Why It Is Necessary To Drain The Swamp

Yesterday Lifezette posted a story about problems with leaks in the State Department. This is a security problem as well as a political problem. We need to remind all those in the State Department that they work for the President. We also need to remind them that they are not the elected President and do not have the authority to run the government. Leaking information for the purpose of embarrassing an administration you don’t like should result in job loss. Hopefully under President Trump, it will.

The article reports:

Serious leaks have rocked the White House and likely sent top staffers searching for the individuals in the West Wing and Cabinet-level agencies responsible for the disclosures — some of which may have included classified information.

Washington and the diplomatic enclaves across the world were jolted on Wednesday night when two reports — one by the Associated Press and one by The Washington Post — outlined what Trump said to the leaders of Mexico and Australia.

…Since Trump took office on Jan. 20, the administration has been plagued by a number of leaks about the internal process. Some leaks have panned out, while others have been hotly denied by the White House.

The leaks include: a charge that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly was not briefed on the executive order on restrictions on travel from seven predominantly Muslim nations; a charge that Trump ended a call with Turnbull; a charge that Trump said he could send troops to deal with Mexico’s “bad hombres”; and a charge that Trump asked U.S. Judge Thomas Hardiman to drive toward D.C. to increase speculation before the selection of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

There is no excuse for this. Cleaning up the worldwide mess that President Obama left behind needs the full attention and cooperation of those in the State Department. Using leaks to destroy a President for political purposes is not patriotic, in fact it borders on treason.

This Is A Problem

I grew up watching three major television stations report the news and reading one newspaper. I was lulled into a false sense of security that what I was reading and what I was hearing was reasonably fair and accurate. Unfortunately, even if that was true then, it isn’t true now.

 
Sean Hannity posted a list on his website of the stories the mainstream media misreported this week. These are important stories, and believing the mainstream media could easily lead you to numerous false conclusions.

 
This is a list of the stories from the article:

1.The left lost it after it was reported that Trump was easing restrictions on Russia. The news seemingly confirmed the Democratic narrative that Trump showed favoritism to Vladimir Putin.
In truth, it turned out that the “easing of sanctions” had been a “technical fix” planned under the Obama administration.

2. Earlier this week the Associated Press reported that President Trump threatened to send U.S. troops into Mexico.
The reports were based on a White House readout of a call between Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Trump.
Upon the release of the actual transcripts of the conversation, it turned out that President Trump actually offered to send U.S. assets to assist in Mexico’s fight with drug cartels.
Even the Mexican government vehemently denied the story.

3.It was reported that the mother of an Iraqi-born veteran of the fist Gulf war died due to being denied entry under Trump’s so-called Muslim ban.
According to the original report:
A local business owner who flew to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment said she was blocked from returning home under President Trump’s ban on immigration and travel from seven predominately Muslim nations.
The story eventually fell apart when the man’s Imam came forward and said that the man’s mother had died before the ban had even been signed.

4. On Thursday, the media ran with reports that Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch founded and presided over a club called the “Fascism Forever Club” while he was in high school.
The “evidence” for the claim came from the Georgetown Preparatory School yearbook from Gorsuch’s time at the school, and was first reported on by the U.K. Daily Mail.
As it turns out, no such club ever existed.
The “Fascism Forever Club” had been a sophomoric joke amongst the students.

5.Trump renamed “Black History Month” to “African American History Month.” “Donald Trump, turns out, did not officially change Black History Month to National African American History Month … it’s been that way for decades,” TMZ laster reported. “Trump’s official presidential proclamation uses the words, ‘African American History Month’ — but President Obama did the same. In fact, since President Carter … almost all Commanders-in-Chief have used the same language in proclamations.”

6. Last, but not least–the following tweets:


If you get your news from the mainstream media, there is a good chance that you are being misinformed.

A Proposed Solution That Will Only Make The Problem Worse

Yesterday the Associated Press posted an article about a proposal to designate election systems as critical infrastructure. On the surface this sounds like a really good idea, but when you examine the idea closely, there are some problems with it.

But first, let’s look at the article, which states:

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced the move Friday with 30 minutes’ notice to the National Association of Secretaries of State and U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent bipartisan federal agency that develops voluntary voting guidelines and certifies voting systems.

Officials at both agencies are criticizing the department for what they said was a failure to work with state officials to fully answer their questions about the designation before making the change.

“We’re having trouble understanding exactly what they’re going to do, that we’re not already doing,” Connecticut Secretary of State Denise W. Merrill, who heads the national secretaries association, told The Associated Press. “States were already doing much of this (security work) themselves using very different products.”

The U.S. Constitution states in Article I Section 4:

The times, places and methods of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, will be decided by each State legislature. Congress may override these regulations at any time by  Law.

