Hack Yields Clinton Campaign E-Mail, Records

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

thesmokinggun.com

JUNE 28--The broad spear phishing campaign targeting the e-mail accounts of Hillary Clinton campaign officials has yielded hackers a wide assortment of internal memos and other communications, according to documents provided to The Smoking Gun.

The attack--which investigators believe is a Russian government operation--has recently focused on the Gmail accounts of scores of Hillary for America staffers, according to SecureWorks, a research firm that published its findings earlier this month.

The firm contends that the hackingcampaign has targeted “individuals managing Clinton's communications, travel, campaign finances, and advising her on policy.” The assault, which reportedly began in mid-March, relied on a spoofed Gmail log-in page in an attempt to deceive victims.

That gambit tricked at least one Clinton volunteer, Sarah Hamilton, records show. Hamilton’s Gmail account appears to have been breached in late-March and hackers copied a large swath of campaign e-mails, memos, and documents. Hamilton, former spokesperson for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has aided the Clinton campaign’s press operation. Contacted today, Hamilton (pictured below) declined comment on the hack.

As with recent online attacks on the Democratic National Committee, TSG learned of the Hamilton hack from “Guccifer 2.0,” who claims to be a Romanian “hacktivist” and solitary “hacker with a laptop.” He has dismissed the contention of assorted security researchers that he is part of a Russian operation as a “Total fail!!!”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

The breach of Hamilton’s Gmail account provided hackers with a glimpse at the inner workings of a massive presidential campaign--from schedules and talking points to briefing books and assorted logistics. But the records are absent the kind of intel for which hackers were probably searching, like policy discussions and confidential deliberations.

Which is not to say, however, that the hackers did not unearth some embarrassing information, especially with regards to the Clinton campaign's dealings with the press.

For example, a February e-mail chain details how aides marshaled advance and press staffers to thwart reporters at a Las Vegas rally attended by the candidate, her daughter Chelsea, and former President Bill Clinton.

Anticipating that all three Clintons would work the crowd following the Democratic candidate’s speech, a campaign official advised that a ropeline had to be “covered with staff bodies to make sure the crowd can get to the ropeline and you stay in front of cameras.” Sarah Pollack, who works on the campaign’s “National Press Advance Desk,” noted that while “Press have been politely yet firmly asked to stay in press areas but we should expect press and cameras to move forward for ropeline.”

In a series of e-mails, members of the ropeline platoon reported on the movement of journalists, especially Dan Merica, a CNN producer covering the Clinton campaign.

After an advance staffer wrote to report that an aggressive French journalist was “at stage right,” the Merica tracking kicked in.

“Watch out for Dan Merica center right,” a press aide warned. Eight minutes later, an advance team member wrote, “Dan Merica stage left.” A minute later Hamilton advised colleagues, “French journos and dan merica heading to stage right.” Moments later, a new Merica update came from an advance team member: “Dan America is on backstage bleachers.” Less than a minute later, the staffer gave an update: “I’m with dan America on back stage bleachers.”

It appears Merica was being secretly tracked by campaign workers concerned that the CNN employee might detonate a question if he got too close to any of the Clintons.

When Clinton visited Chicago in mid-March, the local press pool included Lynn Sweet, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times. In an e-mail to Hamilton (“Subject: Lynn Sweet”), campaign press secretary Nick Merrill advised, “Let’s keep an eye on her.” Hamilton immediately replied, “Yes. I’m sitting next to her on the bus.”

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

Trump to Give Major Hillary Speech Monday

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.weeklystandard.com

Donald Trump announced tonight that he's giving a major speech on Hillary Clinton on Monday.

"I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," Trump said tonight.

"I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend. Who knows? Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into her private hedge fund. 

The Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It's a sad day in america when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens

Sounding more like a newspaper owner than a Fortune 500 CEO, Jeff Bezos decried Donald Trump's attacks against the media on Tuesday night.

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

Jeff Bezos decries Trump for trying to 'chill the media'

money.cnn.com

Bezos is, of course, both -- the CEO ofAmazon (AMZN, Tech30) and the owner of The Washington Post. On stage at the Code Conference, he called it inappropriate that Trump "is working to freeze or chill the media that are examining him" and said candidates should be doing the opposite.

Trump has been vocally critical of The Post, Amazon and Bezos personally.

Bezos didn't bring up the presidential candidate when he was interviewed on-stage at the tech conference. But when an audience member asked about Trump, Bezos defended the press.

"It's just a fact that we live in a world where, half the population on this planet, if you criticize your leader, there's a good chance you'll go to jail or worse," Bezos said. "We live in this amazing democracy with amazing freedom of speech. And a presidential candidate should embrace that."

Bezos continued: "They should say, 'I'm running for president of the most important country of the world. I expect to be scrutinized. Please examine me.' That's a very important cultural norm."

Without cultural norms, he added, "the Constitution is just a piece of paper."

Bezos deflected the questioner's attempts to ask about whether he would donate money or take other actions to stop Trump. And he specifically avoided giving any of the tech A-listers in the room any political advice.

Instead, he brought it back to his relatively new role as a prominent newspaper publisher.

Bezos invoked the late Post publisher Katherine Graham, who was once threatened by a Nixon administration official.

"With Kay Graham as my role model," he said, "I'm very willing to let any of my body parts go through a big, fat ringer if needbe."

Related: Donald Trump's war on Jeff Bezos, Amazon and the Washington Post

During the wide-ranging conversation with moderator Walt Mossberg, Bezos also said he's "more optimistic today" about the Post than he was when he bought the paper in 2013.

Bezos reiterated the Post's pursuit of scale — its strategy is to earn "a relatively small amount of money per reader but on a very large number of readers."

"That reminds me of Amazon," Mossberg said.

"That's exactly right," Bezos said, and spoke of the Post as the "national and, to some degree, global newspaper for people who are interested in the capital city of the U.S."

Bezos talked about Amazon's original programming efforts, observing that "When we win a Golden Globe, it helps us sell more shoes."

He said that "on the demand side... we don't compete with Netflix, for the reason that I think people are going to subscribe to both."

He acknowledged that Amazon and Netflix do compete on the "supply side" by bidding for the same programs.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 31, 2016: 11:24 PM ET

COMMENTS

The Press Conference Republican Voters Have Wanted to See for Years

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

May 31, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Well, that's what you've all wanted.  That's what everybody's been asking for I don't know how long.  That was a press conference.  That was a press conference.  That was the kind of press conference Republicans voters have been dying to see for who knows how many years. 

Greetings, my friends.  Great to have you here, and great to be back.  A short busy broadcast week.  Rush Limbaugh back at it.  It is 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program; the email address,ElRushbo@eibnet.com. 

Say what you will about Donald Trump -- how many years have people been begging for a Republican to just once take on the media the way Trump did? All the way from the premise, to the details, to the motivation, he took 'em all on. And the piece de resistance is some journalist said, "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump --" and, by the way, these people in the media, they may hate the guy, but they cannot stop covering himThere are a couple things in the Trump Stack today that are gonna force me -- not force -- have, I should say, inspired me to do another in-depth explanation of why all this is happening. Why Trump is happening. Why Trump is working. Trump's relationship with the media, what is sustaining it. How it is that Trump is succeeding in getting a bunch of people that literally hate him to help him out.  It's fascinating. 

