Home Blog Page 541

Part III Project Veritas prohibited communications between Clinton’s campaign, DNC & non-profit organization Americans United for Change

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck.
In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations.
“In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.”

It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”
The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

Soros said, "It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god

When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
george-soros-said-he-is-a-god-hillary-clinton-crooked

IT SEEMS THAT SOROS BELIEVES HE WAS ANOINTED BY GOD. “I FANCIED MYSELF AS SOME KIND OF GOD …” HE ONCE WROTE. “IF TRUTH BE KNOWN, I CARRIED SOME RATHER POTENT MESSIANIC FANTASIES WITH ME FROM CHILDHOOD, WHICH I FELT I HAD TO CONTROL, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT GET ME IN TROUBLE.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nazi collaborator George Soros has been angling to overthrow the American government for quite some time now. He financed the race riots in Ferguson, Chicago and Baltimore, as well as funding the domestic terror group Black Lives Matter. Now his candidate Crooked Hillary Clinton, the anointed next president by the corrupt liberal media, is ready to carry out his orders should she win the White House. George Soros is betting billions that she’ll win. After all, he says that he’s a god who doesn’t have to follow the rules. 
When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
Since I began to live it out. Those unfamiliar with Soros would probably dismiss the statement out of hand. But for those who have followed his career and sociopolitical endeavors, it cannot be taken quite so lightly.

 
Soros has proved that with the vast resources of money at his command he has the ability to make the once unthinkable acceptable. His work as a self-professed “amoral” financial speculator has left millions in poverty when their national currencies were devaluated, and he pumped so much cash into shaping former Soviet republics to his liking that he has bragged that the former Soviet empire is now the “Soros Empire.”
Now he’s turned his eye on the internal affairs of the United States. Today’s U.S., he writes in his latest book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy,” is a “threat to the world,” run by a Republican Party that is the devil child of an unholy alliance between “market fundamentalists” and “religious fundamentalists.” We have become a “supremacist” nation.
During a speech at Columbia University’s commencement ceremonies, Soros said, “If President Bush is reelected, we must ask the question, ‘What is wrong with us?’ ” He has written that he always “felt that modern society in general and America in particular suffer from a deficiency of values.”

GEORGE SOROS, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND HILLARY CLINTON:


 
Bush’s aggressive waging of the war on terrorism has only increased these feelings. “When President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, in fact he means that America will prevail,” Soros writes. Who would Soros prefer to see “prevail”? Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden?
Despite his reputation as an international philanthropist, Soros remains candid about his true charitable tendencies. “I am sort of a deus ex machina,” Soros told the New York Times in 1994. “I am something unnatural. I’m very comfortable with my public persona because it is one I have created for myself. It represents what I like to be as distinct from what I really am. You know, in my personal capacity I’m not actually a selfless philanthropic person. I’ve very much self-centered.”

HILLARY LIES AND DIVERTS ATTENTION WHEN ASKED ABOUT GEORGE SOROS:


 
Soros was more succinct when he explained his life philosophy to biographer Michael Kaufman. “I am kind of a nut who wants to have an impact,” he said.
But the speculator’s visions don’t end there.
“Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad,” Soros once confided on British television. “In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it.”
In his book, “Soros on Soros,” he says: “I do not accept the rules imposed by others…. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” Clearly, Soros considers himself to be someone who is able to determine when the “normal rules” should and shouldn’t apply. source

