September 2016

By Steven Gaydos

By Roger Stone

Prior to the financial crisis, banks were not a subject of political or public ire or focus. They were just companies. The biggest banks were east-coast and west-coast behemoths.  When they lobbied, it was largely in coordination with the nation’s smaller community banks. While the smaller community banks have historically represented the political spectrum of the communities they serve, the Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) banks were aligned with Democrats, being headquartered in the “bluer” states of New York and California. As a result, the Democrats, and especially the Clintons, have always relied on the big banks to support their agenda, and in turn, they have enthusiastically supported the big bank’s agenda.

Unlike community banks, which serve local communities, know their economies and are committed to their neighbors, TBTF big banks don’t know their customers, serve themselves and could care less about their neighbors.

When the great financial crisis came, TBTF banks were largely responsible.  The nation wanted justice.  But it was time for payback, and the TBTF banks used their capture of the Democrats to extort protection.

Since the crisis, Hillary and her pals have helped to make sure that no real harm comes the TBTF banks. In fact, since the crisis – TBTF banks banks have dramatically increased in size, stifling the ability of smaller banks to compete.

(NOTE: The banks deemed too big by the Obama Administration when it pushed for enactment of Dodd Frank are more than 30% bigger than before the Act was passed in 2010, and 80% bigger than before the banking crisis of 2008. The six largest US financial institutions now have assets of some $10 trillion, amounting to almost 60% of GDP; and they control nearly 50% of all bank deposits. Even some well-heeled clients are being rejected. In an October 19, 2015 article titled  “Big Banks to America’s Firms: We Don’t Want Your Cash,” the Wall Street Journal reported that some Wall Street banks are now telling big depositors to take their money elsewhere or be charged a deposit fee.

Municipal governments are also being rejected as customers. Bank of America just announced that it no longer wants the business of some smaller cities, which have been given 90 days to find somewhere else to put their money. Hundreds of local BofA branches are also disappearing.

Hardest hit, however, are the community banks. Today there are 1,524 fewer banks with assets under $1 billion than there were in June 2010, before the Dodd-Frank regulations were signed into law. )

Who loses? Communities, borrowers, competition and local economies.

To follow: 

• The Clinton Foundation is Used to Benefit Big Banks
• Big Banks, in Turn, Bankroll the Clintons

      I.     The Clinton Foundation Is Used to Benefit Big Banks

The Clinton Foundation appears more like a mafia bag-man operation than a reputable non-profit.  It claims to be a voice for women and the oppressed, even while it takes billions of dollars from donors who are sexual predators, misogynists and tied to oppressive regimes that reduce the status of women. Only a small percentage of the money raised actually funds real assistance programs;  most of the money goes to salaries, speakers and to the Clintons personal expenses.

If you look at the entire list of donors to the Clinton Foundation, you’ll see there are lots of individuals under indictment, lots of individuals and institutions currently embroiled in the Mossack Fonseca scandal, and lots of foreign officials who have been found to be corrupt.  And the big banks are at the center of it all.

Among largest donors to the Clinton Foundation:

• Barclays Capital
• Citi Foundation
• Standard Chartered
• Goldman Sachs
• Bank of America Foundation
• Citigroup
• HSBC
• Itau Unibanco
• UBS Wealth Management
• Banco Santander Brasil
• Deutsche Bank AG
• Deutsche Bank Americas
• Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund
• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Global Impact Funding Trust, Inc
• Bank of America Corporation
• BMCE Bank
• JPMorgan Chase & Co.
• Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, Inc.
• Morgan Stanley
• The Monte dei Paschi di Siena
• Wells Fargo Foundation

---

Examples of how the Clinton Foundation Helps Big Banks to Cash in on “Philanthropy”

CGI Sets up Big Banks to Cash in on Retrofitting Buildings Worldwide

ABN AMRO, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS have committed to arrange $1 billion each to finance cities and private building owners to undertake these retrofits at no net cost, doubling the global market for energy retrofit in buildings.

(HRC Senior Economic Advisor Gene Sperling pushed these initiatives while head of Obama’s National Economic Council. He is now a paid advisor to Renovate America Co. They would benefit from these programs as would the big banks who receive securitization and lending opportunities See: http://www.utilitydive.com/press-release/20150429-renovate-america-completes-240-million-securitization/  )

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/news-and-media/press-releases-and-statements/press-release-president-clinton-announces-landmark-program-to-reduce-energy-use.html

---

CGI Helps Standard Chartered (Serial Violator of Iran Sanctions) with “Microfinance Finance Facility”

At the CGI Annual Meeting in 2006, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) made a commitment to provide development organizations and fund managers with $500 million worth of credit and financial instruments that they could use to finance microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Africa and Asia, benefiting 4 million people over the commitment’s five-year implementation.

As a result, the Bank has formed 48 microfinance partnerships in 15 different countries across these regions. The Bank’s portfolio has grown to $180 million, with investments of $280 million (including provision of credit and financial instruments).

“Renewable & Clean Energy Financing in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East” Commitment to Action by Standard Chartered Bank in 2007

At the CGI Annual Meeting in 2007, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) committed to take a leading role in the financing of new renewable and clean energy projects by arranging debt, advising on finance, or acting as an equity investor in wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and other areas with a total project value of $8-10 billion over five years.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/news-and-media/press-releases-and-statements/press-release-first-clinton-global-initiative-commitment-of-2008.html

---

      II.    Big Banks Are Bankrolling the Clintons

Financial institutions and their employees were Clinton’s biggest donors when she was in the Senate from 2001 to 2008. The top four banks were Citi, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley.

For 24 years the Clintons have orchestrated a conjugal relationship with Wall Street, to the immense financial benefit of both parties. They have accepted from the New York banks $68.72 million in campaign contributions for their six political races, and $8.85 million more in speaking fees.  The banks have earned hundreds of billions of dollars in practices that were once prohibited—until the Clinton Administration legalized them.

Perhaps sensing the need to assure (Bill) Clinton’s re-election, Wall Street saw fit nearly to triple its campaign contributions—from $11.17 million in 1992 to $28.37 million in 1996.  Here’s what the Big Banks got: 

• Repeal of Glass-Steagall
• President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.  This law ended the regulation of derivatives, freeing Wall Street to manufacture mortgage-backed securities and sell them without restriction; these complex derivatives would power the “subprime” swindle soon to commence.
• Clinton’s Justice Department a deputy Attorney General named Eric Holder in 1999 authored a memo entitled “Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations.”  It became the Holder Doctrine, and after the financial crisis of 2008 it would be of incalculable value to the Wall Street banks.  On leaving the Administration Mr. Holder joined Covington Burling, the largest law firm in Washington, D.C..  Among its clients were Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America.
• Sixteen days after leaving the White House, Mr. Clinton delivered a speech to the Wall Street firm of Morgan Stanley, for which he was paid $125,000.  That was the first of many speeches he presented to Wall Street banks in following years.  By May of 2015, Mr. Clinton had earned $1,550,000 from Goldman Sachs, $1,690,000 from UBS, $1,075,000 from Bank of America, $770,000 from Deutsche Bank,, and $700,000 from Citigroup.  In total, $5,910,000.
• The Wall Street banks underwrote Ms. Clinton’s Senatorial ambition, contributing $2.13 million to her campaign.  Among the congenial banks were Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, CIBC, and Credit Suisse.
• Wall Street was impressed with both candidates.  Goldman Sachs contributed $1,034,615 to Mr. Obama’s campaign; JP Morgan Chase $847,855; Citigroup $755,057; UBS $534,166; and Morgan Stanley $528,182.  $3.7 million in total.  But Wall Street was more impressed with Ms. Clinton:  her take from the banks was $14.6 million.
• A few weeks after her swearing in, Secretary of State Clinton was called to Switzerland by the Swiss Foreign Minister.  They discussed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service against UBS, the Swiss banking international colossus (761 locations in the U.S.). Back in Washington Secretary Clinton interceded.  The impact of the suit was reduced by 90%.
  • In subsequent years UBS paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million in speaking fees, for eleven separate appearances.  Hillary Clinton earned $225,000 for another one.  Also in subsequent years UBS contributed $540,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/the-clintons-and-wall-street-24-years-of-enriching-each-other/

---

One of Clinton’s earliest votes in her Senate career provoked the ire of Elizabeth Warren, who was then a Harvard law professor.

Clinton voted with the big banks on a massive overhaul to the country’s bankruptcy laws, picking the financial services industry over consumers.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/01/16/clinton-record-wall-street-laissez-faire/Z2a3iOsj40wryeRN2iT6qK/story.html

Elizabth Warren — at the time a Harvard law professor — recounted for Bill Moyers how, in the 1990s, she wrote an editorial opposing a proposed piece of legislation tightening bankruptcy laws. Warren explained that it would disproportionately hurt single mothers. Hillary Clinton, at the time the first lady, read the editorial, and asked for a meeting with Warren. The meeting went well; Warren said she “never had a smarter student.” Afterward, Clinton returned to Washington and, according to her biography, persuaded Bill Clinton to veto the legislation.

But when Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate and another version of the same bill came to the floor, she did an about face:

ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It’s a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don’t realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.

BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as senator.

ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.

BILL MOYERS: But what does this mean though to these people, these millions of people out there whom the politicians cavort in front of as favoring the middle class, and then are beholden to the powerful interests that undermine the middle class? What does this say about politics today?

ELIZABETH WARREN: You know this is the scary part about democracy today. It’s… We’re talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying, and as their profits grow, they just throw more into lobbying for how they can get laws that will make it easier and easier and easier to drain money out of the pockets of middle class families.

http://billmoyers.com/story/elizabeth-warren-recalls-a-time-when-big-donors-may-have-changed-hillarys-vote/

---

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

---

Hillary Group Partnered With Company That Laundered $250 Billion For Iran And Violated Sanctions

On July 29, 2009, at a news conference in New Delhi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proudly announced that “Vital Voices Global Partnership,” an NGO that she said she had “founded”, had partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to promote women’s causes throughout Asia.

Unfortunately, Standard Chartered, which also donated generously to the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative, was charged by federal and New York State prosecutors of laundering over $250 billion for Iran and “deliberately” helping Iran circumvent sanctions imposed to cripple its nuclear program. In August and December, 2012 — Standard Chartered paid a total $667 million in fines to settle the cases and admitted its criminal activity.

First, the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Standard Chartered $340 million and, several months later, the Department of Justice negotiated a fine of $327 million in December of last year. Jaspal Bindra, the CEO of Asia Standard Bank, serves on the board of Vital Voices.

According to the New York State Department of Financial Services the ten years of illegal activity by Standard Chartered “left the US financial system vulnerable to terrorists, weapons dealers, drug kingpins, and corrupt regimes and deprived law enforcement investigators of crucial information used to track all manner of criminal activity.”

And all the while, Standard Chartered was funding programs related to the Clintons. The ties among former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative and Standard Chartered run long and deep.

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-group-partnered-with-company-that-laundered-250-billion-for-iran-and-violated-sanctions/

---

The Clinton Global Initiative Helps Big Banks with “Cover” 

In August of 2010, the Justice Department announced Barclays would pay nearly $300 million in fines for breaking sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan and others. The next month, it was — for the first time — a “strategic partner” for that year’s annual Clinton Global Initiative event.

In 2012, the CGI annual event featured three major banking partners that were also facing penalties and investigations for breaking Iran sanctions:

Standard Chartered paid a total $667 million, when all was said and done, to various regulators to settle allegations it violated Iran sanctions. The first half of that fine was levied by the New York State Department of Financial Services in August 2012, and the next month Standard Chartered appeared as a “meeting sponsor” of the CGI’s annual meeting.

A late August 2012 New York Times report revealed Deutsche Bank was also under investigation for potential Iran sanctions violations. Days later, Reuters reported Credit Agricole was conducting an internal review of payments involving countries that may have been subject to U.S. sanctions, at the urging of the Manhattan District Attorney and other “American governmental authorities.” Deutsche Bank was a meeting sponsor and Credit Agricole was a partner at that year’s CGI meeting.

In December 2012, the Department of Justice and U.S. Treasury announced HSBC would pay $1.92 billion to settle allegations that the bank allowed drug cartels to launder billions of dollars and that the bank violated U.S. sanctions by illegally conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Burma.

It’s unclear whether HSBC or any of its subsidiaries gave to the foundation that year or prior, but records on the Foundation’s website that were recently updated indicate the bank contributed anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 in 2014, when it was listed as a convening sponsor for that year’s  CGI meeting, the highest level of support possible.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/clinton-foundation-bank-ties-donors-2016/

---

Hillary Bashes HSBC; Doesn’t Mention $81 Million Sent To Clinton Foundation From Secret HSBC Swiss Accts; Doesn’t Return $2 Million In Fees And Donations To Clintons

By Eileen Mcgann On July 20, 2015

Hillary Clinton is shocked by the misconduct of many big banks and singled out HSBC for especially harsh criticism in her economic speech. She’s horrified about bank misconduct.

HSBC recently agreed to pay Swiss authorities $28 million for laundering money for sanctioned countries and drug cartels, as well as for helping wealthy clients conceal millions of dollars while advising them how to avoid taxes.

In December, 2012, HSBC paid a record $1.9 billion fine after a U.s. Department of Justice found the bank “violated federal laws by laundering money from Mexican drug trafficking and processing banned transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.”

So Hillary’s outrage is understandable. What’s not understandable is that the Clinton Foundation accepted a $500,000 contribution in 2014 – AFTER the settlement. And the money was never returned. Nor was the $1.5 million that the bank paid to Bill Clinton for speeches.

