Hillary Clinton: Much Like Obama

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton decided to hold a press conference today to talk about her email controversy, but before talking about that, she had to get in a rather ridiculous comment about republicans. She made the suggestion that republicans that wrote an open letter stating that any deal made by Obama without congressional approval is not valid, are helping the Iranians. I guess maybe she thought that making a meaningless but controversial accusation would deflect attention away from her troubles over her email issue. Uh, no…

She said several things during her press conference that were misleading, outright lies or just plain stupid, so I will talk about them one at a time.

The first thing she said was that the reason she did it was that it was simply a matter of 
“convenience” for her to have one email for her work and personal email rather than have 2 devices for separate email accounts. I take exception to this for several reasons.

Firstly, I would ask her if she is that stupid or does she think we are all that stupid? Any child knows you can set up more than one email account on one device, so the 2 device excuse makes absolutely no sense.

This is also a blatant lie, since she was asked in an interview a couple of weeks ago whether she used an iPhone or an Android and she first replied iPhone, but then said, for full disclosure, also a Blackberry. So she stated she uses 2 devices, so how can she claim 2 weeks later that she set up the private email so she would only have to use 1 device?

I also find it very difficult to believe that the private email she set up was the only email account she used for everything. Most people would have a private email account that’s only for family and friends and keep it totally separate from work.

Another thing is, she went to all the trouble to set up, or have set up, a private server to handle this email account. Setting up a server is no small task. It’s fairly complicated. I think it’s safe to say that she didn’t do it herself. I also think it’s safe to say that it’s far from “convenient” to set up your own server.

She didn’t say who set it up. She didn’t say where it is. She didn’t say what kind of security it had. She didn’t say a lot of things, but she did say she wouldn’t turn it over for investigation. Hmmm…

She said it was “guarded”. I wonder exactly what she meant by that. Is there an armed guard standing at the door where it is? Is she serious? There could be an army “guarding” the server but that’s not going to stop a cyber attack. Hackers don’t knock at the door or even break in the building. They attack over cyberspace. She stated that there was no security breach. Well, maybe there was no security breach that she KNOWS of. Does she think that if a foreign power hacked into her account, they would tell her or let it become known in any way? Spies don’t call up and say, “Hey, we found out some secrets”. From what I’ve read, the security on her private server is outdated, inadequate and insecure.

She also stated that having her own private email is allowed by the state department. This is a misleading statement because it may very well be allowed that she have a private email account. That doesn’t mean that it’s allowed that she use it for all of her government state department business.

I would also like to know if her own “convenience” is the most important thing to her. Is it more important than security and protecting the secrets of the U.S. while conducting the business of the secretary of state? Is it more important than complying with the law?

She said that she complied with the laws in effect at the time she was in office. This is not necessarily true. According to Judge Napolitano, the public records act of 1950, later added to by her husband when he was president, states that the government owns all the emails when you work for the government. It also states that they be in the position of the government. By her setting up a private server, not in possession of the government, she could have broken the law. She certainly thwarted the intention of the statute.

It also states that when you leave office, you can ask for your private emails back, but the government decides which ones are personal and which ones are government business. She stated that she made the decision which ones were which and only gave the ones SHE deemed governmental back to the government. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

Also, according to the Judge, she should have signed documents upon taking office that stated she would keep in the government’s possession the control of classified documents. If any, even one, of her emails falls under the term “classified” then she is guilty of a felony. Concealing the government’s documents from the government when you work for the government, is a felony. If even one email shows up somewhere that she failed to turn over to the government, again, she is guilty. She may be guilty anyway, just because she kept them on her own private server and not in the possession of the government.

So, if it appears as though she broke the law, do you think she would be prosecuted? I would bet not. I would say that this administration would protect one of their own and decline to prosecute her even if she was clearly guilty as sin. The Obama administration plays pretty fast and loose when it comes to which laws they comply with and which ones they ignore anyway, but the democrat party would never prosecute one of their own. Especially one that was being touted as their candidate for president. She would get a pass, which is exactly what she expects. That was clear by her attitude at her press conference.

After everything she said, in the end we only have her word that she turned over all of the emails, didn’t delete anything she shouldn’t have and all the rest. She doesn’t want any further investigation. She wants to provide her “explanation” and have that be enough to satisfy everyone. She want’s us all to say, “OK, we believe everything you said. Case closed. Sorry we brought it up. Hope we didn’t “inconvenience” you.”

