90 Miles From Tyranny

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Wikileaks Reveals–Hillary Clinton to Goldman Sachs: Americans Who Want to Limit Immigration Are ‘Fundamentally UnAmerican’

Hillary Clinton told Goldman Sachs executives that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American,” according to the leaked transcript of her private October 2013 speech made public by WikiLeaks.

Clinton’s statement is significant because it suggests that, according to polling data, Clinton views an overwhelming majority of the American electorate to be “fundamentally un-American.” According to data from Pew Research Center, 83% of the American electorate would like to see immigration levels frozen or reduced.

Clinton’s declaration describing those who want to limit immigration as “unAmerican” came in the context of her urging action on “immigration reform.”

“Immigration reform is so important,” Clinton told the Wall Street executives, as she demanded that Congress “get immigration reform done.”

By “immigration reform,” Clinton was referring to the 2013 Rubio-Schumer proposal, which she supported and which would have granted immediate amnesty and eventual citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, would have doubled the annual admission of foreign workers, and would have dispensed 33 million green cards to foreign nationals in the span of a single decade despite current record immigration levels.

Clinton went on to suggest that those who oppose such dramatic expansions to immigration are “fundamentally un-American”:

What I really resent most about the obstructionists is they have such a narrow view of America. They see America in a way that is no longer reflective of the reality of who we are. They’re against immigration for reasons that have to do with the past, not the future. They can’t figure out how to invest in the future, so they cut everything. You know, laying off, you know, young researchers, closing labs instead of saying, we’re better at this than anybody in the world, that’s where our money should go. They just have a backward-looking view of America. And they play on people’s fears, not on people’s hopes, and they have to be rejected. I don’t care what they call themselves. I don’t care where they’re from. They have to be rejected because they are fundamentally unAmerican.”

This is not the first time she has described sectors of the American electorate as “unAmerican.” At a September fundraiser earlier this year, Clinton described Trump supporters as “deplorable,” and “irredeemable, but thankfully they are...

The constant “drip, drip drip,” regarding former Secretary of State Clinton’s e-mail is starting to sound like so much inside baseball. Secretary Clinton continues to stand on her statement that none of the e-mail she sent or received had classified markings. Other folks in the conversation comment that many of the e-mails Secretary Clinton wrote and received were “born classified,” at the time she wrote or received them. Director Comey’s assertion that he could not prove “intent” and therefore couldn’t charge Mrs Clinton, is garbage, pure and simple. First of all, for that particular violation, “intent” is not required. Secondly, the very existence of certain information on Mrs Clinton’s unauthorized, private server, is in and of itself, proof of intent.

We need to cut to the chase. Somebody committed a felony, likely several. If, as some reports have indicated, there was certain overhead imagery, marked or unmarked on Secretary Clinton’s e-mail server, someone committed a serious crime. The way government information/automation systems are set up, someone had to take a deliberate series of felonious actions in order for that imagery to get there. Period.

One such action appears to be confirmed in a January 8, 2016 article in National Review by Brendan Bordelon entitled:Clinton Pushed Aide to Strip Markings from Sensitive Documents, Send through ‘Nonsecure’ Channel:

During a 2011 e-mail exchange, Hillary Clinton urged top aide Jake Sullivan to strip classified talking points of all markings and send them through “nonsecure” means after a secure fax line failed to function. On the night of June 16, 2011, Sullivan told Clinton that important talking points on an undetermined issue would be faxed to her the following morning. When Clinton informed Sullivan that the talking points had not yet materialized, he began a frantic search for the problem. “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax,” he wrote to Clinton 15 minutes later. “They’re working on it.” “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton replied. (Emphasis mine)

Instead of getting into a detailed primer on Department of Defense and Department of State electronic communications, I’ll give you the short version. Although the State Department and the Department of Defense use different systems for their unclassified communications, they do share some of the same systems for their...

Hillary Clinton told a private behind-closed-doors audience at Goldman Sachs that she “represented all of you for eight years in the United States Senate.

Clinton said in an October 24, 2013 speech to Goldman, according to newly leaked Goldman Sachs speech transcripts unearthed during the Wikileaks dump of John Podesta’s emails:

I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do — I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ’08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.

Clinton previously called herself Goldman Sachs’ “partner in government.” Breitbart News reported:

Then-Senator Clinton, who is under fire from Bernie Sanders for her close ties to the investment firm, identified herself as Goldman Sachs’ “partner in government” at the 2005 groundbreaking of the firm’s new 740-foot-tall headquarters in Lower Manhattan. Goldman Sachs won federal government Liberty Bonds to build it.

“Following the tragic events of September 11th, I was proud to have worked with my colleagues in Congress to secure $20 billion in federal aid for New York,” Clinton said. “Major employers like Goldman Sachs needed to know they had a partner in government to ensure that...

Girls With Guns

This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn’t a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.

Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.

In Texas, authorities are investigatingcriminals who are using the technique of “vote harvesting” to illegally procure votes for their candidates. “Harvesting” is the practice of illegally obtaining the signatures of valid voters in order to vote in their name without their consent for the candidate(s) the criminal supports.

These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Research report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud.

Don’t Let Data Contradict My Narrative

Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York Univeristy claims voter fraud is a myth. It argues that North Carolina, which passed comprehensive measures to prevent voter fraud, “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” However, this faulty reasoning does not point to the lack of in-person voter fraud, but rather to lack of enforcement mechanisms to identify and prosecute in-person voter fraud.

The science of criminal justice tells us that many crimes go unreported, and the more “victimless” the crime, the more this happens. The fact is, a person attempting to commit voter fraud is very unlikely to be caught, which increases the incentive to commit the crime.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a sophisticated, comprehensive effort to catalog “the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities.” However, it tends to deal mostly in violent crimes. As complex as the NCVS is, gathering accurate data for unreported victimless crimes such as voter fraud is even harder, since 1) outside of the criminal, no one may know a crime has taken place, and 2) there is no direct victim to report the crime in the first place. Yet we are expected to believe that, unlike violent crime, voter fraud is limited only to the cases that are actually reported and prosecuted? This is a senseless position.

Further, the Brennan Center report argues that because prosecutor Kris Kobach’s review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states found only 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution (which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate), voter fraud is so statistically small that it’s a non-issue. Let’s follow this logic. Does the fact that 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle in 2009 mean that only 109 people jaywalked in Seattle that year? Does the fact that 103,733 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015 mean that only that many people were driving without seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015?

Absolutely not. This can be proven easily because in 2014, the previous year, only...

Here is a rundown of some of the biggest bombshells dropped by WikiLeaks’ disclosure of Hillary Clinton’s speeches and emails, and why each is so important.

1. Clinton dreams of a world with “open trade and open borders”: Every American should understand that Democrats, and plenty of Republicans, are fighting an all-out war against national sovereignty. Sure, Democrats want new voters, and Republican interests want cheap labor, but they also share a mutual desire to increase the distance between the Ruling Class and voters. In the globalist future, political and business titans will stand atop the world, without having to worry about fulfilling annoying duties to grubby little voters with nostalgic memories of the days when American politicians served America’s interests. Globalism means you’ll never be able to vote against anything.

2. Clinton courted business elites to support liberal agenda to beat back populism: Clinton’s speeches include numerous examples of something that’s hardly new, or unique to her, but a very important harbinger of things to come if she gets into the White House. Democrats serve their voters a steady stream of anti-business, anti-wealth rhetoric, but they’re keenly interested in using Big Business to promote the agenda of Big Government. Some of the examples in the leaked speeches, such as Clinton urging business interests to beat back the Tea Party and support open-borders immigration, are points of common interest with the GOP Establishment.

3. Clinton campaign coordinated with Super PAC: No one familiar with the WikiLeaks disclosures should be able to restrain their laughter when Hillary Clinton talks about getting “big money” and “dark money” out of politics. Then again, she should have been laughed off the stage for such tirades long before WikiLeaks started releasing her campaign’s emails.

4. Clinton admitted she has different “public and private positions” on Wall Street reform: Again, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s always useful to catch a politician actually admitting she isn’t honest with the public on issues – especially an issue of keen interest to the Democrats who opposed her in the primary. In the same issue, she admitted she’s out of touch with ordinary Americans and “far removed” from middle-class life, which is a refreshing bit of (unintended) candor from such a sanctimonious candidate and Party. Lastly, she said it was an “oversimplification” to blame banks for the 2008 financial meltdown, which is true – and greatly understating the truth of Democrat politicians’ culpability, at that – but not at all what Democrat hyper-partisans want to hear from their leaders.

5. Clinton campaign asked about using White House executive privilege to hide emails from Congress: “Think we should hold emails to and from POTUS? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that,” John Podesta – current Clinton campaign chair, and former White House counsel – wrote to Hillary’s aide Cheryl Mills, even as the House Benghazi Committee was writing a subpoena for Clinton’s long-hidden correspondence. It’s absolutely shocking that Team Clinton would think Barack Obama was willing to abuse executive privilege to hide vital information from Congress.Wherever did they get that outrageous idea?

6. Clinton campaign looked for political support from ...

Hannity is the only FOX cable news show that is ranked number one in both overall ratings and in the coveted age 25-54 age rating demographic.

This was reported by Drudge Report which linked to the ratings for cable news as of Thursday, October 13th.

In the overall ratings category, all FOX News shows between 4pm and 11pm Eastern lead when compared to their competitors except the Kelly Hour. Megyn Kelly’s show is getting beat by Rachel Maddow at CNBC.

This never would have happened two years ago.

Trump supporters are boycotting her show.… And then turning back to FOX for Hannity.

FOX’s strategy of continuously bashing Donald Trump is now affecting the once all powerful media giant.

Sean Hannity, whose show airs at the 10pm slot, is the only FOX show leading in the 25 – 54 age demographic.

It’s clear to anyone who supports Donald Trump that FOX can no longer be relied on to offer a counter-balance to the all powerful mainstream liberal media complex. People are tuning out Kelly but coming back to FOX for Hannity’s show.

No doubt that if FOX was...