payne1000

by Jon Rappoport

October 19, 2015

“Political candidates for high office are virtual illusions assembled out of media dust. They are solidified cartoons presented on television. The real lives of the people who are thus animated by media are of no concern. Indeed, it is the job of the candidates to conceal their real lives and thoughts and emotions, to avoid frightening the stunted children who vote for them on Election Day. Political leadership roles were never designed for authentic persons. Such persons, in significant numbers, would crash the system and expose it as a complete fraud. The art of building the political system depends on mass minds tuned to caricatures, minds that can’t carry the freight of anything heavier. Therefore, society’s architects set about their work: thinning out consciousness itself.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

—I recall. No, I don’t recall. What difference does it make? Let’s move on. There are more important issues facing the American people—

When a sleazy politician of the first order is faced with her own lie, there is always “something more important to discuss.”

And of course, she simply “misspoke.” Misspeaking is an action reserved for the few. It doesn’t apply to everyone else. Everyone else lies.

Sharyl Attkisson wrote an instructive article about Hillary’s perilous 1996 “sniper” trip to Bosnia. Instructive, because she was there with Hillary.

Attkisson writes:

“The trip in 1996 would later become grist for the political mill when presidential candidate Clinton claimed–in 2008–that we had dodged sniper fire on that trip.

“I not only had a different memory, but I still had the video from the event and it clearly showed no snipers. In fact, there were children on the runway in Bosnia to greet Clinton. Sheryl Crow was on the trip with us, as was comedian Sinbad (to entertain the US troops). Sinbad, too, pointed out he didn’t recall sniper fire.

“CBS News assigned me to do the story on Clinton’s mistaken memory. When she doubled down the next day, we followed up with a second day story.

“Some analysts said it was the final nail in the coffin that caused her to drop out of the race in 2008, clearing the path for Barack Obama to take the nomination for Democrats. Clinton never fully explained whether she knew she wasn’t telling the truth, or whether she actually somehow believed her own concocted story. She simply explained that she’d been overtired.”

Hillary eventually confessed, if you can call it a confession: “So I made a mistake,” she said. “That happens. It proves I’m human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation.”

And then, on another occasion: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.”

Made a mistake. Misspoke.

If you landed at an airport, walked across the tarmac without incident, and years later told your friends you dodged sniper fire…would they believe you “misspoke” and “made a mistake” after they learned the truth?

Of course not.

Would they then form a different opinion of you? Of course. But when politicians do this sort of thing, their supporters don’t form a different opinion; they shrug, spin, deny, ignore.

Let’s see. A) Walked across the tarmac and nothing happened. B) Walked across the tarmac and dodged sniper fire. You know, bullets. From rifles. Dodging. Running. Could die any second.

When Brian Williams was caught inventing war stories that never happened, NBC fired him. They had to. He was the face of the news. He was supposed to be above credibility issues.

But when Hillary tells a straightforward lie about snipers, nobody fires her. It’s business as usual. And she could gain a title slightly more important than national news anchor: president of the United States.

Is the sniper lie the biggest Hillary has told? Not by a long shot. But it’s very instructive, because it was about a direct and specific issue of fact that could be contradicted easily by available evidence.

Which raises the question: since it was such a foolish lie to float, why did she go with it?

There are several possible answers:

She felt immune, in general, as people with a certain amount of power do. Untouchable.

She is incapable of separating her lies from the truth.

She misestimated, by a mile, the likelihood that she would get away with lying.

In any of these cases, she would be quite dangerous as a sitting President.

Equally dangerous, perhaps more so, is the public’s perception of her as a viable candidate. That perception is based on a PR profile which has been built for her over the course of many years. For the general public, she is that package.

Remember, Hilary Clinton is a champion of psychiatric treatment for the masses. Meanwhile, any psychiatrist with even a minimum of training would view her sniper-lie as a pathological symptom.

She stakes out a position of power relative to a system (psychiatry) that could expose her. This is a reflex reaction, in the same way that a high-level criminal would establish favored status with the Department of Justice.

The mainstream press, of course, shapes its coverage of her in terms of how she is hurting or helping her chances in the race for the Presidency. The idea that these reporters would actually investigate her past with relentless determination is absurd.

She is image, low-level archetype, symbol moving about on the chessboard, adjusting to the needs of the moment; and this grotesque activity is viewed as quite normal for someone who wants political power.

In a half-sane country, she would be ignored as a minor disturbance, like a momentary breeze filled with old leaves and dust and food wrappers.

But she stands on the threshold of the Presidency.

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

Ve'hoe

Lying is a leg of the Democrat platform.....

payne1000

Lying is the main character trait of both parties.

Ve'hoe

the tea party is attempting to remedy that,,,, it is not yet a leg of the republican party platform

payne1000

The tea party is a bunch of fat old right-wingers who don't think the republican party is far enough right.

Ve'hoe

No,,,, the tea party is not.........and you?????

payne1000

How do you define the tea party?

JMHO Loc: Utah

You were doing fine until this absolute stupid comment.

Ve'hoe

I already have with you,,,,,,

Strangely enough,,, I define YOU the way you do the tea party... plus a waste of time....

payne1000

Vehoe refuses to define the tea party. Maybe you can tell readers what the tea party stands for?

JMHO Loc: Utah

I am a Tea Party Member, and you don't know what you're talking about. Try this, for a starter...it is pretty accurate.

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2011-07-29-254740.112112-The-Tea-PartyIts-origins-and-what-it-stands-for.html

payne1000

Okay, now I get it. Tea Partiers are religious fundamentalists who most likely want to kill all Arabs and Muslims while avoiding paying any taxes to support the infrastructure of America or the wars they support.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Have another toke, moron.

payne1000

I must have nailed it.

JMHO Loc: Utah

No, as usual it was your normal bullshit response...nothing new.