Sunday, July 31, 2016

Why The IRS Is Probing The Clinton Foundation

Zerohege ^ | 31 July 2016 | Tyler Durden 

"Clinton Cash" author, Peter Schweizer, recently took to the airwaves to explain why the IRS investigation of the Clinton Foundation should be a "big deal" (also see Clinton Cash: "Devastating" Documentary Reveals How Clintons Went From "Dead Broke" To Mega Wealthy") even though he expressed some "skepticism" over the ability of Obama's IRS to run an impartial investigation.

As we we've reported (see "IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation"), the IRS recently launched an investigation of the Clinton Foundation after receiving a letter signed by 64 Republicans of the House of Representative which described the Clinton Foundation as a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Raising The Minimum Wage In Seattle Had Utterly Predictable Results–But Liberals Probably Don't Care ^ | Matt Vespa 

Raise the minimum wage in Seattle they said. It will help workers they said. Well, the city did increase the minimum wage from the previous rate of $9.47 to $15, which is to be phased in by 2018. It’s now at $11, and lo and behold it has hurt workers. A study found that workers would’ve already seen an increase in wages without the hike because of the increased economic activity and more would’ve been employed. Instead, hours were cut, fewer people worked, and all of this was [predictable]:

The average hourly wage for workers affected by the increase jumped from $9.96 to $11.14, but wages likely would have increased some anyway due to Seattle's overall economy. Meanwhile, although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase. Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike.
So, if this is the impact at just $11, I guess we can say that an economic iceberg is about to hit California and New York, as both states raised their minimum wage rates to $15. In 2013, over 700,000 jobs were lost due to minimum wage hikes. The American Action Forum found that every $1 increase accounted for a 1.48 percent spike in the unemployment rate. That’s quite a steep butcher’s bill. Moreover, some establishments are simply transitioning to electronic kiosks for orders to help blunt the inevitable rise in overhead costs due to these increases. Still, Democrats will push for these economically deficient policy proposals because they sound good, it looks good, and people buy into it hook, line, and sinker. If you’re against it, prepare to be painted as anti-poor and heartless—which is exactly how Democrats want to portray Republicans...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Immigration Poll Demonstrates Americans Want Total Revolution Against Mass Immigration

breitbart ^ | July 31, 2016 | JULIA HAHN 

– By a nearly 6 to 1 margin, U.S. voters believe immigration should be decreased rather than increased.
– By a 25-to-1 margin, voters believe that unemployed American workers should get preference for a U.S. job rather than a foreign worker brought in from another country.
– Sixty one percent of voters believe that any politician, “who would rather import foreign workers to take jobs rather than give them to current U.S. residents, is unfit to hold office.”
– Three out of four voters believe the nation needs “an immigration system that puts American workers first, not an immigration system that serves the demands of donors seeking to reduce labor costs.”
– A majority of U.S. voters (53%) believe “record amounts of immigration into the U.S. have strained school resources and disadvantaged U.S. children.”
– A majority of voters (55%) disagree with Hillary Clinton’s call to release illegal immigrants arriving at the border into the United States and give them a chance to apply for asylum.
– Roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The US Military is a Politically Correct Weakling

