Journalists could be starting to get somewhere regarding the reason Shrillary went to such illegal lengths to keep her emails secret when she was Secretary of State:
An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.
The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to the AP after it sued the government in federal court.
The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.
At a time when Clinton’s private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the “risk of the personal being accessible” — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide’s inbox.
By “personal” she presumably means “directly related to influence peddling.” If the mainstream media expends a little more shoe leather, we could learn the likely felonious details.
Because Democrats and Donald Trump hold that those on government watch lists should be denied a constitutionally guaranteed right without due process, some might wonder how easy it is to get placed on one of these lists. Here’s how easy:
You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they’re reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.
The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they’re required to submit at least one report a month. If they don’t, there’s no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.
“Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft … and they did nothing wrong,” said one federal air marshal.
These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system. …
What kind of impact would it have for a flying individual to be named in an SDR?
“That could have serious impact … They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious,” said Don Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta. He lost his job attempting to change policies inside the agency. …
“To meet this quota, to get their raises, do you think federal air marshals in Las Vegas are making some of this stuff up?” Kovaleski asked.
“I know they are. It’s a joke,” an air marshal replied.
This could go beyond the government arbitrarily denying you the right to buy a gun. Remember when Trump defiantly shouted during a debate that he would force agents of the federal government to violate the law by torturing suspected terrorists and murdering their relatives? One of those suspected terrorists could be you. After we have determined that those on government watch lists do not deserve rights or due process, anything is possible.
This is serious.
On tips from The Only Other Conservative in Seattle and Steve A.
Moonbats are at a loss as to why Britons are leaving the EU. Some believe it is because they are racist, for not wanting bureaucrats in Brussels to displace the native population with Islamic welfare colonists from the Third World. But domestic politicians are as responsible as anyone for immigration getting out of control. Possibly a more powerful reason is that the British want to get out from under regulations like these:
A 1994 EU regulation specified that bananas must be ‘free from abnormal curvature.’
EU rules also governed the shape of many other fruits and vegetables — cucumbers, for example, needed to be almost perfectly straight.
Many of these specifications were abolished in 2008, though the banana guidelines remain on the books. …
From September 1, 2014, companies were prohibited from manufacturing or importing any vacuum cleaners above the 1,600-watt limit as part of a drive to reduce domestic electricity use. …
This directive was expected to be extended to kettles, toasters, hair-dryers and other domestic appliances but it was shelved earlier this year amid fears it would drive the British public towards the EU exit door.
Now that they don’t have to worry about Britain leaving anymore, the Brussels bureauweenies can really bear down on the pointless tyranny.
This one is even crazier:
In 2011, a ruling by the European Commission claimed that drinking water ‘does not ease dehydration’.
EU authorities passed a law which claimed scientists had found no evidence to suggest drinking water stopped dehydration.
Manufacturers of bottled water were prohibited from labelling products with claims that would suggest consumption would fight dehydration.
In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In the EU, it’s diabetics:
European laws introduced in 2011 meant that drivers who treat their diabetes with insulin who have had one or more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, known as ‘hypos’, could face losing their licences. …
Diabetes UK said that the DVLA did not differentiate between daytime and night-time episodes of hypoglycaemia, meaning that some people with diabetes are losing their driving licence unnecessarily.
Many EU regulations are so trivial that they don’t seem like a big deal…
Three years ago, the European Union planned to ban the glass jar which is filled, and refilled, with olive oil and served on restaurant tables across the EU, stating that only non-refillable bottles with proper labeling on the contents would be accepted.
…but imagine trying to run a business or even just live your life under the constantly accumulating weight of thousands upon thousands of pages of pointless regulations imposed by unaccountable foreigners.
Just as coercion is an end in itself for the sort of statists who revere the EU, freedom from it is an end in itself for everyone else. That is why the British to their credit are walking out.
For the full story on why Britain left, watch this.
Not everyone has the belly to face the horror of absolute moonbattery. Kudos to Rebel Media’s Sheila Gunn Reid for staring straight into the abyss so that she could report on the blood-chilling moral and intellectual depravity of one Kristopher Wells, Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Faculty Director of the Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services at the University of Alberta:
Just knowing that you live on the same planet as creatures like Wells is in enough to make you feel unclean. Yet these are the people we allow to determine education policies.
Steven Crowder tries to reason with a Sky News moonbat regarding the lies the authoritarian media has been ramming down the public’s throat as it attempts to capitalize on the latest Islamic terror atrocity:
No need to wait until the Republican Convention next month for the craziness to begin in Cleveland. Below a fan celebrates the Cavaliers winning the NBA championship by eating horse droppings:
Like they say, politics is downstream of culture. If this is our culture, the presumptive nominees for both parties begin to make sense.
From here things are likely to go downhill during the spectacle that will take place in Cleveland July 18–21. If the delegates revolt as many hope, and Trump fans riot in response as their orange-faced idol and his surrogate have encouraged them to do, a genuine circus may be in store.
Trump’s promise to ban Muslims from entering the USA was never a remotely serious proposal, but merely an example of him saying whatever whoever is in front of him wants to hear. He reacted to the refugee explosion gushing not so much from as through Syria by stating that we have to bring Islamic colonists into the country because they are “living in hell.” When that didn’t float with GOP primary voters, he pulled a stunning 180° pirouette and proclaimed that no Muslims will be allowed into the USA when he is in change. But that won’t float in the general election, so out the window it goes. Now he says that Muslims from “terror countries” will be “more severely vetted.” Characteristically, he appears to be unclear which countries those would be:
Asked how he would distinguish a ‘terror country’ from safer locales, he waved his hand to brush off the question.
‘They’re pretty well decided. All you have to do is look!’ Trump said.
‘They’re pretty well decided. I mean, people are looking at certain countries, and they’re pretty well decided already.’
The newly refined policy itself, despite the ambiguity of which countries would qualify, is not markedly different from existing U.S. rules.
Trump wouldn’t say whether any European countries count as “terror countries,” given their large and growing Muslim populations. Most likely that would depend on how he is treated by the local media.
A man can identify as a woman or a woman identify as a man and the authorities will insist that you play along with the delusion, adjusting pronouns as necessary. But they do not respect Omar Mateen’s explicit self-identification as an ISIS terrorist, even though he officially put it on the record while in the process of murdering 49 people for Allah. Elly Maye wonders why:
Have a bucket handy; here is how the liberal media spun the juvenile pout-in spectacle staged by congressional Democrats, ostensibly to attack our rights of self-defense and due process, but actually more for fundraising purposes:
Judging by the current trajectory, the next historic moment will feature authoritarian clowns like Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis getting down on the floor once again, this time kicking it and pounding it with their soft little fists as they wet themselves.
Given Trump’s eagerness to arbitrarily deny Second Amendment liberties without due process, it is not reassuring to hear his surrogate Ben Carson suggest that we should debate whether we still need the Second Amendment at all. Here he opines on congressional Democrats’ absurd anti-gun pout-in:
“Well, I think that the people who were you know protesting certainly feel that they are absolutely one hundred percent right, but of course the people on the other side feel that they’re a hundred percent right too. And that’s why we need to get back to a point of having civil discussions. Let’s put on the table: what is the reason for the Second Amendment? And is there a reason that we need to change those things right now? And let’s put the data on the table and let’s talk about it like intelligent people, rather than getting in our respective corners and hurling insults.”
Carson takes his “let’s all be grownups and talk quietly until we can arrive at a reasonable agreement” shtick too far. Asking whether we really need the Second Amendment is a can of worms that should not be opened in the presence of the hysterical hoplophobes comprising the Democrat Party.
The resulting havoc won’t end with repressing our fundamental right of self-defense. Already Democrats and RINOs including Trump have expressed an eagerness to sacrifice the due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and 14th Amendments in order to attack the Second Amendment. Too much tyranny is never enough for tyrants. The necessity of other constitutionally protected rights will come under question.
Does anyone think that the rats infesting the Beltway these days would come up with a better constitution than the Founding Fathers did? Then let’s keep their clammy paws off of it.
Moonbats have settled on a favorite explanation for why the majority of Britons would rather have their own country than be ruled by faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats operating on an antidemocratic basis out of their Kafkaesque castle in Brussels: HATE WON.
Generally, it’s not nice to laugh at other people’s unhappiness, but no one could blame you in this case:
It turns out Britain is as full of hate as America. Coming from a moonbat, higher praise would be hard to imagine.
It was also interesting to learn that the majority of Britons who voted in favor of self-determination are over 75 years old; or rather, it was interesting to learn than some moonbats are even more absurdly misinformed than I realized.
Maybe it comes close to tinfoil hat territory, but Steve Deace’s theory does fully explain the Trump campaign in all its incompetence:
I lean toward the theory that Trump’s campaign was a publicity stunt meant to enhance the value of his brand. When it got out of hand, he didn’t know how to get off the horse. Now he is trying to suck what money he can out of the campaign, while letting Shrillary win by neglecting to build an organization because he knows as well as anyone that he could not handle the presidency.
Hats off to the British for having the courage to choose autonomy over the runaway statism epitomized by the European Union. Britain’s future will be more wealthy and more free as a result. Credit is also due to the Moonbat Messiah, who offered the British encouragement back in April:
Barack Obama has warned that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” in any trade deal with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, as he made an emotional plea to Britons to vote for staying in.
Obama issued this threat during a press conference with his pro-EU buddy David Cameron.
Standing alongside his visitor, Cameron said the referendum was the “sovereign choice of the British people” but it was important for voters to listen to the opinions of allies such as the president.
Maybe they did listen, and figured that a guy who has always been hostile toward the British, apparently for ideological reasons having to do with the colonization of Kenya, would not want them to stay in the EU if it were in their best interests.
Obama will be gone before any trade agreements are worked out with an independent Britain, and blissfully, Cameron will be gone even sooner — likely to be replaced with Boris Johnson, a prominent advocate of Brexit not known for his warm relationship with Obama.
Democrat congresscritters recently finished making fools of themselves by staging an infantile sit-in to protest resistance to their incremental repeal of the Second Amendment. They feel strongly that law-abiding American citizens should be denied the right to bear arms. Meanwhile, this provides context:
There are now more non-military government employees who carry guns than there are U.S. Marines, according to a new report.
Open the Books, a taxpayer watchdog group, released a study Wednesday that finds domestic government agencies continue to grow their stockpiles of military-style weapons, as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy.
The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. …
The IRS spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment for its 2,316 special agents. The tax collecting agency has billed taxpayers for pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15s, and Heckler & Koch H&K 416 rifles, which can be loaded with 30-round magazines.
Under Obama, the IRS has become notoriously politicized and should be abolished as Ted Cruz proposed. The same could be said for the EPA, which destroys the enemies of the far left in the name of bogus enviro-Jacobin ideology.
The EPA spent $3.1 million on guns, ammo, and equipment, including drones, night vision, “camouflage and other deceptive equipment,” and body armor.
Congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor [Thursday] afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Street learned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.
Even those congresscritters who don’t own guns are of course protected by men with guns. They say they deserve protection…
New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel says members of Congress “deserve” and “need” people with firearms protecting them in the U.S. Capitol building, but he does not want law-abiding residents in his own district to be armed for self-protection.
…but believe the citizens they live off of as parasites do not even deserve the natural right to protect themselves.