Tuesday, August 30, 2016


The term "rigged" get's used a lot these days, and for good reason. 

It looks like the political Establishment has a choke hold on the Main Stream Media and there's no sign of it abating any time soon. 

Hillary Clinton and her media allies have been working overtime to put out numerous fires that continue to pop up and spread during the final weeks of her campaign for president. Recently, the flames have gotten more difficult to smother as reports of Clinton’s frail health have bled into the mainstream media, despite the unanimous and unilateral decision by the MSM to treat anyone who even raises a question as akin to a Holocaust denier. (On Sunday night, for example, Huffington Post fired contributor David Seaman and deleted his columns simply for linking to a Hillary health video that’s been viewed four million times.)

Julian Assange stoked more flames when he suggested a murdered DNC worker was the Wikileaks source for the DNC hack. Most recently, the Associated Press released a blockbuster story concluding that more than half of the people Clinton met with as secretary of state gave donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Despite these ongoing scandals, Clinton’s close yet questionable ties to media outlets such as Google, CNN, PBS and The New York Times have seemed to pay off. 

These entities have gone out of their way to censor negative stories about Clinton, particularly ones involving the Clinton Foundation. There’s one common thread though these media outlets suppressing harmful Clinton stories all share: they’ve donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Media Orgs Donate to Clinton Foundation Then Downplay Clinton Foundation Scandal | | Observer


An adult male takes a photograph of his penis bulging from his underwear with his son's head nestled next to it and posts it on social media? Is that child pornography? Or at the very least, child abuse?

Anthony Weiner poses with his son in this kinky shot he sent to the latest object of his online lust.

This is a crime and there is a victim. Imagine the kind of ridicule and teasing his son will be subjected to in the future. Bad enough his last name is Weiner, let alone his dad posing him with one.

So why is Anthony Weiner not being charged with creating and circulating child pornography?

Could it be because he is Married to Huma (Weiner) Abadine who happens to be Hillary Clinton's #1 top surrogate?

This is baby-sitting — Anthony Weiner-style.

While his wife, Huma Abedin, travels the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the disgraced ex-congressman has been sexting with a busty brunette out West — and even sent her a lurid crotch shot with his toddler son in the picture, The Post has learned.

The stay-at-home cad shot the revealing photo while discussing massage parlors “near my old apartment” shortly after 3 a.m. on July 31, 2015, a screenshot of the exchange shows.

Weiner was clearly aroused by his conversation with the 40-something divorcee when he abruptly changed the subject.

“Someone just climbed into my bed,” Weiner wrote.

“Really?” she responded.

Weiner then hit “Send” on the cringe-inducing image, which shows a bulge in his white, Jockey-brand boxer briefs and his son cuddled up to his left, wrapped in a light-green blanket.

“You do realize you can see you[r] Weiner in that pic??” the woman wrote.

Moments after forwarding the photo, Weiner freaked out over the possibility he had accidentally posted it publicly — just as he did during the infamous episode that forced him to resign from Congress in 2011.

“Ooooooh . . . I was scared. For half a second I thought I posted something. Stop looking at my crotch,” Weiner wrote back.

“Whatever. You did it on purpose,” she replied.

“O I see you thought you posted on your TL [public timeline] not DM [direct message]. S–t happens be careful,” she added.

The object of Weiner’s affections is his polar opposite politically: a self-avowed supporter of Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association who’s used Twitter to bash both President Obama and Clinton.

Monday, August 29, 2016


It looks like the message that blacks (and Hispancis) are being exploited by the Democratic Establishment is begining to resonate.

“Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech. We may not like the vessel that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said, because it is a fact that for 54 years, we have been voting for the Democratic party like no other race in America.

And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We as black people have to reexamine the relationship — where we are being pimped like prostitutes, and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and we get nothing in return.”

New Black Panthers Leader Says Trump is Right, Black Voters “Pimped Like Prostitutes” by Dems


While his wife, Huma Abedin, travels the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the disgraced ex-congressman has been sexting with a busty brunette out West — and even sent her a lurid crotch shot with his toddler son in the picture, The Post has learned.

The stay-at-home cad shot the revealing photo while discussing massage parlors “near my old apartment” shortly after 3 a.m. on July 31, 2015, a screenshot of the exchange shows.

Weiner was clearly aroused by his conversation with the 40-something divorcee when he abruptly changed the subject.

“Someone just climbed into my bed,” Weiner wrote.

“Really?” she responded.

Weiner then hit “Send” on the cringe-inducing image, which shows a bulge in his white, Jockey-brand boxer briefs and his son cuddled up to his left, wrapped in a light-green blanket.

Anthony Weiner sexted busty brunette while his son was in bed with him | New York Post

Sunday, August 28, 2016


Nigerian-Lebanese billionaire Gilbert Chagoury continues to be a thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton.

The multi-million dollar Clinton Foundation donor was denied entry into the U.S. last year because of his ties to a Lebanese organization that has allegedly given money to the terrorist group Hezbollah, The Los Angeles Times reports.

The news, which was based on interviews and government documents, comes weeks after emails surfaced showing that in 2009, a Clinton Foundation adviser asked Hillary Clinton’s State Department deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, for a favor on Chagoury’s behalf.

The request for favors is evidence that the Clinton Foundation operates as a massive pay-for-play scheme, the Clintons’ critics have claimed.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/28/billionaire-clinton-foundation-donor-denied-entry-into-us-because-of-terror-ties/#ixzz4IgLITzsk

Saturday, August 27, 2016


A month from now, the Commission on Presidential Debates will let us know which candidates get a golden ticket to that national forum.

Will America get to hear from anyone besides Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the two most distrusted and reviled candidates in modern political history?

Two recent news reports stoked hopes that we might: Earlier this month, CNBC reported that the Commission “might consider giving an inch to a third-party candidate” like Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson. “It’s happening: The presidential debate commission is planning for three-way debates,”Rare.com gushed.

Don’t get too excited, libertarian friends: It's probably not happening—the fix is still in.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization set up and originally co-chaired by the then-chairman of Republican National Committee and his Democratic counterpart, has served as the debates’ gatekeeper since 1988.

