Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Shapiro: Hillary's email scandal takes down the FBI

Conservative Review ^ | Sep 7, 2016 | Ben Shapiro 

Shapiro: Hillary's email scandal takes down the FBI
By: Ben Shapiro | September 07, 2016 For months Americans wondered whether the FBI, led by Director James Comey, would take down the most corrupt woman in the history of American politics, Hillary Clinton.
As it turns out, Hillary Clinton took down the FBI.
According to new documents from the FBI's investigation of Clinton, the agency was fully aware that Clinton lied when she said she set up a private server in order to utilize one Blackberry device -- she used 13 mobile devices and two phone numbers. The FBI knew that Clinton's aides destroyed old Blackberrys by cracking them in half or hitting them with a hammer. The FBI knew full well that Clinton had passed classified information over her private server -- she admitted that she didn't even know how classified information worked, instead stating that she thought the "C" appearing at the top of documents probably had something to do with alphabetizing files. The FBI recognized that Clinton wiped her server after a New York Times article revealed her private sever and email use; that she brought her Blackberry into a secure State Department area; that she never turned over nearly 18,000 work-related emails; that she discussed an undercover asset on the server and put his family in danger; and that she refused to take Blackberrys from the State Department out of fear they could be discoverable under Freedom of Information Act requests.
That's not all.
The FBI also allowed Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to act as Clinton's lawyer during her FBI hearing, even though Mills was a material witness. In doing so, the agency granted Mills legal privilege where none existed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Chemotherapy warning as hundreds die from cancer-fighting drugs (chemo may kill up to 50% patients)

UK Telegraph ^ | 08/30/2016 | Sarah Knapton 

Chemotherapy warning as hundreds die from cancer-fighting drugs (cancer drugs may kill up to 50 % patients)
Sarah Knapton, Science Editor 30 August 2016
Patients should be warned about the dangers of chemotherapy after research showed that cancer drugs are killing up to 50 per cent of patients in some hospitals.
For the first time researchers looked at the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy, which indicates that the medication is the cause of death, rather than the cancer.
In Milton Keynes the death rate for lung cancer treatment was 50.9 per cent, although it was based on a very small number of patients.
Deaths of lung cancer patients from chemotherapy were also far higher than the national average in Blackpool, Coventry, Derby, South Tyneside and Surrey and Sussex, according to the research.
Similarly, around one in five people who underwent palliative care for breast cancer at Cambridge University Hospitals died from their treatment.
Public Health England (PHE), said it had contacted the hospitals concerned to ask them to review practices.
More than 1,300 breast and lung cancer patients died because of chemotherapy in 2014, the study shows Chemotherapy is toxic for the body because it does not discriminate between healthy and cancerous cells.
They advised doctors to be more careful in selecting patients for treatment where it could do more harm than good.
“I think it’s important to make patients aware that there are potentially life threatening downsides to chemotherapy. And doctors should be more careful about who they treat with chemotherapy.”
Professor David Cameron, Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, added: “The concern is that some of the patients dying within 30 days of being given chemo probably shouldn’t have been given the chemo.
The research was published in The Lancet Oncology.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

FBI director defends Clinton email probe, document releases... Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on fire!

CNN ^ | 9/7/2016 

Washington (CNN)FBI Director James Comey is defending the bureau's Friday afternoon release of documents from the Hillary Clinton email investigation, saying "we don't play games" and that the documents were put out when ready. In a memo to employees Wednesday, Comey said the decision to not recommend charges against the now-Democratic nominee wasn't a close call.
Read Comey's full memo "At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn't a prosecutable case," he said in the memo. In recent weeks, Comey has met with groups of former FBI agents as part of his routine visits to field offices around the country. In at least one recent such meeting, according to people familiar with the meeting, former agents were sharply critical of the FBI's handling of the Clinton probe and particularly the decision to not recommend charges against Clinton. Comey gave the meeting participants a similar answer about the case not being a cliff-hanger. CNN Politics app Comey said he briefly considered holding the documents until after the Labor Day holiday, knowing that the Friday afternoon release would likely prompt criticism. He also said more document releases are coming.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

After Voting for Sovereignty, Great Britain Now Plans to Build a Wall ^ | September 7, 2016 | Justin Holcomb 

Not only are Americans listening to Donald Trump's plans for a border wall, but so are other nations.
The United Kingdom is moving forward with plans to build a 1 kilometer wall protecting an underwater entry point from France to Britain, according to reportson Wednesday.
Officials said their goal is to stop migrants from using a tunnel in Calais, France from crossing the English Channel.

