Friday, August 19, 2016






She has used them in the past.. see pictures below.. she is not picking her ear!!

 The Trump Campaign should use a scrambling device that send distorted signals into her ear sending Hillary Clinton into an epileptic fit on stage. WONT THAT BE SOME FUNNY SHIT!!


Teenagers may be using James Bond-style hidden earpieces to cheat in their exams, according to the Government's testing watchdog.

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is investigating concerns that students could be using the devices linked to mobile phones or MP3 players.
A Canadian company is openly promoting the invisible, wireless "micro spy earphone" to exam candidates around the world, The Times Educational Supplement reported.
The Toronto-based company, Examear, uses the advertising slogan: "Helping students succeed. Worldwide!"

It’s not a secret that Obama uses ear pieces, because there are numerous photos that show him wearing one at various functions, as you see in the photos below:

Obama adjusts ear piece in photos above
“Gate” posted this close-up photo of Obama (see below) which clearly shows him wearing a clear-colored ear device (a Bluetooth® or  higher-end Kleer® wireless earbud?). However, this photo could not be from the third (or second or first) debate because Obama has jet-black hair in the photo, whereas his hair has grey in it during the three debates:

Pic posted by “Gate”
So I took screen shots from the videos posted on YouTube of the third and first debates, so we can see for ourselves.
Here’s a screen shot from the first debate, followed by a close-up of Obama’s left ear from this screen shot:

Here’s a screen shot I took from a video of the third presidential debate, followed by a closeup of Obama’s left ear from that screen shot:

I painted two red arrows onto the above closeup, pointing to two features that are missing from Obama’s left ear in the first debate:

  • The left red arrow points to a strange flesh-colored vertical line that extends from the inner top rim to the lower lobe of Obama’s ear.
  • The right red arrow points to a crescent shape in his ear that’s a light flesh-pink color.
I found the same two features in other screenshots of Obama which I took from the video of the third debate.
Here are the closeups of the two ears (left from the 1st debate; right from the 3rd debate) placed side by side so you can better compare them. I’ve painted red dots on that strange flesh-colored vertical line in the picture of his ear from the 3rd debate:

Here are the first pic posted by “Gate” showing clearly a clear-colored ear device in Obama ear (left), side by side with the closeup of his ear from the third debate (right). Do you see how the pink crescent shape is EXACTLY the same U shape as the clear ear device?

Now watch this video of the third presidential debate. Notice, for example beginning at the 0:02:40 mark, how when Romney’s talking, Obama is very still and just stares at Romney, as if he’s intently listening to someone talking into his ear:

This is what Mark McGrew wrote in an email to me:
“I’m sure there are clear ear pieces. But in a clandestine application they would be flesh colored and used with makeup to blend in which is what Obama’s ear looked like in the 3rd debate.
Blue Phone: This is a technique used by sales managers to train new salespeople, who know little about sales methods or their written script (sales pitch). A manager listens in to a call between a salesman and his customer. The customer can not hear the manager. The call is recorded so that the salesman can listen to it later, over and over again, until he understands what to do when he is on his own. The salesman’s only purpose in life, is to watch and listen to every word and every inflection of the manager and the salesman has to duplicate, like an actor, every thing the manager says, in the same tone of voice, the same inflections and the same body motions. The salesman becomes like a Disneyland robot, completely mimicking the manager in every way. In reality, the manger is negotiating with the customer, but using the salesman’s body to do so. The salesman is ‘possessed’. If done properly, the manager at some point can say, ‘I shot John Kennedy and raped your daughter’ and that is exactly what the salesman will tell the customer, and not even know he said it. After the call, the manager can tell the salesman what he said, but the salesman will not believe it until he hears the recording of the call. The salesman is hypnotized during the blue phoning. The manager has complete control over his robot. This technique is used in complicated sales, with many questions coming from the customer, such as securities and investments. If the manager stops the blue phone and walks off, the salesman will not have the faintest idea where he is in the sales call and will take several seconds to ‘come out of trance’ and try desperately to get back in the sales call, usually failing to do so. It is like you dropped a salesman off a 30 story building and he doesn’t realize it until just before he hits the sidewalk.
I personally have blue phoned hundreds of sales calls and know exactly what a blue phoned person looks like: As if in an intense trance. And they are in an intense trance. I am an expert in Blue Phoning and I know what a Blue Phoned person looks like, the expression on his face, the eyeball movements, the stress level, the body movements…..everything.
In debate #2 and debate # 3, Obama was Blue Phoned. Whether it was an ear piece, a teleprompter or a brain implant, I do not know. I only know that he was Blue Phoned.”

