- Pope Francis: Traitor To Western Civilization?
Authored by Antonius Aquinas, (annotated by Acting-Man.com's Pater Tenebrarum)
Disqualified
There has been no greater advocate of mass Muslim migration into Europe than the purported head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis. At a recent conference, he urged that “asylum seekers” be accepted, “through the acts of mercy that promote their integration into the European context and beyond.”*
Before we let Antonius continue with his refreshingly politically incorrect disquisition, we want to remind readers of two previous articles that have appeared here on the topic of the current pope, one that contrasted Pope John Paul II’s deep understanding of economics and economic freedom with the muddled socialism of Pope Francis (see A Tale of Two Popes for the details) and our critique of Francis’ green-red encyclical Laudatio Si – Sulla Cura Della Casa Commune (see Papal Eco-Hysteria for the details on that one). Frankly, we have no idea what possessed the College of Cardinals when it picked him. Since when does the Church feel a need to pander to the left?
Jorge Bergoglio is the “purported pope” of the Catholic Church because, as certain theologians have argued, he was neither validly ordained as a priest or consecrated as a bishop in the traditional Catholic rites of Holy Orders. Since a pope must first be a bishop, in particular the bishop of Rome, Bergoglio cannot, therefore, be pope.
He is not a Catholic pope, but head of a new “Conciliar Church” which was concocted at the time of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), actually an “Anti-council,” and in the tumultuous years that followed, which witnessed fundamental changes in doctrine and the Sacraments, most damaging the promulgation of the New Mass by Paul VI-Montini.
The New Church also did away with its traditional view on evangelization and conversions and adopted the previously condemned heresy of “syncretism,” which contends that “we all worship the same god,” and that “one religion is as good as another.” This idea pervades post-Vatican II Catholicism and is what Francis bases most of his justification for the mass migration onto lands which once made up Christendom.
While Bergoglio cannot be pope on technical grounds, he is also disqualified for his blasphemies and heretical actions, words, and teachings, all of which have flowed at a breathtaking pace. From the infamous, “who am I to judge,” about sodomites, to his alteration of two millennia of teaching on divorce and remarriage, to such whoppers as “God does not exist,” Bergoglio has placed himself “outside of the Church” and thus cannot hold ecclesiastical office and certainly not that of supreme pontiff.
Rotating Isabella
Despite the overwhelming theological and empirical evidence that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant (sede vacante) and its restoration will take place in its Founder’s good time, for the vast majority of Catholics and the world at large, Jorge Bergoglio is pope and his actions have consequences.
And, since his promotion and support of mass Muslim migration is leading to not only the destruction of what is left of Western Civilization and the species which largely created that civilization – white, gentile, heterosexual men – Bergoglio and the organization which he represents, must be stopped. If Pope Francis and his New World Order cohorts are not countered, whites, and the cultures which they built, will vanish.
Pope Blessed Urban II, who delivered a rousing speech in AD 1095 that inspired the first crusade.
Painting by Francisco de Zurbarán
The Catholic Church is an integral part of Western Civilization even if Bergoglio and the pack of cultural Marxist prelates which surround him will not admit it. It was the Church that preserved the heritage of Antiquity from the barbarian invasions during and after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Without the actions of the monks and other clerics, many of the classical works would have been lost forever, leaving future generations bereft of the wisdom and treasures of the Ancients. It was the Church that was the indispensable part in the formulation of the greatest civilization known to mankind, Christendom.
Moreover, it was the Catholic Church, largely through the Papacy, that inspired the Crusades, which for a glorious time drove out the Muslims from the Holy Land and returned it to its rightful possessors.
It is undeniable that the Catholic Faith (which Bergoglio is supposedly its chief representative) inspired numerous European sovereigns, most notably Queen Isabella, to take up arms against the Mohammedans. It was her faith which drove the heroic queen to free the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslim yoke, which then allowed her to finance Christopher Columbus on his epic, world-changing voyage.
