Banner ad

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Cruising the Web

Hillary's lies keep piling up.
The State Department says about 30 emails that may be related to the 2012 attack on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, are among the thousands of Hillary Clinton emails recovered during the FBI’s recently closed investigation into her use of a private server.

Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta Tuesday that an undetermined number of the emails among the 30 were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton. The State Department’s lawyer said it would need until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released....

Clinton previously had said she withheld and deleted only personal emails not related to her duties as secretary of state. With the November election little more than two months away, Republicans are pressing for the release of as many documents related to Clinton as possible.
Is there anything that Hillary said in that famous press conference at the UN that has turned out to be true? So in those supposedly personal emails that she deleted emails about the Benghazi attack were included instead of being turned over to the State Department. She swore under oath that she had turned over all work-related emails.
During a March 2015 press conference at the United Nations after the existence of her homebrew, private email server was first made public, Clinton insisted that while she had ordered the deletion of more than 33,000 emails, all of them were personal in nature.

'We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department,' she told reporters.

'At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails – emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.'
All lies.

Secretary of State John Kerry is just fed up with the media making things difficult for him.
"[I]f you decide one day you're going to be a terrorist and you're willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people," Kerry said. "You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't cover it quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on."
I wonder what Kerry would say if that same logic were applied to a black victim of a white policeman.

Summer Event - Soak up Summer - On sale for just a few days more

Shop Amazon Devices - All New Kindle 6-inch

Office and School Supplies

Fred Barnes wonders
why no Democrats have come out condemning Hillary Clinton's behavior with her server and the Clinton Foundation.
She is blanketed by scandals involving her emails, the Clinton Foundation, her chronic lying, and her husband's years of womanizing. And that's not the full list. Yet Democrats tolerate all of it without complaint, handwringing, or second thoughts. In polls, 90 percent or more of Democratic voters back her.

This represents a degree of party unity that Donald Trump can only dream about. He faces a revolt among Republicans who promise not to vote for him under any circumstances. An unknown number intend to vote

for Clinton.

The result: A united Democratic party has Clinton's back while rebellious Republicans torment Trump. And the dissidents are not a silent minority. They not only attack Trump, they go after Republicans and anyone else who endorses Trump or speaks positively about his candidacy.
We're not even getting the response we got during the Lewinsky scandal when prominent Democrats condemned Bill's behavior but just said they didn't think it rose to the level of impeachment. We're not getting Democrats today saying that they condemn her actions but just don't think that it's a reason not to support her against Trump. That's what a lot of average Democratic voters think. Why don't the politicians say it? They're afraid of getting on the Clintons' bad side.

Clarice Feldman ridicules
the media line that we're seeing nowadays saying that there is no evidence that Hillary actually did any favors for the donations that prominent people gave to the Clinton Foundation. For example, Feldman points to a Ruth Marcus column saying that Hillary didn't do anything criminal. As Feldman points out, this was quite the different attitude that Ruth Marcus took toward Virginia governor Bob McDonnell's scandal. For McDonnell, Marcus was especially condemnatory of McDonnell's behavior that she was convinced was clearly criminal. But Hillary...not at all. Marcus would do well to read the examples that Feldman provides of donations to the Foundation that are connected to special behavior from the Clinton State Department. She sold access to Moscow's attempt to create a Silicon Valley. The State Department approved arms sales to Bahrain after the Crown Prince after he donated $32 million to the Foundation. And that wasn't the only country that donated to the Foundation and got arms sales approved.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation....

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation....

These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
And then there was the approval of the sale of one-fifth of the United States' uranium reserves to a Russian company that had given over $2 million to the Clinton Foundation. Sure, we don't have some email soliciting money with promises of benefits. But that isn't how this sort of corruption works. The money gets donated and the favor gets made. The circumstantial evidence is clear. As Thoreau wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence Is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”

We keep hearing that Hillary Clinton is "finding her voice." It turns out that she's been "finding her voice" now since 1993.
Over the course of a career that’s included stints as the first lady, the senator from New York, a presidential candidate, the secretary of State and now the 2016 Democratic nominee, Clinton has demanded that our nation’s newsmen and wordsmiths and headline architects stretch the finite number of applicable words and phrases in the English language to the brink. And at some point, it seems, claiming Clinton had “found her voice” became a default literary device for a media that had a century’s worth of experience writing about male power, but had never before been tasked with reporting on a woman of her stature and ambition.
Maybe we should be concerned about how she keeps losing her voice.

The Hill reports on seven ways that the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its promises for transparency. So don't hold your breath for any new promises that Hillary makes today.

Kindle Deals up to 80% off

Today's Best Deals

Deal of the Day in Books

Michael Barone ponders how Hillary Clinton let Huma Abedin triple-dip jobs while working as her aide at the State Department.
In June 2012, after Weiner resigned from Congress after the first revelations of his sexting, Abedin was granted "special government employee" status which allowed her to work and collect money from the Clinton Foundation and from the Teneo consulting firm founded by Bill Clinton's close aide Doug Band at the same time she was being paid as a top aide to Secretary of State Clinton.

This was an unusual arrangement. Government appointees are usually required to resign from their previous jobs, and contracts granting them deferred compensation need to be renegotiated. The reason is obvious: They shouldn't be serving two masters.

The reason for Abedin's triple-dipping seems obvious as well: She wanted more money. It's expensive to maintain homes in both New York and Washington, especially when your spouse is out of a job. (Although it's cheaper if you move from a Manhattan apartment to one in Weiner's Brooklyn/Queens district.)

But why did Clinton agree to (insist on?) this arrangement? Sen. Charles Grassley has been asking this question since 2013. He has noted that ordinarily "special government employees" are not allowed to hold this status for more than 130 days, but Abedin triple-dipped for up to 245 days.
I'm sure it won't surprise you that the Senator hasn't received an answer.

I've been wondering if Hillary would give Abedin a position in her administration. There are so many scandals swirling around Huma and she is connected up to Hillary's email scandals. But Hillary seems to really like and depend on her. So, of course, Hillary will be happy to give Huma some sort of job in the executive office just as long as it is job that doesn't require Senate confirmation. I suspect Hillary won't care about the criticism she gets once she's elected.

Best Deals in Auto Parts

Sales and Deals in Beauty and Grooming

Deals in Jewelry

I hadn't realized that Colin Kaepernick wore a T shirt with Fidel Castro on it while he made his announcement about not standing for the national anthem.
Even this criticism overlooks an interesting fact: Kaepernick’s defiant protest would have been totally illegal in Castro’s Cuba.

The shirt Kaepernick wore commemorates a 1961 meeting between Castro and black activist Malcolm X. A few people, such as George Diaz of the Orlando Sentinel, have pointed out the irony of Kaepernick complaining about racial oppression while wearing a shirt featuring an oppressive dictator. Castro imprisoned thousands of political opponents over the course of his long reign, while driving hundreds of thousands of people to Florida as political or economic refugees.

The irony is even deeper than that. Not only was Cuba under Castro a deeply unfree country, Castro’s regime also specifically banned the kind of complaint Kaepernick is making.

After just a few years, Castro declared his policies a total success and henceforth made it a crime against the revolution to complain about racism or racial inequality. After that, the subject of discrimination became a taboo in the country, and it would remain that way for decades.
So Kaepernick wouldn't be allowed to protest racism if he was the country whose dictator he chose to honor with his T shirt.

Apparently, Barack Obama doesn't have enough to do so he's going to perform other people's job.
President Obama will "guest edit" Wired magazine's November issue, the publication and the White House announced Tuesday.

"We want to wrestle with the idea of how today's technology can influence political leadership," Wired Chief Editor Scott Dadich explained about why he wanted the magazine to collaborate with the president. "We want to explore how modern thinking and tools can help advance us as a society. And who better to help us explore these ideas than President Obama? He's one of the smartest, most thoughtful leaders this country has had in generations. We are thrilled to be working with him."

Instapundit tweets,

It turns out that a lot of what dentists tell us is necessary has no scientific proof that it is. Great! Now I don't have to feel bad when I don't go every six months to get my teeth cleaned.

The demand for trigger warnings by sensitive college snowflakes grows apace. Toni Airaksinen, a student at Barnard College lists some of the items for which she's recently seen trigger warnings: Pokemon GO. The U.S. Constitution. “White men.”
Huh? Pokemon GO is problematic? Yes, of course it is. Everything is problematic. But why? Well, some people believe Pokemon GO is a racist and classist game. Not only that, but people have alleged that it’s ableist, too. So much for “it’s just a game.”

I did a double take when I saw “tw: constitution” placed on a post rejoicing the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The logic is simple: the U.S. is, according to some students and professors, a tyrannical and colonialistic empire founded via the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans. For students, particularly those of color, the Constitution needs a trigger warning because it could prompt thoughts of oppression, persecution, genocide, and other social ills.

Contemporary feminism deems men as oppressors and threats. And in the hierarchy of oppressors, white men sit atop the food chain. So not only do I come across trigger warnings on posts about men — what they’ve said or done — but I also saw this one: “TW: white men” — used on an article on fraternity brothers behaving badly.

At my school, contempt for conservatives is de rigueur. Anyone to the political right is considered not just bad, but dangerous. Thus, mentions of politicians such as Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Paul Ryan, or conservative values (such as gun rights), often come with a trigger warning attached. For example, it’s not uncommon to see a news article with something Donald Trump said tagged with “trigger warning: Trump, racism.”
For these fragile students, trigger warnings seem to have become synonymous with anything they dislike or with which they disagree. But instead of simply saying that, they're adding in this psychological fear that simply hearing about something or someone they dislike they will by psychically damaged.

5 comments:

tfhr said...

"[Hillary Clinton]swore under oath that she had turned over all work-related emails" ~ Betsy

That is perjury and for other Americans it is considered a felony but for Hillary, it is merely a condition of being a Clinton. The worst thing that is likely to happen is that Arkansas will disbar her, which should be a relief to rape victims but otherwise will have no impact on anyone else.

tfhr said...

John Kerry's complaint about media coverage of terrorist attacks is pretty much the next step to take after his predecessor attempted to pass Benghazi off as a YouTube inspired protest gone violent.

Cover-up or ignore, the respective choices of two Secretaries of State whose boss is ever eager to release terrorists from Guantanamo, as if this will have some sort of useful impact against those that continue (and often resume) their war against infidels around the world. Our country is having a war waged against it and our "leadership" prefers to ignore it.

tfhr said...

Kaepernick's wardrobe malfunction celebrated a violent monster whose murderous deeds must be as much of a mystery to him as his words:

The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.~ Che "Buy My Trendy T-Shirt, You Clueless Moron" Guevara

Or maybe not since the oppressed millionaire, Colin Kaepernick, has a record of using some choice language (see NFL fine) on the field, so I imagine racist language is only racist if it is from some white guy. Select racists get a pass. (see what I did there with "pass"?)

While it is very likely that Kaepernick is really as stupid as his speech and gestures indicate, I think the bottom line is that his career has tanked and he has absolutely nothing else to fall back on and sadly cannot find the class within in himself step away with dignity from the game that made him.

Ron K said...

you would think Hilary would have learned from Nixon's mistakes, the cover up is worst than the crime itself, but then again Nixon did the honorable thing and resigned, Hilary should have run in the first place.

where do the democrats find all the brain dead people they put in as sectary of state, if they were smart they would have velarized the date 'Sep 11', what happens a lot in Muslim dominated countries, they have protest/demonstrations at US Embassies if they have one there. why did they send the ambassador to the consulate on that specific day, without any kind of security escort.

tfhr said...

Ron K.,

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi in the days ahead of the attack for a number of reasons. His last "official" business is said to have been with a Turkish diplomat. Given the fact that the CIA had a significant presence in Benghazi as it monitored the activities of AQ and it's spin-offs in the vacuum created by Qaddafi's ouster, there was security but it was not sufficient to the task of protecting the Ambassador at the consulate and the CIA site.

Security forces available to protect the diplomatic mission had been reduced despite the fact that other western nations were completely removing their embassy staffs in the deteriorating security environment. Benghazi was an even more perilous location than Tripoli, yet the State Department neglected the needs of Americans serving in Libya.

Questions unanswered are numerous and while some of these questions remain unexplained for the sake of national security, it is particularly galling that so much is still kept from public because greater concern was shown by the Obama Administration for damage control after the attack (and on the eve of the 2012 election) than was shown for the safety of Americans in Libya ahead of the attack, and most appallingly, once the attack had begun.

We do not have the straight story primarily because the principal leaders, Clinton and Obama, have deliberately obfuscated when pressed to explain their actions or lack thereof. Most of the media has made little to no effort to provide answers or seek accountability and saddest of all, but not surprising in the least, Obama and Clinton refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, lack of action and really, refuse to even explain their respective roles in the disaster. Remember that 2008 slogan-fest about the 3 AM phone call? Both Obama and Clinton effectively put the phone down when the call came.