This Might Be The Reason Government Investigations Take So Long

It’s hard to get the job done when the person you are investigating won’t talk to you! The following video posted at YouTube is of State Department Inspector General Steve Linick testifying before the House Oversight Committee on July 7th, 2016, in which he revealed Hillary Clinton refused an interview request related to her email investigation.

This is part of the testimony as posted at The Gateway Pundit today:

Chaffetz: Were you able to interview Hillary Clinton?

Linick: we were not.

Chaffetz: Why not?

Linick: Well, we asked to interview secretary Clinton. We interviewed all of the secretaries. We looked at five Secretaries of State going back to Madeleine Albright and her, through counsel, she declined to meet with us.

Chaffetz: Did she indicate a reason why she would refuse to meet with the inspector general?

Linick: Her counsel informed our staff that she had — that all of the information about the e-mail was on the FAQ she published by her campaign.

The article at The Gateway Pundit further reports:

Howard Krongard, the State Department Inspector General from April 2005 to January 2008, told Fox News last May that Clinton did not follow standard practices in respect to private email usage.

“Certainly to my knowledge at least, Secretary Rice did not have a personal server. I certainly never either sent an email to one or received an email from one,” Krongard told Fox News

“I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation,” added Krongard.

From what I have seen, I suspect that the emails are the least of Hillary Clinton’s worries about the Inspector General’s report. It is very obvious that laws were broken in Ms. Clinton‘s handling of classified information. It is also very obvious that an ordinary citizen would be in jail for similar crimes. I don’t necessarily wish Ms. Clinton jail time, but it would be nice to see her admit that she broke the law. If her email account was used to funnel money to the Clinton Foundation in return for political favors, she should be heavily fined and forced to return the money.

The Inspector General’s report is due out in January. It should be very interesting.

Politics Before National Security

The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not uphold the law. This is the law as it is written:

The Executive Order issued by President Trump did not stop immigration from the seven countries listed–it put a 90-day pause in effect on refugees from these countries. The idea was to allow time for us to find a way to vet them so as to ensure the safety of Americans. The Executive Order also included a 120-day pause in admitting refugees. Again, this would give us time to examine our policies so that we could improve our procedures. Most of what the news is reporting on this Executive Order is simply not true. It is my hope that another Executive Order regarding refugees will be written more carefully and will stand.

However, there is more to the story. On Thursday, The Washington Times reported the following:

The State Department has more than doubled the rate of refugees from Iraq, Syria and other suspect countries in the week since a federal judge’s reprieve, in what analysts said appears to be a push to admit as many people as possible before another court puts the program back on ice.

A staggering 77 percent of the 1,100 refugees let in since Judge James L. Robart’s Feb. 3 order have been from the seven suspect countries. Nearly a third are from Syria alone — a country that President Trump has ordered be banned altogether from the refugee program. Another 21 percent are from Iraq. By contrast, in the two weeks before Judge Robart’s order, just 9 percent of refugees were from Syria and 6 percent were from Iraq.

“There’s no doubt in my mind they would be doing whatever they could to get people in before something changes because, from their perspective, their motivation is to resettle these folks. It would not be the first time that State Department officials have prioritized facilitating someone’s entry to the United States over security concerns,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.

This is an example of the need to fire the majority of employees left over from the previous administration.

There are some things we need to remember in this discussion. Vetting of refugees from these countries is very difficult–in some cases we are dealing with failed states that cannot check records, and in other cases we are dealing with states that promote terrorism. ISIS has already stated that it is including terrorists with the refugees. Do we need to import terrorists? We also need to remember who ISIS is–they are the Sunni Baathists who were in charge of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. They were ruthless in ruling Iraq, and they are ruthless as ISIS. We really do not want to allow them into America.

What we are seeing is the Washington establishment trying to destroy an outsider who is a threat to their power. We need to understand that as we view the events around us. The Ninth Circuit and (unfortunately) the State Department are not concerned with the safety or security of Americans–they are concerned only with their political views and their power. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled.

 

A President Who Does Not Follow The Constitution Impacts Other Countries–Not Only America

Today’s Wall Street Journal featured a very good article entitled, “Why We’re Suing Obama Over Keystone.” The article was written by Kristine Kelkus, an executive vice president and general counsel at TransCanada. I strongly suggest you follow the link above and read the entire article, but I am including a few excerpts from the article that illustrate how damaging an out-of-control President has been to our country and our neighbors.

The article reports:

For 65 years, TransCanada has built oil and gas pipelines in North America. It’s a job the company is good at, and one we much prefer to building lengthy legal filings that could take several years to resolve. Still, when TransCanada in 2008 walked its application for a presidential permit into the U.S. State Department, the company was prepared for an extensive evidentiary process—albeit one that has traditionally been straightforward.

Until the Keystone XL pipeline, no U.S. administration had prohibited the cross-border construction of a major oil pipeline. And within the past decade, U.S. regulators approved two very similar, large cross-border pipelines that transport exactly the same type of oil that the Keystone XL pipeline would have carried from the same region in Alberta, Canada, to the U.S.

TransCanada already operates the initial Keystone pipeline, which was approved in 2008. And in 2009 the State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama permitted Enbridge, a direct competitor to TransCanada, to build another. Each of these permit reviews took about two years.

…But environmental activists made rejection of the project a litmus test of the president’s climate-change credentials. The State Department’s official Record of Decision reasoned that permitting the pipeline to proceed would “undermine U.S. climate leadership” because “the understanding of the international community”—contrary to the administration’s own findings—was that the pipeline would increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Permitting construction would “undercut the credibility and influence of the United States” in negotiating with other countries, including at the coming Paris climate conference.

In other words, the pipeline and its benefits were sacrificed to increase the president’s negotiating leverage with other countries.

My first reaction to this article was to wonder who runs Enbridge, if campaign contributions were involved, and if Berkshire Hathaway owns the railway that was carrying the oil before the Enbridge pipeline was built (see here).

The article further concludes:

The administration’s actions harm business and public interests that extend far beyond a particular pipeline. The decision calls into question the entire process for cross-border facility approvals. It strongly suggests that investing in the U.S. is subject to a level of “sovereign risk” usually associated with far less developed economies.

Unless they are remedied in court or arbitration, the Keystone decision and the political expediency underlying it will also encourage future administrations to conclude that they, too, can disregard the most basic legal requirements.

We need a President who puts the interests of all Americans above the interests of special interest groups and major contributors.

The Lies Begin To Add Up

Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill, have never had a strong reputation for honesty, but sometimes it is a good idea to remind ourselves why they have such a miserable rating in that area. Last week The Hill posted an article by A. B. Stoddard about Hillary Clinton’s rather distant relationship with the concept of truth.

The article notes:

In the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, even though Clinton beats most GOP candidates, Sanders performs better against them, and she loses independents in every match-up. Her numbers on honesty and trustworthiness, according to Qiunnipiac, are 36 percent to 60 percent — worse than for any candidate in either party.

It is a sad reflection of the values of American voters that a candidate who has such a low rating on honesty and trustworthiness is leading the fight for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party.

The article goes on to list some of Hillary Clinton’s more recent lies:

Clinton said she was transparent, yet her emails were under congressional subpoena for years while she kept her private server a secret. 

Clinton said she used one device at State for convenience, but she in fact used several. 

She said her email server was destroyed, but it was not. 

She said she handed over all work emails to the State Department, but then congressional investigators turned up others. 

She said she responded to a routine records request from the State Department and turned over her emails when several other secretaries of State did, but State officials were asking for her emails in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional investigations months before that.

Clinton said the State Department affirmed that 90 percent of her work email was captured on the State.gov accounts of other employees — a statistic department officials conceded, after she repeated it under oath in her Benghazi Committee testimony, they know nothing about. 

Clinton claimed in March “there is no classified material,” yet indeed there was. 

Clinton has repeated numerous times that the arrangement was “allowed,” though no one in the administration has ever said they approved her server. So Democrats — like Republicans — assume she is making a misleading statement about her own unorthodox decision to do something no Cabinet secretary had ever before done.

When asked on NBC’s “Meet The Press” whether she deleted any emails to hide information from future investigations, Clinton said the idea “never crossed my mind.”

America is a representative republic. We elect our leaders. We get the leaders we deserve. If that is the degree of honesty that we expect from our President, we are in serious trouble.

 

The Problems With Our Media Are Nothing New

There is an article in the Jewish World Review today dealing with the problem of bias in the American media. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but there were a few things in the article that jumped out at me.

The article reminds us of some historic media bias:

It is the MSM who ties McCarthy with what Joseph Welch said to him in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 misquoting him as saying, “Have you no shame?” In actually he said. “Have you no sense of decency?” But what really angered Mr. Welch was McCarthy had the audacity to say: ” But in view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do the work on this Committee, who has been, for a number of years, a member of an organization which is named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party, an organization which always springs to the defense of anyone who dares to expose Communists.”

In this case Joe McCarthy was the truth teller and had to be destroyed. So too, was Whittaker Chambers, editor of Time magazine, and a former communist spy who warned of the infiltration of communists in the Washington elite and one of the persons he named was Alger Hiss. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official. In February 1945, as a member of the U.S. delegation headed by Stettinius, Hiss attended the Yalta Conference, where the Big Three, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill, The communist spy was this close to FDR at this important conference and no one bothered to vet him because the media was probably covering for him.

One wonders if the fate of eastern Europe might have been different if the media had chosen to tell the truth. One wonders how many eastern Europeans might have had longer, happier lives. The truth matters.

The article also reminds us:

While the MSM is following Goebel’s propaganda rules, we must remember what he also said about the antidote:

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The future of our country depends on the truth and it is nowhere to be seen in a lying, stinking media.

Strong words, but unfortunately, true.

 

A Department Of Misinformation

The United States State Department has become a department of misinformation. As reported at red flag news, this is one of their recent statements (Marie Harf was appointed Deputy Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State in June 2013.):

MATTHEWS: How do we stop this? I don’t see it. I see the Shia militias coming out of Baghdad who are all Shia. The Sunnis hate them. The Sunnis are loyal to ISIS rather than going in with the Shia. You’ve got the Kurds, the Jordanian air force and now the Egyptian air force. But i don’t see any — If i were ISIS, I wouldn’t be afraid right now. I can figure there is no existential threat to these people. They can keep finding places where they can hold executions and putting the camera work together, getting their props ready and killing people for show. And nothing we do right now seems to be directed at stopping this.

HARF: Well, I think there’s a few stages here. Right now what we’re doing is trying to take their leaders and their fighters off the battlefield in Iraq and Syria. That’s really where they flourish.

MATTHEWS: Are we killing enough of them?

HARF: We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether —

MATTHEWS: We’re not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s blowing and they’ll join. We can’t stop that, can we?

HARF: We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance. We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people…

Note to Ms. Harf–the 9/11 hijackers were not poor. Osama bin Laden was not poor, Yasser Arafat was not poor. This is not about economics, it is about being trained to hate. In the Gaza Strip, children are graduating from kindergarten in camo clothes carrying wooden guns, and saying that they want to kill Jews. This is the problem. If all of the Arab countries disarmed, there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel disarmed, there would be no Israel. That tells you all you need to know.

 

 

Can American Aid Buy Peace ?

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that the American State Department is working out a deal with the new Egyptian government to give them $1 billion in debt relief. Aside from the fact that America faces its own debt problems, what in the world are we supporting? This is obviously an effort by the State Department to encourage Egypt to keep the peace treaty it signed with Israel that returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Unfortunately, that peace is danger due to the actions of the new Egyptian government.

On August 6, the Los Angeles Times reported that Islamic militants have increased their presence in the Sinai Peninsula since the revolution in Egypt. We need to understand the the new government of Egypt will align itself with Iran and is fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel.

The article in the Wall Street Journal reports:

But the election in June of Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed president, Mohammed Morsi, has called the strength of the old alliance into question. Mr. Morsi selected Beijing last week for his first official trip outside the Middle East, followed by a trip to Iran—moves some observers saw as a deliberate snub to Egypt’s traditional Western backers.

The arrival of an Islamist government followed by political upheaval and disconcerting moves on the international stage fueled questions over the reliability of Mr. Morsi as a U.S. ally. But his efforts at internal stability and his public criticism of Syria’s regime while visiting Tehran last week, which angered his hosts, have helped balance U.S. views of the new Egyptian leader.

At the present moment, America is dealing with record budget deficits and facing drastic cuts to our military. I realize that I am only an ordinary citizen, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to give $1 billion to a country that is in the process of aligning itself with countries that do not wish us well.

Enhanced by Zemanta

America’s Continued Lack Of Support For Israel

The Obama administration seems to be blind to the dangers that face Israel as Iran goes nuclear and as Iran arms Israel’s neighbors. The New York Post posted an article today about the Obama administration’s latest blindness in dealing with Iran and terrorism.

The article reports:

Team Obama rightly blamed Iran after its proxy Hezbollah apparently blew up a bus in a terrorist operation that killed five Israelis. Then it went off the rails.

“This was tit for tat,” a State Department official told The New York Times, implying that the bombing was retaliation for Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

So it’s okay to kill innocent Israeli civilians because Israel is trying to protect the world from your nuclear program by killing some of the scientists involved?

The article concludes:

Make no mistake: Israel is fully justified in targeting the Iranian nuclear program. The world — and particularly the Arabs of the Middle East — owe it a great debt for doing so most aggressively.

But nothing excuses or explains Iran’s murder of innocents, and the Obama administration should stop doing what amounts to PR work for the ayatollahs.

That’s unacceptable.

I think I would like to ask the State Department to explain their position.U