Queen Isabella I of Castile – she funded the famous 1492 voyage of Columbus, and on the side completed the Reconquista of Spain. Incidentally, during her reign the crime rate in Spain is said to have declined to its lowest level in ages.
Painting attributed to Gerard David
Yet, Bergoglio and his fellow heretical Churchmen assiduously avoid any reminiscing of such facts and instead are deliberately encouraging Muslim migration into the lands that Europeans spilled blood and sacrificed treasures to defend – Queen Isabella must be turning over in her grave!
Conclusion
If Western Civilization is to be salvaged, those who seek its destruction must be removed from their positions of authority and influence. Whether through political means, armed revolt, or de-legitimization, those who hold such power must be toppled. Exposing “Pope Francis” for what he is, or is not, will go a long way in that most vital and necessary task.
- Americans' 2016 Choices: Lesser-Able Or Lesser-Evil
Once again, the quadrennial apparition has reached the dreaded countdown to political ignominy, placing American democracy on trial once again… yet quickly dismissing the charges, letting the political circus continue with its three-ring democracy made up of a dangerous quasi-autocratic executive, a corrupt special-interests Congress, and an ugly, politically tainted judiciary. But in 2016, the choice of whether to reelect Lesser-Evil for the umpteenth time might be looking at Evil as a new candidate: Lesser-Able.
This time around the duopoly which played musical chairs in the past to maintain power in a flawed undemocratic fashion does not appear to be firmly in charge, and our overly mined, make-believe democracy has found a rich vein of discontent, particularly in the white populace. Somehow, the political elites that run the two-party system appear to have lost control of the rank-and-file. And the Republican-R has metamorphosed from uncompromising conservatism into bigoted Repugnism while the Democratic-D is seen as having reached the limits of corrupt Demagoguery, unashamedly riding the shoulders of the minority-class represented in 90+ percent of Black voters and 70+ percent of the Latino voting bloc – many of them in sympathetic support to a massive 12-18 million of undocumented immigrants-at-arms.
For several decades many, at times most, Americans have gone to the polls every four years and cast their vote for a candidate they have jokingly, yet sometimes in profound seriousness, identified as Lesser-Evil. And even if the clownish-dude appeared wearing a mask, he was often mischaracterized by conservative Republicans as well as by liberal Democrats, or even Independents, as offering the lesser evil; a reasonable compromise or civic-consent for living in a nation that up to a generation ago did provide most of its people with a comparatively decent standard of living vis-à-vis much of the world.
And that post-WWII economic blessing clouded our domestic vision, deflecting pride in our democracy to pride in our empire and military might. We started to see ourselves as saviors of the planet and began to call the president, someone who should lead us as First Citizen, our commander-in-chief. Our democracy decayed and we started to go to the quadrennial dates to select a commander-in-chief, under the fallacious pretense of an ill-conceived preparedness for war; giving up on the idea of electing a First Citizen, someone who could lead the charge in tackling the myriad socio-economic problems accosting the nation; problems that loom larger today as our economic preeminence in the world is fading away.
As America did bid farewell to its popular First Citizen – and last world-class American statesman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, subsequent selected leaders have been branded as commander-in-chief, all serving at the pleasure of an American elite, which has sadly resulted in bringing down a prosperous, globally respected United States of America from its lofty pedestal: a nation of promise for all its people sinking to the mediocrity of another fading empire neglecting half of its citizens in a last hurrah to save itself.
Our ridiculously long presidential campaign, dubbed internationally as a celebrity horror show, has had for many TV viewers a Colosseum-worthy bloodiness of Roman circus entertainment while for others it has underlined the absurdity of an American body politic which this time has reached the bottom of the barrel, without anticipating the possible consequences, by making the choices Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Although in this 58th presidential election we will still be referring to the two candidates as potential commander-in-chief, it will start to become evident that the economic and social ills that polarize the nation require a First Citizen, not a First Warrior, and that a commander-in-chief just won’t do! Furthermore, an end to the polarization simply will not occur as long as our political system consists of only two political parties where the membership in both maintain profiles with little or no commonality – racial, economic, or even philosophical – to try and match, or at least approach the diversity in the nation.
So once again much of the electorate in the two tents is confronted with voting for the sempiternal Lesser-Evil, except that this time around many would-be voters see Evil with a lesser-able personality. And that new personality, Lesser-Able, has become the figure of the Pied Piper of the discontent, Donald Trump, who many see as both unqualified and worrisome.
In less than five weeks we’ll find out whether Lesser-Evil is reelected or Lesser-Able is to assume the reins. In either case we’ll have to resign ourselves to having made a choice for a commander-in-chief of a declining empire, instead of a capable First Citizen ready to tackle our nation’s economic and social ills.
- Florida Governor Denies Clinton Request For Voter Registration Extension
As Florida Governor Rick Scott has called on every available resource in his state to help with Hurricane Matthew, Clinton campaign lawyers are apparently already bombarding him with requests to extend the voter registration deadline of October 11. So, just to be clear, traveling to Louisiana weeks after flooding there would have negatively impacted recovery efforts, even though local politicians supported visits, but lobbying for voter registration extensions while a hurricane is actually in progress is ok?
But, according to the Washington Examiner, Scott has denied the request saying “I’m not going to extend it…everybody has had a lot of time to register.” A Scott spokeswoman added that “for any political party to ask this in the middle of a storm is political.”
Florida Gov. Rick Scott said Thursday that the state would not extend its Oct. 11 voter-registration deadline in response to Hurricane Matthew, throwing cold water on a request from the Clinton campaign.
“I’m not going to extend it,” the governor told reporters Thursday. “Everybody has had a lot of time to register. On top of that, we have lots of opportunities to vote: early voting, absentee voting, Election Day. So I don’t intend to make any changes.”
“For any political party to ask this in the middle of a storm is political,” Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz said Thursday. “Our No. 1 focus is protecting life. There’ll be another day for politics.”
That said, we’re sure the George Soros legal armies are amassing in Florida and getting ready to launch an all out offensive on this obvious attempt at suppressing minority and low-income votes. In fact, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook is already laying the media groundwork saying that people will need more time to register because of the storm and they “expect that the governor and local officials will make that possible.”
Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said Thursday that they hoped election officials in the Sunshine State would consider making accommodations for voters affected by Hurricane Matthew.
“The one thing that we are hoping and expecting is that officials in Florida will adapt deadline to account for the storm,” Robby Mook told reporters.
“The voter registration deadline in Florida is Oct. 11 and then our hope would be that a little bit more time would be given for people who were expecting to be able to get registered before the election and we certainly expect that the governor and local officials will make that possible,” he said.
The extension requests come just one day after Clinton’s team created controversy by buying $63,000 of ads on the Weather Channel in Florida to run during the hurricane. The ads were scheduled to play from Thursday through Tuesday in an obvious attempt to exploit the storm for political gain. The plan, however, backfired for the Clinton camp, and after public outcry Clinton decided to suspend the buy.
In addition to the public outcry, the exploitation of the storm drew some criticism from the Trump team with Trump Jr. calling the move “disgusting.”
If only Hillary was as good at preventing tragedy as she is at exploiting it! Disgusting!!! #Benghazi https://t.co/AYnuVcVLLB
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 6, 2016
Of course, RNC chairman Reince Priebus also chimed in calling the whole situation “shameful.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus accused the Clinton campaign Thursday of trying to cash in on the weather event, and he suggested the Democratic nominee was putting her interests before the needs of the people of Florida.
“Couldn’t let this crisis go to waste? Shameful [Hillary Clinton’s] campaign even considered exploiting Hurricane Matthew for political gain,” the RNC chair said Thursday on social media.
“Pulling these ads after getting caught won’t cut it. [Hillary Clinton] should apologize for using storm for votes,” he said. “The people in [the] path of #HurricaneMatthew need our prayers, support, and charity.”
Everyone ready for some Florida “voter suppression” lawsuits?
- Commuter-In-Chief: Obama Cuts Sentences Of Some More Drug Dealers
Yesterday, President Obama commuted the sentences of another 102 inmates, most of whom were serving time for drug-related offenses. According to The Hill, the additional 102 commutations brings Obama’s total to 744 over the course of his presidency, more than the past 11 presidents combined, and brings his 2016 total to 590, more than any single year in U.S. history.
And, of course, the White House continued to brag about the record-breaking commutations on twitter.
“These statistics make clear that the president and his administration have succeeded in efforts to reinvigorate the clemency process,” White House counsel Neil Eggleston wrote in a blog post. “Beyond the statistics, though, are stories of individuals who have overcome the longest of odds to earn this second chance.”
BREAKING: @POTUS just commuted the sentences of 102 people, bringing the total to more than the past 11 presidents combined. pic.twitter.com/734VSwYzsS
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 6, 2016
The following chart from Pardon Power helps to put the scale of commutations under the Obama administration into perspective.
Meanwhile, with just 3 months left in office, The Hill points out that Obama is accelerating the use of his clemency power.
With just three months left in office, Obama is accelerating the use of his clemency power. Obama in August handed out commutations to 325 inmates — including 214 on Aug. 3, the largest single-day total since 1900.
That alone nearly doubled the number of commutations granted during Obama’s presidency.
Obama first launched a clemency initiative in 2014 to review sentences of non-violent drug offenders who would receive shorter prison terms under today’s guidelines.
It’s part of the president’s broader push to reform the criminal justice system.
Facing pressure from reform advocates to pick up the pace of commutations, the administration has tweaked its strategy to accommodate more inmates.
He has shortened some inmates’ sentences without immediately releasing them, leaving them years left to serve. That has allowed Obama to grant commutations to prisoners who have committed more serious offenses.
Transformational change?
- US Officially Accuses Russia Of Hacking Democratic Party, State Election Systems
Update: the machinery begins to move:
- CHAIRMAN OF U.S. SENATE CYBER SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE TO INTRODUCE BILL IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA AFTER U.S. POLITICAL HACKING ACCUSATIONS
* * *
After months of speculation whether the US would officially accuse Russia of being responsible for various intrusions and hacks, primarily involving the Democratic party, moments ago we finally got the long-anticipated confirmation when the US named Russia as the actor behind the hacking attempts on political organizations and, more importantly, state election systems and accused Putin of carrying out a wide-ranging campaign to interfere with the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other political officials.
In a statement, the US “intelligence community” said that it is “confident” that the Russian government “directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations”, the Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a joint statement.
The US added that “these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process”.
“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” a U.S. government statement said on Friday about hacking of political groups. Alternatively, the activities could have been authorized by some “senior-most” US official, with the intention of creating the first false flag cyberwar.
The statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not blame the Russian government for hacking attempts against state election systems, but said “scanning and probing” of those systems originated in most cases from servers operated by a Russian company.
“These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,” the statement said. “However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government,” the statement said.
The accusation, made by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, came as pressure was growing from within the administration and some lawmakers to hold Moscow accountable for a set of actions apparently aimed at sowing discord around the election. Sure enough, the formal attribution to Russia, something that has long been discussed in information security circles, represents a step-up in rhetoric by the Obama administration.
The administration also blamed Moscow for the hack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the subsequent leak of private email addresses and cell phone numbers of Democratic lawmakers. A series of other leaks of hacked material followed, all of which are suspected of being conducted by Russia-sponsored hackers.
Russia has denied any connection to the hacks. As the official statement by the DHS and ODNI notes, the actual party doing the accusation of Russia is the US intelligence community, which as recently as a month ago was breached itself when a domestic “Snowden 2.0”, Harold T. Martin, was arrested recently after obtaining and attempting to sell an unknown number of internal NSA programs.
Here is the full statement:
While we are confident that Putin is laughing at this statement and/or threat, a question emerges: since the US has said it would treat cyberattacks by “foreign state powers” as the equivalent of an act of war, will the US now escalate and use this “naming of Russia” as a global master hacker (we assume the recent NSA hack will not be blamed on the Kremlin too, now that an American was arrested), as a pretext to accelerate diplomatic and/or military actions against Russia.
- The War In Syria: Who Is Actually To Blame?
Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,
Depending on which news outlets you follow, your understanding of what is going on in Syria is likely coming from one of two main camps — Western media or Eastern media. Western media, in tandem with the Arab Gulf states, has almost completely pinned the blame for the crisis in Syria on the current president, Bashar al-Assad. Any residual blame left for the taking is delivered to Russia and Iran.
Those of us who inform ourselves daily from an eclectic range of media sources tend to have a broader understanding of the conflict in Syria. The more critical one becomes of both ends of the media spectrum, the more one can evaluate the veracity of the respective outlets (for example, the peddling of statistics from a T-shirt shop in England versus the use of satellite imagery).
Analyzing all forms of media leads to only one conclusion regarding the current crisis in Syria: all of the parties involved have an overwhelming amount of blood on their hands and are playing a role in the ongoing war. However, the evidence suggests there is one group of nations, headed by the world’s superpower, that has once again created a humanitarian catastrophe rivaling that of history’s worst dictators.
Although corporate media has portrayed the situation in Syria as being one of a popular uprising against a brutal and murderous dictator, the truth is far more complex.
According to four-star General Wesley Clark, Syria was one of seven countries the Pentagon targeted for regime change following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The others were Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran. This intention to take out Syria’s leader prior to the start conflict in 2011 was confirmed by Wikileaks (you can access the relevant chapter in its entirety here). According to Julian Assange, Assad’s overthrow was planned as far back as 2006. As explained by MintPress News:
“WikiLeaks cables reveal these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah.”
MintPress News further explains that according to Assange, “…the U.S. government sought to make the Syrian government appear weak by causing Assad to overreact to the threat of Islamic extremists crossing into his country.”
Sound familiar?
Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas further confirmed these claims when he claimed top British officials approached him to ask if he wanted to participate in their plans to prepare for war against Syria two years prior to the eruption of the conflict.
Dumas stated:
“This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived, and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance.
“Consequently, everything that moves in the region… and I have this from a former Israeli Prime Minister who told me we will try to get on with our neighbors but those who don´t agree with us will be destroyed. It is a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it.”
This should all be headline news, but apparently what happens to Kim Kardashian — notable laureate that she is — is far more important.
Having instigated the conflict in 2011, the U.S. establishment predicted Assad would fall in a similar manner to that of Muammar Gaddafi. However, nuclear giants Russia and China, having been completely duped by Western promises that Gaddafi would not be forcibly removed from power in 2011, used this knowledge to consistently veto any proposal to interfere in the Syrian conflict.
Despite the deceptiveness of NATO’s operations in Libya, Russia has tried to facilitate the end of the Syrian war for some time now. In fact, Russia put forward a proposal in 2012 that Assad would step down as a part of a potential peace deal. As stated by former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, “it was an opportunity lost in 2012.”
Why did the Americans reject this proposal? Because, as acknowledged by Ahtisaari:
“Nothing happened because I think all these, and many others, were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks so there was no need to do anything.”
Four years later, the war is still raging. Western media has focused on the current situation in Eastern Aleppo, which has seen Russian and Syrian warplanes ravage the terrorist-held area. I say “terrorist-held area” because the areas being targeted by Russia and Syria are held by al-Nusra offshoot Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and its affiliated groups. Al-Sham is essentially al-Qaeda in Syria but was forced to change its name because Russia has repeatedly requested that the U.S. distinguish between moderate rebel groups and those that wish to be identified with al-Nusra. Citing Reuters, the Guardian referenced the social media outlet of another Aleppo-based rebel faction known as the Levant Front, also quoting one of its officials. The Levant Front is also heavily affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Remember when George W. Bush told us we were at war with al-Qaeda following the attacks on September 11, 2001? Apparently, they are our ally now. Essentially, what Western media and Western governments are saying is that the Assad and Putin regimes are wrong to be targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, something the U.S. establishment has claimed to be doing for over a decade.
