Comey's parsing between negligent and careless
resulting in a perceived double standard.
+++
You decide! (See 1 below.)
===
I may not always agree with Coulter but at least she is provocative and in this article I am somewhat on the same page. (See 2 below.)
More writing regarding the distinction between Hillary and Donald. Only by becoming President, would Hillary be able to retain her ability to see classified documents etc. (See 2a, 2b and 2c below.)
===
Meltdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
+++
From the 4 hour testimony it is evident Hillary placed her personal interests above that of the nation and then proceeded, after signing she would protect classified information, to do everything she could to sustain her self-privileged position. However, Comey was unable to find a modicum of intent so because she was careless and not negligent, he concluded, she could not be prosecuted because no self-respecting lawyer/prosecutor would do so.
Comey set the ball up for The Attorney General to concur and then Hillary and Obama were able to fly off to campaign in North Carolina where Obama said she was the most capable candidate based on her loyal service to our nation, her experience and competence. Seems like a rush to "acquittal."
That about sums it up and I have bridges for sale. But then, I am biased because I believe the nation has been pitifully served by Obama and his corrupt lackeys in various agencies. I have only results as evidence and without criminal intent nothing matters any more and the only way you get criminal intent now is for total admission prior to the act. Why? Because a series of acts that suggest/validate intent means NADA.
+++
An interesting take on The Electoral College Bias. (See 3 below.)
===
Not guilty but indicted for life. (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
The best reason to elect Hillary is trust her because she has been investigated for lying and found not guilty and now that The Right Wing Conspiracy has been proven to be a fraud.
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Fatah TV cartoon teaches children:
Jews do the work on earth for the satans
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
In honor of Ramadan, Fatah TV broadcast a cartoon series for young children that presents Jews as the representatives of several satans, fighting battles for these satans, and doing their work on earth. The educational message to Palestinian children is that the satans are scheming to fight and destroy Muhammad, and in order to succeed in this, they use the Jews to fight Muhammad.
 |  |
 |  |
Finally, viewers are taught that Muhammad was preparing for battle by digging trenches to protect himself from the Jews, even though he already had a treaty with them because, as one Muslim explains: "Since when do Jews keep their treaties?"
 |  |
 |  |
Presenting Jews as agents of the satans who do evil on earth is a part of the PA's religious ideology, although the PA claims to the international community that their conflict with Israel is only territorial. Mahmoud Abbas' advisor on Islam recently stressed that the Palestinian Authority ideology is to see the conflict with Israel as a conflict with Satan. Israel, Mahmoud Al-Habbash taught, is "Satan's project":
"We are not inventing anything new here. This is a conflict between two entities, good and evil, between two projects: Allah's project vs. Satan's project."
Official PA TV, Oct. 23, 2015]
It is significant that one of the most important PA religious leaders and cartoons for the youngest children are both teaching Palestinians to see Jews as the helpers of satans to spread evil in the world.PA TV for children is reinforcing this hate message. Palestinian Media Watch has documented that a poem teaching that "Zion, is Satan with a tail" has been recited by children six times in recent years on official PA TV, most recently on Nov. 6, 2015.
The following is the transcript of 3 segments form the Egyptian series The Raids of Prophet Muhammad, broadcast on Fatah-run Awdah TV, June 22, 25 and 27, 2016 Fatah TV. These cartoons were previously broadcast on Official PA TV, July 25, 29 and 30, 2013.
Muslim man: "Prophet [Muhammad] agreed [that the Jews] would leave with their possessions, but not their weapons, so they would not fight with the [weapons] again."
Muslim boy: "So we drove them out without fighting. What a great victory...Praise and thanks to Allah..."
Satan 1: "We (i.e., Jews and satans) suffered a defeat from one of the soldiers of Allah, who we have no power over."
Satan 2: "What sort of soldier was it, my lord? I didn't see any fighting in this raid."
Satan 1: "It was 'fear' (i.e., Allah's soldier) that defeated the Jews and caused them to leave their lands [in Medina] in shame and disgrace, and it's what prevented me from going down to make them fight... Yes, satan. Don't you see that my hands are shaking [from 'fear']? ..."
Muslim man: "The Jews left while playing flutes and drums. How strange!"
Muslim boy: "They did not want to show their frustration over the defeat, [and behaved] as if they had won. May Allah humiliate them."
[Official PA TV, July 25, 2013 and Fatah-run Awdah TV, June 22, 2016]
Satan: "I've built my plan on the burning hate and loathing of Muhammad and his supporters, that fills the hearts of the Jews..."
(Satan hovers above the Jews)
Jew 1: "We [Jews] have lost our prestige because of Muhammad..."
Leader of Jewish tribe: "We must return to Medina and harm Muhammad and his supporters... There are [Arab-Pagan] tribes that want to destroy Muhammad and the ones who want that the most are the Quraish and their allies... These tribes are not small and they have a major conflict with Muhammad. If they unite, it will be possible to destroy Muhammad."
Jew 1: "And then we'll return to Medina and go back to being prestigious leaders."
Jew 2: "A wise idea."
Leader of Jewish tribe: "So let us go to the tribes and prepare for the war with Muhammad."
[Official PA TV, July 29, 2013 and Fatah-run Awdah TV, June 25, 2016]
Muslim boy 1: "I saw Prophet [Muhammad] digging [the trench] with his hands along with the Muslims..."
Muslim boy 2: "Where were they digging?"
Muslim boy 1: "North of Medina"
Muslim boy 2: "Why?"
Muslim boy 1: "Because mountains, gardens and date trees surround Medina from all sides except for the exposed northern side where we are digging the trench and the southern side where the Qurayza (Jewish tribe) live."
Muslim boy 2: "Does the Prophet trust the Qurayza?"
Muslim boy 1: "They have a treaty with him [the Prophet]."
Muslim boy 2: "Since when do Jews keep their treaties? Have you forgotten the Qaynuqa and the Nadir?"
Muslim boy 1: "I haven't forgotten but I'm sure Allah will protect the Prophet."
[Official PA TV, July 30, 2013 and Fatah-run Awdah TV, June 27, 2016]
Among the Arab pagan population of Medina, there were three Jewish tribes. In the year 625 Muhammad exiled the Jewish Qaynuqa and Nadir tribes. Soon afterward, he captured the Qurayza tribe and had the 750 male captives decapitated and the wives and children sold as slaves. Islamic tradition justifies Muhammad's actions, teaching that the three Jewish tribes broke their treaties with Muhammad.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2)My VP Prediction: Trump’s First Mistake
Dear Fellow Conservative,
 |
My vice presidential prediction is: Trump is about to make his first mistake. I knew this would happen as soon as he hired campaign consultants, rather than relying on his gut. If these campaign consultants were any good, their first piece of advice to Trump would be, “Fire us immediately!”
Trump’s advisers are undoubtedly telling him he’s got the “outsider” image covered. He needs someone with experience in Washington — as if presidents don’t have staffs — an elected Republican official with solid standing in the GOP, preferably a sitting senator or governor, who will give the ticket gravitas and heft.
This is completely wrong. Trump isn’t a standard-issue GOP, trying to balance the ticket to get his party into power. He’s starting a new party! He’s just blown up the old GOP. Instead of a party for, by and of globalist plutocrats, the new Trumpian party is a party of Americans for America.
How is Trump going to find a decent running mate from among the Republicans who have gotten ahead under the old model of sucking up to donors and lobbyists?
Almost any sitting Republican senator or governor would be total counter-programming to Trump’s message. One searches the country in vain to find a half-dozen elected Republicans who have not supported amnesty, job-killing trade deals, Wall Street bailouts — or all of the above. Trump’s message is: I’m leaving the deadwood behind.
We always secretly suspected Republicans were selling out the country for their own interests, but now Trump has flushed them all out. At least the GOP isn’t being subtle. Their position is: No, we will never allow anyone to be president who wants to do something about the border.;
Click Here to Read Full Article »
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
2a) A Stark Choice
By Yuri N. Maltsev
Today we have two presumptively candidates and it is obvious to anyone with the ability to think clearly that Trump’s opportunity cost is Hillary. It is not Gary Johnson or any other candidate.
Whether you dislike his style, his arrogance, or whatever else you cannot stomach about him, it is time to realize that the choice is as stark as the choice between the Whites and the Reds in Russia in 1917. As bad as you think that the last Russian Czar Nicholas II, Chiang Kai-shek of China, or Fulgencio Batista of Cuba were, they were all “humanists” in comparison to the socialist bloodbaths that succeeded them.
The nightmarish nature of socialism was well exposed by Ludwig von Mises:
Today we have two presumptively candidates and it is obvious to anyone with the ability to think clearly that Trump’s opportunity cost is Hillary. It is not Gary Johnson or any other candidate.
Whether you dislike his style, his arrogance, or whatever else you cannot stomach about him, it is time to realize that the choice is as stark as the choice between the Whites and the Reds in Russia in 1917. As bad as you think that the last Russian Czar Nicholas II, Chiang Kai-shek of China, or Fulgencio Batista of Cuba were, they were all “humanists” in comparison to the socialist bloodbaths that succeeded them.
The nightmarish nature of socialism was well exposed by Ludwig von Mises:
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.”
Obama’s tenure in the White House proves every word of this analysis. “The disintegration of society” is unprecedented, with the government undermining the basis of the market economy and limiting our human rights, which include property rights which are already in the crosshairs of our socialist masters. To solidify their grip on society our central planners manufacture all kinds of imaginary crises from climate change to white privilege and Christian bigotry. They are succeeding in pitting Americans against each other on the basis of class, gender, skin pigmentation, religion, sexual preferences and many other false “identifiers”.
For any student of history, it should be obvious that today we have an anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist, and anti-capitalist Hillary Clinton facing a businessman who has created value all his life. It is amazing for me to hear from some well-known economists, who claim to belong to the Austrian school of economics, that Trump has never created any value and is just a speculator! A speculator does not create value? I hope that they do not teach this Leninist garbage in their economics classes. How about Trump Tower and other real estate developments? Even Marx would approve these investments as highly productive.
It is also alarming that many of our fellow libertarians are displaying almost animalistic hatred towards Trump and are eagerly repeating whatever they hear about him on NPR or PBS. The anti-capitalist mentality honed by our educational system has become so pervasive that many conservatives and libertarians are almost exploding with the class hatred and social envy they have picked up from the social and print media.
In the referendum over whether to “leave” or “remain” in the European Union, British voters have chosen to leave. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave. The British defied not only the leaders of the British ruling duopoly, Cameron, and Corbyn but also Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Hillary Clinton also recommended that Britain should remain in. Trump predicted that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.”
The Brexit results also showed that the trend of opinion polls was wrong as these showed “Remain” in the lead. As many times before, public opinion polls proved to be a propaganda device—not telling us what people think but rather what we should think. According to the Independent, “When Basildon [a working-class suburb of London] yielded 69 per cent for Leave, it was even louder. So loud, who could barely hear the TV, relaying the chants from the crowds of ‘F***k off Brussels.’ The United Kingdom Independence Party’s Nigel Farage almost echoed Trump: “We will get our country back, we will get our independence back and we will get our borders back.”
Trump is far from being an angel. He says what he thinks and the whole two-party duopoly is against him. House Speaker Ryan, called Trump’s charge that the judge is biased toward him because of his Mexican origin “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Where was Ryan when Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told us that: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”? I do disagree with both Trump and Sotomayor but I do not see anything “racist” in their comments.
It sounds like Paul Ryan’s “textbook” is similar to the ones that we were brainwashed with in the government schools of the USSR. Trump’s suggestion for a moratorium on Muslim immigration (until the government can vet immigrants well enough to sort out the terrorists) was immediately blasted by both parties as “racist” -- as if Islam were a race rather than a religion. Natsu Taylor Saito, a professor of law at Georgia State University told HuffPost that Trump’s proposal mirrored the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. “I don’t think this is significantly different,” Saito said. “It is targeting people on the basis of religion rather than national origin. But we all know that this particular targeting of Muslims is highly racialized and tied to national origins. So I think it’s very similar.”
No “we all” do not know these progressive dogmas and have difficulties in understanding comrade Saito’s Newspeak jargon of this proposed measure being “highly racialized.”
