Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Maybe this inches us closer to an understanding of just how the hell the FBI got politicized

Prominent Freedom-Hater Terry McAuliffe is involved. Surprised?

This week the Journal revealed that Clinton crony Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe— no stranger to suspicious fund-raising irregularities — funneled more than half a million dollars to the unsuccessful state senate campaign of the wife of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe, whom the Journal describes as FBI Director James Comey's "right-hand man," was deeply involved in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server — an investigation that found Mrs. Clinton in clear violation of the law but unindictable because... well, just because. Fortunately, Mr. McCabe has investigated himself and found himself completely innocent of any wrongdoing!
Let's keep digging, everybody. The clock is ticking. All this investigating comes to a screaming halt if Madame BleachBit succeeds the Most Equal Comrade as dictator of post-America.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

"We need to clean this up"

I doubt if this post is the first you've heard about the latest development in the Clinton machine / Freedom-Hater cabal email scandal. I know for a fact this isn't the first report about it to use the Podesta quote as a title.

But it needs to be disseminated as widely and plainly as possible.

The upper echelons of Freedom-Hater-dom are in a panic about the extent and brazenness of their lies being evident to all and any who care to look.

In a March 2015 interview, President Obama said that he had learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”
But that assertion concerned aides of Mrs. Clinton, who knew that the president himself had received emails from the private address, according to a hacked email made public on Tuesday by WikiLeaks.
“We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say,” Cheryl D. Mills, a top aide, wrote to John D. Podesta, another senior adviser, on March 7, 2015.
Two days later, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, tried to clarify the president’s remarks, saying that he had, in fact, exchanged emails with Mrs. Clinton through her private account. But Mr. Earnest suggested that the president had no idea the emails could be a problem, because he had relied on Mrs. Clinton to make sure that using a private account did not break any laws.
“The point that the president was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address — he did — but he was not aware of the details of how that email address and server had been set up, or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act,” Mr. Earnest said on March 9.
For Mrs. Clinton, the private email account to conduct State Department business has been a constant source of criticism during her presidential campaign, prompting a series of explanations and apologies from her and her aides, and even an F.B.I. investigation.
The email exchange made public on Tuesday highlighted how the issue was quickly viewed with deep concern not only for Mrs. Clinton, but also for her political ally and former boss, the president.
Do you feel secure having this bunch responsible for this nation's well-being?

Let's check in with the "A"CA - today's edition

Like all socialistic schemes, it's losing money and scrambling to make up the shortfall on the backs of the cattle-masses that the Most Equal Comrade lied to:

The Obama administration confirmed Monday that Obamacare prices are going up sharply next year, with average rate hikes above 20 percent in the 39 states using the federal exchange. From the Associated Press:
Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.
Moreover, about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.
“Consumers will be faced this year with not only big premium increases but also with a declining number of insurers participating, and that will lead to a tumultuous open enrollment period,” said Larry Levitt, who tracks the health care law for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
Despite the shockingly bad news, the AP can’t resist turning this into a ‘Republicans pounce’ story. The 5th paragraph begins, “Republicans will pounce on the numbers as confirmation that insurance markets created by the 2010 health overhaul are on the verge of collapsing in a ‘death spiral.'”
Obamacare proponents are fond of saying that the big price hikes won’t affect most customers. And so you get paragraphs like this one from CNN’s report on the price hikes:
Most consumers, however, are shielded from these price hikes, especially if they return to the exchanges to shop after enrollment opens Nov. 1. Some 85% of Obamacare enrollees receive federal subsidies, which can lower their premium to less than 10% of their income.
That 85% statistic is intentionally misleading as it only includes people buying insurance plans on the exchange. But millions of people who aren’t eligible for subsidies buy the same plans off the exchange. As the AP points out, “an estimated 5 million to 7 million people are either not eligible for the income-based assistance, or they buy individual policies outside of the health law’s markets, where the subsidies are not available.” So it’s not true that 85% of people buying these plans will be shielded from the double digit premium hikes and that may indeed be reason to suspect a death spiral (or Zombie spiral) in our future.

And even if you think you are unaffected by the increase, remember, you're not just a health insurance consumer, you're a taxpayer.

LITD's first law of economics: The money has to come from somewhere.

Madame BleachBit's greatest spits

Deroy Murdock at NRO runs down some of the more notable instances of BB's abuse of those in positions of service to her:

“I’m not voting for Clinton,” Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.

“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9 handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.”

“One of my last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”

According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that f***ing dog away from me.”

“Then she turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’”

“Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but Hillary.”

“Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, page 139.

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page 259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat arose.

“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F*** off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.

“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.

Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that emerged when she was around.”

“Where is the goddam f***ing flag? I want the goddam f***ing flag up every f***ing morning at f***ing sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, page 246. “Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita, by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.

“F*** off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you s***-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your mouth shut.”
The safe bet for succeeding the Most Equal Comrade as dictator of post-America is a real charmer indeed.

Monday, October 24, 2016

The tax dollars you have busted your tail for are paying for this dog vomit

Six figures for spouting identity politics jackbootery. Not a bad haul.

The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to hire 15 “Diversity and Inclusion Specialists,” each of whom will make $100,000 or more per year.
The agency will hire employees to set up diversity and inclusion “advisory bodies” across the country, according to a government job posting.
“Earth Day is every day at EPA!” the agency said. “At EPA, you can protect human health and the environment of all Americans, and you’ll discover that EPA is one great place to work!”
Here's the nature of the "work" they'll be doing:

The employees will be in charge of implementing a “diversity strategy” within the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Other duties include analyzing recruitment and retention, as well as setting up diversity and inclusion advisory boards.
The hires will “initiate collaborative efforts between Minority Academic Institutions and EPA Special Emphasis Program Managers to establish an ORD diversity and inclusion advisory body,” the agency said.
So the thugs of arguably the most tyrannical agency of the post-American government will now come in all colors and a variety of imaginary genders.

And what of Madame BleachBit's foreign-policy chops, such as they are?

A comprehensive - and grim - look at the trail of disaster BB has wrought across the globe:

Many conservatives hold out hope that, as president, Hillary Clinton will be okay on foreign policy and national security issues. A few even plan to vote for her for this reason, seeing Donald Trump as worse than Clinton on these matters.
Keith Kellogg, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and adviser to the Trump campaign, demonstrates that hopes for a sound foreign national security policy can only be founded on wishful thinking and dislike of Trump. They find no support in her record. 
Kellogg begins with Iraq. Clinton voted for that war. Was this a mistake? Clinton says it was.
It certainly was a major mistake to vote (as Clinton did) against the surge that turned the tide in Iraq, and to ridicule Gen. Petraeus, the surge’s architect. And it was a major mistake to pull out of Iraq when President Obama came to office. (The excuses for the pullout have been debunked by Dexter Filkins of the New York Times).
Kellogg blames Clinton for not being able to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. The evidence suggests that Obama didn’t want to reach an agreement and I believe that this, not poor negotiating by Clinton, is why we didn’t get one. But Clinton was part of the team that gave away our hard-won gains (gains she tried to prevent by opposing the surge) in Iraq.
Kellogg next considers Libya. There can be no Clinton finger pointing when it comes to the disasters that have occurred there. She was the architect of our Libya policy, which, email traffic shows, her team considered her greatest achievement as Secretary of State.
Some achievement. As Kellogg points out:
When [Qaddifi] was overthrown, there was no plan for follow-up governance. The result was instability, a huge refugee flow into southern Europe and the Islamic State gaining a foothold in Libya.
Worse was the eventual loss of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the Benghazi terrorist attack. It was the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. The response from our secretary of state? She claimed his killing was the result of an anti-Islamic video.
Clinton’s Russian reset began badly. As Kellogg reminds us, Clinton couldn’t even get the translation on the idiotic reset button correct: The Russian word emblazoned on the button actually meant “overload.” 
Since the reset, Russia has taken Crimea, invaded main portions of Ukraine, strongly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad, conducted airstrikes against civilians in Aleppo, Syria and significantly increased its military and political presence in the Middle East.
It’s ironic that Clinton is winning the debate over Russia. Yes, Clinton talks tougher than Trump about Russia. But, as Trump likes to say, it’s all talk. 
Egypt is a case in point. In 2009, she called Mubarak a family friend. But when he came under attack, she supported his overthrow and then backed the Muslim Brotherhood government. Now, she denounces the U.S. friendly government as “basically a military dictatorship.”
As for Iran, Clinton backs the great giveaway known as the nuclear deal. We can be confident that in a Clinton administration, Iran will get away with violation after violation. 

What further debacles can we look forward to when she succeeds the Most Equal Comrade as the architect of post-America's doom?

It's not just Morocco by a long shot

The previous post looked into a pay-for-play arrangement involving the king of Morocco and the Clinton Foundation.

It was typical in its stickiness:

Saudi Arabian Influence: 
When Clinton first took office in 2008, the foundation disclosed that Saudi Arabia donated between $10 to $25 million, with some donations coming as recently as 2014 when Clinton prepared her run for the presidency. The foundation received an additional $1 to $5 million donation from the “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” which was cofounded by a Saudi prince. Critics question the ethics of taking such vast sums of money from individuals and a government with one of the worst human rights records in the world.
King Of Moroccan Meeting : 
Emails released by WikiLeaks, in a likely attempt to influence the U.S. election, also reveal Clinton arranged for her foundation to host a meeting in Morocco in return for a $12 million donation from the country’s king. The donation came from a Moroccan state-owned mining company, which later received a $92 million loan guarantee while Clinton served as secretary of state.

“This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx. $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting,” Clintons aide Huma Abedin wrote in a leaked email to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Russian Uranium Ties: 
In another troubling instance, foundation donations were closely linked to a uranium mining company tied to the Kremlin. Canadian leaders of a mining company funneled millions of dollars to the foundation while Clinton was secretary of state, at the same time they needed Department of State approval for the sale of their company to Russia. The Clinton State Department-approved deal gave Russia control of one-fifth of the entire uranium supply in the U.S.
The chairman of the uranium mining company donated $2.35 million to the foundation, without any disclosure from the Clintons. After Russia announced its intention to make a bid for the uranium mining company, former President Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to deliver a speech in Moscow.
Indonesian Tobacco Magnate:
The Clinton Foundation’s ties also extend to powerful individuals seeking assistance from the U.S. government, with the help of the Clinton network. Indonesian tobacco magnate Putera Sampoerna donated and worked with the foundation before he “got the U.S. government to underwrite millions in loans offered by the foundation and secured high-profile support for its activities from Sec. Clinton and other senior federal officials,” according to a report by The Washington Free Beacon.
Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman: 
The Clinton Foundation further accepted donations from several foreign governments while Clinton served as secretary of state, including Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman.
In the instance of Algeria, the Clinton Foundation acknowledged to The Washington Post in 2015 it should have sought clearance from the Department of State’s ethics office before taking $500,000. After Clinton left office, the foundation received a large donation from the United Arab Emirates.
Clinton Foundation officials ignored nearly all “best practices” urged by good governance organizations, a July Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found. When Trump challenged Clinton to return donations from countries that abuse women and homosexuals, a DCNF investigation found it would amount to between $19.3 million and $55.7 million.
This one's especially grisly:

The Clinton Foundation invited the prime minister of Kosovo to the 2011 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting knowing full well that he had been implicated in a human organ trafficking scheme as leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army in the late 1990s.
“What are USG views on WJC inviting former Kosovo PM [Hashim] Thaci and the current PM to CGI?” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote in an Aug. 17, 2011 email to several top Hillary Clinton State Department officials.
“Is Thaci still embroiled in organ harvesting issues and is that of consequence?” Desai asked in the email, which the State Department recently released to Citizens United.
Desai clarified in a follow-up email that Thaci was actually prime minister at the time. He now serves as president of Kosovo.

Who within the Clinton machine knew this and when?

Thaci’s alleged atrocities, which have not led to prosecution for him or anyone in the KLA, have been laid out in detail in other news reports.
Vice News reported in 2014 that an American diplomat who was appointed in 2011 by the European Union to investigate the claims, found that the KLA murdered 10 Serbian and Albanian prisoners and sold their kidneys and livers on the black market.
Vice also reported that Thaci was known in his KLA days as “The Snake.”

But at this point, what difference does it make?

HuffPo: This Clinton campaign move is so stinky, we'd be remiss not to report it

Unseemly in the extreme:

In the beforetime, in the long, long ago of 2015, a woman named Hillary Clintonwas about to launch her campaign for president. She was also trying really hard to secure $12 million for her family’s charitable foundation from King Mohammed VI of Morocco. And her campaign was freaking out about it.
Campaign manager Robby Mook and longtime Clinton confidant John Podesta thought the deal ― in which Clinton had committed to speak at an event for the king on the condition of his $12 million donation ― would look bad. Clinton aide Huma Abedin tried to explain that it was simply too late to back out.
“This was HRC’s idea,” Abedin wrote in an email to Podesta. “Our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months.” 
The team eventually reached a compromise. Hillary Clinton didn’t show up, but Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton did, and the money came through. 
It is generally frowned upon for presidential candidates to be pumping foreign leaders for money, and her staff recognized it. And so they exchanged a series of contentious emails. On “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace pressed Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook on the controversy.

“Why wasn’t that classic pay-to-play?” Wallace asked.

“There’s nothing new here,” Mook replied, deflecting to Donald Trump’s sagging poll numbers.

“But, Robby, there is some new stuff,” Wallace responded. “Emails show ― and I’m going to go through some of them ― you were not happy at all the idea of this meeting and her going there.”

Mook maintained that it was all just a scheduling issue that had nothing to do with corruption or public perceptions of corruption.

“We didn’t want her going overseas,” Mook said. “I didn’t want her going overseas before the campaign was kicking off. Again, these are stolen documents.”
Well, yes, Robby, but the truth they reveal is a genie that's not going to go back into the bottle.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

About Robert Creamer

He's an old associate of The Most Equal Comrade, and he's tireless at fomenting tyranny.

He's as much an architect of the "A"CA as Ezekiel Emmanuel or Jonathan Gruber, but he contributed his part from the hoosegow:

Robert Creamer, founder and partner of Democracy Partners, the group behind the organized violence at Trump rallies, as shown in the video by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, is no ordinary agitator. Creamer, a convicted felon, is arguably the spiritual godfather of ObamaCarre and much of the current progressive left agenda.
Creamer, along with his wife, Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky is no stranger to agitation, violence, and expanding the progressive agenda. As Investor’s Business Daily pointed out in March 5, 2010 editorial regarding protests against House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski over the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, which expanded Medicare benefits and funded the change with a supplemental tax:
An interesting historical footnote is that leading the protest against Rostenkowski was Jan Schakowsky -- then Director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens -– and currently Democratic representative from the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, and chief deputy whip to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was Schakowshy’s husband, Robert Creamer, a Huffington Post blogger, who wrote what is arguably the bible of current health care reform efforts, Stand-Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, while serving a prison term for check kiting.
As Breitbart has reported, Creamer, in addition to being the inspiration for ObamaCare, was also involved in heavily promoting the Iran nuclear deal, which effectively removed all impediments to Iran becoming a nuclear power and in providing $150 billion for this state sponsor of terror to foment revolution targeted against Israel and American interests:
Creamer, a political consultant who is intimately connected with Obama’s inner political circle,  pleaded guilty in 2005 to tax violations and bank fraud. He served time in a federal prison and was under house arrest. After finishing his sentence, Creamer worked for Obama’s presidential campaign, training organizers.
As Breitbart News first exposed in 2009, Creamer used his prison time to work on a political manual: Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win. In it, he devised a strategy to guide a future “progressive” president. His plan included implementing “universal health care” as a first step to other radical reforms, including amnesty for illegal aliens. Obama strategist David Axelrod called the book “a blueprint for future victories.”…
The Wall Street Journal reports that Creamer advocated for the Iran deal with the help of the Ploughshares Fund, a pro-Iran organization.
According to a transcript of the [Ploughshares] call reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, participants stressed that the Iran agreement was the most important of the Obama administration’s second term, and they needed to prepare for battle with Republicans.
“The other side will go crazy. We have to be really clear that it’s a good deal,” said Robert Creamer of Americans United for Change, a liberal action group. His wife is Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), a close ally of the White House in selling the agreement.
Creamer, who has visited the White House some 342 times since 2009, as noted, has been up to his eyeballs with left-wing agitation and the progressive agenda, as well as being involved in the corruption that has plagued Illinois under Democratic governors. As Joel B. Pollak wrote in Breitbart in December, 2009:
Rep. Schakowsky’s husband, Robert Creamer, used to be the leader of Citizen Action/Illinois. He also founded its predecessor, Illinois Public Action, in which Ms. Schakowsky served as Program Director. He runs a political consulting firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, which lists ACORN and the SEIU among its clients and which made $541,000 working for disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.
Creamer resigned from Citizen Action/Illinois after the FBI began investigating him for bank fraud and tax evasion at Illinois Public Action. He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to five months in federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, plus eleven months of house arrest.
While in prison–or “forced sabbatical,” he called it -- Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007).
The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern -- the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House -- and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer’s tome “provides a blueprint for future victories.”
In the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky’s political career. He also lays out a “Progressive Agenda for Structural Change,” which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009….
“We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
“We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
“Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing
the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”“We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
“We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
“We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
“Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
“We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
“We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types.”
“To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”
Creamer adds : “To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion -- fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”
Democrats have followed Creamer’s plan to the letter. They have claimed our health care system is in crisis despite polls showing the overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with the care they receive.
For my money, one of the most important books of the last ten years is Radical-in-Chief by Stanley Kurtz. Published shortly after the Most Equal Comrade took office in 2009, it looks exhaustively at the web of Chicago-based radical leftist groups through which the MEC maneuvered. In a piece at NRO a couple of days ago, Kurtz summarizes what he had written about Creamer then.

Creamer is a longtime Alinskyite activist and a leader in Obama’s old community organizing network. Creamer was a key figure in the work of Chicago’s community organizer training center, the Midwest Academy, to which Obama had close ties. I write extensively about the hard-left ideology and hardball tactics of the Midwest Academy, and Creamer’s role at the center of it all, in my political biography of President Obama, Radical-in-Chief (see Chapter 5, esp. 144-45; 186-88).

The Midwest Academy was founded by die-hard socialists who had once been part of the radical 60s SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). An influential figure in Saul Alinsky’s early Chicago operations, Creamer worked with the Midwest Academy’s founders to persuade young socialist revolutionaries in the 70s to adopt a more “pragmatic” Alinskyite stance. In other words, Creamer helped persuade these young revolutionaries to organize, and provide quiet socialist guidance, to movements that were liberal in appearance, yet radical in their ultimate intentions and effects.

While retaining his ties to the Midwest Academy, Creamer rose to become a prominent Democratic strategist and, as numerous reports have indicated, a frequent visitor to the Obama White House. Creamer was an important early advocate of what we now call the healthcare “public option,” an idea that appears to have been at least partially inspired by one of the Midwest Academy’s earlier organizing campaigns. 

Folks, this is why we call 'em Freedom-Haters.

Friday, October 21, 2016

When Madame BleachBit says she can't recall something . . .

 . . . you can be sure she's lying.

Today's exhibit:

This is just another lie from a compulsive liar, lying about her national security-endangering email scandal for which nobody has been held accountable -- to the reported chagrin of the career FBI agents and DOJ lawyers who worked the case.  Via the Washington Examinerhere we go again:
Responding to a set of questions under oath last week, Clinton said through her lawyer that she did not recall discussing her server with Bryan Pagliano, the IT aide whose immunity deal was the first to emerge publicly from the year-long FBI probe. "Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in her email account," Clinton testified through her lawyer, David Kendall, after raising objections to the question. But emails provided to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act show Clinton included Pagliano in discussions about her Blackberry, iPad and server when her network experienced problems in 2012..."Let me take a look at the server to see if it offers any insight," Pagliano wrote in an email to Clinton after she complained to him and Cooper of the "troubles" plaguing her Blackberry. The new records were among the roughly 15,000 emails FBI agents turned over to the State Department at the conclusion of their investigation.
Her testimony was that she "does not recall" ever communicating with Bryan Pagliano, the IT tech who set up and operated her bootleg, unsecureimproperserver.  That doesn't pass the smell test on its face.  She never communicated with the guy who was running this scheme for her?  Buying that story requires a "willful suspension of disbelief," as Clinton once said in a nasty partisan confrontation with David Petraeus (approximately 1,000 official emails with whom her team wrongfully deleted and withheld from the State Department, about which Clinton then lied).  Beyond the smell test, these newly-released emails identify at least one instance in which Clinton personally emailed Pagliano, seeking assistance when her system was on the fritz (relatedly, you may remember that during a separate bout of server technical difficulties, the State Department actually disabled its official system's virtual defenses in order to try to accommodate her issue).  Sec. Clinton reached out to Pagliano for help, and he replied that he was working on the issue.  Does anyonebelieve this was the only time the two interacted?  It's a safe bet that she can't recall that either.  Meanwhile, experts are casting doubts on former State Department official Patrick Kennedy's tale about why he was in touch with an FBI official about email classifications, which he insists was not a quid pro quo offer:
A top former Justice Department privacy officer on Wednesday called it “extremely unlikely” that a senior U.S. diplomat would normally discuss the nuances of classification levels of one of Hillary Clinton’s emails about Benghazi with the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s international operations bureau. Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary of management, was accused this week of offering a possible quid pro quo with the FBI in May 2015 to regarding the classification of an email about the 2012 attack on a diplomatic compound in northern Libya. In exchange for keeping the email unclassified, FBI documents released this week suggested, the State Department would agree to host more FBI agents in Iraq...the Justice Department’s former information and privacy director, Dan Metcalfe, on Wednesday said it was “extremely unlikely” that the Kennedy would seek advice on this particular classification issue from now-retired FBI agent Brian McCauley, who at the time was the bureau’s deputy assistant director for international operations. Instead, Metcalfe suggested, Kennedy likely called [McCauley] knowing the FBI wanted more agents in Iraq, but had been stymied in the past.
In other words, Kennedy's attempted machinations were basically exactly that they looked like: A political effort to protect Hillary Clinton, via mutual backscratching.  Nice try, Patrick -- who seems to feature prominently in Hillary scandals with curious frequency.
She hasn't even succeeded the Most Equal Comrade as dictator of post-America yet, and already there's not one impartial entity in the post-American government.

What an incoherent doofus does with low-hanging fruit

Patterico at RedState  makes a pretty obvious point (that, um, we're not seeing elsewhere; consider what that says about the state of political thought in post-America) about Chris Wallace's first question at Wednesday's debate:

[He] began the debate with one of the dumbest questions I have heard this election cycle:
First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders’ words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly, according to changing circumstances? In this segment, secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes.
Think about that for a moment. Chris Wallace asks the candidates where they want the Supreme Court to “take the country.” But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to take the country anywhere!
For a constitutional conservative, this was a hanging curveball over the fat part of home plate. Trump should have been able to knock it out of the park! So what does the bumbling Donald Trump do with it instead? Well, because everything is about him, he immediately thinks about the time one of the justices insulted him personally:
Well, first of all, it’s so great to be with you and thank you, everybody. The Supreme Court, it is what it is all about. Our country is so, so, it is just so imperative that we have the right justices. Something happened recently where Justice Ginsburg made some very inappropriate statements toward me and toward a tremendous number of people. Many, many millions of people that I represent and she was forced to apologize. And apologize she did. But these were statements that should never, ever have been made.
This pathetic and predictably narcissistic answer got me thinking: how would the debate have gone if Ted Cruz been on stage instead of Donald Trump?
But that's how Squirrel-Hair rolls.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Debate three - initial thoughts

Chris Wallace ran a tight ship and asked great questions.

Squirrel-Hair certainly wasn't what we'd called substantive if employing conventional standards, but he was downright incisive when the subject of Mosul came up. That city will be liberated from ISIS eventually, but what of the vacuum when that occurs, when the peshmerga and Iraqi forces are staring at each other? And Iran and Russia, having reclaimed Aleppo in neighboring Syria basically by reducing it to rubble, will be a factor.

Of course, when the subject turned to the Supreme Court, Madame BleachBit seized the opportunity to burnish her identity-politics and pro-fetal-murder bona fides, getting right into "marriage equality" and "LGBT rights" and Roe v. Wade. Mention of the Constitution? Nah.

I got to thinking after the debate, reflecting upon BB's insistence that "entitlements" not be modified in the least about how the "third rail" perspective on them is going to be the nail in post-America's coffin. Think of it this way: A radio host such as Dave Ramsey, who helps individual people with their personal lives, generates enthusiasm for his show and work by delivering bracing truths about money, and so on the infrequent occasions where he remarks on public policy, he can deliver a blunt assessment such as "Social Security is a ponzi scheme based on a socialist premise and no one should make it the centerpiece of his or her retirement plan." But if a candidate for, say, Congress or the presidency says anything so candid in a speech or debate, it's the kiss of death for his campaign. (As we know, S-H certainly did not do this. It's not because startling utterances don't spew forth from his mouth - we know they do - but because he lacks the coherence to say something of that clarity.)

Squirrel-Hair's worst moment? When, in response to Wallace's question about accepting the election results, he said, "I'd have to look at it," and added, "I'll keep you in suspense, okay?" A reversion to full brat mode.

It is very late in the day.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Where is real integrity to be found in late October 2016?

The main point of Caleb Howe's latest piece at RedState is to pose the question, why did we give up on replacing Donald Trump? Along the way, however, he puts in stark relief just how raw the discourse on the "right" has become at this late date:

When someone writes something critical about Trump, people don't say "oh that's not true, he's not like that, he never said that." What they say is "why are you talking about this instead of attacking Hillary, you traitor?" It has been a non-stop, relentless onslaught of people who accuse those who won't support Trump of everything from "moral preening" to wagging our tails for pats on the head from the left. 
Nobody says "oh Trump's ideas about women are awesome" or "I'm a big believer in p*ssy grabbing," it's always "you're just like the MSM, leave Trump alone" and above all, without fail, without surcease, "BUT HILLARY!" To call it tiresome would be a colossal understatement. 
And even if you're likewise writing about Hillary's deceit, malfeasance, bribery, corruption, and how she is not fit for office, and you are not voting for her, it does not matter, because you don't write "enough," or have a good "ratio," or your heart isn't it. Or, and this is my favorite, you're really just helping her get elected but also don't matter because you've thrown your relevance in the trash and aren't credible anymore and ha ha you're done as a conservative.
Yeah, I never said their arguments were logical.
I could name names, but you know who these petty, bitter clingers are, so I don't have to.
Laura Ingraham. Fine. I said one.
On the question of who should lose, let's be perfectly clear. I want Hillary Clinton to lose the election. I don't want her to be the President. I also want Trump to lose the election. I don't want him to be the President. On the scale of losing, I want her loss even more than I want his. Frankly, in light of the recent email releases, and especially the Project Veritas videos, the "burn the system down" impulse to vote for Trump is sorely tempting. I want Hillary to lose.
It doesn't matter, though. The two of them are running, only one will lose, and that one will almost certainly be Trump. Since advocating for Trump is a betrayal of the conservative movement, and defending him requires debasing oneself, it is absurd to expect us to do that. Claiming Trump is fit for office requires resorting to flat-out lies. We don't do that here at RedState. We criticize politicians when they are wrong. Or evil. And both of them are both.
That's not to say that there aren't those who are planning to vote for him, and say so, that haven't maintained their integrity. There are. We have some on the front page at RedState who have said publicly stated their intent to vote for Trump. There are radio hosts and writers at other websites, there are people who are making the decision that this is what they can do to stop Hillary. They aren't, you see, saying "locker room talk."
I'm not going to bother to disprove the whole "not supporting Trump is a vote for Hillary" crap, since we have destroyed that many times here at RedState. And I'm not going to bother explaining that we at RedState, like the fine folks at Conservative Review and National Review, have held Hillary to account, as we do all politicians, not just this year but every year this site has been online. If you don't know that then you're have selective attention and aren't honest anyway so there's no point. 
And I'm certainly not going to bother explaining to you the 200 thousand ways that your defense of Donald Trump is illogical, undermines your entire worldview, will ruin your credibility in the next election cycle on all the issues where you defended his anti-conservative points of view, or how you can never again honestly call yourself a "values voter" if you have spent this cycle apologizing for and promoting him.
Jerry Fallwell, Jr. Fine. I said two.

As I have pointed out before, there are two main categories of people on the "right" who publicly say they are going to vote for Squirrel-Hair. And, as you know, the first type, exemplified by the two people Howe mentions above, has been giddy about his candidacy from the get-go, viewing it as a breath of fresh air, a needed shakeup for the Republican party.

I have nothing but contempt and disgust for those in that category.

The second category, those who stress that they opposed S-H's candidacy as long as others were still in the race (Dennis Prager, Bookworm) still get a shred of my respect, but I'll forever view them a little differently than I used to.

Just before writing this post, I saw a really stupid essay over at The American Thinker that I won't even honor with a link that took this neverTrumpers-are-traitors position, saying it's we who will have much to answer for after his defeat the election. Are you ready for this? He even characterized S-H as a "common-sense conservative." You don't see a depiction that ate up much anymore.

If there is one aspect of this whole debacle that can be, with some tortured reasoning, construed as a positive, it is that the S-H phenomenon has shown us the price of certain souls.

How advanced is the rot? - today's edition

This advanced:

Gettysburg College freshman James Goodman began his first moments of higher education by being lectured by campus leaders about “toxic masculinity,” he tells The College Fix in an interview.
Students who “identify as male” were shown a docudrama film about masculinity. The film, titled “The Mask You Live In,” was part of the lessons warning students that the notion of masculinity comes with harmful side effects, he said.
According to the trailer of the film, it teaches that the “three most destructive words” a boy can hear growing up is “be a man.” Experts quoted therein also suggest that violent outbursts are prompted by masculinity pressures because “respect is linked to violence.”
“They really buy into a culture that doesn’t value what we feminize,” says scholar Dr. Niobe Way in the trailer, continuing that people of both genders will “go crazy” under that construct.
Psychiatrist Dr. James Gilligan added “whether it’s homicidal violence or suicidal violence, people resort to such desperate behavior only when they are feeling shame or humiliated, or feel they would be if they didn’t prove that they were real men.”
As he makes the comments, headlines reporting on suicides and murder-suicides flashed on screen.
Others headlines that peppered the trailer apparently link shooting massacres to masculinity; images included stories about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six staff members, and the shooting in Aurora, Colo., in which James Holmes killed 12 people inside a movie theater.
“We are in a culture that doesn’t value caring,” the “The Mask You Live In” trailer warns, noting American society pushes a “hyper-masculine narrative.”
Gettysburg College freshman James Goodman told The College Fix that, following the film, the group of students engaged in a small discussion about how the film made them feel. Additionally, the student moderators “attempted to tie Sandy Hook and the Aurora shooting into being a result of toxic masculinity,” Goodman said.
Moreover, it was expressed during group discussion that “video games and movies make us violent” and that “kids are becoming violent because they can’t talk about their feelings,” he said.
“Then we went back to a classroom where we talked about … what we look for in a good male friend,” he said.
The next activity asked the male students to put green, yellow or red dot stickers on pictures of various popular culture images. The green dot was intended to symbolize something good and acceptable, yellow was more moderate, and red as completely inappropriate and unacceptable behavior.
The students were given choices such as Barney Stinson, a misogynistic character from the “How I Met Your Mother” television show, and Grand Theft Auto, among others.
“The entire movie and lesson made it seem like masculinity was an unacceptable human trait. That it’s something males should avoid. It was completely pointless. It did nothing to help anyone. I got absolutely nothing out of the experience, other than a headache,” Goodman said to The College Fix.
As I said yesterday, we really are testing the limits of God's mercy.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

A hero in a realm where cowards and nutcases are the norm

That would be the Western university campus.

The hero? Jordan B. Peterson:

Jordan B. Peterson is a tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and a clinical psychologist. His lectures—many produced by TEDx—are popular on YouTube and include titles as wide-ranging as “Potential,” “The Necessity of Virtue,” and “Redefining Reality.” Many readers report being deeply influenced by his book, “Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief,” which explores how and why divergent cultures produce similar myths and stories.
Today Peterson is laser-focused on fighting the cultural cancer of political correctness. He is alarmed at how quickly it is metastasizing into laws that seek to punish any and all self-expression. Such legislation—in his case, Canada’s bill C-16, which would amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and Criminal Code to add “gender identity and expression” as a special category for anti-discrimination—is tailor-made to program people into conformity of thought. As with all things politically correct, such legislation always comes disguised in the language of “equality.”
Pointing this out is a herculean task today, and one Peterson seems to have taken on by himself. If he has colleagues who are also distressed, they probably don’t speak up out of fear of being smeared or fired. But there really is no alternative to loudly fighting political correctness. Peterson seems to have valiantly and quite sanely realized tenure is utterly worthless if the future holds nothing more than perpetual gagging by the thought police. Hopefully concerned colleagues will join him if this reality dawns on them before it’s too late.
When interviewed recently by Lauren Southern of Rebel Media at a free speech rally at the University of Toronto, Peterson made clear that even if his job is in jeopardy, the stakes are far too high to remain silent. “Something ugly is brewing,” he stated.
And you can be sure that he comes in for vitriol.

But, being a clinical psychologist, he has to point out what he has seen firsthand in terms of real-life damage:

Peterson reports several of his clinical patients have been driven literally to the brink of insanity by the effects of political correctness in their workplaces. One who worked in a financial institution was warned that using the term “flip chart” was racist. Another was a social worker, forced by law to allow non-surgically-altered men into a women’s shelter despite the further trauma their presence caused the women there.
Check out his YouTube videos. He's as impressive a warrior as we've had in some time.

On our own in the darkness of approaching winter

Woe to her that is rebellious 
  and defiled,
the oppressing city!
She listens to no voice, 
   she accepts no correction.
She does not trust in the Lord, 
  she does not draw near to her God.

 - Zephaniah 3: 1-3

Well, okay, just how late in the day is it on this eighteenth of October 2016?

Evidence of rank-and-file FBI disillusionment with director Comey continues to pour in:

According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.
DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”
He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”
He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”

We have, of course, the private-server scandal as ample evidence of Madame BleachBit's recklessness as Secretary of State. Now there is another type of substantiation:

Secret Service agents  . . . complained that Clinton “disregarded security and diplomatic protocols, occasionally without regard for the safety of her staff and protection detail, in order to gain favorable press.” According to the official,  Clinton refused to travel by armored limousine with the U.S. ambassador as is standard diplomatic and security protocol when the secretary of State visits a foreign country.
“CLINTON refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol,” the summary says. Clinton’s breaches of protocol, it adds, were “well-known throughout Diplomatic Security and were ‘abundant.'”
The report goes on to say that DS agents were "indignant" because Clinton refused to leave her BlackBerry outside of her office as required, as it is a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), while the agents had to leave their cell phones at the door.

With his electoral-college prospects dim at best, Squirrel-Hair continues to indulge his penchant for pettiness, the trait which motivates him to aim his volleys at what is ostensibly his own party. Today's edition of Trash the Pubs has S-H claiming that Paul Ryan is not supporting him because Ryan intends to run for president in 2020. It gets worse. S-H's signature narcissism reaches delusional levels as he says, "I'm in his territory and they're all screaming for Trump." Um, Squirrel-Hair, I invite you to squarely look at the fact that Ryan outpolls both you and Madame BleachBit.

Oh, and in the wake of the firebombing of the Orange County, North Carolina GOP headquarters, to her credit, Madame BleachBit issued a tweet that graciously expressed relief that no one was hurt. Squirrel-Hair? He immediately blamed it on "animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems" who did it "because we're winning." Again, his obsession with winners and losers overrides any kind of broader thought process.

So we have the nation's federal-level law-enforcement agency completely demoralized, one viable presidential candidate with a track record of endangering national security, and the other routinely behaving like a spoiled ten-year-old.

Patriotic Americans, as well as those in various parts of the world who have yearned for freedom and understand its great price, are now without a beacon of hope.

This is what a nation that says "no, thank you" to its blessings looks like.

We really are testing the limits of God's mercy.