Calamity Impending for the Clintons

As presidential campaigns go, the 2016 election will be remembered as one the filthiest and coarsest ever. Donald Trump’s direct and unrestrained manner of speaking has brought on sharp criticism by the establishment and its surrogates in the media. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s judgment and actions as Secretary of State involving national security matters while also working hand-in-glove with Clinton Foundation were breathtakingly reckless -- violating over a dozen laws that would have put anyone else in jail.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, pilfering over $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, and furniture as they cleared out, they claimed they were flat broke. Their net worth today is now in excess of $150 million, accumulated not by traditional means of work and investment, but rather by pay-for-play influence peddling through speeches and Clinton Foundation fundraising -- with the tacit understanding that the Clintons would be in a position to return favors to donors after Hillary won the 2016 presidential election.

The Clintons symbolize the institutionalization of corruption in Washington, which now permeates almost all the government agencies. Even the so-called independent Federal Reserve has been corrupted by politicians whose profligate deficit spending puts pressure on the Fed to maintain a zero-interest policy that artificially masks the real cost and risk of a growing unsustainable level of debt.



http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/calamity_impending_for_the_clintons.html

Did the Clinton Foundation personally enrich Barack and Michelle Obama?

Did the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation personally enrich Barack and Michelle Obama?

A question well worth thinking about because the corruption of Hillary Clinton is the horse that bolted out of the barn on the watch of Community Organizer President Barack Obama.

In her own words, Hillary Clinton went from “being broke” in 2001 to a net worth of $350 million and still counting in 2016.

Too many forget that Clinton enriched personal friends and foreign powers while she would be under scant suspicion as Obama’s chosen Secretary of State.  It is vital to ask before Tuesday were Barack and Michelle two of the friends enriched by the corruption that flowed from the Clinton Foundation?

During the time of Hillary Clinton’s corruption at work, Obama did not just keep looking the other way, he actually corresponded with Clinton on her private basement server under a fake name.

How like him to operate under a fake name as that’s what he’s been doing since 2008!

Where’s the forensic investigation to tell us how much money has been siphoned off to the bank accounts of Barack and Michelle Obama through the Clinton Foundation?

Standing in for the MIA mainstream media,  radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is asking the questions the voting public need answered:

“Have the Clintons been selling United States foreign policy?

“Have the Clintons been engaging in pay for play? Meaning: You pay them and they’ll play ball with you by giving you policy considerations or what have you.”

http://canadafreepress.com/article/did-the-clinton-foundation-personally-enrich-barack-and-michelle-obama

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton: the Trade-Policy Paradox

Donald Trump has gotten a great deal of attention this year for his harsh rhetoric about trade and lost jobs. When his campaign has delved into more specific policies, however, he doesn’t offer much that’s different from Hillary Clinton. They both oppose new and old trade agreements, and they both want to use domestic trade laws and international dispute mechanisms more aggressively. Until now, the “debate” over trade has been mostly about trust, with Clinton accusing Trump of being a hypocritical “outsourcer” and Trump accusing Clinton of secretly supporting trade deals she publicly opposes.

With just a few weeks left in the campaign, the candidates have finally stumbled upon divergent concrete policy proposals regarding trade. Unfortunately, both proposals amount to nothing more than meaningless fluff meant to sound like thoughtful reforms.

Clinton says she will create a “trade prosecutor” position “for the first time in history” to make sure our trade agreements are “enforced.” This proposal is surely meant to appeal to trade critics on the left who commonly complain that past presidential administrations have let foreign countries violate trade commitments without consequence.

The biggest problem with Clinton’s proposal is that this position already exists. U.S. efforts to bring dispute settlement cases at the World Trade Organization or under various other free-trade agreements are currently directed by the General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-trade-policy-paradox

They raise more questions about Huma and company — even a sycophantic Bushie.

Will the FBI find classified information about Hillary’s Libyan debacle on a computer shared by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner? That is a question raised by careful observers of the disclosures from WikiLeaks.

