RUTHFULLY YOURS

Following Wednesday’s presidential debate Pentagon officials found themselves completely dumbfounded as to why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would feel it appropriate to announce U.S. Special Access Program intel on national television.

According to sources within the Department of Defense speaking under anonymity, Clinton likely violated at least two Dept. of Defense SAP protocols during the debate by announcing on live television the United States Government’s response time for a nuclear launch.

In case you missed it:
Hillary Divulges Nuclear Intelligence from True Pundit on Vimeo.

“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton

To the dismay of intelligence officials, the fact that this top secret information is now publicly known not only proves that Clinton is “unfit to be commander-in-chief,” but it also poses a direct threat to national security.

One high ranking intelligence official explained that any time frame calculated pertaining to a US nuclear launch “would have merely been an educated hypothesis, absent leaked documents and there have been no such breaches” prior to Clinton’s admission Wednesday.

My Vote, Explained Because she’s a dishonest, soulless, big-state progressive By Charles Krauthammer http://www.nationalreview.com/node/441305/print

“Blah, blah, blah….. I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.”

Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn….not voting for Trump IS VOTING FOR HILLARY…..RSK

The third and mercifully final presidential debate also turned out to be the most conventional. Fox News’s Chris Wallace did a solid job pressing the candidates on issues in Las Vegas, giving them space to spar but not enough space to get out of control.

Of course, not even a strong moderator will deter candidates from misleading, lying, and prevaricating all night. And since we know Trump’s performance will be comprehensively fact-checked by the entire media, let’s talk about three of Clinton’s biggest whoppers.

First, was there anything more ridiculous in the debate than Clinton’s answer on guns? When pressed by Wallace to explain her opposition to the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Clinton went through a checklist of platitudes before saying, “You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns.”

Clinton brought up “toddlers” a few more times because little children are mostly adorable and no one wants to see them shot. The thing is, the Heller case revolved around Richard Heller, a then-66-year-old police officer in Washington, D.C., who was allowed to carry a gun in a federal office building to protect politicians and strangers but not in his home to protect himself, his family, or his property. Also of note, the Heller decision had nothing to do with toddlers or saving toddlers’ lives or toddler gun safety or toddlers shooting at one another. As my colleague Sean Davis has pointed out, the word “toddler” doesn’t appear anywhere in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case.

After she was done fearmongering, Clinton went on to say: “There’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.”

No, she does not. Heller ended the “total ban on handguns” in Washington, D.C. — which was the Supreme Court’s description of the gun-control laws in the district. It codified the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Clinton admits she supports an effective ban on all handguns (for the toddlers), which is what instigated Heller. What application of the decision does she oppose, if not the individual’s right to own a gun?

Let’s move on to the only constitutional “right” Clinton believes shouldn’t have any constraints: abortion. Last night, Clinton reiterated her support for legal abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy. Although Clinton is free to hold this position, she’s not free to make stuff up.

For starters, the idea that Clinton — the woman who, in 2008, argued that President Obama’s health-care plans were too modest — wants to keep government out of health-care decisions is worthy of 8,000 Pinocchios. And while one hopes that those who are anti-abortion remain sensitive to the heartbreaking, painful decisions women make, Clinton’s insinuation that most late-term abortions are to save the life of the mother is not backed up by evidence. Dr. LeRoy Carhart, nationally known for performing late-term abortions, was taped admitting that he often performs elective late-term abortions at 26 weeks “or more.” Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of partial-birth abortion, was once taped acknowledging that 80 percent of partial-birth abortions are “purely elective.”

The headlines are in. Trump is the “anti-Democratic” candidate because he refuses to rule out challenging the results of an election that has yet to take place. Such a course of action is “beyond the pale”. It’s a threat to democracy. And it is utterly and thoroughly unacceptable.

Except when Democrats do it.

It was the day after the election. While the Democratic Party faithful waited in the rain in Nashville, William Daley strode out and announced, “Our campaign continues”. Al Gore had called George W. Bush to withdraw his concession. “Are you saying what I think you’re saying?” a baffled Bush asked. “You don’t have to be snippy about it,” Gore retorted snippily.

Gore did eventually concede. Though years later he would attempt to retract his concession a second time. But his political movement never did concede. It remained a widespread belief in left-wing circles that President Bush was illegitimately elected and that President Gore was the real winner.

How mainstream is that belief?

When Hillary dragged Gore away from playing with his Earth globe to campaign for her, the crowd booed at his mention of the election and then chanted, “You won, you won”.

Hillary grinned and nodded.

Hillary Clinton has always believed that President Bush illegitimately took office. She has told Democrats that Bush was “selected” rather than “elected”. In Nigeria, of all places, she implied that Jeb Bush had rigged the election for his brother.

But it’s not unprecedented, beyond the pale or utterly unacceptable when Democrats do it.

It’s just business as usual.

The media’s focus has been on whether Trump would accept the results if he loses. Yet a better question might be whether Hillary Clinton would accept her defeat.

Even when it came to the battle for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton refused to concede defeat until the bitter end and then past it. Not only did Hillary refuse to drop out even when Obama was the clear winner, while her people threatened a convention floor fight, but she insisted on staying on in the race for increasingly bizarre and even downright disturbing reasons.

A joke I heard when I was a teenager – growing up in a New York City neighborhood with a large population of Latino immigrants – serves as a good explanation for the (thus far) political success of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

It goes something like this:

Two friends from the Dominican Republic run into each other on a Manhattan street and one begins to boast that he is bettering himself by attending night school.

The other shrugs, unimpressed. “I don’t go to night school,” he says. “But I know a lot.”

“Oh, yeah?” the first one challenges. “Do you know who George Washington was?”

“Never heard of him,” the second replies. “But I know many things.”

“Really?” the first questions. “So who was Abraham Lincoln?”

“I don’t know who Abraham Lincoln was,” the second answers. “But I know plenty more than you do.”

“Hmmm,” the first says. “Like what?”

The second says, “I know who Juan Rodriguez is.”

“Who’s he?” the first one asks.

The second responds, “He’s the guy who’s sleeping with your wife while you’re at night school.”

WikiLeaks’ 13th batch of John Podesta’s emails revealed that Morocco’s king paid $12 million to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The payment was intended to guarantee that Hillary Clinton would appear at a conference in Morocco last year.

The star-studded guest list included heads of state and CEOs of major global corporations, who all expected Hillary Clinton to be there. But as the date for the event drew closer, it became apparent that the already-campaigning Clinton would not be able to attend.

Via Breitbart:

Clinton did not attend, instead spending the days of the conference campaigning in Nevada and California. Aide Huma Abedin repeatedly insists in emails published today that Clinton will be at the event, warning it would “break a lot of china” for Hillary Clinton to back out, before suggesting to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook that Clinton would cancel her appearance at the last minute.

“No matter what happens, she will be in Morocco hosting CGI on May 5-7, 2015. Her presence was a condition for the Moroccans to proceed so there is no going back on this,” Abedin asserted in a November 2014 email.

In January of 2015, another email from Abedin to Robby Mook and Podesta discussed how Morocco had paid $12M to CGI in order to gain access to Clinton.

“We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say. In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this….The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience is being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Thus spake a certain Ben Rhodes, literary dabbler and Don DeLillo wannabe, in a stunning interview-essay by David Samuels in the New York Times last May. Rhodes was describing the sale of the Iran nuclear deal to America’s body politic, fed by media ignoramuses who dutifully repeated the echoes of the administration’s stable of putatively independent experts. But the “echo chamber” principle applies just as well to anything that the Establishment media wants to sell to the public. The trouble with echo chambers, of course, is that positive feedback can blow the roof off. That is what is happening in American politics right now.

There is no news cycle. There is no national debate. There’s no Ed Murrow, no Walter Cronkite, no figure of authority from whom the public can learn the facts with a reasonable degree of trust. We have had so many iterations of lies, cover-up, cover-up malfunction, new lies, new cover-up and new cover-up malfunction that the experts are in information overload. What is going on in the head of an ordinary voter with a passing interest in politics and ten or fifteen minutes a day to devote to news?

The answer is: Almost anything you might imagine. Sixty-two percent of Americans get at least some of their news via social media according to a Pew Research survey and the proportion is growing fast. Facebook and other social media allow individuals to customize their news consumption on the basis of recommendations and re-posting by friends, and news consumers increasingly depend on their networks rather than the media.

That’s how Steve Bannon’s Breitbart news organization, with its edgy mix of salacious gossip and right-wing politics, morphed almost overnight into a major media player. That’s why the Drudge Report got 1.47 billion page views in July. There is no way of knowing what Americans believe. Only one in nine Americans believes that Hillary Clinton is “honest and trustworthy.” They don’t trust the media’s cover-up of her misdeeds, and the cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.
Trump Will Win the National Battle for Legitimacy

Do they believe what the National Enquirer put at the top of its website, namely that Hillary had her “bagman” arrange lesbian trysts? Do they believe she called Muslims “sand N—ers”? Do they believe that the Clintons are responsible for 46 unsolved homicides? Or do they just believe that Bill and Hillary made $250 million by peddling influence, used a private email server to hide their self-dealing at the State Department, and lied until their faces turned blue when caught?

Having already gotten Democrat operatives Scott Foval and Robert Creamer (Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s husband) to “resign” after the release of the first two parts of his recent sting, James O’Keefe just hinted that he’s got bigger fish to fry:

Yes we do. Oh, we’re just getting started. @donnabrazile may be forced to resign next week after what comes out. https://t.co/dmAKlCgiEq

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 20, 2016

The MSM has been dismissing the videos that sunk Foval and Creamer with weak nonsense about them being “low-level” and “unknown,” despite the fact that Creamer is married to a member of Congress. If Brazile is forced to go, look for a lot of unfounded attacks on O’Keefe designed to distract. Brazile has her current job because her predecessor was forced to step down under scandalous circumstances. I would say “resign in disgrace,” but Democrats really aren’t embarrassed by their behavior.

Gehad El-Haddad, the now-imprisoned former spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Freedom and Justice Party,” was effectively the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring.

Educated in the UK and the son of a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, Essam El-Haddad, the special advisor on foreign policy to deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi, Gehad incited violence, justified the torture of protesters, recycled fake news stories, and staged fake scenes of confrontation during the 2013 Rabaa protests.

Gehad was arrested in September 2013 after the fall of Morsi and the bloody confrontations during the breakup of the Muslim Brotherhood’s protest camps in Rabaa Square and around Cairo.

And during his ascendancy in 2011 and 2012, at which time he served on the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Nahda” (Renaissance) Project to revive the caliphate and reinstitute Islamic law and also served as Morsi’s campaign spokesman, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation, having been employed for five years as the Cairo director of the foundation until August 2012, according to his own LinkedIn page.

www-linkedin-com_2016-09-20_11-48-31

This shows that the Clinton Foundation effectively subsidized one of the senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood officials in his rapid rise to power.

His LinkedIn shows he was employed by the Clinton Foundation from August 2007 through August 2012, during which time he served in several positions within the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party.