After reading yesterday’s post, it occurred to me that the real danger in those emails is that as has been speculated the Russians and the Chinese and others already have them . Consider the bargaining power those countries would have in negotiations with a president Clinton when they could threaten to release emails showing criminal conflicts of interest or other embarrassing or ethically challenged activities of the Clintons and/or their foundation. Makes you stop and think — hopefully!
I was curious to see how the main stream media (MSM) would cover yesterdays Benghazi hearing. As expected they all ignored reporting on the damning information that came out yesterday for the first time and in my opinion disqualifies Clinton from ever being Commander-In-Chief. By the way, had it not been hidden by the Obama/Clinton administration and covered up by the MSM and Candy Crowley in the last Obama-Romney debate, it would likely have resulted in Romney being elected.
Now to be perfectly honest, I agree with the vast majority of the media that yesterday’s hearing did little or nothing to change how Democrats or Republicans will vote in the Presidential election. The Democrats have all their egg in one basket and are busily trying to protect that egg as evidenced by their behavior at the hearing. With few exceptions, they didn’t ask any substantive questions. Instead they engaged in long soliloquies castigating the Select Committee or singing the praises of Hillary while she sat there with the biggest shit eating grin and visually gloated.
And Republicans were never going to vote for her anyway. The real question is how many of the Independents will actually inform themselves about the issues involved in Benghazi.
The disqualifying information was brought out by Rep. Jim Jordan (R. Ohio), and involved information that was only recently provided to the committee. It turns out that while the attack was still going on she put out a quick announcement blaming the video but then less than an hour later emailed Chelsea telling her that 2 had been killed by an Al Qaeda like group with no mention of the video.
She then had a phone conversation with the Libya President in which she asked the Libyan government to provide additional security at the compound immediately “as there is a gun battle going on, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.”
The following afternoon, Hillary had a telephone conversation with the Egyptian Prime Minister in which she said according to notes made by her staff, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.”
Yet she and Obama and Susan Rice and Jay Carney continued to spin the video blame game. To me the unforgivable is when Hillary and Barrack stood over the flag draped caskets of 4 brave Americans and flat out lied about what happened to cover their political asses. You can’t be my Commander-in-Chief and desecrate our heroes like that.
Hillary continued to try to blame it on the fog of war yesterday, although it’s pretty hard to spin that tale when your own words make that attempt ridiculous. What it really was was the needed fog in an election. The attack took place 2 months prior to the 2012 presidential election. Obama was busy taking victory laps about killing Bin Laden and decimating Al Qaeda. A successful Al Qaeda attack on our consulate in Benghazi that killed our Ambassador and 3 others wasn’t going to square with the victory rhetoric, so it was necessary to invent the lie to save the election. If you remember, Obama was so concerned about what happened to our representatives in Benghazi that he flew to a fund raiser in Las Vegas — indicating where his priorities lay.
After he took care of what he considered his most important business, he returned to spread the video lies and stood over those caskets along with Hillary and flat out lied to the loved ones — parents, spouses and children — about what happened to protect his reelection and his ‘legacy’.
This has been suspected for a longtime but up until yesterday, it was all this intelligence group said x and another said y and nobody told anybody etc. etc. But yesterday the unvarnished and incontrovertible truth was laid bare with the words coming straight out of the horse’s ass. There is no way Hillary can spin the attack “had nothing to do with the film” into “it was the film”.
What yesterday proved is she has no character, no honor and no dignity that would allow us to trust her to be Commander-in-Chief of this nation! She is a tired political hack who is a big part of the problem, not the solution. It’s no wonder she wanted her emails buried and it will be interesting when some of the ones she thought were deleted start showing up.
The Electoral College was established in the Constitution as a compromise between electing the President by popular vote or by a vote of members of Congress. It made sense in the beginning of this nation as did allowing 2 senators from each state regardless of population. Two senators from each state still makes sense as a check on populous states running roughshod over less populous states. However in Reynolds v. Simms (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that a similar system could not be used for state senates and established the “one man, one vote” principle.
Again, I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the continued use of the Electoral College to elect our president. With all the bogus talk about voter ID requirements disenfranchising minorities — and polls have shown that minorities actually favor voter ID cards — it is time to talk about the real voter disenfranchisement issue of our time, namely, the Electoral College. If you’re a conservative or a republican and you live in say New York or California or Maryland (where I lived for almost 30 years), your vote for president is meaningless and that’s not right.
And it’s no different if you’re a liberal/socialist/progressive democrat living in Texas or Alabama. Likewise, if you live in a less populated state like North Dakota, your vote either way is effectively meaningless because of the small weight it carries in the Electoral College math. Which is why, every 4 years, outside of the ridiculous attention paid to Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada early on, the campaigns eventually get down to a heavy concentration on the so-called swing states like Ohio and North Carolina and Florida and Virginia. Most everything else is already locked down for 2016, no matter who the nominees are. And that is ridiculous and makes a farce of the whole process.
President is a national office responsible to all citizens, and should be elected by a popular vote of all citizens. It shouldn’t be a contest where everyone’s vote counts but only really in 5 or 6 states. And the Electoral College is the reason that candidates have won the popular vote nationally and lost the election.
If you don’t want to abolish the Electoral College which would take a constitutional amendment, then we should at least require states to apportion electoral votes by percentage of votes received in the state instead of the winner take all process used in most states. This would not require a constitutional amendment but would have to be done state by state — Maine and Nebraska have such systems now — so that means it won’t happen, but if Hillary et al were really interested in voter disenfranchisement they’d address this issue instead of stacking the deck.
They won’t because a look at the present make up of the House of Representatives would tell you all you need to know about the likely outcome. Seats in the House are apportioned by population. Republicans have a substantial majority in the House. Democrats don’t want one citizen one vote because they would lose.
I don’t know where my next rant is going but it may involve Denmark.
I don’t intend to make this rant long and drawn out. It’s about the Bill, Hill and Chill “Foundation”. The reason I will be brief is that most anyone who reads this is undoubtedly already aware of all the questions about this family slush fund and if you need more info go to the report at the following link. http://capitalresearch.org/2014/09/?cat=9.
The foundation is nothing more than a slush fund ATM for the Clintons that does little other than provide minimal cover for foreign countries and rich people to provide large sums of money to the Clintons in a pay to play scheme. Give Bill some money and Hillary will grease the skids for some deal you need or government approval you require. It’s plain and simple influence peddling.
The foundation manages to use somewhere between 8% to 10% of its donations for its supposed charitable purposes. One estimate says it could be as high as 35%.
This begs the question. What’s the rest used for? It was basically campaign headquarters for Hillary’s future presidential campaign. Her campaign staff and friends like Sid Blumenthal were given “jobs” for the foundation. And much of the remaining funds were used to support the Clinton’s lavish lifestyle tax free. $55 million was spent on travel alone, and you can rest assured that it wasn’t economy class.
The supposed shining star in the network of entities that comprise the Clinton Foundation is the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The Clinton’s and their supporters always tout the hundreds of millions of dollars of good works supposedly done by the CGI. But when you look at what the CGI actually is, the bogus nature of the claimed good works becomes apparent. What the CGI really is is an annual meeting in New York of the wealthy and powerful and Hollywood celebrities who for $20,000 a piece get up and make speeches committing to do good deeds. The commitments aren’t binding and never really tracked, but the Clinton’s take credit through the CGI for all the commitments other people make.
In reality, the CGI is a bunch of wealthy people getting together to pat each other on the back for being rich and “committing” to help the less fortunate – whom many of them exploited to get rich in the first place.
(To me it’s similar to academic honor societies. I raised the issue in high school of the self-serving and disingenuous nature of honor societies with my academic counselor. [This isn’t sour grapes. I was in them all up to and including the Order of the Coif.] To me academic honor societies are primarily groups of individuals who were blessed with intelligence patting each other on the back for being so blessed. To me , we should be honoring the less gifted who bust their asses to get C’s or B’s, not people who get A’s without trying.)
The CGI is the same thing; a bunch of fortunate people patting themselves on the back for being rich and “committing” to use a small portion of their wealth to help the less fortunate.
The real purpose of this rant is to point out the obvious to the oblivious. Please explain to me why a foreign government would give the Clinton Foundation a generous donation that was for relief in Haiti. Why not give it to the Red Cross in Haiti or some international relief fund in Haiti instead of laundering it through the Clintons where we know the vast majority of the money will never get to Haiti.
Why would Frank Gieustra, the Canadian multi-billionaire with his own foundation, give $130 million to the Clintons? His foundation doesn’t know how to spend money? Or could it be that Hillary greased the way for him and Putin to get control of a significant chunk of US uranium?
Why would anyone pay Bill or Hill $300,000 or more to speak for an hour? And why would Chelsea get $75,000 and even $100,000 to speak or show up? While Bill might be entertaining, although he’s beginning to look a little senile the last few times he’s spoken, he’s not a half-million dollars worth of entertaining — nobody is. And Hillary is seldom entertaining. God knows I’m a better and more entertaining speaker than she is but no one is lining up too pay me 6 figures to prattle on. And please tell me anything that would make Chelsea worth the fees she gets. What’s she ever done other than be born to Bill and Hill?
The answer is obvious. The Clinton Foundation is just a very thinly disguised influence peddling racket which should lose its “charitable” status and be investigated for potential criminal conflicts of interest.
Just imagine how much influence peddling Hillary can do if you’re stupid enough to elect her. Want to bet on how much the speaking fees for Bill, Hill and Chill and donations to the foundation decrease if she loses and is no longer in a position to peddle?
I think my next rant will be on the need to abolish the electoral college.
Go to YouTube and search for Ted Cruz versus the Sierra Club. It’s an amazing interaction at a Senate committee meeting which demonstrates the vacuous, robotic response of the climate alarmists to actual facts. Just tap your feet together and chant I agree with the 97% of scientists who say it’s real over and over. Forget the fact that the 97% was pulled out of thin air and the fact that no warming has taken place for over 18 years. Just keep repeating the chant.
The Sierra Club needs a new president because this guy appears clueless like a deer caught in the headlights.
Just a couple of updates in the ongoing “scientific” fraud known as climate change. As I’ve indicated previously the entire scam is about money and government power and is supported by government lapdogs posing as objective scientists. Set forth below is an excerpt from an article indicating that 92% or more of the temperature data is estimated or altered. And the reason is that if you used the actual recorded temperature data it would show no warming. See the chart below which graphs the actual thermometer recorded data for the US.
“First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.
- * *
Why do the alarmists, lavishly funded by the world’s governments, persistently alter the data before they feed it into their computer programs? Because the raw data won’t get them where they are trying to go, to keep the money flowing. This is what you see if you just plot the temperatures that were recorded on thermometers here in the U.S. No warming:
NOTE: I’ve tried several times but can’t get graph to transfer to website. Please check the link below for the graph.
No warming means no money. That is what fraud is always about in the end: money. Could someone please explain this to Pope Francis?”
The second article examines the actual way the computer models were developed to make CO2 the only real factor. Remember what I said in my first rant, if it’s your model you control the outcome. These models are all self-fulfilling prophecies. Note in the summary below that the sun is said to have no effect on the future temperature of the earth. REALLY? I defy anyone to stand up and say that out loud. It’s ludicrous and it’s why whenever you question the nonsense, instead of rational discussion you get venomous personal attacks and name calling.
Bottom line is that their models amount to a bunch of smoke and mirrors and duct tape and baling wire and bubblegum that look fancy and complicated but when you break it all down it comes out to: [ Black box with a lot of crap that always equals ZERO] + increase in CO2 = increase in temperature. Total BS!
The following table summarises all of the above:
|Factor||Understood?||Contribution to models’ predicted future warming|
|Water Cycle||Partly||(built into Water Vapour, below)|
|Galactic Cosmic Rays (and aerosols)||No||0%|
|Water Vapour||Partly||22% but suspect|
|Clouds||No||41%, all highly suspect|
|Other (in case I have missed anything)||0%|
The not-understood factors (water vapour, clouds) that were chosen to fiddle the models to match 20th-century temperatures were both portrayed as being in reaction to rising temperature – the IPCC calls them “feedbacks” – and the only known factor in the models that caused a future temperature increase was CO2. So those not-understood factors could be and were portrayed as being caused by CO2.
And that is how the models have come to predict a high level of future warming, and how they claim that it is all caused by CO2. The reality of course is that two-thirds of the predicted future warming is from guesswork and they don’t even know if the sign of the guesswork is correct. ie, they don’t even know whether the guessed factors actually warm the planet at all. They might even cool it (see Footnote 3).
One thing, though, is absolutely certain. The climate models’ predictions are very unreliable.
People, keep your eye on the ball and your hand on your wallet!
The 24 hour news cycle is certainly a part of the problem in the continuing saga of mentally ill or socially disaffected or religious terrorists going on a shooting spree and killing innocent people. Invariably, the media makes these wackos celebrities and it has been shown that they follow the exploits and coverage of their predecessors and try to out due them.
Look, I know when a school gets shot up, it’s news and you need to report it and the known facts associated with it, but you don’t need to have live continuous coverage of the scene and the on air speculation about motives and lifestyle and all the other crap they use to fill time while they give us a overhead view of police walking around.
And then there’s always the useless interviews with ANYONE they can find just to fill time. Stuff like — did you hear the shots? no. Where were you at the time? On the other side of campus. Well tell us why you think you didn’t hear them, do you think some kind of suppressor was used? This is utter and complete nonsense, but resulted in hour after hour of continuous, vacuous nonsense while Russia invaded Syria and bombed the opposition we supported and countless other things went uncovered.
Interviewing anyone you can find to fill the time to the next commercial is not news, and neither is idle speculation by “pundits” and “experts” with no facts. Knock it off and quit giving these nuts round the clock coverage! You’re part of the problem. Don’t give them the time of day and instead cover something that is actually happening.
It reminds me of coverage when there was a gunman at the National Zoo a few years back and in the media’s zeal to say on it continuously, they were interviewing on camera any idiot who happened to be walking by on the street just to fill time and keep the cameras rolling.
The only time nonstop coverage is justified is when something is happening nonstop. For example, remember a couple of years ago when that tornado tore through Oklahoma I think and it was shown live on camera as it happened for half an hour to an hour. That was fascinating and horrifying and worthy of nonstop coverage because the action was nonstop.
So from now on please stop making celebrities out of nut jobs and please report the facts you know and then move on to other news until you actually know something more.
Once again the TV folks and the ACC have conspired to piss me off. Someone please explain why the first ACC football game on Saturdays always starts 30 minutes later than everybody else. What difference does it make you ask? I’ll tell you why, because the second game is always a major SEC matchup, and I always have to go to a non-HD channel, like it’s still the 70’s to watch the game. The ACC game always goes over 3 hours.
I understand that this is ACC country and I’m watching the NC State game now, but No.13 Alabama is at No. 8 Georgia in 13 minutes and the 4th quarter of the State game is just getting started. Also note that the first ACC game on CBS is seldom if ever a game of major import. Games with national significance are not played at 12:30.
The fix is simple. Either start the ACC game at 12 like everyone else, or get TWC of its ass to find an HD channel to show the usually significant SEC game until the ACC game ends.