CPD describes its mission as ensuring that the debates “provide the best possible information to viewers.” But its real mission is to make the debate stage a “safe space” for major-party candidates. It does so by rigging the rules to protect them from unflattering camera angles, the microaggressions of uncooperative moderators and—most hurtful of all—the terror of third-party competition.

There’s little in the commission’s recent maneuvers to suggest that this joint Red-Team/Blue-Team front group is going to rise above its origins.

Current CPD co-chair Mike McCurry downplays the significance of the “third-podium” story in the Politico article itself: “Some of our production people may have said, ‘Just in case, you need to plan out what that might look like.’” When the Pentagon war-games worst-case scenarios against hypothetical adversaries like North Korea—or zombies—that doesn’t mean it’s about to happen.

As for “giving an inch” to third-party candidates, it’s more like a millimeter, and also entirely hypothetical. The commission will still, as it has since 2000, require them to demonstrate 15 percent support in five national polls, but CPD’s other co-chair, Frank Fahrenkopf, allowed, "If someone came in and let's say he was [polling] at 14.5 percent and the margin of error in five polls was 3 points,” they’d have to “look at it… but right now that person would not be included."

More to the point, the fact that McCurry, Bill Clinton’s former press secretary and erstwhile Democratic National Committee communications director, and Fahrenkopf, former head of the Republican National Committee, run the operation that runs the debates ought to tell you something about whose interests the group serves.

Politifact calls the CPD an “independent, bipartisan organization.” Score that “half true:" the commission is as bipartisan as the Iraq War, the 2008 bailouts and the imperial presidency itself . But the CPD has always been the cat’s paw of the party organizations that founded it and the campaigns it serves.

McCurry hasn’t lost his Lewinsky-era ability to snow journalists: “Our posture is, we design something we think is in the best interest of American citizens,” he told Politico, and “if the two campaigns decide to have on their own a separate set of discussions about terms, the commission then considers their requests,” in the form of a “memorandum of understanding” (MOU).

“If ”—that’s cute. Every presidential debate since 1988 has featured a MOU negotiated between the major parties. The CPD’s willingness to rubber-stamp these insider deals is what allowed it to hijack the debates from their previous host, theactually independent League of Women Voters, in the first place.

The MOU negotiations are a closed-door process, but the contracts usually leak, and it’s perversely amusing to speculate about what inspired some of the strictures.

Was it Al Gore’s petulant eye-rolling tic in 2000 that led to the rule, “No TV cutaways to any candidate who is not responding to a question,” or Bush 41’s graceless glance at his wristwatch in ’92?

Surely, it was the diminutive Governor Dukakis who pushed for the 1988 rule that the candidates’ podiums “will not exceed 48 inches” in height, since they went up to 50 inches in the subsequent deals. In any case, however, when the parties make demands, the commission simply asks, “How high?”

At the 1987 press conference announcing the CPD’s creation, the co-chairs strongly signaled that third parties need not apply. And over the seven presidential election cycles it’s run the debates, the CPD has allowed an extra podium in just one: in 1992, when the George H.W. Bush campaign demanded Ross Perot be included, and the Clinton team acquiesced.

In perhaps its one spark of “independence” in its three-decade history, the CPD objected: They were “worried about the precedent of third-party candidates always being included,” Clinton’s campaign chairman explained. But the campaigns had made a deal, and the commission had to go along.

Four years later, neither the Red nor the Blue Team wanted the troublesome Texas billionaire back, so the CPD kept him out—despite the fact that 76 percent of voters supported his inclusion.

Banning Perot, who’d garnered nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992, was so glaringly arbitrary that the CPD felt compelled to adopt facially “neutral” rules for the 2000 race, and thus the “15 percent rule” was born. Applied retroactively, that bar would have been high enough to exclude every third-party candidate since the dawn of television, except Perot—and it’s kept out every third-party candidate since.

When pollsters have asked Americans about broadening access to the debates, as Annenberg did in 2014, 56 percent agree that “the rules for a third-party candidate inclusion should be relaxed so that it is easier for them to be part of the debate,” while only 28 percent found the current rules acceptable. But they seem to be the rules we’re stuck with, so long as this self-dealing Red/Blue junta controls the forum.

McCurry told CNBC he sometimes finds himself “mischievously” daydreaming about getting ex-Daily Show host Jon Stewart to moderate, then waking up to ask himself, “Do I have the balls to actually recommend this?”

But bringing in the liberal Stewart wouldn’t exactly hurt McCurry’s (Blue) team. Here’s a braver idea: Do more than “posture” about “the best interests of American citizens”: loosen the rules to allow alternative voices—open up the debates.

Commission on Presidential Debates Announces Polls to be used in 2016 Candidate Selection Criteria   READ MORE ;

Thursday, August 25, 2016


They both put money first above all else.  Hillary has no problem selling herself to anyone who throws enough money at her.

Heather has no problem exploiting the sick; even children by gouging them while at the same time enriching herself with an obscene salary.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals CEO Heather Bresch is desperately trying to control the public relations disaster created by her company’s decision to jack up the price of the life-saving EpiPen drug by 450 percent over the past 12 years.

In an interview with CNBC on Thursday, Bresch insisted that “no one is more frustrated than I am” about the price increase, which she said was necessary to cover all the marketing and distribution costs that are needed to make the drug more widely available.

“We’re manufacturing the product, distributing the product, enhancing the product, investing,” she explained. “When we took over this product eight years ago, there was very, very little awareness. We have doubled the lives of patients who are carrying an EpiPen. We have passed legislation in 48 states to allow undesignated EpiPens to be in schools.”

Of course, none of this addresses the criticism that raising prices by such high amounts ensures that fewer children will have access to the drugs because their parents won’t be able to afford them.

CNBC interviewer Brian Sullivan also pointed out that the American Medical Association has said that EpiPens are the same product that they were in 2009, and thus nothing justifies such massive price hikes.

“Everybody should be frustrated,” she replied without actually addressing this criticism. “I am hoping this is an inflection point for this country.”

When asked how she could justify increasing her own compensation — which has risen from $2.5 million in 2007 to $18.9 million in 2015 — even as parents have to pay significantly more for their children’s life-saving drugs, Bresch again completely dodged the question.

“I understand better than anyone that facts are inconvenient to headlines,” she said. “I want to change this conversation. First of all, so everyone has access. Let’s talk about, the last eight years, what we’ve done to make sure the people who need it have it. When we passed legislation in 48 states to ensure that schools can have EpiPens, we have given out 700,000 free EpiPens… They need to be everywhere, because when you need them, seconds count.”

Sullivan pointed out that it appears that Mylan is just trying to legislate in a new market rather than making sure its drugs are affordable.

WATCH: Mylan CEO Heather Bresch goes down in flames defending $16M pay raise and EpiPen price hike


As the old saying goes which is why it's so important to pay attention to what Hillary (and Bill) does rather than what she says;

When it comes to "for profit schools" Hillary says;

Candidate Clinton has vowed to "crack down on predatory" for-profit schools as part of a broader plan to help lessen crippling student loan burdens on millions of Americans.

The "College Affordability Plan" posted to Clinton's campaign website dubs "for-profit colleges" as institutions who have "too often taken advantage of borrowers" and promised a "crackdown on the abusive practices of for-profit colleges that defraud taxpayers while burdening students with debt for educational programs of no value."

In fact, one of the Laureate's largest schools in the U.S., Walden University, was found to have burdened students with the second-highest debt load of any American school, according to a 2015 study by the Brookings Institute.

This sounds good but at the same time Hillary is blasting  away on the campaign trail this is what;s going on behind the scenes;

"Hillary Clinton has made it clear that all for-profit institutions should be held to the same standards and she will crack down on law-breaking for-profits by expanding support for federal regulators to enforce laws against deceptive marketing, fraud, and other illegal practices," Clinton spokesperson Josh Schwerin said.

Casting an even wider shadow around the situation, however, was the fact that Doug Becker, the founder of Laureate, has donated up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

It also appears that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, but before her husband was hired by the company, wrote to a top aide that she wanted officials from the school added to a State Department dinner guest list

And Hillary is quoted in making comments like:

According to emails released by the State Department, Clinton, in 2009, described the company as "the fastest growing college network in the world" and mentioned that it was "started by Doug Becker, who Bill likes a lot."


The Clinton team’s use of BleachBit suggests nefarious motives, Gowdy suggested.

“If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted,” Gowdy said. “They didn’t just push the delete button, they had them deleted so even God couldn’t read them.”

A website advertising BleachBit describes the product.

“Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as shredding files to prevent recovery, wiping free disk space to hide traces of files deleted by other applications, and vacuuming Firefox to make it faster,” the website reads.

Clinton has claimed that she gave the State Department all of the work-related emails she had in her possession by late 2014. But it was officially revealed last month that Clinton & Co. likely deleted a significant number of emails.

FBI director James Comey said that investigators had recovered “several thousand” work-related Clinton emails. Earlier this month, it was reported that the FBI recovered 14,900 Clinton records. They have been given to the State Department and will be released beginning in October.

Kendall, Clinton’s lawyer, told Gowdy in a letter last year that none of the emails Clinton declined to turn over to the State Department were recoverable. It is not clear at this point who ran the BleachBit program on Clinton’s server.

Here's How Hillary Clinton Deleted Emails | The Daily Caller

Wednesday, August 24, 2016


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe - The Washington Post

Tuesday, August 23, 2016


More than half the non-government interests who met with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of State also gave money to the Clinton Foundation. According to a review by the Associated Press, at least 85 of 154 people who met or had scheduled conversations with Sec. Clinton also donated to her family’s charity or vowed to engage in its international programs. 

The 85 donors unearthed by the AP contributed a combined $156 million, the AP reported Tuesday, with at least 20 of those giving more than $1 million. The AP noted that the meetings did not violate legal agreements Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, signed before she took on the role as State Department chief, however, the news outlet added, “the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.”
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

Saturday, August 20, 2016


Despite Leonardo DiCaprio’s best intentions and deep pocketed ambitions, the Oscar-winning actor will not be hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton on August 23, as previously scheduled. The $33,400 a pop fundraiser at DiCaprio’s L.A. pad for the former Secretary of State and Democratic Party presidential nominee has been shifted over to Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel’s house, sources confirm.

Justin TImberlake Takes Over HIllary Fundraiser From Leonardo DiCaprio | Deadline

Friday, August 19, 2016


Neither one are capable of admitting they "lied" and will go through extraordinary measures to dance around the truth acting as if the "L" is tantamount to a bad case of genital herpes.

Lochte apologizes, teammate pays fine for lying to Brazil police | Reuters

"I accept responsibility," US Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte says, in an apology about an early-morning incident at a Rio de Janeiro gas station that tainted America's march to gold in the Olympics.

Lochte said in a lengthy post on Instagram Friday that he was sorry for his behavior and should have been more "careful and candid'' in his description of the event, which he first characterized as a robbery. He also apologized for his role in taking the focus away from other Olympic athletes.

"This was a situation that could and should have been avoided," Lochte said. "I accept responsibility for my role in this happening and have learned some valuable lessons."

The statement came a day after US Olympic authorities apologized to Brazil and two US swimmers were allowed to go home having retracted a fabricated story about being mugged in Rio.

A third American swimmer, James Feigen, agreed to pay a donation to a Brazilian charity of nearly $11,000 as a condition to leave the South American nation, ABC reported Friday.

Four US swimmers, including Lochte, have been at the center of a media storm since claiming they were held up at gunpoint after leaving a party early Sunday.

"We apologize to our hosts in Rio and the people of Brazil for this distracting ordeal in the midst of what should rightly be a celebration of excellence," US Olympic Committee CEO Scott Blackmun said in a statement.

Blackmun spoke after Brazilian police let Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger leave the country. "Their passports have been released and they recently departed Rio," he said.

As for Feigen, he gave police a "revised statement," Blackmun said.

He agreed to a deal in which he would make a hefty donation to an unspecified group in exchange for permission to leave, NBC said.

"After a long deliberation, this agreement was reached ... he will donate [$10,800] to an institute, and with that the case is resolved," the broadcaster cited Feigen's lawyer Breno Melaragno as saying.

"After this donation is done, his passport will be given back to him, and he will be free to return home."

Lochte was already back in the United States when the scandal erupted.

Lochte said on Sunday that the four had been victims of a robbery by at least one armed assailant posing as a Rio policeman.

The claim forced Brazil's Olympics organizers into an apology for the supposed security lapse.

Amid growing doubts, however, a Brazilian judge issued an order Wednesday that all four swimmers be kept in Brazil while the story was probed.

Brazilian police said Thursday the athletes were drunk and got into an altercation with security staff after vandalizing a gas station bathroom during a night on the town.

Blackmun indicated that the athletes, questioned by police Thursday, had confirmed the police version.

"They stopped at a gas station to use the restroom, where one of the athletes committed an act of vandalism," the US statement said.

"An argument ensued between the athletes and two armed gas station security staff, who displayed their weapons, ordered the athletes from their vehicle and demanded the athletes provide a monetary payment. Once the security officials received money from the athletes, the athletes were allowed to leave."

Lies and videotape

Rio de Janeiro's police chief Fernando Veloso called on the athletes to apologize.

He said CCTV footage at the gas station showed a security official pulling his weapon to restrain a drunk and angry Lochte and his teammates because they tried to leave after damaging the bathroom.

"There was no robbery of the kind reported by the athletes," Veloso told a press conference.

"The images do not show any kind of violence against them."

He said police believed the swimmers handed over the equivalent of about $50 in cash to pay for the damage before leaving.

Veloso said it was still not decided what charges, if any, would be brought against the swimmers.

"In theory, they could end up facing charges of falsely reporting a crime and damage to property," he said. Neither offense is punishable by prison.

"It would be noble and dignified of them to apologize. The only thing they told the truth about is that they were drunk."

Rio 2016 Olympics chief spokesman Mario Andrada, who had apologized to the athletes after the supposed robbery, was in forgiving mood Thursday.

"Let's give these kids a break," Andrada told a news conference. "These kids were trying to have fun... They made a mistake, it is part of life."

Thursday, August 18, 2016


Donald Trump said lots (and lots) of thing during his hour-long town hall with Fox News's Sean Hannity on Wednesday night. This one — Trump talking about Hillary Clinton — stood out to me:

She is so protected. They are so protecting her. She hasn't had a news conference in, like, 250 days.

It couldn't be that long since Clinton has talked to the press, I thought. So, I went to the handy-dandy tool that some guy named Philip Bump built to track how long it's been since Clinton faced the press. And this is what I found:

Almost 258 days! Trump undersold something!

Jokes aside, it's beyond ridiculous that one of the two people who will be elected president in 80 or so days continues to refuse to engage with the press in this way.

But she does sit-down interviews! And she did a "press conference" with a moderator, um, moderating the questions!

Not good enough. Not when you are running to be president of the United States. One of the most important things when someone is offering themselves up to represent all of us is that we get the best sense we can about how that person thinks on his or her feet, how they deal with unwanted or adversarial questions. Those two traits are big parts of doing the job of president in the modern world.

There's nothing like a press conference to put a candidate for president through their paces. If you don't believe me, just watch how Clinton handled this presser— not well! — when she tried to put the email server controversy to rest.

Clinton's struggles with the press conference format are a major part of why she hasn't done one in so long. Why do something you aren't good at unless you absolutely have to? If campaigns are about downplaying your weaknesses while putting your strengths front and center, Clinton's avoidance of press conferences is "Campaigning 101."

There is also the fact that Clinton's general election opponent continues to suck all of the oxygen — and then some — out of each day's news cycle. Trump so dominates the coverage — and not in a good way — that there's not enough room for Clinton's unwillingness to face unscripted, unmoderated questions from reporters covering her to get much attention.

Put all of that aside, and think of this: The last time Clinton held a press conference was Dec. 5, 2015. That was before:

1. A single state had cast a vote in either a presidential primary or caucus

2. Major terrorist attacks in Nice, Brussels and Orlando

3. FBI Director James Comey issued his scathing report on Clinton's email practices while at the State Department

4. The Bernie Sanders phenomenon

5. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was run out of the Democratic National Committee in the wake of a massive email hack/leak

6. This whole Ryan Lochte international gas station incident

The temperature in Washington on Dec. 5, 2015, was 44 degrees. It's 84 today. A woman who conceived on Dec. 5, 2015, would be 8½ months pregnant today. On December 5, 2015, the Golden State Warriors were NBA champs. On December 5, 2015, I was still in my 30s.

You get the idea. It's been a long time. Lots of important things — Lochte and my 40th birthday being at the top of the list — have happened. Clinton is now the unquestioned favorite to be the 45th president of the United States — if you believe polling. The fact that she continues to avoid questions from the press is simply unacceptable given the office she is seeking and the stakes in this election.
Here's The REAL Reason Hillary Hasn't Held A Press Conference In Seven Months | Daily Wire


Now, isn't that special? Bill and Hillary promise to clean up their act IF Americans elect Hillary president.

So the question is. Why the changes if everything has been on the up and up?

Why is it conditional on Hillary winning?

Here we are again having to deal with the Clinton shenanigans and trying to outguess them.

Former President Details Changes To Clinton Foundation If Wife Becomes President : NPR

But there have been plenty of headaches brought on by the Clinton Foundation. It has taken money from governments whose policies are at odds with the U.S. More recently, questions about the relationship between the State Department under Hillary Clinton's leadership and the Clinton Foundation were resurfaced as emails revealed some efforts to make connections between donors or associates of the foundation and personnel or experts at the State Department.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus said in a statement on Wednesday, "If everything was above board while Hillary Clinton ran the State Department as the Clintons have said, then why change a thing?"

The statement from Preibus went on to criticize the existence of the foundation while Clinton is running for president: "But now that they have admitted there is a problem, the Clinton Foundation should immediately cease accepting foreign donations and return every penny ever taken from other countries, several of which have atrocious human rights records and ties to terrorism."

The Clinton campaign maintains that there was nothing improper about exchanges between longtime Clinton aides who were working at the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. Though this change in policies seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the perceptions about the Clinton Foundation are a cloud hanging over her candidacy, which is beset by low ratings from the public on honesty.


Filing a false police report can lead to multiple criminal consequences. Many states call this charge "false report to a peace officer."  It is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction. 

Depending on where you live and the extent of the deception, the criminal charge of filing a false police report can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. Cases that cause less inconvenience to police and other authorities tend to be classified as misdemeanors, while people who create greater confusion or harm by filing a false police report may face felony charges.


