James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released video evidence that left-wing organizer and high-level Democratic Party operative Robert Creamer is, in fact, linked directly to Hillary Clinton, who personally approved at least one of his disruptive tactics.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-p**********l-race/2016/10/24/new-okeefe-video-hillary-clinton-approved-robert-creamer-plan-directly/

Moron Alert!!!!! I bet you don't have the balls to tell a cop that do you, pussy?

They don't....the story is false.

An asshole.

Gary Johnson????? Now, there is a loser.

Well, it's your party that d**gs the dead people and ineligibles to the polls every e******n...take it up with your party reps, moron. Question: are you a crook? A pathological liar? A scandal looking for a place to happen? A lesbian? A cold heartless old hag in ill health? If you're not, why do you support one?

You, and your libtard ilk are the sh*t, pal. You're definitely the product of a dumbed down education system, that is if you ever went to school. If you did go to school, you should have stayed off the drugs. What a moron!

And, a good way to create longer waits, lower quality care, and doctors leaving the profession.

If you look up the f**e sounding but real name “Jessica Drake” on even a mild porn site, you get your choice of “Jessica Drake–Anal,” “Jessica Drake–Threesomes,” “Jessica Drake–Lesbian,” and some that I cannot repeat in this wholesome magazine.

But a quick look tells you that this extremely long in the tooth “porn star” has done just about everything you can imagine, and many things you really cannot imagine.

The beauty of this is that this poor creature, heaven help her, is now the “eleventh woman” who was supposedly approached inappropriately by Donald Trump. Supposedly, Mr. Trump called her to his room at a resort in the western U.S. He then kissed her. Did not have sex. Nothing involved with the digestive tract. No threesomes. No lesbian. Nothing. She then returned to her room and, supposedly, was called by Mr. Trump or someone acting on his behalf, and offered $10,000 to come to his room. She was also offered a ride to wherever she was heading on his jet. She indignantly refused, according to her lawyer, the ever present Gloria Allred, wearing her ever present pink Chanel jacket at an indignant press conference. (She is said to be a wealthy woman. She must have more clothes than that. I guess it’s just a favorite. I know I wear the same navy blazer all of the time.)

Now, “Jessica Drake” did not report it, wh**ever “it” is, for ten years. “Miss Drake” used to get, as I am told, about $2,000 for having extremely odd sex on camera with total strangers. And we are supposed to believe that she turned down TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS to have sex with a famous businessman, without even having to have cameras there or lights or anything? Maybe not even to have sex. Just to come to his room.

As a smart 27-year-old woman who knows something about sex abuse told me tonight, “Yeah, right. Try that lie on someone else.”

But, maybe it’s true. Jessica Drake says she has done some magnificent anonymous — of course — charity work and maybe she’s as pure as the driven snow now and was 10 years ago (although that is not what one gathers from her bio, which clearly says she was and is extremely busy in the sex business and has made anal sex her particular specialty for some years now). Maybe she’s the saint of d*****t sex. Again, where’s the crime here? A man offers a woman a gift for private, consensual sex. It’s not like curing AIDS but, again, where is the crime there? It happens all day long. The crime would be if she worked for him when he was governor or attorney general of a southern state, and he raped her, and then his wife threatened her kids and her if she came forward with the story. Naturally, that story does not get covered except in the “alt right” press. I guess I am just stupid but I don’t see serious misconduct here in the life of Jessica Drake.

(By the way, the crime of sex abuse is when a woman’s former boyfriend chokes her into unconsciousness and threatens to k**l her if she reports it to the police. That’s the story of my beautiful 27-year-old friend. She reported what happened to the district attorney of the small town where she lived. The DA did nothing. That’s sex abuse.)

Meanwhile, the MSM is full of stories of the “total meltdown” of the GOP. It’s bad all right. It’s extremely bad and I really wish my pal from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, were the nominee. But the total meltdown has been of the mainstream media. Foaming at the mouth about Donald Trump asking a sex star to come to his room while tens of thousands die in Aleppo because our President backed out on his red lines. Now, the MSM has reached a new low with its refusal to acknowledge that when Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump in Debate Three of purposely colluding with Putin to alter the U.S. e******n, she was committing textbook libel: a damaging falsehood about a public figure spoken or written intentionally, knowing that it is false or uttered with such contempt and negligence that there might as well be specific intent.

But Mrs. Clinton totally got away with it. I know Mr. Trump loves to sue people. Let’s see him sue HRC for libel over that after she’s in the Oval Office. Public figures are not immune from libel actions. A well-heeled plaintiff can go after them. Go for it, Donald! Trump it!

http://spectator.org/why-donald-trump-should-sue-hillary-clinton/

She says she’s against it but her history suggests otherwise.

Throughout this e******n cycle, Hillary Clinton has insisted that she doesn’t favor single-payer health care. Prepare yourself for a shock — she’s lying. As early as 1994, she described the future of our medical delivery system thus: “I think the momentum for a single-payer system will sweep the country … if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.” Nineteen years later, her affinity for single-payer hadn’t faded. Emails published by WikiLeaks early this month show that, in a 2013 closed-to-the-public speaking engagement, Clinton was still touting the cost savings allegedly achieved by single-payer systems in Scandinavia and Canada.

Now that she’s running for the presidency again, however, Clinton would have us believe that she has had a change of heart. Indeed, during her battle with Bernie Sanders for the Democratic p**********l nomination, she denounced the Vermont Senator for advocating the replacement of Obamacare with single-payer, saying that such a system “will never, ever come to pass.” Her public position is that she will “defend” Obamacare and “improve on its successes.” But another batch of emails published by WikiLeaks last week shows Clinton exchanging ideas with her advisors concerning the most effective way to facilitate “the unraveling of ACA.”

Specifically, in a September 2015 email stream about bipartisan support for repealing Obamacare’s 40 percent excise tax on high-dollar health care plans, she writes: “I’ll support repeal.… But we have to be careful that the R version passes which begins the unraveling of the ACA.” A few days following this email exchange, Clinton announced that she would “encourage Congress to repeal the so-called Cadillac tax.” Now, why would a p**********l candidate ostensibly committed to defending President Obama’s “signature domestic achievement” support any congressional measure that she believes would lead to its eventual demise?

Given Clinton’s propensity toward prevarication, the obvious answer is that she is being less than candid about her plans for our health care system in general and Obamacare in particular. And her plan to “fix” Obamacare supports that conclusion. A major feature of her proposed repair job is that perennial progressive panacea, the public option. The brilliant idea behind this proposal is to have a government-run insurance plan available in every exchange to compete with private insurers. This would, according to its proponents, force insurance companies to offer fair prices to Obamacare enrollees and thus hold down premiums and deductibles.

The actual result would be to force the few remaining private insurers willing to sell policies through the exchanges out of the health insurance market. The public option would sell coverage at taxpayer-subsidized rates that no legitimate enterprise can offer without going bankrupt, so the last holdouts would simply follow Aetna, United Healthcare, and dozens of other insurers out the door. This would quickly convert the Obamacare “marketplaces” into mere enrollment stations for yet another government-run health care plan, which would be entirely consistent with the overall goal of getting every American on some form of government coverage.

This project is already well underway, of course. The taxpayers already pick up the tab for nearly two-thirds of the nation’s health care expenditures, and the share of the U.S. population on some sort of government health plan has increased dramatically during the past decade. As John Merline points out at Investor’s Business Daily, quoting data from the Centers for Disease Control, “the share of the population that gets insurance coverage directly from the government… jumped from 18.1% in 2007 to 25.3% in 2015.” During the same period, the percentage of Americans with private health insurance coverage has actually gone down.

This shift from private coverage to government-run plans will accelerate if Clinton is successful in getting another of her Obamacare “fixes” enacted. Clinton has proposed what has become colloquially known as “Medicare-for-More.” The proposal, which she unveiled last May in response to the enthusiasm among progressives for Sanders’ proposals, would extend Medicare eligibility to adults in their fifties. The details have remained remarkably vague, but Avalere Health estimates that 13 million Americans could become eligible to buy into the Medicare program under the plan, an increase in the number of beneficiaries of 25 percent.

And the beat goes on. The good news is that, unless Clinton wins the e******n in a landslide large enough to sweep the Democrats back into power in both houses of Congress, it’s unlikely that she will be able get many of her awful policy ideas passed. Neither the expansion of Medicare, which is already hurtling toward bankruptcy, nor the public option will go anywhere. The last time her accomplices tried to get the latter passed, they described it as “stealth single-payer.” How fitting that it is being reintroduced by Hillary Clinton, a stealth advocate of single-payer, a system that the v**ers revile and which no amount of subterfuge can make succeed.

http://spectator.org/a-v**e-for-hillary-is-a-v**e-for-single-payer/

Chinese companies are buying up overseas assets at a faster pace than U.S. buyers for the first time on record. This graphic, updated weekly, takes a close look at what China is acquiring, and where. The numbers reveal a lot about the country’s growing global ambitions.

Continue reading: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-china-deals/

In an op-ed for TIME magazine, PBS host Tavis Smiley talks about his fears that b****s in America might one day return to s***ery if Donald Trump wins the e******n.

Smiley explains that he was asked by a student during a visit to Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, “Do you believe that given the crisis of our democracy, we black folk could ever find ourselves ens***ed again?”

The short answer, according to Smiley: “Yes.”

He writes:

When I hear Donald Trump suggest that he wants to “make America great again,” it always triggers the same three questions in my head.

One: How is Trump defining “greatness?” Two: Since so many fellow citizens have yet to experience the true “greatness” of America for the first time, for whom are we making America great again? And, three: To what specific period of American greatness are you wanting us to “return?”

Smiley remarked that he didn’t see that question coming, nor did “the mostly white audience.” But as it turns out, he was sure prepared with an answer.

“In my lifetime, I have never seen Congress so blatantly mock our Constitution. It’s especially striking that it comes from the political party that’s always lecturing us about the ‘rule of law’ … I wonder what other Constitutional mandates Congress could just decide to ignore,” Smiley contemplated.

He concludes:

So, could the Constitution be thwarted and black folk end up ens***ed again? Legal scholars, of course, will find the question ludicrous and laughable.

It wasn’t farfetched for the young student who pressed me at Lehigh that evening. And, honestly? With the hair-raising, bone-chilling, spine-breaking, nerve-wracking path we’re on right now, I shudder to think where this democracy could end up one sad day, if we don’t get off this low road and make our way to higher ground soon.

For some time now, Smiley has been anywhere but near the kind of destitution the s***es in America were accustomed to. Earning his way into the $10 million dollar club, Smiley leads a pretty great life — one that would reap a substantial benefit from a Trump presidency considering his tax bracket.

It would appear his theory is unfounded, at least for a one-percenter like himself.

http://www.t***hrevolt.org/news/wealthy-pbs-host-fears-s***ery-could-return-under-president-trump

About this time next week we will see the polls tighten and get closer to the real numbers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

And, who pays for it???????????

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-belmont-high-school-20160710-snap-story.html