Bernie Sanders (and now Donald Trump) face off against Hillary Clinton with a major handicap, the media has been in the bag for Clinton from the start. In Bernie Sanders case, he faced a DNC that was already hostile to his nomination. And everyone had already assumed the media was at least tacitly favoring a Clinton nomination, but with the release of John Podesta’s hacked emails by WikiLeaks, the depth of media-Clinton Campaign collusion is coming to light. The NY Post reports multiple instances of media collusion and favoritism here.
Some of the e-mails showed:
- Hillary Clinton’s campaign coordinated with The New York Times, which gave it approval on quotes for a long profile on the candidate. Times reporter Mark Leibovich e-mailed campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri on July 7, 2015, seeking approval on the Clinton quotes.
- Boston Globe editorial writer worked with the Clinton campaign to give her a “big presence” in coverage during the candidate’s swing through the area amid the Democratic primary. Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe’s op-ed editor, e-mailed campaign chair John Podesta to tell him, “It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her a big presence on Tuesday.”
- New York Times reporter and CNBC anchor John Harwood bashed the GOP primary candidates in a December 2015 e-mail to Podesta. After saying to Trump at December 2015 debate, “Let’s be honest, is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?” Harwood sent an e-mail gloating about his query to Podesta, saying, “I imagine . . . that Obama feels some (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails.”
Emails leaked from the DNC show collusion between Univision and the Democratic Party early on in the race. McClatchy DC reports:
The clashes between presidential candidate Donald Trump and the Spanish-language Univision television network began within days of Trump’s announcement last year that he was seeking the Republican nomination.
Now, a series of emails pirated from the Democratic National Committee and published in the past week by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks show that within days of Trump’s June 16, 2015, announcement of his candidacy, Univision’s chairman, Haim Saban, was urging the Clinton campaign to take a tougher stance on Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.
“Haim thinks we are underreacting to Trump/Hispanics. Thinks we can get something by standing up for Latinos or attacking R’s (Republicans) for not condemning,” Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta wrote July 3, 2015, in an email to other Clinton staffers.
The email drew an immediate response from Jennifer Palmieri, a former White House spokeswoman who is communications director for the Clinton campaign: “Haim is right – we should be jamming this all the time.”
Will leaked Podesta emails hurt Clinton’s campaign?
|
| >> read more |
|
 Greenmedinfo.com offers some compelling research and answers.
In 1924, Otto Warburg, Ph.D., a Nobel Prize winning biochemist, proposed the hypothesis that cancer is a metabolic disease that affects the way cells use food to make energy. Warburg believed that cancer cells exhibit a preference for using sugar to fuel themselves, even when the oxygen needed for normal cellular energy processes is available. He wrote:
 “Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.”
Until recently, Warburg’s hypothesis had been marginalized by the persistent belief in the oncology world that cancer is a genetic disease. However, in his new book, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer, Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., has put Warburg’s work back in the medical limelight.5
In his book, Seyfried argues that cancer is not a genetic disorder, but is, indeed, a metabolic disease.
Thomas Seyfried’s team has shown in several studies that calorie restriction in conjunction with a restricted ketogenic diet improves cancer outcomes because the diet can reduce tumor blood vessel growth; promote cancer cell suicide factors (apoptosis), destabilize the tumor DNA, reduce tumor size, reduce cancer-growth-stimulating IGF-1 hormone, and reduce inflammation.10-14
Given the successful use of a restricted ketogenic diet to treat cancer in controlled studies, one would think that mainstream medicine would at least be curious about metabolic dietary therapy. But, so far, little has been disseminated in the media, and many of the big cancer organizations have not embraced the idea.
I contacted Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., to ask for permission to reference material and studies from his book, and wrote to Dominic D’Agostino, Ph.D., a ketogenic diet expert at the University of South Florida to ask for assistance in writing the book. I’m happy to say the response was overwhelmingly positive from both gentlemen, and after several months of hard work, the book is now available on my website at: www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/cancer-diet.html.
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Seyfried (Full Interview)
|
| >> read more |
|
In what The New York Times calls a redefinition of the boundaries of literature, Bob Dylan has been awarded the Nobel Prize. The prize comes with some controversy from critics who charge that Dylan isn’t writing “literature,” but he also has his supporters. The NYT reports:
Billy Collins, the former United States poet laureate, argued that Mr. Dylan deserved to be recognized not merely as a songwriter, but as a poet.
