Sunday, August 4, 2019



Is it a signal that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more funds?  There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get money to the U.S. without consequences, after all.  What's more, it's pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason why she lost the 2016 election.
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.
The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy -

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’ GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.

1.     Globalism: Google VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”

2.     Hillary Clinton’s Democratic party: An executive nearly broke down crying because of the candidate’s loss. Not a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.

3.   Immigration: Maintaining liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the most.



Even though it has gone virtually unreported by Corporate media, Breitbart News has extensively documented the Clintons’ 
longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the Los Angeles Times observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for 
globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are 
speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.

How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.


The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion. 

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose.  PATRICIA McCARTHY

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY

‘Just Sing’: Barbra Streisand Riles Up Fans After Praising Clintons, Trashing Trump During NYC Concert

PHILADELPHIA, PA - OCTOBER 8: Barbra Streisand performs on the opening night of her 'Back To Brooklyn' tour at the Wells Fargo Center on October 8, 2012 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)
Jeff Fusco/Getty Images

Left-wing pop icon Barbra Streisand made her Madison Square Garden concert Saturday about politics, praising Bill Clinton — who was in attendance alongside Hillary — as “a great president,” explaining how badly she wanted to sing at Hillary’s inauguration, and targeting President Donald Trump with a remixed rendition of “Send in the Clowns.”

“He left this country with a budget surplus!” Barbra Streisand said of former President Clinton, adding, “By the way he did that by taxing the highest wage earners.”
“A great president needs a sense of history and unquenchable thirst for knowledge,” she continued. “And the compassion that would not allow children to be separated from their parents.”
New York Magazine Washington Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi gave a play-by-play of Streisand’s seemingly impromptu political moment during the concert. According to her tweets, the singer polled the crowd to find out if there were more Democrats or Republicans and proceeded to sing “a parody of Send in the Clowns about Trump.” The Trump supporters in attendance, Nuzzi said, were irritated and shouted “Just sing!”

Barbra Streisand polled the crowd to see if there are more Democrats or Republicans, and then told the latter to cover their ears. Now she’s singing a parody of Send in the Clowns about Trump. “Jerry, you know what I’m talking about,” she said to Nadler, before she started.
Trump supporters are screaming “JUST SING” and “WE DON’T WANNA HEAR IT” at Barbra Streisand. Meanwhile a man behind me just said “they don’t like the truth. They can’t handle the truth.”

It has been over a decade since the “Evergreen” singer performed on an arena stage and her’s in NYC was met with a flurry of high-profile attendees including Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Al Sharpton, and Bill and Hillary Clinton — all of whom she gave special shout-outs to.

.@BarbraStreisand gets political. After shout outs to @TheRevAl and @RepJerryNadler then @BillClinton who gets thunderous applause.
But when @BarbraStreisand talks up @HillaryClinton, who gets even more applause than Bill, she says 3 years ago she hoped to sing at her inauguration.

Nuzzi’s play-by-play of Streisand’s political moments continued:

Waiting for Barbra Streisand at The Garden and the crowd just erupted on the floor for Bill and Hillary Clinton, who just arrived.
I’m sorry I just need everyone to know that Barbra Streisand is showing the crowd a slideshow of photos from her life and that is what Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are doing right now.

I’m sorry I just need everyone to know that Barbra Streisand is showing the crowd a slideshow of photos from her life and that is what Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are doing right now.
Barbra Streisand is now thanking Bill Clinton for being “a great president” and introducing him and Hillary to the crowd like they’re in the band.

Barbra Streisand told Hillary Clinton that she had been hoping to sing at her inauguration. And then a lady walked out past me while loudly complaining that Streisand was “being political.”
I didn’t anticipate on doing any political reporting when @RyanLizza told me he was taking me to see Barbra Streisand but here we are.

Oh one more thing: I think she said Jerry Nadler is also here.
Barbra Streisand polled the crowd to see if there are more Democrats or Republicans, and then told the latter to cover their ears. Now she’s singing a parody of Send in the Clowns about Trump. “Jerry, you know what I’m talking about,” she said to Nadler, before she started.

According to Variety, Streisand sang a politically charged rendition of “Send in the Clowns,” with its lyrics aimed at President Trump. Variety wrote:
About 45 minutes into her show, Streisand paused to salute the high-profile Democrats in the house, including former New York Mayor David Dinkins, Al Sharpton, Congressman Jerry Nadler and Bill and Hillary Clinton, her longtime friends. Streisand praised the 42nd President for balancing the budget and rescuing the economy during his eight years in office. “But being a great President is about more than just dollars and cents,” Streisand noted. “A great President needs a sense of history, and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and the compassion to not let children be separated from their parents.” It was her first dig at Trump, but it wouldn’t be the last.
Streisand then addressed Hillary: “Madam Secretary, you gave our allies confidence and our foes unambiguous clarity. You demonstrated that strength and kindness can exist in equal measure. And needless to say, three years ago, I was truly hoping to sing at your inauguration.”
Following an intermission, Streisand returned to the stage in a white Donna Karan dress, which she said had been made for her a few days earlier by the designer. She seemed more relaxed, hitting every note of the timeless bummer “Send in the Clowns.” Fittingly, she followed it up with a new version of the song, advising the (few) Republicans in attendance to cover their ears. While a picture of Trump as a clown was projected behind the stage, Streisand crooned:
He says he’s rich
Maybe he’s poor
‘Til he reveals his returns
Who can be sure
Who is this clown?
Something’s amiss
I don’t approve
Now that he’s running the free world
Where can we move?
Maybe a town!
Just who is this clown?
This is not a farce
It’s not just smoke
Is this his “Art of the Deal” or some awful joke?
You’ve got to admit
This fraudulent twit
Is so full of …
The Grammy winner has been a long-time advocate for Democrats and left-wing causes. Last month, she called for “climate change deniers” to be removed from office, “starting with Trump.”

The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”

Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange

A federal court ruling last Tuesday dismissing a Democratic National Committee (DNC) civil suit against Julian Assange “with prejudice” was a devastating indictment of the US ruling elite’s campaign to destroy the WikiLeaks founder. It exposed as a fraud the entire “Russiagate” conspiracy theory peddled by the Democratic Party, the corporate media and the intelligence agencies for the past three years.
The decision, by Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected the smears that Assange “colluded” with Russia. It upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ 2016 publication of leaked emails from the DNC was “illegal.”
Despite the significance of the ruling, and its clear newsworthiness, it has been subjected to an almost complete blackout by the entire media in the US and internationally.
The universal silence on the court decision—extending from the New York Times (which buried a six-paragraph report on the ruling on page 25) and the Washington Post, to “alternative” outlets such as the Intercept, the television evening news programs and the publications of the pseudo-left—can be described only as a coordinated political conspiracy.
Its aim is to suppress any discussion of the court’s exposure of the slanders used to malign and isolate Assange, and to justify the unprecedented international pursuit of him over WikiLeaks’ exposure of US war crimes, surveillance operations and diplomatic conspiracies.
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate outlets have relentlessly smeared Assange as a “Russian agent” and depicted him as the linchpin of a conspiracy hatched in Moscow to deprive Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton of the presidency in the 2016 US elections.
Now that their claims have been subjected to judicial review and exposed as a tissue of lies and fabrications, they have adopted a policy of radio silence. There is no question that if the court ruling had been in favour of the DNC, it would have been greeted with banner headlines and wall-to-wall coverage.
The response exposes these publications as state propagandists and active participants in the campaign by the Democratic Party, the Trump administration and the entire ruling elite to condemn Assange for the rest of his life to an American prison for the “crime” of publishing the truth.
The editors and senior writers at these outlets, such as New York Timeseditorial page editor James Bennet, are in constant contact with the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Behind the scenes, they work out an editorial line that will advance the interests of the Wall Street banks and the military-intelligence apparatus. At the same time, they decide what news and information they will hide from the American and world population.
The efforts by the mainstream news outlets to bury the ruling presents a clear example of the type of media manipulation that has led millions of people to seek alternative sources of news on the internet, of which WikiLeaks is itself an example.
Judge Koeltl’s decision made plain the anti-democratic and dictatorial logic of the DNC case against Assange. He warned: “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political, financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.” This, he stated, would “override the First Amendment” protection to freedom of the press mandated by the US Constitution.
Koeltl’s finding was an absolute vindication of Assange and WikiLeaks’ 2016 publications exposing the attempts by the DNC to rig the Democratic Party primaries against self-declared “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
The judge found these releases, together with the publication of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street banks, in which she pledged to be their representative, were “matters of the highest public concern.” They “allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election.”
Koeltl, moreover, found there was no evidence to justify the DNC’s assertion that WikiLeaks had colluded with the Russian state to obtain the material. Assange and WikiLeaks have always maintained that the documents were not provided to them by the Putin regime.
The ruling demonstrated the flagrant illegality of the US vendetta against Assange. The slander that he was operating as a “Russian agent” to “interfere” in US politics was used by the American government and its intelligence agencies to pressure the Ecuadorian regime to sever Assange’s internet access in 2016, and again in 2018. It served as a central pretext for its illegal termination in April of his political asylum in the embassy building.
The judgment was also an implicit exposure of the lawlessness of the attempts by the Trump administration, with the full support of the Democrats, to extradite Assange from Britain, so that he can be prosecuted on 18 US charges, including 17 espionage counts, carrying a maximum sentence of 175 years’ imprisonment.
The Trump administration and the Justice Department are claiming that it was illegal for WikiLeaks and Assange to publish US army war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other documents exposing US war crimes and intrigues, provided by the courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Koeltl’s ruling, however, reasserted the fundamental democratic principle that WikiLeaks had a right to publish the 2016 DNC documents, even if they had been obtained by the Russian government, or any other entity, illegally.
The clear implication is that even if Manning’s decision to leak US military and diplomatic documents was a violation of the law, WikiLeaks’ publication of them was not. The publication of both the 2010 and the 2016 leaks was constitutionally protected journalistic activity.
Koeltl further undermined the claims of the Trump administration, the Democrats and the media that Assange is a “hacker,” undeserving of First Amendment protections. The judge repeatedly referred to Assange as a “journalist” and WikiLeaks as a “publisher.”
In other words, the attempt to extradite Assange to the US and prosecute him is a frontal assault on the US Constitution and press freedom. In its disregard for domestic and international law, it can be described only as an extraordinary rendition operation, similar to the kidnappings and torture operations conducted by the CIA.
The hostile response to Koeltl’s ruling on the part of the entire political and media establishment, in the US and internationally, demonstrates that this conspiracy will not be defeated by plaintive appeals to the governments, political parties and media corporations that have spearheaded the assault on Assange’s legal and democratic rights.
All of them are using the persecution of Assange as a test case for the imposition of ever-more authoritarian measures, aimed at suppressing mounting popular hostility to war, social inequality and an assault on democratic rights.
What is required is the development of a mass movement from below, to mobilise the immense social and political power of the working class internationally to secure Assange’s liberty and to defend all democratic rights.