$770,000,000 In Taxpayer Money Obama Just Paid to Renovate Overseas Mosques


BY ON
The United States government – U.S. taxpayers – have $770 million to spend on mosque renovation but the United States Marine Corps has about two-thirds of their fighter jets grounded because the Marine Corps doesn’t have money for parts.
The program that funds rebuilding mosques funnels money through the U.S. State Department’s USAID program. You’ve probably never heard about it because if flies under the radar. After all, it’s only $1 billion. It’s $1 billion in play money for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry to practice their “Smart Diplomacy.”
Why in the world would we spend nearly $1 billion to renovate mosques in the Middle East? First of all, there’s Barack Obama’s number one mission which is lifting up Islam in any way he possibly can. Obama and Hillary’s “Smart Diplomacy” have made a complete mess of the Middle East. Nobody but the Russians seem to care and Vladimir Putin is busily putting a big Russian footprint in the Middle East because of the complete stupidity of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy.
Then there’s the fact that Obama’s White House staff is loaded with pro-Islamic Muslims. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State her number one advisor, Huma Abedin, is tied directly to the Muslim Brotherhood through her family. In addition to Huma, Obama has gone out of his way to point Muslim radicals to positions on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Let’s not forget that Obama has banned the use of the word terrorism from any and all government discussions or documents. He even went so far, when a radical Muslim Army chaplain – who was well known for his radical beliefs – murdered 24 people at Fort Hood while screaming “Allahu Akbar,” to call the slaughter “workplace violence.”
The political generals in the Army refused to fight that designation and the soldiers who were murdered were refused purple hearts, and their families were refused combat death benefits even though the attack was clearly a terrorist action in Islam’s war against the United States.
You can bet that if Hillary Clinton is elected on November 8 the Obama policies toward radical Muslim terrorists isn’t going to change. If anything it will accelerate.

FBI Comey — Now we have the answer

FBI Comey — Now we have the answer
 
When James Comey decided not to indict  Hillary  Clinton, the whole American public was shocked. Everyone expected him to charge  Hillary . However, now we know the real reason why Comey didn’t charge  Hillary .
 
His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforces bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe. 


These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
 
Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year. According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
 
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the  HillaryClinton State Department.
 
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
 
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
 
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary  Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
 
DLA Piper ranks #5 on  Hillary  Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Trickle-down corruption.
 
When President  Obama  nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
 
He lied. He has in fact politicized the FBI— that is supposed to support the Rule of Law.
 
The FBI’s investigation of  Hillary  Clinton needs to be re-opened, Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should recuse themselves and Congress should demand the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
 
As you can see,  Hillary  is tightly connected to Comey. If you still didn’t know why Hillary  wasn’t indicted, now you know! 


Vote rigging is easy, says expert

Vote rigging is easy, says expert

103 Shares

voteHillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats are trying to discredit GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump by labeling his warning of voter fraud in the upcoming election an outlandish conspiracy theory. But according to one forensics expert, Trump is on to something.
According to Election Defense Alliance director Johnathon Simon, America’s electronic voting systems are not only vulnerable to hackers in this election but have also likely been hacked before.
“The grim truth that is so hard to tell and so hard to swallow is that America’s electoral system has been corrupted in the most direct and fundamental of ways: the computers that now count virtually all of our votes in secret can be—and, the evidence indicates, have been—programmed to cheat,” Simon told Washington Examiner.
In his new book, “CODE RED: Computerized Election Theft and The New American Century,” Simon explains that the biggest threat to the U.S. electoral integrity in 2016 is system rigging within the electronic voting framework.
And because of assertions from politicians like Clinton that Americans should never doubt the election system, Simon says stealing an election could be relatively easy for a well-connected individual.
“To override the will of the voters and change the outcome of elections. To steal and hold power that could not be gained and held legitimately. Ultimately to reshape America more effectively than could a junta rolling tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue. The junta would, by its very visibility, at least provoke resistance,” said Simon.
According to Simon’s book, the U.S. is ignoring lessons learned in other countries where electronic voting has been manipulated in the past.
“Several other advanced democracies—including Germany, The Netherlands, and Ireland—have moved away from the computerized tabulation they initially embraced, having recognized the manifest security risks it entails. But America has continued to entrust its elections to privatized and concealed vote counting despite mounting and voluminous evidence that the vulnerabilities to manipulation are not merely hypothetical but are actually being exploited, with profound political consequences,” he noted.

