Showing posts with label more rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label more rape. Show all posts

Thursday, May 26, 2016

The long lines at airports are a problem for Hillary Clinton

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.washingtonpost.com

Transportation Security Administration administrator Peter Neffenger says an increase in passenger numbers is one reason for long lines at airport security checkpoints. (Reuters)

The long security lines at U.S. airportsare another problem for Hillary Clinton. A lot of Americans interact with the Transportation Security Administration, and they expect that agency to function properly. And when there is a problem, they want it fixed. Does anyone think of Clinton as a problem-solver? Answer: No. Can anyone think of a problem she has ever solved?

As I have written before, the Democrats are identified as a party that agitates for interest groups and social causes. They impose their will through regulations and via the courts. The Obama era has left the Democrats without any claim to managerial expertise or problem-solving skills, and Clinton will pay a price for that in November.

The current problems at the TSA are a perfect example. When Americans are standing in lines at our nation’s airports and fuming about incompetence in government, they don’t want to hear excuses about a lack of government resources. Who do you think is more likely to shake things up with the bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security and actually get the TSA working, President Hillary Clinton or President Donald Trump? It’s no contest.

If Trump were to show up at an American airport and face those waiting in a long security line, he would probably be welcomed and he would instantly be recognized as someone who would make changes. If Clinton were to show up, I think she would be greeted as an agent of the status quo, and the crowd reaction would be, to put it mildly, more subdued. Not one person who is outraged and disgusted while standing in a security line and missing their flight could care less about Trump’s taxes or how he may or may not have treated a girlfriend decades ago. They want somebody who can make basic government functions work.  Let’s face it, the people who rolled out the Obamacare website are the same people who can’t figure out how to match the number of TSA security screeners with airport traffic.

Honestly, do you think the White House has spent more time in the past 90 days managing its school bathroom mandate for transgender students or trying figuring out how to make TSA security lines work with adequate efficiency this travel season? The answer is obvious.

Denial is rampant in this administration. Its approach to management is to deny problems exist and to shift focus to one left-wing cause or another. I have no doubt the TSA strategy will be to shift blame, whine about funding shortages and deny that things are as bad as they are. I suspect after a congressional probe, we will actually find that much of the TSA problems in the summer of 2016 were made worse by the Obama administration’s obsession with regulations, grievances and union rules that took precedence over efficiency, customer service and getting a job done.

Again, this is what our government has become under the Democrats: All lecturing and no management. This is what has fueled much of the Trump movement, and it is another reason Hillary Clinton is such a poor fit for the country in 2016. We don’t need a third Obama term. Remember that the next time you are stuck in a security line at an airport.

COMMENTS

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Trump refers to alleged Bill Clinton sexual indiscretions as 'rape'

| Fox News

www.foxnews.com

 

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the word "rape" Wednesday evening to describe alleged sexual misconduct by former President Bill Clinton. 

Trump made the comment during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. The real estate mogul was answering questions about an unflattering story published this past weekend by The New York Times involving his relationships with women when he turned his attention to Bill Clinton.

"By the way, you know, it's not like the worst things, OK," Trump said. "You look at what Clinton's gone through with all of the problems and all of the things that he's done."

Hannity went on to question whether the newspaper would interview women including Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. All three have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct.

"In one case, it's about exposure. In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will," Hannity said.

"And rape," Trump responded.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

"And rape," Hannity repeated.

In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Trump was "doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run that’s his choice."

Allegations of womanizing, extramarital affairs and abuse have trickled out over the course of Bill Clinton's political life, including what his campaign referred to as "bimbo eruptions" when he first ran for president in 1992.

More allegations of misbehavior emerged after investigators in 1997 started looking into Clinton's sexual encounters with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached over the Lewinsky affair.

In 1998, he agreed to an $850,000 settlement with Jones, an Arkansas state worker, who had accused Clinton of exposing himself and making indecent propositions when Clinton was the state's governor. The settlement included no apology or admission of guilt.

Broaddrick, a nurse, in 1999 claimed she was raped by then-state Attorney General Clinton at a Little Rock hotel in 1978. Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, claimed Clinton fondled her when she met privately with him at the White House in 1993 to seek a job.

Clinton denied the allegations by Broaddrick and Willey.

Trump has made clear in recent weeks that he intends to make Bill Clinton's sexual history a key campaign issue, describing him at rallies and on social media as "the worst abuser of women in the history of politics" and labeling his wife an "enabler."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Two Presidents in the White House?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.google.com

By Sally Bedell Smith Updated Dec. 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. ET

For many years, one of Bill and Hillary Clinton's closest friends, TV producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, has been fond of saying that when the Clintons "are dead and gone, each of them is going to be buried next to a president of the United States."

It is an idea that the Clintons began talking about decades ago. Back in 1974, Bill Clinton told his friend Diane Kincaid that Hillary "could be president someday." During his own presidential campaign in 1992, he said in an interview, "Eight years of Hillary Clinton? Why not?"

We now face the extraordinary possibility of having two presidents in the White House who are married to each other. That prospect is something that never occurred to our nation's founders, and is only now beginning to catch the attention of the public, with Hillary Clinton's position as front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Imagine being asked to serve as her running mate, knowing that her husband would be far more influential than any vice president. What would a potential secretary of state face now that Sen. Clinton has already said she would use her husband as ambassador to the world? As a former president, would Mr. Clinton read the daily intelligence briefing? His unofficial portfolio would potentially overlap with everyone in authority, without his being subject to Senate confirmation.

The federal anti-nepotism law enacted in December 1967 -- partly as a reaction to John F. Kennedy's appointment of his brother Robert as attorney general -- prohibits any official in the three branches of government, including the president, from appointing a relative to a job over which that official has authority or control. This means Mr. Clinton could not be a cabinet secretary or an ambassador, or White House chief of staff. His role would be necessarily ambiguous. At a time when voters are crying out for more openness in government, such an arrangement raises questions about transparency and accountability.

While Mr. Clinton's return to the West Wing wouldn't directly violate the 22nd Amendment -- designed to limit a president to two terms in office -- it has significant implications because of the unusual nature of Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage, which is such a deeply entwined political duopoly that "it has always been hard to distinguish who played what role," according to their longtime friend Mickey Kantor.

Many voters, especially Democrats, would welcome Mr. Clinton's experience as a great asset to his wife's administration. But given the Clintons' long history of close consultation, their partnership could end up distorting the way the executive branch is supposed to function -- regardless of the talents each of them might bring to the White House.

So far the Clinton campaign has downplayed the question of Mr. Clinton's role in the administration if his wife were elected -- joking that he might be "first laddie" or "first spouse" or "first gentleman." Campaign videos showing him munching on cheeseburgers and running on a treadmill have served to further de-emphasize the prospect of his power in the White House. Mr. Clinton has said he would only sit in on cabinet meetings "if asked" to discuss "specific issues," and he has declared his intention to give his wife advice "privately most of the time."

But this is exactly the kind of hidden-hand role that caused confusion and resentment when Hillary Clinton was advising her husband in his administration. As first lady, she inhibited staff members and created what one top Clinton administration official called a "world of shadows on the wall."

Bill Clinton's mere presence in the West Wing would be intimidating and complicating. Given his unrivaled experience and huge personality, it's safe to assume that he would be no Denis Thatcher, walking two steps behind. Bill Clinton is "always evangelizing for the church of Bill," said Arkansas journalist Max Brantley. And even if the former president were to continue operating out of his office in New York City and home in Chappaqua, New York, the Clintons' ingrained habits would mean a continuing collaboration, albeit at a distance.

The concept of two presidents in the White House poses one of the biggest conundrums of this political season, and is an issue that can only grow during the general election campaign if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

Ms. Smith is the author of "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years," published this year by Random House.

COMMENTS

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

The Mysterious Case of Ted Cruz PAC’s $1/2 Million ‘Donation’ to Help Carly Fiorina

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

lawnewz.com

Editor’s Note: This article was first published March 30, 2016.

Months ago, before the Republican race was whittled down to just two candidates, a very curious thing happened. Ted Cruz‘s super PAC ‘donated’ $500,000 to Carly Fiorina‘s super PAC. A few articles popped up at the time, and the Federal Election Committee even issued a letter asking the Cruz super PAC to better explain what the donation was for.

To be clear, a half a million dollars is not a small donation, and, at the time, it was the largest expense that the PAC had paid out. So why the heck would Cruz’s PAC hand over that kind of money in the midst of a heated campaign splintered with so many candidates? In an interview in October,  Kellyanne Conway, president of Cruz’s PAC told CBS News, that they made the donation in June “because we thought she had important things to say that weren’t being heard.” She added, “we are all in for Ted Cruz for President.”

Do you seriously believe that a group that was pushing for Cruz to be president several months ago would want to help his rival, Carly Fiorina? That makes no sense. The reason that LawNewz.com uncovered in the Cruz PAC’s recently amended filings with the FEC raises even more questions.

“The failure of this super PAC to adequately describe the purpose of this transaction – undermines the public’s right to know,” Campaign Legal Center Executive Director Paul Ryan told LawNewz.com.

In the new filing, under the reason category instead of saying “other disbursement” like they had marked previously, Keep The Promise I (the name of the Cruz super PAC) amended the filing to say “transfer to IE only committee.” Uh? An “IE Only Committee” is legalese for “super PAC.”  What the Cruz super PAC means by “Transfer to IE Only Committee” is that it gave money to a different super PAC. Okay, well, thanks for amending the disclosure, but that still gives us no indication about what this money was used for, and why it was given to Cruz’s opponent.  And, in fact, legal experts believe that federal rules may require the super PAC to mark this as a donation not a transfer anyway.

“Even if this Cruz supporting super PAC describes the purpose (in their amended disclosures), that still doesn’t answer the why question — the motivation is what is interesting and intriguing,” Ryan said.

It is intriguing. I was prompted to research this particular donation because longtime Donald Trump friend and confidante Roger Stone brought it up in a recent interview, when he was addressing the National Enquirer article that accused Ted Cruz of having affairs with five different mistresses. (Something that Cruz has dismissed as ‘garbage’ and ‘lies’)

“And you have to wonder whether these women, one of whom worked for the Carly Fiorina campaign, and then shortly thereafter Ted Cruz pays Carly half a million dollars. Ted despises Carly, and Carly despises Ted. What is the $500,000 for? Can you say hush money?” Stone said in the interview. Stone, a longtime GOP political consultant, was the only one quoted ‘on the record’ for the Enquirer story. His claim definitely sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it’s now exploding on the internet. Plus, it wouldn’t be the first time a presidential candidate  used hush money to cover up an affair.

Of course, fast forward to now, Fiorina is backing Cruz in his campaign for presidency. Interestingly, Fiorina was recently out campaigning with him in Wisconsin when a Daily Mail reporter asked Cruz point blank about whether he had affairs. Fiorina quickly jumped in before Cruz could say a word.

“I’m going to comment. This is an example of the media playing to Donald Trump’s tune. Donald Trump is a serial philanderer, by his own admission,” Fiorina said.

Okay, so we have no idea if the two are connected, but we do know that it is very unusual for a Cruz-supporting PAC to give money to his opponent. We also know that the reason that the PAC stated in their amended disclosures is even more curious, and provides even fewer answers.

“This is very rare, I can’t recall another instance in which one super PAC contributed to another super PAC supporting an opponent, ” election law expert Paul Ryan said.

I emailed Cruz’s PAC Keep the Promise for further explanation, they pointed me back to their previous statements on the matter in which the executive director said that Keep the Promise I “supports Ted Cruz for President” but “will offer support to other candidates.”

Cruz’s campaign has not returned a call. We will continue digging to see if we can find out what this money was used for. But, as you know, the federal rules are pretty lax when it comes to requiring superPAC to make disclosures.

[image via Shutterstock]

COMMENTS

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Kerry Having ‘Additional Evaluation’ Done to Decide if Slaughter of Mideast Christians is Genocide

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

cnsnews.com

(Screen Capture)
(CNSNews.com) - Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Assistance today that he is having an “additional evaluation” done to help him determine whether the systematic murder of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East—at the hands of the Islamic State and others—should be declared “genocide.”
“I will make a decision on it as soon as I have that additional evaluation and we will proceed forward from there,” Kerry said.
Kerry was responding to a question put to him by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R.-Neb.), who is the sponsor of a resolution that would declare on behalf of Congress that it is in fact genocide.
The resolution expresses “the sense of Congress that those who commit or support atrocities against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities, including Yezidis, Turkmen, Sabea-Mandeans, Kaka‘e, and Kurds, and who target them specifically for ethnic or religious reasons, are committing, and are hereby declared to be committing, ‘war crimes,’ ‘crimes against humanity,’ and ‘genocide.’”
As a preface to his question, Fortenberry told Kerry about a young Syrian man who had been murdered by jihadists after refusing to renounce his Christian faith.
“I had the extraordinary privilege of being in the room with Pope Francis when he, in a very powerful moment, was given a small cross, a Christian crucifix,” said Fortenberry. “That crucifix had belonged to a young Syrian man who had been captured by the jihadists, and he was told to choose: Convert or die. And he chose his ancient faith tradition. He chose Christ, and he was beheaded.”
“His mother was able to recover the body, recover this cross, and bury him,” said Fortenberry. “She fled to Austria, which set the stage for this moment which I witnessed.”
“Mr. Secretary, this is repeating itself over and over and over again against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in the region,” said Fortenberry.
“What I’m urging here today,” said Fortenberry, “is that you use the authority and power of your office to call this genocide, to help restore the rich tapestry of the ancient faith traditions in the Middle East, to stop this assault on human dignity and civilization itself.”
Kerry said he is now considering declaring the targeting of Middle East Christians and other religious minorities in the region a genocide.
But, Kerry said, he has asked for “further evalution” to be done before he makes a final decision.
“I share just a huge sense of revulsion over these acts, obviously,” Kerry said. “None of us have ever seen anything like it in our lifetimes. Although, obviously, if you go back to the Holocaust, the world has seen it.
“We are currently doing what I have to do, which is review very carefully the legal standards and precedents for whatever judgment is made,” he said.
“I can tell you we are doing that,” he said. “I have had some initial recommendations made to me. I have asked for some further evaluation. And I will make a decision on this. And I will make a decision on it as soon as I have that additional evaluation and we will proceed forward from there.”
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Fortenberry and Kerry:
Fortenberry: Mr. Secretary, I had the extraordinary privilege of being in the room with Pope Francis when he, in a very powerful moment, was given a small cross, a Christian crucifix. That crucifix had belonged to a young Syrian man who had been captured by the jihadists, and he was told to choose: Convert or die. And he chose his ancient faith tradition. He chose Christ, and he was beheaded.
His mother was able to recover the body, recover this cross, and bury him. And she fled to Austria, which set the stage for this moment which I witnessed.
Mr. Secretary, this is repeating itself over and over and over again against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in the region. In 2004, Colin Powell, when he was secretary of state, came before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I believe you served on that committee at that point, and declared what was happening in Darfur to be a genocide.
There are 200 members of Congress in a bi-partisan fashion, we’ve put our names on a resolution that is forthcoming that declares this genocide. There is a growing international consensus in this regard. The European Parliament has passed something similar. The U.S. Catholic Bishops, Pope Francis has spoken out, Hillary Clinton has called it such, Marco Rubio, the international association of genocide scholars.
I want a note as well a word of thanks to you and President Obama for the quick action on Mount Sinjar that actually saved the lives of women and children, countless persons who would have been wiped out and victimized.
So, what I’m urging here today is that you use the authority and power of your office to call this genocide, to help restore the rich tapestry of the ancient faith traditions in the Middle East, to stop this assault on human dignity and civilization itself. And to set potentially the conditions that we are all hoping and praying for that re-establishes stability and reintegration of these ancient faith traditions into the fabric of the communities in the Middle East entirely.
I think the stability, the future stability, of the entire region depends upon this.
Kerry: Well again Congressman thank you for a very moving and eloquent description of the problem. And I appreciate, you were lucky to be in that room to witness that, and I certainly appreciate your reactions to it. And I share just a huge sense of revulsion over these acts, obviously. None of us have ever seen anything like it in our lifetimes. Although, obviously, if you go back to the Holocaust, the world has seen it.
We are currently doing what I have to do, which is review very carefully the legal standards and precedents for whatever judgment is made. I can tell you we are doing that. I have had some initial recommendations made to me. I have asked for some further evaluation. And I will make a decision on this. And I will make a decision on it as soon as I have that additional evaluation and we will proceed forward from there.
I understand how compelling it is. Christians have been moved in many parts now of the Middle East, I might add. This is not just in Syria, but in other places there has been an increased forced evacuation and displacement, which is equally disturbing, though it’s not—you know, they aren’t killing them in that case, but it’s a removal, and a cleansing ethnically and religiously, which is deeply disturbing. So we are very much focused on this. And, as I say, I will make a judgement soon.
Fortenberry: They have taken the conditions for life as well as life away from Christians, Yazidis, and religious minorities. And I bring up the declaration by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to demonstrate the power that the declaration actually has, because in doing so he helped put a stop to that grim reality there in Darfur.
I know you share deep sympathies in this regard. I just urge you, and plead with you, partner with us. There is a growing consensus that this is not only true and real but I think, again, it sets the condition for whatever the future settlement we have to have.  

Friday, January 29, 2016

Bill Clinton's Approval Rating Plunges To 39 Percent Down from 50% Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

by Mike Flynn28 Jan 20160

28 Jan, 201628 Jan, 2016 Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are in free-fall, and that surprise crash undermines the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton has a lock on the Democrat nomination.

A new CBS/New York Times poll shows that just 39 percent of American voters have a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton.

This is down from a 50 percent approval rating just a few months ago. In 2012, when Bill Clinton was campaigning aggressively for President Obama’s reelection, 66 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Mr. Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s favorable rating today is actually lower than it was in 2008, when he last campaigned forcefully for Hillary as she was battling Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination. As that contest heated up, Mr. Clinton’s favorable rating sank to 46 percent.

A modest drop in Bill Clinton’s approval rating is to be expected as he reenters the political fray. As a former President, Clinton is normally viewed by voters as somewhat “above” politics, allowing them to hold more favorable views of the former politician.

Campaigning for one side in a political debate, even if that candidate is his wife, is naturally going to impact the opinions of those on the other side of that debate. The steep drop in Bill Clinton’s approval ratings, though, as he is only beginning to campaign for Hillary in the primary suggests something deeper is going on.

A few weeks ago, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump responded to criticism from Hillary Clinton by raising the issue of Bill Clinton’s sexual transgressions and the allegations of sexual assault against the former President.

In the wake of the controversy between Trump and Hillary Clinton, several women from Bill Clinton’s past emerged again from the media shadows to retell their stories of Mr. Clinton’s alleged sexual abuse.

The last time these allegations were raised at all in the media was back in 1998, during the height of the controversy surrounding Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Tellingly, during this time, Mr. Clinton’s approval rating also sunk to 39 percent in the CBS poll.

While the resurfacing of the old allegations brings back memories of a dysfunctional Clinton White House for older voters, for a large portion of the electorate, these stories are largely new. Voters younger than 35 weren’t even old enough to vote when the Lewinsky story dominated political news.

Interestingly, young voters are a powerful force behind the dramatic rise of Hillary Clinton’s current rival,Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sanders leads Hillary by 12 points among voters aged 18-34. In another poll, voters younger than 24 prefer Sanders over Hillary by a massive 42 points, 68-26.

It isn’t hard to imagine that these twin phenomenon — Bill Clinton’s plummeting approval ratings and Sanders’ surge among young voters — are related.

Before Trump, the conventional wisdom was that voters didn’t care about Clinton’s past sexual transgressions. These, the pundits assured us, were old news. For many voters, though, these allegations aren’t old news at all.

Even for those who do remember the old controversies, the kind of conduct allegedly committed by Bill Clinton is viewed much differently today than 20 years ago. This may be the clearest sign that the Clinton era is truly over.

COMMENTS

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Subject: Fwd: So the Clintons weren't so bad, eh?



------ Forwarded Message




If you’re under 50 you really need to read this.  If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50.  Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform.  Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress.  This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.  Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.”  Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
 Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.  Lani Guanier was her selection.  When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration. Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.  She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.  Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.Many younger voters will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply.  She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired.  This ruined
their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.  Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.  A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
 
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security.  When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.  Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents. Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense.  Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.  After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.  After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath. After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type low-life mess? Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.  But to her loyal fans - “what difference does it make

Friday, January 22, 2016

BORDER CONTINUES TO HEMORRHAGE FLOODS OF ILLEGALS

Immigrants keep on coming
www.expressnews.com

Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio 

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Two-year-old Sherley Fuentes is held firmly by her mother as mostly Central American immigrant families arrive at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The Honduran mother and daughter were traveling to Dallas, Texas after being released by U.S. immigrations officials.


Two-year-old Sherley Fuentes is held firmly by her mother as mostly Central American immigrant families arrive at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. ... more Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-NewsImage 2 of 8
U.S. Border supervisory Border Patrol agent Jose Luis Perales watches a popular crossing spot along the Rio Grande near Anzalduas Dam, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016. The Rio Grande Valley sector has seen an increased of traffic in families and unaccompanied minors from Central America towards the end of 2015.
U.S. Border supervisory Border Patrol agent Jose Luis Perales watches a popular crossing spot along the Rio Grande near Anzalduas Dam, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016. The Rio Grande Valley sector has seen an ... more Photo: San Antonio Express-NewsImage 3 of 8
Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter visitors and volunteers applaud as mostly Central American families arrive in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The shelter serves as the first stop for immigrants released by immigration officials. It provided food, clothing and a place to clean up and rest.
Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter visitors and volunteers applaud as mostly Central American families arrive in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The shelter serves as the first stop for ... more Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-NewsImage 4 of 8
Ana Membreno, 33, takes a rest after arriving at the at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The Honduran mother and daughter were traveling to Dallas, Texas after being released by U.S. immigrations officials. She was traveling with her fourteen-year-old son to Houston after leaving their country of El Salvador.
Ana Membreno, 33, takes a rest after arriving at the at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The Honduran mother and daughter were traveling to Dallas, ... more Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-NewsImage 5 of 8
Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter operation manager Eli Fernandez briefs mostly Central American families arriving in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The shelter serves as the first stop for immigrants released by immigration officials. It provided food, clothing and a place to clean up and rest.
Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter operation manager Eli Fernandez briefs mostly Central American families arriving in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The shelter serves as the first stop ... more Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-NewsImage 6 of 8
A U.S. Border and Protection agent walks along a smuggling trail leading from the Rio Grande near McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016. The Rio Grande Valley sector has seen an increased of traffic in families and unaccompanied minors from Central America towards the end of 2015.
A U.S. Border and Protection agent walks along a smuggling trail leading from the Rio Grande near McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016. The Rio Grande Valley sector has seen an increased of traffic in ... more Photo: San Antonio Express-NewsImage 7 of 8
Ten-month-old Zenaida Chavez waits for another spoonful of soup from her mother, Mercedes Chavez, 27, at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The shelter serves as the first stop for immigrants released by immigration officials. It provided food, clothing and a place to clean up and rest. The family, from El Salvador, were on their way to Virginia.
Ten-month-old Zenaida Chavez waits for another spoonful of soup from her mother, Mercedes Chavez, 27, at the Sacred Heart Catholic Church immigrant shelter in McAllen, Texas, Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016. The shelter ... more Photo: Jerry Lara, Staff / San Antonio Express-NewsImage 8 of 8
A man is seen fishing the Mexican side of the Rio Grande near McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016. The Rio Grande Valley sector has seen an increased of traffic in families and unaccompanied minors from Central America towards the end of 2015.
A man is seen fishing the Mexican side of the Rio Grande near McAllen, Texas, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2016. The Rio Grande Valley sector has seen an increased of traffic in families and unaccompanied minors from ... morePhoto: San Antonio Express-NewsImmigrants keep on coming
Back to Gallery
HIDALGO — The busiest corner of the Southwest border weaves around verdant fields of winter vegetables, cutting through parks, skirting wildlife refuge lands and rising on levees above tiny communities founded centuries ago.
Immigrant children and families have streamed into this 20-mile swath of the Rio Grande Valley by the tens of thousands in recent years, at times overwhelming immigration authorities.
But for the U.S. Border Patrol agents who keep watch here, the long hours of tedium are as often interrupted by the frantic rush to apprehend immigrants as the sight of men lazily fishing along irrigation canals or a septuagenarian in search of exotic birds.
“This job isn‘t for everyone,” said Monique Grame, deputy patrol agent in charge of the McAllen Border Patrol Station. “The hours are long and shifts are at all hours of the night and day. It’s hard.”
Border Patrol agents caught almost 21,500 families crossing the border illegally between October and December, a nearly 200 percent increase from the same period the previous year. During the same three-month period, border agents picked up another 17,300-plus children traveling alone, almost 120 percent higher than the year before.
And it is here, along the sandy banks of the Rio Grande, that border agents have swept up people from 140 countries. It’s the busiest stretch along the entire 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. Minors and mothers with young children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras still make up the majority of immigrants caught in South Texas.
Dashboard 1 Despite efforts to stem the flow of immigrants here their numbers are once again on the rise, prompting the opening of new shelters in December to house them, with plans to open three more this year. During a recent visit to McAllen, CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske considered the possibility that the trend has become the new normal.
“We’ve seen an uptick this January compared to January of last year, but we haven’t seen the strain or stress of 2014,” said Grame. “It’s busy on the weekends, other days it’s slow.”
Wednesday, under sunny skies, Grame patrolled a twisting, rutted single-lane dirt track under a canopy of salt cedar and mesquite; only the rotor thwack of helicopters overhead disrupted the bucolic surroundings.
She drove slowly past a Texas National Guard sentinel and a group of border agents launching boats into the river before stopping near a trail of deflated rafts, slashed by agents to render them unusable to smugglers.
Soiled clothing clung to the bramble and branches of scraggly trees, carrizo obscuring the river. Left behind were life jackets, toothbrushes, shoes and myriad underwear.
A few feet from the Rio Grande, an immigrant from India had discarded his Mexican travel visa in the brush. As Grame picked up the tightly folded papers and hotel receipts, she said other Indian immigrants had been doing the same with their travel documents.
“We’ll give this to our intel shop and they’ll try to trace it back to where it originated,” Grame said. “People are going to come across no matter what, but this helps us identify some of the smuggling operations.”
Farther on, an agent watched the river for illegal activity on a small monitor from inside a metal box positioned a quarter-mile away amid a field of onion sprouts. The technology is one of several powerful Defense Department monitoring systems redeployed to the border for this purpose.
Grame passed other Border Patrol vehicles and law enforcement agencies patrolling the area, but no immigrants.
Maybe not that morning, but still the immigrants come.
Mercedes Chavez, 27, an immigrant from El Salvador fed her doe-eyed 10-month old daughter noodle soup in McAllen’s Sacred Heart Catholic Church on Tuesday evening.
More than 30,000 immigrants, many of them fleeing rampant violence in their homelands, have been taken here since June 2014 for temporary food and shelter.
Earlier this month, Chavez left her home in Sonsonate, El Salvador, with her infant and 10-year-old daughter.
“The gang wanted $2,000 or the little girl,” Chavez said. Refusing to give up her child, she added, “I sold my refrigerator, my television and left everything else behind.”
anelsen@express-news.net
Twitter: @amnelsen

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Five Questions for Hillary Clinton

AP Photo/Mic Smith

by PETER SCHWEIZER18 Jan 2016798

Lots of questions got tossed around during the Democratic Presidential Debate last night.

But Hillary Clinton avoided any serious questions about the ethical problems she faces. Here are five simple, straightforward questions that Hillary Clinton needs to be asked:

When are you going to disclose the names of all of the donors to the Clinton Foundation? In your written signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Transition Team, during your confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you promised that the Clinton Foundation would be completely transparent. Bill Clinton also went on CNN and promised it to the American people. Yet after it was discovered that secret multimillion dollar donations went to the Clinton Foundation after the questionable uranium deal that your State Department signed off on, Clinton Foundation support Frank Giustra admitted that there are more than 1,000 donors that have never been disclosed. The Clinton Foundation promised in the Spring of 2015 that those names would be forthcoming but we are still waiting.Why did your husband’s speaking fees to foreign countries and companies more than triple after you were appointed Secretary of State? We all know that your husband has had successful and lucrative speaking career. But between 2001 and 2012, he gave 13 speeches for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those came while you were Secretary of State, most from foreign governments and companies. Can you explain why this happened?Why did your State Department approve the transfer of 20 percent of American uranium to the Russian government? Did it have something to do with the fact that the Clinton Foundation hauled in $145 million from investors in the deal, and the fact that Bill received $500,000 from a Kremlin-baked bank for a speech in Moscow?Why did the State Department push for open pit coal mining in Bangladesh, in direct violation of Obama Administration policy on advocating for fossil fuels in the developing world? Did it have something to do with the fact that foreign mining magnate Stephen Dattels, who owned a large stake in the mine, gave the Clinton Foundation 2 million shares of stock in the company in a undisclosed contribution?Why does your family and the Clinton Foundation continue to accept large sums of money from the business partners, friends, lawyers, and advisors of Marc Rich? Your husband admitted it was a terrible mistake to pardon the international fugitive back in 2001 given that Rich’s ex-wife had made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation before the pardon. Are any the post-pardon payments part of a payoff?

These are all well documented controversies swirling around the Clintons.

When other candidates are subjected to questions about loans from Goldman Sachs and their business bankruptcies, these basic questions deserve answers.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race

Monday, January 18, 2016

EXCLUSIVE–Linda Tripp: ‘Bill Had Affairs with Thousands of Women’ - Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

In a rare interview, Linda Tripp, a pivotal figure in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, revealed on Sunday it was common knowledge while she worked in the West Wing that Bill Clinton had affairs with “thousands of women.”

Speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Tripp for the first time divulged that she personally knew another White House staffer aside from Lewinsky who was also having an affair with Clinton. That unnamed staffer was mentioned by Tripp in various depositions but she has not spoken about it publicly.

She charged that Hillary Clinton not only knew about her husband’s exploits, “She made it her personal mission to disseminate information and destroy the women with whom he dallied.”

Tripp says she cringes at the sight of Clinton presenting herself as “a champion of women’s rights worldwide in a global fashion, and yet all of the women she has destroyed over the years to ensure her political viability continues is sickening to me.”

Tripp documented evidence of Lewinsky’s phone calls about her relationship with Bill Clinton and submitted the evidence to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, leading to the public disclosure of the affair. She explained to Klein that she did so because she believed her own life and Lewinsky’s were in danger, saying that Lewinsky was threatening Clinton with outing the relationship.

Tripp also used the interview to criticize what she says is the news media’s unwillingness to investigate the Clintons. She singled out and thanked Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report, declaring that without him “things would have been very, very different.”

Drudge’s website was the first media outlet to break the Lewinsky scandal after Newsweek sat on the story.

Tripp had unique access to the Clintons because her office was directly adjacent to Hillary’s second floor West Wing office for the entire time she served in the Clinton White House from 1993 to the summer of 1994 with the exception of the first three months of the Clinton administration, when she sat just outside the Oval Office.

Tripp’s nonpartisan position was a carryover from the George H. W. Bush administration in which she served.

‘Monica Lewinsky is alive today because of choices I made’

She told Klein that her role in the Lewinsky case followed “years of alarm at what I had seen in the Clinton White House, particularly Hillary and the different scandals, whether it was Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster.”

“All of the scandals that had come before and were so completely obliterated in the mind’s eye of the American people because of the way all of them were essentially discounted. So I watched a lying President and a lying First Lady present falsehoods to the American people.

“So my dismay predated the January 1998 period when the Monica Lewinsky scandal surfaced. To me it was very important that the American people see what I was seeing. My years with the Clintons were so disturbing on so many levels.”

Tripp maintains that she went public with the Lewinsky evidence to ensure the intern’s safety as well as her own.

She told Klein:

I say today and I will continue to say that I believe Monica Lewinsky is alive today because of choices I made and action I took. That may sound melodramatic to your listeners. I can only say that from my perspective I believe that she and I at the time were in danger, because nothing stands in the way of these people achieving their political ends.

I think that had it not become public when it did, particularly in light of the Paula Jones lawsuit, which was coming to a head with President Clinton’s deposition, that we may well have met with an accident. It’s a situation where unless you lived it as I did you would have no real framework of reference for this sort of situation.

Tripp said the young Lewinsky, 21-years-old when she entered the White House as an intern, was unaware of the danger that she faced.

She described Lewinsky as a “young girl, smart, clever … but in this one area she was blinded and she fancied herself in love.”

Trip continued:

He fancied himself entitled. It was nothing more than a servicing agreement. She romanticized that there was an affair. And when it didn’t pan out the way she had hoped it would – he had promised her he would bring her back to the White House as soon as the 1996 election campaign had finished. When he didn’t, she essentially lost her mind and started acting in erratic and frightening ways. Threatening the president.

There came a point in July of 1997 when she not only threatened to expose the affair, as she referred to it. But also she at that time informed him that I knew all about it. So at that time it became dangerous for Monica and for me. This was something that absolutely could never see the light of day. And she never realized the implications of threatening a president or her behavior. And I did.

‘Thousands’ of women

Tripp told Klein that “the biggest fallacy that most people believed is that this was a unique occurrence. Monica was somehow special. And regrettably that’s the farthest thing from the truth.”

She said, “Everyone knew within the West Wing, particularly those who spent years with him, of the thousands of women.

“Now most of your listeners might find that difficult if not impossible to believe. And I can tell you in the beginning I felt the same way. But let me be clear here. This is a pattern of behavior that has gone on for years. And the abuse of women for years.”

Asked whether Clinton was having affairs with others in the West Wing, Tripp replied, “I know that to be true. One in particular who I will not name told me this herself.”

“But as to the hundreds or thousands, remember I worked closely with the closest aides to the president. And it was a loosey-goosy environment so there was not a lot of holding back. So it was common knowledge, let’s put it this way, within the West Wing that he had this problem. It was further common knowledge that Hillary was aware of it.”

Hillary ‘instilled fear’

Tripp described the tense West Wing atmosphere between what she characterized as two almost diametrically opposed Clinton camps.

The dynamic between the two groups – the Bill Clinton people and the Hillary Clinton people. It was as though they were almost opposing forces. But I can tell you that the one with the power and the one that instilled the fear in the other was the Hillary camp.

And the [Bill] Clinton people would cower if she were coming into the area, just as an example, of the Oval without notice. There would be scurrying around to make sure there was no one in the wrong place at the wrong time, shall we say. It was a fascination to see the amount of energy that was expended covering up his behavior. It was horrifying.

Hillary’s ‘war on women’

Tripp said Hillary personally targeted Bill’s female conquests and accusers, with the future presidential candidate exhibiting behavior that is “egregious and it’s so disingenuous.”

In my case, for instance, right after the Lewinsky story broke, she was heard directing her staff to get anything and everything on Linda Tripp. So the defamation of character and the absolute assurance that my credibility would be destroyed began right away. And it happens with any woman who is involved in any way, either with him in a physical relationship or an assault or anything that can endanger their political viability.

Tripp recalled Hillary’s January 27, 1998appearance on NBC’s The Today Show in which she was seen as standing by her husband while blaming the Lewinsky scandal on a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

“She didn’t do it in an honest way,” said Tripp of Clinton’s NBC interview. “Instead she lied, which didn’t surprise me. And I will give her credit. She is enormously effective. And became a victim. A wife who was betrayed.”

“This is someone who had no real personal problem with any of this behavior. The problem was in it becoming public. They had to continue to become electable… She was the more aggressive one in ensuring that the political viability was not endangered in any way.”

Tripp told Klein that Hillary “does not possess integrity on any level. I just wish that your listeners could know the person that I knew. Because if they did there is not a chance she would be elected president.”

Disdain for military, classified material, email scandal

Tripp’s ringside seat afforded her rare insight into the scandals of the 1990s and perhaps alleged wrongdoings to come, with the West Wing employee personally witnessing behavior that may have foreshadowed Clinton’s email scandal, in which she is accused of sending classified materials through her personal server.

Tripp said she noticed major differences in the manner in which classified material was handled by both the Clinton and Bush administrations in which she served.

President George H.W. Bush’s administration had “a completely different way of operating on every level, including on classified and secret material,” she said.

She continued:

All the regulations were followed, right down to a cover sheet being essential if the document had had any sort of classifications. The securing of classified documentation in safes. The burn bags that were used if any sensitive material was to be disposed of. All of this was familiar to me and followed every security protocol that I had experienced in the past.

When the Clintons came in this was one of the things that I found appalling right from day one. And it went hand and hand with the disdain for the military. The military was present in the White House in the form of presidential aides. The aide that carried the nuclear football, just as an example. And in the Bush White House they were respected, as they should be. In the Clinton White House, they were disdained. To see it treated this way and to see these people treated this way was disturbing.

Tripp referred to Clinton’s private mail woes as “classic Hillary Clinton in a nutshell.”

“She gets to decide what she does. Look, the rules don’t apply to the Clintons. If you understand that basic premise you understand the Clintons.”

For Tripp, Clinton’s use of a private server was “all about control. She has a need to control every single aspect of her life. And you know anyone in government knows that any key

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Bombshell Claim: More Clinton Sexual Assault Victims Are About To Come Forward

by Hannity.com Staff

Since returning to the campaign trail as an advocate for Hillary, Bill Clinton has been harried by renewed interest in his past sexual misconduct as well as Hillary’s alleged role in intimidating his victims into silence.

Roger Stone, author of the New York Times bestselling "The Clinton’s War On Women", claims that he has personal knowledge of previously unknown victims who are preparing to come forward with accusations against the former president.

"I identified 24 women who’ve been assaulted by Bill Clinton," Stone said on The Sean Hannity Show. "Now some of these women are still terrified. Some of them have had IRS audits. Some of them have had their families threatened. But others have come forward."

"Are you saying there's women whose names we don't know that are mentioned in your book or not mentioned in your book that are going to come forward and start telling those stories?" Sean asked.

"Yes, I think it’s very probable," Stone responded. "Not all of them because some of them are still terrified, their families have been threatened, their lives have been threatened."

"Are we talking about affairs, or are we talking about assaults?" asked Hannity.

"We’re talking about assaults," declared Stone. "I don’t want to get out ahead of myself but I think as Broaddrick, and [Kathleen] Willey, and Jones speak out, other women are encouraged who have been assaulted, who have been threatened by Hillary are encouraged by the courage of those three women."

Listen to Roger Stone’s bombshell revelation along with author Ed Klein on The Sean Hannity Show:

 

More Articles

Election

Watch: Hillary Can't Explain The Difference Between A Democrat And A Socialist