The U.S. Constitution states in Article 2 Section 2:

Each State, (and Washington D.C.), must appoint a number of electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives which that State (or District) is entitled to in Congress. The legislator of each State may determine the manner in which the electors are chosen. No Senator or Representative, or person holding an official position under the United States, may be appointed as an elector.

What is illustrated here is the fact that the individual states control elections within their states–the federal government does not. One reason it is difficult to ‘hack’ voting machines is that they are often not networked–they are individual machines and must each be ‘hacked’ individually. Although this suggestion by the Obama Administration sounds like an idea that would protect our elections, it would, in fact make hacking easier for hackers by centralizing the voting machines on one network.

Aside from being a federal power grab, this is a really bad idea. The goal here is federal control of elections. This will no longer limit corruption to some of our major cities–anyone will be able to be able to participate!

 

Disturbing On Many Levels

By now we have all heard the story of Matthew Lasner and his husband, who were removed from a JetBlue flight for harassing Ivanka Trump. However, I doubt that you have heard the entire story. A website I am an unfamiliar with, Heavy.com, posted details of some information I have seen referred to elsewhere.

Heavy.com posted a tweet:

The intention here was to harass another passenger on the plane. How noble. It gets even worse. According to Heavy.com, and other sources, Mr.. Lasner is a professor at Hunter College. What kind of example is he setting for his students? What is he teaching his students? According to the article, Matthew Lasner is married to Daniel Goldstein, a New York Attorney. Mr. Goldstein was holding their child as he was yelling at Ivanka Trump. Great example to set for your child.

The Washington Examiner also carried the story yesterday, noting that it had been sanitized in the mainstream media.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Lasner later deleted the tweets, and he appears to have suspended his Twitter account altogether following the incident.

JetBlue later put out a statement reading, “The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly. If the crew determines that a customer is causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight. In this instance, our team worked to re-accommodate the party on the next available flight.”

I would not have been so accommodating.

Some of the mainstream media reports of the incident are included in The Washington Examiner article:

From the Associated Press: “Man says he and husband removed from JetBlue flight after ‘expressing displeasure’ that Ivanka Trump was aboard.”

From Yahoo News: “Man kicked off JetBlue flight for questioning why Ivanka Trump was on it.”

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: “Passengers kicked off flight after run-in with Ivanka Trump.”

From the Washington Post: “Passenger who confronted Ivanka Trump gets kicked off Jet Blue flight.”

I can’t remember anyone ever doing anything similar to any of the Obama family members when they were out in the public–the girls at concerts or shopping. This is disgraceful. There need to be serious consequences for this sort of behavior. You can disagree with anyone politically for any reason, but you do not have the right to harass them or their family.

Today’s Shiny Object

One of the main weapons the press uses to manipulate the American public is the choice of which news stories to spend time on and which news stories to ignore. When you look at some of the coverage in this election campaign, it becomes very obvious that the media has taken sides.

Last Friday, The Federalist Papers website reported the following:

Between ABC News, NBC News, and CBS, they covered the Trump tape for 23 minutes during one night of coverage. The Clinton WikiLeaks revelations got just 56 seconds of coverage — with NBC News omitting it altogether.

There are two major differences between the Trump tape (and subsequent spurious allegations) and the Clinton revelations.

First, what Clinton has done has enormous implications for the country and our lives individually. She was First Lady, a senator, and secretary of state. What she’s done as a public servant affects us greatly. What she has said she will do as president if she’s elected has massive implications for the future of this country and the western world.

What Trump said 11 years ago, lewd as it was, has little effect on any of us personally or the future of this country. It’s not terribly likely to have much of an effect on any of our lives — not in the way Clinton’s scandals and policies will.

Today the focus is on an answer to a question Chris Wallace addressed to Donald Trump, but never to Hillary Clinton.

Today The Wall Street Journal reported:

Charges that election results might be rigged have moved from the fringes of U.S. politics to a central issue in the closing days of the 2016 campaign as Republican Donald Trump has repeatedly and without corroborating evidence suggested a fair outcome may be impossible.

You will find some form of this story in all of the major news sources. There is no mention of the times in recent history that Democrats claimed fraud.

From an October 2002 issue of Newsweek (posted at prnewswire)::

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected, Newsweek reports in the current issue. “You know, I’m a fan of Clintonomics,” she told the crowd while standing from a perch on the staircase of movie producer Alan Horn’s art-filled Bel Air home, “and this administration is destroying in months our eight years of economic progress.”

This was two years after the election, and Hillary Clinton was still complaining that the election has been rigged. John Kerry is on the record as saying similar things. There was a definite effort by the Democrats to delegitimize both elections of George W. Bush. The media needs to remember this in their criticism of Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Project Veritas has released videos showing illegal activity on the part of the Clinton campaign and wikileaks has released emails showing corruption within the campaign and the media has provided very little information on the subject. It is a safe bet that many voters have little or no idea of any of the information contained in those videos or documents. How are voters going supposed to make an informed decision when the media chooses not to inform them?

While We Were All Focused On A Shiny Object Over There…

BizPacReview reported yesterday about some information in the Obama Administration’s Friday night document dump.

The article reports:

Before the start of the Columbus Day holiday weekend, the Treasury Department made it easier for offshore banking institutions to make transactions with Iran, as long as the money doesn’t actually enter the U.S. financial system. Although many sanctions were lifted as a part of the Iran deal, certain “specially designated nationals,” or SDNs, are still subject to the sanctions for reasons which include their human rights record or support for terror groups.

Now, even these SDNs are no longer completely banned from transacting with U.S. businesses.

The Associated Press reports that this change in the rules is the result of complaints from Iran that the remaining U.S. Sanctions have limited Iran in its commercial dealings with other countries.

The article concludes:

Just another bad postscript to a bad deal, and we can expect plenty more of the same if people keep paying attention to the puppet shows instead of the man, or woman, behind the curtain.

The Iran deal was a really bad deal. We are financing terrorism and the development of an atomic bomb by Iran. We can expect more of the same from a President Hillary Clinton.

The Experiment Of The States

America is made up of 50 different states. Each state is unique–politically, economically,  geographically, ethnically, etc. So if people could live anywhere they wanted to, where would they live? Actually, the age of the internet has made that somewhat possible–telecommuting has grown in recent years. So let’s look at where people live.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about a study of trends in population growth in states within America. The data for the study came from the IRS. The results were not really surprising.

The article reports the findings of the study:

To measure the states that are most attractive to Americans on the move, we developed an “attraction” ratio that measures the number of domestic in-migrants per 100 out-migrants. A state that has a rating of 100 would be perfectly balanced between those leaving and coming.

Overall, the biggest winner — both in absolute numbers and in our ranking — is Texas. In 2014 the Lone Star State posted a remarkable 156 attraction ratio, gaining 229,000 more migrants than it lost, roughly twice as many as went to No. 3 Florida, which clocked an impressive 126.7 attraction ratio.

Most of the top gainers of domestic migrants are low-tax, low-regulation states, including No. 2 South Carolina, with an attraction ratio of 127.3, as well as No. 5 North Dakota, and No. 7 Nevada.

…Overall, many of the most affluent states are the ones hemorrhaging high-income earners the most rapidly. As in overall migration, New York sets the standard, with the highest outmigration of high income earners (defined as annual income over $200,000) relative to in-migrants (attraction ratio: 53). New York is followed closely by Illinois, the District of Columbia and New Jersey, which are all losing the over-$200,000-a-year crowd at a faster pace than California.

The big winners in terms of affluent migration tend to be historically poorer states, mainly in the Sun Belt and the Intermountain West. Florida has an attraction ratio for people earning over $200,000 a year of 223, the highest in the nation, followed by South Carolina, Montana, Idaho and North Carolina.

Given the opportunity, Americans move to states with lower taxes and less regulation over their businesses and daily lives. Now if we could only teach them to vote that way in national elections…

 

Pay For Play

The Associated Press posted a story today about the link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and State Department appointments given to people outside of the U.S. Government.

The article reports:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

When you go to the Charity Navigator that rates charities according to how much money they spend on administrative costs and how much money goes to their various causes and you look up the Clinton Foundation, this is what you find:

Why isn’t this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Loosely translated that means, “We are not willing to take a stand.” I suspect they have seen what happens to people who take a stand to oppose or reveal anything the Clintons are doing.

The Associated Press article continues:

Some of Clinton’s most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband’s political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.

S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton’s planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.

Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP’s review showed.

Some of the people who have been screaming for years that they wanted to ‘take the money out of politics’ should take a really good look at this. The Clinton family has become one of the most advanced crime syndicates since the Mafia. They need to be investigated.

 

The Human Cost Of Deception

A number of people familiar with the world of international intrigue have stated that it is a pretty safe bet that Hillary Clinton’s private email server was hacked by any foreign spy network worth its salt. Because the Director of the FBI has acknowledged that there were classified emails on the private server, that hacking presents a threat to American national security. There is also a very strong possibility that it cost at least one man his life.

The Washington Examiner posted a story today about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran’s nuclear program.

The article reports:

Iran confirmed on Sunday that Amiri had been hanged for treason. He was convicted of spying charges in a death sentence case that was upheld on appeal, according to the Associated Press.

“This person who had access to the country’s secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan” a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said. “He provided the enemy with vital and secret information of the country.”

His body was returned to his mother with rope marks around the neck.

…Amiri disappeared while on a religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2009, but he then resurfaced a year later in the U.S., where he visited the Iranian interest section of the Pakistani embassy and demanded to be sent home to Iran. While Amiri told reporters that he was held against his will by both the Saudis and the Americans, U.S. officials said he was receiving millions of dollars for information he provided about Iran’s nuclear program.

The scientist shows up in Clinton’s emails back in 2010, just nine days before he returned to Iran.

This is not a minor infraction. It is likely that the carelessness with which Mrs. Clinton handled her emails resulted in Shahram Amiri’s death. This is totally unacceptable behavior.

 

Losing The First Amendment

Since the 1960’s (and possibly before that) our schools have been undermining the moral fiber of America. It began with teaching young children ‘situational ethics’ and introducing the idea that there really is not right and wrong–everything simply depends on the circumstances. The sexual revolution of the 1060’s further undermined the moral fiber of our culture. Meanwhile, colleges went from signing out of the dorm to go on a date to co-ed dorms. Many of the college students of the late 60’s had their traditional moral values destroyed during their college years. They then had children of their own and raised them accordingly. Our public (and at times, private) education system is largely responsible for destroying the moral fiber of America. Now California wants to pass a law that will accelerate the process and take away one refuge for parents who still believe in traditional morality and are raising their children that way.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about a new law being proposed by the California legislature.

The article explains:

California is considering a new bill that would remove a longstanding exemption from anti-discrimination lawsuits for religious colleges and universities.

The bill could potentially expose schools to civil rights lawsuits from students and employees, according to a report in the Associated Press.

Opponents of the bill, which include some schools, say it is an attack on religious liberty as the exemption allows them to craft campus policies in line with their faith. Religious institutions can currently assign housing through sex, and not on gender identity, and institute moral codes that include sexuality provisions.

How about creating a safe space for people who hold traditional values? A student does not have the right to attend any college he chooses–the college has the final say on who is admitted. By the same logic, if a parent or student does not like the social or moral policies or a college, they have the option of attending school somewhere else. The idea that a school has to bend to the will of a small minority that does not share its values and probably would not want to attend that school is somewhat illogical.

This is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of private schools and colleges. The problem occurs when these institutions accept federal or state money–‘free’ money always comes with strings attached.

The article reports:

Heads of religious colleges told the AP that the legislation would prevent them from signing an agreement with the schools to get state funding for low-income students.

The bill comes as red states have considered or approved laws that conservatives say strengthen religious freedoms. Supporters say such laws enable people to deny services that would violate religious beliefs, while opponents say they enable discrimination against LGBT individuals.

The proposed law illustrates two problems–first, the strings attached to any ‘free’ money, and second, the assault on those Americans who hold to traditional values. It is not my desire to discriminate in any way against members of the LGBT community, but in return, I expect them not to discriminate against my beliefs as well. The First Amendment says that the government cannot limit my freedom to practice my religion. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was supposed to further insure that freedom. The fact that Congress thought it was necessary to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually tells us all we need to know about the current direction of America.

 

The Face Of Sharia Law

The Los Angeles Times is reporting today that Waseem Azeem, brother of slain Pakistani model Qandeel Baloch, has confessed to killing his sister for the sake of the family’s honor.

The article reports:

Baloch, who had become a social media celebrity in recent months, stirred controversy by posting pictures online taken with a prominent Muslim cleric. She was found dead Saturday at her family home in the central city of Multan.

Police arrested her brother, Waseem Azeem, and presented him before the media in Multan, where he confessed to killing her. He said that people had taunted him over the photos and that he found the social embarrassment unbearable. 

“I was determined either to kill myself or kill her,” Azeem told the Associated Press as he was being led away. 

He said that even though Baloch was the main breadwinner for the family, he slipped her sedatives the night before and then strangled her in her sleep. 

According to the tenets of Islam, what he did was perfectly acceptable.

The article further reports:

Nearly 1,000 women are killed in Pakistan each year for violating conservative norms on love and marriage. The so-called “honor killings” often are carried out by family members. 

Such killings are considered murder. But Islamic law in Pakistan allows a murder victim’s family to pardon the killer, which often allows those convicted of honor killings to escape punishment. 

Islamic law is Sharia Law. This is what many Muslims want to introduce into our courts to supersede the U.S. Constitution. Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are totally incompatible–the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, neither of which are acceptable in Sharia Law. In Sharia Law, freedom of speech is defined as the right to express any opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. It is also defined as 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. Free speech is allowed as long as it agrees with Shariah. Anything negative about Mohammad or any picture of Mohammad are not allowed. We need to make sure that anyone who comes to America is willing to live under the U.S. Constitution. If they are not, we need to send them home.

Logic Turned Sideways

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.

Who Is Paying For Our News?

The Associated Press posted an article in the Las Vegas Sun (and other newspapers) today about the selling of the Iran nuclear deal to the American public. There has been a bit of a dust-up about the Iranian nuclear deal because of a rather lengthy interview Ben Rhodes, one of President Obama’s top foreign policy aides, gave to The New York Times.

As I reported on May 10, Mr. Rhodes felt that the White House reporters he was briefing were so inexperienced he could tell them anything and they would believe it. He also managed to set up a media echo chamber to convince the American people that the Iranian deal was a good idea. Well, it gets worse.

The Las Vegas Sun reports:

A group identified by the White House as a key ally in selling the public on the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also financed reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.

The Ploughshares Fund’s mission is to develop and finance initiatives “to reduce and ultimately eliminate the world’s nuclear stockpiles,” one that dovetails with President Barack Obama’s arms control efforts. But its behind-the-scenes advocacy of the Iran agreement got more attention this month after a candid profile of Ben Rhodes, one of the president’s top foreign policy aides.

In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

“We created an echo chamber,” said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, adding that “outside groups like Ploughshares” helped carry out the administration’s message effectively.

There are a lot of reasons this infuriates me. First of all, in this discussion I don’t hear any reference to America’s national security and how it will be impacted by the Iran deal. I also don’t see any admission that Iran will use much of the money the agreement frees up to manufacture weapons to be used against American soldiers in Afghanistan and the Middle East. It also hits home because bloggers are not necessarily seen as a valid source of news for the American people. In this case, conservative talk radio, conservative news outlets, conservative publications, and conservative bloggers were the only ones telling the truth about the Iran deal, and the White House worked very hard to portray them as misinformed.

The article further reports:

Ploughshares boasts of helping to secure the deal. While success was “driven by the fearless leadership of the Obama administration and supporters in Congress,” board chairwoman Mary Lloyd Estrin wrote in the annual report, “less known is the absolutely critical role that civil society played in tipping the scales towards this extraordinary policy victory.”

Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too.

In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or ProPublica.

Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.” It suggested using “web videos, podcasts, photo-based stories” and other “attention-grabbing formats” for “creatively reframing the issue.”

The Center for Public Integrity’s CEO, Peter Bale, confirmed the group received a grant.

“None of the funding received by Ploughshares was for coverage of the Iran deal,” said Bale, whose organization received $70,000. “In general, we avoided that subject because the topic did not lend itself to the type of investigative reporting the center does.”

At some point the American people will realize that the Iranian nuclear deal is a bad deal. By then it may be too late, but at some point the truth will come out. Meanwhile, this looks a lot like the Obama Administration working against the welfare of the American people. Unfortunately, the American people played right along.

Following The Money

Hot Air is reporting today that an Associated Press review of speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton showed that almost all of the companies that paid large fees had lobbied either the Obama Administration or the State Department.

The article reports:

Part of the premise of the AP’s research seems to be that people paying Clinton $200k plus per speech assumed her career in politics was not over when she left the State Department. As the AP puts it, “Their interests would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.”

Clinton has been under pressure to release transcripts of some of her speeches, especially by Bernie Sanders who has made it a regular part of his stump speech. Politico reported in February that Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street firms were nothing unusual but were very positive in a way that might not play well in a Democratic primary.

There is nothing wrong with being well paid for making speeches. However, buying influence is a different matter. I suspect Hillary Clinton is not the only Washington politician guilty of accepting large speaking fees from individuals or corporations attempting to influence policy. However, voters need to ask themselves whether they want to elect someone to the White House who has so obviously abused the system. The Clintons seem to have had the ability to leave the White House ‘broke’ and suddenly have a net worth that should make any Democrat blush. It really is time for them to ride quietly into the sunset.

An Example Of A False Flag Operation

Yesterday The Washington Times reported yesterday that the fire set at a Houston mosque on Christmas was set by a devout Muslim who attended the mosque.

The article reports:

A man who was charged with setting fire to a Houston mosque on Christmas Day is a devout Muslim who said he worshipped there for years, authorities said Wednesday.

Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, of Houston, was arrested early Wednesday morning, and appeared in court 7 a.m. that day for the Dec. 25 fire. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Special Agent Nicole Strong said they don’t know a motive but added there’s no evidence that it was a hate crime, The Associated Press reported.

…According to court records, Mr. Moore was identified from surveillance video quickly walking away from the mosque at about 2:39 p.m. and smoke could be seen coming from the mosque about three minutes later, AP reported.

…Despite Mr. Moore’s claim of being a member of the mosque, MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, which operates the mosque, said he’s never heard of him.

This was obviously not an example of hate crimes against Muslims by non-Muslims. Hate crimes against Muslims in America are not a major problem, as shown by the chart below taken from an NBC News post in June of this year:

Hate crimes by religion

Whether encouraged by his local mosque or some other group, this was an attempt to show people that hate crimes against Muslims are a problem. Hate crimes against anyone are a problem, but the majority of hate crimes in America are not directed at Muslims.

Debunking The Media Lies

Donald Trump is not a media darling. He is not even an establishment Republican darling. His support seems to come from people who are fed up with politics the way it is currently done and looking for change. He has a few major political players gunning for him–Republican and Democrat. Therefore it should not be surprising when his remarks are twisted to make it sound like he said something he did not. I need to mention here that I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. He is not at all my first choice for a Republican presidential candidate, although I would vote for him instead of Hillary Clinton.

The Associated Press is reporting today:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has voiced support for creating a mandatory database to track Muslims in the United States – the latest in an escalating series of responses following the deadly attacks in Paris.

This seems like an odd comment from someone who generally handles the press as well as Donald Trump does. Well, Rush Limbaugh posted the actual transcript of the remarks the media statement claims to be quoting.

This is the transcript (from Rush Limbaugh):

TRUMP:  There should be a lot of systems beyond database.  We should have a lot of systems.  And today you can do it.  But right now we have to have a border.  We have to have strength.  We have to have a wall.  And we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen.

REPORTER:  But is it something your White House would like to implement?

TRUMP:  Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely.

REPORTER:  What do you think the effect of that would be?  How would that work?

TRUMP:  It would stop people from coming in illegally.  We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally.

REPORTER:  Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database? 

TRUMP:  It would be just good management.  What you have to do is good management procedures.  And we can do that.

It seems to me that Donald Trump was talking about a wall to keep illegal immigrants out. I think the question he was answering was not the same as the question he was being asked.

At any rate, the story is questionable at best.

The commentary at Rush Limbaugh also mentions the following:

I think the reporter is Hunter Walker.  If that’s who it is, you need to know that this guy is a major backer of Hillary Clinton, as most in the Drive-By Media are.  He has written endless articles championing her, and now I think he writes for Yahoo News and is the Business Insider politics editor. 

We are in the silly season–the time when you really can’t believe most of what you hear from the mainstream media. Be on guard, there is an obvious attempt at manipulation here.

President Obama And The Democratic Party

Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about Tuesday’s election results. The article notes some of the results:

Matt Bevin was elected Governor of Kentucky.

Republicans maintained the majority in the Virginia Senate.

Ohio rejected a proposal to legalize marijuana.

The Sheriff of San Francisco, who supported the ‘sanctuary city’ was defeated.

Houston voters rejected an initiative claiming to be non-discriminatory that discriminated against Christians.

There are some happy conservatives around the country right now. However, the Associated Press (AP) did not see it that way.

The article at Power Line reports some of the comments from AP about the election:

State and local elections across the country this week produced warning signs for both Democrats and Republicans as they press toward next year’s presidential contest.

…Democrats lost ground in state legislatures and governor’s mansions, raising questions about the party’s strength when Barack Obama’s name isn’t on the ballot.

…And in Kentucky, Republican Matt Bevin’s win for the governorship could be a sign that many voters are serious about electing outsider candidates.

…That sounds good for the GOP, whose leading presidential candidates are Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

…But Democrats still have important demographic advantages in the states that often determine presidential elections.

…And Republican leaders are skeptical that outsiders’ rebellious appeal will be sufficiently deep and lasting to send such a candidate to the White House.

The article at Power Line mentions one inconvenient fact:

The AP fails to mention that the Obama administration has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. President Obama is widely seen as both incompetent and outside the mainstream of American politics. This has largely driven the flight of voters to the GOP, not only in the House and Senate, both now under Republican control, but also in state offices across the country.

The conclusion:

It is remarkable how far the press will go to cover for the Democrats, even after ballots have been cast. But does it do the Democrats much good? On the evidence of the last five years, the answer is no.

At some point, the American voters are quite capable of looking past the hype and seeing the impact of eight years of President Obama. The next President will have to reconstruct both our economy and our healthcare system. It is becoming obvious that the Democrats are not capable of doing that.

The Internal Struggles In Iran Have Impacted Another American

Fox News is reporting today that Siamak Namazi, 40-year old Iranian-American has been arrested by Iranian security forces as he was in Iran visiting his family. So why is Iran arresting Americans when they are still in the process of putting together a nuclear agreement with the western nations?

The article reports:

Namazi’s arrest suggests that hard-liners in Iran could be trying to create tension with the United States in the wake of Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers, the Associated Press reported Friday. That agreement reached earlier this year promises Iran relief from crippling economic sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Iranian hard-liners are opposed to moderate President Hassan Rouhani’s strategy of attempting to improve ties with the West. Internal domestic struggles over the direction of Iran appear to be intensifying ahead of February’s parliamentary elections.

The Washington-based National Iranian American Council said it was troubled by reports of Namazi’s arrest and denied suggestions that his family had a leadership role in the organization, through it acknowledged “Namazi has known members of NIAC’s staff.”

“NIAC is very concerned by the continued detention of multiple Iranian Americans by the Iranian government, and is deeply troubled by the reports that Mr. Namazi may also have been detained,” it said.

The arrest of an unnamed Iranian American businessman was first reported by IranWire, an online publication, on Oct. 15.

I really don’t understand any of President Obama’s foreign policy agenda. We need a President who will stand up and increase sanctions until Americans are released. We also need a President who will not negotiate until American prisoners held in Iran are released. It is becoming obvious that having a weak President endangers Americans all over the world.

 

Teaching Our Children Really Bad Political Practices

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about political correctness run amok. The story was about an election at a San Francisco middle school.

The article reports:

A student government election at a San Francisco middle school had its results ignored after a principal decided the candidates elected were too white.

Elections were held at Everett Middle School Oct. 10, but on Oct. 14 principal Lena Van Haren sent an email to parents saying the results were being ignored, without being made public, because those elected did not reflect how diverse the school is. While Everett is more than 80 percent non-white, Van Haren said the election results “weren’t representative” of that.

“That is concerning to me because as principal I want to make sure the voices are all heard, from all backgrounds,” Van Haren told local KTVU News.

The students voted. No one twisted their arms. There was no illegal registration or restriction of the vote. The students chose who would represent them.

Stop and think for a minute. Teenagers know who has it together and who doesn’t. They probably picked the most popular, the best looking, and someone they thought was the smartest. Isn’t that true equality–you pick the person that meets the standards you set, regardless of race, color, religion, looks, height, sex, etc.?

The article further reports:

“The organizers are saying things like, ‘we want everyone’s voice to be heard,’ but in truth, the voters’ voices are not being heard,” seventh grader Sebastian Kaplan told KRON, another local news station. “The whole school voted for those people, so it is not like people rigged the game, but in a way, now it is kinda being rigged.”

Van Haren went on to say that she is considering a variety of fixes to the problem, including appointing several new positions in order to ensure more minorities are represented without kicking out those who actually won the election.

So the principal is simply diluting the voices of the children who were elected in order to reach her idea of ideal racial balance. What lesson does that teach the children?

Fact Checking The Democratic Debate

My Way reported the Associated Press fact check of the Democratic debate.

Some highlights:

Hillary Clinton saying that she did not support the Trans Pacific trade agreement.

THE FACTS: Clinton did not say anything about mere hope in her speeches around the world in support of the trade deal. She roundly endorsed the deal taking shape.

In a November 2012 speech in Australia, she declared the Trans-Pacific deal “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” a sentiment she echoed in many venues.

Clinton said in the debate that when she looked at the final agreement last week, “it didn’t meet my standards.”

The final agreement, however, dropped or changed some provisions that liberal activist groups — the wing of the party she is assiduously courting at this stage of the campaign — had strongly criticized.

Bernie Sanders complaining that almost all new wealth is going to the top 1%.

THE FACTS: Sanders appears to be relying on outdated data. In the first five years of the economic recovery, from 2009 through 2014, the richest 1 percent of Americans captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. While certainly a large gain, that is a lot less than “almost all.”

In just the first three years of the recovery, from 2009 through 2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that occurred because of impending tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that took effect in 2013.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw their incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years.

Tax policies influence the actions of businesses and the people that run them.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she has been transparent about her emails.

THE FACTS: Clinton has yet to explain how the server was set up and serviced, whether she informed the State Department about her decision to use the private system and, most important, how it was protected from hacking attempts.

Russia-based hackers tried at least five times to trick her into infecting her computer system with malware in 2011, The Associated Press learned, and her server was hit by attempted cyber intrusions in 2014 from China, South Korea and Germany.

Her server also was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. But her campaign has repeatedly declined to address these details.

The article mentions that the free college tuition programs espoused by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would shift the burden of the cost of a college education from the student to the taxpayer. It would do nothing to lower the cost of that education.

Please follow the link to the article to read the details on the other lies told by the Democratic frontrunners.

What Do You Do When The Money Runs Out?

One of my favorite bumper stickers ever says, “The lottery–a tax on people who are bad at math.” We all know that the odds of winning a major lottery prize are pretty much stacked against anyone who buys a ticket. However, the assumption generally is that if you win, you will be able to collect and enjoy your winnings. Unfortunately, lately that is not the case in Illinois.

Yesterday Time Magazine posted an article stating:

Big-time Illinois Lottery winners aren’t getting the largesse. They’re getting left out.

Without a state budget agreement two months into the new fiscal year, there’s no authority for the state comptroller to cut checks over $25,000. That means smaller winnings can be paid out, but not the larger lottery wins.

Can you imagine owning a state government more than $25,000 and telling them to wait? I can’t.

This Really Isn’t Much Of A Defense

The Daily Caller posted a story today reporting that Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who fired the bullet that killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1, has stated that he did not intend to kill Ms. Steinle. My question is simple, “Why was he firing a gun on the San Francisco Pier in the first place?”  As you know if you read this blog regularly, I fully support gun rights, but I don’t support people being stupid with guns. I support things like gun safety courses in high schools, and people being taught to respect guns and the damage they can do. Mr. Lopez-Sanchez belongs in jail for many reasons, one of which is firing a gun in a public place.

The article reports:

According to the Associated Press, Gonzalez (Matt Gonzalez, who is representing Mr. Lopez-Sanchez) said in court that Lopez-Sanchez “mishandled” the gun.

But a San Francisco police ballistics expert said that the gun was in good condition and would not have been prone to an accidental firing.

Pulling the trigger, however that trigger was pulled, was the only way for that gun to discharge,” the expert said. “This gun could not just be sitting on a table and all of a sudden, due to some malfunction, go off.”

Aside from the fact that this is a very serious matter in which a woman was killed, I put that excuse on about the same level as “the dog ate my homework.”

 

The Deal With Iran Just Keeps Getting Worse

The Associated Press is reporting today that Iran will be able to use its own experts to inspect a site suspected of developing nuclear arms. Evidently this is part of the secret agreement with the United Nations that parallels the Iran agreement with the United States, Germany, France, etc.

The article reports:

The investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the International Atomic Energy Agency is linked to a broader probe of allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear deal.

The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

Why in the world would any sane person sign on to this agreement? It’s like asking an alcoholic to inspect his house for alcohol.

The article further reports:

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency’s investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied – trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Evidence of that concession, as outlined in the document, is sure to increase pressure from U.S. congressional opponents as they review the July 14 Iran nuclear deal and vote on a resolution of disapproval in early September. If the resolution passed and President Barack Obama vetoed it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose.

If the Senate cannot override a Presidential veto of this agreement, every Senator who voted for the agreement needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible. This is an unbelievably bad deal.

The Problem With Having A Private Server

Information came out this week that Mrs. Clinton had classified information on her private server. Aside from the fact that having that information on her private server was illegal, there are also other problems. It is understood that Mrs. Clinton’s private server would not have had the security to protect it from overseas hackers.

On Thursday, The Washington Times posted an article saying that the U.S. intelligence community is working to minimize the impact of the classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s computer being leaked.

The article reports:

“It’s a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are. There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified,” Mr. Grassley wrote.

Mr. Grassley also sent a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry inquiring about the delay in sending the 30,000 emails to intelligence community inspectors general.

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, fended off the new questions about the email scandal and suspicious foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, distracting from her effort to wrangle support from union bosses at the AFL-CIO’s annual summer meeting.

The former secretary of state’s email woes deepened when a federal judge scolded the State Department for delays in releasing the documents, as the agency revealed that Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and top officials during her tenure at the agency — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan — also used private email accounts and all of their message have not been turned over to the State Department.

Mishandling classified information is a serious matter. The article reminds us that CIA Director David H. Petraeus was charged with a crime for not properly handling classified documents. It will be interesting to see if the same standard applies to Mrs. Clinton.

Let’s See How Serious Congress Is About Protecting Americans

On Wednesday Breitbart.com posted an article about an amendment Representative Kevin Yoder introduced to the 2016 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill has been passed in the House Appropriations Committee. Let’s see how far it goes after that.

The article reports:

The revision serves to withhold funding from cities with sanctuary policies and inhibit enforcement of immigration law.

Thousands of Americans fall victim to crimes by illegal aliens each year that could be prevented, such as the July 1 death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. Her murder may have been prevented had the “sanctuary city” not released a five-time deported, seven-time convicted felon back out onto American streets.

Steinle’s killer made a jailhouse confession in which he indicated that he chose San Francisco for its lax immigration enforcement.

…The House Appropriations Committee is also pushing to keep U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from releasing criminal illegal aliens from custody before they are deported, the Associated Press reported.

Some 1,400 criminal illegal aliens released under the Obama administration in the 2014 fiscal year committed additional crimes, Breitbart News reported Tuesday.