes in Libya and then in Syria. This is nothing new and has been widely reported.
    It is not a secret that the CIA’s propensity to use rogue forces to accomplish a foreign policy objective (i.e., regime change) is not new. The fact that the CIA engages in drug trafficking to fund such an operation is also not new as the American public was introduced to the existence of Air America, Iran-Contra and the nefarious actions of Lt. Colonel Oliver North in televised congressional hearings during the Reagan administration.
    What was not known at the time of Iran-Contra, was that the CIA was convicted, through its paramilitary assets and civilian contractor liaisons (e.g. Blackwater, DynCorp, WachoviaWells Fargo and Halliburton), not only with drug trafficking but sex trafficking to raise the money to arm al-Qaeda in the attack upon Libya and then Syria. Part Three reveal that every major bank is involved all the way up to the Federal Reserve.
    On May 1, 2014, Tosh Plumlee told Alex Jones and his audience that he has firsthand knowledge of US gun running and ancillary drug running to support Black Ops operations in the Middle East. This is the same exact pattern which was utilized to fuel the Iran-Contra Affair in which the Russian backed Sandinistas would be opposed by the Contra using funds derived from CIA basked drug operations which led to the rise of drug-related street gangs in South Central LA in which cocaine became the main commodity. The implication is that the same thing was going on at the time of Ambassador Stevens death in that Stevens was running guns to al-Qaeda. However, there was one more key element of CIA funding which would be used to fund the of proxy forces for the purpose or regime change and that would child sex trafficking.

    Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Was the First Notable to Expose These Crimes of the Century
    Former Representative Cynthia McKinney was told in 2006 by then Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that it was not President Bush’s policy of the Bush administration to award companies, with a track record of human trafficking with government contracts. Yet, the practice continues, government contracts are still awarded even as innocent children sex trafficked. are sold into a life of slavery at the behest of Halliburton, Dyncorp, Wachovia Wells Fargo and other multinational corporations with close ties to the political and corporate elite.
    In 2006, McKinney grilled the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, with the following question: “Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts?” This question was posed to Rumsfeld AFTER McKinney had pointed out that several multinational corporations, with close ties to the elite, had already been busted for selling innocent children into a life of child sex slavery. The heated exchange takes place here.
    Drug running and child sex trafficking are big business. As the reader will discover, later in this article, the money is skimmed, laundered and used to promote regime change through the use of proxy forces such as al-Qaeda. If one can be made to understand this process, then one can understand the power of the shadow government and how it effectively operates as the supreme fourth branch of government.

    US Military Leadership Is In Survival Mode

    As Ambassador Chris Stevens was begging for help after the attack had begun, AFRICOM commander, General Hamm, had activated a special forces team within minutes of learning that the embassy, which was really a CIA safe house, in charge of facilitating an arms transfer between the CIA and its proxy representatives (e.g. Chris Stevens) was under attack.
    The military does not give a damn about drug running and child sex trafficking. However, they do care about their careers and the preservation of the military as an independent and viable entity. The firing of 260+ senior command officers by Obama, serves to threaten this viability. The presence of UN vehicles and troops also threaten the viability of the US military.
    From the perspective of the military, the Obama administration is the mortal enemy of the viability and independence of the American military.

    According to the same sources who accurately told me that Admiral Gayoutte and General Hamm were launching a rescue mission designed to save Chris Stevens when they were arrested by CIA personnel serving in their ranks, these men wanted to save Stevens to expose Obama’s betrayal of this country and it ideals, namely, to bring to light drug running, child sex trafficking in order to fund the purchase of arms to be used by proxy forces in promoting regime change.. This was an old-fashioned coup attempt. By saving Stevens, Hamm could have leveraged this information to obtain an American regime change based on these explosive revelations. We know that much of the former military leadership in this country favors a regime change which would remove Obama from power.

    If one cares to do the research, I was reporting on these facts that Obama had survived a coup attempt at this time. A few months later, people like Glenn Beck decided they would publish similar information after criticizing me a few months earlier for printing what they would eventually publish. These same insider sources are telling me that child sex trafficking was helping to support the arming of the rebels in Libya and Syria. Yes, I am saying that General Hamm was part of plot which would have brought down Obama and Clinton in one fell swoop. This was an attempted military coup just as I had previously reported.

    When General Ham received his “stand down” orders from Obama, he made plans to commit mutiny and go ahead with the rescue of Stevens, as he did, he was arrested within minutes of contravening he order by his second in command, General Rodriquez. Admiral Gayouette, the commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, was preparing to provide intelligence and air cover for General Hamm’s rescue team in violation of his standing orders and he was promptly relieved of command for allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.”

