Hillary Hiding Her EMails Continues to Haunt Her Reputation for Honesty

Prior to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) formal campaign announcement, there were questions about her emails while at the State Department . It was revealed that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a personal email (HDR22@clintonemail.com) stored on a private server during her tenure at Foggy Bottom.  Additionally, Mrs. Clinton only turned over her emails in late 2014 with paper copies of the work emails that she deemed relevant.

Of course, there are plenty of questionable things already associated with the email imbroglio. Only using a personal email account was highly irregular and probably insecure.  Mrs. Clinton's lame rationale about using only one device associated with an email was lanced when it was shown that Hillary used both an Ipad as well as her trusty Blackberry.  State Department policy requires immediate surrender of all work materials to an archivist, who then determines what is personal. It was odd that Hillary printed out emails for the State Department rather than the electronic originals (making it difficult to do computer searches).  Then there is the oddity of months longs gaps in emails including when  Mrs. Clinton traveled to Libya and was photographs of her using her Blackberry, there are no record of documents.  Hmm.


 Now it has been revealed that House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA 49th) had sent a letter to the State Department on December 12, 2012 which specifically asked if the Secretary of State ever used a personal email account to conduct official business.  Uh oh.

Well, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the State Department February 1, 2013.  The State Department did not respond to the House Government Reform Committee until March 27, 2013 and their response merely was a copy of the policy that all State Department employees : “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”.

While the Lamestream Media sought to create a frenzy for Hillary's Mystery Machine Listening Tour road trip to Iowa, Mrs. Clinton is slipping in the polls in key battleground states to Republican challengers.  Quinnipiac Poll Assistant Director Peter Brown attributes this drop to the perception that Hillary Clinton is a dishonest politician, which can be attributed to the continuing email embarrassment.

If convicted, an official who obstructs or destroys federal documents could be barred from office. It is almost inconceivable that an Obama Department of Justice (under Attorney General Eric Holder or the stalled nominee Loretta Lynch) would ever prosecute or seek to convict such a high profile progressive politician.  But there are no such strictures in the court of public opinion.  Hillary for America intends to raise $2.5 billion for their campaign.  But she who raises the most cash does not always win (sic). In 1980, Governor John Connally (D R-TX) was considered a great orator and had a distinct fundraising advantage.  In the end, Connally spent $11 million and only garnered one delegate. How embarrassing.  Actually, not as embarrassing as Hillary's continuing email embarrassments.

h/t: Hot Air
      John Cole 

Rand Paul's Blockbuster Filibuster

Yesterday, first term Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the floor and spoke for nearly 13 hours in a filibuster of a cloture vote for CIA nominee John Brennan.  The talking filibuster was prompted by repeatedly evasive answers that Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder gave when testifying about the potential of drone attacks in the United States not engaged in battle without due process considerations. 

This was the first talking filibuster since Senator Bernie Sanders ("I"-VT) held the Senate floor for eight hours in protest of President Obama's proposed tax cut.   Senator Paul was not the only renegade Senator to participate in this filibuster.   Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and even Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) took turns participating in the filibuster by asking long winded, ambling "questions" which gave Paul a chance to rest his voice.  

A few other GOP old hands lent some help.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator John Thune (R-SD) added their voices late in the filibuster.  And Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) gave Sen. Paul some symbolic sustenance by offering an apple and tea, which mirrored "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939). 

Senator Paul offered to quit his filibuster after seven hours if Senate Democrats would consent to a non-binding resolution which expressed opposition to killing American citizens on American soil not engaged in imminent combat without due process.  The Democrats demurred on the offer, proposing instead to study it in committee.  Senator Paul declined this modest proposal and spoke on. 

The interesting thing was the confluence of events while Senator Paul's filibuster was occurring.  President Obama took a twenty car motorcade for the four block trip to the Jefferson Hotel to dine with the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) supposedly on the President's own dime.     Mr. Obama's largess with GOP members of the Cocktail Party seems to have quickly paid dividends as Sen. McCain took to the Senate floor the next day to echo print criticisms against the filibuster.

“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

Senator Graham mouthed the bipartisan critique wondering if Republicans would protest drones under President Bush.  It seems as if McCain and Graham had sour grapes as their bipartisan last supper with Obama was upstaged by the filibuster. 

The elite liberal media poo-pooed Senator Paul's filibuster, noting that the Senate CSPAN2 cameraman was reading a newspaper and only 30 people were present during a portion of the afternoon filibuster.  But social media, like Twitter and Facebook, buzzed about  #StandwithRand. The day after, talk radio trumpeted Senator Paul's audacity for straight shooting to speak up for the Constitution and hold the Obama Administration accountable. 

 CSPAN2 certainly does not subscribe to an Arbitron ratings book, it surely must have achieved blockbuster viewership than for a typical Wednesday evening in the Washington wonk cable channel. While it would be a stretch to think that Senator Paul droning on was buffo box office, the filibuster was a blockbuster for several reasons. 

This was the first instance in the 113th Congress when one legislator was able to stand up to the bully pulpit of the Obama White House and the loyal Lamestream Media stenography pool  by standing for Constitutional principles. 

Senator Paul did the hard thing, by initiating a talking filibuster rather than relying upon cloture votes and it drew significant attention outside of the District of Calamity.  The filibuster for civil liberties even garnered material support from civil liberty oriented liberal Senator Ron Wyden. 

Senator Paul taking a stand on the Senate floor drew enough negative attention upon the Obama Administration to shame Attorney General Holder into eventually issuing a clarification.  The DOJ statement admitted  that President Obama did not have the power to launch drone strikes against Americans in America who are not engaged in imminent violence.  Funny what a filibuster can force elected officials to do.

The filibuster energized the base for Republicans, while it exposed the complacent coziness that Cocktail Party politicos who trumpet bipartisanship yet sell out both party principles and Constitutional concerns. Both McCain and Graham are up for re-election in the 2014 cycle so they ought to expect fierce primary challenges.  But the way Cocktail Party weenies have mocked the so called Tea Party hobbits, we soon might refer to the GOP as the Whig Party as Tea Party types and libertarians leave for greener political pastures. 

And clearly Rand Paul's star is rising in the American political firmament.  Senator Paul had been raising his profile by giving the Tea Party Express response to President Obama's 2013 State of the Union speech. It seems that Senator Paul is angling to run for President in 2016.   But Paul is bringing a dynamic, principled and pragmatic libertarian politics to our national debate. 

Are You Ready to Rhetorically Rumble?

[L] Ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) and [R] Glenn Beck at "The War of the Words"

                  In the left corner, with blue colors
                  is the ex Empire State Attorney General who went after Wall Street,
                 the one time Champion of the New York Gubernatorial Mansion
                 After personal expenditures to the Empire Club were exposed,
                 he left public service to host a prime time show on CNN and now Al Gore's Current TV.
                 Let's hear it for Client Number 9-- ELIOT SPITZER!

In the right corner, with the red colors is a self-described rodeo clown,
who's life spiraled downwards until he became a Latter Day Saint.
He went from doing a light-hearted morning zoo radio show
into what some have likened to Network's Howard Beale.
He abruptly left a successful cable news show
to establish his own internet television, radio and publishing empire.
Let's hear it for "The Blaze"-- GLENN BECK! 

LET’S GET READY TO  RUMBLE!

With less than a month before the Presidential Election, this is the equivalence of the drive to the World Series for political junkies.  While I look forward to the main event in the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates this month, there are two warm ups that should appeal to the general public.

Tonight at 10 PM EDT, Dish Network (and on Dish's Facebook page) is going to broadcast “The War of the Words” between former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) and Glenn Beck.



