Wednesday, September 28, 2016



Amazon ‘Fixes’ Hillary Clinton Book Ratings After Scathing Reviews

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Online retailer Amazon has stepped in to ‘fix’ the scathing reviews given by its customers of Hillary Clinton’s campaign book, Stronger Together.

The book was originally savaged by customers, who gave the book an average rating of 1.7/5 stars after over 1,200 reviews.
However, Amazon removed many of the negative reviews. By Thursday evening the number of reviews had been cut down to just 255, with many of the most critical gone, whilst 5 star reviews remained.
However customers, clearly incensed by Amazon’s actions, have responded by continuing to rip into the book, with the number of reviews now back at 1600 and the star rating at its lowest of 1.5.
Amazon owner Jeff Bezos is a prominent supporter of the Clinton campaign, and is the owner of the Washington Post, whose reporters have been tasked with investigating every aspect of Donald Trump’s history in an attempt to reveal inflammatory information.
Although not directly linked to the Clinton campaign, this is not the first time that Clinton’s supporters have attempted to modify people’s views. The political action committee Correct the Record previously spent over $1 million to hire online trolls in order to ‘correct’ Bernie Sanders supporters on social media sites.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Twenty years later, a movement grows to build an intellectual case for tolerance and respect for pedophiles — whom B4UAct calls “Minor Attracted People”
Seducing Boys into Sodomy: It is very hard to watch something so evil, but note how NAMBLA leader Leyland Stevenson–interviewed in the 1994 film, “ChickenHawk: Men Who Love Boys”–rationalizes and explains his methods for sexually seducing boys. See video below.
This award-winning documentary “ChickenHawk: Men Who Love Boys” was produced in 1994. It was directed by Adi Sideman, who allowed NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) members (and leaders) to speak in their own words, describing their evil actions and thoughts involving boys.
Note how Leyland Stevenson,  the über-creepy former NAMBLA secretary whose interview is at the center of this film, claims that the boys are looking for sexual contact with men.  This is the central and sickening rationale of all “boy lovers.”
More than two decades ago, I met Stevenson in the course of Americans For Truth’s predecessor, Lambda Report’s, efforts to expose NAMBLA and pro-pedophile groups worldwide. AFTAH’s and LR’s investigative reporting inspired a 1994 American law barring U.S. taxpayer funding to any international organization with pedophile connections.
History note: NAMBLA was once allowed to march in homosexual “pride” parades.
One thing NAMBLA is right about: pederasty–sex between men and boys–has ancient roots and must be included in the history of (male) homosexuality.
Building sympathy
Two decades after the release of “ChickenHawk,” there is a growing effort afoot to encourage tolerance and a type of respect for pedophiles–renamed (note the softening language) “MAPs” (Minor-Attracted People”); see this website. The “MAP” advocates are using the same strategies to gain recognition and build acceptance for this perverse “identity” as homosexual and “transgender” activists used to normalize their deviant identities and behaviors.
That means, in part, portraying adults whose “orientation” includes desiring sex with children–as a kind of “victim”; see B4UAct’s commitment to “stigma reduction”for MAPs (pedophiles/pederasts). That’s a very hard sell to Americans, but we would never doubt the tenacity of sexual revolutionaries in attempting to achieve it. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
WARNING: Some offensive sexual descriptions, but film is mostly interviews and shows nothing sexual in nature


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Peter LaBarbera
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is scheduled to speak at the annual fundraising dinner for the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) this Wednesday, September 28. LCR has a long history of promoting homosexualism in the GOP and opposing most of the pro-family planks on “gay” issues that Gingrich supports.
LCR supports homosexual “marriage” and strongly opposes a federal constitutional amendment preserving marriage as between a man and a woman. On July 12, just after the GOP Platform Committee passed a conservative, pro-family platform, LCR president Gregory Angelo sent out a press release/money pitch blasting the Committee:
“There’s no way to sugar-coat this: I’m mad as hell — and I know you are, too.
“Moments ago, the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history.
“Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of “pray the gay away” — it’s all in there.”
I will translate Angelo’s “gay”-activist-speak: he’s furious that the GOP:
  1. opposes homosexuality-based “marriage”;
  2. opposes men who live as “women” using public women’s restrooms inhabited by ladies and girls (note that many cross-dressing men, like this Idaho “transgender” miscreant voyeur with a video camera, still say they are sexually attracted to females); and
  3. opposes laws banning sex-confused minors (including victims of child sexual abuse) from seeking pro-heterosexual-change therapy. (Note Angelo’s “pray away the gay” mockery of Christians who seek God’s help in overcoming the sinful pull of homosexuality; I assume here that most Republicans still support the notion that God answers prayers and helps people overcome besetting sins.)
Surely, Newt Gingrich agrees with those three GOP Platform points that made Angelo “mad as hell”–yet Gingrich is lending his conservative name to Angelo’s socially-left LGBT Republican organization that mocks Bible-believing Christians. Why?
Newt is “growing” (liberals would say)
Over the years, Gingrich has slowly moderated his position and rhetoric against homosexualism. He told the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedardregarding his Log Cabin speech, “I am going to focus on national security and issues that bring us together.” However, as described above, LCR’s rhetoric and approach to social issues is hardly unifying. (Angelo’s inflammatory “pray away the gay” smear of Christians overcoming homosexuality is identical to that used by left-wing “gay” activists like Wayne Besen.)
In a radio interview today on Texas Pastor and radio host Greg Young’s program,“Chosen Generation,” I chided Newt–whom I have long admired–for failing what I call the “Sexual Sin Substitution Test,” by helping LCR’s cause:
“By speaking for the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a homosexual activist group that happens to be Republican — their priority is homosexual activism — Newt Gingrich is giving a coup to the homosexual activist lobby…Would Newt Gingrich speak at a group [called]…Republicans For Pornography Use? Would Newt Gingrich lend his name and his credibility as a conservative to such an organization? He would not, and yet here is speaking at Log Cabin….
To hear the interview, start at 100:30 for the entire segment, and around 118:00 for the portion about Gingrich:

The Politics
In 2008, AFTAH reported that LCR boasted a membership of just 20,000, begging the question: how many millions of pro-family voters is the GOP willing to alienate to court the minuscule sliver of “gay Republicans”?

In reality, Gingrich’s gambit–like the Trump/RNC “LGBTQ For Trump” t-shirts and Trump’s choice of openly homosexual businessman Peter Thiel to speak on the biggest night of the Republican convention–is more about remaking the GOP’s image in a “gay”-saturated culture than it is about winning a few thousand homosexual voters. (Besides, homosexual voters are notoriously Democratic.)
Bottom line: savvy yet unprincipled Republicans are catering to post-Christian morality, rather than doing the tough work to actually expand the appeal of their party’s pro-family Platform.
More on the GOP, the Log Cabin Republicans, and the LGBTQ agenda in upcoming posts.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Video does not mention ‘prostitution’ even though that is a major factor in violence against “male-to-female” transsexuals

Violence and abuse are always wrong, but the DOJ transgender police video never
Simplistic Stats: Criminal violence and abuse are always wrong, but the DOJ transgender police video never mentions the major role of prostitution in violence against “male-to-female” transsexuals. Above is homosexual D.C. cop Sgt. Brett Parson, who serves as narrator for the biased video. The above graphic (7:07 in the video) alludes to “1 in 4” transgender people being victimized in “hate crimes” allegedly “because of who they are.” This is simplistic and misleading since it ignores reckless behaviors and realities within the LGBTQ subculture–especially urban “transgender” (biological) men whoprostitute themselves posing as “women.” Click to enlarge.
The Obama administration’s “transgender” obsession continues. Here we have a new training video released by the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service, an agency that most Americans probably didn’t even know exists (I didn’t). According to a DOJ press release, “CRS produced the video with the support of the National Center for Transgender EqualityPFLAG National, and the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland.”
So Obama’s DOJ worked hand-in-hand with D.C.-area “transgender” and homosexual activists–including narrator and D.C.’s top “gay” cop Sgt. Brett Parson (pardon the pun)–to produce this tendentious video with its misleading “trans” advocacy talking points. Your tax dollars at work.
Note the video’s manipulative bias and lack of context, for example: 1) the bathroom scene in which the hetero mom holding a baby is the villain (and what about localities and businesses where it is not legal or allowed for men to use the women’s restroom?); and 2) how the word “prostitute” is not mentioned even though street hustling is a major factor in violence against “male to female” transsexuals. Can you think of anything more dangerous than a biological man walking the street (or being an escort) as a prostitute pretending to be a woman–offering his services to strange men who may think they are about to commit sex acts with someone who is really a woman?!
I wonder: when will the DOJ produce a video teaching sensitivity toward people of faith and those defending biblical morals? It is a sad day when our men and women in blue become change agents for a lobby promoting disordered sex and gender rebellion. More on the Obama administration’s extreme (and unchecked) LGBTQ agenda coming. — @Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH  [A full transcript follows after the jump]:
Transcript adapted from YouTube transcription:
0:00 – [Historic photos gather to form CRS [Community Relations Service] logo]
0:07 – [Opening music plays]
0:29 – [Police siren sounds]
0:31 – [Narrator Sgt. Brett Parson–who is a homosexual activist and head of the [Washington, D.C.] Metropolitan Police Department’s Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit; see HERE and HERE] Your safety as an officer is always the first priority.
0:34 – However, in order to be safe and effective, officers must be able to distinguish between a threat and a stereotype.
0:40 – Under emergency circumstances, events always determine an officer’s response.
0:46 – This presentation deals only with non-emergency and non-crisis situations.
[Teaching scenario: cop pulls over “transgender” driver]
0:56 – Offer to person in car after being pulled over: “Driver’s license and registration please.”
0:57 – “Male-to-Female” Transgender (man in dress with long hair): “Yes, officer.”
1:02 – Officer: “Is this your most current identification?”
1:04 – Transgender person: “Yes it is. It needs to be updated.”
1:06 – Officer: “Do you prefer if I call you ma’am or sir?”
1:08 – Transgender person: “Ma’am, please.”
1:09 – “Ma’am, do you know why I stopped you here today?”
1:11 “No, officer.”
1:12 “The reason I stopped you is you have a tail light out on the right side.”
1:14 “Oh.”
1:16 “Wait right here while I verify your information.”
1:17 – “Yes, officer.”
1:20 – [Indistinct police radio chatter]
1:27 – [Police cruiser door closes]
1:31 Police officer: “All right, Ma’am. I’ll just be issuing you a warning here today. Just make sure to get that tail light fixed as soon as possible.”
1:36 – Transgender person: “Yes, sir, officer. Thank you.”
1:37 – “You’re welcome. Drive safe.”
1:44 – Narrating officer, Sgt. Brett Parsons: Hey, I don’t have to be in the room with you to know what probably just happened. Somebody just snickered, laughed or made a joke. Trust me, I know. I’m a cop, too. As police officers we use humor to deal with things that make us uncomfortable or afraid. We’re human, and we know we mean no harm. It’s our way of coping. But we have to admit it. To outsiders, its perceived as unprofessional and disrespectful.Remember, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. If someone feels disrespected, they’re less likely to trust us or cooperate…
2:16 – “Now, the previous scenario demonstrated a common way that many police officers come into contact with members of the transgender community.That officer handled it perfectly by asking clarifying questions that were relevant to his contact, respectful, and professional. The driver felt respected and cooperated, leading to an effective and safe encounter.
2:35 – Let’s start with some basics. Terminology. We need to take a closer look at three basic terms and the distinct differences between how we define them.
2:45 – They are [shown on slide]: Assigned Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity.
2:50 – “Assigned Sex” is also known as birth sex. It refers to the biological or physiological designation as male or female at birth, usually based on anatomy.
3:00 – Transgender individuals are people whose internal feelings of being male or female are not consistent with their assigned sex.
3:09 – Now, it’s estimated that about 700,000 transgender individuals live in the United States. They can be found in every walk of life, including law enforcement.
3:18 – “Sexual Orientation” refers to a person’s physical and/or emotional attraction to people of a specific gender. It refers to who someone loves, feels attracted to, or with whom they desire to have an intimate relationship.
3:31 – Heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian are all types of sexual orientations.
3:38 – Every person has an internal, psychological Gender Identity, a sense of who they feel they are in terms of gender, even if it’s not consistent with their assigned sex.
3:48 – Gender Identity is best viewed as a broad spectrum with stereotypical masculine male being at one end and stereotypical feminine female being at the other end.
3:58 – Some people identify at many points along that spectrum. Not just at the extreme ends.
4:06 – Just a few more tips to help you. You may hear the term “transgender male” or “transgender female.”
4:12 – Now, simply put, these terms refer to transgender individuals and describe the gender they are presenting and/or transitioning to.
4:20 – You may also see or hear the terms “male to female,” or “M to F,” or “female to male,” “F to M.” They mean exactly what they say. It identifies a transgender individual by stating to which gender they are presenting and/or transitioning.
4:36 – Lastly, the term “trans” is often used by some as shorthand to refer to transgender individuals or, by and large, the transgender community. While it may be acceptable to some, the safest term to use is the entire word, “transgender.”
4:51 – When in doubt, it’s always best to ask an individual what their preference is. Just simply ask, “How would you like to be addressed?”
4:59 – Using the correct, or preferred pronouns demonstrates respect and lets the individual know that you’re knowledgeable about their community, which is both reassuring and shows you are a true professional.
5:09 – If you remember to keep your questions relevant to the investigation or contact, respectful, and professional you should be fine, and experience a safer, cooperative encounter.
5:20 – [Cpl Evan Baxter, Prince George’s County, Maryland Police Department]:“When someone’s name or gender on a license is different from what you expect, how do you react? Is this person committing identity theft, are they a fugitive? Possibly they’re just transgender.
5:30 – “Officer safety always comes first, but as long as I can tell it’s the same person on a photo ID, I don’t get distracted. I just focus on the task in front of me, and on courtesy, and respect, and if you’re not certain what the proper way to address someone is, just ask.”
[Teaching scenario: police respond to “transgender” victim]
5:46 – [Knock on door] Prince George’s detectives.
5:48 – [Male in dress holding ice pack to the back of his head (after apparent hateful violent attack against him) comes to door] Yes, come in, please.
5:49 – Hi. I’m Corporal Burks. This is Officer Salvestrini.
5:52 – Hi sir. Hi Ma’am.
5:53 – What can we help you with today?
5:55 – Well, I was walking down the block and I noticed a man not too far behind me. After a few blocks I noticed he was following me. He started yelling things. Just words that I really don’t want to repeat. It’s- I really don’t feel safe walking in my neighborhood.
6:09 – [Cpl. Burks] OK, have you had anybody take a look at the injury on your neck?
6:12 – “Not yet. I did call my doctor, but I’m not going to be seeing him til tomorrow.
6:17 – [Cpl. Burks] OK, good. I’m going to have Officer Salvestrini take the report.
6:20 – [Cpl. Salvestrini] Do you have an ID or drivers license? It just makes it a little easier.
6:23 – I do, I do. There you are.
6:30 – [Cpl. Salvestrini has look of contempt on his face as he asks the victim] Sir, what were you doing?
6:33 – [Cpl. Burks interrupts] Can you excuse us for a moment? [Says to Cpl. Salvestrini] Just step over here for a minute.
6:39 – [Cpl. Burks] Sal, what are you doing? Don’t let the fact that she’s transgender throw you off, OK? Show her the respect that she deserves.
6:46 – [A chastened Cpl. Salvestrini] You’re right. I’m sorry.
6:47 – [Cpl. Burks] OK, so let’s show her that we’re a professional agency and we’ll go back out there and we can start from the beginning.
6:52 – [Cpl. Salvestrini] OK.
6:52 – [Cpl. Burks] All right, come on.
6:56 – [Cpl. Salvestrini speaking to victim] I want to apologize about before. How would you like me to address you, Sir or Ma’am?
7:00 – [“Transgender” victim] Oh, thank you for asking, and Ma’am will be fine.
7:03 – [Cpl. Salvestrini] Ma’am, great. Thanks. Could you tell me a little bit more about this person?
7:07 – [Narrator Sgt. Brett Parson] One in four transgender individuals reports that they have been the victim of an assault, a hate crime, because of who they are. There’s a perception among many transgender people that the police won’t take a crime against them seriously. That they’ll actually blame the victim for looking or dressing or being the way they are. And in recent surveys, some transgender people have reported that they have been assaulted by police officers.
7:30 – [Sgt. Parson, continues] Many transgender women, if they’re on the street at night, actually fear getting stopped for something we call “Walking While Trans.” The assumption by officers is that they’re soliciting, but they might just be hanging out or waiting for a ride. Just being transgender isn’t a reason to suspect a crime. So, as you can see, there’s an enormous need to repair this trust.
7:51 – [Sgt. Parson, continues] As officers, it’s our responsibility to show courtesy and respect and approach each new situation on the basis of doing our jobs and not making assumptions until we have the information we need to make the right call.
8:04 – [Debbie McMillan, “Male to Female” transgender activist, The Women’s Collective, Washington, DC] You know, so many women and people in the transgender community just see law enforcement as a non-ally. Things like “transgender while walking,” you know. Just because I’m a transgender, you see me as a criminal, or a commercial sex worker [prostitute].There’s just not trust in law enforcement, and that’s due to past treatments of us as a community.
8:34 – [McMillan continues] Well, I think the police need to have an understanding of what it means to be transgender. Have an understanding that I am not just a man with a wig on. We’re human. We’re just like everybody else. I think if police could understand that, that we’re no different, a wall would be removed. A barrier would be removed towards better communication and better relationships.
[Teaching scenario: Male-to-Female “transgender” uses women’s restroom at a restaurant; customer complains]
9:01 – [Two people talking: Female-to-male “transgender” (who is actually Maryland transgender activist Keith Thirion)] It’s 9AM, got slammed with a pop quiz, but, I feel like I actually did it really well.
9:05 – Oh [Other person at table, a man in a dress] Cool. All right, well, I have to use the restroom, OK?
9:07 – OK.
9:08 – I’ll be right back.
9:13 – Yes, hi.
9:14 – Um, I’d like to make a report of what I think was a man in the ladies’ bathroom.
9:21 – OK.
9:27 I’m back.
9:28 – Sorry, just finishing up an outline for a paper.
9:30 – That’s OK. What time is your next class?
9:32 – I have until 3:30.
9:33 – Oh, cool.
9:36 – [Officer arrives at restaurant, says to woman holding baby] Morning. Did you call the police?
9:39 – [Woman with baby] I did. I think I saw a man walk in to the ladies’ bathroom, and I don’t know what he’s doing there.
9:43 – [Officer] Other than being in the restroom, did the individual do anything to raise your concerns?
9:47 – [Woman] No, I just don’t think he belongs there, and he’s making me nervous.
9:50 – [Officer] Can you tell me what the individual looked like?
9:52.- [Back to table, where the two “transgender” people are talking–Female-to-male person talking] .. I’m majoring in business administration.
9:54 – [Other person at table–the man dressed as a woman] Oh, wow.
9:55 – How about you?
9:55 – Political Science.
9:56 – Cool. Is it hard?
9:58 – It’s– Some classes are really hard
10:00 – [Officer to Male-to-Female “transgender”] Excuse me. Do you have a minute?
10:02 – Yes, I do.
10:03 – Hi, I’m Corporal Dadzie with the Prince Georges County Police Department, and the reason I’m here is because we got a complaint in regards to a gentleman using the wrong restroom. Were you in the restroom?
10:13 -Yes, officer, but I’m a woman, I was just in there using the restroom.
10:16 – Was there anyone else in the restroom with you?
10:19 – No, I was in there alone.
10:20 – [Other “transgender” at the table] Officer, we’re just having lunch.
10:23 – Again, I’m sorry for the inconvenience. I apologize. Probably a misunderstanding. You both have a great day.
10:29 – T hank you.
10:31 – [Narrator Sgt. Brett Parson] As you probably already know, the key to any interaction is to be respectful, relevant and professional. If officers understand who transgender people are as a part of their community, interactions can go a whole lot better. Starting a dialogue and engaging proactively with transgender community members and community groups will be extremely helpful to your department now and in the future.
10:53 – [Sgt. Parson continues] Now, your state or department may have specific laws or policies on interacting with transgender individuals. They may specify, for example, that if a search is required officers should ask the person if they would prefer a 5 male or a female officer to conduct that search. If your department does not have a policy on issues like communicating with or searching transgender individuals, you may want to consider developing one with the help of community organizations. For policies on transgender people in custody, agencies can consult resources from the National Institute of Corrections and the Prison Rape Elimination Act resource center.
11:28 – [Sgt. Parson continues] Transgender people are just trying to be their true selves, and live their lives as members of our communities, just like anyone else. As law enforcement officers we must make every effort to collaborate and learn from the transgender community so we can better serve others today and in the future.
11:45 – [Sgt. Parson continues] Now these scenarios only cover some of the common interactions between police officers and transgender people. So, take a look at your department and your policies. Decide what can be done on your side to protect everyone. We know with this knowledge, you will be able to approach any situation with the professionalism, relevance and respect all people in this great country deserve. Thank you and be safe.
12:15 – [Closing music plays with credits]
Published by DOJ Community Relations Service on Aug 24, 2016; CRS description:
This roll call training video, narrated by Brett Parson, features scenarios of three of the most common ways police officers encounter members of the transgender community and provides information, tools, and techniques to help ensure your interactions with them are mutually respectful and professional.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

“[David Hall] is absolutely correct: LGBT ‘diversity’ sessions and films are NOT truly ‘diverse’ because they disrespect or ignore faith-based and moral opposition to homosexualism and transsexualism.”–Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
Folks, we can’t expect even a tiny minority of Christians to stand so resolutely for God’s Truth that they are even willing to lose their job over it. So when a man like Illinois government worker David Hall refuses to bow down to the modern idol of pro-perversion “diversity,” he deserves to be called the hero that he is. Pray for David and share this story far and wide! –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @Peter LaBarbera 
[under the WCIA video is a terrific LifeSiteNews article in which I am quoted]

The following is a report by the stellar pro-family news site, LifeSiteNews. Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera is quoted in the article (see bolded portion); to donate to LifeSite, go here. The video above is a newscast by WCIA-TV in Springfield, Illinois:

Christian Could Be Fired for Refusing to Watch LGBT ‘Inclusivity’ Video

By Fr. Mark Hodges
CHAMPAIGN, Illinois, September 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A Christian’s 14-year career is being threatened because he refused to watch a training video on lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and queer “diversity and inclusivity.”
In April, the Social Security Administration announced all employees must be trained in LGBTQ “diversity and inclusivity.” Longtime information technology employee David Hall, whose Christian convictions do not consider sodomy healthy or normal or good for people, believed that the “training” was against his sincerely held beliefs.
Specifically, Hall, 42, was told by his superiors to view a 17-minute video that includes “tips for increasing cultural awareness in a diverse and inclusive environment.”
Hall refused, explaining that the training endorses sinful behavior. “I’m not going to certify sin,” he explained to WCIA-TV.
Because he refused to participate in the LGBTQ agenda training, Hall was officially reprimanded and then suspended without pay.
Hall explained that he thought the training was basically homosexual propaganda and said the First Amendment free exercise of religion gave him the constitutional right to not participate in “abomination” training.
He shared that he has gay and lesbian friends, he holds no animosity against anyone, and he does not discriminate against anyone, but diversity “training” in sexual deviance went against his religious beliefs.
Hall realizes that he might lose his job, but he believes Christians should take a loving stand against the gay agenda sweeping the nation.
“This is something I want to fight and expose, to give other Christians the courage of their convictions,” he said, adding that several employees feel the same way but are “scared.”
“David Hall is a hero,” Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews. “He is absolutely correct: LGBT ‘diversity’ sessions and films are NOT truly ‘diverse’ because they disrespect or ignore faith-based and moral opposition to homosexualism and transsexualism.”
“Hall is also correct that this is pure propaganda, designed to legitimize a sin movement,” LaBarbera added. “Ironically, people are getting fired and disciplined simply for refusing to bend their faith to appease an Orwellian ideology that purports to be about — get this — ‘non-discrimination!’”
“By calling out this forced group think, David Hall is helping to educate others — and ultimately standing up for our First Amendment freedoms,” LaBarbera concluded.  “People like him willing to suffer for liberty’s sake keep us all free.”


Hillary champions LGBTQ “Equality Act,” is friends with HRC president Chad Griffin
Folks, homosexualism has not been a major issue in this presidential campaign–due mainly to the media’s suffocating political correctness and unprofessional pro-LGBTQ bias–and partly due to political cowardice. Nevertheless, the issue is extremely important to many millions of Americans. So it is stunning that the YouTube video below of Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at the Human Rights Campaign(HRC) on October 3, 2015 had only received 10,759 views as of the morning of September 23, 2016.
AFTAH is covering all major presidential candidates’ positions on homosexualism and transsexualism for this election–including when Republicans embrace or ignore the “gay” or “trans” agenda. (Some GOP political types hate us for that.) [See Hillary’s campaign partner Tim Kaine’s HRC speech HERE and Donald Trump’s past support of homosexualism HERE.] We are cleaning up the YouTube transcript of this speech and will provide that ASAP. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera


BY Marco Cáceres
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on Aug. 15, 2016,  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to dramatically expand the power of the U.S. government over the lives of the American people. This may be the clearest example to date of an agency gone amok.
In a recent commentary on the NPRM, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), observed:
Today, the American people are challenged, as they have never been before, to confront the expansion of government authority over our bodies and the bodies of our children, specifically the exercise of police power to take us into custody and isolate us without our consent whenever public health officials believe we are sick or could become sick.
The CDC, with its NPRM, is seeking to “restrict the freedom of a person entering the U.S. or traveling between states if they believe the person is infected or could become infected with certain kinds of communicable diseases.”
Would this new authority open the way for the U.S. government health officials to eventually restrict travel via automobile, bus and train from state to state? Could state public health authorities eventually prevent me from walking across the street or riding my bicycle from one town to the next if I were found to have a cold or the flu? Where exactly would this new authority to control communicable diseases stop?
The NPRM calls for airline and cruise ship personnel to increase surveillance of travelers into the U.S. and those traveling between states, but states have the greatest authority under the Constitution to use police powers to control infectious diseases within state borders.  The CDC also provides substantial funding to states to maintain high uptake of all federally recommended vaccines.  So, as Fisher points out, the NPRM indicates the CDC plans to enlist the “participation of federally funded state health departments”2 —which means that state policing authorities could eventually be doing a lot more detaining, isolating and quarantining of people in the U.S., who appear “unwell” but are otherwise simply going about minding their own business.
So, how would all of this work in real life in the event I had a rash or coughing fit while running into a federal or state public health official in the supermarket or at the gym? Were the NPRM to be implemented, it is certainly possible that we could, indeed, be “vulnerable to detention and quarantine if health officials decide you are, or could become, a transmitter of measles or other infections.”
Just how would public health officials make such a determination? Well, since our medical records are part of big electronic medical records and vaccine tracking systems accessible by government officials, they could simply take a peek at our electronic medical records and see if we have gotten every single dose of every single vaccine recommended by the CDC.
And what specifically is meant by “other infections“? How open-ended is this term?
Is the CDC trying to expand its authority to detain and quarantine people without their consent? Yes, says Fisher.
In a nutshell, the federal government is consolidating and strengthening power that was originally used to prevent persons with yellow fever and cholera from disembarking from ships entering U.S. ports in the 19th century and causing epidemics on land. For most of our country’s history, the list of contagious diseases that allowed government health officials to detain and quarantine people without their informed consent was appropriately very short, confined to a few very serious contagious diseases, including yellow fever, smallpox, cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, and the plague.
So, now what are we talking about? Anything that has the potential to infect others? As Fisher points out, there are “many viral and bacterial infections that occur quite often in our country, like bronchitis and the stomach flu.” And nearly every infection has the potential to spread and cause harm or even death to some people. But that does not mean that health officials should be empowered to “take you into custody and isolate you if you look sick or have been around someone who is sick.”
Some symptoms that “could get you detained” under the CDC’s NPRM include vomiting, diarrhea, and a fever of more than 100 degrees—symptoms that can be caused by everything from “allergic reactions, inflammatory bowel disease, salmonella and norovirus infections to hangovers and the common cold.”
It is not difficult to imagine all kinds of people who are simply not feeling well being rounded up by public health authorities under the assumption that they might have a “communicable disease” and thus pose a danger to society.
So, what would happen were you to be taken into government custody? The NPRM language suggests that you could be held for up to 72 hours without the right to contact a lawyer to appeal your detention. You would be asked to sign a contract with the CDC agreeing to submit yourself or your minor children to such “public health measures” as “quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”
And what if I don’t want to sign a contract with the CDC? Then what? According to Fisher:
[E]ven if you don’t voluntarily agree to sign that contract, public health officials can still do whatever they want to do to you because ‘the individual’s consent shall not be considered a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority’ by the CDC. And if government officials do release you from detention, you can be electronically tracked and monitored, including by electronic tracking devices you have to wear or by email, cell phone texts, video conferencing and voicemail.
Does any of this remotely sound like the United States of America? No. The NPRM is a blatant power grab by an agency that has seemingly lost its way, and it represents a serious threat to the American way of life as we know it.



1st Debate: Clinton-Holt Tag Team vs. Trump

Photo of Lester Holt, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump at the first debate: AP Images

1st Debate: Clinton-Holt Tag Team vs. Trump

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The “Debate of the Century,” the first face-to-face match up between presidential contenders Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, quickly turned into a three-way affair, with NBC “moderator” Lester Holt (shown at left) repeatedly taking sides with Clinton and badgering Trump. The hour-and-a-half debate, broadcast live Monday night on all the major networks from the Hofstra University campus in Hempstead, New York, was expected to attract 100 million viewers, a new record for a political event, and second only to the Super Bowl. From tabulations now available, it appears the final viewer count may come close to those predicted numbers. Another even more important prediction also proved to be accurate: that debate moderator Lester Holt would follow the familiar path of liberal media moderators in previous debates and throw support to the liberal-left Democrat.
At the start of the event, Holt announced that the planned six 15-minute segments would be directed at exploring three topic areas: "Achieving Prosperity," "America's Direction" and "Securing America." The debate, he explained, was being sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission had drafted the debate's format, and the rules had been agreed to by the campaigns.
“The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns,” Holt said. “The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying.”
Going into the debate there was ample cause for questioning the NBC anchor’s ability to be genuinely impartial. Like virtually all of his colleagues in the establishment media,
Lester Holt tilts to the Left. Holt took over as anchor of NBC Nightly News last year, after Brian Williams was fired for misrepresenting his Iraq War reporting experiences. Following the September 2 announcement that Holt had been selected as the first debate moderator, the Media Research Center compiled an archive of video segments showing his bias regarding Clinton and Trump, as well as statements showing his bias on issues ranging from Obama Care to Syrian refugees to “Climate refugees” to illegal alien amnesty, etc.
The question in the minds of many critics was whether Holt’s partiality would result in a reprise of the infamous episode of the 2012 presidential debate cycle, in which CNN’s Candy Crowley stepped out of her official moderator role to help President Obama against his debate opponent, Governor Mitt Romney, on the issue of Benghazi and terrorism.
Lester Holt comes across as a much cooler, calmer, less jarringly partisan moderator than Candy Crowley, which lends an air of legitimacy to claims that he is objective and fair. However, after viewing the debate and reviewing the transcript, it is clear that Holt favored Clinton and leaned on Trump. He stepped over the line into the Clinton camp to challenge Trump on releasing his income taxes, on the issue of stop-and-frisk policing, on race relations, on his opposition to the Iraq War, and on Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
He did not show any similar interest in asking Hillary Clinton about any of the many issues that are important to millions of American voters: her colossal Benghazi failure and cover up; the millions of dollars, scandalous deals, and conflicts of interest involved with the Clinton Foundation; the national security perils from her “lost” e-mails; her bailouts and sellout to Wall Street; her role (with husband Bill) in selling off America’s uranium to Russia; the cover-up of her medical problems; and much more. Holt’s adversarial probing of Trump would have been legitimate if he had shown a balanced inclination to do the same with Clinton. As it was, his one-sided hammering seemed to throw Trump off balance and help Hillary keep him on the defensive.
Many commentators and even many Trump supporters who were interviewed expressed the perception that Trump “failed to control the fight” and was always responding with counter punches to a more aggressive, in-control Clinton.
Clinton undoubtedly surprised a great many viewers (including this one) by not only lasting the full 90 minutes, but doing so without any major faux pas or meltdown. For weeks her health had become a major issue — and it still is. But, barring another collapsing/fainting, major-coughing attack, or neurological head bobbing incident,  her performance on the stage last night will probably help to take the edge off that concern to some degree.
Who Won?
CNBC online poll of nearly one million respondents (960,300) found 67 percent saying Trump won vs. 33 percent for Clinton. A TIME Internet poll with 1.6 million respondents came out at 55 percent for Trump, 45 percent for Clinton. In fact, except for CNN — which is often called the Clinton News Network, due to obvious bias — most snap polls taken after the debate came out with Trump handily on top. The CNN poll, a survey of 521 registered voters — which CNN admits was top-heavy with Democrats — came out with Clinton winning the debate 62 percent to 27 percent.
The next debate, to be held at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri on October 9, will be co-hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper and ABC's Martha Raddatz, both of whom are at least as liberal-left and pro-Clinton as Lester Holt. Judging from the just-concluded debate, as well as the history of recent political debates, we can expect that the next match up will be a three-against-one tag team affair.
Related articles:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Kelleigh Nelson
September 28, 2016
The debate was structurally biased and Holt biased it. He repeatedly argued with Trump about the facts. Despite the ban on fact-checking, Holt attempted to debate Trump on the Iraq War and on the birth certificate. It was a disgraceful and a biased performance. It is a reminder that the structure of the debates must be changed to prevent mainstream media from dominating it. Every question was shaped to frame a left-wing agenda. Holt hurled numerous attacks at Trump. He only passingly offered Hillary a chance to address her emails when Trump had already brought it up. —Daniel Greenfield
The Biased Debate
I don’t like to watch debates, I never have, and having watched Hillary debate in high school and use tactics that were less than honorable, watching her lie through her teeth during this first debate, was enough to make me wretch. The above quote from Daniel Greenfield is so absolutely true. Lester Holt wanted to debate Trump himself! His bias was obvious as were his softball questions to Hillary. I thought as I watched it, that every time Hillary can’t really answer a question in one sentence or two, she rambles on, and you can tell she’s lying, she’s lying, she’s lying. Fifteen personal questions to Trump and only two to Hillary.
Democratic Socialist Moderators
I’ve mentioned in several articles that I’ve wondered why we cannot have someone like Lou Dobbs, Steve Malzberg, Laura Ingraham, Neil Cavuto or Sean Hannity as moderators instead of these Democratic socialists all the time. Unfortunately, Roger Stone told me that once a candidate signs on with the Debate Commission, they have no say as to moderators. We need to get this changed…it’s time our side actually gave some zingers to the candidates from Marxist hell. Sure wish Mr. Trump had been able to use “The Art of the Deal,” to get this changed prior to the debates.
Hillary Promotes Her Socialist Beliefs
Hillary did remain standing, and she didn’t cough or lose concentration. However, if you listened carefully, you heard her strong socialist beliefs come through. She wants to grab the guns, federalize law enforcement, steal from the "rich," with higher taxes, (sending them and their companies and monies to other nations), play nice with illegals and Muslim refugees, and give away a lot of free stuff with our tax dollars. Anything ring a bell with the audience? Probably not, because the goals of Marxism are no longer taught in American/government schools.
Obvious Lester Holt Bias
Clinton came across as smug, pompous, robotic and rehearsed to the point of memorization. Did anyone besides Devvy Kidd and me notice her drugged out look? The MSM of course saw Hillary as winning the debate, but she is losing ground with voters in swing states according to the Charlotte Observer.
Lester Holt shilled for Hillary Clinton. Obviously, he didn’t want the backlash he saw Matt Lauer receive when he moderated the Commander-in-Chief forum and actually allowed questions from the audience which put Hillary in a very uncomfortable state.
Rudy Giuliani asserted that Holt was “extremely unfair” and that his “fact checking” every time Hillary said the word “fact,” or the one time she mentioned, “fact check,” showed Holt’s obvious bias, especially over the “stop and frisk” issue which was completely inaccurate. Rudy should know, as he was the Mayor of New York when it was used.
The Daily Caller analysis said that Mr. Trump was interrupted 41 times by Lester Holt whereas he only interrupted Hillary seven times.
Holt really wanted to debate Trump, and challenged him six times on his answers, but Hillary was asked no follow up questions throughout the entire debate.
The Washington Times, agreed with me that Trump was forced to debate Lester Holt as well as Hillary.
The bottom line is that Holt was much harsher on Trump than Hillary, and anyone who watched could see the obvious bias. Holt only mentioned Hillary’s email scandal when he asked Hillary to respond to Trump rather than crafting a tough question himself.
The Donald needed to bring up Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and the entire Hillary email debacle, but wasn’t really given an opportunity.
Neil Cavuto exposed the bias of Lester Holt in this video where he shows that Donald Trump never supported the war in Iraq, an issue Trump had to defend against Holt.
Hillary Lies
Hillary Clinton’s litany of lies throughout the first presidential debate had me screaming at the television. Another reason my husband refuses to even watch them, they’re so scripted! Let’s just look at a few.
The TPP Trade Deal - When confronted by Trump about her former strong support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Clinton claimed that she “hoped it would be good deal.” The truth of course is that she called it the “gold standard” of trade deals, just as Trump stated. As Secretary of State, Hillary championed  TPP 24 times.
Hillary Clinton defended NAFTA, which her husband signed into law, and the accompanying unemployment as a good trade deal, in the face of attacks by Donald Trump. He said, “NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere but certainly ever signed in this country, and now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Trump also cited the 30-50 percent reduction in manufacturing in key states as being more than just an opinion.
Equal Pay for Women - In her opening statement, Hillary asserted that the nation needs to “finally guarantee equal pay for equal work” for women. The notion that women on average do not receive the same pay as men — the 77 cents to a dollar myth — has been proven false repeatedly. Women seldom work as long as men, and the statistic is a false one since it is already illegal to pay women less than men for the same position.
Tax the Wealthy – Really interesting Hillary, especially since while Secretary of State, you have colluded with foreign dignitaries to help them out if they make large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary advocates raising taxes on the wealthy because she doesn’t believe they pay enough. “I think it’s time to suggest that the wealthy pay their fair share,” she said.
The truth is that America has the most progressive tax system in the world — the top 10 percent contribute over half of all income tax revenue…and the top 10% are the ones who use their money to create businesses and jobs, but jobs aren’t really important to Hillary.
Slashing Taxes – Hillary Clinton claimed that "slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked." Her comment implied that slashing taxes on the wealthy is why the economy is in such poor shape currently. What a strange statement considering Obama has been in office for the better part of eight years and has increased taxes, and never thought of slashing them.
Anyone remember what Democrat President John F. Kennedy said about lowering taxes?
Kennedy proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65% He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Those figures for the early 60s are astronomical. Economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable. Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes. He was right.
Lowering Corporate Tax Rates - Hillary said: "We've looked at your tax proposals. I don't see changes in the corporate tax rates … you're referring to that would cause the repatriation." Well, Hill, you didn’t look closely enough now did you… Trump's plan to lower corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 is written quite clearly on the economic plan posted on his website.
The Rotten Iran Deal – Ms. Hillary also claimed that in being party to the Iran deal she helped "put the lid on Iran's nuclear program." But sources claim the deal guarantees no such thing. Indeed, it rests entirely on Iran's acting in good faith and upholding their end of the bargain. Are the American people ready to trust the Iranian Ayatollah who has stated time and again, “Death to America?” I’m certainly not, and giving away billions of dollars to this country who funds terrorist Islamic regimes, is beyond insane. Read General Michael Flynn’s book, The First in Fight.
Hillary’s Emails – Hillary said, “I made a mistake using a private email.” But she didn’t use a private email, she used multiple private email servers. She implied that she didn’t know she’d done anything wrong, but she was trained for two hours by the FBI before taking over the job of Secretary of State!
The word “mistake” implies Clinton didn't know she was doing anything wrong, a claim belied entirely by the fact that so many of her aides and associates pleaded the Fifth or were granted immunity by the FBI — not to mention the fact that many of them engaged in the destruction of evidence and that she herself made false exculpatory statements. (Remember the 13 cell phones and five IPADS destroyed by hammers).
Vladimir Putin
Clinton also claimed that "Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into  Americans." The truth, as is obvious from the context of his words, is that Trump was calling on the Russians to release Clinton's missing emails in the event that they already had them. He has never said he personally likes Putin, a lie put out by the MSM and Hillary. He has said that he believes he could work with Putin, and that there would be mutual respect because they are both strong leaders with spines of steel, unlike what we have in our White House now. Trump strongly believes that the two of them could have mutual respect, but that’s a lot different than honoring the former KGB man as Hillary insinuates.
Trump covered all the important messages asked in the debate, and he should have brushed aside the nitpicking and ignored it because the entire hour was spent attacking Trump.
Hillary may have looked as though she held her own against Donald J. Trump, but the reality of this debate is that she proved her complete disregard for truth and she lied through her teeth to the American people. Did she have the questions in advance? Who knows…a few websites believe she did.
Look people, the day of the first debate, the powers that be shut down Michael Savage’s affiliates when he started to speak about Hillary’s illnesses. We are living in a censoring tyrannical government like that of Communist Mikhail Gorbachev, the Baathist Saddam Hussein government, Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania, or the Peoples’ Republic of China. We should be shouting at the top of our lungs…The First Amendment of the Constitution is a God given unalienable right…the right to speak the truth as you see it.
CNN, (Clinton News Network) said that Hillary won the debate, but bottom line, all the polls say Trump won, (see today's JB William's article for all the Poll Results) despite the purposeful setup for destruction by the socialists in cahoots with Hillary. Trump has actually gained votes in the swing states.
[P.S. In order to wake up the population, we need to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh etc.) and mention on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Chip McLean
September 28, 2016
“Why aren’t I up 50 points,” exclaimed an angry Hillary Clinton. The bizarre outburst came this week after nearly all polls showed the race to be basically even, with some swinging slightly in favor of Donald Trump.
The Hildebeast has reverted to total shrill mode – a shrewish side of her that former Clinton staffers have alluded to on numerous occasions but is almost universally ignored by the sycophantic MSM.
Hillary is angry because she believes it’s “her turn” to be president but Donald Trump and his supporters keep getting in her way. Of course, she also believed that it was “her turn” in 2008, when (in her view), she was robbed after Democrats decided that the “black card” – pardon the expression – “trumped” the “woman card”.
So Hillary instead became the most horrific Secretary of State in the nation’s history…
During her tenure, she compromised our national security with her illegal private email server. That would of course be the same server on which the emails were subsequently deleted with BleachBit - right after those emails were subpoenaed. FBI Director James Comey, in choosing not to charge her with a crime, was nonetheless forced to admit that almost anyone else would have been prosecuted for the sort of gross mishandling of classified material that occurred under Hillary Clinton.
Below is a great video that demonstrates the vast difference between what Hillary Clinton claimed, and what the FBI investigation actually found.
But as we all know, the Clintons have always viewed rules as being for “other people”.
Then of course there is the Benghazi scandal itself. Hillary’s meddling in Libya not only left diplomat Chris Stevens and three others dead, but it also paved the way for radical Islamists (a term she steadfastly – like Obama – refuses to use) to take over the region.
As Yogi Berra would have said, “it’s déjà vu all over again.” Didn’t we learn from our experience in Iraq that taking out dictators always leaves a vacuum – something that nature abhors? In the Middle East, that vacuum always seems to be filled by charming, peaceful, humanitarian organizations such as ISIS.
Hillary also favors open borders along with a 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of what Obama has already imported into our country. Everyone knows that these “refugees” are virtually impossible to vet. In fact State Department spokesman John Kirby admitted just this week that Islamic State terrorists are trying to mingle with refugee populations overseas in the hopes of making it to the U.S. posing as refugees. Hillary and Obama’s policies have made the entire world – including America – far less safe from terrorism.
We also know that Hillary used her office as a conduit for the money laundering, supposedly “charitable” Clinton Foundation to enrich Bill, Chelsea and herself. Perhaps Bill Clinton would try to parse the definition of “charity”, but what sort of “charity” only sees 6% of the contributions going to bona-fide recipients? Even notoriously inefficient government agencies have a far better track record of benefiting those in need.
Of course, I suppose rich foreign interests have “needs” as well – important things like obtaining the rights to nearly a quarter of our uranium is certainly a great Russian “need”. The Clinton Foundation has certainly assisted many such “donors” in “need”, thanks to much help from Hillary gal pal Huma Abedin. Huma’s “job” evidently consisted of arranging meetings between said “donors” and the then Secretary of State.
In fact, over half of Mrs. Clinton’s “meetings” with non-government personnel were with Clinton Family donors. Perhaps she was discussing renting out the Lincoln Bedroom if she’s elected, just like in the good ‘ol days when hubby Slick Willie was in charge of the White House.
Hillary’s obvious health issues represent just the latest in a forty year series of lies and cover-ups on the part of the Clintons. The Hillary campaign has been less than forthcoming on this, despite the fact that a number of respected medical practitioners have raised concerns. Hillary has tried to simply make this go away by snidely dismissing all questions about her health. But then, obfuscation has always been a part of the Clinton modus operandi, whether it’s about Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate, cattle futures, Vince Foster, missing Rose Law Firm records, not to mention what the meaning of “is”, is.
In addition, there’s the “war on women” where Hillary sends out the attack dogs to besmirch and threaten all of the women that Bill has harassed (or worse). This fine, family tradition has carried straight on through the twenty first century.
It’s a Clinton thing, lying. The Clintons would rather tell a lie than the truth even if the truth would benefit them. They just can’t seem to help it – it’s pathological. The Clintons have spent many years perfecting the art of lying. The problem for Hillary is that although she lies just as much as Bill, she is nowhere near as convincing. The chief reason is that she possesses all the charisma of a rotted tree stump.
And therein lays her problem - Hillary Rodham Clinton is not only one of the most corrupt politicians in American history, she is perhaps also the most singularly unlikable one as well. When she’s not busy referring to half the country as being a “basket of deplorables”, she’s using terrorism to once again push for more gun control. Disarming law-abiding American citizens in the face of the increased danger from Islamic terrorists is not only antithetical to the second amendment, it also flies in the face of logic. The fact is she seems to go out of her way to insult the intelligence of everyday, working Americans. She seems to have a special antipathy for coal miners.
So Hillary, believing once again that it is “her turn”, indignantly poses the question, “Why aren’t I up 50 points?”. What is sad that she actually believes she is entitled to a 50 point lead in the polls – that somehow the voters owe her. What she is truly owed is a 50 year stretch in prison.
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Roger Stone
September 27, 2016
Prior to the financial crisis, banks were not a subject of political or public ire or focus. They were just companies. The biggest banks were east-coast and west-coast behemoths. When they lobbied, it was largely in coordination with thenation’s smaller community banks. While the smaller community banks have historically represented the political spectrum of the communities they serve, the Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) banks were aligned with Democrats, being headquartered in the “bluer” states of New York and California. As a result, the Democrats, and especially the Clintons, have always relied on the big banks to support their agenda, and in turn, they have enthusiastically supported the big bank’s agenda.
Unlike community banks, which serve local communities, know their economies and are committed to their neighbors, TBTF big banks don’t know their customers, serve themselves and could care less about their neighbors.
When the great financial crisis came, TBTF banks were largely responsible. The nation wanted justice. But it was time for payback, and the TBTF banks used their capture of the Democrats to extort protection.
Since the crisis, Hillary and her pals have helped to make sure that no real harm comes the TBTF banks. In fact, since the crisis – TBTF banks banks have dramatically increased in size, stifling the ability of smaller banks to compete.
(NOTE: The banks deemed too big by the Obama Administration when it pushed for enactment of Dodd Frank are more than 30% bigger than before the Act was passed in 2010, and 80% bigger than before the banking crisis of 2008. The six largest US financial institutions now have assets of some $10 trillion, amounting to almost 60% of GDP; and they control nearly 50% of all bank deposits. Even some well-heeled clients are being rejected. In an October 19, 2015 article titled “Big Banks to America’s Firms: We Don’t Want Your Cash,” the Wall Street Journal reported that some Wall Street banks are now telling big depositors to take their money elsewhere or be charged a deposit fee.
Municipal governments are also being rejected as customers. Bank of America just announced that it no longer wants the business of some smaller cities, which have been given 90 days to find somewhere else to put their money. Hundreds of local BofA branches are also disappearing.
Hardest hit, however, are the community banks. Today there are 1,524 fewer banks with assets under $1 billion than there were in June 2010, before the Dodd-Frank regulations were signed into law.)
Who loses? Communities, borrowers, competition and local economies.
To follow:
 The Clinton Foundation is Used to Benefit Big Banks
 Big Banks, in Turn, Bankroll the Clintons
I. The Clinton Foundation Is Used to Benefit Big Banks
The Clinton Foundation appears more like a mafia bag-man operation than a reputable non-profit. It claims to be a voice for women and the oppressed, even while it takes billions of dollars from donors who are sexual predators, misogynists and tied to oppressive regimes that reduce the status of women. Only a small percentage of the money raised actually funds real assistance programs; most of the money goes to salaries, speakers and to the Clintons personal expenses.
If you look at the entire list of donors to the Clinton Foundation, you’ll see there are lots of individuals under indictment, lots of individuals and institutions currently embroiled in the Mossack Fonseca scandal, and lots of foreign officials who have been found to be corrupt. And the big banks are at the center of it all.
Among largest donors to the Clinton Foundation:
 Barclays Capital
 Citi Foundation
 Standard Chartered
 Goldman Sachs
 Bank of America Foundation
 Itau Unibanco
 UBS Wealth Management
 Banco Santander Brasil
 Deutsche Bank AG
 Deutsche Bank Americas
 Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust, Inc
 Bank of America Corporation
 BMCE Bank
 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
 Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, Inc.
 Morgan Stanley
 The Monte dei Paschi di Siena
 Wells Fargo Foundation
Examples of how the Clinton Foundation Helps Big Banks to Cash in on “Philanthropy”
CGI Sets up Big Banks to Cash in on Retrofitting Buildings Worldwide
ABN AMRO, Citi(bank), Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS have committed to arrange $1 billion each to finance cities and private building owners to undertake these retrofits at no net cost, doubling the global market for energy retrofit in buildings.
(HRC Senior Economic Advisor Gene Sperling pushed these initiatives while head of Obama’s National Economic Council. He is now a paid advisor to Renovate America Co. They would benefit from these programs as would the big banks who receive securitization and lending opportunities See ( Link )
CGI Helps Standard Chartered (Serial Violator of Iran Sanctions) with “Microfinance Finance Facility”
At the CGI Annual Meeting in 2006, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) made a commitment to provide development organizations and fund managers with $500 million worth of credit and financial instruments that they could use to finance microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Africa and Asia, benefiting 4 million people over the commitment’s five-year implementation.
As a result, the Bank has formed 48 microfinance partnerships in 15 different countries across these regions. The Bank’s portfolio has grown to $180 million, with investments of $280 million (including provision of credit and financial instruments).
“Renewable & Clean Energy Financing in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East” Commitment to Action by Standard Chartered Bank in 2007
At the CGI Annual Meeting in 2007, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) committed to take a leading role in the financing of new renewable and clean energy projects by arranging debt, advising on finance, or acting as an equity investor in wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and other areas with a total project value of $8-10 billion over five years. [Link]
II. Big Banks Are Bankrolling the Clintons
Financial institutions and their employees were Clinton’s biggest donors when she was in the Senate from 2001 to 2008. The top four banks were Citi(bank), Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley.
For 24 years the Clintons have orchestrated a conjugal relationship with Wall Street, to the immense financial benefit of both parties. They have accepted from the New York banks $68.72 million in campaign contributions for their six political races, and $8.85 million more in speaking fees. The banks have earned hundreds of billions of dollars in practices that were once prohibited—until the Clinton Administration legalized them.
Perhaps sensing the need to assure (Bill) Clinton’s re-election, Wall Street saw fit nearly to triple its campaign contributions—from $11.17 million in 1992 to $28.37 million in 1996. Here’s what the Big Banks got:
 Repeal of Glass-Steagall
 President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This law ended the regulation of derivatives, freeing Wall Street to manufacture mortgage-backed securities and sell them without restriction; these complex derivatives would power the “subprime” swindle soon to commence.
 Clinton’s Justice Department a deputy Attorney General named Eric Holder in 1999 authored a memo entitled “Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations.” It became the Holder Doctrine, and after the financial crisis of 2008 it would be of incalculable value to the Wall Street banks. On leaving the Administration Mr. Holder joined Covington Burling, the largest law firm in Washington, D.C.. Among its clients were Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America.
 Sixteen days after leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton delivered a speech to the Wall Street firm of Morgan Stanley, for which he was paid $125,000. That was the first of many speeches he presented to Wall Street banks in following years. By May of 2015, Mr. Clinton had earned $1,550,000 from Goldman Sachs, $1,690,000 from UBS, $1,075,000 from Bank of America, $770,000 from Deutsche Bank,, and $700,000 from Citigroup. In total, $5,910,000.
 The Wall Street banks underwrote Ms. Clinton’s Senatorial ambition, contributing $2.13 million to her campaign. Among the congenial banks were Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, CIBC, and Credit Suisse.
 Wall Street was impressed with both candidates. Goldman Sachs contributed $1,034,615 to Mr. Obama’s campaign; JP Morgan Chase $847,855; Citigroup $755,057; UBS $534,166; and Morgan Stanley $528,182. $3.7 million in total. But Wall Street was more impressed with Ms. Clinton: her take from the banks was $14.6 million.
 A few weeks after her swearing in, Secretary of State Clinton was called to Switzerland by the Swiss Foreign Minister. They discussed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service against UBS, the Swiss banking international colossus (761 locations in the U.S.). Back in Washington Secretary Clinton interceded. The impact of the suit was reduced by 90%.
 In subsequent years UBS paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees, for eleven separate appearances. Hillary Clinton earned $225,000 for another one. Also in subsequent years UBS contributed $540,000 to the Clinton Foundation. [Link]
One of Clinton’s earliest votes in her Senate career provoked the ire of Elizabeth Warren, who was then a Harvard law professor.
Clinton voted with the big banks on a massive overhaul to the country’s bankruptcy laws, picking the financial services industry over consumers. Link
Elizabeth Warren — at the time a Harvard law professor — recounted for Bill Moyers how, in the 1990s, she wrote an editorial opposing a proposed piece of legislation tightening bankruptcy laws. Warren explained that it would disproportionately hurt single mothers. Hillary Clinton, at the time the first lady, read the editorial, and asked for a meeting with Warren. The meeting went well; Warren said she “never had a smarter student.” Afterward, Clinton returned to Washington and, according to her biography, persuaded Bill Clinton to veto the legislation.
But when Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate and another version of the same bill came to the floor, she did an about face:
ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don’t realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.
BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator.
ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.
BILL MOYERS: But what does this mean though to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?
ELIZABETH WARREN: You know this is the scary part about democracy today. It’s… We’re talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying, and as their profits grow, they just throw more into lobbying for how they can get laws that will make it easier and easier and easier to drain money out of the pockets of middle class families. [Link]
Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons
Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.” [Link]
Hillary Group Partnered With Company That Laundered $250 Billion For Iran And Violated Sanctions
On July 29, 2009, at a news conference in New Delhi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proudly announced that “Vital Voices Global Partnership,” an NGO that she said she had “founded”, had partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to promote women’s causes throughout Asia.
Unfortunately, Standard Chartered, which also donated generously to the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative, was charged by federal and New York State prosecutors of laundering over $250 billion for Iran and “deliberately” helping Iran circumvent sanctions imposed to cripple its nuclear program. In August and December, 2012 — Standard Chartered paid a total $667 million in fines to settle the cases and admitted its criminal activity.
First, the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Standard Chartered $340 million and, several months later, the Department of Justice negotiated a fine of $327 million in December of last year. Jaspal Bindra, the CEO of Asia Standard Bank, serves on the board of Vital Voices.
According to the New York State Department of Financial Services the ten years of illegal activity by Standard Chartered “left the US financial system vulnerable to terrorists, weapons dealers, drug kingpins, and corrupt regimes and deprived law enforcement investigators of crucial information used to track all manner of criminal activity.”
And all the while, Standard Chartered was funding programs related to the Clintons. The ties among former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative and Standard Chartered run long and deep. [Link]
The Clinton Global Initiative Helps Big Banks with “Cover”
In August of 2010, the Justice Department announced Barclays would pay nearly $300 million in fines for breaking sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan and others. The next month, it was — for the first time — a “strategic partner” for that year’s annual Clinton Global Initiative event.
In 2012, the CGI annual event featured three major banking partners that were also facing penalties and investigations for breaking Iran sanctions:
Standard Chartered paid a total $667 million, when all was said and done, to various regulators to settle allegations it violated Iran sanctions. The first half of that fine was levied by the New York State Department of Financial Services in August 2012, and the next month Standard Chartered appeared as a “meeting sponsor” of the CGI’s annual meeting.
A late August 2012 New York Times report revealed Deutsche Bank was also under investigation for potential Iran sanctions violations. Days later, Reuters reported Credit Agricole was conducting an internal review of payments involving countries that may have been subject to U.S. sanctions, at the urging of the Manhattan District Attorney and other “American governmental authorities.” Deutsche Bank was a meeting sponsor and Credit Agricole was a partner at that year’s CGI meeting.
In December 2012, the Department of Justice and U.S. Treasury HSBC would pay $1.92 billion to settle allegations that the bank allowed drug cartels to launder billions of dollars and that the bank violated U.S. sanctions by illegally conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Burma.
It’s unclear whether HSBC or any of its subsidiaries gave to the foundation that year or prior, but records on the Foundation’s website that were recently updated indicate the bank contributed anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in 2014, when it was listed as a convening sponsor for that year’s CGI meeting, the highest level of support possible. [Link]
Hillary Bashes HSBC; Doesn’t Mention $81 Million Sent To Clinton Foundation From Secret HSBC Swiss Accounts; Doesn’t Return $2 Million In Fees And Donations To Clintons
By Eileen Mcgann On July 20, 2015
Hillary Clinton is shocked by the misconduct of many big banks and singled out HSBC for especially harsh criticism in her economic speech. She’s horrified about bank misconduct.
HSBC recently agreed to pay Swiss authorities $28 million for laundering money for sanctioned countries and drug cartels, as well as for helping wealthy clients conceal millions of dollars while advising them how to avoid taxes.
In December, 2012, HSBC paid a record $1.9 billion fine after a U.s. Department of Justice found the bank “violated federal laws by laundering money from Mexican drug trafficking and processing banned transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.”
So Hillary’s outrage is understandable. What’s not understandable is that the Clinton Foundation accepted a $500,000 contribution in 2014 – AFTER the settlement. And the money was never returned. Nor was the $1.5 million that the bank paid to Bill Clinton for speeches.
And Hillary never mentioned the $81 million in contributions that were routed through HSBC’s secret Swiss bank to the Clinton Foundation. [Link]
Jason Chaffetz We Hold Hillary Clinton's Server Administrator In Contempt Of Court
Published on Sep 22, 2016
Jason Chaffetz Wants Bryan Pagliano Held In Contempt Of Court

