Students SHOCKED When They See Which Candidate Lives in Multimillion Dollar Mansions

Screen Shot 2015-07-01 at 10.12.55 AM

Screen Shot 2015-07-01 at 10.13.57 AM

Students Consider Changing Their Vote in 2016 After Learning Hillary Lives in Multimillion Dollar Mansions


Last year, Hillary Clinton claimed she and her husband were “dead broke.” She paints a picture of being the average man’s Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. She pretends she understands what it’s like to live a modest, even border-line poverty, lifestyle.

So why would the average American doubt her claims that she can lower taxes for the poor and have the upper class make up the difference? Why wouldn’t someone believe that she is a champion for the underdog?

The Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform recently proved to the American public that Hillary isn’t all she’s cracked up to be. Young people in the nation’s capital were asked to match the presidential candidate with the mansion he or she has lived in. They automatically went for the Republican candidates like Trump, Rubio, and Bush.

Boy, were they wrong!

Another Clinton Associate Found Dead, ‘Body Count’ Increases


Before you read this post, we wanted to make sure that everyone that did take the time to read it, understood that this has definitely come under scrutiny and major critique, as it should.

New reports and documents have cause many to question if the Clintons used violence to have power and stay in power.

46 people close to the Clintons have lost their lives in mysterious ways during their political ascent. Eight of these people were personal bodyguards to the family.
Many of these victims are people who had dirt on the Clintons, and could have done major damage to the couple had they spoken out.

An example of this is Mary Mahoney, a former White House intern who was murdered execution style at the Starbucks she was managing in 1997. Mahoney served as an intern during the early days of the Clinton presidency from 1992-1995. A proud lesbian, she became a den mother of sorts to the other female interns, many of whom would come crying to her after Clinton made sexual advances to them.

Schermata 2015-06-24 alle 19.06.07

Had she lived, Mahoney could have been a key witness against Clinton in his impeachment. How convenient for the Clintons that she was murdered…

There have also been an unusual amount of “suicides” in people surrounding the Clintons. These include Vincent Foster, the White House Counsel who died in an apparent suicide in 1993.

Schermata 2015-06-24 alle 19.07.12

While official reports say it was suicide by gunshot, the person who found Foster’s body has repeatedly stated that there was no gun found at the scene.

Foster was originally from Arkansas, and had worked at the same law firm as Bill in their younger days. He also knew intimate details about the Clinton’s finances, and was INVESTIGATING these finances in the days before his death. In fact, Foster made a mysterious phone call to Hillary just hours before his death.

Finally, the “suicide note” found at the scene of Foster’s death has since been revealed to be a forgery.

Perhaps Foster stumbled upon a major flaw in the Clinton’s finances, then called Hillary to tell her about it. Hours later, he was dead…

This Clinton body count is CONTINUING to grow to this day. As Hillary prepares for a possible presidential run, we can only advise that those with close ties to the Clintons watch their backs…


Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 5.59.10 PM

Written by Michelle Jesse on June 23, 2015

Just hours after 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton finally weighed in on the Confederate flag controversy, new evidence is surfacing that causes us to say, hey wait a minute…

As ABC News reported this morning:

Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, weighed in on the South Carolina confederate flag debate back in 2007 and still holds the view that it should be removed.

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 6.02.39 PM

So, if Hillary’s been such a leading advocate for the flag’s removal since 2007, what’s up with her campaign buttons featuring the flag — from 2008?

One merchant on eBay is offering campaign buttons from 2008 that were purportedly produced by supporters of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president. One is advertised as a souvenir of the Arkansas Travelers, a Clinton-backed group that traveled from Arkansas to support both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presidential runs. The button features the Confederate flag behind the message: “Arkansas Travelers In Support of Hillary Clinton for President South Carolina 2008.”

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 6.03.51 PM

Breitbart News has contacted the seller, who vouches for the button’s authenticity.

Another item purports to be a button supporting Hillary Clinton in Alabama in 2008. It features a Confederate flag behind a map of the state and a portrait of Clinton, above the slogan, “Heritage not Hate.” (Barack Obama won that state’s primary.)

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 6.05.07 PM

n addition, campaign merchandise featuring Bill Clinton and the Confederate flag has surfaced widely across the Internet.

There is no indication that the Clintons ever discouraged Confederate flag-themed merchandise being produced in support of their respective candidacies.

A leader with the strong convictions about the flag — as Hillary claims to have had dating back to 2007 — surely would have, at a minimum, discouraged such merchandise bearing her name. Yet she appears to have been silent on the issue — when it served her in reaching a particular voting constituent in 2008 (and she still lost).

Today she’s also silent on her husband’s use of the flag on his 1992 campaign buttons AND his support of the flag during his tenure as Arkansas governor, when Bill Clinton observed Confederate Flag Day and signed a bill affirming that “The blue star above the word ‘ARKANSAS’ is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 6.06.00 PM

Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear Hillary’s current take on these historic memorabilia? Too bad it’s unlikely the candidate will be asked about them. Because the only thing as predictable as the Clintons’ propensity for playing loose with the facts — even in the face of tangible evidence to the contrary — is the mainstream media’s willingness to let them.


Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 3.19.18 PM

Americans will be unable to defend themselves against the most violent armed force ever created: government


 Not to be outdone by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in calling for civilian disarmament, the United Nations is taking advantage of the Charleston shootings to join the chorus of confiscators.

In a statement issued on June 19 by the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (yes, that actually exists), committee chairwoman Mireille Fanon Mendes-France demanded that “urgent measures must be taken to prevent gun violence.” Making a point of distinguishing this crime for its effect on “the security of Afro-Americans,” the UN group sent their “heartfelt condolences to the people of the United States of America.”

If the United Nations has its way, there will much more to mourn about in the United States of America. As part of the global effort to grant monopoly control of weapons of all sizes to UN-approved “state actors,” the Arms Trade Treaty mandates the forcible disarmament of all others.

The scheme was endorsed in the “name of the people of the United States” by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013.

“I am very pleased to have signed this treaty here today. I signed it because President Obama knows that from decades of efforts that at any time that we work with — cooperatively to address the illicit trade in conventional weapons, we make the world a safer place. And this treaty is a significant step in that effort,” Kerry said at the signing ceremony.

Promptly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon thanked Kerry and Obama for their complicity in consolidating UN control over weapons and ammunition: “Today, a number of countries signed the Arms Trade Treaty, pushing the total number of signatures to more than half of all Member States.”

The secretary-general, as the depository of the treaty, welcomes every signature to this important pact. At the same time, it is of particular significance that the largest arms exporting country in the world, the United States, is now also among those countries who have committed themselves to a global regulation of the arms trade. He believes this will contribute to efforts to reduce insecurity and suffering for people on all continents. He calls upon other countries to follow suit.

Since the date of the treaty’s signing by Kerry, a number of senators have warned President Obama not to try to enforce the terms of the agreement by use of his infamous “pen and phone.”

In 2013, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent the president a letter reminding him that:

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

President Obama knows this and he also knows that in March of that year, 53 senators voted “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

Americans know something, too. They know that this administration has never failed to use every murderous act of armed violence as a pretext for tyranny. From Newtown to the Navy Yard to the latest atrocity committed at a church in Charleston, President Obama has issued scores of executive orders directly violating the Constitution’s explicit prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

In a statement made to The Blaze, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina pointed to this predilection on the part of the president and bolstered her position, saying that “South Carolina has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.”

As reported by The Blaze, “South Carolina is one of five states that have an outright ban on open carry firearms.” Adding, “South Carolina’s concealed carry law requires permit applicants to undergo a background check, submitting two sets of fingerprints, and take a state-approved class on gun safety before passing a written test and a live firing range test.”

Regardless of the rigorous background checks to which one must submit in South Carolina before being permitted by the government to purchase a gun, the question remains: Why should any government possess the power to disarm its citizens? Do I have the power to disarm my neighbor if I believe him to be “dangerous?” Certainly not. If I tried to go over and take his weapon I’d likely be arrested for trespass and assault. Where, then, does government — that is nothing more than the collective expression of the people’s natural right of self-defense — get the power to make legal for them what would be illegal for an individual?

While the UN’s Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent may be correct in calling the barbarous act committed at the Emanuel African Methodist Church a “racist crime motivated by prejudice,” nothing in the words or executive orders of President Obama would have prevented it from happening.

The same goes for the Arms Trade Treaty. The secretary-general, the secretary of state, and every presidential candidate can claim that they want to talk about additional gun regulations out of consideration for the safety of innocent people, but what they really intend to do is take liberty from innocent people and leave those people defenseless to do anything about it.

Arguably, the Arms Trade Treaty would become the law of the United States if the Senate were to ratify the treaty.

While that is the process that the Constitution establishes for the implementation of treaties, fundamental principles of construction and constitutional law dictate that no treaty that violates the Constitution can become the supreme law of the land.

In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that regardless of presidential signatures or congressional consent, this treaty cannot pass constitutional muster and therefore will never be the valid law of the land.

Unless, of course, Americans once again acquiesce to President Obama’s assumption of illegal authority and relinquish their rights and weapons regardless of the reasons they should not do so.

This nightmare scenario took a giant leap toward reality on Thursday, June 18 when 218 members of Congress voted to grant the president “trade promotion authority (TPA),” the so-called “fast track.”

With this new power, the president is free to unilaterally issue international executive orders that are binding on the United States, so long as those orders concern trade.

Is there any question whether President Obama will use this new power over “trade” to implement the provisions of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty? Somewhere, perhaps, a teleprompter is being loaded with a speech mourning the death of so many innocent men and women and promising to “heal” the country by making it more difficult for people to “own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer” (the language from the ATT) firearms.

There is not a person of sound mind who doesn’t deplore and denounce crimes such as that committed in Charleston. Senseless brutality leaves us all scarred and diminishes our collective virtue.

Wise men, however, would also recognize that statements such as that issued by the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent demanding that “urgent measures” be taken to reduce gun violence will — as with all similar statements made since the establishment of the modern state — have no effect on violence.

It will, however, leave Americans unable to defend themselves against the most violent armed force ever created: government.