Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

#HillaryClinton



Hillary Clinton is a Neocon - http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-is-a-neocon/

Chris Matthews insists Clinton is a centrist.

Shared publicly - 12:01 PM #HillaryClinton

Exposing Hillary Clinton's Ties to Saul Alinsky & Communist Doctrine
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/ex...nist-doctrine/




Exposing Hillary Clinton's Ties to Saul Alinsky & Communist Doctrine - Freedom Outpost
freedomoutpost.com
Exposing Hillary Clinton's Ties to Saul Alinsky & Communist Doctrine

Old Scandal Resurfacing for Hillary Clinton – The Worst News Possible for Her Presidential Campaign (VIDEO)



Author: Editor

Posted: October 9, 2014

“Whitewater” is a term that younger Americans probably don’t remember. And Hillary Clinton was counting on it staying that way.

But for watchers of the Clinton White House, it was a property investment scandal dating back to the first days of Bill’s first term in office. And now, it’s back and setting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s White House dreams on fire.

The Clinton library is going to be releasing documents, which include the once sealed Whitewater files. They will be included in a new book by Robert Fiske, the former U.S. attorney who was the first independent counsel in charge of the Whitewater investigation, who is ready to blow the lid off of the Clinton’s shady financial dealings which led them on the path to their extraordinary wealth.

Fiske rightly holds a grudge, because he was so tough on the Clintons that they found a way to wrongly accuse him of a coverup. He was subsequently replaced by Kenneth Starr, who is now the Dean of Pepperdine’s law school.

Watch (above) as Fiske is interviewed by investigative reporter Michael Isikoff (political observers will note Isikoff is also an expert at Clinton scandals, and had the story about Bill’s affairs with Monica Lewinsky months before conservative internet icon Matt Drudge had it… But his liberal editors spiked the story.)

Appointed by Janet Reno in January 1994, Fiske describes how he moved aggressively from the start, carving out a wide-ranging mandate and hiring a top-flight staff of veteran prosecutors. One of his first moves was to subpoena Hillary Clinton’s law firm billing records — documents that were later found under mysterious circumstances in the White House living quarters.
By the summer of 1994, Fiske says, he was preparing to bring eight indictments against 11 defendants, including criminal charges for fraud against Jim and Susan McDougal (the Clintons’ Whitewater business partners), Webster Hubbell (then an associate attorney general and formerly Hillary Clinton’s law partner) and Jim Guy Tucker (Clinton’s successor as governor of Arkansas).
A key witness in these cases was David Hale, a former municipal judge and the owner of a federally subsidized small-business lending company. It was Hale who had made the most serious allegation against Bill Clinton: Hale had claimed that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, had pressured him to make a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan to a marketing company owned by Susan McDougal that was really intended to pay off the two couples’ debts in their Whitewater real estate investment. (“My name can’t show up on this,” Hale claimed Clinton had told him, an account that President Clinton later denied.)
Defenders of the Clintons have long depicted Hale as an inveterate liar who was put up to his allegations by bitter political enemies of the then president and first lady.

Via Yahoo News
Supporters of Hillary Clinton have the impossible task of defending her against countless numbers of high-profile scandals. No normal person would have been able to arrange for the investment in Whitewater properties located in the Ozark Mountains, nor get away with taking massive (and illegal) tax write-offs from the losses later assumed. It was a criminal enterprise, and their business partner, developer Jim McDougal, died while serving his sentence for his part in these Clinton-orchestrated crimes.

Are you ready to fight Hillary Clinton as she starts to run for President? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.


Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/o...#ixzz3FfwTfMQW


Remember White Water?????

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...m#.VEZ-JPldVE9

Hillary Clinton Ex-Boss Says He Fired Her from Her Work on the Watergate Investigation for Being a "Liar" and "Unethical"-Truth! Summary of the eRumor: The eRumor says that as a 27-year old working on the Watergate Investigation in the 1970s, Hillary Clinton was "fired" from her position for being a "liar" and "unethical." The Truth: This email is the text of a column published on March 31, 2008 by Dan Calabrese, founder of Northstar Writers Group (www.northstarwriters.com). The story is based on statements by Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat, who was a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee. He said that he supervised then Hillary Rodham who got a job working on the investigation of the Watergate scandal, which eventually brought Richard Nixon's presidency to an end through resignation. Zeifman published a book in 2006 titled Hillary's Pursuit of Power. On his website, which is no longer on the Internet, Zeifman said "Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a Senator or President--and if she were to become President, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed." Zeifman said that during her work on the investigation of the Watergate scandal, Hillary Rodham "...engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules." In 1998 Zeifman was a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton and said he "gained extensive personal insights into the unethical practices of Hillary Clinton in her White House 'West Wing' office." Specifically, Zeifman believes that Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to enhance the chances of Senator Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president. Zeifman contends that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with "...her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel -- as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon." Zeifman charges that Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Another reason for Clinton's conduct, according to Zeifman, was that Democrats did not want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared that as a part of his defense Nixon might want to bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy. Zeifman said he regrets that when he terminated Clinton from the Nixon impeachment staff he did not report her unethical practices to the appropriate bar association. There has not been any response that we have found from Clinton to the book or to Zeifman's accusations. Posted 04/7/08 Updated 01/11/14 A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet: 2013 Version: FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR FOR ‘LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR’ The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther ... and goes much deeper ... than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation ... one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals ... including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum ... who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach... including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970. “As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said. The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do? “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding ... as if the Douglas case had never occurred. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashb...-constitution/ -------------------------------------------- Original eRumor as it appeared in 2008: Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior by Dan Calabrese Dan Calabrese As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying. The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970. “As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said. The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do? “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon. Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later. But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...m#.VEaDd1tqNEK

Franklin Roosevelt Signed The Glass Steagall Act And Stopped The Depression And Pilfering By The Rothschild Banking Family
Glass–Steagall Legislation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Glass–Steagall Act)

This article is about four specific provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, which is also called the Glass-Steagall Act. For other uses, see Glass–Steagall (disambiguation).

The term Glass–Steagall Act usually refers to four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[1] Congressional efforts to “repeal the Glass–Steagall Act” referred to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms).

[2] Those efforts culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.

[3]The term Glass–Steagall Act is also often used to refer to the entire Banking Act of 1933, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama.

[4] This article deals with only the four provisions separating commercial and investment banking. The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the Glass-Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking. A separate 1932 law also known as the Glass–Steagall Act is described in the article Glass–Steagall Act of 1932.
Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.

[5] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the GLBA, many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already “dead.”

[6] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.

[7] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."

[8]Many commentators have stated that the GLBA’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.

[9][10][11] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.

[12] Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.

[13] Commentators, including former President Clinton in 2008 and the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[14]

#glass-steagall-act #billclinton #banksters 

An Affair to Remember

Thursday, October 23, 2014






Between this and Benghazi not really the best candidate would you say?

Check it out:
As Hillary and Bill Clinton prepare for another White House ramble, the country is fated to endure more than a few 1990s flashbacks, often including attempts to whitewash the real history. The latest character to re-emerge is Monica Lewinsky, the former intern who is doffing her beret to reinvent herself as an anti-cyberbullying activist.

In a speech this week at a Forbes magazine conference that went viral on the Web, Ms. Lewinsky describes herself as a “survivor” of online abuse—she became “the creature from the media lagoon.” As the worst abusers, she cited Matt Drudge and the New York Post, which gave Ms. Lewinsky a term of tabloid endearment as “the portly pepperpot.” Another culprit was “a politically motivated independent prosecutor,” or Ken Starr.

Post Continues on online.wsj.co


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/10/aff...gmiPz16dkzt.99

Clinton Says Businesses Don't Create Jobs

Oct. 28, 2014




While campaigning in Massachusetts for gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, Hillary Clinton inadvertently revealed exactly how she views American free enterprise. During the rally, the soon-to-be presidential candidate declared, “Don’t let anybody tell you that, uh, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”
Oh how wrong she is.
After catching heat for sounding eerily reminiscent of Barak Obama and his infamous “you didn’t build that” line, Clinton clarified her comment. According to one of her aides, she had meant to “talk about tax breaks for corporations and businesses in that sentence, which led into a line about how trickle-down economics had ‘failed spectacularly’ – a sentiment she has long held.”





Despite that “clarification,” Clinton’s rhetoric on economic policy is in line with what the Left wants to hear. Supposing that Clinton will seek the Democrat nomination for president in 2016, she might have to contend with a challenge from her left by progressive populist Elizabeth Warren. According to columnist Timothy Carney, “Clinton is a corporatist,” while “Warren is a populist.” In order to head off Warren’s challenge, Clinton will have to say populist things.
In the same speech, Clinton derided the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, which were the main reason for the economic boom and prosperity enjoyed during her husband’s tenure. “Trickle-down economics,” she sneered, “failed rather spectacularly.”
The truth is just the opposite. Reagan successfully reversed Jimmy Carter’s economic malaise. Reagan wanted government to get out of the way so companies and individuals could prosper. To do that, he implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which brought inflation down to 3.2% by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth.
Instead of learning from the economic success during the Reagan years, however, Clinton advocates the opposite. If she wins the Democrat nomination and, heaven forbid, is elected president, we can expect a continuance of Obama’s failed economic policy. Yet she’ll no doubt say one of her goals will be to “fix” the economy, which has suffered immensely under Obama. That will require more skillful navigation than she has so far shown ability to accomplish.
She and her leftist cronies believe that one way to create jobs is by increasing the minimum wage. Clinton asserted, “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990’s … and millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure.”
But the facts show otherwise. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute notes, “From 1981 through 2007, the US economy created 50 million jobs. (Also the jobless rate fell from a high of 10.6% to 4.4%). Over that same time span, the minimum wage declined in value – using the consumer price index – by 30% since it only rose to $5.35 an hour from $3.35, while to stay even with CPI inflation it needed to rise to $8.43.” He further notes that, while the minimum wage was declining, there was an incredible surge of job growth, and median incomes rose by 40%.
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office released a report earlier this year projecting that Democrats' desired 40% minimum wage hike would kill 500,000 jobs.
Clinton didn’t touch on the issue of extending unemployment benefits. Perhaps she heard about a recent study showing that after extended jobless benefits were ended, “The number of new jobs that came open each month exploded by 20 percent to 4.7 million by June.”
One thing is certain from Clinton’s comments: She is a statist uninterested in laissez-faire economics. She advocates higher but job-killing wages coupled with higher taxes that will likewise kill jobs, all in service to the expanding power of the government. And, as yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech, it’s clear another such time is upon us.


http://patriotpost.us/articles/30408#share