And Hillary never mentioned the $81 million in contributions that were routed through HSBC’s secret Swiss bank to the Clinton Foundation.

http://thehillarydaily.com/hillary-bashes-hsbc-doesnt-mention-81-million-sent-to-clinton-foundation-from-secret-hsbc-swiss-accts-doesnt-return-2-million-in-fees-and-donations-to-clintons/

By Phillip F. Nelson

An interesting story about a purported “Hillary Double” is now bouncing around the internet, even though it has not yet broken through the “glass ceiling” that covers the Mainstream Media (MSM), except for a few places where it is mentioned in hushed tones, as yet another “conspiracy theory.”

In the latest case of a politician with a  body double (there have been rumors of others, besides those of Hillary Clinton and Lyndon Johnson), the rumor suggests that Clinton has had a decades-long association with a lookalike named Teresa Barnwell.  The photos below were published at the website Viral Liberty today:

The accompanying report notes the fact that when Mrs. Clinton left the event at the 9/11 memorial ceremony she collapsed and had to be lifted by several of her attendants into her van.  Clearly, that vehicle is specially-equipped to accommodate her needs and is never very far away from where she is.  After it drove off, instead of taking the obviously very ill candidate to a hospital, it turned out that less than an hour later, she emerged from her daughter Chelsea’s apartment building looking as “fit as a fiddle.”  Still another rumor has it that Chelsea’s apartment includes a special room that is equipped just for her mother’s needs: A standard hospital room, with the bed and all the other related medical appliances one might find in a hospital.

What gives the story “legs” (no pun intended) is that when Hillary did emerge from the apartment building, she seemed to have lost about 20 pounds in the process and had apparently even changed her earrings, even though she seemed to be wearing the same clothes as she previously had worn at the ceremony.  But another interesting point was observed which also makes the entire vignette quite a bit more enigmatic:  She was alone, not one Secret Service agent or the large black man in suit and tie who is usually always at her side, carrying something that looks a lot like a medical device even though her campaign says it’s only a flashlight  (But why is he always carrying it in the daylight)?   And worse, she wanders out to the sidewalk and proceeds to hug a young girl, even though she was just diagnosed with contagious pneumonia!   As America is temporarily “relieved” to see the candidate recuperate almost instantly to what had seemed to be a severe, life-threatening medical emergency, the cloak of concern simply morphs into one of astonishment.  Not to the wonders of modern medical treatments that could work so immediately, but to the question of what is truth, contrasted with what is possibly related to the worlds of sorcery and black magic: A product not of medical technology, but that of the world of ages-old gypsies and grifters: It’s known colloquially as “blue smoke and mirrors.”

It is just possible that Mrs. Clinton learned a thing or two from one of her known-to-be favorite past presidents, one who practically invented that kind of shell-game magic, the art of getting people to watch Scene “A” when the dirty work was going on at Scene “B”: The 36^th POTUS, Lyndon B Johnson.

The 1969 Murder of Lyndon Johnson’s Double — His Cousin, Jay Bert Peck

Lyndon’s second-cousin, J. Bert Peck, had a close resemblance to Johnson and a voice that sounded like him.  Peck’s primary employment was as a deputy sheriff in Garland, Texas outside of Dallas; he also worked part-time as security for the Dallas Cowboys. But in his spare time, he was also employed by Lyndon Johnson in a, mostly still-secret, role as Lyndon Johnson’s double.  Unfortunately, in Johnson’s last year as president, Peck did some things that apparently greatly embarrassed Johnson.  As often happened when someone did something to embarrass LBJ, Mr. Peck died shortly afterwards, in his case by being shot in his own house by an intruder.

It all started when a news item appeared in two national magazines announcing that Lyndon Johnson had a “double,” a man who was known to have “stood-in” for Johnson on a number of occasions when Johnson wanted his presence known to have “existed,” even though he needed to be someplace else at that point in time. Peck made the mistake of making his role “public” when he appeared on Johnny Carson’s “Tonight” show to talk about his experiences as LBJ’s “double,” and again when he appeared in the 1968 movie “The Wrecking Crew” starring Dean Martin, Elke Sommer and Sharon Tate.  Peck appeared in two scenes playing “the president.”  One of them was taken from the back and right side as he, playing LBJ, was told about some stolen gold bullion; the second scene showed him dancing with Elke Sommer. The fact that these scenes were originally in the movie, as noted by the news articles and Peck’s obituary (described below), but were mostly deleted at some later point, suggests that Johnson did not want it known that he had a “double” to the public, at least in such a record that might become permanent, like a movie.

