OMG. I have no words. pic.twitter.com/VRnKahMxMn
— Mike Flynn (@Flynn1776) September 4, 2015#ReadyForJeb
Hat tip: BadBlue News.
OMG. I have no words. pic.twitter.com/VRnKahMxMn
— Mike Flynn (@Flynn1776) September 4, 2015One of the most serious potential breaches of national security identified so far by the intelligence community inside Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails involves the relaying of classified information concerning the movement of North Korean nuclear assets, which was obtained from spy satellites.
Multiple intelligence sources who spoke to The Washington Times, solely on the condition of anonymity, said concerns about the movement of the North Korean information through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server are twofold.
First, spy satellite information is frequently classified at the top-secret level and handled within a special compartment called Talent-Keyhole. This means it is one of the most sensitive forms of intelligence gathered by the U.S...
...Allowing sensitive U.S. intelligence about North Korea to seep into a more insecure private email server has upset the intelligence community because it threatens to expose its methods and assets for gathering intelligence on the secretive communist nation.
At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public ... in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state’s server.
The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources -- one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department. But after a second review by the department's legal office, the designation was switched to "B5" -- also known as "deliberative process," which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release.The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content "down a deep black hole."
The four mails are separate and distinct from another group of emails identified by the Intelligence Community Inspector General as containing two messages with "Top Secret" information.
......at least one of the lawyers in the office where the changes were made is Catherine “Kate” Duval, who was at the IRS during the Lois Lerner e-mail scandal and now handles the release of documents to the Benghazi select committee. Duval once worked for the same firm as Clinton's private attorney David Kendall.
...there were internal department complaints that Duval, and a second lawyer also linked to Kendall, gave at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest during the email review... The whistleblowers told intelligence community officials that they did not agree with the B5 changes, and the changes had the effect of shielding the full extent of classified content on the server...
...it clearly shows Hillary passing on classified information to Sidney Blumenthal, who didn’t even work for the State Department:Blumenthal, a known anti-semitic kook, was renowned for his stupidity to the point that even "Rahm Emanuel expressly forbid him to be hired anywhere in the federal government, especially State."Here’s what Ed has to say about it:
Yet here Hillary is, sending him updates on negotiations with Germany’s Angela Merkel and Tony Blair, which are obviously too sensitive to send out over an unauthorized and unsecure mode of transmission. On top of that, she’s sharing it with someone not cleared for this information even when properly transmitted.
Last year, according to reports on file with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Service Employees Internationals Union paid Scott Courtney $232,060 in total compensation.
However, that is a mere pittance to the estimated nearly $80 million that the SEIU has shelled out in its nearly three-year battle to unionize the nation’s fast-food workers.Though his official SEIU title is “Deputy Chief of Staff,” according to a post in the Guardian, Courtney is the chief strategist of the SEIU’s Fight for $15 campaign–the campaign concocted by the SEIU in late 2009 as a means of unionizing low-wage fast-food workers.
To date, Courtney and the SEIU have rejected the notion of unionizing 100 or 200 McDonalds and negotiating higher wages to use as a model elsewhere, opting instead for a much grander goal.
Sometimes what’s not said in response to a direct inquiry is more noteworthy than what is said. When the chairman of the Democrat National Committee was asked recently what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was, she sidestepped the issue and went a totally divergent direction. It would have provided a valuable service if she’d answered the question directly, for there seems to be no substantive distinction.
“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The DNC chairman started to laugh, so Matthews tried again. “I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think?” Wasserman-Schultz started to sidestep the issue again, so Matthews tried a third time. “Yeah, but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.” Intentionally avoiding Matthew’s question, she responded, “The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican.” Her dogmatically superficial and fallacious explication ensued.A little later, NBC’s Chuck Todd, on “Meet the Press,” asked the same question, which she responded to very similarly, choosing to answer a question not asked. But when the Matthews interview is looked at contextually, she may have already answered the question, when she called Bernie Sanders “a good Democrat.”
That’s a significant statement even at face value, for Bernie Sanders, the junior senator from Vermont, and a Democrat candidate for president, is a self-avowed socialist. He’s officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them 98% of the time, according to Socialistworker.org.
Hillary would never support violent, armed raids to capture and deport Hispanic immigrants https://t.co/ceI5EnEZ0t pic.twitter.com/FsetjY9r1T
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 28, 2015A rancher is taking the Environmental Protection Agency to federal court, asking a judge to stop the agency from fining him more than $16 million because he built a small pond on his property.
Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming says he made sure to get the proper permits from his state government before building the pond. After all, this is America in the 21st century, and nothing done on your own property — certainly when it involves the use of water — is beyond government concern.Johnson is facing millions in fines from the federal government after the EPA determined his small pond — technically a “stock pond” to provide better access to water for animals on his ranch — is somehow violating the federal Clean Water Act.
“We went through all the hoops that the state of Wyoming required, and I’m proud of what we built,” Johnson said. “The EPA ignored all that.”
In a compliance order, the EPA told Johnson he had to return his property — under federal oversight — to conditions before the stock pond was built. When he refused to comply, the EPA tagged Johnson with a fines of $37,000 per day.
Dismantling the pond within the 30-day window the EPA originally gave him was “physically impossible,” Johnson said.
That was in 2012. Today, Johnson owes the federal government more than $16 million, and the amount is growing as he tries to fight back.
"Did you try to wipe the entire [server]? *crickets * #Hillary4Prison2016 #OrangeIsTheNewHillary https://t.co/ZRm6BoGaAc
— Angela #1A #DefundPP (@angelacarwile) August 28, 2015ED HENRY: Secretary Clinton, I wonder if I could ask you a couple of questions. One would be—were you aware—were you aware—thank you. Were you aware that your husband wanted to give paid speeches to repressive regimes like North Korea? Do you have any comment on these new emails that raise questions about conflict of interest involving your aide, Huma Abedin? And finally, I wonder — you said there’s nothing unique about this situation. You’ve said this before. Can you name one other Cabinet secretary who had their own server?
CLINTON: Well, let me answer one of your questions because I think that’s what you are entitled to.
My reaction wasn’t included in this poll, because it’s supposed to be a single word and my response was “Oh God why won’t the Clintons just take their ill-gotten millions and go away and leave us alone forever.”
Via @QuinnipiacPoll: What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of #HillaryClinton? pic.twitter.com/vRKNGY7Lap
— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) August 27, 2015Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become president. All for nothing.
The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11 million of that money came from the notoriously "flat broke" couple. This time around she was determined to take no chances.
Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything. There was no way she could lose.
Now she’s losing all over again.
Hillary has a ton of money, but can’t buy the nomination. She’s spending a quarter of a million a day on a campaign operation with no actual organized opposition to speak of. Even before Biden officially enters the race, she’s falling behind the joke candidacy of Bernie Sanders in key states.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars without making an impact. She spent almost a million on polling only to see her poll numbers drop every week. She dropped $2 million on ads about her mother to try to make women like her. It didn’t work. Nothing is working anymore.
The huge number of foreign children born on U.S. soil– roughly 340,000 per year— is also an economic imposition on Americans, who pay taxes to help raise, feed, and educate those children of illegal migrants.
Eventually, those 340,000 U.S.-born foreign children can join the U.S. workforce and compete for wages against the roughly four million children of U.S. parents that enter the slow-growing U.S. economy each year.
Only 28 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that children born to illegal migrants in this country should automatically be American citizens, according to a 2011 Rasmussen Reports survey. In fact, the proposal is so unpopular that even Jeb Bush, who favors large-scale immigration, has criticized pregnant foreigners who grab citizenship for their kids by flying into the country posing as tourists. Bush described the practice as “fraud,” and asserted that, “Frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country — having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship”
The growing industry of “birth tourism” is so large that even California’s government recently cracked down on the illegal — but rarely suppressed— trade.
Speaker of the House John Boehner stunned audience members Wednesday evening at a Colorado fundraiser by referring to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz as a “jackass,” two people in attendance tell The Daily Caller.
At a Steamboat Springs event for GOP Rep. Scott Tipton, the Ohio Republican quipped that he likes how Cruz’s presidential campaign keeps “that jackass” out of Washington, and from telling Boehner how to do his job.
That remark rubbed some attendees the wrong way.
“I don’t think it’s terribly speaker-like, and I think it kind of goes against everything that Reagan ever said about disparaging Republicans,” said Ed MacArthur, the president of Native Excavating, who attended the fundraiser... Another Steamboat Springs resident confirmed Boehner’s remark: “I about fell on the floor... [t]o build coalitions to work together in Washington, D.C., you don’t start it out by calling your colleague a ‘jackass,'” she said.
U.S. District Court of North Dakota Chief Judge Ralph Erickson placed a temporary injunction against the agency, which would delay the regulation from taking effect Friday.
"The risk of irreparable harm to the states is both imminent and likely," Erickson said in his decision favoring the 13 states that sued the EPA over its Clean Water Rule, formerly the Waters of the U.S. rule. The rule has become a favorite target of Republicans as an example of federal overreach.
The judge said the water rule requires more study, including "jurisdictional studies" of natural gas, oil and water pipeline projects in North Dakota. The state is a leading U.S. producer of oil derived from shale rock formations deep underground... North Dakota [had] led the charge against EPA in the court, arguing that the rule violated state sovereignty.
AND THE PROPOSALS JUST KEEP ON COMIN': President Obama announces the details of the Clean Power Plan at the White House, August 4. It’s one of a series of plans the administration has announced this year through the Environmental Protection Agency.But critics from the business community say the new rules will come at a hefty cost for consumers and argue some of the regulations aren’t even necessary.
“It certainly seems as though they’ve saved some of their biggest regulations for the end of this administration,” said Greg Bertelsen, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “We’re less focused on the motivations behind the regulations than we are on the impacts on manufacturers.”
EPA insists all the new and proposed rules are needed to protect public health and meet the Obama administration’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change.
“What this proposal shows … is just how serious this administration is about putting real concrete measures in place to reduce emissions of harmful CO2 and methane,” Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, told reporters on a conference call regarding the methane rule.
All told, EPA and the Obama administration have announced proposals for at least five measures in recent months:
@WilliamTeach @Patriotic1s @directorblue pic.twitter.com/XZ35jDrty2
— Xine (@xinemd) August 25, 2015Hillary Clinton's classified emails contain discussions of conversations with foreign diplomats, issues with embassy security and relations with countries from Russia to China.The broad range of information that was deemed classified by the State Department — just within the emails published by the agency to date —underscores concerns that sensitive material was routinely mishandled on Clinton's private email server.
For example, Huma Abedin, Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, forwarded a summary of a high-level Sept. 2009 meeting to Clinton in which she detailed the "embassy security issues" that were discussed... issues had been raised by Eric Boswell, a diplomatic security official who was later forced to resign in the wake of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Facebook has lifted the ban on the Center's job reports pages. The Center has not heard from Facebook directly, they did make a statement to Breitbart News:
When asked what happened—and for a response to CIS—a Facebook spokesperson told Breitbart News that it was just a simple error in their system, not a malicious attempt by the social media giant to use censorship to push its founder’s political agenda.
“An error in our system that helps block bad links on Facebook incorrectly marked some URLs as malicious,” the Facebook spokesperson said in an email. “We’ve resolved the issue and apologize for the inconvenience this caused.”
Although the Facebook spokesperson states that the pages were banned due to an error marking them as "malicious", the automated response from Facebook while the ban was in place specifically stated that they were blocked for "abuse".
An informed debate over immigration requires data and analysis about its effects. Only with information from a variety of sources can Americans try to understand our current policies, assess proposed changes, and judge candidates for political office.
That is why it is so disturbing that Facebook, owned by immigration-expansionist Mark Zuckerberg, has banned four reports published by the Center for Immigration Studies pertaining to jobs and immigration.
The Center became aware a week ago that these four reports were blocked: