The Pathological Dishonesty And Deceit Of Hillary Clinton And Democrats Revealed In NBC’s Commander-In-Chief Forum On Iran

It’s hard to watch a Democrat speak while drinking or eating.  At some point, stuff will shoot out your nose when you hear something that is so outrageously false it is frankly beyond your body’s capacity to function in a proper manner.

Last night, while watching Hilary Clinton answer questions in NBC’s “Commander-in-Chief Forum,” I heard this amazing answer from Hillary Clinton:

LAUER: I’m going to jump in. Thank you very much for your question. Let me ask you about the Iran nuclear deal. It was signed under Secretary Kerry; it was begun under you. You started those talks.

CLINTON: Right, I did.

LAUER: You have said you expect the Iranians to cheat, you think they’ll buy time, and perhaps stay along their course to building a nuclear weapon. If they cheat, Secretary Clinton, will you have any course of action other than a military course of action? Would you enter into negotiations with again (ph)? Would you go back to economic sanctions knowing they cheated and are then closer to a nuclear weapon?

CLINTON: Matt, look, let me put this in context, because this is one of the most important strategic questions we face. When I became secretary of state, the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon. That had happened the prior eight years. They mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, they built covert facilities, they stocked them with centrifuges, and they were moving forward.

What was our decision? Our decision was to try to put together an international coalition that included Russia and China to exert the kind of pressure through sanctions that the United States alone could not do.

So it was Bush’s fault that Iran was moving toward nuclear weapons, Hillary tells us.

There are only a five things wrong with her characterization: history; reality; facts; truth; even the remotest shred of human decency that Hillary Clinton proved she is pathologically incapable of manifesting.

Let me show you where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were in 2007 when they were doing everything they possibly could to handcuff George W. Bush from doing a single damn thing to do anything about a problem that they denied even existed when Bush said otherwise and now blame on the Bush who tried in vain to deal with the party of demonic possession otherwise known as the Democratic Party:

December 4, 2007 5:31 PM
Democratic candidates slam Bush over Iran in staid debate 
Democratic presidential candidates pilloried President Bush on Tuesday for saying that “nothing’s changed” in the wake of a new intelligence report concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Matt Stearns – McClatchy Newspapers

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic presidential candidates pilloried President Bush on Tuesday for saying that “nothing’s changed” in the wake of a new intelligence report concluding that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using carrots and sticks,” New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said during a two-hour debate in Des Moines.

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden warned that Bush’s position is “like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier.”

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said “it is absolutely clear that . . . President Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.”

All pledged aggressive, broad-based diplomacy with Iran and a break with what several of them termed the Bush administration’s “rush to war.”

Bush had argued earlier Tuesday at a White House news conference that the new intelligence report showed that Iran had formerly had a nuclear-weapons program, that pressure from the outside world had helped persuade Iran to abandon it and the lesson he drew was that Iran remains dangerous and pressure against it should continue.

At the Democrats’ debate, the other candidates continued their weeks-long criticism of Clinton for supporting a Bush-backed resolution in September that labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said “there’s only one candidate who voted for this legislation, and it’s exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted.”

Clinton responded that the resolution had caused “changes in their behavior,” because Iran is no longer as active as it was in shipping arms and advisers to factions in Iraq.

The debate on National Public Radio focused on three areas: Iran, China and immigration. It tended to emphasize the candidates’ agreements with one another on broad policy issues, and their unanimity in opposing Bush administration policies. […]

Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — participating in his first debate after being excluded from recent ones — provided the most spice of the afternoon, declaring that “Iran is not a problem, never has been, never will be” and that there was nothing wrong with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard supporting the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah because “these people are fighting for their rights. There’s something wrong with that?”

That was a summary of a debate that happened in 2007.  Let’s look at the question and see what Democrats said back then:

ROBERT SIEGEL [Moderator]: But the Democrats are here, and they are, from left to right on your radio dial, Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Mike Gravel, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Christopher Dodd, Senator Joseph Biden, former Senator John Edwards and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Governor Bill Richardson could not join us. He’s attending the funeral of a Korean War soldier whose remains the governor recently helped repatriate from North Korea.

So we’re going to get started with the debate, and let’s stipulate in advance what I know many feel obliged to say. We’re grateful that all of you are here, and we expect that you’re grateful to the Iowa State Historical Museum, the people of Iowa, public radio in Iowa and NPR News. And we appreciate that and hope we can move on to the topic of Iran.

The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing’s changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn’t do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.

For all of you — and let’s go left to right across the radio dial — do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat? And do you agree that the NIE’s news shows that isolation and sanctions work?

Senator Clinton.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.

I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do. He should seize this opportunity and engage in serious diplomacy, using both carrots and sticks. I think we do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson. But we’re not going to reach the kind of resolution that we should seek unless we put that into the context of a diplomatic process.

SIEGEL: Thank you, Senator Clinton.

Senator — former Senator Mike Gravel.

MR. MIKE GRAVEL: Iran’s not a problem, never has been, never will be.

What you’re seeing right here is something very unique, very courageous. What the intelligence community has done is drop-kicked the president of the United States. These are people of courage that have watched what the president is doing, onrush to war with Iran.

And so by releasing this information, which is diametrically opposed to the estimate that was given in ’05 by showing that there is no information to warrant what the White House has been doing, they have now boxed in the president in his ability to go to war. So, my hat is off to these courageous people within the bureaucrats — bureaucracy of the intelligence community.

Now let me replay two statements from last night and from 2007 and you tell me who nailed it and who was demon-possessed STUPID:

• Matt, look, let me put this in context, because this is one of the most important strategic questions we face. When I became secretary of state, the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon. That had happened the prior eight years. They mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, they built covert facilities, they stocked them with centrifuges, and they were moving forward. — Hillary Clinton, last freaking night on national television
• 2007 debate question: “The new National Intelligence Estimate contains a major change. It says that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Today President Bush said that nothing’s changed in light of the report. He said the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn’t do anything to change his opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world…. do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat?”
  Hillary Clinton’s answer: SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.”

To be a Democrat is to be a demon-possessed slandering liar and a demon-possessed coward; it means blaming your opponent for causing a problem that YOU created.

Hillary Clinton openly acknowledged in the Commander-in-Chief Forum last night that “the Iranians were on a fast track to acquiring the material necessary to get a nuclear weapon” and “that had happened the prior eight years” before she and Obama started screwing up planet earth far more than it already was.

We have it in FACT and in HISTORY and in TRUTH and in REALITY that George W. Bush was RIGHT and that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were filled with demons that spouted lies through the anal orifices under their noses.

And now this craven, cowardly, lying, dishonest, deceitful witch wants to blame George Bush for not doing anything about a problem he TRIED to deal with but that every single Democrat did everything in their rabid, treasonous little cockroach brains to prevent him from dealing with.

And now it’s suddenly “Bush’s fault” again.

Bush said, “Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons” and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and every single Democrat said “I vehemently disagree.”

And now this abject moral and intellectual disgrace wants to take her incompetent stupid to the White House which she has proven she will sell out to the highest foreign bidder.

This is a trend that happens over and over again.  In 2012, and exchange between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama demonstrated to anyone with current knowledge that to be a Democrat is to be an abject moral idiot radically incapable of comprehending the real world:

Let’s revisit the final 2012 presidential debate, the moment Romney explained himself and the president went for the lulz. Here’s Obama.

Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

And here’s Romney:

Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe… and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.

Romney was right.

Barack Obama is and always has been an arrogant fool who has the ability to persuade other utter fools to his morally idiotic views.  And to be a “journalist” today means to be a criminal co-conspirator with Democrats to murder truth the same way they have murdered sixty million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.

The smug self-assuredness that often suffices for expertise on cable news was perhaps never more smug than when former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney warned the American public that Russia was rapidly positioning itself as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Among the worst offenders were the hosts and guests who provide MSNBC with content on a daily basis.

In early 2012, President Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the presidential election in his dealings with Russia. Romney reacted strongly to that comment. Appearing on CNN, the GOP nominee said that the United States should regard Russia as a geopolitical adversary and should work to limit Russia’s flexibility rather than to secure it. His observation was soundly criticized by the president’s defenders who, at the time, were still attempting to rehabilitate Obama’s floundering “Reset” with Russia.

There were few who defended Romney’s comments. Even snake-bit Republicans, chastened by the swift backlash in the media, hedged when asked to back up Romney’s assessment of the challenges posed by Moscow. But MSNBC’s wagons circled particularly quickly in defense of the president. Volley after volley of snark was lobbed in the GOP nominee’s direction.

“I don’t know what decade this guy’s living in,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews said with a sigh on March 28, 2012. “Is he trying to play Ronald Reagan here, or what?”

“This is Mitt Romney’s severely conservative problem,” University of Georgia professor Cynthia Tucker opined on-the-air. “It made Romney look dumb. He’s not a dumb man, but he said something that was clearly dumb.”

Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein agreed that Romney’s statement was evidence of an “antiquated worldview.” He fretted further about how Romney, should he become president, would enter the office having severely complicated America’s bilateral relations with Moscow given his carelessly provocative statement.

Do you realize how completely WRONG you have to be about EVERYTHING to be a Democrat???

Donald Trump is taking heat – ostensibly for being against our heroic generals – for claiming that UNDER Obama and under Hillary Clinton, “our generals have become a pile of rubble.”  It doesn’t matter that Obama has proven that true over and over and over again by rejecting the generals’ advice EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY OFFERED IT.  You go back to January 2009 when Obama took office and utterly rejected the generals’ unanimous plea to remain in Iraq.  Obama gave up EVERYTHING we fought to win there and we now have an Iraq bloodbath with Iran dominating most of it and Islamic State being able to rise in the rest of it as a direct result.  Obama gave his infamous and stupid “red line” warning to Syria – an Obama threat that Syria has walked over dozens of times and just walked over two days ago and walked across at least twice in August – which MASSIVELY undermined U.S. credibility and directly led to the rise of Islamic State in the ensuing power vacuum Obama created.  It is an unwavering trend: every general gives Obama military advice and Obama listens to Lucifer instead.

General Jack Keane described what Obama has done to our “heroic” generals last night on Megyn Kelly’s program in answering the question about Trump’s “pile of rubble” remark:

KEANE: …We may have some politicized generals if that’s what he’s implying, but the reality is that every major force level decision, Megyn, that our generals have made, this president has rejected. In the early 2009, a campaign plan developed by Petraeus and General McChrystal to defeat the Taliban, they required a minimum force of 40,000.

President Obama rejected that recommendation and provided 25 percent less. He also decided he would pull the force out in 12 to 15 months. Those two decisions doomed Afghanistan to the current state we find it now, a protracted stalemated war and robbed us of the opportunity for victory. In 2011, General Alston, four-star commander in Iraq, recommended to the President, a force level of over 20,000. The President rejected it and pulled out all the forces with what is now known as a disastrous consequence in Syria.

In 2012, General Dempsey, General Petraeus directed the CIA, Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton recommended to the president robustly arm and train the Syrian moderates. He says no. In 2013, conduct a military strike, same national security team, against the Assad regime because he violated the chemical red line. He says no. In Afghanistan —

KELLY: I get your point. You could go on.  But your point is Trump is not wrong that, if you think about it, the generals have been reduced to rubble. In other words, they’ve been reduced to almost useless because whatever they tell this commander-in-chief, he disregards.

General Keane could go on, and he did:

KEANE: Yes, and then in 2014, what happened is as opposed to asking him what are we going to do about ISIS? He says, I want to destroy ISIS after they beheaded our Americans and invaded Iraq. He tells them what they’re not going to do. No boots on the ground. The minimum 300 advisors. Of course he’s changed that nine times. An air campaign with no civilian casualties and we’re not going to be able to provide an air/ground team to help make that campaign more effective. We have never, ever have those kinds of restrictions placed on us in my understanding of military history in this nation. That’s the truth of it. Those kinds of restrictions are unprecedented.

In other words, it’s the TRUTH that Obama has reduced our generals to a pile of useless rubble by rejecting their military expertise every single time they offered it, but it’s evil to tell the truth.  Because probably the quintessential essence of being a Democrat today is finding the truth to be evil.  It is absolutely immoral for Democrats who spent the last eight years rejecting every piece of military advice the generals gave to say that Donald Trump just insulted the generals who HAVE BEEN reduced to a pile of rubble by a pathetic fool commander-in-chief.

This nation is in great danger of pursuing the very same kind of abject moral idiocy that has led us down such a steep hill under Obama that will race with even greater speed to total disaster under Hillary Clinton.  By the time Barack Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed by one-thousand nine-hundred percent.  We will go from 3,000 terrorist murders a year globally to 60,000 terrorist murders a year under Obama’s failed watch, just as we watched Islamic State become a powerful terrorist caliphate because of Obama’s failed watch.  Just as we today have more refugees than we have ever had in he entire history of planet earth because of Obama’s failed policies.  Do you understand how horrifying that is???

Meanwhile, the Democrats – with all of their “professing themselves to be wise but becoming fools” (Romans 1:22) and their “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) arrogance – continue to claim that their way of folly is the only way and that we should disarm America’s military so we will be helpless against our foreign enemies (see also here) even as they work to take away our 2nd Amendment rights to protect ourselves and render us helpless domestically.  Abroad, we are only marginally capable of projecting military force and the dominant Russians Obama mocked are bullying him because they know he is a weak coward who will do NOTHING and humiliating our military at every imaginable turn.  The Chinese just humiliated Obama and treated him like the worthless chump that he has proven himself to be.  And what’s the coward little turd going to DO about it???  This fool will burn America to the ground to fight the slightest Republican manuever, but will sell this nation out to our very worst enemies and rub this nation’s nose in our own feces every chance he gets.

Democrats tell us that the Trump slogan “Make America great again” is somehow hateful and anti-American.  Because in their warped, wicked view, America is “great” when it is weak and disgraced and punked by every rogue dictator and totalitarian nation on earth.

Seriously, you want to see what a quivering piece of rabid hypocrite slime looks like?  It looks like Bill Clinton, who says “Make America Great Again” is clearly a racist slogan.  You know, in spite of the fact that he used the EXACT SAME SLOGAN REPEATEDLY when he was running for office himself.  Bill Clinton – who offended Ted Kennedy by telling him that the black Barack Obama “would be getting us coffee” ten years ago.  Because he’s a black man, and we all know the negro is at his best when he is serving his white massah.  Bill Clinton isn’t merely a racist by his very own standard; he is vile hypocrite.  But that’s exactly what you have to be to proudly say “I’m With Her!”

Meanwhile, at home, the Democrats have warred against our police departments and labeled them as racist death squads while amazingly simultaneously trying to disarm the people so the very police they demonize are our only protection.

Because Democrats are trying to set up a national internal police force apparatus – an NKVD or a Gestapo – that they will be able to “fundamentally transform” into a political weapon against conservatives much the way they have already weaponized our court system against conservatives.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the very worst kind of fool.

America will never be safe until every single Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive, I tell you.

 

 

Not A Criminal, Just An Incompetent Fool: I Demand To Know Why ANYBODY Thinks That Hillary Clinton Is Fit To Be President

Right now, FBI Director Comey is appearing before the House of Representatives in an emergency meeting designed to basically find out just WHAT THE HELL.

It’s just remarkable to me to listen to the Democrats pretend that there’s actually nothing to see here, folks, so please kindly shuffle out of the way and vote for Hillary in November.

FBI Director Comey himself in his Tuesday statement blew up a number of false Hillary Clinton statements made to the American people (and if that link vanishes here’s another one).  Without any legitimate question, it is now established as a FACT that Hillary Clinton not only lied but repeatedly lied to the American people about literally every single facet of her secret server system and the fallout it’s discovery by Republicans entailed.

“When you mishandled classified information, did you know at the time that what you were doing was unlawful?”  That’s the standard that FBI Director Comey is claiming he took regarding whether or not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.  When you were bludgeoning your neighbor to death, did you know it was wrong at the time you were doing the bludgeoning?  He is reading a specific intent into a gross negligence statute that is NOT in that statute.  Which is to say that he is without any question rewriting the law.  We further discover the strange fact that “Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton.”  It is unprecedented for an FBI Director that is not a prosecutor to take a public stand that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute this case.  Particularly given how many prosecutors including (according to Comey’s testimony today before Congress) many of his own personal friends fundamentally disagree with that position, claiming HELL YES they would prosecute.  You add to that the chain of “coincidences” that led up to this refusal to prosecute: President Obama on March 10 that what Hillary did was “careless.”  Lo and behold it would be that EXACT same word that Comey would conclude from his “investigation.”  You have to comprehend the impropriety of Obama putting his finger on the scale.  Also, prior to FBI Director revealing his conclusion of his “investigation,” we have Obama publicly endorsing the subject of a criminal investigation on June 9.  How would that NOT influence the career government investigators who work for Obama’s regime?   Then we get the revelation of a secret, not-disclosed until a local reporter got a tip and forced its disclosure, of a highly inappropriate meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  It is quite possible that the purpose of that meeting was for Bill to inform Loretta that she would stay on as Attorney General in an unindicted Hillary Clinton Administration.  As a result of the widespread distrust of that meeting, Lynch said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI.  But the FBI itself had been impugned by that secret meeting: because FBI agents were participating in attempting to cover up that highly inappropriate secret meeting by not allowing any pictures and ordering people nearby to put away their cell phones.  And so you’ve got Comey’s boss having put her thumb on the scale as well.  There was simply no question whatsoever that every single superior of Comey up the chain had made their preferences crystal clear regarding what his “findings” ought to be.

We also know that it is now a matter of settled fact that Hillary Clinton “mishandled information” – specifically top secret, classified information included special compartmented intelligence.  Without any question, for instance, Hillary Clinton gave secured information to individuals who did NOT have the proper security clearances, which is a crime.  These individuals include some of her staff and even personal friends outside the State Department but also include her numerous lawyers who did not have security clearances to follow Clinton’s instructions.  The Clinton campaign has publicly maintained that Hillary’s “attorneys had individually read every email to determine if it was a government document or personal correspondence.” The Clinton campaign has publicly maintained that “Every one of the more than 60,000 emails were read. Period.”  There is absolutely no question whatsoever that her attorneys who did NOT have security clearances were at least handed the content and allowed to read and search for whatever they wanted; she gave them access to what they should by law not have been allowed access to.  But Comey in his testimony before Congress today stubbornly maintains that Hillary’s “intent” was to get good legal representation rather than to violate the law.  Which has been his reasoning process in quibbling over every single indicting detail.  When the better way to phrase it would be “her intent was to violate the law to help her get good legal representation.”  May I offer an analogy of robbing a bank in order to obtain the money to pay for my attorney in a different criminal case?  Would you seriously argue with FBI Director Comey that my “intent was to get good legal representation” rather than to break the law???  She was breaking the law for her own personal needs and her own personal convenience.  That has been her pattern all along.  And to argue that “it wasn’t her intent to break the law,” but rather it was merely her intent to get whatever the hell she wanted is maddening.

Try this trick on the freeway, kids: tell the officer who pulls you over for going 140mph, “But officer, my intent wasn’t to break the law; my intent was merely to get to my destination faster.”  Because in the bizarre universe of Hillary Clinton, that would actually WORK.

I personally think that there were ALL KINDS of shenanigans to obtain a foreordained conclusion regarding whether Hillary would ever be indicted by an administration with Obama at its head, but let’s just set that aside for the sake of argument.

There’s nothing we can do about it.  We have a legal system filled with double-standards where the privileged get treatment that others outside of that elite class will never receive.  And this case is a blatant example of it.  So let’s accept that double-standard and accept the total lack of justice in America today and move on.

Reps. Jason Chaffitz and Trey Gowdy today set the basis for the crime of lying to Congress.  Because Hillary Clinton was under oath when she testified before Congress and if she told the truth to the FBI behind closed doors, there is little question now that she told lie after lie after LIE to Congress with the American people watching.  But that is for another day.

I further said in conclusion in my last article that the thing I would MOST like to see is the transcript of the FBI interview.  Given that Hillary made factual lies in virtually every single statement she made throughout this investigation – including laughably that she even WAS under criminal investigation – I would like very much to see her answers to FBI questions compared to her previous statements made to the American people and made under oath to the people’s representatives in Congress.

Comey is basically saying that Hillary did ALL KINDS of egregious things, but he couldn’t prove she knew beyond a reasonable doubt that she KNEW that she was doing egregious things.  He said that she was “extremely careless” in his statement on Tuesday and exposed THE most classified information within the United States government to hackers and hostile foreign governments.  For the record, today Comey stated again that Hillary was “extremely careless” and added the phrase “that she was negligent” in his testimony before Congress.  In his statement on Tuesday, Comey acknowledged that it was entirely possible that “hostile actors” and “sophisticated agencies” gained access to our most vital secrets.  Comey pointedly admitted that there was no question whatsoever that hostile actors HAD been proven to have gained access to the people whom Hillary was using her secret server to communicate with:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. — FBI Director Comey, July 5, 2016

Which takes it to the realm of DOCUMENTED FACT that classified material fell into the hands of hostile actors and/or sophisticated agencies as a result of Hillary’s secret server system.  And so anybody who wants to continue to maintain the façade that Hillary Clinton did not put our national security in jeopardy is simply a liar at this point.

In today’s testimony before Congress, FBI Director Comey referred to Hillary Clinton’s private server as “an unauthorized server.”  Hillary Clinton had lied to the American people claiming it “was allowed” but no, it is now a matter of settled fact that it was NOT allowed and it was unauthorized and Hillary lied when claiming that what was in fact NOT allowed and which was unauthorized was allowed and authorized.  Further, in answering the specific question, “What was protecting that unauthorized server?” Comey’s answer was “Not much.”  She didn’t have even the most rudimentary security.  Comey stated categorically that it would have been far better had she used a GMail account – which can be hacked for $129.  And Comey stated that Hillary didn’t even have anywhere near THAT security on her unauthorized secret server!!!  His precise words: “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Let’s get past Hillary Clinton’s oft-repeated lie to the American people and let’s get past Comey’s bizarre reasoning in sparing her from indictment and just ask some questions that every American ought to be asking.

You need to understand that Hillary Clinton was a lawyer herself.  She worked at a top law firm in Arkansas.  Her husband served as the Attorney General for that state.  She later spent eight years in the White House.  Then she spent eight years as a United States Senator, serving on subcommittees including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.  For the record, she also served between 2001 and 2009 as a commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.  All that before serving as the Secretary of State.

Democrats – including Obama and Hilary Clinton herself – proudly maintain that she is THE most experienced and THE most qualified candidate for president in the entire history of planet earth.

And the obvious question ought to be: then how in the hell did she NOT realize what she was doing, such that she did not have “intent,” as FBI Director Comey maintains in refusing to indict her???

But now get to the basic heart of her argument before the FBI when she answered their questions that clearly fixated on Hillary Clinton’s “intent.”  There is absolutely ZERO question that she broke laws, violated rules, ignored procedures, was “extremely careless,” and yes, “negligent.”  In today’s statement he told Congress that he believed Hillary lacked “sophistication” to know what she was doing was criminal.  Hillary Clinton isn’t merely grossly negligent; now and forever she will be the living, breathing poster  hag for gross negligence.  You will look up “gross negiligence” in a dictionary and see her name in the definition.  In his July 5 presentation, FBI Director Comey stated that “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”  So we have it as a factual statement of public record that Hillary Clinton is NOT a “reasonable person” and pointedly did NOT act as a “reasonable person” would act in her position.  So what did Hillary, a lawyer prepped by a battalion of lawyers, do?  They basically steadfastly maintained that Hillary Clinton did not understand what she was doing; could not comprehend the ramifications or effects of her actions; was not competent to form the “intent” that Comey was determined had to be found.

In other words, to put it bluntly, Hillary Clinton maintained that she was simply not competent to understand or comprehend what she was doing.  So no matter how many violations of law, she shouldn’t be charged.  “Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect,” essentially.  Hillary Clinton and her battalion of lawyers are claiming that her stupidity exonerates her.  And FBI Director Comey agrees.

If she had so much as had a clue that no, you shouldn’t install a secret, unauthorized, unclassified server in a bathroom closet somewhere in Denver; no you shouldn’t totally fail to have even the most rudimentary security for such a secret, unauthorized, unclassified server in that bathroom closet in Denver.  Yes, as a matter of fact, I DID know that I was sending and receiving not merely hundreds but actually thousands of classified emails, including emails at the very highest level of classification the government has.  If she had acknowledged ANY of that or similar admissions, she would have been nailed to the wall like a bug in an entymologist’s collection.  Which isn’t a bad analogy for what a prosecutor ought to be: a BUG hunter.

Hillary Clinton before the FBI says, “You can’t charge me; I had absolutely zero clue what I was doing was actually wrong.”

Hillary Clinton before the American people says something about 20 trillion percent different: “I am THE most experienced, most qualified, most competent technocrat who ever lived.”

Here’s the essence of my point, boiled down: the two above claims are mutually and inherently self-refuting.  They cannot possibly both be true in any universe.  At least one of them must be patently false.

If Hillary Clinton is in fact competent, then she is a criminal who happened to successfully game the system and a pathetically naïve FBI Director.  She is like the child who murders her entire family and then successfully sobs for the judge that he should have leniency and mercy on the grounds that she’s an orphan who has no one to turn to and no one to care for her.  She belongs in prison if she is in fact in any way, shape or form competent.  And it was nothing short of a fundamental miscarriage of justice that she was not prosecuted for her many crimes and her many lies as she tried to cover up her crimes in the court of public opinion.

If on the other hand Hillary is what she maintained to the FBI, then she has absolutely no business EVER being allowed anywhere NEAR the presidency of the United States of America.  She had the briefings and the training but she simply lacks the capacity to comprehend that training any better than an orangutan.  You can’t actually ever hold her accountable because she isn’t smart enough to be accountable.  And she’ll be THE most fascist president we’ve ever had because she has already demonstrated a pathological need for HER secrecy even as she cavalierly dismisses the need for the NATION’S secrecy.  I wouldn’t even wish her ilk on a nasty, third world banana republic, let alone the most important nation in the world.

And one of the two paragraphs above – and quite possibly BOTH of them – is true.

That’s what we need to point out and keep pointing out.  Get past the Comey crapball.  Get past the Loretta lynching of the justice process.  Fixate on the fact that what she did makes her absolutely unqualified on THE most fundamental level of national security to even be allowed to ever work in government again, let alone be president.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandal Makes Her Unfit To Even Be CONSIDERED For President

Update, 9:35 pm Pacific Standard Time: So the FBI is reporting the following:

(Bloomberg) — The FBI has recovered personal and work- related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

Further down the article I read:

Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work- related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said.

Well, here’s the thing about that: this yet again proves that Hillary Clinton was LYING.  She claimed she turned over ALL of her work-related emails.  She claimed that the ONLY emails she deleted were PERSONAL.  But here we are finding work-related emails that she didn’t turn over and went to the lengths of deleting.  She lied because she’s a liar and that’s what she does.

The Fox News version of this article – because Fox News is the only news program that is still worth watching any more – points that fact out:

Ed Henry reported on “The Kelly File” that if the FBI has indeed recovered work-related emails, it would be a “game-changer.”

He explained that Clinton has long claimed that she only deleted 30,000 personal emails from the server, so if the FBI recovers work-related emails, that would suggest that Clinton was not telling the truth.

Frankly, anybody who believes that Hillary Clinton is even CAPABLE of telling the truth is an idiot. [End update].

The bottom line comes down to this, Democrat voter: aside from the FACT that Hillary Clinton treated the national security of the United States like toilet paper by REPEATEDLY sending and receiving classified emails on an open system that most security experts say HAD to have been penetrated by foreign governments, my question is simply whether or not you would be all right with every single Republican politician and appointee having his or her own private server that he or she could wipe without anyone knowing what had been on it the way Hillary Clinton tried to do.

If your answer is, “I absolutely wouldn’t mind the people I most viscerally disagree with having the ability to wipe the records of their criminality,” then you’ve got terrible judgment, but at least you aren’t an abject moral hypocrite the way the rest of the 99.999999% of your party is.

But ever since this story first came out, it has been an amazing act of pure political chutzpah.

Hillary Clinton intentionally and deliberately from the very outset of her tenure as Secretary of State made herself completely unaccountable to transparency laws like Freedom of Information Act requests:

What can Hillary Clinton have been thinking? On January 13, 2009, she — or, more likely, someone on her staff — registered a new domain: clintonemail.com. And for her entire term as secretary of state, she would use private e-mail instead of government accounts for all her electronic correspondence. She never even got a government e-mail address, which must have taken some doing, because in most organizations, those e-mail accounts are created before the new employee even arrives.

As Politico points out, keeping Clinton’s e-mails off government servers means that they were invisible to Freedom of Information Act requests about her communications with anyone outside the State Department. Her staff has turned over e-mails from the private account, but this is not the sort of job that should be performed by someone personally employed by Hillary Clinton. Decisions about what to turn over and what to keep private should be made by career government lawyers whose job comes from the agency, not Hillary Clinton.

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was an attempt to avoid transparency and accountability for whatever it is she wrote. Such manipulations should severely hurt her presidential aspirations. Odds are, however, that Democrats will rally around her, because what choice do they have?

A spokesman for Clinton says that her actions comply with the “letter and spirit of the rules.” To put it kindly, this seems to be complete nonsense. Federal officials are not supposed to have private e-mail silos that are their sole means of official digital communication and are reviewed only by their personal staff. And that should apply doubly to the holder of one of the most important cabinet roles. Moreover, the fact that she never even got a State Department address certainly gives the impression that this was a deliberate attempt to avoid the public eye. She didn’t just sloppily default to her own personal e-mail address, as many people do; she also made sure that it was not possible to accidentally send her an e-mail on a work account that government oversight groups could access.

Even more troubling is the fact that a large number of people in the White House and the State Department must have known that she was using a private address that wouldn’t leave copies on government servers. Why didn’t any of them gently suggest that this was not OK?

For the official record, the SAME people who allowed her to bypass the government accounts “that are automatically created before the new employee even arrives” and the SAME people who HAD to have known that Hillary Clinton had created a system that would NOT leave copies on government servers are the ones “investigating” her now.  The only hope for justice being done to Hillary Clinton by the Obama “Justice” Department is if top FBI officials have sworn they will resign en masse if the West Wing interferes in any way, any shape or any form from the obvious criminal indictment that ought to have already fallen like a ton of bricks on top of Hillary Clinton’s head.

But I digress.  Let me continue on the point I had been making about transparency and how the Democrat Party is as “transparent” as fecal matter: Hillary Clinton likely violated THREE transparency laws with her paranoid fascism:

First, she may have violated the Federal Records Act. Even in 2009, this law required Clinton to “ensure that Federal records sent or received” on her private email “are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.” Clinton claims to have fulfilled this law by turning over 55,000 pages of emails to the Department of State, but the full truth cannot be known until and unless investigators are able to access her private email server. The penalties for violating the Federal Records Act include fines, jail time or disqualification from holding any office under the United States.

The second law Clinton may have violated is Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which forbids federal employees from retaining classified information in an unauthorized manner — such as in a personal email. A 2009 Executive Order by President Barack Obama has a similar ban on such activity. Clinton has sought to address this problem by claiming that her emails never dealt with classified information, yet this is highly unlikely given her role as Secretary of State.

And finally, Clinton may have violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). By utilizing a private email server beyond the control of the State Department, her email records will never be subject to FOIA requests — the most basic tool in keeping Washington transparent. In fact, Clinton may have used a private email server precisely to evade FOIA.

Given Clinton’s intransigence and unwillingness to give investigators access to her private email server, we cannot yet know with full certainty whether she broke these three laws.

And yes, Hillary Clinton is THE quintessential moral hypocrite par excellence.  When she became Secretary of State, she sent out a memo to all of her State Department employees on FOIA that read, “”Preserving the record of our deliberations, decisions, and actions will be at the foundation of our efforts to promote openness.”  And then she proceeded to disregard everything she said and document for all time and for all history that she is a hypocrite without shame, honor, integrity, virtue, honesty or decency.

The USA Today article that points out Hillary’s above-mentioned FOIA communique points out:

So much for that. Today, we know that Clinton took extraordinary steps to prevent any record of her “deliberations, decisions, and actions.” During her entire tenure as Secretary of State, she exclusively utilized a private email account run through servers located at her home in Chappaqua, New York. This arrangement prevented the federal government from maintaining any record of her email communications — a slap in the face to anyone who cares about government transparency and an obvious example of hypocrisy given the memo Clinton sent to her staff in 2009.

Clinton has since attempted to address this crisis of transparency by selectively releasing the emails which she claims pertained to her work as Secretary of State. Of the 62,320 emails she has admitted to sending between 2009 and 2013, she has handed over 30,490 — in the form of 55,000 printed pages which may have been edited — to the Department of State. The remaining emails — nearly 32,000 — were apparently destroyed.

Hillary Clinton and her henchmen have gone out and repeatedly claimed that Hillary did nothing wrong, broke no laws, violated no policies.  Bullcrap.  A State Department official testified that Hillary Clinton’s practices were NOT acceptable and employees were warned against what she did.  As Politico reports:

A senior State Department official testifying at the first congressional hearing focusing on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account for official business called such an arrangement “not acceptable” and said other employees have been warned against it.

“I think that the action we’ve taken in the course of recovering these emails have made it very clear what people’s responsibilities are with respect to recordkeeping,” Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I think the message is loud and clear that that is not acceptable.”

A federal judge went even further when he blatantly stated that Hillary Clinton had violated government policy:

A federal judge has added fresh fuel to the incendiary controversy over Hillary Clinton’s email, asserting during a hearing Thursday that she violated government policy by storing official messages on a private server when she worked as secretary of state.

“We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” said U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, apparently referring to Clinton, during a hearing on one of the many Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking access to her records as secretary of state.

If you vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat, you are a criminal, a fascist, and a soon-to-be occupant of hell.  That’s the bottom line.  There is simply no excuse for what she did other than she had to hide her crimes because she is a criminal exploiting her high-level government position to enrich herself and her husband via secret deals made through their foundation.

And either Hillary should go to prison or government officials should be completely above the law for all time until America collapses under the weight of its corruption.

One of the funny things is how the Clinton team loves to point out that other officials – you know, Republican ones – have had private email accounts.  Without ever bothering to mention the vast gulf of difference between having a private email account as most Americans do and HAVING YOUR OWN PRIVATE SERVER THAT ENABLES YOU TO PURGE AND DELETE ALL RECORDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE EXIST.  That said, I laughed at this NBC article because it never mentioned the PRIVATE SERVER, but it still demonstrates that NO, Hillary, NOBODY ELSE HAS EVER USED PRIVATE EMAILS THE WAY YOU DID:

Mar 3 2015, 7:36 pm ET
Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Use Differed From Other Top Officials
by Perry Bacon Jr.

Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a non-government email account to send messages to her staff during her time as Secretary of State is a break from what other top officials have done, raising concerns from both Democrats and Republicans about the propriety of the practice.

Aides to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former President George W. Bush said neither official routinely sent e-mails to staffers while they held those posts. Rice “did not use her personal e-mail for official communication as Secretary” and instead exclusively used her State Department account, according to a top aide who did not want to be quoted publicly.

Again, what Hillary Clinton did was UNPRECEDENTED for a government employee:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Clinton’s emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family’s home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton’s secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

Hypocrite?  We can go back to June 20, 2007 and see where Hillary Clinton demonized the Bush Administration with this and under HER OWN STANDARDS PROVE SHE IS THE WORST HYPOCRITE WHO EVER LIVED:

“We know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run-amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

I remind you, I have already PROVEN for the factual record that Hillary Clinton has far and away surpassed ANYTHING that ANY Bush official did when it came to emails.  And she set out to do it IMMEDIATELY the MOMENT she came into her Secretary of State job.

At this point I have conclusively proven and documented and established that Hillary Clinton is a paranoid fascist.  She is “paranoid” because of her UNPRECEDENTED secrecy and sheer rabid determination to place herself beyond any transparency.  And she is a “fascist” because of her equally rabid determination to place herself above the laws that she herself imposed on the people under her who were not in her fascist inner circle.

What Hillary Clinton did and intentionally set out to do reveals her character, and her character is that of a paranoid fascist, period.  Just based on the above, no one who supports or votes for Hillary Clinton is a true “democrat” because you simply cannot support or vote for Hillary Clinton and give one rat’s hairy backside about “democracy.”  Not when your candidate went to such obvious lengths to sidestep and thwart “democracy.”

Just acknowledge what you truly are, Democrat Party: you are FASCISTS.

But now we get to the real criminality and incredible disregard for the national security of the United States of America.  Now we get to the FACTS that 1) Hillary Clinton now without any question sent and received emails that were clearly classified in violation of the law; and 2) that foreign hostile governments almost without any question have intercepted those emails and now know far better than the American people what Hillary Clinton actually thought about the world and the secrets she stupidly shared to the world’s worst governments.

Before I do that, let me first address Hillary Clinton’s constantly “evolving” email excuses (otherwise known as “lies”):

Back at the start, she claimed there was “no classified material” on the thousands of messages sent to and from her private server. Now the State Department has flagged more than 300 e-mails as containing classified information.

Her next explanation: “I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.”

But even that excuse — the material was only classified later — doesn’t hold water.

Reuters reports that its careful examination of the “classified” stamps shows the e-mails are filled with information that, by State Department rules, automatically count as classified — whether or not they’re so marked.

At least 30 e-mail threads hold confidential information from foreign officials — material the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office says is “born classified.”

Sorry: As head of the State Department, Hillary should have known this. Indeed, she’s stressed that she was “certainly well aware” of classification requirements. Yet that “ridiculous rules” tweet still went out.

You see why The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward said this week that the whole mess “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.”

And:

McClatchy  reported in late July that classified information from five US intelligence agencies were found on Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email server, contradicting her claim that “there is no classified material” on the server. Team Clinton adapted their talking points to say that the server didn’t contain anything that was classified at the time, allowing that retroactive classifications had occurred. Two independent Inspectors General said otherwise from the beginning, then Reuters debunked the updated spin conclusively last week, concluding: “[Emails on the server] are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department’s own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go.”

Watch the video:

And so, yeah, when it comes to Hillary Clinton or her cronies trying to claim that she didn’t do anything wrong, when it comes to her constantly shifting stories, well, it just depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, the way Bill Clinton made his integrity a joke while denying he’d had any kind of “sexual relations with that woman” until his sperm somehow happened to end up on his intern’s blue dress.  It’s who Democrats are.  They’re bad people.  They are liars who support people who lie.

So Hillary Clinton is claiming that she didn’t send any classified material specifically MARKED classified at the time.  After she was first proven to be a liar when she claimed that she hadn’t sent classified material when in fact oh, yes, she HAD, and then she was proven to be a liar again when she said that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them when, oh, yes, they WERE.  Then she pivoted to this esoteric and arcane argument (that legally is irrelevant, say the experts because it’s not classified because it’s MARKED classified; it’s marked classified because it is CLASSIFIED.  It’s classified because it is sensitive information that should remain highly restricted.  Which means it is CLASSIFIED whether it is marked classified or not.) that she never sent or received anything that was actually marked “classified” at the time it was sent.  But understand how that state of affairs was the case in those emails.  From the Los Angeles Times:

The Department of Justice said it is weighing whether to launch its own investigation after the inspector general for intelligence agencies notified the agency that classified information that went through the account appeared to have been mishandled. Administration officials and investigators declined to share details about the emails. But in a separate memo to lawmakers, the inspector general said that a review of just 40 of the 30,000 emails from the Clinton server found that four had information that should have been marked and handled as classified.

Clinton has made many assurances in recent months that she did not send or receive classified information on her personal server. Her campaign says the material in question had not been specifically marked as classified and, thus, Clinton broke no rules. The inspector general disputed that characterization in a statement late Friday, saying that the information in the emails was classified at the time, even if it wasn’t marked as such, and shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system.

Even so, the revelation was an uncomfortable one for the candidate. And national security experts said the disclosure that that material that should have been marked classified made its way to Clinton’s personal email account at the very least fuels legitimate speculation about how the server was used.

“It tells us why this was such a bad idea,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former general counsel to the National Security Agency now in private practice. “It raises questions.”

Among them, Baker said, was whether staffers deliberately avoided marking sensitive emails to Clinton as classified so they could sidestep the bureaucrats who handle transmission of such material.

“She skipped the government circles and nobody was overseeing this and nobody was saying, ‘This info should not be on this system,’” Baker said. “If anything, there was an incentive for people to cross the line without making clear they were doing so.”

What happened?  Somebody in Hillary’s inner circle of witches and warlocks stripped the classification markers from the emails so Hillary Clinton could have just such a “plausible deniability.”  No matter how implausible it truly is:

The latest revelations about top secret information traversing Hillary Clinton’s private email server have triggered accusations that someone in her “inner circle” likely stripped the classification markings, illegally.

The claims come after the Clinton campaign stuck to the argument that the Democratic presidential candidate, while secretary of state, never dealt with emails that were “marked” classified at the time.

“Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to supporters Wednesday.

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton’s emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community. 

“If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings,” the official said. 

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. “[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC’s server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC’s personal email.” 

This top secret, classified information came from the CIA, it came from the NSA, it came from the FBI, etcetera, and it was classified and it was MARKED as such.  But somehow by the time it got to Hillary Clinton’s private email server that was NOT legally allowed to have such sensitive, classified information, those classification markers were somehow gone.

This amounts to the orphan who brutally murdered his parents pleading for mercy because after all, he IS an orphan.

Now you need to understand the sheer, blasphemous magnitude as to just how incredibly cavalier Hillary Clinton and her team were regarding your national security and the lives of your children.

Hillary Clinton selected a private firm to maintain her private server. She made the choice out of political ideology, not competence or qualification. The company she chose was NOT legally authorized to possess or in any way, shape or form handle or deal with classified intelligence information. The company was so indifferent to security that they kept Hillary’s server in a BATHROOM CLOSET:

The IT company Hilary Clinton chose to maintain her private email account was run from a loft apartment and its servers were housed in the bathroom closet, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

Daily Mail Online tracked down ex-employees of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado, who revealed the outfit’s strong links to the Democratic Party but expressed shock that the 2016 presidential candidate chose the small private company for such a sensitive job.

One, Tera Dadiotis, called it ‘a mom and pop shop’ which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.

It can also be disclosed that the small number of employees who were aware of the Clinton contract were told to keep it secret.

The way in which Clinton came to contract a company described as a ‘mom and pop’ operation remains unclear.

However Daily Mail Online has established a series of connections between the firm and the Democratic Party.

Well, this sounds safe to Democrats, I’m sure.  These ARE demon-possessed people who are incapable of reason or decency, after all.

But not in actual factual reality,  After pointing out the protections her emails WOULD have had if she had used the government account she shunned because she is a paranoid fascist who wanted to be above transparency, we learn:

Clinton’s email wouldn’t have the benefit of any of that expensive government security. If she had hosted her email with Google or even Yahoo! or Microsoft, there might be an argument that those private companies’ security teams are just as competent as the those of the feds. But instead, according to the Associated Press, Clinton ran her server from her own home. Any protection it had there—aside from the physical protection of the Secret Service—would have been limited to the Clintons’ own personal resources.

A more specific threat to Clinton’s private email relates to its domain name. Unlike the State Department’s State.gov domain, Clinton’s Clintonemail.com is currently registered with a private domain registrar, Network Solutions, as a simple Whois search reveals. The domain Clintonemail.com (and thus its registrar) was certainly known to at least one hacker: The notorious celebrity hacker Guccifer first revealed it in 2013 when he spilled the emails of Clinton associate Sydney Blumenthal.

Anyone who hacked Network Solutions would be able to quietly hijack the Clintonemail.com domain, intercepting, redirecting, and even spoofing email from Clinton’s account. And Network Solutions is far from the Internet’s hardest target: Hundreds of its domains were hacked in 2010, a year into Clinton’s tenure at the head of the State Department.

Even if Clinton used the account only for personal messages rather than those of international importance (say, something along the lines of: “Let’s go ahead and drop those bombs, Bibi”) the notion that they could be both intercepted and spoofed through a common hacking vector is particularly troubling. “Even the most mundane of communications can be interesting to an intelligence service,” says the ACLU’s Soghoian. The NSA, he points out, thought it was worthwhile to monitor German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal cell phone, for instance.1

And therefore:

Looking at it this way, a “homebrew” server was the worst possible choice. Even using a webmail system like Gmail, Outlook or Yahoo would have been better because those companies have the expertise and capability to meet at least some of the threat this class of information would face.

This is the most important point. You can liken this to the CFO of Chase taking billions of dollars in cash home and storing it in the mattress. It’s so inadequate to meeting the risks that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

Unless we learn that this server was being protected by the government using the same levels of protection that official servers are, we have no choice but to assume that this server has been compromised by foreign intelligence agents. And let’s be clear, this isn’t just hostile governments: if the Snowden disclosures have shown us anything (reminded us, really) it’s that everyone spies on everyone, friend and foe alike. To put this in the starkest terms: we have to assume the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis have had access to the Secretary of State’s official email.

And in point of fact we’ve learned it WASN’T.  In fact, there was a significant period of time where Hillary’s secret server wasn’t protected AT ALL.

It had absolutely NO encryption for the first three months whatsoever:

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

And when Hillary finally got around to bothering to install any security whatsoever, she screwed the pooch and ended up with a “misconfigured encryption system.”  I mean, it was kind of like her criminal incompetence with Benghazi, only with her own damn server that she installed so she could delete the evidence of her crimes and make her Orwellian disappearances of the factual record permanent.  And just like Orwell’s Oceania, Hillary couldn’t have cared less what the rival global power Eurasia and Eastasia that Oceania was at constant war with knew: her cover up was only against her OWN people.

Just like with the Iran Nuclear Deal and the secret side-agreements, Democrats have made it so that all of our enemies know everything; it’s the American people who are the mushrooms in all of this.  As in “KITDAFOHS”: an acronym that stands for being “Kept In The Dark And Fed On Horse Shit.”  Manure and fascism is all you’re ever going to get from now on by voting Democrat.

What Hillary did was tantamount to having your firewall and your anti-virus software turned off while you browsed the Internet.  Only she put us ALL at risk with her stupidity and selfish fascist paranoia.

In other words, it was completely open to foreign intelligence services and was undoubtedly penetrated.  Bob Gourley, former chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, states that “I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers, to assume otherwise is to put blinders on.”

And:

Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell said that he believes some foreign intelligence agencies possess the contents of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses,” Morell said Friday in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

And:

Hillary Clinton’s mushrooming email scandal will not end well no matter what conclusions are reached, Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, tells Newsmax TV.

“I would simply say that the sin in all of this is the original sin,” Hayden said Wednesday to J.D. Hayworth, host of “Newsmax Prime.”

“Frankly, there is no way to make this come out happy if you comingle your government and your private emails and then put all of them on a private server as opposed to a government server.

“You’re just setting in motion a whole series of things and it doesn’t require anyone to be stupid or malevolent. If you set it up that way, it’s going to end up in a bad place and that’s the bad place we’re in now.”  […]

Does Hayden believe Clinton’s emails had a high probability of ending up in the hands of foreign intelligence services?

“I won’t give you a number, but a foreign intelligence service of some merit, if they were interested in those emails, I would give them a high probability of success that they would be able to penetrate that system,” he said.

And:

The unfolding national security scandal involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, is expected to produce evidence of foreign intelligence service involvement in the compromise of U.S. secrets placed on an unsecure email server.

That’s the conclusion of a senior State Department official who told me at least three foreign intelligence services – the Chinese, Russians and Israelis – almost certainly were able to hack into the private email server used by Clinton from 2009 to 2013.

The day Hillary Clinton is sworn into office as President of the United States of America is the day that Russia, China, North Korea, and most of the rest of our worst global enemies, will notify her that they will expose her and she will go to prison for life if she doesn’t turn traitor.  We’ve had high-level traitors before, but this would be the first time a sitting president did so.  That’s what Democrats are itching to vote for.  These are people who literally cannot wait to take the mark of the beast on their right hands or on their foreheads.  They want to get the Antichrist ball rolling down the slope now.

Why did Hillary do all this?  It’s actually very simple:

Hillary designed her server with privacy and the ability to purge evidence of her criminality rather than security:

A week before becoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton set up a private e-mail system that gave her a high level of control over communications, including the ability to erase messages completely, according to security experts who have examined Internet records.

“You erase it and everything’s gone,” Matt Devost, a security expert who has had his own private e-mail for years. Commercial services like those from Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. retain copies even after users erase them from their in-box.

There are so many damn shady deals involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, their half-million-dollar speeches and their corrupt Clinton Foundation.  Hillary Clinton sold access and corrupt, crony-capitalist-fascist “deals” to the highest bidder in situation after situation.  There were the “donations” made AFTER Hillary resolved a Swiss bank’s tax issues to their liking; there was the sale of a fifth of America’s uranium to Russia that Clinton was neck-deep in.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t belong in the White House; she belongs in the Big House.  She belongs in PRISON for her CRIMES against the national security of the United States of America.  General David Petraeus, a war hero who saved countless American servicemen’s lives with his heroic and skilled leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan, was CONVICTED of a crime for mishandling ONE classified record; Hillary Clinton mishandled classified material on HUNDREDS of occasions.

On August 17, 2015, we had a count of 305 classified emails that somehow found their way onto Hillary Clinton’s secret private server.  On September 1, 2015, still another 150 were added to that list of classified emails.  So with a long way to go sorting through her emails, she’s already more than four-hundred times more guilty than Petraeus was.  And that’s not even counting the more than 30,000 emails that she decided she didn’t want us to see and purged as she tried to wipe her server.

In the case of Richard Nixon, 18-and-a-half minutes of tape “somehow” got erased.  Out of more than 2,800 hours.  Hillary Clinton purged 32,000 of her emails, refused to turn over her server, wiped it AFTER having been served a lawful subpoena for it.  She claimed she had not been subpoenaed, but she lied.  And she only turned over the 55,000 emails after she and her staff screened them.  She falsely claimed that she had turned over ALL of her government emails and that she only deleted personal emails.  That is another proven lie: she got caught red-handed having NOT turned over relevant emails related to Libya.  We may never know how many official emails she purged.  Richard Nixon is the most moral man who ever lived standing next to Hillary Clinton.

That’s why Hillary Clinton installed a secret server in such reckless violation of national security.  Because she’s a horrible human being who cynically exploited her position in the most corrupt way imaginable.

We have multiple stories of military servicemen who went to PRISON for doing a tiny fraction of what Hillary Clinton did just for their petty violations of national security that don’t come CLOSE to what Hillary Clinton did.  And NONE of them had the corrupt, cynical, selfish and frankly fascist motives that Hillary Clinton had when she was doing far worse than what sent these men to prison.

Look, I’m not trying to reason with Democrats.  Democrats are horrible people who will all soon be burning in hell after they worship the beast and take his mark.  Democrats are not people who are capable of any degree of virtue or honesty or integrity or decency.  Any roach crawling around on your kitchen floor is a more moral being than a Democrat these days.  I am trying to reason with anybody who has so much as a shred of decency or honesty, who can look at the facts and realize that voting for Hillary Clinton is EVIL and ONLY an evil person would even consider doing so.

John Kerry’s ‘U.S. Is More Engaged In More Places In The World Than At Any Time’ Versus Actual REALITY

John Kerry recently offered this laugher:

“The fact is that the United States of America … is more engaged in more places in the world, and, frankly, I think, to greater effect, than at any time in recent memory.”

Allow me to explain what our Secretary of State actually meant:

“The fact is that the United States of America – due to our utterly failed president’s utterly failed foreign policy – has been viewed as so weak and as so pathetic that more places in the world than ever before are erupting into violence all at the same time.  And the Obama administration’s response has been to offer more meaningless, blathering gibberish to more places, to less effect, than at any time in all of history.”

This reminds one of the astonishingly morally idiotic and psychotically-disconnected-from-reality statement by our Fool-in-Chief:

“[T]he truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.” — Barack Hussein

I mean, tell that to the 200,000-PLUS civilians who have been murdered by the brutal dictator thug Assad while Obama uttered empty threats and gibberish red-line warnings.  Tell that to the more than one million Christians who used to live in Iraq until Obama abandoned everything our soldiers fought and bled to win who suddenly found themselves living in a terrorist caliphate and were told they could either abandon their homes and flee for their lives, convert to Islam, or die.  Tell that to the Christian girls who keep becoming slaves to Boko Haram.  Tell that to the damn Ukrainians who years ago made the fatal mistake of trusting Democrat President Bill Clinton and gave up their nuclear weapons only to be utterly abandoned by another Democrat President now.

I could keep going on and on with that “tell that to…” dialogue.  Because Obama has walked away from his foreign policy failures all over the damn world.  You can’t go anywhere on the planet and turn over a damn rock where the worst fool who ever lived hasn’t failed America and failed the world.

Liberals do not live in the real freaking world.  They are demon-possessed; they see nothing beyond what their god Satan wants them to see.

I’ll stand by my own assessment of Obama’s foreign policy while I try to stop barfing after Kerry’s pompous declaration.  Because I rely on, you know, things called FACTS.

Such a surprise that these disasters would fall upon the first president in history of the republic to send pink slips to officers fighting on the front lines of battlefields.

New Revelations About THE Most Dishonest White House EVER: Treasury Sec Geithner Reveals He Was Instructed To Lie To The American People

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the IRS scandal.  Or in the Benghazi scandal.  Etcetera.

Obama has lied to the American people about their health care.  That is a documented fact.  He has lied to the American people about their economy – as has now been revealed by his former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a documented fact.  And he has lied to the American people about their national security when he covered up what happened at Benghazi and then attempted to cover up his cover-up.

If you DON’T believe the same first paragraph wouldn’t read, “The White House wanted Ambassador Susan Rice to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Benghazi played in demonstrating Obama’s broad failure of policy against terrorism,” you are a rabid ideologue.  The evidence is so overwhelming it is beyond unreal.  Obama’s White House is THE most viscerally dishonest, zombie ideological and rabidly partisan administration in the entire history of the republic.

White House wanted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to LIE to the public about social security being behind the deficit
In his memoir, out today, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House wanted him to mislead Americans about the long term costs of Social Security
 ‘I objected when  Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ Geithner writes
By Francesca Chambers
Published: 09:20 EST, 12 May 2014  | Updated: 17:45 EST, 12 May 2014

The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.

Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.

‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’

Geithner’s book release comes amidst allegations that the White House changed the Sunday show talking points of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya for political reasons.

Days after the White House claims it knew what happened in Benghazi was ‘an act of terror,’ Rice wrongly blamed an anti-Muslim internet video for the deadly assault in a string of high-profile interviews on network news stations.

The White House has forcefully denied that it made anything other than minor changes to Rice’s talking points. Recently released e-mails between deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and White House communications staff calls the veracity of the Obama administration’s claims into question.

The emails show that Rice was instructed to claim the attack was ‘spontaneously inspired ‘ and ‘to ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.’

Geithner’s anecdote about White House communications staff trying pressure him into misleading Americans about the country’s ability to meet its future financial obligations once again casts a shadow on the Obama administration’s willingness to tell the truth when the truth is politically unappealing.

He writes that Pfeiffer, who is now Obama’s senior communications adviser, often let party politics come into play when discussing how the administration should respond to fiscal issues.

During a discussion on spending cuts, Geithner says that Pfieffer argued that ‘we couldn’t afford to alienate our base and split a weakened Democratic Party in pursuit of an imaginary compromise with Republicans who didn’t want to compromise.’

Early reviews of Geithner’s book indicate that the former Treasury Secretary, who now works at a private equity firm, does not appear to have an axe to grind with Obama, giving greater weight to his recollections.

Geithner mostly uses the memoir to provide context for actions he took as Treasury Secretary from 2009 to 2013 to get the nation back on track after the financial crisis of 2008.

The only other seemingly negative remark Geithner makes about the White House is about President Obama, whom he says, ‘Sometimes I thought he wore his frustration too openly.’

‘He harbored the overly optimistic belief that since his motives and values were good, since his team was thoughtful and well-intentioned, we deserved to be perceived that way,’ Geithner says in the book, according to a review in the New York Times.

Hmmm, something about that.  What does Geithner say?

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows…

It reminds me of ANOTHER White House prep session before – heck, FIVE Sunday talk shows in which Obama blabbermouth Susan Rice claimed five times that it was a “spontaneous attack” rather than a planned, coordinated terrorist attack and that a Youtube video was to blame even though we now have it documented that the “video” theory did NOT come from the intelligence community but was fabricated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a phone call shortly before Hillary invented the video (created by an American citizen) as being responsible for the terrorist attack rather than a “broader failure of policy.”

Barack Obama is a documented liar without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity and without decency.  He has proven more than ANY HUMAN BEING who EVER LIVED that he is wiling to look his people in the eye and lie to them right to their face – as he did at LEAST 37 times when he kept emphatically promising something he KNEW full damn well was an outright lie – NBC documenting that Obama knew for at least THREE YEARS he was lying – and which even the Clintons dating back 20 YEARS AGO knew was a lie:

Three days before the 1994 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton’s advisers fretted about including a line promising that participants in the still-viable Hillarycare insurance overhaul would be allowed to keep their favored doctors and health care plans, a concern that would come back years later when President Barack Obama promised the same thing.

The line, which made it into the final speech in a slightly different form – Clinton told Americans they would have ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ – was the subject of controversy because his aides knew it was untrue.

‘We have a line on p. 10 that says “You’ll pick the health plan and the doctor of your choice,”‘ an internal memo read.

‘I know that it’s just what people want to hear. But can we get away with it?’ he asked. ‘I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver.’

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

The Clintons’ first term in the White House was marred by the failure of ‘Hillarycare,’ an earlier proposed version of what would later become law as the Affordable Care Act

‘Over-promising’: A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

• SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

In his 1994 State of the Union address, Bill Clinton promised Americans ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ — 13 years before Barack Obama made nearly identical pledges

The memo was part of more than 4,000 pages of documents released by the Bill Clinton Presdiential Library, and offers new insights into the development – and ‘sale’ to Congress – of the ill-fated Hillarycare program that represented a major public embarrassment for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

‘Isn’t the whole thrust of our health plan to steer people toward cheaper, HMO-style providers?’ wrote the memo’s author, identified only as Todd.

‘It’s one thing to say we’ll preserve your option to pick the doctor of your choice (recognizing that this will cost more), it’s quite another to appear to promise the nation that everyone will get to pick the doctor of his or her choice,’ he added. ‘And that’s exactly what this line does.’

We are seeing breathtaking dishonesty all across the board.  Barack Obama is a rabid cancer upon America.

And his Democrat Party has circled their wagons and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent so much as QUESTIONS being asked about it.

And the ONLY reason they think they can get away with it is because the mainstream media are more propagandist today – and frankly more sophisticated about the art and science of propaganda – than Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin’s TASS were sixty years ago.

We live in an age of deception just before the coming of the Antichrist who was prophesied in Scripture to come to a worshiping world in the very last days.  And we are watching with our eyes a Democrat Party that has officially announced that they are ready to take the Mark of the Beast.

If you believe Obama didn’t instruct Susan Rice to lie through his political thugs on those five Sunday Talk shows where she told outright lies that everyone KNOWS were outright lies, and if you don’t think the GOP should investigate something that frankly should lead to Obama being IMPEACHED for official corruption as he covered up the truth to maintain a lie that he had succeeded in “decimating” al Qaeda when that narrative was proven false by Benghazi – and then covered up his cover up by withholding the proof that the White House substituted its “Youtube video” talking points for “planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization”, you have already demonstrated that you will surely believe the Antichrist’s lies and take his mark.  And burn in hell for it.

I’m speaking with the full authority of God’s Word behind me: you’re going to get yours, you baby-murdering (55 MILLION!!!), homosexual sodomy-loving, government-worshiping Democrat.  Obama – you know, the Obama who demonized Bush for a $9 trillion debt – has jacked up that debt to over $17.5 trillion.  Consider this to see yet again how viscerally and rabidly dishonest and hypocritical your false messiah truly has been.  Well, let me assure you, in 17.5 trillion years you will STILL be screaming in the agony of being burned alive forever and ever and EVER for what you did on this earth, Democrat.

You still have time to repent.  But your day is coming.

A Formerly Great Nation Under God: Obama Has So Undermined America It Is Beyond Unreal

It was Obama’s “reverend” who spoke as a prophet when he screamed, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

It was Obama who summed up the implications of his Führership when he shocked Republicans with his refusal to work with them in any way, shape or form when he had lockstep control of all three political branches of government: “Elections have consequences.”

And they sure have [For the official record, I TOLD you so the night the demons cheered while the angels wept and Obama was elected in 2008].

I think of Ronald Reagan – who won by a FAR greater landslide margin than anything Obama has ever come CLOSE to – governing like a leader while Obama IMMEDIATELY broke his word to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington.”

If you believe the media propaganda that Obama has tried to work with the Republicans but no matter how rational and reasonable Obama was, racist Republicans just wouldn’t  allow him to succeed in any way, shape or form – just look at the man’s BUDGETS to see how false that bullcrap spin is.  Just see here and here for Obama’s true pattern: the man is so damn fascist radical that he couldn’t get a SINGLE vote from his own party.  And when he did get a vote, he got something like TWO votes from his own damned party.  If you think that’s “compromise,” you belong in an insane asylum for the criminally depraved and stupid.

The man has been nothing but a pure liar without honor, without virtue, without integrity, without decency of any kind.  And that was what he was from the very start.  No human being who has EVER LIVED has been caught in as many bald lies as this fascist who now contaminates our White House: as an example just one of his numerous lies – which merited him the title “Liar of the Year” – he repeated over and over and over again as his means of deceiving America into re-electing him again.  Every president has arguably lied, but Obama wallows in lies the way a particularly disgusting pig wallows in his own filth.

Who is Obama?  Well, even the extremely liberal New York Times long since acknowledged the fact: he is a divisive, arrogant blowhard who thinks he’s ontologically superior to everyone else while massively overestimating his own abilities.

Where are we under Obama’s misrule?

Well, according to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, as Obama was getting re-elected, “More than 100 million people in the United States of America get welfare from the federal government. 100 million.”  And that number has since skyrocketed to over 151,000 – or about half the damn population, since Obama was re-elected.

“Elections have consequences.”  And one of those consequences has been unprecedented welfare as Obama has gutted the American economic engine with every monkey wrench known to liberal engineering.

Another consequence of Obama’s elections has been a poverty level that has never been seen in America for MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS:

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama. […]

Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.

The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.

President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”

If you’re poor, realize that Barack Obama doesn’t give a flying DAMN about you.  All he cares about is demonizing and slandering his enemies while promising you lies that he will never deliver.

The worse consequence of Obama’s elections domestically has been Obama’s gutting of the labor participation rate.  The man has dishonestly boasted about the jobs he’s created when the reality is that he has destroyed tens of millions of jobs.  I documented how Obama’s policies had caused the U.S. labor participation rate to plummet to a 25-year low in 2010, and then decline to a 27-year low in 2011, decline to a 30-year low in 2012.  In 2013 it was the worst in 35 years under Obama, and now as we enter 2014 it is declining again.

The labor participation rate is a measure of the percent of working-age Americans who actually have JOBS.  And Obama with his demonic regulations and taxes and burdens on businesses has made it all but impossible for millions of Americans to ever HOPE of getting a job.

The rich are getting richer faster under Obama than under any president before him.  Because Obama is a crony capitalist fascist who has thrived politically using the raw power of government to decide who gets to win and who loses.

And what does Obama do?  His policies have caused this holocaust, but with the help of liberal media propaganda that surpasses Joseph Goebbels best work, Obama is able to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Even though HE created the crisis to begin with.  Obama has been able to slander his opponents – who frankly have had zero ability to change anything – to keep pushing his already broken system further and further past the breaking point.

Democrats are now hell-bent on demagoguing “income inequality” to whole new levels, promising to do more of what they did to create the crisis in the first place and therefore create millions more ignorant, desperate people who will stupidly keep voting for the very people who are hurting them by undermining the economy that they desperately need to keep their heads above water.

Under Obama, the nation that put a man on the moon now gets to beg our enemy Russia to please, please let one of our astronauts ride with you into space for $70 million per trip.

Under Obama, the nation that invented the Internet now abandons its control over the Internet it invented.  Because Obama is the “president of the world,” you know.  American sovereignty is an evil thing to people like Obama.

But as bad as our domestic situation has been under Obama, it is our national security that has most collapsed.

More than six in ten Americans believe Obama has lied to them on important issues.  What percent of world leaders know that Obama has the integrity of a weasel?  I’m guessing that number is 100 percent of everybody.

Dishonesty is the heart of the Liberal Democrat Way.  Consider their “war on women” slander.  According to them, Republicans may have wives and daughters and mothers, but they hate women.  And Obama – who has a “boy’s club” featuring a hostile workplace environment for women – and who has consistently paid women on his own staff significantly less than men – and who is therefore “anti-woman” and ought to be voted out BY women according to his own disingenuous standards – is allowed to run on an issue in spite of the facts and in spite of reality.  Because running on lies is who these people are.

And the lies have started to pile up like the yard of a house that has fifty pit bulls and no one with any decency to take care of all the messes.

Now, I point out that it took eight years of Bill Clinton’s gutting of the military and intelligence branches that made America weak enough and blind enough to incite an attack by Osama bin Laden on 9/11.  Osama bin Laden began his dream of attacking America in 1993 after he watched Bill Clinton’s abject moral cowardice and concluded “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower … and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled.”

Every single one of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 had already entered the country, received their funding and had their training by the time Bill Clinton left office.

But of course the same fascist propaganda media that blamed Bush for everything absolved Bill Clinton of everything.  You know, it was Bush’s fault that under President Bill Clinton Osama bin Laden declared war on America and said that our warriors were paper tigers.  That’s what these people always do: punish their enemies and reward their friends.

Bill Clinton left America a sitting duck.  Or a plucked chicken, given Jeremiah Wright’s infamous “our chickens have come home to roost” metaphor.

So now Obama has been so much WORSE than Clinton ever was that it is almost laughable.  Because Clinton was pretty damn bad.

Obama has gut the Army to its weakest level since BEFORE World War II.  Even Clinton couldn’t find enough “loathing the military” in his heart to do that.

What is our policy/strategy to deal with what Putin has done in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that the United States had a treaty to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression that they feared if they gave up their nuclear weapons that was negotiated by Bill Clinton.

Let me preamble by pointing out according to no less an authority than Hillary Clinton, what Putin did was like what Hitler did in the 1930s.

So how has Obama decided to deal with Hitler?

Obama has clearly decided the cause of World War II was that America and the West had the audacity to try to defend themselves rather than baring their throat to a dictator and begging for mercy.  Obama wants to re-fight World War II by surrendering and refusing to fight and see what happens that way.  After all, when Hitler invaded Poland and Winston Churchill and FDR stood up to him, we ended up in a war.  Far better to employ the Neville Chamberlain strategy and get some piece of paper that guarantees “peace in our time.”

Sometimes courageous people have to fight; cowards never do.  All they have to do is be willing to live with the consequences of their cowardice.  Which cowards are plenty willing to do.

So also keep in mind that Sarah Palin knew a coward when she saw one and boldly predicted that under an Obama presidency Russia would seize Ukraine.  Which they are doing.

Anyone who believes a damn word our Liar-in-Chief says is an abject fool who deserves destruction.  If our allies believe a word Obama says, they’re stupid.  And you can rest assured our enemies are salivating at the weakness and fecklessness of Obama’s “God damn America.”

Obama says baloney that laughingly tries to spin reality by claiming he’s winning (much like Charlie Sheen’s “winner” with his “tiger blood” nonsense).

But even the Los Angeles Times had this to say about whose “winning.”

It turns out that Vladimir Putin has more admirers around the world than you might expect for someone using a neo-Soviet combination of violence and the big lie to dismember a neighboring sovereign state. Russia’s strongman garners tacit support, and even some quiet plaudits, from some of the world’s most important emerging powers, starting with China and India. […]

Beside this realpolitik, I was told, there is also an emotional component. Chinese leaders such as Xi Jinping, who grew up under Chairman Mao, still instinctively warm to the idea of another non-Western leader standing up to the capitalist and imperialist West. “Xi likes Putin’s Russia,” said one well-informed observer. […]

Last month, Putin thanked India for its “restrained and objective” stance on Crimea. India’s postcolonial obsession with sovereignty, and resentment of any hint of Western liberal imperialism, plays out — rather illogically — in support for a country that has just dramatically violated its neighbor’s sovereignty. Oh, and by the way, India gets a lot of its arms from Russia.

And there are others. Russia’s two other partners in the so-called BRICS group, Brazil and South Africa, both abstained on the U.N. General Assembly resolution criticizing the Crimea referendum. They also joined Russia in expressing “concern” at the Australian foreign minister’s suggestion that Putin might be barred from attending a Group of 20 summit in November.

What the West faces here is the uncoiling of two giant springs. One is the coiled spring of Mother Russia’s resentment at the way her empire has shrunk over the last 25 years.

The other is the coiled spring of resentment at centuries of Western colonial domination. This takes very different forms in different BRICS countries and members of the G-20. They certainly don’t all have China’s monolithic, relentless narrative of national humiliation since Britain’s Opium Wars. But they do share a strong and prickly concern for their own sovereignty, a resistance to North Americans and Europeans telling them what is good for them, and a certain instinctive glee, or schadenfreude, at seeing Uncle Sam (not to mention little John Bull) being poked in the eye by that pugnacious Russian. Viva Putinismo!

Obviously this is not the immediate issue on the ground in Ukraine, but it is another big vista opened up by the East European crisis. In this broader, geopolitical sense, take note: As we go deeper into the 21st century, there will be more Ukraines.

Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a contributing writer to Opinion. His latest book is “Facts Are Subversive: Political Writing From a Decade Without a Name.”

Vladimir Putin has “tiger blood.”  Barack Obama has “chicken blood.”

Russia is winning and winning big.  Particularly since the civil war in Syria when Obama issued his “red line” and then did NOTHING after that red line was repeatedly crossed, nobody believes ANY of Obama’s worthless threats.

Within months of Obama’s “red line” warning, it was discovered that Syria had not only used chemical weapons, but in fact had used them at least FOURTEEN TIMES.

And damn, they just got through using them AGAIN.

But it’s okay, because Obama has that treaty that his good fascist pal Putin put together for him to make him look slightly less weak and feckless.  Now Syrian dictator Assad is safely in power, and free to continue his vicious civil war in which he’s murdered more than 100,000 of his own people.

It’s worse than a horror movie over there.  But don’t worry, Obama’s got his “peace in our time” piece of paper to wave around to his adoring and fawning fascist press.

Weak, feckless, moral cowardice.

And Obama has failed so miserably in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and you basically name it, it’s beyond sick.

We are just beginning to learn how wildly Obama has failed America in Afghanistan.  It will be awful and it will get worse.

The number one thing Obama could do to lay a serious hurting on Russia short of going to all-out war would be to get agreements to begin filling the void to supply the oil and natural gas that Russia currently supplies Europe.  That would a) strengthen America and the American economy and b) weaken Russia and the Russian economy and c) undermine Russian influence in both Western AND in Eastern Europe in one fell swoop.

And what did Obama do?  Make a purely political decision to hold off approving the Keystone Pipeline – to the enragement of one of our few remaining allies Canada – until AFTER the 2014 election so his rejection of it won’t make the slaughter of Democrats even worse.

Because he’s owned by the radical environmentalists who want most of the world’s human population to die and who want America to be economically broken rather than being the engine of manufacturing that made it great.

To the extent that we have any cards to play after six years of Obama, Obama refuses to play them.  Obama is like a man who pimps out his girlfriend and keeps counting on his “bitch” to keep loving him and bringing him “his” money.  Only, tragically, Obama’s “bitch” has been the United States of America.

Sadly, America has been a faithful bitch indeed to her pimp Obama even though he keeps prostituting her to his cynical political interests.  To her own massive hurt.

So things are truly going to hell under Obama in the Atlantic.  But at least Obama is in control of things in the Pacific, right?

Wrong.

And so I turned to the Los Angeles Times this morning to find this:

WASHINGTON — Two and a half years after President Obama vowed to shift America’s diplomatic, economic and military focus to Asia, he will head back to the region this week to try to convince allies and adversaries alike that he really meant it.

Since the much-touted decision to “pivot” to Asia, the Obama administration has found itself repeatedly pulled away by crises in the Middle East, political battles in Washington and, more recently, turmoil in Ukraine. […]

The result is anxiety among allies, and questions about the U.S. commitment to establishing a counterweight to China’s growing economic clout and military assertiveness.

“In polite company people won’t say it, but behind closed doors I think they’ll openly ask where the pivot is,” Victor Cha, former director for Asian affairs in the George W. Bush administration, said at a recent forum at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies.

This not being a “polite circle,” I’m free to point out reality: Obama LIED.

Obama’s “pivot to Asia” is as much of a joke as his “pivot to the economy” was.  I mean, I remember him doing that over and over and over and over and over again.

Obama’s “pivot” is “just words.”  You know, like, “If you like your doctor, I guaran-damn-tee you that you’ll be able to keep your doctor and your health plan.  Unless I’m a lying Nazi, that is.  In which case, April Fools!”

As China realizes that Obama is a weakling cowardly incompetent fool the same way Russia realized it, do you think that Obama will be able to promise his way out of a mess given all of his past lies and past displays of weakness and fecklessness?

This is a nation on it’s way down.  And thanks to the most wicked electorate in the history of the republic, it is a nation on its way out.

The Bible prophesied long ago that America would be nowhere to be found in the last days.

Because “God Damn America” doesn’t get to stick around.  Not after we elected a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper – twice.

How far we have fallen in such a short time!  And how hard we have yet to fall when the artificial bubble we think will remain around us forever very shortly bursts.

I pointed out above how badly Obama has hurt the poor as he’s given the rich their money (because those rich people LOVE Democrat crony capitalist fascism).

Consider the fact that under Obama, cattle levels have declined to their lowest levels since 1951 when Harry Truman was president.

Meat prices have never been higher in the entire history of the republic.

What has Obama’s response been?  Well, his thug Bureau of Land Management just literally tortured and executed cattle of the very last rancher in a county that used to be dominated by cattle ranching.  If I heard correctly, one cow was discovered that had six bullet wounds.  The BLM admitted to executing the cattle on the grounds that they were “rowdy.”  Which is probably the pretense Obama used to use his thug IRS to intimidate and harass tea party conservatives for being “rowdy” enough to think they had a right to exercise their constitutional rights.  I’m sure the BLM agents heard some of the cattle uttering “anti-Obama rhetoric” and they had to punish their enemies.  We’re all “cattle” to Obama.  In addition to at least two mass graves – many of the cattle being the mothers who give birth to calves to keep the business going – the Bundy family discovered that the BLM thugs had essentially vandalized many improvements to the land such as tearing up water pipes.

So yeah, the next time you buy beef or anything with beef in it, thank Obama for the incredibly high price you pay.

And food prices in general have skyrocketed.  While your wages under Obama have plummeted.

It’s just a foretaste of what the Book of Revelation prophesied would happen in the last days as a wicked world worshiped the beast rather than God.

Obama arrogantly promised to lower the level of the oceans; but because he has brought America under the wrath of God for his worship of abortion and homosexual sodomy marriage, what he HAS done is lower the level of all the fresh water in America as we are OWNED by crippling drought in his God damn America.

Famine and drought are very much signs of God’s judgment.

Realize that as you vote “Democrat” and thus vote for the wrath of a holy God according to Romans Chapter One.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama Gives 95% of Wealth Increase To Top 1% During His Regime Even As He Dishonestly Demagogues ‘Income Inequality’

Do you understand this, you stupid liberals???  Obama handed 95% of the wealth gains in America to the very richest one percenters.  Even as he publicly railed against the very thing he was doing in private:

But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.

That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.

The top 10 percent haven’t done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, another record. Their biggest previous take was 46.3 percent in 1932.

So let’s see: 65 percent under Bush vs. 95 percent under Obama.  That means that the income gap rose by 46.15% under the very same dishonest slandering demagogue who is now trying to distract the public from his colossal ObamaCare failure and all the lies he told about that fiasco.

My gosh.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Bush over national security abuses only to commit far worse abuses himself (yes he did SO do that!).  Under our fascist-in-chief, we are now a police state and Big Brother status (the Bible prophesied the coming of this Antichrist beast) is just around the corner.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Bush over the national debt only to explode the national debt at three times the rate that Bush did.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Republicans over refusing to raise the debt ceiling just like Obama refused to raise it when HE was a Senator and Bush was the president.

The decidedly leftist Huffington Post had this headline and began thus:

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
The Huffington Post  |  By Alexander Eichler
Posted: 04/11/2012 6:19 pm Updated: 04/11/2012 6:19 pm

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

So how does the man who made the wealth gap worse than EVER and certainly worse than BUSH demonize Republicans and claim to be a voice for the very people he most hurt (and at a time when OBAMA’S DEMOCRATS had lock-step control over all three branches of government)???  It’s easy: Obama is a liar without shame, without honesty, without decency, without virtue and without integrity of any kind.  He just keeps on making dishonest promises – and when reality exposes one of his dishonest promises, he just lies again and then again as he slanders his opponents as being responsible for what HE as president did and led.

Meanwhile, of course, the rabid slanderer-in-chief has destroyed the American middle class.  Under Obama’s crony capitalist fascism where he rewarded his friends and punished his enemies, workers are taking home the smallest slice of U.S. income – EVER.  Inequality has WIDENED.  The job market is a gaping hole (with a record 100 million Americans not working).  The poverty rate hasn’t budged under Obama and is the worst since LBJ’s bogus “war on poverty” in the early 1960s.  More Americans are reduced to food stamps under Obama than EVER.  Obama’s war on business has forced business and particularly manufacturing business to move out of the country.  And we’re losing ground in global trade.

The labor participation rate has plunged like an anvil in a duck pond under Obama.  Every single year of his presidency fewer and fewer and fewer Americans have jobs.  And it keeps getting worse and worse.  You deserve this, America.  And you are going to get worse if you don’t get a whole lot smarter real quick in time to utterly reject fascist Democrats in 2014 and then resoundingly reject them again in 2016.  Because otherwise President Hillary Clinton will be saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?” to a  whole lot more tragic government incompetence and incredibly cynical political cover-ups.

It is now a documented FACT that the Pentagon knew within fifteen minutes of the Benghazi attack that it was a TERRORIST attack.  And yet for WEEKS afterward a dishonest President Obama and his dishonest administration and a dishonest Hillary Clinton and her dishonest State Department perpetuated an outright lie and fraud in order to cover-up for their failure.  For Obama, he had deceitfully boasted to the American people that he had decimated al Qaeda and that it was no longer a threat because of his policies.  That was a lie.  And Hillary Clinton had to cover-up for one of the worst acts of incompetence imaginable.  So they both lied to the American people.  Period.  End of story, to quote the liar-in-chief.

If you are a Democrat today, you are a liar, you are a hypocrite, you are a fascist.  You give giant rewards to rich liberal crony capitalist fascist boondoggles even as you demonize your opposition – in frankly the most intolerant and most race-baiting and most fascist way possible – for doing the very thing YOU’RE DOING WORSE.

You Democrat mass-murdering genocidal baby-killing sodomite worshipers are nothing short of pure evil in absolutely every single thing you stand for.  It’s all a bunch of lies intended to fool the gullible and the depraved so you can steal more power and use it to punish your enemies and reward your friends.  All you have to do to see that is watch how Obama used power to either criminally attack his enemies that he wanted or used the IRS as a weapon to punish them for him.

Barack Obama is a cynical, dishonest slandering demagogue.  His core promise – according to the liberal New York Times – was to “transcend the political divide.”  But no president in American history has EVER been so nakedly partisan or has dived more deeply into the sewer of political division than Barack Obama.

What Obama Should Do About Syria: Do Nothing – Because He Chose To Do EVERYTHING Instead

First of all, we should not bomb Syria.

There are a whole host of reasons we shouldn’t, beginning with the fact that Syria has virtually nothing to do with America’s national interest.  In using chemical weapons against their own people, they did nothing that would threaten American security.  If that isn’t enough, let’s point out the fact that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep referring to “international norms.”  There’s a reason they do that; namely, because there is actually no violation of “international LAW.”  No nation that signed the treaty on chemical weapons is required to take military action against violators.  And Syria did not sign that treaty anyway.  Third, do you know which country WOULD be violating international law if Obama got his way?  That’s right – the United States of America.  The Secretary General of the United Nations has already stated categorically that our bombing of Syria would be illegal under international law.

Now, having stated those three problems for bombing Syria, let me continue pointing out still MORE problems with bombing Syria.  What is our specific goal?  None has been clearly (or actually even rather vaguely) stated.  A limited attack that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power would do nothing to dissuade him and would be just as emboldening to him as if we did nothing.  If he was still in power the day after the attack – and Obama has repeatedly assured the world Assad would still be in power – Assad would take to the airwaves and boast that he had withstood everything America could throw at him and he still remained to defy them.  The act of American imperialist aggression might literally even HELP Assad by rallying Arabs against the Great Satan.  Vietnam should survive as a lesson for us: if we’re going to go to war, “limited” is a bad word.  Either we need to utterly overwhelm with no restrictions and nothing off-limits, or we need to shut up and stay home.  But there’s more: what if our strike actually DID topple Assad?  Who would take over the country?  Al Qaeda, that’s who.  We can argue what percentage of fighters are radical al Qaeda soldiers, but the bottom line – that we have already learned the hard way in Egypt – is that the al Qaeda-types are better organized and would swiftly take over in any power vacuum the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood did.  Do you remember Obama assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood could NOT take over in Egypt?  Well, he did (as I documented here):

Obama downplayed the likelihood that the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood would take over if Mubarak were taken out of the picture:

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

And he was wrong then and he would be every bit as wrong now.  Toppling Assad almost definitely equals installing al Qaeda in his place and going from awful to even worse than awful.  We simply cannot afford more of Obama’s terrible mistakes that persistently derive from his ignorance and his failed world view.

If that isn’t enough, we face a Gulf of Tonkin moment all over again here.  What happens if Obama attacks Syria and Syria responds by using one or more of their Russian-provided state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship???  That’s right, thanks to Russia, Syria has state-of-the-art missiles that could easily sink one of our warships and drag us into a war that will cost us everything and benefit us nothing.  Would Obama just crawl away, or would we be in an endless Vietnam all over again?  If you’re going to tell me, “Syria wouldn’t DARE fight back while we were bombing them!”, well, you’re just nuts.

Iran is planning “revenge attacks” against the United States if we attack Syria.  What will Obama do about those attacks that he invited?

If you study Vietnam, what you learn is that LBJ kept setting “red lines” hoping that the North Vietnamese wouldn’t cross them, and they kept crossing them.  And every time they crossed one of those lines, LBJ felt compelled to crawl deeper into Vietnam.

It is frankly amazing to me that the same liberals who were the most frantic in their opposition to that war and other wars since are now the most loyal to Obama out of nothing short of fascist messiah-following loyalty.

Just in case you think that’s just some random token Democrat, try House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  Think of her utterly reprehensible actions back in 2007 in the new light of today:

Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad
Democrat raises issues of Mideast peace, Iraq with Syrian president
Associated Press
updated 4/4/2007 9:28:36 AM ET

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country. […]

“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. […]

Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Bush voices criticism

Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.

“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”

Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.

Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.

Now this googly-eyed moral idiot is singing a different tune, of course.  And of course now she’s siding with her messiah-Führer and agreeing that it wasn’t Obama who set any red lines, but “humanity.”  You see, Obama’s lips were only mouthing what the entire human race collectively said all at the same time.  It was beautiful, actually, Obama speaking for us all.

Nancy Pelosi is morally insane.  There is no other way to put it.  Bush knew Assad for the monster he was; but not the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Nope, complete moral idiot.

Just like abject moral idiot John Kerry.

Just like complete and utter moral fool Hillary Clinton.

Notice that Barack Obama handpicked two terrorist mass-murderer-loving radical extremists to be his Secretaries of State.  What are the odds that BOTH of Obama’s Secretaries of State – his highest foreign policy officials – would speak so kindly and well and fawn so deeply over a monster???  I’d say about 100 percent, when you understand what an America-hating radical Obama truly is.

Please don’t be a damn lemming.

Here’s the bottom line: Obama has been pushing for this strike against Syria for no other reason than he gave his “red line” statement and Syria crossed it (FOURTEEN TIMES!!!).  And Obama looks weak because he stuck his foot in his mouth all the way up to where his brain was supposed to be.  Nobody seriously doubts that.  Had Obama NOT given his “red line,” he would not be pushing the world, Congress, and literally invoking the world in an effort to attack Syria any more than he was when they were murdering  the other 119,000 of their own people that have perished these last two years.  And no, I don’t believe we should go to war to defend Obama’s shattered credibility.

Obama’s line –

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line.”

– is nothing short of pure rhetorical bovine feces.  Because, no, Obama, YOU DID set a red line.  And you specifically said:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also  to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start  seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being  utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my  equation.”

Your calculus.  Your equation.  YOUR RED LINE.

Again, THE WORLD DID NOT SET ANY RED LINES.  The international treaties do NOT call for signatories to attack countries that use chemical weapons; nor did Syria even SIGN any treaties regarding chemical weapons.  The only “international criminals” would be Obama and the America he dragged into war.

Now the Obama who first blamed Bush for everything until Republicans took over the House when he started blaming THEM for everything is literally blaming the WORLD for everything.  So now “earth” knows what it’s like to be the victim of Obama’s demagoguery where he blames his own failures on everybody but himself.

If all that isn’t enough, it appears unlikely that Obama’s Syria strike will make it through Congress.  As of last count, only 23 Senators had declared themselves in favor of such an action.  And it looks like even LONGER odds in the House.  And if Obama ignores this vote and strikes anyway, he will be inviting a true constitutional crisis.  I hope Obama isn’t that stupid, but as with all things Obama, “hope” is pretty much all you’ve got.

Okay.  I think I’ve made my point about bombing Syria being a stupid idea on just about every imaginable level.

We are playing a geo-political chess game here.  And thanks to Obama’s incoherent and frankly irrational Middle East policies that are impossible for anybody to enumerate, we are losing that game rather badly.

So what SHOULD Obama do?

He shouldn’t bomb Syria; but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ready to bomb somebody.

No, Obama should bomb IRAN.  And blast their nuclear capability into ashes.  THAT’S what he ought to do.

Iran is Syria’s patron-state.  Syria matters only because Iran wants Syria to matter.  Iran has been Syria’s puppet master all along, and Iran is the reason that Assad is still in power after two years of vicious revolution against him.  Iran has been “all in” on Syria.

If we attack Iran’s nuclear program like the giant, jackbooted-foot of Allah, believe me, Obama would be off the hook for doing nothing against Syria’s use of chemical weapons.  And at the same time, Syria would get the most crystal-clear message imaginable.

People like me would be forced to say, “Obama was a truly TERRIBLE president.  Until he took out Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.”

Call it “Operation Go For The Jugular.”  Rather than “Operation Enduring Confusion” as a strike on Syria would be.

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has threatened that he would send his best air defense system to both Syria AND IRAN if Obama attacks Syria.  We don’t have much time to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed nation, folks.  If Iran has such an air defense capability, it will be very bloody for us to attack Iran.  We’d better do it now.

And by the way, Mister president: DON’T go to Congress.  Follow Nike’s advice and “Just Do It.”  Make it a complete surprise.  Hit them hard and keep hitting them until it will take Iran another hundred years to build a nuke.

The day that Iran – which already has enough nuclear material to make several bombs – arrives at the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons as they have been feverishly working and making successes to achieve, it will truly “change the calculus” for world peace.  Iran would be IMMUNE from attack even as Iran would be emboldened to carry out a war of jihad as it saw fit.  And if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices spiraling into the stratosphere, what would we do about it given that any attack would result in Armageddon?  Because “mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work very well with a country like Iran that believes in 72 virgins awaiting them for being psychotic jihadist martyrs.

The problem with attacking Syria is that Syria simply doesn’t matter to us.  Iran’s nuclear threat matters to us a great deal.  If we’re going to go to war, let’s fight where it matters.  Destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program is worth fighting for.  And unlike what Obama faces regarding Syria – with cricket’s chirping as he cries for allies – we would have Israel ready to join us in such a strike with everything they have.

We’re going to need to do this sooner or later.  Any fool ought to know that.  And sooner is far better than later, especially after Putin’s threat.

So how about it, Obama?  Will you stop thinking petty and start thinking right?

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound – ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their – and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.

Special Operators And Intelligence Professionals Form OPSEC To Attack Obama For His Cynical Politically-Motivated Betrayal Of National Security

Remember when Kerri Strug injured herself and then incredibly won the gold medal for the USA women’s gymnastics team but hurt her ankle in the process?  The announcer said, “She’s hurt!  She’s hurt badly!” as Kerri Strug bravely stood on one leg after sticking her landing only to collapse on the ground in pain as soon as she finished her vault?  Remember her coach running over to pick her up and carry her?

I sure remember that.  What a great moment!!!  You could say that girl landed on the national heart.  That little sub-five-foot girl was magnificent when she was the only one who could win for her USA.

Well, the thing that isn’t quite as well remembered is that that scene of the coach carrying the wounded hero was overused in the media to such a degree that Saturday Night Live mocked it and then ESPN’s Sports Center did a parody of it as well.  Those spoofs weren’t mocking Strug; they were really mocking Bela Karolyi as a guy who clung desperately to his star to clutch at her fame.  In the SNL parody, Kerri Strug is basically saying six months later, “I can walk now, you know,” while Coach Karolyi constantly holds her at every appearance.

I don’t frankly don’t have a clue if Coach Karolyi was trying to pirate off the fame that his gymnast deservedly won or not; but that was how he was savaged by SNL.

And that parody is actually a great analogy for SEAL Team Six and Barack Obama.  SEAL Team Six, of course, are the professionals who took out Osama bin Laden, and Obama is your Bela Karolyi determined to pirate their place as heroes of American history which THEY ALONE risked their lives to secure.

But ask a question about all the glaring areas where Obama has failed – in the Middle East as tens of thousands have been murdered by brutal regimes and longstanding allies like Egypt have slipped into terrorist group control, and specifically in Iran where the brutal regime is practically at their goal to be attack-proof because of the nuclear weapons arsenal that they will have built under Obama’s watch – and what do we hear?  Obama got bin Laden, didn’t he?

It’s like history has been rewritten so that it was actually Bela Karolyi who stuck that vault.

Obama IMMEDIATELY went on national television to reveal the successful raid – when if he’d just waited a couple of damn days the intelligence gains could have been exploited.  And ever since then we have seen one betrayal of national security after another as Obama cynically leaked secrets at the cost of our national security and at the cost of our foreign assets and our allies in order to deceitfully and cynically exploit everything for his political posturing.

We have now had REPEATED and INCREDIBLY DAMAGING leaks that CLEARLY and in fact WITHOUT ANY QUESTION came out of the Obama White House.

Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein put it best:

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Feinstein said, “I think what we’re seeing, Wolf, is an avalanche of leaks and it is very, very disturbing. It’s dismayed our allies. It puts American lives in jeopardy. It puts our nation’s security in jeopardy.”

Feinstein also recently said:

“I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” Feinstein said in an address at the World Affairs Council, The Associated Press first reported.

These leaks are crippling America’s national security for years and years to come, intelligence experts say.  And it all began with the Osama bin Laden raid – because when we got bin Laden, Obama essentially concluded that he could sacrifice US national security and exploit it for his political present in order to get himself re-elected running as “the man who got bin Laden.”

The idea, of course, is that had George Bush had four more years in office to benefit from the success of the intelligence programs and tactics that HE created, Bush could not have got Osama bin Laden.  Why not?  Well its simple: Bush was not a messiah.  And only messiah could have got bin Laden.  And Barack Obama, of course, is the messiah.  Otherwise, Obama’s argument that “I’m the one who got bin Laden” is a truly asinine argument: because it just took until 2011 for US intelligence to track bin Laden down and Obama made the call that ANY president would have made – EVEN Barack Obama.

Forget the Navy SEALs.  Their glory is NOTHING as compared to messiah Obama’s.  I’m frankly surprised that the White House didn’t take pictures of Obama in SEAL garb and depict him as personally leading the raid and personally pulling the trigger that took out the terrorist.

The special operations community is red-hot pissed about it.

OPSEC, Special Forces Group, Attacks Obama Over Bin Laden Bragging, Leaks
Reuters  |  Posted: 08/14/2012 9:16 pm
By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON Aug 14 (Reuters) – A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and arg u es that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.

Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.

In the past, military exploits have been turned against presidential candidates by outside groups, most famously the Swift Boat ads in 2004 that questioned Democratic nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War service.

The OPSEC group says it is not political and aims to save American lives. Its first public salvo is a 22-minute film that includes criticism of Obama and his administration. The film, to be released on Wednesday, was seen in advance by Reuters.

“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not,” Ben Smith, identified as a Navy SEAL, says in the film.

“As a citizen, it is my civic duty to tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy,” Smith continues. “It will get Americans killed.”

An Obama campaign official said: “No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it’s clear they’ve resorted to making things up for purely political reasons.”

Obama has highlighted his foreign policy record on the campaign trail, emphasizing how he presided over the killing of bin Laden, as well as how he ended the war in Iraq and set a timeline for winding down the war in Afghanistan.

However, Obama has come under sharp attack from Republican lawmakers who have accused his administration of being behind high-level leaks of classified information.

They have pointed to media reports about clandestine drone attacks, informants planted in al Qaeda affiliates and alleged cyber-warfare against Iran that Republicans say were calculated to promote Obama’s image as a strong leader in an election year.

The White House has denied leaking classified information.

The president of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, Scott Taylor, is a former Navy SEAL who in 2010 ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in Virginia.

Calling itself “OPSEC” for short – which in spy jargon means “operational security” – the anti-leak group incorporated last June in Delaware, a state that has the most secretive corporate registration rules in the U.S.

It also set itself up as a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. Tax Code, allowing it to keep donors’ identities secret. Spokesmen for the group declined to discuss its sources of financing.

Several group representatives say their main motivation for setting up OPSEC was dismay at recent detailed media leaks about sensitive operations.

In an interview, Taylor denied OPSEC had any political slant. He described the group as a “watchdog organization” but added that the current administration “has certainly leaked more than others.”

OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.

Following the film’s release, OPSEC’s spokesmen said, the group expects to produce TV spots on the anti-leak theme that will air in a number of states, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada – key battleground states.

Fred Rustmann, a former undercover case officer for the CIA who is a spokesman for the group, insisted its focus on leaks was “not a partisan concern.” But he said the current administration had been leaking secrets “to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples’ lives…. We want to see that they don’t do this again.”

Chad Kolton, a former spokesman for the office of Director of National Intelligence during the George W. Bush administration who now represents OPSEC, also said the group’s message and make-up are nonpolitical.

“You’ll see throughout the film that concern about protecting the lives of intelligence and Special Forces officers takes precedence over partisanship,” he said.

Responding to criticism about the president taking credit for the bin Laden raid, an Obama campaign official pointed to an interview with CNN last month in which Admiral Bill McRaven, commander of the raid, said: “At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him.”

“I think Admiral McRaven knows more about the President’s role in the bin Laden operation than this group,” the campaign official said.

When I read that article, I was actually most enraged by the way the Obama administration responded at the conclusion: pitting Admiral McRaven against the credibility of the SEALs. Stop and think about it: Admiral McRaven serves at the pleasure of the president. If you don’t believe me, does anybody remember General Stanley McChrystal??? So now Admiral McRaven is put in the position of defending a president who will fire him if he doesn’t properly defend him??? Is that the kind of position our military leaders ought to be placed in???

So the Obama administration is literally saying here, “We’re as guilty as sin of doing everything our critics say, but if any active duty service member says so we’ll fire his ass.”  We might as well start doing what Nazi Germany did and have our military swear loyalty oaths of personal allegiance to their Führer rather than to their nation’s Constitution.

Exploiting Admiral McRaven for cover is every bit as cynical, every bit as dishonest, and every bit as treasonous, as everything else this administration has done.

SEALs aren’t guys who generally want the national glory for themselves; whatever “bragging” they do they tend to do within their own community because frankly nobody else would understand them to be able to appropriately honor them.

They also know that “loose lips sink ships.”  That was true during World War II and it is just as true today: when you reveal secrets of operations, you jeopardize current and future operations and you literally get good men killed.  And contrary to populist notions, there IS a limit of how many good men America has; such that every single ONE of them is a national treasure.

So the special operators aren’t pissed off at Obama for trying to leech off of their glory.  That isn’t what they’re about.  In that way, they are the OPPOSITE of Obama or most any other politician; they’re the kind of guys who go do what has to be done and do it in secret rather than the guys who call press conferences to boast about what other people just got through doing.  So it isn’t that Obama is trying to pirate their glory that is pissing them off; it’s that Obama is a reckless fool who is destroying national security and betraying secrets that will get men like themselves killed or worse (e.g., tortured and then murdered).  THAT’S what’s pissing them off.