Tony Newbill examines Crooked Hillary insinuated her goals in the matrix of a clandestine government. (Part One can be read HERE.)
Newbill Conspiracy insights & Propositions Part 2
Posted July 19, 2016
Wed 7/13/2016 10:07 AM
Hilary is 2 Candidates in One
Hilary is 2 Candidates in One, first she’s a candidate for POTUS and then She’s a candidate for the “Deep State” and this is where the problem with maintaining USA Sovereignty exists.
The Deep State is who gave Hilary a Pass on accountability to the Civilians of the USA thus making US Citizens Subjects of the DEEP STATE!!!!!
These 2 links give insight to the Concept that Hilary Clinton is 2 candidates in one:
Deep State America
[Blog Editor: Newbill also used the last two links are also used as a comment to the dual post “Deep State USA” which includes the Deep State Conspiracy thoughts of Daniel Gladstein. Newbill has several comments on that post largely related to Gladstein’s thoughts. Newbill’s comments to the Deep State post will show in a later blog post because they are a little different than here even though the links are the same.]
It has frequently been alleged that the modern Turkish Republic operates on two levels. It has a parliamentary democracy complete with a constitution and regular elections, but there also exists a secret government that has been referred to as the “deep state,” in Turkish “Derin Devlet.”
The concept of “deep state” has recently become fashionable to a certain extent, particularly to explain the persistence of traditional political alignments when confronted by the recent revolutions in parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. For those who believe in the existence of the deep state, there are a number of institutional as well as extralegal relationships that might suggest its presence.
Some believe that this deep state arose out of a secret NATO operation called “Gladio,” which created an infrastructure for so-called “stay behind operations” if Western Europe were to be overrun by the Soviet Union and its allies. There is a certain logic to that assumption, as a deep state has to be organized around a center of official and publicly accepted power, which means it normally includes senior officials of the police and intelligence services as well as the military. …
As all governments—sometimes for good reasons—engage in concealment of their more questionable activities, or even resort to out and out deception, one must ask how the deep state differs. While an elected government might sometimes engage in activity that is legally questionable, there is normally some plausible pretext employed to cover up or explain the act.
But for players in the deep state, there is no accountability and no legal limit. Everything is based on self-interest, justified through an assertion of patriotism and the national interest. …
If all this sounds familiar to an American reader, it should, and given some local idiosyncrasies, it invites the question whether the United States of America has its own deep state.
In truth America’s deep state is, not unlike Turkey’s, a hybrid creature that operates along a New York to Washington axis. Where the Turks engage in criminal activity to fund themselves, the Washington elite instead turns to banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, operating much more in the open and, ostensibly, legally. U.S.-style deep state includes all the obvious parties, both public and private, who benefit from the status quo: including key players in the police and intelligence agencies, the military, the treasury and justice departments, and the judiciary. It is structured to materially reward those who play along with the charade, and the glue to accomplish that ultimately comes from Wall Street. “Financial services” might well be considered the epicenter of the entire process. Even though government is needed to implement desired policies, the banksters comprise the truly essential element, capable of providing genuine rewards for compliance. As corporate interests increasingly own the media, little dissent comes from the Fourth Estate as the process plays out, while many of the proliferating Washington think tanks that provide deep state “intellectual” credibility are … READ ENTIRETY (Deep State America: Democracy is often subverted by special interests operating behind the scenes; By PHILIP GIRALDI; American Conservative; 7/30/15)
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department
Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.
Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.
These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.
Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
… She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.
This link shows how the DEEP STATE is Protecting Hilary Clinton: [Blog Editor: The link below is actually a comment to the article entitled ‘Loretta Lynch Ducks 74 Questions From Congress: “Either Avoiding Appearances or Protecting Hillary”’. The identity of the commenter is “Tommy”. This means Tony Newbill and Tommy are one and the same. Since “Newbill” is a pseudonym, the mystery: has the anonymity been revealed? Or is it another pseudonym? The mystery continues. After the comment link is an excerpt from the actual article which I believe is Newbill’s actual intention.]
Did Attorney General Loretta Lynch lie about or obfuscate her role in clearing Hillary in the investigations concerning the handling of classified emails on her private server?
Is there a quid pro quo among the two women, in which Lynch could have been promised a role in the next Clinton Administration in exchange for her help in calling off potential criminal charges that might derail Hillary’s campaign.
Lynch claims there is no such relationship. But she also refused to answer at least 74 of Congress’ questions about her private meeting with former President Bill Clinton and her relationship with the Clintons and/or their staff.
Recall, that the announcement that Hillary was off the hook, as it were, came immediately after the Attorney General and former president met.
As The Daily Caller reported at the time:
Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.
As example to this, Loretta Lynch refused an entire line of questions from Rep. Jason Chaffetz about whether or not it was hypothetically legal or illegal to retain classified information.
Despite the straightforward nature of this questioning, Attorney General Lynch refused to even acknowledge whether or not it is illegal to lie under oath.
Fri 7/15/2016 12:45 PM
Hilary’s Red and Blue Camps Plan to deal with peoples conflicting Religious views
Hilary’s Red and Blue Camps Plan to deal with peoples conflicting Religious views:
[Blog Editor: The tiny url is to a Youtube post that demonstrates that Hillary Clinton intends to continue Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the USA away from American values by further diluting the Christian faith’s moral standards.]
Posted by NicholasPOGM
Published on May 26, 2015
As I stated in the video, before making public statements, political candidates do demographic research so as to see what the public will accept or reject. And this is especially true with presidential campaigns! What Hillary Clinton says during a campaign speech confirms the powers that be, know for a fact that the majority of the churches in America no longer bow to Jesus, His Word, or even common sense for that matter! Her comments CONFIRM the leaders in the USA will remove religious liberty soon! The fact they have proof there will be little opposition is the green light they have been looking for.
[Blog Editor: This tiny url is to a Youtube video in which Hillary Clinton says she believes Americans need “Adult Camps” to teach them how to relate to cultural socio-religious mores acceptable to modernity (i.e. transform minds). Hmm… Crooked Hillary’s speech should make you think of Communist Chinese re-education camps or old Soviet re-education camps]
Posted by DTAShieldOFaith
Published on Apr 14, 2015
At an event for camp professionals, Hillary Clinton pitches camp for grownups, where the “red” and “blue” cabins would have no choice but to work together.
.All praises to Yahawah Bahasham Yahawashi Shalawam ahchyam Double Honors to the Apostles and Elders of GMS
(The Elect) around the world teaching the word in sincerely and truth
And we have General Wesley Clark saying the same kind of thing about Camps:
[Blog Editor: I am guessing the link about General Clark suggesting that radicalized Muslims be rounded up and placed in camps is Newbill’s shot at being fair and balanced. Clark is a Leftist in the Dem Party thus making his statement against Muslim be castigated by Obama and the current Crooked Hillary campaign. Think of the clamor if Trump made such a statement! I sense the point Newbill is reaching for is the willingness of Dems to form re-education camps – PERIOD.]
Retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday called for World War II-style internment camps to be revived for “disloyal Americans.” In an interview with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts in the wake of the mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Clark said that during World War II, “if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.”
He called for a revival of internment camps to help combat Muslim extremism, saying, “If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”
And there has been a lot of debate within the Policy making positions of authority regarding Radical Religious people, https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
7 April 2009
(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.
(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other … READ THE REST (Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment; By Homeland Security Department – posted by Federation of American Scientists (FAS); Unclassified version released 4/7/09)
And Justice Scalia [was] saying we will see Camps in the USA, so it seems there is an Ideology within the hierarchy of Government of this train of thought: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/justice-antonin-scalia-says-world-war-ii-style-internment-camps-could-happen-again/article/2543424
“You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.
The local Associated Press report quotes Scalia as using a Latin phrase that means “in times of war, the laws fall silent,” to explain why the court erred in that decision and will do so again.
Edited by John R. Houk
Any information enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
© Tony Newbill Content