Sunday, August 28, 2016

Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?

Most American voters looking toward November would probably be interested in learning about Hillary Clinton’s prime role in delivering one-fifth of America’s uranium production to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. As this matter is critically relevant to our national security, as well as America’s energy security, voters would probably appreciate learning about it before they cast their ballot for the next Oval Office occupant. However, most Americans probably have never even heard about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s ties to the Uranium One-Rosatom-Frank Giustra scandal, through the couple’s corruption-troubled Clinton Foundation, and Hillary’s official dealings while serving as President Obama’s secretary of state.

That is hardly surprising, considering the overwhelming pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias of the “progressive” establishment media. But new Clinton e-mails and State Department memos released by WikiLeaks may cause some members of the pro-Clinton press brigade to break ranks and confront the Democratic Party candidate on this vitally important issue. Among the many documents to surface recently is a State Department cable from October 2009 warning of the intentions of  Rosatom, Russia's nuclear energy agency, as it "flexes muscles" with regard to the global uranium market.

State Department officials in Europe cabled Secretary Clinton, warning that a Russian strategy paper they had obtained showed Kremlin plans to gain "long-term supply of nuclear fuel" so they could, among other objectives, "shut" the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the nuclear market and expand Russia's influence over Europe. The cable also warned Clinton that the plan detailed in the Russian paper “is consistent with Russia's efforts to dominate the gas supply market in Europe."

What’s Wrong With the Redistribution of Wealth?

It is commonly believed that a proper function of government is to “level the playing field” by ensuring that the rich pay their “fair share” of taxes, and that the poor and disadvantaged receive extra help from government in the form of subsidies, grants, and “welfare.” (Originally called the “dole,” welfare was given its current name in the 1930s, as a way to sell FDR’s “New Deal” program to the American public. The term was intended to confer constitutional legitimacy, since the preamble proclaims one of the purposes of government to be supporting the “general welfare.” But in reality, “welfare” is just a new name for the dole — the traditional term for using the government in order to rob Peter to pay Paul.) All such policies have as their stated aim creating greater equality. Originally scorned as “the leveling impulse,” wealth redistribution has come to pervade much of what the federal government does.

But is there anything wrong with government “leveling the playing field”? Consider what this practice entails in reality. Whenever government takes from one class of people in order to give to another, it is taking the property of some and giving it to others. The fact that some are wealthier than others is mere sophistry, an argument designed to distract from the real issue of government redistribution: It is theft, pure and simple.

Along with the right to life, the right to property ownership must be deemed among the most important God-given rights conferred upon fallen man. But whereas the people almost always raise an indignant hue and cry whenever government unjustly deprives men of their lives (as, for example, when an officer of the law kills a citizen without just cause, or when government dispatches its military forces to wage war for unjust purposes), the voice of the people tends to fall silent when government commits legal theft (or “legal plunder,” in the phraseology of French economist and statesman Frédéric Bastiat). One reason for this inconsistency is that a life, once taken, cannot be restored, and state-sanctioned murder thus becomes a crime that cannot be ignored. But stolen property can be given to someone else under the false color of social justice, a fact that dishonest politicians have ever taken advantage of to portray their depredations as a form of charity.

Clinton Foundation Firestorm

Remember how Hillary Clinton repeatedly assured us all that she had turned over all work-related emails?  And that she avoided any conflicts of interest with her Clinton Foundation?

Well, this week we released 296 pages of State Department records containing 44 email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department. This brings the known total to 171 of new Clinton emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email, Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that, “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

Included is a 2009 email in which Band directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon.  Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury, a foreign national, is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation.  He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.

Why Behavioral Economics Is Really Marketing Science

Economists rarely mention marketing. Occasionally an article appears in the American Economic Review on advertising or promotion or warranties. But to most economists, marketing is a sideshow in the economy. It is filled with too many particulars and virtually no theory. A cynical economist would even hold that marketing activity hurts the efficiency of the economy. Promotions distort the true price and lead consumers to buy on brand name, not real value.

Ironically, the discipline of marketing was started by economists! Marketing textbooks first made their appearance in the 1900-1910 period. Their authors were economists who were institutionally oriented rather than theory-oriented. These economists wanted to examine the role that different distribution organizations – wholesalers, jobbers, agents, retailers – played in the economy. They also wanted to describe and analyze the different promotion tools – advertising, sales discounts, guarantees and warrantees—and determine whether they actually shifted demand.

Somehow classically-trained economists didn’t view marketing as an intrinsic economic activity. They couldn’t fit it into either macroeconomic theory or microeconomic theory. They didn’t see a role for mathematics in the discipline. Marketing was seen as much more of a psychological and sociological discipline than an economic discipline.

Where Do Criminals Get Their Guns?

The study starts by referring to other studies done and then moved on to their study.  The authors made this statement about acquisition of guns: “Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee).  On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers.”  They also made a statement early on that Chicago PD was doing effective enforcement, but “without enforcement, regulations are bound to be ineffective.”

For those who are pro-gun it would seem to be game over for their adversaries. The NRA has argued for a long-time that the problem is not needing new laws, but that the laws on the books are not strictly enforced.  Example #1 was after the San Bernardino shooting that Kamala Harris, California Attorney General, did not arrest Enrique Marquez Jr., the friend of the mass murderers Farook and Malik, who provided the guns through a straw purchase to the two killers.  Harris was too busy on the East Coast raising money for her U.S. Senate campaign to enforce the law against straw purchases that exists in California.  It took two weeks for Marquez to be arrested and he was charged with federal crimes, but should have been held immediately for breaking California law.

Help the world’s poor: Shut down the Clinton Foundation

Whenever the Clintons find their corruption exposed, you can always count on their cronies taking to the nation’s talk shows and making, er, creative arguments in their defense.

That has never been more true than this past week, when we learned that Hillary’s State Department basically operated as the shakedown wing of the Clinton Foundation. More than half of all the non-governmental parties who got meetings with Hillary during her time at State were major Clinton Foundation donors, and e-mails released by Judicial Watch demonstrated how the Clinton Foundation’s Doug Band operated in concert with Hillary crony Huma Abedin at State to make sure Foundation donors were taken care of by the government.

In short, the Clinton Foundation is a gigantic cash-grabbing racket disguised as a charity. The more we learn about it, the more honest people clamor for the Foundation to be shut down. That, as you might expect, has inspired a novel response from the professional dissemblers of ClintonWorld: The Clinton Foundation helps the world’s poor! If you want to shut it down, you must want to hurt the poor!

That’s a classic Democrat argument if there ever was one. If you want to get rid of our corrupt, ineffective, money-sucking program, you must hate the poor, minorities, women, the sick, or whoever. They usually offer it in defense of wasteful government programs, the implication being that if the wasteful government program went away, there would be no one to help whomever it is supposed to help.

Usually the opposite is true: If the wasteful government program wasn’t sucking up so much money, someone else could use that capital to much more effectively help those who need the help. And in the case of the Clinton Foundation, that’s really true.

Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role

The end of the Cold War ushered in a unipolar world, cementing U.S. dominance over a generally liberal international order. Yet where once it seemed that U.S. foreign policy would be simpler and easier to manage as a result, the events of the past 15 years — the 9/11 attacks, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Arab Spring, and Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine — strongly suggest otherwise. The world today is certainly safer for Americans than it was under the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union. But the world is undoubtedly more complex, as nonstate actors, shifting alliances, and diverse domestic political factors complicate U.S. foreign policy formation and implementation. A robust debate on America’s foreign policy choices is urgently needed.

Instead, policymakers and political candidates generally embrace the status quo. Bipartisan support exists for extensive alliance commitments, frequent military intervention, and higher defense spending. Though this orthodoxy is unsurprising since many candidates receive advice from a limited number of sources, it is deeply concerning. Debates tend to focus on which specific actions the United States should take, only rarely asking whether the United States should be involved, militarily or otherwise, in various global crises.

Even President Barack Obama, elected in large part thanks to his repudiation of the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign policy, has failed to alter the underlying bipartisan consensus that America remains the “indispensable nation” whose leadership is required in perpetuity. It is easy to see why this idea persists: America’s invaluable and outsized role in protecting the liberal international order during the Cold War was followed by two decades of unipolar primacy, where Washington attempted to exert its influence nearly everywhere.

Gary Johnson Avoids Typical Third-Party Fade; Best Polling Since Perot in ‘92

A couple of weeks ago in this space I pushed back against assertions by FiveThirtyEight number-cruncher Harry Enten that Gary Johnson's polls have been "trending downwards," indicating that "voters may be moving away from third-party options." Well, today Enten is back with an interesting piece headlined "Gary Johnson Isn't Fading."

While noting what we have been warning you about here for years—third-party candidates typically see their crest of polling support halved by Election Day, according to Gallup—Enten explains that Johnson's numbers have so far not followed this pattern. In fact, the Libertarian may have already weathered the most difficult part of the calendar: "Most third-party candidates didn't lose that much support between late summer and Election Day," Enten writes. "Besides John Anderson in 1980, no candidate ended up finishing more than 3 percentage points below where they were polling in late August. The average drop-off is about 2 percentage points."

So how does Johnson's 9 percent stack up at this point in the campaign against other third-party candidates since World War II? According to numbers compiled by Enten here, fourth place, behind Ross Perot in 1992 (20 percent then, finished at 19), George Wallace in '68 (17/14), and Anderson in '80 (14/7). He's just a tick above Perot in '96 (8/8), behind which nobody comes close (sorry, Libertarians!). Because of his staying power, FiveThirtyEight has adjusted its predictions for Johnson's final vote upward, to 7.1 percent.

Hacked Soros documents mysteriously disappear from the site that published them

The hack of documents from George Soros’s Open Society Institute nonprofits have revealed how powerful George Soros really is.   Powerful enough to call the shots on US policy toward a sovereign nation.  Powerful enough that a virtual news blackout made certain that only readers of conservative media would find out about the puppet master’s machinations.

And now the fate of the documents hacked reveals genuine clout: Peter Hasson of the Daily Caller reports:

DCLeaks, a website that releases information on powerful political figures, has had part of its website taken offline after releasing a cache of documents on billionaire donor George Soros. The @DCLeaks Twitter account has also been suspended from Twitter for reasons unknown.

The website had previously released 2,500 internal Open Society Foundation (OSF) documents in order to “shed light on one of the most influential networks operating worldwide.” OSF is one of Soros’ networks of organizations.

The leaked documents had resulted in several damaging reports about the organization. OSF had previously confirmed that the documents were legitimate.

Before the website went offline, an OSF spokesperson had called the leaks “a symptom of an aggressive assault on civil society and human rights activists that is taking place globally” in a statement released to The Daily Caller.

I appears that this was not a hack, but rather the website voluntarily taking down the documents. Which means that some sort of pressure was exerted, in all likelihood. Lawsuits? The threat of some other sort of retaliation?

Who knows?

Friday, August 26, 2016

The China Test

Anyone paying even passing attention to the news from East Asia knows that the rise of China has taken a bad turn in recent years, and that our closest allies in the region feel threatened by the increasingly belligerent policies of President Xi. It’s not clear, however, that even well informed Americans realize how dire the situation is. It’s time they paid better attention, because China’s lawless pursuit of resources and territory is coming to resemble nothing else so much as the behavior of the Japanese empire before World War Two—a disconcerting comparison I have heard more than once from analysts and government officials here, where I have been traveling with a group of journalists and policy experts on a trip arranged by the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Xi’s strategic vision holds that much of the western Pacific—the area within the so-called “first island chain” that stretches south from the Japanese archipelago through the Philippines and Malaysia, and which includes the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea—is effectively a Chinese lake. The other sovereign countries that border this critical part of the world reside, in this view, within a Chinese version of Putin’s “near-abroad.” They must be taught to accept Chinese hegemony, and interlopers like the United States must be compelled to retreat to the “second island chain,” which stretches south from Japan through the Mariana Islands, which include Guam.
This deeply illiberal vision isn’t just talk. China is taking step after aggressive step to turn it into a de facto reality. In the East China Sea, China in 2013 declared an Air Defense Identification Zone that includes Japan’s Senkaku islands—a small chain to which China laid a belated claim after undersea natural resources were discovered nearby in the seventies. The U.S. government does not take a position on which country exercises sovereignty over the islands, but has made clear that because the islands are under Japanese administrative control, America is obligated to join its ally Japan in defending them. 

Hillary’s Secret Kremlin Connection Is Quickly Unraveling

Recent headlines have brought attention to the seedier side of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state during President Obama’s first term. This scheme, which gives every appearance of being about pay-for-play, solicited donations from foreign big-shots in exchange for access to the boss of American foreign policy.
I’ll leave to others to assess the legality of this shady business—for now it’s the national security implications we need to discuss. It’s a big deal when the person who’s possibly our next president—and if polls are accurate, she probably will be—has sold access to foreign bidders before taking the oath of office. It’s especially worrisome when some of those foreigners are in Moscow.
I’ve previously explained how Donald Trump possesses unsavory Russian ties. He parrots Kremlin propaganda, his inner circle includes people on Moscow’s payroll, and top American intelligence officials have called him an “unwitting agent” of Vladimir Putin. This is a serious matter deserving close scrutiny. 

The Clinton Bribery Standard

Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.
Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow.
The central problem with Hillary Clinton's emails was not the classified material. It wasn't the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That's a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and -- in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions -- demonstrating her arm's-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn't classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn't convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it -- as she did 30,000 emails -- at will. 

More about Hillary and her close associates

The political left just knows it is always right.  Despite the very words in the Constitution they intend to kill gun ownership in America by hook or crook.  Hillary is leading the charge.  Here's their plan.  Quote: "Democrats and the Clinton presidential campaign have pushed back on the idea that, if elected, Mrs. Clinton would seek to either repeal or severely curtail the Second AmendmentDespite the fever dreams of some anti-gun advocates, we've always thought an outright repeal would go nowhere. But making guns scarce, and ownership rare, isn't as difficult as one might think (link is external), given the right political circumstances:  Hillary Clinton has made it clear that her “death blow” against the Second Amendment won’t be an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment directly, but to instead drive the gun industry itself out of business.    That is anti-American as can be.  Disreputable, dishonorable, disgusting people reside on the political left.

If you still do not think Obama and Hillary are guilty of malfeasance in the Benghazi affair read the details reported during the 3 July 16 edition of Full Measure on CBS.  They both have said military assets were not in position to help American's fighting for their lives.  They lied!  Quote: "Retired Army Green Beret Col. Andrew Wood commanded a Special Forces anti-terrorism team protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens and other diplomats in Libya.  In 2012, Wood told Congress his team was removed from Libya by the Obama administration a month before the attacks, despite warnings of terrorist violence to come.  For the first time, Wood is speaking out with a startling claim: that those Special Forces offered in the military email were on their way to Benghazi, but were turned back." And, "Gary Berntsen is a former CIA senior operations officer and chief of station. He commanded counter-terrorism missions and led the response team after Islamic extremists bombed U.S. Embassies in East Africa in 1998.  Like Wood, Berntsen says quick reaction military teams are tasked to handle emergencies exactly like Benghazi and automatically spin up, unless and until they're stopped."

Even Hillary's vice presidential running mate, Jim Kaine, is having trouble defending her lies.

If you didn't think the Clinton's are corrupt you might think differently after reading about a "secret" meeting between Bill Clinton and current head of the Justice Department, Loretta Lynch.  Ask yourself what could possibly warrant such a meeting given the evidence of Hillary's extensive record of both unethical and illegal activities.  Despite claims to the contrary you can be sure he took the opportunity to urge the wiping clean of any charges forthcoming from the FBI investigation. Disgusting, but typical Clinton behavior.  Their view, Hillary must be elected president no matter her history of bad behavior that disqualified her years ago and has only gotten worse in recent years.    Here's more.  This item suggests the stench emanating from this meeting is more on Lynch than Bill.  But I think Bill stinks just as bad - he knows better but couldn't pass an opportunity to suggest Lynch fix the mess Hillary is in.  Quote:  "Former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, at PH Media, also sounded off.  “Whenever Bill Clinton gets on a plane to meet a woman, he’s usually up to no good,” he wrote. “Attorney General Loretta Lynch said her impromptu tarmac summit at Phoenix Sky Harbor was a purely social affair. Golf and grandchildren were on the agenda, she said – and not how a home-brew server crammed with classified information ended up in Bill’s basement.  “However, the attorney general normally doesn’t meet with family members of a target in an active FBI criminal investigation. Hillary is just that – a target in an FBI criminal investigation.”   This is further analysis of the "coincidental encounter" between Bill and Loretta.   Here is another assessment that expands the inappropriate behavior to include Bill since he and the Clinton Foundation are part of another FBI related investigation.   This mess just keeps getting worse and smells to the high heavens.

The mainstream media, the President, Hillary and just about everyone else has jumped all over Trump for suggesting that Obama and Hillary formed ISIS.  Well, well, well.  The Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report in 2012 that said the policies of both  Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which was, "...declassified last year shows the Obama administration was warned in 2012 that if it continued its policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in Eastern Syria.  Writing in Chronicles magazine, Jim Jatras, a former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership, cited a DIA report in August 2012 that was declassified and released last year under a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch."  So, Trump was right again.  funding it are despicable people.  Note please the leftist organizations throwing money at this communist inspired destructive Black Lives Matter group.  In my book they are reprobates.  Here is their agenda: "The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America,” said the Borealis announcement.  In doing so, however, the foundations have aligned themselves with the staunch left-wing platform of the Movement for Black Lives, which unveiled a policy agenda shortly after the fund was announced accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state” guilty of “genocide.”  Released Aug. 1, the platform also calls for defunding police departments, race-based reparations, breaking, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a “universal basic income,” and free college for blacks.

Now tell me which party is the party of the wealthy???  Leftist Billionaires are lining up the buy the next elections for Hillary and Democrats.  The reason?  They know they can buy Hillary and many Democrat politicians and get done what "they" want done.  Recent items shared document some of their shenanigans.  They know that Trump even though he is a fellow billionaire he is dead set on bringing government cronyism under control and they do not like him messing with their government based cash cow.  Yor already know from items above how influential George Soros is. 

Well, well, well!!!  At least one government agency thinks Hillary is a security risk.

George Burns

Hillary and her close associates

The Clinton Foundation and by extension the Clintons are in serious, I mean really serious trouble.  Quote: "A commentator on Wednesday suggested that the real solution to the “pay for play” scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation would have been to shut down the non-profit in 2009, when she became secretary of state.  Too late.  Now, with Clinton campaign staff on the defensive, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is forecasting it will end up being one of the biggest political scandals in America.  Ever."  And, "“At this stage, many Democrats (including, I’d guess, some members of the Clinton campaign) just want the Clinton Foundation to go away. But that won’t happen. … A strong argument can be made that the Clinton Foundation should have been closed, or at least thoroughly overhauled, before Clinton became secretary of state, at the start of 2009. But to shut down the foundation now, when it is under severe attack, would only give credence to Trump’s claims that it was never more than a corrupt scheme to enrich its founders and their cronies,” he wrote."  More on this issue is found in the next item.

More and more troublesome information has emerged from a new batch of emails detailing goings on in the State Department while Hillary was Secretary.  These new emails reveal that Hillary used the department as her personal "shake down" operation for the benefit of the Clinton Foundation.  Quote: "Under Hillary Clinton’s leadership, the State Department was run like a mob-run shakedown operation, with more than half the visitors she met with from outside government paying money to the Clinton Family Foundation for the privilege, according to an Associated Press investigation of her calendars.  “It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president,” reported the largest news-gathering organization in the world.  At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, the news agency reported Tuesday.
Combined the 85 “donors” contributed as much as $156 million – with 40 donating more than $100,000 and 20 giving more than $1 million, according to the stunning report." And, "Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years."   Although she will surely try to refute these charges, the evidence is overwhelming that she broke the law.  It will be very interesting to watch how the mainstream news outlets will handle this revelation.  She was doing this right under Obama's nose.  Wonder how much he knew.

And talking about unsavory practices, this item illustrates how unsavory Hillary really is. Despite her claims to the contrary, recently released emails confirm that Hillary granted access to donors of the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State. That was something she pledged would not happen.  The practice of lying and being deceptive is her calling card. Quote: "Several Clinton Foundation donors who went on to become Hillary Clinton bundlers had quick access to Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state, new State Department emails show.  The email exchanges, obtained and released by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, show that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin was the go-between for donors who sought meetings with Clinton."  And, "The emails were obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department over records of Abedin’s communications. Twenty of the email exchanges were not among those turned over to the State Department in 2014, though Clinton has insisted she handed the agency all of the work-related communications on her personal email. Judicial Watch has released other email exchanges showing Clinton Foundation donors getting access and other perks during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.  The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

This item details some of the donations received by the disreputable Clinton Foundation most given by countries with histories of disreputable human rights violations.  This is part of Hillary's disreputable legacy as Secretary of State.  Bill and Hillary have always in a variety of ways been on the take while serving in public service positions.  They are truly a disreputable couple. 

If the mainstream media was not protecting her these six items that were exposed over this past weekend would destroy any chance Hillary has for becoming president.  They would have already buried a Republican or conservative candidate.  But not their beloved corrupt Hillary.  Quote: "After over two decades in the heart of America's spotlight, Hillary Clinton is still an unknown quantity for most Americans. That's thanks to one factor and one factor only: the love and worship of the mainstream media.
Over the weekend, no less than six terrible stories broke that would have crippled anyone else's campaign. First, we learned that Clinton aide and confidante Huma Abedin acted as assistant editor on the radical Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she greenlit pieces that stated that "pushing (mothers) out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood," among other things." 

Talking about the characteristics of Clinton's close associates, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania was just convicted on nine felony charges.  Quote: "A jury on Monday night found Pennsylvania’s Democratic attorney general Kathleen Kane guilty on nine felony counts stemming from her attempt to leak confidential information aimed at embarrassing Republican political rivals.  Kane, who became a rising political star thanks to support from Bill and Hillary Clinton, has been asked to resign by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D.), and prosecutors say they are considering recommending prison time for Kane."  She has resigned.  She faces sentencing in November.
She gets punished for her crimes, for sure, but her crimes do not approach those committed by the "privileged" above the law Hillary who avoided punishment courtesy of Obama and Lynch.  I have come to the conclusion that FBI Director Comey already knew they would not indict Hillary for felony crimes so he did the next best thing.  He publically indicted her lack of ethics, incompetence, irresponsibility and dishonesty in his public statement announcing the FBI findings.  The mainstream media was joyous and announced broadly that she committed no crimes.  The other disparaging comments were largely ignored.  She was not guilty of any crimes, the FBI said so, was all they wanted to report.  It is also likely he did not provide Obama or Lynch his comments in advance because he knew they would not indict.  So he, in fact, indicted her without recommending indictment.  Ask yourself, why did Loretta Lynch announce in advance that she would support the FBI's findings and recommendation?  Because the final outcome was predetermined.

This is unbelievable. Read this and tell me if you think Hillary has even one ounce of ethics.  Newly uncovered emails reveal why she worked so hard to conceal them.   Quote: "Newly released Department of State documents reveal that the Crown Prince of Bahrain was given an audience with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after he donated $32 million to her foundation." 

Hillary's email troubles continue to mount.  She famously claimed her lawyers reviewed all her emails but they were not cleared to review any of her classified emails.  So what is going to happen now?  If Hillary authorized their review, she is culpable.  If she didn't authorize their review and they did no review she lied.  Quote: "In July FBI director James Comey confirmed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stored and transmitted top secret, classified information on multiple private email servers. Last year during a press conference at the UN about her email server, Clinton said her attorneys went through all of her emails to separate work related information from her personal business. The problem? Clinton's attorneys don't have the security clearances required to handle the type of highly sensitive, classified information found on the former Secretary's server.  "They did not," Comey said during Congressional testimony in July when asked whether Clinton's attorneys had the proper clearance to sift through classified information found on the server. "There’s a great deal of concern about an uncleared person, not subject to the requirements we talked about in the read-in documents, potentially having access."   And yet more new email troubles show up.  Quote: "The FBI announced on Monday that they discovered another 15,000 of Hillary’s work related emails and she’s in trouble.  When the FBI started investigating Hillary’s home server back in 2014, Clinton turned over 30,000 emails that she said were work related.  Hillary deleted the emails she said were personal and turned over the rest, but now we know that to be a proven lie.  The FBI director Comey said they found an additional 7000 emails during the original investigation, but just yesterday they found 15,000 more.  To say that Hillary lied when she said all work related emails were turned over is an understatement. From what we know now, she only turned over ab

A logical follow on to the previous item.  George Soros' nefarious reputation is well deserved as the previous section highlighted. This is old news, I know, but given Hillary's candidacy for president it is worth a refresher.  This Muslim lady is her closest associate.  Not only is she Muslim she worked for a radical Muslim journal for 10 years before joining up with Hillary.  More background on Huma: She is under investigation by the FBI.    It pays to know that many of Hillary's associates have been indicted or jailed, died under suspicious conditions and are fraught with unethical reputations.  You can usually discern a person's character by knowing with whom they associate.  Hillary's history is filled with plenty of low life friends and associates.  I do not make up this stuff.  See this item to learn about another one of Hillary and Bill's felonious friends. They helps him pull off a $10 million scam.    Another Clinton associate suspected of embezzling $3 billion.   More bad news about Hillary's pal George Soros.

Hillary's health issues continue to cause concerns.  Quote: "MSNBC asks all 3 of their viewers to forget about the fact that Hillary has not held ONE press conference in the year 2016. Why?? They’d also like you to forget about the “seizure-like episodes”that have been caught on camera when she has been stopped to answer question. They’d also like you to forget the fact that a Secret Service agent has said Hillary’s campaign has made a$500,000 investment for disability access for when Hillary travels, forget about the mysterious agent who follows Hillary around carrying a syringe and tries to calm her down when necessary, or that she referred to Trump as her husband recently while speaking… After all, it’s easy to see how such a small mistake could occur, right?"

Hillary trots out once again the meme that all the Clinton's problems are nothing but a product of "right wing conspiracies".  She wants you to believe she and Bill are as pure as the driven snow but the evil people on the right are always trying to defame their good name, and reputation. Even though she knew the full truth at the time she lied anyway and accused the "right wing" of trumping up Bill's "alleged" abuse of women.  She obviously did not learn her lesson.  Quote: "Farah said that what Hillary Clinton is doing now “is just what the Clintons have always done – smear, attack, intimidate, bully, shakedown, punish – without any regard for the First Amendment and their constitutional limitations on power.’  “God forbid the American people give the Clintons another chance after what that wrought on liberty in the 1990s,” he said.  NBC News described the attack on Breitbart as “Clinton’s ‘Right-Wing Conspiracy’ Comes Full Circle With Trump Shake Up.”  The network said the Clintons “have long maintained that a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ is out to get them” and believe “conservative media outlets, and the donors and political operatives behind them, are responsible for creating what Bill Clinton called a ‘cartoon’ version of his wife: A corrupt, venal, bloodstained – and now sickly – strawman that bares (sic) little resemblance to reality.”  Hillary Clinton trotted out the “conspiracy” claims again only a few months ago, telling a New Hampshire audience it was alive and well although, “At this point it’s probably not correct to say it’s a conspiracy because it’s out in the open,” NBC reported."

This item makes it obvious that Hillary should have been indicted for committing federal crimes.  This case used Comey's "intent" defense but he still got sentenced for 12 months jail time for far, far, far less than what Hillary did. Comey should be ashamed of himself for setting this precedent.  She should be serving time in jail rather than running for president.  This really makes me mad.  Quote: "Saucier's attorney used the "Clinton Defense" at his sentencing hearing earlier this week, arguing that he possessed just 6 sensitive photographs which was "far less than Clinton’s 110 emails" that were ultimately deemed to contain classified information.  Saucier's attorney went on to argue that “ will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.”  Unsurprisingly, Saucier didn't make out quite as well as Clinton but the "Clinton Defense" may have resulted in some level of leniency in his sentencing.  According to The Hill, Saucier was facing up to 78 months in prison for his admission to "mishandling information" but a federal judge on Friday sentenced him to 12 months instead.  Greg Rinckey, Saucier’s lawyer, said that while the judge indicated Clinton's case did not factor into the sentencing, he believes it played a small, albeit favorable role."   

Things In General

This is an insightful piece.  It provide a good explanation of the divisive  gap between the political left and right.  Quote: "Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion. Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel. Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe they’re best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions.
Once you understand those basics, it’s very easy to see why both sides hold the positions they do on most issues and to comprehend why there’s so little middle ground. Once you get the mentalities, you can predict where each side will come down on issues."  

Food for thought.  Quote: "Unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans who go about their lives in a zombified state existing somewhere between clueless and misinformed, right now figurative lines in the sand are being drawn, and both sides are digging in for the fight of our lifetime. Will the United States remain a free republic with even an inkling of the rights our Founders envisioned for us, or will the country inevitably fall to socialism first, and eventually transform into a totalitarian state? Nothing would please the political class more than to have the latter prevail, but to accomplish that, first free speech must be stomped out. The weapon of choice being used today by liberty’s greatest enemy is “political correctness.” There is an enormous movement afoot both in Europe, and here at home domestically, for all the social media giants to stomp out what "they" are referring to as “hate speech.”  Define “Hate Speech”: That which does not conform with liberal ideology."  And, "Earlier this summer, with very little attention from American media (shock, right?), social media giants including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, officially partnered with the European Commission in order to crack down on free speech by banning “alternative media” from their platforms. When the European Commission announced their partnership with the social media giants, it ordered each of them to begin completely eliminating “hate speech” and “counter-narratives” from the internet."

Insight worth reading.  Quote: "This totalitarian attack on academic freedom and free speech has now become routine in America’s socialist indoctrination academies, who have adopted the advice of the old Marxist Herbert Marcuse, who began arguing in the 1960s that only “the oppressed” in society deserve free speech.  Allowing “the oppressors” to speak freely only exacerbates the amount of “oppression” in society.  A devoted communist, Marcuse wanted to ban all criticisms of communism on college campuses, and he has succeeded to a very large extent.  There are islands of sanity in the sea of insanity that is the American academic world.  Economic departments tend to be not quite as crazy as some other disciplines, and if your son or daughter is a serious engineering or pre-med student, he or she will spend less time being brainwashed by leftists who dominate the social sciences and the humanities.  Even so, they will most likely be treated like skunks at a picnic if they voice “politically incorrect” opinions to their classmates."  

Wake up folks!!!  This is a good discussion and I think proper analysis of why so many difficulties are eating away at the very fabric of our country.  Quote: "As God is taken out or denied in our society, we’re no longer trying to fight our sinful nature. Instead we welcome it. Has America become freer and more independent as a result? We may fight religion. We may fight God. But we cannot fight the fact that America is becoming more obsessively government-controlled. And as we’re already seeing, governmental fiat is a very poor replacement for godly self-control."    Far too many will likely reject this analysis but when the facts are examined it is hard to refute.  Do not reject it out of hand.  Think about it. Intense in depth consideration will likely result in the credence it deserves.  Furthermore, real history, not the liberal/secular humanist/progressive revised version, is on its side.  Please folks, we must start fighting against the evil that is destroying us as a people and our nation.  A return to Godliness is our ticket to a brighter future. 

Parents and grandparents need to read this!!!  Quote: "An elementary school in Albuquerque, NM has a new policy to go along with the new school year. Just in case kids are gender confused, teachers are no longer allowed to address children as “boys and girls.”
After the Bathroom Hullabaloo of 2016, you would have thought that things might settle down and we could go about our business, peeing wherever we want to pee and that would be that.  But no.  No, now children as young as kindergarten age are being taught in classrooms in which teachers have been ordered to “eliminate gender.” According to a local report:  A letter was sent to teachers at Carlos Rey this month titled “Gender Identity Procedural Directive.” It tells teachers they can no longer refer to their students as boys and girls, and they are to eliminate gender in their classrooms.  Amazon is loaded with 16 pages of books for gender-confused children."  This is an example of how leftist attempt to unethically manipulate and using unscientific trash to confuse, no abuse, children."  This is a really, really bad thing they are doing.  It makes me see red.   

Another reminder that despite the left's incessant harping on how great socialism is, it is not so.  The piece should open the eyes of those who think that socialism works in Nordic countries.  It says not so and explains why.  Quote: "Sanandaji, president of the think tank European Centre for Entrepreneurship and Policy Reform, dismantles the case for social democracy in his brand-new book “Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism.” He shared some of his research with his Cato Institute audience.  Before the Social Democrats came to power in Sweden, the country had the highest economic growth rate in the industrialized world. However, after the Social Democratic Party started dominating Swedish politics, the growth rate slowed to a mediocre level. Denmark saw a similar slowdown of growth after Social Democrats took over the country.  When the Great Depression struck the world in the 1930s, it hit the Nordic nations especially hard because they were dependent on trade, according to Sanandaji. However, the Nordic countries never had an American-style New Deal. Their governments did not try to fix every problem. Sanandaji presented a graph showing job creation in Sweden predictably went down during the Depression but bounced back quickly afterward. This was at a time when taxes were low, the welfare state was small and markets were freer."  And, "If Nordic success does not derive from social democracy, then where does it come from? Sanandaji said it comes from the unique qualities of Nordic culture.  “If you really understand Nordic society, they have a unique culture, social cohesion, working ethics, etc., that makes the economies be very well functionally,” the scholar explained. “High taxes, government involvement in the economy doesn’t work there. It works as little there as it works here.”

This will open your eyes and make you think real hard about the efficacy of condoning abortions.

Obama has pulled out of his bag of dirty tricks this scheme to get his outrageously dangerous Trans Pacific Partnership plan through the next lame duck Congress.  It must fail.  Make sure you let your elected representative to reject any effort to do this. Obama has done more than enough damage to our country.  We do not need him to screw us again on his way out of office..

This is a major consequence of Obama's illegal immigration program.  Children get lost.  The government runs the program so inefficiently that they have lost track of more 10,000 children in the system.  No telling what happened to them...I fear the worst for many.  I am so disgusted with Obama that I want to scream. Anyone with a heart would, too.  In my book he is a reprobate. His election to office was one of the nation's greatest tragedies.  I even think he should be tried for crimes against humanity.  Quote: "The federal government has been “rubber stamping” the asylum applications of tens of thousands of child migrants like Walter since 2014, says Lauren Martel, the attorney representing Bilbro in the case. Their asylum applications are rushed through the system without taking time to ensure the children’s safety."

Interesting isn't it that most of the misbehavior comes from leftist groups bent on wreaking havoc on those they do not like.  Yet the left likes to beat their chests and declare they are the tolerant ones.  Their record, for those willing to look, does not support that claim.    Here's more proof of their violent behaviors.  "Although leftists possess adult bodies, developmentally they are frozen in time somewhere between childhood and adolescence.  So when someone doesn’t agree with them, they get frustrated, angry, and rather agitated, with a tendency to behave like unruly children.  It isn’t pretty.  And sometimes it’s downright dangerous.  This propensity to yell, scream, shout down, pump fists, pound feet, lie, steal, and attack is on display just about every day in this presidential election cycle as Trump supporters are maligned (at best) and physically assaulted (at worst).  Here’s a by no means exhaustive list of some of this madness on display.  Worthy of note, Trump supporters who have been victims of violence are often framed by the media (and sometimes the police) as being suspect in some way, as if they brought the violence on themselves."   Want to see more?

This liberal Op-Ed writer calls-out his fellow liberals for their intolerance.  Quote: "After liberal New York Times op-ed writer Nicholas Kristof penned his Sunday column, “A Confession of Liberal Intolerance,” conservative readers reacted with delight over Kristof’s breath-of-fresh-air perspective.  Liberal readers? Not so much.  “We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table,” he begins his column, “er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.”   And, "Some liberals think that right-wingers self-select away from academic paths in part because they are money-grubbers who prefer more lucrative professions. But that doesn’t explain why there are conservative math professors but not many right-wing anthropologists.  It’s also liberal poppycock that there aren’t smart conservatives or evangelicals. Richard Posner is a more-or-less conservative who is the most cited legal scholar of all time. With her experience and intellect, Condoleezza Rice would enhance any political science department. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and famed geneticist who has led the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health. And if you’re saying that conservatives may be tolerable, but evangelical Christians aren’t — well, are you really saying you would have discriminated against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?"

Walter Williams provides some common sense thoughts.   Quote: "To teach young people, particularly young men, Benjamin Franklin's admonition that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is a challenging task. But it is the job of adults to get such common-sense messages across, even at the cost of leftist condemnation."

This is the decrepit state our culture has been drifting towards for a very long time thanks to progressive intrusion into all things important.  Quote: "Teaching While White (TWW) is becoming an occupational hazard these days. So is being a white student, for that matter. At the "Unofficial Scripps College Survival Guide," students learn that "white peers and faculty -- portray Claremont Consortium as a haven for liberal ideology and acceptance. It's a rhetoric that has led many white students to believe that racism does not exist on campus." Thus, "as white students, [they] must identify the ways that [they] are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy and work to unlearn [their] racism."

She is a real piece of work. She has absolutely no ethical core and always blames others for her own failures.  Now she blames her use of her private emails system on former Secretary of State Powell.  He begs to differ. Quote: "Colin Powell was Secretary of State during George W. Bush’s presidency, from 2001 to 2005.  Hillary’s latest excuse was revealed from notes taken during the FBI’s alleged “interview” in July of the Democratic nominee regarding her use of a private email server on which she sent classified information as Secretary of State. These documents pertaining to the interview were handed over to Congress on Tuesday.  Colin Powell responded to Hillary’s accusations against him, in which she blamed her decision to use a private email server on him. In an interview with Page Six, Powell said, “The truth is she was using it (her personal email) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did [during my term as Secretary of State].” He added, “Her people are trying to pin it on me.”   

A pastor's perspective of the two main candidates for president.  A good perspective, too.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Independent Evan McMullin’s Path to the White House Includes Strategy Not Used Since 1824

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin’s longshot candidacy is dependent on attempting to block Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton from obtaining 270 electoral votes and sending the election to the House of Representatives, according to a McMullin campaign memo obtained by ABC News.
"Donald Trump cannot win. So the goal must be to keep Hillary Clinton from reaching 270 electoral votes and send the election to the House of Representatives,” according to the memo titled “How Evan McMullin can win and why it’s so important,” written by chief strategist Joel Searby.
“Once in the House, against the backdrop of Trump and Clinton’s deeply divisive positions and after a strong electoral college showing, we believe Evan’s unifying message will prevail,” Searby writes under the subhead, "So what’s the end game?”
Independent Candidate Evan McMullin Says He’s Not Responsible If Trump Loses
Why Evan McMullin Says Trump Is More Dangerous Than ISIS
Why Evan McMullin Decided to Run for President
It’s an apparent acknowledgment that a traditional campaign won’t work for the independent candidate’s uphill efforts. An election hasn’t been decided by the House of Representatives since 1824. 

Gary Johnson on The Greg Gutfeld Show: "I want to shrink the size of government."

Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson was on last night's episode of Fox News's The Greg Gutfeld Show, talking about his chances to make it into the debates. "Better than 50 percent," says the two-term former governor of New Mexico, who adds that, as president, "I want to shrink the size of government...stand up for civil liberties...and stop with the military interventions."
Take a look:

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Hacked Docs Expose Soros-Obama-UN Refugee Invasion Network

Secret internal reports and memos by one of George Soros’s left-wing front groups reveals the socialist billionaire’s subversive reach within the Obama administration, the United Nations, and the governing structures European Union, especially as it relates to the manufactured refugee/migration crisis.

Among the many noteworthy points made by Soros activists in one report is the assertion that the migrant/refugee tsunami that has already swamped Europe with 1-2 million Muslim migrants should be accepted as “the new normal.” This is not surprising, but it is alarming. It is not surprising because for many years Soros and his minions have been in the vanguard of the Open Borders/Migration Lobby. It is alarming because the radical “migration rights” agenda of the Soros network is being translated into official policy, nationally and globally.

A May 12, 2016 report of the International Migration Institute (IMI), an official project of Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), provides an important window to view the working relationships among the IMI refugee activists and their allies inside the Obama administration and the United Nations. The nine-page report, by top IMI staffers Anna Crowley and Kate Rosin, entitled “Migration Governance and Enforcement Portfolio Review,” is one of many Soros/OSF documents released this week by, which describes itself as a project “launched by the American hacktivists” who “believe U.S. citizens have the right to know how domestic and foreign policies of the United States are shaped and who the real policy maker is.”

Hacked Documents: Soros Funded Black Lives Matter

The Link Between Health Spending and Life Expectancy: The US is an Outlier

 It should come as no surprise that, with the most fabulously overpriced health care system in the world, it delivers notably poor outcomes in terms of measurable results, such as life expectancy. This post seeks to get a better understanding as to why. Note that the analysis omits certain issues, for instance, that there is solid evidence that suggests that more unequal societies are more unhealthy. But that would mean US results should be compared to the subset of pretty to very unequal counties, and you’d still find the same result, that high US expenditures do not translate into better results.

This short study identifies that spending on healthcare is very unequal, and intuitively seems not explainable by differences in the health of the population (and Medicaid data suggests that this intuition has merit).

So the question for reader is: what might explain this pattern? One issue, which is not discussed as often in the press as it needs to be, is that the driver of the high cost of end of life care often amounts to what Lambert calls, “Insert tube, extract rents” of sheer looting. The press will occasionally feature stories about how an aged parent goes into a hospital or other institutional setting, and despite the relatives having a medical power of attorney plus clear, legally well documented instructions that the patient does not want high cost interventions with limited life extension potential, that the medical professionals come close to or actually do threaten the family with litigation if they attempt to remove the patient or restrict care.

Another issue for patients is the way that they’ve been conditioned to believe that Something Can Be Done when they have a condition that is pretty much a permanent impairment. This is particularly common with orthopedic procedures. I see individuals in my gym that I can tell from how they discuss their surgeries that they’ve been overtreated for no or negative benefit.

Other thoughts?

Gary Johnson and the Rise of Libertarian Centrism

On CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine became the latest well-known Republican to flirt with the unthinkable. “I’m taking a look at the Libertarian ticket,” said the lawmaker, a veteran centrist.

That puts her in company with Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, who earlier this summer said they were considering a vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor. After expressing dismay at the choice of Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, Collins joined Romney in effusively praising Johnson’s running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, with whom she had worked on various projects.

As with so much in 2016 politics, a pattern is beginning to emerge that might have been hard even to imagine a year ago. When libertarian candidates have made inroads in the GOP in the past, it has often been in some of the party’s rightmost precincts. But Johnson and Weld thus far have enjoyed little success (and, to be fair, shown little interest) at wooing the most conservative elected officials and pundits. While the Libertarian ticket has been drawing an entirely unprecedented 8-10 percent in national polls, little of its energy comes from the Republican base. Instead, it is making noticeable gains in the center.

In one communication after another, the Johnson-Weld campaign strikes a theme seldom associated with past libertarian campaigns in the US: moderation. It is the “sane” choice, the “responsible” and “adult” ticket, the ones happy to work with the best people and ideas from both parties, campaigning not on fear and anger but on a positive message of problem-solving. A recent Johnson video contrasts a bickering, shouty Trump and Clinton with the cool-and-collected libertarian alternative.

How Safe Is Our Food Supply?

A recent survey published by the International Food Information Council found that Americans are concerned about food safety. Foodborne illness resides as the top concern of survey respondents.

These facts may sound worrying. Thankfully, they don't tell the whole story. The survey also reveals that fully two-thirds of Americans are confident in the safety of the nation's food supply.

Data support that confidence. For example, the number and severity of foodborne illnesses appears to be trending downwards in many places, including California.

Part of our confidence in our food supply no doubt stems from regulations. But rules can (and often are) imperfect, something I detail at length in my forthcoming book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable. And, as I wrote about in a 2012 law-review article, regulations intended to make our food safer often impose new costs but fail to improve safety.

Earlier this week—keeping the above facts in mind—the FDA published final rules to clarify and update its "GRAS" classification system. The acronym "GRAS," which stands for "generally recognized as safe," refers to the status of permissible food additives.

GRAS rules have been controversial for some time. On the one hand, critics have viewed the self-policing approach favored by the rules as too heavily weighed in favor of food producers and, ergo, bad both for consumers and food safety.

Judge orders Clinton to answer questions about email server

For months, Hillary Clinton had been stonewalling Judicial Watch, who wanted to depose her in their FOIA lawsuit seeking information on her emails and private server.  J.W. wanted to interview her in person and under oath.

Now a federal judge has ruled that Clinton must answer questions under oath posed by J.W., but she can do it in writing.

Fox News:

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order as part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch. The group had sought to question Clinton under oath and in person, but the judge ruled she would only have to answer questions in writing.

FBI Director James Comey announced last month that  the agency would not seek criminal charges against Clinton after an investigation into her email use, although he concluded she been "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive material.

Judicial Watch's Director of Investigations Chris Farrell said that while they would have preferred to have Clinton answer questions in person, the decision represented a victory for the organization.

“Judicial Watch will get Clinton under oath regarding the set-up of her outlaw server – something no other person, organization or agency has been ableto do, to date," he said.

“We believe it is a victory for law and order to get Hillary Clinton under oath answering questions about the server setup and why she did it,” he said.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said the campaign was glad that the judge had allowed Clinton to answer questions in writing.

"Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization that has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s," Fallon said. "This is just another lawsuit intended to try to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign, and so we are glad that the judge has accepted our offer to answer these questions in writing rather than grant Judicial Watch's request."

Judge Sullivan said Judicial Watch must submit its questions to Clinton by Oct. 14 and gave Clinton 30 days to respond -- a timetable that could push Clinton's answers past the November election unless Judicial Watch sends its questions earlier than mid-October.

Smoke and Mirrors, the Federal Reserve and America’s Economic Recovery Myth

Federal Reserve officials have been debating another interest rate hike and its possible timing. The minutes of the latest meeting in July indicate some policymakers insist they first need more evidence on the durability of the economy’s rebound before approving an increase.
I must admit that I’m a little confused about what additional evidence they could possibly need. Do you remember former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke indicating in 2012 that interest rates would start rising when unemployment dropped below 6.5 percent? Well, according to the government, that rate now stands at 4.9 percent.
How can the economy possibly get any better when we supposedly have full employment? After all, if the economy were to improve any more, we wouldn’t have any workers to sustain growth. It looks to me like the Federal Reserve had better quickly raise interest rates just to slow down the incredible growth that we’re experiencing.
Pathetic Economic Picture
Every time I hear and read the Fed minutes, I can’t help thinking how they confirm that the economy is every bit as pathetic today as it has been for the past decade.