Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
HRC At Clintonian Best In Post 9/11 Anderson Cooper Interview
It is this response in a phone interview to a question asked by Anderson Cooper about the occurrence:
This excerpted and edited from People Magazine -
When Cooper asked how many times she'd had experienced dizziness in the past five years, citing her concussion in 2012, she said it'd only happened a few times.
"I think really only twice, that I can recall,” she responded. "It is something that has occurred a few times over the course of my life, I'm aware of it and can usually avoid it."
Only Twice and the word Few do not match up grammatically ... further, how does one develop a protocol on addressing the condition when the malady had occurred "Only Twice?"
Also, her husband Bill Clinton was right there in the Clintonian cabal of words explaining Hillary's condition:
This excerpted and edited from CBS News -
Asked if there was any chance her faintness on Sunday could be a sign of some more “serious” illness, Clinton said he did not believe that was the case.
“Well if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors,” he said, “because frequently — well not frequently, rarely — but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing happened to her when she got severely dehydrated.”
This pull quote "because frequently — well not frequently, rarely — but on more than one occasion" definitely has Carter's Second Term to conclude that, when matched up with Hillary Clinton's word "Few" as opposed to "Only Twice", that Hillary has had many episodes (definitely more than "Really Only Twice") and that this medical condition is way more common and serious ... so hence the confusion and Clintonian Cover-Up!
Laura Ingraham asks a medical expert on her morning program Tuesday 9/13/2016 (paraphrased) - "Why would a personal doctor need to be nearby at an appearance recognizing the 15 year 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center buildings in New York if this is a condition that had been stated as being Pneumonia?" - the medical expert suspected that given the known history of incidents (fainting, coughing, losing balance while walking, forgetfulness) that this suggests something much more serious.
Friday, January 9, 2015
|Spanish cartoonists are sharing this image with the message: "To arms, companions!" via @sicevis #CharlieHebdo pic.twitter.com/RZTitxGTZp #tcot|
Caliphate vs Caliphate - What The Charlie Hebdo Massacre Exposes
The world is run by ideas and the people/forces that back them. Throughout time, the human effort of governance has always been held by ideas backed through force.
Most of the noise that consumes the information airways since 12 people who were involved with producing the cartoon based opinion publication "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris, France were murdered in an effort to silence their opinion that religion, any religion, and religious ideas that govern human behavior and social roles are not serious and a source for humor.
The Muslim religion, and its enforcers (informed through Sharia Law) are busy at the business of shutting down all parts of organized humanity, that do not agree with their view on how humanity should be governed, in order to set up their own structure of governance that is not based in geographically defined countries - a Muslim Caliphate.
Their most recent target in the Western world was aimed at one of the human freedoms modern society agrees is most important ... the freedom of speech.
Once one peels back the layers of commentary, however, this freedom is not as important to many of those this attack was aimed at, which is the current political leadership force that has formed over putting forward a non-religion/secular based human governance and control over activity - a Progressive Caliphate.
On this side of the struggle, Progressives are choosing not to look at these terrorist murderous acts in France as a war against their governance but more as a small outlier of activity performed by, as one news/opinion broadcaster (Christiane Amanpour) put it, "activists."
Many secular reporters are suggesting that if only Charlie Hebdo placed curbs on its freedom of expressing its secular opinion, these bloody murderous acts of killing 12 people, because the image Muhammad (the leader, through his teachings, of the Muslim religion) was defamed through published cartooning, would not have taken place.
Due to the lack of seriousness of religion and its effects on the formation of culture and governance, the Progressives who govern France have allowed a flood of immigration without an insistence on integration to the existing culture. What France now sees are a series of over 750 "NO GO ZONES" where the people who choose to live in these zones are governed through the Muslim based Sharia Law. If a fire, or murder, or other acts of potential criminal and/or damaging human activity to other humans happens, French first responders are never dispatched and control in these areas is abdicated to the current Muslim Caliphate that resides there.
This type of Muslim governance takeover is not just happening in France. The rest of Europe is at risk with this same set up of takeover through population concentration through immigration and non-insistence of cultural integration. A clash of civilizations.
|AZTLAN Movement targeted at reclaiming control over the Western United States. The Mexican Cession (1848) is shown in red with the Gadsden Purchase (1853) in orange. © 2004 Matthew Trump.|
Europe is not the only group of countries at risk because the Progressive political leadership structures in Canada and United States are open to these same tactics. Open borders policies aided by government welfare, health benefits, and legal driver's licenses to non-documented/illegal aliens are nothing new to our combined Progressive political landscapes.
Here in the progressive atmosphere that is Carter's Second Term, it's Caliphate vs Caliphate - Progressives vs Muslims - in an effort to establish a "New World Order", and what had been created in the establishment of a Constitution of governance (here in the United States) that was based in the idea that all Human rights, which also includes the Freedom Of Speech, are not granted to man from man (not a Monarch, a Prophet, or a Progressive government) ... but through God (a power greater than man), is in peril.
Friday, July 25, 2014
|The number of children crossing the U.S. border alone has doubled since last year. More than three-quarters of unaccompanied minors are from mostly poor and violent towns in three countries: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Children from Mexico, once the largest group, now make up less than a quarter of the total. Graphic Credit: New York Times|
President Barack Obama's Human Trafficking Efforts Become FedEx-ing
Immigration of human beings into the United States use to be a semi-orderly process.
A high level of respect for our borders and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law by other humans not born in this country was an assumed standard. Further, laws were passed by Congress to address special situations where labor needs, education access, and political upheaval could be addressed with the assumption always being that our citizens elected to office would perform their Oath Of Office and enforce the laws to the best of their ability.
Over the last decade, this respect and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law has degraded to the point where our Executive Branch no longer enforces the existing laws on immigration but have sought to foment a form of (through assumption and formal agreement) multiple government human trafficking. Mexico, in response to President Obama's 2012 Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals - DACA (Dream Act) proclamation of executive fiat, has opened up and fast-tracked the approval of Visa's allowing ANYBODY 72 hours to pass from their southern border to the southern border of the United States. Further, Mexico has been working directly with "feeder governments" (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc.) on agreements that would aid in a seamless streamlining of the Visa process to allow more people to leave their countries and pass through North to the United States.
For the Executive Branch's part in this, the President has instructed all main border patrol management locations be moved back from the border by about 40 miles, and have them pick-up people they determine to be undocumented and perform a form of "catch and release" by having those processed sign a promise to appear for a case hearing on their immigration status. Some of these people that are processed are even given transportation to a destination of their choice within the United States, at taxpayer expense, where these people disappear into the country and never show up for their hearing of determination on their immigration status.
This expansion into not respecting our borders and political culture governed by the Rule-Of-Law has now been taken up by the Executive Branch of the United States backed by many in both houses of Congress. Lawlessness on immigration policy and established law is beginning to rule the day.
Rule by Executive proclamation and Congressional inactivity is becoming our de facto process for a path to citizenship for people who just happen to show up and set up shop in our country.
It is as if someone on the street found out where you live, finds and unlocked sliding door, and just make themselves residents in your living room ... eat out of your kitchen from a refrigerator you stock, bathe in the bathrooms that you clean and tend, take away your job for less pay, and expect you to keep the roof over their head.
President Barack Obama's human trafficking efforts through proposed Executive proclamation have, as defined, become a process of setting a formal in-country processing center for FedEx-ing non-citizens into the United States.
This excerpted and edited from the New York Times -
U.S. Considering Refugee Status for Hondurans
By FRANCES ROBLES and MICHAEL D. SHEAR - NYT - JULY 24, 2014
Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.
If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises.
By moving decisions on refugee claims to Honduras, the plan aims to slow the rush of minors crossing into the United States illegally from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, which has overwhelmed the border this year. More than 45,000 unaccompanied minors from those three nations have arrived since Oct. 1, straining federal resources to the point that some agencies will exhaust their budgets by next month, the secretary of Homeland Security has said.
Administration officials stressed that no decision had been made to move forward, saying the idea was one of many being discussed by officials at the White House and the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services.
The proposal, prepared by several federal agencies, says the pilot program under consideration would cost up to $47 million over two years, assuming 5,000 applied and about 1,750 people were accepted. If successful, it would be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador as well. It is unclear how the administration determined those estimates, given that since Oct. 1 more than 16,500 unaccompanied children traveled to the United States from Honduras alone.
Children would be interviewed by American immigration employees trained to deal with minors, and a resettlement center would be set up in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with assistance from international organizations like the International Organization for Migration.
The plan would be similar to a recent bill introduced by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who proposed increasing the number of refugee visas to the three Central American countries by 5,000 each.
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter controls on immigration, said that the proposal would increase, not stem, the flood of migrants from Central America trying to get into the United States.
“It’s clearly a bad idea,” Mr. Krikorian said. “Orders of magnitude more people will apply for refugee status if they can just do it from their home countries.”
He added that the proposal would allow people to claim to be refugees from their countries with “nothing more than a bus ride to the consulate. We’re talking about, down the road, an enormous additional flow of people from those countries.”
Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
The only category that would seem to apply is “social group,” experts said, but there is disagreement on what that means. Some contend that children could count as a group, but others say the refugee requirements are stricter, and would not apply to people fleeing general crime and violence.
“What is a social group?” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of migration policies for the Migration Policy Institute’s New York office. “This is going to create a huge deal of debate. You will see a lot of law developing on it.”
When a similar plan was adopted in Haiti, as a way to keep people from taking to the high seas, he said, it was ultimately criticized because Haitians already in the United States did not receive help. “It ended up being counterproductive to the goal,” Mr. Appleby said.
Stacie Blake, the director of government relations for the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, an advocacy group, said the processing of potential refugees in Central America could be handled by the United States or by the United Nations, which makes refugee determinations in many other countries. She said some of the people designated as refugees in Honduras could end up in countries other than the United States.
“It’s a way to help folks avoid life-threatening escapes and journeys,” Ms. Blake said. “It’s a good idea. It’s a tested idea.”
On Friday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with the presidents of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador at the White House in an effort to urge the Central American leaders to do more to help stem the flow of children fleeing their countries for the United States.
Critics of the plan were quick to pounce, saying it appeared to redefine the legal definition of a refugee and would only increase the flow of migration to the United States. Administration officials said they believed the plan could be enacted through executive action, without congressional approval, as long as it did not increase the total number of refugees coming into the country.
So the agencies of this United States government, under this re-definition of refugee status, will be setting up shops in the form of refugee processing centers in targeted countries on which refugees are deemed, then shipped (presumably by plane) into the United States - Welcome to the age of "FedEx-ing" our immigration system through Executive Branch proclamation.
Do not be surprised to hear, before this 44th President leaves office - ending Carter's Second Term, that President Barack Obama P-A-R-D-O-N-S all people breaking the law by being here in the United States illegally ... and grants them full citizenship through Executive Order.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
|President Barack Obama (L) will meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Palm Springs next month. Image Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images|
Just Who ... Is President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama will host King Abdullah II of Jordan for talks in Southern California next month, according to reports.
The White House says the Feb. 14 meeting will take place at the Sunnylands estate near Palm Springs, the Associated Press reported.
Fresh off of performing in front of Congress and the nation by delivering his fourth State of the Union address reporting on his deeds, the 44th President still insists that he is the person who has the ideas to bring our country back to the great power it once was. This position comes as Barack Obama enters his sixth year of implementing policies that expand government into the lives of all citizens which has created the worst United States economy since the Great Depression.
Just who is President Barack Obama?
The following Audio/Video is an interview and exploration of this very question by Mark Levin of Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the book, "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor."
(ht: Daily Rushbo)
For decades, many liberals and progressives defended and shielded communists (as “The Communist” shows)—either because they approved of what communist dictatorships did, or because they believed so strongly in communism’s professed ideals that they were willing to overlook the crimes committed in its name. Kengor’s book is timely, because the main issue for today’s progressives is similar: Are the ideals professed in Barack Obama’s rhetoric noble ... even though his policies against economic success have retarded economic recovery?
Will the ghost of Frank Marshall Davis, whose life Paul Kengor has so masterfully reconstructed in “The Communist,” continue to haunt America through his ideological godson, the president?
Mark Levin is the perfect person to interview Dr. Paul Kengor, author of, "The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor" to find out just who ... is fulfilling Carter's Second Term through its second stint.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
|President Barack Obama gestures while speaking in the White House briefing room in Washington, Monday, Aug. 20, 2012. Image Credit: AP via Washington Wire|
The 44th President's 2002 Speech On Waging War, With Syria Update
The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.
This version has been UPDATED with
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like
But I also know that
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight,
Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight,
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight,
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Welcome to the world firmly rooted in the policies initiated during the 39th Presidency with the added element of gross hypocrisy and child-king megalomaniac-like assertions.
Yesterday, The 44th President, Barack Obama, said the following during a press conference held while he visited with Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.
This excerpted and edited from the New York Times -
Obama Says ‘World Set a Red Line’ on Chemical Arms
By PETER BAKER - September 4, 2013
“I didn’t set a red line,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference here in Stockholm. “The world set a red line.”
He added, “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility is on the line.”
But this does not comport with the facts of statements The 44th President made a little over one year ago when he said:
This excerpted and edited from The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire -
Flashback: ‘Red Line’ in Syria — What Obama Said in 2012 Remarks
Washington Wire - September 4, 2013
Q (Chuck Todd, NBC News) Mr. President, could you update us on your latest thinking of where you think things are in Syria, and in particular, whether you envision using U.S. military, if simply for nothing else, the safe keeping of the chemical weapons, and if you’re confident that the chemical weapons are safe?
I also want to follow up on an answer you just gave to Nancy. You said that one of the reasons you wanted to see Mitt Romney‘s tax returns was you want to see if everybody is playing by the same set of rules. That actually goes to the question she asked, which is this implication, do you think there’s something Mitt Romney is not telling us in his tax returns that indicates he’s not playing by the same set of rules?
THE PRESIDENT: No. There’s a difference between playing by the same sets of rules and doing something illegal. And in no way have we suggested the latter. But the first disclosure, the one year of tax returns that he disclosed indicated that he used Swiss bank accounts, for example. Well, that may be perfectly legal, but I suspect if you ask the average American, do you have one and is that part of how you manage your tax obligations, they would say no. They would find that relevant information, particularly when we’re going into a time where we know we’re going to have to make tough choices both about spending and about taxes.
So I think the idea that this is somehow exceptional, that there should be a rationale or a justification for doing more than the very bare minimum has it backwards. I mean, the assumption should be you do what previous presidential candidates did, dating back for decades. And Governor Romney’s own dad says, well, the reason I put out 10 or 12 years is because any single year might not tell you the whole story. And everybody has, I think, followed that custom ever since.
The American people have assumed that if you want to be President of the United States, that your life is an open book when it comes to things like your finances. I’m not asking him to disclose every detail of his medical records — although we normally do that as well — (laughter.) You know? I mean, this isn’t sort of overly personal here, guys. This is pretty standard stuff. I don’t think we’re being mean by asking him to do what every other presidential candidate has done — right? It’s what the American people expect.
On Syria, obviously this is a very tough issue. I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.
What we’ve said is, number one, we want to make sure we’re providing humanitarian assistance, and we’ve done that to the tune of $82 million, I believe, so far. And we’ll probably end up doing a little more because we want to make sure that the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are fleeing the mayhem, that they don’t end up creating — or being in a terrible situation, or also destabilizing some of Syria’s neighbors.
The second thing we’ve done is we said that we would provide, in consultation with the international community, some assistance to the opposition in thinking about how would a political transition take place, and what are the principles that should be upheld in terms of looking out for minority rights and human rights. And that consultation is taking place.
I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
Q (Todd) So you’re confident it’s somehow under — it’s safe?
THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.
All right, thank you, everybody.
No statements were ever made linking action toward Syria and decades old accords that sit at the United Nations and no United States Congressional leader or World leader, other than this 44th President, ever evoked the term of RED LINE as it relates to actions concerning Syrian unrest.
Welcome to Carter's Second Term ... but it is way more dangerous and corrupt than we expected. Oh, and the damage to the economy due to Government spending and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act/ObamaCare has yet to get underway in earnest.