“Most song lyrics don’t really hold up without the music, and they aren’t supposed to,” Mr. Collins said in an interview. “Bob Dylan is in the 2 percent club of songwriters whose lyrics are interesting on the page even without the harmonica and the guitar and his very distinctive voice. I think he does qualify as poetry.”
In giving the literature prize to Mr. Dylan, the academy may also be recognizing that the gap has closed between high art and more commercial creative forms.
“It’s literature, but it’s music, it’s performance, it’s art, it’s also highly commercial,” said David Hajdu, a music critic for The Nation who has written extensively about Mr. Dylan and his contemporaries. “The old categories of high and low art, they’ve been collapsing for a long time, but this is it being made official.”
The debate over Bob Dylan’s Nobel Prize for literature
|
| >> read more |
A recent meta-analysis found cinnamon can lower blood sugar and cholesterol in humans.
For health benefits, cassia cinnamon, which is typically sold in supermarkets, has been more widely studied than Ceylon cinnamon. But scientists say Ceylon cinnamon is likely safer in very high doses than supermarket cinnamon.
Studies have found blood-sugar benefits of a sprinkle a day of cassia cinnamon.
Cinnamon is harvested from the bark of evergreen trees. Ceylon cinnamon, or Cinnamomum verum, comes from a small tree native to Sri Lanka.
Ceylon cinnamon is lighter in color than the cassia cinnamon, which typically comes from Indonesia, China and other countries.
If you decide to use a lot of cinnamon, “you do need to use Ceylon because it will lower your risk of liver damage,” says Ms. Ginn, who is an education coordinator at the University of Maryland Center for Diabetes and Endocrinology in Baltimore.
The American Spice Trade Association based in Washington, D.C., says “cinnamon has been consumed for thousands of years without any known negative health effects.”
Health Benefits of Cinnamon
|
| >> read more |
|
Parisians have had it up to the gizzard with entrenched politicians, and this time it is François Hollande who is going to be booted onto the street. Marine Le Pen, a hard-line anti-immigration, anti-European Union right winger has a shot at winning the first round of the French elections in 2017. But after the first round, I think the entrenched forces of the French establishment will regroup behind Sarkozy and derail Le Pen.
Le Pen’s anti-immigration message, however, will continue to resonate. Paris street corners are loaded with beggars, who often push coin cups in front of unaware pedestrians. They are then hounded for money when the cups get kicked over. The French, like so many other Europeans, have had it with what they rightly view as the Muslim scourge. The French will tell you at every turn that the Muslim immigrants do not assimilate, have not in the past and will not in the future. The left wing mayor of Paris, Hidalgo, tells the folk otherwise, but she is nuts, as it is widely recognized that France, and specifically Paris, is riddled with “No Go” zones, where even the police dare not venture.
The French realize that Donald Trump understands the problem. At the same time, they mock Hillary Clinton who is as much “on the take” as most of the other old-line political elitists all over Europe, who rapidly are being sent packing. Hard liners in Hungary, Poland, Austria, Denmark and Germany, to name but a handful, are gaining serious traction.
In Europe, Muslim immigration, is calling the tune. We are hearing more and more about the potential demise of the EU and the Euro itself. Europeans are pretty shocked that Americans, beyond the Trump forces, do not get the seriousness of the Muslim immigration issue. The UK pulled out of the EU, refusing to listen to Brussels on the Muslim immigration front. The Germans appear to have finally awakened. And even the normally welcoming Sweden is shipping out “the horde” by the tens of thousands. No more business as usual.
Europeans recognize that the American media is 100% on the take for Clinton, despite the fact that two thirds of Americans believe she is an untrustworthy liar and a dangerous national security risk. And while Europeans often have little room to comment regarding the subject of presidential infidelities, most are pretty shocked that an accused serial rapist like Bill Clinton would be allowed back into the White House.
The Europeans we meet have no great belief in Donald Trump, quite to the contrary. But they are shocked that Americans appear to be willing to embrace the total and disgraceful fraud that the Clintons represent.
Every time we visit Europe, we notice that the rebellion against the political elite continues to build. If not this election cycle, then perhaps the next, but most countries that are part of the EU have a populace that has finally awoken and who are not against full scale rebellion to rid themselves of unaccountable elite leadership, no matter the party.
 As American musical legend Al Kooper has written, It’s a “Brand New Day.”
|
| >> read more |
|
Here’s how a Canadian businessman got Bill Clinton to help him get control of uranium mining fields in Kazahkstan, explains Peggy Noonan in the WSJ.
The businessman soon gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation, with a pledge of $100 million more. Uranium One acquired significant holdings in the U.S. A Russian company moved to buy it. The deal needed U.S. approval, including from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
While it was under consideration the Clinton Foundation received more money from Uranium One. Bill Clinton got a $500,000 speech fee. Mrs. Clinton approved the deal. The Russian company is now one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Significant amounts of U.S. uranium are, in effect, owned by Russia. This summer a WikiLeaks dump showed the State Department warning that Russia was moving to control the global supply of nuclear fuel. The deal went through anyway, and the foundation flourished.
According to Peter Schweizer, who reported the Uranium One story in the WSJ, Mrs. Clinton pushed for a U.S.-Russian technology initiative whose goals included “the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”
“Mrs. Clinton looked for U.S. investors and found them,” writes Ms. Noonan. “Of the 28 announced ‘key partners,’ 60% had made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation. Even Russian investors ponied up.”
As Hillary famously announced recently, “What difference does it make?”
Why don’t voters seem to know or care about this or any of the other loathsome activities pertaining to the Clintons? Because, as the WSJ’s Kimberley Strassel points out, “while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.”
Peter Schweizer joins Lou Dobbs to discuss the explosive Wikileaks revelations
|
| >> read more |
|
Former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer explains to Americans the destructive tyrannical goals of Hillary Clinton and the importance of the “best e-mail bullets (Putin) stole from Clinton’s unsecured server”
Mr. Putin is not a moron. There simply is no way that it is in Putin’s and Russia’s interests to give Assange the cream of the crop of the Clinton e-mails; namely, those that document Clinton’s sale of the influence via the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state; those showing her extorting highly paid speaking jobs for he husband; those demonstrating the top-secret material she intentionally put on the unsecured server is now safely cached on secure servers in Moscow; and those that show she is wholly responsible for the murder of four Americans in Benghazi and the Iranian nuclear scientist who was working for U.S. intelligence.
What Putin absolutely does not want to encounter – much less help to elect — is a U.S. president bent on reestablishing the republic’s financial solvency, military and economic power, social cohesion, and rule-of-law. Nor does he want to face a U.S. president who will stop conducting a foreign policy of relentless and unnecessary interventionism, which is, clearly, a pro-Russia policy in that it has earned much of the world’s hatred, all of its laughter for America losing the wars Washington starts, and which has made Putin and Russia appear to be a stronger, smarter, more reliable, and less indiscriminately destructive nation than the United States.
No, Putin is not going to waste all of the best e-mail bullets he stole from Clinton’s unsecured server in order to prevent the election of a hectoring woman whose personal greed, dreams of open borders, elitism, stated intentions, education, Ivy League-colleagues, and tyrannical goals certainly will finish the destruction of the United States — either by bankruptcy, civil war, or both – and quicken the rehabilitation of Russia’s international stature and power.
Here’s the KEY MOMENT in Benghazi hearings – Rep. Jordan nails Hillary on LIES
|
| >> read more |
|
The U.S. government–that gigantic apparatus that swallows some $4 trillion each year and solves every human problem–is going to be run by either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Francis Menton reminds us: “… take your pick: give control of your annual $4 trillion to a crazed, self-absorbed ego-maniac, or alternatively to a crazed, self-absorbed crooked ego-maniac. Isn’t government great?”
And, after 80 or so years of promises and tens of trillions spent, have any of the major problems been solved? Of course, it’s the opposite. Indeed, it’s fair to say that all of the big government redistribution programs are in crisis. A trillion dollars of annual spending on “poverty” and there are close to twice as many people today said to be in poverty than the day the War on Poverty started. Medicaid, supposed to be a temporary thing for a few years until poverty was eliminated, instead explodes bigger and bigger every year (now at over $550 billion per year and still rapidly growing). Social Security and Medicare are ponzi schemes careening toward a Madoff-like crash one or two or three decades out. Obamacare, only a few years old, is widely reported to be well into an insurance death spiral. And now we’re going to get one or the other of crazy Donald or crooked Hillary to take it all over.
Yes Donald Trump is extremely flawed, but there is some hope–just maybe–“he has a little idea how private business works.”
Hillary? Her deep thoughts about economic policy are more or less the same as those of your typical African potentate, say a Robert Mugabe or a Mobuto Sese Seko. Get all the taxpayer funds you can get your hands on, and direct them to “economic development” projects run by your friends and relatives. Those people will then kick back substantial portions to yourself. The government-directed economic development projects all fail. Your relatives and friends get rich. You retire a billionaire. The people starve.
Don’t believe me? Then you haven’t been paying attention to what’s gone on in Haiti. Trading Economics reports the entire GDP of Haiti at under $9 billion per year — an almost impossibly small amount for a country of over 10 million people. That makes annual per capita GDP under $1000. (Granted, the economic statistics that come out of Haiti are iffy; but they are the best we’ve got.) In 2010 they had a big earthquake in Haiti. Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. Bill Clinton became head of something called the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. Bill’s Commission got billions of dollars in funding for Haiti via both the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
Guess who ultimately got the big lucrative contracts? Mr. Menton quotes from Breitbart:
Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, landed a lucrative and historically rare Haitian “gold exploitation permit,” while Clinton Foundation donors, including Digicel mobile phone company founder Denis O’Brien, were winning multi-million dollar contracts that would siphon massive profits from the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.
There is essentially no meaningful private business in Haiti, and the country is as poor as ever. But the Clintons’ many friends and relatives have done very well in Haiti and “the Clintons themselves have used the donations to the Clinton Foundation to support their lifestyles and their permanent staff. It truly is the Mugabe model.” Read more from the Manhattan Contrarian here.
Haitians Protest Outside Hillary Clinton’s Office Over ‘Billions Stolen’ by Clinton Foundation
|
| >> read more |
|
Rarely does the American voter cover himself in glory, but it’s also rare that he abjectly debases himself as much as he has this year.
This year, American voters have brought us to a truly grim choice: a choice between a uniquely power-hungry career politician and the world’s most petulant billionaire. A woman for whom eight years in the White House did nothing to diminish the luster of being president versus a man who makes Silvio Berlusconi look like a model of balance and self-restraint.
The silver lining, if there is one, is that they appear to know what they have done. As revealed in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, voters are driven primarily by hatred of the other candidate rather than the allure of their own.
While the survey found that “83 percent of Clinton’s backers and 79 percent of Trump’s supporters say they are very or somewhat enthusiastic about their candidate,” it also concluded that
antipathy toward the other side is at extremely high levels, as 87 percent of likely voters supporting Trump have a “strongly unfavorable” view of Clinton, and 90 percent of Clinton backers have a strong negative view of Trump.
This suggests voters, to the extent they’re excited about their own candidates, feel that way because they feel the other candidate is even more repellent. Around half of Republicans say they think Trump made unwanted sexual advances on women–notable because the candidate essentially has admitted doing it–but the real payoff comes later:
Both Clinton and Trump are viewed unfavorably by majorities of Americans. Clinton’s current net negative is 14 points (42 percent favorable and 56 percent unfavorable), while Trump’s is 25 points (37 percent favorable and 62 percent unfavorable).
At the same time, neither is viewed as honest and trustworthy, with 60 percent of likely voters saying Clinton is not and 62 percent saying Trump is not.
A slight majority (52 percent) say Clinton does not have strong moral character, and a much larger 66 percent say Trump does not have it. On these questions, there are significant and predictable partisan differences in perceptions of the candidates, yet 30 percent of likely voters who support Trump say he doesn’t have a strong moral character. Three times as many of his supporters say Clinton lacks it.
What this shows, and in a contorted way it’s refreshing, is that voters are excited about voting for liars whom they dislike and believe to be lacking in strong moral character. Nearly one in five Democrats–19 percent–reports an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, and an eye-popping one in three–33 percent–of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.
This, in a sick way, is progress. Recognizing that we have elevated two odious people to stand for the highest office in the country is progress. The two party system, unfortunately, drives voters to choose the lesser of two evils. But recognizing evil as evil has to be the beginning of sanity. Given that, let’s give two half hearted cheers for the American voter. At least until election day brings us new reasons to worry.
Are People Voting For Trump Or Against Hillary?
|
| >> read more |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
