Saturday, March 3, 2018

49 Tips for Recognizing a False Flag or other Psyop

  “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin
     There can be no doubt that false flag attacks are a reality.  Washington’s Blog has documented at least 53 false flag attacks to which government officials in various countries—including the U.S.—have later admitted.  Only the most cowardly, self-deceived individuals can doubt the existence of false flag attacks.
     Several web sites offer anywhere from three to fifteen clues on how to recognize false flag attacks.  I’ve gleaned through them and added a few of my own.  There are really too many to cover in detail in a single article.  Instead, I’ve chosen simply to list them and perhaps go into further detail a few at a time, on some future occasion.
     Your choice: You may read the article or watch the video:

     In a false flag attack or other psyop, several (or many) of the following phenomena are evident:
The Narrative
1.    There is an immediate comprehensive narrative, including a convenient culprit. Law enforcement, government agencies, and the mainstream media immediately proffer a narrative that completely explains the event and encourages citizens to tie their intellectual understanding of the tragedy to the emotions they experience.
2.     Even before there is time for investigation, the “news” media has quickly and conveniently named and demonized the “culprit” (read: patsy).
3.    The official narrative has obvious domestic and geopolitical advantages for the governing body.
4.    The narrative behind the attack serves to leverage emotions such as fear, as well as patriotism, in order to manufacture consent around a previously controversial issue. (e.g. calls for gun confiscation) 
5.    Media and government officials promote a narrative against scapegoat groups and/or an agenda to deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property.
6.    The official narrative keeps changing, adjusting to new facts that contradict the official narrative.
7.    No matter how many times the narrative changes, people who question the official narrative are demonized as “conspiracy theorists” or something worse.
The Nature of the Event
8.    It’s a high-profile event. According to a New York Times news article, mass murders (murders of four or more people at one time) occur an average of once a day in the U.S.  The overwhelming majority of mass murders are ignored, but a select few are covered 24/7.
9.    The event seems too theatrical to be real, or at least too theatrical to be taken at face value.
Obvious Holes in the Official Narrative
10.  Official narrative contradicts boundary conditions (e.g., the narrative that a non-pilot such as Hani Hanjour taught himself to fly a Boeing 757 more expertly than an experienced Boeing pilot.)
11. Significant omissions in the official narrative  (e.g., the fact that, only two weeks before 9/11, Hani Hanjour was not allowed to rent a Cessna 172 due to his poor piloting skills).
12. Official narrative contradicts experience (personal or historical) (e.g., that no high-rise building in history has ever collapsed due to fire damage, yet it supposedly happened three times at the same place on the same day.)
Official Behavior before or during the Event
13. Military training drills or police drills occur on the day of and very near the attack itself, simulating an event that’s virtually identical to the “real” event that is taking place.  This often causes confusion, muddles eye witness testimony, and allows orchestrators to plant both patsies, disinformation, and backup operatives.
14. Government or media foreknowledge (e.g. BBC announcing the collapse of WTC-7 some 20 minutes before it actually occurred).
15. Ignored warnings.
16. Authorities facilitated the event, either actively or passively.
17. Serious violations of protocol.  (In the Sandy Hook psyop, almost everyone in any official capacity violated the law and failed to follow required protocol.)
The Suspect(s)
18. Suspects usually have new social media accounts.
19. Suspect leaves a manifesto.
20. Suspect has had no military training, yet he shoots extremely fast and accurately.
21. The suspect(s) have a demonstrable connection to the CIA, FBI, or another intelligence agency.
22. The suspect has no credible means of funding.  (e.g., James Holmes, an unemployed medical student who had $26,000 worth of armaments, body armor, bomb-making equipment, and other paraphernalia.  Unaccountably, he also had the skills to make the bombs, rig the booby traps, and use the guns and ammo.  Wow!)
23. Suspect dies before he can be brought to trial.
24. In the case of a terrorist group, PR is clearly designed for domestic consumption (e.g., when organizational initials or other PR symbols are in English when one would reasonably expect them to be in the native language of the terrorist group.  Note: the acronym ISIS stands for the English words Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).
The Witnesses

25. On local news stations, eyewitnesses who have accounts conflicting with official narrative are ignored by the national media.
26. Witnesses whose accounts may be fatal to the official narrative are killed, drugged, or “suicided;” or they die under other suspicious circumstances.
27. Family or witnesses supporting the official narrative often have elite or acting backgrounds.
28. “Witnesses” make official talking points. (E.g., 9/11 “Harley guy” claiming that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”)
29. “Witnesses” speak in “officialese” (e.g., “multiple gunshots” instead of “several (or a specific number of) gunshots,” or, “I witnessed…,” instead of, “I saw…”)
30. The same witnesses are present at two or more events.
31. “Witnesses” speak in generalities, so as to avoid the risk of telling too different a story as other “witnesses.”
32. Witnesses’ statements are reinterpreted or shut off by an interviewer.
Victims and their Families
33. Fake “victims;” the same “victim” get killed in two or more separate events.
34. Families of “victims” appear on TV within 24 hours, showing little or no emotion, and even snigger and laugh.  “Robbie Parker”  James Foley’s smiling sister’s “duping delight”:
35. Non sequiturs (e.g. that victims’ families wouldn’t want to know how their loved ones died; or pulling out of an illegal war would be disrespectful of “the troops;” or that “an investigation of a terrorist act would invite another such offense.”)
36. Victim’s families don’t sue anyone for negligence, but receive millions in unsolicited federal payouts
News Reports after the Event
37. There is no obvious motive for the attack.
38. News media may obsess over a search for a motive, thereby diverting attention from any realistic search for evidence.
39. Credible reports of accomplices (e.g., “John Doe Number Two”) are ignored or quickly covered up.
40. Reporter or other authoritative accounts contradict official narrative (e.g. McIntyre’s (McIntyre’s first version)  (McIntyre’sflip flop)  and Walter’s flip flops; or FBI crime stats revealing that no murders were committed in or around Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the year of the alleged Sandy Hook shooting).
Investigators after the Event
41. Cui Bono?  (Who benefits?) Neither the news media nor investigators ask this question.
42. Other key questions are never investigated and are left unanswered.
43. Key evidence is conveniently destroyed before a thorough investigation can take place.
44. Official behavior contradicts official narrative (e.g. outbound flights arranged for the bin Laden family while bin Laden was being blamed for an atrocity, even as all other flights are grounded).
45. The case is quickly closed.
46. Government begins to “take action” against the scapegoat or moves along the lines of the media narrative.
47. The officially proposed solution wouldn’t have prevented the events.
48. Clues in pop media (foreshadowing) (Use your favorite web or video search engine to find “predictive programming.”)
49. Other anomalies, which may or may not be found in more than one psyop event.  “Other anomalies” can cover a wide range and be very difficult to spot or may be nothing more than anomalies.

     Well, that’s my list.  Not everything is a conspiracy, but conspiracies do happen.  Politics, by its very nature, is conspiratorial.
     [Note: Veterans Today posted a detailed article about nineteen signs of a false flag event.  It covers some of the same points I've covered in this article, but it gives much more detail and explanation.  It's well worth reading.] [LINK]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”      —Thomas Jefferson

Friday, January 19, 2018

Congressional Investigation into Why Hillary Lost (a mockumentary)

     Hillary Clinton said in an interview that there should be a high-level investigation into the causes of her 2016 defeat.  Her standards of credibility for the proposed investigation are pretty low, as she said that the investigation should be along the lines of the 9/11 Commission "investigation."
     She probably won't get her wish, but that hasn't stopped me from trying to come close.  I've taken audio and video recordings of her words, interspersed with questions of my own making.

     Enjoy it and share it with others.  If you like, I can use not-yet-used clips to create a video in which Hillary praises President Trump for the excellent job he's doing as President.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

What's Driving President Trump's Low Approval Rating?

    A friend of mine recently wrote to me about President Trump's low approval rating.  He said, "The media claims Donald's support is down to 38%.  I don't believe it.  Everyone I know is still behind him and believes he is the best thing for this country."
     Of course, one robin doesn't make a spring.  My friend has a higher-than-average education; and, from my knowledge of him (and that he's a retired computer science teacher,) I know that he's very bright.  He probably associates mainly with bright people (such as I.) A typical leftist might grasp at straws ans accuse him of dwelling in something like their safe space: an echo chamber of ideas.
     What about people who live and work outside my friend's circle of acquaintances?  What about the 62% who either disapprove of President Trump's performance or the clueless clods who have no opinion of him because they spend most of their time distracted by Game of Thrones, ESPN, or the Kardashians? The ones who'd rather look for Pokemon than look for a job?

     Rather than taking the words of the Counterfeit News Network and BSNBC at face value, let's take a look at the polls on President Trump's 38% approval rating. There are several points to consider.

  1. The 38% in question is the finding of the same pollsters who told us that Clinton had a 97% chance of winning the 2016 election. The Rasmussen poll, which came closest to being accurate in 2016, which uses the most reliable sampling, and which asks only people who are likely voters, says Trump has a 41% approval rating.  That's about 3 percentage points lower than Obama's at the same point in his first term of office. Obama had a honeymoon period; Trump didn't.
  2. Trump is attacked daily in the corporate media, while Obama largely got a free ride.  According a survey of news reports a month or so ago, the most Trump-friendly "news" outlet (Fox) was negative on Trump around 60 percent of the time.  CNN was negative 97% of the time, and they even chose to ignore important issues just so they could hammer him over petty lies such as whether he ate two scoops of ice cream or just one.
  3. During the 2016 campaign, voters naturally compared Trump to Clinton and, of course, Trump won.  After nine months of hammering, with no flesh-and-blood opponent, most voters unconsciously compare Trump to an imaginary ideal President.  
  4. Voters have short memories.  During the campaign, the opposition was constantly saying in so many words that Trump was promising things that no one could achieve. Remember what Obama said to the Carrier air conditioning employees about Trump's promise to save their jobs and to bring manufacturing and coal jobs back to America? Obama called Donald Trump's jobs promises a cruel hoax.  (When half the jobs were returned, and other jobs opened up elsewhere, the Obamatards attacked Trump for not saving all the Carrier jobs and for not using traditional Republican means to save and create jobs.)  Remember what the Democrat naysayers said when Trump promised to raise the GDP to 2%, 2.5% or even higher?  (Now it's 2.6% and climbing.)  What about other economic indicators?  (They're all skyrocketing to their highest levels in 15 years.)  Curbing illegal aliens?  (Illegal border crossings are down by three fourths.)  Name the promise.  Except for the promises that depended on the cooperation of RINOs such as Songbird McCain, Snitch McConnell, Swish Graham, and Paul RINO, he has kept his promises beyond all expectation. After doing what the Democrats said was impossible, they whine that he didn't do enough.
  5. There's one other point about Trump's approval rating: the word approval is open to interpretation.  Voters can support every one of his initiatives and still not "approve" of him as a person.  By contrast, Justin Trudeau is destroying Canada; but, according to Business Insider, four out of ten Americans would rather have Trudeau as U.S. President.  And what words of praise does Business Insider have for Trudeau?  His flashy clothes and celebrity status.  But wait a minute.  If four out of ten Americans would rather have Trudeau than Trump, that would mean that six out of ten would rather have Trump or are not sure which they'd rather have. That goes back to what I said about Trump needing to be compared to a real person and not an imaginary ideal.  When compared to Clinton, Trump won.  Now, compared to Trudeau, Trump still wins.

     Now that Donald Trump has done more for the American people in seven months than Obama had done in eight years, what are the Democrats doing to counter his moves? They've come up with a new slogan: "A Better Deal."  
     A better deal than what?  A better deal than they've been giving us?  A better deal than Trump is already delivering?  Why are they promising a better deal now that they're out of power and can't deliver on their promises?  If they can do better than Donald Trump is now doing, why did they say his promises were cruel hoaxes that would be impossible for anyone to keep?

     They still don't realize that every political issue represents human needs and human desires.  They still think that political issues are all about public relations.  When the policies are disastrous for the American people, we don't need a better public relations initiative; we need better policies.
     We're supposed to believe that the Democrats' "better deal" will be given to us by the same people who gave us a really rotten deal.  So why doesn't it fill me with confidence?
     "A Better Deal"?  No thanks.  President Donald Trump is already giving us the best deal we've had in my lifetime.

Monday, August 8, 2016

The Corporate Shills in MSM are in Panic Mode over the Clinton Presidential Campaign's Meltdown

     Distressing news about Donald Trump has been coming hot and heavy, and a meltdown is clearly taking place; but hold on a minute.  Trump's campaign is not the one that's melting down; the corporation-controlled media is melting down.  The entities that used to be known as the "news media" are practically wearing tinfoil hats.  In case you missed some of it, here are some recent  items that the corporate shills are trying to pass off as news:
     The Associated Press published a 33 1/2-inch article in which a world Olympic committee member (himself an American who admits he supports Hillary Clinton) is warning that a Trump victory in November would imperil Los Angeles's bid to host the next Olympics. He offered no evidence for his incredible statement, and that's all the article said.  Who but a wildly desperate agency would devote almost a yard of newsprint to a non-story like that? 
     Reuters News Agency recently published a poll claiming that Clinton has bounced 9% or 10% ahead of Trump.  When you look at the sample surveyed, you find that almost half the sample were self-identified Democrats, and barely 10% called themselves independents. You probably know from experience that from 30% to 40% of the American public call themselves independents, and the rest are almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.  Not content with that blatant lie, Reuters has gone back to some of their previously published polls and changed their methodology to reflect their prearranged conclusions.
     ABC is making a big-to-do about the Republican leadership making contingency plans in case Trump drops out of the race due to his (ha, ha, ha!) low poll numbers.  The truth is, in every major race, strategists have to consider this possibility, however remote it may seem.  ABC knows this, but they're trying to build a story from it.  It's the biggest non-story of the year.
     When the mother of one of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi victims (yes, negligent homicide is murder) finally said on television what the warfare state shills had chosen to ignore for years, the media blistered Trump, supposedly for taking political advantage of a woman who was out of her mind with grief.  When it was Hillary's turn, she did the same, and the media blistered Trump for pointing out that, though the son was a hero, the father was not the son.
     And apparently no one in the corporate-shill media bothered to tell us that everything Mr.Khana lawyer who certainly knew bettertold us about the Constitution was a lie.  Not one of Trump's proposed measures Khan that condemned was unconstitutional.  Hillary called the mothers of her Benghazi victims liars; any careful reading of the Constitution reveals that Mr. Khan is a liar.
     No doubt, the father's grief was real, but it was far from pure.  Khan is a lawyer specializing in Muslim immigration from terrorist-infested countries in the Middle East and South Asia.  His website lists New York City as his office address, but the phone number is in Washington, DC.  When an investigator called the number, the person who answered it said that it wasn't Khan's number, but he refused to say whose number it was.  When the investigator did what news reporters are supposed to do, he found that the number was for a Muslim organization with suspicious connections.
     Here and here are two links that strongly indicate Khizr M. Khan's close ties to both Islamic terrorism and the Clinton Foundation.
     I used to have doubts about Trump's sincerity; I wondered if it were all a hoax or even a Trojan horse for Hillary, but not any more.  The way the corporate shills are now in panic mode and practically wearing tinfoil hats when they read the "news" from their teleprompters tells me that Donald Trump is the real deal.  
     If you want a clue as to how popular Trump really is (and we can no longer trust polls), take a look at Google Trends.  Google Trends measures how many Internet searches there are for almost any topic.  Internet interest is not the same thing as voter support, but lack of interest shows lack of support.  In that sense, it's a rough guide.
     In 2008 and 2012 elections, I would key in the names of candidates and throw in the name of a famous movie star just to get some basis for comparison among non-political people (many of whom vote, though many others are too young to vote).  In the past, Paris Hilton generated more interest than any candidate. 

This year, it's different.  Limiting searches to the United States during the past 30 days, the charts show that Trump and Clinton generate more interest than Beyonce, Matt Damon, or Jennifer Lawrence.  Johnson and Stein, relative to one another, generate a level of interest that is tantalizingly similar to their comparative poll numbers.  Trump is generating more interest than Harry Potter; but, as of August 4, Harry Potter was generating more interest than Clinton. Clinton's numbers will soon rise above the fictional wizard's, but she's clearly not holding public interest as well as Donald Trump.  

          It's no wonder she's having seizures.

  You can see why the Clinton campaign and the corporate shills are panicking.  The so-called "news media" are so desperate that they no longer care about their credibility.

June 3, 2017 ADDENDUM: The corporate shills are still in panic mode, and it's called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Hillary Clinton Fairy Tale

     The official campaign biographies of Hillary Clinton read like a mashup of fairy tales, legends, and popular American memes.  The narrative flits about like Tinkerbell from one image to another.  At one moment, you think you're reading a Cinderella rip-off; in the next moment, Hillary comes off more like Joan of Arc.  Her Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story begins in one of the richest and whitest suburbs in the United States; and progresses from one symbolic gesture to another, with Hillary treading well-worn pathways and calling it "breaking down barriers" and "breaking glass ceilings."  Scandals, abysmal failures, and utter disasters are glossed over and forgotten.
     Many videos have exposed the lies for what they are.  I've decided to take a different approach.  Below are links to my three-part video in which I play along with the Clinton fairy tale.  Hillary is presented alternately as Cinderella, Joan of Arc, and other champions of female empowerment.  Somehow, though, reality keeps intruding on the fairy tale.
     In Part 1, we see the fairy tale version compared to the reality of Hillary's "average American" childhood.

