Friday, January 22, 2016

Cruising the Web

This is how secret the emails on Hillary's unsecured server were:
Some of Hillary Clinton’s emails on her private server contained information so secret that senior lawmakers who oversee the State Department cannot read them without fulfilling additional security requirements, Fox News has learned.

The emails in question, as Fox News first reported earlier this week, contained intelligence classified at a level beyond “top secret.” Because of this designation, not all the lawmakers on key committees reviewing the case have high enough clearances.

A source with knowledge of the intelligence review told Fox News that senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, despite having high-level clearances, are among those not authorized to read the intelligence from so-called “special access programs” without taking additional security steps -- like signing new non-disclosure agreements.
Yet she had those documents on that server and then she allowed her lawyer and his assistants to go through that server to pick out the supposedly personal emails to delete.

It's just now that people are finding out that back on 2013 Donald Trump had basically the same position on amnesty that he criticizes Rubio for now.
Although Donald Trump likes to smear his opponents -- as he did with Ben Carson late last year, and he's doing now with Ted Cruz -- Cruz likes to talk about the issues. The reason for this difference in strategy is obvious: the Texas senator's policy views are conservative whereas Trump's are not. This means that the only way for Trump to beat Cruz is to avoid talking about policy. That's why he's getting personal. All the time.

The only policy issue he does talk about is illegal immigration. The problem with that is that he's not telling voters the truth: he's not the border hawk he pretends to be. As Cruz pointed out on Twitter today:
That's quite a change from what he's saying now. If Marco Rubio is to be excoriated for reversing his position from 2013, shouldn't Donald also get some heat for his flip-flop?

Deals in Jewelry

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Today’s Deals at Amazon

John Kerry seems rather blithe
that all this money we're going to free up for Iran will end up in the hands of terrorists.
Days after Iran received hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief from the controversial nuclear deal, US Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday admitted a good portion of the massive funds will go to terror.

Speaking at the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Kerry spoke about the massive kickback Tehran is receiving after nuclear sanctions were lifted last weekend.

"I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," he acknowledged to CNBC.
Might nice of him to admit what everyone else knew about this deal. Perhaps this administration is finally understanding that money is fungible. Ed Morrissey adds,
“Other entities”? The “other entities” would include Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy army, which Iran directly funds and commands. The group (as “Hizballah”) has been on the State Department’s list of “groups considered terrorists,” as Kerry tries to slough off the context, since 1997. Hamas, the organization that Iran has directly armed, was put on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list at the same time. Perhaps the Secretary of State needs a link to refresh his memory?

Or perhaps he could check in with Treasury on the status of the IRGC. They also have it on their lists as a terror-related group, which is why the US tries to block its access to international banking. The Quds force, a subsidiary unit of the IRGC, has its own listing at Treasury.

Even if the funds don’t get immediately dropped into the bank accounts of terrorists, the sanctions on Iran at least provided some limitation on how much they could afford to move to their proxies and their own in-house forces of terror. The economic pressure that sanctions created forced them to put money aside to keep their people from rising up in revolt. Now that sanctions have ended, oil sales will boost their economy, giving the mullahs much more breathing space to stabilize their domestic situation — and allowing a vast increase in the amount of cash they can direct into their sponsorship of terror throughout the region.

That’s one reason this deal is such a disaster. It takes Iran off the leash in exchange for a ten-year delay in their development of nuclear weapons at best. It reveals the Obama administration as hopelessly naive, and in way over their heads.

The Washington Post has another nothingburger of a scoop that is supposed to tell us something about Marco Rubio. It turns out that, when he was 18, he was arrested for being in a public park after it had closed and had been drinking a beer. Wow! No wonder the guy grew up to marry a woman who got traffic tickets. Maybe he was arrested while being Hispanic.

Best-selling Vitamins

Coupons for Vitamins and Dietary Supplements

70% Off Clothing, Jewelry, Shoes, Watches, and More

Bernie Sanders has an ad that features lots of happy people coming to see and hear Bernie playing to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel's lovely song, "America."
I've always liked that song so I probably wouldn't mind seeing this ad a lot on TV just to hear the song. But, as Jim Geraghty notes, the ad says nothing about Bernie.
. . it’s brilliant because it says nothing about Sanders. The not-so-subtle subtext is, “lots of Americans like Bernie Sanders, they’ve all come to look for America, ergo, Bernie Sanders is America.” The only thing he says in the commercial is, “I’m Bernie Sanders, and I approved this message.”

The only reason to not like Bernie Sanders from this ad is if you have a strong aversion to cows, snow, or Simon and Garfunkel.

People might respond differently to an ad that features Sanders calling for $19 trillion in new taxes including a hike in payroll tax, a carbon tax, free college tuition for every idiot you know, federal subsidies for private pensions, price controls on new drugs, and an open support for making America “look more like Scandinavia.”
My husband commented to me that liberals detested Reagan's 1984 ad, "Morning in America" because they thought it said nothing wrapped up in gauzy images of happy Americans. Well, that ad was jam-packed with information compared to Sanders' ad. We'll see if those same criticisms that Reagan's ad engendered will crop up for Sanders' ad.

Charles Lane looks at how Bernie Sanders inveighs against the power of the wealthy and how they're ruining the country. Then Lane reviews how much money some billionaires have given to progressive causes.
Reviewing this history, you could almost get the impression billionaires have done more to advance progressive causes than Bernie Sanders has.

One way to square these data with Sanders’s rhetoric would be to say that supporting the left exonerates billionaires from membership in the billionaire class, as Sanders defines it. The hallmark of the class, Sanders senior adviser Tad Devine told me, “is the use of wealth and power to intervene in the political system for one’s own economic self-interest.”

Fair enough: Many, if not most, billionaires do, indeed, back conservative, pro-business candidates and causes. Wall Street titan Paul Singer is an example. Yet even Singer agrees with Sanders that same-sex marriage should be legal, and once set up a super PAC to support GOP candidates who were sympathetic to it as well.

It’s complicated, this issue of economic “self-interest.” Does Elon Musk favor tougher carbon regulations and generous electric-car subsidies because, like Sanders, he cares deeply about the planet, or because they help make his multibillion-dollar stake in Tesla more valuable?

Seattle’s Nick Hanauer says that he’s funding the higher-minimum-wage movement and other anti-inequality causes to “preempt the revolutionaries and crazies” who would otherwise lead an uprising by the have-nots; this, he says, will enable him and his fellow plutocrats to “escape with our lives” and “get even richer.”

Or maybe the mundane reality is that what motivates a lot of billionaires are their own pet notions and personal causes — pot for Soros, Israel for Sheldon Adelson — not some monolithic class interest.

Plutocrats’ spending on candidates and elections is huge and influential, but not nearly as decisive, or as unidirectional, as Sanders would have it. Sometimes, in fact, the results billionaires get confirm that old saw about a fool and his money.

IBD points out that
Hillary likes to evoke Bill Clinton's economic success, but she rejects the policies that led to the economic growth during his presidency.
Hillary Clinton has come out firmly against banking deregulation. She wants to hike taxes on capital gains. She wants to expand the welfare state and dramatically increase the size of government — by $1 trillion and counting. She wants to rein in cops and release felons from prison.

She also says that she'll seek Bill Clinton's input on how to grow the economy because of what "was accomplished under my husband's leadership in the '90s — especially when it came to raising incomes for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty. ... I'm going to ask for his ideas, I'm going ask for his advice."

But what Bill — or at least the Bill Clinton who was in the White House from 1993 to 2001 — would probably tell her is to abandon every one of her far-left proposals if she wants to see a return to strong GDP growth.

It was President Clinton, after all, who deregulated the banking industry (or partially deregulated it, at least). He also signed a sweeping welfare reform bill that imposed strict work requirements for beneficiaries and lead to the lowest poverty rates in history. In 1997, Clinton signed a tax cut that, among other things, lowered the capital gains tax rate.

And it was Clinton who famously said in 1996, "The era of big government is over" and who oversaw years when federal spending dropped from 21% of GDP down to 18%.

That's not to say that Bill pursued all of these policies on his own. After taking control of the House in 1995, Republicans forced his hand on welfare reform, spending restraint and the cap gains cut.

But whoever wants to take credit, the fact is that the combination contributed to the longest expansion in the history of the country — lasting 120 months.k
So whose policies are more similar to those of Hillary Clinton's: Bill Clinton or Bernie Sanders? It's not even close. Her husband's polices are now choices that she rejects and she advocates almost the direct opposite of many of those policies.

Awww. Bill is getting worried about Hillary's campaign.
Bill Clinton, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the situation, has been phoning campaign manager Robby Mook almost daily to express concerns about the campaign’s organization in the March voting states, which includes delegate bonanzas in Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Texas.

Many Clinton allies share the president’s desire for more organization on the ground; they see enthusiasm that’s ready to be channeled, but no channel yet in place. “Iowa matters a ton, but it seems to be the campaign’s only focus," said one person close to the campaign's operations in a March state — one of nearly a dozen Clinton allies with whom POLITICO spoke for this article. "It’s going to be a long primary, and the campaign seems less prepared for it than they were in 2008.”
With all the time she's had to plan this campaign, how can she not be well-organized in Iowa? That was her fatal error back in 2008. You'd think that that would be the one mistake they wouldn't make again.

Former Senator Jim DeMint lays out his arguments why the Senate should not get rid of the filibuster for appropriations bills.

Kindle Deals up to 80% off

Shop Amazon Fashion - Men's Running Shoes

Featured Deals in Sports and Fitness

Ian Tuttle contrasts
how the left, including Hillary Clinton, got so very outraged about Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas with how the left and Hillary responded to Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton assaulted and raped her. Remember that all Hill accused Thomas of was asking her out and making some off-color jokes. All Thomas was accused of doing was making Anita Hill feel uncomfortable. Somehow, that was treated as the most terrible behavior any many could inflict on a woman in the workplace. Anita Hill Was treated as a feminist heroine even though there were lots of dubious aspects about her story. Yet the reaction is so much different from how Broaddrick's allegations have been treated by the left even though she had a lot more collaborating evidence to her story than Hill did.
Compared with Broaddrick’s, that accusation was mild. In her initial Senate testimony, Hill only went so far as to call it “offensive behavior.” But Hill found a stalwart backer in one Hillary Clinton, then the wife of the “boy governor” of Arkansas, who one week before the allegation broke had announced his campaign for the presidency.

Hill’s accusation was entirely unsupported. The only person to publicly back Hill’s claim, Angela Wright, was rejected as unreliable by the Senate Judiciary Committee before she could testify, and Hill’s own testimony altered during a grilling by then–Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter, who said afterward that he believed Hill had committed “flat-out perjury.” Senator Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican, noted that after the period of alleged harassment, Hill made personal visits to Thomas, breakfasted with him, dined with him (twice), rode alone in a car with him, and initiated eleven calls to him between 1984 and 1987.

Yet at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in August 1992, the future first lady hailed Hill as someone who had “transformed consciousness and changed history with her courageous testimony.” “All women who care about equality of opportunity, about integrity and morality in the workplace are in Professor Anita Hill’s debt,” she added. That was ten months after Thomas had declared the confirmation proceedings a “high-tech lynching” and the Senate had confirmed him to the bench.

By contrast, Juanita Broaddrick’s claim was supported by not one but five witnesses and a host of circumstantial (though no physical) evidence. Broaddrick’s colleague Norma Rogers, who was attending the conference in Little Rock with her, says she found Broaddrick in her hotel room crying and “in a state of shock” on the morning of the alleged assault, her pantyhose torn and her lip swollen. According to Rogers, Broaddrick told her that Bill Clinton had “forced himself on her.”

At the time, Broaddrick (then Juanita Hickey) was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who would become her second husband. David Broaddrick told Dateline NBC that he remembers Juanita’s arriving home with a swollen lip and telling him that she had been assaulted by Bill Clinton.

And three other friends — Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Norma Rogers’s sister Jean Darden — all maintain that Broaddrick told them about the rape, too. (Rogers and Darden stand by their stories but have pointed out that they have an apparent conflict of interest: As governor, Clinton commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father.)
So if Hillary wants to pretend that she is such a supporter of women who accuse men of assault and she thought Anita Hill was such an admirable person, why the silence on Broaddrick? We all know why. Just remember Broaddrick's story every time you hear Hillary bringing out her supposed feminist bona fides.


mark said...

Why do repubs think that the Donald's flip-flops matter to his supporters? They already know and accept them. As long as he keeps throwing out/up his racist and fascist pronouncements, he's their man. I don't completely agree with Trump's assertion that he could randomly shoot someone and not lose his support. I suspect he would lose some votes if he shot the child of a white conservative. A few votes, at least.

tfhr said...


I'm not defending Trump but why do you think that people that don't agree with you are racist?

mark said...

I don't believe that nor have I ever implied it.

tfhr said...


It's a pretty consistent theme for you.

As far as I know, Trump still favors a single-payer system for healthcare. Is that why you've smeared him as a fascist?

Why is enforcement of immigration laws racist? I know that's a tough question for you, so here's an easier one:

What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?

mark said...

No,crumpet, I've not "smeared" trump as a fascist. I suspect he knows that about 80% of what he peddles is pure crap just to feed his pathetic followers.

tfhr said...

OK, so you're saying that he's only acting fascist to impress voters? Does that make sense to you?

You mentioned racism in your previous smear; why is enforcement of immigration laws racist to you?

Are you a socialist?

mark said...

Beyond that the majority of trump supporters are frighted little cowards who would surrender American principles for a bit of security, there is no logic. His lemmings applauded when he declared that wages are too high, and they cheered when he said that wages are two low.
I've never said that enforcement of immigration laws is racist. I have called the birtherism "movement" racist. You continue to make things up.
All you've got are lies and insane accusations.
Good little Crumpet!

tfhr said...

So you've avoided the question: Are you a socialist?

Afraid to answer? Who's the coward, mark?

mark said...

Silly Crumpet.
We've discussed this before. I'm a capitalist who understands and appreciates that we also have some aspects of socialism. Last time, I believe you went on a rant about me wanting to have Fidel's baby.

Who's the coward? Pretty obvious, crumpet. Anyone who makes heinous, criminal accusations against people and then refuses to provide a shred of evidence.

Betsy wonders how conservatives can be duped into supporting trump? We have a woman here who links to a white supremacist website to "prove" that blacks are genetically prone to violence. No objections by conservatives. You defend killing innocent children with your ignorant defense of "carpet-bombing and joke about U.S. citizens being beheaded. Again, no objections.

You and Kelli are exhibit A and B into the how trump can thrive in the repub party.

tfhr said...

Evidence? Did Harry Reid provide evidence to support his claim that Romney was cheating on his income tax? Of course not and the left ate it up like hungry rats.

People that disagree with the left are routinely smeared as "racists" by the likes of you. There is no evidence required in the standard set by the left. Enjoy the ride.

Wow, suddenly you care about innocent children - except when they can be parted out in Planned Parenthood abortion mills for campaign contributions and profit (hey, maybe you are some sort of capitalist after all - you support an operation that makes loads of money [on top of tax payer infusions]. Didn't see Planned Parenthood that way - a profitable business - at first but I still think it's immoral)

Who is Kelli? I think I asked you that once before. While I'm not a Republican, I don't think he's anymore of a Republican than Bloomberg. I don't joke about Americans being beheaded by Obama's JV team or any other murderers and I already beat you down on the carpet-bombing rhetoric. But here it is again:

The United States actually conducted carpet-bombing during WWII and I asked you if you thought that made FDR and Truman immoral, criminal, etc. In true form, you avoided the question. Coward.

Finally, I don't support Trump. I never have. Find any place where I said I support him or his candidacy. I do support the need to regain control of our borders and I think it's a good idea to try to win a war you're already fighting. Maybe that's what has you confused more than normal but if it helps you, Trump doesn't hold the trademark on those two ideas. It does make me wonder why you've never challenged me on his ideas regarding healthcare, Kelo, tariffs, the separation of powers, ethanol, etc.

Now back to this "capitalist" descriptor - is that a free market capitalist or are you just for crony capitalism? It's a huge difference and I wish you would have pointed that out when you said you were a capitalist. You know what crony capitalism is, right? Obama's Solyndra and the Clintons' Uranium One are two recent deals you must be proud of if you support the Democratic party and its top leadership.

So what is it, mark? Are you for a free market or do you want people in the government to pick and choose the winners, for a price?

How about a debate or are all you capable of doing is name calling?

mark said...


Your continued defense of "carpet-bombing" underscores your lack of morality and military-inteligence.

“That’s just another one of those phrases that people with no military experience throw around,” chuckled retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, a military historian and former commandant of the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.

Amazing that you continue to claim to want to debate without name-calling. Whenever you get trapped by your own inane arguments, you resort to name calling:

Lest you've forgotten:

Maybe you could make a lamp shade or a "Baby On Board" sign - made of real baby - to hang inside your Prius, you repulsive ghoul!!!!

So with your feeble attempt to deflect, you're saying you're good with harvesting baby parts for campaign
funding, got it.

You should be a conductor on La Bestia - you're perfect for the job - "Right this way kiddies...Uncle marco has some dulces for you."

mark said...

Gee, crumpet, not only did Planned Parenthood not break the law (as you claimed many times), but it was a twisted-conservative who was illegally procuring baby parts. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

tfhr said...

Nothing heard on the FDR/Truman/Cruz point on carpet-bombing.

Nothing heard on the Obama/Clinton crony capitalist v. freemarket

Just the usual aggrieved whining to deflect - I'm used to it by now but as always, unimpressed, but here's a Kleenex anyway.

I like that I own a piece of your hard drive - the bits where you've saved your tear stained ouchies where I've made fun of you - and the back of your mind that tells you where to find them. I must if you keep having to pick at your scabs to avoid debate.

Man-up and have a debate.

mark said...

Yes, crumpet, let's ignore all your lies about Planned Parenthood and your insane histrionics about using body parts for furniture.
I have no problem with your pathetic attempts to "make fun of me" with accusations of crimes that, if true, would deservedly land me in prison. They expose not only you but all conservatives here for being shameless lemmings who will put politics before the constitution, logic and decency.
I couldn't care less whether or not you support the Donald. You are living proof as to how a charlatan like trump can thrive in the repub party.

tfhr said...

mark the socialist,

You're still sounding like you're hurt. I get it that you won't dare debate - because the facts will not support you - but why all the crying? You say you understand that I'm mocking you but at the same time you put sooo much effort into describing how I've upset you. Oh, I get that the left uses claims of victimization and grievance like John Kerry uses botox and hairspray, but haven't you carried on long enough? Stop whining! Defend yourself. Defend Obama, defend Hillary, defend Bernie or better yet, defend a leftist or socialist policy that any of them have instituted, tried to institute or have pledged to enact if elected.

And for god's sake develop a sense of irony or at least be able to identify it. Maybe there's an "Irony for Idiots" self-help book out there and if you come across it, don't be surprised to see that example number one for unintended irony is from mark the socialist, when he accused, "...all conservatives here for being shameless lemmings who will put politics before the constitution, logic and decency." That's from a left wing zealot that unquestionably supports Obama and partial birth abortion! The irony is off the scale!

As for Trump "thriving" in the Republican party, I don't know if you noticed but he's not very popular among that party's leadership for one set of reasons and he's unpopular with conservatives in many other ways.

I'm not on board for a particular person based on image, gender, race, etc. I'm looking for the right ideas and principles. What about you? Who typifies or comes closest to having the right balance for you? Doesn't it leave you uneasy to know that Hillary cannot differentiate between a Democrat and a socialist? Can you?

You say you're a "capitalist" but I'm having a laugh wondering how you square that with Obama's policies, particularly with regard to healthcare.

mark said...

"lemmings" is an innocuous term for the conservatives here who have condoned your insane statements and accusations, or kelli's parroting of white supremacist talking points.