The Chain of Events…a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton’s comments during an interview sponsored by The Guardian

Updated...additional videos added (see bottom of page).

 

The Chain of Events…a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton’s comments during an interview sponsored by The Guardian  ~ By Norman E. Hooben

 

Meeting 1

October 15-16, 2012 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attends the Women as Drivers of Growth and Social Inclusion in the capitol city of Lima, Peru.  Well?  What was that all about?  I listened to her speech and afterward read every word of the transcript…not much to write home about and definitely not worth the travel expenses to send her there in the first place.  Mrs. Clinton’s presence there was most likely not all that important for she wasn’t even recognized by Michelle Bachelet, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UN Women, also at the event; in Bachelet’s speech she only acknowledged President Humala of Peru. 

But ah ha, Clinton did meet with President Ollanta Humala and his wife, Nadine Heredia, at the Nationalist Party HQ in Lima. The couple co-founded the left-wing Peruvian Nationalist Party.  Was this the real reason Mrs. Clinton went to Peru?  What was that meeting all about?  Do we have records?  No…and why should we?

The ideology of the Peruvian Nationalist Party is described as Left-wing nationalism,
Peruvian nationalism, and Democratic socialism (the latter, a Bernie Sanders favorite) but taken as a whole they fit right in with Secretary Clinton’s views.  If you haven’t noticed her socialistic/communists leanings over the years, you haven’t been paying attention (We can talk about that later. Just remember, most, if not all, leftist parties have their genesis with communism and it behooves them to hide behind that association by re-naming themselves.).

Meeting 2

November 12, 2012 President Humala of Peru attends OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in Paris, France along with representatives from Columbia and Mexico.  Again, the speeches there were nothing to write home about but it would be interesting to learn whatever President Humala discussed with his Columbian and Mexican cohorts.  Remember this meeting took place shortly after the meeting with Secretary Clinton.  What went on behind closed doors is what I hope to expose.

Meeting 3

August 12, 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry attends four meetings in Bogota, Columbia at various locations among them are, the Counter-Narcotics Directorate Headquarters, the Colombian Foreign Minister’s Office, the American Embassy, and another location where he met with the members of the Arcangeles Wounded Warrior Program.  But it was at the American Embassy where he included in his remarks, “Today I come here to congratulate as completely as I can the people of Colombia who have together joined in an amazing transformation. This is one of the great stories not just of this hemisphere, but really of the world, where we see so many governments that are challenged today, some of whom are failing and some have failed. Colombia is a success story, and the United States of America is proud of whatever small part we’ve been able to be sharing with our friends in Colombia in an effort to get where we are, moving towards, hopefully, with stability throughout the region.”  Colombia is a success story?  Wow!  That’s nice to know.  I wonder why he hasn’t told all those young men currently marching through Mexico on their way to the United States.  And why are those young men brandishing their Columbian flags.  If they’re that patriotic why did they ever leave home? Is there a bit of irony here?  For a country which according to Kerry is one of the world’s greatest success stories it seems a bit odd that so many are marching northward like an invading army.

Meeting… Awe, I give up counting!

If we continue our Google search we find that there are many meetings between like-minded Socialists countries under the guise of diplomacy where nothing of substance comes out of the open meetings but something extraordinary happens soon after their closed door meetings.  There was a meeting back in April of 2015 in Panama City, Panama that included President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela (he openly made derogatory comments about the United States at this meeting), Cuba's Raul Castro, Enrique Pena Nieto of Mexico, Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Ollanta Humala of Peru that essentially brought together the presidents of the South American nations that are the biggest sources of coca leaf, the raw ingredient in cocaine.  And it’s not ironic that this meeting occurred…the drug business must be good for the powers to be.  Well what happened that we could say was extraordinary following the meeting of these great negotiators?  Did Secretaries Clinton and Kerry’s off the record meetings merge with people who were going to pull something off that wouldn’t reflect back on themselves and their master planner, Barack Obama.  Suddenly, like out of nowhere, we have trainloads of people seeking asylum headed toward the United States of America totally against the international rule of law where it says asylum seekers ‘must’ seek asylum when entering the first country outside of the one they’re fleeing…and all those heads of state that had their fake diplomatic meetings know it!  There’s no such law that says asylum seekers may pick their country of choice…especially by illegally passing through other countries where asylum can be granted. Oh wait!  Maybe they changed the laws of the respective countries prior to the secretly planned invasion for out of that Panama meeting did come this: “Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina and Honduran President Juan Orlando signed an agreement to launch a border customs union that aims to ease the flow of people and goods between the two countries, something they have long aspired to create.”  Ease the flow of people!  Yeah!  That’s exactly what’s happening!  And of course Mexico has overlooked their own very strict laws regarding illegal entry so it appears that these meetings are truly extraordinary.

So now that the migratory trains and long distance hikers have become a threat to our national security and border integrity what has Mrs. Clinton have to say?

Under the fake humanitarian rhetoric she obviously takes the side of the invaders (Don’t worry, this is about to change.  Read on!)

In one instance the former First Lady had this to say: “There is no more important test of our country than the way we treat the most vulnerable among us, especially children. We cannot turn away from what’s happening on our watch - we have to act.”  She was referring to the earlier migrants that made it across the border and were undergoing the proper procedures to enter this country; a policy that was practiced by her former boss, President Barack Obama but now that President Trump is doing it (under better humanitarian procedures I might add) it has now become disgraceful. Further, the separation of children from their parents was temporary while the adults were processed for future accountability; unlike Obama’s procedures of placing the children in temporary holding cages.  Trump was accused of holding children in cages by the one-sided media but Mrs. Clinton had to face reality and changed the rhetoric to, “confinement in large facilities”…she didn’t explain that Trump’s so-called large facilities were an improvement over Obama’s cages and in most cases better facilities than what the parents and children left behind in their home countries.

Now before we continue with these chain of events it should be pointed out that there are OTM’s (Other Than Mexicans) coming across the border…they’re mixed in, co-mingled as they say, with the so-called migrants; all with the approval of Hillary Rodham Clinton! In October 2015, Clinton said the United States should accept as many as sixty-five thousand Syrian refugees, substantially more than the ten thousand President Obama proposed.  Of course this was all part of Obama’s plan to have “a civilian national security force stronger than our military.” And what better way to accomplish this than to import young men of military age (which most of them were) than to bring into this country people who oppose western ideology…and people who oppose are people who will fight and people who will fight are willing to join armies or as Obama said, “Civilian National Security Force”.  Remember, Obama had already imported over 30,000 Somalis on his watch and they did not assimilate into the American culture as did the European immigrants of an earlier time.  Many Somalis were committing murder and rape just like they did in their home county.

Oh, and before I forget, what about John Kerry’s role as Secretary of State? From the Associated Press I offer this: “The U.S. is offering new details about its plan to ease the Syrian refugee crisis by significantly increasing the number of worldwide refugees it will take in over the next two years. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says the U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and the number will rise to 100,000 in 2017.” In total that sounds like someone is building an army stronger than our military.

To finish off this thought process let me end with this: Who could possibly be stronger than our military; an opposing force of like-minded haters of western ideology? Think about that!

So while all this secret/fake diplomacy has been going on the Obama Administration had to remove Hillary Clinton from her Secretary of State position at the start of his second term in order to make room for the lady-in-waiting time to make her run for the White House…many of her followers said, “It was her turn!”

Well she ran and she lost! And this is where we come to “Read on!” mentioned above.

Most of us knew exactly why she lost…she lies, or definitely flip-flops her position depending on which way the wind blows. And I think she has now discovered that herself. In an interview with the Guardian, British news outlet, Clinton has reversed her views on immigration and if you read between the lines she hints at her previous wisdom and why it lost the White House.

Here’s an excerpt from the Guardian:

In an interview with the Guardian, the former Democratic presidential candidate praised the generosity shown by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but suggested immigration was inflaming voters and contributed to the election of Donald Trump and Britain’s vote to leave the EU. (Emphasis mine)

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said, speaking as part of a series of interviews with senior centrist political figures about the rise of populists, particularly on the right, in Europe and the Americas.

“I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”      
The Guardian also reported:

“Clinton was one of three heavyweights of the Centre-left interviewed by the Guardian to better understand why their brand of politics appears to be failing. All three have seen their countries upended by political events that to some degree can be explained by the success of rightwing populism.”
And this:

“Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met “a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality.

“The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality.”

And the American voters were “”inflamed” and “roiled!”  But so I can end this narrative it should be said the rightwing populists, as she likes to call us, are red-blooded, patriotic Americans who believe strongly in our Constitution and we do not need to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live, and prefer not to have a one-sided press as President John F. Kennedy referred to them just prior to his assassination.  We ‘populist’ love our individual responsibility and most of all, our freedom!  We populists demand an objective and free press not stifled by outside influence and political hacks determined to destroy the longest lasting Constitutional Republic in the history of the free world.  ~ Norman E. Hooben

 

___________________________________

 

 

↓ Americans must give up their sovereignty...Walter Cronkite↓

 

↓ Hillary Clinton's Ultimate Goals ↓

↓ This is a 'must see' video for both Democrats and Republicans ↓

More Guns, Less Crime...it's a fact

There’s an informative report/commentary that follows my opening.  Will it change the hearts and minds of a die-hard liberal?  Probably not…but I just wanted to post some facts.

  Now if I were to describe driving east in what is known as the ‘Great Plains’ headed toward Fargo, North Dakota in the middle of winter I could say, “There’s lots of open land and the wind blows snow across the road in front of me but for all practical purposes, this land appears desolate.”  ‘Open land’, ‘windblown snow’, and  ‘appears’ are ‘facts’ to me for that moment in time.  But now as I look at the map and see that South Dakota looks pretty much the same and when someone asks, “What’s it like in South Dakota?” and I begin answering, “There’s lots of open land and the wind blows snow across the road in front of me but for all practical purposes, this land appears desolate.”  Now, ‘Open land’, ‘windblown snow’, and  ‘appears’ become  opinions, assumptions or just plain fiction.  Why?  Because I’ve never been to South Dakota.  And that, my friends is the difference between fact and fiction.

“…while the findings may not surprise some…” When I read that line incorporated into the author’s commentary I immediately thought about the many people around the country like myself who knew beyond  a reasonable doubt the outcome of this study…and that’s without knowing all the particulars those with lengthy academic pedigrees tend to assemble to establish their theorem that rules out any misrepresentations.  Obviously we had to reach our conclusions by other means, so without expounding it any further let’s just say we keep informed.

What alarms me to some extent is the fact that the study went “virtually unpublicized” and there’s good reason for this (I say “good” if you’re an anti-gun advocate…but it’s certainly ‘bad’ if you’re a law abiding citizen.).  This means that the establishment who controls the media did not want the voting public to know the results while their hacks in government positions were preaching an opposite view.  Senator Feinstein is one such hack.  She promotes anti-gun legislation by giving speeches that play on people’s emotions; she is also anti-NRA.  The National Rifle Association is one of the oldest, if not the oldest patriotic organization in the country and has never been responsible for any criminal shootings although Feinstein and others like Hillary Clinton imply that by getting rid of the NRA would prevent much of the crimes committed with guns.

The reading below contains a lot of facts but let me pull one more line from its contents. “When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further.”  And that my friends is how many voters vote…they only know one side of the story. ~ Norman E. Hooben

___________________

A virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser.

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

“According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.”

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.
In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.
“The study was overlooked when it first came out in 2007,” writes Michael Snyder, “but it was recently re-discovered and while the findings may not surprise some, the place where the study was undertaken is a bit surprising. The study came from the Harvard Journal of Law, that bastion of extreme, Ivy League liberalism. Titled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?, the report “found some surprising things.”
The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gun slinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.
Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser .  Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”
By the early 1990s, Russia's murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”
“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”
Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, which have high rates of gun ownership, have low murder rates. On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany. Their source of information? The United Nations' International Study on Firearms Regulation, published by the UN's Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Crime-Prevention and Criminal Justice.
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.
“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.
Ignoring these realities, gun control advocates have cited England, as the cradle of our liberties, as “a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns,” write Kates and Mauser. “The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.”
Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.
“Gun owners across America reading this right now will say: ‘Well, duh!’” writes Michael Snyder. Even so, the California state legislature recently approved $24 million to expedite the confiscation of 40,000 handguns and assault weapons purchased legally, according to the Huffington Post. Gun registration records are being used to seize those California guns from owners who legally purchased and registered the guns – but who the state of California has now decided pose a risk to public safety.
“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).
Senator Leno’s measure utilizes $24 million from Dealer Record of Sale funds. That account holds fees collected during any transfer or sale of a firearm in California. Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) voted against the measure because he said the fees were intended to cover background checks – not underwrite confiscations, the Huffington Post noted.
“What we are seeing is ideology in collision with reality” writes Terry Roberts in California’s North Coast Journal newspaper. Confiscations are being made for all the wrong reasons, he says. “Recent mass shootings were all in places that were ‘gun free zones.’ The theater in Colorado was the only theater out of seven in the near vicinity of the shooter with ‘no firearms allowed’ posted outside. Ditto, for the other mass shootings. They were all in ‘gun free zones.’”
“Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany.” The fourth worst? Columbine.
“Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks,” writes Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. “To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.”
“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it's not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don't hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?”
“Yet when a single criminal goes on a rampage, that's all you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms,” writes Bach. “Why? A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.”
“And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates?” asks Snyder. “This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control.” It’s a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.
“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide, an 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” It also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.
“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” In other words, they time their propaganda carefully. Just when it will alarm you the most."
“We are only being told one side of the story,” notes Bach. “When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further.” The reality is that criminals “really, really, really don’t want to get shot,” writes Snyder. “When you pass strict gun control laws, you take the fear of getting shot away and criminals tend to flourish.”
In some American cities, “where strict gun control laws have been passed,” writes Snyder, “police are so overwhelmed that they have announced that they simply won’t even bother responding to certain kinds of crime anymore. The truth is that the government cannot protect us adequately, and that is one reason why millions are arming themselves and gun sales have been setting new records year after year.” He offers are “some little-known gun facts:”

Little-Known Gun Fact 1
Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent. 2 Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws. With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. 3 The United States is Number 1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. 4 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. 5 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

Little-Known Gun Fact 6
Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. 7 In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. 8 In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK? 9 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. 10 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. 11 UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.  The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

Little-Known Gun Fact 12
Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted. 13 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city,” 14 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89 percent decline in burglaries.

Little-Known Gun Fact 15
According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments. Why?  It wasn’t to stop crime.

 

Source: BriefNet.com