The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
liar-Hillary Clinton and the
Extreme Abortionist Culture
by David Limbaugh
.
Economic Outlook Under liar-Hillary: More
of the Same
As Americans prepare to elect the next president four days from today, the last pre-election jobs reports shows "more of the same." October new hires came in at an unimpressive 161,000, and the headline unemployment rate is 4.9%, down one-tenth of a point from last month, while the fuller measure of unemployment dropped slightly to 9.5%. We've also marked a full decade of sub 3% GDP growth after a recession created by the easy lending policies of Bill liar-Clinton and the Democrats, not, as liar-Hillary Clinton would have you believe, because of George W. Bush's tax cuts.
Under liar-Clinton's promise of increased tax and spend policies, the economic outlook amounts to "more lost years of slow economic growth," reports The Wall Street Journal. More of the same lack of economic growth will play into the hands of leftists as they will continue to blame the wealthy and call for more policies designed to redistribute wealth. The Left dreams of a socialist society bolstered by the demand for greater government intervention as more Americans find themselves struggling to make ends meet.
When choosing between the two candidates, the prospect of Donald Trump's positive impact on a stagnate economy is a far better bet. Trump has called for lowering the corporate tax rate and deregulation of a business climate that has become overly burdened by too much Washington red tape. Professionally, Trump's business acumen far exceeds that of his opponent. liar-Clinton is adept in politically manipulating others as a means to further her own position and increase her personal wealth. But that won't translate to economic growth for the rest of us. ~The Patriot Post
.
Spotlight: The Model for Illegal Demo Cash
Thornton Law Firm in Boston really likes to support Democrats. Indeed, the prominent firm gave loads of cash to various Democrats — Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, Rep. Joseph Kennedy III, Sen. Edward Markey, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and liar-Hillary Clinton among them — but it was above and beyond what campaign finance allowed. According to the Boston Globe, "Three partners at the firm — Michael Thornton, Garrett Bradley, and David Strouss — contributed more than $1.6 million over five years, mostly to Democratic candidates and the party. The partners received bonuses totaling about $1.4 million, often in the exact amount of the donation and on the same day." Campaign finance laws prohibit "straw donors" — those who make political contributions in another person's name — and this is one of the largest such schemes ever uncovered. The firm insists the lawyers received bonuses from their equity in the firm, which is legal, but the Center for Responsive Politics doesn't buy the explanation and has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission.
Immediately after the Globe broke the story, the politicians began lining up to return the donations. But only because they were caught.
liar-Clinton and Warren are particularly hypocritical. Both rail against campaign financing with "dark" money and consistently oppose (in public) the peddling of influence. liar-Clinton even promises to appoint Supreme Court justices based on her interpretation of campaign finance law. And yet the liar-Clinton Foundation exists for two purposes: To help the liar-Clintons avoid taxes, and to trade their political influence for money. Its pay-to-play schemes are legendary, and the Foundation is also the subject of a year-long but newly "high priority" FBI investigation. Warren is viewed by "progressives" as a paragon of virtue for her opposition to powerful players on Wall Street. But she not only accepted the shady cash; she even refused to return it until the investigation concluded. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, she has since changed her mind.
The Globe sums it up best: "People have gone to jail for reimbursing political donations." And somehow, Democrats always seem to be down in the muck. This particular story is just a model for how they do it across the nation. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
liar-Clinton Foundation Got $1 Million From Qatar,
But Secretary liar-Clinton Didn’t Report
by Jeff Dunetz
{lidblog.com} ~ I am sure it was simply an oversight, you know like when many of those who got one of the bountiful State Dept. contracts to help rebuild Haiti also “just happened to” give large donations to the liar-Clinton Foundation... On Friday Reuters reported the liar-Clinton Foundation “confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while liar-Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.” I am sure she meant to report it. Perhaps the check came when liar-Hillary was writing one of those personal emails about yoga or her daughter’s wedding and it slipped her mind...Or just don't remember.
.
WikiLeaks Releases
Batch #31 John Podesta Emails…
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ Today WikiLeaks released another batch of emails from the archives of life-long liar-Clinton family fixer John Podesta. The total release now exceeds 50,000 pages:
Read the Released Email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=&mfrom=&mto=&title=¬itle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=¬o=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult
In addition a secondary website: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/
.
It’s Going Down – the
liar-Clinton Investigation JUST GOT REAL
by Daisy Luther
{freedomoutpost.com} ~ The FBI seems to be sick of the DoJ’s favoritism. Two separate sources have told Fox News about serious new breaks in the investigation. The fact that this is being reported on an MSM site is huge. Bigger than huge... All of those people who were prepared to take one for Team liar-Clinton might want to reconsider. Despite what happened the last time the FBI investigated her, t’s hard to imagine even Teflon-coated liar-Hillary Clinton getting out of this mess... http://freedomoutpost.com/its-going-down-the-clinton-investigation-just-got-real/
Hannity, Judge Jeanine, Crowley – Lynch Must
Indict Racketeer liarClinton Now
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Sean Hannity quotes his own and other sources on the FBI’s investigation into liar-Clinton wrongdoing, noting that the law enforcement probe will continue regardless of who wins next Tuesday... After reading an update on the current state of the liar-Clinton investigation he turns the floor over to Judge Jeanine Pirro who says, “It’s time for a grand jury.” She says, “It’s time for Loretta Lynch to allow Comey and the FBI to get this evidence before a grand jury. There is a mutiny in the FBI, that’s why all of this stuff is coming out. There are four offices that continue to investigate although Justice has tried to shut this down, saying there’s not enough evidence, this recording from this other person who apparently is an informant is hearsay.”... http://rickwells.us/hannity-judge-jeanine-crowley-lynch-must-indict-racketeer-clinton-now/
VIDEO: at the site
.
Iran Reports that The U.S. is Supplying ISIS
by Michael Ware
{constitution.com} ~ There are all sorts of rumors that surround our president and his former Secretary of State, liar-Hillary Clinton. They are rumored to have founded or paid for the founding of ISIS... Now, the Iranians are claiming that they are supplying the enemy with weapons. This is being spread across the internet and people are starting to believe that these horrible leaders are also traitors to their country... http://constitution.com/iran-reports-u-s-supplying-isis/
..
liar-Hillary Clinton and the
Extreme Abortionist Culture
by David Limbaugh
{townhall.com} ~ On the abortion issue alone, I believe that Christians should vote for Donald Trump as the only possible candidate to defeat the march of the death culture liar-Hillary Clinton would lead if she were to be elected.
Pro-abortion feminists are growing ever more militant in their make-believe world that sees men and women as bitter rivals, if not outright enemies. They seem to view everything through a gender prism; people have to support liar-Clinton not because she has a better agenda but because she's a woman.
Don't get me wrong; they also think she has a better agenda, but they are constantly thinking and speaking in terms of gender identification and loyalty. And all too often, they demonize men in the process -- whom they perceive as a threat to women's rights.
This adversarial culture the left fosters is not limited to gender. It includes race, economic "status" and every other imaginable category that can aid in their politics of division, on which their political power depends. WikiLeaks' revelations have confirmed that such polarization is integral to the modern Democratic Party's grand strategy for eventual one-party dominance.
If liar-Clinton wins this election -- despite the tsunami of corruption and scandal that surrounds her, in which she is knee-deep -- she will believe she is politically bulletproof, and for good reason. She and husband Bill would never have behaved as cavalierly and recklessly as they have if they didn't think they possess a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. I shudder to think what their mindset would be if liar-Hillary were to be victorious.
She would pursue the abortion-on-demand agenda with abandon. She would appoint radical judges at all levels who share her worldview and her determination that the courts continue to rewrite laws that thwart the will of the people. She'd accelerate Barack liar-nObama's war on religious liberty through the courts, lawless executive orders and other administrative avenues.
Some will say I'm exaggerating here -- that the left just wants to protect beleaguered women, who should have sole sovereignty over their "reproductive" decisions. Leftists aren't pro-abortion; they have benign motives, focused exclusively on the mother's choice and health.
Well, that may be true of some rank-and-file Democratic voters. But most leftist politicians, thought leaders and power brokers are pro-abortion extremists and coldly calculating in promoting their goals. They know that protecting the mother's health is rarely involved in abortion decisions. They know that pro-life advocates, many of whom are women, don't believe in suppressing women. But they also know that by characterizing pro-lifers as women-hating, totalitarian ogres, they will increase the odds that they'll keep moving their pro-abortion football down the field toward the end zone marked "death."
I wrote in 2004: "People I've debated on the (abortion) issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is 'potential life' or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life. But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I've anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that 'the fetus is not a human life.' Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances -- such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain -- it's practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument."
Fast-forward 12 years and see how inevitable it actually was. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing on Salon, asks, "So what if abortion ends life?" She writes: "Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word 'life.' Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants to be on the side of ... not-life? ... The 'life' conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice."
I don't like quoting just some of her statements and don't want to mislead as to her intent, so I strongly urge you to read her entire piece, where you can judge for yourselves these comments in context. But I must share one more passage. She writes: "Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
I could comment on those assertions for hours but have run out of space. What do you mean "lest" you wind up looking as if you love death panels? That's exactly what you look like, as cold and heartless as your words on the page.
Leftist advocates will applaud such amoral muscle flexing, but I appeal to less extreme liberals, Democrats and never-Trumpers to understand the depth of the depravity of this mindset and understand that if you help elect liar-Clinton, you are, among many other frightening things, empowering this evil worldview. Should I refrain from calling it "evil" for fear of offense or being labeled intolerant or an extremist? I think not. You can take that up with the babies whose lives are hanging in the balance.
Pro-abortion feminists are growing ever more militant in their make-believe world that sees men and women as bitter rivals, if not outright enemies. They seem to view everything through a gender prism; people have to support liar-Clinton not because she has a better agenda but because she's a woman.
Don't get me wrong; they also think she has a better agenda, but they are constantly thinking and speaking in terms of gender identification and loyalty. And all too often, they demonize men in the process -- whom they perceive as a threat to women's rights.
This adversarial culture the left fosters is not limited to gender. It includes race, economic "status" and every other imaginable category that can aid in their politics of division, on which their political power depends. WikiLeaks' revelations have confirmed that such polarization is integral to the modern Democratic Party's grand strategy for eventual one-party dominance.
If liar-Clinton wins this election -- despite the tsunami of corruption and scandal that surrounds her, in which she is knee-deep -- she will believe she is politically bulletproof, and for good reason. She and husband Bill would never have behaved as cavalierly and recklessly as they have if they didn't think they possess a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. I shudder to think what their mindset would be if liar-Hillary were to be victorious.
She would pursue the abortion-on-demand agenda with abandon. She would appoint radical judges at all levels who share her worldview and her determination that the courts continue to rewrite laws that thwart the will of the people. She'd accelerate Barack liar-nObama's war on religious liberty through the courts, lawless executive orders and other administrative avenues.
Some will say I'm exaggerating here -- that the left just wants to protect beleaguered women, who should have sole sovereignty over their "reproductive" decisions. Leftists aren't pro-abortion; they have benign motives, focused exclusively on the mother's choice and health.
Well, that may be true of some rank-and-file Democratic voters. But most leftist politicians, thought leaders and power brokers are pro-abortion extremists and coldly calculating in promoting their goals. They know that protecting the mother's health is rarely involved in abortion decisions. They know that pro-life advocates, many of whom are women, don't believe in suppressing women. But they also know that by characterizing pro-lifers as women-hating, totalitarian ogres, they will increase the odds that they'll keep moving their pro-abortion football down the field toward the end zone marked "death."
I wrote in 2004: "People I've debated on the (abortion) issue have generally taken the position that the baby in the womb is 'potential life' or a clump of cells or a zygote. They seemed to sense that they would have no legitimate argument in favor of abortion if they admitted the baby was a life. But as secular and humanistic influences have gained ascendance in our culture, I've anticipated the day when moral relativists would become so brazen as to discard their reliance on the argument that 'the fetus is not a human life.' Indeed, with the breathtaking scientific and technological advances -- such as the discovery that a baby in the womb smiles and feels pain -- it's practically inevitable that the pro-aborts will be forced to abandon that argument."
Fast-forward 12 years and see how inevitable it actually was. Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing on Salon, asks, "So what if abortion ends life?" She writes: "Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word 'life.' Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants to be on the side of ... not-life? ... The 'life' conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice."
I don't like quoting just some of her statements and don't want to mislead as to her intent, so I strongly urge you to read her entire piece, where you can judge for yourselves these comments in context. But I must share one more passage. She writes: "Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
I could comment on those assertions for hours but have run out of space. What do you mean "lest" you wind up looking as if you love death panels? That's exactly what you look like, as cold and heartless as your words on the page.
Leftist advocates will applaud such amoral muscle flexing, but I appeal to less extreme liberals, Democrats and never-Trumpers to understand the depth of the depravity of this mindset and understand that if you help elect liar-Clinton, you are, among many other frightening things, empowering this evil worldview. Should I refrain from calling it "evil" for fear of offense or being labeled intolerant or an extremist? I think not. You can take that up with the babies whose lives are hanging in the balance.
Comments