How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps by Ann Coulter

Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.

(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure. Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form.

Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”

This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”

Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”

It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.

(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”

Examples:

– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012

(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)

– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013

– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010

I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.

(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible. Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

Examples:

– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015

– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015

– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015

You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

Via: Human Events

Continue Reading.....

RECORD 94,031,000 PEOPLE NOT IN LABOR FORCE

The number of people not in the labor force exceeded 94 million for the first time, hitting another record high in August, according to new jobs data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The BLS reports that 94,031,000 people (ages 16 and over) last month were neither employed nor had made specific efforts to find work in the prior four weeks.

The number of individuals out of the civilian work force represented a jump of 261,000 over July’s record of 93,626,000 people.

August’s labor force participation rate remained at the same level as the prior two months at 62.2 percent, the lowest level seen since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.

The civilian labor force also experienced a slight decline of 41,000 people, compare to July’s 157,106,000 people in the civilian labor force to 157,065,000.

In total 149,036,000 people were employed in August, 8,029,000 were unemployed, and 5,932,000 people who wanted a job.

Overall the Labor Department reported that the economy added 173,000 jobs in August. The unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, lower than July’s 5.3 percent.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

307,000 Veterans May Have Died While Waiting for VA benefits. The VA Status Quo Must Change.

Remember the Department of Veterans Affairs scandal in April, 2014 that exposed veterans had died as a result of waiting for healthcare?

Veterans were placed on fake wait lists and were signed up for ghost clinics and records were manipulated.

Deceit had become the norm in order to make the VA look better in an attempt to not draw attention to the dysfunctional leadership failures running rampant through the bureaucracy.

The result: veterans suffered, veterans died.

Nearly a year and a half later what has changed? Nothing.

CNN has reported that the Veterans Affairs Inspector General has found that roughly 800,000 records and applications were delayed in the VA system for healthcare enrollment.

Of those delayed, 307,000 veterans may have died while waiting on an answer from the VA on their application for benefits.

These aren’t veterans waiting on healthcare appointments who are already in the system, but veterans merely trying to accomplish the first step, applying for VA healthcare.

The investigation additionally discovered that a veteran who died in 1988 still had an unprocessed application in the system 26 years later.

Another veteran had applied for VA healthcare enrollment in 1998 had a “pending” status on his record 14 years later.

The Inspector General also found that due to improper management and marking of unprocessed applications, Veteran Affairs employees had likely deleted over 10,000 applications in the past five years.

The report additionally noted that in 2010, employees concealed veterans’ applications in their desks so they didn’t have to process them at that time.

In standard VA practice, the employees were not recommended to be disciplined for their actions.

Recently Veteran Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald voiced his concern that politics were setting the VA up for failure.

His attempt to shift blame is unacceptable as the VA’s top leader.

Enough with the excuses, veterans deserve better than that.

They deserve the quality and timely healthcare they earned, but sadly are not getting.

It’s time for results, not continual empty rhetoric.

The agency has an annual budget of roughly $160 billion. In 2014 congress gave the VA an additional $16.3 billion to provide veterans with more choice when it came to their healthcare.

The VA manipulated the intentions behind the choice program, making the option virtually impossible for veterans to use. Again, the VA chose to put the agency ahead of veterans well-being.

The VA has evolved into a massive bureaucracy that facilitates an unethical culture that refuses to accept change.

Its leadership climate fosters zero accountability within the department.

A year and a half after the scandal broke, the VA continues to resist reform that will produce effective results.

Enough is enough. The status quo is unacceptable. The VA needs accountably, choice and access for private care options, and a cultural shift that puts veterans first.

VA reform must become a priority now. Veterans have made tremendous sacrifices and put country before self.

They deserve a VA that serves them, not the other way around.

Because as it stands now, the disgusting reality is that our nation’s finest are left to fight for the benefits they’ve earned – some dying without receiving any of them at all.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

[OPINION] Millennials have low opinion of themselves, compared to boomers

Millennials have a relatively low opinion of their generation. They don’t even like the label “millennials” to describe the group they’ve been lumped into, especially when compared to baby boomers, who eagerly self-identify as such.

That’s the finding from the Pew Research Center, whose latest report on generational groups holds a mirror up to each to see how they perceive themselves. The report, released Thursday, says boomers have the strongest generational identity, followed by those in generation X. Only the so-called silent generation seems to identify with its label even less — perhaps because the name has negative connotations.

As for millennials – a highly diverse group of people born between 1981 and 1997 and between 18 and 34 years old – only 40 percent consider themselves part of that generation. A third of older millennials (33 percent) would instead prefer to identify with gen X-ers, who were born from 1965 to 1980 and are now 35 to 50 years old.

Millennials are also more likely to give themselves low rankings in categories such as patriotism, responsibility, willingness to sacrifice, religiousness, morality, self-reliance, compassion and political activism. Fully 59 percent say “self-absorbed” is an apt description of their bunch.

But, hey, they’re young.

Boomers, however, tend to have relatively healthy self-regard, giving themselves better scores in patriotism, responsibility and so on. Only the silent generation -- those born between 1928 and 1945, who are between 70 and 87 years old – gave themselves an even bigger pat on the back.

Carroll Doherty, director of political research at the Pew Research Center, said the survey suggests that boomers like being considered boomers, perhaps because of the catchiness of the alliterative phrase and its descriptive qualities for a group of people whose post-war births created a population bubble. It may also be proof that the field of generational identities involve as much art as science.

“That name has really connected. And the others haven’t, and it’s unclear why,” Doherty.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

[EDITORIAL] Donald Trump's unpresidential campaign: Our view

An important part of the modern presidency is the ability to deal coolly with tough questions from the White House press corps and diplomatically with other world leaders.

But in recent weeks, Donald Trump has been acting more like the angry, impulsive president portrayed byDwayne Johnson in Saturday Night Live's "The Rock Obama" skits. Trump has attacked two of the nation’s most popular and influential television journalists, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly and Univision’sJorge Ramos. And he has lashed out against the governments of China and Mexico.

USA TODAY

Donald Trump is 'bold, provocative': Opposing view

Despite these outbursts — or perhaps because of them — Trump has risen to the top of polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, confounding pundits and deeply worrying the GOP establishment.

What his actions haven’t done, however, is position him to win the presidency, or to govern effectively were he somehow to get elected. In fact, they have done just the opposite by offending many of the people whose support he would need, needlessly provoking fights with important nations and generally coming off as unpresidential.

Are American voters really looking for a president who spends his evenings sending out nasty and petty tweets about journalists rather than, say, working on ways to defeat the Islamic State? That’s exactly what Trump did when Kelly — whom he criticized for her "unfair" questions during last month's first Republican debate —  returned from a summer vacation.

Are Americans really looking for a president whose security detail temporarily ejected a journalist (Ramos) who was attempting to ask about his unworkable immigration plan? Or a president who barred Des Moines Register reporters from some of his events because he didn't like an editorial? (The Register, like USA TODAY, is owned by Gannett.)

The answer is almost certainly not. America once had a president who became consumed with compiling enemies' lists and vilifying his opponents. His name was Richard Nixon.

The point is not that journalists such as Kelly and Ramos need any special sympathy or protection. It’s that a president, a nominee, even a front-runner for the nomination once the field has narrowed, has to do more in the face of hostile questioning than simply resort to name-calling.

Tough questions test a candidate's coolness under fire. They can provide more information about what's on voters' minds than a candidate might receive from sycophantic aides. They go with the territory.

If there was one lesson from President Obama’s 2012 re-election, it was that the next GOP candidate would have to do better with women and minority voters, particularly Hispanics. Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants have left him with an abysmal 14% approval rating among Hispanic voters, according to Gallup. And his ad hominem attacks against Kelly and a career full of chauvinistic comments about women are hardly likely to endear him to female voters.

Positions such as building a massive wall along the Mexican border or imposing a tariff on Chinese goods are designed to rile up frustrated, angry voters. They will not help enact actual policies or deliver results. The Islamic State isn't going stop its reign of terror because President Trump sends out some insulting tweets about its leaders.

Trump knows that in a splintered race for the GOP nomination, he can maintain a lead with as little as 20% support in the polls, which he can get to by saying outrageous things and by proposing impractical policies. But the further along he gets in the process, the more his antics will work against him.

Via: USA Today

Continue Reading.....

[COMMENTARY] Do what it takes to stop gun violence

Last Wednesday, my daughter Alison was brutally struck down in the prime of her life by a deranged gunman. Since that time I have stated in numerous interviews I have done with local, national and international media that I plan to make my life’s work trying to implement effective and reasonable safeguards against this happening again.

In recent years we have all witnessed similar tragedies unfold on TV — the shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona, the massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut and churchgoers in South Carolina. We have to ask ourselves: “What do we need to do to stop this insanity?”

In my case, the answer is, “Whatever it takes.”

I plan to devote all of my strength and resources to seeing that some good comes from this evil. I am entering this arena with open eyes. I realize the magnitude of the force that opposes any sensible and reasonable safeguards on the purchase of devices that have a single purpose: to kill.

That means we must focus our attention on the legislators who are responsible for America’s criminally weak gun laws — laws that facilitate the access dangerous individuals have to firearms on a daily basis.

Legislators like Congressman Bob Goodlatte, who represents Roanoke, Virginia, where this atrocity took place on live television. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Goodlatte has had more than two years to bring up universal background check legislation and other gun violence prevention bills in his committee. He has refused to lead on this issue and has done absolutely nothing to help contain the carnage we are seeing.

On the other hand, Goodlatte had no problem cashing his check from the National Rifle Association during the 2014 election cycle. Shame on him.

But the issue of controlling gun violence is also being hampered by our elected officials on the state level. For example, Virginia state Sens. John Edwards, who represents Roanoke, where Alison and Adam Ward lived, and Bill Stanley, who represents the district where the shooting took place. Edwards’ district also contains the Virginia Tech campus, so he is fully aware of how easy it is for dangerously mentally ill individuals to acquire guns in Virginia. Yet he has been a constant opponent of sensible gun reforms like expanded background checks during his 15-plus years in the Virginia Senate, breaking ranks constantly with his colleagues in Virginia’s Democratic Party.

Via: Courier Post

Continue Reading.....

Obama’s gun law enforcement at work: sell 55 illegal guns, get one year probation

When Shannon Miles walked up behind Harris (TX) County Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth and pumped 15 9mm rounds into him he did so with a weapon he was not allowed to possess. Via Houston Chronicle:

Court records reveal that Miles had a lengthy criminal history. His first reported arrest came in February 2005 for failing to identify and giving false information to police officers. He would be arrested six more times by 2009.

In July 2005 he was arrested by Harris County Sheriff’s deputies for criminal mischief. On Oct. 2, 2005, he was arrested again by Harris County and held for eight days for resisting “arrest, search or transport.”

In 2006 he was arrested for “discharging or displaying” a firearm. He pleaded guilty and was held for 10 days. On May 3, 2007, Jersey Village police arrested Miles for evading arrest. Nine days later he was arrested again for criminal trespassing by Harris County deputies. On Jan. 29, 2009, Miles was arrested for preventing or obstructing officers duties by using force against the officer.

In addition he had been declared mentally incompetent for committing a violent assault:

A man charged with murder in the ambush of a suburban Houston sheriff’s deputy had a history of mental illness and was once declared mentally incompetent, according to authorities and his former attorney.

…

Miles was found to be mentally incompetent in October 2012 and he was sent to North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, Texas.

How does this happen? How does someone who is barred from possessing a firearm suddenly get one? Via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel we get some insight:

In giving probation with no jail time to a Milwaukee man charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them without a license, a federal judge delivered a message:

…

Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.

On Wednesday, he was sentenced. As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading..... 

Could This Be the Scandal That Finally Sinks Hillary Clinton?

Yeah, I know.

Those of us who have been watching politics for the last quarter of a century have asked this question time and again, as the Clintons wriggled out of a dozen different kinds of shady behavior. And each time we think something’s finally going to take them down, they skate. It’s kind of like being a Cubs fan: maybe next year.

But there are five reasons why Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal could finally be the one.

1) It’s not about Bill.

People like Bill Clinton. I don’t really know why; he’s always struck me as a smarmy used car salesmen. But people actually do buy used cars from questionable characters, and the general public somehow likes Bill Clinton and wants to cut him some slack. Sometimes there’s just no accounting for these things.

But Hillary is not Bill. She can’t do that thing where he responds to a scandal with finger-wagging outrage at the unjust accusations one moment, and humble, lip-biting contrition the next, and people buy it. She seems cold and distant, and her lame attempts to laugh off the scandal as a non-issue don’t make her seem buoyantly confident. They just make her seem contemptuous and out of touch.

There are plenty of people—Democratic Party activists, mostly—who have a vested interest in making excuses for Hillary. But she doesn’t have the kind of mysterious charisma that gets her a free pass with the general public.

2) It’s about a real issue.

There were some real issues behind the previous scandals, as we wasted a lot of time explaining to anyone who would listen, which wasn’t many people. But the most famous issue on which the Clintons skated—Bill’s dalliance with a White House intern—seemed like it was all about his personal sex life, not matters of state. So who cared, really?

This scandal is about national security. It’s about Hillary Clinton casually, recklessly mishandling something that was central to her job as Secretary of State: protecting the secrets of the United States. That’s why the latest revelation is so important: that her unsecure homebrew e-mail server was not merely the passive recipient of classified information sent to her by others, but that she used it to 766 Comments containing classified material.

3) It’s about something concrete.

The biggest Clinton scandal by far is the way the family cashed in after Bill left office, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fees and consultancies, far beyond the actual value of any work they provided—money that is obviously being laid down in an attempt to secure access and favors from the Clinton family. And all of that money has been washing around between Bill and Hillary and their foundation, which seems to operate mostly as a family slush fund.

But the thing about influence peddling is that it’s vague and hard to pin down. That’s why people do it. Everybody knows the rules of the game: give money and you get access, you get an ear eager to hear your concerns—but there is never any explicit quid pro quo, no smoking gun that can send anybody to jail. So critics are left pointing to overall patterns that seem suspicious, but it can all just be brushed off as coincidence.

The e-mail scandal is specific and concrete. It’s about a server and a hard drive. It’s about a specific classified message sent at a particular time from a particular e-mail account. It’s a lot harder to explain away.

4) It’s something people have been prosecuted for.

It’s hard to turn back once you’ve made a witch hunt out of mishandling classified information. Too many people have been prosecuted for that under this administration. Most famously, prosecutors went after General David Petraeus for keeping physical notebooks with classified information in his home—which is actually more difficult for our enemies to steal than the contents of a server, which can be hacked remotely. While you might be able to get someone to construct an argumentabout how that case is totally different from this one, it’s a distinction that isn’t going to hold up.

5) It turns Hillary’s big accomplishment into a big liability.

Secretary of State is the only executive office Hillary Clinton has ever held. When she lost the Democratic primary in 2008, this was the position she wanted as her stepping stone back to the presidency. It was an office in which she could rack up experience doing something that seems presidential—dealing with foreign policy—without having to take responsibility for whatever Obama messed up in domestic policy.

This scandal takes the one big thing Hillary Clinton has done in the past ten years to demonstrate her credentials to run for president, and it turns that one big asset into a big liability. It turns her tenure at the State Department into something she cannot mention without raising questions about all the classified information she potentially laid bare to Russian and Chinese hackers.

When it comes to actual prosecution, the Clintons are masters at getting off on a technicality, claiming that they didn’t really violate the strict letter of the law because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. And you know they can afford flesh-eating lawyers who will work every angle for them if this goes to court.

But we also know just how ambitious the Clintons are. We know that the real punishment for them isn’t prosecution or prison. It is being denied access to power. All this scandal really has to do is to make Hillary Clinton look unfit to be commander-in-chief.

After all, nobody can keep getting away with this stuff. It’s all got to catch up with them some time.

Doesn’t it?

Follow Robert on Twitter.

Via: The Federalist

Continue Reading.....

Federal Court: Illegal Immigrant And Convicted Felon Can’t Be Deported Because He’s Transgender

A federal appeals court has ruled that an illegal immigrant and convicted felon can’t be deported back to Mexico because he identifies as a transgender woman, which leaves him vulnerable to torture back in his home country.

Edin Carey Avendano-Hernandez was born male in Mexico, and claims to have been raped by his brothers and suffered other torments. In 2000, he illegally entered the U.S. and took up residence in Fresno, California. Avendano-Hernandez also started taking female hormones and began living openly as a woman in 2005. In 2006, he committed two separate drunk driving offenses, the second of which injured two people and resulted in a felony conviction. After serving a year in jail, he was deported back to Mexico in 2007.

Back in Mexico, Avendano-Hernandez claims to have been subjected to more harassment from family and neighbors and to have been raped by members of the Mexican army. He illegally entered the U.S. again and, after being arrested, petitioned for sanctuary in the U.S. under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that deporting him would violate the CAT because he would more likely than not experience torture at the hands of Mexican authorities.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) both rejected Avendano-Hernandez’s arguments on the grounds that he had committed a serious crime (felony drunk driving) and was not likely to face official torture.

Now, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says Avendano-Hernandez must be allowed to stay in the U.S., because he “more likely than not” will be tortured if returned to Mexico.

Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, chastised immigration officials for improperly handling Avandano-Hernandez’s gender identity.

“The [judge] failed to recognize the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation, refusing to allow the use of female pronouns because she considered Avendano-Hernandez to be ‘still male,’ even though Avendano-Hernandez dresses as a woman, takes female hormones, and has identified as woman for over a decade,” Nguyen’s decision says. “Although the BIA correctly used female pronouns for Avendano-Hernandez, it wrongly adopted the [judge’s] analysis, which conflated transgender identity and sexual orientation. The BIA also erred in assuming that recent anti-discrimination laws in Mexico have made life safer for transgender individuals while ignoring significant record evidence of violence targeting them.”

Nguyen cites the repeated sexual abuse Avendano-Hernandez claims to have endured as evidence of de facto torture, and furthermore concludes that these actions were not crimes committed by individuals but were instead endorsed by the Mexican government.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

EXCLUSIVE: STATE DEPARTMENT WAITED TWO WEEKS TO BARELY COOPERATE WITH HILLARY EMAIL INVESTIGATION

The State Department waited almost two weeks to barely comply with a judge’s order that it cooperate with the FBI in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email use.

In a September 2 letter obtained by Breitbart News, State Department legal adviser Mary McLeod wrote to FBI general counsel James Baker asking FBI investigators to hand over any information that might be relevant to the nonprofit group Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department. McLeod only asked for information that is not already in the State Department’s possession.

Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the State Department to cooperate two weeks ago. McLeod’s one-page letter, signed a full thirteen days after Sullivan’s order, fulfills the absolute minimum level of cooperation mandated by Sullivan’s order. The State Department did not volunteer to help FBI investigators, but merely to send over any new documents before September 14, when the State Department’s status report about its cooperation in the case is due to Sullivan.

Judicial Watch is not impressed.

“It is jaw-dropping that the Obama State Department would wait 13 days to comply with an urgent August 20 federal court order requiring the State Department to coordinate with the Justice Department and FBI about making sure that documents from the seized Clinton email records are searched and produced in our FOIA litigation,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement provided to Breitbart News.

“The bare-bones September 2 letter itself shows that the Obama administration has zero interest in quickly recovering, searching and producing records it seized from Mrs. Clinton. The Obama administration continues to protect Hillary Clinton by cover-up, delay, and inaction.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Police may have video of killers of Illinois cop

Police hunting the killers of an Illinois cop may have caught a break when a resident in the area of the murder turned over security footage that could have captured the individuals responsible.

George Filenko, commander of the Lake County Major Task Force, said during a Thursday afternoon press conference that a “private resident” turned over “home video security footage” Wednesday night that allegedly showed “individuals” in the area where Lt. Charles Joseph Gliniewicz was shot and killed Tuesday morning.

The suspects have been described only in vague terms so far as a black male and two white males. That description is based on what Gliniewicz radioed to his dispatcher before he was killed.

Filenko twice described the development as “significant,” and said the footage had been turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.

“Homeland Security has got advanced equipment,” Filenko said. “This video in particular is on a particular type of hard drive that they have the technology to retrieve it off of.”

Filenko said, in his experience, some home security systems are more advanced than those employed by businesses.

“Some of those are very sophisticated, they’re high-definition security systems,” he said.

While it was initially reported that Gliniewicz was found stripped of his gun, and possibly his pepper spray and police radio, Filenko said Gliniewicz’s gun had been “recovered” and didn’t believe there was now any equipment missing from the scene. While he wouldn’t describe the suspects as “armed,” he still cautioned the public to be wary if they believe they’ve spotted any of them.

“I would consider anybody who murdered a police officer as being extremely dangerous,” said Filenko, who added that there's a "good probability" the suspects are "still somewhere in the area."

Filenko told CNN on Wednesday night that authorities believed the suspects may have been familiar with the area where they encountered and ultimately murdered Gliniewicz.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....