Henry Gondorff: If they put you on the spot, we have to fold the con

The Sting 1973

We have seen plenty of posts concerning Hillary Clinton book tour like this:

On September 18, Hillary Clinton will kick off the book tour for What Happened, her memoir about the 2016 presidential election, in Washington, D.C. The crowd at the Warner Theatre will, no doubt, be filled with many representatives of Pantsuit Nation and other pro-Clinton factions of the Democratic Party. But, as Politico found out by talking to Democratic lawmakers and other Clinton allies, there will be plenty members of the minority party staying home on the 18th, preferring to stick toothpicks in their eyes than relive the nightmare of the 2016 elections.

“There is a collective groan whenever there’s another news cycle about this,” said California Democratic representative Jared Huffman, who added that Clinton’s tour comes at “maybe at the worst possible time.” It’s not just the distraction the book will provide from a party fighting for issues such as DACA, Huffman said, but the party fissures that could be reopened by Clinton’s critiques.

But there is one aspect of the tour that everyone is missing.

Historically a book has been a great way for people or organization to give big money to a connected person. After all if an author gets say $2 for the sale of a book then a business can buy 10,000, 20,000 or even 100,000 copies of their book and viola you have just given twice that figure to said connected person without showing up as a donor.

Furthermore not only are said books a tax write-off for said company but if you give those books away to a charity, any charity, suddenly you have a charitable deduction as well.

After all why do you think book publishers give large advances to pols books that generally end up in the dollar bin at stores across the nation?

However this time there is something different.

Hillary Clinton is no longer considered a good investment for foreign governments, large corporations or donors anxious to buy favor. With no influence to sell and even less potential to regain any , dollars given to her are simply thrown away.

However there is one group that thanks to media hysteria is still invested in Hillary, Democrat voters still in denial over the last election.

There are millions of people still on meds in blue states, on college campuses and in trendy neighborhoods who are not only still in mourning but are “still in therapy over Hillary’s loss”. To them Hillary Clinton is a symbol of the paradise that was, in their minds “stolen” in a Russian conspiracy and her very presence will be cathartic.

Now under normal circumstance this would not be the case, but thanks to the media’s own obsessive behavior, people who would normally have gotten on with their lives are still in a state of shock and dismay in need of a release.

When it came to running a campaign or the state department Hillary Clinton might have been 2nd rate but let it never be said that any member of the Clinton clan didn’t recognize a bunch of suckers (perhaps millions of them)  with cash ready to be parted from them when they saw one.

Thus we see stories like this:

Hillary Clinton Coming to Connecticut for 2 Book Signings

Hillary Clinton shows up late as fans turn out in hundreds for NYC book signing

Hillary Clinton to hold book signing in Buffalo

With more to come Portland, Boston, Seattle, Milwaukee, Atlanta

Time is of the essence, there is no way of when reality will compel these folks from abandoning their self-pity and delusion and get back to living their lives so Hillary has to strike while the potential to make from two to five bucks a head is still there. Sure it’s not the easy money she is used to but it’s the only influence she has left to sell.

So now we will be treated to something extraordinary. Hillary Clinton dealing with these suckers plebes all over the country, cracking a smile, signing her name and even risking the odd conservative in line asking a question about Benghazi or email servers or Bill’s Bimbos as she travels the country hawking books to make a buck and perhaps dreaming that it will turn into a groundswell to have one more go at the White House.

But if you are a voter of the left excited to get close to Hillary to give yourself closure remember this:


As it’s very unlikely that anyone is out to buy 10,000 or 100,000 copies of my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer (although if someone wants to do so fee free) the best way for you to let us know that our reporting, our writers and the growing collection of short youtube interviews, are worthy of support we do is here is of value please hit DaTipJar Below



Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month

RH (NG36B) (Saturday Afternoons):
Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings):
Jerry Wilson (Thursday Evenings)
JD Rucker (Thursday afternoons and Sunday Evenings)
Fausta Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons)
Juliette Akinyi Ochineg (Baldilocks) (Tuesday and Saturday evenings):
Chris Harper (Tuesday afternoons):
Pat Austin: (Monday Afternoons)
John (Marathon Pundit) Rubbery: (Sunday Afternoons):

And Don’t miss our Part Time Riders either
Ellen Kolb (1st & 4th Wednesday Afternoons each month):
Jon Fournier: (3rd Wednesday Afternoon each month)
Michigan Mick: (1st & 3rd Monday Evenings each month)
Tech Knight (2nd Wednesday Each Month)

by baldilocks

It’s another one of those times when I just start typing and see where it leads. Rest assured that you will not get the first draft.

At any given waking moment, there are dozens of things I’m pondering simultaneously. Here’s one of the contemporaneous things: Hillary Clinton’s new book, entitled What Happened, which purports to outline the reasons she lost to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

Others are ridiculing bad (ghost-)writing and worse blame-shifting on Clinton’s part, but what I want to know is this: what no-imagination-having one-dimensional thinker came up with the title? And is it “What Happened” with a period or What Happened” with a question mark?

Even calling it “WTF Happened,” or “Stuff Happens” would have demonstrated a bit of sparkle and a sense of humor. But, I think that such a demonstration is probably too much to ask. Even if the publisher wanted to give the title some zip, Herself would have never allowed it. The blandness of the book’s title reflects the personality of the protagonist, it seems.

I heard – but am not interested in confirming — that Amazon is deleting all the one-star reviews on Mrs. Clinton’s latest demonstration of her tendency to blame others when things go wrong. Too bad. One-star review swarms can be quite entertaining as long as most people realize that it’s political trolling and not serious reviewing.

It just occurred to me that these “after-action reports” by presidential campaign losers are a form of political trolling, as well. A “you-all-stink” note from the candidate. Pathetic, isn’t it? Almost makes me feel sorry for the woman. Thing is, if she were president, I think we would already be nuked by now. Thank God for all favors, regardless of size.

Love the Bond villainess look.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

John Adams

Over the last several days we’ve heard about many developments concerning the Clinton Lynch story,  one of the critical moments in last year’s election cycle.

The bit about the media trying to bury the story wasn’t good, hearing about alias’ used by the Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer in the country, to hide her questionable actions and the fact that these meetings were planed and coordinated is pretty bad.

But for my money the most critical part of the story is this bit (via legal insurrection) concerns not the revelations but the FOIA request itself: (all emphasis mine)

On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted.

Also of note several of the documents contain redactions that are requested “per FBI.”

It is clear that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then AG Lynch and the husband of the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI.

However, on October 21, 2016, the Comey FBI replied to our legal demands that “No records responsive to your request were located.”  This is in direct contravention to the law, and we are preparing further legal action to force the FBI to come clean and turn over ALL documents related to this matter to us in a timely manner.

Think about this statement from folks at Powerline again (all emphasis mine)

There are only two possibilities here: either someone at the FBI destroyed documents relating to the Bureau’s communications about the Lynch/Clinton meeting, or someone at the FBI lied in response to ACLJ’s FOIA request. Federal agencies have personnel dedicated to responding to FOIA requests, and presumably the people who carry out this relatively mundane task would not lie or destroy documents without instructions from the top.

There was a time when that presumption was a given, not anymore.  This case clearly demonstrates the only reason why the FOIA, a law specifically designed to promote open government was obeyed was:

  1.  Barack Obama’s Term was over
  2.  Hillary Clinton was not elected
  3.  James Comey was fired

There is no point in having laws like FOIA, or any other unless the people charged with carrying them out are honest and honorable enough to obey them no matter who’s in power unfortunately we now have two cultures in this nation.  One of them believes in the Judeo-christian moral code and the other believes the ends justifies the means.

Once that presumption that the laws will be obeyed by those who are charged with carrying them out is gone, the social contract between the government and those who are governed is gone, and when gone it’s nearly impossible to get it back.

This is the legacy that the Clintons and Barack Obama and their allies in the Democrat Party who have embraced the culture of ends and means have left America and it’s a legacy that our nation will be paying for generations.


The Layoff bleg continues. with 4 days to go we’re $1515 away from the goal to make August dedicated to the blog, the new radio show (shows?) and events.

This blog is a venture in capitalism that depends primarily on readers. You can help finance this by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer is now available at Amazon

A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium


Choose a Subscription level



And as I’ve said before if you can’t spare the cash we will be happy to accept your prayers.

Hillary Clinton went on a tear yesterday blaming everything and everybody for her 2016 presidential campaign failure. Hillary brought up Macedonians not once, but thrice in her rant.

Mr. Spock and Aristotle were not present in her logic as she droned to interviewers Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg,

“And I have a lot of sympathy at this point. Kara doesn’t, but I do [KS laughs] for people trying to make these decisions. I would just urge them to hurry up. Because even if you err slightly more on the curating editorial decision-making, so some voices are going to be cut off, some fake news outlets, the guys in Macedonia are going to be denied entry into your platform, I’d rather see us erring on that side for a while to see what the effects are, instead of being kind of overwhelmed by the challenge, like, “What do you do?” I mean, how do you try and determine who should or shouldn’t be on your site? And so I think it’s a mixed bag.”

Say, what?

Prior to Hillary’s rant, the only Macedonians I ever heard of were Alexander the Great’s thundering hordes, who took over a large chunk of land from 334-323 B.C.,

Alexander, like Hillary, wanted to be boss. Or, as Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber famously said in Die Hard,

“And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.” Benefits of a classical education.

(If you want to be pedantic about whether Hans Gruber quoted Plutarch correctly, do knock yourself out. This post is about Hillary.)

Instead of antiquity, Hillary was referring to “guys over in Macedonia who are running these fake news sites,” thus checking two items off her pretext list: electoral interference from overseas and fake news.

Add the sneaky Macedonians to the basket of deplorables.

The message is clear: in Hillary’s mind, we uneducated rubes can’t exercise own own judgement, because, if we had, she would be POTUS.

Unlike Alexander, Hillary wept because she could not conquer. I’m actually relieved she’s not POTUS. That interview leaves the aftertaste, as Scott Johnson put it, that, “To borrow a phrase from Milton, herself is Hell.”

UPDATE

Linked to by The Other McCain. Thank you!

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

By John Ruberry

Liberals and members of the mainstream media–okay, other than how they earn their paychecks there isn’t much difference between the two–have many intellectual flaws. But I’m going to zero in on just one here–their predilection to view all events through the sphere of the ’60s. For this discussion I’m going to bend time a bit–and call the ’60s as the years of 1964-1974, the period that covers Vietnam and the anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement, and the Watergate Scandal. Richard M. Nixon, by the way, was elected to the presidency in 1968.

Older journalists looked back at the first and second Gulf Wars with nostalgia, especially when the anti-war protests broke out and during the pre-surge quagmire of 2005-2007. Younger journalists felt cheated by their absence from that first quagmire, Vietnam, and they didn’t want to miss out on what they saw as a second one.

Very few reporters who were on the job during Watergate are still working in journalism, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. who is 74, is a notable exception, so those in the biz now are hoping that President Donald Trump’s firing of embattled (yes, embattled) FBI Director James Comey is their Watergate, which of course crescendoed with Nixon’s resignation before his almost certain removal from office by the Senate.

Watergate was of course much more than the break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, it was the cover up as well as the side scandals, such as the White House Plumbers, the dirty tricks, and the slush funds that made it America’s gravest political scandal.

Trump’s firing of Comey was ham-handed. If he had canned Comey shortly after being sworn-in, there would have been muted criticism from the left, as many Hillary Clinton supporters blamed Comey for her defeat last fall. Comey of course, in 2016’s October Surprise, reopened the investigation of Clinton’s reckless and illegal use of a home-brewed email server while she was Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Many prominent Democrats called for Comey’s resignation. When Trump did fire Comey last week, the White House didn’t know where to find him–Comey was in Los Angeles. And he learned of his dismissal from a television news report. And Trump, in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, contradicted the explanation from his deputy press secretary as to why he fired Comey. Finally, Trump’s hint that he may have taped one of his conversations with Comey doesn’t help the president’s case the public.

The media of course is drawing parallels to Comey’s firing to that of Richard Nixon forcing the dismissal of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Yes, Trump cited “this Russia thing” as one of the reasons for getting rid of Comey, but what is this “Russian thing?” Collusion? Meanwhile James Clapper, Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence said only a few hours ago that there is no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

And who seriously believes that Russia hacked the presidential election?

Rather it appears “this Russia thing” was invented by sore losers within the Hillary Clinton campaign.

So repeat after me. “Russian collusion” is not Watergate. James Comey is not Archibald Cox. Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon. While we’re at it, Black Lives Matter is not the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the regular anti-conservative riots at Berkeley are not the Free Speech Movement.

So what does Woodward, who along with Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post, think about the Comey controversy? While conceding on Fox News Sunday this morning that there are some questions on Russia that he wants answered, he also told host Chris Wallace, “This is not yet Watergate. Not a clear crime.”

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

China’s bid to influence the 1996 election for Bill Clinton stands as one of the most damning examples of foreign interference in the U.S. political process.

Unfortunately, the Chinese connection has largely been forgotten, including its continuation in Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign received millions of dollars in illegal contributions from Chinese donor that were channeled through the Democratic National Committee, according to a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform.

Johnny Chung, a businessman born in Taiwan, had a partner, Liu Chaoying, a high-ranking military leader and intelligence officer in China. Liu wired hundreds of thousands of dollars, which illegally went to the DNC. The duo also sent campaign funds to U.S. Sen. John Kerry for his reelection bid to the Senate. Liu’s father was one of Mao’s fellow travelers.

Chung visited the White House nearly 50 times—most of them authorized by Hillary Clinton. In one visit, Hillary met with Chung and his visiting delegation of Chinese businessmen from state-run companies. After another visit, Chung paid the DNC $50,000. In exchange, Chung was allowed to bring some of his investors to see the president deliver one of his radio addresses.

Another operative for the Clintons was John Huang, who raised millions of dollars for Dollar Bill in the Asian-American community. In 1996, Huang bundled $3.4 million for the DNC—much of which was returned after a Senate investigation found that the contributions were illegal.

Charlie Trie owned a restaurant in Little Rock that was frequented by his friend then-Governor Clinton. After Clinton won the presidency, Trie went to Washington to cash in on their friendship. He thought his association could help him develop more business contacts in Asia. One of them was Hong Kong businessman Ng Lap Seng. Seng would wire a million dollars to Trie. From 1994 to 1996, Trie directly sent $200,000 to the DNC. Trie provided the rest of the money to other people who later sent that money to the DNC. Trie also helped raised another $640,000 for Bill Clinton’s Legal Defense Fund.

According to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 94 people were called to testify about the illegal campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton campaign and the DNC. Of nearly 100 people called before the committee, 57 invoked the Fifth Amendment, 18 fled the country and 19 foreign witnesses refused to testify.

But the China connection to the Clintons didn’t end there. A Chinese billionaire gave the Clinton Foundation $2 million in 2013. The Justice Department investigated the payment from Wang Wenliang, a former delegate to the Chinese parliament. No charges were filed.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2016 campaign and the Wikileaks emails from the DNC.

The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, requested a meeting with Hillary Clinton’s top aides in January 2016, according to an internal email circulated among the former Secretary of State’s senior presidential campaign officials.

“Chinese Ambassador Cui invited me over to the residence Tuesday for a coffee and to make a request. He wants to have an informal, private, off the record get together with a few of us to discuss the next year and the current state of US-China affairs,” wrote Clinton campaign aide Kurt Campbell in the Jan. 7, 2016, email to campaign head John Podesta.

“He asked me to host a social meal at my house in the next month. He was fairly insistent and indicated that he wanted to pass along some perspectives. I told him I’d reach out to you all to see about your judgement [sic] on this and possible availability. I’m happy to make some chili and cornbread by the fire but let’s first decide whether this makes sense. Please let me know your thinking,” Campbell wrote.

Somehow these deep connections between the Clintons and the Chinese have gone mostly unnoticed in the current kerfuffle about foreign involvement in presidential elections.

Christopher Harper is a visiting Scholar in China
Blogger at the home of a Forgotten Man

By John Ruberry

Donald J. Trump’s presidential honeymoon with the media lasted sixteen minutes, which was, not coincidentally, the length of his inauguration address.

Since then, the media, with a few exceptions, has been relentlessly attacking the president, and by media, I’ll use the definition Rush Limbaugh gave this morning to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, which is ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.

I’ll add one more–a big one, CNN, sometimes called the Clinton News Network.

The media is striking back with an assault on the presidency not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal.

And Donald Trump is fighting them–and the media can’t ascertain why much of the public, their public, is siding with the president.

Because conservatives don’t like cheaters.

Among the damning revelations from the John Podesta emails hacked by WikiLeaks was clear evidence of collusion by some of these allegedly neutral outlets during the 2016 presidential campaign, most notoriously when CNN analyst Donna Brazile twice supplied a planned question to the Hillary Clinton campaign prior to a CNN-hosted debate with Bernie Sanders.

Viewers of those two CNN debates were cheated by CNN, which employed Brazile, as they rightly expected the Clinton-Sanders matchups to be, let’s use a popular term from the time when several Chicago White Sox players conspired to throw the 1919 World Series, “on the square.” Sure, Brazile, was fired, but only after she was caught the second time feeding a debate question to the Clinton machine. That says a lot. Oh, where did Brazile learn of these questions? Did they come from a low-level CNN staffer?

Liberals, with the possible exception of the most ardent members of the growing socialist wing of the Democratic Party, dismissed Brazile’s cheating as just the way the game is played, which is not how White Sox fans greeted news of the 1919 fix broke a year later.

Before there was fake news there was a fake World Series.

Here is my conservative-or-liberal litmus test: If you were angry–or still are angry–about media collusion with the Democratic Party during the 2016 campaign, they you are a conservative. If you are not, they you’re a liberal. It’s that easy.

Which explains why the media, again using the definition I gave earlier, is astounded that Trump not only attacks them millions of Americans are cheering him on.

After dutifully reporting on media collusion immediately after it was revealed, the media promptly ignored the scandal–their scandal–which is not the case with Russian interference, and yes, alleged hacking of the election by Russia of the presidential election, whatever that entails. It probably entails nothing. WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, repeatedly insists that Russia was not the source of the hacked Podesta emails.

Okay, you skeptics out there, you are probably thinking to yourselves that I am citing only two examples of CNN collusion, and that done by an analyst, not a reporter.

Still still for a moment. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper, both of them anchors, the latter is the network’s Washington correspondent, were caught colluding by WikiLeaks. Other colluders captured in the WikiLeaks net were the New York Times and CNBC’s John Harwood, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, Glenn Thrush, then of Politico and now of the New York Times, and Brent Budowsky of The Hill.

When Trump said on the stump “the system is rigged,” the colluders proved him right.

The Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman, that is, the people who play by the rules and try to make an honest living under increasingly daunting odds, elected Trump, despite the rigging.

John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

And the cheating media still can’t figure out why most Americans despise them.

You Democratic cynics are probably still thinking, “Everyone does it.” No they don’t. Very few media outlets are conservative ones, so the opportunity simply isn’t there for Republicans to collude. The only instance of GOP collusion in a presidential campaign I can recall is George Will’s vague self-described “inappropriate” role in the 1980 Debategate micro-scandal.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

On the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe it’s appropriate to remind ourselves that it was before the image of Our Lady that Hillary committed one of the great cultural gaffes of her time as Secretary of State.

Hillary visited the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and was shown the image of Our Lady kept there and asked this question:

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

Now you might think that the smartest woman in the world would know the story about the single most significant cultural and religious icon of not only the country she was visiting but of North America, of the seemingly impossible facts concerning it, such as these four via Big C Catholic

1. There is no under-sketch or under-drawing on the image.

Infrared photography has demonstrated that there is no sketching on the image whatsoever. Dr. Philip Callahan, a research biophysicist from the University of Florida explains: “It is inconceivable that an artist in the 16th Century would paint a portrait without first doing a drawing on it.” Making an under-sketch prior to painting a portrait goes back to antiquity. Such an exquisite depiction on textile made from cactus fiber is inexplicable given the lack of sketching.

2. The image has lasted and shows no signs of deterioration.

Juan Diego’s tilma is made of a rough cactus fiber which normally disintegrates in 15 to 30 years. Yet, the image of Guadalupe has remained intact for 484 years without fading or cracking. Moreover, it was subjected to candle smoke for many years, which should have accelerated the process of deterioration.

In 1778, a worker accidentally spilled strong nitric acid onto a large portion of the image. To everyone’s astonishment, only slight stains appeared which can still be seen in the upper right side. Additionally, in 1921 a bomb concealed in some flowers was placed on the altar directly under the image. When the bomb detonated, the marble altar rail and windows 150 feet away were shattered, a brass crucifix was twisted out of shape, but the image was left unharmed.

3. The stars that appear on the image are astrologically correct.

In 1983 Dr. Juan Homero Hernandez and Fr. Mario Rojas Sánchez discovered that the stars on the image correspond precisely to the constellations of the winter sky on December 12th, 1531. Incredibly, the constellations are shown as viewed from outside the heavens, in other words in reverse. It is as if we have a picture from someone looking at it from outside the universe, it is a snapshot of heaven and earth from the very moment that Juan Diego saw Our Lady.

4. Mary’s eyes are astonishingly life like.

Of all the characteristics of the image, this is perhaps the most astounding. The microscopic likeness of a bearded man was discovered in the pupils of the Virgin; first in 1929, and again in 1951. The bearded man corresponds to contemporaneous pictures of Juan Diego. No human painter could have foreseen putting infinitesimally small images of Juan Diego in the eyes of the Virgin so that later advances in human technology could detect them. Furthermore, it is impossible for any human to have painted the images because they are simply too miniscule to produce.

Jose Aste Tonsmann, a Peruvian ophthalmologist, examined Mary’s eyes at 2,500 times magnification. He was able to identify thirteen individuals in both eyes at different proportions, just as a human eye would reflect an image. It appeared to be the very moment Juan Diego unfurled the tilma before Bishop Zumárraga.

Dr. Jorge Escalante Padilla a surgical ophthalmologist considers these reflections to belong to the type which have been described by Cherney on the back surface of the cornea and by Watt & Hess at the center of the lens. Such reflections are very difficult to detect. Dr. Escalante also reported the discovery of small veins on both of the eyelids of the image. In the 1970s, a Japanese optician who was examining the eyes fainted. Upon recovering he stated: “The eyes were alive and looking at him.” [Janet Barber, Latest Scientific Findings on the Images in the Eyes, page 90.] Incredibly, when Our Lady’s eyes are exposed to light, the retinas contract. When the light is withdrawn, they return to a dilated state.

You might think she would have known some background and quit while she was behind.

The version in the Mexican press is yet more cringe-inducing: After being told it was an apparition, Clinton apparently persisted, asking, “But who painted the painting, the roses,” before being informed again that God was the artist in question.

She didn’t

But given that even 8 years after said Gaffe NBC is spinning the lady of Guadalupe into a patron of liberalism vs a path to her son that’s not a big surprise.

Closing thought, I wonder how many voters of mexican ancestry in swing states remembered this gaffe on election day?

edwards-money pj mediaFor years whenever conservatives referred to the Clinton Foundation as a money mill we were derided by both Clinton’s defenders and the press that assured us that regardless of the number of flights, five star hotels, expensive meals and booze that the Clinton Foundation covered for Bill, Hillary & Company, it was all about good works and that’s all there is too it.

That being the case I find this news from Australia rather odd:

AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.

What that can’t be right

The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

But this doesn’t make any sense. We were assured that the Clinton Foundation was doing good works all over the world, are we to believe that the good works that Australia believed was worth an 88 Million dollar investment just ceased or that Australia has decided that their works are good enough any more?

Why anyone would think that the contributions from Australia over the last 10 years were all about currying favor with a Sitting Senator, Sitting Secretary of State, Democrat Nominee and expected president rather than helping others.

Anyone want to bet me a five spot that the Australians won’t be the last big donor to decide to without the greens that the Clinton cash Cow lived on for years?

Update: That didn’t take long:

As the Norwegian newspaper Hegnar points out, Norway is expected to slash their contributions to the Clinton Foundation by 87% now that Hillary has lost the presidency. After contributing roughly $5mm per year to the Clinton Foundation between 2007 – 2013, the Norwegian government decided to boost their donations to ~$15mm and ~$21mm in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Ironically, that boost in contributions corresponded with Hillary’s decision to run for President in 2016…but we’re sure it’s just a coincidence. That said, it is fairly interesting that, since Hillary’s loss, Norway has decided to scale back their contributions by 87% in 2017…hmmm.

I guess that’s better than Australia which went to zero but I’m wondering what Norway’s explanation is? Does the Clinton Foundation do 87% less good than it did before?

young-castroby baldilocks

Like a twisted version of Santa Claus, the late Fidel Castro had gifts of horror to dispense to the country over which he ruled.

  • He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.
  • He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.
  • He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.
  • He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.
  • He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.
  • He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.
  • He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
  • He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.
  • He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.

Many Leftist leaders have blown elegiac smoke up Raul Castro’s backside as they praise the great leadership of his dead brother. And I use the term “great leadership” without irony. We’ve seen them fawn over true dictators before and be silent when that type of leadership produces identical and inevitable outcomes. Every. Single. Time.

Fidel Castro was the epitome of a Great Leader, per the Left, because of the types of outcomes listed above, not despite them.

And even if you’re still giving the side-eye to the president-to-be—and, trust me, I am—get down on your knees and thank God that we dodged the bullet called Hillary Clinton–a true Leftist type of Great Leader.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks