October 03, 2015
Last week, amid fulsome rhetoric concerning Pope Francis, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Islam and assorted sundry items, the mainstream media generally disregarded the quiet return of a serious potential scandal, one that will be strong enough to shake the foundations of the Hillary Clinton campaign, and, in fact, may topple the Democratic front-runner, and her presidential aspirations for good. This overlooked scandal is not one of the newer variety concerning Benghazi, nor does it concern the e-mail tangle and the shifting rationales, sophistries, and alibis trotted out by Clinton campaign flunkies, desperately trying to explain the problem away, much like Lady Macbeth vainly scrubbing at blood stains. The re-emerging scandal may be much more serious and damaging than the current difficulties, and, judging by Hillary’s new and combative tone, she knows this and is going on the offensive, even though her campaign was retooling last week and trying to convince the public that Hillary, despite all appearances, is actually very "nice”.
What is this re-emerging scandal? Last week the Associated Press reported that Ng Lap Seng, a Chinese billionaire, was arrested and ordered held without bail, as the US authorities try to find out what happened to the millions of dollars that he brought into the USA illegally over the last five years. As the AP story said, "One of the world’s wealthiest people, a Chinese real estate mogul at the center of a Democratic campaign fundraising scandal two decades ago, has been grounded from his fleet of private planes, and stripped of his $200,000 watch after his incarceration without bail as the United States probes what he did with millions of dollars he brought into the country over the past few years”. The story goes on to say that Seng failed to convince U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn that he would return to appear in court if released on bond. Netburn, citing the fact that Seng had skipped bail once before, rejected the legal request that Seng be released, and ordered him held without bond, pending his court appearance.
At this point we must ask all of our readers to step back into time, to the mid-1990s, during the halcyon days of the Bill Clinton administration. Those thrilling days of yesteryear offered most political watchers unforgettable scandals, many of the low comic variety, complete with girls falling out of every closet, and harried Clinton staffers scrambling to contain the damage. Interspersed, however, between bedroom farces were a number of serious transgressions, which sadly, were not given the scrutiny they deserved by a media fixated on Monica Lewinsky. One of these misdeeds was the Clinton-China campaign finance scandal. This problem developed out of a 1996 Democratic National Committee strategy of burying the rival Republicans under a tsunami of cash, regardless of the source. Newspaper accounts of financing irregularities began appearing as early as the summer of 1995, and they began picking up in speed and accuracy in 1996. Briefly put, reports of massive amounts of money supplied by shadowy figures in Communist China, including Ng Lap Seng, funneled through John Huang, and Little Rock, Arkansas restaurateur Charlie Trie circulated through the American press during the 1996 campaign. Huang’s cash payments have been called the most serious breach of government ethics since the Teapot Dome scandal, but the Clinton administration resolutely refused to empower a special prosecutor, or to conduct a serious investigation. With a compliant press on his side, and the important witnesses fleeing the country, Clinton swept this scandal under the rug. The former first family, having dodged this bullet, probably never expected it to trouble them again, but they may have been wrong.
We will look at this situation and its perils for Hillary Clinton in a moment, but first we might ask a question. Why is this happening now? Some might simply dismiss it as a case of stupendously bad timing, or bad luck, for which Hillary is becoming known. Yet, at the time when the Clinton campaign is already playing the prevent defense game due to the corrosive effect of the continuing e-mail affair, this is the last thing that the tottering campaign needs. Certainly the candidate knows this, as she lashed out at her critics Sunday on NBC’s "Meet The Press”. She brought up the 1990s without prompting from questioners, likening the e-mail investigation to Whitewater, Filegate, the theft of government property from the White House, and the pardon scandal, among other things. Of course, Mrs. Clinton admitted to no wrongdoing in these dust-ups, she simply blamed the GOP for being unsporting enough to pursue them. She stopped just short on Sunday of warning about a new "…vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Now, the main question is simple. What does this mean for the Hillary campaign? She and her acolytes will attempt to characterize this as another example of Republican dirty tricks and skullduggery. It is fairly clear, however, that GOP operatives did not order the arrest of Ng Lap Seng, nor did a Republican Justice Department order him held without bail. On the contrary, this new scandal will bring back all of the memories of the 1990s and the Clinton Scandals. The old questions about the Clintons’ lack of ethics, conscience and morality will once again rear their ugly heads. The Hillary spin machine will no doubt try to disassociate her from her husband’s sordid administrations, but, as those who studied the 90s know, Hillary was at the center of all of the Clinton scandals, including attempting to cover up her spouse’s relentless amours. This was all done in the pursuit of power and shows that Hillary is as obsessed with status as her husband was obsessed with girls. The central question of Hillary’s slippery and untrustworthy nature will once again reassert itself, despite her campaign’s efforts to lay this to rest.
It is difficult to predict what the immediate future holds. Mr. Seng won’t talk for a little while. This may be good for the Clintons, or it may be bad. Certainly, nothing incriminating will come out immediately, and the Clinton spin machine can go about the business of character assassination and ruining Mr. Seng with no pushback for the next few months. Still, the story stays alive and if Seng agrees to testify in exchange for a plea, we may see this issue pop up next year, in the heat of another general election campaign. It is hard to predict where scandal will go, but it does not seem that this will be easy for Team Hillary to sweep under the rug.
Undoubtedly there are many nervous Democrats out there who are now more than a little worried about Hillary and her ever growing baggage list, and the possibility that this will drag down the entire party next year. Does anyone really think that the Obama people are not behind the current push for Joe Biden to enter the race? There are also rumors that former Vice-President Al Gore is considering throwing his hat in the ring, if the stars should align properly. Circumstances will surely change between now and the primary election season, but for the moment this new scandal portends nothing but more trouble for the smartest woman in the world, the inevitable Hillary Clinton.
I'm shocked! I'm shocked!
Actually, I've seen this coming since 3/20/09, when I heard that the state of
MO had unveiled a Domestic Terrorist Profile that targets patriots and people of
faith as potential domestic terrorists.
The propaganda machine has done it's job, again, in not informing the citizenry
of this attack by those atop our government and the U. N., who dance at the end
of the globalist puppeteers' strings.
Everything is 'by design' w/ 'intended consequences'
Here is a brief excerpt from the article:
On Wednesday, Property-grabbing Loretta Lynchtold the United Nations that the Attorney General's office, working with several US cities, will be working on a global law enforcement initiative. She referred to this initiative as the Strong Cities Network.
So, what is this for? It's an attempt to enforce the sharia-compliant UN's rules on America. It's unauthorized by Congress and it's unconstitutional.
According to the DOJ announcement, "Citiesare vital partners in international efforts to build social cohesion and resilienceto violent extremism. Local communities and authorities are the most credible and persuasive voices to challenge violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations in their local contexts. While manycitiesand local authorities are developing innovativeresponsesto address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community ofcitiesto inspire local action on a global scale."
The reason there are no systematic efforts and that is because it is unconstitutional to do so. States have the right to deal with matters on their own without Washington or the UN interfering. It's called the Tenth Amendment.
"The Strong Cities Network will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration," said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. "As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world."
Don't youse guys just LOVE "wake up calls?" The damn things wake up the government every friggin' time. And who in their right mind pays any attention to any report coming out of the UN?
"Buried at the end of a wonkish UN report about problems women face online last month was a proposal that free speech advocates say looks an awful lot like the groundwork for a government grab of the web."
Shouldn't have been that hard to peg him as a nutcase.
"Investigators have found at least 13 weapons linked to the gunman in Thursday’s mass murder at an Oregon community college: six at the crime scene, including a rifle, and seven at his apartment."
A NOTE FROM TIM:
This screwball lived in a ONE BEDROOM apartment with his mother and all these weapons. Isn't that a rather Norman Bates-like situation? With all the guns taking up space, where did he sleep? I wonder how many beds were in that flat.
Just a quick thought on the Community College shooting. School children are being pilloried for having pictures of guns, or drawing guns, or chewing pop-tarts into guns. Now there has been a terrible shooting in the state of Ore-gun! Will the liberals make them change the name of the state? Gon is too close to gun.
Maybe change it to Orebama?
October 02, 2015
Schildkraut and Elsass shared the summary information from their database with PolitiFact. Here’s their table:
The chart does show that the United States has more mass shootings -- and more people cumulatively killed or injured -- than the other 10 nations combined, partly because it has a much bigger population than all but China.
Still, using this data, it’s easy to dispense with the first claim Obama made -- that "this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries."
Over the decade and a half studied, the researchers found 23 incidents of mass shootings in the other 10 countries, resulting in 200 dead and 231 wounded. In the United States over the same period, there were 133 incidents that left 487 dead and 505 wounded.
Here are a just a few examples of mass shootings in other countries:
• On July 22, 2011, a total of 80 people were killed in Norway when Anders Behring Breivik, a political extremist, bombed a government building in Oslo and then went on a shooting rampage on the island of Utoya, just outside the city.
• On March 11, 2009, in Winnenden, Germany, a teenage gunman killed 15 people. The majority of the victims were children and teachers killed when the shooter opened fire in three classrooms in a local secondary school. The gunman shot two other people before killing himself after being cornered by the local police.
• On Sept. 23, 2008, in Kuahajoki, Finland, a gunman shot 10 people to death after opening fire on a classroom in the Kuahajoki School of Hospitality. After killing the students, the shooter burned the victims’ bodies."
A recently discovered ocean process that leads to global cooling threatens to derail the super duper climate confab and socialist taffy pull in gay Paris.
Breitbart has the 411:
Scientists have discovered a hitherto unknown cooling process which may pose a serious threat to man-made global warming theory.
According to a study by the Institute of Catalysis and Environment in Lyon (IRCELYON, CNRS / University Lyon 1) and the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS), the oceans are producing unexpectedly large quantities of isoprene – a volatile organic compound (VOC) – which is known to have a cooling effect on climate. [...]
Though the cooling effects of isoprene are well known, what is new is the discovery that the oceans are producing much more of it than has been accounted for in the alarmists’ climate models. (H/T Lewis Page; The Register)
The computer models assume that the total quantity of isoprene produced by trees, plants and plankton amounts to 1.9 megatons per year. But what researchers have discovered is a process whereby isoprene is also produced in far greater quantities abiotically (ie not from plant or animal life) from the action of sunlight on chemicals in the ocean, possibly as much as 3.5 megatons more per year.
"We were able for the first time trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources, so far global calculations consider only biological sources,” explains Dr. Christian George from IRCELYON.
Thus, it is now possible to estimate more closely the total amounts of isoprene, which are emitted. So far, however, local measurements indicated levels of about 0.3 megatonnes per year, global simulations of around 1.9 megatons per year. But the team of Lyon and Leipzig estimates that the newly discovered photochemical pathway alone contribute 0.2 to 3.5 megatons per year additionally and could explain the recent disagreements. "The existence of the organic films at the ocean surface due to biological activities therefore influences the exchange processes between air and sea in a unexpected strong way. The photochemical processes at this interface could be a very significant source of isoprene”, summarizes Prof. Hartmut Herrmann from TROPOS.
Climate skeptics have, of course, long argued that the models used by alarmists to predict future climate change are fatally flawed because they exaggerate the influence of man-made carbon dioxide and fail to take into account other unknown or ill-understood factors.
This discovery presents further proof that the skeptics are right: the reason that all that predicted "global warming” has failed to materialize is that it has been countered by the planet’s natural cooling effects.
"Here is more evidence of what we have known for some time: that climate models simply do not mirror the reality of a [complex] system – and that they should never have been trusted in the first place,” says Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
So, we discover yet another NEGATIVE feedback mechanism. The whole argument of the climate alarmists - the Gang Green - is that feedbacks are positive and drive temperatures upward. They never consider that so many feedbacks are negative, tamping down any rise driven by CO2.
If you want to see a simple example of negative feedbacks one need but look at Mars. Mars has a very thin atmosphere composed of 95% carbon dioxide. Mars is bitterly cold, with water frozen until it sublimates; no running liquid on the Martian surface. In fact it is cold enough on Mars to freeze the atmosphere in winter, making a sizable portion of the winter polar ice caps dry ice. The system is stable, because winter in the south is summer in the north, and so as some of the atmosphere dissipates into the ice cap the reverse happens in the opposite hemisphere.
But occasionally the vagaries of the Martian orbit and solar activity leads to a warming trend planetwide, and we are witness to a spectacle where the Martian atmosphere increases in density, sometimes doubling in pressure at the Martian surface. This is a good thing, right? Mars coming out of her endless ice age, with a thicker atmosphere that may make it more Earth-like?
Wrong; the increased atmospheric pressure and the extra warming means strong winds, and with nothing to hold the thin "fines" of Martian dust in place the planet is swept by one of it's occasional dust storms. The skies darken, the planet begins reflecting more sunlight back into space, the surface cools. The atmosphere begins freezing out again, and the pressure drops, leading to an end to the planetary dust bowl. When it's all over Mars has reeturned to it's quiet state, refrozen and low atmospheric pressure.
See; negative feedback.
Earth is not Mars, and in fact is quite dissimilar to the Red Planet, but Earth is also driven by feedbacks. The main bone of contention between HONEST climate observers is the nature of those feedbacks. Alarmists claim the feedbacks are primarily positive, meaning warming from extra carbon dioxide will lead to water vapor evaporation, which will lead to more CO2 which will lead to more water vapor which will then lead to thawing of the permafrost at the poles, leading to high methane discharge, leading to more warming. The sceptics argue that more water vapor means more clouds, reflecting sunlight into space and reducing planetary temperatures so as to avoid the runaway greenhouse affect. The nature of the feedback mechanisms is the heart of this discussion, at least from a scientific perspective.
Mars, with a simpler atmosphere, provides us with a laboratory like condition to observe the feedback mechanisms. Of course, Earth is much different, and we won't get the big dust storms, but we do get water vapor clouds.
And now we know that the oceans produce isoprene abiotically. Isoprene is a dandy aerosol, cooling the planet back down.
Of course, this argument has never been about the science.
Hmmm... I'd rather someone like the Germans would be doing this. Still, if the Chicoms can make it work in their traffic.
"Google may have little pod-like driverless cars tootling about the streets of California, but a Chinese company recently sent a massive, self-driving bus packed with passengers on a 20-mile ride through the city of Zhe."
October 01, 2015
Obama: So tell me, Pope Francis. When you were a Cardinal what position did you play in St. Louis?
Wayne Allyn Root, of Personal Liberty, takes Pope Francis to task for his socialist hectoring in a very well-thought-out article here. http://personalliberty.com/pope-francis-tear-down-your-wall/
Pope Francis, tear down your wall - Personal Liberty®
While Pope Francis may be a nice man and he may have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The reality is the pope appears to be a hypocrite of the highest order.
View on personalliberty.com
As a "man of God,” I would expect Pope Francis to be lecturing us about religion, spirituality and morality. Unfortunately, those weren’t his only topics. The pope often sounded like a Hollywood hypocrite looking for the love and adulation of liberal celebrities and the media, by lecturing us on politically correct economic issues that he clearly knows nothing about.
And then there are his pleas about illegal immigration. That was like East Germany lecturing America about a wall. More on that later.
This pope seems neither to understand nor care that his views on issues like climate change and income redistribution often put him in bed with atheists and socialists, who don’t believe in God, mock religion and think the Bible is a work of fiction. Isn’t that strange company for a "man of God” to keep?
He criticizes the death penalty in America, given to heinous murderers, while saying nothing about the Castro brothers killing people for their political views.
He played best pals with the Castro brothers without ever mentioning that they are evil, murdering tyrants.
This pope condemns capitalism, yet never mentions the poverty the Castro brothers’ socialism has imposed on the Cuban people. He chooses to ignore that the hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars of wealth accumulated by the Vatican are the result of donations by successful Catholics in capitalist nations like America. Capitalism has been very, very good to the Catholic Church.
[...]This pope embraces the religion of climate change, ignoring the conflicts of interest and greed of those scientists, whose belief in climate change and global warming just happens to coincide with million-dollar contracts from the EPA. As wrong as the Vatican was about Galileo, it appears to be just as wrong about climate change.
See our website at: www.danamarthamusic.com
Can you say WWIII? Yep I thought you could.
About time! I hope he wins this suit hands down.
"One of the University of Missouri’s very own legal eagles is suing the school over its policy banning firearms on campus."
LOL! I got a kick out of the paragraph that says: Most commercial antivirus software at the time would have detected the software and prevented users from infecting themselves, but it's unclear if the State Department's network security would have flagged the infected message, or if Clinton’s private server would have caught it.
I'll hoist a glass in honor of this judge come Happy Hour!
WTF? And I do mean F!
"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) apologized on Wednesday for temporarily implementing what it called an "ill-advised" policy at some medical centers that banned veterans from bringing cellphones to appointments, according to a statement provided by the VA to the Washington Free Beacon"
A NOTE FROM TIM: Pretty obvious, isn't it. They didn't want anyone using their phones to record the VA personell.
The Obama Administration asked Argentina to sell Iran nuclear fuel - in 2010!
According to The Blaze:
"Kirchner claimed Gary Samore, former White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, visited Argentina and suggested the nation provide Iran with nuclear fuel in 2010, two years into Obama’s presidency.
However, after the government in Argentina requested the fuel transfer request in writing, in keeping with protocol, Kirchner said the Minister of Foreign Affairs never heard from Samore again.
For full context, read her remarks via a transcript from the Argentine president’s official website:
In 2010 we were visited in Argentina by Gary Samore, at that time the White House's top advisor in nuclear issues. He came to see us in Argentina with a mission, with an objective: under the control of IAEA, the international organization in the field of weapons control and nuclear regulation, Argentina had supplied in the year 1987, during the first democratic government, the nuclear fuel for the reactor known as "Teheran". Gary Samore had explained to our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hector Timerman, that negotiations were underway for the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease with its uranium enrichment activities or to do it to a lesser extent but Iran claimed that it needed to enrich this Teheran nuclear reactor and this was hindering negotiations. They came to ask us, Argentines, to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear fuel. Rohani was not in office yet. It was Ahmadinejad's administration and negotiations had already started."
"Story is true that I went to Buenos Aires in August 2009 to ask Foreign Minister Timmerman if Argentina would be willing to manufacture fresh fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor in exchange for Iran shipping most of its stockpile of low enriched uranium to Russia.
As I recall, Minister Timmerman told me that Argentina could not participate in the project because of Iran’s refusal to cooperate in the AMIA investigation. I said that I understood the political sensitivities and accepted that Argentina could not be part of the project.
We subsequently approached France, which agreed to manufacture the fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor.
In October 2009, Iran agreed to the deal: Iran would ship 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium hexafluoride (less than 5%) to Russia; Russia would further enrich the uranium to 19.5% and ship it to France for fabrication into research reactor fuel, which would then be shipped to Iran."
The Obama Administration has been determined from the very beginning to give Iran the tools it needs to create a weapon capable of wiping a city from the face of the Earth. When are the Republicans going to take a stand?
Now that Obamacare is firmly entrenched in our nation's fabric, the liberals who pushed this monstrosity are shocked, SHOCKED! that "job lock" is worse than ever. From the leading lame-brains who cheerled this abomination, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:En
"One prediction of the impact of the healthcare law, commonly known as Obamacare, was that the ACA would end "job lock" — the phenomenon of workers hanging onto jobs just for the health insurance while waiting to become eligible for Medicare at age 65.
Instead, the ACA's guaranteed issue of insurance would let them leave the world of full-time work for more flexible self-employment, start businesses or launch encore careers — or just retire.
A 2013 study by the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center and Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, for instance, forecast that health reform would boost the number of self-employed people by 1.5 million.
But new research shows the ACA has not turned the job-lock key — at least not yet. A team of University of Michigan researchers studied Census Bureau employment data for 2014 — the first full year of the law's implementation — and found no evidence of a higher rate of retirement, or a shift to part-time work, for Americans age 55 to 64."
Typical liberals; they can't understand that when you monkey with market forces you inevitably slow down motion in the economy. What Obamacare succeeded in doing is forcing those who might temporarily skip insurance, or simply take out catastrophic insurance while they get their business up and running, or those almost ready to get Medicare to spend a wad of cash on the sub-par plan offered under the ACA.
Take me as a prime example; I lost my employer-based insurance and had to pay for the Obamacare plan out of my own pocket. What does that mean? It means I don't dare try to move around in a fragile non-recovery economy. It means that I fear the dangers of change because I HAVE to pay for this, as a matter of legal compulsion. If you are forced to pay for something you are not going to risk not being able to afford it. People who take out heavy mortgages don't quit their jobs.
Meanwhile, the price of the insurance is rising, and the subsidies are being reduced. Also, so many new consumers entering the market have spiked up the prices. Higher costs. Oh, and the economy has never recovered thanks to this.
Liberals can never understand why their armchair theories don't work in practice. Many people tried to warn them that this was precisely how it would go.
September 30, 2015
28 queries taking 0.0887 seconds, 180 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.