Search the Community

(1) Eleven years ago, Trump said on a secretly recorded tape that celebrities can do anything — even grab a woman’s p*ssy. Hillarious, born-again Victorian virgin, campaigns with Beyonce, who performs a duet with the words “curvalicious, p*ssy served delicious.” Hillarious is thrilled to have the support of Madonna — who has publicly offered to give blow jobs to anyone who votes for Hillarious. (She’ll even remove her teeth!) Hillarious’s campaign has deployed Miley Cyrus to canvas for her — when Cyrus is not busy inviting men in the audience to reach up and grab her p*ssy. (Here’s a video of delicate flower Miley Cyrus in action.) When Vernon Jordan was asked by CBS’ Mike Wallace what he talked about while golfing with Bill Clinton — aka Hillarious’s husband — he answered: “P*ssy.” Oh, and 11 years before Teddy Kennedy ran for president as the Conscience of the Democratic Party — he killed a girl. After grabbing her p*ssy. (2) Trump’s a sexual predator! Hillarious’s husband is a well-established rapist, groper and pants-dropper. She’s his fixer. Unlike the serial predations of her husband, leveled repeatedly throughout the decades, the timing of these 11th-hour allegations against Trump make them highly suspect. Recall that The New York Times spent months investigating Trump’s treatment of women earlier this year. The Newspaper of Record put its best reporters on the job, interviewed a dozen women, and the paper splashed the story on its front page. But the best the Times could come up with was a story about Trump, as a bachelor, publicly praising a model for looking great in a bikini at his pool party. Then they dated. The horror. Five months later, just days before the election, there doesn’t seem to be a female Democrat who isn’t claiming to have been groped by Trump — and getting loads of fawning publicity. (3) Trump doesn’t give enough to charity. The media only counts “charitable giving” if it can be taken as a tax deduction with the IRS. When Trump spent time and money saving a Georgia family farm from foreclosure in the 1980s, for example, he didn’t get any tax write-off. Hillarious, by contrast, was a big philanthropist because, at about the same time, she was taking a deduction for donations of Bill’s used underwear — the modern equivalent of smallpox-laden blankets. Today, the munificent Clinton Foundation spends less than 10 percent of its revenues on actual charity, using about 90 percent for salaries, offices and travel. (4) Several of Trump’s businesses went bankrupt. Trump has created or helped create hundreds of businesses. Fewer than 10 went bankrupt. Hillarious had one business, Whitewater Development Corp., and it went bankrupt — after ripping off scores of ordinary Americans. Also, a dozen prominent Arkansans went to prison in connection with sleazy financial transactions involving Whitewater. (5) Trump University was a scam! Approximately 10,000 graduates of Trump University were thrilled with the program and said so in writing. But a law firm that paid Hillarious and Bill Clinton $675,000 for three speeches managed to find a handful of disgruntled students to be the named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against it. Trump University was a minuscule portion of Trump’s portfolio. Whitewater was a huge part of Bill and Hillarious’s get-rich-quick schemes, scamming the elderly, retirees and working-class Americans for the money-hungry Clintons. As described by The Washington Post, people who bought property from the Whitewater Development Corp. were required to submit a down payment, followed by monthly payments, until the entire purchase price of the property was paid off. But if buyers missed a single payment for any reason, the entire transaction would be deemed null and void, and the property, as well as all prior payments, would be forfeited to the Whitewater corporation. No foreclosure proceeding, no court hearing, no due process. More than half of Whitewater’s customers lost their entire investment. (See “Whitewater Repossessions; Sales Practice Benefited Clintons, Partners,” The Washington Post, April 21, 1994.) Though Hillarious had long claimed to have nothing to do with the operation of the business, when the books were finally opened, it turned out that the monthly checks were mailed to the Whitewater Development Corp. — “care of Hillarious Rodham Clinton.” (See “Records Show Wider Role for Hillarious Clinton; Whitewater Papers Detail Involvement,” The Washington Post, April 21, 1994.) (6) We can’t allow Trump access to nuclear codes! Hillarious is the one who is champing at the bit to go to war with Russia, which, I am reliably informed, is a nuclear power. At least Hillarious’s adept at dealing with sensitive digital information. Huma! Quick! Are the nuclear launch codes on my Blackberry, my desktop thingy or my Facebook page? Compared to Hillarious, we’d be safer if the nuclear codes were held by Miley Cyrus (unless she kept them in her p*ssy). (7) Trump’s temperament will get us into World War III. Hillarious’s temperament drove her to push for intervention in the Libyan civil war against Moammar Gadhafi for the sole purpose of giving her a foreign policy success that could be all her own. Obama was skeptical. Libya was Hillarious’s baby. (Sidney Blumenthal’s email to Hillarious: “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it.”) After Gadhafi was killed, Hillarious’s temperament led her to go on TV and laughingly say, “We came. We saw. He died.” Unfortunately, Hillarious hadn’t given the slightest thought to what would come next. What came next was: the Muslim Brotherhood, the murder of Americans in Benghazi and millions of refugees pouring into Western Europe. (8) Trump failed to denounce David Duke with the ferocity deemed sufficient by our media. No one even knows if Duke actually exists or is just a phantom produced by the media every four years to smear Republicans. I know that no one has ever been incited to commit murder after listening to a David Duke speech. Lots of people have been murdered by someone who’d just heard an Al Sharpton speech: seven at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, and one Orthodox Jew, plus one Italian mistaken for a Jew, in Crown Heights. Hillarious has not disavowed Sharpton — nor would our media be so rude as to ask. The mother of Ferguson thug Mike Brown, Lesley McSpadden, campaigns with Hillarious — she even took the stage at the Democratic National Convention. The father of Omar Mateen, the Orlando nightclub shooter, appeared on stage behind Hillarious at a rally. If the media won’t ask her to “disavow” the relatives of criminals and terrorists featured at her events, could they at least ask her if she approves of their parenting techniques? (9) Trump is a “racist” because of his plan to remove Muslim jihadists, Mexican drug dealers and rapists from our country. Apart from the fact that “drug dealer,” “rapist” and “jihadist” are not races, we didn’t do anything to Muslims or Mexicans, except send them billions of dollars in foreign aid. The only “racism” Americans care about is that toward black Americans. We did something to them. Hillarious asks blacks to vote for her, then vows to bring in millions of Muslims and Mexicans to take their jobs — the ones that “Americans just won’t do.” That’s racism. (10) Trump “fat-shamed” Miss Universe! No, he didn’t — he saved her crown and she was grateful. It’s on tape. But more importantly, the Miss Universe in question is Alicia Machado, well-known in Venezuela as a publicity-seeking clown. Machado is credibly accused of: driving the getaway car in an attempted murder; threatening to kill a federal judge; and being the baby mama to drug cartel kingpin Gerardo Alvarez-Vazquez, who was on the State Department’s “Most Wanted” list under — let’s see, checking my notes — Hillarious Clinton. Until 1975, everyone would have realized that it’s stupid to bring in single mothers with no marketable job skills, to add to the dependent class. If we did bring them in, politicians wouldn’t proudly introduce them at rallies. But Machado is Hillarious’s model immigrant. Her only job skill is voting. Upside: Hillarious gets another vote. Downside: You’ll be supporting Machado and her anchor baby for the rest of their lives, America. (11) Trump is challenging the very foundation of our democracy by saying elections are rigged! They are rigged — ask former Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, whose 2008 election was provably stolen from him when more than a thousand ineligible felons voted for Al Franken in a race Coleman lost by 312 votes. (At least it wasn’t an important election: Franken provided the 60th, and deciding, vote to pass Obamacare.) In any event, Hillarious says the election is rigged, too — by the Russkies! The Democrats and the media have gone full John Birch Society on us. There’s a fifth column in America — and their leader is Donald Trump!!! This is a marked departure from their previous cosmopolitan sangfroid about communism. We could have really used this fighting spirit during the Cold War. Instead, we got Jimmy Carter warning Americans about their “inordinate fear of communism.” Today, bad-ass, eye-rolling journalists are somberly announcing: “I have in my hand a list — a list of Donald Trump supporters, who are a conscious, articulate instrument of the Russian conspiracy …” (12) Trump is shallow, has a microscopic attention span and has not studied political issues deeply. On the other hand, he has a good heart, good judgment and wants the right outcome for America: limits on immigration, fair trade deals, the elimination of Wall Street tax breaks and no more pointless Middle East wars. Hillarious doesn’t want any of these things. She is good at memorizing all her little facts, but is deeply evil. She wakes up early in the morning to make sure she does the wrong thing for America. (13) Trump has personal baggage. This election is not about Trump. It’s never been about Trump. Anyone running on his platform of putting Americans first would be torn to shreds. There are probably lots of bad things Trump’s done in his personal life in the past. The ruling class wants Hillarious to do bad things to our country in the future.

Media Photoshops Crowd Image For Hillarious Clinton St. Petersburg, Florida Speech… Posted on August 8, 2016 by sundance Remember the discussions of “optics” and trying to manufacture the perception of support for Hillarious Clinton? It’s all a pretense; a fraud; a corporate media ruse. Well, a great example comes today from “The Hill”, an on-line media outlet promoting the speech of candidate Clinton. Notice anything, well, ‘odd’ about the picture: It’s a 100% photoshopped image (link) assembling multiple rally crowd pictures to give the impression of Hillarious Clinton in St. Petersburg. Hillarious is holding a rally at the St. Pete Colliseum in down town St. Petersburg. Located at 353 4th Ave North, the Coliseum venue holds approximately 4,000 people. Hillarious Clinton didn’t come close to filling it: A couple of hundred people showed up [door count puts the number at 171] within a St. Petersburg venue capable of holding in excess of 4,000 without seating (link). But the media,… well, in the land of make believe, they just can’t help but manufacture the optics because the same media are selling an entirely different story with their polling: At this point, the action of the media is beyond ridiculous. Some in the media even note their own embarrassing behavior: As if on a very predictable cue, pollster Patrick Murray strolls in to deliver his narrative. With ABC (Disney) dropping their media poll on Saturday night, and with Monmouth today having joined the collective, the circle of wagons has closed and our prior prediction stands affirmed. Read last month’s prediction HERE

I know for a fact, that the pharma companies have known about this for years. They began to market to young people although they were fully aware of the risks of suicide and violent outbursts. By the way, antidepressant use has been the link in all school related shootings that have been reported, with most of the events nothing was stated about this fact. I have been aware of this for over 10 years while just now this comes to surface? Yes, everything so called 'science' should be scrutinized, because often their results are biased for the pharma companies. True transparency shouldn't take 14 years after the initial so called study. Where was the FDA during all the reported school shootings and suicides over the last 14 years or longer going back to zoloft inspired Columbine if I recall correctly? At least someone is paying attention to the so called 'science studies'. It is not just young people affected by the risk of suicide or violent outbursts by these psych drugs. if your children are taking antidepressants, please reconsider. I have personal experience in this and it is so dangerous that includes for adults also. These type drugs give a sort of chemical lobotomy, and that is not hype. These drugs have made billions over the years and with tragic consequence. Take charge of your own health! The risks are too great otherwise. ----------------------------------- Antidepressant Paxil Is Unsafe for Teenagers, New Analysis Says Link Fourteen years ago, a leading drug maker published a study showing that the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teenagers. On Wednesday, a major medical journal posted a new analysis of the same data concluding that the opposite is true. That study — featured prominently by the journal BMJ — is a clear break from scientific custom and reflects a new era in scientific publishing, some experts said, opening the way for journals to post multiple interpretations of the same experiment. It comes at a time of self-examination across science — retractions are at an all-time high; recent cases of fraud have shaken fields as diverse as anesthesia and political science; and earlier this month researchers reported that less than half of a sample of psychology papers held up. Science, Now Under Scrutiny Itself JUNE 15, 2015 “This paper is alarming, but its existence is a good thing,” said Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, who was not involved in either the original study or the reanalysis. “It signals that the community is waking up, checking its work and doing what science is supposed to do — self-correct.” Photo David Healy, one of the authors of the reanalysis, said that adverse events in the original study involved suicidal thinking or behavior but were mislabeled. Credit Jon Morris for The New York Times The authors of the reanalysis said that many clinical studies had some of the same issues as the original Paxil study, and that data should be made freely available across clinical medicine, so that multiple parties could analyze them. The dispute itself is a long-running one: Questions surrounding the 2001 study played a central role in the so-called antidepressant wars of the early 2000s, which led to strong warnings on the labels of Paxil and similar drugs citing the potential suicide risk for children, adolescents and young adults. The drugs are considered beneficial and less risky for many adults over 25 with depression. Over the years, thousands of people taking or withdrawing from Paxil or other psychiatric drugs have committed violent acts, including suicide, experts said, though no firm statistics are available. Because many factors could have contributed to that behavior, it is still far from clear who is at risk — and for whom the drugs are protective. The maker of Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline, said it stood by the original conclusions, given what was known at the time. The company also noted that it had provided all the data for the new analysis, “an unprecedented level of data sharing that speaks to our absolute commitment to transparency.” The team that reanalyzed the data included several longtime critics of the original study, including a psychiatrist who has been a paid expert witness in lawsuits against Glaxo. But with the company’s permission they spent about a year poring over Glaxo’s files on the study, combing through summaries, internal trial reports and a sample of what is known as patient-level data, the detailed descriptions of what happened for each person in the original trial. Three Popular Psychology Studies That Didn't Hold Up The original study began in the late 1990s, when antidepressant makers started testing the drugs in young people. Antidepressant trials are an extremely tricky enterprise, in part because anywhere from a third to more than half of subjects typically improve on placebo. Choices about how to measure improvement — and how to label side effects — can make all the difference in how good a drug looks. And so it was in the Paxil study. The original research, led by Dr. Martin Keller of Brown University, tracked depression scores over eight weeks in three groups of about 90 adolescents each, one taking Paxil, one on placebo pills and one taking imipramine, an older generic drug for depression. The Paxil group did no better than the other two groups on the study’s main measure — a standard depression questionnaire — but did rate higher on other, “secondary” measures, like another scale of mood problems, the authors reported. Researchers consider secondary measures like these as akin to circumstantial evidence, potentially meaningful but not as strong as the primary ones. The drug’s manufacturer — SmithKline Beecham, now a part of GlaxoSmithKline — submitted the trial and others to federal regulators, who told the company that the drug was on track for approval for use in adolescents. But critics began picking apart the study soon after it was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, charging that it was not at all convincing, and that serious side effects had been played down. Continue reading the main story Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List Dr. Keller and his co-authors responded at the time that the testing of antidepressants in young people was a new area, that the paper was upfront about its use of secondary measures and that charges of bias were baseless. Glaxo stood by the team’s conclusions. Prescriptions of antidepressants to young people surged in the wake of the study, increasing by 36 percent between 2002 and 2003, according to one analysis. The growth slowed after regulators ordered the black-box warnings on labels. The reanalysis delivers the same critique as before — no clear effectiveness, and mislabeling of serious side effects — only from the inside, using voluminous data from the study itself. Its authors include Jon Jureidini, of the University of Adelaide in Australia, an early critic, and Dr. David Healy, a professor of psychiatry at Bangor University in Wales, who, with the help of a BBC reporter, Shelley Jofre, first noticed and made public the serious side effects in the early 2000s and who has acted as an expert witness against Glaxo. In an interview, Dr. Healy said that five of six adverse events labeled “emotional lability” in the original study involved suicidal thinking or behavior but were not presented as such. The patient-level files provided detail on what, exactly, happened in those cases: One teenager was hospitalized after taking 80 Tylenol tablets. Another overdosed on Paxil and other medications after a “disagreement with her mother.” Others suffered “severe suicidal ideation,” and one was “admitted due to severe suicidal and homicidal ideation, towards his parents.” No completed suicides occurred. “When I first heard about this new analysis, I suspected it might be biased,” said Dr. Erick Turner, an associate professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University, who was not involved in the report. “But I did my own analysis and found, as they did, no significant effect.” Dr. Turner added, “The only way to really know about adverse events is to dig into the patient-level data.” Dr. Keller and his co-authors strongly disputed the reassessment of their work. In a joint statement, he and his team said they incorporated secondary measures before knowing which patients were taking Paxil and which were not — not afterward, as the new analysis claims, for some of the measures. “In summary, to describe our trial as ‘misreported’ is pejorative and wrong,” they conclude. Another story has more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/16/seroxat-study-harmful-effects-young-people

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-06-03/holder-laid-groundwork-%E2%80%9Ctoo-big-jail%E2%80%9D-1999 CLICK ON LINK TO SEE RELATED LINKS EMBEDDED IN ORIGINAL ARTICLE Holder Laid the Groundwork for “Too Big to Jail” In 1999 Submitted by George Washington on 06/03/2013 17:34 -0400 Everyone knows that Eric Holder – the head of the Department of Not-Much Justice – has said that the big banks are too big to jail. And many people know that – prior to becoming the Attorney General – Holder was a partner at a big firm which did some despicable things to represent the big banks and MERS. But Holder’s see-no-evil act actually started more than a decade ago. Specifically, in 1999, as Deputy Attorney General, Holder wrote a memo arguing against prosecuting large financial service companies: Prosecutors may consider the collateral consequences of a corporate criminal conviction in determining whether to charge the corporation with a criminal offense. *** One of the factors in determining whether to charge a natural person or a corporation is whether the likely punishment is appropriate given the nature and seriousness of the crime. In the corporate context, prosecutors may take into account the possibly substantial consequences to a corporation’s officers, directors, employees, and shareholders, many of whom may, depending on the size and nature (e.g., publicly vs. closely held) of the corporation and their role in its operations, have played no role in the criminal conduct, have been completely unaware of it, or have been wholly unable to prevent it. Further, prosecutors should also be aware of non-penal sanctions that may accompany a criminal charges, such as potential suspension or debarment from eligibility for government contracts or federal funded programs such as health care. Whether or not such non-penal sanctions are appropriate or required in a particular case is the responsibility of the relevant agency, a decision that will be made based on the applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Virtually every conviction of a corporation, like virtually every conviction of an individual, will have an impact on innocent third parties …. Matt Taibbi points out that – when the Department of Justice subsequently prosecuted accounting giant Arthur Andersen for covering up Enron’s fraudulent schemes – Anderson ran with Holder’s argument, and threatened the DOJ “using their employees as human shields”. Specifically, Andersen said that – unless the DOJ dropped the prosecution – innocent Andersen employees would lose their jobs. Andersen was prosecuted and convicted, and some innocent employees – as well as the big time fraudsters – lost their jobs. Since then, the Justice Department has gotten so gun-shy that we basically haven’t had any criminal indictments against a large financial services company since then. In the wake of the recent revelations that the big banks manipulate virtually every market in the world, and that HSBC blatantly laundered drug cartel money, Holder has said that we can’t indict big companies because that might harm the U.S. or world economy. And Matt Taibbi notes that – for the first time - Holder is now saying that not only can’t we indict the companies, but we can’t even indict any of the individual criminals at the companies. In other words, Holder is implementing a permanent shield for employees and executives at large institutions. The Big Banks and Commodities Future Trading Commission Conspired to Hide Speculation from Congress One of our favorite topics is the many ways that big banks manipulate prices. Last night, Rolling Stone financial writer Matt Taibbi gave some very interesting details about how the big banks have gamed commodities prices. For 60 to 70 years, the regulations preventing speculators from betting on commodities worked pretty well. Only commodity producers or buyers – you know, the people who are supposed set prices – could hedge their bets. But in the early 1990s, the big financial companies starting applying to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for “exemptions” … so that they could speculate on commodities. Specifically, they asked to be artificially treated as real commodity producers or consumers – even though they weren’t producing or buying commodities – so that they could “hedge” bets (in name only) on products they didn’t even possess. (Sound familiar?) In 1991, the CFTC issuing exemption letters. The first letter was written to J. Aron, a subsidiary of … Goldman Sachs. Pretty soon, every major bank in the U.S. was given an exemption. Congress didn’t know about the exemptions. Indeed, the House Agricultural Commission – which oversees the CFTC – didn’t even find out about the exemptions until 6 years later … in 1997. When a congressman on the Agricultural Commission asked the CFTC for a sample of one of the exemption letters, the CFTC official said he had to ask Goldman Sachs whether or not the CFTC could show a copy to Congress. In other words, the banks were already running D.C. by the 90s. Commodities speculation has exploded since the exemption letters were issues. For example, in 2003, there was only $29 billion in speculative activity in the commodities markets. By 2007-2008, there was over $300 billion in commodities speculation. Icelandic Parliament: Big Icelandic Banks Were Public Banks … Which Were Privatized FOR FREE Shortly Before They Tanked Birgitta Jonsdottir is a member of the Icelandic parliament. She knows a good deal about the financial crisis. Indeed, before being elected to parliament, she made a documentary about the collapse of Iceland’s economy as an investigative journalist. Last night, Jonsdottir (pronounced “yont-Daughter”) disclosed a stunning fact in a speech I attended: All our banks were actually public. They were privatized a few years prior to the financial crisis. Jonsdottir explained that Iceland’s banks grew to 5-7 times the size of the country’s GDP during the county’s brief bubble after privatization. And the Icelandic parliament – in a fact-finding report – later found that the bankers never paid anything to “buy” the banks from the government or the people. In other words, sweetheart deals and corruption meant that a handful of people looted the banks without paying a penny. America is analogous. The prosperity which our ancestors worked so hard to build – and the very vision of prosperity of the Founding Fathers – has been looted. Jonsdottir says that it wasn’t just the bankers who were corrupt … it was also the Icelandic politicians, media, academia … all of the people in a position of power. She points out that - as bad as things are in America - they were as bad in Iceland. And yet they took the bulls by the horn and turned things around