FBI notes show Obama used a fake name to email Hillary at private email--**later denied knowing she had private email account**

Late Friday afternoon the thoroughly corrupt, politicized FBI did yet another "document dump."  That's when an agency releases documents they have to release but don't want you to actually notice. This is always done late on a Friday after it's too late to make that evening's news. 

The agency hopes that by Monday either some other story will override this one, or else Democrat-friendly editors and news producers will simply decide that since it's 3 days old by then, it's not newsworthy.

The newly-released FBI docs show that your emperor emailed Hillary Clinton at her private email address.  Yet later, when asked by reporters, he claimed he didn't know she had a private email account.

An endless web of lies--as everyone has come to expect from the emperor, Hillary and all Democrat leaders.

What makes the report authentic is that in emailing Hillary, Obozo used a fake name that presumably only he and Hillary his a few staffers knew. 

The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.  Mills--a government employee--refused to answer questions from congress about Hillary's email server on the utterly bullshit grounds that she is Hillary's attorney, and thus can't be forced to give information due to the attorney-client privilege.

But as should be screamingly obvious, Mills was not Hillary's attorney when she was at State.  At the time she was a federal employee, paid by the taxpayers. 

In an interview with the FBI five months ago, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin was shown one of the emails the emperor sent to Clinton under the fake name.  Abedin claimed she didn't recognize the name of the sender.  When told that the sender was believed to be a fake name used by Obama, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'"  Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a fake name.

The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama.

This story has been published by numerous new outlets.  Here's a link to Politico's version.  It's loaded with irrelevant padding, which diverts attention from the real story--which I've extracted above.  Politico is a strong pro-Democrat outfit so running this story amounts to an "admission against interest."  If you're not a lawyer that means it's a lot more likely to be true.  Of course it doesn't mean this is the whole truth--heaven forbid!--but simply that the truth is at least this damning for Obozo and the Democrats.

But hey "what difference can it possibly make," eh citizen?  (If you didn't know, that's Hillary's infamous response at one point during the Benghazi hearings.)  Why should any citizen care if your government lies about trivial things like this?

Oh wait...by using a fake name, if someone filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking emails from "President Obama" to Hillary's private server--or if congress were to subpoena such emails--the emperor's staff would be able to truthfully say there was no record of this particular email from "President Obama."

See how that works?  Clever, huh.  

Victor Davis Hanson on the prospect of a large war

Victor Davis Hanson is a professor of history, and a sound thinker.  He's written a piece on the probability of world war in the near future, and it's...interesting.  I've edited his comments below, but it's certainly well worth it to read his original.

The summer of 1914 in Europe was quiet.  But on July 28 an Austrian duke was assassinated in Sarajevo, triggering World War I and the deaths of tens of millions. 

In the summer of 1939, most observers thought that the West's serial appeasement of Adolf Hitler  had satisfied his demands for more territory.  British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to the UK to tell the Brits he was confident that his concessions to Hitler would ensure "peace in our time."

Of course delusion this proved astonishingly wrong, and would have devastating consequences.  On Sept. 1 Nazi Germany invaded Poland, starting a war that killed some 60 million people.

Wars often seem to come out of nowhere, as seemingly small events ignite long-simmering disputes between nations.  The orders to fire are often given by politicians who assume--often reasonably--that the nation they're attacking wants peace at any cost, and so will not retaliate.

This is "reasonable" because the attacking nation has seen--again and again--the leaders of competent nations bowing and scraping, fleeing from confronting evil or aggression rather than risk unpopularity with their supporters.  The result is *always* fatal.

The relative calm of 2016 has masked a lot of festering tensions that are now coming to a head -- largely due to disengagement by the United States.  Because your emperor has consistently bowed and surrendered, the leaders of other nations assume the U.S. will no longer defend either itself or its interests around the world.  And this may well be true.

Russia is massing troops on its border with Ukraine, in part because Russian President Vladimir Putin sees Europe in utter disarray and assumes Obama's main goal is still apologizing to foreigners for the past evils of the United States. Putin is wagering that no one in the entire West can or would stop his reabsorption of Ukraine -- or the Baltic states next.

Who in hip Amsterdam cares what happens to faraway Kiev?

Iran was able to squeeze over $100 BILLION from American taxpayers thanks to the idiocy of Obama and John Kerry, and their treaty-they-refuse-to-call-a-treaty.  The emperor and Kerry foolishly believed giving a huge pot of gold to Iran would buy friendship from the mullahs, but an Iranian missile narrowly missed a U.S. aircraft carrier not long ago. Iranians hijacked an American boat and buzzed our warships in the Persian Gulf. There are frequent promises from Tehran to destroy either Israel, America or both.

Say, emperor, how's that "peace dividend" from your huge concessions to Iran working out?

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has been launching missiles over Japan and testing nuclear weapons.  Because he's had absolute power for so long (third generation dictator) he likely thinks threatening the West will win him even larger concessions and economic gifts--because when Bill Clinton was president he decreed that the U.S. would give the North half a million tons of crucial fuel oil (needed for heating government buildings) and a million tons of food if they'd just stop trying to build a nuclear weapon.

How'd that work out, Democrats?  And yet the deal with Iran will surely work SO much better, eh?

Anyone who believes that is an idiot.

Radical Islamists likewise seem emboldened to try more attacks, convinced that the targets of their attacks won't respond.  And so far they've been right, so who can blame them for such a conclusion?  The past weekend brought pipe bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey as well as a muslim immigrant stabbing nine unarmed Americans in a Minnesota mall. 

Europe has been overrun by huge numbers of military-age male migrants from the war-torn Middle East. Political correctness has paralyzed Western leaders from even articulating the threat, much less replying to it.  Instead your emperor's goal is to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ensure that no administration official utters the words "Islamic terror," and warn Americans against "Islamophobia."

Aggressors are also encouraged by huge reductions in our defense budget.

Human nature almost certainly hasn't changed in the last 4000 years.  And one constant is that thuggish dictators almost always view appeasement as timidity to be exploited. 

 

The bottom line is that the U.S. is no longer considered a deterrent to evil acts.  And it's a tough fact that once a reputation for military toughness is lost, it's almost impossible to get it back without war.

 

The emperor--trying to salvage some positive legacy after 8 years of unmitigated disaster--has been assuring Americans that the world has never been more peaceful.  Others said the same thing in the last calm summer weeks of 1914 and 1939.

Video of the main Obamacare drafter talking about the "stupidity of the American public"

Wanna see how Team Obama lied to the public to scrape up enough votes to pass the total disaster called Obamacare?  Watch the vid below.

The speaker is a guy named Jon Gruber.  He's an economist at MIT and was a key drafter of the actual wording of the bill.  What he says is, we lied:  "If the CBO [congressional budget office] had 'scored the bill' correctly [i.e. correctly stated what it would cost] it wouldn't have passed."

He also says that what enabled 'em to pass it was "Call it the stupidity of the American people or whatever...."

These are the people who are ruling you.

This is the Hillary theory of government.

Do you love Obamacare?  Love paying more for insurance with such a huge deductible that you'll almost never be able to get the health insurance to pay a dime?  They you'll love President Hilliary.

Anyone recall what the emperor said in 2008? No? Ah...

Back in 2008 the future emperor showed his true agenda. 

A third of the country never heard about it.  Another third didn't understand what he meant. 

Another third understood perfectly, and was absolutely fine with it.

The great healer of racial strife, eh?  How's that working out?

Venezuela putting newborns in cardboard boxes because they don't have working incubators

Democrats and liberals have had a whining rallying cry for years: “What about the children?  If our wonderful federal government doesn’t do [something they want], defenseless little children will suffer!”  They use this again and again, to get the government to take over more and more decisions.

And what happens when they get their way?

Here is what happens:

The economic crisis in Venezuela is now so bad that doctors are using cardboard boxes instead of incubators to keep newborn babies.

According to the Pharmaceutical Federation, the shortage of medicines is more than 80 percent and around 13,000 doctors, more than 20 percent of the medical staff in the country, have emigrated in the last four years because of the crisis in their sector and because of low salaries.

Socialism.  Ain't it wonderful?  And you're about to elect a woman who wants to make college "free" for all.  Well, maybe not exactly "free"--you'll pay for it.  But you'll love it.  Cuz, Democrats.

Clinton Foundation swears it gave a whopping 5.7 percent of its income (i.e.donations) to charity; almost $35 mill on salaries!

Charities are required to file regular reports with the federal gummint certifying exactly what the spent in the past year on salaries, perks, travel, office rental, booze...and how much the actually gave to charitable causes. 

Last week the famed "Clinton Foundation" filed its annual report for 2014 (not 2015).  For that year the foundation received $178 million in donations. 

It spent $91.3 million.  But that's okay--you never know when those $50-million-dollar donations from middle-eastern governments will dry up, eh?  So better to keep some cash in reserve.  Prudent, right?  And heaven knows, Hilliarly is nothing but prudent!

Of course not all of that $9 mill went to, y'know...charity.  Obviously some was spent on salaries, perks, travel, food, office space, private unencrypted websites and so on.  Cuz, y'know, it takes lots of highly-skilled people to run a slush fund.

Okay, how much did they give to charity and how much was spent on...other shit?  Well, thanks to their own filing, we know:  Just under six percent of their total expenses went to charities.

$34.8 million went to salaries.

$8 million was spent on "travel."  That is, they spent more on travel than they gave to charity.

The foundation described a whopping $50.4 million of its spending as "other."  Gosh, wonder what that was?

And remember, these numbers are from their own filing, not guesses.

But not a smidgen of corruption there.  No sir.  That is one *clean* foundation!  Totally "transparent."

And you're about to elect this bitch president????????  I'll admit Trump's not exactly inspiring, but...Hilliary? 

Links below:
http://dcwhispers.com/appalling-clinton-foundation-spent-travel-expenses-charity/
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/18/clinton-foundation-spent-millions-more-travel-charitable-grants-irs-filings-show

CNN edits Hilliary statement to omit "bombings" so they can criticize Trump for saying..."bombings" in NYC and NJ

Think American media is fair, honest, unbiased?  If so you probably also believe in the tooth fairy, but I digress.

Two bombs went off yesterday:  One was along the route of a 5K charity race for Marines and Navy sailors.  They only reason no one was injured was that by the grace of God the start of the race was delayed half an hour.

The second bomb was in New York City near the intersection of 27th street and 7th Avenue.

Naturally you heard about both those, right?

No?  Gosh, that's...odd...because both were bombs.  And you'd think when unknown terrorists are detonating bombs in this country your media would be letting you know, eh?  I mean, dontcha think that's kinda significant?

Wait...we're having an election really soon, remember?  And one of the two candidates--Hilliary Clinton--wants to continue the brilliant policies of your emperor:  open borders, AND the government paying to import 100,000 Muslim so-called "refugees" from Syria--who cannot possibly be "vetted" to weed out totally dedicated terrorists.

Ah, I see:  So if your Democrat-loving media publicizes the bombings (as opposed to a one-liner saying "no one was killed"), who do you suppose that would hurt?

Yep.  But wait, it gets better (or more horrible, depending on your party):

According to ABC News, right after the bombs were announced, Hilliary made the following statement in front of all her accolyte "reporters:" 

I’ve been briefed about bombings in New York and New Jersey...     --Hilliary

Donald Trump also spoke about "bombings," and the media immediately jumped on him for jumping to what they squealed was the allegedly premature conclusion that the bombs were...well, bombs.

Oooh, wait...didn't Hilliary just do the same thing?  Oooh, but that would mean we can't blast Trump for that without everyone seeing us media types as hypocritical assholes!  Can't have that!

Solution:  CNN broadcast their video of Hilliary making the statement to reporters that's quoted above.  They just omitted the line quoted above.

Of course you think this can't be true--too obvious!  So click the damn link.  The first clip, by ABC, has Clinton speaking the "bombing" quote above, while the second, by CNN, cuts out Clinton’s statement that the events were bombings.

Wonderful to be Democrat royalty, so the media edits your statements to make your opponent look bad.  Even though you said the same thing.

School district orders that students can't chant "U-S-A" at football games except right after the national anthem. WHAT?

In western Michigan a highchool football "conference" representing 50 schools has announced a crackdown on fans chanting "U-S-A" at football games. 

Naturally you think that can't be true, so please feel free to click the link.  The commissioner of the conference said fans will only be allowed to chant "U-S-A" right after the National Anthem.

The conference is also implementing restrictive rules on displaying flags and political banners.

I would LOVE to be an attorney in Michigan, since this is pretty much a guaranteed payday if anyone decides to sue.  Cuz, y'know, we used to have something about "free speech" in that Con-thingy.

I can see how school administrators--most of whom are thoroughly socialist pencil-dicks--think they have the absolute right to order *students* to not wear flag T-shirts (already true in California) and to not fly the American flag on their vehicles (already true in California), or not to say they're pro-conservative, or that they believe in God, or not to pray in the cafeteria before lunch.  But as long as schools allow *parents* to attend their kids' football games (and I wanna see 'em try to ban *that*), I'd like to see the pencil-necks try to order an adult not to wave a flag at a ball game.

Good luck with that case, assholes.

A Michigan radio sports show host said coaches and fans are "irate."  "People are tired of being told what flag to fly or what political side to lean towards.  If Colin Kaepernick has freedom of speech to sit through the national anthem, how can you keep the other side from expressing their opinions too?"

If someone had told you 8 years ago that this would happen in 2016 you would have laughed that it was totally impossible.  And yet...

Michigan school district calls historic "Betsy Ross" flag a "symbol of hate"

Two days before the 15th anniversary of the attack that destroyed the two 110-story buildings of the World Trade Center in New York City, students at numerous high schools were wearing red, white and blue.

That evening there was a football game between two Michigan high schools: Forest Hills and Ottawa Hills.  Forest Hills students waved a “Betsy Ross” flag in the stands.

For those under 30 who went to publik skools, that's the original Stars and Stripes of the 13 colonies, with 13 stars in a circle.

The students also had a pro-Donald Trump banner.
  Briana Urena-Ravelo considered this outrageous: “You can’t deny the overt, intentional racism and intimidation,” she said.  "For these white kids from a white school to bring out a flag of the colonies with the ‘Make America Great Again’ Trump flag to a game with black students on the field, it’s all very obvious."

We should note here that Urena-Ravelo is co-founder of the Grand Rapids Black Lives Matter group. And that Forest Hills is predominantly white, while Ottawa Hills is predominantly black.

And the next question is, exactly what is "very obvious"?  Urena-Ravelo didn't say, because all her comrades know she was implying "raaacist."  But since that's such a cliche, no point in saying the word itself, eh?

If you don't see the connection between the original flag of the 13 colonies and racism, you're not the only one.  Same with the "Make America great again" banner:  As far as I know Trump has never made a derogatory comment about blacks, and actually has a number of black supporters, who seem to be completely welcomed by other supporters.

Urena-Ravelo wasn't the only adult to see racism in the flag.  At least one parent was “shocked” to hear students chanting “USA” and wearing red, white and blue. Another parent responded with a scathing Facebook diatribe accusing students of “brandishing these symbols of nationalism and white supremacy.”

So naturally (?) the ultra-liberal, snowflake-coddling school superintendent had to weigh in.  Forest Hills superintendent Daniel Behm wrote a letter to parents lecturing 'em about white privilege.  “To wave a historical version of our flag, that to some symbolizes exclusion and hate, injects hostility and confusion to an event where no one intended to do so."  Behm continued:

Injecting partisan politics into a community football game and into a commemoration of the events of September 11th is inappropriate. Parading our current United States flag in a manner that is inconsistent with proper etiquette is disrespectful to all who have served our nation.

It should be noted that the flag that was displayed was NOT the current flag.  

Behm also actually apologized to the inner city school for his students' display of the flag.

If someone had told you in 2008 that within 8 years school systems would feel compelled to apologize for their students displaying our historic flag, you would have thought it impossible.  And yet here we are.

Hillary claims her campaign is more "transparent" than anyone who's ever run for president???

A couple of days ago Hilliary was given a free campaign ad on CNN in the form of an interview with Don Lemon. 

CNN has been called the "Clinton News Network" for its total devotion to both Bill and Hill.

The host asked Mrs. Clinton to respond to charges that she needed to "be more transparent with the American people."

Clinton replied by insisting that she was not only more transparent than Donald Trump, but more transparent than any U.S. presidential candidate before her.  Her exact words were

I think I’ve worked very, very hard to be more transparent than not just my opponent, but in a comparison to anybody’s who’s run. The medical information I put out--and we’re going to put out more--meets and exceeds the standard that other presidential candidates, including President Obama and Mitt Romney, have met. I think the real questions need to be directed to Donald Trump and his failure to meet even the most minimalistic standards that we expect of someone being the nominee of our two major parties.

"...more transparent...in comparison to anybody who's run..."? 

Wow.  That's some world-class, brazen lying.  Benghazi?  TOP SECRET classified information on her unsecured server?  Instructing her minions to verbally order a tech firm to erase her server beyond the possibility of recovery **even after she knew a congressional committee had ordered the records to be preserved**?  Then lying when she was asked if she'd wiped the server.  "You mean, like, with a cloth?"

Fact is, Hillary is easily the most egregious liar to run for the presidency in our history.  Her dishonesty is legendary--as voters consistently answer in polls.

Are poor outcomes for black Americans caused by "the legacy of slavery," or by racism, or by something else entirely?

It's interesting that so many of the "[only] black lives matter" types blame slavery (which was officially abolished in 1863 or so) for all the problems of the black community today.  But consider the following: 

In 1950 only 17 percent of black children lived in single-parent households; today almost 70 percent do.

Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that the percentage of black Americans with jobs was higher than the percentage for whites. During the late 1940s, the unemployment rate for black 16- and 17-year-olds was less than that for white teens.  Now those figures are reversed, with the percentage of non-working blacks of all ages higher than for whites.

In 1950 72 percent of black men and 81 percent of black women had been married.  In other words, marriage in the black community was the norm rather than the exception.

In 1938, 11 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children were born to unwed mothers.  As late as 1965, 75 percent of black children were born to married women.

Today, over 73 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers. 

Before 1960, the number of teenage pregnancies was DEcreasing; both poverty and dependency were declining; and black income was rising in both absolute and relative terms to white income.

Compared to decades ago, the black community has seen a huge increase in the number of single mothers, and a similar, vast decline in the rate of marriage.  And while some single mothers manage to raise good kids, the percentage seems to be far smaller than for two-parent families.  In every survey I've seen, children raised by single mothers are far more likely to have bad outcomes in terms of drugs and prison.

What's caused the huge increase in the percentage of black children born to single moms, and the precipitous drop in the rate of black marriage?  "Black lives matter" people say it's a legacy of slavery, or raaacism by whites.  But if slavery was the cause of the problems, the problems should have been worse as you go back closer to the time slavery was actually practiced in the U.S.  Clearly that's not being shown by the figures above.







Same with racism:  Until the last couple of years every survey I found shows that racist views by white Americans have been steadily dropping.  So if racism was causing the black dysfunction, that should be improving, not worsening.  And in fact, the rarely-mentioned secret is that black kids raised by functional, two-parent families have virtually the same outcomes as children of other races.

So what might account for the worsening of virtually every metric about black performance since 1960 or so?  Is there some economic or social signal that affects mostly blacks that has sparked these trends?

I think there is.  For one thing, beginning around 1960 the federal government started decreeing all sorts of things.  And giving money to people who had children out of wedlock, and to people who refused to work.

Virtually every economist recognizes that when you subsidize something, you get a lot more of it.

Let me be clear that the increased probability of bad outcomes for kids raised by a single mom affects all races.  So kids born to never-married or to divorced women are more likely to have a hard time regardless of race.  But imagine how much less crime there would be if only 17% of black children were raised in single-parent households, instead of the 73% that's the case today.



But despite the paragraph above, I am NOT indicting or criticizing the black community.  Rather, I think the trends have been caused by members of that community who have been responding quite rationally to government policies that politicians and sociologists thought would help, but which had the perverse effect of incentivizing all low-income citizens to avoid marriage and two-parent families.

These policies were created almost entirely by liberal Democrats--most of whom were no doubt well intentioned.  But the policies had unintended (though not totally unexpected) effects.  They were also exploited by so-called "progressives" like professors Cloward and Piven, who admitted they wanted to overload all social services, to bring down the government. 

In any case, 

As an aside:  All the figures above are from this link.  The author happens to be economist Walter Williams.  As an African-American Williams presumably doesn't have a reason to be biased against blacks.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/williams-academics-media-wrong-blame-crime-poverty-discrimination

Clinton campaign reportedly making unauthorized "donation" charges to supporters' credit cards

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has repeatedly made unauthorized charges to the bank-card or credit card accounts of many people who made small, one-time donations, according to The Observer.

If deliberate, that would be theft or fraud.  So is it deliberate?

Looks like it, because these unauthorized charges--several in the same month to the same person--have been made so often that the fraud department at Wells Fargo Bank gets as many as 100 phone calls a day from people asking for refunds for those unauthorized charges.

A source in Wells Fargo's fraud department, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, claims the Clinton campaign has been doing this at least as far back as spring of this year.  The  repeated charges are always for small amounts such as $20. 

“We don’t investigate allegedly fraudulent charges unless they're over $100,” the fraud specialist explained.  The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund to customers for such unauthorized charges is between $700 and $1,200 per day.

The source said Clinton donors who call the bank have usually tried to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”

The source also noted that the only people who call to complain are those who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements, adding that many more people are probably being overcharged by Hillary’s campaign but haven't noticed the unauthorized charges because they're fairly small.

One elderly donor to Clinton's campaign whose credit card was repeatedly charged in this way filed a formal complaint with the attorney general of Minnesota.  But a representative from that office told her the fraud was not within their jurisdiction and that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.   However, the FEC denied receiving anything from the Minnesota AG's office.

Minnesota is controlled by Democrats.

 

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old Minnesota resident, said she made a one-time $25 donation via Clinton’s official campaign website. However, when she received her U.S. Bank card statement, she noticed multiple $25 charges were made.  Mahre contacted her son, Roger Mahre, to help her dispute the unauthorized charges.

 

 

Roger--who happens to be an attorney--told the Observer he called the Clinton campaign "40 to 50 times" trying to resolve the problem and get the unauthorized "donations" refunded.  Finally he reached a campaign worker who said they would stop making the charges. Yet the very next day Carol’s card was charged yet again. 

“I was told they would stop charging my mother’s card but they never stopped.” He added that he knows his mother did not sign up for recurring payments.  Roger also pointed out that even if his mother had mistakenly signed up to make recurring monthly donations to the Clinton campaign, she should’ve been charged for the same amount of money each month, and just once a month.  But the campaign had made multiple charges for varying amounts, in the same month--often on the same day.

Roger added that after he complained to the Clinton campaign the repeated charges should’ve stopped, but didn't.  The Clinton campaign overcharged Carol $25 three times and then overcharged her one time for $19, for a total of $94 in fraudulent charges--just under the threshold that would trigger an investigation at Wells Fargo. 

Since the campaign failed to refund the unauthorized charges, Roger contacted Carol's bank, U.S. Bank. However, the bank would not reverse the charges and  a bank spokesperson told him that they had no control over companies that make unauthorized charges.

Roger filed a fraud complaint with Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office on behalf of his mother, but a representative from the attorney general’s office told him they had no jurisdiction over the problem [which is crap] and that they had forwarded the case to the FEC.  However, FEC spokesperson Julia Queen told the Observer they have no record of any referral from the Minnesota Attorney-General's office on this matter.  The Observer contacted the A-G’s office but that office didn't respond.

Finally Roger contacted a local TV station,   The day after the TV station broadcast the story the bank contacted Roger and said they would stop the charges to his mother’s card and would refund the unauthorized charges.

Since the TV station broadcast Carol’s story Roger said he’s heard from other people who have also had the Clinton campaign make unauthorized charges to their accounts.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Clinton’s first presidential campaign had to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars after donors’ credit cards were charged twice. Additionally, it was reported that Clinton had to refund a stunning $2.8 million in donations.

A Clinton campaign worker named Kathy Callahan, who worked on Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, claimed in a blog post that Clinton fraudulently overcharged her by several thousand dollars. She wrote that she voluntarily left the campaign’s finance committee after she discovered $3,000 in unauthorized charges made by Clinton’s campaign to her credit card.

Callahan said the unauthorized charges caused $400 in overdraft and bank charges and put Callahan over the legal donor limit.  She said that despite many phone calls the campaign still refused to refund the unauthorized charges--until she threatened to go to authorities.

Callahan also wrote that Matt McQueeney, who worked in the compliance and accounting department at Clinton’s campaign headquarters at the time, told her, “What happened to you with credit card 'errors' is happening to others.”


Hmmm....If one bank (in this case Wells Fargo) is refunding an average of $1000 per day, wonder how often this is happening to customers of other banks?  How many U.S. banks issue credit or debit cards?  If there are, say, 500 or so other banks with about the same total of unauthorized charges being refunded per day, that could add up to half a million bucks per day.

But surely...surely...Hillary's campaign wouldn't be doing that.  Would they?  I mean, she's so fucking honest and trustworthy.  I mean, yesterday she told a network interviewer that she was running the "most transparent campaign in history"!  So surely...surely...there's gotta be a mistake here somewhere.

If this proves to be intentional...well, if you or I did this we'd go to jail.  But it's Hillary, so....

Laws no longer apply to the political class, citizen.  You have to obey every one of 'em.  They don't.

Get used to it. 

The clear evidence shows Hillary ordered her aides to order a tech firm to totally wipe her server--defying congress

If you give a good goddamn about this country, and the "rule of law" that until now has made this nation both a great place to live and an economic miracle, you need to read this.

Most liberals and Democrats are totally bored with the story of Hillary Clinton's emails.  They just don't care what she did.  They think it's either too confusing or too trivial--because they have no idea what the entire thing means.

But in reality, as evidence about the email "dust-up" (I'll avoid "scandal" because that's so overused) keeps piling up, it clearly shows that Clinton and her attorneys and aides--knowing that her server and the emails it contained were totally damning, and would destroy her presidential bid--ordered third parties to erase the server, even though they knew congress had ordered its contents to be preserved.

This is a total defiance of the law.  She knew it, her aides knew it, and yet they said "Fuck you, America!  You can't touch us, because the law only applies to 'little people,' not to royalty!"

Do you think that should be how this country is run?  Do you think that's how the Constitution was designed and crafted?  Hell no.  But if you elect this lying, corrupt bitch to the presidency, what you'll get is a continuation of Obama's system:  The president won't obey the law, because no power can compel her to.

Is that what you want? 

Is that the system you want your kids and grandchildren to have to cope with?

This is NOT hyperbole.  This is what you're within an inch of electing--and dooming your kids too.

Watch the vid below.  It describes what the clear, unequivocal evidence has shown.



H/T PJ Media.

High-speed wireless...is there anything it can't do??

University adds "preferred pronouns" to nameplates

The headlong rush by university administrators--many of whom seem to genuinely hate the America you and I knew when we were young--continues unabated.  The latest example is Vanderbilt--a school that costs about $45,000 per year.

You have to understand that the administrators at Vandy--like virtually all university adminishits--have a huge desire to placate "special snowflakes"--the Society of the Perpetually Aggrieved.  They also have a huge desire to stick a thumb in the eye of allegedly unsophisticated Americans--the folks Hillary called a "basket of deplorables" three days ago.

As such, university admin types go to great lengths to embrace goofy notions that the rest of us find...questionable at best, or insane at worst.

Thus the admins at Vandy have now added a line to all name-plates that go on every office door--including doors of "resident advisors" and graduate assistants--listing the "preferred pronouns" the occupant demands that you use.

Those are the charming inventions like ze, zirs, zoze, hirs, doze, goze, whooze and so on.

Of course since they did this, the obvious next step is to criminalize anyone who uses normal, obvious pronouns. 

Oh, your liberal friends say, "That's ridiculous.  That could never happen."

Guess again, cupcake:  Already has.  New York City's "human rights commission" has already passed a "rule" (i.e. no one outside of the commission voted on it) that will impose fines on any business that doesn't bow to the transgendered/confused snowflakes.

Yeah I know, that's not a fine on individuals.  But if you don't think that's coming you haven't been paying attention.

"The emperor's new clothes," updated to the current-day United States

As a kid you probably heard the fable called "the emperor’s new clothes.”  In the fable a con-man tells the vain emperor that he has a cloth so exotic that only the most brilliant and enlightened people can even see it! 

He pretends to show a sample of this marvelous cloth to the emperor, but there's nothing there--the con-man is just holding up his empty arms.  Of course the emperor--convinced beyond any doubt that he's both brilliant and incredibly perceptive and enlightened--can't admit he doesn't see anything, since that would mark him as a dullard.  So he pretends that the phantom "cloth" is indeed the most beautiful, amazing material he's ever seen.

On hearing this the con-man offers to make the emperor a magnificent suit of clothes from this allegedly-marvelous cloth--for a handsome price, of course.  And the emperor--thoroughly convinced--eagerly pays.

The story circulates among the townspeople, and is believed by all.  Each person is convinced that only brilliant, enlightened people will be able to see the magic cloth.  When the phantom clothes are delivered the emperor parades down the main street of the town in what he believes is the finest cloth ever seen.  Of course he isn't wearing anything--but since none of his subjects wants to be seen as unenlightened, everyone pretends to be awestruck by the allegedly amazing clothes.

But one young boy, who hasn't heard The Narrative, sees the naked emperor and yells that he's not wearing any clothes.

Of course that fable was written before our enlightened age.  Today the story would be that as soon as the child points out the emperor’s nudity the emperor’s lackeys and thoroughly cowed townspeople immediately try to intimidate the child into silence.  Knowing nothing about political danger the kid  keeps yelling about the spectacle until someone claps a hand over his mouth.

Next day the headline reads: “Child who questioned Emperor’s attire found dead in field outside of town.”

Email pried out of State seems to show Clinton arranged to have Dem senator running committee feed her canned questions

Newly released emails--emails pried loose by a lawsuit--suggest a senior Hillary Clinton aide conspired with the Democrat senator who headed the senate committee investigating to feed Clinton pre-arranged questions in her first hearing on the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed 4 Americans.

The email suggests the aide fed specific topics Clinton wanted to address to Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who at the time was acting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Clinton aide Philippe Reines wrote to Chelsea Clinton the morning of the hearing (Jan. 23, 2013)

We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11, and these email from Chris Stevens about moving locations,) 

Click here to read the emails

Sure enough, in his first question Menendez asked for Clinton’s “insights on the decision-making process regarding the location of the Mission.”  Then he added, “What actions were you and your staff taking the night of September 11 and into September 12?"

The then-secretary of skate had ready answers to both. 

Ambassador Stevens was among four Americans killed in the attack.

The emails were obtained by the group Citizens United as part of a Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department for emails from Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton's top aides.

Fox News asked the Clinton campaign and Menendez's office if they coordinated before the 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing; what was meant by the term "wired;" and how the email exchange was consistent with the principle of independent congressional oversight. Both confirmed receipt of Fox’s questions.

The Clinton campaign said they would advise Fox if they had a comment.  Senator Menendez’s office said they would not be commenting.  Menendez has denied any wrongdoing.

Of course feeding questions to the head of the committee isn't illegal, but just illustrates how determined Hillary was and is to control the inquiry and the Narrative. 

But by all means, do elect her president.  After all, look at all the experience she has.

So how has "Hope and change" worked out?

During his campaign for the nation's top office Obama promised "smart diplomacy" and the restoration of American prestige in the world.  How did that work out?

If anyone had told you in 2008 that within less than 8 years Obama would

•  manage to alienate Israel and the Philippines;
•  lose Turkey;
•  pay Iran a hundred Billion dollars;
•  preside over the loss of a won war in Afghanistan;
•  lose billions of dollars in military equipment to ISIS;
•  watch a consulate burn;
•  restart the Cold War with Russia;
•  cause Japan to re-arm, and 
•  go the knife's edge with China,

...would you have believed it?
If someone had told you in 2008 that within 8 years voters in the UK would vote leave the EU after Obama went there to campaign for them to remain, would you have believed it?

Why did the U.S. see these outcomes?  The best explanation is...sabotage by George W. Bush!

Well, either that or that the Mainstream Democrat-controlled Media deliberately avoided looking into the totally non-accomplished background of the Democrat candidate.  Cuz, y'know, winning control of the final branch of government (at that time, anyway) was way more important. 

What should the West do in response to repeated attacks by deranged (?) Muslims?

Someone noted that just in the past week attacks by Muslims have killed 1,700 non-Muslims around the world.  Sounds about right.

Which brings us to the point:  After an initial success in deposing the thoroughly ghastly regime of Saddam Hussein and sons in Iraq--men who, for all their bloodthirsty cruelty were no friends of militant Islam--the West has been playing defense.  And one thing that should be obvious to everyone is that as long as you're only playing defense, attackers have little to fear.

When group X starts attacking and killing civilian members of group Y, what kinds of outcomes exist?  Well, it's always possible for group X to simply lose interest in attacking Y.  I'm not aware of this ever happening in human history but it's certainly possible.

Second possible outcome:  Some outside threat or group attacks group X, forcing it to focus all its energy on the new threat instead of on attacking group Y.  Unlikely but possible.

Third possible outcome:  Y gets tired of having its citizens killed, and proceeds to kill so many members of X that X surrenders and aggressively ensures that its own members don't carry out any more attacks on Y.

The elites of Western nations--being tolerant of screwy religions and other odd viewpoints--have decided that since Islam claims to be a religion, their nations must accept it.  By itself that's no problem.  Unfortunately militant Islam has used this tolerance to launch attack after attack on unarmed civilians.

So what should we do?  Continuing to avoid taking the fight to the people attacking the west seems unlikely to make them stop attacking us. 

Wait, how about if the emperor apologizes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all the other terrorist organizations?  Yeah, that sounds like it might actually work.  Um...sarc.

Obama imports ten thousand Syrians to the U.S. 98% are Muslim, 0.5% Christians

Your emperor--without so much as a "fuck off" to congress or the American people--has unilaterally decreed that 10,000 so-called "refugees" from Syria will be imported into the U.S. every year.

Here's one guy's analysis of how the first 9,800 or so shook out:

Stories about the "refugees" are indistinguishable from press releases.  The stories tell us that the refugees have been thoroughly screened--at least as thoroughly as you can screen people coming from a country that we have no diplomatic relations with and which has major portions of its territory controlled by ISIS.

How do you screen someone who claims to be from a city held by ISIS?  Do you phone the local ISIS office and ask the head headchopper to confirm that the fellow applying for entry into the U.S. isn’t one of their guys?  It's insane on its face.

Yet we're told to believe that Obama's minions have subjected Syrian "refugees" to the most thorough possible screening.

The most persecuted peoples in Syria are Christians and Yazidis.  The ostensible purpose of refugee resettlement is to keep civilians from being killed by the bad guys, right?  Yet of the 9,144 Syrians admitted to the U.S. by the emperor, 9,077 of them are Muslims. A mere 47 Christians and 14 Yazidis managed to slip through the nets of his careful screening process.

Remember the Yazidi women on television pleading to be saved from genocide and mass rape? Obama took in barely over a dozen of them.

8,984 of the "refugees"--98 percent--are members of the genocidal Sunni Islamic majority in Syria.

That’s not a statistic, that’s a war crime.

A dozen from the victimized minority, nine thousand from the genocidal majority.

When Obama talks about how thoroughly the refugees were “screened,” this is what he means.  He and his people thoroughly screened out the Christians and the Yazidis. They kept out virtually everyone who wasn’t a Muslim.  Christians comprise 10 percent of the population of Syria, but just one-half of one percent of the "refugees" admitted to the U.S. by your moronic or treasonous emperor.

Imagine a government welfare program in a city with a ten percent minority population, but in which 98.2% of the beneficiaries were rich white men.  Obama's DOJ, FBI, EPA and OPIARE would be burying it in lawsuits, investigations and media lynch mobs before you could whistle.

The emperor's agencies consider different numeric results to be proof of "disparate impact" and thus proof of discrimination, but want us to believe that the 98.2% and the 0.5% are simply coincidence, and proof of no malice whatsoever.  If you believe that you're an idiot.

Obama, Hillary and a million media morons squeal that imposing a “religious test” for immigration would be un-American.  But Obama has already imposed a religious test--one that admits virtually only Muslims and excludes virtually everyone else.

And so here we are near that big ten thousand mark.

America now admits more Muslim refugees than Christian refugees worldwide.

Someone polled Syrian refugees supposedly fleeing ISIS, only to find that 13% of  'em stated that they supported ISIS.  Statistically that means that of the ten thousand Syrians admitted by your traitorous emperor, 1,300 support ISIS.  Oh, and there are also 47 Christians and 14 Yazidis.

This is what Obama’s right side of history looks like. His moral arc of the universe is a Jihadi sword on a Christian neck.

I like the way this guy writes.  Thanks to Daniel Greenfield, writing as "Sultan Knish."

Obama kept one campaign promise: 83,000 U.S. coal miners have lost their jobs since he took office

At a fundraiser in San Francisco during his 2008 campaign, emperor Obama told the virtue-signaling swells that he was determined to do everything to stop "global warming" (later re-labeled "global climate change" when the feared warming didn't materialize).

To show how determined he was, the emperor said this:

If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can--it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

It was one of the few campaign promises he kept.

He did it not in the time-honored, constitutional way--by working with congress to pass laws--but by decree:  He got his Environmental Protection Agency to declare that carbon dioxide was a pollutant.

If you're a liberal (or if you have a family member or friend who's one) don't give me that wide-eyed whine about "Wuh, that wasn't our wunnerful president who did that, it was the EPA.  An' even he can't control what a totally independent agency does!"

Spare me, Sparky.  If you think the EPA would do that without an explicit instruction from Obozo you're too stupid to breathe.

The EPA then simply issued a regulation (again, not a law, not subject to a vote by anyone) that every coal-fired powerplant would have to install hugely expensive scrubbers on their stack gas, or pay ridiculously high fines.

As the emperor and the EPA bureaucrats intended, U.S. electric utilities couldn't afford the retrofit costs, and instead announced they would shut down 154 coal-fired plants before the regulation's drop-dead date.

That had some...interesting...effects.  Coal is a commodity, with supply and demand in an amazing equilibrium.  (Ask your liberal friends to define "economic equilibrium" and record their answers.) As the first few coal-fired generating plants were closed, the price of coal dropped almost instantly.  And the coal that U.S. utilities no longer needed was shipped to China--at a discount.

Mines were closed.  Miners lost their jobs--83,000 of 'em since Obama took office.  But hey, he really, reeeeally cares about U.S. jobs and U.S. workers.  Yeah, believe it. 

What makes this worse is that when U.S. coal is sold to China, the Chinese don't have any sort of cleaning technology on their powerplant boilers.  Which means the net effect of the emperor's decrees is more particulates and more sulfur dioxide in the air, not less.
Yaaaay emperor!  Barack the Magnificent has saved the planet!

Horse shit.  The notion that CO2 causes global warming, or global climate change, or global bullshit, is just that:  bullshit.  I predict that 20 years from now you won't be able to find more than 20 scientists who will admit to have believed CO2 caused global warming.

And all 20 will be working in Democrat/"progressive" think-tanks.

And if you like the result of Obozo's great plan, you'll love Hillary Clinton's campaign promise that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”  She also said "We should leave fossil fuels in the ground."  Which prompts me to ask:  How the hell you gonna heat that huge mansion of yours in New Freezing York, bitch?  You planning to just spew your hot air into it?

Liberals are dumb.  And the sad part is, they think they know everything.

Socialism--because no civilized nation should allow some people to earn more than others. Except politicians, of course

"Factions are thus not accidental but are sown in the nature of man. Why? Because freedom and the unequal distribution of talent inevitably yield an unequal distribution of property."  --adapted from James Madison

It shouldn't shock anyone to hear that "freedom and the unequal distribution of talent inevitably yield an unequal distribution of property."  Yet communists and socialists rail endlessly against such inevitable outcomes.  And in their juvenile protest against such a basic reality, they seek to replace human nature with government compulsion:  socialist politicians--seeking more votes--will support not just equality of opportunity but equality of outcomes.

And of course equality of outcomes will kill the incentive for people to work hard and take personal financial risks--because the politicians will have changed the system so the hard-working risk taker can no longer be more highly rewarded than the layabout who dropped out of school in 8th grade and refuses to work.

But don't worry, citizen:  The results will be just faaabulous! 

Embrace socialism, citizen.  Hillary will give you everything you need.

Way more Americans have government jobs than manufacturing jobs--but don't worry, citizen!

From the founding of the U.S. to 1989, the country had more people employed in manufacturing than in a government job.

In August of 1989 the number of people employed by government (at all levels) exceeded the number of Americans involved in making things, for the first time.

Last Friday the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics posted the latest figures for both categories, and guess what?  Today about 12 million Americans are employed in manufacturing, while over 22 million are employed by all levels of government.

Note this data is NOT from some crazy right-wing blogger but from the federal government's Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

But don't be alarmed, citizen.  Remember, the economy is BOOMING!  It's better than it's ever been in history--just like the number of illegal aliens (ooh, sorry! "temporarily-undocumented Americans") pouring across the southern border is at an all-time low--both things thanks to our brilliant emperor and his faaabulous policies!

I mean, why would any sane liberal want more icky ol' manufacturing jobs, anyway?  They just consume energy and emit that awful, planet-killing carbon dioxide.  Far, far better if we all make movies, or maybe documentaries for PBS.  What America needs is more recording artists, more actors, more avante-garde artists!  Merger specialists.  Lawyers!  Telemarketers.  Politicians.  Government employees.  You know...good jobs.

Keep voting Democrat, citizen, and make more of those icky manufacturing jobs go away.  It's the enlightened thing to do.