Update (Nov. 5, 2012):

Jim McElwee of ItMakesSenseBlog posted these pics of Obama’s right ear taken from the 3rd debate (h/t Sally!):

Here’s a comment from a reader of ItMakesSenseBlog:

Jo Ann Spain:

I am a retired Licensed Optician (40 year experience) with a PhD…. I have also fit hearing aids for many years.. I knew he had a device in his ear..( I Told my husband & our Friends what to look for) because when ever Mr. Romney was talking, “Obama” turned his head slightly to pick up on a second person talking in his ear to coach him ;I am sure of this…The last 2 debates he had a ” Prompter Ear Device for help~~”.. (Look how REALLY MISERABLY HE DID IN THE FIRST BEBATE WITH NO HELP!!) I wonder how “CLOSE BY” Mr. Bill Clinton or someone” FAR more knowlegable and SAVAY” (MUCH MORE THAN OBAMA” )was available to feed him INFO.. He is’nt that “SMART” because He still didn’t do that well even with the “HELP HE SO OBVIOUSLY RECEIVED!..

Thursday, August 11, 2016


The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants


Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.
In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?
Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.
How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.

But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation include a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.
According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.
The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.

Too Crooked!!
Click Here :

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.
But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.
Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.
Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.
The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

The Clinton Foundation Enriched Itself By Ripping Off Haiti After 2010 Earthquake

It filtered money through Haiti and back to itself.
In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.” 
Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute. 
The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States. Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation. The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.” I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way. Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world. Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. 
The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable. 
The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. 
An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan. Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality, no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have been taken over by squatters. The Schools They Never Built USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S. trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation. 
For example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-building activity.” The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, ‘built’ is a term with a very loose interpretation. USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative. 
A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding. Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion. The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy — and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti. In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian market. 
The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S. taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians. Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile program. 
By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the cell-phone market in Haiti. Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011. 
Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams. In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton — 100,000 new jobs in Haiti. 
The project was funded by the U.S. government and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single allocation of U.S. relief aid. Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property. Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated. Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built. Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work, but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers around 40 percent. The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged. 
But former Haitian prime minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still, Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the benefits. 
Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22 million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him. “I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times. “I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million personally on the deal. 
Unfortunately, his application didn’t go through. Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and prison guard. 
The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value. They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50 years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to the company that had hired Hillary’s brother. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. 
Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to exploit the Haitian people.” Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. 
Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as these projects match their own private economic interests. They have steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit to themselves. No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters. 
Each time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen. They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR. 
For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party.

Read more at:

Monday, August 8, 2016


Hillary’s Handler Carries a DIAZEPAM Pen for Patients Who Experience Recurrent Seizures!

As reported earlier by Joe Hoft—
In recent bizarre events on the campaign trail a strange man was noticed at Hillary Clinton’s side.
Via Mike Cernovich:

The man is dressed like a secret service agent but his actions prove otherwise.
In a recent campaign stop in a Union Hall in front of a sparse crowd, at about the time when some liberal protesters began to protest, Hillary Clinton suddenly froze. She looked dazed and lost.  Seeing this, a group of men rushed to assist the candidate on the stage.  One man however gently pats the candidate’s back and then says, “Keep Talking.”
An expert on Secret Service tactics told TGP Secret Service agents would not touch a candidate in the manner that this individual did and especially Hillary Clinton.  It has been widely reported on Hillary’s disdain for the agents who work to protect her. The man who touches Hillary may be a member of Hillary’s close staff – but he is NOT a Secret Service agent.
Now this…
Mike Cernovich pointed out that Hillary’s handler carries a Diazepam pen.