Does anyone on the planet believe that her word alone is good enough? Would anyone take the word of any other politician alone and be satisfied with it? Should she simply get a pass if she broke the law? I don’t think so.

In my opinion, there is only one good reason that she set up this private server and her private email account to conduct government business with and that was to intentionally keep the emails under her control and not the government. She could then keep or delete anything that she wanted without any other prying eyes. No other government official would be able to have any oversight on her communications. If the occasion arose that there was a problem with anything she did while in office, any incriminating emails could be mysteriously lost.

My, that IS “convenient”.

Obama: An Idiot or a Liar?

Is Obama an idiot or a liar? He’s clearly one or the other, if not both. He made the statement that he only learned of his former secretary of state using her personal email, and not a secure government email account, for all government business during her tenure when he heard about it in news reports.

For him to make this statement is preposterous. It’s hard to believe that he could be so stupid as to utter it. First of all, for it to be true, he couldn’t have communicated with his own secretary of state via email EVER. Really Mr. President? You never communicated with your secretary of state at all via email? You want us to believe that lie?

Obviously, he did send and receive emails from her and he definitely saw that it was a personal email account and not a secure government account.

After he uttered this lie and several Obama administration members attempted to corroborate the lie, an official white house spokesperson quickly stated that obviously, he did communicate with his secretary of state and he DID know about the personal email account, proving that Obama lied.

So, his secretary of state made the decision to use a non-secure personal email account for sensitive government business. An email account that lacks the security against hacks and intrusions that an official government account on government protected servers has. This was an extremely poor decision on her part. One that I question for a person in a high position of power. And she’s running for president?

They have now admitted that Obama obviously knew about it and he did nothing about it. Didn’t even question it. How much does this say about his awareness and decision making capability? What does it say about his attitude about being honest and truthful? How does it speak to his character that he would have such a low opinion of the American public that he could blatantly speak such a preposterous lie and really expect them to believe it? It’s insulting. It’s shameful. It’s a disgrace.

The facts are these:

Obama did know about Hillary using a personal email account and eagerly responded with a bald faced lie when asked about it.

The lie was so blatantly stupid to the point of idiocy to even say it and it was an insult to the intelligence of everyone listening.

It is my considered opinion that our illustrious president is both an idiot AND a liar.

Mall of America Opens Themselves To Terrorist Attack

I haven’t been speaking out for a while but lately I’ve been seeing things that have been getting my ire up so I just have to write about them.

One of the things in the news today just amazes me as to how illogical it is. I saw that the radical Muslim terrorists have threatened to attack malls in the U.S. including the Mall of America. They obviously consider any large gathering of innocent people to be prime targets for their despicable criminal acts and a wonderful opportunity for them to commit murder.

Hearing this news, I guess the people that run the Mall of America decided to take action. What did they do to prevent attacks on the mall? They issued an immediate ban on all guns from the premises and posted signs at the entrances stating it. Huh??? Do they actually think this will have any effect on a terrorist attack in any way?

It makes me wonder what is going on in their minds. Do they think that the terrorists will plan their attack, drive to the mall, jump out with all their AK-47s and then be somehow dissuaded from entering by seeing the sign? Can any sane person see that happening? Picture it: a group of heavily armed terrorists jump out of a vehicle and head for the entrance to the mall and they see the sign and go, oh darn, we can’t go in with our guns. I guess we’ll have to go home. And they walk away all dejected, get in their vehicle and leave… Really? Can you see that happening?

What they actually did by banning guns and posting the signs is to disarm legal gun owners and legal carry permit holders carrying a firearm, from entering their facility. They banned people that could possibly thwart a terrorist attack from being in a position to do so.

They may as well have posted signs that say: “Attention terrorists! We have banned all legal guns from the premises and in doing so, welcome you to attack us. We have removed all deterrent or opposition to you thereby creating a perfect killing field for you. Come on in!” This would be much more accurate.

Instead, they choose to give the ILLUSION of security for people coming to their mall, when in fact, they have reduced security and made it much more open to attack. If they actually think that a SIGN will make them any safer from terrorists, they’re living in fantasy-land. It’s purely ludicrous to think it will have any effect whatsoever.

