![]() |
One of the best I've seen yet! |
SML Republican Review
The facts about today's topics and issues . . . mixed with a little humor here and there.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Photo ID Required
I went to Bedford Memorial Hospital to have a test to complete my annual physical exam and the young woman at the check-in window said, "I'll need to see your insurance cards and a photo ID. Should I have thought that meant she didn't want me to have the test? Should I file a suit?
Monday, August 1, 2016
Bill Clinton Lied?
If you saw his speech at the Democrat Convention, you heard him describe an entirely different person. Click on the link to see Dick Morris - who was there - rebut it, almost word-for-word.
https://www.facebook.com/dickmorriscom/videos/10154398092154438/
https://www.facebook.com/dickmorriscom/videos/10154398092154438/
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Hillary in her own words.
“My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know…the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.”
- Hillary Clinton, March 11, 2014 in response to reporter's question.
I first posted this in July, 2014, but I think it deserves re-posting.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
FBI Director James Comey FULL STATEMENT on Hillary Clinton Email Investi...
I challenge anyone to view this video to the 13 minute mark and argue that his
conclusions are in line with the facts he presented.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Charles Krauthammer on Hillary
Note: I have posted some of this information before, but this is a more complete picture.
Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30k emails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest.
The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime" at its finest. Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history. This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free. Here's how it works:
.
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case, the Clinton's set it up in Canada.
.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
.
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and
begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result -- foreign money goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.
The Canadian "charity" includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.
If you're still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton's, ask yourself this:
.
Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?
.
This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.
.
Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take.
Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, and dishonest. And they could be back in the White House in January 2017. I'm guessing the taking of the dishes the last time they left will pale in comparison to what they'll take the next time, if given the opportunity.
Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30k emails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest.
The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime" at its finest. Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history. This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free. Here's how it works:
.
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case, the Clinton's set it up in Canada.
.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
.
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and
begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result -- foreign money goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.
The Canadian "charity" includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.
If you're still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton's, ask yourself this:
.
Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?
.
This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.
.
Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take.
Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, and dishonest. And they could be back in the White House in January 2017. I'm guessing the taking of the dishes the last time they left will pale in comparison to what they'll take the next time, if given the opportunity.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Makes Sense
A slide in Jane Hogan's presentation on Sharia at Tuesday's SML Republican Women's Club meeting. Perfect.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
More questions for Hillary - Bengazi
Madam Secretary, why did we still have a presence there on September 11, 2012? Everyone else - including the Red Cross, for God's sake! - had already left, due to security concerns.
Ambassador Stevens knew it wasn't safe, had referred to the area as a "security vacuum" and made 600 requests for additional security, which were all ignored. Why? He bought additional barricades from the British when they left, because he was getting NOTHING in the form of help from you.
And why did you try to blame the attack on an internet video? Say it was spontaneous, when it was clearly organized - as you told Chelsea, by the way? Why did you tell the parents, at the casket ceremony at the airbase, that "we will get the guy who made the video" when you knew it was a terrorist attack? Have you no more respect for the parents of fallen heroes than to tell them a bald-faced lie?
Did you not consider that perhaps 9/11, in ANY year, might be a likely time - a time when we should take extra precautions - for terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities, ESPECIALLY in an area as volatile as this? Yet our ambassador was in Benghazi, with minimal security? Security that not only had not been increased, but had been reduced, following his numerous requests?
Can it really be possible - no, probable, or certain - that all this happened because your boss was running for re-election and wanted to maintain his assertion that "Bin Laden is dead and al-Quaeda is on the run? And blaming the video, produced by a poor jerk who is still in jail, was the most convenient explanation? Is that why it was Susan Rice - not you - that went on all the Sunday talk shows repeating that lie? You knew you were going to run for president again and didn't want that added baggage?
Ambassador Stevens knew it wasn't safe, had referred to the area as a "security vacuum" and made 600 requests for additional security, which were all ignored. Why? He bought additional barricades from the British when they left, because he was getting NOTHING in the form of help from you.
And why did you try to blame the attack on an internet video? Say it was spontaneous, when it was clearly organized - as you told Chelsea, by the way? Why did you tell the parents, at the casket ceremony at the airbase, that "we will get the guy who made the video" when you knew it was a terrorist attack? Have you no more respect for the parents of fallen heroes than to tell them a bald-faced lie?
Did you not consider that perhaps 9/11, in ANY year, might be a likely time - a time when we should take extra precautions - for terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities, ESPECIALLY in an area as volatile as this? Yet our ambassador was in Benghazi, with minimal security? Security that not only had not been increased, but had been reduced, following his numerous requests?
Can it really be possible - no, probable, or certain - that all this happened because your boss was running for re-election and wanted to maintain his assertion that "Bin Laden is dead and al-Quaeda is on the run? And blaming the video, produced by a poor jerk who is still in jail, was the most convenient explanation? Is that why it was Susan Rice - not you - that went on all the Sunday talk shows repeating that lie? You knew you were going to run for president again and didn't want that added baggage?
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Questions for Hillary - Bosnia
What, exactly, DO you remember about your flight into Bosnia in 1996? When you recounted it in 2008, did you really believe you were under sniper fire when you landed at the air base? That you had to run with your head down to avoid getting hit? You really didn't remember walking casually amongst the people at the air base, shaking hands and smiling and chatting with them?
And what did you mean when you later said you "misspoke"? Did you mean you lied, made it up? Or that you had to see the video to know the truth of what happened and that you "misspoke" was the best way you could think of to get past it?
No matter what the answers to the above, I find this and other instances of your "misspeaking" very troubling. Brian Williams lost his job as an anchor at NBC for a similar case of "misspeaking." And you want to be our PRESIDENT? Really???
Friday, January 1, 2016
My Beautiful America - The Charlie Daniels Band
Happy New Year, Everyone! The perfect video to launch our efforts for 2016
victories.
victories.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)