Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
Sens. Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee are calling on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring up an NSA reform bill this month now that a court has ruled the program is illegal.
"The dragnet collection of Americans' phone records is unnecessary and ineffective, and now a federal appellate court has found that the program is illegal," Leahy and Lee said in a statement. "Congress should not reauthorize a bulk collection program that the court has found to violate the law. We will not consent to any extension of this program."
Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee while Lee, a Republican from Utah, heads the GOP's Steering Committee.
The two are co-authors of the USA Freedom Act, which adds significant restrictions to the government's controversial telephone surveillance program that was authorized in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The House is scheduled to take up the measure next week, where it is likely to pass with bipartisan support, but in the Senate, the future is less certain...
Two Maryland parents are in big trouble after making the mistake of letting their kids play outside and walk to the library alone. Is this child abuse, or are these parents raising their kids just as parents did 40 years ago? Find out as John Phillips, Scott Ott and Stephen Kruiser discuss the government's new aversion to childhood.
Thank you Oman for an amazing sold out show. Easily one of the friendliest and most beautiful countries I’ve ever been to.
— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) April 1, 2015
@AndrewStilesUSA So is the apology real or an April Fool's joke on its own? I'm trying to put together my "Outrage! of the Day" piece.
— Barton L. Jacka (@bljacka) April 1, 2015
So Lois Lerner can:
1. Target conservatives for scrutiny
2. Lie to Congress
3. Destroy evidence
& walk away.
#TedKennedyAwardWinner
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) April 1, 2015
I doubt I'm alone in being sick and tired of the left spouting baseless accusations when they themselves commit the behavior. @ChadPergram
— Cindy Cooper (@CindyCoops) April 1, 2015
What we learned today:
Do what the White House wants (Lois Lerner) = No charges.
Go against the White House (Sen Menendez) = Charges.
— Tyler Demski (@TylerDemski) April 1, 2015
As one who was very pleased by the selection of Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) to chair the Benghazi Select Committee, I hate to seem like I'm haranguing him (see, e.g., here and here; but see also here). His investigative decisions, however, continue to be baffling.
The latest development in the Hillary Clinton e-mail saga is the disclosure by her private attorney, David Kendall, that she has deleted all e-mail from the private server on which she improperly conducted government business while she was secretary of state. (See Shannen Coffin's latest legal analysis regarding laws potentially broken by Mrs. Clintonhere.) In light of the obvious ramifications this has for the Benghazi investigation, Fox News's Greta Van Susteren asked Chairman Gowdy what he intended to do about it. Gowdy responded:
We're going to have a conversation with Secretary Clinton.I would hope that it would be a transcribed interview, which is private, it protects her privacy. It protects national-security interests. And it rebuts this notion that this is a political charade, which some Democrats suggest. Let's have a private conversation about why you had your own server, why you didn't return the records when you left the State Department. And why you decided to permanently delete them when you knew the congressional investigations were ongoing.
The Washington Examiner is now reporting that Gowdy's committee has, in fact, "formally requested" that Mrs. Clinton appear for a private, transcribed interview - not compulsory public testimony. It is hard to say what is more disappointing: the chairman's plan or the instincts and apparent motivation behind it...
Don't get too excited. When it comes to the Clintons, perjury is merely an inconvenient speed bump on their five decade road to absolute power. In the '90s, then-President Bill Clinton lied under oath about his sordid sexual affair with 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky. An evidence-stained blue dress proved later that the president was a perjurer. But with the help of the Clintonistas and a lackey media (I'm looking at you CNN), Mr. Clinton managed to save himself with an alchemy that turned felony perjury into "lying about sex."
Which brings me to Hillary Clinton's OF-109 form.
According to people who would know, like National Review's Shannen Coffin, on or near her last day as Secretary of State, per government policy, Ms. Clinton was required to sign what is known as the OF-109 form. Coffin, a former senior lawyer at the State Department, says that the OF-109 is an acknowledgement that the departing State Department employee has returned and/or turned over all official documents and records to the State Department.
Three crucially important points here:
Those records are not limited to classified material. All records must be left in the hands of the State Department.
Those records would include emails.
The OF-109 is signed under penalty of perjury.
Now, no one knows if Ms. Clinton signed the OF-109. The mainstream media has shown zero interest in pursuing the form. In fact, as of yesterday at 3:13 pm Greenwich Mean Time, the media dropped the email scandal entirely.
Which is why God created Fox News.
For two days now (today will undoubtedly be the third), Fox News has requested the status of Ms. Clinton's OF-109 form from the State Department. For two days now, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has dodged, weaved, parsed and ducked in ways that would impress Sugar Ray Robinson.
The reasons for the dodge are obvious. There is no upside to answering the question. If Ms. Clinton did sign the OF-109, she's almost certainly guilty of perjury; she swore under oath that the State Department had everything when she knew that a lot of that everything was sitting in a server at a black-site known as her Chappaqua home.
If Ms. Clinton did not sign the OF-109, why not? Why was she given an exemption? Was the exemption legal? Where did the breakdown occur? Who is responsible for the breakdown?
Like I said, don't get excited. Signing this OF-109 would only mean Ms. Clinton committed perjury. The media is not going to damage her over a little thing like perjury. It's not like she owns a car elevator, owns a tanning bed, or is in the same political party as an obscure nobody who says dumb things about rape.
Clinton is a Democrat.
Clinton is a woman.
Perjury shmerjury.
The media wants to talk about important things, like why Scott Walker won't vouch for Obama's Jesus-loving patriotism...
I await their abject horror as she executes a perfect slow motion crash and burn over the next 18 months.
@TheRickWilson@EsotericCD
— Mr. X (@GlomarResponder) March 12, 2015
Sort of thinking you didn't actually put much thought into your tweet. Accountability & national security matter 2 people. Derp. @thegarance
— Moira Fitzgerald Ù† (@Moira1987) March 12, 2015
The State Department is beginning to sort through more than 55,000 pages of e-mails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary that she handed over late last year, sticking taxpayers with additional costs that could reach into the millions. It's an additional burden for her former department and another aspect of an e-mail fiasco her political opponents plan to highlight.
Clinton's office sent the e-mails to the State Department last December, a portion of the total in her possession, after printing them out and stacking them in boxes. The department largely sat on them until last week, when news broke that she had used a "homebrew" server rather than her government account to conduct her official business. Clinton tweeted last week that she wanted the State Department to release her e-mails, but she hasn't acknowledged what a huge job it will be for her former employees.
On March 5, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged that the department would work "as rapidly as possible" to go through all the new documents, redact any sensitive information, and then release them to the public. The department has since said that the effort will take several months.
Representative Mike Pompeo, a member of the House special committee on Benghazi that is subpoenaing Clinton's personal e-mails, told us that based on his committee's experience sorting through 44,000 other hard-copy paper documents provided by the State Department last year, the new effort could involve "hundreds and hundreds of man hours."
"I think the effort of reviewing these documents will greatly exceed a million bucks," said Pompeo. "The United States taxpayer is going to pay for that."
The State Department must have employees review every page to ensure that no sensitive or classified information will be released. Those redacted documents must then be scanned and compiled into a database searchable by the public.
If Clinton had used her departmental e-mail account -- as she insisted her employees do during her tenure -- the messages would already be in the government's electronic records management system and could be redacted and released as part of the regular Freedom of Information Act process, Pompeo said.
LMFAO RT @jayrosen_nyu: From my piece in 2008. "Just so you know, 'the media' has no mind... It does not 'get behind' candidates."
— RB (@RBPundit) March 9, 2015
Excuse me, @SenatorReid I think you forgot to take your meds today. It's Obama empowering Iran. But I know this stuff gets confusing.
— Lady TX Patriarchy (@CounslrObvious) March 9, 2015
.@davidaxelrod For starters: Dec 2013 letter from senators to Chinese re air defense; Feb 1990 letter to Gorbachev re Jewish emigration.
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 9, 2015
Short version: Time after time, Obama has told Congress to go to hell. Now Congress is telling Obama to go to hell. http://t.co/BVebNBszOS
— Byron York (@ByronYork) March 9, 2015
Did @HillaryClinton really hand over her emails as thousands of pages of paper? What, does she also pay her taxes in one dollar bills?
— Susan (@shoshido) March 9, 2015