Western media has also conveniently ignored attacks from these so-called moderate rebels, who have been shelling government-held areas of Aleppo. Aleppo is home to 1.5 million civilians. Conversely, fewer than 300,000 civilians are trapped in rebel-held areas of Aleppo (do you really expect these al-Qaeda affiliated rebels to look after and provide shelter for civilians?).
And where did these rebels (insert: terrorists) receive their weaponry, funding, and training? This is a topic for a separate article, but one can be assured it was not from the Russian and Syrian regimes. The U.S. establishment has poured in an immense amount of money, only to see failed programs in which the weaponry (and often fighters) end up in the hands of al-Qaeda. This is not a new or unforeseen problem, either; the New York Times reported as far back as 2012 that the majority of weapons being sent to Syria had ended up in the hands of extremists.
Is Russia sending arms to jihadists? No.
Even now, as Russia and the United States coalition have stepped up their involvement in recent years, the U.S. refuses to coordinate and respond to Russia’s repeated requests to work together. If the stated goal was to truly eradicate ISIS and terrorism in the region, the U.S. would surely love to work in tandem with the Russian authorities. However, the U.S. has shown time and time again it will not tolerate any progress Russia is making in combating ISIS or groups such as al-Nusra.
No one would deny the governments of Syria, Russia, and Iran have an enormous amount of blood on their hands. Allegations and claims by the United Nations that the Syrian government has tortured and killed detainees on a massive scale – a crime against humanity – are proof alone that the Syrian regime needs to face accountability for its actions.
However, the hypocrisy of opposing one Middle Eastern dictator while supporting others responsible for truly heinous crimes raises questions regarding the United States motives in Syria. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had a cozy relationship with former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair; the British government would send dissidents to Libya to be tortured (before the British government turned their back on Gaddafi in 2011).
So, who is responsible for the current crisis in Syria?
Syria was once a middle-income country before the conflict erupted into a humanitarian catastrophe. The evidence at hand, in particular from overlooked Western sources, overwhelmingly points to outside intervention, by which external powers have conspired, plotted, and poured billions upon billions of dollars into arming extremist opposition groups to take out an unfriendly regime. The powers-that-be could have allowed Assad’s removal via Russia’s proposed peace deal in 2012, but they decided not to accept it — and in turn have maximized the death toll of the conflict.
Do not underestimate the power of the CIA to manufacture opposition to regimes unfriendly to the West. Do not underestimate the West’s ability to concern itself more with geopolitical and strategic concerns rather than humanitarian ones – a point that is consistently ignored in Western coverage of the Syrian conflict. One only needs to turn to history to see this approach has been a dominant tool of American foreign policy for decades. The most strikingly obvious example of this – to which the CIA has admitted its involvement – is when the U.S. and U.K. instigated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, over oil.
The Guardian explained:
“Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.”
If Russia had intervened to save the Iranian regime in 1953 from clamping down on a CIA-manufactured uprising, would we be blaming Russia and Iran for the crisis that unfolded?
Surely not.
- Wikileaks Releases Hillary's Paid Wall Street Speech Transcripts: Hundreds Of "Sensitive" Excerpts
While the media is transfixed with the just released Washington Post leak of a private Donald Trump conversation from 2005 in which he was speaking "lewdly" about women, and for which he has apologized, roughly at the same time, Wikileaks released part one of what it dubbed the "Podesta emails", which it describes as "a series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank."
While the underlying story in this specific case involves the alleged kickbacks received by the Clinton Foundation from the Russian government-controlled "Uranium One", a story which has been profiled previously by the NYT, and about which Wikileaks adds that "as Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons", what caught our attention is an email from Tony Carr, a Research Director at Hillary for America, in which he lay outs hundreds of excerpts from the heretofore missing transcripts of Hillary Clinton's infamous Wall Street speeches, with an emphasis on those which should be flagged as they may be damaging to Hillary.
But first, here are the greatest hits as conveniently flagged by the Clinton Campaign itself on page one of the 80 page addendum dubbed "awkward"
Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” “And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
When A Questioner At Goldman Sachs Said She Raised Money For Hillary Clinton In 2008, Hillary Clinton Joked “You Are The Smartest People.” “PARTICIPANT: Secretary, Ann Chow from Houston, Texas. I have had the honor to raise money for you when you were running for president in Texas. MS. CLINTON: You are the smartest people. PARTICIPANT: I think you actually called me on my cell phone, too. I talked to you afterwards.” [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Joked That If Lloyd Blankfein Wanted To Run For Office, He Should “Would Leave Goldman Sachs And Start Running A Soup Kitchen Somewhere. “ “MR. BLANKFEIN: I’m saying for myself. MS. CLINTON: If you were going to run here is what I would tell you to do — MR. BLANKFEIN: Very hypothetical. MS. CLINTON: I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a soup kitchen somewhere. MR. BLANKFEIN: For one thing the stock would go up. MS. CLINTON: Then you could be a legend in your own time both when you were there and when you left.” [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked “He Increased Our Budget.” “SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you’ve gathered. Some of you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same position. And he came back and was just thrilled by— MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That’s why we — SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he—I think he encouraged you to grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I’ve been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices.” “You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Clinton Joked It’s “Risky” For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To Futures Markets Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. “Now, it's always a little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures markets because — there's a few knowing laughs — many years ago, I actually traded in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be the end of it.” [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because “They Can’t Possibly Vet All Those Refugees So They Don’t Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along With Legitimate Refugees.” “So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.” [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Here is the full email by Carrk as of January 25, 2016 laying out all the potentially delicate issues that the Clinton campaign would wish to avoid from emerging. One thing to note: as Michael Tracey points out, the Hillary campaign had all the transcripts at her disposal all along, despite repeated deflection. Perhaps as a result of this leak she will now release the full transcripts for the "proper context."
* * *
From:tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com
To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, slatham@hillaryclinton.com, kschake@hillaryclinton.com, creynolds@hillaryclinton.com, bfallon@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2016-01-25 00:28 Subject:HRC Paid Speeches
Team,
Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy.
In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-speeches-are-cozy-for-wall-streeters-but-closed-to-journalists/article/2553294/section/author/dan-friedman
CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH
Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” “And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY
Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.” CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, "balance" — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think — I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS
Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.” “That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: “Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.” “Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET
Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” “Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
* * *
Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.” “I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING
Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. “Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.” “So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it's something — I would like — you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder now.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR
Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]
* * *
Clinton On Wall Street: “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.” “Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, 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.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE
Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks. “SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small — MR. BLANKFEIN: That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE
Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be “Moderate.” “URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14]
* * *
Clinton: “Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth. It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side.” SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened. We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
* * *
Clinton: “The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have Growth.” CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES
Clinton: “At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across The U.S. Government.” CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're trying to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean, really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most — Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry.” “I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most — or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn't have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: “We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our Personal Devices” Off The Plane In China And Russia. “I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we'd leave them on the plane.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices.” “You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can’t Bring Your Phone And Computer When Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A Special Box. “And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can’t bring your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes. Now, we didn’t do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It’s what’s the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it. We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In Technology, Saying “People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of Security Issues.” “Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about the credit market, our personnel policies haven’t kept up with the changes necessary in government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting—when I got to the State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20th Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and ‘10.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE
Clinton: “So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…” “So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. “Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]
CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER
Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times.” “If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]
* * *
Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada. “You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
* * *
Below is the full 80 page documents of "speech flags" in Hillary speeches:
- Trump Apologizes For "Locker Room Banter" After Recording Emerges Of "Extremely Lewd" Conversation About Women
One can tell it's the Friday night before a Sunday presidential debate when…
First, the FBI releases 350 previously-deleted emails from Hillary Clinton's private server that she had failed to hand over to State. As Politico reports,
The first major batch of Hillary Clinton emails recovered by the FBI during its probe of her private email server went public Friday, including a message where one of her top political advisers floated the idea of her running for vice president in 2012.
“Only way for [President Barack Obama] to win second term is to ask you to be VP – he will realize that after midterms,” wrote Mark Penn, a pollster and chief strategist on her unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
Friday's release of previously unseen Clinton emails prompted another round of heartburn for Clinton's presidential campaign and anticipation on the part of Republican critics hoping for an October surprise.
However, the release proved to be something of a snoozer since many of the messages scheduled for release are already in the public domain in some form.
Then Wikileaks unleashes a fresh batch of Podesta-related hacked emails, refreshing the world's memory of the 'pay-for-play' allegations surrounding Russia, Iran, China, and Uranium One.
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
But, finally, and what everyone will be talking about, is the release by The Washington Post of Donald Trump having an "extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005."
Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone — saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do it” — according to a video obtained by The Washington Post.
The video captures Trump talking with Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood” on a bus with Access Hollywood written across the side. They were arriving on the set of “Days of Our Lives” to tape a segment about Trump’s upcoming cameo on the soap opera.
In the leaked audio, apparently recorded while Trump was on a bus with former Access Hollywood host Billy Bush, Trump talks about trying — and failing — to have sex with an unnamed woman. He had been married to his wife Melania for a few months at the time of the conversation.
“I did try and fuck her. She was married,” Trump says, according to the audio published by the Post.
“And I moved on her very heavily," he says. "In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ ”
“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”
At another point in the recording, Trump is heard saying that "when you're a star," women let you "do anything."
“Grab them by the pussy,” he says.
The Clinton campaign wasted no time, responding to the 'lewd' Trump comments:
"This is horrific we cannot allow this man to be President."
Trump apologized in a statement…
“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago…"
"[Former President] Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course – not even close," Trump added.
"I apologize if anyone was offended."
So one hand a presidential candidate with a recidivist, cheating husband, on the other a married man who admits he wanted to have sex with a woman in a private setting.
Having said that, let's leave the real debate to Twitter. These seemed to sum things up perfectly…
Lizzy @lizzie363
Trump talks like Bill Clinton acts but we are suppossed too condemn ones speech but overlook the others actions. #botharehorrific.Louis Winthorpe III @LWinthorpe
So we find out Trump talks like more than half the guys you know. That's supposed to make me think he's now less electable, not more?One thing is certain, family values arent the winner here.
- Black Swans: 9 Recent Events That Changed Finance Forever
Almost every market participant out there has at least one horrific war story on a crash that profoundly affected their portfolio or world view.
For example, one unnamed stock broker I know had himself and his clients in a soaring gold stock called Bre-X in 1997. There was way less connectivity at this time, and this person was on a trip to Vegas for some sun and fun. Staying at Caesar’s Palace, he went out for a short while as the stock was trading near its highs of $286.50 per share.
When he got back to the hotel, he found out that news had already spread quickly: during a due diligence test, mining company Freeport had twinned seven drill holes, finding not even a trace of economic gold. The deposit was not real, and panic swept the market. His hotel phone had been ringing off the hook for three hours but he missed all the calls. Shares plummeted 83% that day, but he was already too late to get out of the stock.
It’s easy to rationalize the series of events that led to the fall of Bre-X in hindsight, but as Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardin notes, at the time many traders and experts like this broker were caught by surprise. A company worth around $4.5 billion basically went to zero almost overnight as its claim of 70 million ounces of gold vanished into thin air. That’s a “black swan”, and this one in particular changed the mining and finance industries forever.
BLACK SWANS: 9 RECENT EVENTS THAT CHANGED FINANCE FOREVER
The following infographic comes to us from Call Levels, and it highlights nine other recent “black swan” events that will have a lasting impact on how investors approach markets. These events range from the Asian financial crisis of 1997 to the more recent Brexit panic that occurred in June 2016.
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...