     In Part 2, we take a look at her wilderness years, during which she showed how much of a champion of women and children she was (in particular, the rights of a 12-year-old girl).  Part 2 ends with the disaster of Hillarycare.

     In Part 3, we see her rise from former First Lady to various positions that had already been held by dozens of women before her: Senator, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate.

 The 2016 Democratic primaries, of course, were the grandest fairy tale of the year.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

How Trump will get the Post-March 15 Delegates He Needs to Win the GOP Nomination

     As of March 15, Donald Trump has gained 693 of the 1,237 delegates he’ll need to win the Republican presidential nomination, putting him 544 delegates short of his goal.  With only 1,041 delegates still up for grabs, he’ll have to win at least 53% of the remaining delegates before he can grab the nomination.  How can he do it?
     I poured over many opinion polls and finally settled on an on-line polling site called has two major advantages: It’s fairly consistent with other polls, and—unlike other polls—it’s updated every few minutes.
     The chart you see below was actually my working paper; but I saw no reason to redo it.  If you find any errors, please let me know.  Now let’s jump into my findings.
(Click image for full-size image)
     As I said, Trump has already won 693 of the 1,237 delegates he needs to win (Source: Wikipedia), which puts him 544 delegates away from his goal. 
     First let’s look at the winner-take-all (with no ifs, ands, or buts) states.  Even in a three-way race, Trump enjoys double-digit leads in all five winner-take-all states for which polling data are available.  The only polling data of any kind I can find for South Dakota* (with 29 winner-take-all delegates) includes Democrats, Republicans, candidates, and former candidates.)  Here are the five states, with their number of delegates in parentheses: Arizona (58), Indiana (57), Nebraska (36), Montana (27), and New Jersey (51).
     Those five states will likely give Trump 229 delegates.  By the math, this puts Trump 315 delegates away from his goal.  Subtracting 229 from the 1,041 delegates still up for grabs, Trump has to get only 39% of the remaining 812 delegates. 
     Now let’s look at the states where delegates are winner-take-all if the winner gets more than 50% of the vote (otherwise, delegates are allotted proportionally.)  They are Utah (40) and Connecticut (28).  Probably no one will get 50% of the vote in Utah, so I’m calculating that Trump will get at least 16 of Utah’s 40 delegates.  He’ll take all of Connecticut’s 28 delegates.  These 44 delegates will put Trump 271 delegates away from his goal.     
     Now let’s look at the three states that will allocate delegates proportionally.  They are Oregon (28), Washington (44, but only to candidates with 20% or more of the vote), and New Mexico (24).  I calculate that Trump will win 16 delegates in Oregon, 23 in Washington, and 13 in New Mexico, for a total of 52 delegates, putting him 219 delegates away from his goal.
     Finally, setting aside Colorado’s 37 “unbound” delegates (the mention of which recalls bitter memories of the disgraceful behavior of party leaders at the 2012 (or was it 2008?) convention), let’s look at the winner-take-all (split) states.  Some are a combination of winner-take-all and proportional (WTA/).  They are Wisconsin (42), New York (95), Maryland (38), Pennsylvania (71), and West Virginia (34).  In California (172), congressional districts are winner-take-all (WTA/CD).  Together, these six states will send 452 delegates to the National GOP Convention this summer. 
     In this final category of states, it’s not possible for me to calculate just how many delegates Trump will win, but it looks promising for the Donald.  Donald Trump enjoys double-digit leads in all six winner-take-all (split) states.  Unless he (as he once suggested) stands in the middle of Times Square and shoots somebody, he’ll get at least half these 452 delegates, which should be more than he needs to get the nomination.  He’ll probably get much more than that.
     No doubt, the GOP Establishment will try to blackmail Trump into selecting Jeb Bush or other Insider as his vice presidential running mate.  To that, I have six words of caution:
“Bush family friend John Hinckley, Jr.” 

Saturday, February 13, 2016

By their own Standards, Hillary and Albright have a “Special Place in Hell”

     By now, almost everyone must be aware of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s remark, “Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” in the context that women who don’t vote for Hillary Clinton will go to an especially agonizing place in hell.  Clinton responded to Albright’s sexist remark with a rasping laugh and applause; then she reached for a drink.   When Clinton was asked later why she didn’t distance herself from that remark, Clinton gave out another rasping laugh and croaked condemnation of anyone who would disapprove of Albright’s “very light-hearted but pointed remark.”
     After a firestorm of protest over the remark, Albright apologized—well, no, she didn’t actually apologize apologize.  Actually, she kind of apologized.  No, come to think of it, she didn’t exactly do that either.  It’s more like, she repeated the remark, using different words.  She still implied that women who don’t vote for Hillary are failing in their responsibilities as women.  Check out Time magazine’s pro-Hillary valentine and see for yourself.   Do the visuals in that clip look anything like objective reporting?  Nahhhh. 
     How do Albright and Clinton fare by their own standard?  Not very well.  By their own standards, there’s a special place in hell for Clinton and Albright.
      In 1995, a study by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization found that over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died under then-President Clinton’s policy of economic sanctions.  In 1976, CBS interviewer Lesley Stahl asked then-UN Ambassador Albright about it, and Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think that the price is worth it.” 
     When you get into numbers as high as 500,000, the emotional impact of that many deaths doesn’t sink in.  Okay, try to imagine how you’d feel about a school bus loaded with 75 first graders running off a cliff and killing every child on board.  Now try to imagine that happening to 6,667 school buses, each loaded with 75 first graders.  If that many school buses were lined up in Massachusetts, the buses would stretch the entire 50 miles from Massachusetts’s northern border (New Hampshire) to its southern border (Connecticut).
     In the entire state of Arkansas, there are an estimated 192,814 children under 5 years old.  (link)  Madeleine Albright justified killing 2.6 times that many—and counting, until January 20, 2001.  Roughly half the children Albright justified killing were girls, and most of them had mothers.  To further then-President Clinton’s political power goals, Madeleine Albright said that Clinton’s mass pedocide was “worth it.”  By Albright’s own standards, she has a special place in hell for not helping women.
     What about Hillary Clinton?  How well does she support women?
     In 1991, when Anita Hill accused Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas of telling two off-color jokes her presence, Hillary Clinton and a political lawyer named Gloria Allred said that Hill, as a woman, had “a right to be believed.”  (Never mind the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)  On this basis, they unsuccessfully tried to deny Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court.
     Also in 1991, when Juanita Broaddrick accused presidential candidate Bill Clinton of rape, Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault, and Paula Jones accused him of exposing his privates to her, Hillary Clinton (in Willey’s words) “wrote the book on terrorizing women." (link)   The Clinton Administration, with Hillary as enabler-in-chief, attacked Bill Clinton’s victims as “bimbos.” 
     Broaddrick was audited by the Internal Revenue Service—a favorite tool of terrorism by the powers-that-be—and charges were tossed out of court because the only two witnesses to the crime (Broaddrick and Clinton) disagreed on what had happened.  On November 29, 1993, the very day that Willey publicly accused Clinton, Willey’s husband was shot to death.  Investigators ruled it a suicide.  Paula Jones eventually accepted an $850,000 out-of-court settlement from Bill Clinton.
     Hillary Clinton’s war on women didn’t stop or start there.  Recently, an audiotaped interview surface, in which Clinton bragged and laughed about a mid-1980’s case in which she managed to free a rapist pedophile whom she knew was guilty.    Here’s the audio tape:

     Former prosecutor and Judge Jeanine Pirro showed court documents revealing that Clinton falsified evidence against the 12-year-old victim of her client—and she laughed about it.  The girl was so badly injured in the rape that she was in a coma for several days; and she can never have children.  Yes, Hillary did “believe the accuser” in this case, but she tormented the girl just the same, and she even laughed about it.

     Women's rights involve more than "women's issues;" they involve human rights.  As such, Clinton's treatment of the grieving mothers and widows of Benghazi is an issue here.

    Within 24 hours of the murder of four Americans at Benghazi, Clinton had emailed her daughter Chelsea and to the Egyptian prime minister, telling them the facts of how four Americans had died.  At the casket ceremony, however, Hillary Clinton lied to the mothers and widows about how their sons and husbands had died.  She also went on worldwide television and repeated the lie.  She later denied that she had ever said what she was clearly on record as having said.  When a reporter said to her that either she or the grieving mothers and widows had lied, Clinton said, "It wasn't me," callously accusing the women of lying.

     If there’s a “special place in hell for women who don’t help” other women, for whom should women vote?  Hillary Clinton or someone—whether male or female—who actually cares about people?
     When you get right down to it, Hillary Clinton can not honestly claim that her election to the presidency would "empower women," either.  Her only two claims to the presidency are the X chromosome she received from her father and the name recognition she received from her husband.