Monday, October 24, 2016

Wikileaks: Soros Memo Accused Obama of Fueling Radical Islam to Push TPP

A March 2016 email published Monday by the organization Wikileaks reveals that George Soros, in anticipation of a meeting with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, requested Podesta read a memo accusing President Barack Obama of emboldening radical Islam in Malaysia in order to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) passed.

Podesta received an email in March 2016 from Soros spokesperson Michael Vachon. “I have attached a memo on TPP and Malaysia, as it may come up when you see George and Alex [Soros, George’s son],” he writes. “In general I think George is more interested in talking about policy than the campaign per se, though I can’t imagine you won’t spend some time on politics.”
Podesta later forwards the attached memo in question to another Clinton campaign official. Subsequent emails seem to indicate Podesta met George and Alex Soros for dinner on March 15 of this year.
The attached memo, titled “The TPP and Malaysia’s Corruption Crisis,” argues that President Obama has wrongfully chosen to support the government of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, accused of a variety of outrageous abuses of power and responsible for the dynamic growth of radical Islam in the southeast Asian nation.

The memo appears to have been authored by John Pang, a board member at Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Pang writes that Najib is “a poster boy for the 21st century kleptocracy” who has used “a racial supremacist ideology that is collapsing under the weight of corruption” to perpetuate himself in power. Najib, he argues, has created “a Malay-Islamic state in which Sunni Islam’s supremacy is indivisible from the political and legal supremacy of the Malay race.” The result is a country in which “1 in 10 Muslims there had favorable views of ISIS and that a 53% majority were in favor of implementing Hudud, the Islamic penal code.”
Pang writes that, specifically, Malaysia under Najib has enacted laws prohibiting non-Muslims from using the word “Allah,” banned Bibles in the Malay language, and seen thousands of its citizens leave Malaysia to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. At home, Najib has “raised street demonstrations threatening violence against the nation’s Chinese and Christian minorities and fanned anti-Semitism,” Pang writes.
The more prominent allegations of corruption against Najib, the memo argues, the more he has embraced radical Islam.
 Malaysia is a key player in the passage of TPP, however, which is nominally a measure to attempt to court China’s major trading partners to do more business with the United States.
“The Obama administration has made heavy and often personal bets on the leadership of Prime Minister Najib Razak as a partner in the region in the ‘pivot to Asia’ and the struggle against Islamic radicalism,” the memo argues. “These priorities have been undercut by being subsumed under the administration’s aggressive pursuit of the TPP.”
Since Najib assumed power, Malaysia has been home to some of the most outrageous violations of human rights in the name of Islam in the world. Among them are the arrest of a rapper for using the word “Allah” in a rap song, the arrest of a teenage girl for hugging a pop singer in public, protests against another teenage girl for hugging a dog (dogs are considered “unclean” in Islam), the banning of the phrase “hot dog” as it confused Muslims into thinking they were eating dog meat, widespread protests against Cadbury chocolate eggs, and the arrests of couples celebrating St. Valentine’s Day.
Malaysia has been refused FIFA soccer hosting duties over refusing to let Israeli nationals into the country, and its government has admitted to monitoring liberal Muslim “deviants” as a national security threat.
The first successful Islamic State attack in Malaysia occurred in July 2016, and targeted a Cuban nightclub.

FLASHBACK: Hillary Didn't Accept The Results Of The 2000 Election

Today this douche Bag is out trashing Trump for not wanting to accept the outcome

With talk of a "rigged" system as a centerpiece of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, many have begun to ask whether or not he'll accept the election results on November 8th. While some on the left are complaining that questioning the legitimacy of a presidential election is unprecedented, it wasn't long ago that many of them were doing just that--including Hillary Clinton herself!
In October of 2002, during a heated midterm election, then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton declared that President George W. Bush had been "selected" and not "elected" in 2000.
In 2002 Newsweek reported:
At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been "selected" president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue.
Clinton was alluding to the results of the 2000 election in which Democrats demanded a recount of the state of Florida. Their attempts fell short with the Supreme Court and the Florida results were certified with George W. Bush as the winner over Al Gore. It appears that even two years later, Clinton refused to accept the fact that Bush had been legitimately elected.
In 2009, Clinton again implied that the 2000 election was illegitimate at a town hall in Nigeria.
Answering a question about Nigeria's election, which was fraught with irregularities and claims of dirty tricks, Clinton said, "In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for President was the governor of the state. So we have our problems too."
Guess things are different when the shoe is on the other foot.


BUSTED! Latest fake Trump accuser, Karena Virginia, writes for the virulently anti-Trump leftist rag, the Huffington Post

Give it up, ladies (and I use that term facetiously), nobody is buying your Trump crap sandwiches anymore. YAWN.

Think You Know How Bad the Clintons Are?