** Diazepam auto-injector pens are used for for Acute Repetitive Seizures.
Diazepam is prescribed for patients who experience recurrent seizures!

Twitter user Azusa posted this earlier.
The Ralph Retort reported:
Hillary’s handler was definitely carrying an auto-syringe at the DNC Convention on Hillary’s big night.

Sunday, August 7, 2016




Michael Jackson, Prince, and Elvis would travel with a personal doctor who could administer needed life-saving drugs and attention during a crisis. Remember when you thought famous people like Michael Jackson and Elvis had good medical care? What’s Clinton on?

Hillary appears to travel with her own Michael Jackson/Elvis style doctor.
Who is the big fat bald dude??

We saw this first “doctor” or handler during Hillary’s recent freeze-up. You can see Hillary’s handler, who at first glance would not be considered the alpha male of the group, reassure Hillary, speak to her using hypnotic language, and then move the Secret Service Agents out of the way. This handler is not an ordinary SS agent.
Hillary has breakdown, is given mindset coaching - Imgur

Reactions to the first video were similar. This is a weird situation, and clearly the handler is not ordinary Secret Service.
You can watch the full video here.

Hillary’s handler is part of her inner circle.

Huma Abedin is the only person closer to Hillary than this man who handles her, picured on the left.
Hillary's handler doctor stroke

Here you see Hillary’s handler helping her walk up stairs.

Why can’t Hillary walk up a flight of steps?
Hillary being helped up stairs stroke
What is going on here?
Hillary stroke doctor
Hillary looks “out of it” again. You can see her handler whispering into her ear.
Hillary seizure doctor
Something very clearly is wrong with Hillary.
Hillary Clinton has seizure when talking to reporters - Imgur

Hillary tries playing off the seizure by acting as if she had a “brain freeze.” As my medical experts explained to me, patients who suffer seizures become experts at playing it off.
Hillary DNC seizure
Watch the full video of Hillary’s seizures here:
Hillary has suffered a brain injury during a fall. She either had a stroke, causing her to fall, or the fall caused her stroke. (Doctors were unsure whether the fall was the cause or effect of the stroke.)
The media is covering up Hillary’s obvious health problems.
Hillary’s health problems date back several years. Here you can see Hillary struggle to board an airplane, and then she falls down at the very end of the video.
Here you can see Hillary clearly fall down. Poor balance is associated with strokes/head injuries.
Hillary has frequent coughing fits, a side effect of her anti-seizure medication.
Coughin Hillary

What drugs does Hillary take?

Where is her medical history?
The media is completely covering up this story.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Hacked messages of #BlackLivesMatter leader reveal Obama admin’s plan for ‘summer of chaos’ and martial law

If they want war we will give these people WAR. We out number them 5 to 1 and they stand out in a crowd. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF "REACTING" Time for ACTION..

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is coordinating with Democratic activists to so disrupt the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions that martial law will be declared.
That’s the stunning discovery revealed in a series of direct messages between three activists.
On Friday, June 10, 2016, someone hacked into the Twitter account of #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) leader and former Baltimore mayoral candidate DeRay McKesson. McKesson later confirmed the hack to The Baltimore Sun.
On June 11, 2016, a Twitterer who calls himself The Saint (@TheSaintNegro) tweeted a direct-message conversation on June 10 between KcKesson and another BLM leader Johnetta Elzie (Netta), in which the two discussed talking with Attorney General Loretta Lynch about plans to bring on martial law by causing chaos at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, so as to keep Obama in office.
Deray Mckesson & Johnetta Elzie 

Here’s the conversation over the course of several days between black activists DeRay McKesson (DM) and Johnetta Elzie (JE), and between McKesson and a “white ally” named Sam (S):
JE: “Have you spoken with Mrs. Lynch [Attorney General Loretta Lynch] recently about the plan for the summer and fall leading up to the elections.
DM: “We spoke two weeks and they want us to start really pushing how racist Trump is now instead of waiting so the others can start getting the protesters ready to shut both conventions down.
DM: “If we can get both conventions shut down for messing over Bernie and for having racist Trump, then get martial law declared so Obama can stay in office we will win. Call you soon when I get to my dads so I can use his landline and we can talk more on this.”
DM: “We have to make sure that we use our voices to keep people disrupting Trump all summer and through the fall so martial law can be declared….”
S: “I wanted to touch base with you about the summer of chaos. So far we have over 2,000 people bused in from different cities and another 6,000 to 8,000 expected to drive into Cleveland for the Convention.”
S: “They will not be ready for the crowds we are bringing and they will blame Trump for it, especially if we shut it down. The GOP will have to replace him at that point or we will continue the disruptions nationwide.
DM: “I will pass the info along. Good work, Sam. You never let us down. It’s so important we stop Trump. He can not be president. He will destroy everything we worked so hard for and we can’t trust….”
DM: “…today and he [Sam?] confirmed that there will be around 10,000 protesters disrupting the [Republican] convention. Plans are being made for other cities as well for upcoming Trump events. Ads have already been placed looking for people to help. I know you don’t care for them [white people] but this is the time we need our white allies doing a lot of the work for us. They are the ones who listen the best.”
JE: “That will put fear into the GOP and the country when they can’t have their convention for all their racist supporting Trump. We’ve worked too hard and closely with the Obama administration to have that racist ass take it all away and Hillary…. You know I can’t stand those white allies, but yo right this is the best to use them. They hang on every word you say and will do whatever is asked. I just hate all that kiss ass they try to do. Like that changes who they are.”
DM: “We have a lot of white allies volunteering for Trump’s campaign to pass along information to us before it’s made public so we know when rallies are coming up before they are announced. That way we can plan major disruptions in those cities in advance. We just have to keep our names out of this and let these [white] people do the work for us by pushing how Trump’s racist ways will destroy….”
JE: “That’s all those white people are good for in my eyes. I couldn’t imagine even pretending to like that racist ass Trump even to get info on his events. I’ll be glad when we shut his ass down.”
DM: “With the support we have from Mrs. Lynch and the help we’ve got from Sam and others it won’t be hard to cause enough….”
Here are screenshots of The Saint‘s series of tweets:
DeRay DM1cDeRay DM1a DeRay DM1bDeRay DM2DeRay DM3DeRay DM4The authorities seem to be taking the plan to disrupt the Republican Convention seriously.
As reported by Alice Speri for The Intercept, June 23, 2016, local police and federal agents from the FBI, DHS, and Secret Service are knocking on the doors of activists and community organizers in Cleveland asking about their plans for the Republican National Convention in July.
On June 29, 2016, Deray McKesson sort of confirmed the plan when he went public with warnings about “possible” protests at the DNC and RNC, as reported by USA Today.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016


Has America Become an Oligarchy? 


Yes, America has indeed become an oligarchy, by badly mixing democracy and oligarchy! Hear me out …
One of the biggest educational benefits for American voters throughout the 2016 Presidential election so far has, hopefully, been an improved understanding of how oligarchic, and rigged, our political system has become.

Simply put, it is heavily in favor of establishment candidates, and specifically against outsiders, with some party elites having profound influence over the outcome of an election, sometimes decisively!
1. What is an oligarchy?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - Oligarchy:
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.
2. Who are the oligarchs in America?
Some elected officials and some elites in the political parties! Many candidates are chosen by the oligarchs, and become oligarchs themselves over time. It's the elites choosing the future elites who will dictate how we, the people, will be allowed to vote and live! THE BUSH's THE CLINTONS, THE OBAMA'S AND THEIR SYCOPHANTS. IT LIKE THE MOB FAMILIES !!

3. Oligarch vs. democracy
In a nutshell, democracy simply means one person, one vote. Americans naively believed they had finally achieved this ideal in 1965 (Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Unlike a parliamentary system (e.g. the U.K., Japan, and Canada), in which the majority party of the parliament (via a coalition if necessary) elects the head of the government, Americans elect their President directly via a democratic process (with the electoral-college system notwithstanding), as clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution.
It turns out that American voters no longer really elect the President directly, at all. Instead, the two major parties each offer their choice of candidate, selectively chosen via their own primary processes. Worse yet, neither of the primary processes are truly democratic. Rather, they are oligarchic, with some party elites having profound influence over the outcome, sometimes decisively. Worst of all, there is no direct relationship between the primary voters and the party elites, because many primary elections are open, with no party affiliation required!
In short, the election process for American President is not truly democratic. Rather, it is a bad mixture of democracy and oligarchy!

4. America's 2-party system
Like Yin and Yang, it was natural for America to end up with two major political parties, currently the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Both parties are private, like elite private clubs, with their own rules, hierarchies, and steep entrance dues to become elites. For example, Senator Ted Cruz, just like Senator Obama, promised heavy future favors for support of his presidential run. American taxpayers would have to pay hugely to cover his campaign promises, just as we did after Senator Obama won the Presidency. Both of them are obviously top elites in their respective parties!
However, unlike private clubs with exclusive memberships, both parties are “open”, with arbitrary party memberships. For example, an Independent (who belongs to neither party) may choose to participate in the Democratic primary (in states with open primaries), but eventually vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. He (or she) may never have voted for either party before, thus having nothing to do, previously, with the elites of either party.

In short, democratically speaking, the oligarchs in America are not legitimate, because of the disconnection between them and the voters!

5. How do the two parties choose their respective Presidential nominee?
Each party has its own primary elections, which vary from state to state, to select a party nominee. Basically, a nominee is selected by the delegates, who are not necessarily directly chosen, even proportionately, by the voters.
On the Republican side, the problem is less obvious this year, because Donald Trump is already the presumptive nominee, thanks to an overwhelmingly large number of votes he has received.
In contrast, the Democratic Party may have a big problem coming up, if Bernie Sanders ends up with more "pledged delegates" via public voting than Hillary Clinton, who obviously has far more super-delegates to eventually out-number him!
What, then, is a super-delegate?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - Super-delegate:
In American politics, a "super-delegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party super-delegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors.
Note: Many voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the person, not the party! Some of them may have never voted before, let alone voted Democrat. So they had zero input as to who would become a super-delegate, who could not therefore possibly represent them in any way!

Bottom line: How could our political system have devolved to the point that some party elites end up with so much more power than the people, deviating from the ideal of "one person, one vote"?
"They know what's better for the party" is obviously the pretended logic behind the set-up. In reality, however, it's just another power grab by the elite few: the oligarchs!
6. Do they know better, really?
Yes, they do, as most of them are career politicians!
What, then, is the problem? Most of them work primarily for their own benefit (aka "getting re-elected ad nauseam"), with their party a distant second, their constituents a remote third, and their country dead last!
To know what a typical Congressman like David Jolly does on daily basis, read: Republican congressman exposes one of Congress' dirty little secrets on '60 Minutes'. Here is an excerpt:
Jolly said, as a member of Congress, entire schedules work around making time to fundraise, in his case $18,000 per day, for their reelection campaign.
"Republicans, Democrats and Independents can all agree on one thing - the public did not elect Members of Congress to go to Washington and spend their time raising money for their re-election," Jolly said. "They are not paying members $174,000 a year to spend, in some cases 20 or 30 hours a week, on the phone dialing for dollars. But that is exactly what is happening."
Bottom line: In politics, money is not everything; money is the only thing!

7. What's the end result?
Because of the link between money and elections/re-elections, the two parties often end up with similar candidates, especially in terms of ferocious spending and the resultant requisite taxation and borrowing! Specifically,
  1. The Democrats tax-borrow-&-spend for entitlements. For more, read: Democratic Socialism.
  2. The Republicans tax-borrow-&-spend for wars, for more, read: Democratic Imperialism.

Still wondering why our national debt already exceeds $19 trillion, and continues to rise rapidly?
Wonder not! It's the political system, stupid!

8. Discussion
Both parties are oligarchic, but the Democratic Party seems much worse. For more on the history of “super-delegates” and its implications this year, read: No, Sanders doesn’t stand much chance.
Now, why the Democratic Party is more oligarchic than the Republican Party? Maybe it has something to do with the nature of the Democratic Party? Three informative readings:
  1. The Democratic Party is the Party of New Slavery!
  2. Stupid Voters.
  3. Stupid Media.

