Hillary Clinton and the Deception of America

I’m not really sure what to say. I’ve never been one to try and convince others how to think and even after sharing this information, I encourage you to think freely.

With that said, I will be showing you the reason why I think Hillary should not be elected. Please forgive me if this has been posted. It is becoming hard to keep track of everything.

In my opinion, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the destruction of America.

WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Insiders “Conspired to Produce an Unaware and Compliant Citizenry”

In this particular exchange, Bill Ivey — Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts under President Bill Clinton — wrote to Podesta in apprehension Hillary Clinton “is not an entertainer” and thus won’t be able to compete with bombastic reality star Donald Trump.

Ivey queries Podesta how they could “offset” this unexpected flaw in Clinton not being a “celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold.”

But what Ivey states next in this lamentation characteristic of 2016’s surreality has become the subject of hushed debate — because if his words are to be taken literally, they portend a possible methodological collusion to keep Americans docile and submissive — perhaps in the vein of panem et circenses.

Ivey wrote on March 13, 2016, with emphasis added:

I’m certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

If that isn’t the final nail in Hillary’s coffin, I’m not sure what will convince the people. You are being duped by Hillary and the energy you put forth in the next four years if she is elected, will only be to serve those with no interest or care for your well-being.

There’s more…

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn’t all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained [sic] ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we’re off and running.

Activist Post had this to say at the end of their article,

The wise among us could answer simply, boycott the vote — this rotten, broken system is rigged for its own demise. Lead yourself. Don’t be compliant. Subvert and work outside this box intended to sculpt your obedience.

I happen to agree 100%. I hope anyone left on ATS can realize this before it’s too late. I certainly never thought that I’d be defending myself against Hillary supporters on a conspiracy website, but if you haven’t noticed, we are living in the twilight zone.

My next reason...

Aide Planted Anti-Bank Comments in One Paid Clinton Speech to Throw Reporters Off the Scent

A top aide calculatingly inserted a passage critical of the financial industry into one of Hillary Clinton’s many highly-paid speeches to big banks, “precisely for the purpose of having something we could show people if ever asked what she was saying behind closed doors for two years to all those fat cats,” he wrote in an email posted by Wikileaks.

The title of the article does not fully emphasize what is happening here. In November 2015, campaign speechwriter Dan Schwerin wrote an email to some of Hillary’s top aides, asking them whether or not to leak part of a speech Hillary gave to Deutsche Bank in October 2014, which by the way, earned her a cool $260,000.

The passage was manufactured from the beginning to give the impression that Hillary speaks out against Wall Street, when in actuality, she is colluding with and rewarding those that facilitate her ideals.

(Do you see a soul in those eyes, lol?)

So far, it’s obvious that there will be no direct efforts to strengthen the economy, but rather an expectation for already established power structures to lessen their evil ways and trickle a little more purchasing power into the hands of you and I. An idea that may ultimately boost the US economy, but not necessarily boost the quality of our lives in general.

“I wrote her a long riff about economic fairness and how the financial industry has lost its way,” for that purpose, Schwerin wrote. “Perhaps at some point there will be value in sharing this with a reporter and getting a story written. Upside would be that when people say she’s too close to Wall Street and has taken too much money from bankers, we can point to evidence that she wasn’t afraid to speak truth to power.”

Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime

Below are more quotes from the e-mails being discussed in the article. Their goal was to project that Hillary knows that the game is rigged, while ironically and secretively allowing her to support the same system that will help catapult her agendas. Here is what one of Hillary’s top aides had to say about manufacturing and releasing such rhetoric in the future…

On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Mandy Grunwald wrote:

I worry about going down this road. First, the remarks below make it sound like HRC DOESNT think the game is rigged -- only that she recognizes that the public thinks so. They are angry. She isn't.

Second, once you start looking at speeches, you run smack into Maggie Haberman's report for Politico on HRC's Goldman Sachs speech, in which HRC isn't quoted directly, but described as saying people shouldn't be vilifying Wall Street.

Maybe you think the Deutsche Bank speech takes the sting out of the Goldman report -- but I am concerned that the passage below will exacerbate not improve the situation.

What situation would that be? The fact that Hillary sleeps in the same bed as the corporate mafia and banking cartels? Just when her aides think they’ve got it figured out, the AP began working on a story about Hillary’s “Wall Street image problem,” causing them to regroup and come up with an effective way to dupe the public once again into believing what appears to be the opposite of reality.

Reviving this thread because AP is working on a story similar to Pat Healy's article in Sunday's NYT about HRC's "Wall Street image problem." The reporter, Lisa Lerer, plans specifically to note that her paid speeches to banks were closed-press affairs, and transcripts are not available. She is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way.

Characterize? More like an assassination of character. I’m sure it’s safe to assume that careers have been destroyed and lives ruined because of Hillary’s need to “correct the record.” If you can successfully manipulate the facts, you can indirectly cause infighting between the faithful and any equal opposing force.

I think we could come up with a vanilla characterization that challenges the idea that she sucked up to these folks in her appearances, but then use AP's raising of this to our advantage to pitch someone to do an exclusive by providing at least the key excerpts from this Deutsche Bank speech. In doing so, we could have the reporting be sourced to a "transcript obtained by [news outlet]" so it is not confirmed as us selectively providing one transcript while refusing to share others.

Are you expecting your vote to represent the truth? Because that is what you WON’T be getting if Hillary is elected. Please, continue reading below and pay close attention. Open your eyes and ears and your mind will follow.

Following up on the conversation this morning about needing more arrows in our quiver on Wall Street, I wanted to float one idea. In October 2014, HRC did a paid speech in NYC for Deutsche Bank.

I wrote her a long riff about economic fairness and how the financial industry has lost its way, precisely for the purpose of having something we could show people if ever asked what she was saying behind closed doors for two years to all those fat cats.

It's definitely not as tough or pointed as we would write it now, but it's much more than most people would assume she was saying in paid speeches.

Remember, it’s not Hillary who has lost her way, it’s the American people and their inability to see through the lies and corruption. She is Wall Street, 100%.

I’m going to end it here and let everyone who read this decide for themselves what to think. If it's not already apparent from this thread, my feelings toward Hillary and what she represents is not something that I can entertain and be comfortable with. We need to cut the cord.

My future, our future and your child’s future depends on making the right choices at the end of the day. It’s not always easy to understand right from wrong or how we might benefit in the long run, but I hope in sharing these e-mails and my opinions with ATS, a little part of the world will be saved.

Hillary supporters are blinded (they say the same thing about Trump supporters btw). Nothing she's ever done, no matter how bad, will ever make them change their mind, no matter how much proof you present to them.

Hillary supporters only know one thing: Her opponent is a certified pedophile (just for cracking a few jokes around teen girls) and that's all that matters. We can't have such a predatory monster running the country, right? Think of the children!

Too bad they can't see that with Hillary in charge, the children may not have a future.

The wise among us could answer simply, boycott the vote — this rotten, broken system is rigged for its own demise. Lead yourself. Don’t be compliant. Subvert and work outside this box intended to sculpt your obedience.

That's an exercise in futility.

Remember what we saw in the primaries, and her parties nomination.

The entire system was rigged on Clintons behalf.

We have dead people that vote.

We have people that vote multiple times.

We have rigged voting machines.

We don't have an 'honest' electoral system if we ever did.

As much as I would love to see Clinton defeated.

I don't see it happening.

There's more deception going here than that well written op.

I disagree with the statement that the government "Dislikes" ordinary people. She, and her simpering minions actively hate you, your guts and everything you care about. She is a sociopathic power hungry monster and cant wait to destroy the US by opening the borders to all and selling out to the evil globalists. She is the Final Solution to the American question.

I thought this comment of yours is worth repeating...

Remember, it’s not Hillary who has lost her way, it’s the American people and their inability to see through the lies and corruption.

Clinton supporters might think they support women, or minorities, or children when voting for her but they are complete fools.

Im sad for them, not only because they're pawns but because their alternative (Trump) isnt very attractive, if you will.

On behalf of America, I sincerely apologize.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I disagree with the statement that the government "Dislikes" ordinary people. She, and her simpering minions actively hate you, your guts and everything you care about. She is a sociopathic power hungry monster and cant wait to destroy the US by opening the borders to all and selling out to the evil globalists. She is the Final Solution to the American question.

do you understand the words that comes out of trump's mouth?....I do, because I don't need to know from his surrogates "what he meant to say"....by the way, you might want to look up the definition of a sociopath to see which candidate comes closer to fitting the description of one.

You know as well as I do that people will cling to their political religion.

It will get to the point where, at her direction, the opposing views will be silenced.

Her supporters will cheer it on too. Because they simply don't care about corruption. All they care about is whether their political religion reigns supreme.

If this were going to be a republican presidency, you can bet the same would be true.

The polarization of this country has been so effectively completed that such a future is inevitable.

Individual liberty is no longer important.

a reply to: eisegesis

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn’t all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process. Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained [sic] ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we’re off and running.

If you look at the passage again, you'll see that the bolded remark isn't an expression of approval.

It's one of exasperation. The "silly us" comment is the absolute giveaway.

The very next sentence makes that clear. Trump has hijacked the media with his attention-grabbing behaviour and appeals to common misconceptions and prejudices, and it has proved more effective than the Democrats' rather more cerebral concerns about CU and the Kochs. These concerns simply don't connect with the average voter.

a reply to: projectvxn

It will get to the point where, at her direction, the opposing views will be silenced.

That's absolutely true.

We have seen that play out for years and more recently, and it sure doesn't take very much to silence people.

All it takes is a cry of RACIST,RAPIST, hater of women, and children.

originally posted by: projectvxn
You know as well as I do that people will cling to their political religion.

It will get to the point where, at her direction, the opposing views will be silenced.

Her supporters will cheer it on too. Because they simply don't care about corruption. All they care about is whether their political religion reigns supreme.

If this were going to be a republican presidency, you can bet the same would be true.

The polarization of this country has been so effectively completed that such a future is inevitable.

Individual liberty is no longer important.

This is why we need two seperate countries. It will be the ultimate test. SPlit the US along political lines for 10 yrs. left of the country democrat. right republican.

Foreign Spy hand selects info from one side, DNC, to discredit that one side.

Are you so naive you think the other side doesn't also have these conversations?

You're being played by a Foreign Spy.

And you're eating it up, Hook, Line, and Sinker.

a reply to: yuppa

This is why we need two seperate countries. It will be the ultimate test. SPlit the US along political lines for 10 yrs. left of the country democrat. right republican.

What about those of us who actually appreciate liberty and sound economics?

I fully understand the term fully and if it can applied to Trump it can certainly be applied to the other candidate. I don't particularly care for either of them but a Trump victory would have one bonus, after all there is nothing quite so satisfying or funny as a rage fuelled feminist granny tantrum.

Kind regards.
a reply to: jimmyx

a reply to: neo96

All it takes is a cry of RACIST,RAPIST, hater of women, and children.

A t-shirt is enough...

originally posted by: Annee
Foreign Spy hand selects info from one side, DNC, to discredit that one side.

Are you so naive you think the other side doesn't also have these conversations?

You're being played by a Foreign Spy.

And you're eating it up, Hook, Line, and Sinker.

You keep repeating this statement...

So now I ask you, where is your proof that a foreign spy is at work?

a reply to: eisegesis

Good lord. The Clintons did not invent deception. Politics have been around for 1000's of years and it has always been about who can tell the most convincing lies. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

a reply to: Annee

You're being played by a Foreign Spy.

And her name is Hilary Rodham Clinton.

FFS can't even keep her own secrets.

How the hell can she keep this nations secrets?

Epic Fail of cyber security so far.

a reply to: eisegesis

POsted this in another thread, but it fits in so well with what you have written here I thought I'd drop it in here.

I'm about to head in to work for a bit, but I will be back after a while with more to show the same kinds of things.

Keep in mind that all of "Hillary's" positions are actually crafted by a team of people and anything that comes out of her mouth or is attributed to her are not he positions of one person.

This is the thinking behind whether or not for WJC to do a speech to a wall street bank:

I know this is not the answer she wants, but I feel very strongly that doing the speech is a mistake--the data are very clear on the potential consequences. It will be three days after she's announced and on her first day in Iowa, where caucus goes have a sharply more negative view of Wall Street than the rest of the electorate. Wall Street ranks first for Iowans among a list of institutions that "take advantage of every day Americans", scoring twice as high as the general election electorate. I recognize the sacrifice and dissapointment that cancelling will create, but it's a very consequential unforced error and could plague us in stories for months. People would (rightfully) ask how we let it happen.

Earlier in that chain:

HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech.

Then shortly after that:

HRC is reiterating her original position. She does not want him to cancel.

/podesta-emails/emailid/9290

The speech was for Morgan Stanley

Please note the reasons they express for wanting her to cancel the speech (and thus give up the speaking fee) are not that it would be wrong, but rather how it would be thought of by voters they are wanting to swindle.