Feds Cover Up Rampant Crime In $1.6B Job Corps Program

Govt. Covers Up Rampant Crime In $1.6 Bil Antipoverty Job Program – Judicial Watch

.

.
The U.S. government’s $1.6 billion vocational program for at-risk youth was created decades ago to end poverty by offering poor teenagers free job training, but it’s a seriously mismanaged hotbed of violence rife with violent crimes that are routinely covered up by officials in charge.

The crisis appears to have plateaued recently when four youths participating in the program, known as Job Corps, brutally murdered a fellow student in a Miami, Florida job training center. The area’s mainstream newspaper reported that the Job Corps students confessed to luring a 17-year-old to the woods, where he was repeatedly hacked with a machete and forced into a shallow grave as he lay mortally wounded. The sickening details came right out of the police report. Months earlier a murder occurred at a Job Corps facility in St. Louis, Missouri.

The recent crimes are part of a much broader problem within the Job Corps, which serves about 60,000 low-income students ages 16-24 at 125 centers nationwide. The Department of Labor (DOL) administers Job Corps, which has also been plagued with fraud and corruption over the years, and insists it has a strict policy forbidding any kind of violence or illegal drugs. The reality is however, that crime is rampant at local centers around the country and seldom do cases get reported or adequately investigated. Often officials sweep incidents under the rug or downplay them to prevent the offenders from getting booted out of the taxpayer-funded program.

In fact, earlier this year a scathing DOL Inspector General report blasted the agency for failing to take action involving lax enforcement of Job Corps disciplinary policies that had been well documented in previous investigations. The “continuing deficiencies” have allowed “potentially dangerous students in the program,” investigators wrote, further revealing that an astounding 35,021 serious misconduct incidents occurred at 11 centers alone. In many cases serious infractions were not reported or were improperly downgraded to lesser infractions, the agency watchdog found. They include assault, illegal drugs and fighting among the students.

For instance, at a North Carolina center a violent physical altercation landed one student with enough injuries to require hospitalization yet the crime was downgraded and no disciplinary action was taken, in violation of established rules. At an Oklahoma center a student struck another student in the head with an object yet remained enrolled as if nothing ever happened, even though the injury required five stitches. At a Pennsylvania facility a student was busted with drugs on the Job Corps property yet faced no consequences. There are many more examples in fact, 51 students who should have been automatically discharged, remained in the program. Not surprisingly, they went on to commit other crimes, the IG confirms in its report.

Some of the Job Corps centers are operated by independent contractors, but many are directly run by the U.S. government which makes the violations all the more outrageous. For instance, of 47 centers that retained 177 students who should have been discharged for disciplinary reasons, eight were federally operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The public funds wasted to keep the 177 thugs enrolled could have been used to house and educate other at-risk youth who are more committed to be in the program, the DOL watchdog points out.

Job Corps has been in trouble for more than just covering up serious crimes over the years. There has also been fraud involving the waste of public funds and abuse of prepaid debit cards as well as unscrupulous contract practices. Last year a federal audit identified nearly a quarter of a million dollars in questionable personal purchases made by staff and students on government debit cards. A separate probe determined that Job Corps doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable contracts and failed to keep proper documentation for others worth tens of millions of dollars.

.

.

Leftist Corruption Update: Federal Judge Orders IRS To Disclose White House Requests For Taxpayer Information

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Disclose WH Requests For Taxpayer Info – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
A federal judge on Friday ordered the Internal Revenue Service to reveal White House requests for taxpayers’ private information, advancing a probe into whether administration officials targeted political opponents by revealing such information.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the IRS’s argument that a law designed to protect the confidentiality of such information protected the public disclosure of such communications with the White House.

The law, 26 U.S. Code § 6103, was passed after the Watergate scandal to protect citizens from retribution by federal officials. Jackson scoffed at the administration’s claims that the statute could be used to shield investigations into whether private tax information had been used in such a manner.

“The Court is unwilling to stretch the statute so far, and it cannot conclude that section 6103 may be used to shield the very misconduct it was enacted to prohibit,” Jackson wrote in her order.

The decision was a victory for Cause of Action, the legal watchdog group that sued the IRS in 2013 seeking records of its communications with the White House and potential disclosure of confidential taxpayer information.

The group called the decision “a significant victory for transparency advocates” in a Friday statement

“As we have said all along, this administration cannot misinterpret the law in order to potentially hide evidence of wrongdoing,” said Dan Epstein, the group’s executive director. “No administration is above the law, and we are pleased that the court has sided with us on this important point.”

The lawsuit came after Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, the IRS’s official watchdog agency, revealed that it was investigating whether Austan Goolsbee, the White House’s former chief economist, illegally accessed or revealed confidential tax information related to Koch Industries.

The corporation’s owners, Charles and David Koch, are prominent funders of conservative and libertarian groups that often oppose the White House’s policy priorities.

Goolsbee “used Koch Industries as an example when discussing an issue noted in the [President’s Economic Recovery Board] report that half of business income goes to companies that do not pay corporate income tax because they are pass-through entities and that many of them are quite large,” the White House said in 2010.

His apparent knowledge of Koch’s tax history, detailed during a conference call with reporters, “implies direct knowledge of Koch’s legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation” of federal law, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the time.

.

.

State Department Finds Another 150 Of Hitlery’s Emails That Contain Classified Information

Report: State Department Finds Another 150 Hillary Emails Containing Classified Info – Daily Caller

.

.
The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails set to be released by the State Department Monday evening include 150 which contain now-classified information, a spokesman for the agency has confirmed.

Through two mass releases so far – one in June and another last month – the State Department retroactively classified 63 emails Clinton sent or received during her tenure as secretary of state.

That’s in addition to several others which the Intelligence Community inspector general discovered contained information that was classified as “top secret” at the time they were sent.

During a daily press briefing Monday afternoon, State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed that approximately 150 of the 7,000 emails that will be released contain information that has been “upgraded” to classified. He said that while State Department staffers are still processing the emails before publishing them online Monday night, none of the emails are believed to contain information that was classified at the point of origination.

Toner said that the new release puts the State Department ahead of a schedule mandated by a federal judge in May.

“We’re producing more documents than we have in the previous three releases,” said Toner. U.S. district court judge Rudolph Contreras ordered the agency to release Clinton’s emails on a graduated schedule at the end of each month.

Clinton has downplayed the existence of classified information in her 30,000-plus emails. When the scandal over her use of a private email account and private server first broke in March, she maintained that none of her emails contained classified information. She has since altered that claim by saying that none of the emails that traversed her server contained information that was marked classified when originated.

.

.

Septuagenarian Socialist Nutcase Pulls Within 7 Points Of Wicked Witch Of Benghazi In Iowa

Sanders Closes To 7 Points Behind Clinton In New Iowa Poll – CNN

.

.
Bernie Sanders continues to cut into Hillary Clinton’s once-commanding lead among Iowa Democrats, closing to just 7 points of the party front-runner in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, a new poll has found.

A survey released late Saturday afternoon by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics finds that Sanders, the fiery progressive senator from Vermont, trails Clinton 37% to 30%. The former secretary of state has lost one-third of her supporters since May.

Sanders’ support owes more to voters’ enthusiasm for his candidacy than opposition to Clinton, the poll found. A whopping 96% of his backers say they support him and his ideas, with just 2% saying their vote is motivated by a desire to stop a Clinton candidacy. As for the controversy surrounding Clinton’s use of email while leading the State Department, 61% of likely Democratic caucusgoers say the issue is not important to them.

Sanders has a deeper reservoir of support, the poll found. Thirty-nine percent of likely caucusgoers say their feelings about Sanders are very favorable, with just 8% having a negative view of him. That’s a sharp contrast to Clinton: 27% view her very favorably, but 19% view her negatively.

Saturday’s poll marks a remarkable eight-month climb for the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist from Vermont, who is garnering support in part from his anti-establishment rhetoric. Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, and he was pulling in just 5% of support.

“What this new poll shows is that the more Iowans get to know Bernie, the better they like him and what he stands for. We’ve seen the same thing in New Hampshire and across the country,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, who has not declared whether he’ll seek the Oval Office next year, captured 14% of the vote, easily distancing himself from former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (3%), former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (2%) and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (1%).

Speculation has heated up in recent weeks about whether Biden, 72, will join the race. He faces several obstacles in a potential run, including the need to raise enough campaign cash to compete with the Clinton machine and carving out enough support among key Democratic voting blocs. And he’s still grieving over the loss of his son, Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer three months ago; in a conference call with Democrats this week, Biden said he was still determining whether he had the “emotional fuel” to run.

But the vice president’s hesitation didn’t prevent his supporters from responding enthusiastically to Saturday’s poll.

“These results are the latest sign that voters respect and trust the Vice President and are looking for a candidate who speaks authentically and openly about the issues important to them,” according to a statement from “Draft Biden.” “They make clear the Vice President would have the support needed to mount a strong, competitive campaign.”

.

.

Judge Rules Against Insane Homeowner’s Association That Tried To Force Family To Take Down Purple Swingset

They Gave Their Little Girls A Purple Backyard Swing Set. Then The Jail Threats Started Coming – Independent Journal Review

When Marla Stout put up a new swing set in her family’s backyard, her two daughters pleaded with her to paint it the color of bubblegum. Marla wasn’t a fan of the pink swing set idea, but she agreed to paint it purple.

Now, she and her husband have been threatened with jail time because of it.

According to Fox News, the Stouts painted the swing set two years ago, but it wasn’t until this summer that the Raintree Lake Subdivision Homeowners Association (HOA) decided to make a stink about it.

.

.
While there are no distinct rules about swing set colors, the HOA dictates that they must be “harmonious with the community and with nature.” In the HOA’s opinion, the purple swing set wasn’t “in harmony” with the others in the community.

“We got very frustrated,” Marla said. “There’s somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 homes in our community. There’s all kinds of colors. There’s people with bright purple doors. There’s trees that are the color of this swing set.”

Marla and her husband were told that if the swing set wasn’t removed, they would be fined or jailed.

The HOA claimed that the Stouts were in the wrong for not getting their swing set color pre-approved. They tried to dissuade the Stouts from filing a lawsuit, claiming that the costs would be “far greater than any principle [they] are trying to prove.”

But after an initial hearing on August 21, a Missouri judge ruled a week later that the swing set can stay purple. While the Stouts are thrilled with the judge’s decision – they had a barbecue Friday to celebrate – they believe that the HOA should apologize to the entire community.

“It’s been very embarrassing for our community and it’s cost every resident in this community a lot of money and reputation,” Marla said.

.

.

.

New York Sun Editorial Staff Wonders Where President Asshat Gets The Authority To Rename Mount McKinley

McKinley’s Greatest Monument – New York Sun

.
…………

.
It’s a mystery to us where President Obama or his interior secretary, Sally Jewell, gets the authority to rename in Alaska a mountain whose name was ratified by Congress a century ago as McKinley. We can understand the Democratic Party’s interest, in that McKinley, a Republican, was a particularly fine President. He was, moreover, one of four presidents felled by an assassin. We can understand, too, the sentiments of Alaska, whose legislature has wanted to change the name. Where, though, does the president come off doing this by fiat?

The question begs for an answer in light of the fact that legislation has been before Congress to change the name, but the Congress has decided not to do so. If the Supreme Court has been clear about anything it has been that the failure of Congress to act doesn’t amount to license for the other branches to act. Congress, the law supposes, had its own good reasons for not acting. One of them no doubt is that McKinley was from Ohio, which, given that Mount McKinley National Park is the locale of said mountain, has its own standing.

Our own interest in the matter lies with McKinley. We have no particular objection to, per se, Denali. That’s the name for the summit used by Alaskan Natives and, in recent years, also the federal name for the park. It’s the name the state’s senior senator, Lisa Murkowski, sought to attach to the mountain via legislation she earlier this year introduced, to no effect. Legislators from Ohio understood better, and moved to block the measure. William McKinley may never have been to the mountain, but he was an important and assassinated president.

Maybe some day a Republican president will restore to John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport the name of Idlewild, which is the name us native New Yorkers use for the airport (Idlewild is still a permitted reference for the airport in the “Reporters Handbook and Manual of Style of the New York Sun”). We could see the logic of it in an age of hyper-sensitivity to local sentiments. But we would object were a president to simply rename the airport after Congress had been asked and decided not to act.

In any event, let us raise a salute to Wm. McKinley. From his front porch in 1896, he ran one of the most remarkable campaigns in American history, defeating the Democrat, William Jennings Bryan, who ran for the free coinage of silver – a campaign of inflation – by attacking the Jews. It was one of the few anti-Semitic campaigns in American history. McKinley defeated it handily and gained passage in 1900 of the Gold Standard Act, which set the stage for the great boom of the 20th century. It’s a monument as majestic as the peak of Denali.

.

.

2 Inept Amateurs Could Spark World War III (Lord Christopher Monckton)

2 Inept Amateurs Could Spark World War III – Lord Christopher Monckton

.

.
The British Empire was founded by accident, run by brilliant amateurs and wrecked by professionals. The United States was founded by design, run by the people and wrecked by professionals.

The terrible decline in the conduct of the professional classes (think lawyers or climate “scientists,” for instance) certainly leaves room for the gifted amateur. But it does not leave room for the ungifted amateur. Yet in the two most important seats of power on the planet – the White House and 10 Downing Street – sit two ungifted, inept amateurs.

World War III could be the result.

In the days of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both of them tough and decisive, few thought it a good idea to attack U.S. or British interests or territories. When Mr. Leopoldo Galtieri tried it on, he got an unpleasant surprise: Britain, despite having slashed its defense forces to the bone, was still able to mount a courageous campaign half across the world, utterly defeating his tyrannous regime, recovering the Falkland Islands and restoring something like democracy to Argentina.

The hand-wringers and professional-outrage merchants of the far left, of course, whined that the “militarism” of Reagan and Thatcher was a threat to world peace. It wasn’t. In fact, it led to the toppling of Soviet Communism, which was then the single greatest menace to the stability and prosperity of the planet.

The totalitarian regimes of the world, still in a majority, alas, knew full well that while Reagan and Thatcher were in charge there would be no nonsense. Si vis pacem, said the Romans, para bellum: If you want peace, be ready for war.

Not anymore. These two colossi are merry in heaven. And just look at the dismal track record of their current successors in keeping the peace.

For Obama, there was the Romneyesque flip-flopping over Guantanamo, Benghazi and the failure to do anything about the slaughter of Christians in Syria, and the capitulation to China over so-called “global warming” last December, and the recent capitulation to Iran over nuclear weapons development, and the relentless reduction of American’s military strength, and the failure to act against illegal immigrants (for they vote left).

For Cameron, there was Libya, the scrapping of Britain’s last aircraft-carrier a decade before replacements would be available, the “sharing” of aircraft carriers with France, the relentless reduction of Britain’s military strength, and the failure to act against illegal immigrants (for they come from Europe, and the European Union is sacred to Cameron, for it is the only entity other than himself that he worships with unreserved devotion).

In Britain, at any rate, the armed forces have had enough of Cameron’s notorious shilly-shallying. A fascinating biography of Cameron by Sir Anthony Seldon, official biographer du jour on this side of the Atlantic, records that Gen. Sir David Richards, while head of Britain’s armed forces, blames Cameron for the rise of the fanatical Islamic State, saying he “lacked the balls” to crush them with armed force in 2012 when they first became a threat in Syria.

Sir David bluntly told Sir Anthony: “If they had the balls, they would have gone through with it… If they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with ISIS.”

Sir David also attacks Cameron over his botched attack on Libya and his failure to take effective action to prevent Russia re-annexing the Ukraine. His overall verdict on Cameron’s approach to foreign and defense policy: “a lack of strategy and statesmanship.” Sir David says: “The problem is the inability to think things through. Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.”

The book also reveals that the “special relationship” between Cameron and Obama is not all it is cracked up to be. Obama is not often prompt in answering Cameron’s telephone calls. The Foreign Office calls Mr. Obama “Dr Spock” after the humorless character in Star Trek.

The overriding impression left by Sir Anthony’s book is that the West is not in safe hands at present. Obama and Cameron are both criticized for amateurishness and inability to reach rational decisions, as well as a lack of grasp of foreign affairs and of defense.

In my experience, it is rare for the chiefs of staff in Britain to call upon the prime minister to initiate a military campaign. It is nearly always the other way around, as it was when Galtieri invaded the Falklands. Our senior officers are not of the “nuke ‘em till they fry” cast of mind. Sir David Richards’ advice to Cameron that he should move militarily against ISIS from the outset should, therefore, have been very carefully heeded.

Cameron, however, cut and ran. Not the least of his reasons, no doubt, was that this allegedly “Conservative” government has so cut back the armed forces that they are already scandalously overstretched.

Underlying the under-funding of the military on both sides of the Atlantic is the scandalous indifference to the rapidly-mounting national debt. This perceptive book really marks the moment when it became clear to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear that the hegemony of the West, which was a blessing to humanity, is now at an end. Obama and Cameron have handed away their nations’ economic and military strength because kicking the can down the road always seems easier in the short term than picking it up.

Which brings me to the present election campaign. None of the candidates, on either side, is giving enough attention either to the national debt or to the extinction of America’s military might. The two ungifted amateurs, Obama and Cameron, have conspired to leave a dangerous economic and military vacuum, which many ambitious nations will scramble to fill. When Britain and America were strong because Thatcher and Reagan were strong, the world was by and large a less dangerous place than it is now.

World War III will not begin through the alleged aggression of a Reagan or a Thatcher. It will begin, just as World War II did, because for too long fashionable, easy appeasement was a substitute for a considered and determined foreign-policy stance.

I do not feel safe under the “leadership” of Obama and Cameron. The politics of the pre-emptive cringe have always led to disaster in the past, and may do so again in the future unless we can find leaders less fearful of actually leading.

.

.

Barack Obama Proves Once Again That He’s A Complete Imbecile

Obama: ‘…As We Push Our Economy And The World To Ultimately Transition Off Fossil Fuels’ – CNS

.

.
President Barack Obama said in his weekly address today that four villages in Alaska are in “imminent danger” because of climate change and that safety will be his administration’s top consideration in permitting offshore oil and gas drilling “as we push our economy and the world to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels.”

‘America will lead the world to meet the threat of climate change before it’s too late’

Here are key excerpts from the president’s address:

Alaska’s glaciers are melting faster too, threatening tourism and adding to rising seas. And if we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and twelve degrees by the end of the century, changing all sorts of industries forever.

This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now. In fact, Alaska’s governor recently told me that four villages are in “imminent danger” and have to be relocated. Already, rising sea levels are beginning to swallow one island community.

Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now…

Since the United States and China worked together to set ambitious climate targets last year, leading by example, many of the world’s biggest emitters have come forward with new climate plans of their own. And that’s a good sign as we approach this December’s global climate negotiations in Paris.

Now, one of the ways America is leading is by transitioning away from dirty energy sources that threaten our health and our environment, and by going all-in on clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar…

The bottom line is, safety has been and will continue to be my administration’s top priority when it comes to oil and gas exploration off America’s precious coasts – even as we push our economy and the world to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels.

So I’m looking forward to talking with Alaskans about how we can work together to make America the global leader on climate change around the globe… Because what’s happening in Alaska is happening to us. It’s our wakeup call. And as long as I’m President, America will lead the world to meet the threat of climate change before it’s too late.

.

.

*AUDIO* Can J.D. Winteregg Defeat John Boehner In Ohio?


.

.

.
Click HERE To Visit Mr. Winteregg’s official campaign website.

.

.

TSA Screener Accused Of Sexually Abusing College Student In LaGuardia Airport Bathroom

TSA Screener Accused Of Molesting College Student In LaGuardia Airport Bathroom – WABC

.

.
A TSA screener is accused of sexually assaulting a woman at LaGuardia Airport after telling her she needed to be searched in the bathroom.

According to authorities, 40-year-old Maxie Oquendo was arrested following an investigation of the claims made by the 21-year-old victim, a college student from Korea.

Prosecutors say the victim was in Terminal B at around 8 p.m. Tuesday when she was told by Oquendo to go into the bathroom for a secondary search. Once there, the agent allegedly molested her.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown on Friday announced Oquendo’s arrest on charges of second-degree unlawful imprisonment, official misconduct, third-degree sexual abuse and second-degree harassment.

“The defendant is accused of an egregious abuse of his position as a government screener at LaGuardia Airport to sexually victimize a young woman,” Brown said. “Such alleged conduct cannot, under any circumstances, go unpunished.”

According to the charges, the 21-year-old female college student was exiting LaGuardia Airport after her Salt Lake City flight landed when Oquendo approached her in Terminal B after she had walked out of the sterile checkpoint area and into an area where passengers do not need to be screened. He allegedly stated to her, in sum and substance, “Hey, ma’am, I need to scan your body and your luggage.”

It is alleged that Oquendo motioned with his hand for the female victim to follow him to a bathroom, where they waited outside for approximately 10 minutes before entering the bathroom. Inside, the victim alleged stated to Oquendo, in sum and substance, “You can’t scan me, but you can have a woman scan me because I am a girl.” In response, Oquendo allegedly told her to face the mirror and raise both arms up. When the victim asked him if he checked all of the passengers, Oquendo allegedly replied yes.

It is further alleged that Oquendo had her lift up her shirt and unzip her pants and touched her breasts and other areas of her body over and under her clothing. Afterwards, Oquendo told her that he was not going to check her luggage and stated, in sum and substance, into his cell phone, “She’s clear. She doesn’t have any weapons or knives.”

According to the TSA, screeners do not have the authority to conduct a secondary patdown outside of a checkpoint area and that opposite-gender screening requiring a pat-down can only be done when there are no female officers present and a witness is present during such pat-downs, which must be conducted in a designated private screening area in a TSA checkpoint.

If convicted, Oquendo faces up to one year in jail.

.

.

*VIDEO* Scott Walker: Speech On Foreign Policy At The Citadel In Charleston, South Carolina (08/28/15)


…………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Click HERE to visit Governor Walker’s official campaign website.

.

.

Leftist Treason Update: FBI ‘A-Team’ Investigating Hitlery For Violating Espionage Act

FBI ‘A-Team’ Leading ‘Serious’ Clinton Server Probe, Focusing On Defense Info – Fox News

.

.
An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News.

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign’s standard defense and that of Clinton is that she “never sent nor received any email that was marked classified” at the time.

It is not clear how the FBI team’s findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for – as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.

The FBI offered no comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.

“Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information,” attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. “Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held.”

Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton’s defense.

The Code of Federal Regulations, or “CFR,” states: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the “send” or “receive” distinction.

Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.

Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.

“Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified,” said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. “There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something – that’s not an excuse.”

The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet “safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency.” Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business – and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall – appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.

The regulations also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified “to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information.”

Farrell said, “There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and our outlaw server.”

Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton’s immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.

Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.

“I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I’m very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone,” she said. “It will prove what I have been saying and it’s not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn’t change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified.”

The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.

.

.

Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama’s Latest EPA Regulatory Scheme

Obama’s Environmental Agenda Suffers A Big Setback In Court – Daily Caller

.

.
A federal judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction late on Thursday that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward on an ambitious plan to expand the federal government’s power to regulate water pollution.

Judge Ralph Erickson concluded that the 13 states which collaborated to challenge the new Waters of the United States rule were likely to be harmed if the rule was allowed to be implemented, and he also concluded that the rule is unlikely to survive a final court judgment.

The ruling is a tough blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed hard for the new rule. For the time being, the injunction only applies to the 13 states in the lawsuit, while the rule will go into place for the rest of the country starting Friday.

The Waters of the United States rule, proposed in April 2014, the Obama administration’s effort to enforce its vision of the Clean Water Act. The rule would alter the definition of what constitutes the “waters of the United States” under the act, thereby increasing the amount of water subject to federal regulation. Critics, comprising Republicans along with many agricultural and business interests, argue that the new rule is a power grab by the federal government, which would give them unprecedented control over bodies of water located entirely within individual states. Some have argued that even flooded ditches could fall under federal oversight through the new rule.

The 13 states winning in Thursday’s ruling aren’t the only ones challenging the rule. Several other lawsuits have sought injunctions in federal courts, but those injunction requests have not succeeded thus far.

In his ruling, Erickson characterizes the rule as “exceptionally expansive” in how it defines the waters of the United States. If implemented, Erickson writes, it would “irreparably diminish” states’ sovereignty over their own waterways. He also found that states would incur major financial distress from the new rule, noting that North Dakota would now have to spend millions on costly mapping and survey projects before it could approve new oil wells in the state.

“The breadth of the definition of a tributary set forth in the Rule allows for regulation of any area that has a trace amount of water so long as ‘the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark’ exist,” Erickson writes. Erickson added that many parts of the rule were made without any clear scientific basis, and thus the rule appears to be “arbitrary and capricious” in nature.

“I am thrilled that Chief Judge Erickson agrees EPA’s WOTUS rule should be enjoined,” said Pam Bondi, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA overstepped its authority, again. The EPA should not be permitted to intrude unlawfully on state authority and burden farmers, businesses and landowners.”

The League of Conservation Voters, on the other hand, quickly slammed the new injunction.

“This is a terrible decision for the 1 in 3 Americans who have already been waiting too long for these vital protections for their drinking water,”said League legislative representative Madeleine Foote in a statement. “The District Court for North Dakota’s decision puts the interests of big polluters over people in need of clean water. Blocking the implementation of the Clean Water Rule leaves in place an unworkable status quo that jeopardizes the clean water our families, economy, and communities depend on.”

.

.

*VIDEO* Pastor Rafael Cruz Discusses His Son Ted, Religious Liberty, And The U.S. Constitution

.

.

Feds Refuse To Name Official Who Misused Government Computers, Tampered With Evidence And Threatened A Witness

Watchdog: Senior Official Let Household Watch Porn On 7 Government-Owned Computers – Daily Caller

.

.
An unnamed high-ranking Department of Commerce official kept at least seven government-issued computers at her home where somebody used the equipment for months to view pornography and web sites featuring racial slurs.

Then, when the department’s Office of Inspector General began investigating, she tampered with evidence and proposed disciplining an employee who cooperated with the investigation, according to a new OIG report.

Federal taxpayers also funded her “wasteful foreign travel,” and a full eight-hour workday when she only worked about 20 minutes.

“The investigation revealed a troubling pattern of conduct that was abusive of government resources and evidenced a disregard for conservation of such resources, as well as misconduct by senior official in response to the OIG’s investigation,” the report said.

The IG refused to identify the individual’s name or position, or clarify who viewed and downloaded pornography and racial slurs.

“Our report speaks for itself,” said spokesman Clark Reid, citing privacy concerns for not disclosing the senior executive’s name or title. A department spokesman declined to comment.

The senior-level official kept two desktop computers, three laptops and two iPads at her home for at least six months and allowed members of her household access, “which resulted in inappropriate use of such equipment to view and/or store pornographic, sexually suggestive, and racially offensive materials,” the report said.

She also inappropriately booked a flight abroad, “permitting her to seek reimbursement from the government for the expenses associated with her own personal, non-official travel plans.” Investigators calculated that cost taxpayers about $1,365.

Investigators also found “numerous” discrepancies in her attendance record, including a day when she claimed she worked an eight-hour day via telework, but evidence suggests she worked about 20 minutes.

What happened next created more work for federal investigators.

“This included evidence that the senior official failed to comply with a preservation order issued by the OIG, which resulted in impeding the OIG’s access to information and materials relevant to its investigation, as well as credible evidence that the senior official’s belief that one of her subordinates cooperated with the OIG’s investigation was a significant factor in senior official’s proposal to take disciplinary action against the subordinate,” the report said.

“This evidence is deeply troubling to the OIG as it calls into question Senior Official’s compliance with her obligations as a government employee.”

.

.

The Last Days Of Hillary (Daniel Greenfield)

The Last Days Of Hillary – Daniel Greenfield

.

.
Hillary 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.

Obama gave Biden his blessing to run. White House spokesman Josh Earnest praised Joe Biden to reporters, saying that there is “no one in American politics today who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign.”

It wasn’t a subtle message.

Earnest suggested that Obama might endorse a Democratic primary candidate. Despite the deal that the Clintons made in which Bill would campaign for Obama in 2012 in exchange for a Hillary endorsement, it’s looking less and less likely like that he will back Hillary Clinton. Instead Biden appears to be his man.

Biden is already polling better than Hillary in a national election. With Obama’s backing, he can strip away Hillary’s minority vote while Bernie Sanders takes the leftist vote. Hillary Clinton is already doubling down on gender politics by accusing pro-life Republicans of being terrorists, but it won’t work.

It didn’t work last time. It won’t work this time. Once again, Hillary has lost.

The only lesson that Hillary Clinton drew from her last election was to double down on all the things she did wrong. Her organization was big last time so she made it even bigger. It got so big that the different Super PACs were fighting each other over fundraising for her campaign. She had lots of money last time, so she was determined to have even more money this time. But that money has been wasted paying an army of useless people who couldn’t even do something as basic as produce a good logo.

Hillary Clinton was paranoid, controlling and dishonest last time. She decided to be twice as paranoid and dishonest this time around and it destroyed her image and her campaign.

Even before the rope lines and the interview boycotts, the media hated her. Once she began to aggressively shut out the media, its personalities gleefully reported on every email server scandal detail that her enemies in the White House fed to the New York Times and other administration mouthpieces.

It wasn’t a vast right wing conspiracy or even a more real left wing conspiracy that destroyed Hillary Clinton. If she were a stronger candidate, Obama and the left would have fallen in line behind her.

Once again, Hillary Clinton destroyed her own candidacy. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the top three words people associate with her are “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.” If she hadn’t planned a cover-up before there was even anything to cover up and then responded to its disclosure with a series of terrible press conferences climaxing in asking reporters if they meant that she had wiped her email server with a cloth, her old reputation might have stayed buried long enough to win an election.

Now Hillary is right back where she was last time around. She has lots of money, but no one likes her. She’s trying to build a cult of personality, but none of the myriads of people who work for her will tell her the truth about her personality. She inspires no one and there’s no actual reason to vote for her.

With her popularity rapidly vanishing, Hillary is moving to her Führerbunker. Her aides plan to absorb defeats in early states and concentrate all the money and organization on crushing the opposition on Super Tuesday. They’re conceding that Hillary isn’t going to out-campaign her rivals individually, but are betting that her war machine is big enough to destroy them in eleven states at the same time.

Hillary still hasn’t learned that she can’t just buy an election. And she may not have the money to buy it. Donors lost a lot of money funding her failed campaign last time. They came on board again because they were convinced that she had a smooth ride to the nomination. Once Biden enters the race, donors will wait rather than pour more money into the struggling campaign of an unpopular candidate.

And many of the Obama donors who haven’t committed to Hillary will open their wallets for Biden.

ClintonWorld is an expensive theme park to run. All those staffers the Clintons have picked up have to be paid. And the Clintons can’t stop paying them because they have no true loyalists, only mercenaries. If their checks don’t clear, they’ll be working for Biden or O’Malley before you can say “Whitewater.”

It will take that machine some time to slow to a halt. Hillary Clinton burned through $200 million fighting Obama. Elections have only gotten more expensive since then. But her donors will learn the hard way that money alone can’t make an unlikable politician with no charisma or compelling message, president.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic… but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.

After having spent much of her life trying to become president, she will leave once again a failure.

Some are hoping that Hillary will go to jail. But the anger, frustration and bitterness that will gnaw on her after wasting decades and a small fortune on two failed efforts to win the White House in which she had every advantage only to lose before even leaving the starting gate will be worse than any prison.

In January 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sitting in front of a television set watching someone else take the oath of office. Nothing the penal system has to offer would be a harsher punishment than that moment.

.

.

200 Retired Generals And Admirals Sign Letter Urging Congress To Reject Insane Iran Nuclear Deal

200 Ex-Generals Write Congress: Reject Nuke Deal – WorldNetDaily

.

.
An estimated 200 retired generals and admirals put pen to paper and sent a letter to Congress to advise them to reject the nuclear deal pressed by President Obama, saying the world will become a more dangerous place if it’s approved.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter stated.

It was addressed to House Majority Leader John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The writers say the “agreement as constructed does not ‘cut off every pathway’ for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” an apparent reference to the terminology President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry used to tout the benefits of the deal.

“To the contrary,” it continues, “it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding the deal.”

The generals and admirals say the agreement will let Iran enrich uranium, develop centrifuges and keep up work on its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak.

And also of concern, they write: “The agreement is unverifiable. Under the terms of the [agreement] and a secret side deal (to which the United States is not privy), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be responsible for inspectiOns under such severe limitations as to prEvent them from reliably detecting Iranian cheating.”

The letter references the widely reported 24-day delay that was given Iran to keep out inspectors, under the terms of the forged deal. And it also mentions the facet of the agreement that “requires inspectors to inform Iran in writing as to the basis for its concerns about an undeclared site,” and says such allowances are inappropriate and dangerous.

“While failing to assure prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapons development capabilities, the agreement provides by some estimated $150 billion… or more to Iran in the form of sanctions relief,” the letter states.

And their conclusions?

“As military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the Obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally,” they wrote, summarizing the agreement is a danger to the world.

“Accordingly, we urge the Congress to reject this defective accord,” the letter wraps.

Among the signers: Admiral David Architzel, U.S. Navy, retired; Admiral Stanley Arthur, U.S. Navy, retired; General Alfred Hansen, U.S. Air Force, retired; Admiral James Hoggs, U.S. Navy, retired; and General Ronald Yates, U.S. Air Force, retired.

.

.

The Donald Promises Top Republicans He Will Not Run Third Party

Trump Vows Not To Run Third Party – NewsMax

.

.
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has promised “several top Republicans” he will not run a third-party campaign, The Huffington Post reports.

The website said it spoke to “several sources,” who confirmed the news.

Top Trump aide Michael Cohen, however, would not confirm that his boss has completely ruled out an independent run if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination. Cohen did tell HuffPost, though, that Trump never had “any intent” of running under any other banner than the GOP.

“He just wanted to ensure that the establishment would treat him as fair as they would treat any of the other candidates,” Cohen told HuffPost. “And I believe right now they are treating him fairly. It is my personal belief that the RNC is treating Mr. Trump the same as the other candidates and he will live up to his agreement not to run as an independent.”

Trump himself, even while threatening a third-party run, essentially said the threat was intended to ensure the party would treat him as an equal to the other candidates — something he felt wasn’t happening early in his campaign.

Now, Trump appears to acknowledge that the threat actually could hurt his chances with loyal Republican voters, HuffPost noted.

Trump said he was open to the pledge a few days after the first GOP debate on Aug. 6, where he was the only candidate among the top 10 to raise his hand and say he wouldn’t promise to support the eventual party nominee and run as an independent.

Radio host Hugh Hewitt recently advised Trump against a third-party effort, because it would ensure a win for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump agreed it was a good argument.

But HuffPost noted that one of its Republican sources cautioned that any decision by Trump is subject to change “since he is known for his political impulsiveness. A stray insult from a fellow Republican could, theoretically, change his calculus.”

“[Fox News Chief Roger] Ailes thought he had a deal too. Then Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo, again,” one Republican operative said.

“Only Mr. Trump can sign that oath,” Cohen said when asked if Trump would make his announcement public. “And when he does, you can rest assured he will live by it.”

.

.

Leftist Treason Update: A ‘Staggering Betrayal’ Simmering In The Senate Over Vote On Iran Deal

A ‘Staggering Betrayal’ Simmering In The Senate Over Vote On Iran Deal – Seth Lipsky

.

.
A “staggering betrayal” is how one pro-Israel activist in Washington describes any use by the Democrats of a filibuster to prevent the Iran deal from getting a full vote next month in the Senate.

That is emerging as the goal of the backers of President Obama’s contract with the mullahs. They want to block the measure from getting a vote in the Senate at all, which would leave Obama with a free hand to release billions to the Tehran regime.

The activist, Omri Ceren, who is The Israel Project’s managing director and has been working the story for months, says that would be a “stab in the face.” He notes that “Americans by a 2-1 margin want Congress to reject the bad Iran deal.”

The pro-Israel community, he says, has “worked in a bipartisan fashion with Congress to give the president breathing room for negotiations while protecting legislative prerogatives.” He thinks the Senate Democrats therefore owe Americans an up-or-down vote.

As this drama drags on, however, it’s not all that clear that we’ll see that vote. For it to take place, 60 senators must agree to cloture. At the moment, the Washington Post counts only 57 senators against or leaning against the deal.

This could change, of course. Only 33 senators are for or leaning for the deal. That leaves 10 undecided. If it does go to a vote, and the Senate votes to reject the pact, the president could veto it. At that point, even more votes against the deal would be needed to override. So it’s none too soon to think about what happens after.

One possibility is a round of recriminations among supporters of the Jewish state. Did Prime Minister Netanyahu misplay his hand? Did the American Israel Public Affairs Committee blunder by announcing a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign?

Already some are complaining that such a boast energized Iran’s supporters. For my part, I wouldn’t waste a New York nanosecond on that kind of handwringing. No opponent of this deal – least of all Israel’s elected leadership – is going to owe anyone an apology.

Moreover, if Obama fails to win a simple majority of either the Senate or the House or both, a startling situation is going to emerge. The administration is going to have to implement a pact that voters couldn’t block but still oppose.

That would be a ghastly situation for the Democrats – worse even than what happened after SALT II, the arms pact President Carter inked at Vienna with the Soviet party boss, Leonid Brezhnev, whom the American president kissed at the signing.

Mr. Carter ended up withdrawing the treaty from consideration in the Senate, where it stood no chance of ratification. SALT II was one of the reasons Mr. Carter lost the next election to Ronald Reagan (who honored the treaty only until the Kremlin violated it).

The Iran accord is different from SALT II, in that the Iran pact is not being submitted as a treaty. The whole constitutional setup, which is supposed to put the burden of proof on the president submitting the treaty, has been turned on its head.

In this deal, not only the Senate but the House must muster the votes to block the deal or it goes through automatically. If a resolution of disapproval is then vetoed by Obama, the deal still goes through.

But if Obama is left with a deal that is opposed by a majority of either the Senate or the House, the Democrats will be stuck with it. They will then be on the defensive with every hostile move Iran makes with the $150 billion the mullahs are going to get.

No doubt they’re going to try to skate through it. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper has reported an amazing lack of reaction by the Obama administration and others to rocket attacks from Syria that last week struck northern Israel and that were initiated by Iran.

Those rockets are but a wake-up call to what lies ahead, just in time for a presidential election. That’s the next big fight if this deal goes through, defeating the candidate of the Democratic Party that appeased Iran. Staggering betrayal, indeed.

.

.