Benghazi: The Smoking Gun

Reblogged from Conservative Hideout

We’ve all known it was a lie, the video. It was a lie made up and agreed upon between Obama and Hillary. The end. Period. Enough said.

Now documents have come to light that prove it.

Finally.

Scandal: Heavily redacted documents show a military response had been drafted in answer to the Benghazi terrorist attack by a group supporting “an Islamic state” in Libya. It also showed the attack wasn’t inflamed by a video.

It’s taken Judicial Watch two years to obtain from the most transparent administration in history the 486 pages of documents pertaining to the military response to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on our Benghazi diplomatic mission. They confirm what we have said repeatedly, that the Benghazi tale spun by President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was indeed a lie agreed upon.

Despite heavy redaction, they show that the real “JV team” — a term applied by Obama to the deadly Islamic State — resides in the White House. The papers reveal, for instance, that at one point the military relied on a photo from a Twitter post to determine the status of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed with Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith in the first of two attacks.

Several hours later — hours during which a rescue or support attempt arguably could have been made — terrorists killed CIA contractors and former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty.

The documents confirm the administration lied in insisting the attacks were nothing more than a spontaneous protest over a video offensive to Muslims — protests that escalated to the point participants spontaneously pulled out their mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

“The DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) terrorism threat level for Libya is significant,” said one formerly withheld email sent before the attack. “The DOS (Department of State) residential criminal threat level for Libya is high and the non-residential criminal threat level is high. The political violence level threat is critical.”

Campaign Ads

Some issues just lend themselves very naturally to national campaigns. With this in mind, we offer this suggestion to Her Thighness …

Is it Mitt, or is it Hillary?

This is excerpted from an earlier post during the last Presidential primary season. I pulled the quotes from the excellent resource website, “On The Issues.”

See if you can identify the speaker as Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton:

1) “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have got to stop employing illegal immigrants. you see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work & construction work & domestic work.”

2) “We have to have our citizens insured, and we’re not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don’t have insurance aren’t paying taxes.”

3) “I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college.”

4) “We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation.”

5) “I also support an assault weapon ban.”

6) “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.”

7) “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion.”

8] “We ought to be providing domestic partnership benefits for people who are in homosexual and lesbian relationships.”

_________________________________________

The answers:

(1) Hillary, (2) Mitt, (3) Mitt, (4) Hillary, (5) Mitt, (6) Hillary, (7) Hillary, (8) Hillary

So, how did you do? I live in a deep red state so my protest vote against Mitt won’t mean very much.

But for you conservatives who think Mitt is the only way to “win” the country back, take a look at Mitt’s changing stands on the issues that matter. Look closely. No one has forced Mitt to change his mind on them. Just naked opportunism. You decide if it’s worth it to you to elect someone who is the Republican version of Hillary Clinton.

I know what my answer is.

.

Book: Michelle nixes Hillary for VP

From the UK Telegraph, author Christian Andersen reveals this conversation …

“Do you really want Bill and Hillary just down the hall from you in the White House?” Michelle reportedly told her husband. “Could you live with that?”

Actually, the visual of having Bill and Hill just down the hall would be enough to scare the orange off a pumpkin.  And, it worked.

Joe Biden was selected, and Hillary was sent on a never-ending globe trot as  Secretary of State.

As the late Paul Harvey used to say, “Now you know….. the.rest.of.the.story.

Hillary tells another whopper

William Safire sized up Hillary Clinton some thirteen years ago as “a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation” … He also said she –“is a congenital liar.”

Well, she’s at it again. This time it’s about her favorite subject — abortion.

Hillary Clinton testified before Congress last month about the Obama administration’s commitment to dismantling pro-life laws around the world.

“When I think about the suffering that I have seen of women around the world – I’ve been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting their babies, and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions,” Secretary Clinton told [Rep. Chris] Smith in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing April 22. video clip

Yesterday, Hillary’s spokeswoman told the National Catholic Register that the State Department was “unable to confirm where or when the trip she referred to in her testimony was – where specifically in Brazil she was visiting or when the trip occurred.” source

Imagine that.

read more: Hillary dodges gunfire on mercy mission to Brazil

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D’ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Obama declines Iran offer of alQaeda members

In a move reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s refusal to negotiate a deal for the extradition of Osama bin Laden in 1996, the Obama Administrtation has just recently declined to accept an offer from Iran of several alQaeda members, including some on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” list.

Kenneth Timmerman reports at Newsmax.com …

“Hillary Clinton is very much against these negotiations,” another source familiar with the U.S.-Iran talks told Newsmax.

“In Tehran, they don’t understand this,” said a third source who recently returned from Iran after discussing the Iranian and American proposals. “When the ruling factions actually agree on a policy, they put the whole government apparatus behind it.”

Tehran now believes that the al-Qaida operatives it is sheltering in Iran have become a liability. Some, such as al-Qaida military chief Saif al-Adel and Ahmed Mughassil, who has been indicted for the 1996 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, figure on the FBI’s Most Wanted List of terrorists and have American blood on their hands.

Timmerman says that the State Department is still getting up to speed, so in a sense, the offer may have been premature. But the fact that Obama has plunged ahead with a policy which includes closing Guantanamo and releasing detainees, possibly even into the US, ignores the reality that the war on terror continues, regardless of what the new Administration calls it.

“If you’re talking about individuals against whom there are no criminal charges, then it gets complicated,” former CIA Director R. James Woolsey told Newsmax. “If you close down Gitmo, where are you going to keep them?”

Woolsey said he could see no reason why the Obama administration wouldn’t take terrorists who are facing U.S. criminal charges. “To me, it would be extremely unwise not to take them out of circulation.”

Unwise is one way to describe it.

Reckless is another.

Also: Be sure to read Andrew McCarthy’s letter to Eric Holder at NRI “Must Read”

—-

This is the World Famous Friday Open Thread. A free speech zone.
WFFOT: Track backs welcome.

Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Rosemary’s Thoughts, and third world county, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Saturday Night Strat, and reading list

Starting with a nice piece from Joe Satriani.

NYTimes: Ohio hospital contests Hillary tale

Washington Times: Five Myths of Healthcare

Seattle PI: Hillary’s last stand lacks class
Reuters:
Colombia trade flap: MOre Clinton Woes

IBD: Obama misfired on concealed carry
WSPA:
Six year old boy accused of sexual harassmant
Newsbusters: Global Temps to Decrease
AP: Colombia fires top Clinton aide’s firm
WND: ACLU defends polygamy
AP: Standoff at polygamist sect

It ain’t cattle futures, but it ain’t too shabby

from Washington Times…

The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

Now, it is certainly possible that the Clinton’s reluctance to release their tax returns has nothing at all to do with this information. No one is saying that this was illegal.

But it sure doesn’t look good.

h/t Kearney,
also at the linkviewer

Speaking of the Linkviewer, I gotta say, this is a pretty nifty thinkamajig. It is a great source of news, however, I’ve noticed that a lot of it is just recycled headlines from Free Republic. But, there are also a lot of headlines and interesting input from pro-Israel bloggers that you might not see otherwise.

Certainly worth a look-see.

THIS IS the World Famous Friday Open Thread……..A Free Speech Zone.

WFFOT: To boldly go where no thread has gone before! (trackbacks welcome)

=====

Trackposted to Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, , Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Showdown in Austin

AUSTIN, Texas (CNN) — It’s showdown time in Texas.

The Democratic race was very different when the candidates debated three weeks ago.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois will face off in a Democratic presidential debate in Austin Thursday.

The debate, to be held on the campus of the University of Texas, will air live on CNN.

If words are as important as candidate Obama asserts, hopefully the CNN mods will take advantage of this historic opportunity to focus less on the ‘horse-race’ and the campaign rhetoric, and more on finding out what the candidates really mean.

Betsy McCaughey, former Lt Gov of New York, has penned several interesting questions regarding one of the major issues in the Democratic primary — universal healthcare.

1) Sen. Clinton: When you pledge to cover every one of the 47 million uninsured, do you include recent and future newcomers to the United States, legal and illegal?

2) Sen. Obama: You have said that you will require all parents to have health insurance for their children. What will you do to enforce this law?

3) Sen. Clinton: a question about young adults. They think of themselves as invincible and are not apt to buy insurance. Your “mandate” would force them to do so, and more than that, to pay the same premium as middle aged people whose health care needs generally are much greater. You defend the one-price rule as “shared responsibility,” but isn’t it an unjust, hidden tax on the younger generation?

4) Sen. Obama: You have pledged to make health insurance “affordable.” Texas lawmakers have made insurance less affordable by requiring that every plan include in vitro fertilization, acupuncture, marriage counseling and some 50 other features. This is like passing a law saying that the only car you’re permitted to buy is a fully loaded luxury sedan.

Would you allow Texans (and all of us who live in states with similarly costly insurance requirements) to shop for cheaper insurance outside our own state?

5) Sen. Clinton: You promise that “everyone who is already insured will be able to keep the coverage they have today.” Yet your proposal says all health plans must cover services “experts deem necessary.”

About 4.5 million people have high-deductible insurance, because it costs less and allows them to make their own decisions about where and when to get medical care. But when Massachusetts passed mandatory health insurance, people with high-deductible plans were forced to switch to more expensive medical policies to meet that state’s definition of insurance.

Will that also happen under your proposal?

6) Sens. Obama and Clinton: Some doctors and hospitals are worried about your plans to make electronic record-keeping compulsory. What will be the penalty for a doctor who doesn’t get computerized?

7) Sens. Obama and Clinton: Both your proposals call for limits on the profit margins of insurance companies. Attacking the most unpopular industry in America may sound politically attractive, but if profit margins are legally capped, investors will flee to other industries and private insurance could become a thing of the past. That would leave only a government-run health-care system.

Do you believe the nation should take that risk?

Another day, another tax increase

Just how much would a Hillary Clinton administration raise taxes?

It depends on who you ask, and lately, it also depends on when you ask. Mrs. Clinton has previously touted her version of fiscal responsibility, “I have a million ideas. I can’t do all of them. I happen to think in running a disciplined campaign – especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is what I’m trying to do – everything I propose I have to pay for.”

Today, Team Clinton unveiled her “economic blueprint” which would include an additional $820 billion in taxes over the next decade, aimed at oil companies, drug companies, and corporations which “ship jobs overseas.” This is in addition to allowing the Bush tax cuts expire, which would increase taxes by a staggering $4.3 Trillion, according to estimates provided by the National Women’s Law Center.

Do the math.

Hillary Clinton is proposing $5.1 trillion in new taxes over the next decade.

Since she is proposing new spending programs to match the tax increases, the growth of Federal spending poised to grow dramatically under a Clinton Administration.

Update: So, where is the club for greed when you need them? Glad you asked. They’re still attacking Republicans.

Hillary files 4th false FEC report (try saying that 3 x real fast)

h/t DougfromUpland

Got Vodka?

from NYT, via Free Republic…

WASHINGTON, July 28 — Two summers ago, on a Congressional trip to Estonia, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting that the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest.

Delighted, the leader of the delegation, Senator John McCain, quickly agreed. The after-dinner drinks went so well — memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much — that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. “One of the guys” was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain went on to develop an amiable if professionally calculated relationship. They took more official trips together, including to Iraq. They worked together on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. They made a joint appearance last year on “Meet the Press,” interacting so congenially that the moderator, Tim Russert, joked about their forming a “fusion ticket.”

Politics being what it is, there is more friction than fusion. As the 2008 presidential campaign begins to take shape, with Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton at the top of the polls for their parties’ nominations, they are increasingly underscoring their differences on issues like the war in Iraq and port security. Advisers to Mr. McCain have put a stop to his inviting Mrs. Clinton on trips.

Whether their friendship is based on anything other than the respect of one political professional for another, or the opportunity to strike a tone of bipartisanship for public consumption, is unclear. But the interplay between the two senators, both well known and both with compelling personal narratives and a knack for infuriating their own parties’ bases, could determine the tone of the 2008 presidential race and make it less personally vicious than the last two campaigns.

Read more

Hillary Gets Walloped

Obama’s 25 point victory over Mrs. Clinton marks six straight. I’m going to file this under “who’d a thunk it?”

No, it’s not over yet. But, it sure is starting to feel like it.

For many of us on the Right, there is a bit of Hillaryfreude. Watching Doyle and Henry resign, and Maggie (Vince Foster) Williams take over Team Hillary, brings back memories of everything we loathe about the Clinton machine. Still, if Senator Gravitas is able to hold off Hillary’s last firewall in Texas and Ohio, think of all the opposition research that will go to waste.

I guess it’s time to get busy putting together the Obama File. Please feel free to post your best links.

Deep Thoughts, by Bill Clinton

Fairfax, Va. (CNSNews.com) – In advance of today’s Potomac Primaries in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., former President Bill Clinton led a rally for his wife’s campaign at George Mason University Monday night. […]

The “first thing that you want in a president is somebody who will keep big bad things from happening,” President Clinton told the crowd at GMU. A president must also “make sure good things happen.” The former president said the nation needs a “change-maker, and she’s been one all of her life.” […]

The president emphasized that he would support his wife’s candidacy, even if he were not married to her — because of her position on issues and her record as “a change-maker” over the past 35 years. [ed. note: Drink!]

The Democrats are running on a platitudinous platform of “hope” and “change.” It is, in many ways, no different than the Congressional races of 2006, except that surrendering in Iraq is no longer a priority. Democrat Congressional candidates ran on no platform then, and their Presidential candiates are running on no platform now.

“Yes” to garnishing paychecks to pay for HillaryCare

This morning on “This Week” on ABC, she was pressed about garnishing wages (to pay for her Health Insurance program) and dodged it a few times before saying,

“George, there will be an enforcement mechanism, whether it is that or something else.”

So she is open to the idea of garnishing wages. Her words.

Go ahead Conservatives, stay home or vote 3rd party.

source
As bad as McCain is, he’s better than this shiite.

also at AP

Landslide

With nearly all of the precincts reporting late Saturday night, Obama had 55 per cent of the vote, Clinton had 27 per cent, and Edwards was in third with 18 per cent of the vote.

This sounds like “The Dean Scream,” doesn’t it?

Update:  Well, if the SC Landslide didn’t do it, this will.

Barack “Hussein” Obama

On the last day of the campaign before the Nevada caucuses, a pre-recorded automated telephone message, accusing “Barack Hussein Obama” of lying about his ties to lobbyists, goes out to voters.

The Clinton campaign claims no knowledge of the calls.

source 

Welcome to the big leagues, kid

I just read an interesting piece of original writing over at Free Republic.

Ever Get the Feeling You’ve Been Cheated? (Obama and the Nut Roots Meet the Clinton Machine)
Tuesday, January 8, 2008 | Kristinn
Posted on 01/08/2008 10:24:24 PM CST by kristinn
Hours before the voting started in New Hampshire today, the Hillary Clinton campaign was on the verge of implosion. At least that’s what the Clinton campaign wanted us to believe.

The polls showed Barack Obama heading for a knockout blow against the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Hillary got teary eyed and her voice choked in a rare public display of emotion. Word was leaked that her campaign staff was going to be shaken up, that her campaign funding was in trouble and that pressure was mounting for her to drop from the race.

Tonight Hillary “stunned” the political world with a victory that seemed improbable this morning when the latest polls showed her down 13%.

We’ve been down this road before with the Clintons. They are masters of deception, feeding the media garbage that they breathlessly regurgitate and then marvel at how the Clintons beat the low expectations they set for themselves.

When then President Bill Clinton testified before a federal grand jury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the Clinton camp spread a tale of Bill Clinton flying into a ‘purple rage’ during his testimony.

Later, when videotape of his testimony revealed that he actually kept his cool, the media ignored the lies it had been fed and celebrated Clinton’s coolness under fire.

The Clintons did it again tonight. Hillary’s tears were as real as Bill’s purple rage. All the while the media went with the story the Clintons wanted told about her diminished prospects in New Hampshire, their political machine was getting ready to put the shiv in Obama.

There was no way the Clintons were going to let Obama win. There will be stories of ballot shortages and other shenanigans, but that’s all they’ll be–stories told by embittered losers.

Welcome to the big leagues, Obama and the nut roots. As Johnny Rotten so famously asked, “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

Taxation without representation?

This is one of the more bizarre articles that I’ve read in some time, as reported in Brussels Journal

American presidential elections are not “home affairs.” American decisions have repercussions all over the globe. The American mortgage crisis affects banks in Europe. The insatiable American demand for oil makes the Arabian sheiks rich. The American refusal to care for the environment causes the North Pole ice to melt and coastal areas in Asia to flood. A weakened dollar and an immense budget deficit affect the global economy.

Hence, the world should be given the right to vote. Because the current situation is a blatant case of taxation without representation, against which the Americans rebelled in 1776. But of course the world will not be allowed to vote. The best we can hope for is that the Americans choose a leader who is deeply aware of the U.S.’s responsibility, as a superpower, for the rest of mankind.

The international community was able to limit America’s hegemony somewhat through organisations for international consultation, agreements and the corresponding judicial apparatus. But that system is in crisis, partly through the actions of the current American president.

Wait a minute. The Euros might be on to something. Hillary is looking for votes to beat back B. Hussein Obama, and she’ll do anything to win, even giving the franchise to “the world.”

It could work.  Not.

/Now go away before I am forced to taunt you again.

Mitt or Hillary? Take the quiz

Listening to their current stump speeches, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton seem like polar opposites. The Democratic lightening rod and the former New England governor appear to offer voters a contrasting vision of leadership: government activism versus free market solutions to the challenges of 21st century America.

Their rhetoric, however, is a different story. In fact, many of their statements are downright interchangeable.

Criticisms of each candidate range from opportunism to pandering, hypocrisy to flip-flopping. Certainly, the two candidates offer starkly different leadership styles, policy differences, and philosophies of governance. But, just listening to their words, it’s sometimes difficult to tell who said what to whom.

We’ve pulled the following quotes from the excellent resource website, “On The Issues.” See if you can identify the speaker as Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton.

1) “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have got to stop employing illegal immigrants. you see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work & construction work & domestic work.”

2) “We have to have our citizens insured, and we’re not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don’t have insurance aren’t paying taxes.”

3) “I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college.”

4) “We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation.”

5) “I also support an assault weapon ban.”

6) “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.”

7) “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion.”

8] “We ought to be providing domestic partnership benefits for people who are in homosexual and lesbian relationships.”
_________________________________________

The answers:

(1) Hillary, (2) Mitt, (3) Mitt, (4) Hillary, (5) Mitt, (6) Hillary, (7) Hillary, (8) Hillary

So, how did you do? If you got all 8 correctly, you win this pdf of Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Wellesley thesis, “There Is Only The Fight,” (suitable for downloading).

Enjoy!

P.S. — I started to say something about the commonality of Hillary seeing Dr. MLK in Chicago, 1962, and Mitt “seeing” his father march with Dr. MLK, but I decided that might be piling on a bit. Heh™.

Reposted by popular request.

Mitt v Hillary: Take the Quiz

Listening to their current stump speeches, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton seem like polar opposites. The Democratic lightening rod and the former New England governor appear to offer voters a contrasting vision of leadership: government activism versus free market solutions to the challenges of 21st century America.Their rhetoric, however, is a different story. In fact, many of their statements are downright interchangeable.

Criticisms of each candidate range from opportunism to pandering, hypocrisy to flip-flopping. Certainly, the two candidates offer starkly different leadership styles, policy differences, and philosophies of governance. But, just listening to their words, it’s sometimes difficult to tell who said what to whom.

We’ve pulled the following quotes from the excellent resource website, “On The Issues.” See if you can identify the speaker as Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton.

1) “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants. People have got to stop employing illegal immigrants. you see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work & construction work & domestic work.”

2) “We have to have our citizens insured, and we’re not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don’t have insurance aren’t paying taxes.”

3) “I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college.”

4) “We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation.”

5) “I also support an assault weapon ban.”

6) “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.”

7) “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion.”

8] “We ought to be providing domestic partnership benefits for people who are in homosexual and lesbian relationships.”

_________________________________________

The answers:

(1) Hillary, (2) Mitt, (3) Mitt, (4) Hillary, (5) Mitt, (6) Hillary, (7) Hillary, (8) Hillary

So, how did you do? If you got all 8 correctly, you win this pdf of Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Wellesley thesis, “There Is Only The Fight,” (suitable for downloading).

Enjoy!

P.S. — I started to say something about the commonality of Hillary seeing Dr. MLK in Chicago, 1962, and Mitt “seeing” his father march with Dr. MLK, but I decided that might be piling on a bit. Heh™.

Source: bloggers4huckabee.wordpress.com

original post by Nuke

NowPublic

Tags: America | Chicago | Clinton | england | ROMNEY | Activism | being | CANDIDATE | challenges | contrasting | criticisms | DEMOCRATIC | Domestic | downright | flip-flopping | Government | governor | HILLARY | HYPOCRISY | illegal | immigrants | insured | interchangeable | leadership | lightening | LISTENING | mitt | opportunism | Opposites | pandering | Philosophies | polar | policy | Politics | quiz | rhetoric | solutions | something | speeches | starkly | statements | stump | styles | v | vision | voters | words

Get your Clinton Library Card

Release the records!

Sign the petition to get your own Clinton Library Card…

Hillary’s Christmas Presents

“Release the Barrett Report”

More Clinton funny money

When he left the White House in 2000, Bill Clinton reported assets of more than $1 million and legal fees of more than $2.4 million. In his wife’s most recent disclosure, Hillary Clinton reported that the couple now has a net worth estimated at between $17.4 million and $53.7 million.

Both now claim to be uneasy about their place among the richest Americans. This “new experience,” Hillary Clinton said during a debate Oct. 30, isn’t “one that makes us very comfortable.”

Bloomberg is reporting that the Clintons aren’t very comfortable about the reports of Bill’s dealings with California gozillionaire Ron Burkle……

Securities and Exchange Commission documents and financial- disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton show that Bill Clinton, 61, has a financial stake in three investment entities registered in the Cayman Islands by Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. LLC.

In 2004, Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, said she wanted to “close the loopholes” for “people who create a mailbox, or a drop, or send one person to sit on the beach in some island paradise and claim that it is their offshore headquarters.”

The former president’s possible decision to move away from Burkle “is all tied up with the laws of appearance and the politics of perception,” said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. “The world being what it is, people are attracted to the spouse of somebody with political power. The level of potential conflict is just that much higher with a former president and a senator who would be president.”

Moreover, added Fowler, “with this particular couple, somehow, the whole story doesn’t come out except in dribs and drabs.”     link

Drips and drabs. A familiar Clinton story.

Grapevine pickins’ (just to pass the time)

Unconventional Wisdom

Climate scientists from three American universities have published peer-reviewed research indicating global warming cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases — and that current greenhouse computer models saying otherwise are wrong. The report in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society was written by professors from the universities of Rochester, Alabama and Virginia. Lead author David Douglass of Rochester writes — “The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” The report says satellite data indicates greenhouse computer models ignore the mitigating effects of clouds and water vapor on the warming properties of carbon dioxide. It says climate change is most likely caused by variations in solar winds and associated magnetic fields. A senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress tells Cybercast News the study is “radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus”

Imagine that. One anonymous liberal disagrees.

Perception Is Reality?

The Hillary Clinton campaign is said to be struggling with perceptions that the candidate is devious, calculating and a divisive figure. Bloomberg.com reports those were the findings of a recent focus group of 11 Democrats from Philadelphia — almost all of whom said they would vote for her in a general election. The focus group was run by the noted Democratic pollster Peter Hart. One of the group members says of Mrs. Clinton — “I don’t feel like I look at her and see someone who’s telling me the whole truth.” Another said — “She is walking a fine tightrope now, because she is such a divisive personality.” Barack Obama, meanwhile, was perceived as inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate.

Not telling the truth, but they’ll vote for her anyway. sheesh…

More from the Grapevine