Senator Berates Obama’s EPA Chief When She Can’t Answer If Climate Models Are False


House Benghazi Committee Subpoenas Clinton’s Personal Emails

House Benghazi Committee Subpoenas Clinton’s Personal Emails

Panel chairman Trey Gowdy told NBC News that the committee planned to use “legal recourse” to demand the emails from Clinton herself.


Hillary Clinton’s Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny

Hacker “Guccifer” first discovered backchannel path

View Document


MARCH 3–The disclosure that Hillary Clinton used a non-governmental e-mail address while she was Secretary of State originally came courtesy of “Guccifer,” the Romanian hacker now serving time in a Bucharest prison for his online attacks against scores of public figures.

As TSG first reported in March 2013, “Guccifer” illegally accessed the AOL e-mail account of Sidney Blumenthal, who worked as a senior White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, and later became a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

When “Guccifer” (who was later identified as Marcel Lazar Lehel) breached Blumenthal’s account, hediscovered an assortment of correspondence sent to Hillary Clinton at the e-mail address The “” domain was registered in 2009, shortly after her nomination to become Secretary of State.

While Blumenthal, a longtime Hillary Clinton confidant, used her private e-mail to send personal messages (like a get well note after she fell at home and suffered a concussion in December 2012), he also forwarded the Cabinet member a series of “Confidential” memos about foreign policy matters.

The “For: Hillary, From: Sid” memos, provided to TSG by “Guccifer,” address a wide range of topics in global flashpoints like Algeria, Turkey, Mali, and Libya. Blumenthal also provided Clinton with information about the European Central Bank, the Georgia elections, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The memos to Clinton carried titles like “Comprehensive Intel Report on Libya,” and included all-cap warnings that, “THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCES AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE.” Blumenthal has not held a public post since leaving his White House job in January 2001.

Each memo included a note on the sources of intelligence included in the document. One typical memo referred to “Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the leadership of the Armed Forces, and Western Intelligence, diplomatic, and security services.”

A January 15, 2013 memo on “Libya internal government discussion,” reportedly relied on “Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Government.”

The memos offer no indication as to whether the intelligence gathered by Blumenthal was done at Clinton’s suggestion. Likewise, the hacked materialdoes not include evidence of Clinton’s response to Blumenthal’s memos (which appear to have been prepared with input from Tyler Drumheller, a former Central Intelligence Agency official who ran covert operations in Europe).

While he rummaged through Blumenthal’s e-mail account, “Guccifer” sorted mail sent to Clinton’s address. He then took a screen grab showing more than two dozen e-mails sent over a two-month period ending in mid-February 2013.

Along with Valentine’s Day greetings and a mention of Clinton “walking in my neighborhood,” the subject lines of those Blumnethal e-mails include repeated references to “intel” shared with the Secretary of State. Other subject lines refer to “Q you raised” and “got your message a few days ago; I’m around whenev…” A February 17 e-mail included the subject line, “H: fyi, will continue to send relevant intel. Sid.” (4 pages)


Bad Ideas Breed Bad Foreign Policy


 Barack Obama’s foreign policy will go down in U.S. history as one of the most dangerously inept ever. Created by equal amounts of ignorance, arrogance, and partisan politics, the president’s policies have left behind a world in which rivals and enemies are on the march, while allies and friends are endangered and alienated. He deserves the opprobrium with which future history should load him.

But focusing on individuals and their personal flaws can prevent us from seeing the larger bad ideas that transcend any one person or party. We justly remember British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as the architect of the 1938 Munich conference that paved the way for Hitler’s aggression. And indeed, Chamberlain’s flaws of character––most important a vanity about his personal powers of persuasion that blinded him to Hitler’s brilliant diplomatic misdirection about his true intentions––contributed to that debacle. But we should also remember the delirious public joy that greeted Chamberlain when he returned to England, and the global acclaim he received for avoiding war with Germany. Millions of people thought Chamberlain had heroically succeeded because many shared the assumptions and ideas that drove his decisions.


So too today, Obama’s vanity and self-regard have from the beginning led to dangerous foreign policy decisions. His belief that he was a global “transformational” and “world-historical” figure drove him to court inveterate enemies like Iran, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brothers, who he mistakenly believed would be seduced by his brilliance and sympathy for their grievances. His fatuous Cairo speech in 2009 and his numerous groveling letters to Iran honcho Ayatollah Khamenei were predicated on Obama’s notion that as a person “of color,” who had spent a few childhood years in a Muslim country and was ashamed of America’s global sins, he had an instant rapport with hard, cruel men who despise the West as “Crusaders,” godless infidels to be conquered, converted, or killed. Indeed, Obama’s delusional self-estimation recalls Chamberlain’s comments to his cabinet that in the negotiations over Czechoslovakia “Hitler was speaking the truth,” and that “he had established some degree of personal influence over Herr Hitler.” Herr Hitler, in fact, considered Chamberlain “a little worm.”

But beyond these failures of character and self-knowledge, larger cultural ideas have contributed to this country’s mistakes in dealing with a resurgent Islamic jihad. Most important has been the triumph of secularism in the West, the marginalization of religion in our politics and culture. Anyone who believes the received wisdom that the U.S. is a religious country should ignore the polling data on churchgoing and look instead at our public culture. Sordid sexual content in movies, television shows, and popular music; 58 million abortions since 1973; the legitimization of same-sex marriage; the incessant demonization of any participation of religion in schools or politics––all bespeak a culture in which religion has been reduced to a private life-style choice and comforting holiday rituals, as Obama suggested when he reduced the First Amendment’s protection of religion to the “freedom to worship.” Anyone who does take Christianity or Judaism more seriously than that is considered, to quote Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, “shamans or witch doctors from savage tribes whom one humors until one can dress them in trousers and send them to school.”

More important, the animus against faith has contributed to the fashionable self-loathing and dislike of their home country on the part of many progressives and leftists, who have implicated Christianity in the crimes of capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism. Hence Obama’s bringing up and distorting the history of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition in a speech about religious violence. Meanwhile, a noble-savage multiculturalism masquerading as tolerance for the oppressed “other” considers Islam an exotic “religion of peace,” despite its 14 centuries of slaughter, invasion, pillage, slaving, occupation, and colonization. Those tolerant Muslims of Granada in 1066 killed as many Jews in one day as the Spanish Inquisition did in its 3 centuries of existence.

The triumph of secularization has disarmed us in the fight against modern jihadism. No matter how often jihadists evoke the religious foundations of their actions, no matter how many Koranic verses and Hadith they quote, we cannot imagine a people for whom the spiritual realm is more real than the material world. We cannot imagine a life permeated with the divine and directed by submission––what “Islam” literally means––to Allah and the model of Mohammed. We ignore, as Bernard Lewis has written, the fact that “in most Islamic countries, religion remains a major political factor,” for “most Muslim countries are still profoundly Muslim, in a way and a sense that most Christian countries are no longer Christian.” Hence the worldwide Muslim support for shari’a law and its codified sexism, intolerance, and penal cruelty.

Given this failure of imagination, we have misunderstood jihadism ever since it burst onto the global scene in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution, when our foreign policy establishment ignored or dismissed its religious roots. Thirty-five years later, Obama continues the same mistake, refusing to identify ISIS as an expression of Islamic doctrine, or to use the adjective “Islamic” to describe the numerous jihadist movements active today, or to recognize the apocalyptic messianism and genocidal aims of the Iranian mullahcracy. This blindness reflects widespread delusions like the long mischaracterization of Islam as the “religion of peace,” the reinterpretation of jihad to mean a self-improving “inner struggle,” or the historical fantasies of Islamic “tolerance” in Ottoman Turkey or Andalusian Spain.

Behind this Orwellian rhetoric lies the assumption that all religions are basically the same and preach the same doctrines of “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This reduction of religion to Hallmark-card sentimentalism is yet another instance of the refusal to take spirituality seriously, and to acknowledge that all spiritual aims are not the same or compatible. How much easier it is to indulge a flabby ecumenicalism and dismiss the jihadists as “evil” or “barbaric,” as though we are dealing with psychopathic serial killers rather than fervent believers in a worldwide faith with doctrines and practices dating back to the 7th century.

Finally, the dismissal of spiritual causes leads us to focus on material ones, which in turn creates the preposterous analyses of jihadism as a reflection of material conditions or psychological dysfunctions created by them. Hence this administration recently has talked about “root causes” like “lack of opportunity for jobs” (State Department spokesman Marie Harf); the need for “peaceful democratic change” and “economic growth and devoting more resources on education, including for girls and women” (Barack Obama); “alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking, and other factors” (John Kerry); and “the perceived effect of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world” (Rashad Hussain, recently named Obama’s Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counter-terrorism Communications), to name a few.

Yet even some Christian and observant Jewish conservatives have ignored the power of spiritual imperatives and religious differences, particularly in their focus on democracy promotion as the cure for jihadist terror. George W. Bush, in his 2002 National Security Strategy, focused U.S. foreign policy on promoting a “single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise,” for “these values of freedom are right and true for every person, every society.” These dubious ideals became strategic aims during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And for all he styles himself the anti-Bush, Barack Obama has made the same claims, as in his 2012 remarks at the U.N. “Freedom and self-determination,” he said, “are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values—they are universal values.”


But no matter how potentially true these claims may be, to those pious Muslims who consider themselves the “slaves of Allah,” freedom and democracy as we understand them are incompatible with shari’a law, and “national success” will be achieved by restoring Islam to its original purity, and following the “model” that empowered Allah’s warriors to create a global empire stretching from the Atlantic to China. If we take seriously Islam’s spiritual aims––the necessity of obeying Allah’s precepts in order to create for Muslims a totalizing political-social order of justice, piety, and equality, and to ensure an eternity of bliss in paradise––then we will see that our notions of earthly freedom, leisure, confessional tolerance, and prosperity are to millions of Muslims mere temptations to abandon their faith and risk their eternal souls. And we will understand that waging jihad against those responsible for those temptations, especially a rich and powerful infidel West, is the communal duty of the Islamic ummah, and death in that battle the key to paradise.

Trapped in our own secularist and materialist assumptions, we mistake the nature of the enemy and thus create policies––most important the appeasement of Iran through negotiations and concessions that will end with the world’s foremost terrorist state in possession of nuclear weapons––doomed to fail and damage our security and interests. But Barack Obama will not be the only father of that failure.


According to two FCC commissioners, those new regulations are bad all around


FCC logo

MORE POWER, LESS LIMITS: The FCC’s new regulations are ideological, wide-ranging, costly and baseless, according to two FCC commissioners interviewed by TechFreedom.


The Obama administration and proponents of the FCC’s version of net neutrality may be ecstatic at the passing of regulations that make the Internet a public utility on Feb. 26th, but not all FCC members are so sunny in their outlook for the future.

TechFreedom held a fireside chat on Feb. 27th with two FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly, and the two of them concurred that the new regulations are far-reaching, largely unchecked and pose a threat to consumer bills and to innovation in the industry.

Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.”  Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.

Mike O’Rielly added, in a bit of humor that “there is a problem, and it’s the document we adopted [Feb. 26].” Neither of them were reticent in explaining exactly how and why the document was the problem. For one, the document was, as Commissioner Pai pointed out, written to solve a problem that wasn’t readily apparent. O’Rielly said the document is “guilt by imagination, trying to guess what will go wrong in the future”; instead of tackling a readily apparent and current issue, the FCC proposal is instead stumbling forward, trying to find future, hypothetical transgressions to retroactively justify its own regulations.

This conspiratorial and wide-ranging thinking on the part of FCC is not a bug, but rather a feature. O’Rielly openly said that “it’s intended to catch everybody”. Pai noted that the FCC was going to centralize powers over what infrastructure was deployed and where through the use of statutes and other laws; O’Rielly mentioned specifically that the FCC was going to “use Section 201 [of the Communications Act] to do it’s dirty work.”

Pai continued, saying that the FCC was largely focused on the ends of Internet regulation rather than the means, and that “a lot of these promises of regulatory restraint are pretty ephemeral.” O’Rielly mentioned that mobile data policies were likely to be subsumed by the new regulations into policies on the wider Internet as a whole. This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the differences in how mobile data is used versus the way the Internet is used by a normal computer or other devices. Many features of mobile service, the two said, could be construed as a company favoring one app or one site over another in terms of data, which would violate the FCC’s standards.

The consumer will inherit many of these new costs and burdens. O’Rielly outright told the audience that “Rates are going to go up because of this.” The new regulations also fail to recognize the burden of local telecommunications taxes, especially in major cities where tax rates on mobile service are often incredibly high. The new regulations, combined with the laws of local governments, stand to impose even more costs onto consumers.

The outlook the two gave was anything but bright–the worries of small government advocates seem justified. The new FCC regulations will, in concert with other laws and under the directive of an organization looking for future problems rather than current problems, give more power to government, more restrictions to innovators, and more costs to the people.

Commissioner Pai summed it up best: “This issue has been largely fact-free for the better part of a decade, and I think it’s frankly shocking that decision-making on something as important as this has been thrown by the wayside in favor of what I consider to be an ideological agenda.”

The net may be “neutral” but the FCC is most certainly not.

This article was written by a contributor of Watchdog Arena, Franklin Center’s network of writers, bloggers, and citizen journalists.


Little Can be done to stop Taliban 5

Obama knew that he was beefing up terrorist ranks when he traded the 5 for 1 deserter from the git. And now we know that American prisoner Kayla Mueller was killed as a result. War crimes against America.  Jimmy

A top military intelligence official acknowledged Tuesday there’s very little his agency could do to prevent the Taliban fighters traded for Sgt.

Generals: Constitutional Crisis Could Force Military To Remove Obama


4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies


Earth Science Teacher At Royal Palm Beach High School Caught On Tape Teaching About Black Oppression Instead of Science.

 Written by  


UPDATE:  Teacher has been removed from the classroom, and an investigation has begun!


A clever and competent reader sent us an email yesterday along with some unbelievable audio that her son, a student at Royal Palm Beach High School in Florida, recorded (all stealth-like!) during his Earth Sciences class.  Take a listen, and let me know if you hear anything earth science-y in it.  (Hint:  You won’t, because the teacher has an entirely different agenda);

Now, I don’t know about you all, but when I had earth science classes in high school, I was taught stuff about the atmosphere, and plate tectonics, and volcanoes and stuff.  Not about how black people have been shuffled off to ghettos to keep them from having economic stability.

This mom’s son had been complaining for some time about the fact that his earth science teacher (a black man by the name of Mr. Edmonds) hadn’t been teaching any earth science.  Her son told her that Mr. Edmonds had been promoting black on white aggression, that he’d been telling the class that white people hold black people down.  Her son had complained that Mr. Edmonds spent a whole lot of time stirring up racial divisiveness in his classroom, but didn’t spend much time teaching earth science.  She admitted, in her email to us, that she had sort of blown this off, but then her son sent her the above audio clip via text from class several days ago.

While he was recording another clip, of the teacher telling the kids why they shouldn’t believe in God, and that God and Jesus aren’t real, he was caught recording by Mr. Edmonds, and was told to delete the recording, which he did.  But the recording you heard above had already been texted to his mom, and she reacted quickly.

She texted her son to excuse himself from class and instructed him to meet her in the front office asap.  The principal was away from the school that day, but she was able to meet with one of the assistant principals.  She was told that there’d been no previous complaints about Mr. Edmonds’ teaching, but the assistant principal agreed to remove her son from the class and place him in a different science class.

Still, this mom asked,  what about the rest of the kids in that class?  Why should they be subjected to Mr. Edmonds’ rants about black oppression, when they are there to learn about earth science?

Not satisfied, the mom requested an appointment with the principal, Mr. Armas.  She was told that she’d be contacted within a day or two about an appointment time.  When that call didn’t come after a couple of days, she wrote to the principal directly and told him she had an audio recording she wanted him to hear.  An appointment was immediately scheduled for 2/13.
When the week of her appointment came, her son heard from one of his former classmates that Mr. Edmonds was teaching his earth science students about the 9/11 terrorist attacks being orchestrated by the government.
Yeah.  Because that’s TOTALLY earth science related.
At her appointment with Mr. Armas, this mom was told that Mr. Edmonds “has a history” of teaching these kinds of things in his class.  She asked what the resolution would be.  The principal informed her that “all he could do” was talk to Mr. Edmonds.  She left without any expectation of further resolution.
This concerned mom plans to go to the school board next, but has little faith that anything will change.  Which is, I suppose, where we come in.   I know this mom wrote to us partly to vent, but also partly because she hoped her story would get shared, and we are ALL OVER sharing it, because teachers like this have to be called out.
The school directory was easily found right here.  I plan to forward this post to the principal in the hopes he’ll offer comment, and I will update this post accordingly.
Parents – don’t tolerate this kind of nonsense.  Your kids deserve better.

BREAKING: Obama just issued this chilling threat to the law enforcement officers who are defying his amnesty

BREAKING: Obama just issued this chilling threat to the law enforcement officers who are defying his amnesty…

What’s your response to Obama’s threat?

He’s not even pretending not to be a dictator any more.

» recent comments

» archives