Tag Archives: The Washington Post

This Is The Game Being Played

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Washington Free Beacon posted a story that provides a bit of insight into the barrage of recent attacks on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

NBC executives planned to release the tape of Donald Trump’s sexually explicit remarks on an Access Hollywood hot mic to have maximum impact on the election and the second presidential debate, TMZ reported Wednesday.

NBC sources told TMZ that executives knew about the bombshell 2005 tape long before they say they did, but they elected to hold off leaking it because they did not want it to come too early in the race. The tape was reported first by the Washington Post on Oct. 7, two days before Hillary Clinton and Trump’s town hall debate, and it dominated the news cycle through the weekend.

The article quotes a TMZ article from Monday:

TMZ has confirmed … Billy was telling NBC staffers in Rio about the tape back in early August, when he was still working for “Access Hollywood.” We’re told word circulated because Billy made it clear Trump was trash-talking Nancy O’Dell.

NBC News says it didn’t know about the outtakes until a week ago Monday, but the word around the network is people knew, including executives at ‘Access,’ which is an NBC property. We’re told those executives had full knowledge of Billy’s comments on the tape … which creates a potential problem if NBC is serious about firing him.

We are being played. There is also a source that indicates that NBC edited the tape to make it sound worse than it actually was (how much worse could it get?).

It’s time to look past the garbage that is being thrown at us. Some of the stories from the women making charges against Donald Trump have already been disproved. There are also direct connections between some of these women and the Clinton Foundation and Democratic organizations. There is also the fact that Donald Trump has been in the public eye for at least thirty years, and this is the first time we have heard any of this. That in itself is a little unbelievable.

Voter Fraud Is A Felony–It Needs To Be Prosecuted

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Post posted an article about nineteen dead people who have recently registered to vote in Virginia.

The article reports:

One case came to light after relatives of a deceased man received a note congratulating him for registering, Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst said Thursday.

“His family members were very distraught,” said Garst, who confirmed the existence of the FBI and police investigation but said she could provide few details because the case is ongoing.

…All of the forms had been submitted by a private group that was working to register voters on the campus of James Madison University, according to the Harrisonburg registrar’s office. The group was not identified. No charges have been filed.

Republicans in the state House of Delegates, who in recent years have supported tighter voter ID laws, held a conference call with reporters to call attention to the investigation.

“Oftentimes we hear our Democratic colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia, or it’s a myth,” House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said. “This is proof that voter fraud not only exists but is ongoing and is a threat to the integrity of our elections.”

Unfortunately there are political candidates that think winning is more important than ethics.

As previously reported here in 2011:

“Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

A similar story appeared here earlier this year about Ohio:

True the Vote (TTV), the nation’s leading voters’ rights and election integrity organization, today announced details surrounding its effort to help Cuyahoga and Franklin County officials in Ohio remove more than a thousand duplicate voter registrations ahead of voting in 2016.

Upon receipt of True the Vote’s research, 711 duplicate voter registrations were removed in Cuyahoga County, while 465 sets were processed in Franklin County.

Voter fraud is a problem. We need to take a closer look at some of the groups engaged in registering dead or illegal voters. Voter fraud is a felony. We need to start sending people to jail when they engage in it.

UPDATE:

From The Gateway Pundit:

Just yesterday we wrote about an FBI investigation into potential voter fraud in the critical swing state of Virginia after it was revealed that 19 dead people had recently been re-registered to vote (see “FBI Investigating More Dead People Voting In The Key Swing State Of Virginia“).  While the Washington Post caught wind of the investigation, it was not known who was behind the operation…until now.

Meet, Andrew Spieles, a student at James Madison University, and apparently “Lead Organizer” for HarrisonburgVOTES.  According to the Daily News-Record, Spieles confessed to re-registering 19 deceased Virginians to vote in the 2016 election cycle.

The Naive Party vs. The Sleazy Party

Posted on by

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.

There Seems To Be A Slight Difference Of Opinion Here

Posted on by

This article is based on a newspaper story from April of this year. The Clinton campaign is hoping that we will have forgotten this by now.

The Washington Post posted the following on April 26, 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group said Monday.

“For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg, California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights, Vocativ reported.

Mr. Quigg, the leader of the Klan’s California chapter, announced last month that he had abandoned supporting Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in lieu of backing his likely Democratic opponent. The Klansman claims that members have raised more than $20,000 for Mrs. Clinton and have donated it anonymously to her campaign.

“She is friends with the Klan,” Mr. Quigg told Vocativ. “A lot of people don’t realize that.”

Obviously her campaign spokesman rejected the endorsement. Hillary Clinton released an ad today accusing Donald Trump of endorsing the views of the KKK. I guess she’s not interested in giving the Trump campaign the benefit of the doubt that she claimed for her campaign. She is obviously not interested in waging a campaign on facts–those are not on her side.

Watch The Spin

Posted on by

I have been traveling for the past two days and just arrived home, so I have some catching up to do. However, there is one aspect of the wikileaks emails that I noted in the small amount of news I have heard. The spin the Democrats are putting on the fact that the leaked emails make the Democratic National Committee look really bad is that the hacker was a Russian and the Russians support Donald Trump, therefore you should vote for Hillary. Talk about reach…

The New York Post posted a story today with more information learned from the leaked emails.

The New York Post reports:

Democratic Party bigwigs enlisted prominent media outlets to slant coverage to boost Hillary Clinton and sandbag Bernie Sanders, according to some of the 19,000 e-mails hacked from the Democratic National Committee’s servers and posted to WikiLeaks.

The messages reveal behind-the-scenes meetings and off-the-record exchanges between DNC operatives and staffers at newspapers, networks and news Web sites, including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Politico and RealClearPolitics.

In one case, an investigative reporter at Politico gave DNC officials a sneak peek at an article about Clinton’s state-party fund-raising — before his editor even saw the piece.

Keep this in mind as you watch the media report on Donald Trump. Do you think they are being any more honest?

When Wikileaks Leaks…

Posted on by

This story is based on an article that appeared in The Washington Post yesterday and an article that appeared in The Conservative Treehouse yesterday.

The Washington Post reported:

Wikileaks posted a massive trove of internal Democratic National Committee emails online Friday, in what the organization dubbed the first of a new “Hillary Leaks” series.

The cache includes nearly 20,000 emails and more than 8,000 file attachments from the inboxes of seven key staffers of the DNC, including communications director Luis Miranda and national finance director Jordan Kaplan, according to the Wikileaks website. The emails span from January 2015 through late May and are presented in a searchable database. 

…A hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for handing the documents over to Wikileaks on Twitter. However, some experts have expressed skepticism about his involvement, citing differences between the data Wikileaks released and Guccifer 2.0’s previous leaks of hacked data.

The Democratic Party has had its share of cybersecurity woes recently. Last month, the DNC acknowledged that its systems had been breached.

The Conservative Treehouse reports:

Another rather Jaw-Dropping release within the latest WikiLeaks document dump of DNC emails outlines the planning for a joint fundraiser in September 2015.

Apparently, The Washington Post was hosting a party.  The DNC saw the opportunity to make a fundraiser out of it and sell tickets to the party to donors.   However, the email chain shows the lawyers for the DNC said they can’t publish the price for the tickets because the joint event would be illegal.

The Washington Post and DNC still held the joint event, they just never left a traceable paper trail (to outsiders) showing their combined efforts.

The Conservative Treehouse article includes a copy of an email explaining what they were doing (obtained through the hacking of the DNC).

I don’t agree with hacking into other people’s computers, but there are laws broken here on the part of the DNC. There are also some serious questions brought out by other hacked emails about how the DNC handled funds during their primary campaign. When I read that The Washington Post participated in a DNC fundraising event, any idea that I might have had about objective reporting on their part was totally destroyed. It gets worse.

A website called Storyleak posted the following graphic in 2011:

MediaOwnershipIf America wants to remain a free country, America voters need to tune out the news put out by corporations and do their own research. It is sad that our fourth estate has been taken over by corporations and no longer reports the truth–we have to depend on groups like wikileaks to do the investigative reporting that the media used to do and report.

It’s Hard To Draw The Right Conclusion Without The Facts

Posted on by

I have stated before that I believe that the current racial tension in America is being ginned up by the media and by certain others who profit by creating racial tension rather than helping ease it. One source of racial tension right now is the idea that the black community is being targeted by white policemen. I offer the theory that this is a lie told with the purpose of creating racial unrest. Who gains from racial unrest? Racial unrest justifies the existence of those whose profession is supposed to be creating equality (who instead have focused only on creating more division). Racial unrest is seen as something that will bring out the black voters to support Hillary Clinton. At this particular time, racial unrest diverts our interest from the careless handling of national security secrets by Hillary Clinton. Those are just a few examples of how racial tension can be used to create a desired outcome totally unrelated to what is actually happening. We are being manipulated to believe that the black community is being unfairly treated by the police. The statistics tell a very different story.

On April 27 The Washington Post posted an article showing the results of a study into the role of race in police shootings. The results are surprising considering recent events.

The article reports:

The conventional thinking about police-involved shootings, and some scientific research, has been that black suspects are more likely to be shot than white suspects because of an implicit racial bias among police officers. But now a new study has found exactly the opposite: even with white officers who do have racial biases, officers are three times less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.

The results come from a laboratory project at Washington State University using highly realistic police simulators, in which actors in various scenarios approach and respond to officers on large, high-definition video screens in an attempt to recreate critical situations on the street. The officers are equipped with real guns, modified to fire infrared beams rather than bullets, and the scenarios can branch into conflict or cooperation, depending on the officers’ words and actions.

…A 1978 report found that 60 percent of black suspects shot by the police carried handguns, compared with 35 percent of white suspects. In 2001, a statistical study showed that black people comprised 12 percent of the population but committed 43 percent of the killings of officers.

The article includes a research article entitled, “The Reverse Racism Effect.” Please follow the link above to the article to read that report. It is becoming very obvious that we are being lied to.

The article concludes:

James (Lois James, a researcher at Washington State) cited one of Klinger’s interviews from 2004, where an officer said that, “The press always plays up the racial angle on shootings around here, and that used to affect my thinking about things.” The officer recounted a time where a black suspect was menacing others with a rifle, and the officer repeatedly warned the man to put down his gun or he would shoot the man in the back. “The whole time I was telling him I was going to shoot him, I was thinking, ‘They’ll crucify me on the news tomorrow if I shoot this black guy in the back.’”

James noted that her three studies have now tested a total of 116 police and 66 non-police participants, with the same results each time. She acknowledged that a video simulator is not the same as a live encounter, and that she had “limited diversity” from the Spokane police. But given that all three tests were performed before Ferguson, “this could represent a significant contribution to the literature on the impact of suspect race on actual deadly encounters,” the report concludes.

It’s time to tell the truth. There are bad police, but there are also police who try very hard to do what is right when they have a split second to make a life or death decision. The black community needs to examine its own relationship with law and order before pointing a finger at the police. It’s time to reintroduce the concept of intact families with fathers in the house into the black community. Having visited a few black churches in my community, I can tell you that some of the black churches in my city are stressing personal responsibility, achievement, honesty, forgiveness, and the avoidance of victim mentality. That will be the ultimate answer to the racial divide. We all need to start acting like grown-ups instead of spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum.

Insanity At Its Best

Posted on by

Real Clear Politics posted the following today:

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch said. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”

The Washington Post reported last week that the gunman made multiple phone calls while holding hostages: “The gunman who opened fire inside a nightclub here said he carried out the attack because he wanted ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ according to a witness who survived the rampage.”

Salon reported that: “Everybody who was in the bathroom who survived could hear him talking to 911, saying the reason why he’s doing this is because he wanted America to stop bombing his country.”

The Washington Post also noted that during his 911 call from the club, the gunman referenced the Boston Marathon bombers and claimed “that he carried out the shooting to prevent bombings, [echoing] a message the younger Boston attacker had scrawled in a note before he was taken into custody by police.”

FBI Director James Comey said at a press conference that the shooter’s past comments about Islamist groups were “inflammatory and contradictory.”

Editing the transcripts does not change the facts. Anyone doing research into this shooting (and the American public) needs to know what this man was about. Putting blinders on does not help anyone. This is political correctness at its worst.

Logic Turned Sideways

Posted on by

Last night at a Donald Trump rally in San Jose, Trump supporters were attacked by an angry mob as they left the venue.

Hot Air posted an article today about the violence and about the Mayor of San Jose’s comments on the riot.

The article reports:

“Our police officers have done an extremely courageous and professional job so far,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo told the Associated Press by phone. “We’re all still holding our breath to see the outcome of this dangerous and explosive situation.”

The mayor, a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, criticized Trump for coming to cities and igniting problems that local police departments have to deal with.

“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” Liccardo said.

I hate to be difficult, but the behavior of the Donald Trump campaign was not the problem.

The article further reports:

Here’s how CNN described Thursday’s scene outside the San Jose Convention Center:

Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs, and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning them and snapping selfies with the charred remains.

Several people were caught on camera punching Trump supporters.

This was also reported:

TrumpProtestNo, California is not Mexico. The fact that the Trump protesters are claiming that it is might be food for thought.

The Weekly Standard also posted an article about the protests today.

They reported:

The mayor of San Jose, Democrat Sam Liccardo, reacted angrily to the events. Not that he was particularly upset at the violent mob that attacked innocent Americans, of course. No, his ire was directed at Mr. Trump. “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” the mayor said. Apparently it was downright “irresponsible” of Trump to even set foot in California’s third largest city.

The Washington Post characterized the mayor’s remarks as if they were just standard partisan hackery: It noted that the mayor is a “Hillary Clinton supporter.” But Liccardo’s remarks were far different than, say, a cable TV flack claiming that Trump’s tax policy “favors the rich.” (And by the way, he employed the same logic as as a slack-jawed misogynist saying of a sexual assault victim, “hey, her skirt was so short, she was asking for it.”)

I would love to know how many people were arrested and charged with assault (as they should have been). I would also like to know when it became acceptable to physically attack people who support ideas that are different than your ideas.

The violence at San Jose is unacceptable. It needs to be condemned. It also needs to be understood that the people who are to blame for the violence are the people who are committing the violent acts. I don’t care who said what–there is no excuse for the behavior shown. I would also like to know how many of the protesters were paid and what the conditions of the employment were–were they encouraged to be violent?

I encountered paid protesters during a political campaign in Massachusetts a number of years ago. It was very clear that they were attempting to create an incident that would get major press coverage. They were unsuccessful because no one cooperated. In the case of San Jose, it didn’t seem to matter what the response was, the protesters were going to be violent.

Until responsibility for the violence is put on those committing the violence, we will see more of this. The solution to this is to charge anyone engaging in violent activity with assault and fine them heavily. Even though the people funding this may have deep pockets, at some point paying fines will get old.

American Educators Have Totally Lost Their Minds

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Washington Post posted an article about a school in New York that cancelled its annual year-end kindergarten show.

This is a screenshot of the letter sent to parents followed by the text of the letter:

KindergartenShowApril 25, 2014

Dear Kindergarten Parents and Guardians,

We hope this letter serves to help you better understand how the demands of the 21st century are changing schools, and, more specifically, to clarify, misperceptions about the Kindergarten show. It is most important to keep in mind is [sic] that this issue is not unique to Elwood. Although the movement toward more rigorous learning standards has been in the national news for more than a decade, the changing face of education is beginning to feel unsettling for some people. What and how we teach is changing to meet the demands of a changing world.

The reason for eliminating the Kindergarten show is simple. We are responsible for preparing children for college and career with valuable lifelong skills and know that we can best do that by having them become strong readers, writers, coworkers and problem solvers. Please do not fault us for making professional decisions that we know will never be able to please everyone. But know that we are making these decisions with the interests of all children in mind.

Sincerely,

Ellen Best-Laimit

Angela Casano

Keri Colmone

Stefanie Gallagher

Martha DeMartini

The elementary school my children attended did a lot of plays. The plays were a chance for children to work on their memorization skills, their singing skills (if they had them) and to learn about different things. There were plays about outer space, Mary Poppins, and Alice in Wonderland. Those plays were part of their learning experience. It is a shame these teachers have decided that participating in the arts is not valuable for children–it is.

Welcome To The Silly Season

Posted on by

Usually, the last three or four weeks before an election becomes the silly season. It is a time when you really can’t believe anything you read. There are more lies told in those three to four weeks than in the preceding six months and the following six months. Usually this occurs three to four weeks before a national election, but the current presidential campaign has not followed any of the rules that applied in the past, so I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that the silly season started months ago.

The current story that reflects the silly season is the National Inquirer story about Ted Cruz having had multiple affairs. Although that is something that Donald Trump seems to admit doing himself (and voters ignore it), evidently this is an important issue for Ted Cruz. Sometimes the double standard amazes me–remember when what Bill Clinton did in his spare time was off limits?

Hot Air posted some information on the supposed scandal that may shed some light on the truth (or lack thereof) of the charge.

The article reports:

For months and months, anti-Cruz operatives have pitched a variety of #CruzSexScandal stories to a host of prominent national publications, according to Republican operatives and media figures. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg News, Politico, and ABC News—reporters at all those outlets heard some version of the Cruz-is-cheating story. None of them decided to run with rumors. Those publications’ representatives all declined to provide on-the-record comments when The Daily Beast reached out for this article.

Breitbart News, the notoriously Trump-friendly conservative outlet, was also pitched the story of Cruz’s extramarital affairs, according to a source close to the publication. That source said an operative allied with Marco Rubio—but not associated with his official campaign—showed the publication a compilation video of Cruz and a woman other than his wife coming out of the Capitol Grille restaurant and a hotel on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But the outlet opted not to report on the video, which demonstrated no direct evidence of an affair.

“We got it from a Rubio ally,” said the source. “It was too thin, so [Breitbart’s Washington political editor Matt Boyle] decided not to run it. There was no way to verify the claims.”

I have no way of proving or disproving this story. Neither does Ted Cruz. That is the reason the opposition makes charges like this. One of the women named has come forward and said that the story is not true. Ted Cruz has, of course, denied it. Unfortunately, this story is simply a further example of how nasty this presidential campaign is. This campaign is anything but presidential. It is my hope that whoever is the actual source for this story, if they are currently holding public office, will be removed from that office in disgrace. This story, unproven, is simply not appropriate in any political campaign.

More For Me But Less For Thee

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News reported that President Obama has requested an increase in the appropriations for expenditures of former presidents, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service published Wednesday. In other words, he wants an increase in the amount of money allotted to him to pay for his retirement.

Meanwhile, in October of last year, The Washington Post reported:

Tens of millions of seniors will see no annual cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security checks in 2016, the government said Thursday, unwelcome news that also will flatten benefit payments for retired federal workers and service members.

It is only the third time in 40 years — all of them during the Obama administration — that the Social Security Administration has not increased its payments. The raises are tied to the consumer price index (CPI).

Lower gasoline prices have kept the CPI low. At the same time, medical costs for senior citizens are going up, but for some reason, the increase in Medicare expenses for seniors did not get factored into the equation.

Also, USA Today reported in January of last year:

The plan calls for Congress to create a hybrid system that includes a smaller defined-benefit pension along with more cash-based benefits and lump-sum payments. A significant portion of troops’ retirement benefits would come in the form of government contributions to 401(k)-style investment accounts, those familiar with the report told Military Times.

Specifically, the proposal calls for automatically enrolling each service member in the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, an investment account that accrues savings. Individual troops will be responsible for managing their accounts, and the money is typically not available for withdrawal without penalty until age 59.5.

The proposed change to military retirement makes my blood boil. Our military relocates their families approximately every three years, puts their lives in jeopardy, and makes unbelievable sacrifices, and the government wants to change the rules of the contract they signed up under. Military benefits for retirees and their families have already been cut in terms of their healthcare. Changes have also been made to the commissary system that have made it less economical for our military to shop there. Budget cuts have already been made at the expense of our military.  Any further changes should not apply to those currently serving.

At any rate, before we raise the retirement benefits of our Presidents, we need to consider our military and our senior citizens. Our past Presidents seem to do very well with speaking fees, and I am sure they will find a way to make ends meet. For further information, check the net wealth of the Clintons before and since they occupied the White House.

Watch The Spin

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Post posted an article about Hillary Clinton’s problems with her email server.

The article reports:

The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

That’s pretty straightforward. Basic facts, etc. But later in the article:

Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked earlier this month about the email inquiry: “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.

“We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it,” she added.

Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.

The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides since he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.

I am learning how to read between to lines to predict what comes next. Who are these current and former officials?

The article continues:

Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.”

The State Department has been analyzing the contents of Clinton’s correspondence, as it has prepared 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails for public release in batches, a process that began in May and concluded Monday. The State Department has said 2,093 of Clinton’s released emails were redacted in all or part because they contained classified material, the vast majority of them rated “confidential,” the lowest level of sensitivity in the classification system.

The above two paragraphs are outright lies. I have posted a number of articles about these emails. Judicial Watch has been on this from the beginning. If you believe the above two paragraphs, I suggest you go to the Judicial Watch website and begin reading. The Washington Post article is setting up the story that Hillary didn’t do anything serious and that she is being picked on because she is a Democrat running for President or because she is a woman. Take your choice. This is an example of how a newspaper can lie to create a narrative. We will see a lot more of this as the election campaign continues.

This Could Present A Problem In The Democratic Party Primary Elections

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that last fall the Clinton Foundation received a subpoena for documents related to projects that required State Department approval as well as records related to Huma Abedin, a top aide of Secretary Clinton and currently vice chairman of Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The article reports:

The State Department inspector general probe is entirely separate from an FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server to shield her official communications.

An inspector general cannot charge anyone with a crime.

But the independent government watchdogs can make referrals to the Justice Department and recommendations to the agencies they oversee.

A referral from the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence community sparked the FBI probe of Clinton’s server use, for example.

The Post (The Washington Post) report noted the “full scope” of the inspector general inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Abedin’s role there was “unclear.”

As I reported here in December:

Bill and Hillary Clinton have amassed a tremendous amount of money since leaving the White House. A lot of that money has been channeled through the Clinton Foundation, which the Charity Navigator refused to rate because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” The Federalist posted an article in April pointing out that the Clinton Foundation actually spends approximately 10 percent of its donations on charity.

It is somewhat amazing how many of our career politicians whose jobs pay $100,000 a year (more or less) seem to become millionaires. That is something that needs to change. While the New Hampshire primary election proves that you cannot buy elections (Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush spent the most money in the New Hampshire primary.), it seems that once you get elected, you can pretty much buy anything you want to. The voters are the only people who can change the current system. As a voter, you have two choices–vote for someone who is outside ‘the system’ and does not seem to want to play inside ‘the system’ or vote for someone who is already rich and really does not need to make any  money by using his political office as a personal fund raiser.

It will be interesting to see if this new inquiry into the financial dealings of the Clintons has any impact on the primary. Polls in New Hampshire already indicated that voters did not see Secretary Clinton as honest–91% to 5%. How much worse can it get?

Speaking Out After A Tragedy

Posted on by

Last night at CNN’s “Guns in America” townhall, Kimberly Corban asked the following:

“As a survivor of rape, and now a mother to two small children — you know, it seems like being able to purchase a firearm of my choosing, and being able to carry that wherever my — me and my family are — it seems like my basic responsibility as a parent at this point,”

“I have been unspeakably victimized once already, and I refuse to let that happen again to myself or my kids. So why can’t your administration see that these restrictions that you’re putting to make it harder for me to own a gun, or harder for me to take that where I need to be is actually just making my kids and I less safe?”

The quote comes from a Washington Post article posted today. Ms. Corban was raped while a student at the University of Northern Colorado. Someone broke into her apartment and sexually assaulted her. After the attack, she realized how important it is for women to have access to guns to protect themselves.

This is part of the President’s response included in the article:

“I just want to repeat that there’s nothing that we’ve proposed that would make it harder for you to purchase a firearm.” And: “You have to be pretty well trained in order to fire a weapon against somebody who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise.” And: “There’s always the possibility that that firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident.” And: “All I’m focused on is making sure that a terrible crime like yours that was committed is not made easier because somebody can go on the Internet and just buy whatever weapon they want without us finding out whether they’re a criminal or not.”

Just for the record, you cannot go on the Internet and just buy any weapon–even on the Internet, weapons are sold by dealers who have to do a background check before the weapon is delivered to your home.

Ms. Corban’s statement at the end of the article summarizes the way most Americans feel about the Second Amendment:

“I actually typically try not to disclose that (exactly what weapon she carries) just for safety’s sake,” she said. “I do have a small concealed carry and I have other firearms which I choose to keep in my home.” To the president’s point that weapons can bring tragedy in homes, like hers, with small children, she said her guns are “completely secure.”

“You don’t have to carry a firearm,” she said. “I’m not telling you that you need to. I just want you to respect my right to do that myself.”

With all this talk about limiting the sale of guns, has anyone come up with an idea to keep criminals from obtaining guns? Please call me when you have a solution to that problem.

Today’s Academic Standards Review Commission Meeting

Posted on by

Today I attended the meeting of the Academic Standards Review Commission in Raleigh, North Carolina. The Commission was established by Senate Bill 812 which went into effect on July 1, 2014. The short title of the bill is, “Replace Common Core To Meet NC‘s Needs.” During the meeting, Representative Larry G. Pittman, District 82, Cabarrus, read a letter he had written to the commission.

This is the text of the letter:

The report from the ASRC should include a copy of the bill, SB 812, that created the ASRC.

Next, there should be a summary of the process followed by the Commission.

There should be a summary of the input from all parties who presented to the Commission.

There should be a summary of all the alternatives to Common Core that were examined by the Commission.

The report should conclude with the recommendations of the Commission for replacing Common Core. In the title of the bill, it plainly says that the purpose of the Commission is to replace Common Core. This means removing Common Core and replacing it with something else. It does not mean rebranding, “tweaking,” or rewriting Common Core. It means getting rid of it. So that is what the recommendations from the ASRC should be.

The meeting included a discussion of the reports of the progress students have made in mathematics and English since Common Core was implemented. Some scores show some improvement, and in many cases, the scores have gone down. The ‘experts’ had many excuses for this. but the fact is that Common Core has not been the magic bullet the education establishment claimed it would be. The main success of Common Core has been to set up a data collection system on our children that makes the NSA look like pikers. Common Core has also put technical platform requirements on our schools that will amount to large amounts of unfunded liabilities in future years.

On September 27, 2013, The Washington Post reported the following statement by Bill Gates, the force behind Common Core, “It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade.” I

I have a question for parents in all parts of America. Are you willing to turn your children over to an education system that invades your and your children’s privacy, is totally unproven, and tells them that their parents don’t know how to do things? If not, it is time for you to get involved. Begin at your local school board. If that doesn’t work, go to your state legislator. If that doesn’t work, write a letter to the editor of the newspaper. If you want your child to grow up to be a knowledgeable, contributing member of society, I strongly suggest that you begin to speak out against Common Core.

There were less than 20 people observing the meeting today. Common Core will not go away unless more parents make noise and get involved. Find out what your state is doing about Common Core and fight for your child’s future.

Why Local Elections Matter

Posted on by

It is a given that parents care about the education of their children. Currently, North Carolina has an Academic Standards Review Commission (ASRC) which is looking at the Common Core standards to see if they are appropriate for North Carolina. The ASRC has heard testimony from people who support Common Core and from people who oppose it. I have attended a number of the ASRC meetings, and have listened to both sides of the story. I have learned that even the teachers who like Common Core talk about the difficulties in implementing it. I have also learned that two of the people involved in the creation of Common Core have refused to sign off on the program because it did not do what it was supposedly intended to do. I have also learned that there is some information gathering included in Common Core that makes the NSA look like amateurs. Common Core is a copyrighted program, making it difficult to alter, that includes millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities because of the software licensing and computers needed to meet the testing requirements of the program. These are just a few of the issues. On September 21, 2013, (according to The Washington Post), Bill Gates stated, “It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade.” Just for the record, The Daily Caller reported in March 2014 that the children of Bill Gates attend a private school that does not use Common Core standards. Common Core for thee, but not for me.

So where am I going with this? I am looking at the way local school boards are not looking out for the students in their districts. On September 19, 2015, The New Bern Sun Journal posted a story about the Craven County Board of Education. The state has recently released the test scores for area schools for last year. Common Core has been in North Carolina since the 2012-2-13 school year, so these scores reflect the success (or failure) of Common Core.

The article mentioned that across North Carolina, 72.2 percent of traditional public schools received grades of C or better. The article also notes that in 2014-2015, the period covered by the grades, there is a 15-point scale used in the grading process. That means that a C is from a 55 to a 69. Meanwhile, the students are on a different grade scale–a scale which would consider those numbers as failing grades. What we have here is a different standard for the school than for the students. How convenient. Note that this shows that more than one fourth of the schools scored below a 55. Wow.

There is a very viable option to Common Core–it is called the North Carolina Education Plan, and is based on a successful program previously used in Greensboro. This is the website.

If you are a parent, there are a number of things you can do to protect your child’s education. You can begin attending Board of Education Meetings and speaking out when those in charge try to tell you that a failing grade is not a failing grade. You can also seek out people to run for the local Board of Education who will look out for your child’s education and not simply go along with what the state bureaucracy tells them. You have a voice in your child’s education. You have the option of speaking out or remaining silent and paying the consequences.

Following The Money On The Iran Treaty Public Relations Campaign

Posted on by

Kyle Shideler posted an article at the Center for Security Policy on Wednesday about some of the campaigns supporting the nuclear deal with Iran. Recently the Iran deal was endorsed by three-dozen retired flag and general officers. This sounds a little odd, but makes perfect sense when you consider who composed the letter and asked for the signatures.

The article reports:

Adm. Barnett’s support for the deal is not necessarily surprising. Barnett has repeatedly taken public positions on military or national security related issues that align closely with those of the Obama White House, including opposition to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” in favor of changes to DOD’s Transgender policy, and applauding the use of national security as a reason to support school lunch changes proposed by First Lady Michelle Obama. In his capacity as a Venable employee, Barnett also worked a high profile case on sexual abuse in the military during a period at a moment when the White House was seized with the topic.

Barnett solicited signatures for the letter from his Venable work email, but denies that his employer played any role in the letter.

Given that Barnett had denied what appears to be obvious White House involvement, his other denial seems worthy of further investigation as well. Is there reason to believe that the firm has an interest in ending Iran sanctions?

Oddly enough, there seems to be a financial connection. The article goes on to list some of the companies that Venable is associated with–the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), an Iranian-American group, with its own political PAC is one of Venable’s non-profit clients, According to the article, One of PAAIA’s “Founding Donors” was Venable Partner Robert S. Babayi.

The article further reports:

Babayi is also the co-founder of the Iranian American Bar Association (IABA). Venable held presentations for the IABA on Iranian Americans living in or doing business in Iran and Iran sanctions laws. In March of 2010, IABA screened the anti-Guantanamo Bay detention facility movie “The Response” which was executive produced by Venable LLP. Venable representedEgyptian detainees at Guantanamo (the subject of the film), and Babayi’s email is listed as the RSVP email.

Babayi apparently left Venable to become Managing Director of Vector IP, a boutique Patent law firm in June 2014. Babayi is also a U.S. Advisory Team member for IBridges, an organization that works to promote High Tech entrepreneurship in Iran.

Venable may also have other interests in Iran:

A 2013 article by Asharq Al-Awsat identifies one Majid Javedani-Tabrizi as a lawyer representing Venable LLP who announced Iran was preparing to reinstate direct flights to the United States. While Iran denied this, it subsequently signaled that a new nuclear deal may open the door for direct flights. Venable reportedly did not reply when questioned about its role in the announcement.

…Either way, their letter underscores the fact that powerful financial interests at work in securing approval of the Iran deal, interests that would appear likely to profit from seeing Iran sanctions end.

Inquiring minds want to know: Were such interests at Venable and among its clients disclosed to the senior military officers before they signed on?

As with most things in the Obama Administration, following the money tells a whole lot more than what is actually being said.

Being Misled By The Major Media

Posted on by

CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) posted an article today about an article that appeared last Wednesday in The Washington Post. The headline of the Washington Post states, “How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they’re talking about.” I will admit that I saw the article, but did not do a story about it because it made no sense to me. I have read enough about the nuclear deal with Iran to understand that there is no way it could be good for Israel.

The CAMERA article explains:

Tharoor first mentions Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, and links to a Daily Beast piece entitled “Ex-Intel Chief: Iran Deal Good for Israel.”

Unfortunately for Tharoor (and for Daily Beast commentator Jonathan Alter), Ayalon, who begrudgingly supports the deal because it is “the best plan currently on the table” and because he believes there are no available alternatives, nonetheless has said in no uncertain terms, “I think the deal is bad. It’s not good.”

The article then cites the next expert who approves of the deal:

Tharoor then cites former intelligence chief Efraim Halevy, and strangely links to an Op-Ed Halevy wrote after a framework agreement was finalized in Lausanne last April but before the details of this final deal were agreed upon in Vienna this month. In a more recent (and thus  relevant) Op-Ed, Halevy described what he sees as several strong points in the agreement and concludes that it is “important to hold a profound debate in Israel on whether no agreement is preferable to an agreement which includes components that are crucial for Israel’s security.”

…What he does not say is that the deal signed in Vienna is, as a whole, “good.” In an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, he repeats his call for national debate, and paints a much more equivocal picture: “This is not an agreement that is entirely bad,” Halevy said. “There are positive elements in it.” Later, he added that “this agreement has a number of very good elements for Israel, and there are elements that are not as good.” 

Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence branch, is the next expert mentioned. He has stated, “This is not a good deal. This a problematic deal. You also could call it a bad deal.”

The next expert mentioned is Meir Dagan, another former Mossad chief, who has not gone on the record about the deal in either direction.

If you were a person who only gets their news from The Washington Post, you would believe that the Iranian nuclear agreement has strong support from some military and security experts in Israel. And you would be very wrong. This is the reason we need organizations like CAMERA and other alternative news sources. Our mainstream media has forgotten how to tell the truth.

The Media And Scott Walker

Posted on by

The attack on Scott Walker from the mainstream media has been going on for a few weeks now. Recently the media found something they thought might work–Scott Walker did not finish college. We need to know more about his college years and why he did not finish. What about his transcripts? Excuse me. Where were these people when it came time to inquire into President Obama’s college years, transcripts, etc. Somehow, when it came to candidate Obama, this information was simply not available and not important. Hmmm.

The National Review Online posted an article today about all this curiosity regarding Scott Walker’s college experience.

The author of the article clearly understands what is happening. He reports:

The Left is now in a full-out attack on Scott Walker. The homepage today has good pieces by Jonah, Kevin, and Charles on the latest brouhaha, Walker’s supposed opposition to evolution, linked to his supposedly mysterious dropping out of college. This is just the next step in a growing campaign. I wrote a few weeks ago on how the progressives would try to defeat Walker, by fear-mongering that he was a “divider” and a threat to minority groups. 

But what we see now is the “full Alinsky.” The Left is throwing just about everything in the book at Walker early on, trying to Romneyize him: define him and put him so far back on the defensive that he can never recover. With support from the MSM, which is now thrashing about trying to figure out why he left college, the progressive Left is perfectly following Alinky’s Rule for Radicals No. 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” This is exactly what is happening today.

The problem with Scott Walker (in the eyes of the political left) is that they have been trying to get him out of office ever since he has been there. His policies have worked, and generally speaking, the voters in Wisconsin like what he has done. That makes him extremely dangerous.

The article concludes:

The bad news is that if Walker’s people don’t fight back twice as hard early on, they may be playing defense the entire game. It’s hard since they can’t fire back at a political opponent as they could in a campaign. That is the truly insidious part of the progressive media’s strategy. Whom do you go after, the Washington Post or Slate? But, Walker’s camp can respond in general by employing Alinsky’s Rule No. 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Ridicule back those who fear someone without a college degree, or someone who takes on bloodsucking unions. Don’t let up.

The good news is, the progressive Left may be Alinskying Walker too early. The risk that Walker will be defined by his enemies is high, but so is the chance that the progressive message will get dulled over the next nearly two years by its sheer repetition, its patent bad faith, and its desperation. But if Scott Walker is serious about running for the presidency, he won’t take being Alinskied lying down.  

Unfortunately, this is the way the left does politics in America right now. They will continue doing politics this way until it no longer works. If you want to see this sort of garbage cease, ignore it. As soon as it doesn’t work, the political left will move on to something else.

I Don’t Think The Negotiations Are Working

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that Jason Rezaian, an American citizen of Iranian descent from California, The Washington Post’s correspondent in Iran, who has been in prison in Iran since July, will be charged and tried in a Revolutionary Court.

On the same day, The Wall Street Journal posted the following:

Nice timing, brothers. Secretary of State John Kerry met Wednesday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif to negotiate how much of Iran’s nuclear program it will be able to keep. Meanwhile, according to the Associated Press, Iran’s state news agency reported that a court in Tehran had indicted Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, who will stand trial on unspecified charges.

The New York Times reports:

Earlier in the day, Mr. Zarif, who knows Mr. Rezaian personally and has described him as “a fair reporter,” gave no hint of any movement in the case. “This is a judicial matter, so we will have to wait for the judiciary to move forward,” Mr. Zarif said. He repeated Iran’s contention that it regards Mr. Rezaian, as well as another imprisoned American citizen of Iranian descent, Amir Hekmati, as Iranian citizens who are subject to Iranian laws. Neither has been granted the diplomatic access afforded to foreign prisoners, and in Mr. Rezaian’s case, he has not been given access to a lawyer since his arrest.

I think it is time to place severe economic sanctions on Iran. They obviously have no respect for the American government and do not care how they treat American citizens. I think it is time to play hard ball. It is becoming very obvious that the trouble makers in today’s world have decided that they have nothing to fear from America’s current leadership. Franky, I would rather countries like Iran and Russia fear us than like us. Unfortunately, President Obama has caused them to do neither.

Common Core May Do More Damage Than Good

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Post posted an article about the Common Core requirement that Kindergarten children learn how to read.

The article states:

The Common Core State Standards call for kindergartners to learn how to read, but a new report by early childhood experts says that forcing some kids to read before they are ready could be harmful.

Two organizations that advocate for early childhood education — Defending the Early Years and Alliance for Childhood — issued the report titled “Reading in Kindergarten: Little to Gain and Much to Lose.”  It says there is no evidence to support a widespread belief in the United States that children must read in prekindergarten or kindergarten to become strong readers and achieve academic success.

I think most of us would agree that we want our children to become strong readers and achieve academic success. I think most of us would also agree that there are some children who might actually be ready to read by kindergarten. However, not all children are ready to read by Kindergarten, and are we ready to accept the damage that we will do to those children in the name of Common Core?

Here are some of the findings of the report cited above:

 

  • Many children are not developmentally ready to read in kindergarten, yet the Common Core State Standards require them to do just that. This is leading to inappropriate classroom practices.
  • No research documents long-term gains from learning to read in kindergarten.
  • Research shows greater gains from play-based programs than from preschools and kindergartens with a more academic focus.
  • Children learn through playful, hands-on experiences with materials, the natural world, and engaging, caring adults.
  • Active, play-based experiences in language-rich environments help children develop their ideas about symbols, oral language and the printed word — all vital components of reading.
  • We are setting unrealistic reading goals and frequently using inappropriate methods to accomplish them.

Please follow the link above to the article to read the rest of the findings.

It is becoming very obvious that the people who designed Common Core did not allow for individual students or their individual personalities and development.

On September 27, 2013, The Washington Post quoted Bill Gates, the money and force promoting Common Core as saying, “It would be great if our education stuff worked, but we won’t know for probably a decade.”

Are you willing to gamble your children’s future on something that is not only untried, but may also be harmful to your children?

 

 

 

Distraction Or Scorched Earth Policy?

Posted on by

Today is the day that Jonathan Gruber is expected to testify at a hearing of the House Oversight Committee (The Hill), today is the day that Senate Intelligence Chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein is scheduled to release a report on CIA interrogations of terrorists after the events of September 11, 2001 (The Washington Post), and to top it off, it has now been reported that President Obama has not actually issued an executive order to grant amnesty to up to five million immigrants (World Net Daily).

Which story is supposed to have the attention of the American people and which stories are we supposed to ignore? I am definitely feeling manipulated.

The Hill reports on the scheduled hearings:

After the videos went viral last month, President Obama dismissed Gruber as “some adviser who was never on our staff,” while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she didn’t even know who he was.

Opponents of ObamaCare say Democrats are changing their story.

They note that Gruber has been to the White House 21 times and met with multiple members of the administration, including Obama, according to visitor logs. Pelosi’s office also cited his work in a 2009 policy analysis.

“Why was Mr. Gruber called an ‘architect’ of ObamaCare by The Washington Post, someone who was lauded by President Obama and cited by then-Speaker Pelosi, and is now just ‘some advisor’? ” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in a statement.

As Gruber steps into the line of fire on Tuesday, he might find little protection from Democrats who once paid him nearly as much as the presidential salary for his consulting work.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee’s top Democrat, said he would use the hearing to mount a defense of the healthcare law, not Gruber.

Regardless of what Mr. Gruber says about the stupidity of the American voter, we need to get rid of ObamaCare. It may take a circus to wake up the American voter (however, when you consider that half of the Democrats who voted for ObamaCare lost their seats in the last election, Americans may already be awake).

The Washington Post reports on the release of the CIA interrogation report:

With the apparently imminent release of the Feinstein report on CIA interrogations of high-value terrorists a decade ago, let’s consider the situation of intelligence personnel who have been involved, not in that program but in drone strikes against terrorists, conducted in a variety of countries around the world.

They have four sources of direction and protection: Their strikes are authorized by the president, briefed to Congress, deemed lawful by the attorney general and determined useful by the CIA director.

Yet people in the drone program know that co-workers involved in enhanced interrogation had these assurances as well. And the drone program has some distinctive characteristics. Instead of employing waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation, the targets are killed (sometimes with collateral damage to the innocent). President Obama dramatically expanded the use of drones, increasing the proportion of attacks that are “signature strikes” — meaning those authorizing attacks don’t know the identities of the targets, just their likely value.

Some may argue a subtle moral distinction between harshly interrogating a terrorist and blowing his limbs apart. But international human rights groups and legal authorities generally look down on both. The main difference? One is Obama’s favorite program. A few years from now, a new president and new congressional leaders may take a different view.

That is a very good point. Congress had been briefed on these interrogations when they happened. There is no reason to release this report. The report endangers Americans overseas and will cripple the CIA in dealing with future terrorism threats. I wonder how the restrictions put on the CIA today would compare to any restrictions put on the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II.

Meanwhile, about amnesty, World Net Daily quotes Senator Jeff Sessions:

In remarks made at the Washington office of the government-watchdog group Judicial Watch, Sessions said: “I guess they just whispered in the ear of (DHS Director) Jeh Johnson over at Homeland Security, ‘Just put out a memo. That way we don’t have to enforce the law.’”

The news that Obama had not signed an executive order to carry out the policy he announced to the nation in a televised address Nov. 20 was broken by WND Senior Staff Writer Jerome Corsi last week.

As a result of the president’s use of a memo instead of an official order, the senator observed: “We don’t even have a really significant, direct, legal direction that we can ascertain, precisely what the president is doing. It’s a stunning event in my view.”

…The senator dropped a bombshell last week when he revealed he had learned the Obama administration is opening a facility in Crystal City, Virginia, to implement the president’s amnesty plan.

Sessions discovered the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, is hiring 1,000 full-time and permanent staff members to quickly approve illegal immigrants’ applications for amnesty.

Sessions also learned the administration will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security and Medicare to illegal immigrants.

He noted that all of those benefits for illegal immigrants had been rejected by Congress.

The Obama administration had initially indicated illegal immigrants would not be eligible for Social Security benefits, but officials were forced to admit the plans after Sessions revealed them.

Welcome to Monday morning under the Obama Administration.

Where Are The Young Leaders In The Democrat Party?

Posted on by

Dan Balz posted an article at the Washington Post on Saturday about the lack of young leaders in today’s Democrat party. In the last two mid-term elections, many of the younger Democrats who would have been future leaders of the party have been defeated by their Republican opponents.

The article reports:

The more serious problem for Democrats is the drubbing they’ve taken in the states, the breeding ground for future national talent and for policy experimentation. Republicans have unified control — the governorship and the legislature — in 23 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democrats control just seven. Democrats hold 18 governorships, but only a handful are in the most populous states.

In California, Gov. Jerry Brown won again at age 76, his fourth, non-consecutive term in the governor’s office. His victory means that younger Democrats will have to wait until 2018 to compete for one of the nation’s most high-profile political jobs. In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo won a second term, but can’t get out of Clinton’s shadow. The only other state among the top 10 in population held by the Democrats is Pennsylvania, newly won by Tom Wolf.

One of the largest groups of active voters in the country is senior citizens. However, I don’t think there are enough of them to continue electing aging Democrats to office. One of the problems in the recent mid-term was that the youth vote has been disillusioned with the Obama Administration and either did not turn out to vote in large numbers or did not vote for Democrats. The Republican party was known for a while as the party of white-haired old people, but that image is changing, and the Democrats are rapidly earning that label.

The article concludes:

But a political party cannot be constructed around two individuals (Obama and Clinton), as Democrats seem to be today. Winning the presidency and taking back the Senate will be the Democrats’ top priorities in the next two years. The bigger challenge of rebuilding the party in the states and nurturing a new generation of leaders should be just as urgent.

The author mentions Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as someone he does not think will run for president. I am not convinced of that. I believe Senator Warren will challenge Hillary for the nomination from the left. Senator Warren made a number of visits in support of candidates who were running in the mid-terms and will have favors to call in during the next presidential campaign.

I believe the 2016 presidential campaign on both sides will be very interesting. I also believe that it is also well underway.