Sep 102017
 

A Pulitzer Prize Winning Wall Street Journal Reporter who asked Russia for Information on Hillary Clinton was found dead 2 days later.

Reporter Investigating Hillary Clinton Links To Russia Found Dead

Wall Street Journal writer/reporter Joseph Rago was found dead in his apartment on July 20th 2017.

He was reportedly investigating Hillary’s involvement in the purchase of Russian drug company Veropharm by Abbot Labs at a time in 2014 when sanctions against Russia would have prevented the sale.

According to a New York Police Department spokeswoman, the cause of death is as yet undetermined. “The cause and manner of death are pending further studies following today’s examination,” a spokeswoman for the city’s medical examiner’s office said.

Add another one to the Clinton coincidental body count! This is unreal, they must feel really safe to keep killing people.

Pulitzer Prize Winning Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information”, 2 Days Later He’s Dead

A shocking new Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that this past Tuesday (18 July), the Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a Thursday (20 July) in person interview with Federation consular officials regarding an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links to Russia—but who failed to attend the meeting he requested due to his being discovered dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to this meeting occurring.  [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

According to this report, Joseph Rago was a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter whose expertise was in the health care field—and whose stated purpose for this meeting was his investigating Hillary Clinton’s links to the 2014 sale of Veropharm (one of Russia’s largest medical companies) to the American medical giant Abbott Laboratories.

Critical to note about Abbott Laboratories acquiring Veropharm, this report explains, is that it was accomplished on 12 December 2014—which was 9 months from the March 2014 Obama regimes sanctions against Russia prohibiting such company takeovers—and that only someone with Hillary Clinton’s power and lust for money could make happen.

To how this takeover was completed in order to evade the Obama regime sanctions against Russia, this report details, was accomplished by a US shell company named Kew Garden Hills, LLC (registered in Delaware –and- Hillary Clinton’s home State of New Yorkacquiring approximately 98% of Veropharm shares—and then their being bought by Abbott Laboratories.

Handling this takeover transaction, this report continues, was the Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital—who are most to be noted for their having paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech he gave before their top executives in Moscow.

With Joseph Rago telling Federation consular officials that he had documents linking Hillary Clinton to both Abbott Laboratories and Kew Garden Hills, this report notes, it was supposed by them that this was the line of inquiry he was going to pursue during his requested meeting—but with him having mysteriously died, this cannot be said for a certainty.

The mysterious death of the 34-year-old Joseph Rago, this report further notes, follows by less than a fortnight the suiciding of another Hillary Clinton linked person named Renwick Haddow—a top former Haitian government official who ended up with a bullet in his head just a week prior to his testifying against Hillary Clinton in a Miami, Florida, courtroom.

This report concludes by noting that Joseph Rago was, also, one of but a few US reporters considered as honest and trustworthy, and as opposed to the Newsweek Magazine senior writer Kurt Eichenwald who wrote two of the worst “fake news” articles ever written about Trump colluding with Russia—but that were deleted this past week by Newsweek Magazine after their settling a US Federal Court lawsuit against them for telling these lies—but that barely any American media outlets will report on because they’re guilty of this type of “fake news” propaganda too.

 

 

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

 Political  Comments Off on Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias
May 192017
 

Harvard Study Proves Trump Was Right About Negative Media Coverage

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.

From Heat Street:

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.

 
 

The Sleepless Elite

 Amusing  Comments Off on The Sleepless Elite
Apr 072011
 

Welcome to my nightmare!

There’s a fascinating article in today’s Wall Street Journal about people who can function on far less sleep than the rest of us. “Short sleepers”–1%-3% of the population–need only several hours of sleep a night to get through the day. And they don’t need power naps, nor do they need exorbitant amounts of caffeine. The simply have a rare genetic abnormality that makes sleep more of a nuisance for them than a necessity.

The Wall Street Journal describes the characteristics of “short sleepers”:

They are also energetic, outgoing, optimistic and ambitious, according to the few researchers who have studied them. The pattern sometimes starts in childhood and often runs in families.

While it’s unclear if all short sleepers are high achievers, they do have more time in the day to do things, and keep finding more interesting things to do than sleep, often doing several things at once….

A few studies have suggested that some short sleepers may have hypomania, a mild form of mania with racing thoughts and few inhibitions. “These people talk fast. They never stop. They’re always on the up side of life,” says Dr. Buysse. He was one of the authors of a 2001 study that had 12 confirmed short sleepers and 12 control subjects keep diaries and complete numerous questionnaires about their work, sleep and living habits. One survey dubbed “Attitude for Life” that was actually a test for hypomania. The natural short sleepers scored twice as high as the controls.

Found at The Blaze

Obama’s Great Health Scare

 Amusing  Comments Off on Obama’s Great Health Scare
Jul 302009
 

In this great article, Karl Rove concludes that Barack Hussein Obama (D-Kenya) is increasingly resorting to fear and misleading claims to gain support for ObamaCare. Maybe we should start calling it ObamaScare.


On the campaign trail last year, Barack Obama promised to end the “politics of fear and cynicism.” Yet he is now trying to sell his health-care proposals on fear.

At his news conference last week, he said “Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage, or lose their job. . . . If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction.”

A Fox News Poll from last week shows that 84% of Americans who have health insurance are happy with their coverage. And because 91% of all Americans have insurance, that means that 76% of all Americans will be concerned about anything that threatens their current coverage. By a 2-1 margin, according to the Fox Poll, Americans want coverage from a private provider rather than the government.

Facing numbers like these, Mr. Obama is dropping his high-minded rhetoric and instead trying to scare voters. During last week’s news conference, for example, he said that doctors routinely perform unnecessary tonsillectomies on children simply to fatten their wallets. All that was missing was the suggestion that the operations were conducted without anesthesia.

This is not a healthy way to wage a policy debate. It also risks making the president look desperate at a time when his proposals are looking increasingly too expensive for Americans to accept.

Last weekend, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) demolished Mr. Obama’s claims that his plan cuts the growth of future health spending and won’t add to the deficit. Responding to a White House proposal to create an independent panel to recommend Medicare cuts, the CBO said on Saturday that “The probability is high that no savings would be realized” in the next decade, while entitlement spending would rise $1.042 trillion. The CBO did say there might be $2 billion in savings in the second decade of the program—a pittance.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag shot back at the CBO with a blog posting on the White House’s Web site arguing, “the point of the proposal . . . was never to generate savings over the next decade.” Really? The White House rolled out the proposal hoping to give cover to Blue Dog Democrats in Congress barking about the cost of overhauling health care.

The House version of ObamaCare adds to the deficit even though the new taxes to pay for part of it begin two years before the program itself kicks in. That head start puts ObamaCare in the black through 2013. But net new spending after that overwhelms future revenue to add to the deficit each year.

Keith Hennessey, who was a National Economic Council director for George W. Bush, estimates the annual deficits in Mr. Obama’s plan will grow to $64 billion a year by 2019. And this assumes that Mr. Obama gets all the tax increases and Medicare cuts he wants.

On Sunday, the CBO released another torpedo at the burning hull of USS ObamaCare. Responding to an inquiry by Rep. David Camp (R., Mich.) about whether the House bill would run a deficit in its second decade, the CBO reported it would “probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” The CBO does not believe that Mr. Obama’s proposal “bends” health-care spending down, as the president has repeatedly claimed it would. The CBO says it escalates above today’s rate.

By 2029, Mr. Hennessey estimates that new taxes will bring in $143 billion a year, while net new health spending will have increased by $348 billion a year.

Damaging reports from the CBO had earlier provoked some Chicago-style intimidation, with the president summoning CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf to the Oval Office. It’s safe to assume that they didn’t talk about the Chicago White Sox. Imagine if Mr. Bush had done that after the CBO released numbers that undercut the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. “White House thuggery” and “intimidation” would have been the theme of nearly every editorial writer in the country.

Team Obama’s pressure, however, might have caused the CBO to release its latest missives on a weekend, when fewer people are paying attention to the news.

Mr. Obama’s problem is that nine out of 10 Americans would likely get worse health care if ObamaCare goes through. Of those who do not have insurance—and who therefore might be better off—approximately one-fifth are illegal aliens, nearly three-fifths make $50,000 or more a year and can afford insurance, and just under a third are probably eligible for Medicaid or other government programs already.

For the slice of the uninsured that is left—perhaps about 2% of all American citizens—Team Obama would dismantle the world’s greatest health-care system. That’s a losing proposition, which is why Mr. Obama is increasingly resorting to fear and misleading claims. It’s all the candidate of hope has left.

Source…


It’s the Economy, Stupid

 Amusing  Comments Off on It’s the Economy, Stupid
Jun 042009
 

Karl Rove is right… it is the economy and its too bad that Obama and the Democrats are willing to put Liberal Ideology before our once great country. Soon the realization that the price to be paid for having Obama as our President will be too high and Congress will have to be the “fall guys”. Hopefully enough of them will fall so we can correct the path we’ve been put on.


Tomorrow will likely bring more bad news for President Barack Obama on the number one issue for voters — the economy. The Labor Department’s monthly job report will almost certainly show unemployment topping 9%, with a couple hundred thousand more jobs lost in May.

It will get worse before jobs get better. Congressional Budget Director Douglas W. Elmendorf recently predicted that unemployment will continue rising into the second half of next year and peak above 10%.

Mr. Obama has an ingenious approach to job losses: He describes them as job gains. For example, last week the president claimed that 150,000 jobs had been created or saved because of his stimulus package. He boasted, “And that’s just the beginning.”

However, at the beginning of January, 134.3 million people were employed. At the start of May, 132.4 million Americans were working. How was Mr. Obama magically able to conjure this loss of 1.9 million jobs into an increase of 150,000 jobs?

As my former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto points out on his blog, the Labor Department does not and cannot collect data on “jobs saved.” So the Obama administration is asking that we accept its “clairvoyant ability to estimate,” and the White House press corps has let Mr. Obama’s ludicrous claim go virtually unchallenged.

Still, there are limits to Mr. Obama’s rhetorical tricks. Even he cannot turn job losses into real job gains. And he won’t be rescued by stimulus spending.

Former National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey made a persuasive case on his blog that the stimulus will be ineffective because the additional economic growth it spurs will come six to nine months later than it could have.

This is partly because, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates, only $185 billion (23% of a $787 billion stimulus package) will be spent this fiscal year. The government will spend an additional $399 billion next fiscal year. The balance — $203 billion — will be spent between fiscal years 2011 and 2019, long after the economy has turned on its own power and for its own reasons. In addition, much of the stimulus that went this year for tax cuts and transfer payments has been saved, not spent. (The national savings rate went from less than 0% to about 5%.)

If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.

In addition, the claim made by Team Obama that every dollar in stimulus translates into a dollar-and-a-half in growth is economic fiction. The costs of stimulus reduce future growth. No country has ever spent itself to prosperity. The price of stimulus has to be paid sometime.

Any real improvement in the economy so far is more likely the result of the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply and the Fed and Treasury shoring up the financial sector.

But the Fed’s actions are risky. Easy money and expansionary policies are not sustainable. We may soon be in for a bout of inflation unless the Fed soaks up much of the money it flooded into the system. The government is also likely to hamper private investment as it uses a vast amount of capital to finance its debt. And when the Fed stomps on its monetary brakes, as eventually it must, we’ll get sluggish growth.

The irony for Democrats is that the Fed may hit the brakes in the run-up to the 2010 congressional elections or the 2012 presidential election.

It is becoming clear that the economy is now the top issue. Mr. Obama’s presidency may well rise or fall on it. The economy will be his responsibility long before next year’s elections. Americans may give him a chance to turn things around, but voters can turn unforgiving very quickly if promised jobs don’t materialize.

That’s what happened in Louisiana, where voters accepted Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s missteps before Hurricane Katrina but brutally rejected her afterward because she failed to turn the state around.

Until now, the new president has benefited from public willingness to give him a honeymoon. He decided to use that grace period to push for the largest expansion of government in U.S. history and to reward political allies (see the sweetheart deals Big Labor received in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies).

The difficulty for Mr. Obama will be when the public sees where his decisions lead — higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, sluggish growth, and a jobless recovery.

Source…


Obama and Geithner Receive Failing Grades From Economists

 Amusing  Comments Off on Obama and Geithner Receive Failing Grades From Economists
Mar 122009
 

Obviously these economists are racists!

Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists


U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

Read more…