The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
Comey: A Theory
by Charles Krauthammer
~~~
.
Coal on the Fast Track to Elimination
The nObama administration's end goal is the complete elimination of coal. And if new data is to be believed, the administration is well ahead of schedule. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration calculations, "Coal-fired generating capacity in the United States dropped from 299 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2014 to 276 GW as of April 2016." Moreover, "Coal-fired generation's share of total electricity generation fell from 39% in 2014 to 28% in the first four months of 2016."
That's a steep decline. And it's nowhere near what the EPA unrealistically projected in its December 2011 "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards." In that report, the agency estimated, "A small amount of coal-fired capacity, about 4.7 GW (less than 2 percent of all coal-fired capacity in 2015), is projected to be come uneconomic to maintain by 2015 [emphasis added]."
Coal, by design, is on the fast track to elimination. And if it's phased out quicker than expected? Well, tough luck. What's bad news for the coal industry and the overall economy is good news for the EPA and its Democrat operatives. The Democratic Platform Committee just endorsed a provision "calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change." Too bad the committee won't endorse an investigation into the fraudulent projections government officials cling to whenever they seek to implement devious and onerous regulations. -The Patriot Post
.
Ginsburg Crosses the Line
Louis DeBroux: We suppose we can finally abandon any pretense that the judiciary is still a neutral body rendering opinions based on an impartial interpretation of the Constitution as written. Rather, the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, has become a supra-legislative oligarchy of nine (or eight, for the time being) that imposes its own version of morality and "social justice" upon the roughly 315 million Americans who are expected to abide by its diktats.
One particular recent example tells us all we need to know in this regard — the recent political-stump utterance of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This isn't entirely new ground for Ginsburg, though. She is known affectionately to her legions of leftist lemmings as "the Notorious RBG" (a take-off on the moniker of slain rapper The Notorious BIG), for her unrestrained tendency to speak openly about her personal feelings regarding matters involving the Court.
But this time, she has exceeded all previous boundaries of decorum and propriety.
Speaking in an interview with the New York Times, the official daily newspaper of the Democrat Party, Ginsberg, asked about the possibility of a Trump presidency, said, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don't even want to contemplate that." She then chuckled at the thought of what her late husband would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."
Questioned about this later, she went back to the well. "At first I thought it was funny," she said of Trump's candidacy. "To think that there's a possibility that he could be president..." she trailed off.
Such remarks are well beyond inappropriate for a sitting justice. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called her comments indefensible, stating, "I think this exceeds the others in terms of her indiscretions. ... I am not aware of any justice ever expressing views on the merits or demerits of a presidential candidate in the midst of the campaign. ... [T]he soundness or unsoundness of her concerns about Donald Trump has no bearing on whether it was proper for her to say what she said."
According to Stetson University law professor Louis J. Virelli, there could be serious consequences for such outbursts. "[P]ublic comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration," Virelli mused. "I don't necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don't believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments."
Not that Ginsburg or the other members of the Court's leftist bloc would have the decency to recuse themselves in such cases. Both Justice Ginsburg (a former lawyer for the ACLU) and Justice Elena Kagan refused to recuse themselves in the same-sex "marriage" cases that came before the Court in the last few years, despite having already performed multiple same-sex wedding ceremonies when such were still a violation of federal law. In fact, Ginsburg was so arrogant and shameless that she performed one of these ceremonies in the chambers of the Supreme Court itself.
There is a major double-standard when it comes to such statements by members of the Court. During nObama's 2010 State of the Union Address, cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" in response to nObama's unseemly and unprecedented attacks on the Court's decision in the Citizens United case. Liberals called Alito "nasty" and "churlish" for this supposed breach of decorum, but these same liberals are positively giddy when leftist justices offer up far more blatant political commentary, as has Ginsburg.
These realities again underscore the urgency of denying another leftist Democrat the opportunity to shape the direction of the Court for the next 30 years or more. With the death of stalwart originalist Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most brilliant, effective and honorable justices in the history of the Supreme Court, the next president will be able to name his successor (if the GOP Senate holds the line against Barack nObama's nominee, Merrick Garland). Add to that the fact that Justice Ginsburg (83), Justice Kennedy (79), Justice Breyer (77) and Justice Thomas (68) are closer to the end of their tenure than their beginning, and the next president may be able to appoint as many as five new justices to the Court.
Such an opportunity could strengthen the Court's conservative/originalist wing, or permanently cement the leftist vision of a malleable, "living" constitution, with constitutional protections of individual liberty, and the tempering effect of a separation of powers between the branches, forever lost. No pressure ... right? -The Patriot Post
.
.
The First Iran War
by Caroliine Glick
.
{truthrevolt.org} ~ July 12, 2006 was the first day of what has become known as the Second Lebanon War. The name of the war, like most of the lessons taken from it, is off... The war Israel fought in the summer of 2006 against Hezbollah was not the same as the war Israel fought against the PLO in 1982. The war of 2006 was not a Lebanese war. It was an Iranian war. It was the first Iran war. Hezbollah, acting as Iran’s foreign legion, initiated the war with a massive mortar and rocket assault on communities in northern Israel. Under mortar cover, a Hezbollah unit crossed the border and attacked an IDF convoy traveling close to Kibbutz Zarit... http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/glick-first-iran-war
.
What is the FBI Hiding About liar-Hillary Clinton?
by Catherine Herridge, Pamela K.Browne
.
.
{foxnews.com} ~ One would think that if everything were on the up and up, you would not have to tell everyone to keep their mouth shut. If there was nothing to tell, why gag those who know?... This is the question all Americans should be asking in the wake of recent discoveries. The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy -- and subject to lie detector tests -- in the liar-Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect." A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” which says the disclosure of information is “strictly prohibited” without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/14/gag-order-fbi-confirms-special-secrecy-agreements-for-agents-in-clinton-email-probe.html
.
Senate Democrats Block Funding
for U.S. Troops, Veterans
by Morgan Chalfant
.
.
{freebeacon.com} ~ Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked legislation funding U.S. troops and prevented a vote on a bill containing funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs... Senate Democrats blocked a vote on the fiscal year 2017 defense appropriations bill on Thursday for the second time this month, drawing ire from Republican lawmakers. The bill would appropriate funds for the U.S. armed forces, including funding that goes toward paying American service members. “I am disappointed that Senate Democrats are irresponsibly blocking the defense appropriations bill. Delaying consideration of this bill jeopardizes our national security and military readiness,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement...
.
Military Warns Against Nuclear Policy Change
by Bill Gertz
.
Adm. Cecil Haney
.
{freebeacon.com} ~ White House plans for a radical shift in U.S. nuclear policy came under fire from the military leaders who voiced concerns to Congress on Thursday about adopting a so-called no-first-use weapons policy... Strategic Command chief Adm. Cecil Haney warned that the policy shift could undermine global stability in deterring growing nuclear threats posed by Russia, China, and North Korea. President nObama is considering adopting the no-first-use nuclear policy along with several other disarmament measures in his final months in office...nObama has no idea what he is doing.
.
The non-religious are now the US's largest
religious voting block
by Christopher Ingraham
.
.
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ More American voters than ever say they are not religious, making the religiously unaffiliated the nation's biggest voting bloc by faith for the first time in a presidential election year... This marks a dramatic shift from just eight years ago, when the non-religious were roundly outnumbered by Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and white evangelical Protestants. These numbers come from a new Pew Research Center survey, which finds that "religious 'nones,' who have been growing rapidly as a share of the U.S. population, now constitute one-fifth of all registered voters and more than a quarter of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters." That represents a 50 percent increase in the proportion of non-religious voters compared to eight years ago, when they made up just 14 percent of the overall electorate. "In 2008, religious 'nones' were outnumbered or at parity with white mainline Protestants and white Catholics," the survey's lead researcher, Greg Smith, said in an interview. "Today, 'nones' outnumber both of those groups."...The end times a-coming. http://jewishworldreview.com/0716/ingraham071516.php3
.
GOP platform encourages teaching about
the Bible in public schools
by Emma Brown
.
.
{jewishworldreview.com} ~ Members of the GOP this week debated and ultimately embraced an addition to the party's platform that encourages public high schools to teach elective courses about the Bible... one of several moves that contributed to Republicans' broad shift to the right. Several GOP delegates said that they aren't seeking to inculcate schools with Christianity, but they are trying to make sure that young people are acquainted with a document that has played a significant role in shaping Western culture. "This is not designed to teach religion in the schools as a means of proselytizing," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group, and a GOP delegate from Louisiana who supported the Bible-in-schools provision. "You can't really fully understand the American form of government and society without some understanding of the Bible."... http://jewishworldreview.com/0716/GOP_bible_school.php3
.
“Hope and Change” Becomes
“Death and Destruction”
by Cliff Kincaid
.
.
{aim.org} ~ President Barack nObama laid the groundwork for the Black Lives Matter movement in his first term when he said that the Cambridge, Massachusetts police “acted stupidly” after an African-American professor was arrested in his own home... It turned out the white policeman was protecting the home from what he thought was a burglary. Although the policeman had an impeccable record and there was no evidence of racial bias, nObama found him guilty of racism and “stupidity.” nObama was trained by his mentor, Communist Frank Marshall Davis, to consider white people guilty of racism. Davis told a young Barack that black people had “reason to hate.” On virtually every occasion involving a police confrontation with black people—except in Dallas when five police officers were shot and killed by a racist black—nObama has sided with the rioters and the mob against law enforcement... http://www.aim.org/special-report/hope-change-death-destruction-black-lives-matter/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email071516&utm_medium=email
.
CCB Press Conference on Benghazi
Proves Dereliction of Duty
by Roger Aronoff
.
.
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ The Citizens' Commission on Benghazi [1] (CCB) recently held a press conference and issued a report [2] uncovering new details about the events leading up to and during the September 11, 2012 attacks in Libya that took the lives of four Americans... However, the press has done what it usually does when a story threatens the narrative or reputation of the administration of President Barack nObama and former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton-they have, for the most part, ignored or misrepresented [3] the CCB's findings. The speakers at our June 29 event at the National Press Club in Washington exposed, once again, how the U.S. facilitated the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels, and demonstrated that there were many warnings leading up to the attack on the Special Mission Compound, warnings that the administration ignored. In addition, the administration was derelict in its duty to send forces to aid those under attack in Benghazi. I said that "There's a media theme, or meme, out there that keeps saying-and you see this at the New York Times, CNN, everywhere, saying, ‘No new evidence of any wrongdoing by liar-Hillary Clinton.' That seems to be the conclusion of most of the media in response to yesterday's House Select Committee report. And we see a field of smoking guns."...The media is just as guilty as nObama and liar-Hillary. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/ccb-press-conference-on-benghazi-proves-dereliction-of-duty?f=must_reads
.
Israel Tries Area-Based Response to
Palestinian Terror Wave
by YAAKOV LAPPIN
by YAAKOV LAPPIN
.
.
{familysecuritymatters.org} ~ New Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman had the briefest of honeymoon periods after taking up his position at the end of May... Within a couple of weeks of his appointment, a new surge in Palestinian terrorist attacks began targeting Israeli civilians, placing Liberman, and the defense establishment he heads, under a new test. The greater Hebron region in the West Bank quickly emerged as the epicenter from which most of the attacks originate, and Liberman has begun implementing his security policy, which calls for distinguishing between Palestinian areas. Under Liberman's policy, Israel deploys very firm security measures in areas that generate much terrorism, while easing conditions for Palestinians in areas that do not...
..
Comey: A Theory
by Charles Krauthammer
.
.
{freedomsback.com} ~ Why did he do it? FBI director James Comey spent 14 minutes laying out an unassailable case for prosecuting liar-Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified material. Then at literally the last minute, he recommended against prosecution.
This is baffling. Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as outlined by Comey, is overwhelming.
liar-Clinton either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified at the time. Eight of these chains contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were so marked, contrary to liar-Clinton’s assertion that there were none.
These were stored on a home server that was even less secure than a normal Gmail account. Her communications were quite possibly compromised by hostile powers, thus jeopardizing American national security.
“An unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” said Comey of the classified emails. A rather kind euphemism, using the passive voice. In plainer, more direct language: It is imprudent, improper and indeed illegal to be conducting such business on an unsecured private server.
Comey summed up liar-Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence?
Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence.
Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But liar-Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account.
She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally.
That’s two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever. Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.
Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.
The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.
So why not liar-Hillary Clinton? The usual answer is that the liar-Clintons are treated by a different standard. Only little people pay. They are too well connected, too well protected to be treated like everybody else.
Alternatively, the explanation lies with Comey: He gave in to implicit political pressure, the desire to please those in power.
Certainly plausible, but given Comey’s reputation for probity and given that he holds a 10-year appointment, I’d suggest a third line of reasoning.
When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold nObamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation.
I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If liar-Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.
Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.
And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.
I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his liar-Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history.
I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’.) But I think I understand it.
This is baffling. Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as outlined by Comey, is overwhelming.
liar-Clinton either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified at the time. Eight of these chains contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were so marked, contrary to liar-Clinton’s assertion that there were none.
These were stored on a home server that was even less secure than a normal Gmail account. Her communications were quite possibly compromised by hostile powers, thus jeopardizing American national security.
“An unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” said Comey of the classified emails. A rather kind euphemism, using the passive voice. In plainer, more direct language: It is imprudent, improper and indeed illegal to be conducting such business on an unsecured private server.
Comey summed up liar-Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence?
Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence.
Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But liar-Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account.
She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally.
That’s two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever. Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.
Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.
The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.
So why not liar-Hillary Clinton? The usual answer is that the liar-Clintons are treated by a different standard. Only little people pay. They are too well connected, too well protected to be treated like everybody else.
Alternatively, the explanation lies with Comey: He gave in to implicit political pressure, the desire to please those in power.
Certainly plausible, but given Comey’s reputation for probity and given that he holds a 10-year appointment, I’d suggest a third line of reasoning.
When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold nObamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation.
I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If liar-Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.
Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.
And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.
I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his liar-Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history.
I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’.) But I think I understand it.
Comments