Irony: Hillary Rebuilds America’s Trust by Using Untrustworthy National Security Narrative
By Daily Bell Staff - August 08, 2016

Clinton said Trump shouldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. … When Hillary Clinton spoke directly to the danger of Donald Trump having access to the United States’ nuclear arsenal, she may have tapped into a familiar angst with the public. Although the country is decades removed from the Cold War, people are still anxious about nukes. – Morning Consult  

Hillary Clinton is battling back on the “trust” issue – that has caused her to lose support – by using her “national security” experience to rebuild credibility.

She’s not trusted by the American people because of numerous well-publicized actions going back decades.

We’ve listed many of them in the past, including the firing of the entire White House Travel Office and their subsequent FBI prosecution because she wanted to put in her own people.

Then there is the hounding of Bill Clinton’s apparent rape victims using intimidation and blackmail.

And there are even swirling rumors about various murders carried out on behalf of her and her husband.

The American public is split about much of this. Some believe that Hillary and Bill are psychopathic and evil. Others seem to distrust her generally but  are still willing to vote for her.

One reason she is electable, apparently, is because voters believe she will be more responsible with America’s nuclear weapons.

Of course, we have published numerous articles now questioning the US nuclear narrative.

As with 9/11, we don’t know exactly what’s happened to it, or even to its antecedents, but we know it’s not exactly what’s been portrayed.

You can see articles HERE, HERE and HERE.

Such weapons seem as much political as they are military. And Hillary is building up “trust” by wielding “nukes” as an electoral weapon.


A new poll by Morning Consult shows that voters definitively prefer Clinton to Trump when it comes to nuclear weapons. When given a choice, almost half of respondents (46 percent) say they trust Clinton rather than Trump to handle the country’s nuclear arms.

Voters also say they trust Clinton (44 percent) more than Trump (39 percent) to handle the country’s overall national security, although the margins are tighter.

National Security is without a doubt the most manipulated single element of US politics. Its manipulation buttresses America’s trillion-dollar military-industrial complex and worldwide warfare.

The current $4 trillion-a-year US fedgov has built its expansion on the myth of providing “security” to the American people.

It is increasingly evident that for the past century, anyway, the military has manufactured the threats it seeks to confront. Both world wars and numerous serial wars in the 20th century probably did not have to be fought. The enemies were exaggerated and various probable false flags like Pearl Harbor were generated to drag the US into war.

Hillary used a private email server instead of a government one and supposedly compromised national security. But we have a lot of trouble with “national security” anyway, believing like the enemies that the Pentagon creates out of proverbial thin air, it’s mostly a fiction.

This is why it’s perfectly feasible that Hillary is rebuilding “trust” based on such issues. Because in large part they may not exist, and thus the narrative becomes whatever Hillary supporters wish it to be She can be portrayed as a wise and judicious leader, willing to commit troops to “harm’s way” only as necessary.

Trump can question the necessity for the US’s endless warring, but the military narrative can be embellished to Hillary’s benefit.  Her “trust factor” can be supported and expanded by emphasizing the gravity of national security issues and her competence in dealing with them  based on her “experience.”

Of course, she doesn’t really have an national security experience because the problems she’s supposedly solved never existed in the first place.

She is rebuilding trust using fedgov’s most untrustworthy narrative.

When it comes to health care, voters trust Clinton (50 percent) over Trump (31 percent).

Conclusion: The Pentagon, CIA and other facilities are perpetually at war and thus can justify perpetual lying. Ironically, her increased credibility is thus based on pervasive untruths.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Your $50 Ticket to the “$100 Billion Pot Stock Bonanza”

The $100 billion marijuana industry is dominated by penny stocks…

With legalization sweeping the country, these penny stocks have already begun skyrocketing in price…

Take action TODAY, and you have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to turn a tiny $50 investment into an absolute fortune.

Click here to find out how.

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • CAI

    If there is such a thing as a Nuclear warhead, you can bet, if given the chance, Hillary will sell it rather than deploy it!!!!

    • mary

      She’ll do both. Remember Libya.

  • Bruce C.

    The effort to make Clinton seem trustworthy isn’t going to make much of a difference to voters.

    Current Trump supporters don’t think Trump is unstable so they’re not going to vote for Hillary if the msm succeeds in making them think Hillary is okay too. All that would mean to them is that if she wins then maybe she won’t be as bad as they fear.

    Similarly, current Hillary supporters aren’t going to change their vote to Trump even if they’re persuaded to feel that Clinton is more trustworthy.

    Then there are the traditional “party-line” dopes who think like George Will and others. He wrote an article last Sunday in which he explained that “Trump won’t defend the Constitution [so you shouldn’t vote for him.]” I know its seem ridiculous but I think most people haven’t faced the fact that the next President is going to be Trump or Hillary. That’s it. Those are the realistic choices. Nevertheless, if the party-line Republican voters can be persuaded to think that Hillary is the lesser of two evils then they may very well vote for Hillary, as amazing as that sounds.

    But that still leaves the biggest unknown and wild card a Presidential election has possibly ever seen, which is the existence of, motivations, and sentiments of the “silent majority”. Personally I think most of those people are already closet Trump supporters and they aren’t going to change their minds. They’ve had enough of exactly the kind of crap that the Hillary campaign is doing. They want someone new, not an ultimate insider politician like Hillary Clinton. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if not only Trump is elected President but “the three amigos” Trump was “advised” to support – Speaker Ryan, Senator McCain and Congresswoman whatever-her-name is – are replaced.

    Just wait until November. It’s going to be wild.

  • Praetor

    Hillary has a blood clot floating around in her head. I don’t trust her. Blood clots and or tumors in you’re brain can make you do insane things, very insane things. She is dangerous!!!

  • John Siemens

    Hillary lied about Benghazi where she personally left our soldiers to die horrible deaths. She blatantly allowed classified information to be compromised because she is above the law? How dare she think she should be trusted with the nuclear codes. I served thirty years in the Army and would not even trust her with basic classified (FOUO or confidential) information let alone top secret or above.

    Her sacrifice of american soldiers and diplomats along with compromising highly classified information can only lead to one rational decision. She is not fit to be president and she is certainly not to be trusted with the highly classified nuclear codes.