Evil Academy

Full Version: News & Current Events
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.




DID BILL CLINTON OVERDOSE ON COCAINE?
By Christopher Ruddy
September, 1999.

Now that the press has raised the "coke" question in their dogged pursuit of George W. Bush, questions about Bill Clinton's drug past are also fair game.

One area of inquiry for the news hounds at, let's say, the Washington Post, might be an incident that supposedly took place in the early 1980's when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas.

Dr. Sam Houston, a respected Little Rock physician and once a doctor for Hillary's cantankerous father, Hugh Rodham, says it is well known in Little Rock medical circles that Clinton was brought to a Little Rock hospital for emergency treatment for an apparent cocaine overdose.

According to Houston, who told us he spoke to someone intimately familiar with the details of what happened that night, Clinton arrived at the hospital with the aid of a state trooper. Hillary Clinton had been notified by phone and had instructed the hospital staff that Clinton's personal physician would be arriving soon.

When Mrs. Clinton arrived, she told both of the resident physicians on duty that night that they would never again practice medicine in the United States if word leaked out about Clinton's drug problem. Reportedly, she pinned one of the doctors up against the wall, both hands pressed against his shoulders, as she gave her dire warning.

Like most tales that reflect poorly on Bill Clinton, the press has ignored any inquiry into this one. In 1996, however, columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell located and telephoned one of the nurses who had been on duty the night Bill Clinton was brought into the emergency room. According to Tyrrell, the nurse didn't deny the story, but said she couldn't talk about it because she could lose her job. Welcome to Arkansas.

THE END

The following is a VIDEO clip excerpt from the Clinton Chronicles where Dr. Samuel Houston comments regarding the above cocaine use by Bill Clinton. As follows:

"Dr. Suen, S-U-E-N, a doctor at the medical center here in Little Rock that's taken care of Bill Clinton for his sinus problems, which may indeed be drug related to cocaine use, as they destroy the sinus passages. Governor Bill Clinton was taken into the hospital, I believe it was the medical center, on at least one or two occasions, for cocaine abuse and overdosage, in which he actually had to be cared for at the hospital."

END OF TRANSCRIPT

The following is continued transcripts from the Clinton Chronicles:

"SHARLINE WILSON: I lived in Little Rock, Arkansas, O.K.? And I worked at a club called Le Bistro's, and I met Roger Clinton there, Governor Bill Clinton, a couple of his state troopers that went with him wherever he went. Roger Clinton had come up to me and he had asked me could I give him some coke, you know, and asked for my one-hitter, which a one-hitter is a very small silver device, O.K., that you stick up into your nose and you just squeeze it and a snort of cocaine will go up in there. And I watched Roger hand what I had given him to Governor Clinton, and he just kind of turned around and walked off. And that's one specific."

....SHARLINE WILSON: "It led to toga parties, and if you're not sure on what a toga party is - I've had to clarify this in the past - a toga party is where you wrap yourself in a sheet -- most of the time (laugh). The people at the toga parties were Governor Clinton, now President Clinton, Attorney General Steve Clark - O.K., he was there a few times - members of the Arkansas State Police, you know, along with Roger and, you know, other people.

They began to dance around, do the cocaine in one room, have sex in another room, 'cause in the Coachman's Inn the rooms were adjoining, you know. And to be quite truthful, you end up with somebody in particular and you, nine times out of ten, end up having sex. And there was cocaine there I know; I'm the one that made sure it was there.

JOHN BROWN: I talked to the manager, the assistant manager for the apartment complex where Roger Clinton used to live. They've all said Bill Clinton did drugs; they saw him. I've talked to a lot of other people who have all, just like the people at the apartment complex, said, "Hey, John, get us to a Congressional hearing. Yes, we'll sign sworn affidavits." These people want to be sure when they come forward that something's done about it because they fear for their lives. But they really want the truth to get out.

SHARLINE WILSON: I was there, coming there with Roger one night, and back in the back part of the mansion there, there's kind of like a living quarters type thing. And we would all get together out there and do cocaine, you know.

And, no, Mrs. Clinton wasn't there at the time."

The following partial transcript is from The Secret Life of Bill Clinton:

"The federal probe into Saline County corruption was still running, so Duffey was able to continue her crusade vicariously by offering her witnesses to the U.S. Attorney's Office. On the afternoon of December 10, 1990, her best informant, Sharlene Wilson, walked into the U.S. District Court in Little Rock and blurted out in front of an astonished grand jury that she had provided cocaine to Bill Clinton at Le Bistro nightclub during his first term as governor.

It had no criminal implications for Clinton because the statute of limitations had passed long before. But matters were clearly getting out of hand. Within days the federal investigation was closed down. U.S. Attorney Charles Banks went into full cover-up mode. He was a Republican appointee but that meant nothing in Arkansas. What mattered were the interlocking relationships of power. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Govar was pulled off the case.

A month later Sharlene Wilson contacted Duffey in a desperate panic and arranged a surreptitious meeting at Lake Catherine on January 7, 1991. It was then that she revealed what she had blurted out in a moment of misguided candor at the grand jury.

"She was terrified. She said her house was being watched and she'd made a big mistake," said Duffey. "That was when she told me she'd testified about seeing Bill Clinton get so high on cocaine he fell into a garbage can...I have no doubt she was telling the truth." Duffey has provided me with her contemporaneous diaries recording the conversation."

...."She[Patty-Anne Smith] had moved fifteen times, tormented by her nightmares, too frightened to venture near Little Rock. "I knew a lot more than I should have known. I was there in the apartment at 12B when Dan did his business dealings. I'd be coming and going with champagne, and I'd hear the conversations," she said. That was how she learned that Lasater was mixed up with the Contra supply operation in Nicaragua. "I didn't think anything of it at the time. Then all that stuff broke in the news later, and I thought 'wow.' "

The Clinton brothers were part of the scene. "I met Bill Clinton several times, he'd know my name and I thought he was a wonderful person, but I can tell you that he was never acting like a governor when I saw him." She claims to have witnesssed him taking cocaine on two or three occasions, although only one of them stands out in her memory. It was late at night, around one in the morning, in a room off the kitchen in Lasater's residence. The only people present were Patty-Anne, Lasater, and Bill Clinton. "He was doing a line. It was just there on the table."

Given the circumstances, that allegation is, obviously, impossible to verify, but Patty-Anne's general testimony was used in 1986 by federal authorities to help convict Dan Lasater of "social distribution of cocaine."
Sibling rivalry: Parents do have a favorite child, usually the first born
https://www.rt.com/viral/339346-parents-...ild-study/
another false flag anti-semitic attack:

Firefighters battle flames at a residence for asylum seekers in Winsen, Germany, on April 10. A 17-year-old has been accused of igniting the fire in the dormitory of the building, police said. (Daniel Reinhardt/European Pressphoto Agency)
When a house used to shelter refugees was burned down in an arson attack last week, there seemed to be no doubt about the motives behind it. Someone had sprayed a swastika on one of the house's walls, which made investigators believe that they were dealing with right-wing extremism. Local politicians in the city of Bingen were shocked and immediately set up a pro-refugee march to advocate for tolerance.

That was before a Syrian refugee — an inhabitant of the house — reportedly confessed to the crime.

According to police, the 26-year-old had lived in the house for more than half a year and wanted to express his dissatisfaction with the accommodations, which he described as cramped. He has since been jailed, as investigators search for explanations and evidence.

A similar scene played out in the town of Winsen in the eastern German state of Lower Saxony on Sunday. There, a 17-year-old allegedly set on fire an asylum center where he and more than 20 others lived. Nobody was injured in the attack.

Both incidents are likely to fuel anti-refugee tensions in Germany, which have risen since Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to open the borders for Syrian refugees in the fall. More than 1 million people arrived in the country last year alone.

Although the number of daily arrivals has significantly decreased in recent months, the fallout continues to shape German politics. The Alternative für Deutschland party celebrated major successes in regional state elections and is the third most popular party on a national level, according to polls.



The two main traditional political parties — Merkel's Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats — have lost public support as a consequence. On Monday, the Social Democratic prime minister of the western German state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Malu Dreyer, was quick to condemn the attack in Bingen but defended blaming right-wing extremists for the crime last week.

"At first, there were many indications for a xenophobic crime. I am all the more surprised that the attacker is a refugee," Dreyer was quoted as saying.

[Image: 05252502.jpg&w=1484]
Overthrow Assad, Let in Refugees, and Fight Russia…or Else!

Statement of US Ambassador to Hungary

f anyone wants a short course on what’s wrong with US diplomacy look no further than US Ambassador to Hungary Coleen Bell’s speech Friday to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian Parliament. In typical diplo-speak there was plenty of flowery language about shared values, fish swimming together in the same water (?), sappy poetics like “together, out of that winter, we would force the spring,” and talk of together being “part of the world’s greatest military and political alliance.”

But make no mistake: Inside Ambassador Bell’s velvet glove is an iron fist, poised to strike should Washington’s annoyingly independent-minded Fidesz-led government step out of line on the big issues. And by “big” issues it should be understood that the US means the issues it considers in the interests of its own foreign policy, not those in Hungary’s interest.

Message to Hungary: do as we say or you will be sorry.

Ambassador Bell’s previous job was as a television soap opera producer, but raising more than two million dollars for the election of Barack Obama “earned” her the position of top US diplomat in Hungary.


The former television producer does know how to deliver her lines, though. She lectured the Hungarians about Syria, explaining to them that ISIS and Assad are both equally evil and both equally to blame for the disaster that is Syria.

ISIS has flourished in Syria, she told the Hungarians, because it “exploits the chaos of civil war in Syria, a conflict that has now claimed more than 250,000 lives.” But she does not mention that it was US backing for “regime change” in Syria — beginning at least in 2006, as we learn from a critical Wikileaks-released US Embassy Damascus memo – that created that very chaos she blames for the rise of ISIS.

In fact it is propaganda to call what is happening in Syria a “civil war,” as the forces battling the Syrian government are all sponsored by foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the US. It is a proxy war against the Syrian government, not a civil war.

She then tells the Hungarians ISIS will never be defeated in Syria until Assad is overthrown:

[W]e know we won’t be able to defeat Daesh in Syria unless we also deal with the civil war and particularly with Assad. Because as long as Assad is there, he remains the most powerful magnet for foreign fighters and recruits to Daesh.

Does she assume Hungarians are so stupid that they believe that by attacking and beating ISIS back nearly to Raqqa (with Russian assistance), the Syrian government of Assad is actually benefitting ISIS? Attacking ISIS means Assad is on the side of ISIS?

“Since February, the cessation of hostilities reduced the violence in Syria, allowing millions of Syrian civilians to take the first steps toward reclaiming a normal life,” says the Ambassador, without even mentioning what brought the ceasefire about in the first place: Russian participation along with the Syrian army in the decimation of al-Qaeda and ISIS positions in northwest and central Syria. In fact it is absolutely bizarre that in the world of Ambassador Bell (and the State Department hacks who drafted her speech), the Russian intervention against al-Qaeda and ISIS simply never took place or was too inconsequential to mention.

Is any Hungarian so ill-informed that he would believe such nonsense?

Bell used the tragedy in Syria to pressure Hungary on the (largely American-made) refugee crisis. Hungary’s firebrand prime minister, Viktor Orban, has, along with several of his central European counterparts, stood up to Brussels’ (and Washington’s) demands that Hungary take in tens of thousands of migrants who heeded German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s call to come to Europe and enjoy lots of free stuff.

Last month Orban told Hungarian Radio that if he accepts the EU migrant resettlement plan, “it would be determined not in Hungary but in Brussels who we have to live together with, and how the ethnic composition of the country will look in future.” He has rejected such a notion.

“Every sovereign nation has the right and an obligation to protect its borders,” Bell told the Hungarian Parliament, “But every nation, as a part of the international community, also has a fundamental obligation to help refugee populations seeking safety.”

Translation: your sovereignty is not determined by you, but rather by us. It is a practice articulated by Orwell in 1984 whereby a person can think two completely contradictory thoughts at the same time seemingly without any mental conflict.

But here is where the iron fist inside Bell’s velvet glove glints in the sun. She pointedly condemned the Hungarian government position by praising those in Hungary who hold the opposite view, i.e. the Hungarian opposition:

We commend the humanitarian spirit of Hungarian leaders, law enforcement and military personnel, and ordinary citizens who are responding to this crisis with generosity and compassion.

Then she gives Hungary Washington’s marching orders:

We continue to stress that any solution to these migration challenges should focus on saving and protecting lives, ensuring the human rights of all migrants are respected, and promoting orderly and humane migration policies. That includes the support of all Member State governments for the refugee agreement forged between the EU and Turkey.

Translation: Hungary must support the EU agreement with Turkey which would see tens of thousands of migrants settled in EU member countries, including Hungary itself. The problem is that the Hungarian parliamentexplicitly rejected Brussels’ forced migrant settlement plans for Hungary and plans to hold a nationwide referendum on the subject. Bell is saying here that Hungary’s elected representatives and even the Hungarian voter must be ignored and Brussels’ dictate obeyed.

When it comes to Russia, Ambassador Bell also has some instructions for Budapest: Moscow is your enemy and don’t you forget it.

She told Hungarian parliamentarians:

As many Hungarians have reminded me, you need no introduction to the nature of Russian aggression. Your response has always been to show resolve. Our best weapons, in fact, are resolve and solidarity.

Weapons? Quite a loaded word.