Another vital issue is our judicial system. Hillary will appoint Obama or Sanders or someone even worse to the Supreme Court and make it another “engine for change”. It was just one vote that preserved the Second Amendment in 1996. Scalia departed and Thomas is planning to retire; guess how she will pack the court. Roberts is not a friend of liberty—just a second coming of Souter.
For libertarians, it should be a pretty easy choice—Trump is for the gold standard, for low taxes, for a non-interventionist foreign policy; he is also against what he calls “the manufactured climate change hoax” and government broadcasting. He has promised to repeal Obamacare, keep the Second Amendment intact, and appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court—his list of eleven candidates is pretty impressive.
Trump’s anti-free trade stand is similar to Hillary’s, but unlike her, he is not a hostage of the unions. Trump’s campaign package comes in a somewhat unattractive wrapping for many people, but the content is way more important than form. It is a stark choice between freedom and socialist slavery.
For any student of history, it should be obvious that today we have an anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist, and anti-capitalist Hillary Clinton facing a businessman who has created value all his life. It is amazing for me to hear from some well-known economists, who claim to belong to the Austrian school of economics, that Trump has never created any value and is just a speculator! A speculator does not create value? I hope that they do not teach this Leninist garbage in their economics classes. How about Trump Tower and other real estate developments? Even Marx would approve these investments as highly productive.
It is also alarming that many of our fellow libertarians are displaying almost animalistic hatred towards Trump and are eagerly repeating whatever they hear about him on NPR or PBS. The anti-capitalist mentality honed by our educational system has become so pervasive that many conservatives and libertarians are almost exploding with the class hatred and social envy they have picked up from the social and print media.
In the referendum over whether to “leave” or “remain” in the European Union, British voters have chosen to leave. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave. The British defied not only the leaders of the British ruling duopoly, Cameron, and Corbyn but also Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Hillary Clinton also recommended that Britain should remain in. Trump predicted that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.”
The Brexit results also showed that the trend of opinion polls was wrong as these showed “Remain” in the lead. As many times before, public opinion polls proved to be a propaganda device—not telling us what people think but rather what we should think. According to the Independent, “When Basildon [a working-class suburb of London] yielded 69 per cent for Leave, it was even louder. So loud, who could barely hear the TV, relaying the chants from the crowds of ‘F***k off Brussels.’ The United Kingdom Independence Party’s Nigel Farage almost echoed Trump: “We will get our country back, we will get our independence back and we will get our borders back.”
Trump is far from being an angel. He says what he thinks and the whole two-party duopoly is against him. House Speaker Ryan, called Trump’s charge that the judge is biased toward him because of his Mexican origin “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Where was Ryan when Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told us that: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”? I do disagree with both Trump and Sotomayor but I do not see anything “racist” in their comments.
It sounds like Paul Ryan’s “textbook” is similar to the ones that we were brainwashed with in the government schools of the USSR. Trump’s suggestion for a moratorium on Muslim immigration (until the government can vet immigrants well enough to sort out the terrorists) was immediately blasted by both parties as “racist” -- as if Islam were a race rather than a religion. Natsu Taylor Saito, a professor of law at Georgia State University told HuffPost that Trump’s proposal mirrored the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. “I don’t think this is significantly different,” Saito said. “It is targeting people on the basis of religion rather than national origin. But we all know that this particular targeting of Muslims is highly racialized and tied to national origins. So I think it’s very similar.”
No “we all” do not know these progressive dogmas and have difficulties in understanding comrade Saito’s Newspeak jargon of this proposed measure being “highly racialized.”
Another vital issue is our judicial system. Hillary will appoint Obama or Sanders or someone even worse to the Supreme Court and make it another “engine for change”. It was just one vote that preserved the Second Amendment in 1996. Scalia departed and Thomas is planning to retire; guess how she will pack the court. Roberts is not a friend of liberty—just a second coming of Souter.
For libertarians, it should be a pretty easy choice—Trump is for the gold standard, for low taxes, for a non-interventionist foreign policy; he is also against what he calls “the manufactured climate change hoax” and government broadcasting. He has promised to repeal Obamacare, keep the Second Amendment intact, and appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court—his list of eleven candidates is pretty impressive.
Trump’s anti-free trade stand is similar to Hillary’s, but unlike her, he is not a hostage of the unions. Trump’s campaign package comes in a somewhat unattractive wrapping for many people, but the content is way more important than form. It is a stark choice between freedom and socialist slavery.
2b) If Hillary Had Been a Soldier in the Army, Here’s How She’d Be Treated
By David FrenchThe double standards are painful. I served ten years as an Army lawyer, and one of my responsibilities was advising the command on matters of military justice, including incidents where soldiers mishandled classified information. And if Hillary Clinton were a soldier, she would lose her security clearance, face administrative action, and face the specter of criminal prosecution. I’ve not only seen the pattern, I’ve also participated in the process. Here’s how it would work.
Imagine for a moment that an officer downrange (in the bush) in Afghanistan comes across timely drone footage of suspected insurgents — information that would be clearly Secret (if not Top Secret) at the moment of inception. Unfortunately, however, she doesn’t have immediate access to SIPRNet (The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network -for Secret) or JWICS (Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System-for Top Secret), so she grabs her iPhone — which is on the base’s civilian WiFi system — and bangs out a text message to a superior officer. She doesn’t describe exactly what she’s seeing, but from context, the message is plain. Shoot or don’t shoot? She needs a decision.Honestly, it’s hard to imagine such a moment. It’s so counter to military training and the military ethos that actions like this are few and far between. But Hillary is nothing if not special, and it’s clear from FBI Director Comey’s press conference yesterday that she sent and received e-mails concerning “matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level” on her homebrew system, a system less secure than Gmail.If Hillary were Captain Clinton instead of the presumptive Democratic nominee and wife of a disbarred former president, the following things would occur, more or less simultaneously.
First, the command would immediately suspend her security clearance. As a practical matter, this would mean that she would be unable to do her job. Absent extraordinary circumstances, she would become essentially useless to the command, a glorified manual laborer fit to fill sandbags or clean latrines but little else. Unless the officer is cleared, the loss of a security clearance means the loss of her career.
Next, her commander would probably draft an administrative reprimand. A general officer memorandum of reprimand (known as a GOMOR) is a career-killer if placed in an officer’s permanent file, and it can be drafted independently of parallel criminal proceedings. If a GOMOR goes in the permanent file, even if the officer somehow regains her security clearance, promotion is virtually impossible, and the officer would be wise to simply resign.
Finally, the command would consider criminal charges. Under the facts above, the officer would in all likelihood not only violate the Espionage Act (the same statute at issue in Clinton’s case) but also the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What happened next — as a practical matter — would probably depend on the gravity of the harm. If there were any evidence that classified information had fallen into enemy hands, the soldier would probably face court-martial and imprisonment. If the damage was contained, then the officer might face non-judicial punishment or (also likely) be asked to resign her commission and leave the military.
The end result of the entire process is almost always a negotiated end to the officer’s military career as well as a permanent ban on her access to classified information. In exchange for forgoing criminal prosecution, the officer would leave the military, consent to the permanent loss of her security clearance, and consent to never again seek access to classified information. And that’s a good outcome for the officer — a merciful outcome considering the gravity of the offense.
In other words, her actions would have ended her military career, and she would have been fortunate to resign in lieu of enduring a court-martial. In her post-military civilian life, she would have been unemployable in any serious government position, and if any president made the mistake of appointing her to, say, undersecretary for food safety in the Department of Agriculture, the appointment would be immediately shot down in committee.
To say that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be commander-in-chief is to give her too much credit. It implies that she might be fit for other positions of responsibility. She’s not fit to be POTUS, and she’s not fit to be a private. It’s time for her to slink back to her foundation, make her speeches, and retire to private life.
Instead, she’s still the odds-on favorite to stride into the Oval Office. Our nation is in the very worst of hands.
— David French is a staff writer at National Review, an attorney, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
2c) The moral universe of Hillary Clinton
By John Kass
"The arc of the moral universe is long," shouted the freshly unindicted Hillary Clinton at a Democratic rally in North Carolina, with PresidentBarack Obama at her side and the FBI behind her in her dust, "but it bends toward justice."She nodded in triumphant agreement with herself, her head moving up and down, chin stabbing the air, a righteous bobblehead Hillary reaching for the presidency of the United States.Clinton attributed the phrase to Obama, but he'd taken it from Martin Luther King Jr., who years before had taken it from the abolitionist Theodore Parker, who didn't live to see justice bend, dying before the Civil War.Morality is just a word to some, a word for politicians at rallies to rationalize the grabbing of power. And if there's one thing the Clintons are about, besides lies, it is power.So if this truly were a moral universe, those words would have turned to wasps in Hillary's mouth.But they didn't.It was a good day for Hillary. She had Obama singing her praises in a battleground state, even promising she'd transform politics for the good.And she wasn't charged with a federal crime.A few hours before, FBI Director James Comey blinked and said he wouldn't recommend criminal charges out of that email scandal of hers, the one where she used a private basement server for her email while she was secretary of state and dangled unsecure, top-secret information before foreign intelligence hackers.Yet Comey's critique of Clinton's actions was devastating, though offered in measured language. He said there wasn't enough evidence for a criminal charge, but that how she handled the nation's secrets was "extremely careless."And point by point, he rebutted claims made by her or her surrogates, so that in the end the portrait that emerged was of Hillary Clinton putting her nation at risk so that she could keep her email private and away from the eyes of her own government and the representatives of the people."To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," Comey said. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."Yet how can Clinton keep her security clearance now that she's found to have been reckless with national secrets? I don't know how that's possible, which makes running for president somewhat difficult.Obama has endorsed her and campaigned for her. And he hasn't demanded the head of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who met secretly with Bill Clinton in a private plane where they talked, Lynch said, "primarily" of grandchildren and golf.Any young federal prosecutor who'd meet privately with the spouse of someone under federal investigation would be fired. Any young foreign service officer who'd dare put government secrets on a private basement email server — where they could easily be hacked by Russian, Chinese or other intelligence services — would be dismissed, if not prosecuted.And they'd never be able to keep their security clearance.But Clinton will keep hers. If it is taken away from her, it would be an affirmation that she's not trustworthy enough. And politically, the Democrats wouldn't like that.And all that begs the second question: Are the Clintons above the law?Hillary's problem is that most Americans, I think, believe they are above the law.Republicans hate the Clintons for this, perhaps because Richard Nixon played the same amoral game and was caught and ruined, while the Clintons prosper and swim in treasure.And many Democrats appreciate the Clinton cunning in the service of their party.If there's one benefit to the Republicans out of all this is that Hillary Clinton remains the presumptive Democratic nominee. Hillary is about the only Democrat against whom Republican Donald Trump would have a chance.If she'd been charged, Democrats would have had to call on Vice President Joe Biden. But to clean him up, they'd be forced to offer awkward and embarrassing defenses of the stupid and ridiculous things Biden has said.Hillary has said plenty of stupid things herself about her email issue, lies mostly, and this was clear from the Comey statement.The Clinton way is to deny, deny, deny, until the lies are uncovered, and then to say that the new information is just old news.But the new information coming from Comey is devastating, at least to anyone with the capacity for shame.She didn't tell the truth early on about using only one email device for convenience. She used several, Comey said. She insisted no classified information was put on her server. Comey said that more than a hundred classified documents were out there, available to foreign hackers.My theory? Bill Clinton has a multibillion-dollar foundation that accepted contributions from questionable foreign sources and grew to gargantuan size when his wife was secretary of state.Note that Comey didn't say a word about the Clinton Foundation, which reportedly is still under investigation.In the universe of the Clintons, politicians can invoke morality after being caught in lies and not even blush. For Bill and Hillary it's all about bending justice.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)The real problems with the Electoral College are VERY different than you may think. They include the Democrat "blue wall," the Democrat's 10 electoral-vote advantage due to illegal immigration, the influx of a million Puerto Ricans into Florida, and migration that's converting one-time red states into closely divided battleground states.
Louie Hunter
Georgia Center-Right Coalition
3)The real problems with the Electoral College are VERY different than you may think. They include the Democrat "blue wall," the Democrat's 10 electoral-vote advantage due to illegal immigration, the influx of a million Puerto Ricans into Florida, and migration that's converting one-time red states into closely divided battleground states.
THE DEMOCRATIC “BLUE WALL”
In all six presidential elections since 1992, 19 states (with 242 electoral votes) voted for the Democrat Party every time, while only 13 states (possessing 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time. If this 19-state “blue wall” persists, the Democrats can win the White House by picking up a mere 28 electoral votes from various closely divided battleground states. But, if Republicans lose Florida’s 29 electoral votes, Republicans lose the White House. This is the tightrope that the Republican nominee must walk in order to win the Presidency under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system. As Paul Ryan said in 2014, “If there's a thing I learned from being involved in the 2012 election, it's that we can't have this Electoral College strategy with the margin of error of one state.” See "How the Electoral College Favors Democrats and Why Republicans Must Change It" by Matt Mayer of the Liberty Foundation. Also see “Democrats’ Stranglehold on the Electoral College” by Chris Cillizza.INFLUX OF A MILLION PUERTO RICANS INTO FLORIDA
In part because of Puerto economic problems, Florida’s Puerto Rican population has doubled to more than 1 million since 2000. Florida will soon surpass New York as the state with the largest Puerto Rican population. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and are immediately eligible to vote for President in Florida. See Arizona Republican article on How Florida's 1 million Puerto Ricans could influence the presidential race.THE DEMOCRAT’S 10-VOTE ADVANTAGE FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
The census determines how many electoral votes each state has. The Constitution specifies that all “persons” (including non-citizens) be counted in the census. Because of California’s disproportionately large number of illegal immigrants, California received 5 more electoral votes than its number of eligible voters warranted. It’s not that non-citizens are permitted to vote in California, but that the Democrats win 5 more electoral votes when they win California. Similarly, reliably Democratic New York and Washington state each gained one electoral vote, while reliably red Texas gained two. Meanwhile, red states like Oklahoma, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, and Montana (which have disproportionately few illegal immigrants) each ended up with one less electoral vote. The net effect is that there is a built-in 10-electoral-vote advantage to the Democrats as a result of the state-by-state winner-take-all method of electing the President. This is a real ball-and-chain on Republican presidential prospects. An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens. See “Electoral College Favors Democrats” by Minnesota State Rep. Pat L. Garofalo (R).MIGRATION FROM BLUE STATES IS TURNING RED STATES PURPLE
In every recent census, numerous reliably Democratic states have lost electoral votes. Curiously, this has not hurt Democrats. These population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided battleground states. For example, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina (all of which had been solidly Republican for decades) have all become closely divided “battleground” states in recent presidential elections. In fact, Obama won all five in 2008. New Mexico is the most extreme example of this process – it has moved all the way from being safely red to safely blue. Moreover, fast-growing Georgia, Arizona, and Texas appear to be beginning this process of changing. What’s worse — there do not appear to be any of the 19 states in the Democratic “blue wall” that are turning red in presidential races. See “The Growing Blue-State Diaspora.”THE SMALL STATES DO NOT BENEFIT FROM CURRENT SYSTEM
Although it is sometimes claimed that the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of electing the President enhances the influence of low-population states, the fact is that the 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are one-party states in presidential elections. Six of the 12 smallest states (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming) have almost always gone Republican in recent presidential elections, while the other six have always gone Democratic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont). The 12 smallest states have the same population (12 million) as the battleground state of Ohio. However, Ohio received 73 of the 253 general-election campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none. Even though these 12 smallest states have 40 electoral votes (more than twice Ohio’s 18), the small states were totally ignored. Under a nationwide popular vote for President, the 12 million people in the smallest states (or any other group of 12 million people) would receive the same amount of attention as the 12 million people in Ohio.THE BIG CITIES ARE NOT AS BIG, AND NOT AS BLUE, AS SOME THINK
The top 100 cities contain one-sixth of the U.S. population, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004. Meanwhile, one-sixth of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas — that is, rural America. Rural America voted 60% Republican. Two-thirds of the U.S. population lives in the suburbs, which divide almost equally. The big cities are no more important than rural America in the country as a whole.FRAUD IS A LARGER PROBLEM UNDER CURRENT SYSTEM THAN A NATIONWIDE VOTE
Executing electoral fraud without detection requires a situation in which a very small number of people can have a very large impact. There are huge incentives for fraud and mischief under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. Under the current system, a small number of people in a closely divided battleground state can affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes (and thereby determine the national outcome). If 59,393 votes had shifted from George W. Bush to John Kerry in Ohio in 2004, Kerry would have won Ohio and thus become President, despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of 3,012,171 votes (51 times more). It would be far easier for potential fraudsters to manufacture 59,393 votes in Ohio than to manufacture 3,012,171 votes nationwide. Moreover, it would be far more difficult to conceal fraud involving three million votes. Equalizing the vote of every actual voter in the country would eliminate the huge payoff for fraudulently switching a small number of votes.Louie Hunter
Georgia Center-Right Coalition
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Hillary Clinton: The OJ Simpson of National Security Violations
By John Nolte
Throughout the past year the idea that Hillary Clinton would be indicted by the F.B.I. never once crossed my mind. Over time, as more and more information was revealed detailing her gross negligence, carelessness, and other various legal and ethical violations, that she should be indicted became painfully obvious. I just knew she never would be. For me at least, there was no suspense in this national drama. In fact, I hardly gave it a thought.
Unlike so many, I was not enthralled by that trial. But the news media sure was, and so, like Hillary's home-brewed server, it was impossible to not be aware of every twist and turn in the Trial of the Century. And as more information became available, especially the irrefutable DNA evidence, it was glaringly obvious that the Juice was in reality a narcissistic monster who had butchered two innocent people.
Nonetheless, that Simpson would get off scot-free was never in doubt. The media and political climate around and within the trial ensured a Social Justice outcome as opposed to a Rule of Law outcome. Anyone paying even marginal attention to the trial could see this. In the wake of the 1992 Rodney King beating and the riots that followed, the O.J. verdict was twisted into a referendum on everything but the evidence-- everything but truth and facts and right and wrong.
But at the time of his acquittal, even though some of America's Smart People tried to argue otherwise, everyone knew O.J. Simpson was guilty; so guilty in fact that no one takes seriously anyone today who argues otherwise.
And now Hillary Clinton is the O.J. Simpson of national security violations.
And always will be.
Although it was announced Tuesday that she escaped an F.B.I. indictment, everyone knows Hillary is guilty of putting her personal paranoia above her country's security, guilty of putting her secrecy above the lives and safety of agents in the field, guilty of the kind of crimes only Democrats protected by Social Justice Warriors can get away with.
Oddly enough it was the corrupt man who handed Hillary her Get Out of Jail Free card, F.B.I. Director James Comey, who proved her guilt just before handing her that card.
What's so fascinating about all of this is that the one and only time I started to believe Hillary might be brought to justice was during Comey's statement late Tuesday morning. For about 20 minutes, as
he laid out the case against her, a case as open and shut as that 20 year-old DNA evidence, he made it sound as though he had no choice but to indict. But in the end, Comey was just trolling and things were returned to their natural state when he announced she was free to become president of the United States.
Like the Simpson trial, when it comes to Hillary (or any Democrat who is the only person between a Republican and power), Social Justice had to trump justice-justice. The current media and political climate demanded only one outcome for Hillary. There is simply no way in hell the presumptive-Democrat nominee for president will ever be indicted for anything.
Moreover, as soon as the mainstream media finds a shiny, ToddAkiney object to attack Donald Trump with, and this will happen within hours (if it hasn't already), the media will also protect her from paying any kind of political price. And any Republican who tries to make her pay that price will be attacked by the MSM for a public crime only Republicans are ever charged with: overreach.
Hey, relax, it's just the usual-usual -- the way of a corrupt and lawless government and media that grows more corrupt and lawless by the day.
But all this aside, we all know -- even those who will try and deny it (the media, Democrats) -- that a rigged system cannot reverse an incontrovertible truth: Hillary Clinton is as guilty as O.J. Simpson and that stain will dog Hillary through the 2016 campaign, and should she win the presidency, for however long she sits in the Oval Office.
4a)
Trump, Not Comey is Hillary’s Asset
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment