Posts Tagged ‘Real Reason’

HOW HILLARY CLINTON CAN WIN IN 2016

by Stephen Levine on Monday, September 16th, 2013

This is article 16 of 27 in the topic 2016 Elections

How can anyone take Hillary Clinton seriously as a presidential candidate?

  • She has a long-standing record of corruption, starting with her Arkansas legal adventures, as the First Lady in a corrupt White House, and as the Secretary of State lying to the public on Benghazi.
  • She is a liar – again, one need only needs to take her fake account of the 9/11 anniversary attack on Benghazi and the video story to know that she will do or say anything politically expedient.
  • She refuses to hold people accountable for their actions – State Department people who were responsible for the weak security at our embassies were “faux punished” for media consumption, but still retained their jobs – only at a different position.
  • She has ties to the Clinton Foundation – a murky labyrinth of intrigue, financial maneuvering, and backroom deals. She even got the politicians to give her a waiver when it came to full disclosure of her activities.
  • She has tied to pro-Muslim, pro Muslim Brotherhood activists through her “body person” who failed to disclose highly-paid “consulting activities” while employed by the State Department – and who maintained a top secret security clearance although her family had clear ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • She has tied to pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian activists through the Clinton Foundation – a potential backchannel for lobbying activities without proper oversight.

But the real reason that Hillary Clinton may have a shot at the Presidency is:

  • The nation is highly polarized and the “low information voters” are totally apathetic and trusting of an on-going progressive socialist propaganda campaign promising more and more entitlement;
  • The democrats have the mainstream media serving up propaganda and failing to cover the current Administration in a critical manner;
  • The Republicans are disorganized, fighting among themselves, and willing to accept democrats who advertise and run as Republicans;
  • The Republicans do have a suitable candidate and therefore cannot engage in 24/7/265 promotion like the democrats; and
  • Most importantly, the Obamacons and Bidens are moving so far left, they make Hillary Clinton look like an acceptable moderate.

Bottom line …

If Hillary Clinton follows Barack Obama into the Presidency, our nation is lost to international socialism and the billionaire oligarchs who control the politicians – much the same way the Russian political system works based on corrupt cronyism and the oppression of citizens.

— steve

Go straight to Post

Of Course: Susan ‘Benghazi Was Caused By Anger Over a YouTube Video’ Rice Honored for ‘Work in Advancing U.S. Interests’

by Doug Powers on Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

Five days after Benghazi, Susan Rice was still out lying her ass off about the real reason behind the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Libya. Apparently that was enough to qualify Rice for a “Great American Award”:

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice will be honored Tuesday night with the 2013 Louis E. Martin Great American Award.

The annual award, presented by The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, is given to “an exemplar of change, progress and coalition-building across racial lines,” according to a press release.

Specifically, the organization is honoring Rice for “her work in advancing U.S. interests, strengthening the world’s common security and prosperity, and promoting respect for human rights,” another press release states.

Change the reasoning to “for her diligent work in advancing the interests of the Obama administration as well as Hillary’s 2016 campaign” and the award might be deserved.

How did somebody who knowingly lied to downplay Al Qaeda involvement in an attack “strengthen the world’s security”? Gotta love liberal think tanks — or not.

Go straight to Post

Real Purpose Behind Obama Jaunt to Mexico: Recruitment!

by John Lillpop on Sunday, May 5th, 2013

This is article 335 of 464 in the topic Immigration

Barack Obama’s visit to Mexico is officially listed as a diplomatic mission to reinforce ties with our close friends and allies in Mexico.

However, the real reason is far more sinister and may, in fact, be part of a “high crime and misdemeanor” for which Obama could face impeachment and removal from office.

Treason may also be involved, but punishment for that transgression would surely spark unceasing, ill-founded cries of racism, and will thus be avoided for the time being.

The real purpose behind Obama’s visit to this 3rd-world failed state of Mexico is voter recruitment, plain and simple.

Obama is desperate to make sure that those with the urge to invade America (about 33 million Mexicans!) act in a timely fashion and get settled before the amnesty scam is codified! The idea is to be in America and covered by amnesty in time to register and vote in the mid-term elections next year.

Which is why Obama spoke in glowing terms about immigration reform (AKA Amnesty) and redemption for millions of invaders through unearned citizenship.

His message was simple: Do not allow this opportunity to pass you by. Invade America now and secure a bright future and plenty of dinero for you and your family!

Constitutional scholars must decide if Obama is guilty of an impeachable offense. After all, he has refused to secure the borders and to enforce immigration laws on the books.

