Saturday, October 3, 2015

Hillary’s Server Is the Smoking Gun!

The National Review ^ | 10-3-15 | Jonah Goldberg 

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays.

Dear Reader (including Kevin McCarthy, who may be too busy putting a cast on his Boehner, having stepped on it so badly), I feel like Donald Trump when asked to list all the reasons why he’s terrific; I have no idea where to begin. Lots of stuff has happened since my last “news”letter. Rather than approach this blank page with the sort of planning and care that you’ve come to expect from this well-crafted digital epistle, I’m going to throw care to the wind and, like Bill Clinton at a Saudi harem, I’m going to just jump right into it.
Don’t Move On
Speaking of Bill Clinton, by the end of his presidency, whenever critics said anything critical of him, the almost instantaneous response from his praetorians was to say (1) the critics were “obsessed” or “haters” and (2) that it was time to “move on.” People forget that began as a kind of non-partisan, No Labels-y, bit of marketing claptrap designed to make the Lewinsky scandal seem like old news. It was a mass-marketing version of the liberal habit of saying “the time for debate is over” — something liberals never say when the debate is politically helpful to them.
Of course, once the country did in fact move on, MoveOn revealed what was always obvious to all of us “obsessed” “haters”: It was an entirely partisan, left-wing operation from soup to nuts. (Speaking of which, I wish someone would run for president under the name “Soup.” That way when writing about the polls I could write, “There’s a lot of interesting things happening among the really unconventional candidates from Soup to Deez Nuts.”)
So it was of some small interest when I saw the coordinated response from Hillary’s posse immediately after her Meet the Press interview last Sunday. Here they all are, spontaneously saying the same thing: “time to move on.”
What was so amusing was how they all seemed to pretend that this wasn’t a coordinated spin operation.
Unfathomable Affection
We all know the old rule of thumb for anyone who gets involved with Bill Clinton: “Get yourself tested.” A slightly less-well-known saying about Hillary Clinton: “There are no coincidences.” She didn’t just have a lucky run in the cattle-futures market, her billing records didn’t just show up in the West Wing, and Dorothy’s house didn’t simply land on her sister because of a freak accident.
I’m sorry, that joke was uncalled for. But you do have to wonder what blind people think of Hillary Clinton when all they have to go by is that voice and that laugh.
Anyway, I’m really not obsessed with Hillary Clinton. In fact, one of the points I’ve been hammering like a zombie skull (if all I had to fight off zombies was a hammer) is that Hillary Clinton suffers from a charisma deficit, and by “deficit,” I mean a yawning chasm of charismalessness that descends into Stygian darkness to the point where if you dropped a stone — or even a 1978 AMC Pacer — into that metaphysical null set of charm, you would hear nothing but the subtle shushing of the wind as it vanished into the bottomless abyss.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton can be both fascinating and infuriating because he’s so damn smart. His ruthless ability to yoke both the angels and the demons swirling around him to the chariot of his political ambition makes him a worthy subject for biographers, psychologists, and secret monastic orders looking for signs of the End Times.
So while Hillary holds no fascination for me whatsoever, Hillary adoration is endlessly intriguing. It is the Bronyism of the political world. (For those of you who don’t know what Bronies are, I’m sorry. After you click on this link, whatever esteem you had for mankind will be at least a little smaller. I think even the pope would allow a flicker of doubt of God’s plan after looking at it.)
Look, she’s not dumb or weak. She’s not without talents. But, when I read, say, Lanny Davis’s suck-up e-mail to her — an e-mail of such profound sycophancy that it can really only be described in the vernacular of proctology — it makes me think of the “familiars” from the Blade movies.
In the Blade universe, familiars are human servants of vampires, who will do anything to one day be rewarded with eternal life. Clinton’s sycophants aim a good deal lower.
Lanny Davis wrote this: I consider you to be the best friend and the best person I have met in my long life. You know that from the dedication and appreciation of you I have always felt and expressed to you over four decades. And he even threw in this: Please please please * note there are *three pleases*: *Do not be bashful or concerned about saying no to my request.
And here’s the amazing part: She still said no!
Now, I’ve been through some rough moments in my life and my friends have been there for me (“I know you’re not talking about me” — The Couch). I’m not saying they’d take the rap for me if I killed someone or forgive me if it was revealed that I was the guy who cancelled Firefly. But you’d have to go pretty far down the list of my friends into the territory of Friendly Acquaintance Land, People I Held the Elevator Door Forsylvania, and Friends of Friends Whose Car I Puked In On Spring Breakstan before they’d refuse to say a nice word about me to a reporter if I begged them in a three page e-mail (never mind carried more water for them than Gunga Din for 30 years).
And yet, like Frank Sinatra in The Manchurian Candidate, I’m sure to this day if you asked Lanny what he thought about Hillary, he’d say “Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
That’s weird man. And so are all the people who constantly insist that the “real Hillary” is charming and funny and all around awesome, as if someone in the limelight for 30 years could hide even a glimpse of this allegedly superhuman charm.
The real Hillary seems as real to me as the Chess Team equipment manager’s horny Canadian super-model girlfriend. Bigfoot erotica makes more sense to me (and yes, that’s a real thing, too) because I at least know what they say about primates with big feet.
The Smoking Server
So why did I bring this up? Oh, right: this server story. I am getting a little obsessed with it. Perhaps not as much as my friend Shannen Coffin. Just the other night, his lovely wife called me in a panic because at Sunday dinner Shannen sculpted a perfect replica of Hillary’s server out of the mashed potatoes.
More Hillary Clinton
Obama Jabs Clinton on Syria Strategy: ‘Difference Between Running for President and Being President’ What Does Obama Know about the Clinton E-mail and Foundation Scandals, and When Did He Learn It?
Rove's Super PAC Unveils 'On Her Majesty's Secret Server'
And as with Hillary fandom, what fascinates me is not the way Hillary lies constantly and with all the skill of John Candy on the parallel bars, but the way the Beltway establishment — led by her friends — is constantly looking for reasons not to see what is plainly in front of them.
Take the constant refrain that each e-mail tranche contains “no smoking guns.” The other night on the Special Report online show I ranted about it with just a fraction of the energy stored in my splenetic-dilithium crystals, and Charles Krauthammer offered to write me a prescription for valium.
I could go on all day about the layers of lies upon lies here. For instance: There are plenty of smoking guns in every e-mail dump. The number of classified e-mails is now in the hundreds. Hillary Clinton insisted in her first statement that she never sent or received any classified information. She knew this was a lie when she said it.
Those were extremely prepared remarks. She only revised that to “marked” classified when the lie didn’t take. The “marked classified” thing is a lie on the merits and in intent. Some e-mails were marked classified and it doesn’t matter if they were marked classified. The information was classified regardless of marking. She knew this.
She constantly says her system was allowed but never says who allowed it . . . because the person who allowed it was Hillary Clinton. She might as well have hung a banner over her desk that read, “Le département d’État, c’est moi!” (If one of you francophone pedants corrects my French here, I will drive out to your house and leave a burning bag of epoisses on your doorstep).
But all this misses the point. I’m not normally an ALL CAPS kind of guy. So please forgive me for this: BUT THE SERVER IS THE SMOKING GUN! It’s all smokey-like, sitting right there in the FBI evidence room.
I feel like the guy in the “To Serve Man” episode of The Twilight Zone shouting “It’s a cookbook” except that was at least a secret.
To borrow a line from Thoreau, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” Hillary’s secret server is a trout bigger than the figurative Twinkee Egon Spengler described in Ghostbusters.
And, I’ll just say it again, so as to avoid going bonkers: Saying there is no smoking gun is not a denial! If I accuse you of murdering your chiropodist and you immediately reply, “You have no smoking gun!” you’re basically admitting you did it. “There’s no smoking gun!” is the sort of rhetorical device used by serial killers in the Death Wish and Dirty Harry movies.
“Ha ha! I’m going to get away with it!”
And when I point this out to Clinton defenders who think “Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life,” they look at me with the same head-tilting bewilderment my dog displays when I patiently explain to her that a hexagon has six sides. Then after a long silence, they say, “It’s time to move on.” I gotta go make some mashed potatoes.

Why Is Anyone Still Reading the Blatantly Biased New York Times?

INN ^ | Friday, October 02, 2015 8:31 AM | Noah Beck 

The ever-growing proof of an anti-Israel prejudice at The New York Times (NYT) is so extensive and persistent that the paper’s partiality is now undeniable (see this endless archive of bias reports). […]
On September 10th, the NYT singled out Jewish lawmakers on the Iran deal.
On September 15th, the NYT suggested that the Israeli who was murdered by rock-throwing Palestinians had died of a “self-inflicted accident” after the attackers had merely “pelted the road” (rather than his car). The National Review provided a detailed critique of this farcical “reporting.” […]
On September 29, (Diaa) Hadid used an anonymous European advocate of Palestinian rights as a witness to contradict Israeli army claims that a Palestinian woman shot at an IDF checkpoint was armed with a knife, but then omitted confirmatory reports from another witness mentioned in the article, a Palestinian named Fawaz Abu Aisheh, who said the woman had dropped her knife after being shot (even though Amnesty International mentioned Aisheh's corroborating testimony about the knife).
On September 30, the NYT struck again with false historical information and tendentious coverage of Abbas’ UN speech. The article, by Rick Gladstone and Jodi Rudoren, notes that “Mr. Abbas accused Israel of having systematically violated these pacts” without mentioning the many violations of the Oslo Peace Accords by Palestinians. In an article exceeding 1,000 words, the reporters make not a single reference to Palestinian Arab terrorism, a basic historical fact that is essential to any fair and balanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Cruz Says Next Speaker Should Repeal Obamacare ‘Exemption’

RollCall ^ | 10/2/15 | Niels Lesniewski 

Sen. Ted Cruz wants anyone who wants to be the next speaker of the House to roll back health care contributions under Obamacare for lawmakers.
“I’ll tell ya, a very strong thing the next speaker could do is tee up and vote at the outset on repealing the congressional exemption from Obamacare. That’s something career politicians don’t want to do, but that would be a strong opening action for a new Republican speaker to say we’re going to listen to the men and women who elected us,” the Texas GOP presidential candidate said on Sean Hannity’s radio program.
The issue of how members and staff get health care benefits through the health care exchange in Washington, D.C., under the Affordable Care Act has been an issue for years, with Sen. David Vitter, R-La., having led an unpopular campaign to end employer contributions for the insurance plans used by senators and some other officials.
That proposal has faced bipartisan opposition, and the sponsor of an earlier version of the amendment to the health care legislation regarding the staff and member subsidies, Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, has said he did not intend to take away the contributions for employees.
As for the race for speaker, Cruz is continuing to keep his powder dry. Hannity asked specifically what Cruz thought of current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who has been the favorite to take over the top job in the chamber.
“I have long said that House leadership decisions are a decision for the House conference to make, and so I’ve pretty conciously avoided sticking my nose into it,” Cruz said. “I like Kevin personally, and what I’ve said publicly is I hope whoever the next speaker is that he or she be a strong conservative who is commited to honoring the promises we made to the voters. I think that’s the most important criteria.

"They Just Don't Want A Job" - The Fed's Grotesque "Explanation" Why 94.6 Million Are Out Of Work

zero hedge ^ | 10/2/15 | tyler durden 

In a note seeking to "explain" why the US labor participation rate just crashed to a nearly 40 year low earlier today as another half a million Americans decided to exit the labor force bringing the total to 94.6 million people...

... this is what the Atlanta Fed has to say about the most dramatic aberration to the US labor force in history: "Generally speaking, people in the 25–54 age group are the most likely to participate in the labor market. These so-called prime-age individuals are less likely to be making retirement decisions than older individuals and less likely to be enrolled in schooling or training than younger individuals."
This is actually spot on; it is also the only thing the Atlanta Fed does get right in its entire taxpayer-funded "analysis."
However, as the chart below shows, when it comes to participation rates within the age cohort, while the 25-54 group should be stable and/or rising to indicate economic strength while the 55-69 participation rate dropping due to so-called accelerated retirement of baby booners, we see precisely the opposite. The Fed, to its credit, admits this: "participation among the prime-age group declined considerably between 2008 and 2013."