Abedin has previously explained that she would email State Department documents to her personal email accounts so that she could more easily print them out for Hillary. That could explain how they ended up on the Abedin/Weiner computer, as reporter Tim Johnson explains:

According to FBI interviews, Abedin often used a Yahoo email account to get around a balky State Department computer system. Whenever Clinton, who had an aversion to even basic computer technology, wanted to read something, she’d ask Abedin to print it out — repeatedly, according to the Clinton emails that have already been released by the State Department.

Abedin then would forward the requested item to her Yahoo account, and print it from there.

And that could well be how State Department emails, which The Wall Street Journal says may number some 650,000, ended up on Abedin’s home computer — depending on how the computer had been configured. Many computers use an email client program, such as Microsoft Outlook or Apple Mail, that accesses email sent to private accounts on Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail or any other service.


“If you set up Yahoo on Apple Mail or Outlook or any of the other services, it will store a copy of your email on the hard drive,” said Matthew D. Green, an assistant professor in the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

http://spectator.org/nuggets-in-the-latest-wikileaks-dump/

Hillary violated ethics agreement and accepted million-dollar secret donation to foundation from Arab petrostate

Hillary Clinton’s contempt for rules that apply to others could not be clearer. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that her ethics agreement with the State Department meant nothing.  As Jonathan Adams of Reuters explains:

Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family's globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.

If a new foreign government wished to donate or if an existing foreign-government donor, such as Qatar, wanted to "increase materially" its support of ongoing programs, Clinton promised that the State Department's ethics official would be notified and given a chance to raise any concerns.

Qatar plays a double game (also known as Taqiyaa), hosting the Sixth Fleet, but also funding Islamic radicalism, included allegedly ISIS. You might think that such a strategic, duplicitous, medieval monarchy would be at the top of the list to monitor, something to take extra care on. But:



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_violated_ethics_agreement_and_accepted_milliondollar_secret_donation_to_foundation_from_arab_petrostate.html

Obama's new Obamacare talking point debunked

When the Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that average premiums for Obamacare plans were rising by 22 percent, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies had a response ready for worried consumers and the law’s critics: Don’t worry, almost everyone on Obamacare is shielded from them by the law’s generous subsidies.
There are lots of problems with that response (someone has to pay for them, for one). But the biggest one is that about half of Americans who are subject to the law do not, in fact, get subsidies.
This fact has often been lost in the conversation over this month’s news. Just yesterday, the president said the Obamacare rate hikes will affect a “handful of people.” David Leonhardt of the New York Times explained that of the 10 million people who buy coverage on the exchange, “the vast majority receives government subsidies that will largely or partly cancel out the price increase.” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman estimated that only “several million” people are subject to unsubsidized rate hikes.

 http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/11/obamas-new-obamacare-talking-point-debunked-000228#ixzz4P8ZMSRBe

Media Blackout Exposes Corrupt Media

While most of America was transfixed by Game 7 of the World Series, Fox News Channel was doggedly pursuing a new story: The FBI's probe into pay-for-play schemes at the Clinton Foundation and the State Department has been far more expansive than anyone reported so far and has been going on for more than a year. FBI sources even warned there could be indictments down the road.
Then, The Wall Street Journal broke another new story online, saying, "Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay." Senior officials wanted to tell FBI agents to "stand down" from a Clinton Foundation probe.
That's two nuclear explosions in one night. What was the reaction from the news media? Crickets.
The stench of corruption between the Justice Department, the State Department and the Clinton Foundation machine is noxious. Add the leftist "news" media collusion and it becomes overpowering. This is a cover-up.
No one at ABC, CBS or NBC was breaking from the World Series. They couldn't locate the Clinton story and offer even the briefest summary the next morning. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski offered a serious report early on "Morning Joe," but she was alone. The other "news" programs preferred the distraction of breathless baseball updates.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/media-blackout-exposes-corrupt-media