Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Video From 2007-When Hillary Slammed Bush WH For Using Private Emails

The video below was played Wednesday on Greta Van Susteren's On The Record show. It shows part of a Hillary Clinton campaign speech from June 20th 2007 where Ms Clinton blasts the Bush White House, saying its use of secret emails was an example of the Administration shredding the constitution.
Our constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about the secret military tribunals. The secret White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption of cronyism run amuck. It is everything our founders were afraid of. Everything our constitution was designed to prevent.

Is It Time For The Democratic Party To Have A Plan B?

Hillary Clinton has spent much of the past two years running for president without running for president. She is seen as the likely nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016, despite the fact that during that time she has shown herself to be a poor candidate, her book tour was at best a disappointment to her Democratic Party Fans. But over the past days, things have worsened, the scandals revealed over the past week may lead the Party establishment to wish they had a "plan b," a candidate to run against the former Secretary of State.

Last week we learned that the Clinton Foundation had gamed the ethics system and accepted donations from foreign governments despite having made a public display of not doing so. Even though the Foundation had agreed not to accept such donations while Mrs. Clinton was serving as Secretary of State there was only one case where the State Dept. objected.

And as soon as Clinton left office the money from foreign governments including the likes of Qatar and Algeria with whom she had close dealings during her term at foggy bottom, despite the fact that she (and everybody else in the world) knew she was going to run for president.

A stunning report by the New York Times yesterday reveals that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not have a government email account, she used a personal email account which was not only a security violation but her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

Not only did she use a personal account but "coincidentally" that personal account was set up the day of her Senate confirmation.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Today the AP reported that she set up her own email server in her New York home to handle her emails.  Its hard to ignore that with premeditation Clinton was trying to hide her mail.

Now put that on top of Benghazi and other apparent cover-ups during her State Dept. tenure, and don't forget the scandals during her period of First Lady including the Rose Law Firm billing records and her "luck" in the cattle futures market.
On April 11, 1994, The Clinton White House Acknowledged That Most Of Clinton’s Profitable Trades In Cattle Futures Were Placed By Clinton Ally Jim Blair, After Initially Saying That Clinton Made Her Own Trades With Blair Serving As An Advisor. “The White House said today that most of the commodity orders by which Hillary Rodham Clinton turned $1,000 into nearly $100,000 in the 1970′s were placed by James B. Blair, a friend and lawyer for the Tyson Foods Company, whose role Clinton Administration officials had previously described as only an adviser to Mrs. Clinton.” (Robert D. Hershey Jr., “Friend Did Futures Trades For Hillary Clinton,” The New York Times, 4/11/94)

In Her First Investment, Clinton Was Able To Order 10 Cattle Futures – Normally A $12,000 Investment – With Just $1,000 In Her Account And Turned Her Initial Investment Into $6,300 Overnight. “Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday. The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight.” (Charles R. Babcock, “Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed,” The Washington Post, 5/27/94)
Despite Hillary's apparent ownership of the nomination, the Democratic Party may be scurrying for an different candidate. After all she has no apparent successes running the State Dept., but many failures which can be pointed toward her including Ukraine and ISIS. Her baggage of scandal during her state tenure is getting very heavy, and that baggage is sitting on top of her scandals as First Lady. All together Clinton's baggage may finally out weigh what to the Democrats is seemingly her number one selling point, she has lady parts.

Arab World Praises Netanyahu's Congressional Speech

While congressional Democrats and others in the progressive movement attacked Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech on Tuesday, the reaction in the Arab world was much more positive.

The day before the speech, columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj wrote in the Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah
Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.'s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu's firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration's anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu's conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents

After Bibi's Address Faisal J. Abbas Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English began his commentary with, "It is extremely rare for any reasonable person to ever agree with anything Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says or does." He then goes on to praise Netanyahu and rebuke Obama:
However, one must admit, Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran.

The Israeli PM managed to hit the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that “terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum” during a recent ceremony held in Tel Aviv to thank outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz for his role during “challenging” times.

In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region. What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei.

Federal Judge Blasts EPA: Stop Insulting Me With Your Lies

In a Monday ruling, Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, accused the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of lying to the court, displaying “apathy and carelessness” in carrying out the law.

In a suit filed in July 2014, Landmark Legal, whose President is Mark Levin of talk radio fame, accused the EPA of destroying evidence requested via an earlier Freedom of Information act request:
​Landmark Legal Foundation today asked Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth to sanction the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for destroying or failing to preserve emails and text messages that may have helped document suspected Agency efforts to influence the 2012 presidential election. Landmark’s request is the latest move in the Foundation’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to force the Agency to release emails, text messages and other materials from former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and others who may have delayed the release dates for hot button environmental regulations until after the November 6, 2012, presidential election. Jackson, Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe, and other Agency officials admitted in depositions that they used their personal, nongovernmental email accounts and text messages sent and received on government-issued BlackBerries and smart phones to conduct official EPA business. The EPA was obligated under federal law to preserve and search those private emails and text messages for information Landmark is seeking, but the Agency failed to do so.
As reported in the Washington Times:
Judge Lamberth described the “absurdity” of the way the EPA handled a Freedom of Information Act request from the Landmark Legal Foundation and then the court case stemming from it — including late last week admitting it lied to the court about how it went about searching for documents.

In a scorching 25-page opinion, the judge accused the agency of “insulting” him by first claiming it had done a full search for records, then years later retracting that claim without any explanation.

“The recurrent instances of disregard that EPA employees display for FOIA obligations should not be tolerated by the agency,” the judge said in a 25-page ruling. “This court would implore the executive branch to take greater responsibility in ensuring that all EPA FOIA requests — regardless of the political affiliation of the requester — are treated with equal respect and conscientiousness.”
The judge chastised EPA Official Eric W. Wachter for providing, "false information to the court, then the EPA tried to withdraw it on Friday, though never explained how it got things wrong in the first place nor why it waited years to admit it had lied to the court."
Landmark, a conservative public interest legal group, filed a request in 2012 trying to see what outside groups EPA officials had been speaking with as they wrote new rules and regulations.

EPA slow-walked that request, Landmark sued, and the matter has been in front of the courts ever since.

Just Lamberth said at several turns, the EPA was either lying or terribly incompetent in how it handled the situation, both in terms of the search it performed and how it responded to the court case.

“Either EPA intentionally sought to evade Landmark’s lawful FOIA request so the agency could destroy responsive documents, or EPA demonstrated apathy and carelessness toward Landmark’s request,” Judge Lamberth said. “Either scenario reflects poorly upon EPA and surely serves to diminish the public’s trust in the agency.”
Ouch! That had to hurt. Those are strong words by a judge to any organization but especially to an administration that once promised to be the most transparent in history.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Dems Answer Bibi: F**k Israel! The Jews Will Vote For Us Anyway

The Reaction from the Democrats was quick and vile, while the Prime Minister of Israel build a case about what was wrong with the proposed deal, the Democrats called him names, put words in his mouth saying things he didn't say. The message was clear,"F**k Israel! the Jews will vote for us anyway."

Not one recognized Iran was a existential threat to Israel and the Jewish people. It started with John Yarmuth (D-KY) who spoke first but there was a line of Democratic Party members waiting to attack Netanyahu after he was done:
"I would like to congratulate speaker Boehner and Prime Minister Netanyahu on a very impressive bit of political theater. Now the prime minister can go home to his campaign and say he lectured congress and the American people on things that apparently we didn't know."
But defying logic Yarmuth went ahead and listed things Netanyahu was lying about..despite the fact that he just said Bibi didn't say anything he didn't know about. He called the speech "straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook. It was mongering at its ultimate." He ended with "Prime Minister Netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable deal was the perfect deal or an ideal deal. It's like the child who says I want to go to Disneyland every day, eat ice cream and drink Coca-Cola every day and not going to school." Actually Netanyahu didn't say it had to be a perfect deal, he said it shouldn't be a bad deal...something many in congress including Senator Menendez agree with. 

Yarmuth turned the microphone over to David Price (D-NC) who observed that free speech is not allow in the US Congress:
And Prime Minister Netanyahu should not have accepted this invitation, which was extended without the usual consultation of bipartisan leadership and the normal notification of and consultation with the president. For these reasons, the invitation and the speech set a dangerous precedent wheres about congressional leaders can invite a foreign politician to publicly oppose the policies of the sitting president on the house floor. In doing so, we not only tarnish the grand tradition of the joint session.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) called the address “an affront to the president of the United States, to the Democratic leadership of Congress and the Department of State,” while Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) sought to throw doubt on Netanyahu’s security acumen by mocking his support for the Iraq War more than a decade ago.

Saddam Hussein’s removal would have “enormous positive reverberations on the region,” Netanyahu told Congress in 2002. “The big winner of the Iraq war was Iran,” Schakowsky said Tuesday. Perhaps she should tell that to all the members of congress who voted for the Iraq war (including John Kerry).

There was more to that line of Democratic hit men, but separately House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi talked about almost being brought to crocodile tears. She released a statement saying:
That is why, as one who values the U.S. – Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.
Even the Democratic Party media attacked. In the video below provided by Digitas Daily, we see Chris Matthews, Mr. Tinkle Down My Leg, get practically apoplectic about the Netanyahu speech.

These and other messages from Democratic sources were clear.  We only like Israel when Barack Obama likes Israel, we don't care that the administration is making a bad deal with Iran. F**k Israel, no matter how we screw her, those Jews are going to vote for the Democrats anyway.