12/21/16

The Modern Day Bitter Clingers

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

With the results of the Electoral College votes in, supporters of Hillary Clinton must realize that their favored candidate has lost, again—this time irrevocably. The left’s resistance to a President Donald Trump hung on the twin thin reeds of a recount under Green Party candidate Jill Stein and the fight to convince individual electors to be faithless.

Ironically, the efforts led to more popular votes for Trump, and more electors choosing not to vote for Hillary. Five electors from Washington state went against Hillary, and three more tried, but were forbidden by state law, while only two Republican electors chose someone other than Trump. PJ Media reports that in Detroit, officials could not recount in 392 districts due to “discrepancies.” Those discrepancies include having more votes tallied than voters, and 95 percent of the vote in Detroit went to Hillary. So the recount also exposed apparent Democratic chicanery.

The excuses Democrats have made for why Hillary lost are endless, as the left circles the wagons and decides whether to blame themselves—or others, like the Russians. To date, some of the many possible culprits for the failure include: FBI Director James Comey’s last-minute investigation into the Anthony Weiner laptop emails, the Clinton Foundation scandal, Hillary’s classified emails on an unsecured server, her failure to campaign in Michigan, her lies about Benghazi, the Project Veritas videos, the Clintons’ treatment of women, the hacked John Podesta emails, her collusion with the Democratic National Committee to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Obama’s failure to control our borders, Obamacare, and Hillary’s and Obama’s failed foreign policy. And, of course, one cannot discount the impact that Trump’s more energetic campaign had on the upset win. Or, as Bill Clinton called it, Trump’s ability to connect with “angry, white men.”

Joe Klein writes for Time Magazine that “[Trump] is, without question, the most expert news manipulator in American history.” This is absurd. The news media have never been so openly hostile to a candidate, and Trump won in spite of that, not because he “manipulated” the media to his advantage.

The exact cause of Trump’s win is unknowable. It is likely made up of many of the above mentioned factors. Yet in the recriminations game, some Clinton loyalists are forming a circular firing squad, blaming long-time advisor Huma Abedin, who one anonymous Clinton insider said got too used to the limelight and being a “celebrity.” A Clinton insider said that “The real anger is toward Hillary’s inner circle…They reinforced all the bad habits.”

Liberals also continue to incessantly blame Russia for the Trump win. President Obama claimed in what may well be his final press conference on December 16 that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin to “cut it out” and stop hacking, and that Russia did, reports The Hill. “No, they did not stop. They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly,” argued DNC interim chair Donna Brazile on ABC’s This Week. Maybe Obama didn’t scare Putin quite as much as he thought he did.

Actually, by December 20, the White House story had changed. Now, according to NBC News, President Obama called the Russians on October 31 from his Red Phone, which is a direct line between Moscow and Washington to be used only in a time of crisis, “to reinforce Obama’s September warning that the U.S. would consider any interference on Election Day a grave matter. This time Obama used the phrase ‘armed conflict.’” If Putin had “cut it out” back in September, why was that call necessary?

The conspiracy theory that Russia aimed its resources at defeating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is “hyperbole” at best, and at worst, a false narrative, argues Jonathan S. Tobin for Commentary Magazine. “Other than a couple of quotes from speeches that had gone unreported, there was nothing that was directly linked to Clinton,” he notes of the hacked Podesta emails.

What the hacks did reveal was extensive collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media, as well as how the DNC had played favorites in the primary, putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary’s benefit, and to the detriment of Sanders.

“Assume the Russians were behind the hacking and even that Vladimir Putin personally directed these efforts,” Tobin writes, “there is no reason to believe it altered the outcome, let alone that it was a result of collusion with the Trump camp.”

The Election Results Deniers continue to press onward with this particular conspiracy theory because it provides a convenient bogeyman whose influence cannot be confirmed or discounted—and is based upon the word of anonymous Intelligence Community (IC) sources. The fact that the IC refused to present their evidence to Congress, even in closed session, plus the Obama administration’s record of dishonesty and a lack of transparency, contribute to the skepticism. Yet Trump is apparently expected to state unequivocally that he accepts this phony consensus that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have supposedly determined that the Russians hacked the election for the purpose of electing him president.

But when Hillary’s team questions the FBI’s motives, that’s perfectly okay. “Comparing the FBI’s massive response to the overblown email scandal with the seemingly lackadaisical response to the very real Russian plot to subvert a national election shows that something is deeply broken at the FBI,” argued Clinton campaign manager John Podesta in a Washington Post op-ed.

The public isn’t buying the sore losers’ blame game. A recent Morning Consult/Politico survey found that “46 percent of respondents chose” the option that “said the U.S. can’t be sure who is primarily responsible for the hacking because tracing cyberattacks is complicated and because intelligence groups were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Back during the general campaign, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews argued that Trump’s refusal to say unequivocally that he would accept the election results was “sacrilege.” Hillary Clinton called it “horrifying.” “I’ve loved American democracy all my life,” said Matthews, “and not just because it’s our ennobling way to rule ourselves, and we are the first and the best at it, but because it honors in the end the character and patriotism of those who walk out there and accept the country’s judgment, who risk their pride in the arena of public opinion and when it’s decided, accept the people’s verdict.” Apparently that principle is only meant to apply to Republicans.

Even with the Electoral College having affirmed Trump’s victory, some on the left still hope to derail his path to the White House. Some are dreaming of getting this before the Supreme Court to challenge the results of the election based on Trump’s foreign ties. And if that fails?

Though Trump’s victory was once again confirmed this week, MSNBC, the network committed to discrediting Trump on every show, every day, won’t give up. A recent guest, Anna Galland, executive director of the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org Civic Action, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes about the left’s next likely tactic: “A mass, moral accessible opposition movement, some are calling it a resistance movement, that’s going to stand up and fight back and not let Donald Trump tear apart this country, or enact his extraordinarily extreme policy agenda that he has no mandate to enact.” She added, “We’re not going to stand by while Donald Trump tears apart America…We’re going to keep fighting and going to win.” She said that MoveOn.org’s protest against the Iraq War was a “trial run” with “a million people in the streets…but that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to see.”

So much for accepting the results of our Constitutional election process.

In 2008, President Barack Obama contemptuously described voters from small-town America as “bitter” and “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” With the election of Trump, those on the left who refuse to accept reality have become the modern bitter clingers, the progressives who continue to oppose Trump by any means.

They envision the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution as another way to challenge Trump as president. “Mr. Trump’s companies do business with entities controlled by foreign governments and people with ties to them,” reported The New York Times on November 21. “Experts in legal ethics say those kinds of arrangements could easily run afoul of the Emoluments Clause if they continue after Mr. Trump takes office.” The clause forbids presidents to “‘accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state’ unless Congress consents,” reports the Times. In other words, one possible response to Trump breaking this clause is to impeach him.

No matter how illegitimate, ridiculous, or short-sighted the reasons, the left will continue to oppose a Donald Trump presidency and work to undermine it. The same media that spent eight years building up and protecting President Obama’s phony legacy are now determined to destroy Trump’s presidency right from the start. This honeymoon is definitely over.

Roger Aronoff

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.

08/1/16

YEAH, IT’S ABOUT “JUDGMENT”: Al Qaeda Financier Frequented the Clinton White House

By: Bruce Cornibe | Doug Ross @ Journal

Islamists pose a particular security risk to our U.S. government. They want to slowly introduce Sharia law into our system of government and take away our most cherished freedoms. Islamists such as Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) not only strive to take away our fundamental freedoms, but they oftentimes also lobby against our government’s ability to crackdown on Islamic terrorism.

For example, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates wrote a letter in 2011 to the U.S. Department of Justice telling it the FBI needs to purge “highly offensive counterterrorism training materials about Muslims and Islam used to train its agents and law enforcement.”

Some Islamists, even after empowering radical Islam in the policy arena, will go so far as to support terrorist groups like Hamas (more often done privately) or receive funding from such groups. Islamists operate so effectively in U.S. politics because of politicians that enable them. Bill and Hillary Clinton are those type of politicians – having a political past mired with Islamist ties.

One of those Islamists happens to be Abdurahman Alamoudi, a man sentenced to twenty-three years in prison because of “his activities in the United States and abroad with nations and organizations that have ties to terrorism[.]” Alamoudi has been involved in a number of malicious activities such as a “Libyan intelligence/al-Qaeda assassinationplot to kill the Saudi crown prince” and being “an Al-Qaeda fundraiser who had operated inside the United States.” So, what’s his connection with the Clintons?

An affidavit by Dr. John Esposito, a Georgetown professor with numerous Islamist ties, reveals that in 1996, Hillary asked Alamoudi to help with an Iftar reception at the White House:

…when Hilary Clinton decided to host the first ever White House reception to celebrate the end of Ramadan (called the Iftar), Mrs. Clinton asked Mr. Alamoudi to prepare the guest list.

Patrick Poole with PJ Media reports, “Under the Clinton administration, Alamoudi was tasked with founding and developing the Defense Department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain program. Alamoudi himself handpicked the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain corps.”

Furthermore, it’s not shocking that Al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki (inspired several 9/11 hijackers) at one point trained U.S. military chaplains. It’s disturbing to know that we have subversive radical Islamists training and advising our leaders in government who want to see the destruction of the America that we all know and love. Besides receiving trips funded on the backs of taxpayers, it was also discovered that Alamoudi was helping out Osama bin Laden, PJ Media reports:

After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the speechwriter for the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman told the FBI that Alamoudi had been funneling $5000 payments from Osama bin Laden to Rahman. Rahman is currently serving a life sentence on terror charges for his role in the “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.

In this video, allegedly taken outside of the White House in 2000, Alamoudi publicly displays his support for Hamas and Hezbollah in front of an enthusiastic crowd.

Alamoudi isn’t the only Islamist with connections with the Clintons. In 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allowed a professor that is a known Islamist, Tariq Ramadan, re-entry into the U.S. (in 2004, the U.S. rescinded Ramadan’s visa).

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that Ramadan gave financial support to a French charity called “Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens” (CBSP) that’s affiliated with Hamas.

Besides these individual cases and many others, one of the most disturbing things about Hillary’s judgement is her optimistic view of the Muslim Brotherhood. In a 2011 speech, then Secretary of State Clinton exposes her naiveté about the Egyptian Brotherhood – showing a willingness to engage the group, stating:

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. “And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.”

But, she added, any such contacts “will continue to emphasize the importance of and support for democratic principles, and especially a commitment to nonviolence, respect for minority rights, and the full inclusion of women in any democracy. You cannot leave out half the population and claim that you are committed to democracy.”

Of course, the Brotherhood says they are committed to non-violence and the democratic process but only as far as it allows Islamists to come to power and change the system to fit their Sharia ideology.

We witnessed this in Egypt when Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi democratically came to power and began to transform Egypt into an Islamic state, some examples include: approving a Sharia influenced constitution, presscensorship, failure to protect religious minorities (ex. Coptic Christians), and many more. In addition, the Brotherhood has had a violent past and there is no reason to believe they would not revert back to their old tendencies.

As we have seen, the Clintons not only have a propensity for tolerating individual Islamists, but they also buy into the diplomatic language of the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, Hillary continues to provide a mouthpiece for an ‘Islamophobia’ campaign that seeks to silence the critics of Islamism. This ignorance of the Muslim Brotherhood strategy is a major liability for our country, especially since Hillary Clinton is one election away from occupying the most powerful position in the U.S. government.

Read more at CounterJihad.

07/25/16

Trump’s Journalistic Weapon Now Targets Hillary

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

The supermarket tabloid National Enquirer can’t be laughed at any more. It was Donald J. Trump’s effective weapon against Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and now it’s been unleashed against Hillary Clinton. The issue currently on newsstands reveals “The Explosive 7-Step Plan to Destroy Hillary,” and predicts the demise of the Democratic candidate.

Don’t laugh. In 2007, the National Enquirer broke the story of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ “love child.” Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child in a Los Angeles hotel. Edwards denied the affair, but the truth came out. The National Enquirer was vindicated.

The New York Times reported, “By being the first and, largely, the only publication pursuing the Edwards story through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock, The Enquirer is under consideration for a Pulitzer Prize, and it has strong support for its bid from other journalists.” The Enquirer’s staff became eligible for the Pulitzer in two categories, “Investigative Reporting” and “National News Reporting.” It fell short, however.

The National Enquirer became Trump’s favorite media weapon to smear Cruz. Here is a list of assaults on the rival Republican from the tabloid:

April 4: “Cruz’s 5 Secret Mistresses” and “Their Shocking Claims”
April 11: “Furious Wife Confronts Cheating Cruz!”
April 18: “Ted Cruz Named in Madam’s Black Book”
May 2: “Ted Cruz Father Linked to JFK Assassination”
May 16: “Ted Cruz, Go Home”

The attacks on Cruz, especially the attack on his father, Rafael Cruz, took their toll. The Texas senator cited Trump’s use of the smear in explaining why he wouldn’t endorse the New York billionaire for president. “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” Cruz said. Trump had tweeted a bad photo of Cruz’s wife Heidi next to a flattering picture of Trump’s supermodel wife.

On “Fox & Friends,” Trump had cited the Enquirer story about Cruz’s father as believable. Trump said, “Nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

By the time the patriotic July 4 issue of the National Enquirer had appeared, Trump had won and the publication ran the story, “Trump: How I will Save America From Terror.”

The publication had really moved on from attacking Cruz to going after Hillary by the June 27 issue, with the story, “Hillary Will Never Be President,” citing an alleged indictment of the candidate over her use of emails. It didn’t pan out. The FBI director didn’t recommend an indictment.

But the August 1 story, “How Trump Will Win,” explains how lesbianism and lies will eventually cause the campaign collapse of the former secretary of state. Among the revelations:

Hillary’s “lesbian shenanigans.”
Bill Clinton has a secret son.
Hillary spent time in a mental hospital.
Bill and Hillary have a secret $100 million divorce pact.

Don’t think the National Enquirer doesn’t have high-level sources. The former Clinton aide Dick Morris, who once worked for Fox News, now has a regular column in the publication, under the headline, “The most feared voice in politics.” His most recent column, concerning the former secretary of state’s dealings with Russia and Vladimir Putin, is actually quite good. He notes that the emails released by Mrs. Clinton conveniently omit details about a deal Russia made to buy American uranium. The deal came after Bill Clinton was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a Russian firm for speeches.

Morris did have a column in The Hill newspaper, which is distributed in Washington, D.C. But that paper dropped him when he signed on with The National Enquirer. Enquirer Editor-in-Chief Dylan Howard said his hiring was proof of the publication’s “commitment to investigative journalism.”

Morris told the New York Post, “I enjoyed writing for The Hill for 20 years and I had a wonderful relationship with them, but the Enquirer’s circulation is many times The Hill’s. I think this move makes sense.”

The National Enquirer is part of the American Media, Inc. (AMI) empire and also includes Star, OK!, Globe, National Examiner, Soap Opera Digest, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Flex and Muscle & Fitness Hers. Chairman and CEO David Pecker is considered a close friend of Trump.

Ironically, as The New York Times pointed out, The Star, the sister publication of The National Enquirer, revealed Morris’s affair with a prostitute who claimed he had a penchant for sucking her toes. “The National Enquirer followed that bombshell with news of another mistress and a love child in Texas,” it said.

At the time, the paper reported that Morris had responded, “I will not subject my wife, family or friends to the sadistic vitriol of yellow journalism. I will not dignify such journalism with a reply or an answer. I never will.”

He later admitted the stories were true, the Times said.

His personal life aside, Morris is the author or co-author of some 20 books, including Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race, about a match-up that did not occur in 2008.

In 2012, Morris, then a Fox News commentator, had predicted a Mitt Romney win. Morris’s prediction was Romney winning with 325 electoral votes, versus Obama’s 213. “That’s right,” Morris said. “A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama’s against McCain.” Obama beat McCain 53-46 percent.

But Morris was not alone. Karl Rove, Fred Barnes, and Michael Barone had alsopredicted a Romney win.

This time, Morris has another book, Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary, described by Newsmax as “powerful and timely.”

But on the Dick Morris website, one person responded to the new book with the comment, “How Trump can beat Hillary? Well, the same way Romney and McCain beat Obama, I guess. Dick, you keep singing the same song over and over again.”

The trouble with the current anti-Clinton strategy, “The Explosive 7-Step Plan to Destroy Hillary,” is that people probably won’t believe it when they see it, since the information will be coming from a source that even Cruz has denounced.

However, in contrast to how the major media picked up the tabloid’s charges against Cruz, it’s doubtful that any controversial charges against Clinton, even with substantial evidence to back them up, would get the same kind of sympathetic coverage or traction.

In any case, Trump clearly has a journalistic weapon to use against Hillary. It would help, in his war against the Democrat, if he has what the tabloid had when it exposed John Edwards — eyewitnesses, photos and evidence.

Time will tell.

Cliff Kincaid

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.

07/8/16

230 People Dead in Clinton Cover-Up

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

July 17 is the 20th anniversary of the crash of TWA 800. The cause of the crash was covered-up to assure President Clinton’s re-election.

Our own Navy shot it down. It was incompetence. It was a missile test that went awry. It’s time to demand accountability, don’t you think?

AIM held a fantastic news conference on Thursday about this subject. I have quickly produced two important but short videos:

The Clinton Cover-Up Over TWA 800 (features the eyewitness testimony of Mike Wire, who saw the missile and the explosion)

Bill Clinton’s Benghazi: TWA 800 (features Jack Cashill, author of a new book on the case).

Please take some time to review this evidence. We must hold the Clintons accountable for covering-up the cause of the crash that claimed 230 lives.

Do you agree?

06/7/16

Will the Media Also Examine the Clinton For-Profit Education Scandal?

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Is the race for the White House really coming down to which presidential candidate was tied to the less scandal-plagued for-profit school? Not if the media have anything to say about it. They only want you to know about one of them.

We have seen an endless run of articles and TV segments focusing on Trump University. How does it look? Well, a former sales director there said that “…Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.”

Trump claims that “98% of those people liked the school,” and gave it great report cards, according to CNN. There are currently three lawsuits focusing on Trump University, including one by the New York State Attorney General. Trump has pointed to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage as a likely factor in the treatment he has received from the class action lawsuits—treatment which he calls unfair. You can read plenty on that issue elsewhere and decide for yourself.

While many Republicans who have reluctantly endorsed Trump view his comments about Judge Curiel as a costly, unforced error that makes it harder for them to publicly defend him, one fact that could play to his advantage is that the law firm behind one of the class action lawsuits has paid the Clintons $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009, which is more than they’ve collected from any other law firm. Politics obviously plays a big part in this saga.

And that’s just the beginning. The real story deals with Laureate Education, whose connection to the Clintons was revealed in Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash. 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.

Thanks to Judicial Watch, and an outstanding article by WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi, the story is out there. And Corsi has no problem citing unpalatable facts, such as

“The biggest borrower on the for-profit college list is Laureate Education’s Walden University, whose grad students borrowed $756 million in 2014.”

A Miami Herald article pointed out that “The firm is being sued by several online graduate students for allegedly dishonest practices, and a 2012 U.S. Senate report found that more than half of Laureate’s online Walden University revenue went to marketing and profit.”

“But, as Forbes pointed out in its July 12, 2015, story, Laureate Education’s Walden University was built by inducing prospective students to incur massive tuition debt to attend a school with no academic reputation and virtually no standards for admission other than ability to pay.”

So Laureate Education and the Clintons lined their pockets with cash from students incurring massive personal debts. This sounds an awful lot like the allegations against Trump University.

Mr. Clinton’s shell corporation scheme allowed him “to avoid disclosing the existence of the shell company even to the IRS, as long as compensation payments to him were withdrawn as soon as they were deposited, ensuring the account always showed a zero balance,” writes Corsi.

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.

So where are the media? Why is one story worthy of so much coverage, but the other, virtually none outside of some conservative media? Could it be that the media are determined to destroy the Trump campaign, and don’t want to make things any tougher than they already are for Hillary?

After all, Mrs. Clinton still has dozens of FBI agents investigating criminal activity on her part in how she handled classified materials while serving, and after serving, as secretary of state. These agents are also investigating any public corruption she might have participated in, such as the Laureate Education scam with connections between Douglas Becker, Bill Clinton, and the State Department. She is also still being dogged by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who vows to take the fight all the way to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month. But the media have bestowed the title of “presumptive nominee,” and announced that Mrs. Clinton has clinched the nomination as of one night before the California and New Jersey primaries.

Here is a challenge for the media: take a look at this article by Corsi, based on the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information documents, and go through the story. Then report on it, or else explain why the Laureate Education story doesn’t deserve the attention that the Trump University story has garnered.

Conservatives often cite Jake Tapper of CNN as one of the only mainstream reporters willing to ask the tough questions of Democrats and the left. However, during his interview with Trump on The Lead with Jake Tapper on June 3, Tapper followed up 23 times, basically trying to label Trump a racist over his comments about Judge Curiel.

Although he appeared to sheepishly hint at the Clintons’ involvement with Laureate Education in an interview with Hillary that aired on the same show, Tapper failed to even make clear what he was talking about. However, during his session with Mrs. Clinton, Tapper offered no specific accusation for her to defend herself against, provided no follow-up—zero—and worded the question in the most softball of terms:

TAPPER: When you were launching your criticism, your attack against Trump University, which is right now in the middle of a civil suit for fraud, the Trump campaign started hitting back by questioning donations to the Clinton Foundation and how the money is spent. There have been questions in the media about that, and I’m not equating Trump University with the Clinton Foundation.

But do you think those questions undermine at all your argument against the Trump University?

CLINTON: Not at all. I mean, really, this is like an absurd comparison. We have disclosed everything. You can see what we do…

There are lawsuits in both cases. Lawsuits mean plaintiffs. Can’t Jake Tapper, or George Stephanopoulos—who failed to bring up Laureate in his June 5 interview with Mrs. Clinton on ABC’s This Week—find any of the plaintiffs in that case to interview?

Neither Trump nor Hillary wants to be talking about their respective ties to these for-profit education institutes. But so far only one party is being asked the hard questions—or any questions at all on this subject. How about some questions from the press for Hillary? It would, after all, be her first actual press conference in over 180 days, were she to grant one. Just to be fair and balanced.

Roger Aronoff

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.

04/11/16

Bill Clinton: ‘Bout Time Dems Tell the Truth About BLM

By: Lloyd Marcus

Well whoop dee doo, a democrat, Bill Clinton, finally told the truth about Black Lives Matter. Heckled by BLM protesters, Clinton yelled, “You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter.” http://fxn.ws/23nfSwl Amen, Bill.

Stats confirm that the real threat to young blacks are other young blacks; murdering each other in epidemic record breaking numbers in major cities (controlled by democrats with strict gun laws) across America. http://bit.ly/23p5kg7 And yet, BLM and other so-called civil rights advocacy groups ignore black on black violence.

Make no mistake about it. Clinton slapping BLM with the truth has nothing to do with him giving a rat’s derriere about black lives or his party seriously dealing with issues plaguing black communities. Clinton was simply defending his wife’s presidential campaign. For decades, Bill, Hillary and their fellow democrats have viewed black Americans only as useful idiots to further their socialist/progressive agenda; opposing America as founded. As a black conservative, it has driven me nuts; frustrated that fellow blacks reject this truth.

Continue reading →

02/27/16

Story Time: Bill Reads a Hillary Clinton Children’s Book!

Hat Tip: Craig Miller

09/2/15

Media Nervous Over Hillary Sting Videos

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

You know an event is potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton or other top Democrats when Dana Milbank of The Washington Post shows up. Hence, Milbank’s attendance at Tuesday’s James O’Keefe news conference on Clinton campaign violations of federal election law was an indication that the Democrats are concerned. This time, despite video evidence of top staffers for Hillary accepting cash from a known foreign national, most of the media reaction was vintage Milbank. “Is this a joke?” the media wanted to know.

In fairness, Milbank’s questions seemed mild, when compared to some of the other media reactions.

The joke question came from Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast, with other liberals joining in and wondering what the press conference was all about. The law says that foreigners are strictly prohibited from contributing to U.S. political campaigns, and O’Keefe had dramatic evidence of the campaign law violation. Thevideo was played on a television screen for all to see.

Looking for some reason not to pay attention to the facts, some in the media seized upon the small amount of money that was used to pay for the Hillary campaign merchandise in question.

This was not the only media reaction, but it seemed to be one of the most popular. “James O’Keefe Targets Clinton Campaign For Legally Selling A T-Shirt,” was the dishonest headline over an article attacking O’Keefe published by Media Matters, the pro-Hillary and George Soros-funded group. This article set the tone for the pro-Hillary contingent in the press.

However, the great number of journalists who showed up was an indication that, when it comes to Hillary, nobody really knows how serious the law-breaking will get. O’Keefe suggested that more evidence against the campaign is yet to come.

Milbank may be in a quandary about what to do with Hillary, who is dropping in the polls against the socialist career politician Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and leaving the Democratic presidential field open to other candidates, most notably Vice President Joe Biden, a notorious plagiarist. (In Biden’s case, Media Matters had also defended him, insisting the plagiarism wasn’t as serious as some knew to be the case).

Milbank’s modus operandi in the past has been to ridicule conservatives who provide evidence of corruption by top Democrats such as Hillary and Barack Obama. For example, he attacked those who investigated Obama’s relationship with communist Frank Marshall Davis. He showed up at an AIM conference to write an article distorting the findings of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which investigated Hillary’s role in covering up the terrorist attack that killed four Americans.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist has written that Milbank “serially exaggerates or distorts what he writes about. It’s just what he does.”

But those distortions won’t suffice when the video evidence itself can be seen by millions, telling the real story that some in the media try to conceal. As Project Veritas emphasized, the video shows Molly Barker, the Director of Marketing for Hillary Clinton’s national campaign, knowingly breaking campaign finance law by accepting a straw donation from a foreign national.

O’Keefe, who almost single-handedly took down the Alinskyite ACORN organization, has also investigated Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. He wrote the book, Breakthrough: Our Guerilla War to Expose Fraud and Save Democracy, and has targeted Republican politicians in the past as well.

His reputation meant that O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action news conference at the National Press Club was packed, with at least seven television cameras there to record the proceedings.

Washington Post reporter David Weigel conveyed the message from the Clinton campaign that the event was much ado about nothing. But at least he did an advance story about the video and got the Clinton campaign response.

Los Angeles Times reporter Evan Halper played the story to the advantage of the Hillary campaign, insisting that the video somehow missed its target. It was “Hardly the stuff of a Pulitzer Prize,” he insisted. He found it newsworthy, and somehow relevant to the issue of federal law violations, that the journalist from The Daily Beast had treated the video as a joke.

The “joke” response said more about the lack of seriousness from The Daily Beast than it did about O’Keefe’s video. Making matters worse, Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast seemed proud of the fact that she didn’t grasp the seriousness of the election law violations, highlighting her “Is this a joke?” responses on her Twitter account.

O’Keefe may have the last laugh, as he repeatedly emphasized that more videos are coming, and that other Hillary officials may be in them and forced to resign. Reporters in attendance, anxious to dismiss these charges, seemed nervous about this prospect. They repeatedly pressed O’Keefe to spill more details about other undercover operatives he may have in the Clinton and other campaigns. He told the media they would just have to wait.

It was nervous laughter from the press, as they couldn’t figure out what other damaging evidence O’Keefe’s crew may have against the Democratic presidential candidate.

In a message to his supporters, O’Keefe noted, “Since at least 1996, Hillary and her husband Bill have been accused of accepting foreign contributions to further their political ambition. Back then, it was China accused of funneling massive amounts of money into the Clinton campaign and the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. The State Department investigated the matter. Three Americans were convicted of crimes, one of whom, Johnny Chung, admitted that $35,000 of his contributions came from the Chinese military. But Bill and Hillary got off clean.”

Not all media were prepared to laugh this all away. In his story about the O’Keefe news conference, Alan Rappeport of The New York Times seemed to admit that O’Keefe had struck gold, noting, “Foreign donations are a sensitive subject for the Clintons, as their family foundation has been under scrutiny for accepting money from overseas while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, and recent State Department emails showed that former President Bill Clinton tried to get permission to give paid speeches in North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

One question is whether the illegal transactions captured in the Project Veritas video are part of a pattern of illegal conduct. The media will just have to wait. Maybe their laughter will die down in the wake of more videos being released.

Asked why the major media don’t do these kinds of undercover investigations and the job falls on him and his staff, O’Keefe dismissed the significance of liberal media bias and said that he thinks journalists are more motivated by a desire to protect their access to candidates like Hillary. In other words, reporters have to flatter the candidates with fawning coverage.

But it’s increasingly difficult to portray Hillary in a favorable light. At the campaign event where the video of the illegal contribution was recorded, Hillary had told the crowd that she would “stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.”

A reporter seeking to maintain access to a candidate like this, caught in scandal after scandal, is something that is destined to truly become a joke.

08/25/15

Military experts: Iran already has nuclear weapons

By: JEROME R. CORSI
WND

NEW YORK – Amid debate over President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, two retired military officers contend their accumulation of evidence from open and intelligence sources shows Tehran already has a nuclear-weapons capability.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney assert that since 1979, a cabal of nations has aided and abetted Iran in its efforts to develop a robust nuclear program under the guise of generating a nuclear-energy system.

And they believe the White House is fully aware.

In an interview, Vallely told WND that President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and chief White House adviser Valerie Jarrett “are treading on treason under the U.S. Constitution for aiding and abetting Iran, a known enemy of the United States, while throwing Israel, a longtime U.S. ally, to the wolves.”

They charge the cabal is mainly comprised of Russia, China and North Korea, which have worked behind the scenes in collaboration with Iran to put all the parts in place.

The assistance includes providing the material needed to make a bomb. Vallely and Haney believe Iran can make a bomb now, and a “breakout” nuclear test detonation is imminent.

‘Treading on treason’

Vallely told WND that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “knows that Israel has little option but to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran, and I suspect Saudi Arabia will assist Israel militarily when the attack occurs.”

“Signing a nuclear agreement legitimizes Iran’s nuclear weapons future, while removing sanctions that gives Iran access to billions of dollars that can be diverted to advancing Iran’s terrorist goals against the United States and Israel,” Vallely said.

Haney agreed.

“President Obama has given the green light to the potential destruction of Israel by signing this agreement while Iran swears ‘death to Israel,’” Haney told WND.

“President Obama knows Iran has the bomb, and he knows Iran plans a nuclear attack on Israel. Obama has never liked Israel; he does not see Israel in the future of the Middle East that he sees dominated by radical Islam.”

Haney said Obama “is simply covering his tracks with this nuclear agreement with Iran.”

“The point is that Obama already knows Iran has the bomb and the entire negotiation has been nothing more than a charade, a smoke screen to cover up that Iran already has the bomb,” he said.

“The White House and Secretary of State Kerry know that Iran already has nuclear weapons capability and, to protect Obama’s legacy, the White House does not want it known Iran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons on Obama’s watch,” he explained.

“This way, a pathway for Iran to get the bomb has been created and put in place, so when Iran finally announces it has a nuclear weapon, Obama can argue that Iran simply got the bomb quicker than anybody anticipated, but not in violation of the agreement.”

He declared: “Iran is a nuclear weapons power now!”

In a joint statement, Vallely and Haney say an accumulation of available evidence shows a coalition of Russia, China and North Korea have assisted Iran since 1979 in achieving a nuclear weapon, despite sanctions, under the guise of a domestic nuclear energy program.

Vallely explained to WND that he and Haney have taken a systematic approach to evaluating each component needed to deliver a nuclear weapon, from the development and testing of a ballistic missile system, to the design of a nuclear weapons warhead, to the development of the weapons-grade uranium needed to produce a bomb.

“To come to our conclusion that Iran is a nuclear weapons power right now, we supplemented publicly available research, plus information from intelligence sources, including Iranian resistance groups such as the National Council of Resistance of IRAN, NCRI,” Vallely explained. “With the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea, Iran has developed and tested every component needed to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon against Israel.”

