15 Excerpts That Show How Radical, Weird And Out Of Touch College Campuses Have Become (John Hawkins)

15 Excerpts That Show How Radical, Weird And Out Of Touch College Campuses Have Become – John Hawkins


How radical, weird and out of touch have liberals on college campuses gotten since Obama came into office? It’s worse than you ever thought and although there is an almost unlimited number of problematic incidents to choose from, these 15 are particularly effective at getting across how bad things have become.

1) “College Students Say Remembering 9/11 Is Offensive to Muslims… The everything-is-offensive brand of campus activism has struck a new low: Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns – insulting, childish concerns – that Muslim students would be offended.”

2) “Portland State University Offers Course Teaching How to ‘Make Whiteness Strange’… According to Portland State University Professor Rachel Sanders’ ‘White Privilege’ course, ‘whiteness’ must be dismantled if racial justice will ever be achieved. The course description states that ‘whiteness is the lynchpin of structures of racial meaning and racial inequality in the United States” and claims that ‘to preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.’ Students taking the course will ‘endeavor to make whiteness strange.’ In order to make whiteness strange, the description says students must ‘interrogate whiteness as an unstable legal, political, social, and cultural construction.’”

3) “A University in the San Francisco Area Actually Told Students To Call 911 if They Were Offended… Administrators at a Catholic university in the San Francisco Bay Area have rescinded an official school policy instructing students to clog up the regional 9-1-1 emergency reporting system to report ‘bias incidents.’

The school is Santa Clara University, reports Campus Reform… Until this month, however, Santa Clara administrators have been instructing students to report ‘bias incidents’ using the emergency service reserved for dispatching police, firefighters and ambulances.

‘If the bias incident is in progress or just occurred: ALWAYS CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY,’ the Santa Clara website instructed students in fierce, all-capital letters.”

4) “Educators in the Volunteer State are very concerned that students might be offended by the usage of traditional pronouns like she, he, him and hers, according to a document from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

…For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.”

5) “A Professor at Polk State College has allegedly failed a humanities student after she refused to concede that Jesus is a ‘myth’ or that Christianity oppresses women during a series of mandatory assignments at the Florida college. According to a press release from the Liberty Counsel, a non-profit public interest law firm, Humanities Professor Lance ‘Lj’ Russum gave a student a ‘zero’ on four separate papers because the 16-year-old did not ‘conform to his personal worldviews of Marxism, Atheism, Feminism, and homosexuality.’ The law firm has called for a full, private investigation of the professor and the course curriculum.”

6) “College Codes Make ‘Color Blindness’ a Microaggression… wait, what? …UCLA says “Color Blindness,” the idea we shouldn’t obsess over people’s race, is a microaggression. If you refuse to treat an individual as a ‘racial/cultural being,’ then you’re being aggressive.”

7) “The phrase ‘politically correct’ is now a microaggression according to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The university’s ‘Just Words’ campaign is the work of UWM’s ‘Inclusive Excellence Center’ and aims to ‘raise awareness of microaggressions and their impact’ – microaggressions like ‘politically correct’ or ‘PC.’”

8) ) “‘American,’ ‘illegal alien,’ ‘foreigners,’ ‘mothering,’ and ‘fathering’ are just a handful of words deemed ‘problematic’ by the University of New Hampshire’s Bias-Free Language Guide… Saying ‘American’ to reference Americans is also problematic. The guide encourages the use of the more inclusive substitutes ‘U.S. citizen’ or ‘Resident of the U.S.’ The guide also tries to get students to stop saying ‘Caucasian,’ ‘illegal Immigrant,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father’ and even the word ‘healthy’ is said to shame those who aren’t healthy.”

9) “Late yesterday afternoon, ACLJ filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brandon Jenkins against officials of The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland for denying Brandon admission to its Radiation Therapy Program in part due to his expression of religious beliefs. As one faculty member explained to Brandon, on behalf of CCBC, the ‘field [of radiation therapy] is not the place for religion.’”

10) “A California school co-founded by a firebrand who once called for an ‘intifada’ in the U.S. has become the nation’s first accredited Muslim college.”

11) “According to Coastal Carolina University, sex is only consensual if both parties are completely sober and if consent is not only present, but also enthusiastic. This is a troubling standard that converts many ordinary, lawful sexual encounters into sexual assault, and it should frighten any student at CCU.”

12) “Clemson University apologizes for serving Mexican food… Students took to Twitter to call the event culturally insensitive and to question the school’s efforts to promote diversity… Clemson Dining issued an apology to ‘offended’ students after hosting a ‘Maximum Mexican’ food day.”

13) “All-Women’s College Cancels ‘Vagina Monologues’ Because it Excludes Women Without Vaginas.”

14) “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ leader who landed a teaching gig at Yale University delivered a lecture this week on the historical merits of looting as a form of protest, backing up his lesson with required reading that puts modern-day marauders on par with the patriots behind the Boston Tea Party.”

15) “Assistant Dean (at Cornell) Tells a Project Veritas Investigative Journalist that the University Would Allow an ISIS Terrorist to Hold a ‘Training Camp’ on Campus, Saying: ‘It Would be Like Bringing in a Coach to do a Training on a Sports Team.'”



Year-To-Date: 2703 Shootings, 440 Deaths In Leftist-Controlled Chicago

2703 Shootings, 440 Deaths Year-To-Date In Heavily Gun-Controlled Chicago – Big Government


As of November 23, there had been 2703 shootings which resulted in 440 deaths year-to-date in heavily gun-controlled Chicago.

That is an increase of approximately 400 shootings over the same time last year.

The Chicago Tribune reported these numbers as part of their broader coverage of the 11 people shot, five killed, over the course of last weekend alone. Half of those wounded were shot on November 22 “between about 12:25 p.m. and 8:40 p.m.” Three of those killed were shot on that same day, between those same hours as well.

It is worth noting that while this violence proves the impotency of gun control in general, it is especially damning when juxtaposed with some of the most recent gun control endeavors in particular.

For example, Chicago implemented a “violence tax” at suburban Cook County gun stores in April 2013. The tax is gathered on each gun and bullet sold within the county. Then, in 2014 – the first full calendar year after the implementation of the tax – the Chicago Tribune reported 434 deaths – a 19 death increase over 2013.

Now, as of November 23, the Tribune shows 440 deaths with over a month left to go in calendar year 2015. That means the death toll from gun violence in Chicago through November 2015 has already exceeded the death toll for all of 2014.

It is interesting to note that regardless of the failure of the “violence tax,” the Seattle City Council adopted a similar tax on August 10. As with Chicago, gun crime in Democrat-run Seattle is raging.



*PODCAST* The Andrew Klavan Show


……………………………Click on image above for podcast




Family Files $9M Lawsuit Against PETA For Stealing And Murdering Their Pet Chihuahua

PETA Gets Sued For Stealing, Then Murdering, A Family Dog – Daily Caller


A family is suing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for $9 million after two senior employees stole their pet Chihuahua Maya off their porch and had the dog killed.

The family captured video on their home surveillance system of two PETA employees, Victoria Carey and Jennifer Woods chasing Maya down, taking her off the family’s porch and shoving the dog into a white van. PETA admitted four months later it euthanized Maya later that day.

Victoria Carey was a contract worker for PETA and had been the organization’s human resources director. Jennifer Woods is PETA’s senior communications administrator. Carey’s contract with PETA has been terminatied, but Woods remains employed.

State law requires that animals be held for five days before they are euthanized to allow people to recover their animals in situations like this. An investigation by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services founded PETA violated the law and imposed the largest fine it could, $500.

The family says the two PETA workers apologized by giving the family a fruit basket.

PETA euthanized 2,454 of the 3,369 cats, dogs and other animals it took in in 2014. Only 23 dogs and 16 cats taken in by PETA were adopted. A PETA press release claims the organization offered “free euthanasia services for 2,454 dogs, cats, and other animals in just one area of the United States.”

A statement by PETA to a local news channel on Maya’s death claims the incident “was extremely upsetting, therefore, to discover that in the course of doing something helpful and good, something bad had happened.”



President Asshat Released Illegal Alien Children To Criminals, Including Child Molesters And Human Traffickers

Obama Administration Released Illegal Immigrant Children To Criminals’ Homes – Washington Times


The Obama administration released thousands of illegal immigrant children to sponsors with criminal records, including arrests on charges of child molestation, human trafficking and homicide, a top senator charged Tuesday.

If true, it would be a stunning black mark on President Obama’s immigration record, according to analysts, who said the first job of the government was to protect the children from dangerous situations – and it apparently failed.

At least 3,400 children were placed in homes where sponsors had criminal records, said Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, citing information from a whistleblower.

“Allegedly, proper screening is not taking place and children are paying the price,” the Iowa Republican said in a letter demanding answers about the procedural breakdown from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

HHS didn’t deny the numbers but said it does try to prohibit those with “serious” criminal records from sponsoring children and does conduct some level of background checks on all sponsors.

The accusations were made just as the Border Patrol confirmed another surge of illegal immigrant children along the southwestern border, with nearly 5,000 unaccompanied minors and 6,000 more women and children traveling together streaming across in October.

Those are huge increases over last October, when 2,500 unaccompanied children and fewer than 2,200 family members traveling together were caught at the border.

Customs and Border Protection officials said they were “closely monitoring this situation” and blamed smugglers for enticing would-be migrants to make the perilous journey by promising they can earn “permisos,” or free passes, once they reach the U.S. The permisos are the court appearance documents that the Border Patrol issues before releasing them into the interior of the U.S., where they can easily disappear.

In the case of unaccompanied children, the Border Patrol turns them over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of HHS. That office then houses the children in dormitories until sponsors can be found for them.

But the pressure to handle tens of thousands of children at a time overwhelmed the office last year. As a result, the office handed over children to sponsors who were not properly vetted, according to Mr. Grassley and other analysts.

“They were so overwhelmed with cases they were more interested in processing them quickly than in making sure it was done safely,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “They seemed to be operating under this delusion these were harmless kids being reclaimed by well-meaning relatives and there was nothing to worry about. And that is truly delusional.”

She said conducting background checks has become routine even for youth sports coaches and library volunteers and it’s stunning that the Obama administration doesn’t require that for someone who is taking full custody of a child.

HHS spokeswoman Andrea Helling said the department does try to vet the people it allows to sponsor children.

“It is not the practice of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to place unaccompanied children with sponsors who have serious criminal convictions. The safety of the children is our primary concern, and any allegation of even potential harm is taken seriously and will be investigated,” she said.

Under the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, children caught crossing the border illegally without parents are deemed “unaccompanied alien children,” or UACs. They are supposed to be processed quickly by the Border Patrol and then turned over to HHS, which puts them in juvenile homes until they can be reconnected with relatives or placed in foster families.

That often meant placing them with relatives who themselves were in the U.S. illegally.

HHS, faced with nearly 10,000 children a month at the peak last summer, cut corners, including no longer requiring that all sponsors go through fingerprint checks. Fingerprints are required if a sponsor is not a parent or legal guardian, and in cases in which a child is considered particularly vulnerable.

HHS does conduct a background check that includes running a sponsor’s name through criminal databases, and they listen to see whether a sponsor “self-reports” a criminal history during the vetting process.

As of August, HHS also now conducts follow-up visits 30 days after a child is released to a sponsor. In May, HHS began accepting calls to its hotline for children or their sponsors to report on disruptions, including conflicts that could endanger the safety of a child.

Immigrant rights advocates involved in monitoring the children’s cases could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

But last year, at the height of the surge, one nonprofit estimated that as many as 10 percent of the children were sent to live in unacceptable or dangerous conditions.

Mr. Grassley said Tuesday that the whistleblower, whom he did not identify, raised his concerns with the Obama administration in August, yet the children identified as having been put in jeopardy have not been removed from those homes.

The whistleblower saw information on just a subset of 29,000 children, and 12 percent of them were placed in homes where sponsors had records. Extrapolating across the nearly 110,000 unaccompanied children caught at the border over the past two years, that could mean nearly 13,000 children may have been placed in dangerous situations.



Obama State Department Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Nuke Deal, And It’s Not Legally Binding

State Dept Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Iran Deal And It’s Not Legally Binding – Right Scoop

Just when you think Obama’s Iran deal couldn’t get any worse, his own State Dept. reveals that Iran didn’t sign the deal nor is it ‘legally binding’. It’s just a set of ‘political commitments’ or something:

NRO – President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement.

Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

“The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.

Of course we couldn’t trust Iran in the first place, but for Obama, who touted this deal as the only way to keep Iran from getting nukes, to not even get their signatures attesting to their ‘commitment’ to this so-called deal seems ludicrous. And for his State Department to then say it’s not legally binding? Just what assurances did Obama think he was getting from the Iranians to even make the guarantees he made and his numerous statements defending this deal?

Here’s the letter obtained by the NRO:





Ignorant Leftist Media Update: Ben Carson Was Right About Jefferson And The Constitution

Jefferson’s Constitution: Ben Carson Got It 100% Right… DC Media Got It 100% Wrong – Big Journalism


Anyone at all familiar with Thomas Jefferson is well aware of our third president’s vital influence on the crafting of the American Constitution. While Jefferson is primarily known as the chief author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison is primarily known as the early architect of what would become our Constitution and the prime mover behind the Bill of Rights, the two men were close friends, lived not very far apart in Virginia, and kept regular correspondence.

Jefferson and Madison were of like political minds, and during the Constitutional Convention, while Jefferson was across an ocean as U.S. Minister to France, the two men enjoyed an intense and productive correspondence about what the U.S. Constitution should look like.

My media hero of the week (more on this below), USA Today editor David Mastio, accurately sums up the rest of the story:

After the Constitution Convention was over, Jefferson had this other idea called a “Bill of Rights,” which you might have heard is a part of the Constitution. Jefferson sorta played a key role in all that First Amendment, Second Amendment stuff. If you don’t believe me, go ask the American Civil Liberties Union, which is big on rights like free speech and freedom of religion.

Saith the ACLU: “The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution’s first 10 amendments became the law of the land.”

The ACLU even quotes Jefferson’s argument: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

To get the basics of Jefferson’s role in the creation of the Bill of Rights, which are, as I mentioned, a pretty important part of the Constitution, all you have to do is read the Spark Notes version. Or you can get it in easy Q&A format from the U.S. Archives.

Not to take anything away from Mr. Mastio, who did a righteous thing defending Ben Carson, but none of this is a secret, or hidden history. It’s not even deep-dive history. Anyone who has picked up a biography of Jefferson or Madison is well aware of this.

Apparently, the following news outlets – CNN, Politico, and the Washington Post – have not picked up that biography, or they are intentionally smearing Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson… again.

During a Monday appearance on C-Span, Carson said, quite correctly, that he admired Jefferson primarily for his role in helping to craft the Constitution:

But I’m particularly impressed with Thomas Jefferson, who seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react and tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control people’s national tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.

The reaction from the DC Media on Twitter was not just instantaneously ignorant, it was fantastically ignorant. Within moments my Twitter stream was buried in smug reporters laughing and dehumanizing the black apostate conservative who doesn’t – har, har – know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Except, as Mr. Mastio points out, they are all wrong.

One-hundred percent wrong.

Rather than crack open a book or use that Google-thingy right in front of them, Politico, The Washington Post, and CNN actually went so far as to publish stories claiming Carson got it wrong.

Worse still, but to no one’s surprise, all three outlets have refused to properly correct their provable errors.

Politico’s Nolan McCaskill:

Carson says, wrongly, that Thomas Jefferson crafted the Constitution…

The problem: Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In fact, Carson noted Jefferson’s absence in his book, “A More Perfect Union,” writing that he was “missing in action” during the birth of the Constitution as he served abroad as ambassador to France.

I’ve reached out to McCaskill to ask if he is going to correct his post. As of now, he has not responded. This is the same Politico that admitted to lying (only after being caught) about Carson’s West Point story.

CNN’s Gregory Krieg:

Carson flubs Thomas Jefferson’s role in the Constitution…

But as the Washington Post noted Monday morning, Jefferson was a no-show at the Constitutional Convention and was instead an ocean away in Paris as Minister to France, while his North American-based colleagues were crafting the foundational document.

I’ve reached out to Krieg to ask if he intends to correct his story. As of now, he has not yet responded. This is the same CNN that published racially-motivated serial lies about key elements in Carson’s biography.

Via Twitter, Mastio tells me CNN did update the piece. Nevertheless, the incorrect headline remains.

Washington Post’s Fred Barbash:

Ben Carson, author of book about the Constitution, incorrectly states that Thomas Jefferson crafted it…

That did not stop Carson from praising Jefferson in a C-Span interview Sunday as one of the most impressive of the Founding Fathers because he “tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control peoples’ natural tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.”

I’ve reached out to Barbask to ask if he intends to correct his story. As of now, he has not responded. This is the same Washington Post that lied about Carson comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs.

When the entire media has risen up and proclaimed that This Is The Narrative, it cannot be easy for one of their own to say, “Actually, uhm, you’re 100% wrong.” The USA Today’s David Mastio deserves enormous credit for publishing the truth and doing so using the mockery deserved.



MSNBC’s Poster Boy For American “Islamophobia” Arrested In Turkey As Part Of ISIS Cell (Videos)

MSNBC’s ‘No-Fly List Is Islamophobia’ Poster Boy Arrested In Turkey As Part Of ISIS Cell – Pajamas Media


A man, who just two years ago was the poster boy for the far-Left media’s attacks against the U.S. government’s no-fly list for “unfairly” targeting Muslims, finds himself and several family members sitting in a Turkish prison – arrested earlier this month near the Turkey-Syria border as members of an ISIS cell.

It’s a long way from 2013 when Saadiq Long’s cause was being championed by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Glenn Greenwald, and Mother Jones, and was being represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front.

His story got considerable media attention when his CAIR media representatives here pushed the story that Long wanted to return to his native Oklahoma from his current home in Qatar to visit his ailing mother but couldn’t because he was on the TSA’s no-fly list. They said his case represented institutional “Islamophobia.”

Long’s cause got international attention when Glenn Greenwald published an article at The Guardian saying that Long was “effectively exiled from his own country.” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones branded it the “Kafkaesque World of the No-Fly List.” CAIR has 22 article entries related to Long’s case on its website.

After several months of wrangling between his CAIR attorneys and the Department of Homeland Security, Long was temporarily removed from the no-fly list and allowed to return to Oklahoma.

Once home, however, he was still subject to FBI surveillance according to claims he made during a press conference with his CAIR handlers.

After an incident with local police and the FBI, Long was apparently placed back on the no-fly list, preventing his return to Qatar.

That prompted even more outrage from the far-Left media and garnered him an appearance with his CAIR handler on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show:

Glenn Greenwald used Saadiq Long’s MSNBC appearance to get back in on the action:
Glenn Greenwald

Watch Saadiq Long w/@chrislhayes on Sunday- we first reported his horrible story here: is.gd/8dhenz – then: is.gd/7OquhR

1:27 PM – 15 Feb 2013

The Guardian

US Air Force veteran, finally allowed to fly into US, is now banned from flying back home | Glenn…

Glenn Greenwald: Secret, unaccountable no-fly lists are one of many weapons the US government uses to extra-judicially punish American Muslims

View on web

Eventually, Long boarded a bus to Mexico and got on a flight there to return home to Qatar.

U.S. and Turkish officials confirmed Long’s arrest to PJ Media, saying that he was arrested along with eight others operating along the Turkish-Syrian border. So far, no U.S. media outlet has reported on his arrest.

Long’s Facebook page has not been updated for several months. The last entry on his wife’s Facebook page was October 23.

I have emailed Long’s CAIR handler, Adam Soltani, asking for comment. An email to his attorney Gadeir Abbas was returned as undeliverable.



*AUDIO* Mark Steyn Talks Islamic Terrorism With Howie Carr



Lying Down With Dogs (Edward L. Daley)

This morning, leftist propaganda rags and conservative news blogs alike pounced on a story about Donald Trump’s ‘Plan For A Muslim Database‘ in America. I won’t even bother going into the specifics of the issue here, since several right-wing talk radio hosts have already completely dismantled the story. In essence, it was a load of shit, and anyone who believed the Jurassic media’s “reporting” on the matter, without bothering to independently confirm that it was actually true before jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon, is a waste of fucking space.

Look, I get that there are a lot of people out there who don’t like Donald Trump. The guy isn’t at the top of my candidates’ list either, but that doesn’t excuse anyone from spreading provably false rumors about the man. Hell, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of The Donald. I’ve named several of them myself in previous articles, yet I’ve also attempted to impress upon my readers that as bad as Trump may be in certain respects, he’s the next Ronald Reagan when compared to ANY Democrat candidate you could name, and if given the choice between siding with him or throwing in with the likes of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Washington Post, the contest is over before it begins. I’ll stand by Trump every single day and twice on Sundays.

Need I remind you that this same sort of phony, left-wing journalism reared its ugly head just two weeks ago? At that time it was Ben Carson who was targeted with accusations that he lied about being offered a scholarship to West Point during his ROTC days, and many in the so-called conservative press regurgitated the words of the Democrat-controlled MSM without hesitation. Of course, it didn’t take long for people who don’t have their heads crammed firmly up their own asses to destroy the credibility of the leftist pricks who’d made the story up out of whole cloth.

Before long they’ll be going after some other top-tier GOP candidate like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, and certain right-leaning news outlets with political axes to grind will copy and paste these leftists’ headlines onto their websites, thus affording the swine a legitimacy they’ve never earned while effectively undermining the entire Republican primary field in the process. Apparently, several of my fellow conservative bloggers have forgotten the age-old adage: when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

Suffice it to say that for every leftist-inspired, journalistic hit-job you embrace, you take one step closer to becoming one of the very neo-socialist media whores you claim to hate. Take it from someone who has made similar mistakes in the past and has lived to regret them, that road ends in shame. Yes, I too have re-posted articles on this very blog that turned out to be totally unfounded, for the simple reason that I WANTED TO BELIEVE THEY WERE TRUE. Granted, those few stories originated from hacks on the right side of the blogosphere, but that fact doesn’t make my actions any more righteous or admirable. I bought into the bullshit because I thought it served my political interests, but I was dead wrong!

Spreading false information in the name of an agenda is beneath me, just as it is beneath anyone out there who calls himself a conservative. It’s the truth we should be concerned with above all else, because if we can’t at least hold the high ground in that respect, how exactly are we any better than Hillary Clinton?

By Edward L. Daley


*VIDEO* Pajamas Media Trifecta – Post Paris: Liberals Can’t Blame Terror Attack On Muslims



Over 80 Percent Of Illegal Aliens Shielded From Deportation By President Asshat

Under Obama More Than 80 Percent Of Illegals Shielded From Deportation – Big Government


While the courts have blocked President Obama’s sweeping executive amnesty programs, other aspects of Obama’s immigration edicts have served to shield more than 80 percent of the illegal immigrant population from deportation, the Washington Times reports.

According to reporting by Stephan Dinan, the implementation of other executive actions on immigration announced exactly a year ago Friday – specifically the administration’s changes to “priorities” for enforcement – has essentially served to order “agents not to bother deporting nearly all illegal immigrants.”

The changes saw the Department of Homeland Security revamp the immigrants it prioritizes for enforcement to include mainly just serious criminal aliens, gang members, national security threats and recent border crossers. As Dinan reports:

The changes are already having a major effect. Deportations, which peaked at nearly 410,000 in fiscal year 2012, dropped to about 230,000 in fiscal year 2015, which ended Sept. 30. But Mr. Johnson said more of those being deported are the serious criminals and safety threats he wants his agents to worry about.

Indeed, if agents adhere strictly to his priorities, some 9.6 million of the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the country have no real danger of being deported, according to an estimate this year by the Migration Policy Institute.

Dinan notes that the changes to enforcement priorities were not the only actions that have made life easier for immigrants in the U.S. and those seeking admission.

The actions – often mislabeled by the press as executive orders – also included changes to the legal immigration system, such as making it easier for spouses of guest workers to also find jobs; allowing foreigners who study science and technology at U.S. universities to remain and work in the country longer; pushing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship; and waiving the penalty on illegal immigrant spouses or children of legal permanent residents so they no longer have to go to their home countries to await legal status.



Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ And ‘Not American’… Except That Federal Law Requires It (Andrew C. McCarthy)

Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ And ‘Not American’… Except That Federal Law Requires It – Andrew C. McCarthy


As I argued in Faithless Execution, the principal constitutional duty of the chief executive is to execute the laws faithfully. President Obama, by contrast, sees his principal task as imposing his post-American “progressive” preferences, regardless of what the laws mandate.

In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:

When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted… that’s shameful… That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that… religion [among other things]… was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality… and who is unable or unwilling to return to… that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of… religion [among other things]… [.]

The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery).’

To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. Obama prefers not to dwell on the distinction between the jihadist treatment of Muslims, on the one hand, and of Christians, Jews and other religions, on the other hand, because he – like much of Washington – inhabits a world in which jihadists are not Islamic and, therefore, have no common ground with other Muslims… notwithstanding that jihadists emerge whenever and wherever a population of sharia-adherent Muslims reaches critical mass. But this is sheer fantasy. While there is no question that ISIS will kill and persecute Muslims whom it regards as apostates for refusing to adhere to its construction of Islam, it is abject idiocy to suggest that Muslims are facing the same ubiquity and intensity of persecution as Christians.

And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can something American law requires be “not American”? And how can a national expression of compassion expressly aimed at alleviating persecution be “shameful”?



Hitlery: “Muslims Are Peaceful And Tolerant People, And Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism” (Video)

Hillary Clinton: Muslims Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism – Right Scoop

There are Muslim terrorists all over the world committing atrocities towards those they hate, whether it be Jews, Christians, other religious minorities, or even other Muslims with whom they disagree. And they are doing it in the name of the Allah and the Prophet Muhammad, using the Qu’ran to justify their evil acts.

We’re not just talking about ISIS. Nor Al-Qaeda. Just look in Israel where Muslims are coming out of the woodwork to stab Jews to death.

But somehow these terrorists who call themselves Muslims, who profess belief in Allah and the Prophet Muhammad and who say they are adherents to Islam, are actually NOT Muslims according to Hillary Clinton.


Since when is Hillary Clinton a foremost expert on Islam? Because her good friend is Huma Abedin and believes all Muslims are like her?

The ISIS caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, has a DOCTORATE in Islamic studies. Yet Hillary claims he’s not a Muslim? He’s not Islamic?

Just another reason this lying criminal and Muslim propagandist should never win the presidency.



*VIDEO* Trey Gowdy Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat Over Muslim Refugees



Thin-Skinned Hitlery Goes After Laugh Factory Comedians For Making Fun Of Her

Clinton Goes After Laugh Factory Comedians For Making Fun Of Her – Judicial Watch


In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club.

A video of the short performance, which is less than three minutes, is posted on the website of the renowned club, Laugh Factory, and the Clinton campaign has tried to censor it. Besides demanding that the video be taken down, the Clinton campaign has demanded the personal contact information of the performers that appear in the recording. This is no laughing matter for club owner Jamie Masada, a comedy guru who opened Laugh Factory more than three decades ago and has been instrumental in launching the careers of many famous comics. “They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

Practically all of the country’s most acclaimed comedians have performed at the Laugh Factory and undoubtedly they have offended politicians and other well-known personalities with their standup routines. Tim Allen, Jay Leno, Roseanne Bar, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Jim Carrey, Martin Lawrence, Jerry Seinfeld and George Lopez are among the big names that have headlined at the Laugh Factory. The First Amendment right to free speech is a crucial component of the operation, though Masada drew the line a few years ago banning performers – including African Americans – from using the “n-word” in their acts.

The five short performances that Clinton wants eliminated include some profanity and portions could be considered crass, but some of the lines are funny and that’s what the Laugh Factory is all about. The video features the individual acts of five comedians, four men and a woman. The skits make fun of Clinton’s wardrobe, her age, sexual orientation, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the former First Lady’s relationship with her famous husband. The Laugh Factory has appropriately titled it “Hillary vs. The First Amendment.”

Masada told Judicial Watch that, as soon as the video got posted on the Laugh Factory website, he received a phone call from a “prominent” person inside Clinton’s campaign. “He said the video was disgusting and asked who put me up to this,” Masada said. The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video. Masada refused and hung up. He insists that the comedy stage is a sanctuary for freedom of speech no matter who is offended. “Just last night we had (Emmy-award winner) Dana Carvey doing Donald Trump and it was hilarious,” Masada said.



Let’s All Laugh As Liberalism Commits Ritual Suicide On Campus (Kurt Schlichter)

Let’s All Laugh As Liberalism Commits Ritual Suicide On Campus – Kurt Schlichter


Please don’t tell the students at University of Missouri and Yale and all the other throbbing pustules of academia to stop their insanity. Instead, encourage and provoke them to turn the turmoil up to 11, a number most of these students can’t count to without taking off their Nikes. No, we want the campuses to echo with the whiny cries of the Children of the Safe Space Revolution.

And we will sit back and point and laugh as the weak-willed, spineless liberal losers of academia abase themselves before their whimpering student bodies. This is just great. As Napoleon observed, never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake. Now, mentioning Napoleon probably a microaggression because, in the unlikely event that the gender studies and Marxist interpretive dance majors of Yale and Missouri recognize the name, he’s a cis-het dead white male – and he was not actually differently abled despite being vertically challenged. Still, his advice has merit – just pretend for a moment that he is trans woman-identifying being of color of some sort.

Our enemies are tearing themselves apart. Let’s let them, because every time a social justice warrior humiliates other liberals, a conservative gets his wings. See, this has all happened before. For those unfamiliar with that thing called history – I’m talking to you, college students – there was this guy named S.I. Hiyakawa who was head of San Francisco State University back in the 1960s. When a bunch of hippie punks decided to make demands, he stood up to them. He became a hero to normal people, and the voters of California – back before they went insane – elected him senator. In other words, all this idiocy about safe spaces and healing circles and “I am an oppressed special snowflake of love” provides us not only nearly endless amusement, but an opportunity to swoop in after the left has pummeled itself into mush.

This is an opportunity to get back on the side of the American people and do their will by striking back at these leftist twits. Along with the rising crime rate – even as President Faily McWorsethancarter has decided it’s time to free thousands of felons because justice or something – student idiocy provides enterprising conservatives a chance to appeal to the Silent Majority just like Richard Nixon did. For you college students out there, you’ll need to Google his Wikipedia page, but suffice it to say, he won.

So let’s make sure Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrats have to own this pouty passion play. You know there’s no way Hillary can stand up and say what I would: “Hey you little cretins, you’ve got ‘til I count to three to get off my quad or I unleash these state troopers to get all pepper spray and nightstick up on your delicate little booties. Three.”

No, she has to kiss their collective healing circles. And we should make her do it publicly, because there’s nothing normal voters love more than seeing people giving in to petulant sophomores with an attitude. We should force her to take a stand, to decide whether she’s on the side of the little college punks, or on the side of Americans. Gee, where do you think she’ll come down? Not with the normals, that’s for sure.

But even as we get a short term political benefit we also have a long term cultural opportunity. An Overton Window is opening to defenestrate academia as it is currently constituted. Right now, as people like Glenn Reynolds and yours truly have written, colleges are pricing themselves out of the market and are increasingly vulnerable to new technology that can deliver an education without all the nonsense. Conservatives can now make an even stronger case that we need to stop subsidizing these government-funded petri dishes of social pathologies and pinko bioweapons. The clown shows at Yale and UofM are a perfect, graphic demonstration of why we should slash their budgets, pare their loathsome, Dem-voting administrations to the bone, and force academia to change – and it goes without saying that the change will be into something other than the lefty conformity factories they are today.

It’s beautiful how this conflict divides the liberals between the establishment and the students, and how it further subdivides two of their main establishment constituencies, academics and mainstream media journalists. For too long, both of these groups of hapless losers have been able to pretend to support free speech. Well, suckers, now it’s getting real. The little monsters you spawned don’t much like free-speech, and they want you to shut up too, not just us conservatives. Being academics and journalists, and therefore presumptively without spines, most of you guys will submit. A few of you won’t, and it will weaken your coalition when some number of your members walk away because they just can’t swallow your catering to these Junior Red Guards.

Conservatives should be loving this fight. We’re sitting on the sidelines and watching our enemies beat each other to a fussy pulp. This is a classic wedge issue because it splits our enemy apart like Abe Lincoln split rails. Yeah, there’s another dead white cis-het male reference you Mizzou morons won’t get.

Oh, and what if you little goofs dare strut off campus thinking that we’re like the professorial puffballs who’ll fold in the face of any intersectional anarcho-feminist who starts bawling about feeling unsafe because someone expressed an idea he/she/it doesn’t like? Well, stampy foot may work with your local Assistant Dean for Diversity and Petty Fascism, but it doesn’t play with us. The Iraqis didn’t stop me from exercising my First Amendment rights, nor the Balkans baddies, nor the scumbag rioters in Los Angeles, so you sure as hell aren’t going to without a fight. If you think you get a vote about what we normal Americans can and can’t say, you best be ready to try and make that happen with more firepower than a vicious Tumblr, because when it comes to the Bill of Rights we’re playing for keeps.

So, fellow freedom lovers, grab a bag of popcorn and a tumbler of scotch, because this is only going to get better and better. And you matriculating Marxist morons, pay no mind to us conservatives or to our laughter. Just keep very publicly making your strategic mistakes in your widdle campus safe spaces, and we will keep letting you – for now.



Border Insecurity Update: 8 Syrians Caught Attempting To Enter Texas From Mexico In Laredo Sector

Report: 8 Syrians Caught At Texas Border In Laredo – Big Government


Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. The federal agents spoke with Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity, however, a local president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) confirmed that Laredo Border Patrol agents have been officially contacting the organization with concerns over reports from other federal agents about Syrians illegally entering the country in the Laredo Sector. The reports have caused a stir among the sector’s Border Patrol agents.

The sources claimed that eight Syrians were apprehended on Monday, November 16, 2015. According to the sources, the Syrians were in two separate “family units” and were apprehended at the Juarez Lincoln Bridge in Laredo, Texas, also known officially as Port of Entry 1.

Border Patrol agent and NBPC Local 2455 President Hector Garza told Breitbart Texas, “Border Patrol agents who we represent have been contacting our organization to voice concerns about reports from other agents that Syrians crossed the U.S. border from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. Our agents have heard about Syrians being apprehended in the area from other federal agents.” Agent Garza added, “At this time, I cannot confirm or deny that Syrians have crossed, for security reasons.”

Agent Garza further stated that in matters as sensitive as Syrians crossing the border from Mexico, it would be highly unlikely that federal agencies would publicize it or inform a broad group of law enforcement. He did say that Local 2455 is taking the reports seriously and that they “will be issuing an officer safety bulletin advising Border Patrol agents to exercise extra precautions as they patrol the border.”

Breitbart Texas can confirm that a Syrian did attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Texas in late September. The Syrian was caught using a passport that belonged to someone else and U.S. authorities decided against prosecuting anyone involved due to “circumstances.”



Number Of Governors Refusing To Allow President Asshat To Flood Their States With Muslim “Refugees” Hits 32

UPDATE: Total Number Of Governors Refusing To Allow Syrian Refugees Into Their States Hits 32 – Weasel Zippers




Clinton Crime Update: Embassy Classified Information Unprotected Under Hitlery

Beyond Emails: Embassy Classified Info Unprotected Under Hillary Clinton – Breitbart


Just when she thought she had skated by on Benghazi and her email infractions, it now appears that Hillary Clinton’s woes on these issues may be far from over.

There is a largely unknown security scandal emerging, which centers not on the doomed U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, but on the American Embassy in Tripoli about 400 miles away.

This scandal, combined with classified information on Clinton’s private server and sensitive material looted from the dangerously unprotected Benghazi compound, may spell trouble in Hillary Clinton-land, especially in regard to the presidential candidate’s national security credentials.

The larger stack of evidence, presented here by Breitbart Jerusalem, shows the astonishing scope of the Clinton State Department’s apparent failure to protect highly sensitive – at times classified – national security secrets.

In at least one case, sensitive information was likely obtained by our terrorist enemies in Libya, as a federal indictment charges.

In another case, classified communications equipment and hard drives housed at a dangerously insecure U.S. embassy reopened by Clinton were protected, embarrassingly, by a female office manager and other staffers – not by U.S. marines.

Forget Benghazi… take a look at Tripoli embassy security

The U.S. diplomatic facility in Tripoli was first upgraded to embassy status in 2006. Due to security concerns, Clinton temporarily shut it down during the 2011 revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. In September 2011, after Gadhafi fell, the embassy was reopened.

The story begins in 2012, immediately after the embassy received notice of the first assault on the Benghazi mission.

Largely ignored in the firestorm surrounding the Benghazi attacks is the fact that – like the Benghazi mission – the U.S. embassy in Tripoli did not meet the State Department’s minimum security standards for a diplomatic outpost established without a security waiver from the Secretary of State.

These security standards were established by the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or SECCA, which was passed in the aftermath of two embassy bombings in Africa in 1998.

Rep. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a Benghazi investigator who was the fifth highest ranking member of the House GOP leadership, declared on the House floor on January 15, 2014:

It was known in the State Department and at the highest levels that neither facility in Libya – the one in Tripoli or the one in Benghazi – met the minimum physical security standards set after our embassy was attacked in Kenya in 1998. Who made the decision to put so many American diplomats in those facilities that did not meet that standard?

Eric Allan Nordstrom, a former regional secretary officer in Tripoli who is now the supervisory special agent with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, confirmed that the Tripoli embassy did not meet the minimum standards.

At an October 10, 2012 congressional hearing on Benghazi, Nordstrom said:

Neither the buildings in Benghazi nor the buildings in Tripoli met those standards, nor was there a plan for the next phase of construction, what was called the interim embassy, would they meet the standards either. That interim embassy was scheduled to be on the ground for approximately 10 years. That was a major cause of concern, and that was the main physical security issue that we continued to raise.

Contrary to a misleading claim propagated by Clinton herself, there was no Marine Security Guard (MSG) contingent protecting the Tripoli embassy during the 2012 attacks. They were only deployed in the aftermath of the fatal Benghazi assault.

In her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton claims there were marines guarding the Tripoli embassy:

So while there were Marines stationed at our embassy in Tripoli, where nearly all of our diplomats worked and which had the capability to process classified material, because there was no classified processing at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, there were no Marines posted there.

But the former head of Africa Command, General Carter Ham, testified before Congress on June 26, 2013 that “There was no Marine security detachment in Tripoli.”

Breitbart Jerusalem has confirmed with the press office of the U.S. Marines that no marine contingent was deployed in Tripoli on September 11, 2012.

These details are relevant because the primary duty of the MSG is to protect classified information and equipment vital to U.S. national security.

So who was safeguarding the classified information processed by U.S. officials in Tripoli under Clinton’s watch? In one case, it seems, one guard was a female office manager.

‘She was smashing hard drives with an ax’

In May 2013, Gregory N. Hicks – the No. 2 at the Tripoli embassy the night of the attacks – testified before Congress that about three hours after the first attack on the Benghazi mission, his staff in Tripoli was alerted to Twitter feeds asserting the terror group Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. Other tweets warned of a pending attack on the embassy in Tripoli.

Hicks described a scene in which the office staff began to destroy classified materials for fear of an attack.

“We had always thought that we were… under threat, that we now have to take care of ourselves, and we began planning to evacuate our facility,” he testified.

“When I say our facility, I mean the State Department residential compound in Tripoli, and to consolidate all of our personnel… at the annex in Tripoli.”

Hicks said he “immediately telephoned Washington that news afterward and began accelerating our effort to withdraw from the Villas compound and move to the annex.”

He recalled how his team “responded with amazing discipline and courage in Tripoli in organizing withdrawal.”

Continued Hicks: “I have vivid memories of that. I think the most telling, though, was of our communications staff dismantling our communications equipment to take with us to the annex and destroying the classified communications capability.”

“Our office manager, Amber Pickens, was everywhere that night just throwing herself into some task that had to be done. First she was taking a log of what we were doing,” he said.

“Then she was loading magazines, carrying ammunition to the – carrying our ammunition supply to… our vehicles, and then she was smashing hard drives with an ax.”

The vivid scene, however, was not mentioned once during Clinton’s Benghazi testimony last month or during her testimony on the subject in 2013. This despite Clinton being directly asked about the response by the Tripoli embassy during last month’s testimony.

The dramatic incident in Tripoli was also not referenced in the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board probe of the Benghazi attack.

Terror kingpin obtains sensitive documents… why not classified?

Major questions linger about why Hillary Clinton’s State Department did not classify the reportedly sensitive documents and material that ran through the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. The material was clearly not adequately protected, as the assault on the mission summarily exposed.

During Clinton’s Benghazi testimony to lawmakers last month, Clinton claimed that unlike the Tripoli compound, Benghazi did not house classified material. She conceded that some unclassified material was left behind after the attacks.

It is instructive to focus on what materials were housed in Benghazi, especially in light of a November 2012 report by Fox News quoting sources in Washington and on the ground in Libya, including a witness, confirming computers were stolen during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

Also, two days after the compound was looted, the London Independent reported documents inside the U.S. mission were said to “list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups.”

And the Washington Post three weeks later reported documents inside the U.S. mission contained “delicate information about American operations in Libya.”

The Post revealed that one of its own journalists visited the vacated facility weeks after the attack and personally found scattered across the floors “documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission.”

Stevens’ itinerary at times also reportedly passed through Clinton’s private email server, including his exact whereabouts and movements while he was stationed in the Libya danger zone.

The 2012 Fox News report also divulged that after the U.S. mission was looted, some of the Libyans employed there received death threats via text message. It is unclear whether the threats were prompted by the stolen documents and computers.

Some of the sensitive information was obtained by the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group, which was implicated in the Benghazi attacks.

Breitbart Jerusalem reviewed the 21-page, 18-count federal indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the Benghazi-based leader of Ansar al-Sharia.

The extensive indictment charges that Khatallah stole “documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information” from the Benghazi mission. The charge sheet further accuses Khatallah of conspiring to “plunder property from the Mission and Annex, including documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information.”

In other words, according to the federal indictment, Khatallah was partially motivated to storm the Bengahzi compound in order to obtain sensitive documents – materials that were ripe for the plundering in the unsecured Benghazi mission.

Echoing her e-mail controversy, during her Benghazi testimony last month Clinton was confronted about her seemingly ambiguous definition of sensitive and classified materials stored at the Benghazi mission.

One particular exchange on the matter may be telling:

CLINTON: We know it through our own investigation about what documents were at Benghazi, and there were no classified materials, to the best of our information.

POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. Do you know if there was sensitive information?

CLINTON: I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as sensitive information. There was information there and some of it was burnt, either wholly or partially. Some of it was looted. And some of it was recovered eventually.

POMPEO: Madam Secretary, do you know where that material that was looted went? Do you know into whose hands it fell? And do you know the nature and contents of that material? You seem very confident it wasn’t classified. I don’t share your confidence. But nonetheless, do you know where that material went?

CLINTON: I think that it – it is very difficult to know where it ended up. But I want to just reiterate the point that I made. This was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material. And there was, to the best of our information, Congressman, no classified material at the Benghazi facility.

POMPEO: Ma’am, the fact that it wasn’t capable of handling classified material doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any classified material there. Is that correct?

CLINTON: Well, the procedure is not to have classified material at such a facility. And again, to the best of our knowledge, there was not any there.

POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. You’re not supposed to have classified e- mail on your private server either.

CLINTON: And I did not, Congressman.