Starting Tomorrow…

The Washington Times posted an article on September 14th about the turnover of the Internet.

I just want to explain what I think the turnover of the Internet will mean to me personally. My blog is probably not important enough to be impacted (I get about 10,000 to 30,.000 hits a day), but because the organization the internet is being turned over to has members that do not recognize the right of free speech, a lot of my reliable news sources may disappear.

If you find this difficult to believe, consider the following:

In October 2011, elements of the American Muslim Brotherhood wrote the White House demanding an embargo or discontinuation of information and materials relating to Islamic-based terrorism–even insisting on firings, “re-training,” and “purges” of officers, analysts, special agents, and decision-makers who created or made such materials available….Days later, Brennan responded by agreeing on the necessity for the “White House [to] immediately create an interagency task force to address the problem by removing personnel and products that the Muslim Brotherhood deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.”  from Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin page 21.

If that abuse of free speech can happen in America, you can be sure it will happen if the Internet is turned over to a group that includes China, Russia, and Iran, none of whom are noted for their embrace of free speech.

The article at the Washington Times reminds us:

The Internet was originally launched as a project of the U.S. Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in the 1960s. Then, in the 1980s, access to ARPANET was expanded courtesy of U.S. taxpayer-funded grants via the National Science Foundation, and, eventually, the Internet as we know it was developed.

So U.S. taxpayers paid for the creation, and development, and maintenance of the Internet. It is, in a very real sense, American property.

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution reads in part: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States …”

So under what authority, exactly, does President Obama claim the authority to make a decision on the disposition of a U.S. property – to wit, the Internet – without explicit permission from Congress?

Perhaps as important a question to ask is, where in the world are congressional leaders on this, and why are they not screaming bloody murder about yet another executive overreach by this overreach-hungry president?

Enter Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has introduced S. 3034, the Protecting Internet Freedom Act. Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin has introduced a companion bill, H.R. 5418, in the House. The bills would simply prohibit the Commerce Department from moving forward on its plan unless it first wins congressional approval.

We have less than 24 hours to stop this. Please call your Congressman–202-224-3121 for the Senate; 202-224-3121 for the House. Your freedom is at stake.

If you are thinking that this does not impact you, I want you to think about the things we wouldn’t know if we had to depend on the mainstream media. Would we know about the payments to Iran, would we have known about Monica Lewinski’s blue dress? The mainstream media is very good at unearthing and reporting on Republican scandals, but how much have you read in the mainstream about the financial irregularities of the Clinton Foundation?

If you want to maintain the free flow of information, please call your Congressman.

The Iran Deal Just Gets Uglier

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:

The Obama administration agreed to back the lifting of United Nations sanctions on two Iranian state banks blacklisted for financing Iran’s ballistic-missile program on the same day in January that Tehran released four American citizens from prison, according to U.S. officials and congressional staff briefed on the deliberations.

The U.N. sanctions on the two banks weren’t initially to be lifted until 2023, under a landmark nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers that went into effect on Jan. 16.

The U.N. Security Council’s delisting of the two banks, Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International, was part of a package of tightly scripted agreements—the others were a controversial prisoner swap and transfer of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran—that were finalized between the U.S. and Iran on Jan. 17, the day the Americans were freed.

If the Iran nuclear deal is such a wonder thing, why has so much of it been kept secret?

The Middle East was in relatively good shape when President Obama took office. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of State. Eight years later, where are we? In 2011 we saw the birth of the ‘Arab Spring’ which was supposed to democratize the Middle East. The Arab Spring brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, destabilized Libya, and eventually led to the civil war in Syria. Egypt (with no help from the Obama Administration) was able to wrestle its country back from the Muslim Brotherhood and install leadership that will fight the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism. It’s far from a democracy, but it is keeping peace within the country and working to stop terrorism. I am not impressed with the Obama Administration’s foreign policy under the leadership of Secretary of State Clinton. We have consistently worked against freedom, and we have funded terrorism by giving money to Iran.

Please follow the link above to read the entire Wall Street Journal article. The foreign policy of the Obama Administration has been a nightmare for America. Electing Hillary Clinton as President will give us more of the same.

Using Taxpayer Money To Prop Up Health Insurance Providers

Hot Air posted a story today with the following headline, “GAO report: HHS owes taxpayers billions in Obamacare reinsurance money.”

The article gives a synopsis of the story:

In 2014, the industry-funded reinsurance program was supposed to provide $10 billion to insurers and $2 billion to the federal Treasury. But when total collections from insurers amounted to only $9.7 billion, the Department of Health and Human Services opted to funnel all of the money toward insurers. The agency paid insurers $7.9 billion in claims for 2014, the first year of exchange coverage, and held over the remaining $1.7 billion for future payments.

Republicans asked the GAO to weigh in on whether or not HHS had the authority to interpret section 1341 of Obamacare in such a way that it could withhold payments to the Treasury. The GAO report concludes HHS clearly does not have the authority to do so:

ObamaCare has been a disaster from the beginning and will probably totally collapse under the next President. The problem then becomes how to rebuild the damage to American healthcare that ObamaCare has done. If Hillary is elected, we will go to total government healthcare. If Trump is elected, the hope is that he will lean toward a system that favors the free market.

The article concludes:

Just to put this in perspective, there have been weeks of stories about the scandal of phony accounts at Wells Fargo bank. That’s a legitimate scandal in which bank employees created millions of unauthorized new accounts (and credit cards) in order to secure bonuses for themselves. However, the total amount set aside for refunds in that case was $5 million dollars. That’s apparently how much customers were ripped off by the shady practices at Wells Fargo. For this legitimate scandal, Wells Fargo is paying over $150 million in fines and has already fired over 5,000 employees.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration withheld $3 billion dollars belonging to taxpayers and essentially redirected it to private companies. It has not paid back the money. It has not been punished for taking it without authorization. No one at HHS has been fired. And Elizabeth Warren is not demanding HHS Secretary Burwell resign.

Will there be any accountability for HHS and the Obama administration for what amounts to the intentional misdirection of billions of taxpayer dollars to the president’s pet project? Will the media devote 1/4 of the attention to this that it has to the Wells Fargo story? We shall see but my advice is don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

I realize that this is not an exciting story, but it is an important story. Not only did HHS exceed its power, it essentially stole money from the taxpayers. This sort of behavior by government agencies needs to be dealt with severely.

 

Why National Sovereignty Matters

On Tuesday The Daily Caller posted an article about a recent report released by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on African Descent.

The article reports:

In January, the U.N. group had applauded the U.S. for its progress since the Jim Crow era, but argued America was still ruled by white supremacy. “[I]deology ensuring the domination of one group over another, continues to negatively impact the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African Americans today,” the group said at the time. “The dangerous ideology of white supremacy inhibits social cohesion amongst the US population.”

…The chairman of the group, Ricardo Sunga of the Philippines, also condemned the rising “xenophobia and Afrophobia” of America’s presidential campaign in an interview with reporters Monday, without mentioning Donald Trump by name.

While this UN group may want reparations to become law, the measure is strongly opposed by Americans. The latest poll on the matter revealed that 68 percent of Americans are opposed to reparations for slavery.

It is interesting to me that the report focused on the United States. Slavery was a worldwide practice through the mid-nineteenth century. The main perpetrators of the slave were African Muslims. Somehow they are not being asked to pay reparations. I also find the attack on Donald Trump (although he was unnamed) interesting. It is a matter of public record that when Donald purchased his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago in 1985, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. How does that represent white supremacy or Afrophobia?

The problem in the black community has nothing to do with white supremacy or racism–it has to do with Great Society programs initiated in the 1960’s that destroyed the black culture.  It was President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs. Those “Great Society” programs ruined the family structure in the black community. Thank God for the mothers in that community that have fought to raise successful children. The black community has given us some amazing men and women–Thomas Sowell, Dr. Ben Carson, Judge Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, etc. However, they are the exception rather than the rule. Until you change the culture of the black community, the gifts and contributions that the black community can make to American culture will not be realized.

To demand reparations for past sins is not a way to bring people together–it is a way to reward people with things they did not earn. Giving people money they did not earn is not helpful–it creates dependency. Also, how many people in America are alive today who have owned slaves? How many people in Muslim countries currently own slaves? Why did the UN report overlook those countries?

The Naive Party vs. The Sleazy Party

The Washington Post has a story today about Donald Trumps insulting Alicia Machado, a former Miss Universe. Just for kicks, I used the search engine at the Washington Post to see if they had ever posted a story about Juanita Broderick. I got one recent story that recounted a discussion between Donald Trump and Sean Hannity on the issue. In case you have forgotten, Juanita Broderick was a Clinton campaign worker who charged Bill Clinton with rape many years ago. There is corroborating evidence that the charges are true and that Hillary Clinton was involved in the efforts following the charges to make sure Ms. Broderick was discredited. So the Washington Post is more concerned about mean things Donald Trump said than Hillary Clinton’s veiled threats and attempts to ruin someone’s reputation. (And that’s not to mention what Bill Clinton did). Seems a little one-sided.

But the story about Miss Universe did not suddenly arise. The Clinton campaign has been planning this–it was a set-up.

The article at the Washington Post reports:

— Operatives in Brooklyn had been working with Machado since the summer. They had a video featuring her story ready to go. Cosmopolitan had a photo spread of her draped in an American flag – to go with a profile – in the can. Machado had also conducted an interview with The Guardian that was “apparently embargoed for post-debate release,” according to Vox. And the Clinton super PAC Priorities USA turned a digital ad to highlight the insults by early afternoon.

The Clinton press shop then set up a conference call for Machado to respond to what Trump said on “Fox and Friends.” Speaking with reporters, Machado recounted how Trump “always treated me like a lesser thing, like garbage” and that his new words are like “a bad dream.” She said in a mix of Spanish and halting English that she watched the debate with her mother and daughter and cried as Clinton recounted her story, Ed O’Keefe reports.

To be honest, I have very little respect for the Clintons to begin with. I don’t have a tremendous amount of respect for Donald Trump, but I do respect what he has accomplished in the world of business. At least he is not corrupt to the core. He has a lot of room for improvement in some of the things he has said, but I can honestly say that he will at least try to do what is best for the country–his fortune is at stake! The Clintons exploited the office of President the last time they occupied the White House–there is a GAO report on items taken or damaged when they left. Donald Trump does not need to loot the White House–he has accumulated enough on his own. This story disgusts me for two reasons–first of all, it shows that the Clinton campaign is willing to walk through any gutter to win–even old gutters, and second, it shows that the Trump campaign needs to be ready for all manner of dirty politics from the Clintons. That is not a happy place to be as an American voter.

Coming Soon

This is a recent Press Release from Senator Ted Cruz:

National Security Leaders Oppose Obama’s Oct. 1 Internet Handover

Military and cybersecurity experts send letter to top Pentagon officials urging intervention in irreversible transition

September 27, 2016

202-228-7561

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, a broad coalition of 77 national security, cybersecurity, and industry leaders sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford calling on the top military officials to intervene in opposition to President Obama’s radical proposal to relinquish American guardianship of the Internet and give it to foreign corporations and countries, including Russia, China, and Iran. This letter follows a joint statement issued by 10 Republican senators urging Democratic senators to oppose the Obama administration’s proposed Internet handover set to take place on October 1.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter reads. “…Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. In light of the looming deadline, we feel compelled to urge you to impress upon President Obama that the contract between NTIA and ICANN cannot be safely terminated at this point.” 

The distinguished group of signers includes former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, Jr., former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), former Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, former Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency Vice Adm. Robert Monroe (Ret.), and former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andrew McCarthy, among others. 

Congress must act by September 30 in order to stop this Internet handover, which poses the risk of increased censorship and loss of free speech online, possible legal repercussions, and national security vulnerabilities. 

Read the defense experts’ letter in its entirety here.

This is a critical moment. We have two days to maintain freedom of speech on the Internet. Even if this blog does not go away, all of the alternative news sources that Americans now have to balance the biased mainstream media will be gone within the next year if the internet is turned over. The planned turnover of the Internet represents a serious threat to Americans who want to be able to find honest reporting of current events.

The two current bills I found in Congress relating to this matter were H.Res.853 and S.3034.

 

Some Observations On The Presidential Debate Last Night

I think the interesting part of last night’s debate were the differences between what was discussed and what was not discussed. It is noteworthy that Hillary Clinton had to go back to a 1973 lawsuit to declare Donald Trump a racist. It has been reported that when Donald purchased his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago in 1985, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews.

It was somehow overlooked that the birther charges in 2008 were closely aligned with those in the Clinton campaign. There was absolutely no reason to bring them up last night–they are totally irrelevant.

There was no discussion of how the foreign policy during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East.

There was no discussion of the fact that the press conference held by James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails clearly showed that she had been lying about her emails from the beginning and had carelessly handled classified information. James Comey chose not to pursue the case, but clearly presented the evidence.

Donald Trump was not active politically during the run-up to the Iraq War. Aside from the fact that the history of that war has been totally rewritten by the left, Hillary voted for the war–Donald made a few comments. It is noteworthy that there are videos of Donald Trump with Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto showing opposition to the war. Somehow the moderator chose not to pay attention to that information.

The discussion of ‘stop and frisk’ was totally misleading. One judge declared it unconstitutional–the case was not appealed because New York City got a new mayor who did not support the policy. At that point the question was moot.

Just for the record, Hillary Clinton did support the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement.

The good economy during the 1990’s was composed of two bubbles–the tech bubble and the housing bubble. During his presidency, Bill Clinton accelerated the policies that ultimately led to the 2008 recession (see YouTube).

This was not a fair debate–the moderator and Hillary Clinton debated Donald Trump. That seems a little unfair to me. However, I am not sure the Clinton campaign got the results they wanted.

Ignoring The Root Of The Problem

Thomas Sowell posted an article at National Review today about how government policies since the 1960’s have hurt the black community and are partially to blame for much of the unrest we are seeing now. As the article states, most of those policies are favored by the Democratic Party. One can’t help but remember that it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

The article at National Review reminds us:

In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.

A big “favor” the Obama administration is offering blacks today is exemption from school behavior rules that have led to a rate of disciplining of black male students that is greater than the rate of disciplining of other categories of students.

Discipline is part of the process of becoming an adult and a responsible citizen. We are not allowing children to develop properly when we refuse to discipline them. That is a very large part of the problems with youth we are having today.

The article further notes:

Kids from homes where they were not given behavioral standards, who are then not held to behavioral standards in schools, are on a path that can lead them as adults straight into prison, or to fatal confrontations with the police.

The article notes that one of the things that has helped children in the ghettos is the emergence of Charter Schools. Oddly enough, Democrats and the NAACP both oppose Charter Schools.

The article concludes with the explanation:

The Democrats’ special interest is in serving the teachers’ unions, which oppose charter schools and support Democrats financially.

The NAACP’s special interest is in serving the same donors — and in keeping ghetto schools controlled by racial activists, as part of their turf.

Unless the black community wakes up to the damage the ‘generosity’ of the Democratic Party has done to their culture, they will not survive as a community. There are a number of black churches in the city where I live in that are working to bring a healthy culture back to the black community, but it is an uphill battle. Theoretically life in America means that we are all pulling the same wagon together. Those that seek to divide us so that they can climb into the wagon and get a free ride need to either help pull or get out of the way.

We Need To Listen To The People On The Front Lines

Lifezette is reporting today that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council has endorsed Donald Trump for President.

The article reports:

The National ICE Council, the union representing 5,000 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff, decided to endorse the GOP nominee after carefully considering the impact a Hillary Clinton presidency would have on their officers. Saying that Clinton has embraced the “unconstitutional executive orders” of President Barack Obama, Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, said in a statement that these orders “have forced our officers to violate their oaths to uphold the law and placed every person living in America at risk — including increased risk of terrorism.”

According to the article, this is the first time the National ICE Council has endorsed a candidate in a national election. This is important. We need to listen to these people as they are on the front lines of our fight against domestic terrorism.

The article reports the following statement by Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council:

“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the most radical immigration agenda proposal in U.S. history,” Crane added. “Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders.”

…After noting that only 5 percent of the council’s membership supported Clinton’s presidential bid, Crane lambasted the Democratic presidential nominee for catering to the special interest groups and “open-borders radicals” all in the name of “cheap labor, greed and votes.”

To be fair, the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats on open borders. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a major contributor to Republican candidates. Those candidates do not want to close our borders because many of the Chamber of Commerce members want cheap labor. If the Republican Party truly opposed open borders, those borders would be closed by now, regardless of who was President. There are some Republicans who have fought for real borders, but they are not in the majority.

The article at Lifezette concludes:

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane concluded. “We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal.”

Now I Get It

I will admit that sometimes I just don’t understand why things happen the way they do. When James Comey listed the laws Hillary Clinton broke and then said there was no reason to pursue the case, I was very confused. That made no sense to me. If she broke the law, why was the case dropped? Well, now I know.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today that explains why Hillary was not prosecuted and also explains Huma Abedin’s response when shown a copy of an email from President Obama to Hillary Clinton’s private server. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. It explains a lot.

The article notes:

The FBI had just shown her (Huma Abedin) an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Why would she want a copy of the email? Because if she were ever charged with anything, she would have proof that President Obama was also guilty. If President Obama knows she has a copy of that email, what are the chances of her being charged with anything? It’s called insurance.

Andrew McCarthy sums up the situation very well:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

A thorough investigation into the email scandal would reveal the fact that President Obama was also negligent–therefore the Obama Administration cannot afford a thorough investigation into the email scandal. That explains the stonewalling of Congressional committees investigating the scandal and why the Justice Department and the State Department have been so uncooperative. This is a serious problem for our republic. When the corruption goes all the way to the top, who is going to hold our leaders accountable? When did we reach the point where the rule of law only applied to the ‘little people’?’

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, we will have the potential of the most corrupt administration in American history. We will, in fact, have become a banana republic–where the rules only apply to some of us. Mrs. Clinton is a danger to both our country and our Constitution.

A Message From A Catholic Priest

On Friday, Life Site News posted the following quote from former Ave Maria Law School chaplain Father Michael Orsi. He gave this speech at a National Day of Remembrance for Aborted Children event on September 10:

“For too long, pastors and churches have been bullied into believing that they can say nothing political from the pulpit,” said Orsi. The regulation that is used to silence them “was a piece of spite work” against non-profits that had opposed President Lyndon Johnson, he said.

“Let me remind you: the Bible is a political document,” the priest said. “The prophets, including John the Baptist, and Jesus, lost their lives because they spoke the truth to power.”

“The Constitution is quickly being destroyed,” warned Orsi, and “unless the right choice is made in November, we may not have a court that is fair and balanced in its interpretation of the Constitution.”

“Too many of the pastors—too many, practically all—in Germany refused to speak against national socialism,” continued Orsi. “And look [at] the result: millions of Jews, pastors, priests, homosexuals, gypsies all lost their lives because everyone was afraid. What are you afraid of, a couple of bucks? Your tax-exempt status? What’s that going to do to you? Your churches may be closed anyway, because if a certain party gets elected, this certain party said, if the churches do not agree with our interpretation of women’s reproductive rights, they’ll just have to change their doctrine.”

“If a certain party gets elected, I can assure you what kind of judges are going to be on those appeals courts,” he said. And those judges will be charged with deciding whether the government may force churches and religious institutions to pay for abortion, contraception, and abortifacient drugs, he noted.

Furthermore, “I’m not going to vote for a candidate who decides that we can redefine the meaning of marriage,” proclaimed Orsi. “Our opponents believe once they destroy the family, once they destroy the churches, they can re-create society in their own image and their own likeness. That, my friends, is not just political. That is diabolical. Get it straight, for crying out loud! The devil is in this!”

“We are in a battle for the soul of America,” he said.

“Somehow, [Christians] have come to buy the story that you cannot be political in church,” said Orsi. “Let me tell you right now, oh yes, you can, and oh, yes, you better be. Because you might not have a church to go to if you don’t vote the right way in November.”

Beware Erroneous Campaign Ads

It is very obvious that integrity and political campaigns parted ways a long time ago. However, every now and then a whopper is told that is so big that even the mainstream media will correct it. Yesterday Hot Air posted a story about a fact check that CNN did on a Hillary Clinton campaign ad.

The article reports:

A new Clinton ad, which is airing in seven states this month, echoed the previous claim saying Hillary “got the treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms.”

But as Jake Tapper points out nearly all of this is false. It’s true that there is a treaty called New START which sets limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons Russia can deploy. However that treaty doesn’t say anything about short range nukes or the number of total nuclear weapons Russia can have. It doesn’t require a single nuclear weapon be destroyed.

Even more striking, Tapper notes that Russia was already under the agreed limit when the treaty was signed in 2011. Russia has since increased the number of strategic nuclear arms by nearly 200, from 1,537 to 1,735. “Not only did it not cut the number of nuclear weapons,” Tapper says, “there’s actually been an increase.” Here’s a chart created by FactCheck.org back in April showing the number of strategic nuclear arms held by the U.S. and Russia. Note that the number of warheads held by Russia is up:

nukesTapper and FactCheck.org both grant that the treaty has value but the claims Clinton is making about the treaty reducing the number of Russian arms is false.

The campaign season will be over in about six weeks. Thank God.

A Really Nasty Alliance

On September 23rd, The Center for Security Policy posted an article about the alliance between The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and Black Lives Matter (BLM). The ISM is a leader in the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. At the conclusion of an event in San Diego in 2014, ISM lead organizer Anna Piller, alias Anna Baltzer, send out an email blast urging her followers to descend on Ferguson, Missouri in 2015 and demonstrate with black American radicals there about the shooting of Michael Brown, a black 17 year-old robber who was killed by a Ferguson police officer when the youth tried to steal the officer’s gun after attacking him. Brown had just robbed a liquor store.  That email also broadsided a cry for action “From Ferguson to Palestine,” bringing the BDS movement and Palestinian groups, both domestic and abroad, to ally with U.S. black “liberation” groups and radicals, and tying the goals of Hamas to domestic complaints by American blacks over alleged unfair treatment by US law enforcement. This is not news to Americans who have watched demonstrations turning violent in the past year. It has become increasingly obvious that much of the violence in these protests is being done by outside agitators rather than those in the areas of the protest.

The article reminds us of the plans of Hamas for America:

At another planning conference of the ISM at Duke University, Abe Greenhouse, a self-avowed anarchist and ISM leader told one seminar that similar riots occurring weekly in the “West Bank” against Israel’s security barrier provided training for American and European anarchists to bring similar “direct actions” to the U.S. border with Mexico one day.  When we hear a presidential candidate discussing how he plans a wall along the U.S./Mexican border, it isn’t a long stretch to see what is coming, when busloads of anarchists will be brought to the U.S. southern border to riot and attack border patrol officers near the fence.

The BDS movement and BLM came out with new videos. circulating on the Web to bolster the connection between current goals of Hamas and BLM. One cries out a central theme of “When I see them I see us”, implying a connection between Hamas goals and black revolutionaries.  Mainstream media continues to largely ignore this connection. Viewers of the video will only see a suite of black and white faces seemingly fighting alleged injustice  and will not know is that some of those holding this statement  up are convicted terrorists like Rasmeah Odeh who murdered two college boys with a bomb and is fighting deportation from the USA or Angela Davis, convicted of smuggling guns for a prison break during trial that resulted in a judge being killed . To the BLM and BDS activists, the idea of increased numbers and noise the film will generate through publicity and propaganda are all that matter.

The article concludes:

Israeli intelligence must take heed next time a BLM delegation tries to enter their country. All Americans should be better informed about plans to trick them into supporting the goals of the very terrorists who pose the greatest threat to the United States and do not really serve the US and worldwide black community at home or abroad. As this united front goes on, Americans can expect to see terrorism on a daily scale as experienced by the Israelis, with shootings targeting police, riots in the streets and at our border, and general mayhem against “occupation” as blacks and minorities will be pitched the notion they are “occupied” like the Palestinian Arabs claim to be. This is something Middle East Studies need to delve into as well, as this situation increases its presence on the world stage, because what goes on there is now being brought home to America.

(Readers should note: The same day this article broke, three Phoenix, Arizona police officers were run over by a black driver who intentionally targeted them. Israel has been having these hit and run attacks by automobiles driven by Arabs as part of the “Intifada” for a long time. The Phoenix attack is a major news story in the USA, but the plethora of car attacks by Arabs against Israeli civilians and police get almost no mention in the mainstream Media. It is this writer’s opinion that the Phoenix attack is a harbinger for the same tactics being shared by Black Lives Matter and Hamas as mentioned in this article. Hatem Bazian’s call for an Intifada in America is just starting. The driver who struck the police officers, Marc Laquon Payne, is an acolyte of the Black Panther Party which is part of the BLM/Black Liberation movement /Hamas connection.

Note that the group causing trouble in America includes not only Middle Eastern terrorist groups, but also anarchists with various backgrounds. Unfortunately the ISM movement and the BDS movement are widely accepted on American college campuses. I think it is time to look at what American colleges are teaching their students. These college students represent the future leaders of America, and if they are being indoctrinated into false principles, they will not preserve our republic. When America loses its freedom, where can we go?

I Guess The Scandal Goes Higher Than Previously Admitted

It seems as if the only people who have never actually read all of Hillary Clinton’s emails are the American people. There is ample evidence that the private server was hacked by at least one foreign intelligence service and some content from the emails has wandered on to the internet. Today The New York Post posted a story that indicates that the scandal went higher than was previously claimed.

The article reports:

President Obama used an undisclosed pseudonym to communicate with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her private email server – shocking her top aide Huma Abedin when she learned of it.

“How is that not classified?” Abedin “exclaimed” to investigators when shown a copy of the 2012 exchange between Clinton and Obama, according to a trove of 189-pages of FBI documents dumped Friday night into Clinton’s use of the private server.

After learning that the president used email with a pseudonym — apparently to try to protect his identity — Abedin asked her interrogators if she could keep a copy of the email.

A few thoughts on this. If President Obama was emailing Hillary on her private server, he knew she had a private server. That contradicts what he has publicly stated. Why was he using another name? Was classified material discussed?

It is now obvious that the email scandal includes the White House. That may explain why the Justice Department and the FBI decided not to press charges. It really is time to clean house in Washington. Hopefully Americans will remember that in November.

This Really Isn’t A Surprise

Posted at Real Clear Politics yesterday:

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Todd Walther told CNN’s Erin Burnett Thursday night that 70% of those arrested in race riots in that city this week were not locals.

“This is not Charlotte that’s out here,” he said. “These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals.”

“I’m not saying all the people, but we’ve got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They’re not coming from Charlotte.”

So logically, shouldn’t someone investigate who is paying for the buses and consider pressing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges? Protesting is a legal activity–looting and rioting are not. It would be very interesting to find our who is paying for the buses.

Voter Fraud Has Been Here For A While

On Thursday, CBS4 in Denver posted an article about an investigation of voter fraud that they did in Colorado.

The article reports:

“We do believe there were several instances of potential vote fraud that occurred,” said Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams after reviewing the CBS4 findings. “It shows there is the potential for fraud.”

The cases of dead men and women casting ballots ranged from El Paso County in southern Colorado to Denver and Jefferson County. CBS4 discovered the fraudulent voting by comparing databases of voting histories in Colorado against a federal death database.

The CBS4 investigation has triggered criminal investigations in El Paso and Jefferson counties along with a broad investigation by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office.

State voting officials have explained that they can only remove people from the voting lists if the name, address, etc., are a perfect match.

The article illustrates the problem of voter fraud:

Out of approximately 2 million votes cast in Colorado’s last election cycle, 8,000 ballots were not counted when signatures did not match. The importance of finding and weeding out fraudulent votes is underlined by the 2002 election in Colorado’s 7th Congressional district. That race was decided by 121 votes out of more than 175,000 that were cast. In Ohio in 2010, a tax measure passed by just two votes.

Following the CBS4 investigation, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office reviewed the CBS4 findings and confirmed at least 78 dead voters remained eligible to vote. Lynn Bartels, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office, said county clerks were notified and told to immediately remove those 78 names from voter rolls. Bartels said “It’s not clear why” those dead citizens were still being listed as eligible voters.

Chuck Broerman said what CBS4 found “undermines our system. It does dilute your vote in a small way.”

Williams said measures implemented in 2015 should reduce the number of dead voters casting ballots in Colorado, but he noted that the CBS4 investigation indicates further measures might be necessary.

“It’s not a perfect system,” said Williams, “It is impossible to vote from the grave legally.”

Voter ID is necessary to prevent this sort of voter fraud. We live in a society where identification is required for many basic activities–cashing a check, opening a bank account, buying cigarettes or alcohol, filling some prescriptions, entering federal buildings, boarding an airplane, and others. It is time to require a picture ID to vote. That is the only way the votes of honest Americans will count.

 

The World Turned Upside Down

Sometimes you just have to shake your head in amazement. I have lost track of how many millions of dollars America has poured into Iran to help them fund terrorism, but it seems even our generosity has limits.

Fox Business posted a story yesterday that simply amazes me. The article reports:

Pastor Saeed Abedini, one of four American hostages released from Iran in January, shared his disbelief of Rouhani’s annual speech during an interview with FOX Business Network’s Trish Regan.

“I was just telling people that imagine leader of ISIS come to the United States after 30 years of all the executions that they did and leaders of the world shaking his hand. It’s unbelievable,” Abedini said.

Abedini said he and other hostages were left to fend for themselves after flying from Iran to Germany when they were released after the Obama Administration’s $400 million payment to Iran.

After spending a few days in a hospital in Germany, Adedini was surprised to hear that he needed to buy his own plane ticket home. 

“We were actually all shocked because I came out; I just had prison clothes and [they] just told us you need to buy your own ticket.”

Abedini said he was physically and psychologically tortured in the Iranian prison to the point where his stomach was bleeding for months from all the beatings.

We can send millions to Iran, but we can’t even buy plane tickets to bring former hostages home? That is a disgrace.

Meanwhile, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani got a warm reception at the United Nations yesterday. Iran is one of the worst human rights violators on the planet, and the United Nations says nothing–they are too busy condemning Israel for imaginary violations. It’s time to remove the United Nations from New York, collect on all the unpaid parking tickets of the delegates, and send them elsewhere. America is the main support of this organization that no longer stands for democracy and freedom. The United Nations has become enamored of the idea of one world government with the UN in charge. We need to make them go away.

One Of The Few World Leaders Who Tells The Truth

Below is some of the speech made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the 71st sessions of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, September 22, 2016:

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

What I’m about to say is going to shock you: Israel has a bright future at the UN.

Now I know that hearing that from me must surely come as a surprise, because year after year I’ve stood at this very podium and slammed the UN for its obsessive bias against Israel. And the UN deserved every scathing word – for the disgrace of the General Assembly that last year passed 20 resolutions against the democratic State of Israel and a grand total of three resolutions against all the other countries on the planet.

Israel – twenty; rest of the world – three.

And what about the joke called the UN Human Rights Council, which each year condemns Israel more than all the countries of the world combined. As women are being systematically raped, murdered, sold into slavery across the world, which is the only country that the UN’s Commission on Women chose to condemn this year? Yep, you guessed it – Israel. Israel. Israel where women fly fighter jets, lead major corporations, head universities, preside – twice – over the Supreme Court, and have served as Speaker of the Knesset and Prime Minister.

And this circus continues at UNESCO. UNESCO, the UN body charged with preserving world heritage. Now, this is hard to believe but UNESCO just denied the 4,000-year connection between the Jewish people and its holiest site, the Temple Mount. That’s just as absurd as denying the connection between the Great Wall of China and China.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The UN, begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce. So when it comes to Israel at the UN, you’d probably think nothing will ever change, right? Well think again. You see, everything will change and a lot sooner than you think. The change will happen in this hall, because back home, your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes towards Israel. And sooner or later, that’s going to change the way you vote on Israel at the UN.

More and more nations in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, more and more nations see Israel as a potent partner – a partner in fighting the terrorism of today, a partner in developing the technology of tomorrow.

Today Israel has diplomatic relations with over 160 countries. That’s nearly double the number that we had when I served here as Israel’s ambassador some 30 years ago. And those ties are getting broader and deeper every day. World leaders increasingly appreciate that Israel is a powerful country with one of the best intelligence services on earth. Because of our unmatched experience and proven capabilities in fighting terrorism, many of your governments seek our help in keeping your countries safe.

Many also seek to benefit from Israel’s ingenuity in agriculture, in health, in water, in cyber and in the fusion of big data, connectivity and artificial intelligence – that fusion that is changing our world in every way.

You might consider this: Israel leads the world in recycling wastewater. We recycle about 90% of our wastewater. Now, how remarkable is that? Well, given that the next country on the list only recycles about 20% of its wastewater, Israel is a global water power. So if you have a thirsty world, and we do, there’s no better ally than Israel.

How about cybersecurity? That’s an issue that affects everyone. Israel accounts for one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population, yet last year we attracted some 20% of the global private investment in cybersecurity. I want you to digest that number. In cyber, Israel is punching a whopping 200 times above its weight. So Israel is also a global cyber power. If hackers are targeting your banks, your planes, your power grids and just about everything else, Israel can offer indispensable help.

Governments are changing their attitudes towards Israel because they know that Israel can help them protect their peoples, can help them feed them, can help them better their lives.

This summer I had an unbelievable opportunity to see this change so vividly during an unforgettable visit to four African countries. This is the first visit to Africa by an Israeli prime minister in decades. Later today, I’ll be meeting with leaders from 17 African countries. We’ll discuss how Israeli technology can help them in their efforts to transform their countries.

In Africa, things are changing. In China, India, Russia, Japan, attitudes towards Israel have changed as well. These powerful nations know that, despite Israel’s small size, it can make a big difference in many, many areas that are important to them.

But now I’m going to surprise you even more. You see, the biggest change in attitudes towards Israel is taking place elsewhere. It’s taking place in the Arab world. Our peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan continue to be anchors of stability in the volatile Middle East. But I have to tell you this: For the first time in my lifetime, many other states in the region recognize that Israel is not their enemy. They recognize that Israel is their ally. Our common enemies are Iran and ISIS. Our common goals are security, prosperity and peace. I believe that in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals, work together openly.

So Israel’s diplomatic relations are undergoing nothing less than a revolution. But in this revolution, we never forget that our most cherished alliance, our deepest friendship is with the United States of America, the most powerful and the most generous nation on earth. Our unbreakable bond with the United States of America transcends parties and politics. It reflects, above all else, the overwhelming support for Israel among the American people, support which is at record highs and for which we are deeply grateful.

The United Nations denounces Israel; the United States supports Israel. And a central pillar of that defense has been America’s consistent support for Israel at the UN. I appreciate President Obama’s commitment to that longstanding US policy. In fact, the only time that the United States cast a UN Security Council veto during the Obama presidency was against an anti-Israel resolution in 2011. As President Obama rightly declared at this podium, peace will not come from statements and resolutions at the United Nations.

…We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York.

Israel is one of the few nations in the Middle East that is actually working toward peace. The United Nations is not helping that effort. You can read the entire speech here.

Americans Are Learning to Fight Back

The Washington Free Beacon posted a story today about home healthcare workers in Illinois who are fighting for their right not to be part of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The article reports:

Home health aides in Illinois are fighting to recoup $32 million that was taken out of their paychecks in a coercive unionization scheme that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional.

More than 80,000 home healthcare workers were forced to pay Service Employees International Union (SEIU) hundreds of dollars each year under a policy devised by the now-imprisoned Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Illinois declared that the aides, many of whom were caring for disabled relatives, were public employees since their compensation came through state Medicaid funds.

Pamela Harris, who provided care to a severely disabled daughter, sued the state and union arguing that the arrangement wrongfully deducted money from her check. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor in Harris v. Quinn, declaring the arrangement unconstitutional in 2014.

Some of the healthcare workers in Illinois have filed a class-action suit to get the money that was taken from them returned.

The article further reports:

Workers in Illinois stopped paying SEIU following the suit and now some are waging a class action lawsuit to make the union return deducted cash. Lawyers from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which argued Quinn v. Harris before the Supreme Court, have now taken the battle to federal appeals court. National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix said failing to return the money to the aides would set a dangerous precedent, incentivizing unions to continue pushing for forced dues collections.

“If SEIU bosses are not required to return the money they seized in violation of homecare providers’ First Amendment Rights, it will only encourage similar behavior from union officials eager to trample on the First Amendment to enrich themselves at the expense of tens of thousands of homecare providers,” he said in a release.

SEIU, which did not return request for comment, has said that it should not be required to pay back the workers because not all workers opposed union representation. A district court judge ruled in June that individual plaintiffs could recoup several thousand dollars paid to the union beginning in 2008, but nixed the class action status filed on behalf of all the home health aides.

The union is arguing that many of the workers did not object to the arrangement and would have paid the dues if they had been given a choice. So why then weren’t they given a choice? Hopefully the healthcare workers who had their money stolen will be able to get it back.

Character Counts

When George W. Bush was sworn in as President and moved into the White House, there were rumors about some destruction in various offices in the White House by the departing Clintons and their staff. I never posted anything about those rumors because I could never find a reliable source. Well, I found one–the Government Accounting Office (GAO). They were the ones that had to clean up the mess. The full report is here. I haven’t seen a source I respect detailing the items the Clintons allegedly stole from the White House, so I will let that story lie for now.

Below are some screenshots from the GAO Report:

gaopage-51gaopage69gao-page-70gaopage-59gaopage-60I have linked to the report above. It is 220 pages long. Reading through the report leaves me with a very negative impression of the Clintons and the people they brought into the White House with them. There is simply no excuse for vandalism.

 

The Future Of Israel If Hillary Clinton Wins The American Election

Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East. Turkey was a secular state in the general area, but that is rapidly changing, so Israel stands alone as the only place where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all free to worship and practice their religion. Isn’t it ironic that the state the Islamic countries want to wipe out is the only state in the area that actually provides freedom for its Muslim population.

So what would the election of Hillary Clinton mean for Israel? Her leaked emails and her choice of associates give us some clues. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday providing some insight into how Mrs. Clinton would treat Israel.

The article reminds us of the beliefs of some of Mrs. Clinton’s associates:

Sid Blumenthal, one of Hillary’s most trusted advisers, sent Clinton dozens of anti-Israel articles written by Sid’s rabidly anti-Israel son Max. Hillary responded favorably to them.

…[In] September 2010 [Berger] (Sandy Berger) sent Ms. Clinton ideas on how to pressure Israel to make concessions for peace. Mr. Berger acknowledged “how fragile Abbas’ political position [is],” and how “Palestinians are in disarray” and that “[f]ailure is a real possibility.” Mr. Berger was well aware, and informed Ms. Clinton, of the very real possibility that Israel would be placing its national security at grave risk in a deal that would very likely fail and lead to a Hamas takeover. But Mr. Berger felt the risks to Israeli lives were worth it. He advised making Mr. Netanyahu feel “uneasy about incurring our displeasure.”. . .

Astoundingly, Mr. Berger seemed to accuse the Jews in America of racism toward Obama. “At a political level, the past year has clearly demonstrated the degree to which the U.S. has been hamstrung by its low ratings in Israel and among important segments of the domestic Jewish constituency,” he writes. “Domestically, he faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue which reflects many factors, including inexcusable prejudice.”

From Anne Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s director of policy planning from 2009 to 2011:

…She wrote Ms. Clinton in September 2010, devising a scheme to encourage wealthy philanthropists to pledge millions to the Palestinians (which no doubt would have been embezzled by Abbas and his cronies, as were other funds). Ms. Slaughter writes, “This may be a crazy idea… Suppose we launched a ‘Pledge for Palestine’ campaign… Such a campaign among billionaires/multimillionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state.”

She adds, “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”

Here’s how Clinton responded to this call for aiding “Palestine” and “shaming Israelis”: “I am very interested-pls flesh out. Thx.”

Pressuring Israel to give more land to a terrorist entity is not a recipe for peace in the Middle East. When Israel turned over the Gaza Strip in August 2004, the new residents immediately destroyed all of the greenhouses and infrastructure that could have provided a source of income for the area. Since that time the Gaza Strip has become a base for rocket attacks and terrorist tunnels to be used against Israel. It is also worth remembering that the Arabs in the Middle East have consistently refused to sign anything saying that Israel has the right to exist. Again, Israel is not the problem.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would probably destroy our long-standing alliance with Israel.

 

Filling In The Blanks

This is the video of part of President Obama’s final speech to the United Nations. The video is posted on YouTube:

On the surface, cooperation among nations is a really good idea to fight terrorism, but let’s look closely at what he said.

We have to put our money where our mouths are. And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I’m criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions, but I’m convinced in the long run giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.

Note the words “if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.” Let’s take a close look at that idea. Remember President Obama’s statement, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” One of the major political blocs in the United Nations is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The ultimate goal of the OIC is to institute Sharia Law around the world–on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They are subtle in their approach to this and began with the Cairo Declaration, which came into play during the United Nations’ work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please understand that not everyone has the same definition of Human Rights.

This is the quote from the Cairo Declaration regarding free speech:

Article 22

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.

The OIC routinely orchestrates a “Day of Rage” when they believe Islam has been insulted. A ‘crisis event’ is chosen, appropriate flags or banners are obtained, rioters are assembled, and the riots begin. What President Obama is saying is that in order to bring peace, Americans may have to give up their freedom of speech, expression, etc. That is the imposition of one of the principles of Sharia Law on a non-Muslim country. The Muslim Mayor of London has moved to ban all scantily dressed models in advertising, citing the concept of ‘body shaming,’ a new word introduced for purposes that will be obvious down the road. Again, the Mayor is beginning to impose modesty standards (a step toward Shari’ah Law) on a non-Muslim population.

The YouTube video below tells us all we need to know:

You have a choice in this election–do you want to continue the policies of President Obama or is it time for a change of direction?

A Difficult Balance

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing two very knowledgeable speakers on the subject of immigration in America–Jim Robb, Vice President of Operations at Numbers USA and Ron Woodard, Director of NC Listen. It was a very informative evening, but I left with a realization that at some point in the near future, America was going to have to balance the interests of Americans with the desire to help immigrants. Right now we are not balancing those two things–our current immigration and refugee programs (or lack of them) are hurting Americans and need to be reevaluated.

One aspect of this problem is illustrated by two graphs at the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies website:

centerforimmigrationThere is something seriously wrong with this picture.So what is going on? There are two groups who are happy with the current situation–for very different reasons. Democratic politicians want to create a permanent dependent class that will continue to elect Democrats in order to get government handouts. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who stated as he worked to pass his expansive ‘Great Society‘ program, “”I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” The other group is the Chamber of Commerce. This group has put the idea of cheap labor above the welfare of Americans. Businessmen who support excessive immigration in order to pay workers less (both legal and illegal immigrants) in order to make a bigger profit are not ethical and do not have the best interests of American workers in mind. I think both the Democratic Party and the Chamber of Commerce have lost their way.

Sane immigration policy is possible. It begins with closing the borders to all but legal immigrants who have passed thorough background checks, tracking people who have overstayed their visas (a group that would include the 911 hijackers), and deporting anyone who is arrested, caught driving under the influence, or commits any illegal act. Sane immigration would also include the U.S. Government determining who immigrates to the United States–not the United Nations. Right now the United Nations totally controls the American refugee program. We need to reclaim our sovereignty and our country’s borders.

A Very Complex Smoking Gun

The smoking gun has appeared in the Clinton email scandal. Unfortunately some aspects of it are so technical that those of us who think a megabyte is something you do at McDonald’s may struggle with it (Just for the record, I put myself in that category).

The Washington Post is reporting the story today. The headline of the story is, “Hillary Clinton‘s IT guy asked Reddit for help altering emails, a Twitter sleuth claims.”

These are the important parts of the story:

In the posts, stonetear asks for technical advice on retaining and deleting email messages that are more than 60 days old, as well as on removing the email address of an unnamed “VERY VIP” client from email archives.

“Hello all,” one of the posts begins. “I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone. … Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?”

The screen shot of one of the requests for help altering the emails:

emailsredditThe timeline:

The timing of two of Stonetear’s Reddit posts coincides with events in the Clinton email saga. One post, dated July 24, 2014, came one day after the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the State Department reached an agreement on producing records. The second, which is dated Dec, 10, 2014, and describes a 60-day email retention policy, came the same month that a longtime Clinton aide requested that their email retention policy be shortened to 60 days.

What cover up?

If you are going to do something illegal (like destroy subpoenaed evidence), you really should make sure that everyone involved has the knowledge required to do their part. This is really sloppy criminality. No self-respecting criminal would expect an IT guy to do this unless they were sure they would never be prosecuted (even if they were caught). That alone should provide food for thought.