When will people realize that banning guns is not the answer? The “bad guys” that want to do harm will not pay any attention to a law, a rule or a ban! They break the law for a living! Hello!!! What makes you think they will all of a sudden decide to abide by a law banning guns?

There’s one thing that I know for sure. I will not patronize any business that bans guns from the premises. Even if I’m not carrying. I WILL NOT ENTER A BUSINESS THAT BANS GUNS. I will make it a point to refuse to spend my money there. Period.

And I encourage everyone to do the same.

Another Fine Example of the Hypocrisy of the Left

It never ceases to amaze me how many people there are in government that have the attitude that they can do whatever they want and that laws only apply to everyone else. They claim to know better what is good for the “people”, the people meaning “everyone else”, and then they do the exact thing that they wish to deny to the masses. They think they are kings and everyone else are mere subjects.

Here’s a prime example. Illinois (yes, Illinois, arguably the most corrupt state in the union...) state senator, Don Trotter, a democrat running for the vacated U.S. Senate seat recently vacated by Jesse Jackson Jr. (himself under federal investigation), was taken into custody for trying to board an aircraft with a gun.

Now, this guy is a left wing democrat and an advocate of gun control. He voted “no” on a law that would allow other Illinois citizens to carry a concealed weapon. He would deny the right to everyone else, but he feels that he should have the right. He also obviously feels he shouldn’t have to comply with the law that says you have to register your firearm since the gun he got caught with was unregistered. As a leader, shouldn’t he be practicing what he preaches? Shouldn’t he be leading by example? Shouldn’t he be obeying the very laws that he helps enact?

He of course gave the standard statement when he got caught, “I didn’t know it was there.” Uh huh, right. So basically what he’s saying is he’s an irresponsible moron that doesn’t even know where his gun is. I don't know what his excuse was for not registering the gun as the law requires. Maybe he as a lawmaker doesn't know the law?

He stated afterward that this wouldn’t have any effect on his bid for office. He would still continue his efforts to be elected to the U.S. senate. Obviously, he feels that he’s the right kind of guy to be in government. Being a lawbreaker shouldn’t have any effect on one’s ability to hold high government office and make laws, right?

This is the hypocrisy of the left. They want to make rules for everyone else. They want to control the masses through big government and more laws and rules, but they see it as only to control the inferior peasant class. They, as the ruling class, will be exempt. After all, they are more important than everyone else.

It’s troubling to me that this is the type of person that is prevalent in government today. What’s even more troubling though, is that we keep electing them.

Establishment Republicans

Well, here’s a pretty good example of how Ron Paul and his supporters are regarded by the Establishment Republicans and their handlers. They’re treated as the enemy, pushed around, assaulted and insulted.

A guy named Eddie Dillard was holding a Ron Paul sign near a polling place today in Florida when the Newt Gingrich campaign machine pulled up in a bus and decided to occupy the space where Mr. Dillard was standing. They proceeded to muscle their way in front of him trying to block him and his sign, intentionally stomping on his foot, knocked his cell phone out of his hand and kicked his sandal away from him when he was trying to pick it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/everyone-step-toes-gingrich-security-harasses-ron-paul-165042767.html

Now this sounds more like behavior you would hear about on a school yard with the class bully picking on the weak kid, not adults in a political campaign. Then again, I guess the Gingrich crew seems to be of that mentality.

I don’t know about you but this story and this kind of behavior by a major candidate for the office of President of the United States is disgusting. It infuriated me that they would treat someone like this simply because he was holding a sign for the candidate he supports.

These two guys, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are just status quo, “Establishment Republicans”. They aren’t going to change anything. If either one gets into office, things aren’t really going to change that much. Oh, we may get some of the catastrophic programs of the Obama disaster repealed, but they aren’t going to do what really needs to be done to save our country from the economic cataclysm that we’re headed for. They’ll still keep growing government and be totally unable to reduce the national debt because they don’t have what it takes to make the hard choices.

It’s most likely going to be Romney, which isn’t going to be much of a change. He’s just “Obama light”, but he seems to be the one that the main stream Republicans have chosen as their guy. Pretty pitiful if you ask me. As horrendous as Obama is, the best the Republican Party can come up with is Mitt and Newt?

People, we are in deep trouble...

Sooner or later, people are going to realize that a lot of what Ron Paul has to say about what we need to do to bring this country back to what it’s supposed to be, is correct. The problem is, they won’t realize it until it’s too late. Our economy and our country will be crashing and burning.

You won’t see much about this story in the news. The media won’t bother covering a major political candidate assaulting someone on the campaign trail because he was a Ron Paul supporter. If he was an Obama supporter and Newt’s bullies treated him that way, that would be plastered all over the front page of every newspaper and the lead story on every left wing media outlet in existence. You can bet on that.

For me, it shows me what this guy is all about. He and his traveling band of thugs. Newt had to resign from congress in disgrace not that long ago. He thinks that people won’t remember that. He thinks that enough time has passed that people will have forgotten. He may be right about that, but he can’t change his nature. He’s still disgraceful.

The TSA Strikes Again

Well, it seems the TSA is up to it’s usual standards. The reports of the goings on in the world of the illustrious airport safety patrol seems to know no bounds. The absurdity just keeps getting worse and worse. TSA agents strip searching little children, groping people’s genitals... What a pleasure it is to fly nowadays, huh?

Now we have reports of them strip searching an 85 year old woman in a wheelchair. Another 88 year old woman claims they strip searched her as well. She was wearing a colostomy bag and they wanted to make sure there were no weapons of mass destruction in there I guess. These cases are tragic. They submit these poor elderly people to humiliation and embarrassment by invading their most intimate privacy and then say they’re just doing their job. Seriously? Is your job as a TSA agent to be an idiot? Well, in that case, you’re doing a wonderful job.

But here’s a case that’s so idiotic it’s laughable. We have a teenage girl that was detained by the TSA because she had the design of an old western six shooter on her purse. Not an actual gun, only an image of a gun.

She was told by the TSA that she was committing a federal offense and she would have to check the purse or surrender it. They detained her so long that she missed her flight and then they stuck her on a plane to Orlando, which probably didn’t make her mother very happy since she was waiting for her at the Jacksonville airport.

If you want to read the story for yourself, here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-teen-detained-tsa-design-her-purse-221835034.html

Now, is there anyone on the planet who would really think that a design on the outside of a purse could actually be a threat to anyone? I mean in any situation that the human mind can conceive, could the image of a gun ever be a used to threaten anyone or anything? The whole idea is so absurd, it’s inconceivable that anyone with half a brain would even consider it. Then the TSA strikes again...

Would you feel threatened if someone tried to rob you with a picture of a gun? Doesn’t it sound ridiculous to even ask such stupid questions or imagine such scenarios? Of course it does, but not to the TSA. They take their job so seriously that they won’t let even an image of a weapon on board an airplane. Just in case, you know... They will use their formidable power of intimidation to protect us all from the supreme danger of... pictures...

Wow, I feel safer already, don’t you? Doesn’t it just make you want to... drive?

Idiocy Knows No Bounds

Oh, this is just too ridiculous to ignore. Just when I thought the United States government had the market cornered on idiocy, the EU comes out with a monumentally stupid law. They have actually banned producers of bottled water from making the claim that drinking water can help avoid dehydration.

After a three year investigation no less, a group of completely brain dead fools found no evidence to prove such a claim. Now, this begs the question, what idiot or group of idiots decided we needed research into whether water can prevent dehydration in the first place, but somewhere along the line, somebody decided we did. Then this group of rocket scientists took 3 years studying whether water is wet??? Well, DUH...

What planet are these people from? Because, us earthlings pretty much figured out quite some time ago that drinking water is a good way to hydrate the body. That’s why we drink it. I wouldn’t have thought there were any people on the planet that weren’t well aware of that fact, but low and behold, they paraded themselves right out into plain site and declared themselves complete and utter imbeciles for all to see.

In the article, it stated that previous nonsensical laws having to do with bent bananas and curvy cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 because it caused international ridicule. Uh, ya’ think??? Hey fellas, I got a news flash for you, YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET!!! "International ridicule"? You'll achieve a new level of fame for absurdity. Somewhere on a planet lightyears from here, one alien is nudging his friend saying, “Hey, look at these knuckleheads” while he laughs his alien ass off. I’ve seen stupidity before but you guys take the prize.

I’ve always thought that the whole concept of bottled water is a little dumb and a big part of society is not too bright by paying for something that is widely available virtually free out of any tap, but it took government officials to reach for a new level of idiocy and they have certainly achieved it. Way to go morons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html