“We are going to start building this big new wall very soon. We’ve done the fence; now we are doing a wall,” UK Home Office minister Robert Goodwill said.
Most of the port is already fenced off from a camp the “jungle.” But British officials say a wall is needed in other areas of the route.

‘Gay sex’ is a lie. Let’s use this term instead

Life Site News ^ | September 6, 2016 | Pete Baklinski 

September 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Some of the phrases that I can’t stand writing as a pro-family reporter are “men having sex with men (MSM)” or “gay sexual relationship" or “gay sex.” And I’ll tell you why.
It’s obvious on a purely biological level that two males or two females are utterly incompatible with one another when it comes to sex. The parts simply don’t fit together. Nuts and bolts go together. Radio waves and antennas go together. Heat and light go together. But two males or two females … nope, it ain’t happening. Ever. Any high school kid taking a biology course can tell you this. And I can’t stand writing phrases that suggest, even a little bit, that somehow the parts of same-sex couples do go together, because it’s a total lie. And reporters hate lies.
Well, the other day I was listening to Cardinal Raymond Burke give a presentation in which he showed how acceptance of contraception led to people justifying all kinds of sexual activity as supposedly an expression of love.
Then he mentioned how “genital activity between two persons of the same sex” is an example of where the road leads if sex is emptied of its procreative potential.
Bingo, I thought, here’s just the expression to describe what goes on between two people of the same sex when they engage in their activities.
They do not have sex together (biologically impossible); no, they engage in “genital activity,” which is really mutual masturbation more than anything else since the organs are frustrated in achieving the purpose for which they were designed (creation of a new life) in lacking complementarity.
Kudos to the cardinal for giving me a better way of accurately describing activity between two persons of the same sex.

Cardinal Burke’s comment on contraception from August 29, 2016, “Hope for the World” teleconference:

The fundamental point is that the conjugal act is by its very nature procreative. It doesn’t mean that every time the conjugal act takes place that there’s a conception of a child; no, of course, only if it happens to be during the time when the woman is ready to conceive. But it does mean that in every conjugal act there is this openness to human life and a desire for it, and great love for the crown of marriage, which is procreation.
Now, if you posit otherwise — which the contraceptive mentality does, they say, well, the conjugal act can be an act of love between a man and a woman while at the same time artificially, through some device or through some chemical, eliminating this essential aspect of it which is the potential of procreation — well then, the conjugal act is not integral and it’s not fully an act of love because one or both of the parties is withholding the total gift of himself or herself, and so the conjugal act becomes manipulated in some way contrary to its nature.
And then what happens in people’s thinking is they begin to justify all kinds of sexual activity as supposedly an expression of love even though it can’t be life-giving. For instance, genital activity between two persons of the same sex, or solitary acts. Now people begin to argue that these are all things that are good. Well, the sexual act belongs in marriage by its very nature, its whole. All we have to do is study the act itself to see that it’s meant to make a man and a woman who are joined in marriage as one flesh. And so we certainly do need to teach much more effectively and much more consistently the truth about the conjugal union, and the truth about contraception, especially in a society which in terms of sexual morals has gone completely insane.
Now, when you think about this whole gender theory and even the loss of fundamental modesty with regard to use of restrooms, the encouragement of young people to experiment with all kinds of sordid sexual activity, this is ultimately completely destructive. So we have to help people once again to respect themselves as a man or as a woman and respect themselves therefore in their sexual identity and where it finds its fullest expression, that is in the conjugal union, or for those who are called to renounce the good of marriage and to live a celibate or virginal life, that nevertheless is done with the fullest respect for the nature of the conjugal union.

Chicago Hits Grim Milestone With 500 Homicides in 2016

NBC News ^ | 07 September 2016 | Corky Siemaszko 

The City of Chicago hit a deadly milestone over the Labor Day weekend — the 500th homicide of the year.

And with that tragic tally, the Windy City has now logged more homicides than New York City and Los Angeles combined — and is on pace to reach a homicide level not seen since the 1990s, the Chicago Tribune reported Tuesday.
Don't blame the cops, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said outside police headquarters Tuesday.
"It's not a police issue, it's a society issue," Johnson said after a Labor Day weekend during which 65 people were shot, 13 of them fatally. "Impoverished neighborhoods, people without hope do these kinds of things. You show me a man that doesn't have hope, I'll show you one that's willing to pick up a gun and do anything with it."
Of the 512 homicides in 2016 tallied by the Tribune, 488 fell under the jurisdiction of the Chicago Police Department, a police spokesman told NBC News.
"They're including every homicide in the city limits," Officer Jose Estrada said of the Tribune report. "Some of those are covered by other law enforcement agencies, so we don't count those."
The Chicago Police also don't count what they deem "justifiable homicides," which for example is when one person fatally shoots another in self-defense, said Estrada.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Outcry over Study that Challenges QUEER Narrative

Accuracy in Academia ^ | September 7, 2016 | Spencer Irvine 

The Left and LGBTQ community are in an uproar over a recent study published in The New Atlantis scientific journal, which confronts the oft-repeated narrative that homosexuality is innate.
At Patheos, college psychology professor Warren Throckmorton took issue with several parts of the study. He believes that the study "was not a study, but a review and summary of empirical studies."
He was not pleased that The New Atlantis journal is not peer-reviewed, and claims that the co-author, Lawrence Mayer, "is not well known in sexuality research circles" and alleges that the study omitted other studies and research. Throckmorton also pointed out that the study "is being touted most by conservative leaning and anti-gay organizations."
The study is a literature review and summary of previous research and studies. As the New Atlantis editor, Adam Keiper, pointed out to Throckmorton, "It is…a scientific review of the literature." Keiper added that although the journal is not peer-reviewed: "It is, rather, editorially reviewed -- like many other journals and magazines intended for a wide public audience (such as Democracy Journal, National Affairs, The American Interest, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc.). When we publish essays and articles on technical subjects, our fact-checking process is especially rigorous, and in such cases we often ask experts to help our editorial team in its work. In the case of 'Sexuality and Gender,' both our editorial team and the authors consulted with a range of experts in different fields. Peer review can be a very important part of the scientific publishing process. Our aim, however, was not to publish an original research study but rather to translate into accessible prose the scientific findings that were already published in peer-reviewed publications."
Taking issue with Throckmorton’s criticism of the lack of research, Keiper disagreed and said, "I believe the report is quite up-to-date." Throckmorton's point “seems to imply cherry-picking, which is an unsupported charge," Keiper added. He continued:
"Of course the authors of the report could not have discussed every paper in the vast scientific literature, but they selected the papers that they discussed on the grounds of their quality and scientific significance -- emphasizing literature reviews and meta-analyses, pointing out when other significant papers contradict or criticize the literature reviews and meta-analyses, and then discussing more recent papers and studies that fill in gaps or further advance knowledge. Some older papers in the literature were deemed to be neither sufficiently important nor sufficiently rigorous to warrant discussion."

The 5 most outrageous things Hillary Clinton said in her FBI interview

CNBC ^ | 02 September 2016 | Jake Novak 

Here are five of the most outrageous statements Clinton made in that three-and-a-half hour FBI interview:

1. She cited her 2012 concussion as the reason that she cannot remember details of briefings during her "transition out of office."
2. She said she never even thought whether emails she exchanged on a future U.S. drone attack should be classified.
3. She said she thought the "C" before a paragraph indicated alphabetical order. The C actually stands for "classified."
4. She said no one ever raised concerns to her about her use of a private email server.
5. She said she could not recall any training on how to handle classified information.

What's more, Clinton aides told the FBI that the Secretary of State frequently replaced her Blackberry phone and the whereabouts of her old device would become "unknown." The FBI report suggests there were at least 13 different devices used.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Clinton Campaign to Breitbart Reporter Asking Health Question: ‘Get a Life’

Breitbart ^ | 9/7/16 

Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson Nick Merrill told this Breitbart News reporter to ‘Get a life” after Breitbart News asked Merrill about a recent Reuters news report on Clinton’s lack of memory regarding briefings during her time as secretary of state.
During Clinton’s FBI interview about her use of a personal email server as secretary of state she blamed memory lapses on a concusson she experienced.
Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Dr. Jane Orient believes Hillary Clinton should have had neurocognitive testing. Orient’s comments come after FBI notes revealed the former secretary of state blamed her 2012 health scare — a concussion — on not being able to recall briefings about how to preserve classified information.
“There are neurocognitive tests that are done for athletes who have had a concussion,” Orient explained to Breitbart News during a phone interview on Tuesday. “I don’t know if she has had any of those tests, but she certainly should have.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

For Hillary, Laws Are like Cobwebs ^ | 9-7-2016 | Patricia McCarthy 

Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through. Jonathan Swift

The more of the emails Hillary thought would never see the light of day seep into the public realm, the more it becomes clear that the United States is on the verge of becoming a banana republic, one of those tin-pot countries in which rich and powerful elites are exempt from the laws the "people" must obey or be prosecuted and jailed. These upper class thugs sock away millions of dollars stolen, one way or another, from their nation's people, while the citizenry is increasingly controlled and deprived. The world has always been chock full of such tyrants
As those emails are analyzed, it is no longer a matter of conjecture as to her criminality; she is a malevolent oligarch wannabe. She and her husband are shakedown artists of such an advanced degree that they make Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson look like kindergarten amateurs. They have become fabulously wealthy by selling access to the power and influence she wielded as Secretary of State and the presumption that she will become President. Their scheme was simple: pay the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars, as "donations," and she would do their bidding, from arranging invitations to state dinners, providing diplomatic passports, to approving lucrative contracts around the world and the sale of American-made arms to bad actors.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Washington Post Exposé: How Bill Clinton Gained Personal Wealth From Political Connections

Truthdig ^ | 06 September 2016 

The Hillary Clinton email scandal has largely revolved around potentially inappropriate connections between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation—but a new report reveals that the Clintons may have also increased their personal wealth as a result of political connections forged during Hillary’s time in the State Department. Rosalind Helderman and Michelle Ye Hee Lee of The Washington Post write:
The guest list for a private State Department dinner on higher-education policy was taking shape when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a suggestion.
In addition to recommending invitations for leaders from a community college and a church-funded institution, Clinton wanted a representative from a for-profit college company called Laureate International Universities, which, she explained in an email to her chief of staff that was released last year, was “the fastest growing college network in the world.”
There was another reason Clinton favored setting a seat aside for Laureate at the August 2009 event: The company was started by a businessman, Doug Becker, “who Bill likes a lot,” the secretary wrote, referring to her husband, the former president.
Nine months later, Laureate signed Bill Clinton to a lucrative deal as a consultant and “honorary chancellor,” paying him $17.6 million over five years until the contract ended in 2015 as Hillary Clinton launched her campaign for president.
The Clintons’ tax returns, released by Hillary Clinton earlier this year, reveal the details of various forms of compensation. “The Laureate arrangement illustrates the extent to which the Clintons mixed their charitable work with their private and political lives,” the authors write. “Many of those who paid Bill Clinton to consult or speak were also foundation donors and, in some cases, supporters of political campaigns for one or both Clintons.”

Read the entire piece here:

Hillary Says That Conflict Of Interest Questions With Her Foundation Will Be Answered AFTER Election!

Young Conservatives ^ | September 6, 2016 | Andrew Mark Miller 

President Obama claims that his administration is the most transparent in history.
That’s laughable and can be thoroughly debunked in under 10 seconds.
Hillary Clinton is trying to replace him and we all know that she is the least transparent politician we have seen in decades.
Over the holiday weekend, she finally answered a few questions from reporters and she said that the questions (which aren’t really questions anymore) of pay for play at her foundation will be answered.
After the election…
From The Daily Caller:
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told reporters Tuesday that conflict of interest questions about the Clinton Foundation will only be answered after the November election.
That’s nice.
If Hillary were to somehow win this election, do you think for one second that she will come clean with the American people?
If she loses the election, it doesn’t really matter if she comes clean about something we all know to be true.
Hillary Clinton lied to the American people for a year about her emails.
She lied for a year about what was going on at her foundation.
There is a poll out today that shows Trump leads her by 15 points when voters are asked who they trust most.
That’s going to be a problem for her.

With the Clintons, everything--including national security--has always been for sale

The Coach's Team ^ | 9/7/16 | Kevin "Coach" Collins 

Recently we learned that Hillary Clinton conducted a swap shop in her State Department office where everything including positions on sensitive committees, regardless of credentials, was for sale.
We could almost imagine the phone conversations between Hillary and her customers, “You’re on a terrorist watch list but need some vital secret information? Just a moment, let me see what that’s going for today – you know, the price for such accommodations changes all the time.”
Unfortunately this is nothing new for the Clintons. When Bill Clinton was in the White House he was not only a sexual deviant, but a huckster who would sell anything he controlled. He sold the closing of one of the largest clean coal fields on earth in Utah to the Riady family who are Indonesian Muslims and own the largest such clean coal field in the world.
The Clintons sold a plot in Arlington Cemetery to a fake “war hero” who had been a big donor to the Democrats. The affair surrounded the burial of Larry Lawrence who lied about his World War II service. That whole thing stunk so badly that Lawrence’s lying carcass had to be dug up and hauled out of the place of national honor as the disgrace he was.
These stories pale in comparison to the Loral Space Communications treason Clinton committed. In 1996, with the Clintons in dire need of money for their reelection, they sold the rights to giving sensitive classified missile guidance technology to the Chinese. The story is as follows: The Maryland based company was selling technology to the Chinese...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

