Hillary Clinton Lies: In Context

You need to read this! If true [and WikiLeaks hasn't been wrong yet], this is why Obama is lying about Russia (falsely blaming Russia for hacking the DNC right now: he has zero proof, and everyone who knows anything about hacking knows it full well!): to take the spotlight off REAL news that's being released.

... the email that will likely cause the most damage to Clinton’s campaign is titled “HRC Paid Speeches.” This email exposes transcript excerpts from her paid speeches which were closed to the public and the press, including those given to Goldman Sachs. They confirm what many have long suspected about Hillary’s real political views. In the transcripts, which you can read here, Clinton expresses that she is both pro-KeystoneXL and pro-TTP (free trade) – positions she has declined publicly. Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street banks will likely be very difficult to “spin”, as she told Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank that Wall Street were held accountable for the 2008 crisis for solely political reasons and to appease the public. Clinton said that the blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened.” She also said that public perception of the rigged system must be controlled in order to maintain public trust. She also said that financial reform “really has to come from the industry itself,” expressing her view that Wall Street should police itself. She also said she “did all I could to make sure [Wall Street] continued to prosper” after 2008 and also said that she depends on Wall Street money for funding.

Most concerning of all to Clinton’s campaign is that she explains away her misrepresentation of her views to public as being born out of the necessity to have “a private and public position on policy.” To quote directly from Clinton’s words: “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.” She said the public/private position dichotomy is “necessary to be successful, politically” and said this was true throughout all of American history. Essentially, Clinton admits that everything she says publicly is done so for political gain and does not reflect her true, “private” views. [That's exactly the neocon philosophy/ideology: lie! That's what they do. They lie and lie and lie.]

Other emails will have implications for Podesta himself as some emails on Podesta’s server were overtly racist. [Source: http://buff.ly/2cY3cLM%5D

If you read the emails without context, then you can come to a benign conclusion. However, Hillary lied about not knowing the CIA was shipping weapons from Libya through Turkey to jihadis in Syria there to overthrow Assad's secular government to install an Islamic state with rather hardline positions to say the least.

That's only one thing out of many, many.

If you want to ignore what she did in Honduras (she gave the public position that it was not a coup while knowing it was most certainly a coup), then you can read the email as benign rather than more circumstantial evidence mounding up to "preponderance," as in guilt.

The "complex and ever evolving political strategy" is "liberal interventionism" often in direct opposition to democracy here and in other nation-states.

I don't know of anyone suggesting that she can't have a confidential discussion. I have confidential discussions without having a public versus private position. Don't you see the difference?

My public views are my private views. If I'm formulating or negotiating, etc., then my public position will be that: "I'm in discussions and will make a public statement about my position when appropriate." That's not Hillary's style and isn't remotely what the emails suggest she's about.

All of that said, I found the bit about interpreting Hillary's statements as meaning that "Essentially, Clinton admits that everything she says publicly is done so for political gain and does not reflect her true, “private” views" is stretching too much. I don't, however, agree that Hillary is not a proven liar whose lies promote people jumping to overly stretched conclusions.

While we're on the subject of jumping to public conclusions, let's not forget that Hillary Clinton has been lying and lying and lying that Russia hacked the DNC, etc. Now, Barack Obama has joined in with the lying in a highly timed fashion. The US government has only reason to suspect. It does not have proof. Yet, the propagandists have been set the obvious task of painting the story as if the US as definite proof. They barely mention that they don't. When they do mention it, it's only to be able to say "we didn't lie," which is a form of dishonesty. You know that.

Plus, Hillary continues to lie that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program/plan. She has no such knowledge and can't pretend she hasn't been told that the US intelligence community issued a formal review stating that Iran has no such program and didn't have one while the US administration was claiming otherwise.

Now, you can believe she's a complete ignoramus and idiot and bad listener when the spooks and hacks say no about Russia and Iran, etc., but if you read all of WikiLeaks' leaks about her statements made during and after Honduras and see her sign off on tens of thousands of emails with "C" for confidential/classified, then I suggest that you're stretching things to arrive at the conclusion that there's no beef in the recent release.

She destroyed tens of thousands of emails while under investigation. She, and those around her, made a deal with the FBI to destroy computer drives that may well be needed in the future.

Then there's the "Clinton Cash" issue and the huge conflicts of interest with Bill following her or leading her from country to country making millions on speeches and gaining huge donations, etc.

We still don't know where all the money went for Haiti. Bill refused to show the trail. Meanwhile, Hillary backed a Papa and Baby Doc element to lead the country.

Is Trump bad? He's a mess. Is Hillary better? At least Trump has refused to lie about Russia to rev up war and war profits. You do know that Hillary is about the military industrial complex and US, corporate, Wall Street empire, right?

Don't compartmentalize to the extent that you don't see the big picture and what's at stake: WWIII! She's dangerous, more dangerous in that regard than even Trump. That's my view; and I say it's backed by the facts, many of which I've just cited.

I could go on and on and on about Bill and Hillary and Wall Street and all the other issues down through the decades (and there's "beef" there aplenty). Do I need to, to convince you that you should not be supporting her but should be supporting someone who better fits your real views: perhaps Jill Stein?

At least Jill has the brains to know that a "no-fly zone" enforced on Russia in Syria is an invitation to war. Putin knows it. He knows that the neocons and Hillary have planned for him and for Russia what has happened in country after country after country and even though Putin and Russia have been by far the saner parties in this US-Russia conflict.

Fuller context: http://www.globalresearch.ca/air-strikes-against-syria-who-are-the-war-criminals-who-is-supporting-al-qaeda-russia-or-america/5548799

Add the DNC working for Hillary against Bernie.

Add the "Victory Fund" sleight of hand.

Add Hillary claiming she was under sniper fire and had to duck and run. It's endless.

You know about Mena, Arkansas, right? Why do you think the Bushes and Bill get along so well? It was about CIA drug running and using proceeds in class and race warfare right here in the US. I studied it in great detail. It happened! Read Daniel Hopsicker and others on it.

Remember the Church Committee? Remember all the stuff that came out? It was just more of the same. There's tons of it.

Do you know the true story about Serbia? That was a railroad job to Balkanize Tito's Yugoslavia. It all came out later, but the US corporate mainstream media (now backing Hillary) didn't want to shine a light on it. Why not?

Didn't the Pentagon Papers radicalize you? Do you think things have changed, that Barack Obama isn't on board with "the imperial plan," isn't benefiting from it, isn't going to become richer and richer and richer because of it?

Do you know what really happened in Georgia and Ukraine? It wasn't Putin's doing. That's a fact. It was the neocons, just like in Iraq, just like in Central America before that.

You know that Hillary wants Bill to run the economy, right? He's still saying the legislation he backed didn't cause the problems: Great Recession: http://www.demos.org/blog/9/11/15/owning-consequences-clinton-and-repeal-glass-steagall

If Hillary wins the election, are you really going to think that it wasn't because she was the more powerful of the two in the corrupt system? Honestly?

What will Donald Trump do now that he's been constantly attacked by Hillary Clinton's team and supporters, including the media and her GOP fellow-traveler neocons?

Well, here's a hint: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/09/juanita-broaddrick-kathleen-willey-paula-jones-bill-clinton-sexual-assault/

I can't say exactly where the truth starts and stops in all of this Clinton v. Trump stuff, but I do know that whatever Trump has done or said, it pales next to what Hillary and Bill Clinton have actually done. Are these women totally lying?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nitpick Trump, Ignore Hillary "Killary"

It is simply astounding to me how people who are opposed to Trump nitpick him (though he has made some relatively major errors for a private citizen and is difficult to definitively read/understand) while lauding Hillary by ignoring everything she has done making the world vastly worse during her time as a public official.

Her asinine choices resulted in the needless death of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them innocent women and children, the infirmed, the aged....

She helped overthrow democracies and install fascists!

She now blatantly lies about Russian hacking in her bid to rev up the replacement for the Cold War against the Soviet Union that risks nuclear WWIII more so than even the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Do you know how easy it is to get a high rating as a charity while not showing where the money really ends up? I do.

She's rich, very, very rich, and became that way mostly by money from sources she claims to stand against. They weren't paying her to tell them what they didn't want to hear from her. You know that.

I could go on and on, but people don't hear what they don't want to hear. They want to pretend that they know she's the lesser of evils. Well, I don't know that she is the lesser of evils, far from it! Neither do you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Risking Nuclear WWIII, Hillary Clinton Lies Russia Hacked DNC; False Propagandists, Professional Spinners Try Hard to Leave it Out

What sticks out to me right now is the short attention span of so many people and the lack of giving proper weight to the most important issue. It makes the job of the consciousness manipulators easy.

The false propagandists and professional spinners are trying really, really hard to conveniently leave out that Hillary Clinton flat-out said Russia hacked the DNC when she has zero proof of that.

...we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There’s no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald’s very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee.

(Source: "Transcript: First presidential debate at Hofstra University")

I did a Google search on ("hillary clinton" russia DNC -FBI) [less the parentheses]. I added "-FBI" because I suspect that the recent "phone hack" issue is being used to mask searching for ("hillary clinton" russia DNC) without getting the "FBI" results first now (nearly immediately after the debate). Yes, I'm cynical enough to believe the mainstream media manipulates that way. They are mostly neocon, and Hillary is their girl because of it. Neocons hate Russia with a passion. Donald Trump not playing along concerning ramping up the war fever against Russia strikes fear and hatred into the neocons concerning Trump. Nothing else much matters. Trump could be Netanyahu; but if he were to not trash Russia with his all, they'd do everything possible to pull the rug out from under him.

Looking through the Google search results that I filtered for "Past 24 hours" and "Sorted by date," I ran into two post titles/sites that appeared focused on the subject more than the rest:

"Presidential Debate 2016: Cybersecurity Highlights Significant Differences in Policy, Understanding Between Candidates"

"Candidates trade barbs on cybersecurity"

If you read those, please notice the subtle way in which both leave out that Hillary accused Putin directly for the DNC hack. That's not all you should notice though. The entire subject in the Google results spins the issue away from the issue of war with Russia and its Global Thermonuclear War implications/risks.

I like what Brian Becker, from the anti-war Answer Coalition, had to say; but even he didn't nail the issue (unless he was poorly edited by RT):

“The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it’s manifested itself into something more than just a diversion,” he said.

“Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations,” Becker added.

(Source: "Clinton-Trump debate shows emptiness, vapidity of US political election cycle")

My Facebook and Google+ post right after the debate sums up my feeling:

Well, if you run in Trump circles, he won. If you run in Clinton circles, she won.

What do I think? They both flubbed and both scored.

THE most important thing to me was Hillary Clinton definitely blaming Russia for hacking the DNC.

Donald Trump handled it better than I expected, and I didn't have low expectations. She doesn't know Russia did it or who did.

He is right that the threat of nuclear war is the gravest immediate danger. He said he would not use a first strike. Bravo that.

Hillary is thumping Russia with her unsubstantiated claims. She's playing with fire: global nuclear incineration and poisoning.

I don't support Donald Trump, but she's more dangerous by far!

Why forget what the Clinton campaign did to the Bernie Sanders campaign? Trump brought it up and wasn't being disingenuous about it.

Why put Trump's unacceptable positions (whatever you feel those are, and people do differ on them of course) higher in importance than the real risk of nuclear war being triggered by the neocon policies and practices toward Russia (which would draw in China and probably others)? Why not give more weight to a nuclear WWIII?

Are you really ready to seriously risk the planet just because you might agree with Hillary Clinton on more issues than you do with Donald Trump? Are you thinking that the risk is low with a Hillary Presidency? Really? She has a proven war-hawk track record and a record of lying about her efforts for peace. She lies by omission. She omits the hawkishness she had during all the times she now claims she was working for peace. She leaves out the finer details concerning how she defines "working for peace." Destroying Syria to weaken Iran to strengthen Israel (regardless of the Palestinian nightmare at the hands of the Zionists) is something she calls working toward peace (Source: "UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015"). She thinks peace will come when Israel is the only regional power there and the only nuclear-weapons holder there. She simply lied and continues to lie about Iran and nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Trump does that too (but in this case, he may not know Iran didn't, and doesn't, have a nuclear-weapons program).

Again, what sticks out to me right now is the short attention span of so many people and the lack of giving proper weight to the most important issue. It makes the job of the consciousness manipulators easy.

Posted in Holocaust | Leave a comment