GINGRICH: ESTABLISHMENT SCARED OF TRUMP BECAUSE HE “DIDN’T BELONG TO THE SECRET SOCIETY”

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars | MARCH 4, 2016

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly last night that the establishment is scared of Donald Trump because he “didn’t belong to a secret society” and wasn’t involved in any of the rituals associated with such groups.

Discussing Mitt Romney’s anti-Trump speech yesterday, Gingrich said it represented “the panic of the establishment wing of the (Republican) Party,” and that the prospect of Trump becoming the nominee “absolutely drives them crazy”.

When asked why, Gingrich responded, “Well because he’s an outsider, he’s not them, he’s not part of the club, he’s uncontrollable, he hasn’t been through the initiation rites, he didn’t belong to the secret society.”
Gingrich is in a perfect position to know about “secret societies” given his affiliation with Bohemian Grove, an annual encampment that takes place every year in Monte Rio, California and is attended by some of the most powerful people in the world.

Gingrich’s photograph is featured in the Annals of the Bohemian Club, Volume 7, 1987-1996 alongside George W. Bush and his father.

The former Speaker of the House could also be referring to Skull and Bones, a secret society at Yale which counts amongst its members both George W. and John Kerry, who ran against each other in the 2004 presidential election.

Skull and Bones is notorious for its initiation rituals, which according to some include masturbating in a coffin. In 2001, journalist Ron Rosenbaumbecame the first outsider to witness some of the rituals. Video footage of the ceremony shows ‘Bonesmen’ screaming while they kiss a skull and perform a mock murder.

MEDIA SAVAGES TRUMP OVER DUKE, IGNORES HILLARY PRAISING FORMER KKK MEMBER ROBERT BYRD

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars | MARCH 1, 2016

While the media has attempted to smear Donald Trump after he was endorsed by former Ku Klux Klan member David Duke, Hillary Clinton has escaped scrutiny despite the fact that she once praised ex-KKK member Robert Byrd as her “friend and mentor”.

The press has attempted to keep Trump on the ropes over the past few days, demanding over and over again that he “disavow” any connection with Duke, despite Trump claiming he had not even heard about the endorsement.

This distraction was invoked over and over again to bolster the narrative that Trump is appealing to racist voters.

However, Hillary has managed to avoid similar treatment despite her glowing praise for former Senator Robert Byrd, who joined the KKK when he was 24-years-old because he didn’t want to fight alongside “race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds,” during World War II.

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side,” vowed Byrd in a 1944 letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS).

Byrd subsequently wrote another letter in 1946 in which he asserted that, “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”

Byrd, who also voted against the 1965 Civil Rights Act, later renounced his affiliation with the Klan, calling it one of the worst mistakes of his life.

After his death in 2010, Clinton gave a glowing eulogy to Byrd in a video that was uploaded to the State Department’s official YouTube page.

“Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd,” said Clinton, praising the Senator as “a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility.”

“From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always generous with his time and his wisdom. I admired his tireless advocacy for his West Virginia constituents, his fierce defense of the Constitution and the traditions of the Senate, and his passion for a government that improves the lives of the people it serves,” added Clinton.

David Duke separated from the Klan in 1980, six years after joining, because he disliked its associations with violence.

Despite the fact that Hillary said she would “continue to rely on (Byrd’s) advice and counsel” even after his death, it’s Trump who is now in the media crosshairs for his unintended association with a former KKK member, which Clinton’s direct affiliation with one escapes scrutiny.

MSNBC CENSORS SANDERS CONDEMNING TPP

Kit Daniels | Infowars - FEBRUARY 23, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: GAGE SKIDMORE / FLICKR.

MSNBC cut away from live coverage of a Bernie Sanders press conference once he began to condemn the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Social media exploded as a result as viewers felt the break in Monday’s coverage was due to MSNBC’s owner, Comcast, not wanting to air criticism of the TPP because it benefits greatly from the treaty.

Scroll to the 1:40 mark.

“Of the near $16 million Comcast spent lobbying politicians in 2015, $40,000 alone was spent in the first three months of the year targeting the Senate and House of Representatives on issues relating to TPP,” RTreported. “Over an 18-month period between 2013 and 2015, Media Matters found that MSNBC only discussed TPP twice, with the exception of Ed Schultz, who discussed the agreement during 71 broadcasts while he was still hosting The Ed Show for MSNBC.”

Schultz later left MSNBC for RT America.

MSNBC isn’t alone in suppressing TPP coverage; CBS, ABC and NBC also barely mentioned the treaty over an 18-month period despite the TPP’s severe implications on both the U.S. economy and global human trafficking.

For one thing, not long after the White House invited Thailand to join the TPP, the AP reported the country was relying on slave labor to ship shrimp to the U.S.

“For… 16 hours, No. 31 and his wife stood in the factory that owned them with their aching hands in ice water,” the AP revealed. “They ripped the guts, heads, tails and shells off shrimp bound for overseas markets, including grocery stores and all-you-can-eat buffets across the United States.”

“After being sold to the Gig Peeling Factory, they were at the mercy of their Thai bosses, trapped with nearly 100 other Burmese migrants.”

It’s unlikely Thailand’s billion-dollar slave industry would prevent it from joining the TPP considering that President Obama previously removed an anti-slavery provision from the treaty and also allowed Vietnam to join the partnership despite its flourishing slave trade.

Interestingly, Obama quietly removed the TPP’s anti-slavery clause at the same time he was attacking the Confederate flag as a “symbol of slavery” last summer.

BERNIE SANDERS A BUM WHO DIDN’T EARN HIS FIRST STEADY PAYCHECK UNTIL AGE 40 THEN WORMED HIS WAY INTO POLITICS

Jim Hoft | Gateway Pundit - FEBRUARY 16, 2016

Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.” 

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.

Satanists Feel the Bern

Adan Salazar | Infowars - FEBRUARY 12, 2016

Democrat socialist Bernie Sanders’ campaign has evidently roused the satanic electorate.

In a highly popular pro-Sanders meme group created on Facebook, a post with an image stating, “Satanists for Bernie 2016,” has received over 1,100 likes and over 200 shares.

Several members of the Bernie Sanders’ Dark Meme Stash cautioned the image looks bad for the campaign and asked for it to be removed.

But many, many others embraced the supposed endorsement.

While the image’s creator is unknown, it is discussed in the comments that the Church of Satan, a central hub of satanic worship, has not officially endorsed any candidate for president.

Another group entitled the Satanic Communist Party, boasting over 2,000 members, also appears to lean pro-Bernie.



While supporters attempt to distance Sanders’ brand of socialism from Communism, revolutionaries instrumental in shaping the ideology, in particular Vladimir Lenin, have openly admitted, “The goal of socialism is Communism.”

In a 1986 book entitled Marx & Satan, author Richard Wumbrand, who was imprisoned for 14 years by the Communist government of Romania for espousing Christian beliefs, demonstrates through direct quotes that the man credited as the father of Communism crafted the ideology with inspiration from the powers of darkness and with the intent to destroy religion.

“The good of the workers was only a pretense. Where proletarians do not fight for Socialist ideals, Marxists will exploit racial differences or the so-called generation gap. The main thing is, religion must be destroyed,” wrote Wumbrand.

“Marx believed in hell. And his program, the driving force in his life, was to send men to hell.”

Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators

The Washington Post | By Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman February 11 at 12:18 PM

Hillary Clinton, accompanied by Huma Abedin, stops at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Manchester, N.H., on Feb. 7. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.

A foundation representative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry, said the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation is not the focus of the probe.

A State IG spokesman declined to comment on that assessment or on the subpoena.

Representatives for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Abedin also declined comment.

There is no indication that the watchdog is looking at Clinton. But as she runs for president in part by promoting her leadership of the State Department, an inquiry involving a top aide and the relationship between her agency and her family’s charity could further complicate her campaign.

For months, Clinton has wrangled with controversy over her use of a private email server, which has sparked a separate investigation by the same State Department inspector general’s office. There is also an FBI investigation into whether her system compromised national security.

Clinton was asked about the FBI investigation at a debate last week and said she was “100 percent confident” nothing would come of it. Last month, Clinton denied a Fox News report that the FBI had expanded its probe to include ties between the foundation and the State Department. She called that report “an unsourced, irresponsible” claim with “no basis.”

During the years Clinton served as secretary of state, the foundation was led by her husband, former president Bill Clinton. She joined its board after leaving office in February 2013 and helped run it until launching her White House bid in April.

Abedin served as deputy chief of staff at State starting in 2009. For the second half of 2012, she participated in the “special government employee” program that enabled her to work simultaneously in the State Department, the foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons.

Abedin has been a visible part of Hillary Clinton’s world since she served as an intern in the 1990s for the then-first lady while attending George Washington University. On the campaign trail, Clinton is rarely seen in public without Abedin somewhere nearby.


Republican lawmakers have alleged that foreign officials and other powerful interests with business before the U.S. government gave large donations to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with a sitting secretary of state and a potential future president.

Both Clintons have dismissed those accusations, saying donors contributed to the $2 billion foundation to support its core missions: improving health care, education and environmental work around the world.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, has largely avoided raising either issue in his campaign. Last spring, Sanders expressed concerns about the Clinton Foundation being part of a political system “dominated by money.”

Sanders has batted away questions about the email scandal, famously saying at a debate last fall that, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

The potential consequences of the IG investigation are unclear. Unlike federal prosecutors, inspectors general have the authority to subpoena documents without seeking approval from a grand jury or a judge.

But their power is limited. They are able to obtain documents, but they cannot compel testimony. At times, IG inquiries result in criminal charges, but sometimes they lead to administrative review, civil penalties or reports that have no legal consequences.


The IG has investigated Abedin before. Last year, the watchdog concluded she was overpaid nearly $10,000 because of violations of sick leave and vacation policies, a finding that Abedin and her attorneys have contested.

Republican lawmakers, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), have alleged that Abedin’s role at the center of overlapping public and private Clinton worlds created the potential for conflicts of interest.

The Telegraph Fears a Populist Uprising

Brushfyre | James Menendez | February 11, 2016

Allister Heath, deputy Editor for the Telegraph, penned an article in today's Telegraph warning those who ally with globalism that a populist uprising of right-leaning affiliation could be disastrous for the left, the global banks and their ilk.

I literally read each tantalizing word of this article this morning with my mouth agape. I couldn't believe the admissions that one by one were being exposed via the ranting of this globalist. Let's run through them, shall we?

'We' can survive another collapse

From the article:

We are too fragile, fiscally as well as psychologically. Our economies, cultures and polities are still paying a heavy price for the Great Recession; another collapse, especially were it to be accompanied by a fresh banking bailout by the taxpayer, would trigger a cataclysmic, uncontrollable backlash.

The public, whose faith in elites and the private sector was rattled after 2007-09, would simply not wear it. Its anger would be so explosive, so-all encompassing that it would threaten the very survival of free trade, of globalisation and of the market-based economy. There would be calls for wage and price controls, punitive, ultra-progressive taxes, a war on the City and arbitrary jail sentences.

Emphasis mine. By 'We' he means 'them', that is: the globalists. It is extremely apparent in the article that the author does not see himself as one of 'us'. He speaks as if he is talking to his bankster globalist masters, supplicating himself prostrate before them saying 'your way is the best'.

Politicians would become 'Extremist' and 'Populist'

Trump wants to make America Great again.

The fact that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both won their respective New Hampshire primaries is certainly one remarkable indication of the state of mind of many US political activists

The key thing here is that the author is not interested in making America great again. He wants the Fed to continue it globalised central bank policy of managing inflation by printing vast sums of cash for the banks (not you). 

More of the Status Quo

More from the article:

History never repeats itself exactly, but the last time a recession was met by pure, unadulterated populism was in the Thirties, when the Americans turned a stock market crash and a series of monetary policy blunders into a depression. President Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, dreamt up by two economically illiterate Republican senators, slapping massive taxes on the imports of 20,000 goods and triggering a global trade war. It was perhaps the most economically destructive piece of legislation ever devised, and it took until the Nineties before the damage was finally erased.

Emphasis mine. Let's make sure the banks keep getting their way. He uses the example of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This Act of Congress was great for America but really bad for the globalists. The author mentions that this disaster wasn't fixed until the 1990's. What happened in 1990's that would have bolstered globalism and consequently the destruction of American jobs? That's right: NAFTA and GATT. The 'giant sucking sound' Ross Perot warned us about.

If it is not working, why continue failed policies?

The question one has to ask is: why, if the current policies that this author is defending have failed would he continue to argue for the same policies? Make no mistake these policies will lead to the systematic downfall of every country that adopts them. Perhaps then this is the plan: the destruction of every world economy so that one economy can rise above them and take over all the broken countries. A one-world government for instance. That is what globalism is after all, isn't it? One world the central bankers in charge?

WATCH LIVE: TRUMP’S N.H. WATCH PARTY & PRIMARY COVERAGE – INFOWARS.COM/SHOW

Infowars - FEBRUARY 9, 2016

Tune into Infowars.com/show tonight for LIVE coverage of the Donald Trump primary watch party starting at 6pm CST and LIVE coverage of the N.H. primary as the results begin to roll in at 7pm CST!

WATCH HERE: Infowars.com/show
Tuesday, Feb. 9 starting at 6pm CST!

FOX NEWS REPORTS FINAL NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY RESULTS IN ADVANCE

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars - FEBRUARY 9, 2016

Fox News is reporting the final results of tonight’s Republican and Democratic primaries in advance, with a mock-up page showing establishment favorite Marco Rubio finishing in second place.

The page – which can be viewed here – displays the final tally of the Republican primary with 100% of votes counted. Donald Trump is in first place with 28%, with Rubio thirteen points behind with 15% and Ted Cruz just behind him in third.

The result of the Democratic primary shows Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton by a margin of just 10%. A cross section of current polls shows Sanders is on average 14% ahead of Hillary.

The Fox News page also shows a detailed breakdown of votes by town, despite the fact that no results will be announced until later tonight.

Although the page is by no means a shadowy conspiracy cooked up by Fox News, and is almost certainly some kind of web scripting test, it could be argued that presenting such information ahead of time may sway voters.

The mock-up results page is noteworthy because it shows establishment favorite Marco Rubio in second place, despite his poor debate performance on Saturday night.

Pundits think that Rubio needs to beat fellow establishment candidates Bush and Kasich to emerge as the main challenger to Trump and Ted Cruz, but the Florida Senator’s penchant for repeating the same lines over and over again during debates and speeches has attracted ridicule.

Rubio’s surprise third place finish in Iowa prompted some Trump supporters to allege that a Microsoft vote counting app had helped Rubio, although no concrete evidence was ever presented to suggest the caucus was rigged.

Meanwhile, Scott Adams, the creator of the popular Dilbert carton series, predicts that the GOP will rig tonight’s primary to favor Rubio.

“Look for Rubio to have a surprisingly strong second-place showing in New Hampshire. And look for the most common explanations for that surprise to be his momentum from Iowa,” writes Adams.

“I assume that most of you think this is conspiracy talk and not to be taken seriously. Some of you will feel sorry for me as I squander the remaining crumbs of my credibility on this foolishness. But keep in mind that you said the same thing in September when I was predicting Trump’s rise.”

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server

MSNBC | By Pete Williams | 02/08/16 05:30 PM

In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”

He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more “without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.”

The letter was filed in one of the Freedom of Information Act cases brought against the State Department over access to documents from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. This one was filed by Judicial Watch.

Ron Paul: Ted Cruz is no libertarian

Politico | By ELIZA COLLINS | 02/05/16 12:13 PM EST

Ron Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. | AP Photo

Now that Rand Paul is out of the race for the White House his father Ron Paul, who ran in 2008 and 2012, isn't impressed by Ted Cruz's attempts to pick up the "free market" libertarian banner.

“You take a guy like Cruz, people are liking the Cruz — they think he’s for the free market, and [in reality] he’s owned by Goldman Sachs. I mean, he and Hillary have more in common than we would have with either Cruz or Trump or any of them so I just don’t think there is much picking,” Paul said of the Texas senator on Fox Business’ “Varney & Company" on Friday.

Surprisingly, the elder Paul seemed more attracted to the views of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in the Democratic primary.

“On occasion, Bernie comes up with libertarian views when he talks about taking away the cronyism on Wall Street, so in essence he’s right, and occasionally he voted against war,” the former Texas congressman said when asked if there was a candidate who was truly for the free market.

"It's hard to find anybody -- since Rand is out of it -- anybody that would take a libertarian position, hardcore libertarian position on privacy, on the war issue and on economic policy," Paul added.

“So I always say: You can search for a long time, but you’re not gonna find anybody in the Republican or Democratic primary that even comes slightly close to ever being able to claim themselves a libertarian,” he concluded.

BERNIE SANDERS IS THE 1%

Alex Jones | Infowars - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Alex Jones breaks down and exposes the true superclass that is pulling the strings behind the world stage and uncovers the hellish nightmare that is socialism and communism.

THE MEN BEHIND TED CRUZ: NEOCONS AND A CIA PROPAGANDIST

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas and presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is routinely billed by the mainstream media as a Tea Party outsider who is reviled by fellow Republicans as a “wacko bird” along with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan.

It is not simply his wife’s connection to Goldman Sachs and investment banking or his unreported loan from the multinational investment banking firm, however, that betrays this image.

A closer look at Cruz reveals he is a neocon insider, not a renegade outsider.

His campaign manager, Chad C. Sweet, co-founded the Chertoff Group with former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Sweet, as a leader of the Chertoff Group, “advocated for expanding NSA metadata collection,” according to his bioon the risk-management and security consulting company’s webpage.

“Mr. Sweet formerly served as the Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to becoming Chief of Staff of DHS, Mr. Sweet worked as an investment banker at the firms of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as well as served in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service,” the bio continues.

Cruz’s foreign policy advisor is the notorious neocon James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA during the Clinton administration. Woolsey is connected to the now largely defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think tank with an agenda formulated by top neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC was at the forefront of the Bush administration push to invade Iraq. He is a former vice president of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and an advocate of the neocon hardline on Iran.

Ted’s foreign policy team includes Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, a trailblazing neoconservative ideologue. Abrams was a key adviser on Mideast policy at the National Security Council (NSC) during the George W. Bush presidency and also a staunch advocate of the Iraq invasion, the hardline on Iran and military strikes against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Finally, the man in charge of public relations for the Cruz campaign is Dan P. Gabriel, a former CIA covert action officer and a founding partner of Applied Memetics, a company “focused solely on developing engineered influence for clients seeking to alter their tactical or strategic operational environments,”according to its webpage. The company specializes in propagating memes that ”can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus,” in other words Applied Memetics specializes in propaganda.

The latest Cruz meme is working hard to convince followers of Rand Paul, who dropped out of the race in the wake of the Iowa caucus, that Cruz “is the natural inheritor of the modern libertarian movement built by Ron Paul, which was especially resonant here in New Hampshire, where the elder Paul won second place four years ago,” CNN reports.

“Cruz’s entreaties appear to be paying off. A number of state legislators—in places ranging from here in New Hampshire to the Paul family’s Texas—signed onto the Cruz team.”

Ted Cruz is not even remotely a libertarian. He is a neocon masquerading as a champion of liberty. If nominated and elected he will continue the forever war agenda initiated by the Bush regime and further expand the high-tech surveillance police state.

Unfortunately many Republicans, desperate to beat Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in November, are buying into the illusion.

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts

Politico | By JOSH GERSTEIN | 02/03/16 05:33 PM EST

IMAGE CREDIT: GETTY

The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archives argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.

"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."

The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton's ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.

"She's one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what's in that indictment? It's absurd and it's shameful that the administration is proposing this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally."

The Archives and Justice Department were dismissive about the impact of Clinton's presidential bid on public access to the records.

"While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest alone under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to," Murphy wrote.

"Her interest in avoiding disclosure of the drafts is not diminished by the fact that she is a former public official who is running for President," Justice Department lawyers added in their brief.

Law enforcement records about living people who did not face charges in criminal investigations normally are not released under FOIA, or the names are sanitized from the records before they're published. However, sometimes judges have ordered the release of such records in cases involving public officials.

Despite the usual practice, though, the Archives has released fairly detailed information about the independent counsel's focus on Hillary Clinton. Just last week, Judicial Watch announced it had received 246 pages of records describing the crimes some prosecutors believed were committed in connection with the Whitewater land deal and related matters. Some of the memos are from the "HRC Team" in the counsel's office—apparently a team focused on Clinton. One discusses the jury appeal or lack thereof of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. One prosecutor put the chance of a conviction for Clinton at 10 percent.

It's not clear from the government's court filings why the draft indictments would be more sensitive than that kind of analysis, but the new submissions do argue that the drafts are covered by grand jury secrecy. In its initial response to Judicial Watch, the Archives relied solely on Clinton's privacy (and that of others) and did not mention the grand jury secrecy issue. But the brief filed Tuesday contends the drafts would provide insight into the grand jury's activities by revealing the identities of witnesses and that they quote from grand jury testimony.

Fitton said that "if Mrs. Clinton was being truly transparent," she would provide a privacy waiver that could ease release of the records.

Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the legal filings.

Why Bernie Sanders Has to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class

Daniel Bier | The Foundation for Economic Education | FEBRUARY 3, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.

Willie Sutton was one of the most infamous bank robbers in American history. Over three decades, the dashing criminal robbed a hundred banks, escaped three prisons, and made off with millions. Today, he is best known for Sutton’s Law: Asked by a reporter why he robbed banks, Sutton allegedly quipped, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Sutton’s Law explains something unusual about Bernie Sander’s tax plan: it calls for massive tax hikes across the board. Why raise taxes on the middle class? Because that’s where the money is.

The problem all politicians face is that voters love to get stuff, but they hate to pay for it. The traditional solution that center-left politicians pitch is the idea that the poor and middle class will get the benefits, and the rich will pay for it.

This is approximately how things work in the United States. The top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19 percent of total income and pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earn 12 percent and pay 3 percent. This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows net taxes paid and benefits received, per person, by household income group:

But Sanders’ proposals (free college, free health care, jobs programs, more Social Security, etc.) are way too heavy for the rich alone to carry, and he knows it. To his credit, his campaign has released a plan to pay for each of these myriad handouts. Vox’s Dylan Matthews has totaled up all the tax increases Sanders has proposed so far, and the picture is simply staggering.

Every household earning below $250,000 will face a tax hike of nearly 9 percent. Past that, rates explode, up to a top rate of 77 percent on incomes over $10 million.

Paying for Free

Sanders argues that most people’s average income tax rate won’t change, but this is only true if you exclude the two major taxes meant to pay for his health care program: a 2.2 percent “premium” tax and 6.2 percent payroll tax, imposed on incomes across the board. These taxes account for majority of the new revenue Sanders is counting on.

But it gets worse: his single-payer health care plan will cost 80 percent more than he claims. Analysis by the left-leaning scholar Kenneth Thorpe (who supports single payer) concludes that Sanders’ proposal will cost $1.1 trillion more each year than he claims. The trillion dollar discrepancy results from some questionable assumptions in Sanders’ numbers. For instance:

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible.
“In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion,” he writes in an email. “With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative.”

So unless pharmaceutical companies start paying you to take their drugs, the Sanders administration will need to increase taxes even more.

Analysis by the Tax Foundation finds that his proposed tax hikes already total $13.6 trillion over the next ten years. However, “the plan would [only] end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output.”

And the consequences will be truly devastating. Because of the taxes on labor and capital, GDP will be reduced 9.5 percent. Six million jobs will be lost. On average, after-tax incomes will be reduced by more than 18 percent.

Incomes for the bottom 50 percent will be reduced by more than 14 percent, and incomes for the top 1 percent will be reduced nearly 25 percent. Inequality warriors might cheer, but if you want to actually raise revenue, crushing the incomes of the people who pay almost 40 percent of all taxes isn’t the way to go.

These are just the effects of the $1 trillion tax hike he has planned — and he probably needs to double that to pay for single payer. Where will he find it? He’ll go where European welfare states go.

Being Like Scandinavia

Sanders is a great admirer of Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and many of his proposals are modeled on their systems. But to pay for their generous welfare benefits, they tax, and tax, and tax.

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all capture between 20-26 percent of GDP from income and payroll taxes. By contrast, the United States collects only 15 percent.

Scandinavia’s tax rates themselves are not that much higher than the United States’. Denmark’s top rate is 30 percent higher, Sweden’s is 18 percent higher, and Norway’s is actually 16 percent lower — and yet Norway’s income tax raises 30 percent more revenue than the United States.

The answer lies in how progressive the US tax system is, in the thresholds at which people are hit by the top tax rates. The Tax Foundation explains,

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers.
The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent. …
Compare this to the United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

The reason European states can pay for giant welfare programs is not because they just tax the rich more — it’s because they also scoop up a ton of middle class income. The reason why the United States can’t right now is its long-standing political arrangement to keep taxes high on the rich so they can be low on the poor and middle.

Where the Money Is – And Isn’t

As shown by the Laffer Curve, there is a point at which increasing tax rates actually reduces tax revenue, by discouraging work, hurting the economy, and encouraging tax avoidance.

Bernie’s plan already hammers the rich: households earning over $250,000 (the top 3 percent) would face marginal rates of 62-77 percent — meaning the IRS would take two-thirds to three-quarters of each additional dollar earned. His proposed capital gains taxes are so high that they are likely well past the point of positive returns. The US corporate tax rate of 40 percent is already the highest in the world, and even Sanders hasn’t proposed increasing it.

The only way to solve his revenue problem is to raise rates on the middle and upper-middle classes, or flatten the structure to make the top rates start kicking in much lower. You can see why a “progressive” isn’t keen on making more regressive taxes part of his platform, but the money has to come from somewhere.

The bottom fifty percent don’t pay much income tax now (only $34 billion), but they also don’t earn enough to fill the gap. Making their taxes proportionate to income would only raise $107 billion, without even considering how the higher rates would reduce employment and income.

The top 5 percent are pretty well wrung dry by Sanders’ plan, and their incomes are going to be reduced by 20-25 percent anyway. It’s hard to imagine that there’s much more blood to be had from that stone.

But households between the 50th and the 95th percentile (incomes between $37,000 to $180,000 a year) earn about 54 percent of total income — a share would likely go up, given the larger income reductions expected for top earners. Currently, this group pays only 38 percent of total income taxes, and, despite the 9 percent tax hike, they’re comparatively spared by the original tax plan. Their incomes are now the lowest hanging fruit on the tax tree.

As they go to the polls this year, the middle class should remember Sutton’s Law.

DID HILLARY STEAL IOWA FROM BERNIE: HERE’S THE EVIDENCE SO FAR

The Daily Sheeple | JOSHUA KRAUSE | FEBRUARY 3, 2016

I don’t think anybody has any illusions about Hillary Clinton. And with the exception of her core supporters, I don’t think the people who voted for her have any illusions either. In their minds, she is simply the lesser of two evils, but evil nonetheless. It’s impossible to deny the fact that Hillary is a liar, a chronic flip-flopper, and most likely a criminal whose maliciousness knows no bounds. And now that the Iowa primary has come and gone, we may be able to add “cheater” to that list as well. Or at the very least, some powerful people in high places may have given her a hand in Iowa.