Folks, it's a fascinating case study in politics and sociology, psychology, pop culturism, post whatever modernism, it's an amazing thing, and I'm gonna do my best to explain it because it's fascinating to me.  It's literally fascinating to me.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to this Trump press conference, if you didn't see it, if you didn't hear it, we're working on audio sound bites now. We're an editor short today so we'll get them up as quickly as we can.  We only got one guy editing.  When we have two guys editing it would only take half the time it's gonna take now. 

But, anyway, the piece de resistance -- you thought I lost my place, but I didn't, because I never do.  Near the end of it a frustrated journalist (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, is it gonna be this way, are you gonna be attacking us after you become president?" 

"Yes, it is.  Because you are the most dishonest people, political press the most dishonest people I know. You know it and I know it.  The press is dishonest, but the political press is especially dishonest." 

And then Jim Acosta, I think it was, CNN (paraphrasing), "Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, do you object to scrutiny?  You seem like you didn't even like scrutiny, but you're seeking the office of president of the United States, how do you think --"

"I don't mind scrutiny.  What I don't like is lies.  You can scrutinize me all day long but you set up false premises. You state things about me that are not true. Then you run stories on that. That's why I'm out here trying to correct the record."  And then Trump says, "By the way, I've seen you, you're among the worst. You're at ABC, right?  You're the worst. You're a sleaze."  And I'm thinking the people at home watching this -- (laughing) 'cause, folks, in the age of internet trolling, manners are out the window.  It's a waste of time asking for manners here.  Because, remember, in a war the aggressor sets the rules and I'm guaranteeing you that Trump thinks the media are the aggressors here. 

He was asked even about that, "Are you gonna be critical even of Republicans trying to unify --" "If they attack me, yes. Somebody comes after me, maybe not as much if they're Republican, but I'm still gonna go after 'em, of course I am."  But the media, the media totally wants Hillary Clinton to win, but they're so conflicted.  The cable networks, since this thing ended, have been devoted to the press conference and how Trump was mean to them and how Trump insulted them and how Trump criticized them. And they're now doing all these introspective panel discussions on what does it all mean and what kind of deranged guy is Trump. 

Even the New York Times. Folks, the New York Times has a story today.  This is, in fact, the foundation of the great dissertation I have coming up to explain much of what's going on, analyze it.  Well, not so much explain, I don't know how many questions there are, but I'm going to try to unravel why some of this is happening, what it really means for those of you who are just watching it casually. 

But the New York Times headline:  "Television Networks Struggle to Provide Equal Airtime in the Era of Trump."  Oh, yes.  Five pages this baby prints out.  And the New York Times has another story:  "Hillary Clinton Struggles to Find Footing in Unusual Race." This is also related. 

They've got two stories here on how the Times is actually apologizing to its readers for being unable to balance coverage in favor of Hillary.  If Trump were any other Republican, they would have practically destroyed him by now and they'd be worried about rehabbing Hillary's image and building her up. But she's so unexciting, she's so dull, she's so scandal ridden, they've got nothing to work with.  All they can do is try to destroy Trump, but they don't know how.  Because they didn't make Trump, they can't destroy Trump.

And everybody dealing with Trump -- including Bill Kristol and everybody else trying to take him out -- is making the big mistake of trying to plug Trump into the age-old political handbook.  Trump's not part of that.  You don't deal with Trump in the standard, political handbook way on policy and issues and things like that.  That's not the way to separate Trump supporters from Trump.  It isn't gonna work. 

"Television Networks Struggle to Provide Equal Airtime in the Era of Trump."  Let me tell you what the upshot of this story is.  I'm not gonna read the whole five pages to you because I don't need to.  I can make the complex understandable.  I can tell you in one paragraph what the New York Times takes five pages to tell you.  Ready?  The upshot of this is Trump's constant access to media and Trump's unpredictability is frustrating Hillary and the Drive-Bys' capacity to shape and control the narrative. 

They are unable to write the daily soap opera script as they have become accustomed to being able to do.  They're unable to do it because Trump is so unpredictable. They'll write a script, they'll write a narrative for the day and Trump will go out and do an appearance and blow it to smithereens, at the same time blowing their plans. Then Hillary is frustrating, 'cause there's nothing to cover.  All there is with Hillary is emails and shady financial dealings and Mao pantsuits and basic incompetence and boredom and a total lack of excitement. 

So there's no way that they can write a narrative every day that destroys Trump and builds up Hillary because... See, the first mistake in the New York Times is worrying about granting Trump access.  They're not "granting" Trump access.  Trump is commanding access.  Trump is taking access.  Trump is dictating the daily narrative, as this press conference today on his donations to the vets and to various groups illustrate.  What got all this started... Don't forget.

This all started when the Washington Post published an article last week right before the Memorial Day weekend -- which is a typical Drive-By Media trick.  Whenever they want to destroy anybody or take a hit on somebody, they do it at a time when even if there is a response, nobody sees it, or very few.  So the Washington Post published an article last week right before the Memorial Day weekend started in which they claimed, essentially, that Trump was lying about having raised $6 million in that fundraiser he held in lieu of going to the GOP debate before the Hawkeye Cauci. 

And it turns out, lo and behold, that the Washington Post was right after all.  Trump didn't raise $6 million for veterans groups, he only raised $5.6 million.  Only raised $5.6 million.  And, by the way, by the time he gets through, it will be over $6 million.  Money is still coming in.  Our buddy Jim Kallstrom of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, indicated to a very disappointed CNN that Trump donated $1.1 million to them last week or last couple of weeks ago.  But, anyway, they started out with this.

They make some factual misrepresentations that Trump is lying about all the money he's raised for the vets.  They claim that Trump claims he's raised $6 million or whatever it is and they go out and they're doing what they can to try to convince people that Trump's lying about it, that he hasn't raised that much -- and, even worse, that if he has raised that much, he hasn't passed it on. He's holding on to it. He hasn't donated it all.  All of these insinuations and allegations were the Washington Post piece. 

And Trump felt the need to correct the record today and did so in his own inimitable way, which basically attacked the media for dishonesty and corruption.  And the thing is he stood there for, what, 45 minutes? I mean, he didn't hide, didn't run away from it, answered every question. He just took them on.  They have no complaint.  They can never say Trump avoids them. They can never say Trump does this or that to try to evade any kind of scrutiny, even though he got that question about scrutiny. 

But the New York Times... This is actually kind of funny, I think, because they're worried that Trump's constant access to the media and his unpredictability is frustrating Hillary.  Hillary doesn't know how to deal with this. Hillary doesn't know how to counterprogram Trump, if you will.  Hillary doesn't know how to go out and write her own narrative of the day.  Hillary doesn't know whether to focus on herself or to criticize Trump or to go after Crazy Bernie. She doesn't know what to do.  And the press doesn't, either.

The New York Times is admitting here that their capacity, their ability to shape and control the narrative -- the soap opera script -- every day, is almost impossible because of Trump.  And so the Times, in this story, is struggling to figure out some kind of Fairness Doctrine solution to the problem.  I kid you not.  They're trying to find a way they can balance this, because Trump is generating so much more coverage.  They're not starting it.  The press isn't.  Trump's just out doing what he's doing, and they are compelled to cover it. 

They cannot not cover it.  But there is no... Hillary Clinton calls a press conference; it's no big deal.  There isn't a mad dash by countless members of the media to get there and see what she's gonna say.  There is no comparative excitement, unpredictability, drama, entertainment, you name it. There isn't any comparison.  Now, not to say Trump doesn't have any competition, because he does.  That's a crucial factor in all of this, too.  Now, the Times here, they're hand-wringing. They're worried. They're complaining. (paraphrased)

"It's not fair! It's not fair! We can't control the media 'cause of Trump."  The problem is -- and they don't want to say this, but the problem is -- that Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is interesting.  And Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is funny.  Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is different.  Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is drama.  Trump, no matter what anybody thinks of him, is unpredictable.  All of that means, you can't miss it. 

You can't roll the dice and not cover it, hoping that it isn't anything.  You have to be there, as the media, and you have to hope that he's gonna attack you as the media.  But Hillary, on the other hand? Dull, totally colorless, mistake prone, scandal ridden, because Hillary doesn't have any natural talents. Hillary doesn't have any natural connection to people. Hillary doesn't have any charisma, magnetism. All of that has to be manufactured by the media. 

Hillary needs to be hyper-scripted while, at the same time, have limited availability in a campaign that's about spontaneity and entertainment.  This has become a pop culture campaign.  Like it or not, that's what it is.  And that's why so many in the political world are having trouble understanding it, dealing with it, being involved with it, defining it, what have you.  But Hillary Clinton has this problem.  The more she's seen, the more she's heard, the worse she does.  This is not arguable.

This has been proven over and over again in polling data alone.  The less she speaks, the less she's seen, the higher her numbers go.  But with Trump out there all the time, spontaneous and entertaining, the press has to do something to keep her in the game.  So they hyper-script her appearances, they hyper-script the coverage, all with limited availability because Hillary has to maintain some restraint.  Otherwise, it's a potential total implosion.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  The New York Times, also from over the weekend: "Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism." There's even a photo of Hitler and a photo of Mussolini in the New York Times article.  They never call Trump a fascist.  They just claim that Trump's campaign and that Trump's rise to popularity is a sign of a growing global fascism.  Do you think that story would ever be written about Barack Obama and any other governing world leaders today? 

Here you have a guy who's nothing more than a candidate right now, and the New York Times, over the weekend -- the Memorial Day weekend -- with a story: "Rise of Donald Trump Tracks Growing Debate Over Global Fascism."  Never mind that both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton's positions are far more in line with the German National Socialism approach than Trump could even dream of being.

Forget, you know, that the Nazis were National Socialists.  National Socialists!  I mean, we're closer to having that currently in the White House than anywhere on the campaign trail right now on the Republican side.  And now we find out that Hillary Clinton's campaign set up this veterans against Trump protest to begin with. We find this out after the fact.  The media could have found out before it happened, but, no, no, no, no!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me get started with these Trump sound bites.  We opened the program talking about this presser, and it was a press conference for the ages, and it's one of these press conferences that many people on the Republican side have been desperately hoping to see someday, sometime, with a Republican under assault judged to be an unfair assault, finally being ripped into by the Republican, the media being ripped into here for the way they're going about their business.  So this is at Trump Tower.  Major Garrett, CBS, chief White House correspondent, "How personally involved were you in deciding which military organizations were to be recipients and how much they got and how did you prioritize 'em?"

TRUMP:  I wasn't too involved in picking the organizations other than I gave a million dollars to the Marine law enforcement, Marine, they are fabulous people.  They honored me last year.  I knew them.  I was going to give it to three companies or three groups, and we couldn't vet them quickly, and so I gave it to the Marine.  And if you look at that number, the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation is a fabulous group, and I didn't have to go through a big vetting process with them, because I was going to split the million-dollar check up among three or four different groups, and in the end I just didn't want to go through the process of having to vet all those different groups.

RUSH:  Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, Jim Kallstrom, the former head of the New York office of the FBI is now one of the executive directors of MC-LEF, and as you know, this program is involved deep well MC-LEF, as is the Rush Revere Time Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans book series, Two If By Tea.  We are sponsors of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. 

If you recall, the Harry Reid letter that he wrote to the former CEO of Clear Channel demanding that I be made to apologize and maybe forced to resign over unfairly calling a veteran a phony soldier.  We auctioned that Harry Reid letter, and I agreed to match whatever it raised.  And $4 million was donated to the Marine Corps Law, 4.2, actually.  It sold on eBay for $2.1 million, and I had agreed to match it, so it was $4.2 million to MC-LEF.  And I was at the event that Trump was honored.  He was sitting, for what it's worth, two tables over.  But I was at that event, just to attest that it happened. 

I want you to hear, Kallstrom was on CNN today.  Carol Costello was hoping, hoping that Kallstrom would somehow contradict what Trump had said.  She said, "Mr. Trump pledged $1 million of his own money to one organization.  Was it yours?"

KALLSTROM:  We did get a million dollars from Donald.  He's been a big supporter of veterans groups for close to four decades now, Carol.  I knew for some time that we were gonna be the recipient.  I didn't know the actual amount.  But I guess it was about a week ago.  Don't hold me to that.  Some week ago, ten days ago, and we actually received money.

RUSH:  Yeah.  And I was there.  I think it was like two Aprils ago.  Maybe it's in March.  But it's always at the Waldorf-Astoria in the grand ballroom there.  And Trump was the award winner and the recipient that year.  One more question from Carol Costello and answer.

COSTELLO:  So I was just wondering if you found out in January shortly after the event if your organization would be a beneficiary?

KALLSTROM:  Well, there were hints in that direction, and he's always been a big supporter of us.  We give 98% of the money donated, which is a very high number, that we're very proud of.  We have one part-time employee.  And basically all the money goes to the children of those who've lost their life in the line of duty.

RUSH:  Yeah, Marines and sometimes they expand it to Army and Air Force, sometimes Secret Service, Oklahoma City bombing, all of the protective agencies that were housed in the Murrah building, MC-LEF went into action then.  But they provide scholarships to the children of Marines killed in action.  I was practically there in the living room when this foundation was formed in Rockville Centre out on Long Island.  And they are a great bunch of people.  They do have a 98% pass-through, and I know who the one employee is, and he's one of the greatest guys in the world. 

But what difference does it -- Trump does his veterans deal on the night of the Hawkeye Cauci primary debate that was on Fox, you know, Trump skipped it, did a veterans fundraiser.  So here's Carol Costello (imitating Costello), "Well, well, Mr. Kallstrom, did Trump, did he decide way back in January the organization that gets --"  What they're trying to say is that they have forced Trump into donating money that he never intended to donate, he was just saying that he was going to. That's their premise, and they're trying to catch Trump in all that, he knows it, and it's fed up with it. And that set the tone for the press conference.  Back to the next press conference bite.  This is Major Garrett following up.  "Don't you believe you should be accountable to the people?"

TRUMP:  I'm totally accountable, but I didn't want to have credit for it.  We have given to groups that are unbelievable groups, and honestly, I wish you could hear the phone calls and see the letters, they are so happy.  And I'm happy to do it.  I didn't want the credit for it, but it was very unfair that the press treated us so badly.  Go ahead.

