Thug much?
Protester with "Rape" sign is tackled at #Clinton rally in #Las Vegas pic.twitter.com/sJvGvFnpgt
— John Treanor (@NewsTreanor) October 13, 2016
Thug much?
You may have seen in our previous post just what Hillary’s inner circle thinks of Catholics and the church via their own emails. Now you are about to find out just what they plan on doing about it.
The radical left has a series of pressure groups, astroturf groups, foundations and think tanks that are funded by the likes of George Soros, corrupt donors who want favors and contracts, foreign countries, neo-Marxist leftists and others. They network together to give the illusion of “grassroots progressive change”.
In an email between Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Sanford “Sandy” Newman who runs several of these phony pressure groups, Newman laments that there isn’t some type of Trojan Horse in the Catholic Church that can “plant the seeds of the revolution.” Podesta replies by stating that his people are already on it and have already created two phony astroturf groups that are starting to get to work on the ‘Catholic problem.’
Podesta email:
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.
UPDATE – Hillary says religious people have to change their religious beliefs on abortion
The Intercept is left of center to be sure. They hate Donald Trump, but even so they do some good point of view journalism. We have even included them in our blog roll.
In their latest piece Glenn Greenwald blasts the Democrats and their media lackeys in the press corps for just accepting the lies put out by the Clinton’s without question, and without any evidence whatsoever.
In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
…the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.
To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let’s just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days — led by party-loyal journalists — have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes:
As you can see, more than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this “Official Warning.” That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profileClinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored. Clinton’s campaign officials spent the day fueling these insinuations, strongly implying that the documents were unreliable and should thus be ignored. Poof: Just like that, unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton disappeared, like a fairy protecting frightened children by waving her magic wand and sprinkling her dust over a demon, causing it to scatter away.
Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity.
SuperPAC’s can raise unlimited money and are not very transparent. This is why it is illegal for them to have anything to do with a political campaign, their staff etc etc.
But, the most openly known secret is that coordination does happen on both sides of the isle. With the political overlap of just who knows who in political circles some coordination is almost impossible to avoid. The difference here is the shockingly brazen way Hillary’s Campaign is coordinating with SuperPAC’s such as David Brock’s American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record. Brock is also a board member of the superPAC Priorities USA Action.
Emails obtained by WikiLeaks show that coordination with Brock’s superPAC’s, and David Brock himself, was regular, ongoing and coordinated at the very top. Not just by Hillary’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta, but by the campaign’s top inner circle including Robby Mook, Hillary’s campaign manager and Jennifer Palmieri her campaign spokesman.
Emails show Podesta having a long fund raising relationship with Brock going back at least to 2008. Where is becomes illegal is when Podesta took on a leading role in Hillary’s presidential campaign.
This email shows Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook trying to coordinate with David Brock to get an advance copy of the book “Clinton Cash” which exposes much of the pay for play schemes that have taken place with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

This email has Marc Elias, who is the Clinton Campaign’s FEC Lawyer responding. You read that correctly, Hillary’s lawyer was helping to illegally coordinate the campaign with the Brock superPAC’s.

In this email, we see Hillary Clinton’s top campaign staffers having an email conversation with David Brock about sicking him on Marco Rubio for using a false Bill Clinton quote in a fund raising letter.

And still, it gets even better. Law Newz has obtained a training memo showing how Clinton staffers can direct would be donors to contribute to Brock’s superPAC without leaving an evidence trail. The memo is from Marc Elias himself: https://www.scribd.com/document/327075712/Memorandum-on-Interactions-With-Priorities-USA#from_embed
The great thing about having Marc Elias engage in this criminal activity is that he can use “attorney-client privilege” to help cover it up. (UPDATE – Ed Morrissey comments HERE.)
UPDATE – Daily Caller: Leaked Emails Show Clinton Campaign Coordinating With Soros Foundations – LINK.
So, you want some cheap labor and you happened to be a company that exploits that labor for sex and other illegal activities? No problem! Just donate to the Clinton Foundation and the State Department will help you set up shop in Haiti and call it charity!

According to this devastating report from ABC News It is literally that bad. Be sure to check out their video report HERE. We are often tough on the elite media and rightfully so, but ABC did a fine piece of journalism here and they deserve huge credit for this story.
Here is an excerpt from ABC News:
In a series of candid email exchanges with top Clinton Foundation officials during the hours after the massive 2010 Haiti earthquake, a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly gave special attention to those identified by the abbreviations “FOB” (friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs).
“Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC,” wrote Caitlin Klevorick, then a senior State Department official who was juggling incoming offers of assistance being funneled to the State Department by the Clinton Foundation. “Most I can probably ID but not all.”

“Is this a FOB!” Klevorick writes later, when a Clinton Foundation aide forwards a woman’s offer of medical supplies. “If not, she should go to cidi.org,” she adds, directing the person deemed not to be a Clinton friend to a general government website.

Klevorick and Amitabh Desai, the director of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation, exchanged dozens of emails, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Republican National Committee and then shared with ABC News. ABC News independently authenticated the emails.
It was an indicator that the FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s illegal email server and mishandling of classified information was a sham when FBI Director Comey testified in detail before Congress that even though Hillary had violated almost every aspect of the statute and then lied about it (video), the Department of Justice (DoJ) decided not to prosecute because they were “uncomfortable” with the part of the statute that says that intent is irrelevant and negligence or foolishness is enough to prosecute on…..in spite of the fact that there have been other cases where they had no such reservation.
We learned October 3rd that the FBO/DoJ had given secret immunity deals to Hillary’s top staff on the condition that they turn over all laptops, devices, documents etc to the FBI. The FBI then destroyed them ensuring that future Attorney Generals, Congress, and the public would never even have the option to fully investigate Clinton’s use of illegal private email servers. It seems that the Obama Administration did not want to leave destroying the evidence to Hillary’s staff.
These same people who got immunity are still pleading the Fifth Amendment to Congress even though they have an immunity deal, which is also outside the law.
Emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit revealed that the White House was coordinating with Hillary’s Campaign on the investigation.
Newly disclosed emails show the White House coordinated with Hillary Clinton’s emerging presidential campaign in 2015 about potential fallout from Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Here are the details, according to a Wall Street Journal review of the emails:
- Jennifer Palmieri, then the White House communications director, emailed Jen Psaki, a State Department spokesperson, to ask, “between us on the shows…think we can get this done so he is not asked about email.” She was apparently referring to an appearance on CBS by current Secretary of State John Kerry, according to The Journal. Palmieri is now the Clinton campaign’s communications director.
- Palmieri and Psaki, along with other top White House officials, discussed an interview Kerry gave to CBS. “Good to go on killing CBS idea,” read one email from Psaki. “And we are going to hold on any other TV options just given the swirl of crap out there.”
- Palmieri, who joined the Clinton campaign in mid-2015, helped arrange for Psaki to take her old job at the White House. Psaki is now the White House communications director.
- Patrick Kennedy, the State Department undersecretary for management, told Heather Samuelson, one of Clinton’s attorneys, about new documents the State Department had posted concerning Clinton.
It gets even better. We now know thanks to WikiLeaks from the Hillary for President Campaign emails that the Department of Justice was coordinating/leaking/informing – call it what you will – their investigation with Hillary’s campaign staff.
Read the email HERE:
The Hill has a summary:
An official within Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign appeared to have discussions with sources inside the Department of Justice (DOJ) about ongoing open records lawsuits regarding the former secretary of State’s emails, according to an email released on Tuesday.
In an email from May 2015, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said that “DOJ folks” had “inform[ed]” him about an upcoming status conference in one of the lawsuits regarding Clinton’s private email setup.
The information about an upcoming court event would have been public knowledge and open for all to attend. And it’s unclear whether the people Fallon spoke to at the Justice Department were officials who regularly communicate with the public.
However, the fact that Fallon — a former spokesman with the Department of Justice — remained in contact with anyone from the department is likely to renew allegations that the Obama administration maintained an especially cozy relationship with the former secretary of State’s presidential campaign.
UPDATE – The Hill:
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus accused the Justice Department of giving the Clinton campaign “inside information about an ongoing investigation into her email server,” even though information regarding an upcoming court conference would have been public knowledge.
Still, Priebus said, the revelation shows that “instead of facing consequences for her actions like others have, she’s been protected at every turn by the Obama administration.”
The Fallon email was part of a trove allegedly stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and posted Tuesday on Wikileaks.
UPDATE II – Former US Atty for District of Columbia Joe DiGenova explains the outrageous behavior of FBI Director James Comey with the simple declaration: “Comey is a dirty cop”, and in this interview makes his case to support that. October 13, 2016 interview with Laura Ingraham.
Thanks to WikiLeaks and the carelessness that Hillary and her crew have misused email we have a great understanding of the corruption, pay to play deals and general contempt the Democrat leadership has for the American people. Their actions are right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.
Bill Ivey to Hillary for President Campaign Chairman John Podesta – LINK:
And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

…and not to leave him alone, but to shut them up.
Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers; calls her “trailer-trash.”
In an ABC News interview in 1992, Hillary smears Gennifer Flowers, a women Bill would later admit to having an affair with, as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” Hillary also referred to Flowers as “trailer trash.”
Hillary slams former White House intern Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon” after she had consensual relations with her husband in the Oval Office.
CBS News reports: “According to the friend, Diane Blair — a political science professor whose papers were donated to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library – Hillary Clinton credited Bill Clinton with trying to break away from Lewinsky, whom she called a ‘narcissistic loony toon.'”
Hillary disparagingly refers to the numerous women her husband was involved with as “bimbos.”
In 1991, Mrs. Clinton called the onslaught of women accusing her husband of sexual misconduct or consensual infidelity as the “bimbo eruption.”
Read more HERE.
Even back in the 90’s the Clinton’s were illegally mishandling classified FBI files and more such as the destruction of key documents, obstruction etc. They also used White House resources to enrich their pals and attack their perceived foes.
Read the entire interview HERE.
This is why I voted for Newt in 2012 – Editor
Our reaction to tonight’s debate:
Donald Trump has lead a flamboyant life. What is interesting is that Hillary has memorized every bad thing he has ever done. Quite the accomplishment for someone who testified “I don’t recall” hundreds of times to avoid prosecution.
Trey Gowdy vs the IRS:
There are hundreds of examples of just this kind of corruption with the Clinton’s. Why won’t their voters wake up?
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to arrange Pentagon and State Department consulting contracts for her daughter’s friend, prompting concerns of federal ethics rules violations.
Clinton in 2009 arranged meetings between Jacqueline Newmyer Deal, a friend of Chelsea Clinton and head of the defense consulting group Long Term Strategy Group, with Pentagon officials that involved contracting discussions, according to emails from Clinton’s private server made public recently by the State Department. Clinton also tried to help Deal win a contract for consulting work with the State Department’s director of policy planning, according to the emails.
Deal is a close friend of Chelsea Clinton, who is vice chair of the Clinton Foundation. Emails between the two were included among the thousands recovered from a private email server used by the secretary of state between 2009 and 2013. Chelsea Clinton has described Deal as her best friend. Both Clintons attended Deal’s 2011 wedding.
Government cronyism, or the use of senior positions to help family friends, is not illegal. However, the practice appears to violate federal ethics rules that prohibit partiality, or creating the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Specifically, the Code of Federal Ethics states that government employees “shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.” Pentagon ethics guidelines also call for avoiding actions that would create even the appearance of improper behavior or conflicts of interest.
Very accurate indeed. (Full disclosure: Our editor used to work for Carly)
The Clinton Foundation looks like a money-laundering racket. Look at their 2014 Tax Return: $178 M incoming, $5.1 Million spent on charity, $35 M in salaries, $50 M other. Only 5.6% to charity.
This is why we have RICO laws….

Hillary deleted emails, destroyed servers, handheld devices and ipads etc after they were already under subpoena….

When Congress sends you a subpoena showing up is not optional. Not showing up is a criminal act.
So when Hillary Clinton’s IT man who deleted her emails after they were under subpoena failed to appear, the House voted to take action against him as the law prescribes…..but every Democrat voted no on taking action. They literally voted to allow/endorse such criminal behavior all in an effort to protect Hillary.
Can there be any doubt that to Democrats power is more important than the law and the truth?
NOTE: Pagliano was given immunity by the DoJ, so he has no 5th Amendment excuse to not testify. This is all about Hillary.
A House panel voted Thursday to hold Bryan Pagliano, a former technology aide to Hillary Clinton, in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the private email set-up Clinton used as secretary of state.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 19-15 along party lines, to send a contempt resolution to the full House. The move against Pagliano took place despite repeated warnings from his attorney that the showdown was fruitless since the computer specialist would assert his Fifth Amendment rights in response to any questions that would be put to him.
“Subpoenas are not optional,” panel Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said after Pagliano failed to show up at the second committee hearing he was formally called to in the past two weeks. “Mr. Pagliano is a crucial fact witness in this committee’s investigation former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s of a private email server to conduct government business.”
Despicable. The IRS was punished in its budget for using their power as a political weapon, so their retaliation is to not take calls from tax payers, starting with the elderly and disabled.
ATR:
In its annual Report to Congress today, the office of the National Taxpayer Advocate outlined a series of Internal Revenue Service failures. In the “Access to the IRS” section, the report details the trouble taxpayers face reaching the right person in order to meet their tax obligations:
“The IRS does not answer the phone at local offices and has even removed the option it once provided for taxpayers, including the elderly and disabled, to leave a message.”
Until 2013, taxpayers — including the elderly and disabled — were allowed to leave a voicemail requesting an in-person appointment. But now, elderly and disabled taxpayers attempting to navigate the automated helpline maze are asked to email the IRS to set up an appointment. The automated message instructs as follows:
“If you are disabled or elderly and require special accommodations for service, please email us at…”
But this leaves many taxpayers in the dark. As the report states:
“Demographic research data show only 57 percent of adults over age 65 use the Internet compared with 87 percent of all adults. According to 2010 Census data, only 41 percent of those with a non-severe disability use the Internet and only 22 percent of those with a severe disability age 65 and older use the Internet. For those without Internet access, the only viable ways to reach the IRS are by phone, or in person.”
On its helplines, the IRS is required to provide taxpayers the option to speak with a live person. But as the report states, the IRS won’t even answer questions about what lines are considered helplines:
“TAS [Taxpayer Advocate Service] twice inquired of the IRS in a formal information request whether it considers the 3709 lines to be ‘helplines’ for the purpose of § 3705(d) of RRA 98, which would require them to have an option to speak with a live person. TAS also asked what lines the IRS does consider to be helplines. Twice, the IRS declined to answer these questions.”
The full report may be accessed here.
The polling on this isn’t good – LINK.
The first person President Obama is in conflict with is President Obama who has stated no less than 22 times himself that the action he took tonight was illegal and unconstitutional. We have posted a transcript of each one below at the bottom of this post, but here is some of the video so you can see for yourself courtesy of the Washington Post fact Checker who called Obama’s action “a royal flip flop:
Senator Ted Cruz:
Obama’s 22 times via Speaker.gov:
With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”
This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.
President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans, but he can’t run from what he’s said over and over (and over) again. Not only are Americans not stupid – they can read:
In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:
– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law#sthash.Ouj3Nb8W.dpuf
UPDATE – June 23, 2022. DoJ and IRS still engaging in coverup. Judicial Watch suing!
How lawless will they get?
Via Judicial Watch:
“…it has become apparent that the IRS did not undertake any significant efforts to obtain the emails from alternative sources following the discovery that the emails were missing”
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) admitted to the court that it failed to search any of the IRS standard computer systems for the “missing” emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials. The admission appears in an IRS legal brief opposing the Judicial Watch request that a federal court judge allow discovery into how “lost and/or destroyed” IRS records relating to the targeting of conservative groups may be retrieved. The IRS is fighting Judicial Watch’s efforts to force testimony and document production about the IRS’ loss of records in Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation about the IRS targeting of Tea Party and other opponents of President Obama(Judicial Watch v. IRS (No. 1:13-cv-1559)). The lawsuit is before U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan.
In its September 17 Motion for Limited Discovery, Judicial Watch argues that, despite two orders, the IRS had consistently failed to provide information detailing how “the missing emails could be retrieved from other sources and produced to Judicial Watch.” On October 17, IRS attorneys asked the court to deny the Judicial Watch request, even while admitting that additional Congressional requests “could result in additional documents being located ….”
In its October 27 Reply in Support of Motion for Limited Discovery, Judicial Watch argued that declarations submitted by the IRS in response to the Judge Sullivan’s orders “fail to answer important questions about the missing emails:”
[I]t has become apparent that the IRS did not undertake any significant efforts to obtain the emails from alternative sources following the discovery that the emails were missing. The emails are potentially responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, and the IRS’s failure to search for them in other recordkeeping systems raises material questions of fact about whether the agency has conducted a reasonable search.
Judicial Watch lawyers reviewed the IRS court filings and concluded that the agency “did not undertake any significant efforts to obtain the emails.”
IRS attorneys conceded that they had failed to search the agency’s servers for missing emails because they decided that “the servers would not result in the recovery of any information.” They admitted they had failed to search the agency’s disaster recovery tapes because they had “no reason to believe that the tapes are a potential source of recovering” the missing emails. And they conceded that they had not searched the government-wide back-up system because they had “no reason to believe such a system … even exists.”
The IRS admitted to Judge Sullivan that the agency failed to “submit declarations about any of the foregoing items because it had no reason to believe that they were sources from which to recover information lost as a result of Lerner’s hard drive failure.” [Emphasis added] Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS had previously told Judicial Watch that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. In the October federal court filing, the IRS does not deny that the government-wide back-up system exists, and acknowledges to the court that 760 other email “servers” have been discovered but had not been searched. The IRS also refuses to disclose the names of the IRS officials who may have information about the IRS scandal, citing unspecified threats. The IRS says it pulled documents about the scandal from various employees into a “Congressional database” and that it has only searched this one “database” for missing records. Incredibly, the IRS has not searched any of the IRS’s regular computer systems for any missing records and admits that it has only searched a “database” that it knows does not contain the missing records being sought by the court, Judicial Watch, and Congress.
Rather than provide information to Judicial Watch and the court under oath about the missing records, the IRS intends for Judicial Watch to wait indefinitely for its production of the records. Judicial Watch argues the IRS’ continuing “failure to provide complete information highlights the need for limited discovery. Neither Judicial Watch nor the court should have to rely on incomplete transcripts, out-of-court conversations, or the other, limited information Judicial Watch’s attorneys have been able to glean from congressional correspondence, media reports, and the internet to determine what system of records the IRS should reasonably search to recover the missing emails. As in all FOIA litigation, an “asymmetrical distribution of knowledge” exists between the IRS on the one hand, and Judicial Watch and the court on the other. It is precisely because the IRS has refused to provide pertinent, complete information that limited discovery is necessary.”
“The Obama IRS couldn’t care less about the federal court’s orders to provide full information about the ‘missing’ Lois Lerner emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Instead, the IRS, with the help of a compromised Justice Department, has engaged in a series of transparently evasive distractions. The IRS would have Judicial Watch wait for years before we can ask questions about the cover-up that is going on now. The IRS thinks it can game a federal court, Congress, and the American people. Having delayed accountability for over two years, the Obama administration is prepared to stonewall on the IRS targeting of Obama’s ‘enemies list’ until after the 2016 presidential election. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit can continue to break through this obstruction of justice, especially if the court approves our effort to put select Obama officials under oath.”
Sign Up for Updates!
This is a must see…. more of the Democrats’ War against freedom of speech and the First Amendment.
Bill Whittle: Weaponizing the Government
Senator Durbin is the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate. Illinois has the highest taxes in America so companies are leaving in droves. Time to whip out the thug card….
Score another victory this week for the Senate’s lead political thug, Dick Durbin. The second-highest-ranking Senate Democrat and lead political henchman coerced retail giant Walgreens to stay in Illinois and not move as planned to Switzerland.
The government’s intimidation campaign against Walgreens was so heavy-handed that it would make Richard Nixon blush. Walgreens was set to move in order to reduce its tax liability and avoid the 40 percent income tax rate it pays as an Illinois-based corporation. This would have saved the company and its mostly American shareholders an estimated $4 billion over five years.
But back in July Mr. Durbin sent an astounding letter to Walgreens CEO Gregory Wasson warning the company, and demanding that it abandon its plans to relocate.
He lambasted the company’s move as a “clever tax dodge,” and threatened that “deeply patriotic” customers would not “support Walgreen’s decision to turn its back on the United States.” He added, subtly, that “nearly all of your $2.5 billion in profits earned last year were from sales to U.S. taxpaying customers.”
That was followed by other threats of political retaliation. “Much of Walgreens financial success was built on programs and infrastructure provided by the U.S. government” and “the future success of Walgreens will continue to depend on U.S. taxpayers and government-funded programs.” Just in case Mr. Wasson didn’t get the point, he reminded him that “nearly 25% of Walgreens profits were from U.S-funded Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
Unfortunately, our elected officials in Congress now feel they have the political power to carry out these threats with impunity.
Now Mr. Durbin is celebrating the Walgreens shakedown. The big losers here were the shareholders — including thousands and thousands of middle class Americans — whose retirement funds include Walgreens stock. The stock fell in the 24 hours after the announcement by more than 10 percent and so shareholders lost at least $6 billion on the announcement. That’s a lot of financial wreckage from one single senator.
In case there is any doubt that Mr. Durbin’s threats were heard, the statement by Walgreens about why it was not moving after all was revealing. The firm cited big risks of “consumer backlash and political ramifications, including the risk to our government book of business.” In other words: We got your message, Mr. Durbin.
The House Oversight and Reform Committee released a new video highlighting the illegal IRS targeting of American citizens for political reasons.
So much for Separation of Powers. After the revelations of Ed Snowden, Sharyl Atkisson and more, can anyone seriously believe that Members of Congress and their staff are not under electronic surveillance by the executive? Remember when Democrats were caught with tapes of Newt Gingrich’s phone calls?
With the little that we have learned, what we don’t know is likely stunning.
CIA officials improperly hacked the Senate Intelligence Committee’s computers as staffers compiled a report on “enhanced interrogation” techniques, the spy agency’s inspector general has concluded.
In a statement shared with The Hill, CIA spokesman Dean Boyd said the internal watchdog determined “that some CIA employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding” between the agency and the committee about access to the network they used to share documents.
CIA chief John Brennan told Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) about the findings “and apologized to them for such actions by CIA officers,” Boyd added.
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), a member of the committee, quickly retorted on Twitter that the watchdog’s report “shows John Brennan misled [the] public, whose interests I have championed.”
“I will fight for change at the CIA,” he added.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another member of the panel, called for Brennan to publicly apologize and give “a full accounting of how this occurred and a commitment there will be no further attempts to undermine congressional oversight of CIA activities,” he said in a statement.
The admission is a stunning turn of events in the standoff between the two bodies and directly contradicts Brennan’s earlier claims that the agency would never snoop on the committee’s computers.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Brennan said in March, soon after Feinstein raised allegations that CIA operatives had been unconstitutionally prying on her panel’s work. “We wouldn’t do that. That’s just beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we’d do.”
Feinstein claimed at the time that operatives had accessed a computer network established in 2009 for committee staff to review classified CIA materials related to the agency’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques, such as waterboarding. Those interrogation methods were authorized during the Bush administration but have since been prohibited.
The documents were used to produce a classified 6,300-page study that reportedly shows the techniques were conducted more harshly and more commonly than was previously understood. The executive summary of the report is now being redacted for release to the public, possibly as soon as next month.
Feinstein on Thursday said that the search of her staff’s computers was “in violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” though she declined to pin the blame on Brennan.
“Director Brennan apologized for these actions and submitted the IG [inspector general’s] report to an accountability board,” she said in a brief statement. “These are positive first steps. This IG report corrects the record and it is my understanding that a declassified report will be made available to the public shortly.”
An unclassified summary of the inspector general’s report released on Thursday claimed that the five CIA employees – two lawyers and three information technology staffers – “improperly accesses or caused access” to the shared network.
It also alleged that the three IT staffers “demonstrated a lack of candor about their activities” in interviews with the agency watchdog.
Tensions over the interrogations report have strained relations between the Senate panel and the CIA. Earlier this month, the Justice Department declined to take up criminal charges on either Feinstein’s charges or a rebuttal from the CIA that Senate staffers had improperly taken classified documents from a secure Virginia facility.
To clear up the mistrust, Brennan has passed along the findings of the IG report to an accountability board chaired by former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who used to be a member of the Intelligence Committee.
“This board will review the [Office of the Inspector General’s] report, conduct interviews as needed, and provide the director with recommendations that, depending on its findings, could include potential disciplinary measures and/or steps to address systemic issues,” Boyd said.
At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest gave a robust defense of Brennan. Asked if the hacking incident had hurt Brennan’s standing as CIA director, Earnest responded: “Absolutely not.”
“He has been candid about the inconsistencies that the IG found,” Earnest said.
Earnest said Brennan appointed an accountability board to look into the matter further and has “taken all the responsible steps to address this situation. That’s the kind of proactive leadership the president would expect.”
Some members of the president’s party, however, said it’s time for new leadership at the CIA.
Udall said that blame for the incident lay with Brennan and his “apparent inability to find any flaws in the agency he leads.”
“From the unprecedented hacking of congressional staff computers and continued leaks undermining the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program to his abject failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing by the agency, I have lost confidence in John Brennan,” Udall added.
What is Operation Check Point? It is very simple, you own a gun store or some other business that Democrats don’t like, so the Obama Administration pressures (read threaten) banks and credit card companies to stop doing business with you.
This is yet another assault on not just freedom of commerce, but freedom of conscience and association as well which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Via The Daily Signal:
Thirty members of Congress demanded today that the Department of Justice launch an “immediate investigation” into the agency’s own Operation Choke Point and those involved in creating and implementing the initiative against enterprises that are out of favor with the Obama administration.
Led by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., the 30 lawmakers sent a letter to Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, and Robin Ashton, head of its Office of Professional Responsibility, calling Choke Point a “blatant abuse of legal authority.”
>>> Meet Four Business Owners Squeezed by Operation Choke Point
“This situation merits your full and immediate attention, and we request that you launch a comprehensive investigation on Operation Choke Point and the individuals charged with creating and carrying out this unprecedented initiative,” Luetkemeyer and the 29 other lawmakers write.
The letter from House members follows one sent to the Justice Department earlier this month by six Republican senators, demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder release information about Operation Choke Point.
The House members want a response to their request for an investigation by Nov. 12.
“There is no doubt in my mind that [Justice Department] officials have abused their authority to address consumer fraud issues while misleading business owners by claiming financial institutions have not suffered any actual losses,” Luetkemeyer said in a press release.
Continue reading and examine the letters lawmakers sent to the Obama Administration demanding answers HERE.
More on the Democrats’ war on the First Amendment. This time the assault is on freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of association.
Via the ADF:
COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”
“The government exists to protect and respect our freedoms, not attack them,” Tedesco added. “The city cannot erase these fundamental freedoms and replace them with government coercion and intolerance.”
The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is across the street from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office, which issues marriage licenses. The Knapps, both in their 60s and who themselves have been married for 47 years, began operating the wedding chapel in 1989 as a ministry. They perform religious wedding ceremonies, which include references to God, the invocation of God’s blessing on the union, brief remarks drawn from the Bible designed to encourage the couple and help them to have a successful marriage, and more. They also provide each couple they marry with a CD that includes two sermons about marriage, and they recommend numerous Christian books on the subject. The Knapps charge a small fee for their services.
Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”
Virginia McNulty Robinson, one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel on behalf of the Knapps in Knapp v. City of Coeur d’Alene, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
As we have stated in the previous several posts, the government has no business regulating, or even trying to regulate political speech.
What you will read below is the beginning of several very creepy efforts to destroy freedom of political speech and conscience. Those efforts will likely manifest themselves in three ways:
I – First and most obviously, this “study” is designed to develop techniques to identify the political leanings of Twitter users. That way opinion leaders and top influencers can be singled out for IRS audits like they did to Becky Garritson; or spied upon like they did to reporters James Rosen, Sharyl Attkisson, as well as the entire Washington Bureau of the Associated Press.
This went as far as the government putting classified documents on Sharyl Attkisson’s computer in case they ever decided to charge her with possession of classified documents. Perhaps you are spreading messages someone doesn’t like or you grow to be an influencer on Twitter; so they sneak a little kiddy porn on your PC using government hacking tools and you go bye bye.
II – The study will “determine”, by the standards of “truth” as defined by the Democrats in power who paid for it, what is “true” or not. This is so obvious that it does not even need to be said, but we will say it anyway. Who lies more than government and politicians? Any attempt by them to declare something true or false will be done by pure political motivation. Even if that is not the intent of this study the results and resulting software will be used for just such a purpose, it is only a matter of time.
III – The study will determine what messages propagate through Twitter via mass fake accounts and “astroturfing” vs how messages that genuinely go viral propagate. This will be done for the purpose of perfecting methods of astroturfing to further manipulate and control the messages you see and hear on social media.
Read the following carefully….
Via The Washington Post:
By Ajit Pai – Ajit Pai is a member of the Federal Communications Commission.
If you take to Twitter to express your views on a hot-button issue, does the government have an interest in deciding whether you are spreading “misinformation’’? If you tweet your support for a candidate in the November elections, should taxpayer money be used to monitor your speech and evaluate your “partisanship’’?
My guess is that most Americans would answer those questions with a resounding no. But the federal government seems to disagree. The National Science Foundation , a federal agency whose mission is to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense,” is funding a project to collect and analyze your Twitter data.
The project is being developed by researchers at Indiana University, and its purported aim is to detect what they deem “social pollution” and to study what they call “social epidemics,” including how memes — ideas that spread throughout pop culture — propagate. What types of social pollution are they targeting? “Political smears,” so-called “astroturfing” and other forms of “misinformation.”
Named “Truthy,” after a term coined by TV host Stephen Colbert, the project claims to use a “sophisticated combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex network models” to distinguish between memes that arise in an “organic manner” and those that are manipulated into being.
But there’s much more to the story. Focusing in particular on political speech, Truthy keeps track of which Twitter accounts are using hashtags such as #teaparty and #dems. It estimates users’ “partisanship.” It invites feedback on whether specific Twitter users, such as the Drudge Report, are “truthy” or “spamming.” And it evaluates whether accounts are expressing “positive” or “negative” sentiments toward other users or memes.
The Truthy team says this research could be used to “mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate.”
Hmm. A government-funded initiative is going to “assist in the preservation of open debate” by monitoring social media for “subversive propaganda” and combating what it considers to be “the diffusion of false and misleading ideas”? The concept seems to have come straight out of a George Orwell novel.
The NSF has already poured nearly $1 million into Truthy. To what end? Why is the federal government spending so much money on the study of your Twitter habits?
Some possible hints as to Truthy’s real motives emerge in a 2012 paper by the project’s leaders, in which they wrote ominously of a “highly-active, densely-interconnected constituency of right-leaning users using [Twitter] to further their political views.”
Truthy reminds me of another agency-funded study, in which the Federal Communications Commission sought to insert itself into newsrooms across the country. That project purported to examine whether news outlets were meeting what researchers determined were the “critical information needs” of the American people. And it involved sending out government-funded researchers to ask editors and reporters questions about their news philosophy and editorial judgment.
Once this study was brought to the attention of the American people, howls of protest from across the political spectrum led the FCC to scrap the project — thankfully. The episode reaffirmed that the American people, not their government, determine what their critical information needs are and that the First Amendment means the government has no place in the newsroom.
That principle applies here. Truthy’s entire premise is false. In the United States, the government has no business entering the marketplace of ideas to establish an arbiter of what is false, misleading or a political smear. Nor should the government be involved in any effort to squint for and squelch what is deemed to be “subversive propaganda.” Instead, the merits of a viewpoint should be determined by the public through robust debate. I had thought we had learned these lessons long ago.
Now, I do understand the motivation behind this scheme, even though I disagree with it. To those who wish to shape the nation’s political dialogue, social media is dangerous. No longer can a cadre of elite gatekeepers pick and choose the ideas to which Americans will be exposed. But today’s democratization of political speech is a good thing. It brings into the arena countless Americans whose voices previously might have received inadequate or slanted exposure.
The federal government has no business spending your hard-earned money on a project to monitor political speech on Twitter. How should it instead have reacted when funding for Truthy was proposed? The proper response wouldn’t have required anywhere near 140 characters. It could have been, and should have been, #absolutelynot.
Speaking of the Democrats’ war on the First Amendment.
The Federal Election Commission, Congress and the President have no constitutional authority to regulate or censor political speech. Doing so is expresly for bidden in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But one can be sure that Democrats will find some statist judges that will say it’s legal.
Forty-nine Democrats in the Senate actually tried to repeal the political speech protections in the First Amendment itself recently:
The Democrat-proposed S.J. Res. 19, would change the First Amendment, giving politicians the ability to determine whatever they feel are “reasonable” limits on free speech, rather than the current First Amendment that completely disallows that power by stating that “Congress shall make no law prohibiting” free speech or the establishment and practice of religion.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) took the Democrats on:
The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now.
While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet.
It would mark a major reversal for the commission, which for nearly a decade has protected the ability of individuals and interest groups to take to engage in a robust political conversation on the Internet without having to worry about registering with the government or keeping and reporting records of their expenses.
Ms. Ravel said she fears that in trying to keep the Internet open for bloggers, they’ve instead created a loophole for major political players to escape some scrutiny.
“Some of my colleagues seem to believe that the same political message that would require disclosure if run on television should be categorically exempt from the same requirements when placed in the Internet alone,” said FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel in a statement. “As a matter of policy, this simply does not make sense.”
She said the FEC should no longer “turn a blind eye to the Internet’s growing force in the political arena,” and she vowed to force a conversation next year on what changes to make.
The three Republican-backed commissioners, though, said in a joint statement that Ms. Ravel’s plans would stifle what’s become the “virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate.”
FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman said what Ms. Ravel is proposing would require a massive bureaucracy digging into the corners of the web to police what’s posted about politics.
This is real police state stuff. The Democrats’ war on the First Amendment continues. The Supreme Court has spoken on this question with the Hobby Lobby ruling, but Democrats will spend the taxpayers money if only to cost the good guys legal fees.
Via The Federalist:
For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections.
The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.
At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.
The news has slowly leaked out as insurers grappling with this change have begun quietly informing employers of this sudden change in the terms of their policy. This is how Kaiser Permanente broke the news to one California church that its insurance policy for its pastors and staff would now include elective abortion coverage…
Continue reading HERE.