From the National Review: Cheryl Mills and Hillary Clinton’s Cover-up Team

More examples of how the Clinton’s believe they’re above everyone, and even the law.
Mills was also involved in an earlier Clinton e-mail scandal. In 2000, the conservative law firm Judicial Watch found while pursuing public-record requests that the Clinton administration had withheld more than 1.8 million e-mails from Judicial Watch’s attorneys, federal investigators, and Congress. Betty Lambuth, a White House computer contractor, testified that White House officials told her to keep the existence of the e-mails a secret and threatened to fire her if she did not. After Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit, Mills admitted she had known that the missing e-mails existed but “assumed” someone else would take care of the issue. When the case finally was resolved by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in 2008, he found no obstruction of justice but singled out Mills’s behavior as “loathsome.” He found that she had made “the most critical error in this entire fiasco” and that her actions had been “totally inadequate.”

Read more at:

Dutch Mayor to DerkaDerkaJihads: “If You Don’t Like Freedom, Then F**k Off!”

Short of a smart bomb that would send these whacko terrorists up to their 70 virgins or whatever, this is how you do it! :)

On live TV, fellow Muslim and Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb said those who do not like freedom can pack their bags and leave.  He also said if they couldn’t handle a cartoon in the newspaper, they should just “f–k off”.  Haha! Brilliant!  Here’s the clip:

Yes, this guy has balls, and you know what Derkas say about balls?

This is the kind of balls that the rest of the world, Muslims and all, have to have with these loser cowards who believe in this day and age that religious laws based upon a bunch of well-crafted fairy tales somehow trump the laws of a civilized society.

Religion can exist just below the law, but never above it, in my opinion, but short of that my opinion is exactly that of the Mayor’s – if you don’t like what we have here in the free world, then simply pack your bags and f-off.  The rest of us are happy being law-abiding citizens and not having the religious wars that for the most part have been over for a millennium.  Evolve much, you backwards, beheading, stone-aged assholes?  Try creating something instead of just destroying it for once, too – the amount of DerkaDerkas receiving any sort of Nobel Prize for anything, or achieving medical or technological advances, or being awarded anything for that matter is pretty slim, and that’s a clue – to your collective levels of intelligence for one, and your overall usefulness in society for another.  You simply beat women, maim children, and waste the rest of our oxygen – that’s it.  Tree moss serves more of a purpose in life, and yet “Fair Share” Liberals somehow think you’ve earned your right to exist?

My hat’s off to this mayor for having the guts that the Obama Administration refuses to even come close to mustering in terms of a direct, no bullshit public statement.  We need more of this kind of speaking out in the world so we can finally start to truly eradicate the problem that is Muslim Extremism.  Now that the good Muslims are finally turning against these guys, I hope we get there soon.

OK “Fair Share” Liberals, now you can start to tell once again me how this problem is all Bush’s fault.

Instead of “Rock the Vote”, How About “Protect The Vote”?

James O’Keefe has struck again, and once again over the issue of Voter Fraud, where apparently poll workers offered ballots to an impostor 20 TIMES as he tried to vote.

Now before both people on the left and the right go nuts over this, let me first state quickly and clearly that according to the article, “No fraudulent votes were actually cast:”  (This means O’Keefe didn’t go as far as to do anything illegal, not that the ‘system works’ as “fair share” liberals will try and claim.)

Either way, as I’ve said before, THIS ISN’T THE PRIMARY ISSUE!!!  Why should we simply leave the option open for an impostor to even ATTEMPT this in the first place?

“Hey, nothing was stolen each time we let these strangers come through our doors, so let’s just keep them open!”  Let’s get people just one step closer to being able to commit fraud?

Voting to me is at the core of Democracy and is a process that shouldn’t be effed with (and yes, this includes gerrymandering which Republicans have often been accused of).  I believe Democrats are being totally disingenuous when saying that Voter ID is a) a non-issue, and/or b) a race issue.  It’s neither.

Ann Coulter on How “Fair Share” Liberals Lie Regarding Race

As controversial as she is, sometimes Ann Coulter nails it as far as “Fair Share” Liberals are concerned and their so-called “data” concerning the poor, race, economics…well, basically everything.

To a “Fair Share” Liberal (i.e. one who feels taking without earning is “fair”), all roads lead to Professional Victimhood in their efforts to try and appease their white guilt.  To support their “plight”, they love to quote what they’d like to think is “unbiased research” to support their positions, yet it’s interesting in the spirit of “fairness” how they’ll reject or deny any research from the other side.  Any evidence that seems to contradict their views, or seems to threaten their must-be-so-fragile causes not only gets rejected, but gets the brunt of their projection as well.  (from Wikipedia: Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.)

For instance, any economic evidence contrary to their guilt about the poor must be from an “illegitimate” economist.  Any report calling out the political agenda of scientists regarding Climate Change must be “right-wing propaganda” and it seems any report that says black people tend to speed more than white people on a NJ highway must be “racist”.

From Coulter’s blog:

Statisticians, and other people with common sense, tried to explain to liberals that human beings are not identical. Any study purporting to show that too many blacks are stopped for speeding must first determine how many speeders are black.
Being denounced as virtual Klansmen, the state troopers demanded a real study.

Confident that any new study would merely serve to confirm the troopers’ racism, the DOJ and the New Jersey attorney general commissioned a statistical investigation from the Public Services Research Institute in Maryland.

The institute’s study was a spectacular thing. Using expensive monitors with high-speed cameras and radar detectors, they clocked the speeds of nearly 40,000 drivers on the relevant section of the turnpike. Three researchers then examined the photos to determine the race of the driver — without knowing whether the driver was speeding, which was defined as going more than 80 mph in 65 mph zones.

The result: No racial profiling.

Blacks constituted 25 percent of all speeders and they were 23 percent of drivers stopped for speeding. Controlling for age and gender, blacks sped at about twice the rate of whites. The racial disparity was even greater for drivers exceeding 90 mph.

Inasmuch as the study was irrefutable, Mark Posner, a lefty Clinton holdover in the Bush Justice Department, tried to block it from being released, continuously demanding more information.

But no matter how statisticians fiddled with the data, the results were identical: Blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites — and at much higher speeds. The troopers were completely vindicated.

When the study finally leaked — over Posner’s objections — he informed the press it wasn’t “valid” without articulating any actual problems with it. The attorney general of New Jersey, David Samson, nonsensically said the results didn’t matter because New Jersey had already admitted its troopers were engaging in racial profiling.

Perhaps the Times is right and there is no comprehensive study of police shootings by race. But it’s also possible that there is one, it didn’t come out as planned, so it has never seen the light of day.


What I dislike about the race-baiting and race-mongering is that it takes the spotlight off, and the credibility away from, the REAL cases of racism that exist either inside a police department or elsewhere.  Jon Stewart said it right – it may suck for us as white people to have to deal with this as an “issue”, but for many black people true racism is something they live and deal with every day.  White, right-wing bigots with Jim Crow blood still running through their veins do NOTHING to help the issue and only make things worse, but in my opinion, so do “Fair Share” Liberal idiots whose theatrics and p.c. bullshit keep taking away from the real issues that exist.

Fair Share Liberals acting like their points and causes are so fragile that they can’t for an instant stand up to real scrutiny or debate make their causes look manufactured and almost non-existent at worst, and at best provide ammo for right-wing zealots (and bigots) to shoot a thousand holes into every one of their stories, encouraging us all to move on.

Personally, I think this was a big reason why Zimmerman was let go for Martin’s shooting, and why I think the Brown case might not get the justice it deserves as well.  When people see liberal zealots going overboard they seem to tend to give points and support back to the other side.  Although liberals love the “victimhood” aspect of this, it actually harms the victims.

Instead of automatically convicting the cop who shot Brown and doing this big, overblown spectacle of race-mongering, I think they instead should just stow it for a while and try and act “fair and balanced”; confident that the truth and the evidence will be on their side.  Being calm and cool as a cucumber would do much more to show strength in their case and legitimacy of their cause, as would openly inviting any and all contradiction and debate into the argument like Coulter points out in her article.

Otherwise, rushing to judgment and crying “victim” all the time just makes you look weak and either easy to step on, or step over.

Megyn! Megyn! Megyn! Further Praise for the Queen of News

Glenn Greenwald is one of my most-admired reporters on the left, long before any of the Snowden stuff ever came out.

Just reading about his respect for one of my favorite commentators on the right, Megyn Kelly, as seen in this article.

“She has a lower tolerance for being fed incoherent tripe from her own side than the average cable news TV host,” Greenwald said in an email. “Most Fox and MSNBC hosts treat even the most blatant idiocy with respect if it advances their party’s political agenda for the vapid cable news partisan controversy of the day. Kelly, by contrast, seems to be often contemptuous of incoherent blather even from her own side, sometimes openly so, and that further distinguishes her.”


From Trey Gowdy, who ripped into the media for their lax investigative journalism into Benghazi:

“I think you always bolster your credibility when you show objectivity and when you are an equal opportunity questioner … No one is your client, you’re not protecting anyone. Obviously, when you’re attractive, you can get away with things that ugly people like me can’t get away with.”

Leaving no doubt who’s in charge, Kelly steers the interviews to make news, quickly calling out guests for being “boring” or cutting them off if she deems their answers not clear enough for the average viewer.

A collage of her greatest hits here:


“Get over” Benghazi already? How about “Get Under” the Spin and Stop Forgetting That There Are Victims

The often (if not exclusively) left-leaning blog Slate surprisingly had this to say about Beghazi:

“The Obama administration’s story has never been straight on the Benghazi attack. Press Secretary Jay Carney once said the White House and State Department had only been involved in changing one word in crafting the first public response about the attack—the infamous Susan Rice talking points. Emails released in May showed that wasn’t the case. This new batch underscores the White House’s involvement in shaping the story. The Obama administration left the impression that everything related to the Benghazi attack had been released to the investigating committees months ago. That is also clearly false. There have been other instances where the White House line on Benghazi has also earned it Pinocchios.”

I’ve heard a bunch of “yah butts” from the left on this, such as “it wasn’t an embassy it was a CIA outpost” as though the quesiton was why it was attacked, or that attacking it was somehow OK (and guess what, all embassies are intelligence outposts, genius!)

I’ve also heard a bunch of attempted misdirects, such as “We have bigger problems to solve!” and “And what about Bush and the thousands that died on home soil under his watch?” to downright freakouts like we see here and here.  (Proving my belief once again that “fair share” liberals are hypocrites who prefer to drown/shout out free speech that doesn’t agree with them).

I’ll be the first to admit that the political and intelligence failures under Bush regarding that fateful day in September are far greater than Benghazi, and that administration’s cover up just as Bush Administration did with the “August memo” are just as bad if not worse.  Fact is they came out and said we had no prior warning and they also said that no one had thought they would use planes as missiles in spite tons of evidence to the contrary.  Watch 9/11 “Press for Truth” to see it, and the many questions that remained unanswered.

The families of the victims of any disaster the government is involved in deserves answers, and I can fully understand their frustration and anger when all they get when they ask for those answers is political spin.  The other victim to this, however, is Democracy.  As citizen voters we’re not supposed to be allowing these cover-ups no matter which Administration is creating them.

Secrecy is one thing – lying and then covering it up just to save political ass or some higher-ups job is another. 

And why is a supposedly “free press” allowing it to pass either way – whether Democrat or Republican?  How is it that The Turk or a Bob Beckell can get so irate over the mere mention of it when the truth still remains hidden and questions still remain unanswered?  Because they’re so hypervigilant and emotionally involved with their party they feel losing anything risks losing everything they stand for, I believe, and from a democracy perspective that’s a very risky position for a “free press” to be in, don’t you think?

The victims’ families of Benghazi still deserve answers to their questions.  Let’s not deny their right to them simply because we’re afraid to score a “win” for the other political side.