Clinton Uranium Deal Looks Dirtier Than Michael Moore At An All-You-Can-Eat Fudge Bar

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Putin and Obama in 2012

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

She sells seashells by the seashore…

Hillary sells her country down the river…

In other words:

Putin Paid, Then UraniumOne Got Made

The American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson highlights an interesting article by Michael R. Caputo, who once ran public relations for Renaissance Capital. He confirms that the Clinton-uranium “coincidence” in Russia stinks to high heaven.

Even when I worked there, Renaissance Capital had close ties to the Kremlin – the relationship made Renaissance executives into oligarchs. By 2010, the firm had become a practical arm of Vladimir Putin. Nobody of sound mind would think otherwise.

Bill Clinton took that half million dollar payment as his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, served as a key member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This inter-agency panel must approve foreign purchase of private American companies the government deems vital to our national interest.

Shortly after Bill Clinton delivered the highest paid speech of his life, CFIUS was to consider and approve the key Russian purchase…

… [But in] 2010-2011, I ran acquisition communications for Safran Group, the French government-controlled defense contractor which bought the US biometrics company L-1. It took us almost two years to gain CFIUS approval for France, an historic ally, to purchase a biometrics firm, not even remotely a strategic asset. We were stymied at every turn by an endless stream of questions.

In contrast, the Rusatom acquisition of UraniumOne got CFIUS approval in four months – for control of 20 percent of America’s strategic uranium.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

These two CFIUS approvals were happening at precisely the same time. Safran couldn’t buy a break and was questioned at ever turn. Somehow, Kremlin-controlled Rusatom’s purchase sailed through on a cool breeze.

Any insider will tell you that, considering the vital nature of the CFIUS-UraniumOne proceedings, it is certain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was directly involved. And Bill took $500,000 indirectly from the Kremlin at the same time.

In other words, we have an actual experiment that proves the Clintons are dirty. A control acquisition, with no national security implications whatsoever, was blocked at every turn. A deal for America’s precious uranium resources — a key to nuclear weapons construction — was approved faster than fecal matter through a goose.

In a separate article, Lifson also notes that Hillary’s serial scandals are beginning to affect fundraising.

Donors, observing that donations to Team Clinton are now under scrutiny as possible bribes, are thinking twice about investing in a candidacy that used to be seen as inevitable. Usually, such doubts are left unspoken in public. But now, a top fundraiser [New York businessman Jon Cooper] is obliquely expressing his fears and his plans to suspend fundraising…

…Mr. Cooper is not stating any worries about being tarred with the brush of corruption for merely raising money for Hillary. But that is the clear background of his worries. Now that donations are linked to corruption, anyone with any worries about being fairly or unfairly construed as corrupt (which includes anyone with sufficient money as a donor to be notable) must think carefully about donating to Team Hillary…

…[The once extant] logic [now] reverses itself. She may not be so inevitable, and a donation may lead to negative attention, perhaps leading to negative outcomes, the very reverse of what a donation might have been seen as buying. The more these doubts rise (and the revelations are continuing), the less inevitable she seems. The more doubt there is about her success, the less the payoff, and the greater the risk of critical scrutiny cast on her donors, especially if a Republican attorney general takes office in 2017 with a vow to clean up the mess in Washington.

Lifson asserts that subpoena time is coming.

Knowing the feckless, complicit boobs who comprise the current Republican leadership, I’m not holding my breath.

.

.

.

Share

Hillary’s New Autobiography: She’s A Lesbian, Obama’s An Alcoholic And She Tells Where Osama Bin Laden’s Body Really Is

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Bill and Hillary at a game

 

Hat/Tip to MRConservative.com here and here.

Fifteen years ago, or even a scant ten years ago, coming out as a lesbian would have been the final nail in the coffin of any candidate for the office of President of the United States.

Today?

Eh, not so much. In fact, it will probably help things for the scandal-ridden Democratic White House hopeful, Hillary Clinton.

If anytime in American history is a good time for someone to come out of the closet, this is the time. Today’s media headlines prove that nothing will assure you greater love, acceptance, and applause from the chattering classes than “bravely” admitting that you’re gay. Make that announcement and all past sins are forgiven – even, perhaps, having been married to the President who signed the “Defense of Marriage Act.” Yes, we’re talking about Hillary Clinton. It appears that, in a shock-filled, soon-to-be published autobiography, she’ll finally acknowledge the truth of all those rumors about her being a not-so-closeted bisexual.

The rumors have been floating around forever, starting with whispers that she “experimented” with lesbian sex while at Wellesley. Such rumors, though, always dogged any rather unfeminine, aggressive woman who graduated from one of those politicized, all-girl colleges back in the late 1960s. It was the era of “burn your bra and try sex with a woman.” Given how generic those allegations were, it was easy for Hillary to shake them off.

And in her upcoming book, she plans to not only reveal her sexual proclivities, but also her version of the Lewinski scandal, Bill’s drinking problem and the real place that Osama bin Laden’s body is.

For those of you who always thought that Hillary was lying about everything, you’re about to be proven right. Moreover, the news is going to come from a very unexpected source: Hillary herself.

The National Enquirer, which has stuck very close to honest reporting since getting burned in a long-ago libel suit, reports that Hillary has decided to stop the lies and tell the truth in an upcoming memoir. Simon & Schuster will pay her $25 million for writing the book, which she hopes will inoculate her 2016 presidential run against any future ugly revelations.

According to the National Enquirer’s source, a person who is allegedly one of Hillary’s close friends, “By writing this tell-all, Hillary will settle old scores and get revenge on her enemies.” Those enemies apparently include Barack and Michelle Obama, since pre-publication rumors have it that Hillary will report about Barack’s drinking problem and the Obamas’ serious marital problems. Hillary also plans to attack Valeria Jarrett, who is Obama’s right-hand woman and the person many believe is the real power in the White House.

~~~~~

The book isn’t just about the personal. As part of her attack on the Obamas, Hillary will detail her battles with Valerie Jarrett, “Obama’s brain,” to get a green light on attacking Osama bin Laden. Hillary also plans to detail the fight she had with the White House over Osama’s bloodied, bullet-ridden corpse. Hillary claims that she wanted it returned to the U.S. as proof that he was dead. Obama instead opted for a secret burial at sea (and Hillary promises to reveal the real location) so as not to inflame Muslim sensibilities.

Hillary also intends to admit what many have known for years, but which her friends and ex-lovers have never confirmed: she’s bisexual and has had lesbian affairs. The National Enquirer smugly notes that the memoir will confirm one of its past reports that a veterinarian who came to the White House to treat Socks, the White House cat, caught Hillary in a steamy (and adulterous) embrace with another woman.

~~~~~

For those who still care about Monica Lewinsky, whose sexual shenanigans with Bill almost lost Bill and Hillary the White House, Hillary will finally talk about her version of those events. According to Hillary’s view of things, Monica got word to Hillary that Bill was in love with Monica and wanted to start a family with him (and that she was even planning on getting pregnant without Bill’s consent). Hillary’s response to this news was to throw up in a White House bathroom.

And why is she doing all this now? For two good reasons; first coming out now gets her a big voting block in the Gay Community and second, it deflates any attacks against her, whether they be from the Right or the Left.

Hillary’s plan is that this book, by telling all her dirty little secrets in advance, will clear the way for a 2016 presidential run since none of her opponents will have any dirt to spill on her. The mere fact that she feels compelled to write this book indicates that the Obamas have already gathered this information and, moreover, that they would have used it if Hillary had looked set to sweep the Democrat primaries in 2008. Releasing dirt on his Democrat opponents as a way to clear the field is, after all, vintage Obama.

The MSM will pick this up and run with it, lauding her “bravery” every step of the way instead of asking her why she’s lied all these years. She’s stayed married to Bill and committed adultery on him ad infinitum, which compromises the security of our nation. Anytime an elected official in high office can have something held over their head, then the safety and security of our country is endangered.

Party partisans will no doubt applaud Hillary for her bravery in “coming out” (not that it’s very brave if everyone you care about thinks it’s a wonderful thing to do). It will be more interesting to see how ordinary Americans feel when they discover that the woman seeking the White House has lied to them every step of the way for decades.

.

.

.

 

Share

CHART O’ THE DAY: How The Clinton Global Initiative Used Its Funds During Hillary’s Tenure At State

Share

 photo 150425-clinton-global-graft-initiative_zpshfxxlg9k.jpg

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and @amr033.

Always know how much of the money that is donated goes to the actual cause. In Hill & Bill’s case, not so much…

In 2010, when Barack Obama said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” he definitely wasn’t referring to the Clintons.

Because it wasn’t enough for Bill Clinton to sell sensitive missile technology to the Red Chinese for campaign donations. It wasn’t enough for Hillary Clinton to sell America’s most valuable nuclear technologies to the Russians for “contributions” to her family’s personal piggy bank.

That piggy bank, otherwise known as “The Clinton Global Graft Initiative”, had an interesting way of doling out the “contributions” it received.

The Clintons are a malignant tumor on the body politic. They have a history of doing anything for money — including selling out their own country — and when it comes to their personal bank accounts, there’s apparently never enough zeroes.

.

.

.

Share

McConnell Gives Conservatives The Middle Finger: Proves He Is Obama’s Mitch

Share

Obamas Bitch I Mean Mitch

 

Hat/Tip to George Rasley at ConservativeHQ.

Sticking to the time honored tradition of campaigning as a true-blue Conservative and then acting like a frickin’ RINO when you get back in DC, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell did us all proud by going back on his campaign promises, and electing to vote to confirm a nominee for Attorney General that backed Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty; which is something that Loretta Lynch has testified that she had no problem with.

*sigh*

Yesterday’s Senate vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder, was a classic example of why talk among conservatives of forming a third party alternative to the establishment Republican Party will not die.

Not only did the usual jelly-backed Senate Republicans vote to confirm Lynch, they were led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose job is, ostensibly, to be the leader of the conservative opposition to Obama and his lawless progressive agenda.

In moving the Lynch nomination McConnell broke a pre-election promise that no attorney general nominee would be considered in his Senate if that nominee supported Obama’s executive amnesty, something that Lynch testified she supports.

So McConnell’s vote for Lynch was a sort of “go to hell” moment that conservatives should recognize for what it is: Mitch McConnell saying directly to the conservative Republican grassroots and the conservative movement that opposed Lynch that, despite the fact that conservative voters handed back the Senate majority to the Republican Party in 2014 to make him Senate Majority Leader, he not only doesn’t care what they think, he will go out of his way to disrespect them and confound their policy goals.

Lynch, who testified under oath that she would readily carry out policies contrary to the Constitution could have – indeed should have – been stopped by Republicans in the Senate, but she wasn’t.

In fact ten Republicans voted for Lynch, despite a substantial outpouring of conservative opposition from the grassroots of the Republican Party, the conservative blogosphere and conservative commentators and opinion writers all of whom argued that Loretta Lynch would be as bad or worse than Eric Holder – heretofore the worst and most political Attorney General in the modern era – and that the Senate was under no obligation to confirm a nominee who said flatly that she would not uphold the Constitution.

The ten Republicans who voted for Lynch are:

  1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
  2. Orrin Hatch (UT)
  3. Lindsey Graham (SC)
  4. Jeff Flake (AZ)
  5. Thad Cochran (MS)
  6. Susan Collins (ME)
  7. Mark Kirk (IL)
  8. Kelly Ayotte (NH)
  9. Ron Johnson (WI)
  10. Rob Portman (OH)

McConnell, who isn’t up for re-election until 2020 is more or less beyond reach through the ballot box for now, and he knows it, but Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson and Portman are all up for re-election in 2016 and the Lynch vote should force conservatives in New Hampshire, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio to ask, “Why vote for Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson or Portman if we get the same policies we would get if a Democrat held the seat?”

The answer is, of course, that conservatives shouldn’t vote for Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson and Portman; they should find a conservative alternative to run in the Republican Primaries in New Hampshire, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio and then scratch the Senate line on their November ballot if Ayotte, Kirk, Johnson and Portman are on the Republican ticket.

And it isn’t just the Lynch vote, although that was the last straw as far as we are concerned.

In the analysis of our friend Matthew Boyle of Breitbart, Democrats still control the U.S. Senate. Election results last November aside says Boyle, an analysis of all the votes taken since Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took over as Majority Leader shows that, with two minor exceptions, every single vote that has passed the U.S. Senate since the beginning of this Congress in January has passed with at least—usually more than—93 percent of support from Democrats.

While Republicans have done nothing to create jobs and help the middle class, on other topics like passing clean funding for Homeland Security and confirming Loretta Lynch, Senator McConnell has done the right thing by bringing bills and nominations to the floor that Democrats can support,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman Adam Jentleson told Breitbart News. “Democrats hope this trend will continue.”

Harry Reid’s office should be happy – they are still in charge of the Senate, and the far-left progressive agenda of President Obama is advancing unimpeded by the Senate Republican majority that conservatives worked so hard to elect in 2014.

The Lynch vote demonstrates, conclusively in our mind, that the Republican leadership in the Senate is not merely incompetent, but corrupted and compromised in a way that can only be fixed through the most drastic measures.

It is time for conservatives to understand exactly what Mitch McConnell was telling them by voting for Loretta Lynch and to respond by recruiting principled conservative primary opponents to those who voted for Lynch and if necessary, by refusing to vote for Lynch supporters in the November election.

.

.

.

Share

Is There A Universe Where The GOP “Leaders” Aren’t Morons? I Want To Live In That One

Share
Mitch Mclownell and Johnny Bozoehner
Mitch Mclownell and Johnny Bozoehner (Bo-zaner)

 

 

Once upon a time I naively thought that electing a Republican congress would put the brakes on Obama’s lawless destruction of our once-great nation.

Silly me.

Why did these bozos just vote to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General? Do they want more gun control? Do they like seeing unlimited late-term abortions? Do they enjoy it when “law enforcement” seizes private property without due process?

I suppose that they do. Which makes Mitch McConnell no better than Dingy Harry.

Need more proof of that?

OK, Ole Mitch is gonna bail out ObamaCare’s subsidies if SCOTUS strikes them down. Because we elected his team so ObamaCare could live another day, didn’t we?

Yeah, well, there’s an election to be won. Or something. Ergo, pandering trumps statesmanship.

Un-freaking-believable.

But wait, there’s more treachery.

Cryin’ John Boehner says he is “open” to eliminating spending and borrowing caps, and thus effectively handing Obama a blank check for the last 2 years of his term. Because our taxes aren’t already too high, and we clearly haven’t borrowed enough money yet.

Oh, but the government might shut down again and The New York Times will be mad about that. Boo freakin’ hoo, right? Wrong. Cryin’ John is scared to death that liberals might be mad at him.

Putz.

Can we please find some Republicans with balls? Is that really too much to ask?

.

.

Share

Ted Cruz Sets His Own ‘Red Line In The Sand’: Congress Must Approve Any Iran Deal

Share
Senator Ted Cruz R-TX
Cruz Lays Down The Gauntlet To President Obama: Congress MUST Okay Any Iran Nuke Deal

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Once again, Ted Cruz displays the type of leadership that is sorely lacking in the Oval Office right now.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, have filed an amendment (#1152) to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would require affirmative Congressional approval of any Iranian nuclear deal before sanctions relief can occur.

“The Constitution makes clear that Congress must approve international agreements like the one President Obama is negotiating with Iran,” said Sen. Cruz. “A nuclear Iran is the single greatest threat to our national security and also poses an unacceptably high risk to Israel. Reviewing this deal and deciding whether or not to consent to it may well be the most important function of this Congress. It is not something that should be rushed, and it is imperative that, at the very least, the President obtain majority support for his deal from both Houses of Congress before moving forward.”

As currently written, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 would first require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval and then require Congress to muster votes from two-thirds of each chamber to override a Presidential veto. What’s more, if Congress failed to act within a set timeframe, the deal would go into effect by default. This process gets the Constitution’s allocation of authority precisely backwards.

The Cruz-Toomey amendment would remove these options and restore a more proper process for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power. It would require President Obama to persuade a majority of Senators and Representatives to approve his deal before it goes into effect.

Share

Obama Regime Admits To Releasing Known Gang Member Who Went On To Murder 4 Americans

Share

Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez

 

Hat/Tip to Weasel Zippers.

What was it Obama said about his Illegal Executive Amnesty?

Oh yeah!

He said that his administration was going to deport “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

I’m guessing that this guy must resemble someone’s mom, so they let him go.

The Obama administration is admitting it granted executive amnesty protections to a known gang member — one charged with four counts of murder — and is now reviewing prior approvals to double check that other gang members have not also been approved for deferred status.

In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) dated Friday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Leon Rodriguez explains that Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez’s request for deferred status under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program “should not have been approved” based on standard procedure.

Rangel-Hernandez is currently charged with the murder of four people, including former “America’s Next Top Model” contestant Mirjana Puhar.

On Tuesday Grassley released the letter and said it confirmed his fears, that USCIS is not being careful enough in adjudicating applications for Obama’s DACA program.

“It’s no secret that USCIS staff is under intense pressure to approve every DACA application that comes across their desk, and based on this information, it’s clear that adequate protocols are not in place to protect public safety,” Grassley said.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

David Axelrod ‘Suddenly’ Becomes A Fan Of The Fourth Dixie Chick…

Share

The Fourth Dixie Chick

 

Hat/Tip to Rick Wells at ConstitutionRising.com.

Obama’s former adviser and campaign ‘guru’ for both the 2008 and the 2012 elections has been making the rounds as of late hawking his new book. Well evidently sales are lagging because Axelrod has decided to interject himself into the Tim McGraw anti-2nd Amendment benefit debacle.

david the red axelrodDavid Axelrod played a key role in orchestrating our current failed national experiment with Marxism, having been a senior adviser to the current occupant of the White House and integral component of his successful taking of the White House. He’s now operating as the director of the Institute of Politics at the Communist Indoctrination facility that goes by the name of University of Chicago.

Axelrod had praise for the recently exposed gun-grabber who believes in his right to own firearms, but not in ours, country singer Tim McGraw. Axelrod is suddenly a big fan now that McGraw has joined him on the wrong side of the Constitution.

On April 20th Axelrod sent out a tweet in support of McGraw, saying, “Gutsy move by Tim McGraw to stand up for Sandy Hook Promise. Is it really inconsistent to own guns AND advocate for steps to protect kids?

Actually, that is not a relevant or fair question, which is exactly what we would expect from someone so completely saturated with the poison of anti-American, Marxist ideology.

 

 

Supporting Sandy Hook Promise, an anti-Second Amendment group that is capitalizing on the emotion surrounding the event, is tim mcgraw to do benefit for gun control goupworking to make Americans less safe, by taking away our firearms. Were their type not already in policy-making positions prior to the shooting, it is probable that some defense could have been mustered to the assault by Adam Lanza. Creating more unarmed people through increasing restrictions is advocating for psychopaths and criminals, not for children.

If Axelrod were honest in his message, which will never be the case, he would recognize that Lanza stole the firearms used in the attack and that nothing short of a ban on private firearms might or might not have prevented the shooting. Perhaps that is what he’s really after. No tyranny can survive in an armed population.

The fact that there is not an ounce of truth in the claims of Axelrod doesn’t matter. The progressives pressing for our disarmament will hail his arguments as brilliant enlightenment and McGraw as a champion of reasonable gun ownership and safety. McGraw has shown himself as a hypocrite, who believes he is somehow entitled to protect his family but we are not.

McGraw is a staunch Democrat who is quoted as having said, “I love Bill Clinton. I think we should make him king. I’m talking the red robe, the turkey leg – everything.”

In a 2008 interview, McGraw pledged his support of Hussein Obama for president, saying, “It’s innate in me to be a blue-dog Democrat. I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, but that’s what I am. My wife and I and our family will do everything we can to support Obama. I like his ideas, I like his energy, and I like the statement he would make for our country to the world.”

The worst part of that statement is that the last six years seem to have taught him nothing at all. Maybe he feels Obama is justified in grabbing his own turkey legs.

He may be gutsy, but he’s not savvy and he’s probably not going to sellout many concerts anymore. Those gun-grabbers aren’t the biggest “country” fans and real cowboys don’t put their hands where they don’t belong. And they don’t belong on other people’s hats, their guns, or, as in the video below, slapping women in the face.


Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us

.

.

.

Share

Declassified Material PROVES Obama Lied About Iran’s Nuclear Programs

Share

the deal

 

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Sean Hannity.

Obama lied????!!!!

NO!

Say it ain’t so!!!

(okay, now that I got that out of my system, let’s look at how we know he lied)

President Obama lied to the American people about the true nature of Iran’s nuclear program, according to declassified material. Add this to a litany of lies told by our president.

Declassified material reported on by Bloomberg confirms the following:

“The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb … Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: ‘Oh quite some time.’”

However, as Bloomberg also reports, and as you probably remember, Obama has consistently told the American people that Iran is at least a year away from developing a nuclear weapon. This is otherwise known as the “breakout time.”

Obama even contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue. Netanyahu’s breakout time has always been more urgent than Obama’s. Now we know that Bibi was closer to the truth and Obama knew the truth but lied about it.

It seems as though we are willing to do just about anything to secure a deal with Iran, even if it’s a bad deal.

This includes giving Iran $50 billion as a bonus for signing a nuclear agreement. You read that correctly! This cash release would be in addition to the lifting of sanctions, which is also worth billions. According to experts, that “could be the largest cash infusion to a terror-backing regime in recent memory.”

These negotiations with Iran should not have gone any further without Iran agreeing to a few preliminary things, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and stop sponsoring terrorism.

Those seem like pretty reasonable requests for a country that claims it wants to be a part of the community of nations. Yet instead, we bow to their demands without any reason to trust them. Even as they are shouting “death to America,” we continue down a path towards a nuclear Iran.

And then on top of it all, we have this proxy situation with Iran playing out off the coast of Yemen.

If you will remember, Iran launched a convoy of ships off the coast of Yemen, where it is supporting the Houthi rebels whom have toppled the government and continue to take over cities and government institutions.

As of yesterday, the United States has stepped up its response and is moving a Navy vessel off the coast of Yemen for the purposes of blocking Iranian ships carrying weapons to the Houthi rebels.

According to the White House, it has concerns about Iran’s support of the Houthis. No kidding! Why can’t the nuclear negotiations start there? Stop fomenting terrorism in the region by supporting the Houthi rebels before we will agree on a nuclear deal.

It’s hard to believe that the United States has come to this position in its international standing. We won’t stand up for our red lines, we will berate our allies and coddle our enemies. Unbelievable.

.

.

.

Share

James Carville Says Romney Will ‘Get Back In The Race’ After Jeb Drops Out

Share
bush carville romney
Jeb Bush, James Carville and Mitt Romney

Hat/Tip to Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa at The Washington Post.

With only Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side OFFICIALLY in the race for the 2016 Presidential Election, speculation still abounds.

Saint Anselm College has been a required stop on the pilgrimage for presidential aspirants, going at least as far back as John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon more than a half-century ago.

When former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) made his first speech here on Friday, he pointed to the historic photos on the wall.

“I’m looking out at this room, and I’m seeing these incredible pictures, some of which bring back really fond memories — guy over there, guy over there,” Bush said.

They were decades-old images of two former candidates who happened to be Bush’s father and brother.

The lessons that George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush had learned in New Hampshire were hard ones. Both stumbled the first time they ran here, in 1980 and 2000, respectively.

But this time around the competition on the GOP side is going to be much stiffer and well funded, so the Granite State could be nearly crucial to a successful run on the Republican side.

For Jeb Bush, an even trickier set of challenges awaits in the Granite State in 2016. The first-in-the-nation primary may well be a do-or-die situation for the third Bush to run in it.

Not yet formally declared as a candidate, Bush already is being seen as the establishment front-runner. But that status means less than it used to, given that the GOP has moved further to the right than it was when the older Bushes ran. It also appears that Jeb Bush will be running in a far larger field of credible, well-financed contenders.

Even more significant, New Hampshire could be a crucial test of Bush’s core argument that he is the GOP candidate who stands the best chance of beating Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.

Democrats will also be watching Bush’s New Hampshire effort closely, as a sign of how much of a free-for-all the GOP nominating process is likely to become.

“Jeb Bush has to win New Hampshire. It’s a must-win for him, because he will lose Iowa. You’ve got to win one of them, particularly if [you’re] considered to be something of a front-runner,” Democratic strategist James Carville said at a panel discussion in February celebrating the New Hampshire primary’s upcoming 100th anniversary.

“I will go further,” Carville said. “If Jeb Bush loses New Hampshire, they’ll get Mitt Romney back in the race” — a reference to the GOP’s 2012 nominee, who briefly flirted with the idea of making a third bid for the White House.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Hillz First Campaign Speech Tackles Free Speech – Go Figure

Share
Over budget? What difference does it make?
I get to use Free Speech, but not you people!

Hat/Tip to Andrew Malcom at Investors Business Daily.

Yep, we’re not even really underway as far as the 2016 Presidential Election is concerned, but Hillz is already talking about taking away some of our rights…

You may very well have missed it. But at her first 2016 campaign stop in Iowa Tuesday, wannabe president Hillary Clinton called for a constitutional amendment if necessary to limit free speech rights granted by the Supreme Court to unions, companies and organizations donating to political campaigns.

Few might have expected the ex-Obama aide to kick off her second bid to infiltrate the Oval Office with such a proposal for fundamental change in settled American law. But there she was wearing an uber-smile with more media than audience at Kirkland Community College in Monticello (get the Thomas Jefferson link?).

First, she modestly portrayed herself as somewhat courageous for taking on some evil special interest groups. Because, as her divisive mentor Barack Obama so ably shows, you must have a “Them” to create an “Us.” Hillary proclaimed:

“I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans in four big areas, four big fights that I think we have to take on because there are those who don’t agree with what I think we should be doing. And they’re pretty powerful forces.”

  • Topic One: “We need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday.” Take that, Marco Rubio, who’s called her a yesterday leader. (Scroll down for video of her remarks.)
  • Topic Two: “We need to strengthen families and communities because that’s where it all starts.” Remember her 1996 book, “It Takes a Village”?
  • Topic Four (yes, it’s out of order but play along): “We need to protect our country from the threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon.”

Purposely not specific. With Clinton, “threats” could be anything from the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to the media to, gee, here’s a thought, maybe even terrorism threats that have exploded since she took office as Secretary of State in early 2009.

  • Topic Three: “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all—even if that takes a constitutional amendment.”

Wait! What? Yup, the woman with her own PACs who could spend upwards of $1.7 billion on her campaign is taking on the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That one granted free speech spending rights to nonprofit organizations in the political process, since expanded to unions and corporations.

You may recall Barack Obama violating political protocol in his 2011 State of the Union address to criticize the Citizens decision of Supreme Court justices sitting silently, politely right in front of him. Citizens United is an issue near and dear to the mechanical pumps that pass for hearts in the left-wing of the Democrat Party.

.

.

.

Share

From ‘Dreamers’ To Killers: 250 Murders Committed By Criminal Illegals Knowingly Released In 2014

Share

ms13-gang 001

 

Hat/Tip to Kurt Revere at The Minute Man Project.

Evidently either President Obama lied to us in 2014 when he said they would deport criminals, or he has absolutely no control over a rogue ICE agency.

I’m not sure which one is worse.

But for a reminder, here is what he said about his illegal actions on immigration:

“Over the past six years deportations of criminals are up 80 percent, and that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security,” Obama said in his speech.Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

Crime figures released at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee show a massive number of criminal illegals released by ICE in 2014 have come back to haunt American society.

Despite his big talk about focusing resources of dangerous criminal illegal aliens, President Obama’s record on preventing illegal immigration and now enforcement of current law is seriously lacking.

…both arrests and deportations of criminal aliens are down about 30 percent through the first six months of fiscal year 2015, signaling that agents, who have been told to stop focusing on rank-and-file illegal immigrants, have not been able to refocus on criminal illegal immigrants instead.

The data, released by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte at the beginning of a hearing with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana, also showed that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE knowingly released back into the community in 2014 had amassed nearly 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings and 373 sexual assaults.

These are just the worst of the crimes committed by Obama’s released jailbirds. And his technical excuse doesn’t hold up under careful analysis.

According to the statistics, the aliens released by ICE had amassed 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 994 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.

The Obama administration has claimed that many of those releases are required by court order stemming from a years-old Supreme Court ruling, Zadvydas v. Davis, that says immigrants can’t be held indefinitely and if their home countries won’t take them back, they must eventually be released.

But the new numbers suggest those released are a small fraction. Of the nearly more than 30,000 criminal aliens released, only 2,457 were cut loose because of considerations stemming from the Zadvydas ruling, the House committee said. And for the serious crimes, only about half the homicide convictions and a third of the kidnapping convictions were Zadvydas-related releases.

The sum total of Obama’s current illegal immigration enforcement policy: fewer arrests, fewer deportations and fewer criminals behind bars.

250 people are dead because of these policies.  Their blood is on Barack Obama’s hands.

.

.

.

Share

Read Hillary’s Letters To Saul Alinsky: Says She Left Law School With Her “Zest For Organizing Intact.”

Share
hillary clinton 002
In her book, Hillary downplays her relationship with Saul Alinsky, but her letters to him tell a different tale.

 

Hat/Tip to Zach Noble at The Blaze.

You mean Hillary Clinton lied about the extent of her relationship with Saul Alinsky?

No!

Say it isn’t so!

/sarcasm off

“I seem to have survived law school, slightly bruised with my belief in, and zest for organizing intact.” – Hillary Rodham, 1971

The above quote is from one of the letters that Hillary wrote to Saul Alinsky.

Law student Hillary Rodham apparently had quite a thing for left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky — more than she seems willing to publicly admit.

The Washington Free Beacon has been diligently uncovering pieces of the former first lady and presumed 2016 presidential contender’s past, on Sunday publishing letters between the young Hillary Clinton and Alinsky, the author of the community organizing handbook ”Rules for Radicals.”

“’The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” Alinsky wrote in the 1971 book. “’Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

The newly published letters date from 1971, four years before Hillary Rodham married the man who would become the 42nd U.S. president, and reveal some of the depth of Clinton’s admiration for Alinsky.

“Dear Saul,” she began one letter. “When is that new book [‘Rules for Radicals’] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”

As the Free Beacon noted, Clinton in her memoir seemed to downplay her connection with Alinsky, mentioning him in a single paragraph saying that in 1969 she chose law school over a job with him.

But her correspondences revealed she stayed close with the author after hitting Yale.

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” Clinton wrote.

The Hillary Letters


Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Democrats Want House Back, But Don’t Want Pelosi Back

Share
dems to dump pelosi
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch wants to dump Nancy Pelosi so Dems can get House back

Hat/Tip to IOTWReport.com.

So even the Left has a point in which someone of their own can wear out her welcome…

Who’d A Thunk It?

There is growing consensus in the House is that their only chance to retake the House is to move Nancy Pelosi out the door.  Not even the biggest propagandist the democrats have in the tamestream media will not predict that happening in 2016.  Even the democrats like Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch, who want to dump Pelosi knows it will take more than one election to regain their power.  I agree with him but while he thinks it will take two elections, I think a minimum of three will be needed.  Why?  Because Pelosi won’t step down until this term is up and republicans use her as the boogeyman under the bed to voters.  No one wants to see her back in power.

The democrats in the House are watching what’s happening in the senate with keen interest.  Harry Reid is stepping down and instead of Dick Durbin, who’s turn has come is watching as Chuck Schumer passes him by.  In fact, Durbin is being pushed out of leadership entirely.  Like a Mafia boss, Schumer wants people who owe their positions to him.  Elizabeth Warren and Claire McCaskill are likely contenders for number 2 and 3.

Democrats in the House are also looking to copy the Gingrich example.  The first thing Newt did was put the old bulls out to pasture.  Instead of the time honored tradition of awarding committee chairmanships by seniority, he picked them for their loyalty and their abilities.  Putting John Kasich, the current governor of Ohio, in charge of the budget is a perfect example.  It was he and not Bill Clinton who balanced the first budget in many years.  That also led to Newt’s downfall as you can turn the old bulls away but you can’t make them like it.

Everyone else knows, but one can only wonder if Pelosi herself will admit that she screwed up her party’s majority…?

Let’s face it, Steve Israel gave the democrats the House majority and Nancy Pelosi destroyed the party and lost the majority single handedly.  To fully understand how she did that, you need to see how Steve Israel orchestrated the takeover of the House.  He injected reality into the equation.  There were some districts in the country that just weren’t going to elect a liberal democrat no matter what.  In those districts, he recruited moderates that would make it difficult for the voters to distinguish between the candidates and it worked.  Thirty eight members of the democratic caucus were moderates. Sure, they voted against leadership sometimes but the democrats were in the driver’s seat and could afford a few defectors.

Then the democrats won control of the House and Pelosi decided she was elected Queen and not Speaker.  It became worse once Obama was elected. (Everything for everybody got worse under Obama)  Pelosi started writing all the bills in the privacy of her office and moderates had no access to her at all.  As a result, they had nothing to show to the voters and in 2010 most of them were defeated with the balance losing their seats in 2014.  Now, they are 59 seats down and they need a net gain of 30 seats to win the House back.

But will she stick it out or bow out?

By the end of this year or the first of next year, expect nancy pelosi to announce her retirement.  She’d rather retire than to be voted out as the minority leader in 2017.

.

.

.

Share

Irony Alert: The One Email She Didn’t Erase Announces She’s Running For President

Share
hillary and her lost emails
Irony Alert: After Erasing Potentially Thousands Of Emails As Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton Announces She’s Running For President Via…Email

Hat/Tip to Nickarama at Weasel Zippers.

So she FINALLY produces an email, and it’s the one which says she’s running for POTUS.

Go figure.

.


But not everybody is pleased by this announcement…

.


.


.

.

.

Share

Hillary Lays The Smack Down On The Press: Gives Them Rules On How To Cover Her Campaign

Share
Over budget? What difference does it make?
It Ain’t News Unless I Say It’s News!!!

Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

The audacity of the Left.

But in reality, that IS the Left. They seek to control EVERYTHING except themselves.

With Hillary’s announcement of her presidential candidacy expected on Sunday, conservative pundits are already locking and loading for what promises to be a long drawn out battle.

Among those is Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk show host famous for his sometimes edgy statements and reputation for telling it like it is.

Yesterday, he posted a picture of Hillary on Facebook along with a quite disturbing caption, which, if true, should make us all shudder. Here it is:

Hillz Tells Reporters What They Can Report

“The ground rules for how they will cover her campaign.”

What. The. Heck.

Ground Rules? Who does she think she is? WHERE does she think she is?

It’s bad enough that the liberal media is already bending over backwards to worship her, but now she’s actually telling them what they can and cannot do. Does the term “freedom of the press” mean nothing to this woman?

Does this statement mean that the press shouldn’t keep reporting on all the scandals she was involved in that are busy causing her polling numbers to drop? Or should they try to take pictures of her that actually make her look half human? (Not sure which would be harder.)

This is a truly disgusting and despicable demand of Hillary. She has absolutely no right to tell the media what they can do. In this country, we give the media free rein (we sometimes hate it, but it is necessary), because that is the hallmark of a free society.

A potential president should never be telling the media what they should and should not do — moreover, the media should never stand for such a thing.

If she’s acting like this now, what would she be like if the worst should happen and she were actually elected?

On Inauguration Day, will the Bible be replaced by a golden crown? Will she dub herself Queen Hillary for life? She’s acting like an authoritarian thug already, and it can only get worse.

You don’t see any potential Republican candidates having private lunches with the media demanding their allegiance and obedience. They accept that the media will do their job, and they deal with it.

.

.

.

 

Share

THE MONROE DOCTRINE IS DEAD: Obama Apologizes For All U.S. “Meddling” In Latin America Since… 1823

Share
obama meets with raul castro 2015
Obama meets with genocidal dictator Raul Castro, the first U.S. President to meet with Cuba’s leader since the Communist Revolution. (2015)

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Well, he’s all but killed the rule of law; he’s viciously attacked the Constitution and now he’s outright murdered the Monroe Doctrine.

What a guy…

The Monroe Doctrine is dead. This key U.S. foreign policy, in place since 1823, made clear that foreign efforts to assert control over Latin or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression.

No more stark example exists of the Monroe Doctrine than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, possibly the closest the world has come to global nuclear war.

It was then that the iconic Democrat President John F. Kennedy “cited the Monroe Doctrine as a basis for America’s ‘eyeball-to-eyeball’ confrontation with the Soviet Union that had embarked on a campaign to install ballistic missiles on Cuban soil.”

Now this key, 192-year old American defensive strategem is no more.

Keith Koffler, writing at White House Dossier, relays the jaw-dropping news.

President Obama officially closed a chapter in U.S. history that has guided presidents since nearly beginning, indicating the United States will no longer act to resist overseas influence in the Hemisphere.

Obama, who spoke Friday during a “civil society” forum in Panama City, Panama, disparaged past efforts by the United States to forestall the spread of Communism in Latin America and suggested similar missions would no longer be undertaken.

“The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past,” Obama said.

You read that right: Obama just apologized for nearly two centuries of U.S. “meddling”.

The U.S. being, of course, the country that he “leads”.

Also noteworthy: Mr. Obama announced that he is giving Cuba a free pass on its support for terrorism and Communist insurgencies around the world.

Oh, how I yearn for an American president.

.

.

.

 

Share

Breaking News: First Step Towards Actual Impeachment, Or Just Grandstanding?

Share

 photo Congressman20Ted20Yoho_zpsasqnl6jo.jpg

Hat/Tip to The Conservative Tribune.

Congressman Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida has sponsored a bill that would define what “high crimes and misdemeanors” actually are. Now this could be the first step towards impeachment for President Obama, or warning shot across his bow, so-to-speak, trying to rein in his future Constitutional transgressions, or lastly, it could just be vote-getting grand standing.

After 7 years of numerous high crimes and misdemeanors, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives finally just made a move that could set off impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama.

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., is preparing to introduce a resolution setting forth the House’s definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” drawing an unmistakable line in the sand that would directly challenge Obama’s actions.

The resolution introduces 11 different specific actions that fit the Constitution’s standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and several of them apply directly to Obama.

For example, the resolution lists “failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement” and “substituting executive agreements for treaties” as two of eleven potential high crimes and misdemeanors the House would be declaring “impeachable,” according to Breitbart.

Yoho had help crafting this piece of legislation, and it seems to be a first step towards at least pinning down our Lawless President from any future transgressions.

Yoho said that the most recurring argument against impeachment by experts was that Obama’s actions are similar to actions of previous presidents.

This, he says, is why the resolution is a necessary first-step to impeachment. Once Congress has defined its criteria for “impeachable” offenses, the “Bush did it, too” argument is immediately destroyed.

This resolution was crafted with the assistance of legal experts like Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano and civil liberties attorney Bruce Fein.

And of course, the Libs will be apoplectic on this one, saying the GOP is racist, bigoted, etc, etc…

*yawn*

The Race Card has been SO overused, it has lost any power to pack a punch anymore, but that’s what you get when you go to the well too many times.

Yoho added that he expects that the resolution will cause a liberal “firestorm” and will draw the ire of the race baiters, who will inevitably claim that the only reason the GOP wants to impeach Obama is because he’s black.

But Yoho won’t back down, declaring, “This is strictly about the rule of law.”

He noted that executive amnesty was the final straw. It was a “blatant, in-your-face ‘I’m above the law and I’m going to do what I want. I’m a dictator, I’m a king’” act, Yoho said.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share