    The positions held by Hamm and Gayouette are so powerful and so sensitive, their replacements required approval from the Senate. Also, at that time, the Middle East was considered to be a war zone in which it was believed that the US was trying to provoke Syria and/or Iran into attacking the US so we could have the pretext for invasion.
    Key questions about the mutiny on Benghazi:
    1. Did Hamm and Gayouette commit mutiny in a war zone?
    Answer: Without question!

    2. Where did Hamm and Gayouette fit into the power structure of the military?

    Answer: In a war zone, these two men represented two of the top four commanders in the region. Hamm would have overseen any military incursion into Syria or Iran. When Obama fired the two leaders, he effectively gutted his military command structure in the region.

    3.. Did Hamm and Gayouette’s conspiracy to commit mutiny in the face standing presidential orders occur in isolation?

    Answer: Only a person with absolutely no knowledge of military command structure would be so naive to believe this assertion. The military builds in redundant chains of command which overlap. There is no way that Hamm and Gayouette’s mutiny was occurring without the knowledge of their superiors as well as the NSA, which explains how the Obama administration learned of this betrayal and moved to arrest both men before any rescue effort could have been launched.

    4. Why were key leaders in the military willing to risk their careers in this mutiny?

    Answer: Because every senior command military officer was being faced with the continual acquisition and control of our military by outside forces, this threatened the upward mobility of the more aggressive commanders and it threatened the very viability of the military itself.

    Hillary Clinton

    When Hillary “What does it matter?” Clinton was unable to contain the fall out, and subsequent cover up from Ambassador Stevens death, she was out as Secretary of State and John “Ketchup” Kerry was in. The appointment of Kerry was a brilliant move by an otherwise bumbling set of attempts to cover up the murder of Stevens. During the Reagan administration, Kerry led a congressional investigation which ultimately led to the conviction and exposure of Air America and the nefarious Iran-Contra Affair which was led by the CIA in violation against the laws of this nation. Kerry’s appointment to the Secretary of State position would ease the fears of a cover up because he had previously blown the lid off of a similar Benghazi operation over 25 years ago. On the surface, Kerry was the perfect choice if the administration wanted to avoid allegations of any further allegations of a Benghazi cover up. Unfortunately, for the Obama administration, the seemingly brilliant appointment of Kerry did not throw the investigative dogs off of the Benghazi trail and it is the scandal, along with the IRS scandal, that will just not go away. This undying attention on this story happened thanks to tips provided to journalists such as myself by disenfranchised and former US military,
    If there is ever a revolution in this country involving elements of the US military vs. the blue helmeted foreign (i.e. Russian, Chinese, et al.) assets, these disenfranchised elements of the military, will need the popular support of the people to win.


    There are two more important questions to ask:
    1. Why did Stevens have to die?
    Answer: The administration discovered that the military was providing back-channel information to journalists in order to expose that this administration was doing business with al-Qaeda for the purposes of regime change. Steven was killed less than two months before the election of Obama to a second term. Can one only imagine what the public backlash would have been if Stevens had been rescued, stayed angry and told all in retaliation?

    2. Ultimately, why would the military want to save a CIA drug runner and sex trafficker?

    Answer: Stevens could have been leveraged to bring down the present administration which poses such a dire threat to the careers of the military’s leadership. FOR THE MILITARY, THE LAST STRAW CONSISTS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION RELEASING MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS AS PRETEXT TO THE UN GAINING POLICE POWERS WITHIN THE US UNDER THE GUISE OF PROVIDING HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

    In Part Three, I will expose the irrefutable and publicly available proof that Stevens was sex-trafficking for the CIA in order to promote regime change.

    The sources supporting the allegations of drug-running and child sex trafficking in order to raise and launder the money associated with promoting regime change in continue to be former representative, Cynthia McKinney, a quiet but damning Senate Subcommittee Report, a senior banking official from one of the major banks and your common sense.

    If you want one more reason as to why there are so many dead banksters, you may get your wish in Part Three.
    Last edited by kathyet2; 07-08-2014 at 09:31 AM.

  4. #314
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hillary: The Real Alinsky Disciple – Improvements Made to the Original Design

    The Common Constitutionalist July 17, 2014

    There are things throughout history that one can point to and say, "That changed everything." Things like electricity, indoor plumbing and gunpowder

    Some we can point to as simply upgrades or improvements to the original design. Things like fuel injection, the self-contained rifle cartridge or Hot Shots Part Deux.

    Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did the same with Saul Alinsky's teaching of community agitating.

    Interestingly, as an aside, what is today called, by most everyone, community organizing, Alinsky called agitating. However, as the left often does, somewhere along the line, agitator was deemed too negative – too radical, so it magically became organizer. Who could be against organization?

    To be more precise, Alinsky preached that an agitator's job isn't to organize, but to enter and already organized community, agitate to disorganize it and re-organize the community to better achieve the agitators goal.

    I heard many commentators mention Alinsky and his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals" when describing the pitiful "Occupy Wall Street" spectacle from a couple years ago.

    However, Alinsky would not have approved of the amalgamation of dirty hippies and ne'er-do-wells. He taught that true "revolutionaries" should not "flaunt their radicalism." They should "cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within."

    Is any of this sounding familiar?

    Many think Hillary is somehow, like her husband, more moderate than Barack, but it was she who was a direct disciple of Alinsky.

    So impressed was Alinsky with Hillary, that he offered her a job. She turned him down to go on to attend Yale Law School – but that wasn't the only reason. Apparently, she had become convinced that, although she agreed with the Alinsky philosophy, she found his methods of local agitating to be not "large" enough.

    I know Obama feels the same way. Many Alinsky disciples evidently feel the same way – that his local agitating and disorganizing philosophy can and should be played out on a grander, national scale.

    Again, does this sound familiar?

    How many times over the past five years – certainly since his reelection, have we heard that Obama wants to remake America? Look around and see how many government departments and agencies appear to be "dis-organized."

    Now, in his second term, I'm certain he feels no need to hold back. All there is left to do is decide what more he wants to dis-organize in order to re-organize or re-make.

    Evidently, he has chosen immigration and an open border, and he and his cohorts are bringing all their button-down, clean cut radicalism to bear regarding it.

    If things continue unabated, the only question that will remain is what America will look like after Obama's reorganization and which hand-picked radical he will choose as his successor to carry on Alinsky's vision.
    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


    What difference does it make??? Plenty!!!!

  5. #315
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Good News! Hillary Might Not Run For President Because The Job Is “Difficult"

    Hillary recently sat down for an interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose regarding her decision whether or not to run for the presidency. Of course, she didn’t give Rose any clear cut answers. She tip toed around telling him whether or not she’d run and her responses were almost laughable, considering she’s basically been campaigning for the presidency ever since she was First Lady.

    Hillary claimed that the job of president “has only gotten harder” and that it is now an “all-consuming commitment.” Well, it should be an “all-consuming commitment”. You are the leader of the free world, after all. When you’re the president, matters of national security and foreign policy should be priority over golfing and vacationing. Apparently, Obama didn’t get that memo and Hillary isn’t very keen on it either.
    Clinton went on to lament even further:
    “You’ve got to get the money from the Congress to really improve what you’re doing, personnel policies, and all the rest. So the job is as challenging as it’s always been, but I would say almost to a degree of amplification that’s hard to imagine.”
    Boo-hoo. It’s just so annoying when you have to go through Congress to get your funding approved.
    I wonder if Obama paid Hilary to sit and complain about how hard his job is in hopes that Americans would cut him some slack. If he did, the money was wasted, as the pair continue to look like a couple of entitled, out of touch morons.
    H/T: Mr. Conservative

  6. #316
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hillary Clinton Has Made $12 Million Since Leaving the State Department

    She is the 0.01 percent

    BY: Andrew Stiles // July 21, 2014 2:58 pm

    Elderly homeowner Hillary Clinton holds an hour's worth of wages. (AP)

    Hillary Clinton has “earned” at least $12 million since quitting her job as Secretary of State, Bloomberg reports. Sources of income include her underperforming memoir, along with paid appearances at corporate gatherings (e.g. Goldman Sachs) and six-figure speeches at public universities.

    Clinton, who owns at least two homes and hasn’t driven a car in decades, is trying to present herself as a champion of hardworking Americans. Bloomberg notes that while Hillary’s so-called earnings “represent a fraction of the Clinton family’s total income,” they were ample enough to place her “in the top one-hundredth of the 1 percent.” She is the 0.01 percent, and she’s very concerned about income inequality.

    For the sake of providing crucial context, Hillary’s income on an annualized basis works out to about $9 million. That’s $750,000 per month, or $24,658 per day. On average, she “earns” the median American income (about $50,000) every two days. When she’s giving a speech, she makes that much every 15 minutes.

    Hillary has argued that getting paid six-figures to sit in a room and say things is one of the best ways she can think of to fight income inequality.

    As endearing as it is to see someone so old and rich be so committed to increasing her already massive fortune, voters may be wondering: How much money does she really need?

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (AP)

    This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2
    Last edited by kathyet2; 07-21-2014 at 03:45 PM.

  7. #317
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    More Bad News for Hillary

    Voters not convinced that wealthy homeowner can feel their pain

    BY: Andrew Stiles // July 23, 2014 12:25 pm


    A new poll from The Economist/YouGov does not look good for elderly homeowner Hillary Clinton, a potential challenger to Joe Biden in the 2016 Democratic primary.
    Her favorability rating continues to slide. According to the poll, 46 percent of American view Clinton favorably, compared to 45 percent who view her unfavorably.

    More Americans don’t want her to run for president than do.

    It seems that Americans are not convinced that an elderly career politician who hasn’t driven a car in decades, and who gets paid millions of dollars to give speeches to corporations, feels their pain.

    This is why her massive fortune matters. Her ties to the Beltway/Wall Street establishment have only deepened since Democratic primary voters rejected her in 2008. She has profited from these ties, and used them to advance her own political career. She speaks in rehearsed, poll-tested gibberish, and laughs like a maniac. No one can honestly claim that Hillary’s capacity to relate to the struggles of average Americans is any greater than Mitt Romney. Can they?

    Get ready, America.

  8. #318
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

  9. #319
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

  10. #320
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hillary Blames YouTube, Calls IRS 'Real Scandal' and Trashes Gun Owners

    Jun. 18, 2014

    Touring the media circuit to hawk her book, “Hard Choices,” Hillary Clinton made another round of interview appearances Tuesday. Here are some excerpts we think are worthy of rebuttal.

    Regarding the delayed-for-two-years capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, who is believed to have been a perpetrator of the attack at Benghazi, she boasted, “What was made abundantly clear by this latest effort, is we have an unwavering commitment to go after anyone, no matter how long it takes, who is responsible for harming Americans.” The shame is, in part because of her dereliction of duty, Americans were harmed in the first place. And not just harmed – U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were murdered.

    What has she learned? Well, not much. In fact, she’s stubbornly sticking to her original talking points on the YouTube video. “This was the fog of war,” she said. “You know, my own assessment careened from, you know, ‘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.’ And I think the conclusion to draw – because we were not just monitoring what was happening in Benghazi once it began to unfold, but remember we had a very dangerous assault on our embassy in Cairo that same day, which was clearly linked to that video. … I think that the investigations that have been carried out basically conclude, ‘We can’t say that everybody was influenced and we can’t say everybody wasn’t,’ but what the intelligence community said was ‘spontaneous protests’ and that is what, at the time, they thought.”

    In other words, she and the president were perfectly justified in continuing to blame the YouTube video long after that theory was utterly discredited. She alluded to the talking points, which remain one of the most serious questions about the episode. Barack Obama was re-elected in part on his narrative that al-Qaida had been “decimated” and admitting the attack was terrorism would have undermined that happy ending.

    Still, she says, “We’re doing the best we can to find out what happened.” Despite numerous investigations, she added, “I’m still looking for answers.” It’s ironic she said this on the 20th anniversary of the low-speed chase involving O.J. Simpson. He’s also still looking for the “real killer.”

    In other foreign policy news, she doubled down on her insistence that the five Taliban jihadis swapped for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl pose no threat, though this time with a qualifier: “As long as they’re in Qatar, they’re not a threat to the United States.” She added, “In Qatar, with an agreement that has been entered into, they are supposed to be constrained from what they can do, and certainly they are not supposed to be permitted to travel. In that situation, they are not a threat.” Unfortunately, the five are reportedly free to move about the country and can leave altogether in a year. We have no doubt they are a threat.

    Turning to a domestic scandal, Hillary admitted that the IRS Tea Party targeting is a big deal, contrary to Barack Obama’s insistence that it’s a “phony scandal” and there’s not a “smidgeon of corruption” at the agency. “Well, I think any time the IRS is involved, for many people, it’s a real scandal,” Clinton said. “And I think, though, that there are some challenges that rightly need to be made to, uh, what is being said and I assume that the inquiry will continue. So, I don’t have the details, but I think what President Obama means … is there really wasn’t a lot of, uh, you know, evidence that this was deliberate but that’s why the investigation needs to continue.” That’s kind of hard to do now that the IRS insists that it’s “lost” a bunch of relevant emails

    On the Second Amendment and the Left’s various efforts to push gun control, she insisted banning semi-automatic rifles (“assault weapons”) and standard-capacity magazines (“high-capacity” magazines) would protect students – who are already in “gun-free zones” – from “that very, very, very small group that is, unfortunately, prone to violence, and now with automatic weapons, uh, wreak so much more violence, uh, than they ever could before.”

    She declared, “We cannot let a minority of people – and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

    This is perhaps one of the most dishonest and disgusting attacks on the Second Amendment we’ve seen, and that’s saying something. First, there have been two – count ‘em, two – murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons since they were first heavily regulated in 1934, and one of those was committed by a police officer. It’s very difficult to purchase a Class 3 firearm. But gun control fanatics all too frequently (and deliberately?) confuse semi-automatic weapons, which fire one round per trigger pull, with automatic weapons, which can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull.

    Second, Hillary seemingly contends that it is a “viewpoint,” not an evil or deranged person, who “terrorizes the majority of people.” King George couldn’t have said it better himself. In one fell swoop, she’d take away not only the Second Amendment but the First Amendment that it secures.

    It’s clear that voters should make the Easy Choice and reject Hillary Clinton as anything more than a hypocritical and overpaid public speaker.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts