Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

CRONY MEDIA: The protected, connected liberal media elite

By Against Crony Capitalism

I hate the term “elite.” This implies some sort of extraordinary skill, which in my experience in Washington, at least with the media and definitely in politics is not apt. But you get the point. Statist, entitled, usually wealthy (though typically not rich) folks who like to frequent the Georgetown cocktail circuit and get a thrill when Politico comes calling. The folks who actually care about Washingtonian Magazine.

They aren’t elite, but they are the political class. And they are protected. The Stephanopoulos kerfuffle is a great example. Why does this guy still have a job?

This problem isn’t about the donations being made in the first place, it’s the fact that he hid them from viewers while covering, and defending, the Clinton Foundation.

Last week Stephanopoulos announced as somewhat of a self-imposed punishment that he will not moderate a GOP primary debate scheduled for Feb. 6 with the Republican National Committee, but he was never confirmed to moderate the debate by the RNC in the first place.

Special treatment isn’t just reserved for Washington’s politicians, it’s for the most liberal, elite anchors as well. As for the rest of us, there are consequences for breaking the law and for conflict of interest nondisclosure.

Read Katie Pavlich's entire article on crony media here.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.
 

SOUNDS SUSTAINABLE TO ME: Nearly $30,000 of debt for every man, woman and child on the entire planet

By Michael Snyder

Did you know that there is more than $28,000 of debt for every man, woman and child on the entire planet? And since close to 3 billion of those people survive on less than 2 dollars a day, your share of that debt is going to be much larger than that. If we took everything that the global economy produced this year and everything that the global economy produced next year and used it to pay all of this debt, it still would not be enough. According to a recent report put out by the McKinsey Global Institute entitled “Debt and (not much) deleveraging“, the total amount of debt on our planet has grown from 142 trillion dollars at the end of 2007 to 199 trillion dollars today. This is the largest mountain of debt in the history of the world, and those numbers mean that we are in substantially worse condition than we were just prior to the last financial crisis.

When it comes to debt, a lot of fingers get pointed at the United States, and rightly so. Just prior to the last recession, the U.S. national debt was sitting at about 9 trillion dollars. Today, it has crossed the 18 trillion dollar mark. But of course the U.S. is not the only one that is guilty. In fact, the McKinsey Global Institute says that debt levels have grown in all major economies since 2007. The following is an excerpt from the report

Seven years after the bursting of a global credit bubble resulted in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, debt continues to grow. In fact, rather than reducing indebtedness, or deleveraging, all major economies today have higher levels of borrowing relative to GDP than they did in 2007. Global debt in these years has grown by $57 trillion, raising the ratio of debt to GDP by 17 percentage points (Exhibit 1). That poses new risks to financial stability and may undermine global economic growth.

What is surprising is that debt has actually grown the most in China. If you can believe it, total Chinese debt has grown from 7 trillion dollars in 2007 to 28 trillion dollars today. Needless to say, that is absolutely insane…

Monday, May 18, 2015

CONGRESSMAN: Changes needed in Jade Helm military exercises

By Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)


Over the past few weeks, my office has been inundated with calls referring to the Jade Helm 15 military exercise scheduled to take place between July 15 and September 15, 2015.

This military practice has some concerned that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law.


Certainly, I can understand these concerns.

When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even "cling to guns or religion," patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned.

We have seen people working in this administration use their government positions to persecute people with conservative beliefs in God, country, and notions such as honor and self-reliance.

SHOCKER: Hillary Claim That She Used Only One Personal Email Account While at State... Also a Lie

I hope you're sitting down:

Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office.

Multiple emails show Clinton used account “hrod17@clintonemail.com” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used one address during her time as secretary of state... Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the “hrod17@clintonemail.com” were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.

A representative for Clinton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.


As security experts noted a few months ago when the Hillary email scandal first broke, it's virtually certain that Hillary's email server was compromised by foreign governments. Which means Hillary put her own butt-covering over national security.

If America is willing to elect a sleazy, lying, unscrupulous, unethical, lying crook like Hillary in 2016, well, we deserve everything we get. Yes, I said "lying" twice. Because she warrants it.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.
 

RIPPLE EFFECT: Saudis said to be purchasing nuclear weapons from Pakistan to counter Iranian threat

By The Tower

Saudi Arabia had made the “strategic decision” to purchase a nuclear weapon from Pakistan amid the ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, a former American defense official said in a report published today in The Sunday Times.

“There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”

While the official did not believe “any actual weaponry has been transferred yet”, it was clear “the Saudis mean what they say and they will do what they say”, following last month’s Iranian outline nuclear deal. …

Asked whether the Saudis had decided to become a nuclear power, the official responded: “That has to be the assumption.”

The assessment is shared by an American intelligence official who spoke to the Times, saying that “hundreds” of CIA employees are trying to determine if Pakistan has already supplied any nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

JAW-DROPPING: Documents Reveal Obama, Hillary Knew Al Qaeda Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance

By Judicial Watch

"These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists." --Tom Fitton

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.

The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.”

Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

Sunday, May 17, 2015

ISRAELI AMBASSADOR Under Obama’s proposed nuclear deal, “Iran will walk into the nuclear club"

By Josh Siegel

Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, snapped his fingers to signify how quickly the Jewish state could go from being strong to vulnerable in the face of a nuclear Iran.

The same fragility can describe the current U.S.-Israel alliance at a time when the countries’ governments disagree over the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

In a speech meant to both reassure—and pressure—his country’s best ally, Dermer today tried to make the case that though his country disagrees with the Obama administration on the merits of an emerging nuclear deal with Iran, Israel and America share an unbreakable bond.

On the 67th anniversary of Israel’s independence, Dermer, speaking at The Heritage Foundation, said that the U.S.-Israeli relationship would live on eternally.

But at the same time, Dermer argued that the impending nuclear deal would threaten Israel’s survival and pit the U.S. not only against the wishes of the Jewish state, but also, of the broader Arab world.

Remember When Barack Obama Tried to Silence Political Speech in 2007?

By Sara Noble

Barack Obama said during a speech at Georgetown last week that we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, indicating that Republican leaders Boehner and McConnell were the ones needing changing. He also said, we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, specifically referring to Fox News at the time.

Signs of how Obama thinks about dissent and free speech were evident in a bill he tried to pass in 2007. The bill would make lying a federal crime if it concerned politics around election time.

By rights, that should put Obama in prison but it’s geared to set up Republicans.

Barack Obama’s answer is always to add big government control and he wants to do it if a politician or someone loosely tied to a politician lies or appears to have lied. It would have a chilling effect on political speech.

In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer introduced S. 453, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, a bill which was reintroduced in 2009 by Sen. Conyers and then again in 2011 by Senators Schumer and Cardin.

It was unnecessary since voter intimidation is already illegal but it had a clause that distinguished it.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

GREAT NEWS: Russian, Spanish-language ads fueling rampant driver’s license fraud in Vermont

By Bruce Parker

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Foreign-language ads are helping out-of-state illegal immigrants fraudulently obtain Vermont driver privilege cards, the chief inspector of the Vermont DMV has revealed.

“We found two ads out of state … saying you can come here and get a driver’s license,” Capt. Drew Bloom, chief inspector of the DMV, told Vermont Watchdog.

“One of them was in Spanish and the other was in Russian,” he said.

The revelation comes days after DMV Commissioner Robert Ide said his department’s investigation into driver’s license fraud extended to foreign countries and even other continents.

In the first of two print ads obtained by Watchdog.org (above), a message in Russian translates as follows:

Under What Authority Can Obama keep his TPP Trade Deal Secret?

By Jon Rappaport

To the US Congress: reveal the contents of the TPP now

It seems like a case of mass hypnosis. People claiming they can’t say what’s in the TPP trade agreement. And mainstream media accept this premise.

“That’s right. Congress must stay silent.”

Pop quiz: who says the text of the TPP must remain secret?

Under what authority?

Members of Congress are scuttling around like weasels, claiming they can’t disclose what’s in this far-reaching, 12-nation trade treaty.

They can go into a sealed room and read a draft, but they can’t copy pages, and they can’t tell the public what they just read.

Why not?

If there is a US law forbidding disclosure, name the law.

Are We a Nation of Laws... or a Nation of Thugs?

By Karl Denninger

I've laid this out many times over the years but perhaps it deserves a more-concentrated version.

The United States is relatively unique in terms of structure in our governmental system, and has a well-defined hierarchy of laws that the founders put forward a means to respect.  Let's start with that hierarchy, which is indisputable:

  • Natural law; that is, law that is simply due to nature.  The essence of being human defines these foundational boundaries; no government can or ever does, as you cannot lay claim to what which you never possessed.
  • Constitutional law; that is, law that is supreme in the nation and is intended to respect natural law (which sits above it) and divide responsibility for the remaining areas of governmental debate into appropriate sections.
  • Federal law, that is, laws bearing on and governing those areas of responsibility The Constitution granted to the Federal Government.
  • State law, that is, laws bearing on and governing those areas of responsibility The Constitution granted to the States, beginning with each State's Constitution and continuing through its statute system.
  • County and incorporated entity law, which bears on those areas of responsibility State Constitutions granted to the counties and incorporated political subdivisions (e.g. cities and townships.)

An alleged law further down the hierarchy that proclaims something to be illegal (or legal) that is contrary to the provisions above it is void as if it was never passed; it creates no office, it provides no power or shield.  If this general principle is disregarded then there is no law at all since any inferior political subdivision instantly loses its inferior status when it passes such an act.  

You cannot believe in a representative republican form of government, nor take an oath to same in any respect and at the same time permit or recognize any such act of usurpation as doing so is a declaration that the political subdivision in question has become superior to those above it.

Further, note that an act contrary to the law does not change the law; it merely ignores or contravenes it.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Why the Clinton Foundation Scandal Should Terrify Every American

By Peter Schweizer

One of the last vestiges of broad-based bipartisan agreement in American politics is the belief that foreign money should not influence U.S. political leaders and their decisions. The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the ban on foreign political money, and President Barack Obama and Republicans have echoed similar themes.

We now know that the Clinton Foundation served as a conduit for the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign individuals, entities, and governments. Moreover, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, former President Bill Clinton received numerous lucrative speaking fees funded by foreign entities, including a $500,000 Moscow speech paid for by a Kremlin-linked bank with interests pending before Mrs. Clinton’s State Dept. 

But does any of this matter? Moreover, is it, as some have intimated, akin to “bribery”?

As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton made combatting corruption by foreign actors “a major focus of U.S foreign policy,” as her spokesperson at the time put it. More specifically, she pledged her support for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) “anti-corruption agenda.” So, how does the OECD define bribery?  

BOOM: Federal Court Issues Historic Ruling in Hillary Email Scandal

By Judicial Watch

Last Friday, a federal court judge did something we had never seen before – U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton reopened a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The lawsuit had sought documents about an advertisement intended to air in Pakistan entitled “A Message from the President of the United States Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Judge Walton issued the ruling on Friday, May 8, in response to a joint motion by Judicial Watch and the State Department. This is historic. My attorney colleagues at Judicial Watch tell me they are aware of no precedent of another FOIA lawsuit being reopened by a federal court.

Judicial Watch filed suit in December 2012, after the State Department failed to respond to a September 24, 2012, FOIA request for all records concerning the advertisement produced by the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad intended to air in Pakistan. The advertisement was an absurd and dishonest “apology” for the Internet video that President Obama, then-Secretary of State Clinton, and other administration officials falsely blamed for inspiring “spontaneous demonstrations” resulting in the attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya. The disgusting ad was a misuse of tax dollars and part of the cover-up of the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack.

How Illinois Public Sector Unions Destroyed Chicago

By ProPublica

What happens when you’ve been kicking the fiscal can down the road for years, but the road suddenly hits a dead end? That’s what Chicago – and the state of Illinois – are about to find out.

Chicago’s immediate problem is yesterday’s credit downgrade by Moody’s Investors Services, which turned its debt to junk and could force the city to immediately come up with $2.2 billion to satisfy debts and other obligations.

When big cities have had debt crises – such as Detroit’s recent problems or New York City’s epic problems in the 1970s – states typically rode to the rescue in one way or another. But Illinois, which has the lowest credit rating of any state in the nation, says it can’t help the stricken city.

The downgrade follows a Friday decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, which invalidated state limits on cost-of-living adjustments to state pensioners. The limits were part of a slate of reforms signed into law in 2013 by then-Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, to deal with underfunded pensions.

Moody’s said the court decision was key to its downgrade because the city has been hoping to dig out of its own financial hole by reducing cost-of-living adjustments, which typically raise the cost of pensions by close to 50 percent.

Chicago’s predicament actually has its roots in a 2003 decision by Illinois to kick the pension can down the road – by borrowing money to fund pensions rather than trying to get the benefits reduced or to stepping up payments to make them financially sound.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: Humiliation and Defeat

By Daniel Greenfield

John Kerry returns from his latest Russian visit bearing two baskets of potatoes and a t-shirt.

The t-shirt, given to him by Foreign Minister Lavrov, might as well say, “I wasted my time in Russia and all I got was this lousy shirt.”

It’s a diplomatic success only in relation to Kerry’s previous humiliations such as the time that Russia’s adeptly slimy foreign minister kept him waiting for a week before returning his call while the State Department spokeswoman announced to the world that Kerry was “ready to talk whenever Foreign Minister Lavrov can find the time.”

The Putin regime enjoys humiliating the United States, but even it seems to have tired of degrading Kerry who ruins their fun by failing to realize what is going on. Instead Kerry has become a nonentity; a forgotten messenger boy. It’s a fitting purgatory for the formerly tireless leftist activist in the Senate.

It wasn’t all that long ago that John Kerry was being touted as the last best hope for diplomacy. No one could quite admit that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had made a complete mess, but the sighs of relief when John Kerry got the job instead of Obama’s dishonest crony Susan Rice spoke volumes.

American diplomacy had never before hit the low point that it had under Obama and Clinton. Liberals with an interest in foreign policy had expected professionalism; instead the two politicians used it as their private piggy bank. Obama handed off ambassadorships to key countries to big donors while Hillary spent more time seeing to the interests of Clinton Foundation donors than to our national interests.

Obama had campaigned as an internationalist who would put aside the provincialism of the Bush years to build meaningful multilateral relationships based on his experience with other countries and cultures. But once in office, he treated visits to other countries like domestic campaign trips to obscure states.

Foreign leaders soon found out that an Obama visit was usually a cross between a photo op using their historical landmarks as background and a vacation. While his gaffes and embarrassing behaviors got the most attention, the underlying problem was that he didn’t understand what his job was. His routine of self-important speeches and announcements of billion dollar programs that would never materialize was built for his endless domestic campaign and its lapdog media. And it didn’t play well internationally.

ABC’S STEPHANOPOULOS GRILLED "CLINTON CASH" AUTHOR: Forgot to Note His Own Donations to Bogus Foundation

While Politico got credit for the story, it turns out it was Andrew Stiles at Washington Free Beacon who broke the original scoop.

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos donated $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, records show. The contribution is publicly available information, but the host had not previously disclosed it to ABC viewers, despite taking part in on-air discussions about the Clinton Foundation and its controversial relationship with foreign donors.

...Stephanopoulos’s recent coverage of the topic has been challenged by critics who question his objectivity as a longtime Clinton aide. The host’s April 26 interview with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer, for example, elicited partisan reactions after Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed the Schweizer to acknowledge the lack of a “smoking gun” among the allegations in his book...

Conservative commentators, meanwhile, complained about Stephanopoulos’s “aggressively” dismissive questioning, and took issue with a former Clinton operative asking Schweizer, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, about his “partisan interest” in writing Clinton Cash ... ABC News viewers should have also been reminded of the host’s connection to the Clintons, the politicians at the center of the discussion.


ISIS KINGPIG AL-BAGHDADI: "Islam is the religion of war"

My bad. Looks like I had a typo in the headline.

ISIS media released a video by its top general, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that explains the "religious" duty of every Muslim is to wage war on the un-believers:

Click to Explodify
Do not think the war that we are waging is the Islamic State’s war alone. Rather, it is the Muslims’ war altogether. It is the war of every Muslim in every place, and the Islamic State is merely the spearhead in this war.

It is but the war of the people of faith against the people of disbelief, so march forth to your war O Muslims... March forth everywhere, for it is an obligation upon every Muslim who is accountable before Allah. And whoever stays behind or flees, Allah (the Mighty and Majestic) will be angry with him and will punish him with a painful torment.

...whoever thinks that it is within his capacity to conciliate with the Jews, Christians, and other disbelievers, and for them to conciliate with him, such that he coexists with them and they coexist with him while he is upon his religion and upon tawhīd (monotheism), then he has belied the explicit statement of his Lord.

Islam is the religion of war.

...This war is only against you and against your religion. Has the time not come for you to return to your religion and your jihād and thereby bring back your glory, honor, rights, and leadership?

...Your [Sunni and Kurd] repentance is more beloved to us than killing you or expelling you. Repent for we do not call you out of weakness. Rather, we call you while our swords are at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer from your necks. If you repent, you will not find from us anything except good and kindness.

[You ISIS fighters must] be patient, because the Crusaders are bleeding to death, the Rāfidah [Shiites] are faltering, and the Jews are horrified and in dread.

Shhhh. No one tell Ben Affleck.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.
 

IN AN AGE OF TERRORISM: Defense Bill Should Not Allow Illegal Aliens to Enlist in the Military

By Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)

Despite the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted down repeated attempts to encourage the recruitment of illegal immigrants into the military, we are seeing yet another attempt to encourage such recruitment recently inserted into a must-pass defense funding bill.

Even worse, the push to recruit illegal immigrants is happening at a time when U.S. citizens are being downsized from the military or turned away by recruiters.

The House Armed Services Committee recently approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that encourages the secretary of defense to declare that illegal immigrants categorized under President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—are “vital” to America’s national interest and thus eligible to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Congressman Ruben Gallego’s, D-Ariz., amendment passed the committee with six Republicans joining all 27 Democrats.

The recruitment is being encouraged at the very same time the Pentagon is laying off tens of thousands of American troops. According to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, the active Army will be cut by more than 80,000 uniformed personnel by the end of fiscal year 2017.

Moreover, competition for enlistment is already so challenging that American high school graduates now face “more difficulty qualifying for the armed services than ever in the 40-year history of the all-volunteer force,” according to media reports.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

BEST RESPONSE TO LIBERAL MEDIA’S LATEST LIE: Lack of Infrastructure Spending Caused Amtrak Crash

In 2009, didn't Barack Obama market his unprecedented $787 billion "Stimulus" program under the banner of repairing America's failing infrastructure? Why, yes, yes he did.

President Obama on Tuesday signed into law the largest spending bill in U.S. history, a package he pledges will save millions of jobs and bring the country back from the brink of economic catastrophe...

He said the federal government will send unprecedented levels of support into infrastructure, education, research, energy, health care and state government. He pledged to enact the bill with an "unprecedented level of transparency and accountability."

Fast forward to this week's tragic Amtrak accident. Cue legacy media jumping to the "You low-life taxpayers aren't spending enough money on infrastructure!" argument.

At least six people died and many more were injured in a terrible Amtrak accident on the night of May 12, and before the cause had been discovered, multiple cable news networks used the tragedy to make a political point.

Programming on CNN, CNBC and MSNBC all used the accident to claim the government needed to spend more on infrastructure all before National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators made an assessment to determine the cause of the crash.

Say, Dems: what the hell happened to that $787 billion anyhow?

Oh, and cue the real cause of the accident (hint: what happens when you crank a passenger train up to 106 MPH and hit a curve?):

The engineer of the Amtrak train that derailed near Philadelphia -- killing at least seven and sending more than 200 to area hospitals -- applied the emergency brakes just seconds before the train jumped the tracks while hurtling along at almost twice the speed limit, a National Transportation Safety Board spokesman said Wednesday.

NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt, stressing he was working with preliminary information, said the train was traveling at 106 mph as it entered a sharp curve where the speed limit was 50 mph. The engineer he said, launched a "full emergency brake application" a few seconds before the train derailed 11 minutes after leaving the Philadelphia station, crumpling cars and throwing around many of the 243 aboard.

Which leads me to the most astute response to liberal media's insane conclusion-jumping:



Hat tip: BadBlue News.
 

AS IF IRAN WASN’T ENOUGH: WaPo Worries Obama is Helping China Proliferate Nuclear Weapons

Writing at the Washington Post, Steven Mufson observes that "Obama’s quiet nuclear deal with China raises proliferation concerns."

It seemed like a typical day for President Obama. He taped a TV interview on trade, hosted the champion NASCAR team on the South Lawn and met with the defense secretary in the Oval Office.

Not so typical was something that didn’t appear that day on the president’s public schedule: notification to Congress that he intends to renew a nuclear cooperation agreement with China. The deal would allow Beijing to buy more U.S.-designed reactors and pursue a facility or the technology to reprocess plutonium from spent fuel. China would also be able to buy reactor coolant technology that experts say could be adapted to make its submarines quieter and harder to detect.

The formal notice initially didn’t draw any headlines. Its unheralded release on April 21 reflected the administration’s anxiety that it might alarm members of Congress and nonproliferation experts who fear China’s growing naval power — and the possibility of nuclear technology falling into the hands of third parties with nefarious intentions.

Mufson goes on to relay the ominous concerns of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. It worries not only about the proliferation of spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-designed reactors, which is bad enough, but the fact that Obama has also unleashed restrictions on key nuclear energy technologies like coolant pumps.

These pumps could be repurposed or reengineered for use in submarines.

Combined with then-President Bill Clinton's utterly criminal behavior, reportedly accepting donations in exchange for releasing key missile guidance technologies to the Red Chinese, it would seem that the leaders of the Democrat Party are determined to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

The only question is why?


Hat tip: BadBlue News.