MAJOR GARRETT:  To follow up on that, you keep calling us the dishonest press, the disgusting press.

TRUMP:  Generally speaking, that's a hundred percent true.  Go ahead.

MAJOR GARRETT:  I disagree with that, sir.  And if I can ask you this question, it seems as though you're resistant to scrutiny, the kind of scrutiny that comes with running for president of the United States.

TRUMP:  Excuse me.  I've watched you on television.  You're a real beauty.  When I raise money for the veterans, and it's a massive amount of money, find out how much Hillary Clinton's given to the veterans.  Nothing.

RUSH:  That's exactly right, because Hillary Clinton doesn't give anybody anything.  With Hillary Clinton it's all incoming.  There's no outgoing, there's no outflow with Hillary Clinton.  But Trump is right.  Okay, so you think I deserve scrutiny.  Where is the scrutiny of Bernie Sanders?  Where's the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton?  Where is one half of the interest in this whole email scandal of hers that you're showing in whether I've donated to the vets or not? 

Look, everybody knows the game here.  This is why people love what Trump is doing here.  He's not standing up there taking it.  He's firing right back at 'em. He's letting them know he knows it's an unlevel playing field, he's gonna treat them accordingly.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites.  We still have some to go here on the Trump press conference that concluded -- knowingly, by the way. The message was apparently received.  The Trump press conference, 45 minutes in length, ended 15 minutes before the EIB Network began today.  Right on schedule.  So now we are up to number 25.  This is... I told you about this.  It's where he calls a reporter a sleaze.  He's talking with... It's a reporter Q&A.  It's an unidentified female reporter and ABC correspondent Tom Llamas.  Tom Llamas is who Trump calls a sleaze.

TRUMP:  It was the biggest crowd you could have had, because it was all cordoned off, and they weren't allowed to have any more people than they had.  So instead of saying, "Trump made a speech in front of a packed crowd," they said, "Trump was disappointed," because I didn't have millions of people going from Jefferson to Washington.  I mean, give me a break.  It's just honestly... It's dishonest reporting.  Yeah, go ahead.

REPORTER:  How are veterans to believe that you reported...? 

TRUMP:  I'm not looking for credit.  But what I don't want is when I raise millions of dollars, to have people say -- like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC. He's a sleaze in my book. 

LLAMAS: Why am I...?

TRUMP: You're a sleaze, because you know the facts, and you know the facts well.

RUSH:  Why am I a sleaze?  It's a badge of honor, by the way.  Don't be hurt for the media.  It's a badge of honor to be called a name by Trump.  I guarantee you what's his name, Tom Llamas, at the bars and restaurants he's always gonna be The Sleaze now.  His wife will call him The Sleaze, if it's married, I don't know.  But his colleagues, everybody will call him, "Hey, Sleaze, how you doing tonight, buddy?"  It's a badge of honor to have your name called by Trump and be made a nickname. 

What Trump is talking about here, he had a big rally in Washington where there were a bunch of bikers, there was a bikers rally for Memorial Day for vets, and Trump is claiming that he would have had just as big a crowd as Martin Luther King had, but they cordoned the area off and they wouldn't let nearly as many people get in that wanted in, and the press didn't report that.  Instead, the press reported that Trump was disappointed at the small crowd.  And that's what that sound bite was all about. 

(paraphrasing Trump)  "I wasn't disappointed.  They wouldn't let the people in that wanted to get there.  Could have been big, could have been as big as Martin Luther King."  Unidentified female reporter:  "You yourself recently reacted against what you called a spoiler independent candidate in this race.  Yet earlier in the primaries you didn't rule out an independent run of your own."

TRUMP:  Kristol's the one, he's the last one.  Don't forget, he said Trump will never run.  The guy's not a smart person.  He said, Donald Trump will never run.  Remember?  You remember?  I actually blame you.  Why do you put this guy on television?  I see him on the different shows.  He's got no credibility.  Let me tell you.  These people are losers.

CAMERON:  When you refer to some Republicans and conservatives as losers --

TRUMP:  No, I didn't say that.  I said Bill Kristol is a loser.  And I'll tell you why.  He has called every single move -- take a look, on me.  "He's going to lose this state."  I win in a landslide.  Wait a minute, Carl.  I didn't say everybody.  Many.  But I didn't say everybody.

RUSH:  Carl Cameron, what he wanted to ask here, "How you gonna unify the Republican Party when you're out there referring to some Republicans, conservatives as losers?"  "I'm just talking about Kristol, that's all, Kristol's been wrong in everything he said about me." 

The post-press coverage of this, one little bite here from CNN.  This is At This Hour, John Berman, Kate Bolduan, they had this exchange over the Trump press conference and the money he donated.  The point they're saying is the money to be donated isn't the story.  So they're announcing they're changing the narrative on this.

BERMAN:  The headline at the end of this event wasn't the money he raised or how many groups got it, but it was just how petulant and peevish he was, saying the press should be ashamed of itself for asking questions like, "How much did you raise and where did it go?"  I want to go to CNN's --

BOLDUAN:  On a factual basis, those are pretty simple questions you should answer when you're raising money, when you're raising money for charity.

RUSH:  Right.  Seriously, how many questions do the Clintons get about the two billion in their Crime Family Foundation and all those donations from foreign investors and whoever they may be?  No, no, no, no, no.  Do not do that.  I'm not defending Trump by saying, "Hey, Trump did it, but why don't you go get the Clintons who did it."  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying these people have two different sets of rules.  They've got two different sets of standards for their scrutiny. 

And the upshot of it is that the Clintons don't get any.  Whatever they say goes on with their foundation, that's what's reported, and whatever they say happens at Clinton Global Initiative, that's what they say and that's what gets reported.  But the Clintons aren't under any scrutiny.  The Clintons won't believe that.  The Clintons believe they're under more scrutiny than anybody's ever been, but because of the way they do things they invite that scrutiny. 

So, anyway, this was John Berman at CNN announcing they're changing the narrative here.  The narrative is no longer what Trump donated and to whom, but what a peevish, small-minded guy he is to be treating us in the press this way.  Now, back to the press conference.  Reporter:  "Is this what it's gonna be like covering you, if you're president?  Are we gonna be having this kind of confrontation in the pressroom at the White House?"

TRUMP:  Yeah, it is gonna be like this, David.  If the press writes false stories, like they did with this, because, you know, half of you are amazed that I raised all of this money.  If the press writes false stories like they did, then we have to read probably libelous stories, or certainly close, in the newspapers, and the people know the stories are false, I'm gonna continue to attack the press.  Look, I find the press to be extremely dishonest.  I find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest. I will say that. Okay, thank you all very much.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

RUSH:  Thank you, thank you, you dishonest liars, thank you, thank you for showing up. 

END TRANSCRIPT

Newspaper reporter rated worst job in America

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

www.fox5ny.com

NEW YORK (FOX5NY) - A new survey of the best and worst jobs in the country has declared that being a newspaper reporter is the worst career you could be pursuing.

CareerCast just published its Worst Jobs of 2016 list.

It cited fewer job prospects because of publications going out of business and declining ad revenue providing less money for decent salaries.

The survey put the annual median salary of a print reporter at $37,200.

It is the third year in a row that a newpaper reporter ranked as the worst job.  Being a broadcaster didn't fare much better.  It came in third worst on the list.

“The news business has changed drastically over the years, and not in a good way,” says former Broadcaster Ann Baldwin, president of Baldwin Media PR in New Britain, Connecticut. “When people ask me if I miss it, I tell them ‘I feel as if I jumped off of a sinking ship.’”

The report says that one factor that has many media jobs among the worst is the decline of advertising revenue. And, a drop in advertising sales translates to a decline in positions for advertising sales people. Advertising Sales Person appears on the 10 worst jobs list for the first time (#193), after finishing just outside the bottom 10 a year ago.

As for the best job of the year, that went to data scientists.  The survey cited a strong growth outlook and an annual median salary of $128,240.

COMMENTS

Obama Welcomes Castro's Criticism of America: 'I Personally Would Not Disagree'

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.weeklystandard.com

President Obama said that he "personally would not disagree" with some of Cuban President Raul Castro\'s criticisms of America:

"President Castro, I think, has pointed out that in his view making sure that everybody is getting a decent education or health care, has basic security and old age, that those things are human rights as well. I personally would not disagree with him," Obama said.

"But it doesn\'t detract from some of these other concerns. And the goal of the human rights dialogue is not for the United States to dictate to Cuba how they should govern themselves, but to make sure that we are having a frank and candid conversation around this issue. And hopefully that we can learn from each other."

Obama made the comment at a joint press conference with the Cuban Communist dictator.

COMMENTS

Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.theguardian.com

Cruz may have taken the state on Super Tuesday, but Trump’s wins along border prove he hasn’t been shunned by Latinos despite controversial immigration plan

 

Donald Trump near the US-Mexico border outside Laredo, Texas, in July. The rationale for his win there has been attributed to personality, not policy. Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters

A candidate who has described Mexicans as rapists and criminals and whose core immigration plan is to make Mexico pay for a giant wall ought not to prosper on the southern border. Yet Donald Trump was embraced on Tuesday by voters in America’s most Hispanic city.

Trump won almost 35% of the Republican primary vote in Webb County, where Laredo is the county seat, comfortably ahead of Marco Rubio (28.4%) and Ted Cruz (28.2%), the Hispanic senator from Texas who finished first in the state overall.

Not that it takes a lot of GOP votes to win here – only 4,089 were cast in the race, compared with nearly 26,000 among Democrats. Laredo is 96% Hispanic or Latino, according to the 2010 census, and it is hugely Democratic: Barack Obama won 77% of the vote in the county in 2012. In an unusual spurt of eloquence, twice-failed GOP presidential hopeful and former Texas governor Rick Perry once called the border the blueberry in the tomato soup: a speck of nutrition for Democrats in a Republican-dominated state.

Despite the limited GOP voter pool, it is notable – and jarring – that Trump should not only triumph here but generally perform better in border counties than in the Texas interior, where Cruz was in command. Aftersome small-scale polling at the Nevada caucuses, Tuesday’s outcome provided harder evidence that Trump has not been shunned by conservative Latinos. He may even have inspired them into action: he won more votes in Webb County than were cast in its primary in total in 2012.

One Trump voter in Laredo, who gave her name as Cindy, said he is popular with local elderly people who are “tired of the system”. Jon Melendez, president of the Webb County YoungRepublicans, speculated that Trump’s success owed something to Democrats voting for him because he would be easier for Hillary Clinton to beat in November. “In the fall, the Democrats will be absolutely energised to vote against him,” Melendez said.

Trump bested two Hispanic senators who have also talked tough on immigration, in Rubio and Cruz – though both have Cuban heritage, rather than Mexican or Central American, and there is resentment at a US policy that fast-tracks admission and residency for growing numbers of Cubans while migrants from other countries have far bigger hurdles to overcome.

That situation is one example of the complexities and contradictions here that elude the bombastic rhetoric and uncompromising immigration positions of the main Republican presidential candidates.

Donald Trump’s motorcade arrives near the US-Mexico border, outside Laredo, Texas, in July. Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters

Laredo is a characterful place of bridges and barriers; of ramshackle little homes, pastel-coloured hole-in-the-wall taquerias and family-run auto repair centres, with a decayed downtown of thrift stores, sagging shoe shops, bright currency exchanges and buildings whose grandeur faded long ago.

Laredo’s small-town familiarity and stability is interspersed with with busy crossings, a railway bridge and an interstate highway that barges through the centre of the city to speed trucks northwards where the sprawl subsides into ranchland and flat emptiness and the roving white and green SUVs of the border patrol.

It is the largest inland port on the US-Mexico border, mentioned soon after Los Angeles and New York in scale of international trade. Its population is about 250,000, though the county is vast: two-thirds the size of the LA metropolitan area. It snuggles up to Nuevo Laredo, the more populous and notoriously violent Mexican city on the other side of the serpentine Rio Grande. Laredo’s biggest festival is a near month-long celebration of George Washington’s birthday with a jalapeño-eating contest as its highlight.

Laredo carries on its broad shoulders an irony shared with frontier towns across the world: that the governmental apparatus of scrutiny, suspicion and separation is at its most prominent, its most stubbornly wedged, between communities that have the most in common.

“We talk about security but we like to have a balance between security, legitimate trade and tourism so when somebody comes in and says ‘I want to build a wall and secure the border’ that goes contrary to our daily life that we have in Laredo,” said Henry Cuellar, a Democrat who is the district’s US congressman.

Erick Barroso is a 42-year-old corrections officer who votes for some Democratic candidates in local elections, depending on who’s running. Often, Democrats are the only names on the ballot. But he is leaning towards Trump in November’s general election.

“I don’t agree with the wall,” he said. “There’s a saying, if you build 20ft walls you’re going to sell 21ft ladders … They’re always going to find ways [to cross], a wall isn’t the perfect solution.” But he’s not seeing anyone else suggest a better idea right now.

While immigration measures naturally have the most profound and immediate impact on border-dwellers, Barroso’s reasoning for backing Trump could have come from one of his supporters in Pittsburgh, or Louisville, or Minneapolis. The rationale stems from personality, not policy.

“He’s strong and he’s very confident,” Barroso said. “I don’t support everything he says but a lot of the things, he’s not afraid to say it. I see that as a strong characteristic.”

Laredo experienced Trump’s self-belief and self-promotion up close last July when he paid a brief visit, a month after kicking off his campaign by claiming that Mexico is “sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Bilingual signs in English and Spanish with information at the Laredo, Texas, port of entry from Mexico. Photograph: Alamy

After an outcry, the local border patrol union rescinded its invitation to the candidate, though Trump came anyway – and was shown around by the city’s mayor, a Democrat. He portrayed himself as bravely trekking into dangerous territory, but crime figures suggest Texas’s border cities are some of the safest in the state.

Reports indicate there were more media and police than protesters. One of the demonstrators was Henry Rodriguez, of the League of United Latin American Citizens, who came down from San Antonio to heckle the tycoon. “We went and made a big old ruckus over there,” he recalled.

“The more he talks against immigrants, it seems like the more brownie points he gets. It’s sad because it’s kind of a mentality that still exists in this country, of haters.”

