Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? (Lord Christopher Monckton)

Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? – Lord Christopher Monckton

.

.
The devil, in the traditional theology of the Christian Church, is a fallen angel: the very personification and embodiment of evil. Perhaps the most frequent of the many descriptions of the devil is that he is the father of lies.

Most references to the devil in the Bible mention deceit as his hallmark. John 8:44, for instance, describes the devil thus: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

One who is “of the devil,” therefore, is one who is by nature and habit deceitful, because there is no truth in him.

Now, it has become apparent that the global totalitarian hard left, led by Mr. Obama, no longer make any pretense of speaking the truth about any of its favorite political topics.

Two of these topics are currently in the news: so-called “gay” so-called “marriage,” for which the once-Christian people of Ireland have recently and shamefully voted, and so-called “catastrophic” so-called “manmade” so-called “global” so-called “warming,” about which Mr. Obama last week preached a whining, heavily touted and in every material respect deceitful commencement sermon to Coast Guard cadets.

Even the names of these two topics are lies. There is nothing in the least bit merry about homosexuality, and marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, not of two of one or two of the other.

Likewise, there has been no increase in the planet’s average temperature for 18 years and five months; the rate of warming since we first might have influenced it in 1950 is far from catastrophic; no one knows what fraction of it is manmade; and it is not global, for – to take one example – there has been no warming of the Antarctic continent since the satellites began measuring temperatures there in 1979.

Why does speaking the truth about political subjects such as these matter? The reason is that the lies do real harm. They kill people.

Take homosexuality. Why does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong? Because it spreads disease and death, as Romans 1:26-27 makes explicit: “… for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

On the epidemiological evidence – evidence that is often discussed with concern even in the “gay” journals – promiscuous male homosexuality will shorten the life of its average practitioner by about the same period as smoking: at least a decade and, in some cases, two. It is not a lifestyle but a deathstyle.

You can bet the ranch on the fact that not once was the well-established and repeatedly proven link between homosexuality, morbidity and mortality mentioned in any of the Marxstream media during the apology for a debate that led to the Irish referendum.

The hard left is the first to wax lyrical about the evil tobacco corporations that tried to pretend smoking is not dangerous. Yet they are tellingly silent about the fact that the “gay” deathstyle of which they are the chief political advocates is every bit as dangerous as smoking.

The result – I speak with feeling, because it happened to one close to me – is that people who see the state giving recognition and even promotion to what was once outlawed are drawn into becoming “gay” because they are not told how dangerous homosexuality is to them.

It is our Christian duty to love homosexuals. Yet it is no less our duty to love those who, foolishly trusting in the state and the law as the arbiters of morals, are lured by them into a misery that is a sin precisely because it leads in so very many cases to disease and even to death. It is a sin not because some half-crazed desert prophet said so many thousands of years ago but – like all sins – because of the deadly harm it causes.

The law now says that smoking must not be advertised or promoted and that anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes will have to read an in-your-face warning on the packet about the disease and death that smoking causes.

Yet the left, in advocating, promoting and now legalizing “gay” “marriage,” is deceitfully concealing the truth about the medical consequences of homosexuality. So much so that when I recently and mildly suggested to an otherwise quite sane and sensible friend that homosexuality is at least as medically dangerous as smoking and that people should surely be given as fair a warning of that fact as they are of the dangers of smoking, he said: “That may be true, but no sane person would say so.”

So much more politically “correct,” perhaps, just to let them infect and kill each other. Well, like it or not, that is not the Christian way. We should warn people fairly of the danger of promiscuous homosexuality, just as we warn smokers, so that they understand what they are letting themselves in for. Then, and only then, can they make a mature, informed choice.

What, you may ask, is all this to do with “global” “warming”? Well, one of the most frequent of the lying smears of the princes of deceit on the extreme left is to compare those of us who speak out against the monstrous exaggerations and outright falsehoods of the promoters and advocates of “catastrophic” “anthropogenic” “global” “warming” with the paid shills for the tobacco corporations who, for decades, tried to suppress or belittle the evidence that smoking kills.