Madigan rules Illinois with an iron grip

Madigan rules Illinois with an iron grip. And failure to follow through on a favor can come with dire consequences.
A new batch of emails released by Wikileaks Oct. 12 reveal Hillary Clinton’s team attempted to change the date of Illinois’ presidential primary to April or May instead of March. And they knew they needed the ear of the state’s most powerful politician to do so.
Nothing moves in Illinois without the blessing of its all-powerful House speaker and chairman of the state Democratic Party: Mike Madigan. However, Clinton’s campaign may have chosen the wrong messenger for their request.
Clinton campaign manager Robert Mook outlined his strategy in a Nov. 26, 2014, email to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the Wikileaks documents show. Mook wanted Bill Daley to contact Madigan’s Chief of Staff Tim Mapes to make the request that the Illinois General Assembly quickly introduce and pass a bill changing the date of the primary.
Daley is the former White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama, the son of the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and brother to former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
The later timing of the vote would act as a safeguard for the Clinton campaign were she struggling in the primary. The Wikileaks emails show Mook offered to give Illinois a 10 percent boost in delegates if the General Assembly moved the primary to April, and 20 percent if lawmakers moved it to May.
As the Chicago Sun-Times notes, Madigan changed the date of the 2008 Illinois primary benefit then-candidate Barack Obama, moving it up to February from March.
But this time would be different.
Madigan’s map
Madigan’s more than 30 year reign as Illinois’ speaker of the House is explored in a new documentary, “Madigan: Power. Privilege. Politics.
The documentary touches on the subject of legislative mapmaking, which is how Madigan first took power over the House in the early 1980s. Throughout the state’s history, Illinois lawmakers have carefully crafted legislative maps to maximize their political advantage. This system has led to a lack of competitive elections, and an equally distressing lack of confidence in state government.
But Daley has been involved with a massive effort to change that system.
He serves on the board of directors for the Independent Maps Amendment, which gathered more than half a million signatures to put a mapmaking reform amendment on the state ballot this November.
But a Madigan lawyer sued to have that question stricken from the ballot. And he won.
Asking a man who led an effort to reduce the speaker’s power for Madigan’s favor was a fool’s errand.
Illinois political commentator Rich Miller wrote in his Oct. 13 newsletter that Madigan spokesman Steve Brown pointed to Daley’s involvement with redistricting reform as one of the reasons for the failed attempt.
The Mook email Wikileaks released suggested the Clinton campaign had tried to change the date of the Illinois primary on multiple occasions, but had been rebuked.
“As we discussed, they don’t really care about being helpful and feel forgotten and neglected by POTUS,” Mook wrote. “The key point is that this is not an Obama ask, but a Hillary ask. And the Clintons won’t forget what their friends have done for them.”

Madigan’s mentality
The new documentary about Madigan shows how his approach echoes Clinton’s in this case, as he has built an unprecedented political force in Illinois through favoritism.
Filmed interviews with former politicians, professors and political commentators exposed the political machine the speaker has built.
“He’s been getting people jobs, getting promotions for his people, getting raises for his people. It’s what he does,” Miller said in an interview for the documentary.
He compared Madigan’s operation to that of mob leader Paulie Cicero in the organized crime movie “Goodfellas.” In return for support, the speaker provides protection for favored workers and Democratic House members.
“Everybody pays tribute up, but from the top down they take care of you. And that’s how they get the loyalty,” Miller said.
The Democratic Party has held a majority in the Illinois House for all but two years since 1983. They can select anyone to be House speaker. But they choose Madigan every time.
It’s easy to see why. The man has unprecedented authority.
If a Democratic House member doesn’t vote for Madigan, he can take away her campaign money, strip her of any leadership roles and even make sure none of her bills get a hearing. The Illinois House’s unique rules allow the speaker to ensure bills that threaten his power base are not given a public hearing.
Madigan rules Illinois with an iron grip. And failure to follow through on a favor can come with dire consequences.
To find out where you can see “Madigan: Power. Privilege. Politics.” go to michaelmadigan.com.

Austin Berg worked as a writer and consultant on the film “Madigan: Power. Privilege. Politics.”

TAGS: Chicago, Hillary Clinton, Mike Madigan, Wikileaks

The media’s manufactured freak out over Trump refusal to say he’ll concede

Inconvenient truth: The media’s manufactured freak out over Trump refusal to say he’ll concede

66 Shares

al gore at SXSWRepeatedly badgering GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump about whether he’ll concede if he loses the election is nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate the myth that Hillary Clinton will be the inevitable victor in the 2016 election.

Clinton characterized Trump’s refusal to say he’ll accept the election result no matter what as “horrifying” during Wednesday night’s debate and, without hesitation, the media ran with her statement.
But the Trump campaign says the GOP candidate’s decision to keep voters in “suspense” as to whether he’d concede is simply an effort to avoid the type of electoral confusion created when Al Gore conceded before changing his mind in the 2000 presidential contest.
“No one has ever conceded an election before the election actually takes place,” spokesman Jason Miller told Fox News. “Nobody wants an Al Gore, who goes out and concedes, and then unconcedes, and then concedes again.”
Trump’s team maintains that evidence of deeply rooted corruption within the Clinton political machine requires that the GOP candidate leave open the door for investigations of possible election fraud after Nov. 8.
It’s also worth noting that Gore is still suggesting that he has doubts about the outcome of the 200 election. Earlier this month he told a crowd of Clinton supporters: “Here’s my point: I don’t want you to be in a position years from now where you welcome Hillary Clinton and say, ‘Actually, you did win. It just wasn’t close enough to make sure that all the votes were counted or whatever.’”

Socialism in less than 2 minutes

Venezuelans carry bags of toilet paper home on Saturday, Aug. 13, 2016, after Colombia and Venezuela agreed to formally reopen their borders for the first time in almost a year. (Jim Wyss/Miami Herald/TNS)Polls show that more than one-third of Americans want socialism. That demonstrates many people have a deep misunderstanding of what socialism truly is.
Want to see it in action? Take a trip to Cuba or Venezuela. But if you do, take some toilet paper and food with you. Both are hard to come by.
Here’s socialism explained in less than two minutes.
 

More evidence that Hillary Clinton's server was hacked.

Report: Classified Info From Hillary’s Email Found On Romanian Server

Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty ImagesAndy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images
BY: AARON BANDLER OCTOBER 19, 2016
There is now more evidence that Hillary Clinton’s server was hacked.
The Washington Examiner reports that the FBI’s notes on their investigation on Clinton’s server reveal that an unidentified company found a file that is believed to be from Clinton’s emails – and partly written by Russia – on a Romanian server that had “the names of known or suspected jihadists in Libya” on it.
The file was found as result of Judicial Watch’s efforts to find evidence that Clinton’s email server was hacked.
The Examiner’s report continues:
A Romanian hacker breached [Sidney] Blumenthal’s inbox in 2013 and exposed Clinton’s private email address for the first time, forcing her to change her username. Clinton’s allies have argued that hack did not compromise any of Clinton’s files.
However, the potentially classified file “did not come from Blumenthal’s server,” the witness said. Upon discovering the list of names, the individual who had been hired to conduct the online investigation “became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project.”
Throughout the campaign, Hillary Clinton has constantly maintained that “there is no evidence my system was hacked.” But as the Daily Wire has reported, the FBI has concluded that Clinton’s server was indeed hacked and the hacker “logged into the compromised email, read messages, and browsed attachments using a service called Tor.” The information that was likely compromised included “conducting missile-armed drone strikes against terrorists.”
Based on the FBI notes, it would appear that the file with names of Islamic terrorists winding up on a Romanian server is another example of Clinton’s email server being hacked.
If Clinton were to be confronted on this, she would likely just say she can’t recall. She has a penchant for doing that.
Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty ImagesAndy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images
BY: AARON BANDLER OCTOBER 19, 2016
21286
19 Comments
3207
There is now more evidence that Hillary Clinton’s server was hacked.
The Washington Examiner reports that the FBI’s notes on their investigation on Clinton’s server reveal that an unidentified company found a file that is believed to be from Clinton’s emails – and partly written by Russia – on a Romanian server that had “the names of known or suspected jihadists in Libya” on it.
The file was found as result of Judicial Watch’s efforts to find evidence that Clinton’s email server was hacked.
The Examiner’s report continues:
A Romanian hacker breached [Sidney] Blumenthal’s inbox in 2013 and exposed Clinton’s private email address for the first time, forcing her to change her username. Clinton’s allies have argued that hack did not compromise any of Clinton’s files.
However, the potentially classified file “did not come from Blumenthal’s server,” the witness said. Upon discovering the list of names, the individual who had been hired to conduct the online investigation “became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project.”
Throughout the campaign, Hillary Clinton has constantly maintained that “there is no evidence my system was hacked.” But as the Daily Wire has reported, the FBI has concluded that Clinton’s server was indeed hacked and the hacker “logged into the compromised email, read messages, and browsed attachments using a service called Tor.” The information that was likely compromised included “conducting missile-armed drone strikes against terrorists.”
Based on the FBI notes, it would appear that the file with names of Islamic terrorists winding up on a Romanian server is another example of Clinton’s email server being hacked.
If Clinton were to be confronted on this, she would likely just say she can’t recall. She has a penchant for doing that.