And this is where the wheels fall off the Atlanta Fed narative. Because the regional Fed's very next sentence shows why the world is doomed when you task economists to centrally-plan it:
The decrease in labo

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Leaked Audio: Clinton Says Supreme Court Is ‘Wrong’ on Second Amendment

The Washington Free Beacon ^ | October 1, 2015 | Alana Goodman and Stephen Gutowski 

Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court as “wrong on the Second Amendment” and called for reinstating the assault weapons ban during a small private fundraiser in New York last week, according to audio of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
While Clinton has previously supported an assault weapons ban, this is the first time since launching her campaign that she indicated that she would take on the Supreme Court over gun issues.
Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.
“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.
“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
She also used some of her strongest language yet to criticize the NRA, vowing to take on the gun rights lobbying group and make this a key component of her campaign.
“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can,” she said.
Clinton argued that the NRA has “so intimidated elected members of Congress and other legislative bodies that these people are passing the most absurd laws.”
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.
The comments earned applause at the closed-door fundraiser, and demonstrate Clinton’s efforts to appeal to progressive donors as she faces a growing challenge from the far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been criticized by some liberal observers for his broad support of gun rights.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about the specific areas where Clinton disagrees with the Supreme Court. However, the Heller ruling is considered the most sweeping and controversial second amendment decision made by the highest court in recent years.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment granted gun rights to individuals whether or not they were members of an organized government militia in 2008. That ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s total ban on ownership of handguns and other strict forms of gun control. It also created the legal precedent that continues to influence all federal court rulings related to Second Amendment cases.
The NRA responded to Clinton’s remarks in a statement to the Free Beacon.
“Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s legislative division. “The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment. A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”
The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. During her remarks, Clinton also proposed the creation of a national infrastructure bank, which she indicated would be modeled on the work done by the Clinton Global Initiative. She did not take questions after her speech.

More Than 50 People Shot for the Second Weekend in a Row in Chicago! ^ | 10-2-15 | Trace William Cowen 

Four people were killed and 52 wounded during shootings across Chicago over the weekend. After multiple weekends in a row of increased violence in the city, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is urging a fresh and more proactive approach to gun control. The latest incidents, including the murder of a pregnant mother, come on the heels of two weekends in a row with more than 50 shootings in Chicago:
At least 2,300 people have been shot in Chicago this year alone, according to the Chicago Tribune. According to their analysis, that's roughly 400 more incidents than during the same period in 2014. Homicides are currently up 21 percent in 2015, with the past two weekends pointing to a noticeable increase in gun-related violence.
"Wherever you live, you should be able to get out of your car and go to your home," Emanuel told reporters on Tuesday after receiving news of the increased violence continuing on Monday evening, leaving six dead and at least eight injured. "You can say this happened in the neighborhood of the Back of the Yards, but everybody (who) woke up this morning, or heard it last night, felt a pain of anguish, and it’s time that our criminal justice system and the laws as it relates to access to guns and the penalties for using 'em reflect the values of the people of the city of Chicago."

Ted Cruz: “Radical” Obama “Seeks To Tear Us Apart” With Comments On Oregon Shooting!

BuzzFeed News ^ | October 2, 2015 | Andrew Kaczynski and Mark Arce 

“…they try to use these tragedies as an excuse to come after the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. It’s unconstitutional, it’s cynical, and it’s wrong.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Thursday criticized President Obama for the comments he made following the mass shooting in Oregon that left 10 people dead.
“Well, unfortunately that is the approach with President Obama on every issue, is that he seeks to tear us apart, he seeks to politicize it and it’s worth remembering he is ideological and he’s a radical,” Cruz stated on the Mark Levin Show. “You know, as his former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel said, ‘you never let a good crisis go to waste’ and that sadly is his approach.”
Speaking from the White House briefing room on Thursday, the president called the latest mass shooting at a small community college in Oregon “a political choice” that the country allows to happen again and again. The president, in comments directed at the gun lobby, added “this is something we should politicize.”’
Cruz said Obama would use the tragedy as excuse to take away guns from law-abiding Americans.
“We ought to first of all be lifting up in prayer the families of those who lost their loved ones today to this horrific crime, we still don’t know the details of what exactly happened or what the motivations were, but what is clear is that every time we see a shooting of this kind, we’ve seen people with significant mental illnesses, with people who are violent criminals and there is no doubt that we ought to come down on violent criminals like a ton of bricks,” said Cruz.
“We ought to do everything we can, for example, to be prosecuting the felons and fugitives who are trying to illegally buy guns. The Obama administration doesn’t do that. Instead they try to use these tragedies as an excuse to come after the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. It’s unconstitutional, it’s cynical, and it’s wrong.”

Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S. ^ | 10-2-15 | Pamela Geller 

On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.
This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.
The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?
After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
What is a global police force doing in our cities?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...