On October 6th, Comedy Central’s Daily Show faux news host Jon Stewart will take on Fox News Channel’s Grand Poobah Bill O’Reilly at George Washington University in what is ironically billed as  the  “Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium.”.  That 90 minute clash before a sold out Lisner Auditorium will be broadcast pay-per-view to be streamed live online.



Half of the profits from the event will be donated by Stewart and O’Reilly to a number of charitable causes.

Anecdotal evidence points to enthusiasm from low information voters for these infotainment debates. With the nation being at the cusp of another recession, America's foreign policy collapsing in a tinder box world, it seems sad that news commentators, either comedic or serious, attract more attention than the official Presidential Debates.

But maybe these events might break through the sunny side focus of the elite liberal media and reach new audiences.  After all, it is remarkable that Univision's hard hitting debate questions to President Obama  on broken immigration promises as well as their investigation on 'Rápido y Furioso' not only made headlines but exposed Hispanic viewers to how many Mexicans were killed by Attorney General Eric Holder's flawed "Fast and Furious" operation.

For those who deride Beck as being a boob for not having gone to college, this will be a chance to see if he can think on his feet and can cite facts.  Many Daily Show viewers hold Jon Stewart and his writing team in high esteem for his comedic commentary on the news.  The rumble with O'Reilly will demonstrate how  Stewart does debating on his own for more than one segment.

Personally, I was dubious about the Stewart/O'Reilly match up as it paired up two partisan poppinjays.  But it might be worthwhile after all as the event will be anchored by E.D. Hill of (CNN and formerly of Fox News Channel) who developed a hard hitting but humorous reputation for covering news.

Sometimes the clashes of ideological titans can be less of a bang and more of a whimper.  Sean Hannity loves to book friends who are on the far left but for me it sounds more like schmoozing than substance.  O'Reilly thinks highly of himself and his No Spin interviews, but his tete-a-tetes with President Obama have seemed more like political softball than bean-ball.

Here is hoping that low information voters get exposed to some election issues rather than ad hominem attacks and that they stay engaged to make informed opinions as they exercise their franchise which so many American servicemen have died to protect.

DHS Newspeak and National Security--Help Big Sis' Out?

Mini-home malquoted doubleplusungood. Dayorder rectify goodthink for prolefeed bellyfull before Two Minute Hate.

There are times that it just seems apropos to use Newspeak from George Orwell’s seminal novel 1984 to cover the security issues in America, particularly regarding the Department of Homeland Security (Mini-home).  In the early days of the Obama Administration, Pentagon officials were warned not to refer to the Long War or the Global War on Terror but instead to bluster bureacratese “Overseas Contingency Operations”.   Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to avoid refering to 9/11 or terrorism but preferred such euphemisms as “Man made disasters.” The Obama Administration considered what  Major Nidal Hasan in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, where 13 people were killed and 29 injured was not homegrown terrorism or domestic jihad (despite the shooter screaming “Allahu Akbar”) but was a workplace violence incident.

Alas, this “nuanced” approach is not limited to Newspeak.  Just before the tax day protests which launched the Tea Party, HomeSec Secretary Napolitano sent out a nine page warning to Law Enforcement Officials on Rightwing Extremism, which including a sweeping threat assessment:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So Tea Party types, an older skewing demographic which gather in public places to extol elected officials to “Read the bill!” or “Follow the Constitution” are slimed as extremists with the power of the Federal Government.  Yet DHS took a more subdued approach to the Occupy Wall Street movement, despite evidence in a heavily redacted report that there was coordination amongst the anarchists and serious border crimes like human and drug smuggling.

Americans were encouraged by the Obama Administration to follow the successful New York City campaign “If you see something, say something.”   This pro-active approach from citizens thwarted the attempted Times Square bomber, uh I mean man-made disaster, of May 2010. But Obama’s Department of Justice under Eric Holder, is aggressively suing states for enforcing Federal Law on Immigration (ala Arizona) and trying to ensure voter integrity in the election process.  Moreover, President Obama’s ukase to temporarily suspend deporting illegal aliens who may qualify for the proposed DREAM act legislation has the practical consequence that Border Agents will not try to protect the border or engage in deportation cases.  This is especially true considering the DOJ hotline for deportation detainees to rat on their jailors for supposed civil rights violations.

Securing the nation’s borders and defending the nation’s security are two important enumerated responsibilities of the Executive Branch. DHS Secretary Napolitano testified before Congress last week and blithely admitted that terrorists may cross the borders from time to time.



Napolitano claims that the southern borders are heavily staffed., despite the Obama Administration’s new rules of ICE engagement, the toll-free tattle tale line and closing six ICE offices in Texas in Arizona in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s 1070 law.

So to translate the Newspeak slug which lead this piece into Obama era oldspeak “It is really not good that the Department of Homeland Security is quoted on something that is no longer operative. The order of the day is to rectify this by issuing alternative rhetoric which Joe-Six packs will whole-heartedly accept as part of their infotainment before the daily ad hominem attacks against our opponents.

Admiring the Exposed Super-Egos in the DOJ Voter ID Case

Victoria Rose Rodriguez is an 18 year old from San Antonio who is worried that the Texas Voter ID law would disenfranchise her.  So the Eric Holder led Department of Justice used the Texas teen to testify in Washington DC courtroom as a poster child to nullify Texas’s efforts to prevent voter fraud by demanding state issued identification before going to the ballot box.

In March, the Department of Justice blocked implementation of this Texas Voter ID Law as a violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act.  A three judge panel in Washington, DC is adjudicating the case.  Ms. Rodriguez’s testimony came at the end of the second day of testimony and clearly was an attempt by the Department of Justice to put a sympathetic human face to their case.  Attorney General Holder notes that only 8% of whites lack ID cards but that the statistic skyrockets to 25% for minorities.

Ms. Rodriguez testified that she  has limited documentation, which includes a birth certificate, a student ID and a high school transcript.  Rodriguez is currently a registered voter but enforcement of the 2011 Texas Voter ID law would prevent her from voting.

Rodriguez testified that her parents were too busy to take her or her twin sister to get a voter ID card as her dad works all day and her mother is sole caretaker of her grandmother. Moreover, Rodriguez thinks that getting a driver’s license is untenable as her parents can not afford to add her to the family’s auto insurance policy.

Interesting that a legally recognized adult is so dependant on her parents to exercise her duties as a citizen. Sad that A.G. Holder holds Rodriguez’s example as part of his brief that a young voter is so dependent on her parents to go to the DMV to get an ID card in an urban environment.

Curious that a teen whose parents are too busy to take her to the DMV to get a state ID card (not necessarily a driver’s license) had the time to drive her for an estimated 24 hours one way  from San Antonio to the nation’s capital to testify.  Perhaps she flew to the District of Calamity. But if Ms. Rodriguez used an airline ticket, wouldn’t she had to have shown an approved government issued ID? If so, then why was she testifying?  Did the Department of Justice contract for private aviation for their poster child witness so that ID did not have to been shown.  Inquiring minds would like to know.

If anyone in the Lamestream Media would actually do their jobs and ask hard questions, they would have to come to terms with Ms. Rodriguez’s travel disparity that she was presumably able to fly by showing ID to Washington and testify that she would be disenfranchised by having to show valid official ID to exercise her sacred franchise as a citizen. This would expose the Texas teen as a useful idiot who traded her integrity to get a fleeting moment of fame while aiding a partisan policy which she supports. But instead of being responsible, the AP changed their story that Rodriguez’s parents were too busy to take her to that Rodriguez was unable to get the proper ID.

The Super-Ego is a Freudian concept that relates to the conscience.  Without needing to expose her ID, the ego becomes unleashed.  The Lamestream Media’s Super Ego is covered with yellow and  Rodriguez’s Super Ego seems to have no governor. Then again, is there any governor, like the rule of law,  in the Holder Justice Department?