What is considered filing a false police report will vary slightly by state, but it’s generally what the name implies—lying to the police. Most people pick up a filing of a false report charge by make affirmative statements that are clearly false. For example, saying that your husband hit you as leverage to be used in a divorce, when he never committed an assault. This isn't an uncommom example. However, filing a false report can also arise out of material omissions which create a false impression. 

Some people are tempted to omit certain facts under the “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” theory of disclosure. Continuing with the above example, if a wife calls the police and reports that her husband hit her with a rock, but intentionally leaves out that the rock was thrown when he ran the lawn mower over a rocky patch while doing the yard, then the omission would be a material omission leading to a false impression. It’s material because it explains the accidental nature of the contact, thereby creating the false impression of an intentional act.
Fudging on facts or leaving out major details can lead to a false report charge. However, it can also lead to other criminal charges. For example, if a defendant filed a false police report claiming that their vehicle was stolen, when in fact they ditched the vehicle somewhere hoping that it would never be found because they wanted their insurance company to pay off the car note, then the filing of a false report would only be their first of several charges. The defendant could also be charged with insurance fraud or hindering a secured creditor. Other companion felonies include perjury, theft by deception, and securing execution of a document by deception. 
Who and why can also affect the severity of a filing of a false police report charge. Lying to the feds about anything is always a bad idea. False reports to a federal officer in an official investigation will invite a federal charge. Lying to cover another felony charge will not only result in a false report charge, but can also result in felony tampering or hindering apprehension charges. The severity of the false nature of the report will affect how a filing of a false report will be punished.

Consequences and Penalties

Minor infractions, like lying about a misdemeanor offense, usually results in a similar misdemeanor charge. Lying about felony offenses can result in felony level charges. Misdemeanor punishment can result in a sentence ranging from probation to a year or two in county jail. Felony punishment can also result in probation, but a much higher prison sentence, from two to ten years. Even though many people charged with the filing of a false report get probation, they sometimes forget to review the other collateral consequences. 
Many false report charges come with severe civil penalties. Defendants, like runaway brides, have not only been given stiff probations, they have also been ordered to reimburse communities that expended funds to deal with the crisis created by the false report. Defendants that lie during custody disputes can actually end up losing custody of their children if the lie is exposed. In addition to the criminal charges, a civil judge can also impose civil sanctions like the payment of attorney’s fees and contempt of court for filing a false report that is connected to a civil suit.
Filing a false report can also result in a separate civil suit. Continuing with the car example, if a defendant lies about where their car is located, the insurance company could sue a defendant for reimbursement of expenses associated with recovering the car. If a defendant falsely accuses someone of crime, which resulted in their being arrested and/or losing their jobs, then a defendant could be held financially liable for defamation. In any filing of a false report case, a defendant could find themselves defending an expensive civil and a criminal suit at the same time.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016


There's nothing new here except for the amount of taxpayer dollars that continues to flow  into a black hole; never to be accounted for again.

Once again, the office of Inspector General has come up with a huge hole in the Department of Defense with a missing $6.5 trillion. The day before 911, Rumsfeld admitted there was back then $2.3 trillion missing from the Defense Department budget. That has now grown to $6.5 trillion and counting.
Defense Department Missing $6.5 Trillion up from $2.3 Trillion in 2001 | Armstrong Economics


I never thought I would ever agree with someone like Rick Perry but, to my surprise, he made a comment about the Khan attack on Trump that I completely agree with.

Not only should Khan be ashamed of himself for using his son's death as political fodder, but the DNC should be scolded for manipulating the Khans to do it. Playing the "fallen hero" card is dirty politics.

Rick Perry to Khizr Khan: ‘Shame on You’

Tuesday, August 16, 2016


With little fanfare and minimal media attention, the United States recently began bombing yet another country, further expanding a fight against terrorism that has no clear end in sight.

U.S. airstrikes in Libya began on Aug. 1 with “precision air strikes against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya,” thePentagon announced in a press release. The airstrikes were apparently carried out at the behest of Libya’s temporary government, the Libyan Government of National Accord, appointed by the United Nations after theU.S. helped overthrow Libya’s ruler, Moammar Gadhafi, under the direction of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Special forces ground troops, deployed by the U.S. and its Western allies, are also present in Libya. On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that a “small number” of U.S. and British ground forces are present in Libya, where they are coordinating air strikes and assisting the GNA troops.

Libya is now the fourth front in the American war against Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group commonly known in the West as ISIS or ISIL), joining bombing campaigns and ground troops in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Simultaneously, the U.S. continues arming so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria, and supplying arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, further fueling unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

The expansion to Libya has been planned for months, according to The Intercept, and has no end in site. According to Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook, bombing “would continue as long as [the Libyan government] is requesting them,” and the campaign has no “end point at this particular moment in time.”

“The U.S. has long planned to spread its military campaign to Libya,” reported The Intercept’s Alex Emmons on Aug. 1. “In January, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the U.S. was preparing to take ‘decisive military action against ISIL’ in Libya.”

US Now Bombing 4 Countries As War On ISIS Spreads To Libya


Just as with the primaries being rigged the Establishment and Main Stream Media are now rigging the Presidential debates.

Instead of giving the stage to the "four" candidates running for POTUS the powers to be want to keep it just "two" which happen to be the candidates selected (at least partially) by the Establishment; Hillary and the Wild Card (Trump) they are still plotting to bring down.

So, what about the other 2 candidates; Stein (Green) and Johnson (Libertarian)?

Why keep them off the stage and national limelight?

Simply put; fear. The Establishment is afraid that a narrative they can't control could upset the apple cart if Main Street Americans (voter) were better informed and made aware that they do have choices besides the lesser of "two evils."

Commission on Presidential Debates announces polls to be used for securing spot - POLITICO

Monday, August 15, 2016

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.


This person has a real problem with just being truthful. It’s arrogant at best and pathological at worse. It’s not that she lies more than other politicians but what she lies about.

Hardly an incident goes by where she is asked to respond to fairly straightforward questions that she goes into this double-talk mode and evades responding truthfully; she “short circuited” or she answered “truthfully” to one out of many questioners as if that negates all the times she didn’t. Even though it’s obvious she lied and the obvious reasons why she lied she just can’t bring herself to admitting it; “I made a mistake” is as close as she comes.