According to LBJ’s partner-in-crime, Billie Sol Estes (who was considered credible by the impeccably credentialed Texas Ranger — later U.S. Marshal — Clint Peoples), Johnson had Peck “stand in” for him on several occasions, including the evening of November 21, 1963, so he could go to Clint Murchison’s party at which the final “go” nod for the assassination would be given by LBJ.  He knew that Peck would only make a brief appearance at the hotel in Fort Worth to throw off reporters as to his whereabouts. The reports that Johnson was seen that evening in the main dining room and lobby of the hotel could be explained by this device, considering that there were no indications that he spoke to any group or even to anyone in particular that evening.   The following article, which validates the point about J. Bert Peck’s known role as an “LBJ Stand-in,” appeared in the “People” section of Time magazine, in the edition dated August 2, 1968:

Dean Martin and Elke Sommer have locked up star billing . . . in Columbia’s new Matt Helm thriller. Yet one supporting role is sure to set the audience buzzing. That’s when an aide informs the President that thieves have made off with $1 billion in gold bullion. And there’s old L.B.J. listening to the bad news. Old who? Well, it’s not quite the boss himself, folks. It’s his cousin. To play the President, Central Casting tapped J. B. Peck, 66, retired  [ Dallas County deputy] sheriff of Garland, Texas, and L.B.J.’s somewhat look-alike first cousin (Sic – Second Cousin). It’s just a flash of his pan, and J.B. got a kick out of it all.

And the same week, the following excerpt came from an article in “Newsweek” magazine dated August 5, 1968:

“It was a tossup as to who revealed the more fascinating profile when they posed together – actress Elke Sommer or a tall Texan who is making his movie debut with Elke and Dean Martin in ‘The Wrecking Crew’. The neophyte looks uncannily like LYNDON JOHNSON and is cast in a brief $1,000 role as an unnamed President of the United States.  He plays just one scene, swiveling from back to front in a Presidential chair to jolt the audience with his seemingly familiar features.  Who is he? A Dallas night watchman and sometime songwriter (“Pedernales River”) named J. B. Peck, 66, that’s who.  “My mother was a Johnson and I’m Lyndon’s second cousin,” he said, but the relationship was news to the White House.”(emphasis added).

Before the movie was released, a revision was made so that only the rear of his head was shown (i.e. the part of the sentence from this magazine article, “swiveling from back to front” is no longer true).  You can view this video (what remains of it anyway) for yourself on the internet at “www.DailyMotion.com.”

Billie Sol Estes stated that Johnson had become paranoid about Peck’s ability to keep quiet as a result of this publicity, and that was what caused him to order his murder.  All of which begs the questions, “Who would have had the power to delete that footage, and change the movie description to delete all references to the ‘presidential’ scenes and change the credits to list only ‘J. B. Pick’ (instead of ‘Peck’) and, instead of listing his character name (LBJ), it is only listed as “uncredited.”  One must carefully ponder this question and consider the implications, as part of this exercise in deductive reasoning:  Is it possible that LBJ picked up the telephone and called Jack Valenti one day in August 1968 and asked (or, more likely, ordered) him to have those changes made to the movie?  After all, it was precisely for this kind of purpose that Johnson had gotten his Hollywood friend Lew Wasserman to appoint Valenti to his position as head of the Motion Picture Association of America.  How else could these obviously telling yet otherwise innocuous set of changes get made, and by whose order?

To better understand the implications of all of this, one need only ponder these points: “WHY did all of this make LBJ so nervous?  Was he afraid that knowledge of his cousin’s sideline of acting as Johnson’s double might cause future researchers-cum-historians (i.e. those who endeavor to report real history instead of repeating the many LBJ-planted myths) to discover more of his secrets that might unravel the real truths of JFK’s assassination?”  And then ask yourself this question: Who else, other than Jack Valenti, LBJ’s appointed Hollywood watchdog, might have had the power to do these things?   The only realistic answer to that question is:  “No one” (other than Wasserman himself, who would do anything to accommodate his friend the president, knowing that back-scratching is a two person exercise).

A few months later, LBJ’s cousin J. B. Peck was murdered (according to researchers who have studied the numerous anomalies related to his death).  I have presented compelling circumstantial evidence that this is one of several such crimes committed by the murderous mortician John Liggett  (though Liggett was never charged because Peck’s death was ruled a “suicide”).  But it is not speculative whatsoever that, three years after that, Liggett returned to the same house and tried to kill Peck’s wife; unfortunately for him, she survived and reported the attack, and the attacker, to police.  After he was arrested, Liggett was given the keys to his handcuffs while being transferred to a court for a hearing and of course he attempted to escape; as if “on queue” he was quickly shot in the back and killed by a sheriff’s deputy.