US Defense Watch ^ | July 30, 2016 | Ray Starmann 

It’s literally something more absurd every day now…
Practically every 24 hour news cycle, the perfumed princes and princesses in the Pentagon announce some ludicrous bit of social engineering that sounds so compassionate, sensitive, politically correct and trendy, but in actuality is another nail in the coffin of the US Armed Forces.
The latest bit of total insanity was the announcement that US Navy was going to name a ship after deceased gay activist Harvey Milk.
According to USNI News:
The Navy is set to name a ship after the gay rights icon and San Francisco politician Harvey Milk, according to a Congressional notification obtained by USNI News.
The July 14, 2016 notification, signed by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, indicated he intended to name a planned Military Sealift Command fleet oiler USNS Harvey Milk (T-AO-206). The ship would be the second of the John Lewis-class oilers being built by General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, Calif.
No doubt at the ship’s christening, some DoD official will tout the glories of diversity and LGBT rights and how modern and trendy the New Military really is.
Our enemies are laughing themselves into a tither. Let’s face it, a majority of gay men don’t exactly exhibit the most martial qualities needed to wage war. When you think of the male homosexual community, images of Broadway choreographers, Hollywood producers, antiques dealers and art critics instantly pop into your cabeza.
No doubt the USNS Harvey Milk will strike terror into the hearts of our enemies. What’s next, an aircraft carrier named the USS Liberace, a destroyer called the USS Charles Nelson Reilly, a submarine dubbed the USS Ellen DeGeneres?
The USNS Harvey Milk activation is just another event in the long line of lunacy that has besieged the military since the Kenyan Commander in Chief took the oath of office.
We now have a US military with open and authorized homosexuality, transgenders getting gender reassignment surgery on the Pentagon’s nickel, lactation stations on military bases, storage of breast milk in the field, white privilege training, classes teaching the Bible as a sexist document, Marine Corps gender sensitivity training, 1984 gender neutral terminology, men conducting physical training in pregnancy simulators, male ROTC cadets parading around in red high heels on college campuses and most distressingly women being pushed into combat arms and special operations units.
With the authorization to allow women to serve in the infantry, armor, cavalry, artillery, Green Berets, Rangers, Delta, the SEALs and Marine Recon, the Crown Jewels of the US military have been hijacked by left wing nuts who don’t have a clue about the military and most importantly, combat.
To anyone alive who served in the military from WWII to even the early days of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has become not only a politically correct weakling, but an entity so foreign that it bears no resemblance to its past existence.
The evisceration of the US armed forces by the Obama White House was made possible by hundreds of willing executioners in the Pentagon and at various military commands across the globe. Federal bureaucrats like Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, Ray Mabus and Eric Fanning and generals strong on narcissism and greed and low on moral courage, like Martin Dempsey made the demise of the US military under Obama a virtual shoe in.
What’s the attitude of current general officers and recently retired general officers? Look no further than General John Allen, who is supporting Hillary Clinton under the most dubious of circumstances and motivations and who was channeling Burt Lancaster as General Mattoon Scott in Seven Days in May two nights ago at the DNC.
The one group of individuals charged with defending the traditions and readiness of the US military, its generals and admirals, have willingly gone along with policies they knew would be destructive to the armed forces, for the simple reason that they don’t have enough guts to stand up for themselves, the organization they represent and the nation itself. History will judge them as some of the greatest cowards to ever have set foot in the Pentagon.
The left wing social engineers destroying the military are having the time of their lives watching the last bastion of American true patriotism; selflessness and manhood go down the proverbial drain. But, some are just ignorant and believe that the US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard are nothing different than corporations or hipster startups in Palo Alto.
They are dead wrong.
The military’s life breath is morale, camaraderie, tradition, bravery and sacrifice. While some Americans could care less about the daily lives of homosexuals and transgenders, their open presence in the military is a death knell to morale and camaraderie. Transgenders are officially viewed as mentally ill by many noted psychologists and psychiatrists. Homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS than heterosexuals. A battlefield blood transfusion from a homosexual soldier could be a matter of life or death itself. Also, many military members have negative views of the homosexual lifestyle based on their own religious beliefs.
The military has been targeted by feminists since the early 1970’s. Because of solid, courageous senior military leaders and intrepid Secretaries of Defense, the feminists were stalled for decades. Only recently have they been able to infest the military and change its operating procedures and ethos.
The feminists’ greatest triumph has been the inclusion of women into the combat arms and special operations. This is undoubtedly the greatest disaster in US military history that will lead not only to peacetime problems of morale, cohesion and readiness, but to eventual defeat on a hundred distant battlefields.
The mission of the US military is simple. When directed by the President, it is to wage war by sea, land and air and to defeat and destroy the enemies of the United States, violently and rapidly.
The mission of the US military is not to provide white privilege presentations, gender neutrality classes, day care, endless maternity leave, camouflaged breast pumps, lactation stations and gay sensitivity training.
While the SecDef is busy being PC and implementing ludicrous leftist directives, the US military is crumbling around him.
The Marines and Air Force have horrific supply problems. The Army’s readiness is in mortal danger and the US Army Armor Corps is a ghost of wars past. Right now, the US Army could not conduct a Patton style breakout across France, a 73 Easting movement to contact as in Desert Storm or a dash to the gates of Baghdad. Just what can the US Army Armor Corps do? You got me.
Obama has purged or forced hundreds of senior leaders to exit the service. Good people of all ranks are leaving the service because they are at odds with the politically correct policies decimating training, operations and morale.
What does all this social engineering do to the military, it creates a whole force that lacks that indefinable, but instrumental trait called “fighting spirit.” Fighting spirit is a combat multiplier of infinite proportions. Joshua Chamberlain’s 20th Maine Regiment had it at Gettysburg, the 101st Airborne Division had it at Bastogne, the 7th Cavalry had it in Korea and Vietnam and the Marines had it in Fallujah. With fighting spirit, victory is certain; without it, defeat is imminent.
This lack of fighting spirit is seeping through the consciousness of the military. The performance of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf last January speaks volumes and is an indicator of deep systemic problems. When confronted by thugs from the Iranian Navy, the US Navy failed on all levels: senior command, mid-level command, junior command, fighting spirit, maintenance, navigation and adherence to the Code of Conduct.
Politicians like Hillary Clinton and her Sandinista cohort, Governor Tim Kaine cry to gullible voting masses that this is the best military we’ve ever had. They can bellow into oblivion all they want.
It’s not the best military the US has ever had. It’s not even close. The troops know it. The leaders, junior, mid-level and senior know it.
Most importantly, our enemies damned well know it.

Going Viral: 'Clinton Cash' Movie Version ^ | July 30 2016 | Bob Unruh 

'Clintons have amassed a $2 billion empire … with scams'
Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash” created a firestorm in the 2016 presidential campaign, and now the movie version is doing the same, with nearly 700,000 views online in just the first few days.
The movie spotlights Schweizer’s investigation of donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities who sought favors from the Hillary Clinton-led State Department
It’s a good thing that it’s been released, according to New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi, whose new book on the Clinton Foundation, “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit”, has just arrived.
“Peter Schweizer’s excellent book ‘Clinton Cash’ and his movie by the same title has scored a body blow against the idea that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charity,” Corsi said. “My book, ‘Partners in Crime,’ takes a complimentary, but different approach in demonstrating the Clinton Foundation is a vast, criminal conspiracy.
“Schweizer’s central charge is corruption, namely, that the Clintons conspired to have Hillary as secretary of state utilize ‘official acts’ to make policy decisions through her office that were ‘pay-to-play’ payoffs designed to benefit those who made sizable donations to the Clinton Foundation,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Valerie Jarrett was our First Female President

American Thinker ^ | 7/30/16 | Daniel John Sobieski 

Hillary Clinton has become the first female nominated for President of the United States but, should she win the election, she will not be the first female to occupy and control the Oval Office (insert Monica Lewinsky joke here). That honor arguably goes to Valerie Jarrett, currently Senior Adviser to [Hussein].
....Not only did Valerie Jarrett become a mentor to the young Barack Obama, she soon became what Investor’s Business Daily called Obama’s Rasputin, someone who had more security than our personnel did in Benghazi...
....She arguably has more influence over Obama than anyone with the possible exception of Michelle Obama...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Amendment 69: ColoradoCare mimics existing single-payer disasters

The Complete Colorado Page Two ^ | 29 July, 2016 | Sally C. Pipes 

The good people of Colorado must be smoking something these days.
That’s the only explanation for the decision by 156,000 of the state’s more than 3 million registered voters to endorse a November ballot initiative that would create a statewide single-payer health care system.
Patients in single-payer systems elsewhere must withstand low-quality care and long wait times. To fund all that failure, they pay sky-high taxes. If Colorado’s voters approve this single-payer measure at the polls this fall, they’ll experience these realities firsthand.
Single-payer systems control costs by using government power to ration care.
In Canada, where I grew up, patients have to wait four-and-a-half months, on average, to receive treatment from a specialist after getting a referral from a primary-care doctor. Many who want – or need – the most cutting-edge technology and procedures come to the United States and pay out of pocket rather than suffer in line.
In Britain’s single-payer system, one in five cancer patients has to wait more than two months to start treatment. Delays even plague ambulance and emergency room services. Recently, junior doctors fed up with low pay went on strike, which may have contributed to at least one death.
Socialized medicine has failed in the United States, too. Just look at the Veterans Health Administration. Patients have died waiting for appointments. And the brilliant bureaucrats behind the VA’s new hospital in Aurora have exceeded their budget by more than 400 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Must Come Clean about Huma Abedin ^ | July 1, 2016 | Joseph Klein 

Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Department website contained a passage extolling jihad: "The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world…” (As published by The Middle East Media Research Institute)

The Saudi government and some of its influential radical Islamic citizens and groups are pursuing the export of jihad in two ways. The first is through what has been referred to as “civilization jihad.” Saudi Arabia has spent billions of dollars in funding Sunni mosques, madrasas, and Sunni cultural centers all over the world, which spread the Saudis’ radical Islamic Wahhabi ideology.

However, Saudi Arabia’s jihad also includes the support of terrorism. A cable released by WikiLeaks under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name stated: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Friday, July 29, 2016

Black Lives Matter Chants Interrupt 1 Minute Silence for Fallen Police Officers at DNC

DaiLY Mail UK ^ | 7/29/16 | Wills Robinson 

A moment's silence for slain police officers was interrupted by chants of 'Black Lives Matter' during the Democratic convention.
Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez was on stage paying a stirring tribute to the 5 officers gunned down in her city on July 7. She then asked the crowd to remember all officers who had fallen in the line of duty and said, 'Please help me to honor ALL of America's fallen officers with a moment of silence.'
Then members of the crowd shouted the controversial slogan, and it was heard all around Philadelphia's Wells Fargo Center.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Glass Ceiling




If the nose fits


Shoe Drops




Change Maker


Dead Cat


I forget


Free stuff ahead!






The Long Con!


Passing the tourch






By this much!


After 40 years


Like an ass!


AH Dammit!






Thursday, July 28, 2016

Poll: Donald Trump Sees 17-Point Positive Swing in Two Weeks

Breitbart ^ | July 28, 2016 | by ALEX SWOYER 

16 Republican nominee Donald Trump gained 17 points in roughly two weeks, according to the Reuters online tracking poll.
On July 14, 2016, Trump was 15 points behind Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton 46.5 percent to 31.5 percent. However as of July 26, 2016, Trump closed that 15 point gap and is now up two points over Clinton, 40.2 percent to 38.5 percent.
The Reuters/IPSOS polling data was fairly consistent during the Republican primaries — keeping Trump in the lead from February through May, which proved to be accurate.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Oh, The Tangled Webs They Weave… ^ | July 28, 2016 | John P. Warren 

…but this isn’t the first time Democrats have practiced to deceive. In fact, the Clintons, Obama, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi have had quite a bit of practice over the past two presidential terms, haven’t they?
The DNC display in Philadelphia has been impressive to be sure. Because establishment Democrats rigged the game for Hillary, they were ready for a showy if shallow unity frosted over by descriptions of a world only their Kool Aid believers wish to see. First Lady Michelle Obama—a powerful and effective speaker in her own right—told us she and her husband knew their time in the White House would shape the futures of their daughters, that words and actions matter, and that it’s all about who will have the power to shape the future of millions of others. When Hillary rises, the first lady said, we all rise because Hillary is a leader worthy of our country’s promise for the future. With all due respect, Mrs. Obama does not understand her husband’s words and actions have, indeed, mattered. They’ve so divided the nation and have helped corrode western civilization. Is that a future any mother would want for her children?
Bill Clinton told us of Hillary’s unflagging labor for the downtrodden, but his story had too many earmarks of a puffed up resume. Let’s assume for the moment, however, that a bit of it may be true. That being so, how and when in the world did that idealistic young lawyer become the greedy and corrupt person she is today? Was it the first big taste of Whitewater cash? Was it her exalted White House life surrounded by sycophants? Was it too much power? Was it the many millions of speaking fees? Was it the ease with which she could get away with it, abetted as she has been by the establishment?
Bill said his image of Hillary couldn’t be squared with that painted by her enemies, and he’s right. The Hillary who may have helped poor kids get insurance 20 years ago will lie to us tomorrow about TPP, Benghazi, Iran, and whatever else suits her for the moment. It’s because of the Clintons’ long parade of lies that we doubt his version of anything. We’ve come to know what’s been in it for Hillary and her husband, but what’s in it for all of those who are now promoting her?
For Bill and Hillary, of course, absolutely everything is at stake in this election. If elected, they get to bury every one of their secrets and settle scores with enemies. For Barack Obama, there’s much at stake, too. Obamacare. The Iran Deal. Unconstitutional Executive Orders. Bureaucratic burdens on business. An appointment to SCOTUS? For the vast left-wing apparatus the Clintons have built up with Obama and Ayers and Alinsky, the levers of government power can remain in their grasp, and for the power-mongers, that’s the greatest treasure of all.
Democrats may have better more passionate speakers, to be sure, but it should always be remembered that progressivism is a philosophy of feelings, which tend to be situational at best, not a philosophy grounded in moral principles and bedrock rules of civil governance. If over eight years of Democrat speeches were backed by actions, would we have racial and ethnic strife in this country? Would we have a world cankered by ISIS brutality? Would we have millions of jobless teens? Would we have a disintegrating middle class?
Three-quarters of the nation think we’re on the wrong track. Two-thirds of us think race relations are bad—exactly the opposite of how Americans felt when Obama took office in 2009. Most people not living in the ether of a video game know the awful numbers oh, so sadly well. Worse, the everyday experiences of many make them feel less safe now than just a few years ago, and an out-of-control ISIS makes many wonder if a weak, progressive power structure will someday give in to the horrors of sharia law. It happened in Belgium, France, Britain, and Germany. Why not here? Democrats don’t like to offend anyone, do they?
Now, of course, the polls are close. Despite Donald Trump’s amazing ability to alienate many without spending a dollar, he has made the race a toss-up. Despite the stacked deck of State Media (MSM to some), Academia, and Hollywoodland all arrayed against him, he has spoken the tough, rough words that have caught the ear of Joe & Josie Six-Pack and secret admirers in every other demographic. His very successes, however, have troubled the night dreams of establishment Democrats everywhere, and they are desperate.
All the stops will be yanked for 2016. For a party leadership steeped in deception, it is not unrealistic to consider the unthinkable. If all else fails, there’s the electronic ballot box itself, as USA Today wrote about just prior to the last election, and as I described in my book Turnover. Bernie’s people naively assumed they were competing on a level field, and it turned out to be a rigged race. That may have been their biggest mistake, and for Americans, making the same assumption about November may be the mistake of our electoral lives.
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Hillary minion for decades, and the DNC thought it perfectly acceptable to deny their own party members the right to an equal vote, what barrier would stop them from stealing everybody else’s votes?

