Friday, May 29, 2015

Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit

Clinton Foundation hit with racketeering lawsuit
By Sarah Westwood - The Washington Examiner | May 27, 2015 | 5:00 am

Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court.

The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.

Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians.

The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation's chief diplomat.

"Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to ... The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official," Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.

Read more at:

Photo - Washington Examiner 2015

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Expose the TPP!

Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not really mainly about trade.

Of the TPP's 29 draft chapters, only 5 deal with traditional trade issues. Most would set rules on non-trade matters that affect our daily lives:

food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, job off-shoring, financial regulation, and more.

Our domestic policies would be required to comply with the TPP rules.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would off-shore more jobs, flood us with unsafe imported food, expand fracking, hike up medicine prices, roll back Wall Street reforms, threaten Internet freedom and much more. The key to stopping this terrible “free trade” deal is to stop Fast Track.
Join the movement.

Read more at:


Thursday, May 21, 2015

Hillary Clinton's emails won't be released until January 2016

blogger-avatarby Nick Summers | @nisummers | May 19th 2015 at 12:46 pm

The emails that Hillary Clinton sent as Secretary of State from a private account will eventually be released to the public, but not as quickly as some had hoped. Government lawyers reportedly revealed in new court papers, filed in relation to a Vice News Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, that the correspondence won't be published until January 15th, 2016. That's a long wait, especially as Clinton has already launched her 2016 presidential campaign in the US. Her privately-controlled email address, first revealed by the New York Times, is an issue because she used it for all of her work-related correspondence. Under federal law, emails sent and received by officials are supposed to be archived so that oversight committees, historians and the press can examine them.

Update: Another update from Vice notes that a judge has ordered the State Department to release emails on a rolling basis.

Read more at:

Image Credit: TREVOR COLLENS/AFP/Getty Images
SOURCE: Vice News

Friday, May 15, 2015

Hawaii Dem takes on Obama

By Kristina Wong - 05/14/15 06:00 AM EDT "The Hill"

One of the toughest critics of President Obama’s strategy against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who represents his home state of Hawaii.

Gabbard has taken the administration to task for refusing to use the term “radical Islam” and called for the White House to be more aggressive.

In an interview with The Hill, Gabbard said she has spoken to the White House about her criticism, though she has yet to speak with Obama himself.

“The president hasn’t called me. I’ve had a number of ongoing conversations with different people in the administration about some of these issues, both one-on-one, as well as in smaller, classified group settings,” she said.

“I’ve never been asked directly to not do my job. So obviously, there are areas where we’re going to agree to disagree.”

Gabbard, 34, one of the youngest members of Congress, is a Hawaii Army National Guard captain with two deployments under her belt, including a year in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit.

She later served in Kuwait as a platoon commander for a military police unit that accompanied a brigade running convoys. Those experiences have shaped her views on the fight against ISIS and given her credibility as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

While her criticism of Obama would appear risky in Hawaii, where the president remains popular, Gabbard says she simply disagrees with elements of his foreign policy.

“The leadership in our country, unfortunately, is still not looking at this in a comprehensive way,” she said.

Gabbard argues the administration needs to take a closer look at the shared ideology between terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and Boko Haram, rather than viewing them and their offshoots as separate threats.

“Each of these different groups that are basically all being fueled by the same ideology, and none of them can be defeated with a military-only strategy,” she said.

Read more at:

(Obama on TV - screenshot)

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The 10 biggest lies you’ve been told about the Trans-Pacific Partnership

You can call it "misleading" or "offering half-truths," but when push comes to a shove, these are lies!

Blogger comments (Andrew Shecktor 5/12/2015):
The TPP deal is incredibly dangerous. Like the Patriot act and the "Affordable" Health Care Act there are hidden atrocities in this bill, and our elected officials never read the legislation that they pass. One example is that TPP as it stands would eliminate all public domain copyright - worldwide! This would have far reaching affects, including the elimination of most public domain films, books, and works of art, as well as a lot of Internet content. Yes, that is buried about half way through. And don't forget it includes restrictions on various guns and ammunition and the import of the same. It also includes unilateral conditions to the detriment of the U.S. Again, our politicians will pass this without reading it. In the end - we will get screwed.

From article - please visit the website for the details!

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015 05:59 AM EDT

Today, the Senate makes a critical test vote on the Obama Administration’s trade agenda, kicking off a process that the White House hopes to end with the signing of an agreement between 12 nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In preparation for this vote, President Obama has been deliberately antagonizing his critics, mostly liberal Democrats. Senator Elizabeth Warren is “a politician, like everybody else,” Obama said Friday to Yahoo News, who has “got a voice that she wants to get out there,” framing her concerns as insincere self-aggrandizement. Those concerns, Obama added, are “absolutely wrong.”

This is not the first time that Obama and his aides have depicted opposition on trade as deliberate misinformation designed to stir up a left-leaning political base, or generate campaign contributions; my favorite is the claim that Warren is merely trying to energize a non-existent Presidential campaign.

It’s beneath the dignity of the Presidency to so aggressively paint opponents as not just wrong on the facts, but hiding the truth on purpose. Warren has responded without using the same indecorous tactics. Unfortunately, I don’t have the same self-control. So by way of response, here are ten moments where the President or his subordinates have lied – call it “misled” or “offered half-truths” or whatever; but I’m in an ornery mood so let’s just say lied – about his trade agenda

Please read the full article at:

President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks at Lehman College in the Bronx borough of New York, Monday, May 4, 2015. Obama announced the creation of an independent nonprofit organization that is a spin off his "My Brother's Keeper" program, which works to give young men of color more opportunities through mentoring and business partnerships. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)(Credit: AP)

Friday, May 8, 2015

Sharia Law Already Happening in U.S.

Rush Limbaugh: Sharia Law Already Happening in U.S.
Thursday, 07 May 2015 06:15 PM
By Courtney Coren

In light of the fallout from the recent shooting in Texas, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh says Sharia law is already happening.

Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday that on "one of the networks this morning somebody was defending Pam Geller and started saying, 'If we're not careful, Sharia law is gonna happen,'" and the co-host responded, saying that "'There isn't gonna be Sharia law in the United States of America. Just isn't gonna happen. Come on, get real, get real, it's silly.'"
But Limbaugh said that "Sharia law has already been implemented in this country."

"Are you aware that in New Jersey a judge found that an Islamic man could not be accused of the rape of his wife?" the conservative radio host asked his audience.
Latest News Update

"A judge in New Jersey found that he could not be charged with it, much less found guilty, because there's no rape in his religion," he explained. "Well, hello. That's Sharia.

"Now, it's not Sharia that has become American law, but it's been implemented," he added. "It's been used."

Comments 5/5/2015 by blogger Andrew Shecktor,

This brings up a very interesting point. If one is to abide by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then a person practicing the Islamic religion cannot be held accountable for rape, because in their religion rape is not recognized. Nor is a Christian to be denied an art show that violated Islamic law, or a cartoon depicting images contrary to Muslim law. And, anyone can deny services to another person if that persons beliefs violate their own religious beliefs. Now this becomes a double edged sword to all other religions, for if we do not permit those practicing Islam (one of the largest religious practices in the world) to practice their religion then we are also saying that one cannot practice Christianity, or Judaism, etc... This would then violate our first amendment rights. We would need to eliminate the first amendment. Hey! Why not eliminate our second amendment while we are at it and give up all our guns? 

Now understand, I don't approve of rape, and I don't believe in the religion of Islam; I am just making a point. Hell, if we approve of the right for those of Islamic faith to rape women, we may as well let those of the Jewish faith go back to killing their son's if they disobey them!

Reason needs to come into play at some point. After all, rape and murder is sanctioned in many religions. I don't believe either should be permitted in a civilized world - regardless of what is dictated by a religious organization... But then who determines what is acceptable and what is not? And if those of the Islamic faith are allowed to go free when guilty of rape, it certainly goes without saying that God fearing Christians should be allowed to bar gays and lesbians from their businesses. Maybe we should allow stoning of prostitutes? Your thoughts??

U.S. Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Footnote - This references the 5/4/2015 incident in Texas:
ISIS threatens controversial blogger Pamela Geller in message boasting of '71 trained soldiers in 15 different states'
BY SASHA GOLDSTEIN , JASON SILVERSTEIN  NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Tuesday, May 5, 2015, 11:54 PM Updated: Wednesday, May 6, 2015, 11:45 AM

ISIS appears to declare war on controversial blogger Pamela Geller on Tuesday in an ominous online message claiming it has fighters across America ready to attack "any target we desire."

The threat, posted on anonymous message board JustPasteIt, singles out Geller, who helped plan a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that was attacked by two gunmen in Garland, Texas, over the weekend. ISIS claimed responsibility for the shooting early Tuesday, marking the first time the terror group called an American attack one of its own, though lawmakers believe the two men were influenced by the group, not guided directly by it.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Don't Underestimate Bernie Sanders

The Vermont senator's authentic outrage over how the super rich have distorted America’s economy and bought its government will find an eager audience.


“Don’t underestimate me,” declared newly announced presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. That may be good advice.

By conventional standards, Sanders’s candidacy is absurd: He’s not well known, he doesn’t have big money donors, he’s not charismatic, and by Beltway standards, he’s ideologically extreme. But candidates with these liabilities have caught fire before. Think of Jerry Brown, who despite little funding and an oddball reputation outlasted a series of more conventional candidates to emerge as Bill Clinton’s most serious challenger in 1992. Or Pat Buchanan, who struck terror in the GOP establishment by winning the New Hampshire primary in 1996. Or Howard Dean, who began 2003 in obscurity and ended it as the Democratic frontrunner (before collapsing in the run-up to the Iowa Caucuses). Or Ron Paul, who in 2012 finished second in New Hampshire and came within three points of winning Iowa.
Peter Weber has noted, he raised $1.5 million from 35,000 people on the first day of his campaign, more than any of the Republican candidates did in the 24 hours after they announced.

The day Sanders announced he was challenging Hillary, Jon Stewart commented that, “He has a set of consistent principles that he has run on his entire political life. She is going to crush him.” Right now, in other words, Stewart—and most other progressives—see Sanders as one-part admirable, three-parts absurd. If that balance starts to tip, the 2016 Democratic primary may become a lot more interesting than anyone expects.

Read more at:

Bernie Sanders portrait

**** Blogger's not: I am leaving my opinions out for the time being. I like him better than Hillary Clinton - at least he is moderate on guns and hates the ruling corporate power... I will be following him closely. Sadly, I don't know that he can gain enough headway to pull ahead of Clinton. ****

Monday, May 4, 2015

My Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Elections

Andrew Shecktor, Boot the Bums, May 4, 2015

I have put some thought and research into the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections and have deduced the following:

1. The Republican's don't stand a chance (duh... Sadly the Republican Party has stagnated in the 1950's. I am a long time Republican, and only so because I like my guns, my Constitution, and my right to freedom of religion. Sadly, we are losing all these rights because the Party and our elected Republican officials won't put up a fight to save them. As for the highest office? The Republican Party puts too much emphasis on putting down the liberals rather than agreeing to at least discuss the wants, needs, and desires of the public. They don't even need to act on these wants; they just need to stop demonizing them.

2. Hillary Clinton will lose. I believe Hillary Clinton is, and has always been, a pawn in Barack Obama's agenda. She was dumped from his cabinet so she could play the role of sorry sad sack martyr. In fact, the plan was to have her get Obamacare going - a plan she has been working on since the Bill Clinton days, and then drop out to run for President. However, I believe she is just a smoke screen to draw our attention from the real plan (item 3.)

3. The real plan is for Hillary Clinton to act as a distraction while Michelle Obama plans her move. I believe Michelle Obama will pull an eleventh hour snipe and put her name in. All of her "good deeds" and the fact that she is a common household name, already residing in the White House, coupled with known citizenship and a lack of criminal activity will push her into office. Then comes the REAL, real plan (item 4.)

4. Barack Obama knows he is ineligible for a third term, yet his plans to destroy our country are not yet complete. A push for third term eligibility or a hostile takeover would not be in his best interests. However, with his wife running the country, and all the liberal citizen's happy and smiling, guest what? Eight more years of disaster and the end of our country as we know it!

5. The solution: I think we should find another household name who has no personal agenda and who can get along with all Parties to run and capture the American vote. Off the cuff, I'd vote for Whoopi Goldberg - and I am not joking. She is known by every American, and while staunchly liberal, she is willing to listen to opposing views and has even lambasted Obama on occasion. There may be others out there, but just throwing out my suggestion.

In any event - I suggest keeping your eyes open, nothing ever is as it seems, and politicians ALWAYS have an agenda!