Violent Crime in America Dropped 51% As Americans Bought 170 Million Guns

New data from the FBI and ATF was presented by the National Rifle Association, which showed that Americans had purchased 170 million new guns since 1991. As a result, violent crime in America has not skyrocketed as Communist gun grabbers (Democrats) would like us to believe. Instead, the number of violent crimes has plummeted a whopping 51%!

Awr Hawkins at Breitbart points out that the NRA’s numbers square “with the findings of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study covering the slightly shorter period of time from 1994 to 2009. For those years, CRS found that Americans purchased approximately 118 million firearms, and the 1993 “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate of 6.6 per 100,000 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by the year 2000. It eventually fell all the way to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.”

“Then, in 2009—the year the CRS study ended—Obama took office and gun sales began their climb to record levels, which made covering the gap between the 118 million guns that had been purchased by 2009 and the “170 million new guns” that Americans would own by 2015 an easy gap to bridge,” Hawkins added.

Gun production has more than doubled during the Obama administration alone, knowing the Marxist sentiments of the usurper-in-chief, and Black Friday 2014 witnessed the FBI conducting an average of 3 unconstitutional background checks per second!

Back in 2013, I wrote an article to address the issue of guns and violent crimes, especially in light of the Sandy Hook shooting. The Obama administration was attempting to deceive the American people that the AR-15 was an “assault weapon,” instead of a semi-automatic rifle, and was incredibly dangerous for the American people to own because of “mass shootings.”

In that particular article I broke down the FBI’s CIUS report, in which they provide statistics nationwide on homicide and violent crimes. I noted that the number of murders was down by 1500 from 2007, and that was without any new anti-gun laws or “assault weapons bans.”

One of the things gun grabbers fail to do is to pinpoint problem areas, such a large metropolitan areas that have some of the strictest gun laws, yet have incredibly large amounts of crime.

As these statistics show, and armed citizenry spends more time stopping evil people rather than contemplating their evil.

Of course, the liars and propagandists, like Michael Bloomberg‘s useful idiot Shannon Watts, will continue to lie even though the numbers don’t support them.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

New Clinton Violations In Use Of Thumb Drives For Emails

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding dinner in Clear Lake, Iowa, Aug. 14, 2015. (REUTERS/Jim Young)

Hillary Clinton violated numerous State Department rules by using privately owned thumb drives to copy 30,000 of her official emails for her lawyer, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

The former Secretary of State in December 2014 downloaded 30,000 government emails created during her tenure in the position from her private server onto three commercial thumb drives, which her lawyer, David Kendall, transported to Washington, D.C.

The State Department released 7,000 new Clinton emails Monday, including at least 125 that were treated by the department as classified. The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into the handling of her emails, more than 400 of which have now been shown to include classified material.

In transferring her emails to private thumb drives, Clinton violated a slew of federal regulations, including those of her own State Department.

The State Department’s Foreign Affairs manual prohibits the storage of classified material on any external drive, stating, “the flash drive may only be used for the transfer of unclassified files.” Flash and thumb drives are treated inter-changeably by the rules.

Further, unclassified material must be on a “department owned” drive, not a personal or private sector drive.

If the information on the drive is unclassified, but still sensitive, it “must be encrypted to current standards” for transportation, according to the manual.

State Department rules also required that Clinton’s email transfer had to be approved and closely supervised by a department computer security official.

Finally, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which sets minimum government-wide standards for IT security, ordered that thumb drive restrictions be imposed if the contents were “high value,” a lower standard than classified information.

Neither Clinton nor Kendall, have ever said they acquired the thumb drives from the State Department. They have also refused to clarify how they were obtained and if they were encrypted.

Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee, expressed alarm over the private Clinton email system and her decision to use thumb drives, telling TheDCNF in a statement that he has “unanswered questions about whether the State Department approved Secretary Clinton’s use of a non-official email system,” including “how the thumb drive containing classified information was protected.”

Kendall learned on May 22 that Clinton’s emails contained classified material, but it was not until six weeks later that any steps were taken to secure the emails.

Six weeks later, on July 8, the State Department insisted that Kendall secure the drives in a government-issued safe, which it sent to his law firm.

“The thing that’s always bothered me is the timeline,” said a congressional investigator familiar with security matters. “You have a six-week gap there where they know it’s classified but they have no protection in place to secure the thumb drives.”

Kendall then surrendered the thumb drives to the FBI in August.

The State Department, citing the ongoing investigations into Clinton’s emails, declined to say anything related to the thumb drive issue.

“There are reviews and investigations underway. It would not be appropriate to comment on these matters at this time,” said State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach.

The military and intelligence services banned commercial thumb drives outright as early as 2008, relaxing policies in 2010 for only “mission critical” assignment use. The State Department mirrored that policy.

The congressional investigator said he was concerned about hackers if Clinton obtained the thumb drives from commercial sources, not from the federal government.

“It raises a number of questions about the security of the content her flash drives and whether or not it was compromised by malicious actors,” the congressional investigator said.

He said if she obtained the thumb drive from the State Department as required by the rules, “You have more confidence in the security of the device if you have trust in who has provided this device to you.”

As a further set of warnings, NIST also cautions all federal employees about potential malware in thumb drives.

“Portable storage devices can be the source of malicious code insertions into organizational information systems,” NIST stated in its 2014 rules, publication 800-53, titled, “Security Controls and Assessment Procedures for Federal Information Systems and Organizations.”

Thumb drives “may contain malicious code that can be readily transferred to information systems through USB ports or other entry portals,” warned NIST.

“Our concern is the nature of the device,” said the congressional investigator. “You hear stories about how other nation’s intelligence agencies have conducted this sort of operation where they have infiltrated networks by putting software onto a flash drive and that’s inserted into a computer and are able to access the system.”

A former expert in U.S. Embassy security and of high-threat posts in Europe and the Middle East told TheDCNF that “at the user level at the State Department, they were pretty scared to do anything with flash drives. They were pretty fearful of any repercussions they would feel for doing anything with external drives.”

IT security experts Jakob Lell and Karsten Nohl warned at an international “Black Hat” conference in August 2014 that “we consider USB to be otherwise perfectly safe — until now.”

Thumb drives “can be reprogrammed to spoof various other device types in order to take control of a computer, exfiltrate data, or spy on the user,” Lell and Nohl said.

Alex McGeorge, head of threat intelligence for the IT security company Immunity, Inc., said he doubted if Clinton followed any of the rules governing thumb drives.

“When you’re dealing with a security investigation, people will be very quick to say, ‘I did this by the book.’ The fact we haven’t heard that to me is generally pretty suspicious or a reasonably good indicator that she didn’t.”

Follow Richard and Kathryn on Twitter.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Report: FBI ‘A-Team’ Leading ‘Extremely Serious’ Probe into Hillary Email Scheme

Editors Note: The clock is ticking on Hillary’s demise and its only a matter of time before the wheels come completely off of the cart. This arrogant e-mail debacle is not going away and it is starting to seem like the White House will not come to her defense or provide political cover for her. Trey Gowdy is also in a serious investigation of her handling of the Benghazi attack where 4 American’s were brutally murdered after requesting additional security and being denied it by then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. Criminal charges may very well be filed and if the case goes to trial it is also very possible that Hillary may spend years in prison. But as she so arrogantly once said. “What difference at this point does it make” [TS]

We already knew that the FBI has been looking into whether Hillary Clinton’s improper email scheme resulted in the mishandling of classified information, or resulted in any national security breaches — which many data security experts believe is a virtual certainty. The Clinton campaign has insisted along the way that the Democratic presidential candidate is not herself a target of the probe, claimed she’s done nothing wrong, and changed its story regarding classified materials several times. They also stated that the investigation is not criminal in nature, a distinction dismissed by an FBI spokesman. Now Fox News’ Catherine Herridge has new details into the seriousness of the Bureau’s work:

From Fox’s accompanying online story:

An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News. The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793. A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign’s standard defense and that of Clinton is that she “never sent nor received any email that was marked classified” at the time. It is not clear how the FBI team’s findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for — as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy…A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section…The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.

Her campaign is no-commenting a report about the FBI’s “extremely serious” investigation into possible felony violations of a national security law.  The piece goes on to cite active government regulations and experts who say Clinton’s “nothing-marked-classified” defense (a far cry from her original blanket denials, by the way) doesn’t hold legal water (and also appears to be untrue):

Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton’s defense. The Code of Federal Regulations, or “CFR,” states: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.” A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the “send” or “receive” distinction. Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems. Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.

There’s “no wiggle room” in the law, another authority tells Fox.  Ed Morrissey also points out that under the Espionage Act, “the material does not have to be classified in order to violate this law. This covers any sensitive material relating to national defense. The mishandling does not have to be intentional or malicious either, but only grossly negligent to become a crime. If the FBI is taking a long look at 18 USC 793, then that is very bad news for Hillary Clinton, whose grossly negligent decision to use a private, unsecured, and unauthorized communications system for official business would be the root of all violations within it.” Important points.  Questions: Can we stop pretending that Hillary herself isn’t a potential subject of this federal investigation? And how many times does the word “felony” need to crop up before people abandon the “it’s not a criminal probe” line?  Rattled by the deepening scandal — and additional sordid issues that continue to arise — Hillary Clinton has been lashing out at Republicans in extremely hyperbolic terms in recent days.  In Ohio, she compared pro-life politicians to Islamist terrorists, then today  invoked Nazi imagery (“boxcars”) in denouncing some Republicans’ calls for mass deportations of illegal immigrants.  By the way, what was Hillary’s stance on illegal immigrants, again?


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

IRS reveals existence of another Lois Lerner email account

The IRS admitted to a federal court there was a second personal email account that Lois Lerner, the official at the heart of the Tea Party targeting scandal, used to conduct agency business.

The email account apparently was set up under the name, “Toby Miles,” which sources tell Fox News is the name of Lerner’s dog.

The admission, first reported by The Washington Times, was made Monday in an open-records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative group suing to see Lerner’s emails sent during the targeting of conservative groups filing for tax-exempt status.

IRS lawyer Geoffrey Klimas told the court that as it was putting together a set of documents to hand over to Judicial Watch, attorneys discovered another email account, in addition to her official account and a separate personal email already known to the agency.

“In the process of preparing this status report and for the August 24, 2015, release of Lerner communications, the undersigned attorneys learned that, in addition to emails to or from an email account denominated ‘Lois G. Lerner‘ or ‘Lois Home,’ some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated ‘Toby Miles,’” Klimas told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan.

Two sources told Fox News that Toby Miles is the name of Lerner’s dog. Lerner’s husband Michael Miles also reportedly may have been linked to the account. The IRS, though, concluded it was a personal account used by Lerner.

Klimas said the IRS is reviewing previous releases to Judicial Watch in light of the new account, and will provide an update by the end of August as to whether any documents need to be re-released with different redactions or if any additional searches need to be done.

A House Ways and Means Committee criminal referral in 2014 mentioned the Toby Miles email address, identified as, as the address was included on an email that also had Lerner’s official account on the chain of recipients.

At that time, the committee linked the Toby Miles address to Lerner’s husband, Michael Miles, but said, “The source of the name ‘Toby‘ is not known,” The Times reported.

“This is the latest in a parade of obstruction from the IRS and the Department of Justice on these issues,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told, calling the idea that sensitive government information was on a non-government account “disturbing.”

Fitton said that the DOJ and the IRS have apparently known about the Toby Miles account for some time, and cited this as more proof that a special counsel should be appointed to oversee the investigation into the scandal.

“This is just another example from the Obama administration of the — to use an old Nixonian phrase — modified limited hangout,” Fitton said, adding, “the Obama IRS scandal is not over.”


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Report: Hillary May Have Had Second Server

Image: Report: Hillary May Have Had Second Server

Discrepancies regarding when emails were erased from Hillary Clinton’s private server have raised questions of whether the former secretary of state had a device other than the one that was recently obtained by the FBI.

“There’s pretty definite time stamps when you move information from one computer to another,” Marcus Rogers, head of computer information technology at Purdue University, told The Washington Examiner on Saturday. “Somebody knows exactly when this happened because those time stamps are there.”

Platte River Networks, the Denver-based company that managed Clinton’s email network after she left the State Department in 2013, told the Examiner earlier this month that it had transferred the data from Clinton’s original private server later that year.

A Platte River attorney said then that “no useful data” likely remained on the server.

However, the Clinton campaign has suggested that the Democratic front-runner did not erase emails she decided were personal until this past January.

The disclosure raised questions regarding where the emails were located when they were reviewed by her staff to determine which ones were related to her four years as the nation’s top diplomat, the Examiner reports.

It further raises concerns about the timing of Clinton’s decision to erase 30,000 emails that she said were not related to her work for the State Department, according to the report.

Neither a Clinton spokesman nor an attorney for Platte River Networks returned telephone calls seeking comment, the Examiner reports.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Blackberrys Belonging to Key Clinton Aides Mysteriously Destroyed

Image: Report: Blackberrys Belonging to Key Clinton Aides Likely Destroyed

Blackberrys belonging to top Hillary Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were returned to the State Department, but likely have been destroyed, The Hill reports.

Abedin and Mills continued their employment with Clinton during her four years as secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first term. They were given government-issued Blackberrys and turned them in at the end of their service, State Department Executive Secretary Joseph Macmanus wrote in a court filing on Wednesday.

The department “has not located any such device,” Macmanus wrote, adding that the outdated devices likely “would have been destroyed or excessed” in accordance with standard procedures.

State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed to The Hill that the devices were turned in by the two top aides, but added, “Where they are now I couldn’t begin to tell you.”

“It’s also likely, because this was a while ago, that those devices may have been destroyed,” Kirby said. “I don’t have the records of it because they were old and outmoded and often times we purchase new devices in those circumstances.”

Fox News reported that the FBI inquiry into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure at State was triggered by an email sent by Abedin and another top Clinton aide, Jake Sullivan.

The filing also reiterated the department’s previous statement that Clinton did not use a government-issued device while serving as secretary.

The State Department “does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the department,” Macmanus wrote in the filing.

The filing was part of a lawsuit by Judicial Watch seeking information about Abedin’s employment.

“The questions just keep popping up,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement to the press. “Every time the State Department tries to justify its stonewalling, one more bit of information arises.”

A hearing in the case before is set for Thursday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Official: More than 300 Clinton emails flagged for potentially classified info

The number of Hillary Clinton emails flagged for potentially classified content has grown to more than 300, Fox News has learned — with the potential to grow even more as officials scramble to screen the documents.

The State Department revealed the updated count in a federal court filing, which pertained to Clinton emails sent to other agencies for review. An official familiar with the investigation confirmed to Fox News that, as referenced in that filing, the department has recommended 305 of Clinton’s emails be sent to various agencies for review to see whether they contain classified information.

The number could continue to rise as officials comb through more documents; the past three State Department releases have contained a total of 63 classified emails to date.

Clinton’s presidential campaign has insisted she never exchanged emails marked classified at the time while secretary of state. “She viewed classified materials in hard copy in her office or via other secure means while traveling, not on email,” campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in an email to supporters last week.

But the steady trickle of information about sensitive details crossing her server, which she only recently gave to the FBI, has complicated her presidential bid.

On the trail, she recently tried to downplay the controversy with a joke. “By the way, you may have seen that I recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it, I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves,” she said.

Asked about the quip in an interview with Fox News on Monday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, “Her arrogance is breathtaking.” 

“I worked for the federal government for seven years as a U.S. attorney. It was made clear to all of us when we walked in the door, official business is done on your official email account,” said the GOP presidential candidate.

The State Department came up short in the last email release, unable to meet the court-ordered mark of releasing 15 percent of the emails by July 31.

But The Washington Times reported Monday that officials say they are getting back on track. As part of that process, the Times first reported, the department told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday that out of a sample of 20 percent of Clinton’s 30,000 emails, reviewers recommended 305 (about 5 percent) be sent “for referral to their agencies for consultation.” 

Asked for comment on the filing, a State Department official said intelligence community reviewers “are conducting a relatively simple screening process to determine whether there are IC equities in the emails.” The emails are sent for “consultation” when a reviewer identifies such an “agency equity” in an email.

The official said these referrals are a normal part of the process and do not mean the consulted agency will propose a particular outcome. Rather, the official said, the agencies are just being asked to review them.

A court has set up a schedule for the next several months for Clinton emails to be released by the State Department.


Posted in News | 1 Comment

Prosecutor Who Took Down Petraeus on Classified Information Now Looking Into Clinton Server

Editors Note: Time will tell if the Obama Administrations Justice Dept. will investigate Clinton properly or not. With a proper investigation using the resources available including an unencumbered FBI Hillary would no doubt be indited on several federal charges concerning the handling of Top Secret information she had stored on her private server but also passing on information to her lawyer who does not have the proper clearances to review such sensitive material. Let us hope the open hatred of Obama of the Clinton’s will ensure a full investigation and that will at the least strip Hillary of all security clearances (which would make her unable to be President). A proper investigation would have her indited and charged and standing trial with the great possibility of being convicted and being sent to prison for a very long time. Hope springs eternal. [TS]

Hillary Clinton is in trouble. Really big trouble. 

According to the Washington Post, the same prosecutor who took down General David Petraeus for improper possession of classified information is now looking into Hillary Clinton’s email server. Earlier this week, an intelligence Inspector General revealed Clinton did in fact have at least four pieces of top secret, classified information passed through and stored on her private email server.

The investigation is being overseen by two veteran prosecutors in the Justice Department’s National Security Division. One of them helped manage the prosecution of David H. Petraeus.

As a reminder, Petraeus plead guilty to misdemeanor charges after keeping physical copies of classified information locked in a desk drawer at his house. He also shared them with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. Prosecutors originally recommended felony charges.

David H. Petraeus, a retired general considered one of the greatest military minds of his generation, pleaded guilty Thursday to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials, ending a long-running legal saga that had threatened to send him to prison.

Petraeus, who admitted he provided the materials to his former mistress and biographer, will instead face a two-year probationary period. U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler also imposed a $100,000 fine — more than double the amount recommended by prosecutors — to reflect the “seriousness of the offense.”

Based on what we know so far, Clinton’s possession of top secret, classified information on her personal server is far worse than the Petraeus case. First, the classified information Petraeus had in his possession was classified at a lower level than the information on Clinton’s private server, which was classified at the highest level. Second, Petraeus may have shared information with his mistress, but Clinton shared it with enemy hackers and foreign governments.

Former intelligence officials say it’s a certainty that her server was compromised by [foreign] intelligence services. Unless they were encrypted to U.S. government standards, “In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA,” said former CIA case officer Jason Matthews, an expert in Russian intelligence.

Based on her continued defiance, if charges are brought against Clinton I doubt she’ll bow out gracefully like Petraeus did.


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

BREAKING: Netanyahu Endorses Candidate in U.S. Presidential Race

I happen to agree. Ted Cruz would not treat Israel with the disrespect that the Obama administration has shown. We need to stand by our allies.   ebarnes

* TEL AVIV, ISRAEL: In a nearly unprecedented move, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed a candidate in the 2016 race for President of the United States. Netanyahu made his announcement during an early morning press conference Friday.

Traditionally, the protocol among heads of state has been to steer clear of any and all political endorsement of other candidates or incumbent heads of state, and to not in any way be involved in the elections of other nations.

But perhaps being fueled by anger after recently learning that current U.S. President, Barak Obama has at US taxpayer expense, sent a team of his political operatives into Israel ahead of Israel’s March 17, 2015 elections in an effort to unseat Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister has broken the long standing protocol and gotten involved in the US presidential race.

The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz recently reported that a U.S. taxpayer-funded non-profit by the name of OneVoice has been working inside Israel with a campaign operation called Victory 2015 in a joint effort to unseat Prime Minster Netanyahu, who they view as being“too anti-Islam” and “too hawkish”. Spokespersons for the operations say they intend to replace Netanyahu with a more “liberally progressive” candidate who will be more accommodating to the desires of Islamic nations in the region.

In a sharply damning response to Obama’s involvement in the Israeli election, staunchly pro-Israel U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R – Texas, and Congressman Lee Zeldin, R – NY -1 sent a letter on Thursday to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that Kerry launch an investigation into Obama’s involvement and any U.S. tax dollars being used.

In the letter to Kerry, Cruz said, “Has President Obama launched a political campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu and his representatives?” Sen. Cruz asked. “This administration’s relentless harassment of Israel is utterly incomprehensible. The Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing the deadliest weapons on the planet, and there can be no doubt that their first target will be Israel, followed by the United States. This administration should be focusing its animosity on the very real enemies we face, not on our staunch allies.”

The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has been an icy one at best from the time Obama took office. Obama has made numerous trips to the region and seemingly snubbed the leader of America’s staunchest Ally, Israel. The U.S./Israeli relationship became extremely strained in the last few months as Obama threatened Israel with sanctions over its actions to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

But the tension came to an explosive head when recently, Speaker of the House, John Boehner issued an invitation to Netanyahu to visit the U.S. and address a joint session of Congress. The Obama administration has reportedly been livid over Boehner not going through the White House with his invitation, and Obama has refused to meet with Netanyahu during his visit.

The political fallout in the U.S. as well as around the world over Obama’s snubbing of the Israeli leader, and especially Obama’s overt campaign efforts to unseat Netanyahu has been intense. Undoubtedly, such an unprecedented endorsement will have a major affect on the presidential race as 2016 draws near. It’s as yet unclear what if any affect Obama’s efforts will have against the Prime Minister, since his (Obama’s) is not an official endorsement of an opposition candidate, though Haaretz reports that it may have a significant affect.

During his endorsement press conference, Netanyahu said that he respected long standing protocol, but that enough was enough and he had to take political action of his own. “I have been long suffering and patient with the Obama administration. For six years I have been dumbfounded at the level of incompetency, naivety, and rudeness that Obama and his administration exhibit on an almost daily basis. He (Obama) has shown nothing but contempt for Israel and the Israeli people, and shown support and given aid to our enemies. Obama broke protocol first when he sent his thugs over here to try and unseat me. I am not doing this for myself, but for the sake of Israel and the U.S. When facing a bully, there comes a point where you have to hit back, and hit hard.”

Netanyahu continued, “After serious consideration and looking over a very deep and qualified field of potential candidates, I have decided to give my support, my personal endorsement if you will, to Senator Ted Cruz. Ted has been a stalwart supporter of Israel and our people. He is one of the few leaders in the U.S. government with the intestinal fortitude to call terrorism ‘terrorism’, and directly address the threat of radical Islam and a nuclear Iran. Ted has proven to be fearless in fighting against the odds when he must, something I as the leader of a tiny nation surrounded by enemies can relate to.” He concluded, “Over the last two years Ted and I have been in regular contact, we have worked closely together on policy. To say the least, he (Cruz) has been an unwavering ally; and what’s more he’s been a true friend. I would ask the American people, and the freedom loving members of the world community to join me in supporting Ted Cruz as the next U.S President.”

Though Obama will not be on the ballot in 2016, undoubtedly his policies will, and Netanyahu’s endorsement is a clear repudiation to Obama and his legacy.


Posted in News | Leave a comment


Looks like the story is getting worse for her. She needs to be in jail…..ebarnes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton relented Tuesday to months of demands she relinquish the personal email server she used while secretary of state, directing the device be given to the Justice Department.

The decision advances the investigation into the Democratic presidential front-runner’s use of a private email account as the nation’s top diplomat, and whether classified information was improperly sent via and stored on the home-brew email server she ran from her house in suburban New York City.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said she has “pledged to cooperate with the government’s security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them.”

It’s not clear if the device will yield any information – Clinton’s attorney said in March that no emails from the main personal address she used while secretary of state still “reside on the server or on back-up systems associated with the server.”

Clinton had to this point refused demands from Republican critics to turn over the server to a third party, with attorney David Kendall telling the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that “there is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server.”

Republicans jumped on Tuesday’s decision to change course, as well as the additional disclosure that two emails that traversed Clinton’s personal system were subsequently given one of the government’s highest classification ratings.

“All this means is that Hillary Clinton, in the face of FBI scrutiny, has decided she has run out of options,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. “She knows she did something wrong and has run out of ways to cover it up.”

Federal investigators have begun looking into the security of Clintons’ email setup amid concerns from the inspector general for the intelligence community that classified information may have passed through the system.

There is no evidence she used encryption to shield the emails or her personal server from foreign intelligence services or other potentially prying eyes. Kendall has said previously that Clinton is “actively cooperating” with the FBI inquiry.

In March, Clinton said she exchanged about 60,000 emails in her four years in the Obama administration, about half of which were personal and were discarded. She turned over the other half to the State Department in last December.

The department is reviewing those emails and has begun the process of releasing them to the public.

“As she has said, it is her hope that State and the other agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which emails are appropriate to release to the public, and that the release will be as timely and transparent as possible,” Merrill said Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, Kendall gave to the Justice Department three thumb drives containing copies of work-related emails sent to and from her personal email addresses via her private server.

Kendall gave the thumb drives, containing copies of roughly 30,000 emails, to the FBI after the agency determined he could not remain in possession of the classified information contained in some of the emails, according to a U.S. official briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The State Department previously had said it was comfortable with Kendall keeping the emails at his Washington law office.

Word that Clinton had relented on giving up possession of the server came as Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said two emails that traversed Clinton’s personal system were deemed “Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information” – a rating that is among the government’s highest classifications. Grassley said the inspector general of the nation’s intelligence community had reported the new details about the higher classification to Congress on Tuesday.

“Secretary Clinton’s previous statements that she possessed no classified information were patently untrue,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “Her mishandling of classified information must be fully investigated.”

Those two emails were among four that had previously been determined by the inspector general of the intelligence community to have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department disputes that the emails were classified at that time.

“Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby. “They were not marked as classified.”

The inspector general for the intelligence community had told Congress that potentially hundreds of classified emails are among the cache that Clinton provided to the State Department.

Earlier this week, Clinton said in a sworn statement submitted to a federal judge that she has turned over to the State Department all emails from the server “that were or potentially were federal records.” The statement, which carries her signature and was signed under penalty of perjury, echoed months of Clinton’s past public statements about the matter.

Clinton has defended her use of the server, saying she used it as a matter of convenience to limit the number of electronic devices she had to carry.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

State Department blames classified info for Clinton email delays

From the beginning, Clinton was trying to hide her activities. There is no other reason for having her own private server when government employees are supposed to use a government website. The fact that she deleted emails off the server and won’t turn it over is also very suspect.  ebarnes

The State Department says all of the potential secret information in former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails has knocked them off pace, and told a federal judge late Friday that’s why thedepartment is currently in violation of his orders.

John F. Hackett, the top open records officer for the department, said the government belatedly realized all of the potentially classified information in Mrs. Clinton’s communications and, prodded by two watchdogs, realized they needed to be running her emails by intelligence officers to make sure they weren’t giving out secrets.

The department was supposed to have released 15 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s emails by the end of July, but had released less than 12 percent — some 1,721 pages shy of the goal set out by Judge Rudolph Contrerasearlier this year.

Mrs. Clinton and her allies had repeatedly insisted she didn’t transact any classified business on her email account, which she issued to herself on a private server she kept at her home in New York rather than using an official secure State Department account.

But an inspector general says there was information that should have been classified at the time Mrs. Clinton was sending it, and now that the emails are being released per Judge Contreras’s orders, the State Department is having to go through and redact all of that information.

All of Mrs. Clinton’s messages are government records and should have been stored at the State Department so they could be searched under open records laws.

Her unique arrangement meant that, for six years, those messages weren’t part of the record, and the State Department was not able to conduct a full, responsive search.

Prodded by the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, theState Department belatedly demanded Mrs. Clinton return her emails to the department, and she complied in Dec. 2014, or nearly two years after she left office, turning over 55,000 pages, constituting about 30,000 messages.

She said she expunged another 32,000 messages that were purely private, and says she is now in compliance with the law.

She has refused to turn over her server, saying it would be pointless because she has wiped it clean of the emails anyway.

Mr. Hackett said he thinks they can make up the 1,700-page deficit over the next two months, releasing 6,106 pages of emails in August and another 7,156 in September.

That will still leave more than 60 percent of the messages to come from October through January — the deadline when Judge Contreras has ordered all 30,000 messages to be public.

Posted in News | Leave a comment


Obama makes the most corrosive remarks for a person who told us that he would work with all of congress. Wasn’t he the one who claimed to be the “Uniter”?  This Iran deal is nothing but bad and worse…. ebarnes

President Barack Obama defended the Iran deal in a speech Wednesday, accusing Republicans in Congress of “making common cause” with the hard-liners of the Iranian regime by opposing it. Obama addressed an audience of students and journalists at American University.

Obama made the accusation towards the end of his address, despite complaining, in his introduction, that critics of the Iraq War had once been treated badly.

The partisan message was less an appeal to the nation and more an appeal to wavering, undecided Democrats.

Drawing parallels to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Obama noted that both had negotiated arms reduction treaties with the Soviet Union. After that perfunctory appeal to history and statesmanship, Obama launched into a characteristic partisan attack.

The Iran deal was opposed by “the same mindset, in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong,” Obama said.

He criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he was simply “wrong” about the deal.

Obama asserted that the deal enjoyed the support of “the vast majority of the world”–omitting that most Americans oppose it. He mocked those who called for a better deal “that relies on vague promises of ‘toughness’–though Obama campaigned on “tough diplomacy” in 2008.

The president made several dubious claims about the deal, such as that “after 15 years, Iran will never have the right as cover to pursue a nuclear weapon.” That promise rests on trusting Iran’s parliament to ratify the Additional Protocol, which it is under no pressure to do.

Obama made no mention of the “side deals” between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran, which have not been shown to Congress and which reportedly allow Iran to take its own samples from military sites suspected of being used for nuclear purposes.

Journalists watching the speech seemed most skeptical about Obama’s assurances that U.S. intelligence would be able to detect cheating by the Iranian regime. In a speech that criticized the Iraq War, that claim seemed “misplaced,” said Jeffrey Goldberg of theAtlantic.

Obama also argued against “surgical strikes” on Iran–almost two years after he himself made the case for surgical strikes on Syria. He also said that despite the Iranian regime’s anti-American rhetoric and shouts of “Death to America!”, not everyone in Iran felt the same way.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Hillary Keeps Lying


Interesting article by Andrew Napolitano. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied about the Benghazi tragedy. She denied having any knowledge of gun running and said so to the Congressional committee. Deleting emails and having a private server add to the corruption. It is about time for the truth to come out. will that ever happen with the current administration?     eb

In a column I wrote in early July, based on research by my colleagues and my own analysis of government documents and eyewitness statements, I argued that in 2011 and 2012 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waged a secret war on the governments of Libya and Syria, with the approval of President Obama and the consent of congressional leadership from both parties and in both houses of Congress.

I did err in that column with respect to an arms dealer named Marc Turi. I regret the error and apologize for it. I wrote that Turi sold arms to Qatar as part of Clinton’s scheme to get them into the hands of rebels. A further review of the documents makes it clear that he applied to do so but was denied permission, and so he did not sell arms to Qatar. Other arms dealers did.

I also erred when referring to Qatar as beholden to Washington. In fact, Qatar is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of the biggest supporters of global jihad in the world—and Clinton, who approved the sales of arms to Qatar expecting them to make their way to Syrian and Libyan rebels, as they did, knew that. She and her State Department caused American arms to come into the possession of known al-Qaida operatives, a few of whom assassinated U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked Clinton in January 2013 at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether she knew of any weapons coming from the U.S. and going to rebels in the Middle East, she denied such knowledge. She either has a memory so faulty that she should not be entrusted with any governmental powers, or she knowingly lied.

It gets worse. It now appears that Clinton was managing her war using emails that she diverted through a computer server owned by her husband’s charitable foundation, even though some of her emails contained sensitive and classified materials. This was in direct violation of federal law, which requires all in government who possess classified or sensitive materials to secure them in a government-approved venue.

The inspector general of the intelligence community and the inspector general of the State Department each have reviewed a limited sampling of her emails that were sent or received via the Clinton Foundation server, and both have concluded that materials contained in some of them were of such gravity that they were obliged under federal law to refer their findings to the FBI for further investigation.

The FBI does not investigate for civil wrongdoing or ethical lapses. It investigates behavior that may be criminal or that may expose the nation’s security to jeopardy. It then recommends either that indictments be sought or the matter be addressed through non-prosecutorial means. Given Clinton’s unique present position—as the president’s first secretary of state and one who seeks to succeed him, as well as being the wife of one of his predecessors—it is inconceivable that she could be prosecuted as Gen. David Petraeus was (for the crime of failing to secure classified materials) without the personal approval of the president himself.

Let’s be realistic and blunt: If the president wants Clinton prosecuted for failing to secure classified materials, then she will be, no matter the exculpatory evidence or any political fallout. If he does not want her prosecuted, then she won’t be, no matter what the FBI finds or any political fallout.

I have not seen the emails the inspectors general sent to the FBI, but I have seen the Clinton emails, which are now in the public domain. They show Clinton sending or receiving emails to and from her confidante Sid Blumenthal and one of her State Department colleagues using her husband’s foundation’s server, and not a secure government server. These emails address the location of French jets approaching Libya, the location of no-fly zones over Libya and the location of Stevens in Libya. It is inconceivable that an American secretary of state failed to protect and secure this information.

But it is not inconceivable that she would lie about it.

Federal statutes provide for three categories of classified information. “Top secret” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause grave damage to national security. “Secret” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause serious damage to national security. “Confidential” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause some damage to national security. Her own daily calendars, which she regularly emailed about, are considered confidential.

Clinton has repeatedly denied ever sending or receiving data in any of these categories. She probably will argue that an email that fails to use the terminology of the statute cannot be deemed classified. Here the inspectors general have corrected her. It is the essence of the data in an email—its potential for harm if revealed—that makes its contents classified and the failure to protect it a crime, not the use of a magic word or phrase in the subject line.

She is no doubt lying again, just as she did to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Yet the question remains: Why did she use her husband’s foundation’s computer server instead of a government server, as the law requires? She did that so she could obscure what the server recorded and thus be made to appear different according to history from how she was in reality.

Why did she lie about all this? Because she thinks she can get away with it. Will American voters let her?


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Federal Judge: I Will Haul The IRS Commissioner Into Court and Personally Hold Him in Contempt Over Lerner Emails

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has been stonewalling Congress and the courts for more than a year over Lois Lerner’s “missing” emails. He’s also ignored court orders to produce documentation and now, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has had enough.

During a hearing yesterday surrounding a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Sullivan said he “will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt” after the IRS failed to turn over ordered documentation to the Court. The information ordered included status reports and recovered emails belonging to former IRS official Lois Lerner. Sullivan also noted Department of Justice of attorneys are in the same position for failing to turn over ordered documentation. More details about the hearing from JW:

During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt.”

On July 1 Sullivan ordered the IRS to turn over 1800 emails by releasing them in batches each week. The IRS didn’t produce any emails until July 15, despite the court order. Those emails show Lerner worked with former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to scrutinize conservative groups.

The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.” 

Earlier this week, the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to President Obama demanding Koskinen be fired for obstruction of justice. Chairman Jason Chaffetz said if Koskinen isn’t fired, the House may move to impeach him.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

#WomenBetrayed: Over 50 Cities To Hold Rallies Against Planned Parenthood Tuesday

Dan Fleuette

On Tuesday pro-lifers in more than 50 cities – and counting – will be rallying against Planned Parenthood under the banner of #WomenBetrayed in response to the gruesome undercover investigative videos released by the Center for Medical Progress over the past two weeks.

Two Planned Parenthood senior medical officials were exposed as they explained how the taxpayer funded organization performs abortions in such a way as to harvest aborted babies’ body parts to sell them to biomedical companies.

National pro-life group Students for Life of America (SFLA) and its partner organization Pro-Life Future have launched the #WomenBetrayed initiative which urges citizens across the nation to rally to demand their states investigate, prosecute and defund Planned Parenthood.

According to a press release, SFLA chose the title of the initiative, #WomenBetrayed, because “Planned Parenthood has betrayed the very patients – women and their children – who they claim to care about and have compassion for.”

“Women are supposed to help and support other women – not use them for profit and sell the body parts of their prenatal children,” said Kristan Hawkins, SFLA president. “Planned Parenthood gets a half a billion a year in taxpayer dollars. We are calling on every state and federal government to cut off those funds immediately and investigate Planned Parenthood for possible wrongdoing.”

In the first video from the Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood senior medical director Dr. Deborah Nucatola discussed how she “crushes” certain parts of the baby in order to get desired organs intact to be available for sale to biomedical companies. A second video exposes another Planned Parenthood senior medical adviser appearing to negotiate the price of selling baby body parts to undercover citizen journalists she believed to be biomedical entrepreneurs.

According to SFLA, the content of these latest videos is “only the latest infraction in a long list of horrific behaviors, including the covering up of statutory rape, the overbilling taxpayers, the aiding and abetting sex traffickers, scheduling sex-selective abortions and accepting money to abort African American children.”

“Planned Parenthood had a net profit of $127 million in 2013-2014,” Hawkins continued. “Let them fundraise and support themselves like any other business in the country that isn’t deceiving women and making money off of taking the lives of the most vulnerable and selling their body parts.”

Brendan O’Morchoe, Director of Pro-Life Future, said the #WomenBetrayed initiative is proving successful.

“Within days of announcing the national rallies to our supporters, we already have over 50 cities who will be hosting a local rally to defund Planned Parenthood,” he said. “The outrage against taxpayer dollars funding Planned Parenthood is palpable. This is the time to defund them and Americans are going to make their voices heard on July 28.”

For a list of cities holding #WomenBetrayed rallies, visit


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Arms dealer: Obama DOJ prosecuting me to protect Hillary

NEW YORK – Defense filings in the Department of Justice prosecution of arms dealer Marc Turi allege the Obama administration is willing to prosecute an innocent man to cover up the role former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played shipping weapons to Libya illegally in 2011.

A telephone interview with Turi’s defense counsel, Jean-Jacques Cabou of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP, led WND to an extensive review of the legal motions filed by the government and the defense in the Turi criminal case.

Cabou declined to answer specific questions WND posed, saying that rather than try the case in the media, he preferred to allow the legal motions filed by the defense to speak for themselves.

The background of the Turi prosecution, while complicated, is at the heart of an allegation made by Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano in a recent syndicated column. Napolitano charged Hillary Clinton, while secretary of state, lied when Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked her in a Senate committee hearing if the State Department had run guns illegally to Libyan rebels.

In the column, Napolitano said an interview of Turi by Fox News intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge and Fox News senior executive producer Pamela Browne led him to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Clinton was secretary of state.

Napolitano concluded it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty” that Hillary had conducted a “secret war” shipping arms to Libya illegally in 2011.

What Napolitano assumed as true was the central argument advanced by the Obama administration in the Turi prosecution: The weapons Turi shipped to Qatar were intended not for the use of the Qatar Army but to be diverted to Libya for use by the al-Qaida-affiliated militia attempting to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

But Napolitano apparently missed the fact that if Turi is guilty as charged, Clinton is arguably innocent of illegally shipping weapons to Libyan al-Qaida-affiliated militia and of lying to Paul.

The fact that remains indisputable in this complex controversy is that weapons and ammunition in boxes marked “Qatar Army” were intercepted off the shore of Libya in 2011. Video published July 6 by WND showed Moussa Ibrahim, then Gadhafi’s information minister and official spokesman, displaying to reporters a seized cache of weapons and ammunition clearly marked as originating from the Qatar Army.

Court motions filed by Turi defense attorney Jean-Jacques Cabou contend that should Turi be acquitted, an elaborate plot will be exposed in which the Obama administration set up Turi to take the blame if the illegal shipment of weapons to Libya via Qatar in 2011 ever came to light.

The central question then at the heart of the Turi criminal prosecution is whether or not the Obama Department of Justice can prove Turi shipped the weapons to Qatar in 2011, and if he did, whether he knew they were intended to be diverted to Libya for the use of the al-Qaida-affiliated militia, in direct violation of State and Treasury Department prohibitions.

The DOJ indictment

On Feb. 11, 2011, the Department of Justice charged Turi, individually and through his company, Turi Defense Group, with attempting between February and July 2011 “to broker a substantial quantity of weapons – machine guns, sniper rifles, assault rifles, anti-tank rockets, rockets, and other high explosives and ammunition – to individuals in Libya, with knowledge such activities were prohibited by United States law enacted to protect the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”

The indictment charged that after the State Department denied Turi a brokering license to supply weapons to Libya, he submitted brokering applications to the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, “falsely listing Qatar and United Arab Emirates as the end users for weapons that were actually intended for individuals in Libya.”

This, the indictment charged, was in direct contravention of U.N. Security Council Resolution 170, passed Feb. 26, 2011. The resolution imposed an arms embargo on all member states to prevent “the immediate prospect” of a Gadhafi-led attempt “to slaughter rebel forces in Benghazi that would likely result in massive civilian casualties.”

The indictment cited U.S. law, 22 C.F.R. § 29.5(d), which specifies, “No brokering activities or brokering proposal may be carried out with respect to countries which are subject to United Nations Security Council arms embargoes.” It also cited features of the Arms Export Control Act, Title 22, U.S. Code, Section 2778, allowing the State Department, in concurrence with the Defense Department, to develop a list of weapons prohibited to ship to Libya, many of which were found in the 2011 seizure.

The indictment listed a series of communications between Turi, an Egyptian arms dealer residing in the United Kingdom identified only by the initials “Y.A.” and an individual working from Cyprus identified as “A.Y.” who was affiliated with a company importing and exporting Russian-origin petroleum products. Both figures were named as the “primary intermediaries” interceding between Turi and the Transitional National Council, TNC, in Libya, to arrange for the arms.

The DOJ indictment charged Turi had “made a material untrue statement and omitted a material fact required to be stated” when he applied to ship weapons to Qatar and the UAE.

“Marc Turi and Turi Defense Group then knew the actual intended end user” of the prohibited weapons being sent to Libya, the indictment said.

Turi’s defense

In various court motions, defense attorney Jean-Jacques Cabou asserted Turi shipped no weapons to Qatar.

Cabou strongly suggests the whole point of prosecuting Turi was to blame him for the weapons transfer, which he called a covert Obama administration gun-running operation that went wrong when Libya intercepted the weapons.

He noted Gadhafi spokesman Ibrahim suggested publicly that NATO countries were violating the U.N. resolution in an attempt to arm the Libyan al-Qaida-affiliated militia – then designated by the U.S. and the U.N. as “rebels” – in their attempt to oust Gadhafi.

In an initial motion to dismiss the case, filed July 23, 2014, Cabou noted that “in early 2011, while under contract with the Government for work in those countries, Mr. Turi requested State Department approval to conduct brokering discussions with allied entities and governments in Africa, including the National Transition Council of Libya, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.”

Cabou pointed out that such requests “are common in Mr. Turi’s business and are typically referred to as request for approval,” stressing that the outcome was that the State Department approved Turi’s requests for approval in Qatar and the UAE but turned down his request for Libya.

In bold print, the next sentence of the motion made Cabou’s key point: “In the end, however, no weapons were ever transferred pursuant to these requests. As is often the case in international arms trade, these deals did not come to fruition.”

Cabou continued to note that later in 2011, the U.S. government began investigating Turi for “still unknown reasons.”

“From then until now, the Government has searched Mr. Turi’s home, seizing computers and other electronic media, stopped him as he re-entered the country at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, seizing even more computers, and flown agents around the world to interview Mr. Turi’s associates in the brokering business and the intelligence community,” Cabou’s motion said.

‘Hillary shipped the weapons, not Turi’

In a motion filed Aug. 11, 2014, Cabou made clear his counter-claim that the government was seeking to frame his client by allowing him to think the Obama administration was in favor of a “plausible deniability” covert deal in which the illicit weapons would be shipped to Qatar and packaged as “Qatar Army” weapons manufactured outside the United States that were diverted to Libya without State Department approval.

In another sentence written in bold type for emphasis, the defense motion dated Aug. 11, 2014, stressed: “Public documents reveal that arms were in fact transshipped through Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to Libya, and that the U.S. Government may have provided support for those transactions.”

Cabou then demanded the discovery of government documents or other evidence that could prove the U.S. government had pursued a brokered-weapons deal through Qatar that involved “nearly identical” transactions to those the DOJ was accusing Turi of having executed.

In a letter dated Aug. 6, 2014, addressed to the U.S. attorney’s office in Phoenix, Cabou asked specifically for the following: “Any documents or other evidence relating to instances in which the United States assisted or considered assisting in any way, overtly or covertly, in the transportation, provision, acquisition, transfer, or transport of Defense articles to or from any person, entity, group of people, quasi-governmental entity, or government within the territory of Libya, Syria, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey or Jordan (these countries collectively here the ‘Covered Countries’) within the timeframe of 2010 to the date of the request.”

Cobou’s letter to the U.S. attorney in Arizona detailed that for Libya, Qatar and the UAE, “we have a good-faith basis to believe Defense Articles eventually did covertly enter Libya from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and that the United States may have been involved.”

The term “Defense Articles” was a legal term used by Cabou to refer to weapons prohibited for transfer to Libya in 2011 under U.N. Security Council Resolution 170 and U.S. law that appears remarkably similar to the weapons display to the international press in 2011.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

‘You’ve been fleeced': Congress grills Kerry, Obama officials on Iran nuke deal

Secretary of State John Kerry found himself on the defensive Thursday at a Senate hearing where he was hard-pressed to find support for the Iran nuclear deal from either side of the aisle — and sharply sparred with Republicans who accused him of being “fleeced” and “bamboozled.” 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was the first on the controversial deal to lift economic and other sanctions in exchange for concessions of the Islamic state’s nuclear program. With Congress taking up the deal and expected to vote on it sometime in September, the hearing underscored the deep resistance the Obama administration faces from both parties.

“From my perspective, Mr. Secretary, I’m sorry … I believe you’ve been fleeced,” Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told Kerry, claiming the agreement paves the path for Iran to eventually develop a nuclear bomb.

Critics repeatedly suggested the Obama administration’s negotiating team gave in to pressure from the Iranians on key points. They question whether sanctions indeed can be reinstated once they’re lifted; whether Iran might be able to stall international inspectors; and whether Iran might be closer to a weapon once the deal expires.

Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, said: “You guys have been bamboozled.” 

Kerry, though, vigorously defended the agreement, calling it “fantasy, plain and simple,” to think the United States failed to hold out for a better deal at the bargaining table.

“Let me underscore, the alternative to the deal we’ve reached isn’t what I’ve seen some ads on TV suggesting disingenuously,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It isn’t a quote better deal, some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran’s complete capitulation.” 

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz also said the deal is not “built on trust.” 

Some lawmakers tried to play referee when the hearing got heated. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the remarks from Corker and Risch were “disrespectful and insulting.” 

“If you were bamboozled, the world has been bamboozled — that’s ridiculous,” Boxer told Kerry.

Kerry still had to contend with skeptical Democrats, notably Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who questioned whether the language in the deal is tough enough and like Corker said the deal aids Iran in building an “industrial-scale” nuclear program.

Kerry earlier warned that Iran will not come back to the negotiating table to pursue a new deal, voicing frustration that: “We’ve got 535 secretaries of state.” 

The hearing comes as lawmakers raise new concerns about alleged secret “side deals” struck with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., first brought attention to them Tuesday, saying they learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there were two “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA.

According to the lawmakers, one agreement covers inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the other concerns potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. On the former, they said, Iran would be able to strike a separate arrangement with the IAEA concerning inspections at Parchin.

House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell joined Cotton and Pompeo in sending a letter to President Obama on Wednesday requesting that the agreements be made available to Congress so that they can be reviewed.

“We request you transmit these two side agreements to Congress immediately so we may perform our duty to assess the many important questions related to the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action],” the letter says.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice, while defending the overall nuclear agreement, appeared to acknowledge the existence of the side deals on Wednesday. She said the matter of the Iran nuclear program’s “possible military dimensions” (PMD) has long been an issue between Iran and the IAEA. She said they “negotiated and concluded an agreement to deal with this issue of PMD, which was one of the major sticking points in our dealings.” 

She added: “These documents are not public, but nonetheless, we have been briefed on those documents, we know their contents, we’re satisfied with them and we will share the contents of those briefings in full in a classified session with the Congress. So there’s nothing in that regard that we know that they won’t know.” 

Pompeo also asked Kerry about the secret deals in a briefing Wednesday and said afterwards that Kerry “confirmed that there were in fact side deals and himself had not seen the agreement.” 

“I was incredibly surprised to learn there were components of the deal that Congress was not going to be privy to,” Pompeo said, adding that he had expected that American negotiators would have demanded to see the side deals being cut.

The letter to Obama expressed concern that Congress was being kept in the dark.

“Most troubling, Iran and the IAEA reached agreement to resolve issues related to research at Parchin, but Congress will not have the ability to review this agreement, nor will we know the results of the IAEA’s assessment until December 15,” the letter says.

It goes on to request access to the side deals so that Congress can effectively review the deal as a whole:

“Failure to produce these two side agreements leaves Congress blind on critical information regarding Iran’s potential path to being a nuclear power and will have detrimental consequences for the ability of members to assess the JCPOA,” the letter says.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Obama’s New Gun Ban Will Affect 4.2 Million People

Obama will try to control guns any way he can. This is another back door to take guns from private ownership. This is more of the continuous attack on the Second Amendment. He is now going after retired folks on Social Security….


This is obscene, unethical and unconstitutional in the extreme. This is definitely one of the most evil and despicable moves I have seen to date. Basically, it comes down to this, either you can have your Social Security, which you have paid into your whole life, or you can have your guns. The day after a massacre in Chattanooga, Tennessee is committed by a radical Islamist, where four Marines and a Navy officer are gunned down, Obama made this move. The timing is not a coincidence. This will effect 4.2 million Americans. If they deem you of “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease,” they will come after your weapons. And this is an issue that the NRA bought into years ago and I warned about. Allowing a carve out for mental illness has allowed the eradication of our Constitutional rights. Those are very, very vague definitions and will be used as fodder against us, trust me. The ban also covers anyone who has their finances handled by other members of their family if they are on Social Security. Have you had enough yet? Because, I know I have.

From Mad World News:

While America was distracted with the attack on helpless victims who were not allowed to be armed at their military recruitment center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, President Obama made a move to take guns away from more lawful citizens.

The gun-grabbing left refuses to learn the obvious importance of self-defense, regardless of how many opportunities thugs and terrorists provide. In a sweeping move to rip weapons from 4.2 million law-abiding citizens, our country’s Commander-in-Chief flips off the Second Amendment once again. This time, he plans to disarm feeble people who could benefit from it the most — aging Americans.

The LA Times reported Saturday that Obama is “seeking tighter controls over firearm purchase by banning Social Security beneficiaries from owing guns,” if it’s determined by loose measures that they are mentally incapable of managing their own business. This would apply to all elderly people who has certain affairs taken care of for them, which could affect millions of some of the most vulnerable citizens in the U.S.

These victims of Obama’s anti-Second Amendment agenda aren’t drug addicts, convicted felons, or illegal aliens. They are people who worked and paid into the system for years, and now in the twilight of their lives they could be ripped of their right to protect themselves from intruders who target the elderly. There are many reasons why a friend, family member, or hired caretaker may be given fiduciary responsibility over an older person, but that wouldn’t be taken into account when it comes to taking away guns from people who need them.

The convoluted legal language on the proposed restriction simply indicates that it would apply to a broad spectrum of Social Security claimants, including anyone with “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.” But by their own admission, they acknowledged that there is no easy way to identify who qualifies as part of that group, other than a “strategy” used by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, and we’ve all come to learn how ineffective that organization is. In addition, if they don’t give their guns up, they can say goodbye to their benefits.

This approach by the Obama administration is the swiftest way for them to take away gun rights from the most people in one swoop, not to mention they’re financially holding them hostage for their firearms. If this move goes through, the most susceptible group of citizens to crime, who are also reliant on the government for they’re monthly checks, will lose their benefits if they don’t relinquish their right to bear arms. The fact that the chance of recourse is slim to none, makes it all the more enticing for the administration.

Obama is going after the largest segment of the population – retiring baby boomers. He’s using a tactic that was used by Hitler in Nazi Germany and by communists in the Soviet Union. It’s the use of psychiatry as a soft enforcement arm of the federal government. The Nazis began a huge propaganda campaign against mentally and physically disabled Germans. They did not fit into the Nazi stereotype of the pure Aryan, that is physically fit with an obedient mind to serve the Reich. In addition, they were viewed as a burden on society, as they were unable to work and drained resources from the state. Sound familiar? Now, Obama is making similar moves against the retired and elderly. You can either starve or be a casualty of crime in Obama’s new and improved regime. Either way, the feds win. Either you die off saving them money and resources or you are disarmed and stand a good chance of being eliminated by criminals sanctioned by the State. This is massive extortion against Americans, attempting to force them into relinquishing their Second Amendment rights and into giving up their guns. To this I say,“Aw, nuts!”


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Remembering The Heroes Killed in Chattanooga

Editors Note: The laws need to be immediately changed to allow at least designated men or women on all domestic and foreign military bases or offices to be armed. The idea in this day and age when ISIS has sworn a jihad against Americas Military that our military can not be trusted to carry loaded weapons to defend themselves is unacceptable. If America can put their trust in her military to conduct war against Americas enemies around the world then they should also be trusted to protect themselves in America proper. How many more veterans must be slaughtered on American soil before Americas politicians wake up and realize that they is a war going on right here in our country and helpless members of our military are being put at risk because they are unarmed in a hostile environment.

If there ever was a time for ALL Americans to demand from their elected officials to change this status quo it is NOW! If you don’t do your part then the next time members of Americas Military are murdered in America you have a part in their death! [TS]

The identities of all four US Marines killed in Chattanooga, Tennessee on Thursday have been released. On Friday, the Marine Corps issued a statement:

It is with deep regret and heartfelt sorrow that the Marine Corps can officially confirm that the following Marines were killed on July 16, 2015, at the combined Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee:Gunnery Sgt. Thomas J. Sullivan (USMC) of Hampden, Massachusetts
Staff Sgt. David A. Wyatt (USMC) of Burke, North Carolina
Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist (USMC) of Polk, Wisconsin
Lance Cpl. Squire K. Wells (USMCR) of Cobb, Georgia

Among the fallen were highly decorated combat veterans (Gunnery Sgt. Sullivan) and newly enlisted recruits (Lance Cpl. Wells) — although all four men in uniform were active-duty service members. And while entitled to US government benefits as a result of their active-duty status, that alone cannot assuage the pain and grief of their families. On Friday, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin gave a moving rundown of who these men were, and why their deaths will be so keenly felt by their families, their unit, and the nation at large. Follow the link above to watch the clip.

So terribly, terribly sad. God bless these brave men — and their families.

UPDATE: Just awful:

The U.S. Navy says a sailor who was shot in the attack on a military facility in Chattanooga has died, raising the death toll to five people. …The Navy statement did not give the sailor’s name. He was identified by family as Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, a reservist serving on active duty in Chattanooga.


Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Milk Toast American’s

Dear Editor:

Milk Toast Americans is a term that explains the attitude of the majority of Americans today. Milk toast was a bland food given to me that caused minimal damage to my upset stomach.

I am left to wonder how many Milk Toast Americans George Washington had to deal with when he decided to cross the Delaware River on December 25, 1776. During that fateful Christmas night, did he have many who said “WOW that water is cold!!” or “The river looks awfully fast and dangerous to me”. Of course we can’t forget, “Do I see a chunk of ice?”

Let’s jump forward 239 years. I am 1 of 1000’s of volunteers working with a nonpartisan grassroots group to reshape Congress via a Constitutional Amendment. Washington and Jefferson foresaw a time that serving this great country would no longer be a burden. They wanted Term Limits included in the original document however they were overridden by those with no vision, this opened a door to robber barons similar to the ones we have in Congress today. Even though the current congressional approval rating is less than 15% nearly 90% are reelected. It is obvious the system is broke. However our founding fathers were intelligent enough to give us a means to change this. Today’s US Congress will have no say in it. We are using Article 5 of the existing constitution to pass Term Limits on congress by approaching all 50 individual State Legislatures. This will become law when 38 of the 50 Legislatures agree.

Don’t be a Milk Toast American, step up and be counted by signing the petition (either electronic or by paper). In closing I implore you to get on your computer, open any of the links and message us.

Texas State Facebook Page:

Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Welcome To Re Education Camps!

Wow, welcome to “reeducation camp”! If you disagree with our government and are vocal about it, you need psychological counseling. I’m both mad and sad. Freedom may be dead after all.

Posted in Editorial, News, Opinion | Leave a comment

Iran deal announced, gets over $100 billion in sanctioned assets

Announced this morning, a deal with Iran. There are details that have yet to be revealed. But, it seems that this administration has caved on inspections. The president claimed this morning that inspections would prevent Iran from making a bomb. He did not however say that in order for an inspection to take place, the IAEA has to request the inspection and Iran has 14 days to reply to the request. From past history, we know Iran I very good at moving and hiding things from inspectors. Obama also stated in his speech that he welcomes debate over this deal in congress, however, any bill to try to alter it would be vetoed. This deal is a loser…….EB

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani declared that his nation’s “prayers have come true.” The rest of us have to wonder if our worst nightmares may soon be fulfilled. The P5+1 group and Iran announced that they have reached a deal in which Iran will have all sanctions lifted in exchange for a 10-year pause in their pursuit of nuclear weapons, an agreement that will give them almost immediate access to over $100 billion in frozen assets abroad:

Iran reached a landmark nuclear agreement with the U.S. and five other world powers, a long-sought foreign policy goal of the Obama administration that sets the White House on course for months of political strife with dissenters in Congress and in allied Middle Eastern nations.

The accord, which comes after a decade of diplomatic efforts that frequently appeared on the verge of collapse, aims to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief.

Not only will Iran get access to its frozen assets, it can now start selling its oil openly on the market. That will ramp up its economy — but also put a lot of fresh cash into the hands of the same government that funds terrorism around the region. Is the deal so airtight that its prevention of nuclear proliferation is worth that tradeoff? Even that equation depends on what Iran has to do to have its prayers answered, and how well those moves can be verified:

Iran must take an array of specific steps. It must disable two-thirds of its centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium, which can be used as fuel for nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. It must slash its stockpile of enriched uranium and redesign its nuclear reactor in the city of Arak so that it produces less plutonium, which can also be used in a weapon.

Oil-rich Iran has always insisted its nuclear program is for entirely peaceful purposes, such as producing electricity and medical isotopes.

After years of stalling, Iran also must disclose information on its past nuclear activities, which many Western officials believe was aimed at gaining nuclear weapons know-how. Iran must provisionally implement an agreement giving United Nations inspectors much broader access to sites inside the country and eventually get parliamentary approval for that agreement.

Provisionally implement? And what kind of inspections will Iran allow? Unless inspectors are allowed to go anywhere at any time, including military facilities, the inspection regime will be worthless. Let’s not forget that Iran has a long history of hiding its activities from IAEA inspectors, and throwing them out when they got too close to the actual work being done on nuclear weapons.

Omri Ceren, who has been watching these negotiations closely, e-mails that the US retreated from their inspection regime demands:

[P]olitically the coverage will be dominated by the concessions made over the last two weeks – and those were more or less already known as of last night. Reuters confirmed that the administration has collapsed on anytime-anywhere inspections in the broad sense, and more specifically the deal will allow Iran to have a voice in which Iranian sites get inspected. Lawmakers understand the importance of anytime-anywhere inspections: it was the administration, after all, that for many months told Congress that anytime-anywhere inspections were an achievable goal that would make up for concessions elsewhere on centrifuges, facilities, and so on. Meanwhile voters, for understandable reasons, overwhelmingly believe Congress should reject any deal where Iran has a role in overseeing itself.

The Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo reports that the US caved on a number of points, but especially on inspections:

Sanctions also will be lifted on Iran, including those on the country’s banks and financial sectors, which have long supported Iran’s nuclear program as well as its sponsorship of international terror groups.

In one of the more controversial concessions made by the Obama administration, a United Nations’ embargo on arms also will be lifted within around five years as part of the deal, according to multiple reports. A similar embargo on the construction of ballistic missiles, which could carry a nuclear payload, also will expire in around eight years under the deal.

Initial readings of the deal also indicate that Iran will be given the right to veto so-called “anywhere, anytime” inspections of Iranian nuclear sites. This concession has caused concern that Tehran will be able to continue obfuscating its nuclear work and potentially continue in secret along the pathway to a bomb.

Iran also will be permitted for a time to keep its military sites off limits to inspectors, who have long been unable to confirm the past dimensions and scope of Iran’s nuclear weapons work.

With these concessions, Iran may well be able to keep plugging away on nuclear weapons right under the noses of the P5+1. Estimates put Iran around a year away from manufacturing a workable weapon. If IAEA inspectors can’t access military sites even for a brief time, then it won’t take too much effort to complete the process and end up with a nuclear device. The first time we’ll find out about it will be when the Iranians test the device … either in Iran, or in Tel Aviv. Of course, they may wait until Year Eight to put it on a ballistic missile, but that assumes (a) they need a ballistic missile to hit Tel Aviv, and (b) they wait eight years to build a missile. What’s to stop them, without military-site inspections?

The anytime-anywhere inspections were supposed to be non-negotiable. Even the Obama administration knew that; they had told Congress at the beginning of the process that this would be a deal-breaker for the US. Instead, Barack Obama and John Kerry tossed it aside to get their piece of paper. The only possible way to view this is the beginning of a long retreat by the US from the region, and don’t think for a moment that our allies don’t recognize it.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Gowdy reveals subpoena Clinton claims she ‘never had’

House Republicans investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on Wednesday released a March subpoena issued to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, one day after she said in a nationally televised interview that she “never had a subpoena” in the email controversy.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Benghazi panel, said he had “no choice” but to make the subpoena public “in order to correct the inaccuracy” of Clinton’s claim.

Clinton told CNN on Monday that she “never had a subpoena,” adding: “Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation.” 

Gowdy said the committee issued the March 4 subpoena to Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her use of private emails while serving as secretary of state.

Regardless of whether a subpoena was issued, “Secretary Clinton had a statutory duty to preserve records from her entire time in office, and she had a legal duty to cooperate with and tell the truth to congressional investigators requesting her records going back to September of 2012,” Gowdy said in a statement.

The dispute over the subpoena is the latest flashpoint in an increasingly partisan investigation by the House panel, which was created to probe the September 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

Gowdy and other Republicans have complained that Clinton and the State Department have not been forthcoming with release of her emails and note that the State Department has said it cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Clinton’s private server.

The emails all pre-date the assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility and consist mainly of would-be intelligence reports passed to Clinton by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, officials said.

Gowdy has said the missing emails raise “serious questions” about Clinton’s decision to erase her personal server, especially before it could be analyzed by an independent third-party arbiter.

A Clinton campaign spokesman has said she turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department, “including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Haley’s Charleston response, Confederate flag stand spark VP talk

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s response to the Charleston massacre, highlighted by her call to remove the Confederate flag from statehouse grounds, has thrust her back into the national spotlight and re-ignited talk about what role she might play in the 2016 race.

Not only is she poised to be a powerful surrogate, but already there’s chatter she could make a solid running mate for one of the 16 expected Republican presidential candidates.

“She’d be on anybody’s list,” former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told Fox News on Tuesday. “She’s done a terrific job in South Carolina.”

Haley has been a high-profile Republican since she won the governorship as part of the 2010 Tea Party wave.

But her call to remove the Confederate battle flag after a white gunman fatally shot nine black victims June 17 inside an historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C., saw her play a national leadership role in the party as prominent GOP figures joined her. The Republican National Committee, South Carolina’s U.S. senators and several 2016 GOP candidates also called for the flag’s removal — despite many Southerners’ belief that the flag is part of their heritage, not a symbol of white supremacy.

Haley, an Indian-American and the state’s first female governor, insists her call to remove the flag was deeply personal and beyond politics, repeatedly telling reporters she couldn’t “look her children in the face” while allowing the flag to fly.

But in a presidential campaign season, the political implications are unavoidable.

Juleanne Glover, who has worked on Republican presidential campaigns for Arizona Sen. John McCain and Steve Forbes and is now a senior adviser for the international firm Teneo Strategy, agrees that Haley could be a top vice presidential pick.

But she also argues Haley could play a far bigger role in the White House race that would begin much earlier than when candidates pick a running mate in summer 2016.

Glover suggested Tuesday that Haley’s backing and physical presence at campaign stops across early-voting South Carolina could make or break a candidate’s White House bid and that her voice on such topics as women’s issues, education reform and long-term immigration policy could “create a platform for 2016.”

“She could play a pivotal role in all of these issues and in the future of the party,” Glover said. “She’s an American success story with a biographical narrative that lends itself to a larger, inspirational story. Friends who know her well have always been evangelical about her potential. They are not surprised.”

The decision by Haley, an elected official, to end her previous support for the flag, which was moved from atop the state capitol dome in 2000, indeed put her at the forefront of the issue.

However, she was not the first high-profile Republican to speak out.

Haley made the announcement, amid mounting public outcry, five days after the incident and three days after 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 2016 GOP candidate Jeb Bush called it a symbol of racism.

Within the crowded GOP field, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham support the flag being taken down, while Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have not taken a specific public stance, though Huckabee has said he salutes Haley for speaking out.

As a female and a minority official, the 43-year-old Haley indeed has the potential to become a major figure in the new guard of the Republican Party.

But some political observers suggest she is still a work in progress.

Halley was elected last year to a second term with roughly 56 percent of the vote, the largest margin of victory for a South Carolina gubernatorial candidate in 24 years. But she won in an overwhelmingly Republican state and would likely need to broaden her appeal to be selected as a running mate.

In addition, the former state legislator, who has an accounting degree from Clemson University, has largely focused on job growth and state economic development and less on race and women’s issues.

And she has occasionally clashed with Democrats and Republicans alike in the state legislature.

Haley upset black Democrats in part over her refusal to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare and for supporting a state voter-identification law they consider discriminatory.

However, the week before the Charleston church killings, Haley signed into a law a bill requiring police officers to wear body cameras that was championed by state Democratic state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, killed while leading a bible study inside the church.

She also got support from Pinckney, an ardent progressive, for an economic-development plan to dredge the Savannah River.

Still, College of Charleston political Professor Kendra Stewart said Haley has perhaps an even more “contentious” relationship with the GOP-controlled legislature, with which she has clashed over spending, ethics reform and state agency control.

Stewart said Haley also has offended assembly leaders by criticizing them publicly and vetoing their legislation, which has resulted in efforts to override her vetoes.

Glover thinks Haley has had to battle with the old guard in both parties to achieve her political goals but acknowledges “some of the legislative tussles have not always helped burnished her image.”

Another big issue is simply the political calculations of picking any vice presidential candidate — which includes such factors as the Democrats’ presidential nominee and whether the GOP nominee is, for example, a strong conservative or more of a moderate who would gain wider appeal with somebody like Haley.

Stewart suggests that Haley’s odds increase if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination or if an East Coast moderate like Christie is the Republican choice.

“If Clinton wins, it would be wise for Republicans to have a female or non-white male on the ballot,” Stewart said. “She’s very appealing to the Republican Party’s more conservative base. She would add some strength to that part of the ticket.”

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Five Lies About Hillary’s Secret Emails

Let’s review a handful of false statements and claims offered by Hillary Clinton, her lawyers, and her supporters, pertaining to the secret email scandal that continues to unfold:

(1) CLAIM: After the existence of the “home brew” email server was revealed, Hillary turned over all work-related emails to the State Department from her private server, deleting only personal emails — including missives about “yoga routines,” “family vacations,” and “planning Chelsea’s wedding.”

REALITY: Records prove that among the 30,000-plus emails deleted by Hillary’s team were notes regarding Benghazi and other Libya-related policies. Congressional investigators have no idea what else may have been unilaterally erased without independent supervision.  What we know for certain is that some number of official emails were permanently deleted, not handed over to State, as claimed. (Bonus lie: Team Hillary initially claimed that emails were automatically flagged for deletion using a keyword search mechanism. They later changed their story, averring that they’d reviewed every individual email — which means they necessarily eliminated emails they actively knew were not personal in nature).

(2) CLAIM:  Hillary set up a secret email server in her home as a means to simplify her life; she needed this arrangement to streamline all of her emails onto one mobile device.

REALITY: Records prove that Hillary used multiple mobile devices to send and receive emails.  This revelation caused her entire explanation to “crumble at her feet.”  Her initial excuse-making made little sense from the get-go.  How is paying someone to set up an entire private email system a simplification?  (Bonus lie: Clinton initially claimed that all of her work-related emails were intact because the aides with whom she corresponded uniformly used .gov accounts, the contents of which were archived.  In fact, several top aides were revealed to have also used private email accounts to conduct official business, and the State Department was shown to have extremely shoddy archiving practices anyway.  And that was all before the Sidney Blumenthal emails came to light, blowing up claim #1 above).

(3) CLAIM: Clinton’s lawyers stated that with the exception of a few days at the very beginning of the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton exclusively used one email address through her private server.

REALITY: Records prove that Mrs. Clinton used multiple email addresses, including one that her team had explicitly told Congressional investigators did not exist while she was at State.  The evidence contradicts this assertion.  Also, the latest batch of released emails (which, again, intentionally excludes tens of thousands emails hand-selected for destruction by Clinton’s attorneys) reveals a third account:

(4) CLAIM: Top White House officials say they had no idea that Mrs. Clinton was operating a private email server and using it for officials tasks.

REALITY: David Axelrod has some explaining to do, as may others:

Emails released Tuesday by the State Department show that former W.H. advisor David Axelrod knew Hillary Clinton had a private account despite recent claims. According to the latest batch, two email chains show Axelrod did indeed correspond with the then-secretary of state — once in June, 2009 and again in July, 2009. The emails contradict recent comments by Axelrod to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, in which he said he would have “asked a few questions” and shared his “concerns” had he known about Clinton’s private email account and server. Axelrod made the statements in a June 17 appearance after former White House chief of staff Bill Daley told “Meet The Press” that he didn’t know anything about Clinton’s private email during his time in the White House.

He might be able to insist that he wasn’t paying attention to the address from which her emails were sent, but one correspondence shows Axelrod actively seeking her email address:

(5) CLAIM: Hillary Clinton “fully complied” with ” every rule” regarding official email correspondence and archiving.

REALITYNo, she didn’t.  Not even close.  (Bonus point: In light of the unprecedented and potentially disastrous OPM hack at the hands of the Chinese, it is clearer than ever that foreign intelligence services accessed Mrs. Clinton’s emails with relative ease; her server was woefully under-secured, especially given the sensitivity of its contents.  Hillary’s response to credible allegations that she recklessly endangered national security for selfish political reasons is mind-blowingly silly.  Either she’s lying again, or she has no idea how the Internet works.  Or both).


Posted in News | Leave a comment