CNN Poll: Trump More "Honest And Trustworthy" Than Clinton — By 15% ^ | September 6, 2016 | Joel B. Pollak 

A new CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday shows that 50% of registered voters consider Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump “more honest and trustworthy,” versus 35% who said the same about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five reasons Hillary is blowing it!

The Politico's Off Message ^ | September 6, 2016 | Glenn Thrush 

Or, why Clinton fans might want to invest in mattress pads.

Everybody who has ever worked for Hillary Clinton, covered her, supported her with clutched rosary and gnarled innards through the darkest days — or even watched her with educated interest from afar — knew this moment would come.
With two months to go before the presidential election, a major poll released this morning (CNN/ORC) revealed that the “prohibitive favorite” (Clinton) is down by two points nationally to one of the worst presidential candidates since the advent of the indoor flush toilet: Donald J. Trump.
Which just goes to show: No one — not the bullpen of the New York Mets, not the French army, not Wile E. Coyote, not even Al Gore — is better at squandering a commanding lead than the Queen of Coasting, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And nobody is better at handing her adversaries talking points to undermine trust, on emails, on the Clinton Foundation, on her own refusal to do something as simple as talking to the reporters who cover her every day.
The underlying reasons behind her pre-fall fade have always been lurking in the shadows, I’ve learned after having hundreds of conversations with her people over the years. Clinton is still queasy about electoral politics as a profession, grinds it out because it’s the only path to power, is allergic to most media and, in general, does the bare minimum required to get by. This is not a formula for a happy warrior candidacy and it is exceptionally dangerous at a time when her enemies (with a big assist from the Democratic nominee) have driven her unpopularity down into Trump-ian depths.
This is not to say she’s likely to lose— most polls of polls still have her as a 75 percent favorite — because, fortunately for her, there’s a second core element to Clinton’s political personality: A stubborn resilience and a tendency to shatter the glass ceiling of her own shortcomings when she’s facing a moment of crisis. And make no mistake, she’s approaching one right now.
Here are five reasons why Clinton let Trump back into the race:
1. Trump’s listening. The prospect of becoming an historical punch line clarifies the mind, like the foreshadowed echo of “You’re fired!” headed in the wrong direction. The guy who mocked President Obama and Clinton for reading off a teleprompter is getting better at being scripted – and his willingness, at long last, to follow the most rudimentary rules of political campaigning urged by staff (i.e. shutting up) has made him seem somewhat less terrifying. Woody Allen said that 80 percent of life is showing up, and you still get 400 points by signing your name at the top of the SAT. Likewise, a once ungovernable candidate is making up ground by playing clumsily by the rules in a country that remains cleaved in half along partisan lines.
Remember those days of yore (a few weeks ago) when Trump’s campaign was in utter disarray, Clinton was leading by double digits in state and national polls and every investigative reporter with health insurance and a laptop was chasing nefarious tales of campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s shady dealings in the Ukraine?
Those days are gone, at least for now. Trump still might not have any real policy plans, or any functional state-level organizations, but he has finally gotten himself a competent, reality-based communications and messaging team. Campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, a veteran pollster with a credible, friendly and effervescent TV presence and a theory of the case, seems to have made a real difference – in leading by example.
The tempering of his anger – with a reassurance that he can actually govern – is the key to unlocking the only path to victory Trump really has: winning Florida and sweeping through the Appalachians and upper Midwest. Coincidence or not, the most significant inroads Trump has made since hiring Conway (and enlisting deposed Fox News czar Roger Ailes) have been in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Clinton’s once-commanding leads have shrunk to low single digits.
The Trump Tower team is pinning its chances on the hope that Trump’s house training period will be mercifully short – and voters’ memories will be even shorter.
2. Clinton made her campaign exclusively about Trump. Bad idea. One of the underlying realities of 2016 – a quotidian truth swept away by the tangerine tornado – is that Clinton is running for Barack Obama’s third term, and no Democrat since Harry S. Truman has succeeded when following a multi-term POTUS. The electorate is restless and wants change, and no candidate is less equipped by virtue of history, temperament or the tenor of the times to take advantage of that sentiment than Clinton. In fact, the only reason she commands a natural advantage (apart from her party’s innate grip on the Electoral College) is the fact that she is running against Mr. Unacceptable, and is marginally less detested.
It’s the obvious strategy to hammer Trump for everything he’s said – and the campaign has slashed at his jugular with mechanical consistency, producing a series of devastating ads intended to slay the GOP nominee with his own words. They have succeeded in pushing the Republican nominee off the popularity cliff (or at least nudged him as he jumped), trapping Trump below the critical 40 percent threshold in the vast majority of national and battleground state polls.
It’s not enough. It was telling that when Clinton did briefly emerge from her late-summer gilded hibernation, it was to attack, not to endear – delivering a blistering speech in Reno, Nevada that labeled her opponent a racist and xenophobe, a speech several of her top advisers thought was her best of the campaign. In the days that followed, the dial moved, but not in her direction.
The problem, and it has dogged Clinton since she first ran for office in 2000, is that she’s lousy at self-definition, doesn’t like to make the campaign about her (not one of Trump’s problems) and reveals herself only in jagged broken-mirror shards, not a portrait in full for voters to warm themselves by. Back in July, Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told me he thought the only way people would get to know Clinton was to watch her govern. “I don't think people will fully appreciate who she is until, knock on wood, she's elected president, because when she is president, I think — I think she will be phenomenally successful because she's a workhorse,” he said.
But politics doesn’t work that way. Never mind questions of character: Many voters simply don’t have a clear idea of what her personality is, so it’s easy to accept caricature imposed upon her by her enemies. People don’t like her because they don’t know her – that’s the core counterargument from her intimates – but Clinton (who coined the term “zone of privacy” in 1992 to define her attitude toward self-revelation) is an uncooperative client. So that makes her uncommonly vulnerable to events, or changes in campaign climate that undermine faith in her cause – such as her August-long hiatus to fundraise, various new stories on her emails and the Clinton Foundation, and the sudden professionalization of Trump’s messaging operation.
What Clinton is, in reality, is a complicated and paradoxical person who is resistant to political packaging. “She’s [not] looking at things in some crazy Lady Macbeth way,” Neera Tanden, one Clinton’s longest-tenured advisers, told me last week. “What I've never understood about her is this space she rents in people's heads. Like, she's a person. She's a normal person. She laughs. She cries. She's not normal, OK, maybe ‘normal’ is overstated, but it's not … [there’s] a grand theory behind everything she does.”
Clinton’s top advisers and pollsters have labored hard to find areas where she can connect with voters – and have succeeded from time to time, especially when she relates her own early commitment to social justice to her mother’s struggles as a child cast adrift during the Depression. But they have largely thrown up their hands when it comes to changing core opinions of her. “We are not going to change people’s minds about her in two months,” said one longtime aide. “We weren’t able to do it in two years.”
But they have to try, as several acknowledged to me over the last couple of weeks, and the first debate, scheduled for Sept. 26 on Long Island, is shaping up to be less a litmus of Trump’s viability than Clinton’s ability to close the deal.
3. Donald Trump flip-flopped on immigration (then re-flipped) and his voters don’t seem to care. Trump has chutzpah – no doubt about it – and he attempted his most audacious move yet, one of the greatest switcheroos in the annals of modern campaigning. In the doldrums of late August, in ways opaque and fuzzy-wuzzy, he rolled back his campaign-defining commitment to be the immigration badass who was going to sweep the Southern border clean of all those illegal rapists, criminals, job stealers pouring across from Mexico.
This isn’t a tweak on a web page; it’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” on ‘roids. Immigration wasn’t just an issue in the primary, it was cited, in exit poll after exit poll, as the central reason many Republican voters were willing to abandon the mealy-mouthed establishment in favor of the tougher Trump. And during the primary, there was zero ambiguity about Trump’s immigration stance, both in terms of policy and tone: He wanted to build a wall, get Mexico to pay for it, and create a deportation force to throw 11 million undocumented aliens out, while cracking down on what he portrayed as rampant criminality brought into the U.S. by the invaders.
Suddenly, a strategic squish. The wall – which has no chance of ever being built, let alone paid for by Mexico -- still stands rhetorically, as does his no-path-to-citizenship pledge. But nearly everything else has, in his own words, been subject to “softening,” to the point where many longtime border watchers see little concrete difference between his new plans and President Obama’s existing strategy – secure the border, deport criminals, and come up with a “humane” way to send illegals back home, allowing for their possible return at a later date.
How is he getting away with it? For one, the media has been focused on the performance aspect of his content-free trip to Mexico – lauding it as presidential (i.e. he stood at a podium politely, read from a script and didn’t insult anybody). But the main reason is that his voters don’t give a damn. They want him to beat Clinton and seem willing to let him say or do anything to keep her out of power. "My voters don't care, and the public doesn't care," about the fine print of his policy proposals, even on the biggest issues, Trump told Time earlier this year – prophetically.
4. Shaky foundation. There haven’t been any real smoking guns regarding influence-peddling, profiteering or even preferential treatment regarding the Clinton’s family foundation and its relationship to decisions made by Clinton as secretary of state. The link between improper access and corrupt action, while implied, has yet to be proven. But there have been plenty of drip-drip revelations, including recent reports that top Clinton aides sought to grant Foggy Bottom access to a Nigerian businessman who had contributed to the foundation.
All of this may turn out to be smoke – and Clinton’s staff and surrogates counter (with not insignificant justification) that the foundation has done groundbreaking and life-saving work on AIDS and other issues -- but the Trump campaign has been relentless in promoting every story negative story written about the charity. Politics isn’t fair, and Democrats grouse that not nearly enough attention is being paid to Trump’s very-questionable charitable foundation (and history of failing to follow through on commitments made to veterans’ groups), but a narrative is clearly taking hold.
Senior Democrats tell me that at least two recent focus groups, one held by the campaign, the other by an allied outside group, has shown a major increase in voters’ concerns about inside dealing at the Clinton Foundation, to a point where it has fused in their minds with the lingering email controversy. And people close to the situation told me that coordination between Clinton’s campaign – which has largely viewed the issue as the responsibility of her husband and his staff – has been bad. “Her people, the folks running her campaign, think it’s not their problem and want Bill to deal with it,” a person in Clinton’s orbit told me over the weekend.
5. It might just be a blip. The CNN poll – which put a jolt into Democrats because it was based on a more predictive likely-voter model – was taken during the last, sleepy week of summer, at a time when Clinton’s profile was intentionally low and Trump had the stage all to himself. And another big poll – a massive canvas of 74,000 voters in all 50 states by the Washington Post and Survey Monkey, shows Clinton making serious inroads into deep red states like Texas, Georgia and Arizona.
When I asked a senior Clinton adviser for a prediction last week, the official responded with a shrug: “For the past month people have been saying it’s a 7-point race [in favor of Clinton], but we’ve always been thinking of it as a four-to-five-point race.”

Even if You Believe the Left’s Excuses, Hillary Clinton Still Violated Criminal Law

National Review ^ | September 5, 2016 | David French 

Last Friday, Twitter provided a near-perfect window into America’s divided, polarized soul. That afternoon, the FBI released its heavily redacted report and interview notes regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, and the responses could not have been more different.

The Right side of the Twitterverse melted down. Some of the revelations were stunning. Hillary’s team wiped her server after the New York Times disclosed its existence — at the same time that Hillary herself was publicly calling for the release of her e-mails to the public. Incredibly, Hillary told investigators that she didn’t pay attention to the “level” of classification attached to e-mail communications and didn’t know what the (C) classification meant. She conveniently “forgot” numerous key facts. And — finally — though she used 13 e-mail-capable mobile devices during her tenure as secretary of state, her lawyers were unable to locate any of them. Thus, the FBI was unable to conduct a forensic examination and was unable to definitely determine if her e-mail had been hacked.

In short, what the FBI file revealed was the extent of the Clinton deception operation, complete with lurid details — such as aides smashing old Blackberries with a hammer, an IT employee declaring an “oh s***” moment as he rushed to delete files, and Cheryl Mills participating as an attorney in the proceedings even though she was a witness and possible subject in the investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Burn in SpaceX Rocket Explosion

Americans for Prosperity ^ | 9/1/2016 | AFP 

Thursday’s explosion of a SpaceX rocket at Cape Canaveral is a reminder of just how easily billions of dollars in government subsidies can go up in flames.
While the media reported the event as a mere setback for billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and “a major blow” to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s plans for expanding internet services in Africa, it is clear that the biggest looser is the American taxpayer.
Musk’s SpaceX, together with his other high-profile ventures like Tesla Motors and SolarCity are supported heavily by a litany of government subsidies, having received nearly $5 billion in taxpayer dollars.
Although Musk’s ventures are pushing the boundaries of automotive and space technology, their uncertain success or failure is hinged to a complex maze of corporate welfare  and cronyism in the form of grants, subsidies and tax cuts that can be traced to backroom deals and costly regulations like the Obama administration’s carbon mandates.
As the smoke dissipates around Cape Canaveral, all that’s left behind are the ashes of hard-earned American dollars, and one demanding question; should taxpayers really be footing the bill for a billionaire’s pet projects?

