Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law

By Frances Rice
Without a doubt, Hillary Clinton is an arrogant, career politician who beleves she’s entitled to become our next president, whether we like it or not.
She is also thoroughly corrupt and completely dishonest.  On the campaign trail, she is lying and trying to declare illegitimate any questions pertaining to her illegal use of a private email server run out of her home.  The liberal press is complicit in trying to hide her lies and illegality from the public.
Fortunately for the American people, the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton who should be indicted, prosecuted and put in jail.
Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law
By Ken Cuccinelli
Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.
Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)
On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.
According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”
The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?
Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.
She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.
Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).
Two examples demonstrate this point.
When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.
Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”
While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.
There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.
Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.
The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.
Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.
Ken Cuccinelli is president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia.
How Hillary wrecked the State Department’s digital information system
By Paul Mirengoff
Hillary Clinton’s disregard for cyber-security at the State Department, and hence for the national security, is manifest from her use of a private email server. But the wreckage Clinton left behind in State’s main digital information security office arguably demonstrates her disregard even more starkly, and probably posed an even greater threat to national security.
Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller provides the details. He cites scathing audits issued by the State Department’s former acting IG, Harold Geisel, a hand-picked Clintonista. During Hillary’s tenure, Geisel issued eight reports warning about worsening problems and growing security weaknesses within the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM). One of Geisel’s reports, issued not long after Clinton left the State Department, was so damning that the IRM became the butt of caustic comments throughout the IT world, according to Pollock.
In 2013, Geisel’s successor, Steve Linick, issued a “management alert” to State Department leadership, warning that IRM’s security deficiencies persisted. “The department has yet to report externally on or correct many of the existing significant deficiencies, thereby leading to continuing undue risk in the management of information,” Linick said.
The IRM was established by Colin Powell after the 9/11 Commission highlighted the failure of key government agencies to exchange anti-terrorist intelligence. Powell and his successor, Condeleeza Rice, built the IRM to ensure secure communications among all U.S. embassies and consulates.
The IRM became the central hub for all of the State Department’s IT communications systems. As Geisel explained in one of his reports, IRM “personnel are responsible for the management and oversight of the department’s information systems, which includes the department’s unclassified and classified networks” and “handles all aspects of information security for the department’s intelligence systems.”
The need to maintain the security of the IRM could not be more obvious. Geisel warned that “the weakened security controls could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems” used by U.S. officials around the world. Yet, according to multiple IG reports, Clinton allowed the IRM to degenerate into an office without a mission or strategy. And even after being alerted to the problem, she failed to get it fixed.
The IRM’s deterioration isn’t unrelated to the Clinton email scandal. As Pollock points out, Clinton put Bryan Pagliano, her 2008 presidential campaign IT director, in the IRM in early 2009 as a “strategic advisor” who reported to the department’s deputy chief information officer. Pagliano had no prior national security experience and apparently lacked a national security clearance.
The IRM scandal also brings to mind Benghazi. In that case, Clinton failed to respond to repeated warnings about the deterioration of security at U.S. embassies in the region. In this instance, she failed to respond to repeated warnings about the deterioration of a vital information network.
Clinton likes to talk about being “ready.” But she wasn’t ready to be Secretary of State and she certainly isn’t ready to the President of the United States.

Monday, October 05, 2015

How 7 years of Obama brought the world from Kumbaya to chaos

By New York Post Editorial Board

Photo: Zumapress.com/Getty Images

Just three years ago, President Obama famously ridiculed GOP opponent Mitt Romney’s statement that Russia remained America’s main geopolitical foe by taunting: “The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Four years before that, Obama stood at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate to declare that once he became president, all people would join him around a global campfire, hold hands and put an end to the world’s evils and miseries.

Well, seven years into Obama’s presidency, the promised worldwide Kumbaya is instead global chaoscaused in large measure by his willful retreat from America’s position of leadership.

Washington’s traditional allies increasingly feel abandoned, its enemies emboldened. The United States isn’t even leading from behind — it’s cowering in weakness.

And no one is taking better advantage of this than Vladimir Putin, now storming headlong into the yawning chasm of American retreat and reasserting Russia’s global influence and power — just as Mitt Romney said.

Putin remains unchallenged in his invasion of Ukraine, leaving him free to intervene — again unchallenged — in the Middle East.

In Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world hasn’t ended the threat of terrorism. On the contrary, it has seen the rise of “JV team” ISIS and new power for the Taliban. Israelis and Palestinians remain as far apart as ever — because only Israel has been targeted to make concessions.

This president accuses his political foes of wanting to wage war as their first option and warns of the limits of unilateral military power.

But in his eagerness to leave office as the president who ended America’s wars, he refuses to consider any use (or even a credible threat) of US force — even when hundreds of thousands are being massacred in Syria, many by the chemical weapons he claimed to eliminate.

His premature abandonment, against all military advice, of Iraq and Afghanistan (where the pullout is still under way) has left both countries worse off. Iraq, in particular, is bleeding far more than it did even in the worst years of “George Bush’s war.”

Equally eager to open America’s arms to longtime adversaries, this president has begun new relationships with Iran (all but giving Tehran a direct path to a nuclear arsenal) and Cuba without any concessions in return — even on such basic issues as human rights.

It’s no accident Obama has twice spoken in Berlin — at the very spot where Ronald Reagan famously demanded Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down this wall.” Two years later, the Berlin Wall came down. Two years after that, the Soviet bloc collapsed, ending the Cold War.

Obama chose Berlin as the place to call on all nations to join him in “tearing down the walls” to “remake the world.” But his soaring rhetoric was followed by indecision, hesitation and outright appeasement.

America’s allies are calling, Mr. President. They want Ronald Reagan’s assertive foreign policy of the 1980s back.

They want an America that leads — not retreats.




New York Post
Syria is Obama’s Watergate
By Michael Goodwin


What did he know and when did he know it? The immortal question about Richard Nixon and Water­gate should be posed to Barack Obama about Syria. What and when did he know about Vladimir Putin’s axis-of-evil coalition?

The significance is not limited to Syria. The question goes to the heart of the Iran nuclear deal, especially the timing of the congressional votes.

Imagine Obama trying to sell the Iran deal now. With Russia, Iran and Iraq working together to muscle the United States aside and defend Bashar al-Assad, the president couldn’t possibly argue that the nuke deal would help stabilize the Middle East. Nor could he argue that Russia could be trusted to help enforce ­restrictions on Iran.

The strong likelihood that Obama would have lost the Iran vote if Congress knew then what the world knows now suggests the possibility the president concealed the Russian plan until the Iran deal was done. That view fits with his single-minded determination to get a deal at any price, including making key concessions and downplaying Iranian threats to Israel and the United States.

After all that, what’s another lie?

That view is also supported by the chronology, which reveals strong evidence the president hid the truth.

For much of September, reports of Russia moving soldiers and military equipment into Syria invariably said the Pentagon was “puzzled” or the White House was “unclear” about Putin’s intent. Obama declared on Sept. 11 that whatever the dictator’s plan, it was “doomed to fail.”

The claims of fuzziness about Syria allowed Obama to keep the focus on his push to sell the Iran pact to Congress. He touted Russia’s support, vowed to impose “snapback” sanctions if Iran cheated and said he would work to stop the mullahs’ ­regional aggressions.

His arguments and arm-twisting kept 42 Senate Democrats in line, enough to save the deal. Yet soon ­after opponents lost their final vote, on Sept. 17, Russia revealed that it would lead a coalition of Iran and Iraq to intervene militarily to save the Assad regime.

The shock-and-awe attacks launched last week are rattling the world as Russian airstrikes pound Syrian rebels, including some we support, with Iraq and Iran providing boots on the ground. But it’s not possible that nobody in Washington saw this coming.

After all, the Russian plan took shape well before late September. The Iran deal was officially finalized on July 14, and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani met with Putin in Russia on July 24. Fox News, which first reported the meeting, even had the flight numbers of Soleimani’s Iran Air flights between Moscow and Tehran.

Soleimani, banned from international travel because of links to terrorism, earlier had been spotted in Iraq, helping to defend Assad against Islamic State. Yet five days after Soleimani was in Moscow, Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate the travel restrictions against Soleimani would never be lifted. Apparently, they would never be enforced, either.

Although Russia and Iran had separately supported Assad, Kerry never mentioned that they could be working together militarily. Yet the Institute for the Study of War, a respected think tank, reported that “available satellite imagery and open sources” showed that “the new buildup of Russian military forces in Syria began in July 2015 and accelerated considerably in late August and September.” That means the buildup began near the Soleimani visit to Putin.

The institute offered key details, including that in late August, a Russian ship unloaded armored personnel carriers. It cited another report from Syrian rebels that Russian-speaking soldiers were engaged in combat against Assad’s opponents.

Yet in early September, less than two weeks before the final Iran vote, Kerry still wondered whether the buildup reports were “accurate.” That ridiculous feint would soon morph to an acknowledgment of a buildup, but with convenient claims that nobody understood Putin’s intent.

Now, of course, everybody understands Putin’s intent and is alarmed because the war is widening and Russia has replaced the United States as the region’s top power broker, a blow to our national security and allies.

But there still is little understanding of the connection between this tectonic shift and the Iranian nuclear deal. In fact, the deal was the final piece that put the Syria plan into action.

By eliminating most sanctions and freeing Iranian assets, the nuke deal provides money and protection for the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism to attack our allies. And Iran’s liberation gave Putin the Muslim ground troops he needs.

So the question needs to be asked of Barack Hussein Nixon: What did you know, and when did you know it?


Sunday, October 04, 2015

Planned Parenthood truths

By Boston Herald Staff



House Republicans told some hard truths yesterday about the nature of Planned Parenthood’s work.

No, not more horrifying disclosures about the harvesting of body parts from aborted fetuses — though that does indeed remain at the center of the controversy about federal funding.

But as lawmakers consider whether the organization should get federal funding at all, Planned Parenthood officials and supporters always insist that any cuts to federal funds would deny women breast exams and other essential health services.

And so with Cecile Richard, president of Planned Parenthood, seated before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) rattled off a stunning set of numbers, based on the group’s own tax and other filings. Over the past five years Planned Parenthood has funneled $22 million to its political affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. It spent $5 million in travel in 2013 alone and paid Richards an annual salary of $590,000.

Richards fired back that none of the money transferred to its PAC was federal money, but let’s face it, money is fungible. Every federal dollar given out — about $450 million of the organization’s $1.3 billion budget — allows it to channel other dollars elsewhere, including to its political arm.

“That has absolutely nothing to do with young women who need a breast exam,” Chaffetz said.

And that $22 million would fund a lot of mammograms.

Now faced with a level of public and political outrage in the wake of the videos about organ harvesting, Planned Parenthood has doubled down on, shall we say, its non-clinical work — buying ads, starting petition campaigns and filing lawsuits in states where it has been denied funding. All of that coming out of the same very fungible pocket of funds.

That’s not to say GOP lawmakers should shut down the government over the issue. That would be suicidal. But showing that Planned Parenthood is something far different than your community health center is a valuable contribution to the debate.




Saturday, October 03, 2015

Ben Carson uses empowerment message in bid to sway black voters

By Stephen Dinan


Ben Carson is hoping to awaken black voters to his campaign with a message of economic empowerment, saying the black community has been done a disservice by heeding political power overtures from Democrats.

Speaking to a small group of black leaders and activists last week, the retired neurosurgeon, who is surging in polling in the Republican presidential race, said he believes black Americans bring more power through the size of their bank account than by putting their “fist in the air.” 

Mr. Carson said he generally shies away from focusing on race: “I say that’s because I’m a neurosurgeon, because everyone’s brain looks the same and it works the same way.”

But he said black voters should step beyond their allegiance to the Democratic Party.

“The Democrat Party, of course, is the party of the KKK. Of Jim Crow laws. And perhaps just as bad right now, of servitude. ‘Now you do this, and we’ll take care of you, pat you on the head, take care of all your needs.’ Which keeps people believing that’s what they actually need,” Mr. Carson told the small group.

Mr. Carson said he is an admirer of the late A.G. Gaston, a businessman in Birmingham, Alabama, who made millions of dollars that he used to help fund the civil rights movement. Gaston said his influence stemmed from his economic power.

“I think he has a very good point. It’s something that black America needs to understand,” Mr. Carson said. “Jewish America understands it. Korean America understands it. Black America, if they could understand it, they could blow everybody else out of the water.”

Michael Tyler, the Democratic National Committee’s director of African American media, countered that Mr. Carson’s stances on issues will sink him.

Ben Carson reminding black people that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation is not only insulting, but it’s a clear attempt to hide from the disastrous record of today’s Republican Party,” Mr. Tyler said. “Here’s what black people understand: Black people understand that our families are healthier when more people have access to care, when we expand Medicaid, and when patients cannot be turned away by insurance companies for having a preexisting condition. Black people understand that we don’t grow the middle class by dishing out tax breaks for the wealthiest and powerful corporations.

“Republican candidates like Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio all fail to understand these facts,” Mr. Tyler said. “While their adherence to an extreme ideology might play well to the tea party, they’re demonstrating that they’re out of touch not only with black voters, but with a majority of Americans on the issues that matter most.”

Mr. Carson, 64, is the only major black candidate in the presidential race this year. The Democratic field is comprised of a handful of white men and one woman, and the crowded Republican field has two men with Cuban parents, an Indian-American and a woman.

The activists who met with Mr. Carson last week said his campaign had a more serious ring than that of Herman Cain, who sought the 2012 Republican nomination before dropping out a month before the Iowa caucuses amid accusations of sexual harassment and marital infidelity.

Mr. Carson, though, starts off with credentials that are difficult to match, including a 2009 television movie, “Gifted Hands,” based on his life.

One of the activists at last week’s gathering, a self-described member of the millennial generation, said he and his classmates studied the doctor’s groundbreaking medical breakthroughs.

“We know exactly what it is you’ve done. We had to — we got graded on it,” the activist told Mr. Carson.

Mr. Carson has not had a major breakthrough among black voters, though he does run better than other Republicans.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that in a head-to-head matchup with Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Carson garnered 18 percent support among black voters. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush got 11 percent support in the same matchup with Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Fiorina got 7 percent.

Many analysts have lumped Mr. Carson, Ms. Fiorina and businessman Donald Trump together as a symbol of anti-establishment sentiment within the Republican Party. Combined, the three candidates account for about half of the Republican primary vote in some polling.

“There’s no question that people are tired of politics as usual. But I don’t think that in and of itself would be enough. I think they’re also looking for people who have accomplished things,” Mr. Carson told The Washington Times when asked about the comparison.

As Mr. Carson rises, he faces more scrutiny by the press. He spent much of the past week defending a comment he made on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he said a Muslim who believes in the primacy of Shariah law shouldn’t be president.

Opposing candidates in the Democratic and Republican parties criticized Mr. Carson, saying the Constitution doesn’t allow for a religious test to determine who may hold office.

Mr. Carson, however, said he wasn’t talking about defying the Constitution, but rather saying he doesn’t think Muslim beliefs fit well for a chief executive.

He said he would turn the question back to his critics.

“If they were to ask themselves, do they really in their heart of hearts believe that the tenets of Islam, including Shariah, are compatible with the United States Constitution — ask the people who are critics that question. And hold their feet to the fire. I bet they will not be able to answer.”

Speaking to the activists at last week’s event, arranged by Armstrong Williams, a Carson confidante, the retired doctor said he’d heard from “some of my Muslim colleagues who are very supportive.”

“They say, ‘We know you; we know the press is trying to get you,’” Mr. Carson said.

One of the activists, Akili West, a Muslim who is also an official with Mr. Carson’s USA First political action committee, said he faced questions from Muslim friends in the wake of the comments and was able to assure them that Mr. Carson is a man of faith whose objection is to Shariah law.

“You’re a good man with a good heart,” Mr. West told Mr. Carson.

“It’s going to be great when people like you start speaking up — actually saying that,” Mr. Carson said.




Friday, October 02, 2015

More Than 90% Of Recent Middle Eastern Refugees On Food Stamps, Almost 70% On Cash Welfare

The statistics in the chart are provided by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  The ORR figures defined refugees from the “Middle East” as being from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. 
During the time period referenced in the chart (FY2008 to FY2013), the United States admitted 115,617 refugees from the Middle East and granted asylum to another 10,026. 
Also during this 5-year time frame, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the United States granted permanent admission to a total of 308,805 individuals from the Middle East through the issuance of green cards. 
Those with green cards are Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States who may apply for citizenship after 5 years and bring their foreign relatives into the U.S. on green cards as well
Refugees are required to apply to adjust to LPR status within 1 year of their admission to the United States.  The DHS 2013 report on Refugees and Asylees list the top ten countries, numerically, for refugee admission into the United States as: Iraq, Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Cuba, Iran, Congo, Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. 
More broadly, concerning all immigration, the Migration Policy Institute notes that the U.S. has taken in “about 20 percent of the world's international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population,” and that 1 in 4 U.S. residents is now either an immigrant or born to immigrant parents. 
The Census projects that another 14 million immigrants will arrive in the United States between now and 2025, easily eclipsing the highest previous historical watermark for foreign-born population share.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

The Clinton Slime Room

As might be expected in this era of partisan rancor, my new book, Unlikeable: The Problem With Hillary, has prompted criticism by people on the Left.
Much of the criticism can be traced back to Hillary’s notorious attack machine and the henchmen who run that machine:
  • Hillary’s book-burning spokesman Philippe Reines (“Killing books has always been a fun pastime,” Reines once bragged).1
  • Her “Get Smart” secret agent Sidney Blumenthal, an expert in political wet work
  • Her Reich Minister of Propaganda, David Brock, of whom the less said the better.
  • And her puppet and Pinocchio-like spokesman, Nick Merrill.
These four horsemen of the apocalypse run what New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd calls the Clinton “Slime Room.”
Here is how Dowd describes that Slime Room: “A $28 million cluster of media monitoring groups and oppo research organizations that are vehicles to rebut and at times discredit and threaten anyone who casts a gimlet eye at Clinton, Inc.”
The Clinton Slime Room has been dishing out its sludgy boilerplate for years, and it often doesn’t bother to come up with fresh ways to attack its victims.
When Peter Schweizer recently published Clinton Cash he was attacked by the Slime Room with the same exact words that have been used against me (“a discredited author”) and the same exact phrase used against my books (“a work of fiction”).
“To this day,” write Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman of Politico, “[Hillary has] surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists rather than just disdaining them.”
Ron Fournier, the senior political columnist and director of National Journal, explained the Slime Room’s MO this way:
Gennifer Flowers. Cattle futures. The White House travel office. Rose Law Firm files. The Lincoln Bedroom. Monica Lewinsky. And now the Clinton Foundation.
What ties these stories together is the predictable, paint-by-numbers response from the Bill and Hillary Clinton political operation.
  1.  Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.
  2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.
  3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts. [italics added]2
People often ask me, Why has the Clinton Slime Room gone to such lengths to single out your books?
I have two answers to that question:
First, my books about Hillary have been more personal than others.
They have gone behind the scenes to chronicle personal details that exposed Hillary’s shenanigans and cast her in an unlikeable light.
Second, despite the Slime Room’s efforts, it has been unable to suppress my books.
The Truth About Hillary, The Amateur, Blood Feud and now Unlikeable have all been major best sellers. In fact, shortly after Blood Feud was published, it blew Hillary’s memoir Hard Choices off the top of the New York Times Best Seller List and replaced it in the No. 1 slot.
The Times did a story about our dueling books under the headline:
The story referred to me as Hillary’s “longtime antagonist,” and went on to say: “While the work of Mr. Klein, a former editor of Newsweek and the New York Times Magazine, continues to rise, some Clinton allies have become sensitive about falling sales of Hard Choices.”
Sensitive is putting it mildly.
In Hillaryland, getting the better of Hillary is the unforgiveable sin.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Ha: Jimmy Kimmel Tricked Hillary Clinton Supporters Into Liking Donald Trump's Tax Plan

By Christine Rousselle



Last night on "Jimmy Kimmel Live," Kimmel pranked self-identified Hillary Clinton supporters and Donald Trump haters into endorsing elements of Donald Trump's tax plan. Trump released his plan, which raises taxes on the very right and slashes corporate tax rates, as well as eliminates income taxes for people making less than $25,000 a year, two days ago.


Check it out, it's pretty hilarious:  Hillary Supporters Like Trump's Tax Plan


To be fair, the election is still well over a year away, and voters have plenty of time to learn the nuances of their candidates' positions before making a decision in the voter's booth. This being said, hopefully this video is able to open eyes on both the left and the right to remind people that their preconceived notions about a candidate may not be correct.