"The White House is like a subway. You have to put in coins to open the gates."
Such were the immortal words of one Johnny Chung, who admitted to a Senate committee in 1997 that he funneled $100,000 from the Chinese military to the Democratic National Committee.  In the Clinton White House, it was pay to play all the way.  That either Bill or Hillary had a political life after their treasonous run on Asian piggy banks is a testament to the ever escalating corruption of the American media.
The White House honcho who made the subways run on time – no shock here – was Hillary Clinton.  It was she who convened the secret meeting with adviser Dick Morris in the White House treaty room a month after the Democrats' historic drubbing in November 1994.  Blamed for the debacle, the Clintons were running for their political lives.  To preserve those lives would take huge amounts of money, much of it, if not most, raised and spent illegally.
"The president and his top advisors took control of the DNC and designed a plan to engage in a historically aggressive fund-raising effort, utilizing the DNC as a vehicle for getting around federal election laws," the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, also known as the Thompson Committee, reported in March 1998.  "The DNC ran television advertisements, created under the direct supervision of the president."
The deepest pockets the Clintons plundered belonged to the Riadys, an ethnic Chinese family that worked out of Indonesia.  The Thompson Committee cited any number of large-scale Riady joint ventures in China, their principal partner in the People's Republic being an enterprise called China Resources, "a company wholly-owned and operated by the PRC government."  The Riadys had invested in Bill Clinton back in Arkansas and bailed him out during the 1992 primary campaign.  As payback, they were allowed to put their man John Huang in the Commerce Department.
And what were Huang's talents?  A letter sent by an Asian outreach advocate on the stationery of the then-president pro tem of the California state Senate was frank to a fault: "John is the Riady family's top priority for placement because he is like one of their own."  The Riady family, in case anyone needed reminding, "invested heavily in the Clinton campaign."  To some, those were credentials enough.
Huang's actual work was icing on the cake. The Thompson Committee makes this striking admission: "[a]lthough Huang's first day at Commerce was July 18, 1994, he was granted his first security clearance in January 1994."
Huang proved his worth in June 1994.  With Clinton crony Webster Hubbell on the ropes after a scandal forced him out of his job in the Justice Department, Huang arranged a $100,000 Riady payout to Hubbell.  This occurred two days after Huang and James Riady met with the president in the Oval Office and a week after Hillary met with Hubbell.  That payout – and $300,000 more – helped buy Hubbell's silence.  Despite a ton of legal pressure, he never talked.
It should have surprised no one that the Clintons would head for Indonesia a week after the November 1994 debacle.  They saw it coming and planned ahead.  Not only did the Clintons have to impress the Riadys on their own home turf, but they also had to start squeezing the CEOs accompanying them in a more systematic way.  It was about this time that the $100,000 donation to travel with the Clintons morphed from a discreet expectation into the price of admission.
The Thompson Committee described what happened during the next two years.  "The president and his aides demeaned the offices of the president and vice president, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well."  This was business as usual for Bill and Hillary Clinton.  "Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions," concluded the Thompson Committee, " much of it from foreign sources."
Nothing the Clintons have done in the last thirty years matches the scope of their treachery during this two-year period.  In the way of example, among those who enjoyed an intimate "coffee" with the president was one Wang Jun, chair of Poly Technologies, a company controlled by the People's Liberation Army.  One of Poly Technologies' profit centers was satellite production.  Another was the "importation and distribution of semi-automatic rifles for the U.S. domestic market."  Between 1987 and 1993, the company and its affiliates sold more than $200 million's worth of these guns in the United States.  Clinton pal Charlie Trie had greased the Wang Jun meeting with a $50,000 payment.
To the president's humble credit, as the Thompson Committee would later report, Clinton did admit that the meeting with Wang Jun was "clearly inappropriate."  The president did not apologize, however, for signing waivers for four more satellite launches by Chinese rockets on that same February 1996 day.  The president approved these waivers despite reports the month before that China continued to export nuclear technology to Pakistan and missiles to Iran, the latter deal suspected of being brokered by Wang Jun.
Just a week or so after Wang Jun's excellent Washington adventure, a Chinese Long March 3B rocket carrying the Loral-built Intelsat 708 satellite crashed just after liftoff and killed or injured at least sixty people in a nearby village.  This was the third Long March failure in the previous three years involving U.S.-built satellite payloads.
Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, the largest single donor to the Clinton campaign, dispatched a Loral-led review team to China to assess the February 1996 failure of the Long March 3B rocket and suggest refinements.  The Cox Committee would later describe Schwartz's actions as "an unlicensed defense service for the PRC that resulted in the improvement of the reliability of the PRC's military rockets and ballistic missiles."  The White House pulled serious strings to prevent Schwartz from being prosecuted.
In the most outrageous deal of all, two months before the election, the president "unilaterally" declared a new 1.7-million-acre national monument in Southern Utah.  CNN's Wolf Blitzer did not shy from the implicit controversy.  He reported that the people of Utah were "furious."  They claimed that it was "a land grab" by the federal government "at the economic expense of the state."
Blitzer raised the issue of coal, perhaps $1 trillion's worth of clean, low-sulfur coal that would never be mined.  Blitzer, however, did not know the deeper significance of the coal.  Clinton did.  Said the president of this grand environmental gesture, "We can't have mines everywhere, and we shouldn't have mines that threaten our national treasures."  No, not everywhere, just in Indonesia.  In a stroke of the pen, Clinton had handed the Riadys a monopoly on the world's supply of low-sulfur coal.
Although Blitzer did not make the connection, the FBI did.  As an FBI agent observed after his interview with John Huang, "HUANG laughed in response to questions concerning j. riady's interest in Utah coal restrictions."
Huang and the Clintons and their cronies are laughing still.  They have convinced some healthy percentage of the Republican establishment that making a crude comment eleven years ago is a greater sin than betraying America for campaign cash.



A Vote for Hillary Is a Vote for Single-Payer

Throughout this election cycle, Hillary Clinton has insisted that she doesn’t favor single-payer health care. Prepare yourself for a shock — she’s lying. As early as 1994, she described the future of our medical delivery system thus: “I think the momentum for a single-payer system wllsweep the country … if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.” Nineteen years later, her affinity for single-payer hadn’t faded. Emails published by WikiLeaks early this month show that, in a 2013 closed-to-the-public speaking engagement, Clinton was still touting the cost savings allegedly achieved by single-payer systems in Scandinvia and Canada.
Now that she’s running for the presidency again, however, Clinton would have us believe that she has had a change of heart. Indeed, during her battle with Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination, she denounced the Vermont Senator for advocating the replacement of Obamacare with single-payer, saying that such a system “will never, ever come to pass.” Her public position is that she will “defend” Obamacare and “improve on its successes.” But another batch of emails published by WikiLeaks last week shows Clinton exchanging ideas with her advisors concerning the most effective way to facilitate “the unraveling of ACA.”
Specifically, in a September 2015 email stream about bipartisan support for repealing Obamacare’s 40 percent excise tax on high-dollar health care plans, she writes: “I’ll support repeal.… But we have to be careful that the R version passes which begins the unraveling of the ACA.” A few days following this email exchange, Clinton announced that she would “encourage Congress to repeal the so-called Cadillac tax.” Now, why would a presidential candidate ostensibly committed to defending President Obama’s “signature domestic achievement” support any congressional measure that she believes would lead to its eventual demise?
The actual result would be to force the few remaining private insurers willing to sell policies through the exchanges out of the health insurance market. The public option would sell coverage at taxpayer-subsidized rates that no legitimate enterprise can offer without going bankrupt, so the last holdouts would simply follow Aetna, United Healthcare, and dozens of other insurers out the door. This would quickly convert the Obamacare “marketplaces” into mere enrollment stations for yet another government-run health care plan, which would be entirely consistent with the overall goal of getting every American on some form of government coverage.

Given Clinton’s propensity toward
  prevarication, the obvious answer is that she is being less than candid about her plans for our health care system in general and Obamacare in particular. And her plan to “fix” Obamacare supports that conclusion. A major feature of her proposed repair job is that perennial progressive panacea, the public option. The brilliant idea behind this proposal is to have a government-run insurance plan available in every exchange to compete with private insurers. This would, according to its proponents, force insurance companies to offer fair prices to Obamacare enrollees and thus hold down premiums and deductibles.
This project is already well underway, of course. The taxpayers already pick up the tab for nearly two-thirds of the nation’s health care expenditures, and the share of the U.S. population on some sort of government health plan has increased dramatically during the past decade. As John Merline points out atInvestor’s Business Daily, quoting data from the Centers for Disease Control, “the share of the population that gets insurance coverage directly from the government… jumped from 18.1% in 2007 to 25.3% in 2015.” During the same period, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance coverage has actually gone down.
This shift from private coverage to government-run plans will accelerate if Clinton is successful in getting another of her Obamacare “fixes” enacted. Clinton has proposed what has become colloquially known as “Medicare-for-More.” The proposal, which she unveiled last May in response to the enthusiasm among progressives for Sanders’ proposals, would extend Medicare eligibility to adults in their fifties. The details have remained remarkably vague, but Avalere Health estimates that 13 million Americans could become eligible to buy into the Medicare program under the plan, an increase in the number of beneficiaries of 25 percent.
And the beat goes on. The good news is that, unless Clinton wins the election in a landslide large enough to sweep the Democrats back into power in both houses of Congress, it’s unlikely that she will be able get many of her awful policy ideas passed. Neither the expansion of Medicare, which is already hurtling toward bankruptcy, nor the public option will go anywhere. The last time her accomplices tried to get the latter passed, they described it as “stealth single-payer.” How fitting that it is being reintroduced by Hillary Clinton, a stealth advocate of single-payer, a system that the voters revile and which no amount of subterfuge can make succeed.

Even Liberals Shouldn’t Vote for Hillary

A Global Warming Moment