Hillary Health Concerns, Mysterious Absences Rocket Trump Into Lead

NewsBlaze ^ | September 6, 2016 | Dwight L. Schwab Jr. 

The 2016 stunning rise of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continues to confound political pundits and polling operations. The real estate mogul has erased Hillary Clinton’s lead, which was as high as 8 points in early August to take a 2-point national lead over her in the latest CNN/ORC poll.
The shocking numbers come the day before Clinton suffered a four-and-a-half minute coughing fit at a campaign rally raising concerns about her health and suspicious absence from the campaign trail the last ten-days. Doctors throughout the nation have chimed in with concerns about her ability to campaign effectively.
The poll results: •Trump: 45 percent; •Clinton: 43 percent; •Libertarian Gary Johnson: 7 percent; •Green Party’s Jill Stein: 2 percent.
Clinton had led Trump by 8 points in the CNN/ORC in early August, a post-Democratic convention bounce for Clinton. The mainstream media gleefully predicted a landslide as her campaign went into cruise mode.
Voters surveyed believe Clinton will win by 59 percent. Just 34 percent think Trump will win the election, according to CNN. Yet as those numbers were announced, the majority of media outlets are ignoring Hillary’s obvious health problems. Is she seriously ill and incapable of sustaining he grueling last two months and three national debates?
Other key results from the CNN/ORC poll: •Trump leads among independents, 49 percent to 29 percent for Clinton; 16 percent back the Libertarian candidate Johnson •Clinton leads with women, 53 percent to 38 percent; •Trump leads with men, 54 percent to 32 percent for Clinton; •Clinton leads with voters 45 and under, 54 percent to 29 percent; •Trump leads with voters 45 and older, 54 percent to 39 percent.
Of the top four issues for voters surveyed, Trump is more trusted on two of them: •Economy: 56 percent trust Trump more than Clinton (41 percent); •Terrorism: 51 percent trust Trump more than Clinton (45 percent); •Foreign policy: Clinton more trusted, 56 percent to 40 percent; •Immigration: 49 percent favor Clinton’s policy to 47 percent for Trump.
In the most stunning polling result, probable voters see Trump as the more trustworthy and honest candidate, 50 percent to 35 percent for Clinton. It appears the polls are showing a trend that is now favoring Trump. It is similar to Ronald Reagan’s numbers in the fall of 1980 in his run against incumbent President Jimmy Carter.
The CNN/ORC Poll was conducted Sept. 1-4 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. Other national polls are expected to release their results later this week. But the numbers from the CNN/ORC poll clearly indicate Hillary Clinton’s presumed victory in November is now seriously in question.
Not unlike the media’s description of candidate Reagan as a reckless cowboy, war monger and grade B actor, the racist, bigot, crazy Trump is ascending from the ashes. The question is, are the American people witness to the greatest comeback in presidential elections in 68-year?

(CNN Money) Problem: Most Americans don't believe the unemployment rate is 5%

CNN Money ^ | 9-6-2016 | Heather Long 

Americans think the economy is in far worse shape than it is.
The U.S. unemployment rate is only 4.9%, but 57% of Americans believe it's a lot higher than that, according to a new survey by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University.
The general public has "extremely little factual knowledge" about the job market and labor force, Rutgers found.
It's another example of how experts on Wall Street and in Washington see the economy differently than the regular Joe. Many of the nation's top economic experts say that America is "near full employment." The unemployment rate has actually been at or below 5% for almost a year -- millions of people have found jobs in what is the best period of hiring since the late 1990s.
But regular people appear to have their doubts about how healthy America's employment picture is. Nearly a third of those survey by Rutgers believe unemployment is actually at 9%, or higher.
Republican candidate Donald Trump has tapped into this confusion. He has repeatedly called the official unemployment rate a "joke" and a even "hoax."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...



Common Sense


Juice in the caboose!






Tell the truth!


Conflict of interest?


Stuff Her!




How does it feel?


Out of sight!


Out to lunch!




No Clue!


The Answer