08/31/16

Totalitarianism: Feds Move To Nationalize State Election Systems Amid Cyber Attacks

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Russians

In a development that is alarming in more ways than one, Jeh Johnson and DHS are making noises that we should federalize states’ voting systems because of hacking by the Russians and others. That should send a very cold shiver down your spine. Not only have the feds pretty much taken over the mainstream media, they now want to control our elections. Let me see… where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Every single dictator on the planet has done the very same thing, just not as slyly. If this happens, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We become an outright banana republic run by despots.

Yahoo! News broke the hacking story first:

The bulletin does not identify the states in question, but sources familiar with the document say it refers to the targeting by suspected foreign hackers of voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In the Illinois case, officials were forced to shut down the state’s voter registration system for 10 days in late July, after the hackers managed to download personal data on up to 200,000 state voters, Ken Menzel, the general counsel of the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an interview. The Arizona attack was more limited, involving malicious software that was introduced into its voter registration system but no successful exfiltration of data, a state official said.

The FBI is now warning all states that they should start securing their voting systems to avoid hacking in the next election. Let me ask you this, shouldn’t the states have been doing that all along? Why now? DHS and the FBI are now referring to the election systems as critical infrastructure, like the power grid and Wall Street. First off, they’ve never done a thing about the power grid. They want to nationalize utilities so the government controls them too… but no one has done a thing to invest in modernizing and strengthening the power grid. As far as Wall Street goes, that is a reference to banking which they have pretty much already nationalized, but I guess they want to ‘further’ control it. Don’t you see the power grab here? Venezuela anyone? The feds now have control over our power grid, media, food and financial sectors. Now they want an iron grip on voting… exactly what do you think will happen? We don’t have a two party system anymore. They are basically in cahoots with one another, so voting has already been compromised. Now this.

Frankly, I fear the Russians hacking the system to mess with our elections. But that doesn’t mean that I want to hand over our voting process to the federal government any more than I want the Internet handed over to the UN and foreign countries, which Obama is making happen as well. Nationalizing the voting process is breathtakingly unconstitutional. If it happens, you will never be able to trust the results ever again. There was a reason our Founding Fathers wanted the states to have the power over elections and it was to prevent something like this. An arrogant move towards a despotic regime and it’s happening right before our eyes.

The talk of nationalizing the voting structure started before the Russian hacking of Arizona and Illinois’ election boards. This has been talked about for a while now. It should be all over the news, but as usual… crickets.

From Jeh Johnson:

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at media conference earlier this month hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

DHS clarifies further on their website: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

What happens when those in power control everything that defines out country and our survival? To let them control all this instead of putting it under the purview of the states and private entities is simply insane. It’s begging for a dictatorship.

A White House policy directive adds, “The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”

Johnson also stated that the primary issue is that there isn’t a central election system since the states run elections. “There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process,” Johnson said.

“There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes,” he said. Yes and that runs so well. Not. It’s already corrupt and rigged and now they want that to apply to ALL ELECTIONS. They are using security and the fact that we are vulnerable as an excuse to seize power over voting. It doesn’t take a genius to see it.

Russians1

Georgia’s top election official is flatly digging in his heels and saying no thank you to the fed’s so-called assistance. He’s correct in saying that the Obama Administration is ginning up a cybersecurity threat to intrude on states’ authority. That is exactly what is happening and I totally agree with Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

“It seems like now it’s just the D.C. media and the bureaucrats, because of the DNC getting hacked — they now think our whole system is on the verge of disaster because some Russian’s going to tap into the voting system,” Kemp, a Republican, told POLITICO in an interview. “And that’s just not — I mean, anything is possible, but it is not probable at all, the way our systems are set up.” I think the Russians are a serious threat, but the power and the responsibility should still reside with the states. Somebody needs to actually, you know, read the Constitution.

In an earlier interview with NextGov, Kemp warned: “The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.” Trust, me they will… Obama has nothing to lose and he’s setting the stage for Clinton. Kemp sees a “clear motivation from this White House” to expand federal control, citing Obama’s healthcare law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education Department in local schools.

Kemp is far from alone. Election officials in other states are now ringing the alarm bells as loudly as they can, but it is hard to be heard in a media vacuum that squelches your voice. Many election officials see the classification of their election systems as critical infrastructure as the first stage of a more intrusive plan. They are not wrong here.

“I think it’s kind of the nose under the tent,” said Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos, who is a Democrat. “What I think a lot of folks get concerned about [is] when the federal government says, ‘Well, look, we’re not really interested in doing that, but we just want to give you this,’ and then all of a sudden this leads to something else.” Oh, you bet it does.

“Elections have always been run and organized by the states,” said Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, another Democrat. “And I think there has always been a fear that there would be federal intervention that would not recognize differences among the states.” Yes, there has and rightly so. Things are so whacked out, I’m now agreeing with Democrats. SMH. Merrill went on to say that having this kind of rhetoric this close to a major election is not helpful. That’s an understatement.

This kind of thing makes you paranoid. First you worry that the Russians are rigging the election for one of the candidates. Then you worry that the feds are just waiting to pounce on an excuse to make our elections utterly meaningless. This gives either candidate fodder to claim if they lose, that everything was rigged.

Bruce McConnell, a former DHS deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity under Obama, outright rejected Kemp’s suggestion that states should fear greater federal involvement in elections. “I think it’s pretty clear today which is the greater risk to the republic: citizens losing complete confidence in our election system, or the states working carefully with Washington to prevent disaster while keeping the 10th Amendment well in mind,” said McConnell, now the global vice president at the EastWest Institute. He was referring to the Bill of Rights provision that declares limits on federal authority. Which is exactly what the feds are trying to nullify and subvert.

A number of lawmakers from both parties have urged the administration to improve cyber-protections for parties, political groups and election offices. So did a bipartisan group of security experts from the Aspen Institute, who said in July that “voting processes and results must receive security akin to that we expect for critical infrastructure.” Right, yes… the Aspen Institute, which is a Progressive Marxist front. Of course they would be for this.

Johnson said on Aug. 3rd that DHS “should carefully consider” the critical infrastructure question. Twelve days later, he held a conference call with state election officials in which he discussed a possible role for Washington. Kemp was not happy with this and again, I don’t blame him. He found it troubling. Agreed. He also pointed out that it all has to do with the definition of ‘critical infrastructure’. Again correct… they are controlling the language here, so it gives the feds a foot in the door.

The White House is now coming forward and claiming that Kemp and others who are concerned about the constitutional implications of this are wrong about the law. “The concern about … ‘we’ll be designated as critical infrastructure and then we’re going to be regulated’ is just based on a false premise,” said the former official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. The official instead argued the benefits of this fascist move.

Kemp was unmoved by these word games and argued that it was clear during Johnson’s conference call with state election officials that a regulatory push “was obviously something that had been in the works.” “Everybody that was on that call was in lockstep with Secretary Johnson,” he added. On that same call, state officials accepted the offer to create an election cybersecurity partnership committee. Careful folks… that looks a lot like political candy to me.

Say it with me… TOTALITARIANISM. That’s what this amounts to. To federalize voting is to strip the states and voting Americans of that power and hand it to the government.

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror. A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an “elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the whole society.”

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” His words are haunting us today and we had better stop the Marxists before they gain such a stranglehold that the Republic is throttled. Tyranny has returned to America… not on a horse this time, but via cybersecurity.

08/30/16

Blue Lives Matter / All Lives Matter

By: Lloyd Marcus

Blue Lives Matter

I saw a dolphin this morning. In honor of our 39th wedding anniversary, a patriot couple whom we have never met gave Mary and me the use of their beautiful condo for a week on the water in Perdido Key, Florida. We drove 9 hours to get here. We were here a few years ago and I remember seeing dolphins swimming in one direction in the morning and the other in the evening. We have been here for 3 days and had not seen a single dolphin. I wondered, is it a seasonal thing? Are dolphins not around this time of year?

This morning while listening to Joel Osteen’s sermon on TV, I glanced out the slider and saw a dolphin swimming by. For some inexplicable reason, it filled me will joy. The dolphin swam with such elegance and grace. And then, I saw the second fin. There were two dolphins swimming side by side like a couple. The dolphin couple appeared to glide effortlessly through the water. Peaceful and calm.

Folks, for those of you who do not know, I am hosting a national Blues Lives Matter Celebration event in Daytona Beach, Florida. It will be LIVE streamed over the internet.

Forgive me for seeing the event through a spiritual lens, but that is who I am. God has brought all the right people together to make our celebration great; a much deserved love letter to America’s police.

My Blue Lives Matter Celebration is Saturday, September 10th at the Ocean Convention Center, Daytona Beach, Florida. The time is 11am to 2pm. Admission is FREE.

If you are in the area please come by and show your support for our brave men and women in blue. I promise you will be blessed. I do not want to scare anyone away, but I have decided to sing and speak more that I originally intended.

What inspired me to produce a Blue Lives Matter Celebration event was hearing an interview with author, Heather Mac Donald on Rush’s radio show. Her book is titled, “The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe”.

Heather exposed cop’s heroic efforts to protect and serve us. Her research revealed that police are the greatest advocates and defenders of black lives. http://bit.ly/2a6dzIL And yet, the narrative despicably promoted by the Left is the polar opposite of the truth. Heather said there needs to be a Blue Lives Matter movement.

Well, God led me to move; not to produce a protest rally, but a love letter of appreciation for our heroes; America’s police.

A funny thing has begun happening. More and more people are approaching me about having Blue Lives Matter Celebration events nationwide. A famous comedian buddy is investigating the possibility of he and I together on a Blue Lives Matter bus tour.

Whatever God calls us to do He provides the funding. Therefore, I repent of stressing. If you feel lead to help with production costs, please make a donation at: http://www.lloydmarcus.com/

Where we are staying in Perdido Key, Florida is only two miles from Alabama. We are originally from Maryland and LOVE steamed crabs. Yesterday, we drove a mile across the state line into Alabama and purchased steamed crabs. We are having a wonderful relaxing time. Hopefully, we will see dolphins this evening swimming in the other direction. That would be awesome!

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
http://www.lloydmarcus.com/

08/30/16

PRE-ORDER: ‘The Enemies Within’ DVD available Sept. 12th!

New Zeal

PRE-ORDER The Enemies Within DVD

Enemies Within2

Trevor Loudon will soon be hitting the road to promote his long-awaited, hard-hitting political documentary, The Enemies Within! But you don’t have to wait to watch!

Pre-order this film now for delivery on September 12!

The DVD is $14.95 or you can buy in bulk:

  • 5-9= $11.95
  • 10-24= $9.95
  • 25-49= $8.95
  • 50-99=$7.95
  • 100+= $6.95

FREE SHIPPING On Orders $50 Or More!

And ask yourself: Could your Congressman pass an FBI Security Check?

Enemies Within1

08/30/16

Hillary’s “Predator” Emerges in Killing of White Nuns

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

Nuns

Except for the picture of the perpetrator, consumers of the media would have no way of knowing that the alleged killer of two white nuns in Mississippi is black. A picture tells a story. But isn’t it interesting that the racial composition of the victims and the perpetrator is not being emphasized in the actual stories of this black-on-white criminal assault?

Because the two murder victims were nuns, the crime made national news. But now that the alleged killer has been arrested and charged and shown to be black, you can bet the coverage will taper off.

Our media highlight white cops shooting black youth. But a black criminal killing two white elderly women is something to be toned down.

ABC news referred to the “the man,” Rodney Earl Sanders, 46, of Kosciusko, Mississippi, “who has been charged with two counts of capital murder” in the case. He allegedly stabbed the nuns—who were registered nurses and served the local community with free healthcare—to death.

The nuns were 68 and killed in their home.

At a time when liberals are complaining about mass incarceration and Obama is emptying the prisons through his pardon power, ABC reports that Sanders has a criminal record and was on probation. If he had been locked up, the nuns would still be alive.

His background includes:

  • Convicted of a felony DUI and sentenced on February 23, 2015
  • Convicted of armed robbery and served six years

Black CNN reporter Faith Karimi said, “A man has been arrested in the stabbing deaths of two nuns whose bodies were found in their home in rural Mississippi, authorities said.” Notice the omission of the racial characteristics of those involved.

“Rodney Sanders Charged With Murder in Killing of Mississippi Nuns” was the headline over an NBC News story. NPR ran this headline, “Mississippi Man Charged With Murder Of Two Nuns.”

What about, “Black Career Criminal Charged in Stabbing Deaths of White Nuns?”

If a white man had killed two black women, especially if the white man had been a cop, you can bet the race of the perpetrator would have been highlighted.

The national news coverage given to the nuns’ murder puts Hillary Clinton in a dilemma. She had apologized to the Black Lives Matter movement for once calling black career criminals “super predators.”

At the time, we noted two other cases of brutal black on white violence:

  • Jesse L. Matthew Jr., a black serial criminal predator, pled guilty to the murder of two white women—18-year-old Hannah Graham, a University of Virginia sophomore, and 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, a Virginia Tech student.
  • Black criminal Quinton Verdell Tellis was charged with capital murder in the death of 19-year-old white woman Jessica Chambers. Tellis allegedly burned her alive.

In the latter case, Tellis’ criminal history included a home burglary and violating probation.

More than a year ago we published Jim Simpson’s masterful report, “Black Criminals, White Victims, and White Guilt.” He examined the facts about black-on-white crime.

What’s more, Simpson singled out commentators like CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill, a racial agitator fired by Fox News for defending cop-killers, and spreading misleading statistics about police shootings.

Hill idolizes Assata Shakur, a former Black Panther and member of the Black Liberation Army, who killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster by shooting him in the head. She escaped from prison with the help of the Weather Underground and now lives in Cuba.

Incredibly, in addition to getting paid by CNN, Hill is a Morehouse College Distinguished Professor of African-American Studies. His new book is titled Nobody: Casualties of America’s War on the Vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond.

The “war on the vulnerable” implies that “the man,” aka the white power structure, is behind problems in the black community.

This is how blacks are advised to shift the blame for their own bad behavior to America.

During one of his many appearances on CNN, Hill claimed that black criminal predators were motivated to steal, rape and kill other people because of lead in paint and lead in gasoline. He got this information from Mother Jones magazine, which failed to show proof that excessive lead causes crime of any kind. Lead can cause headaches, memory problems, muscle and joint pain, abdominal pain, cramping and vomiting, but not crime.

CNN calls Hill “one of the leading intellectual voices in the country.” An online publication called the Afro goes further, saying he is “one of the most dynamic Black intellectuals of the 21st century.”

No wonder the black community is in trouble.

The major media outlets, which regularly censor news of black-on-white crime, faced a problem in the coverage of the black criminal killing the white nuns. They had to use the perpetrator’s photo. It was the only one they had. It was furnished by theMississippi Department of Public Safety.

Now the public knows.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

08/29/16

FBI: Foreign hackers penetrated election databases in Illinois, Arizona

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

US-presidential-elections vote

“Two state election boards have been popped, and data has been taken. This certainly should be concerning to the common American voter.” – Rich Barger, chief intelligence officer for ThreatConnect, a cybersecurity firm

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned that “foreign hackers penetrated two state [later identified as Illinois and Arizona] election databases in recent weeks,” as first reported by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News. The FBI alert “comes amid heightened concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about the possibility of cyberintrusions, potentially by Russian state-sponsored hackers, aimed at disrupting the November elections.”

The report noted:

“…one of the IP addresses listed in the FBI alert has surfaced before in Russian criminal underground hacker forums.”

Continue reading

08/29/16

Weekly Featured Profile – Harlan Baker

KeyWiki.org

Harlan Baker

Harlan Baker

Harlan Baker is a long time leading member of the Democratic Socialists of America in Maine.

Baker was an adjunct lecturer for the Theater Department for the University of Southern Maine where he taught for over a quarter of a century.

He is a former Democratic member of the Maine state legislature, where he served on the Joint Standing Committee on Labor.

Baker served in the Maine State Legislature from 1979-1988. He sponsored legislation dealing with worker-owned cooperatives, municipally-owned power districts and a state-owned bank. He was the sponsor of legislation to divest state pension money from business investing in South Africa during Apartheid.

As an actor he has performed with numerous professional theater companies throughout New England.

Harlan Baker performed a scene from his one man play, Jimmy Higgins, it Monument Square at an Occupy Portland event in 2011.

Harlan Baker has supported Bernie Sanders for decades.

During the summer and fall of 2006, Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee helped DSA activists around the country, “from San Diego up to Maine,” to host house parties to raise funds that helped Bernie Sanders become the only open socialist in the U.S. Senate.

In Portland, Maine, DSAer Harlan Baker and AFL-CIO officer Burt Wartell co-hosted a backyard veggie burger cookout that drew participants from the local Democrats.

Harlan Baker (Portland Maine) was a Democratic Socialists of America, Bernie Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Over 300 Sanders activists attended Democratic Socialists of America’s “Socialist Caucus” on Wednesday afternoon, July 27th, 2016. In the audience were over 100 Sanders delegates, including most of DSA’s 55 member-delegates; they were joined by Larry Sanders, Senator Sanders’ brother, and the Senator’s son, Levi Sanders.

Said Baker:

“I’m enthused about Bernie’s campaign because for the first time in my life I get to support a presidential campaign that has taken socialism out of the closet.”

(Harlan Baker|more…)

08/28/16

Tom Wakely: Stealth Marxist Runs for Congress from San Antonio

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

Tom Wakely, a member of the US’ largest Marxist organization, Democratic Socialists of America is running as a Democrat for Congress in Texas’ 21st District.

Mmmmooooo

It’s highly unlikely he will be successful. The 21st Congressional District, which covers northern San Antonio, last elected a Democrat in 1974. Wakely won the Democratic nomination with 59% of the vote and will face Republican Lamar Smith in the general election.

Wakely is a “card carrying” Democratic Socialists of America member, a fact that he has yet to feature in his campaign literature. How many Democratic voters in the 21st will have any idea they are voting for a Marxist?

That won’t matter to the Gramsci-loving DSA communists. The only way they will ever achieve power is by stealth and deception. The voters are too stupid to knowingly vote for socialism…so they must be tricked into voting for what’s good for them.

Buoyed by the huge success of the Bernie Sanders campaign, and a big influx of new members, DSA has renewed their efforts to infiltrate the Democratic Party all over the country. 40% of Texas’ Sanders delegates to the recent DNC in Philadelphia were DSA members. Several covert DSA comrades have stood in Democratic races this election cycle, from New York and Oregon, to North Carolina and Maine, including Oklahoma state representative candidate Billy Hinton.

Most are long shots, but this year’s efforts are really a trial run for 2018 and 2020, when DSA and others in the Sanders movement want to have a big impact on Congress and state legislators. They essentially want a complete takeover of the Democratic party and to flood Congress with fellow Marxists.

Tom Wakely was born in San Antonio, Texas and raised in a traditional Catholic family. He graduated from Alamo Heights High School and enlisted in the United States Air Force shortly thereafter.

After his discharge from the military, Wakely joined socialist Cesar Chavez‘s Texas Farmworkers Union campaign.

Wakely was recruited by the DSA-dominated SEIU to organize hospital workers in Denver, Colorado. Two years later, he was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin working as a business agent for an independent union that represented Wisconsin Gas and Wisconsin Power employees.

After returning to Texas, Wakely and his wife ran a wine bar and jazz club, then managed a local hospice.

Tomop

Wakely’s major endorsement has come from the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans Austin local, which is led by DSA comrades Glenn Scott and Danny Fetonte.

Tom Wakely may admit his DSA membership on the DSA website, but he’s certainly not public about it.

Tom Wakely and his DSA comrades need to be called out publicly for their dishonest tactics. If you’re going to run for office, comrade Wakely, why not tell the people you’re a Marxist? Let them make a an informed choice. Is that too much to ask?

08/28/16

AP Story on Conflicts of Interest Puts Hillary on the Defensive

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

AP

The Clinton family’s history of pay-for-play while Hillary was secretary of state is blatant, willful, and indisputable. The latest chapter in the Clintons’ quid pro quo scheme was brought to light by the Associated Press. But many in the media have quickly moved past this story, even insisting that the AP was cherry-picking their data to make Mrs. Clinton look bad. Some news organizations, such as CNN, reported the latest revelations as being pounced on by the Trump campaign—rather than the product of excellent investigative reporting by the AP, a solid, member-in-good-standing of the liberal media establishment that apparently stepped out of line, just a little bit.

The media also have dwelled on, and repeatedly mentioned, the story that Trump might be waffling on his immigration policy. Where is the similar passion given to a legitimate story of Clinton corruption?

“Clinton critics have not proven that Clinton or the State Department materially granted any favors to possible donors, but the report and other emerging information is reigniting the firestorm over the foundation,” writes Theodore Schleifer in, “Trump, RNC Seize on new report to attack Clinton Foundation” for CNN. “Trump’s campaign and Republicans have sought to cast suspicion over Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and argued that foreign donors’ contributions to the foundation created inevitable conflict-of-interest questions,” he continues.

Other media organizations, such as US News & World Report, did stories that limited their reporting largely to repeating the Clinton campaign’s defensive arguments. This is all part of the mainstream media’s plan to sow division by, essentially, getting viewers to judge new information by asking themselves whether they are on the side of Trump or Clinton. But the merits of the AP story outweigh Trump’s actions; it serves as one more indisputable example of how the Clintons put a price tag on access to and favors from the State Department.

“More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money—either personally or through companies or groups—to the Clinton Foundation,” opens the AP article. “At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press.”

The donors contributed up to $156 million to the Clinton Foundation, reports the AP. Some government representatives who met with Mrs. Clinton came from 16 countries that had donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity. The Clinton Foundation, the Federalist has reported, only spent approximately 10 percent of its 2013 budget on charitable grants.

The Washington Examiner also documented back in 2014 the money flowing to Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation while his wife was secretary of state.

“According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released Wednesday in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one,” reported the Examiner in 2014. The Obama administration’s State Department simply rubber-stamped them.

The AP story “just plain looks bad,” writes Chris Cillizza for The Washington Post. “Really bad.” He writes that, as with Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails, the Clinton campaign response boils down to “trust us”—even though polling shows that Mrs. Clinton isn’t considered trustworthy at all.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper deserves credit for some tough questions that he asked of Hillary on Wednesday evening. He asked her to explain why the foundation would stop taking foreign donations if she becomes president, but didn’t stop while she was secretary of state. She dodged the question, saying that if she becomes president there would be “unique circumstances,” and when pressed how that was different—why there weren’t “unique circumstances” when she was secretary of state—she answered, “I know there’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire.” But she never explained the difference.

When Cooper cited former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s repudiation of Mrs. Clinton’s claim that Powell had advised her at the start of her term as secretary to use a personal email account, she again didn’t answer the question, but instead said, “I’m not going to relitigate in public my private conversations with him.” She then added, “I want people to know that the decision to have a single e-mail account was mine. I take responsibility for it. I’ve apologized for it. I would certainly do differently if I could.” But that’s not the issue. The issue was knowingly sending and receiving classified—including Top Secret—information on her private, unsecured server. If she apologized for that, she would have to face a jury of her peers, so she’ll just keep lying instead.

The reason Mrs. Clinton is considered untrustworthy is, in part, because of her foundation’s shady dealings and quid pro quo. Another reason is that she just can’t stop lying about her emails, or Benghazi, or anything that might embarrass her as a candidate.

“And while nothing in the AP story is proof of any wrongdoing, it is proof of bad judgment,” writes Cillizza. The Clintons’ blatant pay-for-play scheme may have no smoking gun. However, many people have been jailed for less than what has been described here.

But let’s not forget the Laureate Education deal, where, as we’ve cited, “More than $16 million was paid to Bill Clinton through a shell corporation after which more than $55 million American taxpayer dollars flowed out of Hillary Clinton’s State Department to a non-profit run by Laureate CEO Douglas Becker.”

“Bill Clinton resigned from his position as ‘honorary chancellor’ of Laureate in April of 2015, right after the disclosure of the information from Clinton Cash was made public,” we wrote, and asked why Trump University was garnering so much more coverage than the Laureate Education scandal.

While the Clinton campaign and their allies in the media maintain that the AP cherry-picked its information, examples of quid pro quo by the Clintons extend to Russia’sSkolkovo project and the Uranium One deal, to name two more. The AP has pushed backon its critics, pointing out that they stand by their story, and that this was reported by the same team of investigative reporters who broke the story that led to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s departure.

“The idea that this many people on the private citizen side as opposed to all officials were connected to the foundation and meeting with her at the State Department smells bad,”said Chris Cuomo on CNN. “You say nefarious. I’m not saying it’s illegal. I’m not saying it’s a felony. That shouldn’t be the bar for wrongdoing either. It seems wrong and inappropriate. Isn’t that enough to draw criticism?”

The relationship between the Clinton Foundation and her State Department is proving to be a significant problem for Hillary Clinton—but it will only become and stay an election issue if the media allow it to do so. Questions about Hillary’s corruption will only take center stage if the news media stop disingenuously casting real investigative reporting as part of Trump’s reaction rather than discussing the facts uncovered.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.