Top Democrat Sounds “Alarm Bells” over Obama Admin’s Delusional Rhetoric on ISIS
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters today the Obama administration’s description of the so-called progress against ISIS should ring “alarm bells.”
A senior House of Representatives Democrat said Tuesday that the White House’s description of supposed progress in the war against the Islamic State should ring “alarm bells,” and called the fall of the city of Ramadi to the extremists “a very serious and significant setback.”
The lawmaker also warned against using measures like the amount of territory controlled by the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, because in some cases the group has been replaced by other extremist militias hostile to the United States.
ISIS has Mosul, Tirkit, and now Ramadi in Iraq.... ISIS is over 360 miles of Raqqah, Syria. ISIS controls more land then Israel and Lebanon.
Simple question: On what front are we winning and ISIS is losing?
You two scrooo-ups will go down as having the worst foreign policy in US history.
Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating has received quite the boost.
According to a newly released Gallup analysis, the share of U.S. adults that view the Democratic presidential candidate unfavorably has increased seven percentage points in two months.
Specifically, 39 percent of adult Americans had an unfavorable impression of Clinton at the beginning of March when reports of her private email first emerged. At the start of April, that number had ticked up to 42 percent. By May 6-10, 46 percent of voting-age Americans viewed Clinton in unfavorable light.
In addition to the controversy surrounding her use of a private email account while at the State Department, Hillary has also undergone scrutiny in recent weeks because of the Clinton Foundation’s suspect acceptance of donations from foreign governments and entities, as well as her handling of Benghazi.
Clinton’s unfavorable rating has ticked up across party lines.
The share of Democrats viewing Hillary unfavorably has increased from 10 percent in March to 13 percent, and that of Independents has ticked up an equal three percentage points to 43 percent.
Whereas 75 percent of Republicans saw Clinton in unfavorable light in March, 88 percent see her so in May.
It's over for Hillary. She'll never occupy the White House again. Now, it's just a matter of time until the Democrats throw her overboard.
The chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said Thursday that he can't set a date for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify before his panel because the State Department has been slow in producing needed documents.
In a letter Thursday to Secretary of State John Kerry, the committee complained that the department has delayed providing emails and other documents involving Clinton, a former secretary of state.
"Simply put, the committee must have the records of communication requested more than six months ago before the secretary's appearance can be scheduled."
"The only thing standing between the committee and the former secretary being able to discuss her tenure as secretary of state as it relates to Libya and Benghazi is the Department of State's failure, in more than half a year, to produce a single, solitary email responsive to our request and subpoena."
A day after Bill Clinton feted donors and dignitaries at an extravagant Moroccan feast under a warm Marrakech night sky, a group of local Sahrawi Arabs gathered for tea in a far more humble setting here to share their outrage that Clinton’s family foundation had accepted millions of dollars from a company owned by a government accused of repressing their people.
The four men used to work as miners for a subsidiary of OCP, the state-owned phosphate company that paid more than $1 million to sponsor the lavish outdoor gala and the concurrent two-day meeting of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation headlined by the former U.S. president. Its purpose was to highlight efforts by the foundation, its donors and the Moroccan government to improve the lives of marginalized people in North Africa and the Middle East, and Bill Clinton opened the event by praising OCP, King Mohammed VI and “Morocco’s longstanding friendship to my family and to the United States.”
The former miners have seen a very different side of Morocco’s government and OCP. They say the company, formerly called the Office Chérifien des Phosphates, forced them to retire early and slashed their pensions, leaving them struggling to scrape by while hiring ethnic Moroccans for more senior jobs. The miners also told me how they had witnessed firsthand multiple examples of the “arbitrary and prolonged detention” and “physical and verbal abuse” that the U.S. State Department says Moroccan authorities mete out to Sahrawis advocating for independence in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.
The foundation has not facilitated any projects in Western Sahara, officials said, and the plight of the territory was not mentioned at all during the official proceedings last week in Marrakech.
“Hillary Clinton sold her soul when they accepted that money”
For more than a quarter of a century, the Clintons have followed a strategy for overcoming the scandals that arise out of their personal greed and sexual misbehavior, one that always worked – until now.
The pattern is familiar. Dismiss the charges as lacking factual basis (“there is no evidence of…” as opposed to actually denying the truth of the charge);
viciously attack the person making the charge in defamatory language (“what happens when you drag a hundred-dollar-bill through a trailer park”);
use lawerly language to convey a lie in terms that can be defended in ways that offend common sense but hope to avoid perjury charges sticking (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”);
and the clincher: wait for the media to tire of the story and the low-information voters to forget about it.
But the strategy has stopped working. And a veteran sagacious observer of the Clintons, Jonathan Tobin, writing at Commentary, sees signs of panic.
The MSM refusal to drop the matter and focuse on sliming the Clinton critics, their usual practice in the past, is the critical diffrence. And I attribute this change of behavior to two related factors:
1. The self-enrichment of the Clintons’ post-presidency is just too grotesque to stomach. Especially given the unending self-pitying justifications (“dead broke” and “have to pay the bills”). Most media types below the Brian Williams (cough, cough) level consider themselves underpaid compared to their intelligence and talents. Seeing the Clintons become mega-rich by influence-peddling (and everyone but Lanny Davis understands that $500K for a speech is a payoff, not fair compensation for a riveting speech) just doesn’t sit that well.
2. Hillary is seen as sell-out, and she is blocking the path of current lefty heartthrob Elizabeth Warren. The media want her to retire to her money bin and let Liz work her Cherokee magic on the economy.
Mark my words, folks. This treason goes all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
RICO makes it a crime to run an organization through what’s called a “pattern of racketeering activity.” The term racketeering is extensively defined in the statute. It includes acts involving bribery, fraud, and obstruction of justice, to name just a few.
Prosecutors are fond of RICO because it enables them to unite disparate illicit or corrupt transactions into one framework, the enterprise.
It need not be a mafia family or traditional criminal organization; it can be an ostensibly legitimate organization — e.g., a foundation, a labor union, a corporation, a guild — that, contrary to the image it projects publicly, commits sundry legal offenses in conducting its affairs.
You consider the Clinton Foundation, you think about the State Department — Benghazi, the courting of the Muslim Brotherhood, the secret, unlawful email system, the foreign money pouring into Clinton coffers while Mrs. Clinton was making key decisions about American foreign policy.
It's a fit for the RICO Act.
For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.
Sounds like the Clinton Foundation was reasonably transparent until 2010 and then went “dark” when it came to donations from foreign governments.
Probably trying to hide the fact that they include donations from governments run by dictators and human rights violators – including regimes that oppress women, gays, and minorities. They also include donations from governments that are unfriendly to America – but, apparently, friendly to the Clintons.
“Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”
The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t.
The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.
The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.
I mean, Obama should have delivered your utopia by now, Dems. He even had a rare super-majority early in his term where he could have done anything. And now, he can just wave his magic exec order wand and decree things since he's morphed into a little big-eared dictator.
But alas, income inequality has gotten much worse under your Hosanna Obama.
Mocking people and organizations that are starting to ask tough questions about the Clinton Foundation, foreign government money, and quid pro quos.
But she won't answer the questions. She learned a lot from Alinsky, and his Rules for Radicals.
To quote Ronaldus Magnus Reagan:
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich."
According to The New York Times, the tome is "proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy."
Schweizer will reportedly connect the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation's foreign donors to special favors delivered by Clinton's State Department.
The author will also tie the Clintons' lucrative speaking fees to government favors.
"His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mrs. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department," The Times' Amy Chozick reported.
I sent SNL my idea. They better send me a royalty check if they use the Brian Williams/ Hillary Clinton dueling liars bit. If not, I'll smile seeing it anyway.