I’m no friend of socialism, nor do I approve of any of Bernie Sanders policies, but if we’re going have a political system that lets its citizens participate, then we always have to point out when electoral fraud is afoot. And this particular primary election looks incredibly shady.

For starters, everyone has been talking about the 6 delegates that Hillary won, each by coin toss. The odds of her winning 6 coin tosses in a row is 1 in 64. If half of those votes had been divided evenly to Bernie, he would have won. What people should be really asking themselves, is what are the odds of this many ties occurring in the first place? Or even one tie? Apparently it’s never happened before. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything, but it is suspicious when put into the context of more evidence.

Then there is the fact that the Democrats didn’t staff 90 of the precincts in Iowa. In other words, there are 90 precincts where it is impossible to know if the results were accurate. This amounts to about 5% of all the Democratic votes in Iowa. In a race this close, that is a pretty big deal.

And who could forget that Microsoft provided a free app to both political parties, that would help precinct officials count and validate the votes. This app called the election in favor of Clinton hours before anything was tallied. Of course, that’s pretty messed up considering this could convince some people to stay home. And the Sanders campaign admitted they were highly suspicious of Microsoft’s free software in the days leading up to the vote.

Why? Because Microsoft’s employees have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton’s campaign in the past. The company itself has also given money to the Clinton Foundation while she was working for the State Department. They were among dozens of other companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation while simultaneously lobbying to the State Department. Clearly, Microsoft has no business being involved in any high-profile election.

Finally, the most damning evidence so far comes from this video that was posted to C-SPAN’s website.

According to one person who was at the event, this was actually the second recount. Here’s what apparently happened.

So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who pays attention to these primary elections, because this is nothing new. In 2012, there were plenty of dirty tricks employed against Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa and other states, which essentially killed his momentum and paved the way for Mitt Romney’s victory.

It should be clear to anyone with eyes and ears that American elections are a farce, and have been for a long time. If a candidate hasn’t paid his dues to the political and corporate elites of this country, and he hasn’t waited his turn, he doesn’t stand a chance of winning.

VIDEO: CLINTON VOTER FRAUD IN ACTION?

Steve Watson | Infowars | FEBRUARY 2, 2016

‘The hell is going on in this video?

This is, apparently, what a caucus looks like in a Presidential race in America in 2016.

The footage is taken from precinct #43 in Des Moines, Iowa, where supporters of Clinton and Sanders gathered to determine the delegate count for the candidates.


The description of the video, posted on the C-SPAN website, claims “Caucus chair and Clinton precinct captain do not conduct actual count of Clinton supporters and deliberately mislead caucus”.

Reports suggest that Sanders was winning during an initial vote, but when a recount was called, Clinton gained the lead.

One person who was at the event at Roosevelt High School took to Reddit to explain:

So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.

The footage appears to verify this with the Clinton camp admitting they did not do a second full count and that “they just added the (new) people”.

“Does that add up right?” one of the organiser is heard asking the caucus chair, who replies “I don’t think so.”

Nevertheless, a challenge by Sanders supporters for a third count was rejected and Clinton was handed a victory.

This monumental cluster f*ck was just one 1,600 caucus sites around the state of Iowa. Who knows what went on elsewhere.

In another video, Clinton and Sanders supporters are seen remonstrating with caucus organisers in Ames who were attempting to move the caucus outside, refusing to start counting votes because their building was too full.

The incident led to much finger poiting and apparently many people abandoning the caucus and going home.

Reports also emerged from other locations where Hillary Clinton was handed victories on coin tosses, meaning she ultimately received more delegates.

Six coin tosses took place, according to reports, and Hillary won ALL of them. That carries a likelihood of 1.6%.

The overall Iowa results on the Democratic side have not been verified at time of writing. It appears to be a dead heat. Bernie Sanders has, however,called on the Democratic party to release a raw vote count.

TONIGHT: INFOWARS LIVE IOWA CAUCUS COVERAGE

Infowars - FEBRUARY 1, 2016

Join the Infowars Nightly News for LIVE coverage of the Iowa caucuses tonight starting at 7pm CST!

Infowars Live Republican Debate Coverage - 01/28/2016

Watch as Alex Jones and the Infowars Nightly News provide LIVE analysis of tonight’s GOP presidential debate on Fox News!

Tune in TONIGHT at 7pm CST at: Infowars.com/show

Tweet your questions and comments to @RealAlexJones using the hashtag #GOPdebate. We’ll also have a GOP debate thread on Facebook so you can also share your comments athttps://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/.

SANDERS CAMPAIGN WORRIED MICROSOFT APP WILL MISREPRESENT IOWA CAUCUS VOTE

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars - JANUARY 28, 2016

IMAGE SOURCE: INFOWARS.COM

On Wednesday the Bernie Sanders campaign said it is concerned software giant Microsoft will tamper with caucus election vote tallies in Iowa next week.

Microsoft has partnered with both establishment parties and will provide a “mobile-enabled, cloud-based platform that will facilitate accuracy and efficiency of the reporting process,” according to its website.

Under the new system, each Iowa political party will have their own app available on all mobile and PC platforms, which will support the party’s unique caucus voting process. The reporting apps may be used in every precinct in Iowa by both parties. The results will be securely stored and managed in Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing platform.

“You’d have to ask yourself why they’d want to give something like that away for free,” said Pete D’Alessandro, who is heading up the Sanders campaign in Iowa.

Both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have built reporting systems based on the Microsoft app.

In addition to taking money in the past from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and George Soros, Clinton has connections to Microsoft through Mark Penn, a former top advisor to both Bill and Hilary Clinton. Penn was Hillary’s “pollster, chief strategist and message guru all wrapped into one,” according to Politico. In 2012, he was named Corporate Vice President for Strategic and Special Projects at Microsoft. Penn was behind Microsoft’s award-winning Super Bowl 2014 ad “Empowering Us All” and the corporation’s “Celebrating the Heroic Women of 2013.”

Last September the Clinton Global Initiative used Microsoft’s audience engagement technology Bing Pulse to gauge audience feedback in real-time during CNBC’s interview with President Bill Clinton. The former president also keynoted the Microsoft SharePoint Conference in Las Vegas in March, 2014 and was interviewed by Wired magazine alongside Microsoft founder Bill Gates in 2013.
Establishment Will Pull Out All Stops to Beat Sanders and Trump

The establishment is in disarray over the presidential campaigns of Sanders and Donald Trump.

“With ever-growing hysteria, the Establishment is begging, cajoling and warning American voters not to elect a rogue President from the Right or the Left, neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders, but to accept instead one of the ‘sane’ mainstream options. Yet, the unspoken truth is that the American Establishment has been off its rocker for decades,” writes Robert Parry.

The establishment’s derailment of the Ron Paul campaign demonstrates it will take drastic measures to distort primary results.

Going into Iowa, Ron Paul held a lead over the other Republican candidates. In response the Iowa GOP changed the final vote count to a secret location and results from 8 precincts—including results from colleges in a state where Paul won 48% of the youth vote—put Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in the lead. Rule changes and similar tactics were used in the early primary states of Nevada and Florida to defeat Paul.

Activist Bev Harris and others have demonstrated how black box voting is used to flip votes and rig the election process. “We now know that the machines that they’re making that count the votes are not secure from tampering. And add to that, we’ve got a situation where everything inside the machines is secret, we’re not allowed the see how they count the votes. So this is not an acceptable situation,” Harris said back in 2003 when the first Diebold electronic voting machines were rolled out.

During the globalist confab in Davos, Switzerland, the elite expressed their consternation at the prospect of a Donald Trump victory. Harvard University’s Niall Ferguson said Trump’s chances “could be over before Super Tuesday,” and that populists never win the presidency, but that the public is “mad as hell” and this is what’s driving the Trump phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the GOP is working to take down Trump, preferably before the primaries.

According to columnist Ann Coulter, the establishment may cook up a scandal that will be floated before the primaries to take the edge off Trump’s commanding lead. “Look for a fake Trump scandal to break—probably from a conservative news outlet—right before the Iowa caucus,” she wrote on January 20.

Despite the frantic effort to derail the Trump campaign—and that of alleged outsider Ted Cruz as well—some believe Hillary Clinton will win the election regardless of Republican challenge or the email scandal and the Benghazi imbroglio. In the end, Democrats will abandon Sanders and line up behind Clinton.

“It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put up… Hillary will win,” the highly influential CEO of WPP PLC (Wire and Plastic Products), Martin Sorrell, told DC Whispers on January 24.

Fraud at the polls and manipulated poll results in Iowa may help, but in the final wash it will be Hillary because of the fear level of a Republican victory. The Democrat establishment has mastered the art of fear, hysteria and stampeding the rank and file.

The New York Times reports “the Sanders surge is about to hit a wall: the rank and file of the Democratic primary electorate… Nearly half of the Democratic primary electorate is moderate or even conservative” and deathly afraid of a Republican victory despite the obvious fact there is little difference between the two sides of a domineering establishment party.

Follow Kurt Nimmo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/kurt_nimmo