Insiders aren’t buying Clinton’s ‘blame the Russians’ deflections on emails

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her PDA upon departure in a military C-17 plane from Malta bound for Tripoli, Libya October 18, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES) POOLThe Hillary Clinton campaign has repeatedly tried to dodge questions about the damning contents of campaign emails released by WikiLeaks earlier this year by claiming Russian operatives leaked the communications to sway the U.S. election. But former high ranking diplomats from the U.S. and U.K. say Clinton’s claims are totally false.
First, there’s former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who has for months said that Clinton would be Russian President Vladimir Putin’s first choice for president if he were in the business of rigging U.S. elections.
He believes that’s so because Clinton’s State Department record provides ample evidence that the former top diplomat is “weak and indecisive” on matters of foreign policy and would largely mirror the Obama administration in how she’d deal with Russia as president.
“If you asked the question of Vladimir Putin, ‘who would you rather see president of the United States?’ the answer would be Hillary Clinton,” Bolton said during a recent interview on Fox.
“He’s watched her for four years as secretary of state. Watched her preside over disastrous policy initiatives,” he added.
Thanks to Clinton’s foreign policy ineptitude, Bolton contends, Russia has enjoyed a vast expansion of power in the Middle East and elsewhere.
“If I were Putin, looking at that weakness, I would much rather deal with Hillary Clinton from a Russian point of view, than Donald Trump,” he concluded.
And Bolton’s position makes sense, especially if you believe Clinton’s own claims that Russia is interested in aggression above all else.
A Clinton administration, with a continued dedication to destabilization in the Middle East and working with terrorist-aligned rebels, would provide Putin continued justification to build influence in the region. By comparison, Donald Trump’s repeated assertion that working with Russia to eliminate instability in the region is a good idea suggests that Putin will have to consider a more diplomatic approach to expanding Russian influence if Clinton is defeated.
But it isn’t just Russia that lacks a clear motive in revealing the corruption and evil lurking within the Clinton campaign.
According to the U.K.’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, it’s ridiculous to suggest that WikiLeaks has any interest in working with either Trump or Russia to harm Clinton’s electoral chances.
Murray, who recently visited Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at London’s Ecuadorian embassy, says he’s prepared to say with “100 percent certainty” that Russian actors didn’t provide the Clinton emails to the transparency organization.
Based on the information WikiLeaks chose to publish, Murray says the media’s repeated retelling of the Clinton lie is evidence that American journalists are working on behalf of Democrats to avoid discussing real controversies and violations of public trust involving the Clinton camp.
After his visit with Assange, Murray wrote:

The control of the Democratic party machinery deliberately to unfairly ensure Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders is a matter of great public interest. The attempt by the establishment from Obama down to divert attention from this by a completely spurious claim against Russia, repeated without investigation by a servile media, is a disgrace.
The over-close relationship between the probable future President and Wall Street is also very important. WikiLeaks has done a great public service by making this plain.
The attempts by the mainstream media to portray WikiLeaks as supporters of Trump and Putin because they publish some of Clinton’s darker secrets is completely illogical and untrue in fact. The idea we must pretend Clinton is a saint is emetic.
But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?” The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers. They are not protecting Israel, Putin, or Trump. Nobody has given them viable material.

And that should be the main takeaway here.
Even if the Russians hacked Clinton’s emails in an effort to sway public opinion in the U.S., is that really such a bad thing for the average American?After all, all we’ve learned from the hack is that the person almost every media outlet says is the most qualified for president has succeed only because of media manipulation, selling of access and outright propaganda and psyop-level trickery.
The Clinton political machine has spent three decades building complex and entangling relationships with the people running all of America’s major media outlets to the point where Americans get nothing but “dear leader” style coverage of the Democratic presidential candidate. So Clinton is basically claiming that a totalitarian government is foiling her attempt to mimic the type of sham politics present places like… Russia?

RECENT POSTS