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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

Combat Veteran Blasts The #BlackLivesMatter Racists, ‘You’re The Problem!’ (Sgt. Omar Avila)

Combat Veteran Blasts The #BlackLivesMatter Racists, ‘You’re The Problem!’ – Sgt. Omar Avila

.

.
Can you imagine a group of white people marching down the street chanting, “Michael Brown what a clown! He got what he deserved,” after he was shot by officer Darren Wilson?

I can only imagine how the #BlackLivesMatter activists would have reacted.

How many riots would it have started? It would have been considered a ‘racist chant’ and it would have gotten coverage from the Obama Administration, for sure.

But moments after Texas Deputy Darren H. Goforth, a 10-year veteran, father of two, husband, and a public servant, was murdered execution style by an African-American at a gas station while he was refueling his vehicle, we heard chants of “Pigs In A Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon” from the racist #BlackLivesMatter activists.

.

.
Yes, you heard right. I said racist.

Check it out:

* When white people say “white power”… it’s racist.
* When Mexicans say “brown pride”… it’s racist.
* But when ‘Black Power’ and ‘Black Lives Matter’ is chanted… that isn’t racist? If that’s your way of thinking, you’re an ignorant person and you are part of the problem.

In what world is it OK for such a disturbing chant to be yelled out in the streets after an innocent man was murdered?

The Obama administration has had multiple chances to bring whites, blacks and Hispanics together to possibly end racism by uniting everyone in a tragic time. But instead, they’ve picked a side and now our country is divided by race.

We need to wake up America. We need to stop the ignorant people who keep dividing us. We need to become one and do as Jesus instructed us: ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’

How about instead of White, Black, Hispanic lives matter, we use #ALLLIVESMATTER?

.

.

New Monmouth Poll Shows Ben Carson Tied With The Donald In Iowa

Carson Ties Trump At The Top In Iowa Poll – Politico

.

.
Ben Carson and Donald Trump are tied at the top of the Republican field in a new survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers with 23 percent each, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Monday.

The good news continues for the retired neurosurgeon with his favorability ratings, as 81 percent said they view him favorably, compared to just 6 percent who do not. And Trump’s favorability went up as well, at 52 percent to 33 percent, up from 47 percent and 35 percent last month.

Carson has steadily gained support over the summer despite keeping a relatively low profile, especially compared to Trump. But Carson, who has never held political office, has similarly tapped into a strong anti-Washington sentiment among voters.

In the poll released Monday, the two non-establishment candidates are followed by another, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina with 10 percent. Following Fiorina are Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 9 percent, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 7 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 5 percent, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 4 percent, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 3 percent. No other candidates registered more than 2 percent, including the last two winners of the caucus – former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (both at 2 percent).

The latest survey showed Carson making inroads on key voting blocs that Trump has been winning in recent polls. Women preferred Carson at 30 percent to 19 percent, while Trump did better with men voters, at 27 percent to 17 percent.

Among those identifying with the tea party, 27 percent pledged their support for Trump, compared to 22 percent for Carson, with Cruz behind with 16 percent. But Carson leads among non-tea-party-affiliated Republicans, taking 25 percent to Trump’s 19 percent.

Voters who described themselves as very or somewhat conservative were split between the top two, while moderate and liberals went for Trump at 26 percent, Fiorina at 18 percent and Carson at 17 percent.

Carson leads among Evangelical voters, earning 29 percent to Trump’s 23 percent, while non-Evangelicals backed Trump with 24 percent, followed by Carson at 18 percent and Fiorina at 13 percent.

Nearly a third of likely caucusgoers – 66 percent – said that the next president needs to be someone who can bring experience from outside of Washington, compared to 23 percent who indicated a preference toward candidates with government experience.

The survey was conducted Aug. 27-30, polling 405 likely caucus participants with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

.

.

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

McKinley’s Greatest Monument – New York Sun

.
…………

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

Ben Carson Moves Within 5 Points Of Donald Trump In Latest Iowa Poll

Ben Carson Edging Close To Front-Runner Trump In Latest Iowa Poll – Bloomberg

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has emerged as a leading Republican presidential candidate in Iowa and is closing in on frontrunner Donald Trump in the state that hosts the first 2016 nomination balloting contest.

The latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows billionaire Trump with the support of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, followed by Carson at 18 percent. When first and second choices are combined, Carson is tied with Trump.

Trump finds himself in a vastly better position than when the previous Iowa Poll was taken. He has become a credible presidential candidate to many likely Republican caucus-goers. The real estate mogul is rated favorably by 61 percent and unfavorably by 35 percent, an almost complete reversal since the Iowa Poll in May. He finds his highest ratings among those planning to attend the caucuses for the first time (69 percent) and limited-government Tea Party activists (73 percent). Just 29 percent say they could never vote for him, a number cut in half since May.

Although he isn’t generating the headlines enjoyed by Trump, Carson has quietly built a dedicated network of supporters in Iowa. During the past month, he also aired more ads than any other presidential candidate in Iowa. Carson has the highest favorability rating among Republican candidates, with 79 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers seeing him positively.

Those glowing views of Carson, who has a compelling life story and is seeking to become the nation’s second black president, could make it hard for Trump or other rivals to attack him as the campaign heats up this fall. Christian conservatives, who represent nearly 40 percent of likely caucus participants in the poll, may be starting to coalesce around the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.

The poll displays the political benefit, at least for now, of not being part of the Republican establishment. When their totals are combined, Trump and Carson – two men without any elected experience – are backed by more than 4 in 10 likely caucus participants. Add in former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who also has never held elective office, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is running an explicitly anti-establishment campaign, and the total reaches 54 percent of the likely electorate.

“Trump and Carson, one bombastic and the other sometimes soft-spoken, could hardly be more different in their outward presentations,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “Yet they’re both finding traction because they don’t seem like politicians and there’s a strong demand for that right now.”

.

.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the previous Iowa frontrunner, has been hurt the most by the Trump and Carson summer surges and is now backed by just 8 percent of likely caucus-goers, less than half what he recorded in the last Iowa Poll in late May. Cruz, who will need to cut into Carson’s support among social conservatives if he’s to advance in Iowa, is tied with Walker at 8 percent.

Jeb Bush, who continues to face major headwinds in Iowa, scored below Walker and Cruz. The former Florida governor is backed by just 6 percent, has one of the highest unfavorable ratings among the 17 Republican candidates tested, and has the support of just 16 percent of those who consider themselves business-oriented establishment Republicans, the group most central to his brand.

Bush’s fellow Floridian, Senator Marco Rubio, is also backed by 6 percent. He’s closely followed by Fiorina, who is supported by 5 percent after her strong showing in the Aug. 6 debate.

In the 2008 and 2012 Republican caucuses, Christian conservatives broke late in the race and helped determine the outcome in Iowa. While some of their leaders have expressed skepticism about the potential to unify behind one candidate in such a crowded race, there’s an opening for that. More than three-quarters of Christian conservatives in the poll say they could be convinced to back someone other than their first or second choice, if they could be assured that another Christian conservative would win.

At the moment, Carson is leading with voters in that bloc at 23 percent, followed by Trump at 16 percent and Cruz and Walker tied at third. If his competitors can successfully raise questions about Trump’s credentials as a Christian conservative, they could potentially peel off some of the front-runner’s support.

One major unknown for the caucuses is the size of the electorate, which has been around 120,000 on the Republican side for the past two Iowa caucuses. One of Trump’s campaign goals is to get thousands of new people to vote, a move that helped Barack Obama score an upset on the Democratic side in 2008.

First-time caucus-goers are clearly an important part of Trump’s Iowa base. Among those who say they’ll be attending for the first time, Trump is ahead of Carson, 28 percent to 20 percent.

For now, the poll suggests about a fifth of those attending the Feb. 1 precinct meetings will be doing so for the first time. That’s comparable to four years ago, when 24 percent said that on the Republican side in an October 2011 Iowa Poll.

Trump’s supporters in Iowa a have a higher level of trust in their candidate than others in the field to make the right decisions, if he makes it to the White House. Among all Republicans likely to attend the caucuses, 41 percent want their candidate to be clear about the specific policies they would address if elected, while 57 percent trust their candidate to figure it out once elected.

For Trump, nearly two-thirds of his supporters trust him to figure out the right decisions once in office. That’s in keeping with a claim he made to reporters Aug. 15, shortly after landing by helicopter outside the Iowa State Fair, saying it’s mostly the media that cares about policy papers and positions.

Among most of the subgroups measured in the poll, Trump has the advantage, although Carson beats him or comes close with several. Carson has an 11-percentage-point advantage over Trump among seniors and 7-percentage-point edge among Christian conservatives.

“I’m sick and tired of the political class,” said Lisa Pilch, 54, a middle school physical education teacher leaning toward Carson who lives in Springville, Iowa. “I just like his tone and think he’s someone who could pull us together, rather than the polarization we have right now. He has a lot of wisdom, even if he doesn’t have political savviness.”

While Carson is doing slightly better than Trump among women, the billionaire has the advantage among men, 28 percent to 17 percent.

“He’s got a no-nonsense approach,” said Patrick Messmore, 32, a construction equipment sales manager who lives near Grundy Center and plans to back Trump. “His history as a businessman is potentially a good change for our country, so that we don’t just have another life-time politician taking over as president.”

In some ways, Messmore sees Trump as an antidote to Bush. “I’m not OK with another Bush presidency,” he said. “We’ve had two of them now and I don’t see that there will be enough of a different approach than his dad or brother had. It’s just not something I’m interested in.”

.

.
The poll shows Walker and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, especially, aren’t performing anywhere close to earlier expectations.

Paul, who was backed by just 4 percent, was perceived a year ago to have an advantage in Iowa, given the third-place finish in the 2012 caucuses recorded by his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas. In October, his favorable rating outweighed his unfavorable by nearly 3-to-1.

“Whatever advantage he had has eroded,” Selzer said. “Now, more Iowa caucus-goers have negative than positive feelings about him.”

For Walker, who has been in a slump since his lackluster debate performance, the poll is certain to further reduce expectations around his performance in Iowa, which had grown to the point where anything short of a win would have been viewed as a loss. One upside for him in the poll: Besides Carson, he’s the only candidate to exceed 70 percent in favorability.

Iowa Republicans are showing little interest in re-runs. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses, is at 4 percent. He’s followed at 2 percent by candidates who are governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and John Kasich of Ohio.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who narrowly beat eventual nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 caucuses, is backed by just 1 percent, the same level of support recorded by former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is also struggling in his second White House bid even amid heavy spending in Iowa on the part of a super political action committee backing him.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former New York Governor George Pataki and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore all recorded support of less than 1 percent.

The survey, taken Aug. 23-26, included 400 likely Republican caucus participants. On the full sample, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

.

.
Besides the nearly the nearly 40 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers who say Christian conservative is the best way to identify them, “business-oriented establishment Republicans” and Tea Party activists are roughly tied as the next largest groups, at 22 percent and 21 percent. Those who feel they are most closely aligned with the “liberty movement,” a bloc associated with Paul, represent only about 8 percent.

To offer another assessment of candidate strength – something difficult to divine in such a crowded field – Selzer created an index built on multiple measures in the poll. The index takes into account first and second choices, as well as a question that was asked on whether respondents could ever – or would never – support each candidate they didn’t name as their first or second pick. First choices were given double weight, while “ever support” was given a half weighting.

Using that system, Carson is narrowly ahead of Trump, 75 to 73. Walker comes next at 55, followed by Cruz at 53 and Rubio at 50. The index and never/ever question also show some of the candidates could struggle to expand their support. Nearly half of likely Republican caucus participants, 48 percent, say they could never support Christie. For Paul, it’s 43 percent and for Bush it’s 39 percent.

.

.

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

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

.

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

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

Here are key excerpts from the president’s address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

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


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

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

.

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

The FBI offered no comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama’s Latest EPA Regulatory Scheme

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

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

.

.

The Last Days Of Hillary (Daniel Greenfield)

The Last Days Of Hillary – Daniel Greenfield

.

.
Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become president. All for nothing.

The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11 million of that money came from the notoriously “flat broke” couple. This time around she was determined to take no chances.

Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything. There was no way she could lose.

Now she’s losing all over again.

Hillary has a ton of money, but can’t buy the nomination. She’s spending a quarter of a million a day on a campaign operation with no actual organized opposition to speak of. Even before Biden officially enters the race, she’s falling behind the joke candidacy of Bernie Sanders in key states.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars without making an impact. She spent almost a million on polling only to see her poll numbers drop every week. She dropped $2 million on ads about her mother to try to make women like her. It didn’t work. Nothing is working anymore.

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

It wasn’t a subtle message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And their conclusions?

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

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

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

.

.

The Donald Promises Top Republicans He Will Not Run Third Party

Trump Vows Not To Run Third Party – NewsMax

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump agreed it was a good argument.

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

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

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

.

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

.

Common Core-Approved Textbook Will Indoctrinate Sixth-Graders About #BlackLivesMatter (Video)

New ‘Common Core’ Approved Textbook Will Indoctrinate Sixth-Graders About ‘Black Lives Matter’ – Right Scoop

To hear “Common Core” defenders you would think that it really isn’t that bad and critics are insane, but this new Common Core approved textbook that indoctrinates American children to be “Black Lives Matter” thugs and morons makes me think the critics just might have a point!

Watch Larry Elder obliterate the idiocy:

.

.
Gotta love the Elder!

Over at MyNorthwest.com, one of the co-authors of the book says that conservatives like Larry Elder are being silly prejudging the book that hasn’t even been published yet:

Professor Harris is confused by this reaction because she is certain that Elder, and others opposed to the textbook, have never read it.

“I have an electronic copy, my co-author has an electronic copy and then the [printing] press has it,” she said. “No one else has this book. So they are interpreting what they think the book is about. My co-author is a white woman, we have not framed this into who to blame and who not to blame. That’s not what this kind of work is about.”

“The conservatives say that it’s indoctrination,” Harris said. “That couldn’t be further from the truth. We’re not saying in our book that the police are wrong or the police are bad. We’re trying to explain to them what an indictment is.”

Oh yeahh sure, it’s equal to both sides, yeah sure I believe you, yeah! Oh wait, look at what the dimwit says just a few paragraphs later:

“Because I have been trained as a historian, I am confident that 40 years from now, these people are going to be thought of as brave and transformative because that’s always what happens,” Harris said. “Think about the Vietnam War protests. Those people were demonized when that was going on.”

Right, this lady who thinks these people will be hailed as heroes wrote this perfectly even-sided book, huh? She must think we’re complete morons – oh wait, she’s selling this book to liberal teachers, so… that makes sense.

I honestly think any sixth-grade idiot teacher who wastes taxpayer money on this crap should be summarily fired.

Please feel free to tweet at the publishers at Abdo:

————————————————————————————————————————–
BOOMCAST
@BOOMCASTAPP

#AbdoPublishing company to release #BlackLivesMatter text book for grades 6 to 12 to spread awareness and make steps towards equality!

3:34 PM – 24 Aug 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Cuz we all appreciate some of that old commie indoctrination of our childrens’ heads full of mush, right?

.

.

The Psychopathic Socialists Party ÷ The Cowering Excuse-Makers Party = President Donald Trump

Modern day Democrat politicians are socialists, which really isn’t breaking news. Heck, that particular socio-political philosophy was adopted by the DNC during the Great Depression. What is news, however, is that they’ve also become psychopathic, exhibiting the personality traits of your average serial killer just before he decides to start butchering prostitutes for the first time.

For a while there – say, 70 years or so – they seemed to be merely delusional, but since the turn of the 21st century, they’ve proven themselves to be devoid of any genuine feelings of empathy, compassion or remorse with respect to other human beings – at least the ones who don’t appear on their respective campaign contributors lists.

While not insane in the purely legal sense of the word, they are, nonetheless, stark-staring lunatics who are capable of the worst atrocities imaginable. In other words, they are scheming, soulless humanoids with a knack for appearing normal most of the time, despite their utter lack of humanity.

They’re also control freaks of the highest order, which is why they spend practically every waking moment thinking up ways to interfere with other people’s lives instead of doing anything substantive with their own. They become politicians because that is the one profession wherein you can make a name for yourself – not to mention oodles of money – without actually being a productive member of society.

Sadly, their minions in the entertainment industry, academia, and the press are still stuck in the aforementioned delusional phase of the socialist experiment, and have no idea that pols like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are complete monsters. Then again, I suppose it’s better that they’ve remained merely psychoneurotic rather than having mutated into full-blown, dead-eyed maniacs themselves. After all, psychosis (a distorted sense of reality) can be treated and even cured over time, but psychopathy is forever.

Anyway, enough with those demented bastards, let’s move on to the psychology of today’s Republican politicians and the sad sacks who help elect them, shall we?

— In the interest of full disclosure, there was a time when I too was a card-carrying member of the Republican party, but that ended soon after John Boehner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. You see, Mr. Boehner is what we in the rusted bucket of political punditry call an “assclown”, and one day while I was having a shave, I looked into the bathroom mirror and asked myself this question: can you really continue to claim membership in an organization that would appoint the likes of ‘Tammy Faye Boehner’ to such a position of power in Congress? My reflection answered with a resounding: NOPE! And the rest, as they say, is history. —

Now onto the subject at hand…

The GOP of the 21st century – thus far – is about as useful as shoe laces on a pair of sandals, and its leadership seems to be comprised of more cowards than a battalion of Iraqi soldiers.

But why is that, you ask?

Well, have you ever heard the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’? It’s a psychological phenomenon in which hostages come to identify with – and even feel sympathy for – their captors. If you ask me, that’s the basic underpinning of the whole right-wing malfunction at the federal level in recent times, and if there’s a better explanation than this one for the behavioral patterns exhibited by the GOP’s most powerful leaders, I’d like to hear it. Really, I would.

The only viable alternative hypothesis I can come up with is that they’re just plain suicidal, and they want to take us all down with them. The problem with that supposition is that people who commit suicide are generally compulsive in nature. They don’t plan their demise years in advance, and they almost never intentionally take a stranger to his grave in the process.

As for the psychology of Republicans who are prominent in the fields of academia, entertainment and journalism, these people appear to be largely normal, with some notable exceptions. That’s why they and most other right-wingers in the private sector feel so disconnected from their elected representatives these days – especially the ones in positions of party leadership. After all, rational people have a hard time accepting irrational behavior, even from people they like.

So if you’ve been wondering why so many Republicans – even a good number of staunch conservatives – on TV, the internet, and talk radio are defending the likes of Donald Trump this election cycle, despite the fact that he’s wandered all over the political spectrum in terms of policy positions over the years, please allow me to explain their reasoning as best I understand it.

You see, it’s not who Trump is – per se – or even what he may believe about many issues that’s of primary importance to a lot of folks on the right these days. No, it’s what he represents that has them fired up, and what he represents is a man who just might actually get something positive done for a change in Washington DC, simply because he’s not a career politician with a long track record of fucking up absolutely EVERYTHING he touches!

Many people are just plain tired of the same platitudes and empty promises they’ve heard over and over again for the past quarter of a century from nearly every polished, right-leaning, professional politico who’s come down the pike. They all say pretty much the same things, yet little if anything actually changes once they take office, and in the meantime, the party elites keep growing more and more hostile toward the very people who elected them.

In essence, a growing number of Republicans are willing to roll the dice with an unknown quantity like The Donald on the off chance that he may be able to do what nobody since Ronald Reagan has managed to pull off, which is stem the tide of leftist incompetence and corruption that has permeated our federal government for decades. And what’s more, it really doesn’t seem to matter to them that he may entertain certain left-leaning sympathies with which they disagree.

Perhaps if there is a psychological malady that can be applied to some non-elected Republicans, it is ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’, a condition brought about by persistent abuse at the hands of someone whom the victim initially trusted and even professed to love. Of course, people who suffer from this complex for an extended period of time often snap and turn on their abusers with unfettered ferocity. (see Battered Woman’s Defense – U.S. criminal law)

So, is that what this whole Trump phenomenon is about? Is he merely a weapon of convenience being leveled at an habitually abusive political class by its long-suffering voter base? Is he like the butcher knife on the counter that the bruised and bloodied wife of a bully finally picks up one day and plunges into her tormenter’s filthy neck?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there’s some merit to that theory.

Edward L. Daley

.

Leftist Corruption Update: Evidence Points To Ongoing Cover-Up, Collusion Between DHS And State Department (Video)

A New State Dept Smoking Gun Points To Ongoing Cover-Up, Collusion Between DHS And State Dept – Universal Free Press

.

.
Every day the mountain of evidence that is being hidden and the amount of effort needed to perpetuate the ever-widening cover-up continues to increase. There is certainly no shortage of regulatory violations and other, at best questionable, conduct being engaged in at the State under Hillary Clinton and during the days since she left.

A new violation of procedures intended to protect our nation’s secrets is revealed by a reporter during a briefing held by paid State Department paid liar and former Rear Admiral now disgracing his service, John Kirby.

The reporter raises the issue of the State Department’s failure to submit “legally required information regarding Secretary Clinton’s email server to the DHS during her term as Secretary.” He asks Kirby if he’s familiar with it at all, with him naturally stating that he is not, whether that is true or not it buys time. Obstructionists such as those employed by the State Department always want as much time as they can get.

The reporter says it was a 2010 DHS program called the “Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program,” under which DHS was to receive every thirty days a list of systems and vulnerabilities from all government agencies. He says, “Evidently there is some reporting that they didn’t get that from State regarding that server.”

He asks Kirby if he’s “familiar at all with that,” to which Kirby predictably replies that he is not. Asked if he would “take it,” Kirby agrees but says, “I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to you on it. Some of these issues are under review and under investigations, so there may be a real limit here as to what we can do in terms of detail on that.”

What Kirby is telling him is that unless some of his colleagues start pressing for it or unless it is picked up somehow by the mainstream media, he won’t be answering the quite legitimate question. He says that ongoing investigations or reviews might be a problem, but certainly admitting that such a program exists would in no way interfere with either nor would divulging whether that policy had been followed and if not where the failure had occurred.

What Kirby is doing is covering up. It’s now what he gets paid to do, to assist those engaging in criminal conduct in shielding their anti-American activities from the American people.

This is a potentially huge smoking gun, in that during, perhaps throughout, the four year tenure of Clinton as Secretary of State, the practice was either to not report based upon a recognized security breach or to report the deviation and violations with complicity in both agencies to its existence and continuance.

Just who those individuals involved were and the basis for their decisions would be some very telling and relevant information. The process left a decision-making trail that would indicate both intent and culpability of multiple parties involved.

It’s not surprising that Kirby claimed to not know anything about it while also assuming that it was under review or investigation. He didn’t have time to get his story straight but he’d better. This is probably a question he’ll be asked again, and something else he’s going to have to cover up for in order to “serve his country.”

.

.

.

Anchor Baby Delivered Every 93 Seconds In U.S.

Census: Anchor Baby Delivered Every 93 Seconds – Big Government

.

.
One out of about every twelve newborns in the United States is an anchor baby, or the U.S.-born child of illegal migrants, according to a Pew Research Center study.

This means that one anchor baby is delivered every 93 seconds, based on the 2008 census data analyzed by the Pew.

The huge number of foreign children born on U.S. soil – roughly 340,000 per year – is also an economic imposition on Americans, who pay taxes to help raise, feed, and educate those children of illegal migrants.

Eventually, those 340,000 U.S.-born foreign children can join the U.S. workforce and compete for wages against the roughly four million children of U.S. parents that enter the slow-growing U.S. economy each year.

Only 28 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that children born to illegal migrants in this country should automatically be American citizens, according to a 2011 Rasmussen Reports survey. In fact, the proposal is so unpopular that even Jeb Bush, who favors large-scale immigration, has criticized pregnant foreigners who grab citizenship for their kids by flying into the country posing as tourists. Bush described the practice as “fraud,” and asserted that, “Frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country – having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship”

The growing industry of “birth tourism” is so large that even California’s government recently cracked down on the illegal – but rarely suppressed – trade.

The federal government currently grants automatic citizenship to all U.S.-born children of illegal migrants based upon what experts say is a flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment. This interpretation is backed by progressive political advocates and wealthy business interests, and it allows a pregnant foreigner to win citizenship – and myriad financial benefits – even when laws, legislators and voters oppose her entry into the nation.

The rewards to the mother and father are huge. The mother, for example, can collect federal welfare on behalf of the child, and the adult child – as a U.S. citizen – will eventually be able to win a green card for his or her parents, despite their prior illegal entry into the United States.

As National Review writes:

71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.

The cost of K-12 public school alone for a U.S.-born child of illegal migrants is, at a minimum, around $160,000 (using the average cost $12,300 per pupil per year). Additionally, under universities’ system of racial preferences, anchor babies will get bonus SAT and GPA points when they apply to college. Many corporations will continue this benefits program when considering their job applications as well.

Both Senator Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)and Congressman Rep. Steve King (R-IA)have introduced bills that would correct this misapplication of the 14th amendment by ensuring citizenship is only granted to a child that has at least one parent who is either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. Presidential candidate Donald Trump has also issued a plan that would restrict this appropriation of U.S. citizenship.

But the presidential candidates favored by wealthy donors, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jeb Bush, have both argued that the United States should continue this controversial application of the 14th amendment that allows foreign migrants to appropriate U.S. citizenship for their children.

Marco Rubio co-authored the Senate Gang of Eight bill, which won the endorsement of La Raza and would substantially increase family chain migration.

When asked by CNBC why he defends this unpopular application of the 14th amendment, Rubio explained that he supports it because U.S.-born foreign children “are people”:

“Those are human beings and ultimately they are people, we’re not just statistics, they’re humans with stories,” Rubio said.

.

.

Stocks End Down Again – Worst 3-Day Point Decline In History Of Dow Jones

DOW, S&P Close Lower In Biggest Reversal Since Oct. 08 – CNBC

U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow’s worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.

The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.

“That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don’t want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out,” said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.

The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower.

The Dow traveled another 1,600 points during Tuesday’s trading session, adding to the 4,900 points the index traveled in down and up moves on Monday.

DJIA intraday moves

.

.
“Whatever triggered the consternation in the last few trading sessions is likely to be replayed again,” said Mark Luschini, chief investment strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott. He said a negative close “would be a set up to grind sideways to work out this process, if this rally and enthusiasm can’t last I think it’s an indicator (of that consternation).”

The major averages began paring gains in late morning trade after the European close.

“This is typical after a wild swing we had yesterday,” said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Rockwell Global Capital. “It’s just going to take some time for confidence to rebuild in the market.”

Earlier, the Dow gained as much as 441.5 points and the Nasdaq outperformed, up more than 3.5 percent. Morning leaders such as Netflix and Chinese stocks such as JD.com and Baidu still closed more than 4 percent higher. Alibaba gained 4.2 percent.

However, Apple clung to gains of just 0.6 percent after earlier surging more than 7 percent.

In the open, no S&P 500 stocks in the index hit new 52-week highs or lows, after about 200 names hit new 52-week lows Monday.

Morning gains fell short of recouping Monday’s more-than-3.5 percent plunge and the Dow remained on pace for its biggest monthly percentage loss since February 2009 and the Nasdaq since 2008. The S&P 500 was on track for its largest percentage loss since May 2010.

“It’s not as great as a bounce that many were anticipating,” said Kevin Mahn, chief investment officer at Hennion and Walsh. “I think obviously the market sold off far more than it should have.”

“We kind of dipped into that correction territory but we’re not going to stay there,” he said, noting the S&P 500 should trade more in pullback territory between 5 to 10 percent than in correction mode, between 10 to 20 percent lower.

Some of the things “bothering markets yesterday were China and collapsing commodity prices and both of those have given us some relief and when I look at China I don’t look at the Shanghai market. I look at the Hong Kong market,” James Meyer, chief investment officer at Tower Bridge Advisors, said of the morning rally.

The Hang Seng closed up 0.72 percent, while the Nikkei plunged 4 percent and the Shanghai Composite extended recent losses to fall below the psychologically key 3,000 mark, down 7.6 percent. However, European stocks surged, with the DAX up nearly 5 percent.

Crude oil futures settled up $1.07, or 2.80 percent, at $39.31 a barrel. Brent traded more than 1 percent higher to above $43 a barrel.

For the rally to be real “we have to end strong and follow-through tomorrow,” Meyer said.

In early trade Tuesday, Dow futures spiked above 600 points, implying an open of more than 450 points.

U.S. stock index futures extended gains after the Chinese central bank announced plans early in the morning ET to cut its one year lending rate to 4.6 percent, which the People’s Bank of China said was provide long-term liquidity and help support the economy.

“I’m looking for every reason to be a buyer,” said Nick Raich, CEO of The Earnings Scout, who remains bearish on equities. “We’re not upgrading our view at this point until we see topline growth… until then it’s going to be hard to sustain a rally.”

For Tuesday’s open, the New York Stock Exchange invoked Rule 48 for the second day in a row, Dow Jones reported.

The exchange used the rule before Monday’s open after futures for several major averages hit limit down. The last time the rule was used was during the financial crisis.

Stocks plummeted on Monday, with the S&P 500 joining the other major averages in correction territory. Nine of the 10 sectors are in correction territory, with consumer staples less than 1 percent away.

The Dow had its biggest intraday swing ever, falling as much as 1,089 points in the open on Monday. U.S. stocks closed more than 3.5 percent lower, off session lows in high volume trade as fears of slowing growth in China pressured global markets.

Cumulative trade volume was 13.94 billion shares as of 4:00 p.m. ET, the highest volume day since Aug. 10, 2011. Composite trade volume on the New York Stock Exchange was 6.57 billion shares, the heaviest since Oct. 27, 2011.

High-frequency trading accounted for 49 percent of Monday’s total trade volume of 14.2 billion shares, according to TABB Group. Average daily trade volume month-to-date is 7.5 billion shares, with high-frequency trading accounting for 49 percent. During the peak levels of high-frequency trading in 2009, about 61 percent of 9.8 billion of average daily shares traded were executed by high-frequency traders.

Trade volume was tepid throughout most of Tuesday’s session before accelerating into the close as the major averages sold off.

Housing data out Tuesday missed expectations slightly but continued to indicate strength in the market. New home sales figures for July came in at an annual rate at 507,000. The Case-Shiller home price indices for June showing home prices rose less than expected.

In other economic news, the Conference Board’s consumer confidence indicator for August rose to 101.5, beating expectations.

“So far it doesn’t appear that we’ve had any disease from the foreign markets (in the economy),” Luschini said.

The U.S. dollar traded about 1 percent higher against major world currencies, with the euro lower near $1.15 and the yen trimming losses against the greenback near 118 yen.

Treasury yields jumped from lows touched Monday, with the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.09 percent, off highs of near 2.14 percent, and the 2-year note yield at 0.60 percent after trading near 0.64 percent.

The Treasury Department auctioned $26 billion of two-year notes at a high yield of 0.663 percent, lower than the previous July auction. Demand was below average and the lowest since October.

In earnings, Best Buy, Toll Brothers and Sanderson Farms reported before the market open.

Best Buy surged 12.57 percent. The electronic retailer beat estimates by 15 cents with adjusted quarterly profit of 49 cents per share, with revenue also beating forecasts. Same-store sales rose 2.7 percent, compared to the Thomson Reuters forecast of a 1.0 percent increase.

Toll Brothers plunged nearly 8 percent after reporting a decline in profits year-over-year. The luxury homebuilder did report a 12 percent rise in third-quarter orders.

Sanderson Farms closed 0.09 percent lower after the poultry producer posted earnings that fell substantially shy of the $2.90 consensus estimate with quarterly profit of $2.27, while revenue was also below forecasts. The company said a key factor in the quarter’s results was continued pricing pressure.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 204.91 points, or 1.29 percent, at 15,666.44, with Merck plunging 5.2 percent as the greatest laggard and Apple and Walt Disney the only advancers.

The Dow transports also reversed intraday gains to close down 1.7 percent, solidly in correction territory.

The S&P 500 closed down 25.59 points, or 1.35 percent, at 1,867.62, with utilities plunging more than 3 percent to lead all 10 sectors lower.

The Nasdaq closed down 19.76 points. or 0.44 percent, at 4,506.49. The iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) closed up 0.17 percent, losing intraday gains of more than 3 percent.

The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), widely considered the best gauge of fear in the market, traded near 37 after spiking above 50 on Monday, its highest level since February 2009.

About nine stocks declined for every seven advancers on the New York Stock Exchange, with an exchange volume of nearly 1.3 billion and a composite volume of nearly 5.2 billion in the close.

Gold settled down $15.30 at $1,138.30 an ounce.

.

.