Bill Clinton Defends His Foundation’s Spending “In A Way That Helps The Poor”

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.

tdy_cynthia_clinton_150504.nbcnews-video-reststate-854
Bill Clinton trying to defend his half million dollar speaking fees

It just depends on what his meaning of “the poor” is, I guess.

Former President Bill Clinton defended his family’s foundation amid mounting conflict-of-interest questions, claiming there’s nothing “sinister” at work — while saying he might consider stepping down as foundation president if his wife wins the presidency.

Clinton addressed the issue during an interview aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show. The interview comes as media reports raise questions about donors potentially benefiting from their relationship with the Clintons.

But Clinton described the criticism as a “very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down.”

“And there’s almost no new fact that’s known now that wasn’t known when she ran for president the first time,” he said.

As for the foundation’s work, Clinton said there’s nothing “sinister” in trying to get wealthy people and countries to spend money in a way that helps the poor.

Because devoting a mere 6½% of its budget to charitable work is the very model of altruism, or something.

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

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.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an an organizing director.

Gee, I wonder how anyone could get that impression?

The Clintons are just Plain Folks. And they’re “broke,” remember?

Clinton also said he will continue to speak at events if asked. Some people have questioned his paid speaking engagements, which can command as much as $500,000 or more.

“I’ve got to pay our bills,” he said.

It’s tough being a Clinton. No wonder Hillary is running for president, she needs the paycheck, to help, uh, “the poor.”

.

.

 

Share

Disaster Area — Any Place Governed By A Democrat

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.

disastrous-dems

 

 

“I think we as a country have to do some soul-searching.” — Barack Obama

“Barack Obama is right – America does indeed have some soul-searching to do, namely regarding the terrible mistake in allowing Mr. Obama to be its president.” — D.W. Ulsterman

But bad as is the current pretender to the throne, it’s not only the man; it’s his Party.  From Vietnam to the Iran hostage crisis to the rise of ISIS; from Watts to Ferguson to Baltimore; from “what the meaning of is, is…” to “you didn’t build that,”  the tax-and-spend, cut-and-run resumes  of Democrats from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama chronicle incompetence, malfeasance, and unmitigated disaster enough to make any reasonably sane observer wonder why anyone would continue to vote for such incorrigible jackasses.

jackasses
obama-responds

.

.

.

Share

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

Share

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.

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

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

Forget About Oil For Food Or Even Cash For Clunkers, The Clintons Got Cash For Nukes: A Timeline Of Crime

Share

 photo Obama20Hillz20and20Bill_zpssyponuon.jpg

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and The Great One, Mark Levin.

The Clintons orchestrate so many deals that they make Donald Trump look like an amateur.

Of course his deals are legal, they don’t feel the need to be bothered by that tiny aspect when they plot their schemes.

Colin Campbell and Pamela Engel offer an insightful summary of the Clinton Crime Family’s latest scandal. Yeah, I know, it’s hard to keep ’em all straight. I mean the latest one, where Hillary’s State Department approved the sale of nuclear weapons material to Russia (and therefore likely Iran) after the Clintons received millions from Russian government entities.

Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.

• Uranium One’s mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it’s considered a strategic asset to the US.

• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.

• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.

• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia’s government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.

• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.

• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation’s contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.

“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” The Times reports. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well”…

  • According to The Times, Uranium One’s involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.
  • Soon after, Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton’s foundation.
Kazahstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev and Former US President Bill Clinton
REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov SZH/DHKazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev with former US President Bill Clinton in Almaty in 2005. Clinton traveled to the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement with the government, admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium.
  • After the legality of the Kazakhstan deal was called into question, Uranium One asked the American embassy in Kazakhstan for help. Uranium One’s executive vice president copied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a cable saying he wanted an official written confirmation that the company’s licenses in Kazakhstan were still valid, according to The Times. Soon after, the embassy’s energy officer met with Kazakh officials.
  • In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government. Rosatom also said that after that, the agency “did not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private,” The Times noted in a timeline of the events.
Putin with Sergei Kiriyenko, the chief of the Russian state nuclear corporation in 2010
REUTERS/Ria Novosti/Pool/Alexei DruzhininVladimir Putin, then Russia’s prime minister, with Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, in 2010.
  • Investors with ties to Uranium One and UrAsia donated millions to the foundation in 2010 and 2011. These donations were disclosed. In addition to this, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month that the Russians closed the deal for the majority stake in Uranium One. The speaking fee was one of Clinton’s highest, according to The Times.
  • The US Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state, were charged with reviewing the deal that would give Rosatom a majority stake because uranium is “considered a strategic asset with implications for national security,” according to The Times.
  • The concern was American dependence on foreign uranium. The Times notes that while the US “gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20% of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves.”
  • Four members of Congress signed a letter expressing concern over the deal, and two others drafted legislation to kill it. One senator contended that the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity” as well as “a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission made assurances that the US uranium would be preserved for domestic use regardless of the deal.
Putin and Nazarbayev in 2007
REUTERS/Yuri Kochetkov/Pool Putin with Nazarbayev after a joint statement following their talks in Moscow’s Kremlin in 2007. Nazarbayev invited Putin to pay an official visit to Kazakhstan to discuss joint uranium mining and enrichment.
  • Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, “including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One,” The Times notes.
  • After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves.”
Putin and Obama in 2012
REUTERS/Andres StapffUS President Barack Obama with Putin before the first session of the G20 Summit in Los Cabos in June 2012.
  • A source with knowledge of the Clintons’ fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”
  • Despite claims by Russia that the country didn’t intend to increase its stake in Uranium One or take the company private, ARMZ — the subsidiary of Russia’s atomic energy agency — took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange in January 2013.

Read the full story at Business Insider, which — by the way — is a leftwing rag.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

Share

Russian Nuclear Energy To Conquer The World, Thanks To Obama And The Clintons

Share

 photo Obama20Hillz20and20Bill_zpssyponuon.jpg

Hat/Tip to Jo Becker and Mike McIntire at The New York Times.

It’s bad enough when your elected officials go back on their campaign promises. Hell you might even cut them some slack when they explain how “it’s an election year, and gee whiz, they sure are vulnerable, but don’t worry, after the election, I’ll keep those promises.”

Yeahhh, right.

But this is something completely different and tenfold worse.

This is a sitting President, a sitting Secretary of State and a former President conspiring to not only line their pockets, but also to sell America down the river.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author ofthe forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacyfor president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

Read the full story here.

Share

Brett Favre’s Wife . . . A Logic Lesson!

Share
Mrs.Favre
Brett Favre and his wife Deanna

In a news conference, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers football team next season. 

Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be the starting QB because she had spent 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers – even though she has actually never played football at any level from grade school up, never ran the offense of any team, nor ever played the game.

During this period of time, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, the nickel package, man-to-man coverage, so she is now completely comfortable with all the other terminology involving the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable … or familiar to you?

"What difference does it make?"
“Qualifications? What difference does it make?”

Hillary Clinton   makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be the President of the United States and 50% of Democrats polled agree.

She has never run a city, county, or state during her “career” as being Bill Clinton’s wife. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the White House, my immediate thought was, “So does the pastry chef, and the person who picks up dog shit from the White House Lawn”.

When it comes to running the State Department, her biggest achievement was getting a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans killed, by pretending terrorism had been defeated…..

Her words still echo…“what difference does it make?”

Comment: At least Deanna Favre is pretty !

Bill and Hillary at a game

.

.

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

Obama Fears Hillary Presidency: Launches SIX Private Investigations To Stop Her

Share

obama jarrett discredit the shrew

 

Hat/Tip to Greg Richter and Todd Beamon at Newsmax.

Looks like the bad blood between the Obama camp and the Clintons is getting worse. Now author Ed Klein is reporting that Barack Obama fears a Hillary presidency because she wouldn’t be far left enough for him. He thinks she would work with the GOP to dismantle everything he’s put in place to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

Holy crap! What a narcissist. Evidently he doesn’t understand the way that it works here in this country he hates so much. New presidents come in all the time and sometimes they change programs or laws set down by previous administrations. But here’s the kick, Barry. If a law or program is good enough, NO ONE WILL MESS WITH IT.

