Thursday, May 26, 2016

Mrs. Clinton's Promise to Dissolve America's Border in Her First 100 Days

Rush Breaks this down again and makes it easy to understand.

RUSH: Breitbart News Daily: "An examination of Clinton’s campaign promises reveals that Republicans who are willing to thwart Trump in favor of Clinton will be complicit in electing a President who would seek to bring about the complete, and possibly irreversible, dissolution of our nation’s borders.
"A review of Clinton’s stated positions on the issue suggests she is perhaps the most extreme candidate on immigration ever to run for the office of the US Presidency. Her views place her even further outside the mainstream of the American electorate than President Barack Obama, who systematically dismantled US immigration law during his two terms in office."
Here we get to the meat and potatoes.  "Clinton has pledged to enact amnesty within her first 100 days in office. As NBC recently reported: 'If elected, the former secretary of state has promised to build on President Obama’s executive actions and introduce comprehensive immigration reform during her first 100 days in office.'
"Clinton’s website has explained that by 'comprehensive immigration reform,' Clinton means full citizenship for illegal immigrants, which would give them welfare access, voting privileges, and the ability to bring over their family members through chain migration. 'As president, Hillary will fight for comprehensive immigration reform that provides a full and equal path to citizenship,' Clinton’s website states."
First hundred days.  This is not waiting until we get comprehensive immigration reform legislation out of the House.  She says she's gonna go beyond Obama's executive orders.  
What she means is -- and the reason why the headline of the story says, "Clinton Releases Plan to Dissolve US Border Within 100 Days" -- that that'll be the practical result.  If she's gonna take every illegal in the... By the way, this is how you get 'em out of the shadows if you don't know how many there are. 'All you do is step forward, and you're gonna be a citizen! You're gonna be able to vote! Are you presently enrolled as a Democrat? We'll show you where.
"You're gonna be able to get on welfare. You're gonna be able to get on Medicaid and have full citizenship.  All you have to do is come out of the shadows!" Then we'll find out how many there really are.  She's not gonna wait for "comprehensive immigration reform."  She's not going to expand on Obama's executive actions.  So right off the bat... Let's say there's 11 or 12 million because the number gets thrown around.
That many brand-new Democrats in the first year of the Hillary Clinton presidency, by virtue of her own words.  That's the practical result of that is essentially the dissolution of the US border.  But the chain migration, that is huge.  Automatic citizenship for you conferred to all of your family who are not here.  They can come here as full citizens.  So let's take the 11 or 12 million here and multiply it by 1.8 or two.  Maybe 2.8. 
Each family has at least a kid.  Multiply it times three, and that's how many new American citizens (no doubt registered to vote Democrat) that there will be.  And we still have -- with all of this, we have all of these #NeverTrump people out there claiming to be afraid of Trump 'cause he's gonna be a dictator.  And here is Hillary Clinton promising to be one from day one and through the first 100 days.
RUSH:  Let me repeat: Mrs. Clinton's plan for full citizenship in the first 100 days of her presidency is the guaranteed way to bring every illegal alien out of the shadows.  That'll do it.  A full-fledged promise of citizenship for them and their families, whether they're here or not.  Chain migration. Whatever the number is, multiply by two or three, folks, and I guarantee you that these in-the-shadow illegal immigrants coming out of the shadows are gonna know full well the deal is vote Democrat, register Democrat. 
That's gonna be the deal. 
It may not even be required, they're gonna be filled with such gratitude. The press and everyone will say, "Look what Hillary Clinton has done! This is the most compassionate act we've ever seen," and in one signature, Hillary Clinton will forever change, irrevocably, the United States of America.  The upside for her and them is that there's all these brand-new Democrats. No Republican will ever get elected to anything again.  And that, folks, is the key here.
Promising citizenship is how you get them to come out of the shadows.  That's where we'll find the actual number.  We, as you know, have microphones, cameras, listening devices, drones everywhere, including Chappaqua.  (Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby parody)  Kind of makes sense that Cosby would be calling Clinton for advice: The guy not getting away with it calling the guy who did, for all intents and purposes. 
RUSH: Oklahoma City.  This John.  Great to have you.  I'm glad you waited, John.  Hi.
CALLER:  How are you doing today, Rush?
RUSH:  I am doing fabulously.  Thank you.
CALLER:  Good.  I was calling, I'm of the opinion that possibly the worst thing that could happen is if Hillary gets indicted, the reason being is I think that will lead to a Biden-Warren ticket. She'll bring on the Bernie people and you'll have a contrast on stage of Biden, who will be kind of calm cool and Uncle Joe type, prone to gaffes but will be funny. Where Trump will come across as sometimes a raving lunatic and kind of a little out of control and maybe not -- the perception is just not gonna be good, I don't think. Plus the fact that Biden tragically lost his son, earlier, tragically lost his first wife, so he'll -- you know, unfortunately people will empathize with him.