WND reported in February that the NCRI, in a Washington, D.C., press conference, added to a series of disclosures it made regarding Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program more than a decade ago. NCRI has claimed Tehran is operating a secret uranium-enrichment site northeast of the capital city that was not disclosed during the recent negotiations to the United States or to the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

Vallely and Haney made clear in their statement their conclusion that Iran will soon detonate its first nuclear device.

“Iranian government observers, research scientists and senior military officials have been on-site in North Korea for all their tests of nuclear component systems,” they said. “In essence, Iran has had the benefit of North Korea doing their development and testing for them.”

They said Russia, China and North Korea “always had the latitude and time to develop and test warhead design, fissionable material and detonation testing.”

“Iran participated in most all of the scheduled testing onsite.”

Vallely and Haney said the “release of up to $150 billion in Iranian assets, as a part of the sanctions against Iran, guarantees Iran further funding their nuclear weapons program and their terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas and others to include Assad of Syria.”

‘Ties to Iran’

Vallely and Haney combine their analysis of Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities with an argument that Obama, Kerry and Jarrett have close ties to Iran that influence their political judgment.

All three allowed the United States to sign a nuclear weapons agreement with Iran knowing Tehran could develop a nuclear weapon today and realizing that an atomic Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, the retired officers said.

“Barack Hussein Obama, raised and schooled in Islam, mentored by American Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, with his primary adviser being Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, has crafted a plan that guarantees Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” they said.

“The copy of the agreement handed out in English for the American delegation did not replicate the copy handed out in Farsi for the Iranians. The American delegation did not bring this up,” Vallely and Haney said.

“The Iranian delegation read both the English and Farsi-worded agreements, and declared that while they agreed with the one in Farsi, the one in English was not the same and was in no way acceptable to them.

“Prime negotiator John Forbes Kerry, himself a communist sympathizer during the Vietnam War, came out this past May with the admission that he has a daughter who married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran,” they noted.

In 2009, Kerry’s daughter, Vanessa Bradford Kerry, married a Los Angeles-based Iranian-American physician, Dr. Brian (Behrooz) ValaNahad, who was born in New York, educated at UCLA, attended medical school at Yale and completed his internship and neurosurgery residence at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

The Nemazee connection

WND has reported the ties between American–Iranian Hassan Nemazee and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Nemazee, prominent in Democratic Party fundraising since Bill Clinton’s second term in the White House, is an American-Iranian now serving time in federal prison for criminal bank fraud. Nemazee’s family fortune in Iran traces back to the Iranian opium shipping trade with China that began in the mid-1800s.

Nemazee’s credentials in raising money for Democratic Party presidential hopefuls is impressive. In 2004, he served as Kerry’s presidential campaign fundraising chairman in New York, and in 2008, he served prominently as one of Hillary Clinton’s most successful national presidential campaign fundraising chairmen.

Coincidentally, Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Fars Province, Iran, in Nemazee Hospital, named after Hassan Nemazee’s father, who had the distinction of transitioning the Nemazee family opium trade with the Far East into the 20th century.

‘Let’s provide Iran nuclear fuel’

WND reported that during his first presidential debate with President George W. Bush in 2004, Kerry, then the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, argued that the U.S. should provide nuclear fuel to Iran. Kerry said the U.S. should trust Tehran, as had President Clinton with North Korea, that the Iranians would not use the fuel to make a bomb.

In the early 1970s, Pyongyang had begun to acquire nuclear fuel and plutonium processing technology from the Soviet Union to expand North Korea’s IRT-2000 research reactor that was gradually diverted to nuclear weapons development.

Then, in October 1994, former President Jimmy Carter announced from Pyongyang that Kim Il-sung had accepted the broad deal later formalized as the “Agreed Framework.” Within less than a decade, North Korea withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty and prohibited IAEA inspectors to actively monitor Pyongyang for nuclear weapons activities.

Vallely and Haney, both members of the independent Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, made clear they are speaking for themselves regarding Iran and not on behalf of the commission.

08/4/15

FUNNIEST CHART O’ THE DAY: Breakdown of Where Bill and Hillary Clinton’s “Charitable” Donations Went

Doug Ross @ Journal

According to their tax returns, it turns out that essentially all of the Clinton family’s “charitable donations” were directed back to their own “charities”.

As TaxProf notes, the family’s charitable giving from 2007 onward has been a case study in moving money around. Since 2007, the Clintons “made $15 million (10.8 percent of their AGI) of charitable contributions, $14.9 million of which went to the Clinton Family Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.”

That leaves $100,000 for charitable uses that don’t directly involve the Clinton family and their globalist friends.

As a reminder, in April I created a chart illustrating where the Clinton Global Graft Initiative’s various expenditures went. It’s equally amusing.

Little wonder Hillary’s email server “disappeared”.

Hat tip: BadBlue News.