[VIDEO] Hillary ‘Hissy Fit': ‘I Wouldn’t Get Down In The Mud With Republicans’, Claims She’s Being Investigated Because Of ‘Politics’

In an angry moment at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding on Friday, Hillary Clinton said she will not “get down in the mud” with Republicans who she claims are trying to exploit her use of a private email server and the Benghazi attacks for political gain.

“[Republicans will] try to tell you this is about Benghazi, but it is not,” Clinton told an audience at the event, her voice fraught with anger and her finger wagging in the air.

“Benghazi was a tragedy. Four dedicated public servants lost their lives,” she added. “And we have to be focused on how to prevent future tragedies.”

She said that seven congressional investigations have “already debunked all of the conspiracy theories” about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

It’s not about Benghazi,” Clinton bellowed to applause.

“And you know what, it’s not about emails or servers, either,” she continued. “It’s about politics.”

Clinton’s remarks are her most direct and hostile on the issue of her private email and private server use. The aggression comes at the same time that the FBI has opened an investigation into the server she used as secretary of state. The FBI seized the server this week from Platte River Networks, a Denver-based cybersecurity company Clinton hired in 2013 to manage the system.

But Clinton, as she’s done all throughout the scandal, which commenced in March due to the investigative work of the Republican-controlled House Select Committee on Benghazi, tried to portray herself as taking a proactive part in the inquiry. She said that she has insisted that the State Department publish the 55,000 pages of emails she turned over in December “as soon as possible.” She also said that she has offered to answer questions before Cognress “for months.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

'Script Won't Go According to Plan': Drip, Drip, Drip of Hillary Email Scandal Puts Dems In Near-Panic Mode

Democratic insiders haven't hit the panic button yet, but Hillary Clinton's burgeoning scandal over her use of a private email server while secretary of state is leaving them with a bad case of political heartburn.

In interviews Thursday, Democrats based in Washington insisted that their faith that Clinton would win the party's 2016 nomination and be elected president hasn't been shaken. But when a campaign holds an emergency conference call with party insiders and media surrogates to quell nerves and offer messaging guidance, as Team Clinton did late Tuesday evening, people are bound to worry that a situation dismissed as Republican shenanigans might be worse than feared.

"There's a little nagging worry in Democrats that probably won't go away and probably will only grow larger," Jimmy Siegel, a Democratic strategist who produced campaign ads for Clinton's 2008 presidential bid, told the Washington Examiner. The concern is "that somehow, some way, the script won't go according to plan."

"It is concerning to watch the drip-drip-drip of the story, with the 'it's nonsense' response from the campaign," added a Democratic operative backing Clinton. "It feels terrifyingly similar to the partisan dynamics of the Swift Boat mess of 2004. I really hope I'm wrong."

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

Report: Democrats in panic over Hillary Clinton’s criminality

 Actually, they are in a near panic over her getting caught as they have been fine with her criminality for a couple of decades. From The Hill, Dems near Clinton panic mode:

Democrats are worried that the furor over Hillary Clinton’s private email server will be prolonged and intensified after her sudden move to hand it to the FBI.

The Clinton campaign’s decision to give up the server and a thumb-drive containing back-up copies of emails left Democrats scratching their heads as to why the former secretary of State had resisted turning over the server for months.

Coupled with new polls that suggest Clinton is vulnerable, Democrats are nearing full-on panic mode.

“I’m not sure they completely understand the credibility they are losing, by the second,” said one Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “At some point this goes from being something you can rationalize away to something that becomes political cancer. And we are getting pretty close to the cancer stage, because this is starting to get ridiculous.

…

Separately, Media Matters for America — the liberal watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock — sent out a statement under the subject-line “Myths and Facts about Hillary Clinton’s email.” The first fact it listed was that “none of the emails sent to Clinton were labeled as classified or top secret.”

It goes without saying that aging pederast David Brock’s nasty little neo-Nazi propaganda machine is just an arm of the Clinton machine. But I was intrigued as to what possible defense they could offer. These are their points. I’m not providing a link because I don’t link to hate sites.

Rarely does one encounter such a brazen example of lying. Actually not a single fact in this is true.

Fact. At least two documents were imagery from the Talent Keyhole satellite and they were clearly marked.

Fact. Retroactive classification aside (though the Obama administration persecuted NSA whistleblower Tom Drake by retroactively classifying documents), the documents in question were and remain highly classified.

Fact. Actually the experts cited only debunked a comparison IF Hillary unknowingly stored classified information. That is not the case.

Fact. The only kind of referral from an Agency IG to the FBI is a criminal referral. The FBI does not investigate acts which are only administrative glitches. In fact, the initial Justice Department press release called it a “criminal referral” before Hillary’s campaign strong-armed the agency into calling it a “security referral for counterintelligence purposes.”

The problem for the Democrat establishment is getting more interesting by the day. The national mood demands change but their front runners are white, social security eligible, party apparatchiks who haven’t had an original thought in decades. The nation distrusts government and 57% of the nation doesn’t trust Hillary Clinton (I don’t even want to imagine where they found the 43% who do). Other polls find that in swing states EVERY GOP CANDIDATE either lead Hillary or is well with the MOE of the poll. More importantly, the nation is united in its dislike of Clinton:

This profile with a burgeon investigation that dovetails nicely with your main weakness is not what any candidate needs. While I’m stocking up on popcorn, the Democrats find themselves very late in the election cycle with a candidate who isn’t liked, isn’t trusted, and may very well see her inner circle indicted if she isn’t indicted herself. Do they convince her to step aside? Do they encourage more palatable alternatives to get in the race? Do they pull a Torricelli at some later point and replace her with another nominee? The only thing certain is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see how Clinton stays in the race much less wins the White House…unless the GOP does what it does best…

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Poll shows support for criminal investigation into Clinton's email use

A majority of American voters supports a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's personal email account.

Though roughly half of voters (51 percent) believes Clinton's private email use during her time as secretary of state was mainly a matter of convenience, 52 percent also say her emails should be subject to a criminal investigation into the potential release of classified material, according to a new Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-eight percent of those voters believe Clinton has something to hide, with 68 percent of Republicans being more likely to believe this notion than 80 percent of Democrats who believe it was a matter of convenience.

Most Republicans, 82 percent, support a criminal investigation, compared to 66 percent of Democrats who are opposed.

"Initial media reports of a criminal probe proved to be inaccurate, but most voters feel that the potential release of classified information merits investigation," Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a statement.

The poll also found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats (87 percent to 56 percent) to have heard much about Clinton's use of private emails. Overall, 61 percent of voters have heard about the story.

The telephone poll of roughly 1,000 registered American voters was conducted July 30-Aug. 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....

Black Skin Privilege: Justifying Voter Fraud

Editor’s note: The following is the fourth article in the FrontPageseries “Black Skin Privilege,” based on the Freedom Center pamphlet “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream” by David Horowitz and John Perazzo. (Read Part I here, Part II here, and Part IIIhere.)

Black Americans today receive preferential treatment in the realm of elections and voting rights because the Left needs them to acquire and keep political power.

To left-wingers it’s 1815, not 2015. Blacks today are unquestionably full citizens unhindered by officially sanctioned discrimination, but to the Left there are still crosses burning in front of black families’ houses while residents cower in terror inside.

It’s a nefarious but brilliant strategy that relies on Republican cowardice.

When “Democrats turn election process rules into racial issues, they know they can get Republicans to shut up and capitulate, no matter how phony the civil rights branding,”writes former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams.

“The Left understands the interaction of culture with process,” he adds. “The Left knows that new election process rules act as a new set of sails to capture cultural prevailing winds favorable to Democrats.”

In other words, process is power.

America’s Fearmonger-in-Chief is always spreading alarm about a phony Republican push that threatens to prevent African-Americans from participating in the democratic process. A year ago Obama told Al Sharpton’s group that:

The principle of one person, one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo. You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore. But the stark, simple truth is this: The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago. 

Across the country, Republicans have led efforts to pass laws making it harder, not easier, for people to vote. In some places, women could be turned away from the polls just because they’re registered under their maiden name but their driver’s license has their married name. Senior citizens who have been voting for decades may suddenly be told they can no longer vote until they can come up with the right ID. In other places, folks may learn that without a document like a passport or a birth certificate, they can’t register.

Obama, as usual, is lying

Obama, as usual, is lying 

It is his party that is assaulting voting rights by aggressively encouraging vote fraud. Democrats oppose photo ID requirements for voting because such laws discourage non-citizens, illegal aliens, disenfranchised criminals, and con artists from voting. Democrats want voting rights restored to disqualified felons—many of whom are black—because they vote for Democrats at a rate of 9 to 1. They support same-day registration because it makes fraud easier.

Democrats in Oregon and Washington State have opened the door to endless fraud in those states by forcing everyone to vote by mail. These postal voting systems effectively abolish the secret ballot because bureaucrats tallying the paper ballots get to see how citizens voted.

Letting Election Day stretch to a month or two, Adams notes, “doesn’t facially help Democrats, unless you understand the intersection of culture and election process rules—and the importance of monitoring the mechanics of elections.” He continues:

Month-long elections give Democrats the ability to get the unmotivated to the polls. More importantly, it allows the Democrats to conduct a prolonged election free from the watchful eyes of election observers in cities where nearly everyone is a Democrat. Six weeks of early voting is unmanageable in places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities notorious for election crimes.

Democrats don’t want to make voting as easy as mailing a letter or ordering a pizza because they want America’s storied democracy to flourish. As whites continue to flee the party of Obama, Democrats know their party is doomed without continued heavy African-American backing. Without this very strong super-majority support from the black community, the Democratic Party might well join the Whigs and the Know Nothings on the ash heap of history.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

5 Things We Learned From Claire McCaskill’s Memoir

McCaskill’s new book, “Plenty Ladylike: A Memoir,” was released on Tuesday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill’s new memoir, “Plenty Ladylike: A Memoir,” dropped on Tuesday, revealing anecdotes from her career in politics in Missouri’s state capitol and the nation’s.

Aside from deeply personal anecdotes and some local intrigue, McCaskill shed light on the inner workings of two nationally watched U.S. Senate campaigns and her dealings with other women in politics.

1. McCaskill used more than just ads to prop up Todd Akin: McCaskill’s behind-the-scenes support for Rep. Todd Akin in advance of the 2012 Missouri Republican primary has been well documented. In her book, McCaskill writes that with the $1.7 million her campaign spent in the four weeks before the primary on a dog-whistle campaign to help Akin, she actually spent more than Akin’s campaign did during his entire primary campaign.

But, McCaskill’s support ran much deeper than that.

When Akin’s campaign swapped out a successful campaign commercial that featured former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and replaced it with one featuring Akin talking to the camera about “flames of freedom,” his numbers started to dive.

Akin ran against McCaskill in 2012. (File Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images)

“What were they thinking?” McCaskill wrote. “He’d be in trouble if he didn’t get the Huckabee ad back up.”

To get that message to Akin, McCaskill writes that she used a back channel through Michael Kelley, a St. Louis Democratic and labor activist, to get the message to a top Akin campaign official. She was able to put the Akin campaign in touch with her own pollster, Boston-based Tom Kiley, who she allowed “to speak in broad generalities” about his numbers on the ad’s success.

“There hours later the Huckabee ad was back up,” McCaskill wrote.

When asked by someone else later about her help in the primary and then when she helped keep him stay in the race amid pressure to get out after his infamous “legitimate rape” comment, McCaskill writes that Akin said, “sometimes God uses the devil in his plans.”

2. McCaskill chatted with Obama about not even running for re-election: Before Akin, McCaskill was seen as one of the most vulnerable incumbents in 2012. In the summer of 2011, McCaskill writes that she went to lunch with President Barack Obama at a private dining room in White House where she told him, “I’m thinking about not running.”

Obama promised not to repeat the mistake he made in 2010. (File Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Obama, whom McCaskill had endorsed in 2008, talked her out of it, she wrote — adding that the president pledged to avoid the Missouri misstep he made in 2010 while campaigning for Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan in saying, “I need another vote,” which Republican Roy Bluntsuccessfully used to paint her as “Rubber-stamp Robin” for the president.

Despite Obama’s personal support for her, McCaskill writes that his campaign, through campaign manager Jim Messina, informed her at a meeting of the Senate Democratic Caucus that the Obama campaign would not be spending money on a Missouri ground game in 2012, prompting her to walk out of the meeting, “my eyes welling up, as frustration overwhelmed me.”

“I stuck my neck way out, I took huge risks, I have been loyal… and you guys are not going to lift a finger in Missouri,” she writes that she asked Messina. According to her account, he responded, “Claire, can we win in Missouri?”

“Point made,” she wrote.

3. Reid, Schumer relentlessly courted her to run in 2005: Just a couple months after McCaskill lost her 2004 election for governor against Republican Matt Blunt, McCaskill writes that she started getting call from Senate Democratic leaders like Harry Reid and Charles E. Schumer. They wanted her to run against Republican Sen. Jim Talent in 2006.

Schumer told McCaskill that she negotiated “like you’re from Brooklyn.” (File Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

“My first reaction to all the calls? Out of question. No way. Not happening,” she wrote.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee conducted a poll that summer that found McCaskill on top. She writes that her husband, Joseph Shepard, was convinced she should run. By then, Reid himself started calling Shepard to plead his case.

McCaskill and her husband went first to the DSCC’s annual retreat in Nantucket, Mass., (where she says Shumer paid her a compliment, “Claire, you negotiate like you’re from Brooklyn”) and then to Washington, where they met with then-Sen. Barack Obama.

The two were sold.

4. McCaskill has clashed with Ann Wagner before: Rep. Ann Wagner — the Missouri Republican elected in 2012 who is considering a campaign next cycle for McCaskill’s seat — has clashed repeatedly with her throughout the last two decades.

Wagner is considering a run for McCaskill’s seat. (File Photo by Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The two crossed paths very publicly in 2000, when Wagner was the chair of the Missouri Republican Party. At the time, she writes, a party spokesman penned a press release in which he said McCaskill let “Democrats parade her around like a cheap hooker” to help the party’s nominee for governor at the time. Wagner, she writes, said the spokesman’s “remark was wrong but that they had no plans to fire him.”

The tables were turned four years later, when it was McCaskill’s successful primary election challenge to the state’s sitting governor that was controversial, and Wagner used the party’s divide to help Matt Blunt get elected governor.

5. McCaskill reveals private meals with women senators: McCaskill praises her female colleagues as the Senate’s top compromisers, and notes that all of them meet regularly for “civility dinners.”

Mikulski started the women senators’ meals in 1992 . (File Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

“There is no fancy menu and no long cocktail hour. They’re a chance for us to talk about the issues of the day,” she writes, adding that in that room is where compromises have been discussed on human trafficking legislation, foreign adoption reform and efforts to avoid a government shutdown.

The dinners, founded by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski in 1992, were attended by Hillary Clinton when she was in the Senate.

“She was the only one of us who had a Secret Service detail, the only ones who had been first lady of the country, who had traveled places with a much more rarefied atmosphere than even the U.S. Senate. But she never put on airs,” McCaskill wrote. “She was kind and personable, and she was one of us.”

While spouses and staff members are not invited to the dinners, McCaskill writes that the women of the Supreme Court are invited to attend once a year.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading.....

State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson

WASHINGTON — For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson, for his visionary expression of the concept of equality, and Andrew Jackson, for his populist spirit and elevation of the common man.

Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future.

But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history. And state by state, Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat.

Continue reading the main story

RELATED COVERAGE

• Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Will Be RenamedAUG. 8, 2015

• 
  

  Who Is Running for President?JAN. 30, 2015

The Iowa Democratic Party became the latest to do so last weekend, joining Georgia, Connecticut and Missouri. At least five other states are considering the same change since the massacre in June at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C.

“The vote today confirms that our party believes it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality,” said Andy McGuire, the Iowa Democratic chairwoman.

For all the attention this summer to the fight over the Confederate battle flag, the less noticed moves by Democratic parties to remove Jefferson and Jackson from their official identity underscore one of the most consequential trends of American politics: Democrats’ shift from a union-powered party organized primarily around economic solidarity to one shaped by racial and sexual identity.

The parallel forces of class and identity, at times in tension and at times in unison, have defined the Democratic Party in recent decades. But the country’s changing demographics, the diverse nature of President Obama’s coalition and the animating energy of the Black Lives Matter movement have also thrust fundamental questions about race, gender and economic equality to the center of the Democratic presidential race.

The shift can be seen as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a Democratic socialist whose campaign is shaped by class-oriented progressive politics, has been confronted by black activists demanding answers for how he would address inequities they believe are derived entirely from racial discrimination. Mr. Sanders, who is 73, is trying to adjust to a changing party, sometimes uncomfortably. He is now speaking more explicitly about policing, has hired an African-American spokeswoman and has added more diversity on stage at his heavily attended rallies.

The move to erase Jefferson and Jackson is not being welcomed by all Democrats. Some of them fear the party loses what has long been its unifying philosophy by removing the names of founders, whose virtues and flaws illuminated the way forward. And they worry that as the labor movement declines, cultural liberalism is beginning to eclipse a fundamental message of economic equality that brought about some of the party’s most important achievements, from the New Deal to Medicaid.

Via: New York Times

Continue Reading....

'Pro-Science' Democrats Reject Biotechnology

I crush GMOs!

Imagine if Congress voted on whether or not to teach evolution and climate change in school. And imagine that 73% of Republicans voted against it. The backlash would be easy to predict: The national media, and science journalists in particular, would spend a week making somber declarations of impending educational and scientific collapse that would reverberate across the cosmos.

As it so happens, Congress did just vote on something of tremendous scientific importance: Biotechnology. And, as it so happens, 73% of Democrats voted against the bill. Yet, the national media remained deafeningly and hypocritically silent. 

On July 23, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 1599, that, among other things, would block states from requiring foods containing genetically modified ingredients to carry special labels. From a scientific viewpoint, this is the correct policy. Yet, the Democratic Party, which has branded itself the "pro-science" party over the last two decades, overwhelmingly opposed it.

Why? Well, it's hard to say, though the fact that places like the GMO-hating Whole Foods tending to be located in counties that voted for Barack Obama might have something to do with it.

In the final vote tally, 94% of House Republicans supported the bill, while a stunning 73% of Democrats voted against it. Even Democrats who represent districts with a large biotechnology constituency voted against the bill: Nancy Pelosi (CA-12), Jackie Speier (CA-14), Mike Honda (CA-17), and Anna Eshoo (CA-18) -- all from the Bay Area -- as well as Boston's Michael Capuano (MA-7) and Stephen Lynch (MA-8) and Seattle's Jim McDermott (WA-7).

The vote pattern made it abundantly clear: On the needlessly hot-button issue of genetic modification, Democrats sided with fearmongers and organic foodies, while Republicans sided with the medical and scientific mainstream.

And yes, just like vaccines, evolution, and anthropogenic climate change, GMOs are mainstream and non-controversial in the scientific community. Indeed, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (PDF) -- organizations that represent our nation's finest doctors and scientists -- reject GMO labels.

But don't just take their word for it. A massive literature review published in 2013 in the journalCritical Review of Biotechnology, which examined 1,783 papers on the topic, found that GMOs were safe for humans and the environment. In other words, the scientific community is solidly united behind the science of genetic modification; in fact, the toxic C-word, "consensus," is entirely appropriate.

Unfortunately, Democratic politicians aren't the only ideologues who are opposed to GMOs. The $72-billion organic food industry is, too. And anti-GMO activists, such as Gary Ruskin, use the legal system to harass academic scientists. His group, U.S. Right to Know, abuses FOIA requests in order to smear the reputation of honest biotech scientists. And who serves on hisBoard of Directors? None other than former Democratic Party apparatchik, Lisa Graves, who is now Executive Director of the far left-wing propaganda outlet, Center for Media and Democracy.

Our food is precious. Labels are meant for nutritional and health purposes, not for scoring political points against Monsanto or buttressing Luddite protests against biotechnology.

Let us hope that President Obama and the U.S. Senate can unite behind a bipartisan victory for science and approve the House bill.

Via: Real Clear Science

Continue Reading....