Humor:
Jimmy Kimmels' gift to Donald Trump:
====When one supports a candidate under attack for, and accused of, doing something allegedly wrong and possibly illegal they, somehow, find it of no significance. They make light of it. This is denial behaviour and seems the tack I constantly hear from those who are enthralled with Hillarious.
When someone they dislike, or do not support, commits the same or similar such act they become accusative and believe their response blameworthy. This too seems to be defensive behaviour because the idea of goose and gander goes out the window.
I am guilty of this as are others. Being objective is often not easy and our tendency to defend our position, even when wrong, seems to dictate our response.
I truly believe Hillarious has a long history of an established pattern of lying and acting in a manner that skirts the law if not actually breaks it but those who defend her do not see her behaviour in the same light. When it comes to GW and Cheney going to war in Iraq over false intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction, they attack them claiming they concocted the lie in order to get back at a man who wanted to assassinate GW's father, knew they were lying in order to respond to the 9/11 and/or call them too dumb to know they were lying etc.
They defend Hillarious by denying her actually lying and then resort to accusing GW/Cheney for allegedly lying.
I am simply pointing out that double standards, in my humble opinion, weaken ones veracity and when I find it used to defend a position I know further discussion will not change that person's view and it is best to just move on because the situation and further discussion are hopeless. Logic often ends on the cutting floor as well as truth.
In terms of the press and the media, I submit hypocrisy abounds when it comes to MSNBC, The New York Times and with far too many other media and print folks who I find no longer worthy and credible either because they are more interested in slanting.
Though I believe the Afghanistan and Iraq War may not have been a mistake I do believe many dumb things were executed once the wars began..
I also believe Obama's withdrawal, after GW had accomplished stability, was dumb and has proven to be a mistake. However, many of his supporters cannot accept accusation or view points because logic undercuts their argument. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is, perhaps, one of the most abusive. She is incapable of admitting anything wrong and I am sure there are those who believe Rush is cut from the same cloth.
I am not naive and know nothing will change. I simply state I am not taken in by the efforts of those those who resort to being two faced.
Furthermore, I will continue to maintain what I have been spouting for years - one of the most dangerous trends apt to destroy our freedom is PC'ism. Perhaps we are about to see a reversal of this pernicious trend as more speak out about its stifling influence. PC'ism is not dead, however, and until a stake has been driven through this monster's heart no one who believes in free speech should rest easy. (See 1 below.)
====
If anyone thinks Obama will fade away after leaving the presidency, think again. He will remain a thorn in the side of America until his last breath and heading the U.N remains his goal. (See 2 below.)
===
Will The House do what it should to block the Iran Deal? (See 3 below.)
====
Dick
========================================================================
1) Whoa: Hillary e-mail instructs aide to transmit classified data without markings
by Ed Morrissey
Has the State Department released a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal? In a thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.
That should be game, set, and match, yes?
If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary’s claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.
Fox News also noticed the e-mail this morning, although they don’t yet have a copy of it linked:
However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.
In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was “surprised” that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.
It’s probably time to review the relevant criminal statutes again in this case, such as 18 USC 793:
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Did those talking points get illegally transmitted on Hillary’s order? If so, then Sullivan may find himself in legal trouble, too. Paragraph (g) makes it clear that “each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.”
This explains why more than a thousand pieces of classified information have found their way into Hillary’s unauthorized and unsecured e-mail system — and why the markings have been stripped from them. Hillary herself apparently ordered the Code Red, so to speak.
Update: Speaking of Code Red, thanks to the Drudge Report for the red-text link, and welcome to Drudge readers!
Update: I’ve been asked for a specific link to the file, but the State Department FOIA portal doesn’t easily provide one. That’s why media outlets have just downloaded the PDFs themselves and provided them for readers. I’ve done that here now, but if you want to check the provenance of the document, go to State’s FOIA portal and search for documents dated 6-16-2011. There is no subject or recipient listed, but the file name is C05787519.pdf.
Update: The Hill actually did figure out how to get the link, so here it is (or feel free to use ours). The Hill’s Brandon Richardson cautions that “It is not clear what the contents of the email were, whether information sent was classified or secure or whether the order was carried out.” However, there is little reason to send unclassified or sensitive material through a secure fax, and no reason to strip out the headers of unclassified material in order to work around secure-transmission channels.
Guy Benson has more on the latest e-mails; be sure to read it all.
Update: There are a few people wondering whether the “TPs” (talking points”) in question in this thread were classified in the first place. There are a couple points to remember in that context:
Unclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax; if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally.
Ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified. On top of that, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified — only sensitive to national security.
State did leave this document unclassified, but that’s because there isn’t any discussion of what the talking points cover. They redacted the subject headers with B5 and B6 exemptions, invoked to note that the FOIA demand doesn’t cover the material (in their opinion).
Ordering the headings stripped, and Sullivan’s apparent reluctance to work around the secure fax system, makes it all but certain that the material was classified at some level — and Hillary knew it.
========================================================================
2) Report: Netanyahu to lead effort in thwarting Obama bid for UN chief
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper 'Al-Jarida,' Israeli leader will rally moderate Arabs to sabotage Obama plan to succeed Ban Ki-moon.
Now, Netanyahu is reportedly planning some personal payback.
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida, Netanyahu will make common cause with moderate Arab governments in order to sabotage Obama’s plan to succeed Ban Ki-moon when the South Korean diplomat ends his term as United Nations secretary-general on December 31 of this year.
Al-Jarida quoted sources as saying that Obama has already discussed the issue of running for secretary-general with Democrats, Republicans, and Jewish officials in the US.
The sources said that once Netanyahu got wind of Obama’s plans, the prime minister began to make efforts to submarine what he has referred to as “the Obama project.”
“Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office enough?” Netanyahu is quoted in the Kuwaiti daily as telling associates. “Eight years during which he ignored Israel? And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardships in the international arena.”
The newspaper cited the widely acknowledged fact that personal ties between Netanyahu and Obama are frayed.
“Obama is the worst president Israel has had to deal with and the worst president for the Middle East and its allies, the moderate Arab states,” a Netanyahu aide is quoted as saying.
A source close to Netanyahu did not deny to Al-Jarida that the premier is aiming to “torpedo the Obama project,” noting that “his presidency was characterized by [Washington’s] moving closer to the Muslim Brotherhood, toppling the regime of Hosni Mubarak, and attempts to ally itself with political Islam.”
“Obama’s term is ending with him forging an alliance with Iran, coming to an agreement with it on its nuclear program which in the end will result in a similar scenario that took place with North Korea,” the aide said.
“Israel will not allow this to happen,” the source is quoted as saying. “It will take all of the necessary steps to prevent Iran from manufacturing a nuclear weapon either covertly or overtly.”
The prime minister’s associate told Al-Jarida that Netanyahu “sees an opportunity to establish good relations based on shared interests with moderate states from which Obama has moved away.”
=========================================================
3)The House Must Sue to Block the Illegal Iran-Nuke Pact:
The Perfect Storm Rages
By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Support is rapidly building for the House to muster the courage to block implementation of the flawed “deal” with Iran, for the only way to do so is to enjoin the administration from dropping the sanctions.
The rationale for litigation has been extensively fleshed-out in sixteen prior essays, the most recent of which elucidated why the optimal approach is for the House to build upon Rep. Peter Roskam’s [R, IL] resolution (passed four months ago) that determined lack of compliance with the Corker-Cardin Act.
After former-Speaker John Boehner [R, OH] recognized this vote had laid the foundation for litigation, Rep. Louie Gohmert [R, TX] introduced a follow-up resolution that provided a legislative vehicle for empowering the House to sue (having declared that Obama’s default rendered the Corker-Cardin review process moot and that this pact should be treated as a treaty).
Subsequently, via a letter-exchange, Rep. Mike Pompeo discovered on November 19th that the pact was felt to be a “political commitment,” an obscure designation that hasn’t been tested in the judiciary.
It seems the major hurdle to filing a lawsuit is tethered to perceived-politics – rather than to rapidly evolving realities – circumstances that resemble the cascade of alliances that triggered The Great War in 1914.
The multitude of Iranian violations of international accords have been catalogued, but even the most seasoned observers have failed to enunciate how to express dismay, disgruntlement, disgust [choose one] with what transpired during 2015.
Refreshing is the fact that “A bipartisan group of more than 100 U.S. lawmakers is urging President Obama to block further implementation of the Iran nuclear deal since the Iranians have already violated critical provisions on multiple occasions just months into the agreement.”
It also seems that there has been ferment among legislators that a consensus has yet to have emerged behind a concrete proposal as to how to follow-through on this request.
In fact, those who would presumably be motivated to have advocated for such action have remained mute, perhaps because of the desire to “keep their powder dry” lest a judicial loss undermine any future endeavor.
Others have wanted to delay acting until the ability to mount a bipartisan effort had emerged, removing such an initiative from presidential jockeying.
Meanwhile, the administration’s lame response to the exploding conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran has dramatized the degree to which Obama avoids any semblance of conflict with Tehran.
His desire to maintain the façade of this deal/capitulation and his intent to broker a Syrian settlement are so all-encompassing that he refuses to recognize how Riyadh is reacting to having been abandoned by a stalwart ally, dating back to agreements effected by President Roosevelt.
The Saudis are not innocent – noting support for Madrassas that espouse Wahhabism – but they don’t shout “Death to America!”
Some would say that he fantasizes that outsourcing Middle-East policy to the Russians allows him to escape responsibility to uphold traditional alliances.
Others would argue that the priority of defeating the Islamic State – belatedly recognized as a “varsity”-level force – is so all-consuming that it dwarfs all other considerations.
His foreign policy has become an unmitigated disaster, illustrated by how his former defenders have abandoned him during colloquies broadcast regularly on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
He must be blocked from creating more disasters during 2017 that could consume decades to reverse.
Exemplifying this challenge is how he touted the Iraqi withdrawal four years ago as a success, contrasted with how he touts victories in Iraq (belatedly retaking Ramadi) and Syria (“bringing peace”).
Ignored is the fact that these countries – plus the rest of the Middle East, the Lavant, the Maghreb, east and west Africa, throughout Asia – are in turmoil.
And totally ignored is how these Islamist forces are seeping into Israel, particularly Jerusalem, from Judea and Samaria.
Those who claim Iran already has the bomb – and, thus, feel the Pact is irrelevant – conveniently elide over the fact that Obama wants to enrich the #1 global funder of terrorism by $150B.
Further monitoring has been advised by some liberal apologists – notably at such entities as the American Jewish Committee – even as the failure of adopting such an ostrich-like posture is glaring.
There is no alternative: To save Western Civilization, the House must stop Obama from implementing the Iranian-Nuke Pact…ASAP!
Therefore, a model filing was formulated in November, based on this cascade of causes-of-action:
- It has not been signed by anyone—including an Iranian—so it is unenforceable.
- It is a treaty rather than an executive(-legislative) agreement or a political commitment.
- It undermines American support for Israel’s right to exist and survival, ignoring the unambiguous “sense” of Congress, as articulated in Corker-Cardin.
- It was improperly implemented through passage of the Corker-Cardin Bill due to fundamental misrepresentations and withheld data.
- It violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Neither the pact nor Corker-Cardin contains a “severability” clause and, thus, if any component of either document is flawed, the entire pact cannot be portrayed as having been approved.
Concern that such a filing could yield a protracted battle that would ultimately have to reach the Supreme Court is misguided, for an injunction would stop Obama from releasing the funds in the interim and most all of the above bullet-points feed into the narrative that this out-of-control POTUS must be restrained.
Because this deal is interwoven with Obama’s Islamophilic foreign policy, undermining his unholy alliance with Iran and Russia could finally unravel what has proven to be a series of failed “friendship” gambits (with sworn enemies) and of disheartening distancing-efforts (with loyal friends).
Congress can place Obama’s failed “following from behind” doctrine into receivership, before any more damage occurs throughout 2016.
Just as the House was granted standing to sue Obama for faulty implementation of ObamaCare, it must now stop him from granting Iran both the funding for international terrorism and a pathway to the Bomb.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a political-activist and has been a Republican Committee-Person for more than two decades; he has litigated against implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry due to flawed oversight, against the creation of health-insurer Highmark because it created a monopoly and monopsony, and against unconstitutional levels of public funding for two sports stadiums in Philadelphia.
No comments:
Post a Comment