So, Hillary, since you were running your own email server, presumably in your basement and protecting it with all of the latest (circa 1998) security patches and procedures, including having the Secret Service protect it (because the greatest risk is that someone steals it…), certainly you were having regular backups made.
Hillary? Where are your backups of the deleted personal emails?
Oh, someone suggested to me that she was only backing up the State Department emails, not the personal ones. Right. Really?
I’ve been in this business a very long time. I’ve never seen a backup system that would selectively backup just certain emails and not everything.
I wonder why the media hasn’t asked this question?
So, Hillary Clinton is taking extraordinary heat over her State Department emails, as she should. Actually she should be facing criminal charges for a number of reasons, but that’s for another article…
Is it just me or does it seem to others that the race riots and cop shootings in Ferguson are conveniently pushing Hillary’s email issues off the front pages?
My mistrust of politicians in general is only outweighed by my mistrust of the Clintons, specifically Hillary. I would put nothing past these people and their drive for power.
I am not a conspiracy-theorist in any way (but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me), but the political nature of things in the US has reached a level that is starting to make me really nervous. The drive to get and maintain power in government has reached levels that I never thought humans could be capable of, at least not in civilized times.
The liberal left has always been all about character assassination as opposed to debate of the issues. When your positions on issues revolve around obtaining and keeping power at all costs regardless of the impact on the citizens of the US it’s difficult to actually debate a position when you know that if the truth were actually known, you would never win another election. Throwing up smoke and attacking the individual is far more productive than defending your position on something, especially when your position is to gain more power.
This isn’t going to change, it’s just disturbing that the technique still works so well. To me it’s kind of like an NFL running back that has exactly one move, a head-fake let’s say. In the real world, this running back is going to have a short career as the defense quickly learns the one move and smashes the poor guy. In the case of the liberal-left, they also have exactly one move, attack the individual and ignore the real debate, but in this case it works time and time again, and has worked for decades. Aided by the liberal media amplification of the trivial, the technique works. I suppose this speaks to the current attention span of the average citizen, but that’s another article some day.
Scott Walker’s grade in college French class? Really? We still have no idea if Obama even actually attended a college, his records were sealed 7 years ago. Yeah, who cares, Scott Walker failed college French! Head fake.
Jeb Bush’s wife bought a crap-load of jewelry 15 years ago! OMG!! The fact that Obama’s last vacation to Hawaii cost us $19 MILLION dollars? Who cares, we’re talking JEWELERY 15 YEARS AGO!! Head fake.
Rudy Guiliani ( a private citizen at last check) doesn’t think Obama likes the US very much!!! Never mind the Alinski, Wright, pot-smoking coke snorting past of Obama, GUILIANI HAS AN OPINION! And to top it all off, SCOTT WALKER DOESN’T CARE!! OMG OMG OMG! Head fake.
Man-made global warming is an ‘established’ science? Established science creates irrefutable facts. Gravity and the theory of relativity are established science. The fact that there is still a ton of disagreement about means this isn’t established science, never mind if it’s true or not. Attack the scientists! The planet is doomed! Polar bears will die! Head fake.
The drive for power in this country has reached scary levels. We have seen the IRS turned into a weapon and used against conservatives in order to win elections. Yawn. We have seen ambassadors and staff left to be killed in Benghazi in order to avoid potential bad press just before a national election. Yawn. We have seen the main-stream press pretty much militarized against any Obama or Democrat opposition. Yawn. We have seen gun running by the ATF ignored, election fraud, tax cheats as cabinet members and a long list of outright lies told by the current administration to the American public, yet trivial matters continue to be blown way out of proportion by the liberal press and by the administration in order to move more controversial matters off the front pages. Scott Walker’s grades in college French class? Really? Holy crap!
The ‘media’ used to be all about doing what it takes to gain readership and win awards for investigative journalism. Given this, you would think that NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the liberal media would be paying attention to what Fox news is doing. Fox news ratings are higher than all of the previous mentioned outlets combined. Viewers equals ratings equals advertising dollars. In a normal capitalistic world the lower-rated outlets would begin to copy the higher-rated outlets and emulate them so their ratings would go up. This isn’t happening. In fact if anything the liberal media is getting worse.
Obviously viewers equals ratings equals advertising dollars is not applicable here. What does that tell us? The dollars are flowing into these outlets from sources other than advertisers; meaning these outlets are being used to push an agenda, not report the news. Occam’s Razor.
So is it so far fetched to believe these people will do anything in order to maintain power? Manufacture stories specifically to harm the opposition? Check. Report on issues ignoring the facts in order to push the agenda? Check. Position the successful outlets (Limbaugh, Fox) as haters, racists, bigots and homophobes? Check. Attack anyone that has a negative opinion about Obama? Check.
I have a bad feeling that this is going to continue to get worse, not better, over time. If Boehner can hold the line and not remove the immigration restrictions from the DHS funding bill, the DHS will shut down (well, 15% or so will, no office staff to make coffee) and the left will begin to manufacture crisis after crisis and stick the blame on the GOP. Old story. See the last shutdown and what was affected. But how far will they go to attempt to harm the GOP? Would they go so far as to create a terrorist attack on US soil to make their point?
It’s sad that we have reached the point in American politics where we would even remotely consider this as a possibility.
I am nervous.
There is something going on in our government that I am not understanding. Well, to be honest, there are tons of things going on right now that defy any sensibility, but in particular I don’t understand what is happening with our newly-elected senate members.
Specifically, there is a current fight regarding funding for the Department of Homeland Security. This fight was held-over from the general government spending bill passed late last year. The idea was that the new Senate and Congress would use this to battle Obama’s overreach on immigration by funding everything in DHS except the stuff to enforce the immigration nonsense. Cool.
Except now the Democrats, who are very very good at this sort of thing, have convinced the masses, and the GOP Senate leadership, of two things: that there is no way they will even debate this bill because of the immigration issue and that shutting down the DHS because of lack of funding will result in massive and immediate terrorist activity in the US. Oh, and it will all be the fault of the GOP, of course.
Didn’t the GOP just win a massive election turnover and take control of the Senate? Maybe I just dreamed that and it never happened, because as far as I can tell Harry Reid is still running things. McConnell seems to be about to cave on the issue, allow a clean vote on DHS funding with Reid’s promise that they will address the immigration funding as a separate bill ‘real soon now’.
Really? It is clear, if you read even a little bit of real news, that a lack of funding will not shut down DHS, other than the 15% or so of administrative staff. All ‘critical’ functions of DHS will continue to be funded, as they are considered essential. You will not see unstaffed security at the airport, all will be fine. So why doesn’t McConnell make this very clear and take the heat off of the GOP? Why cave? He knows that Obama will veto any subsequent bill regarding immigration funding, or lack thereof, so why bother? Is the GOP so in fear of bad press that they are unable to accomplish anything? Doesn’t make sense, they are going to get bad press anyways…
Why does it continue to be OK for the Democrats to misrepresent things to the general population? Why is it OK for politicians to get in front of banks of microphones and just outright lie?
These are supposed to be smart people running things like the Senate, so there must be something I am missing here.
Elections matter, as Obama has said in the past, unless the GOP wins.
I read this in a comment section on Breitbart this morning. The article that lead to this comment was regarding a retired NC state senator (Democrat, obviously) who was making the claim that the second amendment is really all about collective rights tied to militia service, regulated by the government, and was never intended to give individuals a right to carry a gun around.
Never mind that the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights, not collective rights.
The comment below is a very interesting read. The author (the comment was posted twice by two different people so I’m not actually sure who to credit) did some considerable research into the Federalist Papers to figure out what they were trying to do with the second amendment, and he makes a very fascinating point that I hadn’t heard before: The amendments to the Constitution were put in by the states to (wait for it…) AMEND the Constitution, so the second amendment was put in to change something in the constitution that they didn’t like. What was it? The author does a great job in breaking this down and explaining it.
This man suffers from a common misconception regarding the Second Amendment and who the Militia is and what is their relationship within the Second Amendment.
Lets look at the Second Amendment in detail here. I’m starting with background on it is because I believe that in order to really understand something you have to understand it in context.
In my efforts to get a good grasp on this issue, I sat down and read the Federalist Papers, all 85 of them (not an easy read BTW)( The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/home/his…. Then I dug further, into the history that the Founding Fathers were living, trying to put myself in their shoes. In the end, here’s what I came away with……..
The first thing we need to understand is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. That’s important, because no “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today:
“Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
“To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
“To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”. The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better known as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing:
“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”!
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton’s observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people’s militias ability to be a match for a standing army: ” . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers’ writings show they also believed this. The Framers understood that “well regulated” militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.”
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
To put it another way:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”
The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
The US Post Office is back in the news, this time showing a $1.9 BILLION dollar loss in the most recent quarter. The Post Office operates solely on postage income, plus what it can borrow from the federal government, but apparently it has reached its credit limit of $15 BILLION dollars and can’t borrow any more unless Congress says they can. Which they probably will.
Oh yeah, and they apparently have something like $100 BILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities, specifically health and pension benefits to retired postal workers. The common message is that this liability has been created by laws the Bush administration put in place back in 2006 that requires the post office to fund their pension programs at the 75-year mark, and get caught up in 10 years. But they haven’t been making the required payments because, well, they lose money every quarter.
Wow. Lots to work with here. It would be easy to just blame the unions who put such aggressive benefit and pension programs in place for postal workers. And probably much of the blame belongs there, but bashing the unions has stopped being productive as the damage from years of unchecked ‘negotiations’ piles up.
We could blame the cheapness of a postage stamp. I can stick about $.50 on an envelope and they will deliver it to whatever remote corner of the nation I want? That’s a bargain at twice or three times the price. Seriously. Except, well, its pretty rare that I actually ever stick a stamp on anything and send it anywhere these days.
We can blame the fact that my mailbox, six days a week, is filled with nonsense that I don’t want and didn’t ask for. A simple test told me that in any given week I MIGHT receive one piece of real mail, but even that one piece of mail could have been delivered electronically. The rest goes in the trash unopened, or shredded if I think I don’t like it going into a land fill. So there is a benefit here I guess. My wife empties my shredder into her composters on a weekly basis, it makes great compost.
But the real truth is, my opinion, that the world has simply moved on and we just don’t need the post office any more, at least not one run by the federal government. It is a business that is failing because it hasn’t kept up with the changing times or even paid attention to the actual market. Private industry and the internet have eliminated the real need for the post office. Either Federal Express or UPS could step up and deliver stuff to homes three days week. Heck, let them compete.
But sadly, this is another example of a ‘business’ being run by the federal government that has turned into a bloated, inefficient and obsolete shell of its former self that is almost impossible to eliminate. It is basically now a company that provides medical and pension benefits to a ton of people and delivers junk mail to pay for it.
Are we surprised?
So the Obama administration is going to ‘pivot’ to global warming/climate change, finally! Now that unemployment, the economy, high taxes and runaway government spending have been solved, it’s time to go after the really tough problems.
I just don’t get it. Well, I do get it, but I guess I don’t get why ‘they’ believe it is going to work this time.
First, ‘climate change’ is WAY down the list of things that concern us average citizens these days. I mean WAY WAY down there on the list. The top three, according to the junk I read, is the economy, jobs, government spending. Pretty much in that order. This is the stuff that keeps dad awake at night. Climate change doesn’t even make the list of stuff most people think about at all.
We want our government to be tackling the stuff that really affects us on a daily basis.
Now, there is, of course, a huge and passionate debate about the reality of climate change. To me, that isn’t what the debate should be focused on. Climate change is very real, the climate changes constantly. The real debate should be about what causes it, and what, if anything, can we actually do about it, assuming there is anything we can do about it.
Personally, I don’t think this planet even knows, or cares, that humans exist. Sounds weird, but let’s think about it for a second. This planet has been around for, let’s say, 3.5 billion years or so. We humans have been around for the last 5000 years, give or take. We have been using carbon-based fuels in quantity for the last 75 or so years. So the human-caused climate change argument is that we have been able to muck things up in 75 years to the point where we are affecting the weather.
Really? If you look at what we actually know about the planet history, going back hundreds of millions of years, this planet has gone through some pretty tough times. Something caused those mountains to form. Something moved the continents around then created then killed the dinosaurs. There is record, in the earth, of massive volcanic action lasting hundreds of thousands of years. We know of at least three ice ages that covered most of the planet in ice for zillions of years. Miles thick ice. The planet has swung from roasty-hot nasty to frigging-cold nasty in a bi-polar swing of millions of years.
All without our help.
We are here, some say, because the planet is currently in the middle of the pendulum swing, a relatively mild and calm period. This calm period is likely to last a few hundred thousand more years, give or take. In the noise, which might be measured in thousand-year periods, it should be expected that there will be ups and downs. In the 75 years we have been pumping CO2 into the air with reckless abandon, the planet doesn’t even know we are here. It just doesn’t care.
The problem is, these little ‘swings’ in the noise of the planet could be enough to wipe humans out, or at least make things really uncomfortable for us. We haven’t been around very long, planet scale, and we would like to be around a lot longer. So anything that makes us uncomfortable we feel we have to get control over. Hence, man-made climate change as a mission (plus there’s money to be made!). We don’t like things that we can’t control, which is why natural disasters make us so nervous. When a rogue wave can wipe out 100,000 people in an afternoon, we demand an explanation. Problem is, there isn’t one. The trend seems to be headed in the direction of blaming climate change on ANYTHING that we don’t like, weather wise. Increased tornados, massive hurricanes, wind, rain, snow, no snow etc.
What if the current drought in California is because of all of the efforts the state has made to control the climate? Maybe their efforts have made a difference, just not exactly in the direction they had hoped. We know so little about how this planet works, this is just as likely as anything else being pushed as man-made climate change these days.
A few months ago there was a news program that had a segment on solar activity, which was pumping out junk and sending it our way. A scientist was being interviewed by the nice news lady, when out of the blue she asked ‘is it possible that this solar activity is being caused by global warming?’ The reaction from the scientist is priceless, blank stare and all. You can find this on YouTube somewhere. Climate change is a very popular topic these days with very little comprehension as to what exactly it is.
We just don’t like not being in control. So we pretend we are in control and a segment of the population takes on the view that we are to blame for whatever is happening in the climate at any given point and therefor we need to stop doing whatever it is we are doing to cause whatever is changing and MAKE IT STOP.
Now, please don’t read me wrong. I believe the climate is changing, because that’s what it does. I also love the idea of using less energy for lighting, cars etc, but not because it is messing up the environment and causing climate change. I like it because it makes sense that technology makes things better, cheaper, lighter, faster, smarter etc. I like turning on a light in the house that is using 4.5 watts instead of 75. I feel I have benefitted from this because I am using less of something I have to pay for.
I personally do not connect the two.
The main problem I see with the current administration ‘tackling’ climate change isn’t that they can’t do anything about it in the long run (although they can’t); it is that they want to force innovation at a faster pace than innovation wants to go. They want to drive energy prices sky high in order to get everyone on renewable energy. The problem with this is that renewable energy just isn’t ready for the big time yet, and as we have learned from Solendra and others, pouring money and pressure into the space doesn’t accomplish anything. You have to let it happen at the pace of progress. It is being worked on, and we are seeing advances in solar and other sources, but there are still unknowns, and we are still in need of a few serious breakthroughs in battery, power transmission etc. Money isn’t the issue, the pace of progress is, and there isn’t anything much the government can do to help.
Innovation cannot be forced. So, while the smart people are working on cool stuff that will eventually make things better, can the government please go focus on the stuff that is making us miserable right now? Unemployment, the economy, high taxes and runaway government spending come to mind.
Is it hot in here?