Monday, September 26, 2016

Fox Business brings us some information about Pastor Saeed Abedini, who was held prisoner by Iran for several years, then released when Obama gave Iran another 400
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani spoke before the United Nations General Assembly Thursday despite protests from Iranian-Americans who feel Iran’s human rights situation has worsened after sanctions were modified earlier this year.

Pastor Saeed Abedini, one of four American hostages released from Iran in January, shared his disbelief of Rouhani’s annual speech during an interview with FOX Business Network’s Trish Regan.

“I was just telling people that imagine leader of ISIS come to the United States after 30 years of all the executions that they did and leaders of the world shaking his hand. It’s unbelievable,” Abedini said.

Abedini said he and other hostages were left to fend for themselves after flying from Iran to Germany when they were released after the Obama Administration’s $400 million payment to Iran.

After spending a few days in a hospital in Germany, Adedini was surprised to hear that he needed to buy his own plane ticket home.

“We were actually all shocked because I came out; I just had prison clothes and [they] just told us you need to buy your own ticket.”

Abedini said he was physically and psychologically tortured in the Iranian prison to the point where his stomach was bleeding for months from all the beatings.

“The whole last three to five years that I was there, it was just torturing, it was so hard,” Abedini said.

Uber planning self-flying drones

The Ehang 184, a passenger drone CREDIT: EHANG

James Titcomb writes at Telegraph,
If you summon an Uber in 10 years’ time, you will probably get a car that drives itself. But then again, you may not be travelling in a car at all.

The taxi-hailing app is working on technology that would allow airborne passenger drones to fly its users short distances around cities, it has emerged, raising the prospect of a future in which skylines are dotted with Uber aircraft shuttling commuters back and forth.
Read more here.

Incontrovertible Proof That the FBI's "Investigation" of Hillary and Her Henchmen Was a Sham From the Start


FBI Director James Comey. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
John Schindler writes at Observer,
As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.

Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.

Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.

This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary “unclassified” email server of bathroom infamy.
Read more here.

Ace of Spades writes, "Let's talk about Cheryl Mills -- and ponder, briefly, why on earth James Comey of all people would grant her immunity, except if the Fix was in." Then Ace links to Schindler,

As a Whitewater investigator for the Senate in the mid-1990s, Comey sought information from Mills; but wouldn’t you know, the then-deputy White House counsel claimed a burglar stole her notes.
Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton ordered Mills to block investigators. The obstruction, the Senate committee found, included the "destruction of documents" and other "highly improper . . . misconduct."

Two years later, Mills was in the middle of another Hillary scandal, involving the then-first lady's integration of White House and Democratic National Committee computer databases.

This time the House subpoenaed information from Mills, who not only withheld the documents but, a government committee said, "lied under oath" -- prompting staff lawyers to send a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury.

In 2000, a Commerce Department official testified that Mills ordered her to "withhold" from investigators e-mails and other documents exposing yet another scandal involving the first lady -- the selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign cash.

At the same time, a federal judge suggested Mills helped orchestrate a cover-up that blamed a technical "glitch" in the White House archiving system that conveniently resulted in the loss of 1.8 million e-mails under subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky, Filegate and other scandal investigations.

Fast-forward to Hillary’s tenure as secretary. In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which to withhold from a review board. She also leaned on witnesses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

Ace again,
Let's talk about that immunity deal. Comey wanted documents on her laptop. He could have compelled them by the simple and routine expedient of a subpeona.

Instead, he granted her immunity for any documents he found on her system.

And what was on her system? Classified documents which are illegal for any non-authorized person to have copies of.

Instead of prosecuting her, he made the problem go away by fixing her up with immunity for the very crime she was red-handedly guilty of.

Well, Bill didn't seem to think she was in the sewer!

Ann Althouse is always saving us from having to read the New York Times or watch the Sunday "news" shows. Today it it the latter:
Flowers in the sewer — the misogyny of the disgust for Bill Clinton's lover.
On "Meet the Press" today, Chuck Todd was interviewing Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta:
CHUCK TODD: Is your goal of this debate is to get under his skin? Is that why you gave Mark Cuban a ticket right in the front row?

JOHN PODESTA: No, I think Mark Cuban is one of the business leaders who was never involved in partisan politics who's endorsed Hillary because he thinks she'll do better for the-- for the economy. I think that, you know, you saw his reaction, which is to do his favorite sport, which is to dive in the sewer and go for a swim.

Trump's reaction, you remember, was "Perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!" Now, I have a feminist problem with Trump's remark, one that I haven't seen anyone else notice, and that is the idea that he can "put" the woman where he likes. Flowers is a person, not an object — like a vase of flowers — but Flowers has already responded positively to the notion of getting placed in front of Hillary.*

So let me move on to the feminist problem I have with what Podesta said. He says the name, Mark Cuban, and vaunts him as a business leader who is above politics, but he won't say the name of the woman and he speaks of her as a creature of the sewer.

Todd pushes him: "You said-- you referred to diving into the sewer, so you believe that inviting Gennifer Flowers is diving into the sewer?" And Podesta has the smarts to resist further disrespecting the woman. But later, there's a panel, and one of the participants is Stephanie Cutter (who was Obama's deputy campaign manager in 2012 and who helped John Kerry prepare for debates in 2004). Todd asks her about "the idea of gamesmanship, which is the Clinton Campaign deciding to put Mark Cuban in the front row," and the response had me shouting at the TV:
STEPHANIE CUTTER: ... What Clinton and Trump are doing are trying to throw each other off their game. The difference is Hillary Clinton is doing it with a legitimate businessman, also, a celebrity. And as John Podesta put it earlier on your show, Trump is just jumping right down in the sewer and swimming in it by inviting Gennifer Flowers.
The man is "legitimate," and the woman is a "sewer."

Chuck Todd turned to another panelist, Steve Schmidt (a senior adviser to John McCain in 2008).
STEVE SCHMIDT: [The tactic of inviting Cuban] was clearly designed to provoke Donald Trump and it provoked Donald Trump, it provoked Donald Trump into going down the Gennifer Flowers rabbit hole....
The Gennifer Flowers rabbit hole?! Don't call a woman a "hole." Don't speak of a human being as a lower animal, a rodent. Whatever these people want to say about Trump, they should say it about Trump, but they instinctively jumped to express disgust toward the woman — who's really just a bystander to the pre-debate mind-games. Is this misogyny? The argument that it is not depends on the idea that the disgust is with sexuality — what happens when the man and the woman — Bill and Gennifer — get together and not with the woman herself. But the instinct — in both Podesta and Cutter — was to take the man out of the picture. Bill, like Mark Cuban, is legitimate. That horrible woman over there should be treated as a nonentity — down in a hole, there in the excrement, a rodent, a filthy pest. Anyone who would name her or treat her with equal dignity has himself fallen down into the sewer with her — "swimming in it," swimming in shit.

Being on the side of the female candidate does not absolve you of misogyny. It blinds you to it.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Cover up

At the Power Line blog John Hinderaker asks, How's the cover up going, Hillary?

The great Arnold Palmer dies

Arnold Palmer died today. I agree with this paragraph in the New York times by Dave Anderson:
But it was more than his scoring and shotmaking that captivated the sports world. It was how he played. He did not so much navigate a course as attack it. If his swing was not classic, it was ferocious: He seemed to throw all 185 pounds of his muscular 5-foot-10 body at the ball. If he did not win, he at least lost with flair.



Handsome and charming, his sandy hair falling across his forehead, his shirttail flapping, a cigarette sometimes dangling from his lips, Palmer would stride down a fairway acknowledging his “army” of fans with a sunny smile and a raised club, “like Sir Lancelot amid the multitude in Camelot,” Ira Berkow wrote in The New York Times.

And the television cameras followed along. As Woods would do more than 30 years later, Palmer, a son of a golf pro at Latrobe Country Club in the steel town of Latrobe, Pa., almost single-handedly stimulated TV coverage of golf, widening the game’s popularity among a postwar generation of World War II veterans enjoying economic boom times and a sprawling green suburbia.

...Hitching up his pants as he marched down the fairways or before lining up a crucial putt, Palmer put the word “charge” into golf’s vocabulary in 1960. In the final round of that year’s Masters, he birdied the 17th and 18th holes to win by one stroke. Two months later, in the United States Open at Cherry Hills, near Denver, he shot a final-round 65 to win by two over Nicklaus.

I was following him very closely, just a few yards behind him in Fort Worth when he did this:
If he hit a wayward tee shot to an awkward spot, he usually went for the green, rather than chip the ball safely back to the fairway as other golfers would have done.

Yes, I was a member of "Arnie's Army."
“I feel the strength of the gallery, especially on a critical shot,” he said in his prime. “Silence is louder than any noise on a golf course — the deathly silence that I sometimes feel and hear when I’m out there. That will tell you how powerful the galleries really are. They have an appreciation of what you’re going through, of what’s happening, and they understand.”
Read more here, even if it is the New York Times.

Should Trump or Hillary be allowed to wear ear mics tomorrow?

Will Hillary be allowed to wear an ear mic tomorrow night to get coaching from her team? Moderaters will not be allowed to wear mics. How about the debaters?
Read more here.

Farm update

The baby goat is doing fine. Six of the eight puppies have been sold. The chickens will be ready for your table this weekend. The horses get to stay here. The sunsets are prettiest when there are rain clouds.



Washington mall shooter a Muslim, Hillary supporter, in mental health counseling

The Washington mall killer was a Muslim, a Hillary supporter and was in mental health counseling. How will the media report it?
Read more here.

Pence: Jennifer Flowers will not be attending the debate

Mike Pence said today on Fox News Sunday that Jennifer Flowers will not be attending the debate tomorrow night. Read more here.

No Comparison

Bookworm writes today,
We know with certain that President Hillary Clinton will:

Turn the Supreme Court into an activist, hard-Left engine of permanent change;

Narrow the First Amendment to the point of meaninglessness, giving government the final say over who gets free speech (and you can see what this will look like by visiting any college or university in America except for Hillsdale);

Narrow the Second Amendment to the point of meaninglessness, giving government the absolute right to seize all privately held arms;

Grant full amnesty and voting rights to all the illegal aliens already in America;
Abandon any effort at controlling our Southern border;

Continue to turn the American military into a vast social justice and climate change experiment;
Continue to destroy the American economy by (a) funding crony-style climate change initiatives and (b) making it impossible for ordinary Americans to get affordable energy from clean coal, oil, and natural gas;

Raise taxes to pay for her war against the climate;

Deny the existence of Islamic fundamentalism, something exceptionally cruel, not only to non-Muslims killed by Islamists, but to those peaceful Muslims who need someone to partner with them to help bring about an Islamic reformation;

Cultivate her close ties with rich, radical Islamists, aided by Huma Abedin (scion of the Muslim Brotherhood) and by all of her other long-standing Islamic funders;

Turn her back on Israel, a nation she’s always approached with hostility, abandoning it to the Islamic/Arab savagery that surrounds it;

Destroy the last remnants of a free market in America by tightening her cronyist connection to Wall Street and her regulatory control over businesses and individuals;

Be exceptionally vulnerable to blackmail from all those nations that are sitting on her emails, both the 30,000 she destroyed, as well as the ones already in FBI hands;

and
Continue to divide America by focusing on victim groups in order to retain those groups’ fealty to the Democrat party (as we’ve seen with her recent pandering to the Black Lives Matter movement).
What about Trump?
Donald has promised that he will:

Appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court;

Look to conservatives for advice about his executive management;

Control our out-of-control bureaucracy (and his management experience indicates that he can do this);

Reinstate enforcement of America’s existing immigration laws and border policies;

Maintain Americans’ right to keep and bear arms;

Maintain Americans’ right to free speech;

Continue to chip away at the mind-control that is political correctness;

Stand by Israel;

Acknowledge that we are at war with radical Islam and turn to the best minds to help us wage that war successfully;

and
Speak to all Americans, not just special-interest groups.

Trump will be an imperfect president, but all presidents are imperfect. Even Ronald Reagan, in his heyday, did stupid things or things that his supporters disliked. It is inconceivable, though, that Trump could ever be as destructive as Hillary most certainly will be.

The persuader: pacing and leading

Scott Adams on Trump:
Trump “paces” the public – meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to “lead,” which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That’s how I see him.
Read more here.

Ignore it!

Oregon Muse quotes John Kerry's recent remarks about media coverage of terrorism:
..But if you decide one day you're going to be a terrorist and you're willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn't cover it quite as much. People wouldn't know what's going on.

To which Oregon Muse responds:
I suspect that what Kerry chiefly wants ignored is stuff (like ISIS attacks) that reveals the magnitude of his failures, both his and those of his boss.

Harmonious? Peaceful? Who are you kidding?

Demonic Possession, or Natural Depravity?

At The American Spectator Esther Goldberg tries to figure out whether Hillary has Demonic Possession or Natural Depravity?

Al Gore selected, instead of her!



h/t American Digest

Quick thinking


Jed Gradisen, 13, is lucky to escape with his life after a huge DOLPHIN takes a flying leap and lands on top of him as he catches a wave, spearing its nose through his board Gradisen, 13, was surfing near the WA town of Kalbarri. A dolphin launched itself out of the water and landed on his surfboard. The huge mammal speared its nose clean through his board. Gradisen had just enough time to jump clear before impact

== | Daily Mail Online

h/t Gerard Vanderleun

What to do when your home is invaded


Read more here.

h/t Ann Althouse

Don't forget Juanita

Kyle Olson reports in the American Mirror,
When Juanita Broaddrick heard Bill Clinton mistress Gennifer Flowers could be attending the first presidential debate as Donald Trump’s guest, she says that might be an opportunity she would welcome, too.

Juanita Broaddrick“Sure I would like to be at such an epic event just to look Hillary in the face,” Broaddrick exclusively tells The American Mirror.

When asked what she would say to Clinton, Broaddrick responded, “Remember me? I’m the one your husband raped and you threatened. I’m still here telling the truth and you are a liar.”

Broaddrick says then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978 while he was campaigning for governor.

She claims after the incident, Hillary confronted her and grabbed her arm in an attempt to silence her.



While having Bill Clinton’s mistresses and alleged victims at a presidential debate would no doubt be controversial and risky for Trump, Broaddrick believes it would accomplish a serious mission.

“To remind everyone who supports her that she covered up and attacked so many women her husband sexually abused and had affairs with,” she says of what it would mean.

“She did it all for power and money. She is not for women’s rights when it comes to Bill Clinton’s victims,” Broaddrick tells The American Mirror.

h/t Ann Althouse

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The “Church of Global Warming”

Andy May writes at Watts Up With That,
Environmentalists are horrible at predictions. We haven’t run out of oil, millions haven’t starved due to overpopulation, half of all species have not gone extinct, temperatures have not risen in over 18 years, total Antarctic ice and sea ice are increasing and on and on. But, it’s a religion, facts don’t matter. The bearded idiot on the street doesn’t put down his “end of the world is near” sign just because we pass the date he predicted we would all die. He just changes the date of destruction and carries on.

...As Dr. Crichton explains, DDT is not a carcinogen, it did not cause birds to die and the people who banned it knew these facts. But, they banned it anyway and as a result tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, died. This was because of religion, not science.

...The “Church of Global Warming” is probably the worst sect. The world has warmed from 288 Kelvin to 288.8 Kelvin in the last 135 years and not at all since 2002 according to the UAH satellite data. This is insignificant and very normal variability. The world is greener, food crops better and larger than ever, fewer people are hungry or in poverty, life expectancy is longer than ever before, and we have more arable land. There is no evidence that global warming is either man-made or dangerous and there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is either the sole cause of the minor warming we have seen or the dominant cause. We can show it is a greenhouse gas like water vapor, but that is about it.

We must get the religion out of environmentalism. We must get it back on a scientific basis. Too many organizations are simply lying, pure and simple. It started with DDT and has only gotten worse since. Science, especially environmental science, is becoming more and more politicized and this could have disastrous consequences.
Read more here.

"The elites promote policies that they themselves do not live by."

Victor Davis Hanson writes,
The United States and Europe are seeing a surge in populist anger toward the so-called elites. The German public, for example, is furious at Chancellor Angela Merkel for her position on immigration from the Middle East. British voters have forsaken the postmodern European Union. And working class Americans have rallied around political outsider Donald Trump as their presidential favorite, something that neither the Clinton machine nor the establishment of the Republican Party anticipated.

But who exactly are these unpopular elites—and what exactly have they done that has enraged middle-class voters in Western democracies?

...Today, people are especially mad at political elites, a loose term for those who govern at the state and federal level. They include not just our elected legislators, governors, and President, but also the unelected (and unaccountable) members of the vast government archipelago—cabinet officers, bureaucratic grandees, top military officers, and regulators. Beyond these politicos, the Western elite is comprised, too, of the transnational mega-wealthy, who have been enriched by globalization, especially international finance, investments, and technologies that lubricate worldwide dissemination of capital and communications.

An elite is also defined by education (preferably Ivy League and its coastal counterparts), residence (primarily between Boston and Washington on the East Coast, and from San Diego to Berkeley on the Pacific), profession (executive positions in government, media, law, foundations, the arts, and academia), celebrity (name recognition from television, Hollywood, network news, finance, etc.), and ideology, such as those prominent in the progressive movement. To receive a glimpse of our next generation of elites, read the betrothal notices in The New York Times, look at the interns at Goldman Sachs, and consider the junior faculty at Harvard.

These select few define our culture, educate young adults on college campuses, run governments, make most economic and foreign policy, entertain America, and dispense the news. And the public is angry at them for a variety of reasons.

First, the elites seem to the middle classes to be out of touch and incompetent. Their sterling degrees and titles, voters increasingly think, do not reflect the quality of their minds or the depth of their educations, but have become status markers separating “them” from everyone else. On top of that, these elites sometimes utter silly things, like that there are 57 states, that soldiers are “corps-men,” and that ISIS is a “jayvee organization.” The ruling class is not like those who once built the Hoover Dam, triumphed at the Battle of Midway, or built the interstate freeway system. Instead, the Wall Street implosion of 2008, the negotiations over the Iran deal, California’s stalled high-speed rail project, the Affordable Care Act meltdown, and the doubling of the national debt in eight years reflect either inexperience and ignorance or perhaps indifference and callousness.

The immigration pushback was directed at the managerial class that allowed millions into the West without rudimentary vetting—the work of bunglers and ideologues, not true technocrats. Americans increasingly pass on going to the movies, a genre that has devolved either into tired pyrotechnics, pale remakes of prior classics, or psychodramas about the evils of corporations, the military, or the CIA. It is now expected that a New York Times article will be followed soon by corrections acknowledging basic mistakes of fact and sourcing.

Second, public furor arises over elite sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy. Progressive elites are shielded from the ramifications of their own ideologies. Open borders advocates like former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, for example, condemn walls and fences as backward and inhumane—and then ensure that their own residences are quite well fenced and protected from hoi polloi.

Al Gore is a progressive green prophet—but sold his bankrupt cable channel for millions of dollars to Al Jazeera, a company that is fueled by carbon-exporting, monarchical, and largely anti-Semitic Qatar. John Kerry is a big-tax, big-government aficionado—except when it is a question of avoiding taxes on his multimillion-dollar yacht by moving it from high-tax Massachusetts to a cheaper berth in low-tax Rhode Island.

The hypocrisy does not end there. Jet travel is supposedly the worse example of an outsized carbon footprint—except for environmentalists like Leonardo DiCaprio or Bono. Academics decry wage imbalances among Wal-Mart employees, but remain silent about the far greater pay inequity on campus, where graduate students and part-time lecturers often make less than half as much as full-time faculty for teaching identical classes. Environmental elites in San Francisco demand that river water be diverted from agriculture to the sea to nourish delta baitfish—but they would not sacrifice a drop of their own claims on precious Sierra Nevada water. Again and again, the elites promote policies that they themselves do not live by.

Third, voters are tired of the condescension of the elites who castigate the backwardness of the non-elite. Such disdain focuses especially on the middle classes, who lack both the vulnerability of the truly impoverished and, supposedly, the culture and tastes of the higher classes. Out of work miners do not enjoy “white privilege”; those on Ivy League campuses who mouth such platitudes usually do—and then exercise it by living and schooling their children apart from the romanticized “other.” In emulation of medieval penance, the more one expresses pique at the perceived sins of someone deemed inferior, the more he is seen as virtuous—and exempt from social censure.

A perfect example of such disdain was Barack Obama’s 2008 rant about the working classes of Pennsylvania who failed him in the primary: “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

When the future of Iraq hung in the balance, then Senator and subsequent Secretary of State John Kerry made similarly snobbish remarks. He warned students, “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” A year after Kerry’s putdown, largely working-class soldiers and officers won the peace in Iraq through their courage and expertise during the Surge of 2007-08.

...Fourth and last, the people feel that elites do not follow the laws. Sanctuary cities nullify federal immigration law—and yet if other less liberal cities were to follow such a Confederate precedent and declare federal handgun registration or protected species legislation null and void in their jurisdictions they would be castigated as insurrectionists.

The Clintons are the epitome of the rules not applying to ruling class. Hillary once rigged a cattle futures investment of $1,000 into a $100,000 profit at 34-trillion-to-1 odds and without consequences—and then added insult to injury by initially not paying taxes on her profits. As Secretary of State, she violated dozens of national security protocols, something that would earn other government employees either jail time or a pink slip. Bill, for his part, has become the highest paid “chancellor” in higher education history, earning nearly $17 million over five years by trading on the influence of his Secretary of State spouse—quite aside from plane rides he took aboard the “Lolita express” that would have earned others the charge of misogyny at the very least.
Read more here.

Hillary: "Stop fossil fuels!"

M.D. Kittle writes at Watchdog.org,
MADISON, Wis. – Hillary Clinton has pledged to “stop fossil fuels.”

The Democratic presidential nominee vows to destroy fracking.

“By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” Clinton said during a debate in March.

She and her allies in the extreme environmental movement – big liberal donors like billionaire climate change fanatic Tom Steyer – have pushed for anti-fossil fuel policies that would have cost millions of jobs and crippled the economy.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “What If…” report found that, without the energy renaissance, America would not have created some 4.3 million jobs over the past seven-plus years and would not have realized an estimated $548 billion in annual gross domestic product. Electricity prices would have been 31 percent higher, and gas prices would have been 43 percent higher without the growth and development of domestic oil and natural gas production, according to the analysis.

The report took a closer look at the energy boom’s impact on four states – Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. It found these states would have lost a combined 950,000 jobs without the expansion.

Then there is the question of national security. U.S. import levels for oil and gas have fallen by 62 percent and 73 percent, respectively. A decade ago, 60 percent of oil consumed in the United States came from foreign sources, many of those places hostile to America. Today, the U.S. imports just 24 percent of its overall consumption. Natural gas import levels have dropped from 16 percent to 3 percent over the same period.
Read more here.

They didn't even check fingerprints!

Stephen Dinan reports in the Washington Times,
They should have been deported, but hundreds of illegal immigrants from dangerous countries were instead granted citizenship by Homeland Security because officials never checked their fingerprints to find out their real identities, the department’s inspector general said in a staggering report Monday.
Read more here.

Trump up in Florida early voting

The Fire Andrea Mitchell blog reports,
Florida is a must win state for Donald Trump. So far, in early voting things are looking good for Trump and the Republicans. over 120,000 more Republican ballots have been mailed back to the state, putting Hillary Clinton in early hole. As of now, 881,274 Republican ballots have been mailed in, while only 760,003 Democrat ballots have come in.

...Pinellas County, which has Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg and Clearwater is usually the most important county in Florida. As Pinellas goes, so goes Florida. Republican ballots lead Democrats 105,024 to 97,916.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Blake Neff reports for the Daily Caller,
President Barack Obama used a pseudonym when communicating with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by email, and at least one of those emails ended up on Clinton’s private email server, new FBI documents reveal.

...The FBI documents do not reveal what Obama’s pseudonym was, or what was in the text of the email. The subject, “Re: Congratulations,” combined with the date (June 28, 2012) suggests it may have been about the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare.

...The revelation raises questions about Obama’s claim that he knew nothing about Clinton’s private email server. When news of the server started to emerge in 2015, Obama said he learned about it by watching the news just like everybody else did. Obama has never denied knowing Clinton’s email address, though since it used the domain “clintonemail.com,” that would be a giveaway to an observant person that Hillary was using a non-government email.
Read more here.


The admission of refugees and migrants from Syria and other terrorist infested countries should be suspended.

Joseph Klein writes in Front Page Magazine,
according to a report released on September 19th by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general, hundreds of immigrants were improperly granted citizenship despite missing fingerprint records. They were from "special interest countries" – countries of particular concern for national security reasons.

...Until we have a foolproof vetting system in place that keeps out self-identified refugees who have shown any signs of jihadist tendencies, the admission of refugees and migrants from Syria and other terrorist infested countries should be suspended.
Read more here.

Shell game

Investors Business Daily writes,
When Wisconsin was on the cusp of passing its right-to-work law last year, Gov. Scott Walker said that “This isn’t anti-union. It restores worker rights and brings jobs back to Wisconsin.”

He’s right about that last part. Between 2004 and 2014, overall job growth in the U.S. was 6.1%. In states without right-to-work laws, it was a paltry 3.9%. But in right-to-work states, job growth over those years was 9.1%.

...The answer, of course, is that she and her fellow Democrats are beholden to unions for massive amounts of political donations, and so have no other choice but to toe the union line. Plus, the more people Democrats can force to pay union dues, the more money will end up in their campaign coffers. In other words, what Clinton and her union backers want is the right to rip off workers to get more Democrats elected.
Read more here.

Preserve internet freedom!

Frank Gaffney writes at The Center for Security Policy,
Keep the Internet Free!
Hello people! This is a wake-up call. It is not everyday that you can make a real difference in the national security and your personal freedom. This is one of those days.

A week from tomorrow, unless Congress acts NOW, President Obama will take one of the most profound – and irreversible – of all his measures intended to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

America created the Internet and has kept it free ever since. Obama wants to turn over its functional control to so-called “international stakeholders” which, in practice, means Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Once enemies of freedom control the Internet, it will cease to be the engine for the exchange of information and innovation we have helped it become. And we will never get it back.

Please, tell your Senators and Representative: Keep the Internet Free. Do it today.

Obama protects America's enemies, as did Bush.

Paul Sperry wrote in the New York Post,
Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post:
Now we know why the missing 28 pages on 9/11 were kept under lock and key for 15 years: They show the hijackers got help across America from Saudi diplomats and spies in the run-up to the attacks. Because of the coverup, a Saudi terror support network may still be in place inside the United States.

A CIA memorandum dated July 2, 2002, stated unequivocally that the connections found between the hijackers, the Saudi embassy in Washington and Saudi consulate in Los Angeles are “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government.”

“Numerous” FBI files also fingered two Saudi government employees who assisted the 9/11 hijackers as “Saudi intelligence officers,” the newly declassified documents reveal.

Though much is still redacted, they also show the Saudi government’s ties to the hijackers and other al Qaeda suspects were so extensive that the FBI’s Washington field office created a special squad to investigate the Saudi angle.

But this special focus on Saudi Arabia occurred belatedly, only after the 9/11 attacks, “due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’ ” Astoundingly, investigative resources were not dedicated to Saudi involvement in financing and supporting terrorism prior to 9/11.

The explosive information was locked up in a top-secret, highly secured room in the basement of the US Capitol for the past 15 years, ostensibly to protect the Kingdom from embarrassment. (The Post helped get the declassification ball rolling with the December 2013 piece, “Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup.”)
Of course, this week Obama vetoed a bill that would have allowed 9-11 victim's families

Murder at the border

Breitbart reports,
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, Coahuila — Authorities continue to investigate why a group of gunmen executed a young couple on the banks of the Rio Grande River and set their vehicle on fire.
Coahuila state investigators recently responded to the banks of the Rio Grande River near the Santa Maria neighborhood where they found a late model Jeep Commander fully engulfed in flames. Neighbors had called authorities after spotting the vehicle on fire.
Read more here.

Jennifer and Mark will be there.

Mark Cuban boastfully tweeted that he would be in a front row seat during Monday night's debate, rooting for Hillary. Donald trump responded by tweeting that perhaps he should invite one of Bill Clinton's former mistresses to sit in the front row. Jennifer Flowers accepted the invitation!

Welcome aboard Randy and Tom!

Welcome guys! It is good to have Randy Corporan and Tom Tancredo aboard the Trump train. Read them here.

Character mattered



h/t Bookworm

Trump has fans who believe in hope; Hillary has fans who hate Trump

Quixotic, a commenter at the Chateau Heartiste blog, writes,
Trump is just a symbol; he represents hope to us. The hope that we can imagine and create a world of beauty and truth in our minds and make it real in meat world. Trump doesn’t need shills because he has fans who believe in HOPE. Hillary has fans who hate trump. Hillary has fans who know she is corrupt, crooked, rigged the primaries, did all kind of shady shit with classified emails, has a secret illness and they STILL will vote for her out of spite for trump…not out of love for her.
Read more here.

Last night's mall shootings

The terror continues now almost daily.
Five people were fatally shot at a shopping mall in Burlington, Washington. The killer left the scene, and has not yet been found.

The shooting happened in the cosmetics area of a Macy’s department store at the Cascade Mall. A state patrol sergeant, Mark Francis, told reporters that four women died at the scene, and later tweeted that a fifth victim, a man, had died from his injuries in a local hospital.
Read more here.

Cruz endorses Trump

Ted Cruz endorsed Donald Trump Friday evening on Facebook. Russell Berman reports in The Atlantic,
The Texas senator announced his support for the Republican nominee late Friday afternoon in a Facebook post, writing that the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency was “wholly unacceptable” and that he was keeping his year-old commitment to back the party’s choice. Cruz listed six policy-focused reasons why he was backing Trump, beginning with the importance of appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court and citing Trump’s recently expanded list of potential nominees. Other reasons included Obamacare—which Trump has vowed to repeal—immigration, national security, and Trump’s newfound support for Cruz’s push against an Obama administration move to relinquish U.S. oversight of an internet master directory of web addresses.
Read more here.

The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

Salena Zito writes in The Atlantic,
Out of view of the press, Trump warmly greets everyone he sees, asks how they are, and, when he can, asks for their names and what they do.

“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”

Just before he takes the stage, I ask whether there’s one question that reporters never ask but that he wishes they would. He laughs. “Honestly, at this stage, I think they’ve asked them all.”

Then he stops in his tracks before pulling back the curtain and answers, so quietly that is almost a whisper: “You know, I consider myself to be a nice person. And I am not sure they ever like to talk about that.”

On stage, Trump began by addressing the unrest in Charlotte. He praised police, condemned “violent protestors,” and called for unity. “The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots are law-abiding African American residents who live in these communities,” he said.
Trump
Turning to the subject at hand, Trump proceeded to tell shale-industry executives from around the country about his “America First energy plan” that, he vowed, would sideline the Obama administration’s climate-change blueprint, ease regulations, and support the construction of energy-based infrastructure such as oil and gas pipelines.

The plan, he insisted, would revive the slumping shale-oil and -gas industries, beset by low prices for several years, and “unleash massive wealth for American workers and families.”
Read more here.

Another Friday evening document dump

An employee of Platte River Networks referred to "the Hilary (Hillary) cover up" in an email dated December 2014. He told the FBI it was just a joke.
Read more here.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Drains the government, depresses wages

Stephen Dinan reports at the Washington Times,
Immigration drains the government, sapping as much as $296 billion a year from federal, state and local taxpayers while depressing wages, at least in the short run, according to an authoritative study released Wednesday by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.
Read more here.

Feminist: childbirths biggest cause of global warming

Claire Chretien reports at Life Site News,
Gloria Steinem helped Planned Parenthood launch a $12 million fundraising campaign last week by saying “nothing is more important” than expanding abortion and “forced childbirth is the single biggest cause of global warming.”

Comparing GDPs

Mark Perry writes at AEI,
As I’ve reported many times before, it’s difficult to easily comprehend the enormous size of America’s $18 trillion ($18,000,000,000,000) economy. Here’s one more way to help us understand how big the US economy really is, by comparing the GDP of US states like California, and of six groups of US states to the GDPs of entire countries, which are all among the world’s 15 largest economies.

Read more here.

Really?

Smoking Gun in Clinton email scandal

Do we have a smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email scandal? The Daily Caller:
The posts prove intent to obstruct the production of evidence to Congress, either through deception or deletion, and that these events took place after the evidence was requested. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to act this way if the emails merely contained information about yoga poses and wedding invitations.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/how-reddit-ruined-the-hillary-clinton-campaign/#ixzz4L8IskDRo

Funny or Die

"I'd love to meet the person who makes your pantsuits." "Oh, Really?" "Yeah, because for Halloween I wanted to go as a librarian from outer space."

"This has bee a lot of fun, Mrs. Clinton. We should stay in touch. What's the best way to reach, email?"

Extremely unlikely confluence of events

Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Indivual Rights in Education (FIRE) weighs in on the "investigation of Glenn Reynolds' tweet.To find Glenn's speech unprotected,
one must also believe:

that drivers on the affected area of I-277 in Charlotte were reading Twitter while driving;
that they were followers of the @Instapundit account;
that they saw the tweet itself; and
that Reynolds had a substantial enough level of control or influence over those drivers that they would be likely to immediately follow his advocacy.
This confluence of events seems—to put it mildly—extremely unlikely.
Read more here.

Corruption in the Palace of Justice

The plot sickens, as they say. Who ordered Combetta to do the bleaching? Doesn't the public have a right to know? Isn't it time for the FBI -- or some decent agent or agents -- to fess up to save the rapidly declining reputation of their organization? That the Bureau has been under attack of late for failure to identify terrorists because of overweening political correctness has only exacerbated the public perception that all is far from well in the J. Edgar Hoover Building.

...This amounts to what the great Italian playwright Ugo Betti referred to as Corruption in the Palace of Justice. Besides being totalitarian in essence, the obfuscatory policies of Lynch and Comey have made certain that Hillary Clinton, should she win the presidency, will never have anything close to the consent of the governed. She will never be reliably cleared and an extremely high percentage of the public will never believe her -- and will be correct in doing so.

We live under a dictatorship of the moral narcissist bourgeoisie. They think they know more than we do and can do anything they wish. Actually, they know little and could care less. All they want is power and will cling to at it any cost, even the truth and basic morality. And we are their victims.
Read more here.

Army of Davids, front and center!

Here is the email and phone number of the Chancellor of the University of Tennessee. Let him know there is an Army of Davids out there who support Glenn Reynolds.

Support Glenn Reynolds!

Sure enough, Glenn Reynolds is being "investigated" by the University of Tennessee. I liked this commenter's suggestion,
Here's a thought: Put the Dean and those "concerned" in a university minivan and send them to investigate by driving around the more riotous parts of Charlotte. I'll be interested in what they have to say when they get back. Assuming they survive, of course.

Another commenter:
If the university is truly against violence and comments that might lead to violence, I expect they will be condemning the "protesters" any moment now, right? I mean, a crowd of angry people chanting "no justice, no peace" seems a bit more likely to lead to violence than a tweet, wouldn't you think?

What are they afraid of?

writes in PJ Media,
WASHINGTON — Families of the victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack along with supporters of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) came to the White House on Tuesday to protest President Obama’s threat to veto the legislation.

If signed into law, the JASTA bill would allow U.S. courts to rule on cases that deal with claims against a foreign state for “injuries, death, or damages” that happen within the U.S. from terrorism that is carried out by a foreign state or foreign official.

After the release of the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 commission report, families of 9/11 victims argued that the bill would bring them justice because they could sue Saudi Arabia for alleged involvement in the attacks.

Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

...Bruce Todd, who attended the protest, criticized Obama for not supporting the bill.

“I think [Obama] does not have an ounce of humanity in him. He certainly does not deserve to be the president of a country that stands for the idea of justice and a Constitution,” he said.
Read more here.

Unmerited grace

David Goldman
What is the difference between Christianity and Judaism? It isn’t love versus law, or works versus faith; those are canards. It isn’t Incarnation as such; my late teacher Michael Wyschogrod showed that Incarnation is a Jewish idea, specifically that God’s presence (Shekhinah) dwells in the flesh and blood of the people Israel (Christians, he quipped, concentrate that into one single Jew). It isn’t even the different persons of God in the Trinity. Judaism teaches different attributes of God, particularly the Attribute of Justice and the Attribute of Mercy, although we do not of course regard them as different “persons.”

The great gulf fixed between Jews and Christians is the notion of unmerited grace. Unmerited grace is meaningless in the Jewish context. It isn’t that YHWH is a more demanding deity than Jesus of Nazareth. Jews are expected to be God’s partners, and Imitatio Dei for Jews means participating in the continuing work of creation. We do not wait for the Kingdom of Heaven; we build heaven into the minutia of daily life. Performance of the mitzvoth (commandments) is not a means to accumulate sufficient points to win a place in heaven; it is the construction of heaven on earth. The Sabbath is a foretaste of the World to Come, a portion of eternity separated from quotidian time.
Read the rest of "Spengler's" letter to Andrew Klavan here.

Andrew Klavan's response is here.
One excerpt:
Among the obstacles to my baptism was my deep desire never to seem to have denied my Jewish heritage. In truth, I never knew myself as a Jew at all until I knew myself in Christ. I know why that offends some Jewish people, but it shouldn't. At his call, I turned toward Christ. I never turned away from His brother and sister Jews, and never will.

"Handing out immunity deals like candy" “No wonder they couldn't prosecute a case.”

Debra Heine reports at PJ Media,
A top Hillary Clinton aide and two other staff members were granted immunity deals in exchange for their cooperation in the now-closed FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) told the Associated Press on Friday.

Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that Clinton's former chief of staff and counselor Cheryl Mills gave federal investigators access to her laptop only on the condition that the findings couldn't be used against her.

"This is beyond explanation,” the exasperated congressman said in a statement. “The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy. I've lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI.”

Chaffetz told the AP, “No wonder they couldn't prosecute a case.”

Superbugs

Sabrina Tavernise reportss in the New York Times,
World leaders agreed Wednesday on steps to curb the rapid rise of drug resistance, the first global effort to stop the spread of dangerous superbugs that are fast becoming immune to many of the most critical medicines.

Infectious disease doctors have long warned that overuse of antibiotics in people and in animals puts human health at risk by reducing the power of the drugs, some of modern medicine’s most prized jewels. The problem is global, because the bugs are mobile. Overuse in pig production in China, for example, has spawned superbugs that have surfaced in the United States and Europe.

The numbers are sobering. Jim O’Neil, chairman of the British review on antimicrobial resistance, estimates that 700,000 people a year die from drug-resistant infections. In the United States, about two million people fall ill from drug-resistant bacteria every year and at least 23,000 die from those infections.
Read more here.

Why do you get out of bed?

Ann Voskamp writes at A Holy Experience,
What you are in love with decides what you live for.

Sacrifice will always leave you the most satisfied.

Fall in love, stay in love, stay sacrificing, and you live the most satisfied.

What you are in love with in life —- decides everything about your life.

Love decides everything.
Read more here.

Not impeached; he should be imprisoned.

On day 1232 of the IRS scandal, Paul Caron reminds us
When the feds couldn’t make ordinary criminal charges stick to the organized-crime syndicate that turned 1920s Chicago into a free-fire zone, they went after the boss, Al Capone, on tax charges. Under Barack Obama, the weaponized IRS has been transformed into a crime syndicate far worse than anything dreamt of by pinstriped Model-T gangsters — because Al Capone and Meyer Lansky did not have the full force of the federal government behind them.

Caron does not believe IRS Commissioner Koskinen should be impeached. He believes he should be imprisoned.
Read more here.

No room for moderates

Michael Barone writes in the Washington Examiner,
Two decades ago, lots of self-described moderates and even conservatives voted in Democratic primaries. Not so these days. The slump in Democratic primary and caucus turnout, from 38 million in 2008 to 31 million in 2016, was due to a sharp decline in turnout by self-described moderates.

Hillary Clinton's move from her husband's 1990s triangulation to her near-total acceptance this year of Bernie Sanders's left-wing platform was a rational response to changes in the Democratic primary electorate.

Likeability

Roger L. Simon writes at PJ Media,
I know it sounds crazy to say in a presidential year when the two candidates are supposedly the two most reviled in modern history that one of them is going to win -- I think going away -- because he's vastly more likable, but it's true.

And I say this not just because Donald Trump's rallies are better attended than Hillary Clinton's by a factor somewhere in the vicinity of 5000%. (No exaggeration. Donald routinely draws 10,000 people. A recent Hillary appearance at Temple University -- where she was supposed to make that final, serious pitch to nail down the votes of vacillating millennials -- attracted barely 200 out of a student body of 37,000.)

In my 'hood in the mega-blue Hollywood Hills where Hillary is certain to win upwards of 97% of the vote, there is nary a Hillary-Kaine yard sign to be seen, nor an "I'm With Her" bumper sticker blemishing a single newly minted Tesla. Four years ago the neighborhood was swarming with Obama signs and stickers. Nobody cares about Hillary. Everyone knows she's a sourpuss. Nobody wants to see her. They'll vote for her, if she'll only leave them alone. (Of course you won't find a Trump bumper sticker within miles of here. The few of us who support him don't want to get our cars keyed. And forget the yard signs. Staying on decent terms with your neighbors is a necessity in earthquake country.)

Possibly the most significant thing we're voting for in this contest is someone we want to hang with for the next four, possibly eight, years. Consciously or unconsciously, that is a heavy consideration for practically all of us when we walk into the voting booth. We want someone who will wear well.

...Now the conventional wisdom is that Hillary Clinton's "ground game" will overcome all of this. That's what they said about several people (Bush, Cruz) during the primary season. We know how that turned out.
Read more here.

Once a sociopath, always a sociopath

Is Hillary a sociopath? John Craig posted at Just Not Said
Dishonesty is one of the main hallmarks of sociopathy. Craig gives many examples of Hillary's dishonesty.

Craig summarizes each sociopathic trait and then gives examples of how Hillary exhibits those traits. I will just excerpt a few in this blog post.

Sociopaths always punch down, not up. And spewing bile at people whose job it is to protect and help you is a particularly low form of punching down.

Vindictiveness and spitefulness are two other sociopathic traits.

Being two-faced is another sociopathic trait:

As Kessler wrote, “When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously. As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.”

Hillary's corruption is probably best illustrated by the way she made herself available as Secretary of State to donors to the Clinton Foundation, which basically serves as a slush fund for the Clinton lifestyle. The list of corrupt transactions are detailed here, and have been extensively cited elsewhere as well.

We all like money. But once you've known a sociopath or two, you realize that sociopaths worship mammon in a way that normal people do not. They lust after money with an intensity that is hard to imagine. And they will do anything to acquire more of it. Anything. Even selling out their own country, in acts that are essentially treasonous.

Hillary's cupidity extended to whom she would take money from. Hillary lambastes any political opponent who isn't fully onboard with the LGBTQ agenda, or the feminist platform. Yet she accepts money via her foundation from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Morocco, Kuwait, Brunei, and Oman, all of which put severe restrictions on women and persecute gays.

The love of money fits with Hillary's writing off of Bill's used underwear for four dollars (and long johns for twelve dollars) each while First Lady of Arkansas. It fits with taking money for pro-business speeches from Goldman Sachs, the quintessential Wall Street firm, even though she claims to stand against big money. (Did Goldman really think her speeches were worth a quarter million dollars to hear, or might they have been paying for future access?)

Hypocrisy, another hallmark of sociopathy, is closely related to the inability to feel guilt, or shame. (It's a lot easier to be hypocritical when you're immune to embarrassment.)

Discrediting, smearing, and ruining lives. No one is better at these things than a sociopath. And running a war room to quell "bimbo eruptions" hardly fits with a statement that all rape victims "have the right to be heard" and "the right to be believed."

The list of Hillary's flip-flops is too long for this post; but they are all indicative of someone who will say anything to gain power. And a sociopath's lust for power is similar to their lust for money.

Sociopaths are also all about secretiveness and subterfuge. Hillary certainly showed these traits when she was in charge of that ill-fated attempt to reform the nation's health care system in 1993. And really, that is what her alternate email system was all about in the first place: keeping her Clinton Foundation transactions hidden from public view.

Sociopaths are grandiose: remember all that "two for the price of one" talk? Has there ever been another First Lady in history who saw herself as co-President?

Another sociopathic trait is an inability to love.

Another hallmark of sociopathy is lack of self-control. Hillary's explosive temper is a perfect example. Former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne wrote a book about what he saw in the White House during the 1990's. The NY Post reviewed it:

The book claims she repeatedly screamed obscenities at her husband, Secret Service personnel and White House staffers — all of whom lived in terror of her next tirade.

This behavior shows the complete lack of inhibition characteristic of a sociopath.

Another sociopathic trait is a complete unwillingness to accept blame. Hillary has always been willing to point to a "vast right wing conspiracy" or whatever other scapegoat she can think of to explain away her mistakes. Benghazi was the fault of an obscure internet video. More recently she blamed Colin Powell for her email troubles.

With Hillary, there's no one big revelation that reveals her character. It's just the constant drumbeat of lies, hypocrisy, greed, entitlement, anger, secretiveness, and shamelessness that make her what she is.

"I'm a Muslim. I prefer Sharia law."

Support for Sharia in the twin cities.

h/t National Review

Protest?

Tyler Durden writes at Zero Hedge,
Stealing and looting cash registers from local businesses is not a legitimate form of protest
A “protester” shooting another “protester” is not a legitimate form of protest.
Physically attacking reporters is not a legitimate form of protest.
Throwing rocks off bridges at passing vehicles full of families is not a legitimate form of protest
Beating up innocent people in parking lots because they’re white is not a legitimate form of protest.
Smashing up apartment windows where black people live to “protest” in favor of ‘Black Lives Matter’ is not a legitimate form of protest.
Trashing your own neighborhood is not a legitimate form of protest.
Looting the Charlotte Hornets team store so you can steal basketball merchandise is not a legitimate form of protest
Attempting to hijack cars and terrify their innocent occupants is not a legitimate form of protest.
Read more here.

"State-sponsored actor"

Nicole Perlroth writes at The New York Times,
SAN FRANCISCO — Yahoo announced on Thursday that the account information of at least 500 million users was stolen by hackers two years ago, in the biggest known intrusion of one company’s computer network.

In a statement, Yahoo said user information — including names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates, encrypted passwords and, in some cases, security questions — was compromised in 2014 by what it believed was a “state-sponsored actor.”

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Caption This

VtheK is famous for inviting readers to Caption This. For example,

1. Escalating their passive-aggressive hate-relationship, Hillary squeezes out a side fart.

Enjoy autumn!

Here's Vivaldi's version:

Advice for Trump

Pat Buchanan offers some good advie to Donald trump regarding Monday night's debate.
...Recall. Kennedy and Reagan, too, came into their debates with a crucial slice of the electorate undecided but ready to vote for them if each could relieve the voters’ anxieties about his being within reach of the button to launch a nuclear war.

Kennedy won the first debate, not because he offered more convincing arguments or more details on the issues, but because he appeared more lucid, likable and charismatic, more mature than folks had thought. And he seemed to point to a brighter, more challenging future for which the country was prepared after Ike.

After that first debate, Americans could see JFK sitting in the Oval Office.

Reagan won his debate with Carter because his sunny disposition and demeanor and his “There you go again!” airy dismissal of Carter’s nitpicking contradicted the malevolent media-created caricatures of the Gipper as a dangerous primitive or an amiable dunce.

Even George W. Bush, who, according to most judges, did not win a single debate against Al Gore or John Kerry, came off as a levelheaded fellow who was more relatable than the inventor of the Internet or the windsurfer of Cape Cod.

The winner of presidential debates is not the one who compiles the most debating points. It is the one whom the audience decides they like, and can be comfortable taking a chance on.

Trump has the same imperative and same opportunity as JFK and Reagan. For the anticipated audience, of Super Bowl size, will be there to see him, not her. He is the challenger who fills up the sports arenas with the tens and scores of thousands, not Hillary Clinton.

If she were debating John Kasich or Jeb Bush, neither the viewing audience nor the title-fight excitement of Monday night would be there. Specifically, what does Trump need to do? He needs to show that he can be presidential. He needs to speak with confidence, but not cockiness, and to deal with Clinton’s attacks directly, but with dignity and not disrespect. And humor always helps.

...But the country will accept her, if the only alternative is the Trump of the mainstream media’s portrayal. Hence, the strategy of the Democratic Party for the next seven weeks is obvious:

Trash Trump, take him down, make him intolerable, and we win.

No matter how she performs though, Donald Trump can win the debate, for he is the one over whom the question marks hang. But he is also the one who can dissipate and destroy them with a presidential performance.

In that sense, this debate and this election are Trump’s to win.
Read more here.

"Right to Work"

Bookworm goes on to pick up Hillary's criticisms of "Right to Work" states.
The strongest — and only growing — unions in America are government unions that have become money laundering schemes for the Democrat party.

Government workers, regardless of their political beliefs, are forced to join unions and pay union dues. The union then funnels the dues to Democrat politicians. Once elected, the politicians “negotiate” with union leaders to impose ever greater burdens on taxpayers in the form of wages and benefits far in excess of those obtainable on the free market. And of course, a portion of those artificially inflated wages then get funneled right back to the Democrat politicians.

At the end of the day, non-Democrat employees and all taxpayers are forced into funding the Democrat party. This explains Hillary’s frenzied fanaticism. It’s not about protecting the workers. It’s about protecting herself.
read more here.

Wishful thinking?

Bookworm wonders if Hillary's latest outburst ("Why aren't I 50 points ahead?") is similar to Howard Dean's campaign-ending outburst in Iowa in 2004.

Hillary knows that she was owed this election and she’s mad as Hell that she’s not getting it. She is an angry, self-entitled, and quite possibly unstable person — something entirely separate from the fact that she’s an utterly corrupt, dishonest, physically damaged old lady. At the Washington Free Beacon, Alyssa Canobbio picked up on Hillary’s ugly instability and produced an anger mashup:

What began as a moral force has become a moral farce

I agree. Get the US out of the UN!

An ignored campaign issue

Joel Kotkin writes,
In an election cycle full of spittle and bile, arguably the greatest issue --- the nature of governance and the role of citizens --- has been all but ignored. Neither candidate for president has much feel for the old American notion of dispersed power. Instead each has his or her own plans for ever greater centralization.

This profound disregard for the restraints of federalism comes at a time when our economy is undergoing profound centralization. Regulatory and monetary policy has benefited those with access to the most capital, making this economy more concentrated than at any time in recent history. This is particularly true in the information sector, which is now dominated by a handful of firms able to devour any competitor without fear of anti-trust objections from Washington.

This centralization is not occurring by popular demand. By a wide margin — 64 percent to 26 percent, according to a 2015 poll — Americans say they feel “more progress” comes from the local level than the federal level. Majorities of all political affiliations and all demographic groups hold this same opinion.

The preference for localism also extends to attitudes toward state governments, many of which have grown more powerful and intrusive in recent years. Seventy-two percent of Americans, according to Gallup, trust their local governments more than they do their state institutions; even in California, the mecca for ever-expanding government, large majorities favor transferring tax dollars from Sacramento to the localities.

...The federal government, a source of pride in the days of the New Deal, the Second World War, the Cold War and the civil rights struggle, is now regarded by half of all Americans, according to Gallup, as “an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.” In 2003 only 30 percent of Americans felt that way. A recent survey conducted by Chapman University found that more Americans now have a greater fear of their own government than they do of outside threats.

...President Obama has become one of the most prolific authors of executive power in U.S. history. Critically, this has occurred in a time of relative peace and no compelling national emergency.

We need to forge a new path that empowers the grassroots economy and polity, and respects the diversity of contemporary America. We can’t expect that this movement will draw much interest from Washington institutions, which gorge on centralization, but it could be propelled by local communities and people who still believe in the decentralized democracy envisioned by the Founders.
Read more here.

Where things stand at the moment: Nate Silver

Nate Silver writes at Five Thirty Eight,
Here at FiveThirtyEight, our favorite election-related chart is what we officially call the “winding path to 270 electoral votes” and unofficially call the snake. Designed by my colleague Aaron Bycoffe, it lines the states up from most favorable for Hillary Clinton (Hawaii, Maryland) to best for Donald Trump (Wyoming, Alabama) based on the projected margin of victory in each one. The snake is bisected by a line indicating 269 electoral votes: cross this line — meaning you get 270 electoral votes — and you win the election.
Right now, Clinton is over the line by exactly one state. As of this writing, that state — what we also call the tipping-point state — is New Hampshire. But a group of states are closely lumped together, and Pennsylvania, Colorado and Wisconsin have all taken their turn as the tipping-point state in recent weeks.

If she wins all those states and everything toward the blue end of the snake, Clinton would finish with 272 electoral votes, even assuming she loses the 2nd Congressional District of Maine. (Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes by congressional district.) That’s two more than she needs to win the election.

But in different ways, that both understates and overstates how precarious Clinton’s position is. It understates it because Clinton has no margin to spare. Clinton’s polling has been somewhere between middling and awful in most of the other swing states lately, and they all at least lean toward Trump at the moment, narrowly in some cases (such as Florida) and more clearly in others (such as Iowa). If Clinton loses any of the states on the blue side of the snake without picking anything up on the red side, she’ll be stuck on 269 electoral votes or fewer.

On the other hand, Clinton’s leads in the states she needs to win appear to be pretty solid. As of late Thursday afternoon, she’s ahead in our forecast by 3.1 percentage points in New Hampshire, and by slightly more than that in Colorado (3.3 points), Pennsylvania (3.4 points) and Michigan (also 3.4 points).

...State polling averages have been pretty good for the past few presidential elections, but “pretty good” still provides for plenty of times when they miss by 2 to 4 percentage points. If one of those misses is in Trump’s favor in Pennsylvania or New Hampshire or Colorado, especially if the race shifts a bit further to Trump overall, then Clinton will go from being in a pretty good Electoral College position to having a total mess on her hands.

...how safe can Clinton feel in Colorado given her poor polling in Nevada? Can she be entirely comfortable in New Hampshire given that Maine is surprisingly close? Does the sharp tilt toward Trump in Iowa tell us that Wisconsin or Minnesota have the potential to turn red?
Read more here.

Primal female desire

Today Chateau Heartiste examines the phenomena of female volunteers going into refugee camps in Calais, France to have sex with the refugees. The romantic settings look like this:

Contrast: There are White beta males at this very moment paying for dinners and nights out in glittering cities to impress unenthusiastic dates, while women make pilgrimages to the Calais Sex Camp to volunteer as eager holsters for penniless, smelly migrant meatsticks. The Crimson Pills don’t get harder to swallow than that.

Weak beta males have a studied aversion to placing any blame for women’s ill-conceived romantic choices on women themselves. To do so, in the beta male mind, would mean having their puritanical romantic idealism dashed against the rocks of the bitter reality of primal female desire.
Read more here.

Ritual self-abuse

Bookworm was also inspired by the Brangelina articles to write some thoughts about immigration.
When immigrants come, our officials and our dominant Leftist culture hasten to assure the new immigrants that they need not change one whit. Instead, America will not only bend and contort itself to conform to their norms and traditions, America will engage in ritual self-abnegation to apologize for all the horrible things it has done both at home and abroad. America, as Wayne and Garth would say, is not worthy. Those Americans engaged in this ritual self-abuse seem incapable of understanding that the primary reason immigrants come here is because their own culture failed them, whether economically, socially, or just in terms of keeping them safe.
Read more here.

Love is not enough

Today Bookworm has some thoughts on parenting.
Children thrive in a home in which, beginning as early as possible, they are instructed in the ways of the family. These are the families in which the parents say, “In our house, we don’t pee on the floor, throw food around, hit each other, torture animals, have screaming temper tantrums, etc. In our house we do speak politely to each other, clean up after ourselves, do well in school, treat people and animals with kindness, and so forth.” The kids, having crossed the border into the family, whether by birth or adoption, are expected to assimilate. The good parent encourages each child’s unique qualities but makes it clear that the children have to get with the family program.

What got her going on this subject were the many articles being written about the Brangelina split.
As the Brangelina experiment perfectly illustrates, when parents reject their children’s assimilation into family norms and, instead, allow the children to retain their own childish norms, you end up with a dysfunctional war zone. No one is happy, least of all the children.
Read more here.

Business as usual in Clintonland

Once again Stephen Green helps us to understand something complex. He links to an article in The Citizens Audit alleging that Clintonite David Brock is running a money laundering scheme.
Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:

1.Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation

•The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
•Media Matters would retain $930,000

2. Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum

•The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
•The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750

3. The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum

•The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission
•The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031

In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.

As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.

Read the whole thing. But rather than “bizarre,” the scenario sounds more like “business as usual” in Clintonland.

Two professors and Twitter

From Newsalert:
A Tale of Two Professors on Twitter.Twitter Prefers Professors That Want Gay People Put in Concentration Camps To Professors Who Suggest Defending Yourself Against Violent Rioters. The Difference Between Glenn Reynolds and Eric Alterman.

Everyone knows Twitter is part of the national security surveillance state. Twitter has become a de facto arm of the Democrat party with their employees acting as a quasi patronage army for Democrats. Twitter has a problem with Constitutional Law Professor Glenn Reynolds suggesting that people facing rioters need to defend themselves, so they suspended his account overnight. But , did Twitter have a problem with angry statist professor Eric Alterman calling for Andrew Sullivan to be put in a concentration camp ? Not at all. No enemies on the left for Twitter(Democrats-Not Upset With Professors Calling For Concentration Camps).

PCP found in car of Terence Crutcher on the night he was shot in Tulsa

PJ Media reports,
A Tulsa Police Department official has confirmed that PCP was found in the car of Terence Crutcher on the night he was shot. The attorney for Betty Shelby, the officer who shot Crutcher, said she suspected he might be under the influence of something.

Homicide Sgt. Dave Walker, who confirmed that a vial of PCP was found, declined to say where in the vehicle investigators recovered it, nor did he say whether officers determined that Crutcher, 40, had used it Friday evening.
The Medical Examiner’s Office is expected to provide toxicology information as part of a larger autopsy report.

Crutcher was shot in the upper right part of his chest and was unarmed, police have said.

Benjamin Crump, the attorney speaking for the Crutcher family, said, “If we started to condemn everybody to death who might have some drugs in their system, all our neighborhoods would be affected. And so we know that’s not correct.”

“Let us not be thrown a red herring and to say because something was found in the car that is justification to shoot him,” Crump said.

Officer Shelby came upon Crutcher while she was en route to another call. Police released two 911 calls that reported an SUV had been abandoned in the middle of the street, and one anonymous caller said they saw a man who might be "smoking something."

Attorney Scott Wood, who represents Shelby, told the World previously that his client believed that Crutcher was under the influence of PCP, based on things she learned during drug-recognition expert training. Helicopter camera footage also showed that an unidentified officer said Crutcher “looked like a bad dude” who “could be on something” shortly before he hit the ground.

Following the shooting incident and media coverage, it was revealed that Crutcher had a criminal record that includes more than one dozen encounters with police. In at least four of those cases, the police had to use force with Crutcher. One situation in 2012 involved Crutcher getting arrested for public intoxication, and in a probable cause affidavit Crutcher's father told law enforcement his son had a problem with PCP.

Far worse than Watergate

Technology made you superfluous

Here is an obvious point, but one that I wish people would pay more attention to. Kurt Schlichter writes at Town Hall,
...today’s technology allows us to ignore the people who would presume to tell us what we can and cannot know.

...Now you media creeps are finding yourself ignored and irrelevant as America proceeds to do whatever the hell it pleases whether you like it or not. We don’t need you; we can and will get our information by ourselves. How I yearn to fill a hot tub with the salty, sweet tears of a thousand so-called journalists who decided to put their money down on progressive ideology instead of objectivity and public service.

...just when you thought you were going to become a Lord of the Fourth Estate, you idiots completely overplayed your hand right when technology gave people an alternative to your old school media monopoly. You pushed us past the point of toleration just as the web created other places for us to go. And now, look at you. You’re nothing. Just a bunch of pompous, boring, nobodies without reputations, without respect, without futures.

...If you ever had a shred of credibility, it’s long gone, like your monopoly on the free flow of information. Technology made you superfluous. Hey, I’m right here in my pad writing a column just like you, with three key differences: I’m not pretending to be unbiased, I don’t have to wear pants, and this time next year I’m not going to be looking for a new job at some place where the term “Frappuccino®” is a thing.
Read more here.

Support Glenn Reynolds now!

Our blogfather may be in trouble. Glenn Reynolds got temporarily suspended from Twitter, when, in response to the rioters in North Carolina blocking the interstate and surrounding motorists, Glenn wrote "Run them down." The left is leaping, and Glenn's law professor job at Tennessee may be in jeopardy. What can we do to show support for Glenn?

Hillary wants to know why she isn't 50 points ahead.

In the same moral universe

Does Anthony Weiner matter? Roger Simon writes at PJ Media,
Weiner was a political leader married to the constant companion of a woman running for president who herself continually excused the behavior of her husband, the president, and even lied flagrantly about him to save his reputation on multiple occasions. (Hillary Clinton, as we all remember, made that risible but essentially proto-fascistic claim that her husband's adulteries were a fabrication of the "great right-wing conspiracy.")

...Anthony Weiner is clearly an aberrant, but not entirely accidental, offshoot of a thoroughly corrupt world, largely centered on the Clinton family and their cohorts and minions. The distance between his clandestine sexting on the Internet and some obscure paid operative (now given immunity) secretly wiping/bleaching tens of thousand of emails off Hillary Clinton's home-brew sever is not very much. It is in the same moral universe. The same group of people are doing it.
Read more here.

One of the biggest web attacks ever

From BBC:
One of the biggest web attacks ever seen has been aimed at a security blogger after he exposed hackers who carry out such attacks for cash.
The distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack was aimed at the website of industry expert Brian Krebs.

...Mr Krebs speculated that the attack could have been prompted by an article he published, in early September, that named two young men allegedly associated with a service called vDos that carried out DDoS attacks for cash.

Soon after the article was published, Israeli police arrested the two men named by Mr Krebs. Released on bail, the pair were barred from using the net for 30 days.
Buried inside many of the data packets despatched towards Mr Krebs' site was text calling for the release of one of the men named in that article.
Read more here.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Clinton's Washington: the deception strategy

Christopher Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair in 1999,
...I had become utterly convinced, as early as the 1992 campaign, that there was something in the Clinton makeup that was quite seriously nasty. The automatic lying, the glacial ruthlessness, the self-pity, the indifference to repeated exposure, the absence of any tincture of conscience or remorse, the awful piety—these were symptoms of a psychopath. And it kept on getting worse and worse—but not for Clinton himself, who could usually find a way of sacrificing a subordinate and then biting his lip in the only gesture of contrition he had learned to master. (After reading the testimony of Juanita Broaddrick, I’ll never be able to think of his lip biting in the same way again. But no doubt Arthur Schlesinger will be on hand to assure us that all men lie about rape.)

Hitchens writes about his friendship with Sidney Blumenthal, who we read a lot about in Hillary's emails. Blumenthal tried to persuade Hitchens that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker. Hitchens writes,
A president, if you think about it for a second, just can’t be stalked in his own Oval Office.) However, as time went by, the significance of the conversation metamorphosed. I became convinced that, a few weeks before the lunch, Kathleen Willey had been threatened in person, had received threats against her children by name, and earlier had had her car brutally vandalized. I discovered that, within days of the lunch, she received a telephone call from a private detective named Jared Stern. Hired to invigilate her, he had sickened of his work and decided to give her an anonymous call warning her that she had influential enemies. It also appeared that Ms. Willey had been subjected to pressure by a politically connected tycoon named Nathan Landow, whom I knew by reputation as one of the less decorative members of Clinton’s soft-money world. (Asked by the grand jury whether he spoke to Ms. Willey about her testimony in the Paula Jones lawsuit on his own behalf or on the president’s, Mr. Landow has taken the Fifth Amendment.) I refuse to believe for a second that Sidney knew anything about this, but in the week that we talked, the White House “found” and released Ms. Willey’s correspondence with Clinton. I say “found” because when these same letters had been subpoenaed in the Jones case in January 1998, they couldn’t be located anywhere. Just another day in Clinton’s Washington.

...t hit me very abruptly, when I was having a drink with Erik Tarloff, Chris Buckley’s only rival as D.C.’s first satirical fictionist. As well as having contributed to speeches for Clinton and Gore, Erik is married to Laura D’Andrea Tyson, formerly Clinton’s chief economic adviser. He’s a shrewd guy, and he’s seen a lot of the Clinton M.O. “Notice how they always trash the accusers,” he said. “They destroy their reputations. If Monica hadn’t had that blue dress, they were getting ready to portray her as a fantasist and erotomaniac. Imagine what we’d all be thinking about her now.”

How, then, did the White House expect to get away with the lie? They expected to get away with it because they had made everyone complicit. In a city where the main “source” is the government, the etiquette about sources masks the plain fact that the government has a lock on the press. (One survey, which took 2,850 news stories from The Washington Post and The New York Times, found that 78 percent of the stories were attributed to government sources either on or off the record. Talk about ventriloquism. The state uses the media as a megaphone.)

Here’s what I mean. On January 23, Charles Ruff, the counsel to the president, told the Senate trial the following whopper: “The White House, the president, the president’s agents, the president’s spokes-persons—no one has ever trashed, threatened, maligned, or done anything else to Monica Lewinsky. No one.” (I know who the president’s spokespersons are, I recall thinking at the time. But who are these “agents”?) The following day, James Warren, the excellent Washington-bureau chief of the Chicago Tribune, was asked to comment on CNN:

That comment by Ruff was so palpably untrue. If I had a buck for every person at the White House who bad-mouthed her to me last January I could leave the set now and head off to Antigua.

I barely know a single reporter who could not have sworn to the same. And indeed, I do know at least one reporter who was approached by the House Judiciary Committee and asked to testify. He said no. He has to live here, and he can’t commit his newspaper. I don’t have to live here. Still and all, I wish it had been Ruff rather than Sidney I heard putting the story about. As it is, the state now has a new weapon against the press. Don’t be calling the president a liar. You’ll be accused of snitching on his juniors.

When Susan Bogart, senior investigative counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, contacted me in the closing days of the trial, she asked a question to which she already knew the answer. I had put a version of the lunch with Sidney in print, in the London Independent of September 13, 1998. I had told many people. I was in the process of writing a column for a small, pro-Clinton weekly magazine, in which I was proposing to tell it again. Furthermore, the story had the merit of being true, and of being revealing of the squalid underside of Clintonism. Every time I told it, I now realize, I was placing a friend in potential jeopardy, but only because he had elected to join the president’s bodyguard. In order to disown the story, I would have had to join the general agreement about “putting this behind us and moving on.” Well, I didn’t want to join any bloody agreement about putting things behind us and moving on. I thought it was a disgrace to have a mock trial, invisibly sponsored by the stock market and the opinion polls, at which the defendant didn’t appear and at which all efforts to mention Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick were quashed. The stocks are sold, the press is squared—include me out. To disown the story, also, I would have had to risk committing perjury, in order to accuse myself of having lied in the first place, in order to safeguard a dirty tactic used by Clinton’s proxies. Well, thanks, but then again, no thanks. That would’ve been Clintonism squared or cubed. And why didn’t I run out the clock, people ask me, and get clever with lawyers and delaying tactics? That’s easy. The trial of Clinton was in its closing stages. If I strung the prosecution along, anything they later established from me could be used only against someone other than the Godfather.

So I said that, if need be, I would confirm the Lewinsky stalker stuff under oath. I also put in the material about Kathleen Willey, without being asked, so as to help establish the White House state of mind. By the time you read this, the name Willey may be much better known than it is now, and people will be ashamed that they ever spoke so fatuously about “consensual sex.” No one has bothered to notice that I went out of my way to include Willey in the affidavit, because Sidney hasn’t been asked about it under oath and doesn’t know much about it anyway, and therefore it doesn’t help the only story that people seem to care about, which is fratricide between Sidney and me. A silly town, as I said, and sometimes a spiteful one, too. A town where, as the Chinese say, when the finger points at the moon, the idiots look at the finger.

The rest of the conversation with the House Judiciary Committee—actually the bulk of the conversation—consisted of my making a moral stipulation. This affidavit was being given in the trial of one person only: the president. It was being given as a rebuttal to a White House strategy of deception. Since grand-jury testimony had elicited the fact that Clinton was the sole author of the “stalker” slander, that he had passed it to Sidney and probably others, and had seen it get into the press, I wasn’t doing more than filling in one blank. In Senate evidence, Sidney had said that he now felt he’d been lied to by his president. He wasn’t the only one who had that feeling. So it would obviously be grotesque to proceed against him for the mere offense of giving an evasive answer. Any use of my affidavit for this purpose, I said, would cause me to repudiate it and risk being held in contempt. I would testify again only about Kathleen Willey. There are no absolute guarantees in this world, but I do know that what I said was understood. Anyway, the offense of perjury has been so downwardly defined by the Clintonoids that it can’t seriously be charged against a perjurer’s apprentice. Morally, also, it has been defined by the Democratic leadership as an offense only slightly worse than telling the truth.

And for doing that, I have already been held in contempt. But in Clinton’s Washington, it is a positive honor to be despised.
Read more here.