Which brings us to Mr. Obama’s speech to the Coast Guard Academy about the weather. Even by his remarkably low standards, it was a dreadful speech. For a start, since this is a political hot potato, it was not an appropriate subject for the commander in chief to give to any branch of the nation’s defense forces. By iron convention, real presidents don’t make partisan political speeches. Just one more item of evidence, you may well think, that Mr. Obama is not a real president, just like BO’s BS WH HI ID (about which no one has done anything yet).

Seldom have I seen so many half-truths, untruths and outright lies crammed into a single speech. For a line-by-line, lie-by-lie analysis, follow this link to my detailed analysis at Wattsupwiththat.com, the world’s most visited climate website, run by a real weatherman.

Why are the climate lies of Mr. Obama and his fellow Marxists so serious? Because the cheapest and most reliable sources of electric and of motive power are coal and oil respectively. The fuel and power price hikes that have occurred solely because of these lies are already killing people.

In Britain, around 20-30,000 more people die in the winter months than at other times of year: further proof that it is cold, not warmth, that kills. In just one recent cold winter, there were 7,000 additional excess winter deaths. The extra deaths occurred not so much because the weather was cold as because their homes were cold. They could not afford to heat them.

Imagine how many more are dying worldwide because money that might have been usefully spent on giving them fossil-fuel power is being squandered on making non-existent “global” “warming” go away.

With that background, let us address the question of whether Mr. Obama and the “gay”-promoting, catastrophist hard left are, to use St. John’s phrase, “of the devil.”

The charitable conclusion is that they are of the devil, that they are under the controlling influence of the father of lies, that they are his unwitting or unwilling mouthpieces.

For if that be not the case, Mr. Obama and others like him who utter the wicked falsehoods on the basis of which they promote such fatal abominations as “gay” “marriage” and “catastrophic” “manmade” “global” “warming” are deliberately, willfully telling lies – lies that kill.

On the evidence, they are certainly not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So far are they from the truth, so many are the deaths their interminable and often gross lies cause, that it is surely kinder to grant them the Hitler defense – that they are not in control of themselves either because they are collectively mad or because they are individually of the devil.

.

.

Memorial Day 2015 – God Bless Our Fallen Heroes


………..

.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

– Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae

.

.

.
The bugle echoes shrill and sweet,
But not of war it sings to-day.
The road is rhythmic with the feet
Of men-at-arms who come to pray.

The roses blossom white and red
On tombs where weary soldiers lie;
Flags wave above the honored dead
And martial music cleaves the sky.

Above their wreath-strewn graves we kneel,
They kept the faith and fought the fight.
Through flying lead and crimson steel
They plunged for Freedom and the Right.

May we, their grateful children, learn
Their strength, who lie beneath this sod,
Who went through fire and death to earn
At last the accolade of God.

In shining rank on rank arrayed
They march, the legions of the Lord;
He is their Captain unafraid,
The Prince of Peace… Who brought a sword.

– Joyce Kilmer

.

.

.

*VIDEOS* 2015 Southern Republican Leadership Conference Featuring Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, And Scott Walker



.

.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Republicans Pick Favorite Presidential Hopeful In Straw Poll – CBS News

.

.
After three days of speeches at the conservative cattle call that is the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC), one presidential candidate stood out in an already crowded Republican field of hopefuls: neurologist-turned-politician Dr. Ben Carson.

Carson, who announced his candidacy for the White House earlier this month, emerged victorious at the SRLC’s closing straw poll, drawing just over a quarter of the votes.

Considered an early indicator of southern primary voter support, the conference straw poll is also the first in the election cycle. A win in this contest, however, does not always guarantee a strong showing in Republican primaries: In the 2011 straw poll, for example, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul won by a margin of nearly 15 percentage points over former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

At this year’s SRLC, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker finished in second place, currying favor with just over 20 percent of the crowd. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed with 16.6 percent of votes. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth at 5.3 percent, with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry trailing close behind with 5 percent of votes.

The conference kicked off Thursday in Oklahoma City with numerous conservative superstars on its lineup. Though several senators – and likely presidential candidates – were scheduled to speak, some were not in attendance because of Friday’s prolonged Senate session. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio both addressed the Republican crowd via taped messages, along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

About 1,500 eligible voters from across 25 southern states took part in the conservative confab, according to event organizers. Just under two-thirds of the registered attendees voted in the straw poll.

Full SRLC straw poll results:

Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%
Gov. Scott Walker: 20.5%
Sen. Ted Cruz: 16.6%
Gov. Chris Christie: 5.3%
Gov. Rick Perry: 5.0%
Gov. Jeb Bush: 4.9%
Sen. Rand Paul: 4.1%
Sen. Marco Rubio: 4.1%
Gov. Bobby Jindal: 4.1%
Carly Fiorina: 2.7%
Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2.7%
Sen. Rick Santorum: 1.9%
Donald Trump: 1.2%
Mark Everson: 0.8%
Sen. Lindsey Graham: 0.5%
Gov. John Kasich: 0.2%
Gov. Jim Gilmore: 0.0%

.

.

Thanks Barack… U.S. Welfare Rolls Explode Under Obamacare

U.S. Welfare Rolls Explode Under Obamacare – WorldNetDaily

.

.
The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has created more dependency on government and perverted the capitalist foundations of America, according to a top surgeon.

“You just can’t keep giving everything away to people without them working for it,” said Dr. Lee Hieb, former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “It’s not capitalism when you let people who are able-bodied not contribute to society but take the spoils. I mean, that’s just not capitalism. We have too many people that don’t work to eat.”

Obamacare appears to be worsening America’s dependency issue. The Associated Press reported food-stamp enrollment increased in 11 states between January 2013 and the end of 2014, the period during which Obamacare went into effect.

Ten of those 11 states expanded Medicaid under the ACA, and six of them used new online enrollment systems that made it easy for customers to sign up for both Medicaid and food stamps at the same time. Such streamlined application systems were built specifically for the health-care overhaul.

In total, nearly 632,000 people were added to the food-stamp rolls in those 11 states during that period, at an estimated cost of almost $79 million a month to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food-stamp program also known as SNAP. This came at a time when the national economy was improving and food-stamp enrollment declined nationwide.

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, sees the phenomenon as part of a government attempt to place more Americans under its thumb.

“Self-reliant Americans are being crushed by taxation and regulation, directly and indirectly, and turned into government dependents,” Orient said. “How can you resist if government can cut off your food and medicine?”

In almost all of the 16 states that didn’t expand Medicaid, food-stamp rolls have been decreasing as the economy improves.

Hieb, author of “Surviving the Medical Meltdown: Your Guide to Living Through the Disaster of Obamacare,” said Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion damaged the American medical system by dropping people from their private insurance and putting them on Medicaid.

“People think that all these people getting on Medicaid through Obamacare were uninsured,” Hieb said. “That’s not true. A number of those people had private insurance, but now, because they qualify under these new guidelines, why not have somebody else pay for your health insurance? So instead of paying for health insurance, they’re taking Medicaid.”

She continued, “So you’ve turned paying patients into nonpaying patients. It’s absolutely, clearly a failing economic model, and I don’t understand how smart people believe it. I just don’t understand how they do not see that point.”

Hieb, an orthopedic surgeon, has observed firsthand the damage Medicaid expansion has done to hospitals. She recently reached the end of a contract to perform surgery two-and-a-half days a week at a small hospital, and she is now looking for a similar arrangement. However, she says she’s found hospitals are running scared from orthopedic surgeons like her because they fear they won’t make enough money to pay the surgeons’ salaries.

According to Hieb, the hospitals are struggling to bring in money because of the increase in Medicaid patients and corresponding decrease in private-pay patients. Medicaid does not reimburse hospitals as much as private insurance does. Hospitals have also struggled to cope with Medicare provider payment cuts and increased administrative paperwork.

But while Medicaid expansion has hurt hospitals, it has been a boon to health-care consumers. In states that expand Medicaid, adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level must qualify, and states are allowed to set even higher thresholds. Before the ACA took effect, the median Medicaid eligibility limit for parents was 106 percent of the federal poverty level. Medicaid expansion also made adults without dependent children eligible for the first time.

Hieb said she believes Americans are smart enough to act in their own financial self-interest, and, for many who hover just above the poverty level, that involves taking advantage of the welfare system. Hieb lives among the patients she serves in rural Iowa, and she says they know how to look out for themselves.

“It’s a mistake to think that all these poor people are children who cannot navigate this very complex medical system,” Hieb asserted. “These are the people who have figured out if you don’t make $35,000 a year working, it’s not worth working because you can do that well if you know how to work the system of welfare.”

If people can cobble together enough disability payments, unemployment payments and food stamps to earn a halfway decent living, Hieb argued, they are smart enough to hitch themselves to Medicaid, even if they might be able to afford health insurance on their own.

“People act in their own economic self-interest,” Hieb said. “If you can get things for free, why pay for them?”

She answered her own question: “One, because that’s ethical, and two, medical providers cannot be in business unless somebody actually pays the bill.”

.

.

Hitlery Campaign Goes Full-Blown Psychotic, Pretends She Hasn’t Already Announced Her Candidacy

Ready For Hillary Wants A “Do-Over”, Will Announce Her Candidacy June 13th – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Another Scooby van tour.

Via BPR

The Hillary Clinton campaign wants Americans to get excited – again – because the former secretary of state will be making her first campaign announcement speech – again.

That’s right.

It seems the Clinton team wants a “do-over” to its botched campaign start – perhaps to magically erase the constant blunders, scandals, and poorly staged “impromptu” events that have marked the effort since its April kickoff.

Apparently it’s time to pretend the whole thing never happened.

On June 13, it will become “official?” How dumb does the Clinton tribe think the American people are?

As informed citizens know, Clinton made her announcement Sunday, April 12. The New York Times proudly sang her praises and featured Clinton’s announcement video.[…]

The whole thing boggles the mind, and plenty of Twitter users had to vent to clear their heads.

Keep reading

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hitlery Clinton News Roundup

Hillary Discussed Highly Sensitive Information, Now Classified “Secret,” On Her Private Email, As We Predicted – Andrew C. McCarthy

.

.
Well, you heard it here first.

Today, the State Department released Benghazi-related email from the private server and one of the (at least) two private email accounts on which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official business – recklessly and in violation of laws and guidelines relating to the exchanging and preservation of electronic communications. Within hours, the Obama administration was forced to concede that at least one of the emails contained classified information.

Mrs. Clinton has previously and dubiously claimed that she did not discuss classified information on her private email account(s). Despite today’s disclosure, she is standing by that claim as, apparently, is the State Department. Her rationale is that the information in question – which relates to suspects in the Benghazi attack and remains highly sensitive ­- was not classified “secret” at the time of the email exchange. Instead, it was upgraded to “secret” status just today by the FBI, which was plainly alarmed at the prospect of its disclosure.

I warned about this situation back in March, when Mrs. Clinton’s violation of federal laws and guidelines in connection with using private email to conduct official business first surfaced. The problem with the rationalization offered by Mrs. Clinton and the administration is twofold.

First, at the time of the Benghazi attack, Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and an old hand at dealing with classified information. She thus had to have known at the time of the communication in question that information of the type she was dealing with should have been classified as “secret” even if it had not been so classified yet. Obviously, the FBI instantly recognized the significance of the information upon learning that it was about to be disclosed.

Second, it is frequently the case that highly sensitive information is not classified (or not yet classified); nevertheless, government officials are instructed that it is not to be disclosed publicly and not to be discussed on non-government email systems.

As I explained back in March:

Mrs. Clinton [in her press conference] stressed that she never stored classified documents on her private e-mail system. To the uninitiated, this sounded like the strongest point in her defense. Mostly, however, it is a red herring, exploiting the public’s unfamiliarity with how classified information works – and fueling no small amount of irresponsible speculation over the last few days about how the nature of her responsibilities meant classified material must have been stored on her private system. In the government, classified documents are maintained on separate, super-highly secured systems… [I]n general, Mrs. Clinton would not have been able to access classified documents even from a .gov account, much less from her private account – she’d need to use the classified system… That said, there are two pertinent caveats.

First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information – the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents. The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails…

Second, most of the important but mundane information exchanged in government is not classified. It is a truism that too much information in Washington is classified. Still, it is also true that, for government officials, dealing with classified information is very inconvenient – you are usually not allowed to read it on your office computer, certainly not on your personal computer, not while commuting to work, not at home, etc. Thus, much of the information that government officials deal with is categorized as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU).

To listen to the commentary over the past week, and to listen to Mrs. Clinton yesterday, one would think there are only two realms of government information: something is either a national defense secret or the seating chart for Chelsea’s wedding reception. Most information, though, is neither classified nor private. When I was a federal prosecutor, for instance, the SBU information I routinely dealt with included: grand-jury transcripts, the secrecy of which must be maintained by law; investigative reports by the FBI, DEA, NYPD, and other investigative agencies; wiretap affidavits that disclosed that investigations were underway, the suspects, the evidence, the wiretap locations, and the identity of government undercover agents, informants, and witnesses; memos outlining investigative or litigation strategies to deal with organized crime and terrorism organizations; plans to orchestrate arrests in multi-defendant cases where flight risk was a concern; financial information of subjects of investigations; personal information (sometimes including family financial and medical information) of lawyers and staff whom I supervised; contact information (including home addresses) of agents with whom I worked on cases often involving violent crime and public corruption; contact information (including home addresses) of judges in the event it was necessary to get a search warrant after hours; and so on.

None of that information was classified. I was permitted to – and needed to – have it ready to hand, but it was also my duty to maintain it in a secure, responsible manner… a duty that became even more important once I was a boss and was expected to set an example for junior lawyers and staff to follow. And mind you, I was just a government lawyer. I was not the secretary of state.

The inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of SBU can do enormous damage. It can even get people killed. That is why the State Department has elaborate rules about SBU – rules that include instructing State Department employees to conduct their e-mail business via government e-mail accounts on government communications systems that have “the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of resident information” (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 12, sec. 544.3 ). As Fox News relates, it was on the basis of these concerns that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, directed State Department employees in June 2011 to “avoid conducting official Department [business] from your personal e-mail accounts.”

Thus far, there has been disclosure of only a fraction of Mrs. Clinton’s existing private email – i.e., the email that she did not unilaterally delete despite being on notice that it was relevant to government investigations. Yet it is already clear that, as secretary of state, she did business in a way that was, at a minimum, grossly irresponsible… and quite possibly worse. She had to have realized the near certainty that an official of her stature would have been targeted for surveillance of her private emails by foreign intelligence services. Yet, in her determination not to leave a paper trail that might damage her political prospects, she ignored the risks. The Justice Department, which has prosecuted high government officials for mishandling national defense information, should be investigating – and that includes acquiring custody of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Krauthammer Sounds Off On Hillary Email Dump, Explains Why He Thinks ‘Whole Release Is A Farce’ – The Blaze

Conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer reacted to the release of the first batch of Hillary Clinton emails, calling the “whole release” a “farce.”

“This is an echo of what her own press secretary said, who said there isn’t a shred of evidence. And as I’ve said there is no shred of evidence because she shredded the evidence. This whole release is a farce,” the syndicated political columnist said. “What is being released now… is stuff that was scrubbed and cleansed and decided upon, chosen by her own people, acting in her own interest, rather than… people with obligation to the public.”

“So we are getting the cleaned up version,” he continued. “And I think they are succeeding, the Clinton people. Because everybody is hungrily looking through stuff pre-scrubbed. They are not going to find anything. The Clinton’s are secretive and deceptive, but they are not stupid.”

Krauthammer then explained how he thought the process will benefit Clinton in the presidential election.

“Whatever is indicating has been scrubbed and removed. So we are going to have this long saga of the release. She will take the credit for, ‘I asked for it to be released, I wanted it to be released.’ But it’s the wrong stuff. And when people attack her later in the campaign, she will say it’s all been released, the press has looked at it,” he said.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Hillary Slept Through Security Briefing On Benghazi Attack – Gateway Pundit

Figures.

Hillary Clinton slept through the president’s daily briefing on Benghazi. She didn’t wake up until 10:45 AM.

.

.
What difference does it make?

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Hillary Didn’t Even Know Ambassador’s Name After He Was Murdered In Benghazi – Right Scoop

The State Department is releasing a batch of the Hillary emails, because the best way to make sure no one notices is to do it on the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. Hidden in one email is a pretty deplorable absence of interest and care from Hillary.

From the Washington Times:

The night a U.S. ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton sent a message three senior State Department officials.

The recepients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.

The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.

The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya – even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.

How deplorable is that. And this is who the Democrats want to make president? Disgusting.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
E-mails: Hillary Knew That State Department Asked YouTube To Block Anti-Muslim Movie Overseas – Hot Air

Not that there was ever much doubt. Three days after the Benghazi attack, the White House admitted it had pressured Google and YouTube to yank “Innocence of Muslims” as some sort of terms-of-use violation. Google refused. A week after that, having failed to twist a major corporation’s arm into censoring a politically unhelpful bit of free speech on its behalf, the State Department started running ads in Pakistan denouncing the movie, in hopes that jihadi savages would be appeased by the show of national contrition and not target any more embassies. Also around this time, YouTube did agree to censor “Innocence of Muslims” by blocking it in Egypt and Libya, the two nations that saw the most violent attacks on U.S. diplomats on September 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton had to have known about and signed off on all this, we naturally assumed. And now here’s evidence that she did: Although the message below is vague, I assume it’s referring to the ban that Google imposed on the video in Africa.

Leaning on corporate cronies to suppress Americans’ speech for political ends would be a disqualifying offense for a candidate in a sane world.

.

.
Fun fact: On the very day that e-mail was sent, the man who made “Innocence of Muslims” was arrested by the feds on a “parole violation.” Hillary’s leisure reading in the weeks before that was interesting too:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Clinton Foundation Discloses Millions In Additional Payments Under Pressure – Big Government

From the Washington Post:

The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.

Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.

The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.

The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.

There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.

The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.

In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.

They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.

Read the rest of the story here.

.

.

Thanks To Leftist Assclowns, Baltimore Shootings Spike 70%, Murder Rate Up 42%

Baltimore Shootings Spike 70%, Murder Rate Up 42% – Clash Daily

.

.
Gee, I wonder why this would happen? Don’t expect this to get better anytime soon.

BALTIMORE – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake called the city’s recent spike in violence “disheartening” Thursday as police work to address a dramatic increase in homicides and nonfatal shootings.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” the mayor told reporters at a news conference. “It is disheartening, but I am still resolved to continue to reduce violent crime in our city.”

Rawlings-Blake said the city’s faced spikes in crimes in the past and police have been able to successfully reverse them. She said she’s “confident” police do so will again.

The city’s had 98 homicides so far this year, which is 42 percent higher than over the same period in 2014. Nonfatal shootings are up more than 70 percent with at least 19 people shot on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Read more: Baltimore Sun

.

.