It could just be arrogance but it is still insulting and demeaning to others because what she’s saying is; believe me! Don’t believe what you know to be true (reality) by the facts that support it. They are just plain “wrong.” I’m right and that’s the way is. So deal with it!

If it’s worse yet, and pathological in nature, then there’s a real problem with how this person would act and behave in situations where they felt threatened because there a real risk they would encapsulate themselves in their own version of reality; very dangerous when someone is in a powerful position.

Friday, August 12, 2016


It's a win-win for the Clinton's. Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution to a charity owned by you.

96 Percent Of Hillary's Charitable Donations Went To Clinton Foundation | 

Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year — $1 million of which went to their own family non-profit, the Clinton Family Foundation.

The documents show that the power couple earned $10,745,378 last year, mostly on income earned from giving public speeches.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016


POLITICAL FAVORS FOR MONEY? It's called "pay for play" and Hillary is a notorious player.

Hillary Clinton publicly defended an embattled banker during an official visit to Bangladesh while Clinton Foundation officials tried to steer money from an Abu Dhabi oil company into the banker’s coffers.

A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation traced the convoluted payment by TAQA — formally known as the the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company — to Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Yunus is a long-time friend and Clinton Foundation donor.

The oil company deal eventually put as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland.

The complicated set of international transactions is contained in a cryptic May 7, 2012, email chain between Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, and Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director. The email chain was obtained by Citizens United, the conservative activist group that is the lead plaintiff in multiple federal Freedom of Information Act court cases. 
Hillary Aide Mills OK'd Deal That Put $500K In Bill's Pocket | The Daily Caller

Sunday, August 7, 2016


Hillary learned this from the best. This is a classic Bill Clinton, "it all depends what the definition of the word is- is."

If it were anyone else all of this nonsense would easily be resolved by either admitting they lied or taking the "fifth."

But that would be too simple for Hillary so for over a year now the public has to be subjected to an ongoing flow of crazy making double talk; "I made a mistake", "I short circuited" (whatever that means), and now Tim Kaine explains the lying as "talking past each other" Uh?

You are asked a straightforward and specific question. You answer with a lie. That's talking past each other. Uhm?

After playing a montage of Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey that for all intents and purposes indicated that Clinton lied to the American public, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” Chuck Todd said, “[Clinton] seems to be conflating what she said to the FBI and what she said to the American public. Can you conclude here whether or not Secretary Clinton lied to the American public about sending and receiving classified email?” (RELATED: CNN’s Tapper Calls Out Clinton For Email Lies: You’re Not Entitled ‘To Your Own Facts’ [VIDEO])

“Chuck, let me just say this, I’m going to jump right to the punch line,” Kaine claimed. “I heard Hillary Clinton say over and over again when I’ve been sitting next to her and when I’ve watch her on TV that with respect to the emails, I made a mistake and I’ve learned something and I wouldn’t do it again and I’ve heard her apologize.” (RELATED: Hillary Clinton: I ‘Short-Circuited’ With My Email Answers [VIDEO])

“I did hear that back and forth and I think Chris Wallace and Hillary were sort of talking past each other last week. She was saying what Director Comey acknowledged to be true, that when she spoke to the FBI, when she was talking to the FBI thought her answers in that setting were truthful.”(RELATED: Hillary, Chris Wallace Spar Over Her Classified Emails [VIDEO])

Kaine Unable To Answer For Hillary's Email Lies [VIDEO] | 

Saturday, August 6, 2016


It looks like the Wall Street money is almost all on Hillary and one has to wonder what is she promising them in return? Speeches?

As for Trump? No one is buying possibly because he can't be bought.

Who should you vote for?

Using history (2008 crash) as a guide voters may want to take a close look at why and where all that Wall Street money is going to Hillary.  The rest is easy to figure out.

A July 29 Wall Street Journal article crediting our data is headlined, “Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump.” The startling disparity in numbers led other media outlets to cite the piece — as did Trump himself. The article was shared on Facebook over 27,000 times and generated more than 500 comments.

Only problem is, those numbers aren’t correct. Trump had taken in just $2,054 in hedge fund contributions as of June 30. Clinton, along with her supporting super PACs, has received $25.6 million from the hedge fund industry, just a bit more than half the WSJ’s figure.

While the article says the money came from “employees or owners” of hedge funds (later amended to include private equity), nearly all of it came from just four people. Four big donors associated with hedge funds gave $24.6 million of the total — most of which was given to the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, which she does not control (at least not directly).

Clinton’s campaign itself, not counting super PACs, has so far received just $557,619 from individuals who work at hedge funds.

Further down, the WSJ article says that the $48.5 million figure is the sum of contributions to Clinton from seven unspecified “financial firms” that are either hedge funds or “similar private investment funds.” We emailed the reporters on the story to find out which firms they counted.

Setting it straight: Hedge funds to Clinton plus super PACs, $25.6 million; to Trump, $2,000 | OpenSecrets Blog

Friday, August 5, 2016


On Friday, Hillary Clinton took questions from the press for the first time in 260 days. A number of her answers revealed why she doesn’t hold press conferences more: Her answers to both difficult and easy questions were often evasive, excessively legalistic, and frustrating to watch.

Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Her previous press conference was December of last year and she has faced heavy criticism from both the media and the Trump campaign for not being more accessible.

In Friday’s press questioning, the trouble began when she was asked her first question about her private email server and recent statements about that server which independent fact checkers have labeled as categorically untrue. Clinton’s responses here—and her previous responses to questions about the truthfulness of past statements—are so overly legalistic and convoluted that they are difficult to even explain. But here’s a shot.

Last month, Fox News’ Chris Wallace asserted to Clinton that FBI Director James Comey said her public statements about which documents on her private email server were classified and which were not were untrue. In actuality, Comey declined to address the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of those statements in Congressional testimony on the matter. 

But in announcing his investigation into her server—which cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing—Comey implied that she had either misled the American public about her poor handling of material she should have known was classified information, or been incompetent in doing so. “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it,” he said. Clinton had previously claimed: “I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”

In response to Wallace’s question claiming that Comey had said she was not telling the truth, Clinton said this: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

This is the claim that fact checkers have destroyed. Clinton’s defenders might claim that she was talking about two separate things in two separate clauses in this sentence: That Comey said her answers to the FBI were truthful and separately that her answers to the FBI were consistent with her public statements. This would have made the statement incredibly misleading, though, given that she was asked directly about what Comey's views. 

Also making that answer seem disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst, is that she repeated a similar version of it in an interview earlier this week, telling a local CBS affiliate: “It was all personal stuff [that was deleted on the email server], and we’ve said that consistently. And as the FBI said, everything that I’ve said publicly has been consistent and truthful with what I’ve told them.” It’s really hard to argue that this is two separate points, with the “and as the FBI said” part referring to the earlier point, but I guess a really eager Clinton apologist could make that claim.

All of this leads us to the press conference, where Clinton was asked this:

Are you mischaracterizing Director Comey's testimony and is this not undercutting your efforts to rebuild trust with the American people?

Clinton’s answer, which you can watch here, is an awkward journey of disassembling and lawyerly quibbling:

SEE VIDEO; Hillary gave a rare press conference. It was terrible.

Thursday, August 4, 2016


 The Republican nominee’s new fund-raising numbers suggest he has tapped into the passion of his core supporters and may now have the resources to compete with Hillary Clinton.

Donald J. Trump all but erased his enormous fund-raising disadvantage against Hillary Clinton in the span of just two months, according to figures released by his campaign on Wednesday, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics.

Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee raised $64 million through a joint digital and mail effort in July, according to his campaign, the bulk of it from small donations. All told, Mr. Trump and his party brought in $82 million last month, only slightly behind Mrs. Clinton’s $90 million, and ended with $74 million on hand, suggesting he might now have the resources to compete with Mrs. Clinton in the closing stretch of the campaign.

“She’s been doing this for 20 years,” said Steven Mnuchin, a New York investor who is Mr. Trump’s finance chairman. “We’ve been doing it for two months.” More than two-thirds of the $64 million had come online, Mr. Mnuchin said.

The new figures indicate a major shift in Mr. Trump’s campaign, which until recent months was largely funded by hat and T-shirt sales and by Mr. Trump’s wallet. And they suggest that Mr. Trump has the potential to be the first Republican nominee whose campaign could be financed chiefly by grass-roots supporters pitching in $10 or $25 apiece, echoing the success of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the Democratic primary.

Fueled by Small Donations, Donald Trump Makes Up Major Financial Ground - The New York Times

Clinton Cash - Official Movie Premiere


These super rich, super spoiled Millionaires, Billionaires and the legions of minions that pander to them are mad as hell and are not about to let the American people take back America.

Bernie Sanders came after them but they were just too big to take down and inthe end brought him to "heel" as Hillary would say.

But there is still one guy they have not been able to buy who is out of their control and they are going berserk looking for ways to end him and the real possibility that Main Street American voters could turn the tables against them and dismantle the cozy plutocracy they have created
for themselves.

So far nothing has worked and it's not because of a lack of trying; using the mainstream media to bombard the 24/7 news cycle with everything they can conjure up, no matter how petty or silly.

The U.S. can’t let Trump win: His victory would embolden the most hateful Americans who fostered his rise 

 It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign?

America is no longer a country “by the people, for the people,” but a plutocracy. The new doc ‘Meet the Donors’ exposes our broken political system and the uber-rich pulling the strings.

There’s the belief that somehow the whole system in Washington is not on the level—that it’s tilted against the ordinary citizen. And the reason people have that view is because they’re right: it is tilted against the ordinary citizen and it does favor the rich.”

That is Tom Downey, a former U.S. Congressman from New York turned founder of the high-powered lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., and one of many talking heads in Meet the Donors, a damning new documentary that just made its premiere on HBO.

The film comes courtesy of Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. There is a brief showdown between Pelosi Jr. and a right-wing lobbyist who took out vicious attack ads against her mother that showed the former House Speaker as a city-destroying Godzilla-like monster. Despite the family ties, this remains a fairly nonpartisan examination of the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how the American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

Late last year, The New York Times published a terrifying study  on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.

“Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.”

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed the playing field, allowing both nonprofit and for-profit corporations to be treated as people, thereby prohibiting the government from regulating their political expenditures (coincidentally, this whole hullabaloo was over the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United’s desire to air a propaganda film, Hillary: The Movie, just prior to the 2008 general election). This led to the creation of super PACs, or political action committees—vessels that individuals, corporations, and other organizations can pour large sums of money into in order to influence elections, typically via attack ads. Conservative strategist Karl Rove notoriously oversaw super PACs that spent over $300 million on Republican candidates during the 2012 election year.

Meet the Billionaires Manipulating the U.S. Presidential Election


Has the media gone berserk?

This is an example of the sh-t load of crazy-making rhetoric the media floods the 24/7 news cycle with.

It's gotten so bad that Trump can't even fart without someone sounding a "breaking news" alert.

In the last two weeks, Donald Trump has slandered the family of a dead soldier, committed treason by inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email account, admitted he lied about receiving a letter from the NFL, saw an Air Force mother get booed at one of his rallies, claimed Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine even though they already have, refused to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan’s candidacy, falsely accused a fire marshal of limiting his crowd for political reasons, tossed a baby out of a rally, and called Hillary Clinton “the devil.”

It’s worth asking again: Is Donald Trump trying to tank his campaign? - Salon.com

Wednesday, August 3, 2016


The concern that a third party candidate would be more harmful for the major party candidate hasn’t stopped Stein and her supporters from being vocal in their joint criticism of Clinton.

When asked what she would think of a Trump presidency, Stein said she “wouldn’t wish that on anyone, nor would I wish Hillary on anyone. Hillary is a proven danger and Trump is a terrifying danger.”

There’s no love lost between Stein and Clinton. Stein is quick to point out that, while Clinton will be making history by being officially nominated as the first female presidential candidate for one of the main parties, Stein is the woman who has earned the most presidential votes in the history of U.S. politics to date.

“You can be sure that Hillary Clinton does not look favorably on another woman candidate who is actually progressive in the race,” Stein said. “We are a very inconvenient truth.”

For some Sanders supporters, that truth looks like it could be their salvation.

Jeremy Dolan, 24, traveled to Philadelphia from St. Petersburg, Florida and was spotted today holding a pro-Sanders poster near the protest but said that he’s already open to switching to Stein.

