Conservative Happenings

Monday, August 17, 2015

Grassley: Clinton's Attorney Doesn't Have Proper Security Clearance to Handle Her Top Secret Emails

By now you know former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had not one, not two, buthundreds of emails containing classified information passing through her unsecure, personal email server. Since the revelations of Clinton's use of a personal server came to light earlier this year, her attorney David Kendall and the law firm he works for have often been consulted by Congress to produce requested email documentation. In fact, Kendall has been in charge of a number of thumb drives containing Clinton's emails, some of which are classified as top secret.

By now you know former Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton had not one, not two, but hundreds of emails containing classified information passing through her unsecure, personal email server. Since the revelations of Clinton's use of a personal server came to light earlier this year, her attorney David Kendall and the law firm he works for have often been consulted by Congress to produce requested email documentation. In fact, Kendall has been in charge of a number of thumb drives containing Clinton's emails, some of which are classified as top secret.

Now that we know Clinton had hundreds of classified documents on her server, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley is pointing out Kendall, and the attorneys he works with on Clinton's behalf, don't have the proper high level security clearance needed to handle top secret, classified information.

"Recent news reports indicate that as Secretary Clinton’s attorney you had a security clearance that was used to possess her official emails. In fact, according to a Washington Post report, the Department of State allegedly instructed you on “appropriate measures for physically securing” her classified emails.[1] However, since that report, the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) notified the Judiciary Committee that at least two emails on Secretary Clinton’s server were – and are – classified at the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) level. Importantly, according to the IC IG and Department of State Inspector General, the emails were classified at that level when created," Grassley wrote in a letter to Kendall Monday (bolding is mine). "In light of that particular classification, which generally requires advanced protocols such as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) and other similar arrangements to possess and view, it appears the FBI has determined that your clearance is not sufficient to allow you to maintain custody of the emails. Consistent with that determination, the FBI is now in custody of not only the thumb drives previously in your possession that allegedly contain all of Secretary Clinton’s emails, but also Secretary Clinton’s personal server that was used to maintain the top secret emails outside of a government facility.

"Further reporting indicates that Secretary Clinton may have provided you copies of her emails in December 2014 and that government officials realized that the emails contained classified information in May 2015 yet the Department of State did not deliver a safe to store the thumb drives until July 2015.[3] Thus, since at least May 2015 and possibly December 2014, it appears that in addition to not having an adequate security clearance, you did not have the appropriate tools in place to secure the thumb drives. Even with the safe, there are questions as to whether it was an adequate mechanism to secure TS/SCI material.[4] Given the importance of securing and protecting classified information, especially TS/SCI material, it is imperative to confirm when, how, and why you, and any of your associates, received a security clearance in connection with your representation of Ms. Clinton and whether it was active while you had custody of Secretary Clinton’s emails," Grassley continued.

Because Clinton's possession of classified information on her personal server has prompted a criminal FBI investigation, Grassley also asked Kendall whether the former Secretary's security clearance has been suspended until the inquiry is over.

Meanwhile, we learned over the weekend that the same prosecutor who built a case against General David Petraeus for improper handling of classified information, is looking at the Clinton case.

Via: Townhall

Maryland’s GOP Governor Larry Hogan: Conservative Getting Things Done

Defeating the political machine in one-party Democratic stronghold Maryland, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan went from nobody to overnight (and still going) sensation among conservatives across the country, especially for Republicans in a state where, aside from a Congressman here and there plus a celebrity governor, Republicans never fared well. With “Change Maryland”, his non-partisan interest group with bipartisan support, Governor Hogan pushed tax and spending cuts, supported education, and killed expensive public projects.

A team player interested not just in furthering his career but helping his fellow Republicans, the son of a former Congressman has invested time and energy improving the Republican brand and increasing GOP outreach to otherwise unknown or untapped constituencies, particularly young voter and minorities. With Republicans nearing majority status in select counties, plus the growing weariness of voters taxed and regulated beyond reason, Hogan declared joyfully on the steps of the state house: “It’s a great day to be a Republican in Maryland”. With majority control over five of nine county executive boards, the new Governor is setting his sights on long-term growth and development for a state which barely survived eight years of uber-liberal Martin O’Malley.

Hogan has issued executive orders to require state officials and legislators to end the endless gerrymandering which marginalizes the most resolute of Old Line State residents. Despite the current push-back from the still Democratically dominated state legislature in Annapolis, Hogan is gaining prestige and strength. People want change, and Hogan is bringing it. One of his most recent and popular measures? Reducing the tolls and fees for Marylanders as well as visitors traversing the state. Following the Baltimore riots, the governor exulted with national press that Baltimore would celebrate its world famous horse race. Residents stepped out to clean up and improve their city. The port of Baltimore is open for business, and bringing in major commerce with the largest shipping firm in the world.

Law and order has become the order of the day under the Hogan Administration, too. Recently, he has shown some muscle against illegal immigration, particularly in cases where a violent crime has occurred, despite the two-to-one Democratic voter registration in the state and previous Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley’s relentless policies to promote illegal aliens and transform them into “new Americans”.

Departing from the previous governor’s policy of non-cooperation, Hogan informed Marylanders that he would change the course of the state’s non-compliance legacy, comply with the federal government, and detain illegal aliens for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The Washington Post reports:

Immigration advocates in Maryland are criticizing a decision by Gov. Larry Hogan to notify federal immigration officials when an illegal immigrant targeted for deportation is released from the state-run Baltimore City Detention Center.

Advocates consider Hogan’s stance to be a departure from the policy of his predecessor, Democrat Martin O’Malley, who last year joined other elected officials in refusing requests from the Obama administration to coordinate with federal law enforcement whenever a detainee was being released.

With a latent political savvy determined not only to thwart amnesty proponents but coalesce widespread general support for his decision, Hogan’s office responded:

When pro-amnesty group CASA de Maryland protested outside Governor Hogan’s mansion, hisoffice released another statement:

The Baltimore City Detention Center is simply complying with a request from the Obama administration in regard to individuals who have already been detained. If CASA has concerns about Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, I would recommend they take those concerns to the White House.

“Priority Enforcement” comes in light of President Obama’s executive amnesty in late November last year, when he announced to the United States that he would defer deportation and permit five million illegal aliens to remain in the country who had not broken any other laws.

Special: Tight Skin With No Surgery - Get Rid of Wrinkles Instantly

What a supreme and gratifying irony: A Republican governor in a deep blue state is enforcing the law,, rounding up illegal aliens who endanger the public; an executive —whoa—enhances public safety all while rebuffing critics by referencing the President’s own unconstitutional order to expand immigration and benefits to illegal aliens. Even the “shrilly, shrilly liberal” Washington Post had to concede to the Republican governor’s “common sense” on immigration.

Following those bold measures, Governor Hogan took unprecedented action and shut down a corrupt, inefficient, and dysfunctional detention center in Baltimore City, too. Fiscal prudent and morally sound, Hogan practices fiscal discipline without sacrificing the safety and security of his citizens. Surviving and thriving in spite of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, the (once considered unlikely) conservative Republican Governor of Maryland has become the face of the growing conservative upswing sweeping the country, a nation fed up with government serving itself instead of taxpayers, hardworking men and women who just want a leader who will get things done.

Via: Canada Free Press

U.S. Foreign Policy Is Overdue For Some Realism

According to a news report, Department of Defense officials admitted the United States might not be prepared to fight a sustained military conflict with Russia. This is not the first time in recent weeks Pentagon officials have raised flags about the Russia threat and the U.S. lack of preparedness to deal with it.

Last month incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford told Senators that Russia posed the greatest threat to the United States. Not mincing words he said, “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia…If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

General Paul Selva, slated to be the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reinforced General Dunford’s analysis during his own confirmation hearing.

For some, the most obvious lesson here is to come up with a plan to deter Russia and make up for the readiness gaps, although these things take years and a big bump in resources to do.

But there’s a deeper, more critical lesson policymakers and voters should not miss, because the United States isn’t flat-footed only when it comes to a potential conflict with Russia. China is also challenging the United States in key areas like cybersecurity and in missile development.

Here’s the problem: since the end of the Cold War the idea of war with modern countries with highly sophisticated militaries with nuclear weapons has seemed so unlikely, if not impossible, that U.S. leaders simply haven’t given it as much thought or devoted the necessary resources to keep elements of the military force, especially the nuclear deterrent, fully modernized.

And, since the Al Qaeda attack on September 11^th, 2001, most defense planning and resourcing has gone towards combatting Islamist radicals in the Middle East at the expense of defense planning for war with state actors.

President Obama’s mocking of Governor Romney’s assessment that Russia is the preeminent geopolitical foe is a well-known example. Another one was back in 2009, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made waves with Senators from both parties when he said Russia and China had the ability to pose mortal threats to the United States.

Why has the mere mention of a threat from Russia or China received such blowback? A big cause is the pervasive belief that modern countries have simply “evolved,” beyond those blood-thirsty eras of the past. But, although technical advancements and cultural shifts make modern countries look quite different than they once did, the nature of international relations evolves no more than the nature of human beings evolves. Some things don’t and won’t ever change. Because human nature doesn’t change, the root causes of war don’t either.

Thucydides, in studying the causes of wars, observed that people are motivated to go to war for a variety of reasons, including “honor, fear, and interest.”

As long as people remain self-interested, it is always possible they will threaten war.

This is the heart of realism. The past 6 years have shown what happens when national leaders formulate security policy based on an idealistic view of people, countries, and international relations.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Secretary Kerry remarked, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” as though Secretary Kerry really believes that the 21^st century ushered in a new era in which land-grabs are simply inconceivable. If Russia believes the net result of annexing Crimea is a boost in national pride, an increase in power, and instills fear in the NATO alliance of which Russia has stated is its number one foe, why wouldn’t it?

Recall another head-scratcher, this one by President Obama in his first U.N. address. He said, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” They can’t? It sure is a pleasant thought—and a quick glance at the global state of affairs shows it has absolutely no basis in reality, and anyone who holds this view should be denied the responsibility of safeguarding the American people.

Now during the nuclear age the stakes have never been higher. American policymakers and strategists must hold a realistic view of people and nations, and return to thinking seriously about deterrence.

In 2009 President Obama laid out his “Prague Agenda” that called for steps that would bring the world down a path to zero nuclear weapons. He proclaimed, “Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century.”

The Prague Agenda is rooted in idealism. It is rooted in the false premises that countries (and therefore, people) are basically good and deserving of equal treatment, and that arms control, not war or the fear of war, keeps nations in place. One can look to the Prague Agenda for what is behind many of the Obama administration’s foreign policy blunders.

For instance, it is what is behind the Iran Deal. In the President’s Prague Speech he said that Iran, seemingly just by way of existing, has a “rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically.” All evidence suggests the entire Iran Deal rests on the belief that despite Iran’s Islamist inclinations and clear objective to become the preeminent power in the Middle East, it will become a beacon of pluralism and human flourishing once flushed with cash and forgiven for its past (and current and ongoing) transgressions.

The Prague Agenda is also what is behind the New START Treaty with Russia, which will further reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Indeed, since the Cold War, the U.S. has cut the arsenal, ceased to test it, and failed to adequately modernize it. In his speech President Obama said the United States would seek to further “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy” and persuade others to do the same-- despite it being in their interest to do the opposite.

This brings us to our modern dilemma that Pentagon leaders are now trying to grapple with. Russia has invaded a sovereign nation, shown blatant disregard for agreements and treaties, moved nuclear weapons front and center in its military strategy, and has even threatened to employ nuclear weapons.

China is also becoming more aggressively expansionist and is in the midst of undergoing its own nuclear and missile modernization program.

Despite the steps President Obama and his Administration took to implement the Prague Agenda, by the time his term expires, there will be more for idealists to do should another idealist enter the White House.

Another idealist might continue to elevate arms control above resourcing the military, might seek to further cut the U.S. nuclear deterrent, continue to delay the promised modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, and continue to prohibit the United States from even the possibility of developing new nuclear weapons necessary for maintaining a credible force.

Meanwhile, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea--- regimes with values very different with those of the United States---will be motivated by “honor, fear, and interest” just as rulers have since the beginning of time. They will pursue military capabilities and strategies that will directly conflict with those of the United States.

What the United States needs in power are realists who understand that given human nature war is always possible and we better earnestly seek to deter the most dangerous kind and prepare to win should deterrence fail.

Via: Real Clear Defense,

CBP: 135 Unaccompanied Children Caught At U.S. Border Per Day in July

(CNSNews.com) - About 135 unaccompanied children, on average, were caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border each day in July, according tothe latest data released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

That is a monthly record for unaccompanied children (UC) apprehensions so far in Fiscal Year 2015.

According to the updated numbers, 30,862 unaccompanied minors have been apprehended at the border so far in FY 2015, which began on Oct. 1. The CBP’s latest numbers run through July 31.

CNSNews.com previously reported that 26,685 unaccompanied children had been apprehended as of June 30, as CBP data showed at the time. This means another 4,177 were caught during the month of July alone, making it the month with the highest number of UC apprehensions so far in FY 2015.

On Monday, Customs and Border Protection released a statement accompanying the release of its updated numbers, which were delayed by website glitches late last week. In the statement, CBP blamed the uptick of UC apprehensions on “poverty and violence” that “continue to worsen” in Central America, as well as smugglers who “often use misinformation about current immigration policies and practices” to convince people to cross into the United States illegally.

“In July, we experienced a slight increase over June in the number of unaccompanied children and family units apprehended,” CBP said.

“Conditions in Central America continue to worsen, especially the poverty and violence in these countries that are the primary push factors. We are aware that smugglers, or ‘coyotes,’ often use misinformation about current immigration policies and practices to lure illegal migrants to employ their services,” the statement continued.

Despite the increase in apprehensions in July, border apprehensions "remain at near historic lows," CBP added, promising to "continue to monitor the situation closely."

Via: CNS News

[VIDEO] Poll: 2% of Americans Believe Hillary Clinton

58% say she knowingly lied about emails

A Fox News poll conducted last week shows only 2 percent of Americans believe Hillary Clinton told the truth about whether emails on her private server contained classified information.

The survey of 1,008 registered voters, conducted between August 11 and 13, showed 58 percent of respondents believe Clinton knowingly lied about her emails, while another 33 percent said they believe there is another explanation. Another 7 percent said they didn’t know if Clinton had lied.

The poll comes as the Washington Times reports that as many as 60 of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server contained classified information.

Via: WFB

With High-Profile Help, Obama Plots Life After Presidency

WASHINGTON — The dinner in the private upstairs dining room of the White House went so late that Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn billionaire, finally suggested around midnight that President Obama might like to go to bed.

“Feel free to kick us out,” Mr. Hoffman recalled telling the president.

But Mr. Obama was just getting started. “I’ll kick you out when it’s time,” he replied. He then lingered with his wife, Michelle, and their 13 guests — among them the novelist Toni Morrison, the hedge fund manager Marc Lasry and the Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr — well past 2 a.m.

Mr. Obama “seemed incredibly relaxed,” said another guest, the writer Malcolm Gladwell. He recalled how the group, which also included the actress Eva Longoria and Vinod Khosla, a founder of Sun Microsystems, tossed out ideas about what Mr. Obama should do after he leaves the White House.

“Where we’ll end up, I don’t know yet,” said Marty Nesbitt, the president’s longtime Chicago friend who is leading an extensive planning effort for Mr. Obama’s library and an anticipated global foundation.

Publicly, Mr. Obama betrays little urgency about his future. Privately, he is preparing for his postpresidency with the same fierce discipline and fund-raising ambition that characterized the 2008 campaign that got him to the White House.

The long-running dinner this past February is part of a methodical effort taking place inside and outside the White House as the president, first lady and a cadre of top aides map out a postpresidential infrastructure and endowment they estimate could cost as much as $1 billion. The president’s aides did not ask any of the guests for library contributions after the dinner, but a number of those at the table could be donors in the future.

The $1 billion — double what George W. Bush raised for his library and its various programs — would be used for what one adviser called a “digital-first” presidential library loaded with modern technologies, and to establish a foundation with a worldwide reach.

Supporters have urged Mr. Obama to avoid the mistake made by Bill Clinton, whose associates raised just enough money to build his library in Little Rock, Ark., forcing Mr. Clinton to pursue high-dollar donors for years to come. Including construction costs, Mr. Obama’s associates set a goal of raising at least $800 million — enough money, they say, to avoid never-ending fund-raising. One top adviser said that $800 million was a floor rather than a ceiling.

So far, Mr. Obama has raised just over $5.4 million from 12 donors, with gifts ranging from $100,000 to $1 million. Michael J. Sacks, a Chicago businessman, gave $666,666. Fred Eychaner, the founder of a Chicago television empire, donated $1 million. Mark T. Gallogly, a private equityexecutive, and James H. Simons, a technology entrepreneur, each contributed $340,000 to a foundation set up to oversee development of the library.

The real push for donations, foundation officials said, will come after Mr. Obama leaves the White House.

Via; New York Times

If Planned Parenthood Loses Government Funding, Here’s a Map of Health Clinics That Could Take Its Place

Two leading pro-life organizations released a map today intended to showcase the thousands of community health care clinics that could step in for Planned Parenthood if it were to lose federal funding.

The map adds to a heated conversation about whether stripping Planned Parenthood of its $500 million annual taxpayer dollars would hurt women’s health care in America, or if women would be better off without it.

Alliance Defending Freedom and Charlotte Lozier Institute, the education arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, identified the different Planned Parenthood locations and community health care clinics across America.

The two groups argue there are plenty of health centers — that also can receive federal funding — to absorb Planned Parenthood’s patients should the organization be defunded by Congress.

“What these graphics put into pictures is what the data has been telling us for a long time,” Casey Mattox, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom who focuses on pro-life issues, told The Daily Signal. “Planned Parenthood is really a small part of the national health care picture in America.”

“Planned Parenthood is really a small part of the national health care picture in America,” @CaseyMattoxADF.

According to data collected by the two groups, there are currently 13,540 clinics providing comprehensive health care for women, versus 665 Planned Parenthood locations.

Community health centers primarily exist to provide comprehensive care tomillions of uninsured, working poor and jobless Americans.

If Planned Parenthood’s federal funding “went away tomorrow,” Mattox argues, the money “would be better used by community health centers and other places around the country that can provide a fuller range of services to women without the ethical challenges that Planned Parenthood presents.”

The effort to defund Planned Parenthood comes after the Center for Medical Progress, a group that opposes abortion, released a series of damaging videos.

The videos show high-ranking Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of tissue from aborted babies and changing abortion procedures to harvest these organs.

The issues raise a host of legal questions and have sparked both state and federal investigations.

Some healthcare experts warn that lawmakers should be careful in punishing Planned Parenthood. These supporters argue community health clinics can’t fulfill the services that Planned Parenthood provides.

“The notion that you could literally overnight defund providers serving a couple million people and think that health centers—even if they’re right nearby, which is not always the case—could just magically absorb patients, I think shows an astounding naivety in healthcare,” says Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.

“You can map all you want and the fact of the matter is health centers are not magicians and health care doesn’t work this way.”

Via: Daily Signal

A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. I HAVE ONE. CAUGHT

Via: The Right Scoop

Monday, August 17, 2015

Popular Posts