The 71-year-old is frustrated by the lack of empathy and nuance in the political discourse on immigration. “There are a good number of Republican Latinos, their parents came from Mexico or Central America or other places like South America, they really don’t care much about people that are coming over now. They’re saying they’re taking away resources from them,” he said.

“But the ones that come here want to better themselves and they’ll do anything, they’ll start off take lower wages than anyone, taking jobs nobody else will do.”

Melendez, a 30-year-old student and former marine, said that “a lot of us here see it day to day, there is an illegal influx of people coming from Mexico and that needs to be addressed. However, the tone and the rhetoric and everything else coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth has been counterproductive.”

“I can get behind somebody who wants to secure the border,” he added. “But I think that Trump has just been awful.” Before Tuesday night, that view would have seemed like conventional wisdom. But even in Laredo, demagoguery confounded demographics.

COMMENTS

U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.washingtonpost.com

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request, for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

A State Department official said that the department is aware of the order and that it is reviewing it but declined to comment further, citing the ongoing litigation.

Although it was not immediately clear whether the government will appeal, Sullivan set an April deadline for parties to lay out a detailed investigative plan that would extend well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server that department and Clinton officials have given.

Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin, to return all records related to Clinton’s private account, not just those their camps have previously deemed work-related and returned.

“There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, adding that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy create “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined. “This case is about the public’s right to know.”

In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan noted that there was no dispute that senior State Department officials were aware of the email set-up, citing a January 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills and Abedin about establishing an “off-network” email system.

The watchdog group did not ask to depose Clinton by name, but its requests in its lawsuit targeted those who handled her transition, arrival and departure from the department and who oversaw Abedin, a direct subordinate.

Sullivan’s decision came as Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination and three weeks after the State Department acknowledged for the first time that “top secret” information passed through the server.

The FBI and the department’s inspector general are continuing to look into whether the private setup mishandled classified information or violated other federal laws.

For six months in 2012, Abedin was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office and a private consulting firm connected to the Clintons.

Republican presidential candidates like Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio are weighing in on the State Department's Jan. 29 announcement that some of the emails sent on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server contained top secret information. (Reuters)

The department stated in February 2014 that it had completed its search of records for the secretary’s office. After Clinton’s exclusive use of a private server was made public in May, the department said that additional records probably were available.

In pursuing information about Abedin’s role, Judicial Watch argued that the only way to determine whether all official records subject to its request were made public was to allow it to depose or submit detailed written questions about the private email arrangement to a slew of current and former top State Department officials, Clinton aides, her attorneys and outside parties.

“We know discovery in FOIA cases is not typical, and we do not ask for it lightly,” Judicial Watch President Thomas J. Fitton said before the hearing. “If it’s not appropriate under these circumstances, it’s difficult to imagine when it would be appropriate.”

Fitton noted that the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts that Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.

Justice Department lawyers countered in court that the State Department is poised to finish publicly releasing all 54,000 pages of emails that Clinton’s attorneys determined to be work-related and that were returned to the State Department at its request for review.

The case before Sullivan, a longtime jurist who has overseen other politically contentious FOIA cases, is one of more than 50 active FOIA lawsuits by legal groups, news media organizations and others seeking information included in emails sent to or by Clinton and her aides on the private server.

The State Department has been releasing Clinton’s newly recovered correspondence in batches since last summer with a final set due Monday.

Meanwhile, former Clinton department aides Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan and Philippe Reines have returned tens of thousands of pages of documents to the department for FOIA review, with releases projected to continue into at least 2017.

The State Department also has asked the FBI to turn over any of an estimated 30,000 deleted emails deemed personal by Clinton’s attorneys that the FBI is able to recover in its investigation of the security of the private email server.

“There can be no doubt that [the State Department’s] search for responsive records has been exceedingly thorough and more than adequate under FOIA,” according to filings by Justice Department civil division lawyers, led by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer.

They argued that FOIA requires the agency to release records only under its control — not under the control of its current or former officials — and that “federal employees routinely manage their email and ‘self-select’ their work-related messages when they, quite permissibly, designate and delete personal emails from their government email accounts.”

Sullivan’s decision will almost certainly extend through Election Day an inquiry that has dogged Clinton’s campaign, frustrating allies and providing fodder to Republican opponents.

FOIA law generally gives agencies the benefit of the doubt and sets a high bar for plaintiffs’ requests for discovery. However, one similar public records battle during Bill Clinton’s presidency lasted 14 years and led to depositions of the president’s White House counsel and chief of staff.

Because of the number of judges hearing the FOIA cases, there is likewise a chance that the fight over Hillary Clinton’s emails could “take on a life of their own,” not ending “until there are endless depositions of top [agency] aides and officials, and just a parade of horribles,” said Anne L. Weismann, executive director of the Campaign for Accountability. Weismann also is a former Justice Department FOIA litigation supervisor who oversaw dozens of such fights from 1991 to 2002.

Still, she said, such drawn-out legal proceedings could be valuable if they shed light on whether the State Department met its legal obligations under open-government laws or systematically withheld releasable records.

Last month, one of Sullivan’s colleagues, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, dismissed lawsuits brought by Judicial Watch and the Cause of Action Institute that sought to force the government to take more aggressive steps to recover Clinton’s deleted emails under the Federal Records Act.

Plaintiffs “cannot sue to force the recovery of records that they hope or imagine might exist,” Boasberg wrote Jan. 11, adding that, to date, recovery efforts by the State Department and the National Archives under that law “cannot in any way be described as a dereliction of duty.”

The server’s existence was disclosed two years after Clinton left, in February 2013, as secretary of state and as the department faced a congressional subpoena and media requests for emails related to scores of matters, including attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, and fundraising for the Clinton family’s global charity.

In seeking records related to Abedin’s employment, Judicial Watch asked to be allowed to depose or submit written questions to current and former State Department employees and Clinton aides, including Kennedy; John F. Hackett, director of information services; Executive Secretary Joseph E. Macmanus; Clinton’s chief of staff, Mills; lawyer David E. Kendall; Abedin; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.

More broadly, the group’s motion targets who oversaw State Department information systems, Clinton’s transition and arrival at the department, her communications, and her and Abedin’s departure from the agency.

“What emails . . . were deleted . . . who decided to delete them, and when?” Judicial Watch asks in filings.

The group also asks whether any archived copies of sent or received emails on the private server existed, including correspondence with Clinton technology contractors Platte River Networks and Datto.

Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

Russian TV Trashed Michelle Obama and Emperor Barry Last Night

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

observer.com

First Lady Michelle Obama leaves the beach club Villa Padierna in Estepona, on August 6, 2010 during her vacation in southern Spain.

On Sunday, Russian TV host Dmitry Kiselyov, who enjoys the largest audience among news programs in Russia, announced in his prime-time program News of the Week the launch of a new documentary, whose goal would be to expose corruption in the US—as opposed to the familiar story in Russian he’s sick and tired of talking about.

“This is not fair—to forget about American corruption,” he declared, “about how they get fat on the money of American taxpayers there.”

The title of the film—Emperor Obama—says it all, but the trailer, lasting more than ten minutes, was shown anyway.

The first victim of attack was the American First Lady.

“The information on our clients is strictly confidential,” says the Villa Padierna hotel manager to a young and beautiful female reporter. “But I can confirm that Michelle Obama really stayed in our hotel. She was our most famous guest. Since then, we named one of our villas after her. Villa Obama has three floors, two bedrooms, one swimming pool and a big living room—here is Villa Obama.”

“On the fourth of August, 2010,” the manager continues, as the beautiful young reporter walks around the luxurious and spacious rooms, “the US President celebrated his 49th birthday, and the very same day his spouse, Michelle Obama, arrived for her vacation in Spain. Here is her room.” Not ceremoniously, the reporter touches the silk sheets and a very rare travertine marble. “Here are the official numbers: for the week starting August 4, 131,000 Americans were fired, losing their incomes and jobs. At that moment, Michelle Obama was on vacation, and the taxpayers were paying $6,000 a night for this hotel suit.”

Then, the First Lady is shown walking outside out in the Spanish heat. “Michelle! Michelle!” thunders the crowd.

Villa Obama in Spain, named after the American First Lady.

The reporter continues:

“Michelle Obama and her 9-year-old daughter Sasha were accompanied by their personnel and secret agents, by 250 specially hired Spanish bodyguards and 68 bodyguards brought from the US. As the American First Lady eats ice cream, the street in Spanish Granada is totally blocked. Ms. Obama flew in on her husband’s airplane—plane number two, a Bowing-747—according to protocol, which transports the American President while plane number one goes through technical maintenance. At $11,000 per hour, Michelle’s flight from Washington DC to the Spanish Malaga cost the US $150,000. The US Air force was sued for Michelle’s unlawful vacation—and for the fifth year, the lawsuit drags on without any resolution.”

Facing the sunset and obviously having had a good time in Spain herself, the reporter doesn’t want to let the topic of Ms. Obama’s vacations finish too quickly:

“The 44th American President goes on vacation twice a year—in the summer and during Christmas. Over the seven years of his presidency, American taxpayers spent between $10,000,000 and $74,000,000 a year on vacations for the first American family. To understand how such unbelievable expenses accumulate, the cost for only the plane and the bodyguards when Mr. Obama flew his family to Hawaii, in 2014, was $5,316,000.”

“Did you hear what happened in Flint, Michigan?” An American analyst steps into the video, “where the whole town was poisoned? Kids, pregnant women… How much money did he spend on his vacations, you say? $74,000,000? But he gave Flint only $5,000,000— $5,000,000 to the poisoned people… as much as the launch of two military drones!”

At this point, the cover of the book by Michelle Malkin “Culture of Corruption” is shown to viewers—providing an idea as to the development of the story awaiting Russian TV viewers on Wednesday night.

‘Culture of Corruption’ by Michelle Malkin.

Every word on the cover is in English, of course. “This book, with a cracked portrait of Obama on its cover, didn’t become a bestseller in the US,” lamented the reporter—ignoring the word ‘BESTSELLER’ written twice across the top.

COMMENTS

Man Arrested in Scotland for Facebook Posts About Refugees - Breitbart

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.breitbart.com

by Allum Bokhari16 Feb 20160

16 Feb, 201616 Feb, 2016 Police havearrested a 40-year old man in Scotland over a number of allegedly “offensive” Facebook posts about refugees.

Police in Scotland said that a man had been held under the Communications Act, which bans “grossly offensive” and “menacing” posts on online platforms.

The Facebook posts in question, which were not released to the media, allegedly concerned comments about Syrian refugees from Rothersay, on the Scottish Island of Bute, where several refugee families have settled as part of the UK government’s settlement program.

A spokesman from the the Dunoon police station in Argyll said, “I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media.

This follows news in late January that police in the Netherlands were visiting the homes of citizens who made posts that were deemed overly-critical of the Dutch government’s policies towards refugees. It also follows Facebook’s announcement that it would work with European governments, particularly Germany, to track and clamp down on hostility towards migrants on the platform.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, add him on Facebook, and download Milo Alert! for Android to be kept up to date on his latest articles.

Read More Stories About:

Tech, facebook, refugee crisis

COMMENTS

NY mountain hits minus -114 degrees wind chill at summit

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio 

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.nydailynews.com

While New York City had its coldest start to Valentine’s Day in 100 years on Sunday, it would seem balmy compared with the wicked wind chill at upstate Whiteface Mountain.

As temperatures dropped across the Northeast from the blast of a polar vortex, the wind chill at Whiteface, near Lake Placid, made it feel like a body- and mind-numbing minus 114 degrees late Saturday and into Sunday. Central Park could only muster a minus 1 degree.

The Wild Center, which works with the Atmospheric Science Research Center at SUNY Albany, recorded the frigid temperature from a research station at the mountain’s summit.

The Wild Center This is what happens when a tree is exposed to minus 114 degrees wind chill at Whiteface Mountain's summit.

POLAR VORTEX TO BLAST NORTHEAST WITH COLDEST AIR IN A DECADE

“The extreme temperatures (Saturday) night on Whiteface have to do with its elevation, 4,865 feet and the wind speed,” Tracey Legat, the center’s communications manager at the center told the Daily News. “The mountains of the Adirondacks are often some of the coldest places in the lower 48 states during the year.”

The Wild Center Winds at Whiteface Mountain's summit blasted at 45 mph on Saturday night going into Sunday morning.

The Arctic winds howled through the summit at about 45 mph, freezing almost everything in their path.

The center managed to capture a photo of a tree being turned into a popsicle as the winds formed “monstrous rime ice” around it.

The Wild Center On Sunday morning, the wind chill on Whiteface Mountain's summit was colder than the windchill in Antarctica.

The mountain’s summit was actually colder than Antarctica on Sunday, according to the National Weather Service.

ang@nydailynews.com

Tags: upstate new york , nyc weather

COMMENTS

REPORT: Ted Cruz Entered US Illegally in 1974

Jim Hoft Feb 12th, 2016 9:09 am

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. a retired colonel with 29 years of experience in the US Army Reserve, argues that Senator Ted Cruz entered the United States illegally as a child in 1974. His parents failed to file a CRBA form which is required by US law.Ted’s parents did not fill out the required form until 1986.

It would be nice if the Cruz camp cleared this up for Republican voters.
Via Family Security Matters:

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to theCanadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970.The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship.Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released.Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification

Exclusive — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz Campaigns Bash RNC for Stacking Audience with Pro-Amnesty Donor Class

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio 

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

by MATTHEW BOYLE 13 Feb 2016GREENVILLE, South Carolina

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager for 2016 GOP frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump, bashed the Republican National Committee (RNC) for stacking the debate audience here with pro-amnesty consultant class party donor figures.

Lewandowski told Breitbart News in the spin room after the debate:

I think the RNC does a terrible job in allocating the tickets, to be honest with you, There’s an opportunity—there’s 2,000 seats out there, there’s six candidates on stage, they should just divide them evenly so everyone has them, but instead they just give them to the donor class, they give them to the lobbyists and to all the special interests. It’s not fair, it’s not equitable. So I think what they should do moving forward is take the total number of seats available, allocate them across the board and let the candidates bring their people in, because that’s who should be here, not the donors.

Repeatedly throughout the debate, the audience cheered as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his protegé Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) consistently and repeatedly made the case to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, while the audience oddly booed both Trump andSen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as they made eloquent cases against amnesty.