“I’ve already donated $1,000 to her campaign,” he told ABC.

Dr. Jill Stein Is The New Bernie Sanders

Crooked Hillary Clinton is Ms. Pac-Man (Emails Deleted)


Tuesday, August 2, 2016


These heads should have been rolling before the Hillary balloon drop.

But then, this is not about cleaning house, but more about taking the focus off the conspirators who, after successfully rigging the primaries, have accomplished their mission and are now liabilities.

The CEO of the Democratic National Committee and two other high-level staffers left the organization on Tuesday in the wake of the committee'shacked email controversy.

Amy Dacey is the highest-ranking official at the DNC to step aside due to the matter, a senior Democratic official said.

TheDNC also announced the departure of CFO Brad Marshall and and Communications Director Luis Miranda in a press release Tuesday afternoon.

Dacey is well-respected by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC circle, a source familiar with the resignation said. But the committee is looking to clean house in the wake of leaked emails that appeared to show the committee favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primary. Dacey's resignation was first reported by Politico.

Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who stepped in after the resignation of former Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also announced some additions to her team, saying former Howard Dean aide Tom McMahon would lead a transition team focused on November's election. The chief of staff that joined the DNC in June, Brandon Davis, will retain his post
and oversee general election efforts, Brazile announced.

Also joining as an interim senior adviser is Doug Thornell.

Wasserman Schultz resigned after the party's convention last week as a result of the revelations, and Brazile has stepped in as interim chair through theelection.

The changes at the DNC come as the Clinton campaign is moving to take greater control of party headquarters in washington and in states across the country.

Democrats are also trying to get ahead of the disclosure of more emails and internal documents from hacked computer systems, fearful of more embarrassing revelations.

The press release made no mention of the controversy, focusing instead on gearing up for the November election.

DNC CEO resigns in wake of email controversy


There is a raging epidemic of "Trumphobia" gripping the Establishment and the Main Stream media hacks that run interference for them.

This crazy obsession with bringing Trump down is raging on both sides of the aisle; though not so much with the Main Street voters.

Even the president is climbing  on the phobia train which is surprising given that he was once in Trump's shoes and should know what it feels like when your being ganged up on.

The Establishment is trying it's damnedest to bring the angry voters to "heel" as Hillary would put it. It's still difficult for these corrupted pandering politicians to get their heads around the notion that the electorate is completely fed up with them.

The people are "anti-Establishment" and they are looking for an "outsider" for leadership; in this case it's Trump.

The following piece is an example of the barrage of vitriol being spewed at Trump and the people who support (voted) him.

The message is that a vote for Trump is a vote for hate and fear mongering while the reality is that a vote for Trump is a vote for reform of a corrupt plutocratic political system that has proven to be the real threat against democracy and the American people.

The headlines read:

A victory for Trump would legitimize the dangerous, inchoate anger of unhinged Americans

Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, and therefore he can’t simply lose the election. He has to be electorally humiliated. Crushed. Embarrassed. The candidate who pledged “so much winning” has to be personally mortified by an unequivocal loss — an electoral massacre so severe that it leaves little room for screeching about rigged elections, and, more importantly, the loss has to be so overwhelming that it discourages any similar would-be populist tyrants from emerging in the future. Trump and anyone similar needs to be politically put-down in a way that permanently ends whatever derangement led us to this point.

Sadly, however, the latest polls continue to indicate that the popular vote will come down to a five-point contest.

Monday’s CBS News poll, taken following the conventions, puts the race at 47-41 (including leaners) in Hillary’s favor. PPP’s latest numbers also reflect a five-point race, even after all the hoopla surrounding the Democratic Convention; even after Hillary’s historic nomination and President Obama’s moving remarks; even after Michelle Obama’s barnburner address and especially the salient remarks by Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan. It’s still just a five or six point race, even after the deeply contrasting conventions, and even after news about Trump’s nefarious connections to Putin; even after Trump trolled the Khans on Twitter (as predicted by Hillary in her acceptance speech), and even after his utterly disastrous Palin-style interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

Five points separate Hillary and national oblivion. As Bernie Sanders said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday, Trump is easily the most treacherous presidential nominee in modern history, and yet there’s really not much of a difference in the polls between his numbers and the numbers of previous GOP nominees, McCain and Romney.

It seems as though nothing will change the hearts and minds of Trump’s rage-filled minion. And I suppose that’s acceptable as long as enough sensible, rational Republicans choose to forego this election, either voting for Gary Johnson or Hillary Clinton, or by simply sitting it out. It can’t be underscored enough how this election has to result in a party realignment, with moderate, reasonable Republicans voting with center-left and, yes, progressive Democrats to defeat this cancerous GOP nominee.

The U.S. can’t let Trump win: His victory would embolden the most hateful Americans who fostered his rise - Salon.com


The is an example of how human beings fail miserably when it comes to using common sense.

Why would any government or sports organization condone or tolerate wasting millions of dollars on playing games in a sewer?

Just days ahead of the Olympic Games the waterways of Rio de Janeiro are as filthy as ever, contaminated with raw human sewage teeming with dangerous viruses and bacteria, according to a 16-month-long study commissioned by The Associated Press.

Not only are some 1,400 athletes at risk of getting violently ill in water competitions, but the AP’s tests indicate that tourists also face potentially serious health risks on the golden beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana.

The AP’s survey of the aquatic Olympic and Paralympic venues has revealed consistent and dangerously high levels of viruses from the pollution, a major black eye on Rio’s Olympic project that has set off alarm bells among sailors, rowers and open-water swimmers.

The first results of the study published over a year ago showed viral levels at up to 1.7 million times what would be considered worrisome in the United States or Europe. At those concentrations, swimmers and athletes who ingest just three teaspoons of water are almost certain to be infected with viruses that can cause stomach and respiratory illnesses and more rarely heart and brain inflammation – although whether they actually fall ill depends on a series of factors including the strength of the individual’s immune system.

Since the AP released the initial results last July, athletes have been taking elaborate precautions to prevent illnesses that could potentially knock them out of the competition, including preventatively taking antibiotics, bleaching oars and donning plastic suits and gloves in a bid to limit contact with the water. (AP)

Rio 2016: Swimmers need to ingest only three teaspoons of water to be almost certain of contracting a virus | Olympics | Sport | The Independent