Time to take the car keys away from Granny Clinton

Leave it to the FBI to wait until the Friday before Labor Day to release a report that makes it look so bad. What other impression can one take away from the bureau's new report on its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, which will fuel doubts about FBI director James Comey's recommendation that she not be prosecuted for mishandling classified information?
Perhaps the most important detail it spells out is the timeline of Clinton's email deletions. The information strongly suggests that team Clinton deliberately destroyed evidence and committed obstruction of justice.
In March 2015, three weeks after the New York Times reported the existence of Clinton's private server and the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter demanding that her records be preserved, someone on Clinton's staff (the name seems to elude everyone) began furiously deleting emails using an anonymously downloaded program that "shreds" files so they are unrecoverable.
Equally damning is the picture that the FBI's report paints of Clinton's confessedly oblivious service as secretary of state. The charitable way to interpret the answers she gave the FBI in July is to say she went through her time at State without understanding the most basic aspects of her job. Her answers about securing classified information are so befuddled that they read like the moment one decides granny shouldn't have the car keys anymore.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/time-to-take-the-car-keys-away-from-granny-clinton/article/2600926?custom_click=rss 

Hillary Promises To Deliver Regular Press Conferences... On One Condition

As of today, it has been 273 (call it an absolute zero) days since Clinton’s last formal press conference on December 4, 2015, something even the left-leaning WaPo and NYT have expressed outrage against. Naturally, as questions mount if and when the Democratic Presidential candidate will finally speak to the press, overnight Clinton's press secretary, Brian Fallon, had some good news, when he assured an ABC News podcast that she will hold regular press conferences, but under one condition.
That she is president, or as Nancy Pelosi might put it, "you have to elect her, to ask her questions."
This is not a joke: this is how ABC put it, "Clinton’s lead press secretary, Brian Fallon, vowed that if elected, “Hillary Clinton will hold press conferences.” And here we were worried that if elected, Hillary would serve Clinton Foundation corporation and Middle Eastern donors for (at least) 4 years without speaking to the press at least once (an idea Trump may want to consider).
Fallon, seemingly unaware of how this statement sounded, added that "The amount of interaction can only go up," noting that the traveling press will soon be flying with Clinton on her new campaign plane.

“I’m sure that will bring with it a lot of opportunities for additional access to the candidate and interactions between her and the traveling press corps that covers her every day,” Fallon told ABC News’ chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl, and political director Rick Klein on the podcast.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-03/hillary-promises-deliver-regular-press-conferences-one-condition 

Right seeks to kill the lame duck

Conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups are fighting to prevent a lame-duck session after the elections, arguing that members of Congress who have been booted from office shouldn't be responsible for major policy decisions.
Opponents of a post-election session are primarily wary of lawmakers passing another catchall omnibus government spending package that would likely include a slew of policy riders.
“It’s the least accountable time for Congress,” Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told The Hill. “We let people who have either quit or been fired or retired vote on spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars after their period of accountability has ended.”“This is something that is supposed to be Republican orthodoxy. That the least accountable government is the worst government,” he said.
The last two lame-duck sessions in 2014 and 2012 featured difficult negotiations over an omnibus spending package and expired tax breaks.
The pressure to reach a deal in both work periods was intense, with lawmakers in both parties eager to return home for the holidays — and that desire to leave town is something that congressional leaders often count on when wrapping up difficult legislation.
Even though last year’s omnibus appropriations bill wasn’t passed during a lame-duck session, many Republicans are reluctant to vote on a similar measure this year. Multiple rank-and-file Republicans facing primaries this year were attacked for their votes in support of the 2015 omnibus.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294361-right-seeks-to-kill-the-lame-duck 

The Idea Of National Sovereignty Drives Democrats Nuts

What a novel concept that a country would decide who gets to enter it and who doesn’t.

Actually, it’s not novel at all. In fact, it was the standard for most of American history. But in 2016, progressives absolutely have lost their minds over the prospect of ensuring those who seek to come to the United States actually add something to it.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he did, after a half-hour or so of standard campaign boilerplate, give specifics on his immigration plans in his speech Wednesday night in Phoenix.

His plan has 10 points. They are, as he put it:

1 Build a wall along the southern border.
2 End Catch-And-Release.
3 Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.
4 Block funding for sanctuary cities.
5 Cancel unconstitutional executive orders and enforce all immigration laws.
6 Suspend issuing visas to people from any country where adequate screening cannot occur.
7 Ensure other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
8 Complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.
9 Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.
10 Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers.

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/09/04/the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-drives-democrats-nuts-n2213672?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= 

“Libertarian” Gary Johnson Pushes “Free Market” Carbon Tax

Despite a historic opportunity for third parties to do well this presidential election, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson seems determined to blow it. In the equivalent of shooting himself in the political foot, Johnson announced support for a deeply unpopular tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, or CO₂, to stop alleged “climate change.” And he sought to deceive voters while doing it. While the former New Mexico governor framed the tax scheme as a “fee” and a “free-market approach,” even libertarians blasted the deception. 
The “fee,” as Johnson referred to his proposed tax in a perfect emulation of ObamaCare-style semantic deception, would massively expand government control over Americans and the economy. At the same time, the scheme would further enrich crony capitalists such as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, along with the other mega-banks and oil companies pushing for it. The poor and middle class, though, along with freedom and free markets, would suffer a devastating blow from the plan. Even the planet would suffer, according to experts. 
Known to scientists as the gas of life, CO₂ is an essential molecule needed for plant life and is exhaled by every person on the planet. Despite being absurdly demonized as “pollution” by extremist politicians and bureaucrats, it is emitted in almost every human activity — from sitting on a couch to driving a car to turning on a light bulb. Human emissions of CO₂, though, appear to be insignificant at best, making up a fraction of one percent of all the “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/23926-libertarian-gary-johnson-pushes-free-market-carbon-tax 

November elections

As the November elections approach we all need to carefully consider the morality, ethics and policy positions of all candidates. This item seeks to aid readers regarding the two major candidates for the office of the President.

Neither candidate is appealing.  But we must  make the best of the choices we have. 

Although Hillary Clinton seems to have the edge at this point she carries a huge amount of negative baggage.  Her tenure as Secretary of State was a disaster.  The FBI established that she was extremely careless and irresponsible in handling classified information over her unauthorized private email system.  During Congressional testimony FBI Director Comey affirmed that she has repeatedly lied regarding the facts uncovered.  For this and a number of other reasons her honesty and ethics are highly suspect.  Regarding her politics, there is no doubt that she is a radical leftist. Her political positions are so compatible with the Communist Manifesto that the US  Communist Party, rather than running their own candidate, has endorsed her for the office of president. She intends to raise taxes by an estimated $1.3 trillion over the next decade.  That will be devastating for the economy and struggling families. She intends to sustain the so called "recovering" Obama economy which is the worst since the 1940's. The numbers of Americans out of the workforce and dependency on government are at historic highs. Ms. Clinton's policies are unlikely to change that devastating reality.  She intends to import one million Muslim refugees during her term in office and continue President Obama's failing foreign policies which she help formulate.  Obama's immigration policies. Increasingly concerns with her health make her a poor candidate.   Her politics, dishonesty and unethical practices are incompatible with our Constitution and American values.  She is, therefore, in my judgment unqualified.

Donald Trump splashed on the scene with his Make America Great Again mantra and push to vet Muslim refugees before entering the country and build a wall along our southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigration. He has, however, been prone to making outlandish comments that detract from his message.  His message appeals to many while his erratic behavior raises concerns. His economic plans are far more likely to improve the state of our economy than those offered by Ms. Clinton. He intends to lower taxes on all Americans as well as business taxes which are the highest in the world.  This will both improve the business environment and contribute to job creation.   He intends to renegotiate international trade deals that have damaged our manufacturing base and are disadvantageous to American interests, business opportunities and job creation.  His obvious business acumen and management skills far exceed those of his opponent. He will reverse or significantly modify Obama's illegal immigration and Muslim refugee policies. His morals and ethics can be questioned but they seem to be much better than those of  his opponent.  He intends to improve the cultural debasement, heightened racial tensions and societal discord that have been signature aspects of the Obama administration. He will seek to minimize the destructive impacts on cultural and political life imposed by political correctness mandates of the political left.  He pledges to reverse the lawlessness characterized by the Obama presidency.  He intends to restore our international relationships with allies and improve dialogue with our adversaries.  While his sometimes bombastic comments detract from his appeal his overall qualifications and political plans are more practical and coherent than Ms. Clinton's.  Mr. Trump is a reluctant choice but qualifies as a much better alternative than Hillary Clinton.

This was published in last week's paper.

Soros Exposed Plotting to Nationalize American Police

Billionaire statist George Soros has been helping Obama and globalist forces to federalize control over American police forces under the guise of pushing “criminal justice reform,” hacked e-mails and documents from his shadowy Open Society “philanthropic” empire revealed. From funneling tens of millions to radical activist groups and race-mongers to building what leaked documents refer to as a “national movement” to “reform” law-enforcement and working with the White House to do it, Soros fingerprints can be found all over the growing anti-police chaos that has enveloped U.S. cities in recent years. The agenda is clear: stripping communities of self-government and imposing federal cops.

The Soros plot outlined in Open Society Foundation documents involves, among other elements, helping Obama impose his United Nations-backed “guidelines” and “standards” on American police departments — at least at first. Eventually, the goal is to impose a national police force on America accountable not to local communities, as has traditionally and constitutionally been the case for centuries, but to the increasingly lawless federal executive branch. The implications for freedom and self-government of transferring control over police to the White House are massive.

As The New American has been reporting for decades, the establishment's long-term goal is to centralize all coercive power in its own hands. A national police force — or at least federally controlled state and local police departments — are a crucial component of that agenda. While grassroots efforts  and constitutional limitations on federal power have made the goal hard to achieve, the Obama administration has made more progress on nationalizing law-enforcement than any other president in U.S. history. Soros, widely ridiculed as “Dr. Evil” by critics, has helped in a major way.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/23979-soros-exposed-plotting-to-nationalize-american-police