Skip to content

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton said environmentalists need to ‘get a life’ at private meeting with unions

October 17, 2016

 According to a previously released email by Wikileaks Hillary Clinton said that politicians need to have a public opinion and a private opinion in order to get things done and now it looks like we have another example of what she was talking about.

  While speaking about the environment at what she thought was a private meeting with labor unions she stated that environmentalists need to “get a life.” Here is more:

Hillary Clinton dismissed climate activists in withering terms during a meeting with labor unions last year, saying the environmentalists pressing her to renounce fossil fuels should “get a life,” according to allegedly hacked emails released Friday by WikiLeaks.

Clinton’s private remarks came as she was fighting off a challenge from Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and getting accosted at rallies by environmental activists asking her to join the Vermont senator’s call to stop oil and gas drilling on federal lands and to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. Since winning the nomination, Clinton has made amends with Sanders, and green groups have united behind her campaign to head off the threat posed by Donald Trump. But revelation of the private remarks may complicate that relationship.

“I’m already at odds with the most organized and wildest” of the environmental movement, Clinton told building trades unions in September 2015, according to a transcript of the remarks apparently circulated by her aides. “They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life, you know.”

Read more…

USA Today report finds companies used The Clinton Foundation to lobby the State Department

October 17, 2016

 USA Today is out with a new report which has found that companies were making donations to The Clinton Foundation before lobbying the State Department, and it just so happens that these companies were using major Clinton fundraisers as their lobbyists.

  Here is more:

The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.

While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.

Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.

USA TODAY reached these conclusions by obtaining federal lobbying data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics for 2009-2013, Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State. Reporters then compared the data with donor lists made public by the Clinton nonprofits and federal campaign financial records.

  Here is what the Clinton campaign had to say about this report:

Read more…

Wikileaks: John Podesta’s troubling response to the San Bernardino terrorist attack

October 16, 2016

 In the aftermath of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino which left 14 people dead and 22 people injured NBC reporter Christopher Hayes Tweeted to his followers that a man named Sayeed Farouk was believed to be involved in the shooting. 

  According to this story, which cites Wikileaks, when John Podesta heard the news the first email he fired off was not a lamentation of the carnage nor thoughts and prayers for the family and friends of the dead or any other sympathetic thought which would show he actually had human emotions. Rather it was a cold-hearted, politically based, sick response the likes of which is hard to grasp by any caring person who was grieving at the senseless loss of life.

  Here is what he had to say:

Read more…

Wikileaks: John Podesta believes Barack Obama ‘forces’ committed voter fraud in 2008

October 16, 2016

  Voter fraud does not happen and those who support voter identification laws are really racists who are looking to suppress minority turn out by offering a solution to a nonexistent problem. We know this is true because the Democrats have been telling us this for years.

  That is what they have told us, however a newly released email by Wikileaks seems to tells us John Podesta was worried about voter fraud during the Democratic primary this year because “Obama forces” flooded Colorado with ineligible voters back in 2008. Here is more:

High importance. I met with Jim and Mike in Denver. They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters. They want to organize lawyers for caucus protection, election protection and to raise hard $. They are not just Colorado focused and have good contacts in the region Mike is likely to talk to WJC about this in the near future. Marlon and Brynne, can you respond to the org chart request and give them some points of contact. Marc can you reach out to them on the lawyer election protection issues. Thanks.

  A previously released email quoted Hillary Clinton as saying a politician needs to have a public and a private position on the issues and I guess this is another example.

  It is interesting to note that now that the primary against Bernie Sanders is over these same “Obama forces” are now supporting Hillary Clinton, but there is no need to worry because voter fraud does not exist…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Sunday, October 16th open thread: ‘Radioactive’

October 16, 2016

  open-threadHere is the open thread for Sunday, October 16th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.

  Last week  we discussed 9 stories, did you miss any of them? If so there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. I understand that all of you are busy and cannot always find the time to check the blog for updates so why not subscribe to America’s Watchtower and receive email updates whenever I write a new post? That is the easiest way to follow the blog to ensure you never miss another post.

  In addition to subscribing you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right. But you will get more than that for I often post links to articles I probably will not be writing about so it is a great way to keep up with what is happening.

  The Twitter widget in the sidebar is fully interactive. This widget updates my tweets in real time and allows you to respond to or retweet my tweets right from the blog. It also allows you to tweet me right from America’s Watchtower. How cool is that! If you do not have a Twitter account what better reason do you need to sign up for one!

  Here is Imagine Dragons performing “Radioactive” in 2013. There seems to be some symbolism here, both with the name of the band (the dragon, as well as the serpent, is the symbol of wisdom) and the lyrics, which I think is interesting.

frui diem

In 2013 speech Hillary Clinton said she wanted more successful businessmen to run for office because they can’t be bought

October 15, 2016

  Thanks to Wikileaks were are now beginning to learn some of what Hillary Clinton said in speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs. Of course the former Secretary of State has been reluctant to release the transcripts of those speeches and now we might have an inkling as to why that is.

  Back in 2013 while answering a question at a private event Hillary Clinton had this to say about successful businessmen running for political office:

Read more…

Wikileaks: John Podesta asked about withholding email correspondence with Barack Obama from the Congress

October 14, 2016

 According to Wikileaks John Podesta asked Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl Mills, if they should withhold email correspondence with Barack Obama from the Congress. Here is more:

In a March 4, 2015 email to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s eventual campaign chairman John Podesta asks if they should withhold email exchanges between Clinton and President Obama that were sent over Clinton’s private server.

The day before Podesta sent his email to Mills, the House Benghazi Committee privately told Clinton to preserve and hand over all her emails. (The FBI report on Clinton’s emails notes on Page 18 that on March 3, 2015, the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi provided a letter to the law firm Williams & Connolly requesting the preservation and production of all documents and media related to the email addresses and

The email from Podesta to Mills, titled “Special Category,” reads: “Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I(t) seems like they will.”

  Cheryl Mills was smart about it, she did not respond by email but the State Department did not turn these emails over to the Congress so it is pretty obvious what her answer was. It is unclear whether or not Barack Obama used Executive Privilege to stop the release of these emails but I believe if he did we would probably have heard about it by now–probably.

  Either way it is still interesting because we were told all Hillary Clinton’s work related emails were turned over and only her emails about yoga pants and wedding dresses were deleted, but if this was the case why would Barack Obama or John Podesta be worried about keeping these emails from the Congress? And why would Hillary Clinton be emailing the President about yoga pants and wedding dresses in the first place?

  It reminds me of that line from A Few Good Men, “is the colonel’s underwear a matter of national security?”

  None of this passes the common sense test…

 malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium