Thursday, October 15, 2015

Why Is Hillary Clinton So Unhappy? ^ | October 15, 2015 | Judge Andrew Napolitano 

Why is Hillary Clinton so unhappy? According to her, when she and her husband left the White House, they were dead broke. Yet they left with a truckload of valuable furniture, dinnerware and flatware that was the property of the federal government, for which they were never prosecuted.
They also left with contracts for lectures and speeches worth between $20 million and $30 million in the ensuing years. And they have done quite well financially. According to The Washington Post, between the time Bill Clinton left office in 2001 and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton stepped down as secretary of state, Bill alone made $104.9 million for speeches, and Hillary's standard speaking fee is $200,000 a pop.
Why is Hillary so unhappy? We can start with the fact that she is her own worst enemy. No Republican dirty trickster could have put her into the legal and political mess into which she has put herself. Her surreptitious refusal to follow federal law and her congenital lying about it have caught up with her.
By using her own computer server instead of the government's in the four years of her tenure as secretary of state, she knowingly compromised the national security of the United States. She did this by receiving and sending at least 400 emails that contained information that under federal law was confidential, secret or top-secret, which is a felony.
The failure to preserve data of that nature is a federal crime, whether it is stamped with an official secret denomination, whether one has read it and perceived its secret nature, and whether it has fallen into enemy hands or not. Gen. David Petraeus was convicted of retaining the printed versions of secret and top-secret data in a desk drawer in his guarded home. It was alleged -- but not proved -- that he shared this data with one of his subordinates. Even though the subordinate had a security clearance, Petraeus was prosecuted.
In Hillary's case, the data have fallen into enemy hands, as one of the folks to whom she regularly sent her emails -- in utter and reckless disregard for the secrets they contained -- was her political adviser Sid Blumenthal, an employee of the Clinton Foundation at the time. Blumenthal's insecure server was hacked by Romanian intelligence agents, who were convicted and sentenced to prison.
Why is Hillary so unhappy? When the State Department was sued by public interest groups seeking copies of Hillary's emails -- lawsuits permitted and even encouraged by the Freedom of Information Act, a federal statute that presumes that documents and emails in federal custody are available for the public to see -- the State Department answered the litigation truthfully by telling a federal judge that it had none of Hillary's emails.
Then The New York Times blew the lid off this by revealing her exclusive use of her private server, and the same federal judge angrily ordered the State Department to get its hands on Hillary's emails. Then she revealed that she had erased 30,000 of the emails, which she said were personal. After that, she surrendered the printed versions of another 30,000 emails, which she characterized as governmental.
When the judge -- who had been appointed to the federal bench by Hillary's husband -- looked at what the State Department had turned over, it did not seem complete to him; crucial months were missing. So he ordered Hillary to swear under oath -- "under penalty of perjury," as he put it -- that she had surrendered all governmental emails in her possession. She did so swear in a document now made public.
Then the House Benghazi Committee subpoenaed Blumenthal's emails, and its investigators discovered governmental emails Hillary sent to him that she had not surrendered to the State Department, even though she had sworn that she had.
Why is Hillary so unhappy? She is unhappy because she realizes that she needs a criminal defense lawyer to deal with the FBI investigation of her while she is running for president. The FBI is looking to see whether she failed to protect national security secrets (espionage), whether she destroyed government emails (obstruction of justice) and whether she lied under oath about all this to a federal judge (perjury).
She is unhappy because she has repeatedly characterized her own behavior as "allowed at the time," which flies in the face of the law and is simply incredible. It was allowed only in the depths of her self-justifying, narcissistic mind.
She is unhappy because the FBI has discovered that it can retrieve the emails she thought she destroyed and that her server was directly connected to the Internet, making it and the secrets she stored and transferred on it vulnerable to attack. She is unhappy because she was hacked -- we do not know whether successfully or not -- by the Russians, the Chinese and even the Israelis.
She is unhappy because she got caught in a scheme of her own creation. I suspect she is about to become even less happy when evidence of why she did this comes to light. I suspect that evidence will soon be made known that will demonstrate conclusively that she and her aides were part of a criminal conspiracy to enrich the Clinton Foundation by unlawful means -- including moving levers of governmental power -- and thus enrich her and her husband. And she is unhappy because the FBI will soon be asked to investigate that.
She is unhappy because only Democratic die-hards believe her. She is unhappy because voters will not elect an unhappy person as president -- and she knows that.

Obamacare’s Mysterious Missing Billions ^ | October 15, 2015 | Mytheos Holt 

Obamacare, depending on who you ask in the GOP, is either a calculated Trojan Horse designed to collapse and release single payer health care upon the American public, a flawed piece of legislation that needs badly to be revised, or the greatest evil inflicted on the American public since slavery. But what if it was something far simpler: namely, free money for Democrats? A recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to congressional requesters provided to this author suggests that this explanation may, in fact, be the correct one.

Buried in the document’s appendices is a stunning statistic. Out of $5,509,074,183 in grants allocated to state-based exchanges, $1,453,766,433 was spent on actually building the IT infrastructure of Obamacare websites. More suspiciously still, nearly $2.4 billion was authorized for IT spending, and of the over $5.5 billion total, apparently only $3.2 billion was actually spent. However, despite the exchanges being $2.3 billion under budget, only a scant $300 million has been returned to the federal government so far.

A cynical observer might suggest that this money was never intended to be used for health care at all. Rather, it would seem that it went to Democratic governors as free money for them to shore up their coffers and pay them back for political support. Illegal? Unethical? Such concerns have never been worth much to an administration marked by the kind of Leftist political cynicism personified by President Obama’s administration.

But for the sake of argument, let’s give the states the benefit of the doubt, which brings us back to the obvious question: if only $300 million has been returned out of $2.3 billion that wasn’t spent at all, what happened to the other $2 billion? And if only $1.4 billion was spent of $2.4 billion authorized for IT spending, what happened to the other $1 billion of that?

Could this money have been spent on advertising for the state-based exchanges? One hopes not, considering the experience of Oregon.

Could it have been spent hiring staff to sign people up, either online or over the phone? If so, then why did sites crash and phone lines clog up under the weight of people trying to get coverage?

Could it have been spent getting people to enroll at all? Well, considering Hawaii signed up zero people while spending $200 million on its Obamacare special enrollment period, that would be quite the trick.

Was it used to help the poor afford better health care? Considering the deductibles many of them have to pay, the punchline almost writes itself.

Was it used on exchanges that worked at all? Well, Maryland spent more than the over $86 million it was allotted for IT, yet the exchange still went down in infamy for its failure. Oregon spent nearly all of its IT budget, yet its site fared even more hilariously poorly. Hawaii, meanwhile, spent nearly $90 million of its $120 million IT budget on a site that, again, signed up zero people.

In other words, the money that is accounted for seems to have been tossed down the drain, while the money that hasn’t been accounted for clearly can’t have gone to anything that would’ve made the exchanges work better, because nothing in their operation suggests that anything was spent to improve them at all. Where, then, did those phantom billions go, if not to what it was actually intended to do?

Fortunately, now that Congress has the aforementioned report in their hands, they can ask these sorts of questions of people such as President Obama’s acting head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS), Andy Slavitt. Slavitt needs to give the American people a precise accounting of what the states spent, and why they’ve only sent back $300 million, when they allegedly came in at least $2.3 billion under budget. Where is the extra money, and why hasn’t he demanded it back from the administration’s political allies?

These are not questions that Congress can shy away from, and they’re not questions that the Obama administration should be allowed to avoid. The math is there in cold black and white. Now it’s time to see whether Obamacare truly ended in the black, or if it’s only the ultimate black mark on this administration’s already corrupt record.

Hillary’s Five Most Cringe-worthy Debate Moments That Made Me Want to Throw Things

National Review ^ | 10/15/2015 | Katherine Timpf 

Yes, it was hard to pick just five.

Columnists Internet-wide are insisting that Hillary Clinton did a great job in the #DemDebate last night — which makes me wonder if they could havepossibly been actually watching it.

Her performance was canned, stiff, and full of cringe-worthy moments. Of those moments, here are the five that most made me want to scream, pull out my hair, and throw my shoes at the TV:

1. Hillary trying to act like she somehow grew up disadvantaged or something.

“I’m the granddaughter of a factory worker.” Um, okay. So what? Sorry, Hillary, but you did not have a rough upbringing. You grew up in the suburbs and your dad was a successful business owner. Those are circumstances that a good percentage of the population would envy, and suggesting that they were difficult makes you look more like someone who’s too out of touch to understand what a real problem is than someone who struggling families can relate to.

2. Hillary saying she was proud to have made an “enemy” of Republicans.

Um, Hillary? You do realize that this “enemy” you’re so pumped about having made is a group you would have to be working with every day if you were president? And that it’s generally accepted that someone’s being your enemy makes him just a teeeensy bit harder to work with? Earlier in the debate, Hillary had repeatedly stressed her commitment to “bringing our country together again.” For her to then turn around and brag about playing a leading role in fomenting the division that she had just been complaining about was actually insane.


3. Referencing her gender 9 million times.

Wait, Hillary? Are you a woman? I forget. After all, you only mentioned it constantly – regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with what you had just been asked.

For example: At one point, Hillary had the opportunity to explain how she’d be a different president than Obama. Now, this is a question that you’dthink she’d be ready with a substantive response to — especially considering that she ran against the dude in 2008. But what did she do? Start off by saying that she would be different because she’s a woman.

I mean, really, Hillary? That’s the best you can do? Come on.

One thing is for sure: Hillary has no right to complain about being treated differently in this election because she’s a female candidate. After all, she’s the one pushing that narrative more than anyone else.

4. Responding to a question about her being inconsistent by simply insisting that she is in fact consistent — despite the fact that the question itself was framed with evidence of her inconsistency on marriage, trade, and immigration.

The simple denial of “Well, actually, I have been very consistent” is not an adequate response to a question that included clear evidence that you’re not. Not to mention that the question could have contained even more evidence — such as how she used to push for a tough-on-crime approach but now whines about prison overcrowding, or how she sided with her husband after repeated sexual-assault allegations against him but now preaches that sexual-assault survivors need to be believed.

Still, Hillary “Who, Me?” Clinton just insisted that although she does “absorb new information,” she has “always fought for the same values and principles.” Now, moderator Anderson Cooper pointed out that she had claimed to be the most progressive candidate in July but then called herself a “moderate and center” one last month. Hillary tried to dodge this by simply stating that she had a “range of views” — despite the fact that it’s clearlyimpossible to be the most radically left person in the race as well someone who’s “kind of moderate and center,” because those are — by definition — mutually exclusive things.

Either Hillary thinks we’re stupid enough to miss all of this, or she’s so stupid she doesn’t know what the word “consistent” means. Either way, it’s not good.

Oh, and by the way: Just when I thought this answer couldn’t possibly make me want to gouge my eyes out any more than it already had, she brought up again that her grandpa was a factory worker. Gahhhh!

5. Actually trying to say that she would be “tougher” on Wall Street than Bernie Sanders.

Just wondering, Hillary . . . did you come up with this before or after one of your recent paid speeches at Goldman Sachs?

— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online

Dems and guns


Obama Admin Accuses Israel of ‘Terrorism’ As More Jews Murdered

Washington Free Beacon ^ | 10/14/15 | Adam Kredo 

As Palestinians assailants continue to murder Jews across Israel, the Obama administration on Wednesday accused the Jewish state of committing acts of “terrorism,” drawing outrage from many observers.
As the number of Israelis murdered during a streak of Palestinian terrorism continues to rise, the Obama administration sought to equate the sides and told reporters that, in its view, Israel is guilty of terrorism.
“Individuals on both sides of this divide are—have proven capable of, and in our view, are guilty of acts of terrorism,” State Department Spokesman John Kirby told reporters following questions about the spike in violence.
Kirby also said the administration has obtained “credible reports” of Israelis using excessive force as it deals with a rash of terrorist murders carried out by Palestinians seeking to cause havoc and spark an intifada.
“We’re always concerned about credible reports of excessive use of force against civilians, and we routinely raise our concerns about that.”
At least three Israelis have been killed and another 20 wounded as a result of attacks by Palestinian terrorists in recent days.
The violence has prompted pushback from the Obama administration, much of it aimed at Israeli itself.
Secretary of State John Kerry, for instance, said he sympathized with Palestinian “frustration” in a statement that accused Israel of boosting the construction of so-called “settlements,” or Jewish homes in historically Jewish areas of the country.
“There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years,” Kerry said. “Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.”
Settlement growth has not actually increased in Israel, according to former White House national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who recentlycriticized Kerry for promoting false views of the Jewish state amid the sharp rise in terrorism.
Other insiders who work closely with the Israeli government called the administration’s push to equate Palestinian terrorism with Israeli policing measures a “disgrace.”
“The administration’s position is a disgrace,” said one senior official with a prominent pro-Israel organization. “Our democratic Israeli allies are on the front lines in an actual war against terrorists stabbing Jews in the street, and the White House is making up stories about Israeli malfeasance and blaming terror victims.”
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill struck a different tone from the Obama administration when discussing the spike in violence.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) blamed the Palestinian government for glorifying terrorism and urging its citizens to strike out at Jewish people.
Palestinian religious figures and other prominent individuals have taken to social media and television outlets in recent days to celebrate the rash of stabbings and demand that more take place.
“These attacks have been incubated by the continued incitement and glorification of violence by the Palestinian leadership, most recently by President Mahmoud Abbas during his address at the United Nations General Assembly,” Cruz said in a statement.
“He still has yet to categorically condemn these attacks. It is long past time for the United States and the international community to hold the Palestinians accountable for their incitement and support for terrorism, including through the financial payment to Palestinian terrorists who are jailed in Israel for committing acts of terrorism.”
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.) said the violence proves the Palestinians are not a viable partner for peace.
“I condemn the recent violence and murders against Israeli citizens but it reaffirms once again how Israel’s supposed partner for peace, the Palestinian Authority, has been engaged in a vicious campaign of incitement to violence,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Ted Deutch (D., Fla.) has authored a House resolution expressing concern over the rise in anti-Semitic violence and calling on the Palestinian Authority to cease its incitement.
“In order to help restore some peace and stability within the region, the Obama administration needs to do more to support Israel,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) praised Israeli leaders for showing resilience and “restraint” amid the terror attacks.
“It is critical that the Obama administration and Congress press Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who regrettably used his speech before the United Nations General Assembly to worsen tensions, to act decisively to end the growing wave of Palestinian violence and return to bilateral peace negotiations with Israel,” Kirk said.

Bernie Sanders Explains What Democratic Socialism Is'

CNS News ^ | 10/14/15 

In Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate on CNN, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he was going to explain to Americans what democratic socialism is.
Moderator Anderson Cooper asked: “Senator Sanders, a Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?
Sanders replied: “Well, we're going to win because first we're going to explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent--own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today--in a rigged economy--that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.
“That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right, except the United States. You see every other major country saying to moms that when you have a baby, we are not going to separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.
“Those are some of the principles that I believe in, and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”
Shortly later, Cooper asked Sanders: “You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?”
Sanders replied: “Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires.”

Ted Cruz to report $13.5 million cash on hand — at or near the top of the GOP field

Washington Post ^ | 10/15/15 | Katie Zezima and Tom Hamburger 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) may have had more money in the bank than any other GOP presidential candidate as the last quarter ended, according to figures released by his campaign.
Cruz's campaign raised $12.2 million last quarter, giving him a total of $26.5 million raised during the campaign so far. He will report $13.5 million in cash on hand, campaign officials told The Post, meaning he spent about 51 percent of what came in.
The total raised by Cruz falls short of the $20.2 million reported by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. But the burn rate — the rate at which Cruz is spending money — is low compared to many of his competitors who have released results for the most recent reporting window: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tore through 81 percent of the money he pulled in, Ben Carson spent 64 percent of his cash and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) spent $2 for every $1 donated, all according to Washington Post calculations. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush has not yet released his fundraising totals for the last quarter.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Staying home








Same Idiots








Who'd a thought?




Your Guns






Drunk driving and Guns