Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Yes, Hillary, it DOES make a difference

http://intellectualconservative.com/yes-hillary-it-does-make-a-difference/ ^ | 9/7/15 | John Velisek USN (Ret.) 

E mails are wonderful things. People send them to announce joyful things like the birth of a baby to relatives far away, or sad things like the death of a loved one. In business, product sales and collaboration on projects are made easier by e mails, and whole business processes can be accomplished without ever meeting in person. E mails make it easier and quicker that ever to get things done.
And then this is the government. In government, e mails can be used to coerce, to intimidate, to hide all the machinati0ons that this administration does not want the citizens to know. Government record keeping is, on purpose, spotty and incomplete. From Fast and furious, to the IRS, and now to Hillary Clinton, lost or deleted e mails are the focus of damage done to this country by a socialist administration. It is so easy for them to say there is nothing to show when all it takes is the pressing of the delete button.
As far back as 2012, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Daniel Issa was asking questions about Hillary used private e mail for government work. Issa wanted to know about the departments policies of using private e mails for government work, what the active private e mails were, and if there were hidden accounts under other names. There were other questions as well, such as are the private accounts listed on federal records and if there is any disciplinary actions taken against those in government who illegally use private e mails.
Copies of this letter was also sent to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Kan Salazar Attorney General Eric Holder, and others in the administration. The only response received was from Thomas R. Gibbons the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs. In October of 2012 Clinton called for a review of Benghazi, convened the Accountability Review Board which requested all documents pertaining to Benghazi.
This was at the same time when the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell, confirmed that there was a Benghazi document “sorting session”. It was revealed that Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan were present at the “sorting session” at the State Department After Clinton resigned from the State Department seven weeks after Issas’ letter was sent to the State Department, it was several more weeks, until Feb 1, 2013 that a response was sent to Issa. The response was sent from the office of Thomas B. Gibbons and consisted of an overview of State Department policy on e mails and did not answer any of the questions that Issa requested.
Two points could be clearly inferred from the Gibbons response. One, that it was a clear violation of State Department policy to use personal email for official business. And two, that training was available for the proper use records and e mails.
The questions that Issa asked on that letter are at the heart of the Benghazi e mail scandal of which Hillary was an integral part. When the State Department was asked about why Issas questions were not answered, the response from State Department Spokesman Alec Gerlach was “ We respond to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests each year.” A perfect non-answer.
Even the New York Times was taken aback when FOIA requests to the State Department concerning the terror attack in Benghazi came back empty. The same can be said of the correspondence between Hillary and Sid Blumenthal, someone that even Obama would not allow in the administration but was a conduit for Hillary to Libya.
A response from James Carville, a Hillary sycophant is that the Republicans are mean, and that they were using the e mail scandal as political ammunition. It appears that Carville isn’t concerned about National Security or what information had been hacked from the server or by whom.
When Hillary became aware that the private e mail server would become a problem, close to 30,000 e mails were deleted by someone as yet unknown. These e mails were claimed to have been private emails and had no relation to official government business. No one but Hillary and her staff made that determination, and it appears there was no outside oversight by either the State Department or any other government agency. There are two takeaways that must be considered at this point. 1. It is abundantly clear that these e mails were deleted AFTER Issas request for information. 2. Hillary Clinton assumed the SHE was the sole arbiter of what should be made public and what was personal.
There was also a questions of Hillarys aides using personal e mails to correspond with her about Benghazi. Hillarys response were that all the messages were sent to other government employees who were using the government addresses they should use according to government policies, and they could be found there. This would give her the opportunity of saying she did not need to keep them, documents she had already claimed to have turned over.
Clinton, after the Susan Rice Sunday shows continued to blame the violence of Benghazi on the video. This is what she told the families, Jake Sullivan tried to tell Hillary that she was in the clear, that Susan Rice would be confronted but that Hillary was in the clear because she never characterized the motivations of those in the attacking party.
It has been found that there are very large gaps in the Benghazi emails that have been turned over to the House Select Committee and that none of them discuss military security at Benghazi, a subject that was discussed extensively before the attack. A military contingent stationed there could have blunted the attack and saved the four men who died there. There were repeated requests for military security to be placed in Benghazi and all were ignoed by the State Department. In fact the State Department actually reduced the security at the consulate. It was further shown that the Benghazi consulate was purposely set up without the “mandatory Standards” of a consulate.
It is time for Hillary to answer the questions that remain. Some questions are:
Why was Sid Blumenthal, someone even the Obama Administration didn’t want anything to do with, working in concert with the State Department under Hillary?
Why the person in charge of the State Department was allowed to use a private server against all regulations?
Why were the requests for more security in Benghazi turned down?
There are many more questions that we have received answers around the edges but no definitive answer. We need to push for the answers because with Hillary attempting a run at the President, at this point, it DOES make a difference.

Former Taliban captive Bowe Bergdahl hit with charge that has rarely been used since WWII

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 9/7/15 | DM/Ap 

Military prosecutors have reached into a section of military law seldom used since World War II in the politically fraught case against Army Sgt Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier held prisoner for years by the Taliban after leaving his post in Afghanistan.
Earlier this year Bergdahl was charged with desertion after the deal brokered by the United States to bring him home. And now he has also been charged with misbehavior before the enemy, a much rarer offense that carries a stiffer potential penalty in this case.
'I've never seen it charged,' Walter Huffman, a retired major general who served as the Army's top lawyer, said of the misbehavior charge. 'It's not something you find in common everyday practice in the military.'
Bergdahl could face a life sentence if convicted of the charge, which accuses him of endangering fellow soldiers when he 'left without authority; and wrongfully caused search and recovery operations'.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

Hillary covered up Bill's rapes, sex with 'underage girls!

http://www.wnd.com ^ | September 15, 2015 | MYRA ADAMS 

Today’s Q&A is with Roger Stone, a seasoned political operative and pundit. A veteran of eight national presidential campaigns, he served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents before leaving the GOP for the Libertarian Party. He is author of the New York Times bestseller, “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ,” and has written for Fox Opinion, Breitbart News, the Daily Caller’s StoneZone.com and the op-ed page of the New York Times. A well-known voice in politics for more than 40 years, Roger Stone often gives insights on behind-the-scenes political agendas on Fox News, CNN, CNBC and MSNBC.
WND: Recently in Politico, you described your forthcoming book, “The Clintons’ War on Women,” as “The definitive expose’ on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Raw, shocking and true.”
Is your description just hype to stimulate pre-sales since the book will not be released until Oct. 13, or are you and your co-author Robert Morrow really breaking new ground that will make headlines and possibly impact the 2016 race?
ROGER STONE: The mainstream media have suppressed the shocking truth about the Clintons and the way they have climbed over the backs of innocent women, men and children in their quest for power and wealth. Most people who read this book will learn shocking facts for the first time. Clinton’s apologists will try to dismiss it as “old news.” News is not “old” to those who never heard it. The book is not about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton and a cigar. It is the true story of serial rape, intimidation, violence, terror tactics, drugs, lies, greed, cover-up and ambition. It’s blunt, ugly and shocking. It’s the definitive expose on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the penicillin-resistant syphilis of our political system.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Trump doesn’t need Latino voters to win the nomination!

Gulf News ^ | September 7, 2015 | Bruce Bartlett 

It is safe to say that virtually all political professionals think Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is doomed. The odds of him winning the Republican nomination are long and the odds of him winning the general election are nonexistent, they say. The key reason is that Trump’s campaign is based on alienating Latinos, a large and fast-growing voter bloc, by supporting the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants and building a wall along the border with Mexico to prevent further emigration. If the eventual Republican nominee needs 47 per cent of the Latino vote to win the general election — the threshold set by two political scientists in a study for Latino Decisions — what chance does Trump have?
But what if Trump could replace Latino votes with those of another large minority group that traditionally votes Democratic? Then he might have a fighting chance at victory. And even without changing his message, black voters could be that group. African-Americans have long been receptive to the anti-immigrant concepts behind Trump’s campaign. Simply put, the jobs, housing and other opportunities that immigrants take come largely at the expense of blacks who were born in the United States.
As long ago as 1881, the abolitionist Frederick Douglass complained that immigrants from Ireland, the Latinos of the day, were stealing jobs from African-Americans. “Every hour sees us elbowed out of some employment to make room for some newly-arrived emigrant from the Emerald Isle, whose hunger and colour entitle him to special favour,” Douglass wrote in his autobiography. A few years later, in his famous Atlanta Exposition address, Booker T. Washington begged white employers to reject “those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits” in favour of native-born blacks...
(Excerpt) Read more at gulfnews.com ...

Race war: Black Lives Matter radio show calls for murdering white people, cops!

The Examiner ^ | September 2, 2015 | Joe Newby 

In a video posted to YouTube on Tuesday, a Black Lives Matter activist declares that it's now "open season" for killing white people and police officers. Showing an image of black people standing on the U.S. flag, the host of the BlogTalkRadio program talks about "picking off" police officers.
"And," the host says, "there's nothing" that white people can do about it. "His day is up," the unidentified host adds, speaking of white people.
"We will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before," the host said. "It's about to go down," added the host, referring to the murder of Harris County Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth and the Virginia shooting in which two employees of a television station were gunned down. The host of the program even found Goforth's murder "funny."
"It's open season on killing white people and crackers," the host added, echoing sentiments issued by leaders of the radical New Black Panther Party. The poster of the video, an individual who calls himself "Col. Hannibal Smith" of illwriteit.com, said that BlogTalkRadio "promotes terrorism" for allowing their services to be used by the group....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

It’s Time to Discuss Donald Trump’s Running Mate

Politico ^ | 09/07/2015 | By MATT LATIMER 

They still haven’t figured out Donald Trump.
GOP leaders thought they’d outfox the frontrunner-they-don’t-want by making him sign a mafia-style “loyalty” pledge to the GOP. He signed it, no problem. And why not? The Republican Party isn’t exactly the Sopranos. What are they going to do if he breaks the pledge anyway? Break his thumbs?
In return, the geniuses behind this idea have now forced every other GOP contender to vow support for Trump if he wins the nomination—along with whoever he chooses as his running mate. Which prompts us to ask a fun and fascinating question: Just who would that running mate be?
Too soon to envision a Trump ticket, you say? Well, why should that stop us? After all, America has had to endure a year or more of earnest speculation among DC pundits about a potential Bush or Clinton White House—vision quests that are literally putting voters to sleep. So what exactly would GOP nominee Trump do? We know, of course, what the ever-predictable professional political class would advise: that Trump pick someone with considerable Washington experience to balance the ticket. Maybe a solid Midwestern senator like Rob Portman. Or someone who can help solve his alleged problems with “the women,” like a Kelly Ayotte or maybe a Nikki Haley. He might, they’d suggest, pick a safe, calming choice—like some of the more establishment-approved Republicans he’d just run against. A Jeb Bush or a John Kasich or a Marco Rubio.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Who Cares?


Above the law?


Biggest threat?


The question!


Giving up!


8 years!


Your fault!


Remind me...