The COKE Brothers! Bush & Clinton Linked Together in Drug Trade
Published on Sep 22, 2016
There is compelling evidence that suggests George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were once part of the largest drug smuggling operation in American history. Darrin McBreen and David Knight talk about the Bush and Clinton Crime Family connections with the CIA, Barry Seal, Oliver North and the Iran Contra Scandal.

Drug Trafficking And The Clinton Crime Family
Published on Sep 22, 2016
Why is the life and death of Baton Rouge, Louisiana born drug smuggler Barry Seal still relevant today? The revelations surrounding Seal’s involvement with the Vice Presidency of George H. Bush, the Arkansas Governorship of Bill Clinton, The DEA secret money laundering dealings and CIA Director William J. Casey shadow government of the United States paints a clear picture of the evolution of the current corruption that infests the highest of levels of government today.

News Channel 8 Reporter Theresa Dickie stumbled on what would become a goldmine of investigative journalism when she innocently went to report on what appeared to be a new initiative to bring good jobs to the people of Arkansas. To her surprise Theresa Dickie gradually uncovered a massive shadow government operation replete with illegal cargo plane modifications for drug running and money laundering that would have huge ties to the DEA. And in the center of that deliberate and illegal operation was Barry Seal a fearless drug smuggler and gunrunner for the DEA and the CIA.

After the Iran-Contra hearings detailed Oliver North’s diversion of funds to the Contras and all of the failed indictments to bring anyone to justice. President Bill Clinton denied any involvement in the clandestine Mena Operations. Regardless of the fact that it was Bill Clinton’s time as Arkansas’ Governor that oversaw the blocking of any funding or cooperation in an investigation into one of the largest drug and gun running and money laundering schemes America has ever witnessed. To this day the banks continue to launder the billion dollar drug cartel industry’s money. And when they are caught, they pay a fine and no one goes to prison. Corruption that has been normalized.

Trey Gowdy Finds Out Department Of Justice Has Been Covering Up Hillary Clinton's Lies
Published on Sep 25, 2016
New FBI Docs Show that the department of justice have been covering up Hillary Clinton's lies all along.

Hillary Funded By Saudi Arabia While Claiming She's Tough On Terrorism: Debate Highlights

Hillary Admits She Wants To Confiscate American's Guns With No Due Process
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Hillary Clinton admits she wants to take guns from people with no jury or no trial.

Crowd Applauds As Trump Calls Out Hillary On Deleted Emails: Debate Highlight
Published on Sep 26, 2016
Donald Trump is unrelenting, hitting Hillary Clinton on her scandals over and over, this time on her 33,000 deleted emails.