Pat Caddell: Democrats ‘Walked Right into the Trap’ Donald Trump Baited with Hillary Clinton’s Email

Breitbart ^ | July 28, 2016 | by JOHN HAYWARD 

Caddell was also critical of Democratic messaging after Donald Trump’s press conference on Wednesday. “Yesterday was one of the most amazing days I’ve ever seen,” he declared. “Throwing the ‘treason’ word around, the T-word, if you will. Why were they walking into the trap?”
He said he did not know what might have been revealed in the pilfered DNC voicemails released by WikiLeaks Wednesday, but “anything that has to do with the words ‘email,’ ‘Hillary,’ the ‘DNC’ – all of this just continues to roil the situation.”
He agreed with Bannon that Trump was deliberately baiting Democrats and the media by making controversial comments about Clinton’s emails, and “they walked right into the trap, believe me.”
Caddell also weighed in on the debut of Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, who “seems like a very, basically nice man, reading other people’s words and looking like, you know, ‘What am I doing here?’”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats HATE The Constitution [DNC Banner - "We Don' Gotta Show You No Stinkin' Constitution"] ^ | JUNE 16, 2016 | BEN SHAPIRO 

On Thursday, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) let slip what most Democrats have been thinking for decades: Constitutional rights are problematic. Manchin told Morning Joe, “The problem we have, and really the firewall we have right now is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say we want the same thing, but how do we get there?”
That dang due process. That silly Second Amendment. This Constitution thing keeps getting in the way of Democratic priorities.
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats protested the PATRIOT Act by claiming that it violated citizens’ rights. Now they want to hone in on citizens’ due process rights – the most fundamental right in the Constitution, given that it is the predicate for the removal of other rights – and do away with them. Dylan Matthews of is clearest in his desire: “I’m totally down with letting the prez unilaterally ban people (hopefully everyone!) from buying guns.”
This follows hard on the heels of Democrats claiming that Americans shouldn’t have the First Amendment right to speak freely about climate change, and that Americans shouldn’t have the First Amendment right to label people by their birth sex. It also follows on the heels of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama openly stating that there is no First Amendment right to exercise your religion in your business, and both of them using their government positions to rip exercise of First Amendment rights they deem Islamophobic.
So Democrats don’t like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment. Good news: they still like the Third Amendment, which prevents quartering of troops.
For now.

Trump Jr. accuses Obama of lifting from his convention speech! (good for goose, good for gander)

The Hill ^ | 7/28/2016 | Caitlin Yilek 

The son of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says he’s “honored” President Obama would “plagiarize” a line from his Republican National Convention speech.
“I’m honored that POTUS would plagiarize a line from my speech last week. Where’s the outrage?” Donald Trump Jr. tweeted Thursday, following Obama’s Democratic National Convention speech on Wednesday night in Philadelphia.
Last week, when addressing the Republican convention in Cleveland, Trump Jr. said: "There’s so much work to do. We will not accept the current state of our country because it’s too hard to change. That’s not the America I know. We’re going to unleash the creative spirit and energy of all Americans. We’re going to make our schools the best in the world for every single American of every single ethnicity and background.”
On Wednesday, Obama said: “What we heard in Cleveland last week wasn’t particularly Republican, and it sure wasn’t conservative. What we heard was a deeply pessimistic vision of a country where we turn against each other and turn away from the rest of the world. There were no serious solutions to pressing problems, just the fanning of resentment and blame and anger and hate. And that is not the America I know. The America I know is full of courage, and optimism, and ingenuity. The America I know is decent and generous.”
Trump Jr.'s accusation of Obama of plagiarizing the line, “That is not the America I know” comes a week and a half after Melania Trump faced backlash for using parts of first lady Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention speech.
The woman who wrote Melania Trump’s convention speech, Meredith McIver, took responsibility for copying portions of that speech and offered to resign as an in-house writer for Donald Trump last week, though the GOP nominee refused to accept it.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Democratic Bash Won’t Matter

WSJ ^ | 7-27-16 | Tokyo Rove 

Though the slogan for the first day of the Democratic National Convention was “United Together,” the party appeared to be anything but. Hacked emails dumped online by WikiLeaks had confirmed the worst suspicions of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s supporters. The Democratic establishment had been working all along to defeat their man, even discussing whether to plant stories that Mr. Sanders, who is Jewish, doesn’t believe in God.
After Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation, she was rewarded by being named an “honorary chair” for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Sanders supporters were hardly satisfied. On Monday the Bernie Bunch booed Ms. Wasserman Schultz off the stage. They demonstrated their frustration in the convention hall, and on Philadelphia’s streets, demanding votes on their candidate’s proposals on trade and the party’s rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Ann Coulter Dot Com ^ | 27 July 2016 | Ann Coulter 

Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn't hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop.
But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America's most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
Welcome to Hillary's convention, celebrating the anti-police group Black Lives Matter!
The whole raison d'etre of BLM is the belief that cops are wantonly killing "black bodies." But only four of the dead black kids being honored were even killed by cops. Two were murdered by black gang members.
Of the four deaths that involved the police, all the victims were fighting the cops when they died.
In this regard, I notice that six of the nine "Mothers of the Movement" have different last names from their snowflakes. The children with the same names as their mothers were the two who were gunned down by black gangs, as well as one schizophrenic, who, unfortunately, had grabbed an officer’s baton and was hitting him with it when he got himself shot.
After massive, enormously expensive investigations, only one officer in any of these four cases was convicted of any offense: involuntary manslaughter for the 2009 shooting by a BART police officer of Oscar Grant -- who was in the process of being arrested for an enormous public brawl when he was shot.
Contrast his death with the deaths of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton and 16-year-old Blair Holt. Hadiya was shot in the back by black gang members, while in a Chicago park with her friends -- who were mistaken for members of a rival gang. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why should I believe what Bill said about Hillary at the DNC?

American Thinker ^ | July 28, 2016 | Jack Hellner 

Why should I believe a serial sexual predator, congenital liar, serial adulterer, seller of the Lincoln bedroom, seller of pardons, and releaser of Puerto Rican Terrorists and good buddy of convicted pedophile billionaire Jeff Epstein? Why would I believe someone who jacked up his speech prices when his wife became Secretary of State and someone who would just lie about Hussein having WMD’s?

Bill said he was going to correct the cartoonish depiction the Republicans gave of his wife but I believe I have spotted some things he must have left out inadvertently.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

If You Liked Obamanomics, You'll Love Hillarynomics!

Investors Business Daily ^ | July 27, 2016 | Editorial 

Democratic Convention: What can you expect from economic policy from a Hillary Clinton White House? You already know. Just look at the last 7-1/2 years under President Obama.
Those expecting a new direction for the economy under a future possible President Clinton will likely be deeply disappointed...
...Tanden, was clear on one thing: "All of our policies must raise median wages for American workers ... (Hillary Clinton) is going to focus her presidency on rising inequality and stagnant wages."
While laudable, how would Clinton do that? The answer is:... ..."shovel-ready" infrastructure projects...
...leaving the American taxpayers with trillions of dollars more of debt, permanently higher spending... ...costing the economy nearly $2 trillion in lost GDP...
...As to rising corporate profits, Democrats actually see this as a problem to be solved. Why? Because wages aren't going up. But wages are a function of investment. And Democrats have made it quite clear their policies will be investment unfriendly.
Tanden also vowed to focus on the "challenges of short-term-ism in the corporate culture."... for economic growth, nothing...
...As the party has turned dramatically to the left, it sees only redistribution — not growth — as the answer to every problem. But redistribution crosses a line and eventually becomes theft.
This has defined the Obama era, and it appears it will define the Clinton era, too. Instead of tax cuts, entitlement reform, and repeal of ObamaCare, Hillary promises tax hikes, less free trade and an attempt to bring back a 1932 law — Glass-Steagall — to regulate the banking system.
Hillarynomics doesn't look like change you can believe in. Just more of the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

DNC Guidelines - No References To God, Terrorism

PHILADELPHIA (WNB) - A leaked manual of internal guidelines for speakers at the Democratic National Convention is drawing criticism from both sides of the aisle.

An excerpt from "Section 2 Non-acceptable References"
In order to ensure a nondiscriminatory and enjoyable climate for attendees of the Democratic National Convention (DNC), all public speakers are required to read and initial the following guideline of nonacceptable words, phrases, and topics for use in all public addresses. The Democrat Party strongly recommends this guideline also be followed in private conversation, also.
Strongly discouraged:
  • Any reference to the Judeo-Christian god or associated religion.
  • Any reference to Islam associated with war, terror, or violence of any type.
  • Any reference to The Affordable Care Act, especially "Obamacare."
  • Any reference to China, North Korea, Mexico, or Russia.
  • Any reference to Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ unless used in a profanity.
  • Any reference to socialism or communism.
  • Any reference to Libya, Syria, Ukraine, or especially Iran.
  • Any reference to golf or vacations.
  • Any reference to lying, adultery, emails, servers, foundations, or investigations.
DNC Guidelines

Notice the wall?








Move along!












Want a job?




Tough Sell


Rubbing his nose in it!










Bad Mix


WHO are you?






Delete, delete, delete




Wednesday, July 27, 2016

WikiLeaks Publishes 23,035 Clinton E-mails Marked Classified When She Received Them!

New American ^ | Tuesday, 26 July 2016 | C. Mitchell Shaw 

After spending more than a year denying — and avoiding indictment for — sending and receiving classified information over her unsecured, private e-mail server, Hillary Clinton still can’t shake the truth. Besides the DNC e-mails that are making waves in the news because they show that the Democratic National Committee violated its own rules to help Clinton win the Democrat presidential nomination, WikiLeaks also released a trove of leaked e-mails from Clinton’s server. Those e-mails prove irrefutably that Clinton sent and received information that was classified at the time.
After announcing last month that the next leak published by his organization would almost certainly lead to a Clinton indictment, Julian Assange has made good on his word. The leaked Clinton e-mails were released before the DNC e-mails, but got pushed aside in the news cycle when police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge were murdered as part of the war on police. With the news of the DNC leaks and Clinton’s assured nomination, the Clinton leaks need to be examined and considered.

The e-mails published by WikiLeaks — 23,035 in all — are all from her first year as secretary of state and are all marked “(C)” for “confidential” — a designation for classified information. Clinton held that office for another three years. Assuming her carelessness — and recalcitrance — continued throughout her tenure, she may well have sent and/or received almost 100,000 classified e-mails over her server during her time in office. It is difficult to imagine a greater threat to national security.
FBI Director James Comey may have attempted to sell the line that Clinton did not intend to break the law, but considering the size and scope of her mishandling of sensitive intelligence, it is more than a little hard to swallow what Comey was dishing out. Considering that the Justice Department has prosecuted people for far smaller infractions, it will be interesting to see if — now that the magnitude of Clinton’s crimes is known — Comey will continue to oppose her indictment.
Assange — with an obvious nod toward the irony involved — pointed out in an interview with ITV last month that the Obama administration has prosecuted a number of whistleblowers in recent years. WikiLeaks — which Assange started and continues to run while in exile — relies on whistleblowers, so his bias is easily understood.
While testifying before a House Oversight Committee, Comey was questioned about his assertion that Clinton did not know she was breaking the law because she did not know what a classified marking was. As The Hill reported, Comey answered:
“No, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be,” Comey responded. “It’s an interesting question whether she ... was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in [parentheses] means.”
“You asked me if I would assume someone would know,” he added. “Probably before this investigation, I would have. I am not so sure of that any longer. I think it’s possible — possible — that she didn’t know what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.”
While the too-stupid-to-know-it-was-criminal defense is not exactly new, it is hardly something one would expect on the resumé of a presidential candidate. Besides that, Comey was addressing 113 e-mails he says were classified. Now that it is known that at least 23,035 were marked as classified, perhaps Comey will offer the defense that he isn’t qualified for his post either.
Setting aside Comey’s asinine defense of Clinton’s criminal actions based on her supposed ignorance, the fact is that she was not ignorant. Clinton signed two non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as part of her appointment as secretary of state. Those NDAs spelled out — in language clear enough to be understood even by someone who is not “sophisticated” — her responsibilities and obligations under the law. As this writer reported when the first of those two NDAs came to light:
The NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton on her second day as secretary of state spells out — in language so clear that the meaning of the word "is" is quite unambiguous — her responsibility in handling the sensitive information to which she would have access in her new job. One part reads, "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." The agreement goes on to address how Secretary Clinton could be sure she was abiding by the letter and the spirit of the agreement. "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be SCI," the NDA says.
These 23,035 e-mails were marked “(C),” and it was Clinton’s legal responsibility to recognize that. She is, after all, a graduate of law school and was licensed to practice law until 2002. If she truly is that ignorant of the law, should she be running for president?
Here, for example, are the first few paragraphs of one of the documents Clinton received via her unsecured, private e-mail server:
1. (U) This is a PRT Anbar cable.
2. (C) SUMMARY: Tension between the Iraqi Police and the judiciary was on display at the weekly Anbar Operations Command meeting covering security issues. Similar feelings were present at PRToffs meeting with Provincial Chief Judge Mohammed Al-Kubaisi. END SUMMARY.
3. (C) On February 22, PRToff attended the Anbar Operations Command (AOC) weekly security meeting at the Blue Diamond Iraqi Army facility. Staff Major General (sMG) Aziz, appearing vigorous and healthy, chaired the meeting for the first time since his medical treatment in Turkey. Provincial Chief of Police (PCOP) sMG Baha Al-Karkhi, Deputy Governor Hikmat Jasim Zaidan and Investigative Judge (IJ) Ghanim Al-Azawi were also present.
4. (C) The initial interchange at the meeting was characterized by the usual Iraqi Police (IP) complaints of judicial shortcomings and focused on the IP's inability to find an investigative judge over the weekend to approve warrants. Investigative Judge Ghanim responded that an IJ was always available and that police should "just knock on my door." He explained that CPA Administrator Paul Bremer had issued an order years earlier requiring a lawyer to be present at the initial appearance of a suspect and said the absence of a lawyer was the real impediment to prosecuting cases. sMG Aziz countered that this law was enacted a long time ago and that terrorist suspects should be treated differently from other criminals since theirs was a special crime against society. He asked that the laws be changed in order to allow detention of terror suspects without a warrant via a streamlined process. IJ Ghanim responded that the existing judicial process was sound and provided a good example of the rule of law to the citizenry.
This writer will admit to not being “sophisticated enough to understand” what much of this document discusses, but then this writer is not secretary of state and has not signed legal forms agreeing that "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be” classified. Even with my lack of sophistication, though, a couple of things stand out to me. That “(C)” could only mean a handful of things: (1) It could denote the ordering of paragraphs. But since almost all of the paragraphs are labeled “(C),” that is probably not correct. (2) It could mean that that paragraph is protected by a copyright. Again, since the product of government can’t be copyrighted, that too, is probably not the right answer. (3) I should go ask one of the “appropriate management authorities in the Department” — preferably one who is sufficiently “sophisticated” — what it means just “to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control ... might be” classified.
What secretary Clinton did, though was ignore that designation at least 23,035 times in her first year in office alone. And now, she’s running for president.
If Assange is correct and this leak leads to her indictment, it may be that Judge Napolitano’s prediction from earlier this year will come true. At the end of a video about Clinton’s e-mail scandal, he asked, “Don't you want to know before your nominating process is complete if your likely nominee will be a criminal defendant in the Fall?”

Democrats Build Double-Wall Border Fence to Keep Out Unwanted Protesters (WTF?) ^ | 7/26/2016 | Bob Price 

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are now protected from unwanted protesters by a giant double-wall border fence. The border fence was doubled to make sure people without proper documentation could not illegally enter the convention area.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democrats in building a wall around their convention when they refuse to build a wall to secure the American border with Mexico, Breitbart News’ Neil Munro reported in June. “It’s interesting that the Democratic National Committee will have a wall around their convention to keep unapproved people out while at the same time, their presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, pushes for open borders policies that are even more radical than President Obama’s,” Sessions said in written statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

WikiLeaks Reveals Media Collusion ^ | July 27, 2016 | Brent Bozell 
Posted on 7/27/2016, 6:29:58 AM by Kaslin

The radical leftist collective known as WikiLeaks tried to ruin the Democratic convention by posting a trove of Democratic National Committee emails that easily proved that party leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her staff shunned neutrality in favor of pushing Hillary Clinton's nomination. The Bernie Sanders socialists were enraged, their suspicions confirmed.
The media paid some attention to that, especially when Schultz was quickly ousted from her job. Guess what else was confirmed, which the media largely skipped over? The evidence in the emails that revealed great chumminess and coordination between Democrats and the supposedly "objective" national press.
You really don't need an email collection to know this. After all, NBC "News" hired Chelsea Clinton for $600,000 a year to make some of the most sleep-inducing "happy news" stories to ever air on television. She was producing stories less than once a month, or more than $50,000 a pop.
In February, Gawker made a Freedom of Information Act request for government emails from Hillary Clinton's PR aide Philippe Reines. The disclosed emails exposed Politico big-foot Mike Allen. He offered a cozy Politico chat with Chelsea Clinton: "No one besides me would ask her a question, and you and I would agree on them precisely in advance." When exposed, Allen spun the offer as "clumsy."
Well, the latest emails demonstrate Politico is still making a mockery of journalistic "independence." We now learn that "reporter" Ken Vogel sent a story on Clinton fundraising to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach for a pre-publication review. Now, checking for confirmation of some numbers or confirming a quote -- that's OK. But the entire story? That is journalistic malpractice. The Democrats have Politico on a leash.
Reporters try to present a friendly face to most of their subjects, but they don't always boast, "Hey, you'll like this story I did." That's what happened with Juliet Eilperin, White House bureau chief for The Washington Post. She sent an email to Paustenbach cooing, "Dear Mark, I think you all will be totally fine with it. Thanks again for all your help. Best, Juliet." So the DNC gives blessings now? The front-page story was headlined: "Obama, who once stood as party outsider, now works to strengthen Democrats." The story wasn't as bad as a 2014 front-page puff piece from Eilperin touting how the Obama White House has changed the junk-food culture: "Calorie counts and hummus with vegetables are in." You don't need an email to see the chumminess.
CNN commentator Maria Cardona is identified on air as a Democrat, but the emails show that disclosure is a little incomplete. In emailed exchanges with DNC spinners, Cardona repeatedly asked how to perfect an op-ed for Collusion? Liberals will probably see no conflict of interest. Now remember how many fits the liberals have thrown over CNN in-house Trump analyst Corey Lewandowski still getting checks from The Donald.
Emails also show Wasserman Schultz yelling at reporters like they were servants -- and well, the media coverage can leave that impression. She titled an email to NBC's Chuck Todd "Chuck, This Must Stop" when Mika Brzezinski called for her to resign on "Morning Joe." DNC aides tried to arrange a meeting between the warring parties, but Todd replied, "Between us, do you think that's a good idea?" Wasserman Schultz scuttled it, wondering if Brzezinski "even matters, to be frank." Ouch.
The primary reason the media would skip covering their own lack of independence is obvious. The public already believes they aggressively favor one side in our political debates. Why put a spotlight on your problem? Transparency is a media buzzword, but it never applies to their own partisan games.