Much, much more detailed information about this and other related stories are contained in my book “LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus,“ available at book dealers and internet stores like Amazon, Books-a-Million and Barnes and Noble.  To order a signed copy of this book send an email to: [email protected]

___________________________

[1] http://viralliberty.com/shock-claim-watch-hillarys-body-double-emerge-minutes-collapse-coverup-fool-americans-decide/

By Jacob Engels

The Committee to Restore America’s Greatness will launch a massive ad campaign in Times Square & Central Florida.

The East Orlando Post has learned that a pro-Trump Super PAC will launch a four-day campaign blanketing Times Square and the I-4 Corridor in Central Florida.   Times Square is visited by hundreds of thousands of people daily, while the Downtown Orlando area of the I-4 corridor sees similar amounts of drivers each day.   Sources close to the PAC, which is aligned with Trump confidant and veteran political operative Roger Stone, confirmed the group had two donors come forward offering the funding for the prime-time push.   The creative depicts the GOP presidential nominee as “Super Trump, who is ready to “Make America Great Again.”   Running as a video advertisement in Times Square and static ad in Central Florida, a preview can be seen below.

Conservative filmmaker Joel Gilbert developed the poster design and video concept.  

Committee to Restore America’s Greatness officials said these digital billboards are just the beginning of an “aggressive” push through emerging advertising and digital media to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in November.

“Donald Trump is ready to save the middle class, restore our borders, and snuff out corrupt politicians in both parties who prey on American citizens,” said Roger Stone, confidante and advisor to Trump for nearly 40 years.

Seminole County Tax Collector elect Joel Greenberg, who waged a Trump’esque campaign to defeat a longtime incumbent of over 27 years, is confirmed as one of the donors.

“I am eager to help Donald Trump expand his reach to younger voters and take on Crooked Hillary,” said Greenberg, who will be one of the youngest elected constitutional officers across Florida’s 67 counties when sworn in on January, 1st of 2017.

Mr. Greenberg will be providing the space in Central Florida, while San Diego based Dr. Robert Shillman has donated the funds for the Times Square effort.

“When I was a kid, Superman was my idol because he stood for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, just like Donald Trump,” said Shillman.

The video ad that will run in Times Square for four-days starting this coming week.

The ads will start on Tuesday in Times Square in NYC and run through Friday night, while the Central Florida campaign will begin the following week.

You can learn more about The Committee to Restore America’s Greatness by clicking here.

Jacob Engels, is the Founder of East Orlando Post & Seminole County Post. He is a seasoned political operative who has led numerous statewide political groups and has worked on several high-profile local, statewide, and national races. Jacob has been interviewed on national television & radio programs, with his work having been featured in the Orlando Sentinel, New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald and other publications nationwide. He can be reached at [email protected]

Source: http://eastorlandopost.com/trump-pac-super-trump-will-save-america

By Saint John Hunt

In this age of too many choices, the fate of America comes to rest as it always has upon a choice of two.  For the sake of a serious evaluation I do not include our third candidate.  What I am left with is of course the amateur, Donald Trump and the professional, Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Trump is clearly an amateur when it comes to some of the more refined qualities of which most of our Presidents (with the exception of Bush #2) excelled in.  I’m talking about the language of politics or as some call it, ‘double speak’.  In a nation that is used to hearing the ultra eloquence and endless declarations of Obama, we accuse Mr. Trump of his blatant disregard for verbal protocol.  Shocking we say!  However when we look at Obama’s overwhelming verbiage we must ask ourselves, “what has it accomplished?”  The answer is a resounding “not much.”

If Mr. Trump be guilty of less than slick speaking, so be it.  I for one am tired of the art of political ‘double speak’.  It is a welcome change when a man can speak in layman’s jargon.  Trump won’t be coached in slippery vocalizations, he speaks an ordinary and seemingly rare form of communication: ‘plain speak’. In days long gone we had President Truman who was a plain speaking man.  In some sense he was also unskilled at political ‘double speak’.  Ah, but those were different times when life was simpler but no less dangerous.  The reason Mr. Trump continues to gain followers is simply because he speaks to the average man and woman, with simple words unfettered by eloquence and flowery vocalizations.  In other words, a purer, unrefined, language.  In the deep back corridors of Washington’s power elite (of which Hillary Clinton is a member of) this is a threatening situation.  Don’t forget that action speaks louder than words.  Mr. Trump’s words and actions will eventually be somewhat tempered by the governing bodies whose job it is to work with the President in all capacities.  This would be the Congress and Senate.  If our government is functioning properly those three institutions will find the checks and balances that make this country so great.  Now for an evaluation of the professional; Hillary Clinton.

What more can be said of someone who has spent the last forty-five years crawling her way to the pinnacle of power?  She is tenacious if anything.  As a junior investigator during Nixon’s impeachment proceedings she was expelled for unethical practices.  As First Lady of the Governor of Arkansas she was involved in fraudulent land deals and illegal fund raising tactics.  As Senator from New York, she accomplished zero in terms of following through with the promises she made.  As Secretary of State she lied about her actions during the Benghazi scandal, and  used her position to fill the coffers of her foundation with millions of dollars from foreign countries, some of which were in serious violation of human rights.  As the First Lady she cost the American tax payer $32 million in her disastrous Health Care fiasco, accomplishing nothing.  As presidential candidate, she claims ignorance in the emails marked with a letter ‘C’   for ‘classified’.  Oh the list is too long.

The amateur, or the professional?  If for no other reason, I would vote for Mickey Mouse than to reward Mrs. Clinton for her lifetime achievement of criminal behavior.

By Roger Stone

Both the New York Times and CNN in their zeal to hurt Donald Trump have systematically misrepresented the facts surrounding The Institute For Law and Society, a legitimate non-profit which Trump funded in order to fight the expansion of Indian casinos in New York State.

The Institute For Law and Society sponsored both print and radio advertisements pointing out that the Mohawk Indian tribe, who were in the midst of negotiating a gaming compact with Governor George Pataki, were actively involved in the smuggling of illegal cigarettes, alcohol, drugs and immigrants across the Canadian border at the location of their Akwesasne reservation in the northern most part of New York State. After the Buffalo news ran a multiple part series on the criminal activities on the Mohawk tribe, US Attorney Pat Neimeyer, spoke publicly about the illegal trafficking going on on the Mohawk’s reservation and that he had been ordered by his US Justice Department superiors to look the other way.

Incredibly, the state-lobbying commission claimed that the Trump sponsored advertisements violated the state lobby law because a New York State Legislator might inadvertently hear them on the radio.  Lost on them seemed to be the fact that there were no issues pertaining to the Mohawks before the legislature and that Governor George Pataki took the position that he had unilateral authority to close a deal for casino gambling with the Mohawks without the approval of the legislature.

The state lobby commission’s position was an obvious infringement of Trump’s First Amendment rights and their case was, on the face of it, absurd. Trump’s lawyers assured him, and me, that although they were confident they would prevail in any litigation over the legality of Trump’s funding of The Institute For Law and Society they believed that the legal fight would be long and expensive. Trump decided to settle the matter although both the New York Times and CNN failed to note that the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing by Trump or The Institute For Law and Society.  Thus, the $250,000 paid by Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was for a settlement – not a fine.

For my part, I favored the litigation and was confident that we would prevail. Additionally, I wanted to demonstrate to the public that the Director of the State Lobbying Commission David Grandeau was an asshole and that his publicity seeking charges against Trump and The Institute For Law and Society were without merit. Trump, in his practicality, decided to settle.

How could the NY Times and CNN have missed these important facts?

By Roman Olearchyk in Kiev

Fears over effect Republican’s victory would have on US policy towards Kiev

For years, Serhiy Leshchenko, a top Ukrainian anti-corruption campaigner, worked to expose kleptocracy under former president Viktor Yanukovich. Now, he is focusing on a new perceived pro-Russian threat to Ukraine: US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election.

Mr Leshchenko and Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau published a secret ledger this month that authorities claim show millions of dollars of off-the-book cash payments to Paul Manafort, Mr Trump’s campaign director, while he was advising Mr Yanukovich’s Regions party from 2005.

Mr Manafort, who vigorously denies wrongdoing, subsequently resigned from his campaign role. But Mr Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue their efforts to prevent a candidate — who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed two years ago — from reaching the summit of American political power.

“A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy,” Mr Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. “For me it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world.”

Mr Trump’s rise has led to a new cleavage in Ukraine’s political establishment. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is backed by the pro-western government that took power after Mr Yanukovich was ousted by street protests in 2014. The former Yanukovich camp, its public support sharply diminished, leans towards Mr Trump.

If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev’s actions may have played at least a small role

“It was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that [Trump] is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world” –  Serhiy Leshchenko

“Ukraine’s anti-corruption activists have probably saved the Western world,” Anton Shekhovtsov, a western-based academic specialising in Russia and Ukraine, tweeted after Mr Manafort resigned.

Concerns about Mr Trump rocketed in Kiev when he hinted some weeks ago he might recognise Russia’s claim to Crimea, suggesting “the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were”.

Natalie Jaresko, a US-born Ukrainian and former State Department official who served for a year as Ukraine’s finance minister, fired off a volley of tweets to US officials. In one, she challenged former Republican presidential candidate John McCain: “Please assure us you disagree with statement on Crimea/Ukraine. Trump’s lies not position of free world, inc Rep party.”

On Facebook, Arseny Yatseniuk, the former prime minister, warned that Mr Trump had “challenged the very values of the free world”. Arsen Avakov, interior minister, called the candidate’s statement the “diagnosis of a dangerous marginal”.

Ukrainian politicians were also angered by the Trump team’s alleged role in removing a reference to providing arms to Kiev from the Republican party platform at its July convention.

Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at Washington’s Atlantic Council think-tank, said it was “no wonder that some key Ukrainian political figures are getting involved to an unprecedented degree in trying to weaken the Trump bandwagon”.

Kiev moved beyond verbal criticism when Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bureau and Mr Leshchenko — who has a reputation for being close to the bureau — published the ledger showing alleged payments to Mr Manafort last week.

The revelations provoked fury among former Regions party backers. Asked by telephone about Mr Manafort’s activities in Ukraine, a former Yanukovich loyalist now playing a lead role in the Regions party’s successor, called Opposition Bloc, let loose a string of expletives. He accused western media of “working in the interests of Hillary Clinton by trying to bring down Trump”.

Though most Ukrainians are disillusioned with the country’s current leadership for stalled reforms and lacklustre anti-corruption efforts, Mr Leshchenko said events of the past two years had locked Ukraine on to a pro-western course. The majority of Ukraine’s politicians, he added, are “on Hillary Clinton’s side”.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c98078d0-6ae7-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f.html#axzz4J8JU614c

By Saint John Hunt

Almost everyone knows the wonderful tale of Pinocchio.  You remember, right?  He wanted to be a real boy but unfortunately he was made of wood.  He wanted to be honest, but he just couldn’t stop lying. There was however an issue with his nose.  Pinocchio’s nose was afflicted by a strange occurrence.  When he lied, it grew, and grew, and grew so everybody could see. That story has a happy ending.  Here’s another story for you. This one doesn’t.

Hillary Clinton is the modern day Pinocchio.  She wants to be a real president, but unfortunately she’s more or less made of wood.  She pretends to be honest, but she just can’t stop lying.  The difference is that Hillary’s nose doesn’t grow.  If it did, in relation to her lying, her nose would dwarf the redwoods of Northern California.  By now it would traverse the seven mile bridge to Key West.

This is just my way of introducing the latest in an endless number of Hillary Clinton lies.  I’m talking about her relationship with Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.  Who is Viktor Pinchuk?  He is perhaps the Ukraine’s wealthiest industrialist.  He also happens to have donated almost $10 million to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014.  In addition, the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation transferred at least $8.6 million to the Clinton Global Initiative between 2009 and 2013. These donations were done at a time when Hillary Clinton was our Secretary of State and while Mr. Pinchuk courted the Clinton’s favor and met many times with State Department officials.  Pay to play.

Pichuk’s massive donations paid for Hillary’s support for the coup which deposed the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych at gun-point. No impeachment. No election. No due process.

Here is the Hillary lie.  She claims, through her spokesperson, that she never met with Pinchuk during her tenure as Sec. of State.  In 2014, a Clinton spokesman told the New York Times  that Viktor Pinchuk was never on her calendar during her State Department years.   Spokesmen for the Clintons declined to comment on the relationship. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said that from Jan. 21, 2009, to Feb. 1, 2013, (her entire tenure as secretary of state), Mr. Pinchuk was never on her schedule.

In two recently uncovered e-mails, Melanne Verveer, while working for the State Department, e-mailed Hillary saying: “I had breakfast with Pinchuk.  He will see you at the Brookings lunch.”  That was in June 2012.

Another email which had been undisclosed till now shows Viktor Pinchuk’s name on a list of Foundation donors invited to a dinner party at the Clinton’s home.  Thomas Weihe, a spokesperson for Mr. Pinchuk confirmed his attendance at the dinner and meeting with Mrs. Clinton.  It’s not surprising that when you examine Hillary’s reaction to questions about the Foundation, her tenure as Secretary of State, or her role in dozens of unethical cases, you find a simple response; deny, deny, deny.

So when I go sleep tonight I hope I dream that Hillary’s nose is like Pinocchio’s, and it’s so huge from lying, so utterly gigantic, so obscenely titanic that it would render her unable to walk, talk, or pretend that she will ever be a real president.