RUSH:  Trump will come across as a raving lunatic against Biden?  Is that what you're --
CALLER:  At times, sure, he'll go off the handle.  He has that propensity.
RUSH:  First things first.  I don't think that Hillary is going to be indicted.  For that to happen that would mean Obama okayed it, and I don't think Obama wants fingerprints on whatever happens to Hillary.  That's why I think what's happening is the drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.  The IG report further reviews, further interviews, the FBI leaks, they're all going to continue.  I think Obama would very much enjoy Hillary losing the presidential election.  I don't think that Obama wants to deal with the fallout.
Look, if she gets indicted, everybody knows the trail leads back to the Oval Office.  The only way that can happen -- 'cause Loretta Lynch not gonna do anything on her own.  She's not gonna do this without the authorization of Barack Hussein O or Valerie Jarrett, whoever really runs that show up there.  The second thing is, why does everybody automatically assume that Joe Biden's gonna parachute in here?  What do you think Bernie Sanders supporters are gonna do if anything takes Hillary Clinton out of this race, and the Democrat machine moves in there to put Plugs in?  That means they've gotta totally ignore Bernie.  Plugs doesn't have a single vote.  He didn't run, he doesn't have a single vote.  Crazy Bernie has won a slew of states.  Now, seriously, John, in your scenario, how could they get away with denying Bernie Sanders the nomination?
CALLER:  Oh, I think they could do it through the rules change or whatever, especially if he brings on Elizabeth Warren.
RUSH:  But you have supporters to deal with. Even if you make a deal with Bernie, "Hey, Bernie, we'll may you $2 million a year in retirement, we'll give you all the Ben & Jerry's you want," whatever it is, you still have to deal with his supporters who are not gonna just accept this.  And they're off and voting for Trump if this happens.  They're not gonna hang around and vote for Plugs.
CALLER:  That's a possibility, or they'll let him write the platform, which will be the same as electing him, maybe.
RUSH:  Well, look, the crux of your point is that you'd much rather see Trump versus Hillary than Trump versus Biden, because Biden is a sympathetic figure, Hillary isn't.  Biden, he does have this ability to BS people left and right.  I mean, Biden, if you listen to him, he knows everybody, he's met everybody, everybody's his best friend, he's had an intimate conversation with everybody.  He's loyal to Obama to a fault.  Probably no more loyal person than Biden.  Speeches at conventions, bailing Obama out of hot water here and there, running the jobs council, whatever he's been given to do, he's done it. 
Then he did lose his son.  And the word went out that his son's last words were close to "run, Dad, run," or some such thing.  Your point is that Trump would probably fare worse against Plugs because of the sympathetic figure he is whereas Hillary not.  But I don't think it's gonna come to that.  Everybody thinks Plugs is gonna get thrown in there, but you can't just ignore what Bernie Sanders supporters, even if you could say buy him off, how do you buy off his supporters?  I don't know how you do it. 
'Cause his supporters are really into what he stands for, which is, this place sucks, and it needs to be overthrown from the inside out with us in charge.  There's no middle ground with these people.  Plus free dope, gotta throw marijuana in there, legalize that.  And Plugs isn't gonna do that.  I mean, they might even go the Libertarian candidate if that's the case. 
This is Will in Shreveport, Louisiana.  Great to have you, sir, here on the Rush Limbaugh program.  Hi.
CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  Mega dittos, but you are way overblowing this whole amnesty for illegal aliens voting.  It's not the disaster you think it's gonna be.  We don't have a hundred percent voter registration and turnout in this country.  We don't have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats dying every year and being replaced by new crop of Republicans and Democrats. And that these illegal ages, if they accept citizenship, which I don't think a lot of them are, are gonna show up en masse and vote and tip the scale.  It doesn't make any sense, and I think you're blowing it way out of proportion.
RUSH:  So there's nothing to worry about, then, with amnesty?
CALLER:  First off, if Hillary Clinton can truly come in there with a stroke of a pen, it's over. You might as well just go ahead and start -- don't cover anything political, just cover football and golf every day.
RUSH:  Wait.  Obama has done it and the Republicans have tried to stop him very often.
CALLER:  When the next Congress comes in, if it's a Democrat Congress, then, I mean, what -- okay.  Let's just say it happens.  What do we do then?  Would you say it's over?
RUSH:  New Zealand.
CALLER:  What do you mean, New Zealand?
RUSH:  I'm just kidding.
CALLER:  I know what you mean, your Plan B.  If it comes to the point where that happens and the American people just go, ho-hum, all right, then there's just literally nothing else to do.
RUSH:  But no, wait a minute, now.  You just said there's nothing to worry about, that even if they've granted amnesty, we're not guaranteed that they're gonna be overrunning the ballot box, there's nothing --
CALLER:  In that case I'm taking it from your point of view on that.  As far as I'm concerned, your assuming that they're all gonna show up and vote, that, you know, this --
RUSH:  It doesn't take -- wait a minute.  It doesn't take all of 'em.  If you've got 11 million out there -- that's the number -- and if they're granted amnesty, all it takes is 10% of 'em showing up and all voting Democrat.
CALLER:  And that's assuming no other Americans are gonna vote.
RUSH:  No.  It's including current vote patterns and turnout patterns now.  Demographic shifts and everything.
CALLER:  You think maybe that might motivate people so 60% voter registration and out of that (unintelligible) 80 or 90%?  You think that might be a motivating factor for people to get off their butts?  I mean, I'm 50, I've got friends of mine literally my age who have never voted in their lives.  I mean, you know --
RUSH:  All right.  So you're factoring that there may be millions of Republicans who are not voting for whatever reason, but if Hillary were to do this, that would get 'em off the sofa --
CALLER:  I'm not saying Republicans.  I'm just saying people in general.  We have overall, out of, what, 220, 230 million adults in the country, how many of them over 18 that go to the polls are actually registered to vote, 70?  And out of that 70%, how many vote?
RUSH: If we don't have to worry about this, then, this is such a load off, if we don't have to worry about this?  Then what happened in California really didn't happen.  That's so wonderful.  Then California didn't happen.  You notice there's not a Republican Party in California.  There's not gonna be an elected Republican in the Senate in California.  There isn't a Republican Party in California.  Why do you think that is?
CALLER:  Rush, if (unintelligible) 11 million people nation-wide can come in and change that much, then it's over. Yeah, maybe you should go to New Zealand.  I'm looking how many people are in the country and how many people are actually voting.  We only have, what, 60% voter turnout.  You're making out like everything else is gonna stay static.  Really if that's the case, Hillary Clinton with a stroke of a pen could really make them citizens and they're actually gonna vote --
RUSH:  The fact of the matter is, if you want to see what's gonna happen to America, look at California.  We used to own California, Will.  We had governors like Reagan and Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  There isn't a Republican in that state that can get elected to anything.  The Republicans are irrelevant.  There aren't enough of them.  They have left.  A lot of people have left California while others have moved in from Mexico and Central America and so forth.  California is exactly what would happen to the United States. 
You're theory is that there are a lot of people not voting -- Republicans, Democrats, independents, whatever -- and when they see this happen, they're gonna say, "Whoa, mama," and they're gonna get off the sofa. They're gonna get out of the house, they're gonna go register, and they're gonna outnumber whatever number of illegals register as Democrats.  That's... There's no evidence whatsoever to support that.  But beyond that -- beyond that, Will -- let's not forget what really is at the root of this, is the law.  It is illegal. 
Mrs. Clinton will not have the power to do what her website is pledging to do.  She cannot, with a stroke of her pen, create federal law, or wipe it out.  She cannot. Yet that's what she's promising to do, and the fundamental aspect of this -- the foundational aspect that's got really everybody -- is the rule of law being obliterated.  The vote results are the result of the law being oblitirated.  People are not racist on this.  People are not prejudiced or bigoted.  People are concerned that if the rule of law goes... Why does anybody obey the law?  (I should have pointed this out earlier.) 
Glenn Reynolds, who's a law professor at Tennessee, University of Tennessee, had a piece that ran in USA Today this week.  It was all about (summarized), "Why do any of us obey the law?  What is it in our nature that makes us independently obey the law? Above and beyond fear of getting caught and punishment, what is it that makes us obey the law?"  And it is a many-factored answer.  The societal agreement and the understanding of the rule of law being a foundational aspect of the country that we can't exist without it.
But his point further was that if leaders of our country in Washington routinely ignore it and routinely violate, break, and get away with it, why should any of the rest of us obey the law?  It was a great column, because it does... You know, the Constitution's there, but what is the Constitution?  A piece of paper.  Do you realize for 230 years the Constitution has survived.  Why?  It's just a piece of paper.  Why, up until Barack Obama, has the Constitution ruled?  It's because people we've elected, for the most part, have had an understanding and a respect for it and what it means. 
But if that vanishes, then all it is is a piece of paper.  And that's nothing.  The words on it will not matter.  It is... I'll tell you, folks, in one sentence, the idea this country, founded the way it was. That Constitution is a document, that Constitution is the glue, and it's held this country together for 200-and-some-odd years because people have been willing to obey it.  But now we have people at the upper, highest levels of our government willing not to obey it.  And the dissent from that, the indications of that are horrible.  

Related Links

CHARLIE DANIELS warning to Muslim terrorists: “Real Americans aren’t pussies like Barack Hussein Obama”

A viral National Rifle Association (NRA) television commercial features country music star Charlie Daniels warning Muslim terrorists that Americans are fighters who are armed, and together with the NRA, stand as freedom’s safest place. “No, you’ve never met America. And you ought to pray you never do.”

During the 60-second commercial, Daniels intimates that the American spirit is not well-reflected in President Obama and that Obama and “his weak-kneed Ivy League friends” may give would-be attackers the wrong idea; their weakness may actually give terrorists a false sense of security.



This is an Excellent example of these Worthless Inbred progressive Liberals in Illinois.  Anyone that can write a budget  that  is out of Balance by over $7 Billion dollars should be fired on the spot

Imagine spending more than you make.
Imagine spending more than you make for an entire year.
Imagine spending more than you make for 15 years in a row.
What would happen? Well, just look at the state of the state. Illinois lawmakers have failed to pass a single balanced budget since 2001. Panic reigns at the Statehouse as the Land of Lincoln drowns in debt, unable to pay its bills. Residents remain overtaxed and underserved.
On May 25, Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives introduced and passed a state budget that’s out of balance by nearly $7 billion, according to the Illinois Office of Management and Budget’s analysis. They want to take $32 billion from residents, and spend $39 billion. The 500-page budget was introduced and passed in a single evening.
Clearly, something is wrong here. No state can pass fake budgets for more than a decade and expect things to turn out OK.
The Illinois General Assembly’s spending in any fiscal year “shall not exceed the funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year, ” according to the Illinois Constitution.
So why isn’t anyone following the rules?
The answer is in plain sight. Illinois’ balanced-budget requirement is toothless. Since the requirement doesn’t explicitly prohibit borrowing and budgeting tricks, Illinois lawmakers have used both with abandon.
Former Gov. Pat Quinn borrowed $3.5 billion to fund the state’s pension systems to create the appearance of a balanced budget for fiscal year 2010. He did the same thing the next fiscal year, borrowing another $3.7 billion. In May 2011, lawmakers used an accounting gimmick to push more than $1 billion in unpaid bills to the next fiscal year.
As written, the state’s balanced-budget requirement all but encourages lawmakers to ignore unpaid bills, incur huge deficits and stick future generations with the tab.
Taxpayers end up shouldering massive tax hikes not to fund crucial services, but to pay for the irresponsible behavior of politicians.
Take the 2011 income-tax hike. It took nearly $32 billion in extra revenue from Illinoisans. That’s more than the state spends on education, health care, human services and public safety combined in a full fiscal year.
But that money didn’t go to gleaming classrooms, smoother roads or better public safety. Instead, about one-third of the money went to pay unpaid bills and pension debt. Lawmakers dumped the rest into the state’s pension systems, which have accountability problems all their own.
This process is not fair to the people of Illinois. They expect lawmakers to spend within their means, just as they do in their own households.
The solution to this problem is simple. Illinois must strengthen its balanced-budget requirement. A rule that mandates responsible stewardship would go a long way toward putting Illinois on a sane and sustainable path.
The research on this topic is unsurprisingly clear. States with rigorous balanced budget requirements are more likely to balance their budgets, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 47 contains many necessary protections for Illinois taxpayers. It not only requires that spending can’t exceed revenue, but also bans the use of debt, refinancing and fund sweeps to calculate that revenue.
In short, the proposed constitutional amendment prohibits gimmicks that have plagued the state for far too long. But it’s also as good as dead in House Speaker Mike Madigan’s Rules Committee.
If a constitutional amendment is too much for lawmakers to handle, a proposal from Gov. Bruce Rauner could at least give the state a chance to pass a responsible budget this year.
The governor proposed passing the Unbalanced Budget Response Act, which would temporarily give him the ability to shift funds and reduce spending to balance the state’s budget. Certain funds such as those devoted to schools, early childhood education and debt service would remain untouched.
Even Rauner doesn’t think that solution is ideal, but it’s a far better fix than continuing to indulge fantasyland spending.
Strict rules governing basic responsibilities of state lawmakers shouldn’t be necessary. But the extreme recklessness of the last 15 years shows Illinois politicians need more than a slap on the wrist.
They need handcuffs.


McAuliffe Invited Chinese Donor to Fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s Home

Hillary Clinton met with the Chinese businessman at the center of a federal investigation into Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D.) during a 2013 fundraiser at her Washington, D.C. home, according to a Time report.
Clinton shook hands with Wang Wenliang during the Sept. 30 event. Less than a month later, Wang would donate $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, ultimately pledging a total of $2 million to the foundation throughout the year.
McAuliffe, who was on the board of the Clinton Global Initiative, invited Wang to the fundraiser three weeks after one of the businessman’s companies, West Legend Corp., contributed $60,000 to his gubernatorial campaign. The company gave a total of $120,000 to McAuliffe’s bid.
Wang’s representative told Time the event at Clinton’s personal residence was one of at least three meetings between McAuliffe and the businessman.
Just days earlier, McAuliffe denied ever encountering Wang. The governor vowed that he “did no deals” with Wang, adding, “I would not know the man if he sat in a chair next to me.”
He later admitted during a radio interview with WTOP that he had met the businessman “once or twice in my life.”
Wang’s representative told Time that the second meeting between McAuliffe and the businessman occurred at the Virginia state capitol after McAuliffe won the governor seat. The two reportedly discussed expanding a soybean export agreement between Wang and the State of Virginia.
Former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges (D.) arranged the third meeting between McAuliffe and Wang where they again discussed soybean exports. Wang’s company, Dandong Port Co., gave Hodges $1.5 million in 2012 to lobby Congress.
The FBI and Justice Department have been probing McAuliffe’s campaign fundraising for the past year, CNN reported on Monday. Government officials are investigating whether donations given to his gubernatorial campaign violated campaign finance laws.
The Justice Department refused to elaborate on the probe’s focus.
“As a matter of policy, the department generally neither confirms nor denies whether a matter is under investigation,” Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr told Time.


State Dept. I.G. Report’s Greatest Hits: Hillary Lied (Then Her Spox Lied About The Lies)

State Dept. I.G. Report’s Greatest Hits: Hillary Lied  (Then Her Spox Lied About The Lies)

State Dept. Inspector General Report: Hillary Server Broke The Rules

Perhaps the worst thing (for Hillary Clinton) in the state dept. IG report is the evidence Hillary lied, and then how her SPOX lied about her lies. So much of what she said about the email scandal was simply false, so much about what the Inspector General (IG report) revealed is that she had a disregard for America’s secrets, and so much of what her spokespeople said yesterday after the report seemed to ignore the truth, that it’s a wonder how any American could ever trust her again. This report wasn’t issued by a GOP superPac or congressional committee, this was an Obama appointed IG in the Obama administration state department.
Clinton has said on multiple occasions that her email setup did not violate any rules or laws but throughout the document (embedded below) the IG explains that she not only broke the rules but seemed to have a reckless disregard for them including the fact that every e-mail needed to be printed and filed. Hillary did not comply:
Pg. 23: As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
Her very use of a private server broke department rules:
Pg 27: The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”The FAM defines an AIS as an assembly of hardware, software, and firmware used to electronically input, process, store, and/or output data. Examples include: mainframes, servers, desktop workstations, and mobile devices (such as laptops, e-readers, smartphones, and tablets).
The report (pages 36 and 37) reports that Ms. Clinton totally disregarded state department rules about email but at the same time warned state department staff to follow those rules including the fat that the rules state that she needed to show her server set up with the department Chief Information Officer and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security to get it approved from a safety perspective…that was never done. If she had it would never have been done.
According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.
The email exchange explained below hasn’t been seen it before, did the state department leave this one out or did Hillary hold it back? Hillary has always said the private server was set up for her convenience, but we learn here that it was set up because she was worried about her privacy. She was trying to keep it from the public. page 43 of the report (embedded below) it says:
In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton’s emails to Department employees were not being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that “we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” In response, the Secretary wrote, “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.
When two State Department staffer express their concern about Hillary’s use of a private server and national secrets, they were told to shut up and never mention the server again.
P43: Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal record keeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.
Hillary and her team have said over and over there was no evidence of hacking. Again this was found to be false. Not only are were there incidents of suspected hacking, but she never reported those issues to security which is the rule:
On January 9, 2011, the non-Departmental advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the Clinton email system notified the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations that he had to shut down the server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in I didn’t [sic] want to let them have the chance to.” Later that day, the advisor again wrote to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, “We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.” On January 10, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary “anything sensitive” and stated that she could “explain more in person.”
P40: In another incident occurring on May 13, 2011, two of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff discussed via email the Secretary’s concern that someone was “hacking into her email” after she received an email with a suspicious link. Several hours later, Secretary Clinton received an email from the personal account of then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs that also had a link to a suspect website. The next morning, Secretary Clinton replied to the email with the following message to the Under Secretary: “Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!” Department policy requires employees to report cybersecurity incidents to IRM security officials when any improper cyber-security practice comes to their attention. 12 FAM 592.4 (January 10, 2007). Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information. 12 FAM 682.2-6 (August 4, 2008). However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.
Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests? An Item on page 38/39 explains:
In August 2011, the Executive Secretary, the Under Secretary for Management, and Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, in response to the Secretary’s request, discussed via email providing her with a Department BlackBerry to replace her personal BlackBerry, which was malfunctioning, possibly because “her personal email server is down.” The then-Executive Secretary informed staff of his intent to provide two devices for the Secretary to use: “one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability.” In another email exchange, the Director of S/ES-IRM noted that an email account and address had already been set up for the Secretary. and also stated that “you should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.” However, the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Staff rejected the proposal to use two devices, stating that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” OIG found no evidence that the Secretary obtained a Department address or device after this discussion.
Perhaps the most damning thing in the report was on page 7, “Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview.” That’s the same Hillary who said over and over that she was being cooperative…well why didn’t she speak to the inspector general?  What was she hiding?
There’s much more in the IG report embedded below, the above are just my “personal favorites.”
Here’s the real fun part.  Watch the video below where Brian Fallon, a Clinton spokesman is interviewed by Bret Baier, and lies about everything in the report.  Fallon basically peed on the public’s legs and told us all it is raining:

Jimmy Carter Accuses Trump and The GOP of Bigotry, Ignores His Hatred of Jews

Leave it to this Old Retired Piece of Crap to blame the GOP of Racism. As we have seen, the left has a problem with Israel and the Jews. This Goofball needs to retire and stop being an Obama Suck Ass! Look at the race Baiting Idiots we have had in office the last 7 years.

Jimmy Carter Accuses Trump and The GOP of Bigotry, Ignores His Hatred of Jews

 In an interview on Monday, former President Jimmy Carter spoke of a resurgence of open racism, saying, “I don’t feel good, except for one thing: I think the country has been reawakened the last two or three years to the fact that we haven’t resolved the race issue adequately.”
Carter laid the racism at the feet of the Republican Party, saying that criticism of President Obama had “a heavy racial overtone” and that Donald Trump had “tapped a waiting reservoir there of inherent racism.”
It seems as if the peanut president is simply saddened by the fact that Obama’s policies have not helped the country which is the source of the criticism, and he doesn’t understand the voter anger at the government (of any race) held by the voters attached to Trump (and even Bernie Sanders).
In the interview Carter said, “When you single out any particular group of people for secondary citizenship status, that’s a violation of basic human rights.” But, if the former president really believes that, he should look at his own life, since he has displayed Anti-Semitism during much of his presidential and post presidential career. According to many observers Carters anti-Jewish bigotry stems from his feeling that he lost reelection campaign because he became the first Democrat since 1920 not to receive a majority of the Jewish vote. Carter got 45%, Reagan received 39%, and 3rd party candidate John Anderson got 14%. It is also that perceived abandonment behind Carter’s disdain of Israel.
Ambassador Marc Ginsburg was Jimmy Carter’s deputy senior adviser on the Middle East, and from 1977 through 1980 was White House liaison to the State Department. He has a unique perspective of Jimmy Carter’s Middle East dealings. According to the Ambassador, the reason Carter goes out of his way to bash Israel is that he feels American Jews did not fawn over him enough for all that he did for Israel.
…When former President Jimmy Carter revealed that Israel has more than 150 nuclear weapons, he clearly had a motive, according to his administration’s deputy senior adviser, Marc Ginsberg: “I think there’s no doubt — particularly given the vantage point I had in the White House at the end of his administration — that he resents the way in which Israel and the American-Jewish community have failed to express sufficient gratitude for his efforts on behalf of peace in the Middle East.
“In my judgment, there’s no other explanation,” Ginsberg says.
(…) “There’s no doubt he knows exactly what he is doing when he’s making these statements, or making misrepresentations that Hamas has agreed to recognize Israel if certain conditions occur, or to the book he wrote [‘Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’] referring to Israel.”
Believe it or not, when he was in the Oval Office, President Carter rejected someone for a position on the board of the Holocaust Memorial Council because the guy’s name was too Jewish. That’s right the Holocaust Memorial Council. Monroe Freedman, who was executive director of the council during Carter’s presidency, told a reporter that Aaron Klein, that a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian, was rejected from the council’s board by Carter’s office because the scholar’s name “sounded too Jewish.”
Freedman said he sent a memo to Carter’s office containing recommendations for council board members. The memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, “Too many Jews.” The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter’s handwriting and was initialed by Carter.
Ultra-liberal famous law professor Alan Dershowitz also feels that Carter is a Jew-hater. In an essay talking about Carter’s anti-Semitic claims that the Jews control foreign policy and the media, he wrote:
The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter, not me, who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter’s own standards, it would be almost economically “suicidal” for Carter “to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine.”
(…) If money determines political and public views as Carter insists “Jewish money” does, Carter’s views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter’s off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter.
Ken Stein was director of the Carter Center and even collaborated with Jimmy Carter on the book, “The Blood of Abraham,” resigned in protest from the center after Carter published his biased tome “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”
According to Stein, Carter had a deep distrust of the American Jewish community, and other supporters of Israel. In a 1991 research interview with Carter for his book “Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace,” Carter recollected that:
[Vice president] Fritz Mondale was much more deeply immersed in the Jewish organization leadership than I was. That was an alien world to me. They [American Jews] didn’t support me during the presidential campaign [that] had been predicated greatly upon Jewish money … Almost all of them were supportive of Scoop Jackson—Scoop Jackson was their spokesman … their hero. So I was looked upon as an alien challenger to their own candidate. You know, I don’t mean unanimously but … overwhelmingly. So I didn’t feel obligated to them or to labor unions and so forth. Fritz … was committed to Israel … It was an act just like breathing to him—it wasn’t like breathing to me. So I was willing to break the shell more than he was.
William Bradford Smith, Chair of the Division of History, Politics & International Studies at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, once sent a letter to the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia, which said in part:
When I taught at Emory University, I used to see former President Jimmy Carter on a fairly regular basis, and it was all I could do at times to stop myself from spitting at him.
Carter’s hatred of Israel and, by extension, of all Jews (and make no mistake, if you spend any time in the man’s presence, his discomfort at being in the same room with someone who merely appears to be Jewish is palpable), is rooted in the man’s megalomania, and his unflinching belief in his own rectitude.
Looking at his real track record of bigotry, perhaps Jimmy Carter should examine his own life before makes false charges of bigotry against others. Thankfully the drug he is taking that was tested in Israel seems to have eradicated the cancer in his brain (yes the nation and people he abhors may have saved his life). I only wish him a long life to examine the hatred in his own heart.