For those “intelligent” Sanders voters, if you feel disenfranchised by his party, it’s time to board the Trump train for one main reason, at least: Trump is the candidate best at addressing your critical issues, such as fair trade and anti-war!
More profoundly, electing Donald Trump may be a unique opportunity for us to break the cycle of money and politics by both parties!
Yes, Trump, a de facto Libertarian (Who is Donald Trump, Anyway?), has already hijacked the Republican Party, by beating all its establishment candidates! He will hopefully unite, reform, and expand the GOP in the coming weeks and months, leading to a victory in November.
On the Democratic side, Sanders is unlikely to beat the Democratic establishment. So Hillary Clinton will certainly be the nominee, thanks to the super-delegates!
Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the general election, here is a basic question for all Americans: America: Are We Still A Republic?

9. Closing
Give Donald Trump a chance to "make America great again", which may include changes to campaign financing and even the oligarchic system!

HILLARY EMAIL LIES DOCUMENTED.. and the time line too!






In a statement made by FBI Director James Comey, the Bureau will recommend to the Justice Department that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton in light of the FBI’s investigation into her usage of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The details revealed by Director Comey in his statement today, however, draw attention to a few inaccuracies made by Secretary Clinton regarding the email controversy since the New York Times first broke the story in March 2015.
The following is a timeline of the 5 most egregious inaccuracies, alongside Director Comey’s new information revealed today:
Hillary Clinton answers questions from reporters March 10, 2015 at the United Nations in New York. Clinton admitted Tuesday that she made a mistake in choosing for convenience not to use an official email account when she was secretary of state. But, in remarks to reporters after attending a United Nations event, she insisted that her email set-up had been properly secure and that she had turned over all professional communications to the State Department. AFP PHOTO/DON EMMERT (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

Date: March 10, 2015, United Nations Press Conference

LIE #1: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.”
TRUTH: As FBI Director James Comey revealed in the press conference today, 108 of the emails in more than 52 chains she sent were, in fact, considered classified. And 8 of those chains contained a “Top Secret” classification.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent
LIE #2: “First, when I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”
TRUTH: The Director pointed out that Hillary Clinton used “numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain.”
Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
LIE #3: “It [her email system] was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”
TRUTH: It turns out, however, there might have been a successful security breach on Secretary Clinton’s email. While the FBI Director that this is “unlikely,” he states that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton (C) looks at her mobile phone after attending a Russia - US meeting on the sidelines of the 43rd annual Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Ministering Meeting in Hanoi on July 23, 2010. Asia-Pacific's biggest security dialogue convenes in Vietnam with ructions over North Korea and friction between the United States and China likely to dominate proceedings. AFP PHOTO / POOL / Na Son Nguyen (Photo credit should read Na Son Nguyen/AFP/Getty Images)

Date: August 8, 2015, Signed Declaration to Federal Judge

LIE #4: “While I do not know what information may be ‘responsive’ for purposes of this lawsuit, I have directed that all my e-mails on in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”
TRUTH: According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement today, “several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
KINGSTREE, SC - FEBRUARY 25: Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a town hall meeting at the Williamsburg County Recreation Center on February 25, 2016 in Kingstree, South Carolina. The South Carolina Democratic primary is scheduled to take place on February 27. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Date: September 7, 2015, Interview with Associated Press

LIE #5: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.”
TRUTH: According to an official report released in May by the State Department Office of the Inspector General, the department “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”
OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM [Foriegn Affairs Manuel] and the security risks in doing so.
FBI Director Comey said the followed regarding the issue:
“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: FBI Director James Comey participates in a news conference on child sex trafficking, at FBI headquarters, June 23, 2014 in Washington, DC. Director Comey said that 168 juveniles have been recovered in a nationwide operation targeting commercial child sex trafficking. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

In conclusion…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” said Director Comey in his statement today, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
He closed his statement with the following:
“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.”