“I don’t think it’s representative of the people of South Carolina,” Lewandowski added. “Those who don’t have the resources to give large sums of money to the RNC didn’t get a ticket here tonight and that’s a shame on the RNC.”

Trump’s campaign was hardly the only one upset with how the debate turned out as it relates to how audience tickets are handed out. Both Reps. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) andRep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) bashed the establishment for stacking the audience with donor class folks not representative of America or of South Carolina’s electorate. Duncan and Meadows have both endorsed Cruz for president and were representing his campaign in the spin room.

“I was a little disappointed in CBS and the moderators in that they kind of let the debate and the crowd get out of control,” Duncan told Breitbart News, adding that the pro-amnesty cheers and boos aren’t representative of his state.

“It doesn’t represent the voters of South Carolina,” Duncan said. “Definitely, the room was stacked for Rubio—there’s no doubt about it, especially from where I was sitting. But look, I thought Ted Cruz had a great night and I thought he made a great point about the economy and about how he’d unleash an unbridled entrepreneurial spirit with less taxes and less regulation.”

When asked if the party was trying to game the system to help the establishment candidates like Rubio and Bush, Duncan said “yeah” but added that it probably won’t work, since most of the audience were donors imported into the state by party bosses.

“It depends on how it came across on TV,” Duncan said. “This is a small smattering of folks, and most of them are not from South Carolina. I don’t think Donald Trump had a great debate—he came across to a South Carolina audience as a little brash.”

Meadows added that he thinks the debate lacked focus on issues that people from Main Street—not from K Street or Wall Street, like the donor class—care about. Meadows said:

Obviously it was a fairly contentious debate as you start to see that, the feathers were flying so to speak. I think what most people want us to focus on are what’s going on on Main Street and what’s the key there. Being able to address those policy concerns, obviously it felt like Sen. Cruz had a very strong night tonight as he was able to articulate not only on national security but the economy as well—two things that affect not only the people of South Carolina but also my state of North Carolina and across the country.

Meadows added that the support for amnesty on display in the donor-packed audience this evening wasn’t just counter to South Carolina or North Carolina values, but run counter to American values.

“I can tell you from an amnesty standpoint, that’s not a South Carolina value, that’s not a North Carolina value—it’s really not a value that most people across the country support,” Meadows said. “I can tell you that no matter where you are on the immigration issue, ‘amnesty’ is that word that quite turns most people the other way. So I was surprised to hear some of the clapping as it related to that, perhaps an uninformed clap.”

Meadows also said that he doesn’t think an audience of ordinary people on Main Street would have applauded amnesty plans from Rubio and Bush while booing Trump and Cruz being against amnesty, as happened in the audience this evening.

“It’s hard to say—I can tell you that when you go on Main Street and you’re not at a debate, the amount of applause you got to hear on different topics doesn’t necessarily correspond to what you heard in the auditorium tonight,” Meadows said.

The RNC’s Sean Spicer, asked to comment on these concerns from the two top-polling presidential campaigns here in South Carolina—the only two campaigns to have actually won a state, Iowa or New Hampshire, that has voted already—said that while party donors did receive tickets this was the best debate yet for candidates.

“Each candidate received the greatest number tickets than any prior debate and overall the candidates received the largest share of tickets,” Spicer said in an email.

Spicer hasn’t answered, however, if future debates will see candidates represented better–and if the party will do as Lewandowski is calling for by eliminating donor tickets and giving them exclusively and evenly to the campaigns.

Earlier in the day, before the debate, Spicer told Breitbart News exclusively that there were 1,600 seats in the audience and only 600 tickets were divided among the campaigns. State party and local officials got 550 tickets, while the RNC got 367 tickets. Another hundred tickets were given to the debate partners, CBS News, the Peace Center, and Google.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, RNC, 2016 presidential campaign

CBS Poll: Trump Poised for Landslide Win Over Establishment in South Carolina

AP

by Mike Flynn14 Feb 2016

A new poll from CBS News conducted before Saturday’s GOP debate, shows Donald Trump with 42 percent support among Republicans, and a massive 22 point lead over second-place candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The three candidates vying for the “establishment lane” — Jeb Bush, Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)combine for just 30 percent support.

The poll of likely Republican primary voters, drawn from a larger sample of 1,300 registered voters, shows Trump with 42 percent, followed by Cruz with 20 percent.

Rubio is third with 15 percent, ahead of Kasich with 9 percent and of Jeb Bush with 6 percent. Ben Carson also has 6 percent, tied with Jeb Bush for last.

Trump leads the field by wide margins among both “moderate” and “conservative” Republican voters. Trump also leads Cruz by 16 points among evangelical voters, 41-25. Cruz edges Donald Trump among “very conservative” voters by 4 points, 37 percent to 33 percent.

One major caveat to this poll is that the number of “very conservative” voters included in the poll sample is very low, compared to prior elections. In both 2008and 2012, Republican voters who identified themselves as “very conservative” made up roughly 35 percent of the electorate. In this poll, they are just 27 percent of the sample.

That said, Trump’s lead is so large that even if “very conservative” voters turned out in historic numbers, it wouldn’t likely tip the balance that much based on current trends.

It is important to keep in mind that the poll was conducted from Wednesday to Friday, before Saturday’s Republican debate in Charleston.

It was also conducted, obviously, before news of the death of Sumpreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was announced. The possibility of the next President making an immediate Supreme Court appointment raises the stakes of the primary and general even higher.

Only Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are currently ready to be President, according to the poll of South Carolina Republicans. Strong majorities of Republicans, 58 and 57 percent respectively, said Trump and Cruz were ready on day one, while just 28 and 27 percent said they were not.

A slim plurality of Republicans said Bush and Kasich were ready, while a plurality said Marco Rubio was not ready. By an overwhelming 33 point margin, Republican voters said Ben Carson was not ready to be President.

Just less than half of Republicans, 42 percent said they were certain in their candidate decision. Around a quarter, 23 percent, said it was likely they could change their mind still.

In 2012, 56 percent of South Carolina Republicans made their final decision in the last three days of the campaign. In 2008, just34 percent made a final decision in the last three days.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this latest poll is the terrible headwinds against the three “establishment” candidates, Bush, Kasich and Rubio. Together, they earn just 30 percent support from likely Republican voters.

While the media focuses on which position each will finish, the levels of their actual support are very low. In New Hampshire, the three candidates devoted considerable personal time campaigning and, together, spent well over $60 million in paid advertising. In actual voting, however, the three commanded less than 40 percent of the Republican vote.

Even if their vote were combined in South Carolina, the three would be running 12 points behind current frontrunner Donald Trump.

When asked their opinion of the “Republican establishment,” 45 percent of likely Republican voters said it was a “bad thing.”

Only 11 percent said it was positive. Bush, Kasich and Rubio are battling for the “establishment” lane, but it seems to be a road to nowhere in a Republican primary this year.

More than two-thirds of Republicans, 68 percent, want the next President to stand up to Democrats. Less than one third want a Republican President to “negotiate more effectively” with Democrats. For all their resources, endorsements and attention from national pundits, Bush, Kasich and Rubio may simply be the wrong candidates in 2016.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, South Carolina, caucus, cbs poll