Orban has been seen in Washington as insufficiently enthused about sanctions on Russia, which hurt Hungarian trade and business interests. Ambassador Bell makes it clear that Hungary must adhere to US demands of Russia, even if they are completely incoherent:

As the United States and Hungary have both stated many times, Russia has a simple choice: fully implement Minsk or continue to face sanctions. Russia must withdraw weapons and troops from the Donbas; Russia must ensure that all Ukrainian hostages are returned; Russia must allow full humanitarian access to occupied territories; Russia must support free, fair, and internationally-monitored elections in the Donbas under Ukrainian law; and most important, Russia must restore Ukraine’s sovereignty.

That last point should be taken to mean that Russia must ignore the will of the people of Crimea who voted in overwhelming numbers to re-join Russia after just 25 years as part of independent Ukraine.

Not to worry, Ambassador Bell is confident that Budapest will do everything Washington tells it to do:

More than this, Hungary is equal to the great challenges of our times, and the United States is counting on you.

To stiffen their spine, US Ambassador Bell reminds the Hungarians that they are part of “our global order” and touts the great examples set by the US, including:

Our system of international economic, political, and social norms and institutions have kept the peace and fostered prosperity for decades. Whether it is international law, environmental protection, trade regulations, anticorruption laws, child labor laws, human rights safeguards, the nonproliferation regime, public health systems, international financial institutions, UN peacekeeping, or a robust civil society – these norms and institutions give life and stability to our global order.

In the era of NSA spying on innocent Americans, Guantanamo, CIA torture, weapons sales to the world’s worst dictators (Saudi Arabia for one),destruction of the environment by the US war machine, “regime change” operations that violate the sovereignty of other states, and outright aggression in opposition to US and international law (Libya, etc.), Bell’s suggestion that “our global order” is the pinnacle of civilization should get a laugh out of most Hungarians. In fact, from Libya to Syria to Ukriane to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US interventionist attempt to forge a global order with blood and bullets will go down in history along with the authoritarianisms of the 20th century as one of humanity’s darkest chapters.

Here is the short version of Ambassador Bell to Budapest: “to be our partner means you do what we say whether or not it is in your interest.”

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...ssiaor-els
Washington Post poll shows Native Americans unbothered by Redskins name
ESPN - ‎2 hours ago‎
A new Washington Post poll found that 90 percent of Native Americans aren't offended by the Washington Redskins' nickname and an overwhelming majority consider it an unimportant issue.

quelle surprise




I like Peter Schiff. He endorsed Donald Trump:

Peter Schiff: How Trump Can Make America Great Again

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden - May 4, 2016 7:45 PM
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInReddit
Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

Donald Trump’s critics have heaped scorn on his calls for protective tariffs to deal with America’s widening trade imbalance and the resulting loss of higher–paying blue color jobs. Some have accused him of trying to turn back the clock in pursuit of a cheap populist ploy and have said that he simply refuses to acknowledge that America is now an information and service economy for which large trade deficits are the new normal. But voters are sensing that The Donald is right to sound alarm bells, and that something radical needs to be done to revive manufacturing to make America great again. While his tariff solution is hardly the best medicine; to be honest, given the even worse solutions that are being offered by the left, Trump’s instincts may be preferable.

Ironically, in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the elimination of tariffs was a populist issue. A little more than a century later, the polls have reversed completely. Prior to the introduction of the income tax in 1913, tariffs were the Federal Government’s principal source of revenue. During the long and contentious campaign to enact the 16th Amendment (which allowed the government to tax incomes for the first time since the emergency Civil War-era 3% to 10% income tax), proponents argued that the passage of a “soak the rich” income tax would allow the government to repeal the tariffs and thereby transfer the tax burden from the working class, who paid the tariffs through higher prices on imports, to the ultra-wealthy, who were the sole target of the income tax as it was originally conceived, packaged and sold.

(The tax originally imposed rates from 1% to 7%, and only applied to fewer than 1% of Americans. The 99% supported its enactment solely because they believed they were getting something for nothing, in this case, government services paid for by the rich. In fact, in 1895, when the Supreme Court bravely declared the government’s first attempt to replace tariffs with an income tax unconstitutional, the justices were personally vilified as defenders of the rich.)

But contrary to Trump’s stump speeches, our trading partners are not taking advantage of us; we are taking advantage of them. They give us their products and we give them nothing but our debt. They expend scare resources (land, labor and capital) to create consumer products for us to enjoy, while we just conjure intrinsically worthless dollars out of thin air. But years of excessive regulation and taxation have resulted in an accumulation of trade deficits that has transformed America from the world’s largest creditor to its largest debtor. Our once mighty savings financed a high-wage industrial economy that has been hollowed out, replaced by a weak, debt-financed, low-wage service sector economy.

So while the populist movement of the early 20th Century demanded the removal of tariffs, the populist movement of today wants to bring them back. But Trump is not talking about replacing income taxes with tariffs. He simply wants to add tariffs to the existing tax structure (though he does want to lower the rates). This will only compound our problems and make our economy far less competitive. It will not bring back our jobs; it will only increase the tax burden on the American economy, destroying even more jobs. If we want to undo the deal we made with the devil over 100 years ago, we need to repeal the income tax as well.

If that substitution were on the table, I would argue that tariffs offer the lessor burden. Tariffs are a much simpler form of taxation that do not require armies of accountants, lawyers, and tax preparers, who are needed to comply. And while we are repealing the income tax, we should repeal most of the other federal taxes (particularly the payroll and estate taxes) and laws enacted since then as well. But that is not what is being discussed.

Our trade deficits do not result from bad deals but bad laws. Put simply, the amount of taxation and regulation that have been layered on our business owners and their employees have made it impossible for American firms to compete with foreign rivals. Contrary to the currently popular talking points, low wages are not the only means to establish successful trade balances. America became the dominant exporter in the world in the 19th and 20th centuries while our currency was strengthening, we were paying the highest wages, and our workers enjoyed the world’s highest living standards.

Germany is doing so today. Strong economies compete with quality, innovation, efficiency, and flexibility. Those capacities have been stifled by government policies that have nothing to do with trade agreements and have everything to do with domestic policies. We need to repeal those laws. Trade deficits are not the problem. They are the consequence of the problem. The problem is big government, financed largely by the income tax, which has made America uncompetitive.

But it is unlikely that tariffs alone, or even a broad-based national sales or value-added tax, could bring in all the revenue generated by the direct taxes we should eliminate. To survive on excise taxes, as the founding fathers envisioned, requires making the Federal Government a lot smaller.

But Trump is not promising to make government smaller. If anything, he is promising to make it even bigger. He has made no promises to cut government spending across the board, including popular “entitlements” like social security, which Trump has promised not to touch.

To make America great again, we need to recreate the free-market environment that made her great in the first place. It’s not just oppressive direct taxes that must go. It’s all the regulations that have driven up the cost of doing business, and labor laws that make employing workers so expensive and risky that business does all it can to create as few jobs as possible.

But contrary to Trump’s stump speeches, our trading partners are not taking advantage of us; we are taking advantage of them. They give us their products and we give them nothing but our debt. They expend scarce resources (land, labor and capital) to create consumer products for us to enjoy, while we just conjure intrinsically worthless dollars out of thin air. But years of excessive regulation and taxation have resulted in an accumulation of trade deficits that has transformed America from the world’s largest creditor to its largest debtor. Our once mighty savings financed a high-wage industrial economy that has been hollowed out, replaced by a weak, debt-financed, low-wage service sector economy.

Trump is right. This is a big problem and it needs big solutions. If tariffs were offered as a replacement to our ridiculous and destructive personal and corporate tax, and payroll and estate taxes, then America may become more competitive and our greater efficiency may even allow us to overcome the tariffs that other countries would likely impose on us in response. But slapping tariffs on imports, while doing nothing to improve the conditions for business efficiency, simply means that prices for American consumers will rise significantly, without sparking a revitalization of American manufacturing prowess. Don’t forget the global market contains over 7 billion consumers, the U.S. market just under 320 million. Insulating our manufacturers from this larger marketplace guarantees that we will never become globally competitive.

Tariffs or sales taxes will drive up the cost of goods for consumers, a fact that Trump seems to ignore. If he would acknowledge this issue, he could offer the counter argument that if we could couple tariffs with income tax relief that Americans would also have higher incomes to pay those higher prices. But even if incomes rise, higher prices will inevitably lead to less consumption and more savings, especially if we allow interest rates to be set by the free market rather than the Federal Reserve. More savings and less spending is exactly what we need if we want the capital to rebuild our industry. Protective tariffs alone will not work, especially when there is little industry left to protect.

So instead of criticizing Trump for his misguided advocacy of tariffs as a panacea, we should at least give him credit for recognizing a serious problem that so many others ignore. The real criticism should be directed at those who would allow America to continue down this self-destructive path.

Tags
The Brexit campaign to lead Britain out of the European Union (EU) has opened up a 10-point lead over Remain campaigners, a “remarkable” new poll has revealed.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/...-new-poll/
[Image: B-YB7qAIEAAGxKT.jpg]
Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Does the Advertising Giant Dentsu Pull the Strings of Japan’s Media?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushima-a...ia/5528891
Reference URL's