Friday, October 2, 2015

What Does Obama Know About The Clinton E-mail and Foundation Scandals, And When Did He Learn It?

National Review ^ | October 02, 2015 | MYRA ADAMS 

‘What did the president know and when did he know it?” That now-iconic question was asked by Senator Howard Baker, vice chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee, to President Nixon’s White House counsel John Dean on June 29, 1973.
Forty-two years later it is doubtful that President Obama will ever truthfully answer that question as it relates to the mounting number of alleged improprieties lodged against the Clinton Foundation and its connection to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as his first-term secretary of state.
Mrs. Clinton addressed the ongoing e-mail controversy last Sunday on Meet the Press. “It’s like a drip, drip, drip,” she said, and “I want these questions answered.” Perhaps President Obama could offer her some assistance. First, there is hard evidence that as early as 2009 the Obama administration knew about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server. Obama did not pull the plug. Surely, the president’s intelligence advisors warned him that an unsecured home-based server posed a national-security risk.
Now we read that Hillary even joked about the prospect of the Chinese hacking her e-mail. Second, why hasn’t Obama’s IRS audited the $2 billion Clinton Foundation? What is it about this foundation that causes the IRS, ordinarily proactive, to ignore evidence of violations against the strict rules and regulations under which any tax-exempt organization must abide. If it doesn’t, it loses its tax-exempt status. Every year foundations and charities, large and small, are routinely audited, but not the Clinton Foundation.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable donations have been reported. The foundation has publicly admitted to years of major accounting errors,.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Mitt's Top Adviser Stu Stevens: I’ve Discussed Possibility Of Brokered Convention With Romney

Daily Caller ^ | 10/02/2015 | James Wenstein 

Mitt Romney’s top political adviser says he has talked about the possibility of a brokered convention with the 2012 presidential contender — but not in the way one might think.
Stuart Stevens explained the context of his brokered convention conversation with Romney during an interview on Hugh Hewitt show Wednesday, guest-hosted by this writer.
“We have talked about that, but not about some scenario where he would pop out of a hat,” Stevens said when asked whether he has heard the words “brokered convention” cross Romney’s lips.
Some on the right have speculated about the possibility of Romney re-emerging as a contender at the Republican National Convention if no current 2016 Republican candidate is able to win enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Dogs That Aren't Barking in the 2016 Campaign ^ | October 2, 2015 | Michael Barone 

Sherlock Holmes famously solved the mystery of the Silver Blaze by noting the dog that didn't bark in the night. It strikes me that in this wild and woolly campaign cycle there have been numerous dogs not barking in the night, or in the daytime either.
Start with the race for the Democratic nomination, which has not unrolled as predicted. Every observer knows Hillary Clinton's numbers have been falling and Bernie Sanders' numbers have been rising, leading her in Iowa and New Hampshire. Every observer is waiting to see if Joe Biden will run, perhaps in time for the Democrats' first debate two weeks from now.
But the other declared candidates have gone nowhere. It's perhaps not surprising in the cases of the maverick Jim Webb and the former Republican Lincoln Chafee. But Martin O'Malley, former Baltimore mayor and Maryland governor, with a pleasant demeanor and a solid liberal record, is the sort of candidate who would have a serious Democratic contender in cycles past.
He's been out on the trail, but the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal, Quinnipiac and CBS/New York Times polls put him at 0 percent. The pollsters are having a hard time finding anyone who backs him.
Cynical conclusion: in a party consumed with identity politics, there are constituencies for a woman and a self-proclaimed socialist, but not for a cisgender white male, even one who increased spending and effectively supported same-sex marriage. Sympathetic explanation: Democratic voters are attracted to longtime champions of identity politics and uninterested in new faces.
In contrast, on the Republican side, even in a field of 15 candidates, almost all have some perceptible support. But past performance is not proving a guide to current results.
Rand Paul, for example, was expected to at least match the showing of his father Ron Paul, who got at least 10 percent (rounded off) in 29 primaries in 2012. But the younger Paul's domesticated libertarianism and non-interventionist foreign policy is attracting only 2 percent nationally and 4 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Cynical conclusion: Ron Paul's tattooed and dope-smoking fans aren't interested in a domesticated version. Sympathetic explanation: Paul's anti-interventionism lost its appeal when ISIS started beheading Americans.
Iowa Republicans are also showing little enthusiasm for the candidates who finished first in their 2008 and 2012 caucuses. Mike Huckabee is polling at 4 percent there, Rick Santorum at 2 percent. They aren't duplicating their previous appeal to evangelical Protestants, who have been a bigger proportion of turnout in Iowa than any other non-Southern Republican contest.
Cynical conclusion: Religious conservatives don't stay bought. Sympathetic explanation: Religious conservatives look for candidates who share their values, but don't stick with those who proved incapable of winning nominations.
Of course, one might also say that these Republicans are just being overshadowed, maybe temporarily, by outsiders who haven't held political office -- Donald Trump especially, and also Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. The race is far from over; maybe they'll do better later on. And maybe Martin O'Malley will catch on, too -- although when pollsters take Joe Biden off their list of candidates, he currently rises from 0 to 1 percent.
The dogs that aren't barking tell two different stories about the parties. Democrats, who like to think of themselves as open to new ideas, are sticking with old ideas and causes. Republicans, who used to fall predictably in line, are off on a wild fling.
There's another dog that isn't barking as well, on the issues front. House Republican rebels may have pushed Speaker John Boehner out, but, as the Wall Street Journal editorial page notes, federal spending during -- and because of -- Boehner's leadership has been essentially flat for four years, the only time that's happened since World War II. It fell from 24 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to 20 percent in 2014.
What's interesting here is that no one seems to care. Republican rebels don't, and Democrats who push for more spending behind the scenes aren't making a public fuss about it. It's reminiscent of Britain, where the Conservative-led government cut nearly 1 million public sector jobs in five years. But Labour never raised the issue in this year's campaign and Conservatives gained seats.
Cynical conclusion: No one really misses anything when government spending is cut. Sympathetic explanation: In any large organization there is always room for squeezing out unneeded blubber. That non-barking dog may be something to keep in mind as our campaign continues.

White House Reveals End Game for Massive Immigration (It's the Democrat votes, stupid)!

Breitbart ^ | 10/02/2015 | Tom Tancredo 

The Obama administration is launching a campaign to accelerate the conversion of millions of immigrants to citizenship. The nation’s immigration agencies will spend big bucks on “outreach” activities and the Naturalization process will be streamlined.
The goal is to add several million new citizens to the voter rolls by November 2016.
If you think the Naturalization process is governed by law and long-established rules so we need not worry about shortcuts and wholesale fraud – wake up. This is the Obama Administration we are talking about. If you think immigration law enforcement was politicized, wait until you see what citizenship fraud looks like. It will become very politically incorrect to question any immigrant’s right to vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Putin Cutting Obama Down To Size! ^ | October 2, 2015 | Jonah Goldberg 

If the humiliation of the Obama administration continues at this rate, by this time next week you should expect to see Secretary of State John Kerry on all fours at the United Nations, getting paddled by the Russian foreign minister and shouting, "Thank you, comrade! May I have another?"

On Monday, President Obama and Vladimir Putin had a meeting at the United Nations. All Putin wanted from it was a photo of the two men huddling together. The Russian president needed to show his people that he's still a major player on the world stage, a big man driving events. Obama, who spent much of the last year trying to isolate the butcher of Ukraine, gave Putin exactly what he wanted. In wall-to-wall coverage, Russian media celebrated the big man's diplomatic triumph and his geo-strategic genius.
What was Obama's price for granting Putin this PR windfall? The leader of the free world made the Russian autocrat listen to another tedious lecture about how Putin doesn't understand his country's interests as well as Obama does. No doubt Putin would have preferred to avoid yet another seminar on how the word should work. But if Paris was worth a mass for Henry IV, no doubt Syria (and not just Syria) was worth yet another sonorous tutorial about the moral arc of the universe doing jobs our president won't.
While Obama droned on about the importance of cooperation and communication, Putin was probably counting the minutes until he could get back to reviewing Syrian targets for his bombers.
It didn't take long for Putin to reveal what he thinks of Obama's sermons on the importance of communication. On Wednesday, a three-star Russian general marched into the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and issued a démarche -- a fancy diplomatic word for a formal, non-negotiable declaration. The general reportedly instructed U.S. officials that Russia would commence airstrikes within the hour and that American forces had better clear out. In diplomatic terms, it was somewhere between a white-gloved slap in the face and a spit in the eye.
A State Department spokesman later said, "We've seen media reporting that has suggested Russian missions have begun."
There's a nice irony here in that Obama has often said that he only learned about the failures of his administration -- corruption at the IRS, malfeasance at the VA, etc. -- from media reports. So perhaps Putin thought this was the way Obama liked to be informed of unfortunate events.
Regardless, Putin's planes started their bombing runs. Russia claimed they were targeting the Islamic State, but the bombs landed where intended: on U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. Russia's confidence was well-founded. Upon hearing the news that our allies on the ground were being slaughtered, Kerry met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the U.N. Lavrov, being the more important figure, spoke first at the press conference.
Then, Kerry issued this less-than-blistering denunciation: "I relayed and reiterated the concerns that I expressed in the course of the U.N. Security Council meeting which was led by Russia today: concerns that we have about the nature of the targets, the type of targets, and the need for clarity with respect to them. And it is one thing obviously to be targeting ISIL. We're concerned, obviously, if that is not what is happening."
No doubt our friends are reassured by the news that if Russia bombs them, America will immediately respond by expressing our "concerns."
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Ash Carter convened a press conference where he brought all the urgency of a faculty department chair assigning new parking spaces. He did say that he takes the Russians "at their word."
"My problem isn't that I don't understand what they're doing," Carter said. "I think my problem is that I think what they're doing is going to backfire and is counterproductive."
This is the Obama doctrine in a nutshell. The president's favorite rhetorical trope is to justify withdrawing from the world on the grounds that the "international community" will fill the vacuum created by our abdication. But the international community's troops always stay in their barracks. Meanwhile, bad actors -- Russia, China, Iran et al. -- seize the opening. Our president responds with mournful words that doing so is not in the villains' interests. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's bombing of his own people demonstrate, according to Obama, that they are on "the wrong side of history."
Having made his pronouncement, the ostrich buries his head back in the sand.

Breaking: Umpqua Shooter Was Not a Republican!

Bad Blue ^ | 10/02/2015 | Ryan Girdusky 

Thursday’s horrific mass murder at Umpqua Community College in Oregon has everyone looking for answers and motives to how a young man became a monster–and some are jumping too quickly to conclusions.
Naturally, the media and other liberals have claimed the shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer, a 26-year-old, biracial man, was a Republican
At one point in his life, Mercer tagged himself as a Republican on his dating profile. Within hours after the shooting, CBS, Raw Story, Mediate, Heavy, The Daily Beast, and scores of Twitter users pounced all over this apparent revelation.
However, Red Alert Politics has discovered Mercer was in fact not a Republican or Democrat. He was a registered in Oregon as an Independent.
Oregon is a closed primary state, so registered Independents can not vote in the primaries of either party.
Here’s a screenshot of Mercer’s registration from the Oregon Secretary of State, after searching through his name and birthday – July 26, 1989. His full address has been blacked out in respect of the police investigation.

Last Men Standing: When Trump, Carson & Fiorina fade, Cruz and Rubio might be the GOP's finalists!

US News & World Report ^ | October 2, 2015 | Robert Schlesinger 

It's possible, just possible, that the final battle to become the 2016 GOP standard-bearer will come down to a pair of first-generation Cuban-American, first-term senators. Yes, I'm talking about the same Republican Party that has proven so incompetent in reaching out to Hispanic voters that it followed up its 2012 post-mortem determination to get better at it by, arguably, getting worse. Not that a final showdown between Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida will necessarily help on that score, but more on that later.
How does this scenario play out? It starts with the assumption that the three current front-runners, according to RealClearPolitics' average of polls – former reality TV star Donald Trump (23.3 percent), neurosurgeon Ben Carson (16.3) and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (11.8) – will all fade.
There are good reasons to expect this both in general and specific to each candidate. Trump's have been repeated and recycled for months: He's an egomaniacal, serially insulting, loud-mouth and while that might not sink him in a GOP primary, his ideological incoherence and departures from standard Republican policy positions probably will. After being endlessly foretold since his announcement the great Trump decline appears to finally be under way: He still leads but his share of supporters has dropped from 30.6 percent on the night of the second debate to 23.3 percent, more than a 7 percentage point drop in two weeks. That is, as the man might say, yuuuuge.
Carson too, while presenting a contrastingly lower-key mien, has been a gaffe-machine, suggesting that prisons make convicts gay, comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ted Cruz slams president for 'politicizing' Oregon massacre

BostonHereald ^ | 10/2/15 | Chris Cassidy 

Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz blasted President Obama’s remarks in the wake of an Oregon community college massacre that mass shootings are “something we should politicize” after a campaign stop here today.
“It seems there is no tragedy the president isn’t willing to politicize,” said Cruz. “He in many ways is following the dictum of his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, ‘You never want to waste a good crisis.’ Literally as this madman, almost within minutes of ending his murderous spree, the president seized upon it to advance his partisan political agenda. That’s just wrong."
Cruz called reports the shooter at Umpqua Community College in Oregon specifically targeted Christians “deeply troubling.”
Cruz said Obama should instead be focused on “lifting up” the victims’ families.
“We’ve seen this over and over again where the president takes the actions of a madman and a lunatic and tries to use it as an excuse to impinge upon the rights of law-abiding citizens," said Cruz.
Cruz then traveled to the Bay State, where he held a fundraiser at The Union Club in Boston and is scheduled to attend the Deerfield Fair later today before attending a house party in Salem, N.H. tonight.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


breitbart ^ | 1 Oct 2015Washington | JORDAN SCHACHTEL 

Breitbart News has learned that President Obama called Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power into a video conference before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.

“Ambassador Power and Secretary Kerry were unable to attend Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before the General Assembly because they were called into a meeting with President Obama, which they participated in via video teleconference,” a State Department Official told Breitbart News.

Although they were both in New York for the United Nations General Assembly meetings, the two high-ranking U.S. officials were notably absent for the entirety of the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech.

“The United States was represented at the speech by David Pressman, Alternate Representative of the United States to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, and Richard Erdman, Alternate Representative to the UN General Assembly,” the official added.

During his speech, the Israeli Prime Minister excoriated the international body for not condemning the Iranian regime when it calls for Israel’s destruction.

“70 years after the murder of six-million Jews, Iran’s rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here, has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening Silence,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu rallied against the Iran deal, an agreement which President Obama helped facilitate.

In his address, Netanyahu said that Iran’s “plan to destroy Israel will fail. Israel will not permit any force on earth to threaten its future.”

“Israel will not allow Iran to break in, to sneak in, or to walk into the nuclear weapons club,” he pledged.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


I don't understand!





Insane Stupidity








I ate it!






Bad act!


Out foxed!




Even though...




Stand By!


What do we want?


PP equipment


Seen 'em?


Who cares?