Veteran journalist Ed Klein said on Saturday that the Obama administration “is up to its eyebrows in efforts to stop” Hillary Clinton from running for the White House — including six investigations launched by longtime presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett involving Clinton’s years as Secretary of State.

“This administration, the Obama administration, will do virtually anything to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” Klein told renowned economist Larry Kudlow on his WABC radio show. Kudlow is also a Newsmax columnist and works for NBC’s business channel, CNBC.

“It’s their view that if she does become president — like her husband, Bill — she will govern from the left of center and not be a true liberal,” Klein said, “and will, therefore, compromise with Republicans like Bill did when he was in office, and will undo a lot of the Obama legacy.

Klein, who worked as the editor of The New York Times Magazine from 1977 to 1987 and as an editor for Newsweek, has written several books critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama

His most recent book, “Blood Feud,” was released last year and detailed the longstanding rift between the Obamas and the Clintons. It topped No. 1 on the Times’ best-seller list.

Klein’s previous work, “The Amateur,” was about Obama’s first term in office. It was released during the 2012 presidential election and remained at the top of the Times’ list for six weeks.

valerie obamas brain jarrett
Obama’s Brain, she tells him what to do in every situation

Of course Obama’s fingerprints won’t be anywhere near this, so it seems to have fallen to his brain, err, I mean Valerie Jarrett.

He told Kudlow that Jarrett, who is a close Obama family friend, began six investigations of Clinton’s years at the State Department — and that his reporting had discovered that the White House was behind the leak of Clinton’s use of emails to The Times, though he is not sure of Jarrett’s role in the leak.

The inquiries surrounded “the use of her expense account,” Klein said, “the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders, her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation — and of course, first and foremost — her use of emails.”

He added that “the White House knew, from the time Hillary became Secretary of State, that she was using these private emails and warned her against them.

“We find it hard to pin down Valerie Jarrett per se as the person who leaked this story,” Klein told Kudlow. “It was, in fact, the White House behind this leak — and they used six degrees of separation so that they couldn’t be identified between them and the person who actually leaked the story to The New York Times.”

Former President Bill Clinton has weighed in on this issue.

Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, believe the White House is behind the leaks, Klein reports a friend of Bill Clinton as saying.

“My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” Bill Clinton reportedly said. “The Obamas are behind the email story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.

“The Obamas are out to get us any way they can,” Bill Clinton reportedly said.

Read the full story here and here.

.

.

.

Share

UPDATED: Bill Clinton Is My Daddy

Share

Editor’s Note:

The original source of this story has pulled it off of their servers. Furthermore, the young lady in the picture (not the one to the left and below, but the beautiful young lady further down) is named Brittany Howes, and you can read her story here. Evidently she has no paternity suit pending on Bill Clinton, or anyone else for that matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bill clinton as a girl_creepy
CREEPY!!

Hat/Tip to BFH at IOTWReport.com and TeaParty.org.

What a disturbing thought, but given his past sexual proclivities, not out of the realm of possibility. One can only wonder how many other little Clintonians there are running around out there…

A 16-year old girl has presented a paternity action lawsuit this morning, before an Arkansas state court, alleging that the former president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, is her biological father.

Alyssa Gilmore claims that her mother, a former secretary of the oval office named Whitney Gilmore, had an affair with President Clinton between 1998 and 2001. She says she was born out of that relationship, and demands that Mr. Clinton undergoes a paternity test to prove that her story is true.

Alyssa Gilmore claims Bill Clinton is her dad

“I know Bill Clinton is my father” says the young girl. “I have many pictures of my mother and him  and I know they were in love. He even gave me présents for Christmas and my birthdays when I was a kid, before he left my mother. I have spent many years writing him letters and calling him, hoping he would come back in my life. At first, he would write back and we spoke on the phone regularly, but he doesn’t even answer anymore. I just want him to take his responsibilities and recognize that he is my father, that’s all.”

Judge Henri Watkins of the Arkansas state court, rapidly decided that Ms. Gilmore had enough evidence to support her demand and announced that the presentation of the evidence will begin on March 19. Bill Clinton wasn’t present in the courthouse this morning, in Little Rock, but he met the media less than an hour after the judge’s decision, in Washington.

Mr. Clinton denied having an affair with Ms. Gilmore or being the father of the teenage girl. He adds that the timing of the accusations suggests that they are intended to ruin his wife’s chances in the run for the presidential elections in November.

“Whitney was indeed my secretary, and she has been a friend of both my wife and I for many years” says the former president. “I have worked with her for a few years, and I have met her daughter a few times. But we never had any sexual relationship and  I am not the father of Alyssa Gilmore. This whole thing is just a diversion created by the Republican party to ruin Hillary’s chances in the run for presidency. I want to get this over with as soon as possible.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Cheryl Mills And Hillary Clinton: What We Must Not Forget About Benghazi And Their Cover Up

Share

 

Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills her chief of staffThe Benghazi Accountability Review Board, (ARB) washed Hillary Clinton white as snow, but the Board was as dirty as a rat’s nest. Admiral Mike Mullen served on the Board, and made it clear that Hillary Clinton was NOT to blame. Fearless reporter, Sharyl Attikson told us of Raymond Maxwell, who walked into the Foggy Bottom of the State Department and found Cheryl Mills and other destroying documents, and Congressman Trey Gowdy said “months and months” of Clinton emails are still missing. Details on all below–a jumble of information that must not be forgotten.

The ARB didn’t interview Hillary, nor did they interview her staff. We knew that, but we didn’t know they had no emails from her, or to or from her staff, to consider. Judicial Watch is leading the effort to demand Hillary’s emails. This week, JW stated:

…Hillary’s top aides at State knew that the Benghazi terrorist attack had nothing to do with “demonstrations” or internet videos….

Last year, government lawyers handling the case brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch told a federal judge that the agency had searched its files and had no more records to produce…

They changed their tune on February 2. More here.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, heading-up the Benghazi investigation, said “months and months” of Clinton emails are still missing.

“There are gaps of months, and months and months,” Gowdy said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

If you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya – she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand – we have no emails from that day. In fact, we have no emails from that trip, Gowdy said. More at The Hill

Thomas Pickering, the head of the ARB, is “proud” of his work, including not interviewing Hillary or her staff, and he thinks his report is just swell. He was appointed by Bill Clinton to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Russia. He was Bill Clinton’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs from 1997 – 2001.

Hillary’s ‘counselor,’ and Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, ran interference the night Benghazi broke. Hillary’s claim that an anti-Islam video, created Benghazi, was promoted by Mills:

“Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there,”  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. “What’s notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack.”…

The emails emerged as Clinton fields criticism over revelations that she used personal email during her tenure as secretary. She is now asking the department to make public thousands of emails she has turned over…

Mills, meanwhile, is a focus of the select congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. During congressional testimony, retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who helped lead the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attacks, confirmed under cross-examination that he personally warned Mills that a witness would be damaging to the department. Read more at Fox News.

Former State Department Deputy Assistant, Raymond Maxwell,  walked into, what he said, was the destruction of documents in the “Foggy Bottom” section of the State Department building in Washington, D.C.–located “just under the jogger’s entrance:”

At the time, Maxwell was a leader in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, which was charged with collecting emails and documents relevant to the Benghazi probe.

“I was not invited to that after-hours endeavor, but I heard about it and decided to check it out on a Sunday afternoon,” Maxwell says…

He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

He didn’t know it then, but Maxwell would ultimately become one of four State Department officials singled out for discipline—he says scapegoated—then later cleared for devastating security lapses leading up to the attacks. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were murdered during the Benghazi attacks. More from Sharyl Attikson here.

Raymond_Maxwell_1-300x225

 

[Megyn] Kelly said that [Sharyl] Attkisson reported that admitted Obama voter and Hillary Clinton supporter Raymond Maxwell, former head of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, is claiming that “he walked into the State Department one night, and that they [staffers]  were scrubbing documents.”

Kelly said that when Maxwell walked in, he was told, “Ray, we are to go through these stacks, pull out anything that might be anybody in the Near Eastern Affairs office, or the 7th floor (Hillary’s floor) in a bad light.”

When Maxwell asked, “Isn’t that unethical?” he was told, “Ray, those are our orders.”

Maxwell claimed that two of Hillary Clinton confidants, including Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills were present during the alleged cover-up operation. Read more at TPNN

Through testimony and the ARB, Admiral Mike Mullen absolved Hillary Clinton of all blame for Benghaz, saying it was solely the fault of the terrorists, nevermind that he also said:

State Department bureaus that were supporting Benghazi had not taken on security as a shared responsibility, so the support the post needed was often lacking and left to the working level to resolve. The buildings at Special Mission Benghazi did not meet Department standards for office buildings in high-threat areas, and in a sense, fell through the cracks bureaucratically by being categorized as temporary residential facilities. While a number of physical security upgrades were done in 2012, at the time of the attacks the compound did not have all the security features and equipment it needed.

How is a Secretary of State absolved of security issues for a Special Mission she set up? Remember, Mullen had no emails, and he did not address the “video” lie.

Uzra Zeya served as the Executive Secretary to the Board:

She has served as Deputy Executive Secretaries to Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice.Uzra Zeya is a staff member of the American Educational Trust specializing in Islamic affairs. This article by Zeya shows a mission to clear up unattractive images of the prophet Muhammad – things like the the Koran placing men above females. Not so according to Ms. Zeya. She also authored “How US Islamic Financial Institutions Provide Interest-Free Services.” She ‘produced’this video (or something – it’s presented as Islam in America – by Uzra Zeya) of a pretty blonde California girl who converted to Islam, never leaves her home without being properly covered, and runs a school for Muslim children.

All of the links in the above paragraph have been scrubbed with the exception of the last, leading to Zeya’s video.

As Senator Lindsey Graham said, Hillary Clinton ‘got away with murder,’ (see the video here, at about 5 mins-in).


.

.

Share

Why Hillary Will Abandon Her Run For The White House

Share

hillz upset

 

Hat/Tip Alan Caruba at Doug Ross @ Journal.

With scandals mounting, it is plain to see that Hillary Clinton’s plan to be the 45th President of the United States is floundering and she hasn’t even officially announced yet.

The revelations, reported initially in the most left-wing newspaper in the nation, The New York Times, that Hillary Clinton used her own private emails to conduct public business, suggests that there are forces within the Democratic Party that do not want her to be its candidate for President in 2016.

It’s not like Hillary did not know she was supposed to use the State Department’s email system for reasons of national security; her private emails could have been hacked by forces unfriendly to the U.S. All government employees are routinely briefed on the laws that require this.

For the record, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. On September 18 of last year, I wrote a commentary titled “Go Away, Hillary” in which I asked “Other than earning her law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own. Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.”

Beyond Hillary, what I object to is the necessity to raise millions with which to secure either Party’s nomination and a billion to run for the presidency. We are electing someone who has literally bought the election courtesy of donors who have made the selection for the rest of us. There is something fundamentally undemocratic about that.

That said, I don’t think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016.

That may surprise you, but it surprises me as well. And, yes, I could be wrong, but the revelations about her patently illegal email use while Secretary of State suggests that there are forces within her Party that want to end her candidacy now rather than later. They are sending her an ominous message.

Ron Fournier is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal. Prior to that, he worked at the Associated Press for 20 years, most recently as its Washington Bureau Chief. On March 3rd, he wrote an opinion piece titled “Maybe she doesn’t want to run in 2016, top Democrats wonder. Maybe she shouldn’t.”

“Two weeks ago,” wrote Fournier, “we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from the Obama administration and Clinton aides that no donations were made during her tenure as Secretary of State were proven false.”

“Now The New York Times is reporting that Clinton used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State, an apparent violation of federal requirements that her records be retained.” He quoted one unnamed “senior Democrat” as saying “This story has legs as long as the election”, noting that many senior Democrats “are angry.”

“My concern,” wrote Fournier, “is that Clinton does not see this controversy as a personal failing. Rather, she sees it as a political problem that can be fixed with more polls, more money, and more attacks.” He described her problem as “a lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency.”

If there is one thing to which the Democratic Party is totally dedicated, it is winning the White House and control of the Congress. Ever since President Obama has been in office, it has taken a beating as voters have relentlessly transferred power to the Republican Party in Congress and in many States. It is an unmistakable trend and one that must keep Democrat strategists up at night.

In January 2014, a Pew Research poll found that 69% of women who identified themselves as Democrats hoped to see a female President in their lifetime, compared to only 20% of Republican women. In April 2014, a Rasmussen poll found that “51% of likely U.S. voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Clinton, while 44% view her unfavorably.”

The Huffington Post analysis of the Pew poll concluded that “not wanting Clinton in office is the only one explanation for Republican woman’s relative lack of enthusiasm about electing a candidate of their own gender”, adding that “It may be that (the) gender of a candidate has simply become a less compelling factor for voters…”

Six years of having a President who was elected primarily because he is black have taught voters that race and gender are insufficient factors on which to base one’s vote.

Six years of a sluggish economy, massive unemployment, declining wealth among the Middle Class, and a disaster called foreign policy will influence 2016 votes along with, of course, whoever the candidates may be.

So I will return to my conjecture that Hillary, no matter her desire to be the first woman U.S. President, will also have to address the practical realities of politics. Opposition from within the Democratic Party will likely be a deciding factor. She has put off announcing her intentions until April. If she puts it off again that would suggest some deep misgivings.

If you had the choice between a life of great wealth and fame as opposed to the daily inquisition and criticism that comes with the presidency, which would you choose?

.

.

.

Share

Obama’s Approval Rating Implodes Among Military Members To Just 15%…

Share

Obama-and-troops

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

I would imagine that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both happy with this report. Neither man was as popular with the military as the much maligned George W. Bush. Now it seems that Obama has taken the lead on this. Maybe he wishes he could “lead from behind” on this issue, as well.

Heh…

Via Military Times:

… The long-term effects of Obama’s social policies on the military remain unknown. But one thing is clear: He is a deeper unpopular commander in chief among the troops.

According to a Military Times survey of almost 2,300 active-duty service members, Obama’s popularity — never high to begin with — has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.

.
.
.

Share

Scratch a Democrat and an anti-Semite Comes Out

Share

 photo bidenclintonwarrenanti_semites_zps7e63e4ad.jpg

The Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren Edition

VP Joe Biden colorfully slandered Jews yesterday with an offensive medieval stereotype.

“My son as attorney general, the year in Iraq, came back and that’s one of the things that he finds is, was most in need, when he was over there in Iraq for a year, people would come to him and talk about what was happening at home, in terms of foreclosures, in terms of bad loans that were being, I mean these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.”

The reference is from Shakespeare’s play “The Merchant of Venice,” where the evil Jewish moneylender literally required a pound of flesh from someone who didn’t repay their loan. It has long been considered a vile and offensive term.

Then it was Bill Clinton’s turn, bashing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Iowa.

Bill Clinton was recorded bashing Bibi Netanyahu, agreeing that the prime minister was “not the man” to make peace with Palestinians — a position at odds with his wife’s pro-Israel stance, a new report said Monday.

Bubba thought he wasn’t being recorded. So, um, then this is what he really thinks, right?

Good to know.

At least Hillary won’t have to worry about Elizabeth Warren trampling on her purported pro-Israel turf. Fauxcahontas told a Holocaust survivor that it’s “fair” to compare Israel’s actions to a Nazi atrocity.

“Eva Moseley, I’m not a student, I’m not an alumnae, but was in faculty life. I was also a Holocaust refugee and I’m extremely concerned that Jews don’t do to another people what was done to them,” said the activist.

“I think that’s fair,” Senator Warren responded.

Yes, because protecting your citizens from bombs and rockets is exactly like rounding up Jews and shoving them into ovens, or something.

The attitudes of these top Democrats is sickening.

The casual bigotry on display here is endemic of a wider problem. Because if lots of people, including many in the media, didn’t share these reprehensible beliefs, Democrats wouldn’t be so quick to toss them around. Obviously they presume they’re among friends, fellow travelers who nod approvingly at rampant anti-Semitism.

And their odious prejudice is contagious.

This fall NYC’s Metropolitan Opera will present “The Death of Klinghoffer,” a play that is filled with ugly, anti-Semitic propaganda lies that romanticize the Palestinian cause. The fact that an innocent, disabled Jewish man was thrown to his death from a cruise ship? Who cares, he was probably a Shylock anyway.

UPDATE 17 Sep 2014 14:23:
Biden, Clinton, and Warren have nothing on Democrat WV Rep Nick Rahall.

 

 

Rahall employs one Collin Peterson, whose Facebook page features a picture of him posing in terrorist garb holding an AK-47.

Peterson is also a Field Organizer for the West Virginia Democratic Party.

Draw your own conclusions.

Share

Obama Worst, Reagan Best, Mitt a Better Fit

Share
Reagan Obama
Best President since WWII, Ronald Reagan; Worst President since WWII, Barack Obama

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

Quinnipiac: Obama Worst President Since World War II, Reagan the Best

It seems as if the pollsters are finding out what we here in flyover country (anywhere outside of DC) already knew.

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, and the United States would have been better off if his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, had won the election in 2012, a new Quinnipiac University national poll released today reveals.

The best president? Ronald Reagan.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

On the question of whether the country would have been better off if Mitt Romney had won in 2012, it seems as if the electorate is finally waking up.

“Would Mitt have been a better fit? More voters in hindsight say yes,” Malloy said.

In addition, 45 percent of the voters said the country would be better off if Romney won in 2012, and 38 percent said the country would be worse off.

The choice was sharply divided among party lines, with Republicans choosing Romney by 84 percent to 5 percent and Democrats choosing Obama by 74 percent to 10 percent. Independent voters came in with a 47 percent to 33 percent nod to Romney.

Read the full story here.

Share

Obama’s Poll Numbers Plummet to Below 30%

Share

americans level of confidence in the presidency by term year

Hat/Tip to Gallup.

Barack Obama is suffering from the Second Term Blues, and he has only himself to blame. Well, himself and Bush, I mean he blames Bush for everything. Well, Bush and Global Climate Warming Change. Well, Bush, Climate Change and the House Republicans.

I’d better stop before this Op-Ed begins to resemble a Monty Python skit.

Anyway, as Obama is embroiled in scandal after scandal, his numbers and popularity among us “bitter clingers” here in “fly over country” are in the basement. When you compare Obama’s numbers to that of Clinton and Bush at the same point in their Presidency, you quickly see how these “phony scandals” have cost him much political capital.

And the overall disgust and dissatisfaction with the government, doesn’t stop at the President’s door step, either. All three branches of government have lost the public’s trust.

americans level of confidence in three branches of governmentRead the full story here.

Share

Broke-A-Hontas: Hillary gave “dozens” of free speeches

Share

brokeahantas

Hat/Tip to the Business Insider.

Speaking for “Dead Broke” Hillary, her aide tried to address the recent uproar over her $200,000 speaking engagement fees by reminding us that Hillz has given all kinds of free speeches.

Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees came under scrutiny last week after student leaders complained about a $225,000 fee for one of her speeches at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. However, an aide to Clinton pushed back against the “uproar” with emails to Business Insider late Friday wherein they noted “a few points” about her speaking engagements including the fact the fee from UNLV went to the charitable Clinton Foundation and the “dozens” of speeches Clinton has made for free.

And if they’re not free speeches, well gosh the money goes to the Clinton Foundation….

But wait, isn’t that where Bill & Hillz get their paychecks from?

“There was a lot of confusion about who received the payment from UNLV. That money went to the Clinton Foundation, which as you know does enormously important work to save the lives of AIDS patients in Africa, fight childhood obesity in the United States, address climate change, and much more. The fees from more than a dozen of her speeches have gone to fund the Clinton Foundation’s work around the world,” the aide wrote, underlining the final sentence for emphasis.

Read the full story here.

Share