Friday, September 4, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016
Delusional, morally bankrupt, self-obsessed Hillary Clinton—a metaphorical modern day power-obsessed Lady Macbeth (with the same self-destructive [political] behavior) is the poster child of the dictionary definition of treason: a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state and the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. (Indeed, staffers should have known something was amiss when the Clinton’s movers snatched everything not nailed down when the Clintons left the White House—the people’s house—the first time.) Yes, people of Hillary’s ilk live by a single axiom: numero uno first, last, and always.
Clearly, Mrs. Clinton exists in the rarefied air of ruling class elitists: millionaires and billionaires, and former and future U.S. Presidents. Therefore, the rule of law (and not the fickle dictates of distant kings and emperors for which the American Revolution was fought) is not for her. It is something only to penalize the rest of us—the “little people” laboring in the hamster wheels of part-time jobs (sans health insurance due to Obamacare regulations)—to pay the 18 trillion dollar tab (and counting) of their largesse. We should be grateful for she who would stoop to rule us.
Under Congressional questioning, recall her petulant knee-jerk response to four murdered Americans (including one U.S. Ambassador) in Benghazi when she raged “what difference, at this point, does it make?” Therefore, her callous, blasé attitude (and her recent smarmy joke about using the Snapchat app and automatically deleting emails) is just par for the course. Mrs. Clinton sent and received top secret material (of the 20% currently sampled, 305 are classified) across a non-governmental, unsecured, private server (in clear violation of law) that has likely exposed the nation’s vulnerabilities to our enemies. That obliviousness—and the intentional lies of cover-up—are treasonous.
Of this, Watergate reporter Bob Woodward said: “Follow the trail here. There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you’ve got a massive amount of data in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his.” Lesser politicians not abetted by a minimizing hard-left MSM would be doomed.
In any case, ignorance of the law is no defense. A far less dire example; former CIA director and retired general David H. Petraeus who shared classified material with his biographer mistress (who incidentally had a security clearance) got prosecuted for his lack of good judgment. As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Friday, July 31, 2015
I'll be honest, I had no idea this movie was even being made until I saw the trailer -
Holy cow. This may be one Michael Bay movie that I actually put down money to go see (how in the WORLD a movie like this got past the liberal Hollywood gatekeepers, I will never know).
Dana Perino was on "The Kelly File" to talk about the potential impact this movie could have on Hillary Clinton's campaign and she makes some pretty good points about it -
Here's the thing about Michael Bay - critics don't like his movies. Shoot, I don't like his movies. But people go see his movies, regardless of what critics or the Hollywood elites say. Whether it's Pearl Harbor or Transformers or Ninja Turtles (which he only produced but, details), his movies are very successful at the box office. I'm sure plenty of low-info types are going to be looking through their movie options in January (which, there's rarely ANYTHING good playing at the theaters in January. Other than a bunch of pretentious Oscar-bait trash), and they'll be all "Hey - a new Michael Bay movie's out! Let's go see it!" And they will go see this movie. And they will see "This is a True Story." And they will hear the story of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Many of them will be hearing about this for the first time.
Like Dana said, we don't know anything about the movie other than the trailer. Hillary could come out of this looking like a hero or a villain. Or she might not even be mentioned in the movie. But it's an opportunity to get the truth out.
How about you? Will you go see 13 Hours?
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
(Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
Republican lawmakers investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, released a subpoena Wednesday issued to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refuting her claims that she was never subpoenaed.
Clinton used a private email address and a home-based server during her time at the State Department (2009-2013), and investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are trying to piece together what Clinton knew at the time of the attacks.
During an interview with CNN this week, Clinton said everything she did was "permitted," including deleting thousands of emails without turning them over to the government.
"I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me," Clinton said. "Because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it's kind of fun, people get a real-time, behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about."
On Wednesday, the Select Committee on Benghazi released a copy of one subpoena sent to Clinton in March asking for all documents and records related to Libya from emails she sent in 2011 and 2012.
"The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public," committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said in an emailed statement.
"I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy. The committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.
Democrats serving on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are chiding the panel’s chairman for not holding a vote on whether to make public the deposition of Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.
In a statement, the panel’s five Democrats said they are “disappointed” chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) “decided not to hold a vote today on releasing the transcript of Sidney Blumenthal’s deposition, particularly since we have no hearings, interviews, briefings, or other activities on today’s schedule.”
“We believe it is an abuse of power for Republicans to selectively release Mr. Blumenthal’s emails while at the same time withholding the deposition transcript from the American people,” they added.
The statement comes a little over a week after Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the panel’s ranking member, said the select committee would vote today on releasing Blumenthal’s roughly nine-hour, closed-door interview.
But a GOP spokesman for the panel quickly shot down that idea, saying Gowdy had not scheduled anything relative to holding such a vote.
Gowdy and other Republicans have resisted making the deposition public, noting that the select committee hasn’t released the text of any of its previous interviews.
Democrats had expected to lose the vote, being outnumbered on the 12-member committee 7 to 5. But panel member Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) has said the deposition should be public, putting Democrats one vote away from getting it released.
Democrats believe the transcript will show GOP questions during the marathon, closed-door session were mostly political and not focused on the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including an ambassador.
"The fact is that the Select Committee has not held a public hearing in more than five months, and the taxpayers of this nation should be able to see for themselves how far beyond Benghazi the Select Committee has strayed in its glacial, politically-motivated, $3.7 million fishing expedition targeting Secretary Clinton," they said. "We urge Chairman Gowdy to follow the House rules and schedule the vote promptly.”
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Thanks to Tuesday’s State Department document dump, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email server is back in the news. The roughly 3,000 emails that State plopped on the media were among those that Clinton supposedly surrendered before she wiped that server as clean as a chalkboard at the start of class.
But what if that server still brims with Clinton’s emails and other documents?
I strongly suspect that Clinton has erased nothing. Her server is pristine. Hillary and company only say that it has been deleted.
“I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails . . . for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server,” Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, wrote the House Select Committee on Benghazi. “Thus, there are no email@example.com e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized.”
By asserting that contents of the server have been obliterated, Clinton enjoys the political advantage of pretending to delete it: Republicans largely have stopped asking for the device.
Hillary’s server is empty, GOPers think. So, why bother with it?
Instead, Republicans probing Clinton’s role in the Benghazi massacre trust bureaucrats at State to share emails from among those that Clinton hand-picked in the first place. At best, Benghazi Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R–S.C., and others are seeing a subset of a subset of Clinton’s emails.
Meanwhile, my hunch is that Clinton has touched nothing. This leaves her totally immune to federal charges of destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice because she craftily has done no such thing.
“It’s entirely possible that Hillary is lying when she claims to have wiped her server,” former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell tells me. “Her bald claims to have done so seem to have deflected attention from the server and bought her a pass — at a minimum stalling and diverting the substantive investigation.”
The author of "Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice" adds, “If Hillary actually did not erase her own server, and is lying about having done so, she hasn’t actually destroyed evidence. And if her lies were not under oath, she’s not subject to a perjury prosecution. It’s the Clinton version of ‘bait and switch.’”
Monday, June 29, 2015
Monday morning, 22-term Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York, as reported by Tal Kopan at the Politico , said that President ...
A Kentucky Chuck E. Cheese appears to have taken the kid-friendly chain’s “no guns” policy too far, refusing to serve a police officer w...
While NBC’s Today and ABC’s Good Morning America ignored longtime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal testifying before the House Benghazi Commi...
McKinney is about to turn into another Ferguson. Al Sharpton told the USA Today that he’s going there to hold a rally to demand that the...
Eliseo Medina, the International Treasurer/Secretary for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) freely admitted that the ...