Saturday, March 21, 2015

Fascist Al Gore Wants to ‘Punish’ Climate Change Deniers

Godfather Politics ^ | March 17, 2015 | Gary DeMar 

Everywhere we turn the Democrats are sounding more like Benito Mussolini every day. They’ve become the fascist party. Fascism is a system of government where the party in power forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism.
We’re seeing over the issue of same-sex sexuality, ‘gay rights,’ homosexuality, whatever you want to call it. Any opposition will be shut down, fined, and put out of business. The call for toleration is the foot in the door to political, economic, and social repression, and once the objective has been achieved, toleration discarded. The ideological door is now shut. No more debates, and you will pay if you don’t agree with the fascists.
Consider this about what Al Gore just said. Keep in mind that when his book An Inconvenient Truth came out, he was pushing global warming. He has since moved the goal posts to encompass climate change, but the fascism is still there:
“For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to ‘punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,’ said the Chicago Tribune.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Al Gore, the Democrats’ only hope in 2016, reportedly bows out!

Hotair ^ | 03/20/2015 | NOAH ROTHMAN 

Sure, he’s a bit of an eccentric. He ran for the White House as a sitting vice president and lost. His finances are complex, his cable news venture failed, and his storybook marriage ended in divorce long ago. But he’s a single-issue candidate, and it just happens to be an issue that appeals to progressives perhaps more than any other.
What’s more, the Draft Al Gore movement had some influential backers in the progressive community. “Gore cares enough about what comes next that he literally titled his last book The Future,” wrote founder Ezra Klein. “But if he is really so obsessed with the future, then running in 2016 is his best chance to change it.”
Indeed. If Gore had a conscience and is honest about his convictions, as Klein suggests, he would recognize his responsibility to posterity and to the nation’s most fringe progressives to mount a primary challenge to Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for Klein, Gore’s allies indicated today that he lacks an appreciation for his place in history, although he maintains an abiding respect for his speaking fees.
Carter Eskew, who ran the advertising and messaging team for Gore’s 2000 campaign and remains in contact with the politician-turned-climate change advocate, flatly shut down the notion. “[H]e is neither doing nor thinking anything about running,” Eskew said in an email.
“I have no indication this is real,” said longtime Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who was a top strategist on Gore’s 2000 campaign. “I think it’s a media creation.”
Indeed, Gore himself has given no indication he’s interested in a return to politics. He’s become a wealthy businessman, author, and advocate and has avoided weighing in on politics outside the handful of issues he deeply cares about, including climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Graham, McCain comes out against Loretta Lynch: “No Republican should vote for her confirmation”

Hotair ^ | 03/20/2015 | Ed Morrissey 

At first blush, it looks like Dick Durbin’s demagoguery did more damage than first thought, but that’s not the real issue. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham [see second update], both strong advocates for comprehensive immigration reform and usually among those looking for compromise and comity in the Senate on presidential nominations, came out foursquare against the confirmation of Loretta Lynch. In fact, McCain went so far as to declare on the Hugh Hewitt Show that “no Republican should vote for her confirmation,” given her support of Barack Obama’s executive amnesty:

JM: Hugh, I know your time is short. Could I just mention one other issue with you very quickly that’s coming up?
HH: Please.
JM: That’s Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch has said that the President’s unconstitutional executive orders are “reasonable.” Then if that is the case, no Republican should vote for her confirmation, because she is going to implement what the President himself said 22 times would be unconstitutional actions. And by the way, I also believe that Mitch McConnell is right that we should not even bring it up until we get this human trafficking bill disposed of. Children are being mistreated in the worst possible ways while we dither over a provision in the bill which was long ago settled.
We’re still waiting for the transcript from Graham’s interview with Hugh, who’s suddenly become the go-to guy for big news in the GOP. One could take a pretty cynical view of Graham’s sudden hard-line position on Lynch, as he’s trying to build credibility for a presidential run, and needs to show the base he can be tough. However, Graham has to know that he’s not exactly among the frontrunners anyway, and he just won re-election, so his Senate seat is safe. McCain’s running again in 2016, but he’s won that seat in Arizona handily in the past even when his immigration heterodoxy has annoyed voters in his state. He won in 2010 even after his 2005-6 moderation on presidential appointees in the Bush administration, so a vote for Lynch wouldn’t have curled eyebrows there at all.
So what happened? McCain went out of his way in the interview to bring the subject up. He clearly wanted to be heard on the topic. It may be that the imbroglio with Durbin and the continuing suggestions from Democrats that race had something to do with it has made him angry enough to fight back through Lynch. I think, though, that both Graham and McCain may honestly be angrier about Obama’s executive actions. In other words, this really may be on the level.
And that changes the stakes considerably. Democrats need four Republicans to get Lynch through a confirmation vote. With McCain and Graham bowing out … which five can they find? Susan Collins and Bob Corker, maybe, and perhaps Charles Grassley, since Judiciary voted her out of committee with a positive recommendation. Toss in Richard Shelby, and you’re perhaps at a tie that Joe Biden can break. But it seems like a lot more of a stretch than it was earlier this week, and Dick Durbin may be the reason why.
Update: I’d forgotten that Orrin Hatch said he’d vote for confirmation. I wonder if this will change his mind.
Update: The Graham transcript has been posted on Hugh’s site, but contrary to what we first were told, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of Lynch in that conversation. I’ve changed the headline until we get a clarification on this.
[more to come]

Pictured: Obama's half-brother wearing Hamas scarf that boasts 'Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE COMING'

Malik Obama runs the Barack H. Obama foundation and was the Best Man at the president's wedding

  • He appeared at the 2010 Orphans Development Fund conference wearing a Hamas 'keffiyeh' scarf with well-known Palestinian slogans printed on it
  • The sayings included 'Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE COMING' and 'From the river to the sea,' a statement that suggests Israel doesn't exist
  • The president has been tight-lipped about his relationship with Malik, who told GQ in 2013 that the two are closer than Americans think
Malik Obama, the president's Kenyan half brother, was photographed in 2010 at a public event in Yemen wearing a 'keffiyeh' – a special scarf – bearing two anti-Israel slogans of the terror group Hamas, it emerged today.
'Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE COMING,' reads one saying. 'From the river to the sea,' says the other statement. 
That rallying cry refers to Palestinian militants' belief that the territory representing Israel, with the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, rightfully belongs to them – and Israel should not exist.
During a 2010 event in Yemen, President Obama's half-brother Malik wore this Hamas keffiyeh featuring the slogans 'Jerusalem is ours -- WE ARE COMING!' and 'From the River to the Sea'
During a 2010 event in Yemen, President Obama's half-brother Malik wore this Hamas keffiyeh featuring the slogans 'Jerusalem is ours -- WE ARE COMING!' and 'From the River to the Sea'
Malik Obama was the best man at the 1992 wedding of Barack and Michelle Obama
Malik Obama was the best man at the 1992 wedding of Barack and Michelle Obama
The photo appears on the website of the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a group that Malik founded and manages, despite its lack of a connection with he U.S. president. The name in the organization's title refers to the president's father, the parent whom the two men share in common.
Malik Obama also serves as the executive secretary of the Islamic Da'wa Organization, a group created by the government of Sudan.
While the White House has sought to distance President Obama from Malik and his other relations, the Kenyan told GQ in July 2013 that the two speak regularly.
'Of course we’re close!' he said. 'I'm the one who brought him here to Kogelo in 1988! I thought it was important for him to come home and see from whence his family came – you know, his roots.'
Malik told MailOnline in March 2013 that his more famous half-brother is 'always at the end of a phone line if I want to talk. I last saw him on November 19 last year, shortly after the U.S. election. I went to the White House and offered him my congratulations'.
The Barack H. Obama foundation made news in 2013 after the IRS was accused of delaying the tax-exemption applications of tea party groups and other conservative organizations because of their political beliefs in 2010 and 2011. 
But the Barack H. Obama Foundation saw its application approved in just 28 days. The final determination letter was signed by Lois Lerner, the former official forced to resign over the tea party scandal.
Malik is a practicing Muslim, but his embrace of militant Islam, including Hamas – a U.S.-designated terrorist organization – is curious because he has expressed a desire to run for president in Kenya, a predominantly Christian nation.
Malik Obama has been a visitor to his half-brother's Oval Office in the White House, and also appears to be a die-hard supporter of the Hamas terrorists
Malik Obama has been a visitor to his half-brother's Oval Office in the White House, and also appears to be a die-hard supporter of the Hamas terrorists
In 2004 when the president first ran for election to the U.S. Senate, his half-brother Malik showed off a photo of himself in Kenya with Barack Obama (L in photo)
In 2004 when the president first ran for election to the U.S. Senate, his half-brother Malik showed off a photo of himself in Kenya with Barack Obama (L in photo)
His first foray into politics ended badly when he was trounced in a regional governorship election in 2013, despite using a photograph of him and President Barack Obama in the Oval Office as his political calling card.
But Malik Obama's connection to Hamas may not be the most colorful thing about him. The president's half-bother has had at least 12 wives and was accused of beating two of them. 
The 55-year-old's most recent spouse is a 19-year-old girl who quit her education to be with him, over her family's strenuous objections.
Polygamy is legal in Kenya if it fits within a person's religious or cultural traditions.
'She decided she doesn't want to go back to school. She wants to get married now,' Malik said during a TV broadcast in 2010. 'She came here, and what am I supposed to do? So we are married.'
The photo of Malik Obama wearing the Hamas scarf first appeared online on a blog run by Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim Brotherhood member who now calls himself a peace activist.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Where in the world is Hillary Clinton’s server?

Hot Air ^ | 3-20-15 | Noah Rothman 

It was less than two weeks ago that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the nation that her “homebrew” email server was safely secure in her home in Chappaqua, New York. She insisted that the hardware was fortified behind a locked door and had a Secret Service detail mentoring it night and day, as though the greatest security threat that system faced was via a physical attack by a team of cartoonish cat burglars.
Nevertheless, Clinton insisted that the safeguards around the email system she constructed out of “convenience” were “effective and secure.” She added that “there were no security breaches,” as though she would even be able to know that that definitively. Well, subsequent reports cast doubt on the level of security that system enjoyed, but other reporters have begun to poke holes in the claim that the physical location of Clinton’s server is in her New York home.
In a March 12 report by Fox News journalist James Rosen, proficient hackers were asked to probe the security protocols in place that protected Clinton’s server today. They found that the system was vulnerable to a variety of hacking methods. Moreover, they noted that the server did not appear to be located in Chappaqua.

Now, working with publicly available tools that map network connectivity, experts have established that the last “hop” before the mail server’s Internet Protocol, or IP, address (listed as is Internap’s aggregator in Manhattan (listed as
“This is a very strong indication that the server is in Manhattan,” the source told Fox News.
That’s odd. Well, maybe the physical server had been moved in the days following the revelation that Clinton used a private email system. According to an Ars Technica investigation, however, Clinton’s email server was located in Alabama at one point while she served as America’s chief diplomat. Moreover, its substandard security left it vulnerable to a series of common hacking techniques.

Clinton has probably changed her e-mail address since the scandal began—particularly since the hdr22 account she used has been widely published and has likely become a magnet for all sorts of unwanted messages. And the hosted Exchange server is certainly an upgrade from her original server configuration—Until October of 2010, based on historic DNS records viewed by Ars, Clinton’s e-mail server was in fact at a static IP address provided by Optimum, a Cablevision subsidiary, that corresponded to the Clintons’ Chappaqua address. The domain was registered on January 13, 2009, just days before Clinton’s confirmation as secretary of state—but it did not gain a certificate for secure client connections until March. The current certificate for was issued by GoDaddy in 2013 just as the original certificate was about to expire.At some point shortly after the home server was dropped in 2010, the mail exchange record for was moved to a hosted Exchange server running out of a data center in Huntsville, Alabama. The server uses McAfee’s MXLogic e-mail filtering service to screen for malware and spam (though it’s not certain when the service was added).
There are a couple of potential hazards posed by the Clintons’ hosted mail server. First, Outlook Web App is enabled, and that offers an avenue for attackers to attempt to brute-force their way into mail accounts by guessing passwords. Exchange server offers some policies to block these sorts of password attacks, but using them runs the risk of denying users access at all—all someone has to do to basically shut down a user’s e-mail is enter bad passwords a few times to activate the lockout.
The report suggests that it would not be all that difficult to “brute-force guess” Clinton’s email password and infiltrate the system. It defies logic to believe that a high value target like the secretary of state’s electronic communications were not probed by foreign intelligence services over the course of her tenure in the president’s Cabinet, and reports increasingly suggest that those agencies did not encounter many obstacles in their effort to compromise her communications.
At the very least, Clinton’s insistence that her email server is located in Chappaqua is another indication of her pathological compulsion to willfully mislead the public on even the most banal details of her tenure at State. It is increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton is, as William Safire once observed, a “congenital liar.” Since Democrats seem disinclined to demand more of their party’s standard-bearer, it will be up to voters to determine whether the American government will be led by a habitual prevaricator in 2017.

eMail with Hillary

AP Reporter to State Dept: Why ‘Over the Top’ Condolences for Iran, State Terror Sponsor?

Mediaite ^ | 3-20-15 | Andrew Desiderio 

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee questioned the State Department on Friday about why the U.S. seems to be giving “over the top” condolences to Iran for the death of its president’s mother, and asked specifically whether it has anything to do with gaining leverage with ongoing nuclear talks.
“I’m just wondering, aren’t you guys laying it on a bit thick here?” Lee asked. “Is there something that you’re expecting in terms of Iranian concessions in the negotiations with this display?”
State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said that isn’t correct, and that the condolences were justified because a member of the Iranian negotiating team is the brother of President Hassan Rouhani. Lee wasn’t budging, and said it still seems a bit “over the top.”
“I mean, this is the leader of a country — and again, clearly the loss of one’s parent is tragic — but this is the leader of a country that you accuse of being the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, you accuse of trying to develop a nuclear weapons with which its leaders have said it will use against one of your top allies. And, I mean, it’s understandable that one would express condolences, but you’re really — it looks like you’re going out of the way to, you know, to make a point here with this. I mean, are you sending flowers as well? What is it that you hope to achieve, other than expressing condolences, if anything?”
Rathke maintained his position that people shouldn’t be reading into it any more than expressing condolences.
In recent days, Lee has been repeatedly pressing the State Department on former Secretary of State’s Hillary Clinton‘s so-called “separation form,” which spokeswoman Jen Psaki said this week the State Department has no record of.
Watch the video below: