One Group Of Black Voters Trump Will Carry By 100%

On September 16th,Donald Trump became the first presidential candidate ever to visit Miami's Little Haiti community in a town hall setting. If you're moved by Donald Trump in front of a cheering crowd of 20,000 people, just watch him in a small , intimate setting here. Caveat...the video below had some glitches and interference at some very significant points. I'm told it was caused by reporters unplugging their equipment and exiting en masse as soon as some of the speakers stated talking about the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation and how they literally raped Haiti and stole millions of dollars in aid money after the horrendous 2010 earthquake, a story I've covered before.

The vast majority of Haitians both back in Haiti and here in America loathe the Clintons and here's what the community in Little Haiti had to say about that and other subjects to Donald Trump.



The Haitians have largely been a community that resembles some of the European immigrants we took in back in the early part of the twentieth century.As a group they are very much into education, and coming from Haiti, a place where simply making a living is a major test of self-reliance, a number of them have started successful small businesses once they recovered from their shock at the opportunities available in America.

And they'll be voting for Donald Trump. Perhaps when he's president, he really will appoint a special prosecutor and investigate what was done to Haiti by the Clintons. I hope he does.

It takes a special breed of people - and I use the term loosely - to exploit human misery for personal profit the way the Clintons did in Haiti.

Hillary Returns ToThe Campaign Trail...For Now...

Mrs. Clinton, after 3 days of rest has reportedly returned to active campaigning. She's scheduled to hold a campaign event in Greensboro, N.C. and then attend the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute dinner in Washington, D.C.

Clinton, according to spokesman Nick Merrill, spent all three days off at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

According to her doctor, she's just fine.

But that diagnosis hasn't been confirmed by anyone but her private doctor, which raises questions in view of the way this was handled. In fact, numerous other doctors who have observed her are saying something very different,that she has severe health issues.

You'll remember on Sunday, she had to literally be carried to her van and would have fallen on her face if an alert Secret Serviceman hadn't caught her before she hit the ground. She couldn't even walk.

This wasn't the first time this had happened but this was on national TV so the press couldn't very well ignore it.

Clinton’s campaign first released a statement saying the former secretary of state “felt overheated” at the ceremony. But after videos surfaced and went viral online, the campaign released another statement from her private doctor revealing that Clinton had been diagnosed with noncontagious bacterial pneumonia, and that Levaquin had been prescribed for the next 10 days.

By the way, if it's 'noncontagious, how did Mrs. Clinton catch it? That seems to have puzzled a lot of medical professionals out there.

 


Levaquin can have some nasty side effects. There's an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in older patients over 60 years of age. Other side effects can include chest pain and severe dizziness, fainting, fast or pounding heartbeats;sudden pain, snapping or popping sound, bruising, swelling, tenderness, stiffness, or loss of movement in any of the patient's joints; confusion, hallucinations, depression...

Don't some of those symptoms seem to indicate that Mrs. Clinton may have been taking Levaquin prior to collapsing at the 9/11 ceremony?

In any event, as I wrote earlier, she has no choice. She has to keep going. The Clintons have already sold the presidency in advance, collecting hundreds on millions of dollars based on the promise of special favors later from various domestic and foreign sources via the Clinton Foundation,inflated speaking fees and campaign contributions

If she loses, well, that's one thing. It was a bad investment. But if she drops out, these people are going to be knocking on the Clinton's doors wanting their money back, and they don't have it, because a lot of it has either been spent or is locked up in the Foundation.

She has to keep going.

Loretta Lynch Makes It Official...Case Closed

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made it official...all charges regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation is to be closed with no charges.


Which means Mr. Bill is off the hook as well, because that  included the investigation into the criminal collusion between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and large donors including foreign countries who had business pending before the State Department...

Well,that didn't take long did it?

 

The obvious corruption involved is bad enough. But what's worse is that most of Hillary Clinton's supporters don't seem to care.

When Justice Just Is Not

"Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints..." -Mick Jagger,Sympathy For The Devil

"Injustice in the end produces independence" - Voltaire


Well, you can't say I didn't call this one. We no longer live in a country where justice for all means anything.

Hillary Clinton is now officially above the law.

Today FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI would recommend that even though Mrs. Clinton clearly broke the law, she should not face prosecution on criminal charges. And his acrobatics in doing so were something to behold. To summarize, here's what he said:

• He spent the first fifteen minutes or so talking about about how Mrs Clinton broke the law with her private servers, negligently handled classified information including e-mails labeled 'top secret', the highest classification, that she should have known better, that no person in her position should have compromised America's security in that way, that foreign intel services from countries hostile to the U.S. may very likely have hacked her unprotected server.

• That about 800 emails Mrs. Clinton sent to her unprotected private servers contained information that was classified or highly classified at the time they were sent, and another 2000 were up-classified after they were sent. That included eight “Top Secret” chains, 36 with “Secret” information and eight more that were “Confidential.” .

• That the 30,000 work-related emails Mrs. Clinton refused to turn over to the FBI that were deleted illegally by her lawyers on her orders not only violates federal law and the legal agreement Mrs. Clinton signed when she became secretary of state but criminal laws on obstruction of justice

• After spending the first part of his announcement spelling out exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be indicted, Comey dropped the bomb- in spite of her blatant law-breaking, Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, because there's no evidence she intended to compromise national security.

• And to cap it all off, he said that while they will likely recommend criminal prosecution in the future for exactly what Mrs. Clinton did, they won't recommend that Mrs. Clinton be prosecuted.

Let's look at how many hoops Comey was made to jump through here.

For starters, he had to rewrite Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18). Notice what I've emphasized:

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Well, based on what James Comey had to say, Mrs. Clinton blatantly violated federal law here. And we haven't even gotten to the Records Management Act by Federal Agencies, 44 U.S. Code Chapter 31.

She clearly violated § 3101, Records management by agency heads by deleting the e-mails and by, as Huma Abedin admitted under oath, destroying her legally required calendar of meetings and appointments.

§ 3105 - Safeguards, which mandates that the head of a federal agency must establish safeguards against the loss or destruction of federal records, and that 'records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated (accessed by people who shouldn't have them) or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301–3314 of this title.'

And § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records, which speaks for itself.

Mrs. Clinton also likely perjured herself before congress during the Benghazi hearings based on what the FBI director had to say today.

So how did Comey justify saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges? Well, first of all he lied and said he couldn't find any legal precedents. I suppose he never heard of Scooter Libbey, General David Petraeus, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, Edward Snowden and Jonathan Pollard, just to name a few.

And second, he tried to use an old lawyer's trick. He brought up the supposed lack of intent as a reason not to charge Mrs. Clinton in an attempt to divert us from the actual issue, which was criminal negligence.

If a drunk driver runs into another vehicle and kills or injures someone, obviously he or she never intended to do so. Few if any people do, yet they are prosecuted just the same. The laws I've cited above have nothing to do with intent, but with the gross negligence which even James Comey admitted Hillary Clinton was guilty of. That's why congress criminalized gross negligence when it comes to classified material and other official documents.

And intent? Even if it mattered (which it doesn't in this case), illegally destroying e-mails, putting together illegal private servers in the first place, and as even Comey admitted, failing to turn over a number of e-mails when required to certainly looks like intent, at least in my universe.

And James Comey knows this very well. So why the bizarre performance today? Why not just say that based on his investigation, there was no grounds to prosecute instead of spending a quarter of an hour telling the nation exactly why Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted before telling us he had no intention of recommending that course of action? Besides, shouldn’t the FBI let the prosecutor decide that without tainting their reputation? Why not just turn over the evidence and usurp the Department of Justice's function?

It's really not that difficult to figure out, at least the way I see it.

The fix was obviously in for some time, and James Comey was fully aware of it. I'm not sure what kind of horse's head the Obama Administration and the Clintons put in Comey's bed to get him on board, but it must have been substantial. And to add to that, he was likely told that even if he did recommend prosecution, Loretta Lynch was going to see to it that it never went anywhere. So why destroy himself for nothing?

 

Meanwhile, he probably felt he had to make at least some attempt to try to redeem his own honor and that of the FBI, so he actually conducted an investigation to keep his agents' morale up... and to send a message to the American people that regardless of the decision he was forced to make, Hillary Clinton really was guilty as charged. That, I think, is why he took the time to essentially make the case for indicting her before swallowing the bitter pill at the end. I'm guessing a bit here, but I wouldn't be surprised if that part of Comey's act was not exactly in the script and he might end up resigning after a few months so as not to make it look too obvious.

So the meeting between our Attorney General and Bill Clinton was simply to get the final details and the timing straightened out. And it's no coincidence that two days after her meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation,which is supposedly being investigated over all those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it.That isn't going to go anywhere either, and never mind that our attorney general met with a potential witness to both investigations. After all, this was a situation where there was a home brew server with classified information in Bill Clinton's basement at the Clinton Foundation. And a back up in somebody's bathroom somewhere.



Needless to say, that investigation of the Clinton Foundation will also fade into the woodwork.

So, where do we go from here?

Mrs. Clinton and her execrable media allies will of course celebrate this as a victory and an exoneration, although even a few of the usual suspects appear to be having some doubts.

As for the other side, I've already heard some of the pious outrage and while I don't disagree with most of it, I have to admit that it surprises me, just a little. We've been ruled by these criminal swine for almost eight years now, and they've amply demonstrated their contempt for us, our country's laws and our Constitution. They no longer even feel the need to attempt to hide it anymore. The Obama Administration is probably the most lawless in our history,and they've gotten away with it countless times, even with 'Republicans' controlling congress. Did anyone expect something different this time? Really?

A lot is going to depend on how the American people react to this, just four months away from an election. Given how common it has become lately to lie to pollsters, we probably won't know until after November when the votes are counted.

There may actually be a silver lining here. It's just possible that enough people may have gotten to the point where they're disgusted enough to no longer even to consider putting this corrupt snake in office. And it's less likely but not impossible that the GOP establishment who have been scheming to sabotage Donald Trump either at the convention or during the campaign are going to finally wake up and realize exactly what a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be like.

Comey himself gave us a good indication of that during his performance today:

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

The #nevertrumpers and the GOP establishment had better pay close attention, get their brains together and understand that in a Clinton Administration, they're going to be targeted like never before for the least possible 'infraction' of any laws, whether they actually did anything illegal or not.

As for Donald Trump and whomever his running mate is, they now have some fresh, redolent substance in recent public memory behind the label 'Crooked Hillary.' They need to remind the American public about that at every opportunity. We'll soon see if we keep our Republic.

And here's another thought on the matter.

When those in power engage in this any means to an end Alinskyite hustle, they never stop to think of the message it sends, and how it could backfire.

While it has sometimes been imperfectly administered in practice, America has always been based on the ideal that everyone is equal before the law. Take away that expectation and you lay the seeds not just for contempt for the law but for those whom claim to govern legally. And historically, that has led to some unanticipated consequences for the ruling classes.

The Real Story Behind The Clinton-Lynch Meeting

 

Here's the narrative we're being expected to believe...Bill Clinton and Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch just happened to run into each other at the Phoenix Arizona airport and had a friendly little chat for 30 or 40 minutes on AG Lynch's private plane about golf and grand kids.

That didn't pass the smell test with anyone but the most gullible true believers. For one thing, anyone familiar with the security arrangement involved in this sort of thing for ex-presidents and a standing Attorney General knows that this kind of meeting is arranged far in advance. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch may want the peasants disarmed and helpless, but they have 24-7 well armed security provided for them by the taxpayers wherever they go and whatever they do. Not only that, but even for private planes takeoff has to be coordinated and scheduled with the airport and kept to that schedule unless there's a major emergency or maintenance issue.

And it's also obvious that the agenda for this meeting was also planned in advance. Chatting about grand kids and golf doesn't take 30 or 40 minutes.And heart patients usually don't subject themselves to triple digit temperatures by choice unless it's something vital.

Even more interesting, our Attorney General meeting with Bill Clinton was highly inappropriate for reasons we'll discuss shortly, and both Clinton, as a disbarred lawyer and Lynch knew that. It's also worth noting that the only reason we know about this is because of a reporter working for a local ABC affiliate reported on this. Not only was this initially ignored by the Ready For Hillary media, but the FBI actually made a cordon around the plane and informed everyone that no photos, no pictures,and no cell phones were allowed, according to Christopher Sign of ABC 15 in Phoenix who broke the story.

In other words, Clinton, Lynch and their media allies did their best to keep this a secret meeting and would have succeeded except for one reporter at a local outlet. Why else have the FBI guarding the meeting order everyone not to make any records of the Lynch and Clinton getting together that might leak out?

 

So, what was on that agenda? What were they talking about?

To answer that question, you have to remember that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton go back aways. It was President Clinton whom picked her out of obscurity and made her a federal District Judge in 1999 just before he left office, and the Clintons and Loretta Lynch have known each other for some time...partners in crime, so to speak. To remotely think that the current FBI investigations weren't discussed is the height of naivete' and defies belief.

While we have no way of knowing exactly what was discussed, we can tell a great deal from the aftermath.

One lie being repeated over and over again in the 'ready for Hillary' media, including the New York Times, of course, is that Attorney General Lynch has now experienced a Road to Damascus moment, and that even though of course nothing illegal or improper was done, she really, really regrets having a chat with the former president. Or to put it more truthfully, she's sure sorry she got caught having a secret meeting with her patron.

So, just to show she's on the up and up, to quote pravda-on-the-Hudson, she's said "she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

Except that's not what she said at all.

Actually, what Loretta Lynch said is that' I FULLY EXPECT to accept their recommendations.' That can mean anything. She could decide (wink, wink) to simply continue to stonewall. She could, for instance, decide to accept some of the charges more easily defended by the Clintons in court and ignore others, something that could be determined by clandestine meetings with the Clintons and/or their legal team...especially since she will have full access to all the evidence against them in advance.

She will also be in charge of the prosecution, deciding which lawyers become prosecutors and how the case is prosecuted, which could mean a poorly prosecuted case as opposed to one designed to actually convict.

By not recusing herself, she remains in control and is letting us know that a deal has been cut between her and the Clintons...a Supreme Court nominations perhaps, a position as dean at a major law school, or simply cold cash. It could be anything.

Another little tidbit that the media is ignoring is that a mere two days after her secret meeting with Mr. Bill, the Justice department filed a motion in federal court seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation. What's under investigation? All those lucrative speaking fees and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation that came from foreign countries and large corporations who just happened to have business pending at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was running it. And whose being investigated? Not only Hillary's minions Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, but ex-president Bill Clinton, the head of the Foundation.

Yes, you got that right. We're not just talking about Mrs. Clinton. The head of America's Department of Justice, the chief law enforcement officer in the nation met secretly with bill Clinton, whose also under investigation by the FBI.

So we're talking about this evidence not being submitted until October 2018, about 22 months into Mrs. Clinton's presidency if she's elected.

And even if the motion isn't granted (unlikely since the judge involved is U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama appointee), just look at how the State Department has already been stonewalling:

Citizens United has sued for emails between a handful of State Department officials and people at the Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm, Teneo Consulting, which has ties to the Clintons.

Among other errors, State officials said than an initial test looking at just 300 emails, which was used to calculate the amount of time necessary to process the emails, neglected to include keyword searches of the messages. Instead, they only searched the “To” and “From” lines of the messages, which failed to catch many emails.

State Department officials also “inadvertently” labeled some email attachments as irrelevant to the open records request, without checking them to make sure.

No wonder their initial estimate that only 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged by State Department figures with the Clinton Foundation has now changed to “34,116 potentially responsive documents.”

Any honest attorney general would have appointed a special prosecutor long ago, and certainly would NEVER have met with someone who's under a criminal investigation. That's not what we're dealing with here.

What we'll see is a long period of stalls and legal gymnastics for the next four months until after the election, when Loretta Lynch will either decide that the evidence is 'insufficient to prosecute' or will file a motion of disinclination to prosecute, just like Eric Holder did to protect CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups from being prosecuted for money laundering and material aid to terrorism.

Don't expect much to come of this. The fix is in.

A Few Words On Iowa

The Iowa caucus is over and the results are in...sort of.

On the Republican side, Ted Cruz ended up winning by just over three points, earning 8 delegates. Donald Trump finished second earning 7 delegates and Marco Rubio had a surprisingly decent third place finish, finishing about a point and a half behind Trump and also earning 7 delegates.

The Democrats are an entirely different story, although the contest was officially called for Hillary Clinton..so far. She ended up with 49.86% to Bernie Sanders 49.57, but there were apparently a few irregularities. The Microsoft app used to tally votes for the Democrats failed utterly in some areas, the vote tallies from something like 90 precincts were mysteriously delayed, and six precincts were literally decided by coin tosses...all of which Mrs. Clinton somehow won. Just try replicating that one in your own home. If you manage to get it right six times in a row, don't waste your time reading this any further. You're obviously telekinetic and should head to Vegas and the roulette wheel as fast as you can!

In any event, Bernie Sanders is understandably calling for access to the raw votes. Of course, by the time he gets them, the caravan will probably have moved on. At any rate, just like Mrs. Clinton's e-mail irregularities, this is probably just that vast, right wing conspiracy in action again, yes?

All that aside, what can we take away from all this?

In spite of the outsized coverage Iowa doesn't mean much in the big picture except to political junkies, pundits and media talking heads. The state is small, largely rural and mostly white and retail politics matter more here than in larger, more urban states where the population is more diverse and the media markets more important. And there's the unique caucus system where actual votes can be overridden by sheer organization that skews results. Nevertheless, it is still an important testing ground for the appeal of candidates and ultimately, a battle ground state in the general election to come.

Ted Cruz's victory here is a testimony to the fact that organization and a ground game matters in these affairs. Cruz had 12,000 volunteers in Iowa, 1,000 precinct captains, and a pair of old college dorms, “Camp Cruz” to house them. His followers here were in place earlier and far more organized than anyone else's and it showed in the results, particularly among Iowa's Evangelicals. And given that the state has such a relatively small voting base, it was enough to win. Whether he can reproduce that elsewhere and whether it will work as well as it did in Iowa is an open question.

If I'm Donald Trump, I'm looking at this and learning a huge lesson. He expected to win here based on his media footprint and outsize persona, and invested comparatively little in ground game and get out the vote efforts. While second place here is nothing to spit on, I have a feeling that in spite of his gracious remarks afterwards his competitive spirit is fairly fired up, and his morning after discussion with his advisers is centered on exploring which experts are tops at putting a ground game together and on contacting, interviewing and hiring them ASAP. He's fairly far ahead of Cruz in New Hampshire, so that gives him a short breather of 3 weeks or so to put this together before South Carolina and the other primaries with more delegates at stake. If he isn't having this conversation and putting a ground game together accordingly, he probably won't win the nomination.

Marco Rubio's third place finish came at the expense of the other establishment candidates still in the race. He's now the Chosen One of the GOP establishment to carry the banner and preserve their perks and their continuing flow of cheap labor.

His third place finish came courtesy of some heavy donations from the expected sources which allowed him to carpet bomb Iowa with media advertising...you could hardly turn on a radio or a TV without hearing him. Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Jeb Bush will start being pressured to exit the race and make room for Rubio unless Christie manages to pull off a miracle in New Hampshire.

If Rubio's smart, he will pretty much ignore New Hampshire where he has little support and concentrate on South Carolina. He won't win it, but he's local,and some hard work and another infusion of donor cash could get him to the next stop. The idea, after all for the GOP establishment to knock out Trump first and then Cruz, with Rubio as the new GOP 'product.'

The surprise in the Democrat fold is the close finish. Actually,it shouldn't be.

For Mrs. Clinton Iowa was a major trial, because it involves on the ground, retail politics. Hillary despises the little people unless it's carefully scripted and controlled, and that was evident in Iowa.
She was aloof, visibly uncomfortable and even lost it a few times. Mr. Bill and Chelsea tried, but failed to help her much. She has plenty of money to spend and a good ground game, but pulling off a statistical tie with the likes of Bernie Sanders with all the advantages she had probably has a lot of people wondering how she'll do in the general.

Bernie Sanders now has a good understanding of the Clinton machine and how it works, but he isn't going to be able to do much about it. New Hampshire, a state with demographics like Iowa's right next door to his home state of Vermont will be his high point. It's all downhill from there.

The Democrats depend on big turnout from two key groups as part of their coalition, blacks and Muslims. Neither will vote for a Jew, even an irreligious, anti-Israel Jew like Bernie Sanders. The last time the Democrats put a Jew on their national ticket was in 2000 with Joseph Lieberman. George W. Bush carried 40% of the Muslim vote that year and that might very well have cost the Democrats Florida and the election. As for blacks, according to the Pew Trust, aside from Muslims they are the most likely group of Americans to harbor anti-semitic attitudes. The Democrats aren't going to make the mistake they made with Lieberman
again.

The Clinton E-Mail Scandal And How It Will End

The media are doing their best to keep it very much under the wire, but the Clinton e-mail scandal has been heating up to the point it can't be ignored much longer.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III just made an absolutely damning  report to the intelligence committees in the House and Senate to the effect that in addition to 1,340 emails designated “classified” stored on her private home brew server, Mrs. Clinton actually had emails on her server that contained intelligence from “special access programs,” which is “a level of classification beyond even ‘top secret’.”

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

'Special Access' is highly restricted to 'need to know' high level persons  because exposure of the intelligence could reveal the source. That could derail an entire method of intel collection, or put an important source in mortal danger. Even the very news that Mrs. Clinton was doing this on an unsecured private server  almost certainly damaged U.S. intelligence collection. Would you provide intel to the U.S. if you found out Mrs. Clinton had been risking your life in this fashion just to pad her corrupt foundation with a few more dishonest dollars, or hide some of her more questionable doings? Would you even remotely consider it?

And yes, the information was definitely hacked.

 Mrs. Clinton at this point is probably  guilty of many breeches of State Department policy as well as outright felonies according to the federal laws covering these matters...for instance, to cite  18 US Code 107:

"Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation Generally: Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. ... and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

There's also 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information and quite possibly 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information.

The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the guilt for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. Maximum sentence is a fine and ten years in prison.

That's especially interesting since (a) it could involve Mrs. Clinton's close associates Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills and (b) it's now come out that Mrs. Clinton had a second private server, not the one in Chappaqua, but another satellite server located at the Clinton Family Foundation. Since whatever was on Hillary's server was thus accessible by Bill Clinton and other people at the Clinton Foundation, and since both contained data and documents top secret and higher in classification, whomever accessed this data could likewise be indicted and prosecuted. We also have to wonder whether this satellite server in the Clinton Foundation was used to traffick intel and classified information to foreign powers or other interested customers for 'donations.' Would that surprise anyone, knowing what we know now?

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. Given the stonewalling and probable perjury based on Mrs. Clinton's various statements before congressional committees, this could easily apply. Even more damaging, it's now been proven that dozens of senior State Department officials knew about Mrs. Clinton's illegal private server and not only covered up for her but openly lied to groups requesting lawful and legitimate  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compliance. 

According to this law if it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, that accused can be convicted of obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The all important  mens rea (proof of intent) is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

There's a lot more, but I think you get the picture. I merely want to point out how deep the investigations have already gone and what's been discovered, since the media would rather you didn't know.

So moving on, where is this likely to end up?

As I said before on these pages,the FBI and the Justice Department work for President Obama. That the Justice department under the president's carefully chosen racialist Attorney General Loretta Lynch would certainly  go along in simply ignoring all this. But the FBI is a different matter. Whatever their flaws, the FBI has a culture of being incorruptible, of having no tolerance for lawbreaking no matter who's involved.

James Comey, the current head of the Bureau has a long history of the same sort of ethics. He helped prosecute the Gambino crime family, was the lead prosecutor in the case concerning the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and served as assistant attorney general during the Bush administration. He even stood up to President Bush and was willing to resign after he was pressured as acting Attorney General (John Ashcroft had been hospitalized) to "certify" the legality of certain aspects of the NSA surveillance program at that time.

As bad as this scandal is getting, I'm fairly certain that Comey and the FBI will recommend prosecution to Obama's Attorney General. And I  doubt that letting Mrs Clinton slide on this blatant lawbreaking wouldn't be met by resignations from James Comey and a number of other FBI personnel. That would shine a spotlight on all this that would not benefit Mrs. Clinton's political ambitions at all.

While President Barack Hussein Obama has no love for the Clintons and would undoubtedly giggle uncontrollably at the idea of one or both Clintons doing the perp walk, he likewise has problems with the scenario of her being  prosecuted. Can you imagine what could happen if Mrs. Clinton were indicted and decided to trade immunity for everything she knows about Fast and Furious, Benghazi and numerous other scandals she has to have been privy to? Just imagine if she once heard the president bragging about how he was using the IRS as a political weapon! There may even be things the renowned Clinton opposition research uncovered about Barack Obama as long ago as 2008 that this president would rather the American public remains ignorant about. At this point, he's not facing re-election but has his legacy to consider, and Mrs. Clinton could do quite a bit to destroy that were she so inclined.

But if he has the Department of Justice ignore this, President Obama risks spotlighting this in a way that further tarnishes what is already the worst presidency in U.S. history in a way not even some of the True Believers will be able to stomach. And it also risks reminding the electorate at a crucial time who Hillary Clinton is, to the point that she gets beat like a gong come election time.

But if he allows her to be prosecuted, he's playing with dynamite that could explode in his face painfully as she deals for her freedom. Not only that, but he has to deal with Bernie Sanders as the nominee, who isn't under his control at this point and who would likely get slaughtered in the general election.

What to do?

So I'm going to make a prediction here. President Obama will not prosecute her, but will have a Mob-style sit down and  make a deal with the Clintons. If Mrs. Clinton ends her campaign and maintains omerta, he will issue her a full pardon for any wrongdoing she might have done "in recognition of her long record of dedicated public service." She'll keep her ill-gotten gains and stay out of jail provided she ends her campaign and keeps her mouth shut.

Once she ends her campaign, the Bernie Sanders problem will be dealt with by having Joe Biden declare his candidacy with the full backing of the White House, Hillary's endorsement and the support of the Democrat super-delegates.

Watch and see if that's not how things turn out.

After Question About Mr. Bill, Hillary Lashes Out At Rape Survivor

This pretty much speaks for itself. Aside from showing off Mrs. Clinton's incredible hypocrisy, the best part is when the shameless CNN shill tries to brand this woman, New Hampshire State Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien as irrelevant because she's a Republican.

With tears in her eyes, she lets him know that she used to be a Democrat but became a Republican for this very reason, because as a rape survivor herself the issue is not former President Clinton's infidelity but Mrs. Clinton's role in bullying Mr. Bill's victims into silence...while posing as a women's candidate and saying all rape victims should be believed.

How The Clintons Exploited Disaster In Haiti For Profit

In January of 2010, Haiti, already one of the world's poorest countries was hit with a massive earthquake that devastated it, followed by a horrendous cholera epidemic.

While a number of people (and countries, including a certain so-called 'racist, apartheid state' went to succor the Haitians out of humane motives, there were others who saw the disaster as an opportunity for sheer profit and exploitation.

The Wall Street Journal's  Mary Anastasia O'Grady has a superb column on how Bill Clinton was put in charge of all USAid and UN relief to Haiti thanks to the influence of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and how he used that position to channel millions into the Clinton Foundation:

Peter Schweizer’s new book, “ Clinton Cash,” has stirred up media and public interest partly by making the point that most of the dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton have been with poor countries with a weak rule of law. The U.S. legislation cited above singles out Haiti.

There could hardly be a better example of Clinton machinations undermining development. Congress is partly to blame and now seeks to make amends.

The U.S. Founding Fathers went out of their way to establish a republic guided by the rule of law and not the rule of men. If there is a singular principle that has set the U.S. apart from countries south of the Rio Grande it’s the checks and balances that protect against caudillo power.

Yet in the aftermath of the January 2010 earthquake, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Obama administration and Congress gave Bill Clinton carte blanche in handling hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flowing to Haiti for recovery and reconstruction. This translated into enormous political power for the former president in the poorest country in the hemisphere, making him a de facto cacique.

Mr. Clinton loves to paint himself as a third-world redeemer, as he did in an interview in Africa with an NBC reporter that aired last week. The reporter asked about charges that the Clinton Foundation’s practice of pulling in big money from governments and wealthy donors during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state was a conflict of interest. Mr. Clinton countered that he’s helping the poor.

As an NBC narrator described Clinton Foundation activities, the former president and his daughter were shown fitting locals with hearing aids. Pravda could not have crafted a better piece of propaganda.

Yet peel back the veneer of “charity” and one finds that the Clinton way has inflicted egregious harm on the poor in developing nations because it has undermined respect for the rule of law that is so necessary for economic growth. If a former president of the U.S. flouts anti-corruption protocols, why should the locals get hung up on them?

Haitians learned about Mr. Clinton’s affinity for cronyism after he used the Marines to restore deposed Haitian strongman Jean Bertrand Aristide to power in 1994. As I have documented in this column, “friends of Bill” subsequently were awarded, in secret, a sweetheart deal from the state-owned monopoly phone company, Haiti Teleco, that gave them a substantial edge over the prevailing, mandated long-distance rates set by the Federal Communications Commission.

Within two weeks of Haiti’s January 2010 earthquake, the word had already gone out from the State Department that Bill Clinton would be in charge of U.S. reconstruction efforts. “That means,” one individual told me and I reported in a Jan. 25, 2010 column, “if you don’t have Clinton connections, you won’t be in the game.”

The “game,” as my source called it, meant securing hundreds of millions of dollars in no-bid contracts from the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development and grants from multilateral institutions like the InterAmerican Development Bank, which gets the bulk of its funding from the U.S.

The Clintons deny that Bill’s power over State’s purse was used to secure donations to the Clinton Foundation. But at least two contributors who gave more than $1 million as I described in a March 9 column, including the InterAmerican Development Bank, benefited from U.S. earthquake aid.

There’s a lot that didn’t get done. In the north of the country, the Clinton-proposed Caracol Industrial Park was supposed to feature some 40 buildings for apparel assembly supporting up to 65,000 jobs. It remains a mystery why there are still only three buildings in full operation and only 5,000 jobs, despite plenty of tenant interest.

Haitians are reluctant to criticize the Clintons publicly because of their power. “No one wants to be on the wrong side of the next president of the United States,” one Haitian told me during a visit I made to the country in December.

More at the link.

By the way, not all the Haitians were as quiet about this plundering as the person Ms. O'Grady spoke to. On several occasions, there have been massive protests over the billions in aid money and relief funds stolen via the Clinton Foundation while Mr. Bill was running things. And Congress is finally starting to look into this, although I doubt much will come of it in the end, unfortunately.





It takes a special class of people to exploit human misery for personal profit in this manner. No more need be said.

Hillary Won't Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donor$ - And Has Her Kid Lie For Her

The latest on the money laundering and commingling scam know as the Clinton Foundation passed the 'stranger than fiction' level a long time ago, but it's rapidly descending into it's own realm.

Mrs. Clinton is refusing to release the names and countries of origin of over 1,100 big money donors, many of whom gave money via the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation established by Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and whose company received State department approval of a huge uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan tat ended up with control of over 20% of America's uranium mines and stockpiles passing to Russian control. And that also resulted in massive cash contributions to the Clinton Foundation, including donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million that were previously not disclosed.

What's especially ironic is that this came after the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House in 2008 promising to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. The MOU specifically mentions the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” the former name of the charity as part of the Clinton Foundation covered by the agreement.

Guess what? They never revealed any of those donors, and Mrs. Clinton is refusing to do so now:

Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.

On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”

Except, whoopsie:

Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."

CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."

And then, there's this little item:

While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.

However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.

More from Sean Davis at The Federalist:

The donations were routed through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), or CGEPartnership, a Canadian charitable organization. That organization then effectively bundled the foreign donations and sent them along to the Clinton Foundation itself, and it did all of this without ever disclosing the individual foreign sources of the income.

If that sounds to you like more of a laundering operation than a charitable organization, that’s because it certainly looks like more of a laundering operation than a charitable organization. In this case, however, rather than taking cash from blatantly illegal activities (as far as we know) and then cleaning it up by running it through legitimate businesses before it ends up at its final destination, the Clinton Foundation mops up cash from wealthy foreigners, bundles it within a larger organization to hide the money’s original source, and then funnels the cash from that legitimate charity right into the Clinton Foundation coffers. [...]

Multiple Canadian tax and privacy law experts contacted by The Federalist, the Washington Post, and BloombergPolitics said there was no such blanket prohibition on public disclosure of charitable donor identities. While Canada does include a ban on the release of donor information in the course of commercial activity, it specifically exempts fundraising from that definition. And because the public disclosure of a donor’s name doesn’t include any transaction or consideration, it’s not considered to be commercial activity.

“Federal law prohibits disclosure related to commercial activity: things like selling, renting, or bartering of a list. Fundraising is not a covered activity under PIPEDA, the federal privacy law,” Adam Aptowitzer, a Canadian charitable organization attorney, told The Federalist.

And the money quote: If you look holistically at the entire scheme’s setup, at the massive flow of foreign cash, at the refusal to disclose donors, at the secret (and now destroyed) private e-mail servers, at the blatantly bogus excuses, at the falsified tax returns, everything about it suddenly makes a lot more sense...In its current form, the Clinton Foundation is a charity in the same way La Cosa Nostra was an Italian soup kitchen. 

Especially since after 'expenses' only around - wait for it- only 10% or less of the swag was actually spent on anything that could remotely be called 'charity' per the Clinton Foundation's 2013 tax returns.

The Canadian outlet isn't the only Clinton Foundation 'subsidiary' around either. For instance, there's one in Sweden whose primary purpose is fundraising that was registered in 2010 will Hillary Clinton was still secretary of state.They took in $66M Swedish Krona ($8M US) during Hillary's last year in office.And there's another on in the UK whose primary function is fundraising.

 But wait, there's more.

The Clintons have stooped to a new low, drafting their daughter to lie for them in public. Even NPR wouldn't swallow this one:

Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, sought to tamp down new allegations that rich foreign donors had influenced her mother while she was secretary of state by noting that an international anti-corruption group had endorsed the foundation's disclosure practices.

 "What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent," said the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the foundation, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. "Even though Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations, we'll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis."

 The problem with that, though, is Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation. It did award Hillary Clinton its 2012 TI-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for "recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy," Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, told NPR. (The organization put out a fuller statement Monday.)

"I am very honored to be here and delighted to be supporting the work of Transparency International-USA," Clinton said on March 22, 2012. She added, "Corruption and the lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government."
She never mentioned the Clinton foundation, and Dumas' organization is focused on promoting government transparency.

"We do not do an examination or any ranking of foundations," said Dumas, who noted that Chelsea Clinton may have simply made an innocent mistake.

It had to have been. I mean, have you ever known any of the Clintons to lie?

How To Make Millions Off 'Public Service' -The Corrupt Clinton Cash Machine

 My old editor at Breitbart Peter Schweizer has a new book coming out May 5 entitled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

My review copy will be arriving shortly, so I haven't read it yet. But the New York Times has, and it's good enough that even Pravda-on-the Hudson had to pay it grudging attention,admitting, "He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons."

That's no news to anyone who has read Peter's other books on crony capitalism, which target pigs at the trough in both parties.

The subject of this particular book is a detailed 186 page investigation of how the U.S State Department would grant favors to foreign entities in exchange for high-dollar speaking fees and donations paid directly to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

As I pointed out previously, foundations are one of the most egregious scams to hide and shelter income and avoid taxation for the super rich:

 Now, foundations are interesting creatures. As Jane Fonda shows us , if the foundation has 501(c) status (and the Clinton Foundation certainly does), they can be used as a place to park income so it isn't taxed and can be used for various 'expenses'..or even invested, tax free. Why else do you think that most of the super-wealthy in America like the Clintons have such foundations?

Another thing about foundations that's interesting is that according to the IRS rules, they're allowed to pay salaries and 'administrative costs' (pretty much anything you can think of) with any portion of the donor money, something that has attracted a lot of prominent politicians. Ex-president Jimmy Carter's Peace Foundation, for example provides a very nice income for him courtesy of his anti-Israel Arab friends. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is another prime example of how 'foundations' , 'libraries' and 'centers' can be used as cash cows by their 'owners'.

And here's the kicker about Hillary's 'charitable donation'. Anything the wealthy 'donor' to such a foundation donates likewise becomes a deduction against whatever taxes they might owe the IRS. So if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually did 'donate' all that money to the Clinton Foundation, she got paid two ways..first by reducing her taxable income significantly to lower her taxes and second by acquiring a huge deduction to leverage against the taxes on her other income. And since her husband 'owns' the Clinton Foundation, the money stayed in the family.

Both The New York Times, of all people, and The New York Post had some disturbing things to say about where the huge sums of money the Clinton Foundation collects were spent...and the Clinton Foundation's infrequent audits.

The Clinton Foundation's mission statement ought to be a tipoff:

"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Or as I would translate it, 'We actively pursue fundraising from governments, private enterprise and our well connected friends for various nebulous causes. Yeah, we got a few good things going on, a few programs we can point to, some conferences and some meetings so we have the slideshow as a marketing tool, but essentially, our real object is fundraising and covering our substantial expenses.'

Don't be surprised if some those 'expenses' end up being in kind, cash contributions to Hillary's 2016 campaign that not only evade McCain-Feingold but allow 'donors to get a nice tax deduction to a 501 C in the bargain. It's a dodge, just like the huge $14 million advance Democrat donor-owned Simon & Schuster ponied up for Hillary's failed book. Hillary will pocket the cash and Sumner Redstone and his friends will recoup it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers after they deduct it as a loss against their other income.

Among other countries, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,and the UAE have given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Somehow, I doubt they did it without expecting something in return, which is probably the subject of some of those e-mails Mrs. Clinton doesn't want congress looking at. According to the Times:

His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

"In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes."

I don't know if Peter Schweizer's new book will mention it, but we also still don't know what happened to that $6 billion in State Department funds that mysteriously disappeared, mostly while Mrs. Clinton was in charge.

I'm certain the Clinton's opo squad and the ex-Clintonistas  in the media will do their best to spin this and cover it up. And I doubt that this by itself will derail her campaign. But the information is out there, and no one can say they weren't told.

You can pre-order the book here.

#HillaryLies: "We Left The White House Dead Broke"

Here's prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer:

"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not easy."

Yes, they were struggling all right. Here's House #1, a mere cottage the Clintons managed to scrape together a purchase price $1.7 million for in Chappaqua, New York in 1999. That house, purchased while they were 'struggling' was acquired by the Clintons to establish residency for Hillary just before her senate run. And of course, people who are broke run for senate all the time, especially in states like New York where campaign costs are higher than normal.

 

Just a year later, the struggling couple managed somehow to buy House# 2, a mere shack in Washington D.C. they purchased for the pittance of $2.85 million:



Oh, but what about the debt?



Above, courtesy of Open Secrets via The Washington Post, here are Junior Senator Mrs. Clinton's annual disclosures of how much she and her husband earned, owned, and owed from 2000-2004.

I suppose next she'll be telling us they were on food stamps.

And Chelsea's education? Oh, the choices a financially struggling couple has to make! Let's see, the pricy Sidwell Friends private school, a BA at Stanford (at an every man's price at $36,000 per year in tuition and fees when Chelsea attended, books and supplies not included, with room and board about $11,000 per year extra, so probably close to a mere $200K for her BA alone) plus post graduate studies at Oxford and Columbia.I'd say the whole thing cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 minimum, and while Chelsea is reportedly bright, I have a feeling that she didn't exactly qualify for needs based financial aid.

So where did all this money come from?

Although she backed off fairly quickly, Diane Sawyer touched on some of it when she brought up Mrs. Clinton's $200,000 per shot speaking fees and the fact that the ex-president has made over $100 million for his speeches. And of course, there were the lucrative book deals put together by Clinton groupies in the publishing industry - a $15 million advance to the ex-president for "My Lie Life" and a mere $8 million for Hillary's 2003 book "Living History." But that's only part of the story.

Like some other ex-presidents Mr. Bill understood the part in the Bible about casting your bead upon the waters in a very real and personal sense...if you do favors for certain people while you're in office, they will reward you handsomely once you're out.

Both Mr. Bill and Hillary were regulars on what I'll call the Desert Oasis express, raking in handsome speaking and 'consulting' fees and honorariums from the Saudis and the other GCE countries. For instance, the ex-president received close to half a million dollars alone as a 'consultant' to the Emir of Dubai back when President Bush was trying to turn the security of our ports over to one of the Emir's companies. And then there's the Clinton Foundation, a real tax free cash cow for Mr. Bill that receives 6 and 7 figure funding from the Sultan of Brunei, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar among others.

The Saudis put up an estimated $10 million towards the Clinton Presidential Library, and Bill and Hill were always welcome to give speeches or 'consult' at handsome fees.Not only that, but Mr. Bill has received, to date, over $16 million in pensions and benefits from the federal government since leaving office. That includes $944,000 in fiscal year 2014, including office and staff expenses.Even without the Lincoln Bedroom to sell, describing the Clintons as 'struggling' reveals a contempt for the American people who footed the bill that is as revealing as it is ignoble.

But the Big Mac of Clinton financing was his association with the Emir of Dubai, through his well connected pal Ron Burkie. Starting in 2002, Mr. Bill was an 'adviser' to Burkie's Yuicaipa Companies (read 'lobbyist for hire to influence congress and others on Yucaipa's behalf'), one of the three owners of the foreign fund's general partnership, along with Burkle and the Emir's Dubai Investment Group (YGP) Ltd. , a partnership the former president paid zero dcollars to buy into. Mr. Bill pocketed $12 million alone from the Emir's companies as he cashed in his share to loan money to Hillary's floundering presidntial campaign, and received another estimated $20 million buyout from Yucaipa as well in 2009.

The Clintons entered the White House in 1992 with a net worth of $672,000. Today, Mr. Bill alone,not counting Mrs. Clinton's share of the swag is worth $54 million, making him our richest ex-president.

They came to Washington to do good, and ended up doing very, very well for themselves at the expense of the American people.

And Mrs. Clinton? Well, #Hillarylies, just like always.But as she would say, "What difference does it make?"

Are Iranian Ships Making A Dry Run For An EMP Attack On The US?

While the attention of the American people is directed elsewhere, some ominous developments are occurring. Along with an increasingly belligerent and hostile tone, upgrades in centrifuges and long range missile tests, Iran has announced a naval 'training mission' with two of its warships off our Atlantic coast.

At least one expert on Iran and EMP attacks, Peter Pry thinks the Iranians are doing a dry run for a future nuclear launch or an EMP attack off our coasts.

For those of you unfamiliar with an EMP attack, it involves a nuclear missile that explodes above the earth's atmosphere and sends out an electromagnetic pulse that fries all digital and computer electronics in the area affected.

Most vehicles simply stop running, along with all other machinery configured digitally..gas pumps, ATM machines, most cash registers, credit card readers, microwaves, cell and land line telephones, computers, toll gates and turnstiles, medical equipment, power stations, the Internet, a whole gamut of items we've simply grown used to as part of a 21st century civilization. All of the drones our current military is so reliant on are no longer controllable, and most aircraft and military vehicles become inoperable. The power grid and our missile defense systems go down.

Deliveries of all kinds, including food and fuel become difficult if not impossible, and any patients using pacemakers or hooked up to any medical equipment using digital electronics simply die.

Pry, president of EMPACT America thinks that the Iranians are simply making a dry run, with th eidea of preparing for a future assault:

“I think the Iranian Navy patrols off our coasts may be intended to lull us into complacency, to get the U.S. Navy accustomed to an Iranian naval presence in our hemisphere, so eventually they could contribute to 'Zero Hour' and the great day when the Mullahs decide to drop the nuclear hammer on America,” said Pry, who staffed a former congressional EMP commission.

“I think the Iranian Navy patrols are also intended to humiliate Obama and the United States for the Geneva [nuclear] interim agreement that Tehran interprets, correctly I think, as U.S. surrendering to the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran,” he added.

Pry also mentions that the Iranians have recently purchased Russia's Club-K missile launcher, which can be hidden in a container cargo box aboard a seemingly harmless freighter:

“I and my colleagues, including Reza Kahlili, who warned six months ago that these Iranian patrols were coming, think it more likely Iran would make an EMP attack by launching a missile off a freighter, so they could do the deed anonymously, and escape retaliation,” Pry explained.

“Iran has demonstrated the capability to launch a missile off a freighter. Iran has also purchased Russia's Club-K missile system. The Club-K is a complete missile launch system, disguised to look like a shipping container, that could convert any freighter into a missile launch platform. The Club-K, if armed with a nuclear warhead, could be used to execute an EMP attack.”



Keep in mind that the North Koreans have the same sort of capability, and they already have nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

It wasn't so long ago that the United States was free of such threats, thanks to the actions of Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush. Then came three successive presidents who had, shall we say, other priorities.

There was Bill Clinton, who helped the Chinese PLA make a Great Leap Forward in their military capabilities by signing off on shipping them high tech super computers, technology and software with military applications through companies like Democrat donor Loral that analysts like Jane's estimate allowed the Chinese to advance twenty years during his 8 years in office. He also essentially allowed North Korea to develop and enhance its nuclear weapons arsenal, as well as essentially ignoring Islamist terrorism on his watch.

There was George W. Bush, who knew full well that the Iranians had a clandestine nuclear weapons program going as early as 2005, but allowed former Secretary of State Condi Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to talk him out of doing anything about it and to refuse to ship the Israelis the tools to do anything about it they requested from us, something Secretary Gates revealed in his latest book.

And of course, Barack Hussein Obama, who has essentially signed off on a nuclear armed Iran in favir of appeasing the Ayatollahs and likewise has chosen to ignore North Korea.

Need I even mention that all three of them also have refused to do anything much in terms of border security? And if you believe that it's only illegal aliens seeking jobs that have taken advantage of this, do a little research on things like Hezbollah cells here in America and links between al-Qaeda and Hezbollah and the Mexican drug cartels.

Elections have consequences. I pray we don't find out the hard way,but the stage is certainly being set for exactly that.

Bubba's Revenge: 'Obama Should Honor His Pledge About Keeping Your Plan If You Like It'

Ah hah hah hah ha!

I expect that Mr. Bill will get a fair amount of criticism from ObamaBots about breaking a long tradition of former presidents not criticizing a sitting president, something they were OK with when that sitting president was George W. Bush.

As humorous as this is, the explanation's fairly simple. Being the savvy politico that he is, Bill Clinton understands what a train wreck ObamaCare is, and that it's only going to get worse come next January when people get a look at the increases in deductibles and co-pays.He wants this to be totally Obama's baby, so it doesn't affect Hillary's 2016 run.

He also knows that there's absolutely no way President Obama can act on this without scuttling the entire law. ObamaCare depends on moderately healthy people being forced out of their current plans and paying anywhere from 2 to 10 times as much for even worse coverage. Allow them to re-enroll in their old, cheaper plans and there's no way to pay for the subsidies, the preexisting conditions of sick enrollees, the additional regulations, the illegal aliens or the ridiculous uniform 'comprehensive benefits' that insurers are now required to pay for under ObamaCare.

The only other way out for the president is to admit another bald -faced lie he told about deficit reduction and alter the law yet again by increasing the subsidies...provided congress is willing to appropriate the extra funds, which I doubt would fly in the House, and perhaps not even in the senate. And even that isn't going to cure the problem with the vastly increased deductibles and co-pays, along with a number of other problems.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans are set to pass Fred Upton’s “Keep Your Plan Act"...which of course President Obama will either have to get Harry Reid to kill in the senate or veto. That particular comedy show should be well worth watching, as senate Democrats up for re-election in 2014 try frantically to squirm out from under.

Mr. Bill Beats The War Drums On Syria

You couldn't make this stuff up. An ex-president famous for his ineffective foreign policy and his misuse of the military is now presuming to join Senator McCain in beating the drums for yet another war in Syria on behalf of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood:

Bill Clinton told Sen. John McCain he agrees that President Barack Obama should act more forcefully to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria, saying the American public elects presidents and members of Congress “to see down the road” and “to win.”

At another point during a closed-press event Tuesday, Clinton implied that Obama or any president risks looking like “a total fool” if they listen too closely to opinion polls and act too cautiously. He used his own decisions on Kosovo and Bosnia as a point of reference.

“Some people say, ‘Okay, see what a big mess it is? Stay out!’ I think that’s a big mistake. I agree with you about this,” Clinton told McCain during an event for the McCain Institute for International Leadership in Manhattan Tuesday night. “Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit — like, as long as you don’t make an improvident commitment.”

Goodness,I can't imagine why Mr. Bill didn't mention some of his other foreign pollicy accomplishments - sending under equipped Marines to die and be dragged through the streets in Somalia for no good reason, arm twisting Israel to allow a terrorist reichlet on her borders for Clinton's good friend Yasser Arafat, or his farcical agreement with the malignant Kim il-Jong of North Korea that ended up paving the way for the creation of a rogue nuclear nation.

Then there was his totally ignoring the continuing uptick in Islamist terrorist attacks, starting with the first World Trade Center bombing. Not only did Clinton pass on golden opportunities to kill or take custody of Osama bin-Laden, he had his deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick, build a 'wall' between various American intelligence agencies and forbid intelligence outfits like Able Danger from sharing intel on Mohammed Atta and some of the other hijackers with other intelligence agencies - because it might prejudice these non-citizen's legal rights!

And Bosnia? What did Mr. Bill do there except exactly what he criticized his successor for a few years later - intervene in a sectarian civil war? And President Clinton decided to take sides not with an historic ally, Serbia, but with insurgent Muslims in what was supposed to be a temporary involvement.The general he appointed to oversea bombing the Serbian civilians from the air, Wesley Clark was so incompetent that even Mr. Bill had to relieve him from command.We're still there almost two decades later.

Then there was Clinton's payback to his old friends and campaign donors the Chinese People's Liberation Army connected Riyadi brothers, who loaned him a million dollars (that we know about) after he lost the New Hampshire primary in 1992 and was at the point of going under. Mr. Bill made that payback using heavy Democratic party donor and defense contractor Loral to funnel advanced military technology to the Chinese as fast as he could sign the paperwork. Most military analysts estimate that the Chinese made a Great Leap Forward of at least two decades in military technology during the eight years of Clinton's two terms.

He's the only president whom the Secret Service by their own admission couldn't locate at several crucial moments, and the only one ever to lose the 'credit card' containing the codes needed to launch a nuclear attack.

As President, he holds the distinction of leaving the United States weaker and more vulnerable than it was when he took over, although he managed to do pretty well for himself financially, entering the White House as a relatively poor man and ending up as a multimillionaire.

And this is the president who presumes to offer advice on foreign policy? Bill Clinton?

Him? The guy who gave new meaning to the phrase 'have a cigar'? The guy who said that the nation he felt was most democratic and that he felt most ideologically close to was the Islamic Republic of Iran?

William Jefferson Clinton is the luckiest man ever to sit in the White House. Due to a friendly press, his common sense in allowing the Republican congress to do most of the heavy lifting in balancing the budget and his own not inconsiderable skills as a politician and BS artist, he managed to pretty much avoid blame, censure and consequences for the monumental goofs - and worse - that he made while president, except for a few actual felonies he was unable to avoid getting indicted but not otherwise punished for.

Instead, most of the seeds sown by his errors while president blossomed and bore their poison fruits when he was safely out of office and could sit back and criticize his successor's attempts to clean up the mess, like the classy gentleman he is.

It would be a real benefit for the country if he was simply content to enjoy his wealth, his interns and his good fortune and keep his mouth shut.

Unfortunately, no such luck.

How The NYT Commemorates 9/11: 'It Was Bush's Fault'

I ordinarily wouldn't even take notice of something like this appearing in Pravda-on-the-Hudson, especially given their record of endangering our troops and our country by leaking classified information. But these shameless,brazen lies demand a response.

This is an op-ed entitled 'The Deafness Before the Storm', and its premise is fairly simple - that the Bush White House was deaf to 9/11 warnings and thus allowed it to happen.

The writer is one Kurt Eichenwald, and he has top grade, cutting edge knowledge and experience with national security , since his credentials include being an ex-New York Times reporter and a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. Oh wait, maybe he doesn't.

At any rate, Mr. Eichenwald writes about a classified August 6th 2001 briefing President Bush received the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As Eichenwald himself admits, this briefing mainly consisted of a history and description of bin-Laden and al-Qaeda with zero specifics on any actual or imminent operation or threat.There were good reasons why that's true, which we'll examine in a moment.

But then we get to the meat of Mr. Eichenwald's attack. He writes that while this declassified briefing revealed nothing of much use, there were other briefings that haven't been declassified that reveal 'negligence' - even though he hasn't read them. He bases this premise on what he claims were 'excerpts' he read.

Let's look at what he cites.

According to Eichenwald:

On May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.{..}

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

So, what we have here, en toto, is vague information of a possible attack with no specifics, no named target and no real details. Damn that George W. Bush and those evil Republicans for not possessing clairvoyance!

Some of you might recall the many threats and warnings of a major strike al-Qaeda issued after 9/11 that never came to pass.There was no way to do anything more in those cases but follow up leads and continue digging, something the New York Times severely impacted by releasing the details of our surveillance program for al-Qaeda to read. Yet because this one unimaginable attack succeeded a few months after President Bush took office, it was - say it with me - Bush's Fault.

Of course, what we really had in the months before 9/11 was an intelligence failure. Let's examine exactly why our intel on 9/11 was so faulty.

Ever since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Clinton Administration regarded Islamist terrorism as a pesky law enforcement problem rather than a national security threat, and aside from lobbing a few cruise missiles at what turned about to be an aspirin factory, very little was done to take it seriously, even as the attacks increased in frequency and severity.

As part of this approach, Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick built what amounted to a wall that prevented different intelligence agencies from sharing information on the grounds it might affect the terrorist's legal rights.

So intel operations like Able Danger, who had actually tracked the hijackers from Afghanistan to Germany and identified Mohammed Atta and most of the other hijackers months before 9/11 were prevented by the Clinton Justice Department's official policy from sharing this intel with other agencies.

Had the FBI been alerted to what Able Danger knew, Atta's name could have been put on a list that would have tagged him as someone to be watched from the moment he stepped off a plane in Newark, New Jersey. Surveillance of Atta, who lived openly in Florida for over a year, and who acquired a driver's license and even an FAA pilot's license in his real name, might well have made it possible for the FBI to stop the Sept. 11 attacks before they occurred. Except thanks to Gorelick's wall, the FBI wasn't given access to that information.

Even more poignantly, Gorelick was exempted from having to testify under oath in front of the 9/11 commission, none of this was examined by the commission in any detail and the Democrats on the panel were happy to gloss over it.

At this point, we also don't know exactly the extent of what the Clinton Administration concealed about 9/11, thanks to the theft of classified documents by former Clinton National Security adviser Sandy Berger. We do know that the government of the Sudan offered us Osama bin-Laden on a platter but the Clinton Administration refused to accept him. And that there were at least two other times we could have taken out bin-Laden but the orders weren't forthcoming from Mr.Bill, who had other pressing matters in the Oval Office to attend to. On one famous occasion, our CIA had bin-Laden's location pinpointed in Afghanistan and a missile targeted, but they simply couldn't find the president.

You might remember the threats to attack their broadcast license that the ex-president and the Democratic leadership in congress made to ABC and its then owner Disney over the film `The Path to 9/11' , which resulted in certain changes being made to the version of the movie that was shown to downplay all that.

Of course, you won't read any of this in Mr. Eichenwald's piece.

After an op-ed filled with asides and innuendos, he covers himself by writing:

"Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know."

But one thing we do know is that if the Clinton Administration had taken Osama bin-Laden as the serious threat he was and had been more concerned with national security than some terrorist's potential legal rights, there was a definite chance that Osama bin-Laden would either be in U.S custody or have been halal hamburger courtesy of a tomahawk missile prior to 9/11. And that Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers might have been apprehended before 3,000 Americans were murdered.

There’s much you can say about George W. Bush's presidency, but accusing him of being responsible ignoring intel he never received and being responsible for not preventing 9/11 is a ridiculous premise and an obvious exercise in disinformation.

Glass houses, stones, Mr. Eichenwald.