That insolence has the potential to deliver at least 11 millions voters to the Democrat party and turn the nation blue for decades.

The burning question: Can a sitting president refuse to enforce selected laws in order to “grow” his party? Is he allowed to visit a foreign nation to encourage would-be-invaders to come to America illegally, again, for the purpose of growing his party?

Is that not an act of voter fraud committed by the Executive branch?

Message to the Gang of Eight: Before passing your amnesty scheme, consider the probability that signing said dilly could put Barack Obama in line for removal from office via impeachment!

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Go straight to Post

Donna Brazile wants to know why her health insurance premium just went up

by Doug Powers on Wednesday, February 27th, 2013

This is article 398 of 693 in the topic Healthcare

In what Twitchy has referred to as the funniest Tweet of the day, Donna Brazile, longtime Democratic political strategist, current vice chair of the DNC and big supporter of Obamacare, is puzzled:

nullThink hard, Donna. I’ll give you one hint:

File Brazile’s conundrum with these other Tweets from history:

@RealLyndonJohnson: “Just got off the phone with the OEO and asked ‘em to explain why I just saw some poor people. #NoGoodAnswer”

@BruceIsmayWSL: “Hey @CapSmith, ship can’t sink and the tub didn’t overflow, so what’s the real reason for the water in my state room?”

@RepAndyVolsteadMN: “Just asked Attorney General why organized crime rate jumped. No good answer.”

Go straight to Post

Farewell Alien Attack Stimulus: Paul Krugman Says it Would Be a ‘Bad Idea’ to Nominate Him for Treasury Secretary

by Doug Powers on Monday, January 7th, 2013

This is article 61 of 116 in the topic Obama Appointments

What? No space alien attack stimulus? No trillion dollar coin minting to pay down the debt? Say it ain’t so:

In a blog post on the New York Times website, columnist Paul Krugman says no to serving as treasury secretary. Which is clarifying, even though he was never offered the job anyway.

“Yes, I’ve heard about the notion that I should be nominated as Treasury Secretary. I’m flattered, but it really is a bad idea,” writes Krugman.

The first reason Krugman lists is, he admits, that he’s “indeed the World’s Worst Administrator — and that does matter.”

The second reason: “Oh, and there’s not a chance that I would be confirmed.”

But the foremost reason, according to the guy who was never offered the job in the first place, “is that it would mean taking me out of a quasi-official job that I believe I’m good at and putting me into one I’d be bad at.”

I’ll bet the real reason is that Krugman wouldn’t want to be directly accountable when his pet theories that work in New York Times articles and in academia go down in flames after being applied to the real world — the ones that haven’t already, that is.

The push to draft Krugman for Treasury Secretary is that of Danny Glover and MoveOn.org, and nothing screams “great idea” like a proposal from those two.

One thing I’ll give Krugman here: it’s unlikely he would have done a worse job than Turbo Tim.

Go straight to Post

Savage behavior

by Douglas J. Hagmann on Friday, December 28th, 2012

This is article 130 of 185 in the topic US Constitution

Gun and ammunition sales have been rising over the last few years, as have the number of concealed weapon permits being issued across the country. Please note I am not referring to the recent panic buying spree of semi-automatic weapons since the Sandy Hook school shooting. What the real reason behind the rise of weapon sales and increase in concealed carry permits? Who might be to blame, or if you a manufacturer or gun store owner, who could be thanked?  What if I told you it is national talk show host Michael Savage? Don’t believe me? Read on.

Contrary to the recent claims by Progressives, err, Socialists is that men who own such big and scary guns is to compensate for physical deficiencies below the waist, owning a semi-automatic weapon is due to the realization that the government will not be able to protect you when needed, or will simply not protect you at all. While everyone points to major visible natural disasters and man-made crises from hurricanes to riots, there is a much more subtle and arguably, much more serious threat that everyone seems to be missing. It is no better illustrated by the situation of well-known talk show host Michael Savage.

Regardless of what you think of him or his beliefs, everyone should be paying very close attention to his plight, especially if you have strong opinions and are willing to voice them. In May of 2009, Dr. Savage learned that he was banned from traveling to Great Britain “because his views might provoke violence.” He was on a list of 22 people, the names of 16 which were released by Great Britain Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. After three-and-a-half years, he is still banned for having legitimate opinions and voicing them. Our government has done absolutely nothing to intervene on his behalf or protect his right to freedom of speech. Wait, you might ask, what does this have to do with the push to ban certain weapons in the U.S? Plenty, if you understand the actual agenda of those behind the coming weapons ban, and not the official story line spewed ad nauseum by our elected officials and their lapdog media.

They are not JUST coming for your guns

To most Americans, including those who have been paying attention, it would seem that the core issue is the prohibition of certain types of weapons, ostensibly to avert another mass shooting. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it is much more. It is a magic act being performed right in front of you, and Michael Savage was the first talk show host to be tossed into the global cauldron of forced tolerance and involuntary censorship. He was added to a witch’s brew with real terrorists with evil intent, whose possession of roadside bombs far outnumber their opinions and whose ability to cause death and destruction exist by their actions, not by someone else’s reaction. Of those on the banned travel list stewing in the global “mind-think,” Dr Savage is the sole “tincture of opinion” in the brew, and there’s room for you in the cauldron. The recipe even demands it.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

THE NEXT MOVE IN INFLATION — KILLING THE DOLLAR BILL AND REPLACING IT WITH A $1 COIN

by Stephen Levine on Monday, December 3rd, 2012

This is article 36 of 61 in the topic Finance

While there is an economic case that can be made for switching from dollar bills which last five years to dollar coins which last 30 years, how many people would notice that prices would inherently move upward as people avoided the use of dollar coins or the pricing of merchandise to prevent handing back four bulky coins as change for a five dollar bill.

But the real reason is that the government wants to switch to all electronic money – credit cards and so-called electronic “wallets.” Not only would this allow the government to impose taxes on the “hidden” economy enjoyed by drug dealers, hookers and people who barter services, it would impose a greater degree of control over individuals. Imagine a scenario when a court simply orders the confiscation of your money leaving you unable to work, trade or purchase anything without government scrutiny.

Now government officials, at the behest of lobbyists for metals companies and vending machine operators, are saying that the phased elimination of dollar bills should be “on the table” in financial discussions as the estimated savings of $4.4 billion dollars over 30 years and the use of 1.4 billion dollar coins stockpiled by the government.

Propaganda – the GAO is suggesting that the government spend approximately $8 million dollars on propaganda to promote the benefit of dollar coins over dollar bills.

Bottom line …

Look for the day when the government electronically controls the exchange of all “value” as currency as we know it becomes obsolete. This is as disingenuous as the pricing of gasoline using 9/10ths of a cent to avoid a larger round number. In fact, some are proposing that the fixed 9/10-cent register wheel be eliminated so purchases of gas can exceed $100.00 whereas only 99.99-9/10s can be pumped at most mechanical pump devices.

— steve

Go straight to Post

McCAIN’S SECRET BENGHAZI AGENDA

by John LeBoutillier on Tuesday, November 20th, 2012

This is article 46 of 116 in the topic Obama Appointments

What is the real reason Senator John McCain is on the war path against UN Ambassador Susan Rice?

Is it not odd for a senior U.S. Senator to target so personally a relatively minor Administration official – especially from the other party?

It is true that McCain is certifiably unpredictable – with an out-of-control temper going back to his childhood – pre-dating his POW years. Just ask his mother, who has often publicly described how difficult and irascible John McCain was from his earliest days on.

And, to be upfront and fair about it, I have known John casually since 1974. He is the single most miserable, rude, erratic, untrustworthy and obnoxious person I have ever met in the political world. His behavior inside the POW/MIA issue toward the families and toward the activists has been so atrocious that no one would even begin to comprehend it.

Having said that, I have learned that McCain is totally crazy – but he uses his craziness to get what he (thinks he at that moment) wants.

In the Libyan/Rice/Benghazi Affair, McCain indeed has an agenda. And here is what I think it is:
McCain and Senator John Kerry are very good friends. They have been for years. In 2004 when Kerry won the Democratic Presidential nomination, the first name he considered as his running mate was Republican John McCain.

While Susan Rice is today the front-runner to be nominated as Secretary of State, Kerry is the other name being bandied about to replace Hillary at the State Department. But Rice is the clear front-runner – and the candidate the President wants to nominate.

McCain may very well have told Kerry that he, McCain, would ‘take out’ Rice by threatening her confirmation with a filibuster – and thus backing President Obama off from a messy nominating process that dredges up all the Benghazi Talking Point mess all over again.

Then Kerry would most likely get the nomination – and would sail through confirmation by his fellow Senators.

Sound crazy?

Not really.

From McCain’s point of view, he’d have a new Secretary of State who would owe him – big time. And McCain – who never met a new war he didn’t want to get us embroiled in – would have his buddy over at Foggy Bottom certain to answer his phone calls.

Yes, before you ask, this is indeed how DC works.

Go straight to Post

COULD OBAMA BE ENGAGED IN AN “IRAN CONTRA” ARMS DEAL WITH RADICAL JIHADI ELEMENTS?

by Stephen Levine on Wednesday, October 24th, 2012

This is article 399 of 794 in the topic Terrorism

Is there a reason why the Administration has not clarified the situation in Benghazi – letting the larger American public incorrectly assume that the two dead Navy Seals were killed in the consulate compound when they were really killed in their own CIA compound by mortar fire? It now appears that the “contractors” might have been locating and interdicting Gadhafi’s arms – possibly for trans-shipment to Islamic insurgents elsewhere? And that Ambassador Stevens was the front-man for arms deals.

That’s why Frank Gaffney’s piece in the Washington Times is worth reading …

GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate – Washington Times

The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.

One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.

Fox News has chronicled how the Al Entisar, a Libyan-flagged vessel carrying 400 tons of cargo, docked on Sept. 6 in the Turkish port of Iskenderun. It reportedly supplied both humanitarian assistance and arms — including deadly SA-7 man-portable surface-to-air missiles — apparently destined for Islamists, again including al Qaeda elements, in Syria.

What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison. Read more at … GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate – Washington Times

Bottom line …

Is this more than a journalist attempting to connect the dots? Was Ambassador Stevens, Obama’s Ollie North? If this was a deliberate attempt to mislead Congress and arm our enemies – for whatever purpose – Congress must investigate and act soon.

— steve

Go straight to Post

Romney’s response to US Embassy attacks measured and completely correct

by Sher Zieve on Friday, September 14th, 2012

This is article 967 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

When our country is attacked, the correct and necessary initial response should always be that of condemnation of the perpetrators and the promise — later followed by actions — that they will be brought to bear for their acts. The statement that Presidential Candidate Romney should have “used more discretion,” as one faux conservative Fox news commentator/contributor said, was I believe incorrect, badly thought out and reflects the media’s liberal bent from all of their myriad quarters. Instead, Candidate Romney’s response was a strong yet measured one to a dire situation; a response that the feckless Obama had yet to make.

Note: I suspect that he was otherwise engaged asking anyone that he could find “What should I say? What would you do?”

In contrast to Presidential Candidate Romney’s response, the Obama regime’s initial comment (from both the US Embassy in Cairo and the US State Department) was to — again — apologize to the murderers. This time, the apology was to the rioters against the independent filmmakers who had made an anti-Muhammad film that was and is their current excuse for Muslim mayhem and murder. No…the film excuse is a red-herring. The real reason — obvious to most of us — is that the attacks on US Embassies in both Libya and Egypt were coordinated and implemented in true Al-Qaeda (remember that Obama’s pals the Muslim Brotherhood comprise the parent organization of Al Qaeda) modality on 9/11…the Islamists’ “victory” date. They knew where US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three staff members were and assassinated them. In the true and tireless death-cult manner, Islam never ends its attacks.

Obama has forced the USA into the position of displaying its vulnerable underbelly to our enemies (and his dubious friends), so that it is easier to kill us on all levels. After Candidate Romney held his press conference to denounce the Islamists (which was peppered with the Obama-press demanding answers to their questions that pertained only to “their Obama” while seemingly unconcerned about the chaos and deaths of the Ambassadorial staff in Libya), Obama finally came out from the shadows and was forced to make a speech. One that — if you watched him deliver it — he did not appear to enjoy making. Said speech was devoid of any passion and was delivered in an obligatory and almost disengaged manner.

Presidential Candidate Romney came across to the nation — with the exception of the insufferable “Beltway Boys and Girls” — as its first glimpse of a strong and resolute leader — a leader it has not had for at least the last 3+ years. I, for one, was extremely encouraged and pleased to see it. With the exception of the leftist in the crowd…weren’t you too?

One thing continues to be a certainty in this presidential race. We must vote for Presidential Candidate Romney if we have any chance — whatsoever — of surviving. We already know what Obama will do. If we don’t get rid of him…he WILL get rid of us.

“Be strong and resolute, for you shall apportion to this people the land that I swore to their fathers to assign to them. 7 But you must be very strong and resolute to observe faithfully all the Teaching that My servant Moses enjoined upon you.

Click to continue reading “Romney’s response to US Embassy attacks measured and completely correct”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin