Is Harry Truman a War Criminal? Bill Whittle "After Burner"
Is Harry Truman a War Criminal? Bill Whittle "After Burner"
Friday, August 7, 2015
Obama Favors Anti-America Turkey Over Our Loyal Kurd Allies
Obama Favors Anti-America Turkey Over Our Loyal Kurd Allies
24 Comments
08/04/2015
War On Terror: Besides Israel, no nation has helped the U.S. fight Islamist terror more than the world's largest people without a country, the Kurds. America should stop taking them for granted.
Despite its NATO membership, and its misleading image as supposedly the most Western of Muslim nations, Turkey is quite anti-American, more so than many Mideast Islamic states.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been little help against the Islamic State. As mayor of Istanbul in 1997, celebrating the city's Ottoman conquest, he is on record as saying: "The image of the Jews is no different from that of the Nazis."
Turkey openly supports the al-Qaida-allied Syrian groups Jabhat al Nusra and Ahrar ash Sham. And Erdogan was just in Beijing, forging links with our global adversary China, which over many years helped Iran build its nuclear program.
Today, Erdogan's armed forces play a game of simultaneously combating Islamic State and Kurdish separatists. The unexpected deal allowing the U.S. to use the strategically well-located Incirlik Air Base — from where it can utilize 30 fighter jets and 300 troops against Islamic State locations in northern Syria — must be viewed in that context of Turkey's dubious long-term objectives.
After Turkish intelligence was apparently helping Islamic State forces move to and fro across Turkey's Syrian border, now all of a sudden the Turks are getting serious about airstrikes against the Islamic State — as they hit Kurdish forces hard too.
Too great a Kurdish victory over the Islamic State in the coming weeks would spell a de-facto Kurdish state on Turkey's southern border, which Erdogan has made clear he won't tolerate.
So President Obama is actually coordinating with Turkey, when it is the Kurds who have been our most effective allies against the Islamic State — the unspeakably savage Islamic State, of course, being an entity brought into being by Obama's policies of abandoning Iraq.
Modestly armed, this valiant people, fighting alongside regional Arab and Christian forces, defeated the Islamic State barbarians again and again, in Kobani, Tel Abyad, and Hassakeh, to name just a few victory sites. And unlike ethnic-cleansing Shiite militants, they didn't leave a trail of beheaded innocents in their wake.
Since Iraq's and Syria's borders are in flux thanks to the Islamic State, we should think seriously about backing the Kurds — who have so loyally backed us — in their long-delayed and much-deserved national aspirations.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080415-765035-us-betrays-kurds-for-turkey.htm#ixzz3i9Yq1isf
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Legacy of Death: Margaret Sanger
Legacy of Death
Legacy of Death: Margaret Sanger
I just read a book about Margaret Sanger by George Grant that details her sordid life. Although I knew most of her story already, reading such a detailed biography brings her legacy of death into perspective. It also makes you wonder how anyone in their right mind could praise the life or work of Mrs. Sanger. Obviously, I do not think highly of the woman who founded Planned Parenthood, an abortion mill responsible for the annihilation of millions of innocent lives. In fact, I consider her to be one of the most evil people in history. But looking at her journey, it is not hard to see how a life devoted to self-fulfillment and devoid of God can create such a legacy.
Born into a poor family in 1879, Margaret was one of eleven children. Her father was abusive, controlling and cynical. He was an atheist who aligned himself with socialism and radicalism. Margaret’s mother was her one source of love, so when she died, Margaret was left with nothing but hurt and hatred. Unfortunately, this bitterness led her into the footsteps of the man she despised most, her father. She surrounded herself with people lacking moral values and filled with radical ideas. And although she got married and had three children, she was unfaithful as a wife and incompetent as a mother.
In her search for self-fulfillment she somehow became fixated with the sexual revolution. This fixation led to her arrest on felony charges, but she jumped bail and fled to England, rather than having to serve time. While in England, her radical views of birth control were further developed by Malthusian and Eugenicist influences that created a justification to extinguish people deemed unfit to live. Although that might seem extreme, if there is no Creator God who created mankind in His own image, life is not precious. Couple that with the absence of morals and relativity of truth, and who’s to say that exterminating certain groups of people is wrong?
Of course, we all know that it is not only wrong to exterminate groups of people based on the color of their skin, ethnic heritage, financial position, or intellect; it is in fact pure evil. But that is exactly what Margaret Sanger advocated. And although Planned Parenthood tries to spin their founder as a champion of “women’s rights”, one only has to read the words of Margaret Sanger herself to realize that this is a boldfaced lie. From quotes about exterminating the Negro population, to killing an infant member of a large family as the most merciful thing they could do, Margaret has a myriad of quotes that will literally make you sick. Her calloused heart and deranged thinking led her to believe that there are literally lives that are unfit to live and that she would be the one to make that determination.
As she stated in an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, bringing a child into this world that has no chance to be human is the greatest sin. She clarifies her comment by explaining that she is talking about children who may become delinquents, prisoners, or all sorts of things. What’s ironic about this statement is that it is coming from a woman who cheated on her husbands, committed felonies, jumped bail, served jail time and neglected her children. Her life seems to fit quite nicely into the rubric she created as those who are “unfit” to be born. Luckily for Margaret, Planned Parenthood didn’t exist in 1879, or she may have been one of its victims.
Sadly, Planned Parenthood does exist today, based on the same evil premise of its founder, that some lives aren’t worthy to be lived. And now we know that Planned Parenthood so disvalues life that they don’t even think twice about butchering babies and selling off their organs and body parts. The question you have to ask yourself is just how vile does this organization have to become before you are not o.k. with personally supporting them with your own tax dollars? If you, like me, believe that there is only one human race, and we were all created equal and endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life, now is the time to demand that Congress defund Planned Parenthood once and for all and put an end to Margaret Sanger’s legacy of death.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
This Housing Bubble Will End Badly, Too
This Housing Bubble Will End Badly, Too
by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
August 4, 2015
We’ve inflated another bubble; count on the crash. People complain about high prices when they’re buying, not when they’re selling, and that’s why housing bubbles are always politically popular: The sort of people who own homes are the sort of people who vote and volunteer on political campaigns and make donations. And the fact that tax revenue tends to increase as housing prices rise doesn’t go unnoticed by the nation’s mayors and governors.
Renters tend to have more sensible views — you’ll never hear a renter say, “Hey, my rent is doubling this year — that’s awesome! The economy must be doing great!” But nobody listens to them. And that’s why we’ve inflated a second housing bubble. In some ways, the current housing bubble is even more bonkers than the last one — which, if you’ll recall, sorta-kinda almost destroyed the world’s financial system. As of this writing, the median U.S. home price is just 3 percent shy of its 2007 peak. (Existing-home prices already are at a record high.)
But that does not even begin to capture the story. In San Francisco, the median price of a single-family home has doubled since 2012. The median San Francisco home is now nearly $1.4 million, or 50 percent higher than it was at the peak of the last bubble. The median household income in San Francisco is about $77,000. Put another way: The median home price in San Francisco is now 18 times the median household income. Does that sound like a stable position to you? RELATED: It’s
Time for the GOP to Revisit the Housing Crisis Elsewhere in California, a less dramatic version of the same situation can be found. In a dozen or more Los Angeles–area ZIP codes, housing prices today exceed their levels during the bubble, mostly in high-income areas such as Irvine and Los Feliz. It isn’t just California. Prices in Austin are up 13 percent in one year; central-Florida prices are up 28 percent in a year; Chicago prices climbed 11 percent in six months; in Texas, prices are up 8 percent for the year; in greater Seattle, prices are up 10 percent for the year, the median crossing the half-million-dollar mark for the first time.
If the value of your home has improved dramatically, take a momentary break from dreaming about what you’ll do with that money once you cash in and ask yourself: Why? Why is my house today worth twice as much as it was five or six years ago? It’s five or six years older, for one thing, and unless you are in possession of a charming New England stone colonial, houses are not like wine, growing better with age. Maybe home prices are up because of good ol’ supply and demand, with housing construction failing to keep up with population growth.
No, that’s not it, either: Housing construction is soaring, up 26 percent since last summer; needless to say, the number of U.S. households is not up 26 percent since last summer, executive amnesty be damned.
It’s not like a bunch of old houses disappear from the market in a flash — SMOD 16 doesn’t arrive for a while yet.
It’s not like we’ve all put in Snaidero kitchens and saltwater pools; most of us haven’t done much of anything to our houses (and some of you really need to).
So, why the high prices? There are local forces at work: San Francisco, having been governed exclusively by progressives for a generation, has been transformed into precisely the sort of place that progressives say they fear: The one in which the multimillionaires and billionaires effectively run everything, a city in which a family of ordinary means has practically no hope of achieving such a small thing as owning a house with a little yard for the children to play in.
California urban anthropology is a fascinating subject, a grand collision of big technology paydays, liberal self-segregation (“Welcome To West Los Angeles: Poor People, Please Make the First U-Turn”), geographic realities, epic NIMBYism, etc. It is probably going to end badly — it is difficult to see how the difference between median income and median home prices in San Francisco, or in California generally, can be sustained — but we probably don’t need to worry too much about mid-level Google employees defaulting on their mortgages. RELATED: Attention America’s Suburbs:
You Have Just Been Annexed But most of the country isn’t very much like the Bay Area, and when house prices are rising at 6 percent or 7 percent a year (and rents rising even faster) while U.S. incomes are growing at their slowest rate at any time since Beyoncé Knowles has been walking the Earth (NB: Beyoncé’s income is doing just fine, thanks: She just spent $300,000 on a pair of diamond-encrusted stilettos from House of Borgezie) it isn’t supply and demand at work. Instead, housing prices are going up for the same reason that college tuitions are: because the government facilitates lending people money at concessionary rates to purchase them.
The Fed has, despite the occasional sobering gander in the direction of reality, been keeping the cheap-money sluices pretty much wide open. The federal regulators have loosened their grip over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending activities, and, according to a Fed report released Monday, banks are once again loosening up their lending standards. This ended badly the last time. It’ll end badly this time, too.
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving editor at National Review. Did you like this?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371271/golden-gated-communities-kevin-d-williamson
by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
August 4, 2015
We’ve inflated another bubble; count on the crash. People complain about high prices when they’re buying, not when they’re selling, and that’s why housing bubbles are always politically popular: The sort of people who own homes are the sort of people who vote and volunteer on political campaigns and make donations. And the fact that tax revenue tends to increase as housing prices rise doesn’t go unnoticed by the nation’s mayors and governors.
Renters tend to have more sensible views — you’ll never hear a renter say, “Hey, my rent is doubling this year — that’s awesome! The economy must be doing great!” But nobody listens to them. And that’s why we’ve inflated a second housing bubble. In some ways, the current housing bubble is even more bonkers than the last one — which, if you’ll recall, sorta-kinda almost destroyed the world’s financial system. As of this writing, the median U.S. home price is just 3 percent shy of its 2007 peak. (Existing-home prices already are at a record high.)
But that does not even begin to capture the story. In San Francisco, the median price of a single-family home has doubled since 2012. The median San Francisco home is now nearly $1.4 million, or 50 percent higher than it was at the peak of the last bubble. The median household income in San Francisco is about $77,000. Put another way: The median home price in San Francisco is now 18 times the median household income. Does that sound like a stable position to you? RELATED: It’s
Time for the GOP to Revisit the Housing Crisis Elsewhere in California, a less dramatic version of the same situation can be found. In a dozen or more Los Angeles–area ZIP codes, housing prices today exceed their levels during the bubble, mostly in high-income areas such as Irvine and Los Feliz. It isn’t just California. Prices in Austin are up 13 percent in one year; central-Florida prices are up 28 percent in a year; Chicago prices climbed 11 percent in six months; in Texas, prices are up 8 percent for the year; in greater Seattle, prices are up 10 percent for the year, the median crossing the half-million-dollar mark for the first time.
If the value of your home has improved dramatically, take a momentary break from dreaming about what you’ll do with that money once you cash in and ask yourself: Why? Why is my house today worth twice as much as it was five or six years ago? It’s five or six years older, for one thing, and unless you are in possession of a charming New England stone colonial, houses are not like wine, growing better with age. Maybe home prices are up because of good ol’ supply and demand, with housing construction failing to keep up with population growth.
No, that’s not it, either: Housing construction is soaring, up 26 percent since last summer; needless to say, the number of U.S. households is not up 26 percent since last summer, executive amnesty be damned.
It’s not like a bunch of old houses disappear from the market in a flash — SMOD 16 doesn’t arrive for a while yet.
It’s not like we’ve all put in Snaidero kitchens and saltwater pools; most of us haven’t done much of anything to our houses (and some of you really need to).
So, why the high prices? There are local forces at work: San Francisco, having been governed exclusively by progressives for a generation, has been transformed into precisely the sort of place that progressives say they fear: The one in which the multimillionaires and billionaires effectively run everything, a city in which a family of ordinary means has practically no hope of achieving such a small thing as owning a house with a little yard for the children to play in.
California urban anthropology is a fascinating subject, a grand collision of big technology paydays, liberal self-segregation (“Welcome To West Los Angeles: Poor People, Please Make the First U-Turn”), geographic realities, epic NIMBYism, etc. It is probably going to end badly — it is difficult to see how the difference between median income and median home prices in San Francisco, or in California generally, can be sustained — but we probably don’t need to worry too much about mid-level Google employees defaulting on their mortgages. RELATED: Attention America’s Suburbs:
You Have Just Been Annexed But most of the country isn’t very much like the Bay Area, and when house prices are rising at 6 percent or 7 percent a year (and rents rising even faster) while U.S. incomes are growing at their slowest rate at any time since Beyoncé Knowles has been walking the Earth (NB: Beyoncé’s income is doing just fine, thanks: She just spent $300,000 on a pair of diamond-encrusted stilettos from House of Borgezie) it isn’t supply and demand at work. Instead, housing prices are going up for the same reason that college tuitions are: because the government facilitates lending people money at concessionary rates to purchase them.
The Fed has, despite the occasional sobering gander in the direction of reality, been keeping the cheap-money sluices pretty much wide open. The federal regulators have loosened their grip over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending activities, and, according to a Fed report released Monday, banks are once again loosening up their lending standards. This ended badly the last time. It’ll end badly this time, too.
— Kevin D. Williamson is roving editor at National Review. Did you like this?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371271/golden-gated-communities-kevin-d-williamson
Iran Deal: Remember When???
WITH OBAMA YAMMERING ON ABOUT IRAQ IN DEFENSE OF HIS AWFUL IRAQ DEAL, I’m rerunning this post again:
BOB WOODWARD: Bush Didn’t Lie About WMD, And Obama Sure Screwed Up Iraq In 2011.
As late as 2010, things were going so well in Iraq that Obama and Biden were bragging. Now, after Obama’s politically-motivated pullout and disengagement, the whole thing’s fallen apart. This is near-criminal neglect and incompetence, and an awful lot of people will pay a steep price for the Obama Administration’s fecklessness.
Related: National Journal: The World Will Blame Obama If Iraq Falls.
Related: What Kind Of Iraq Did Obama Inherit?
Plus, I’m just going to keep running this video of what the Democrats, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, were saying on Iraq before the invasion:
Because I expect a lot of revisionist history over the next few months.
Plus: 2008 Flashback: Obama Says Preventing Genocide Not A Reason To Stay In Iraq. He was warned. He didn’t care.
And who can forget this?
Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.
Related: Obama’s Betrayal Of The Iraqis.
BOB WOODWARD: Bush Didn’t Lie About WMD, And Obama Sure Screwed Up Iraq In 2011.
[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.Plus:
Woodward was also asked if it was a mistake to withdraw in 2011. Wallace points out that Obama has said that he tried to negotiate a status of forces agreement but did not succeed, but “A lot of people think he really didn’t want to keep any troops there.” Woodward agrees that Obama didn’t want to keep troops there and elaborates:Obama blew it in Iraq, which is in chaos, and in Syria, which is in chaos, and in Libya, which is in chaos. A little history:
Look, Obama does not like war. But as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let’s keep 10,000, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war. When you are a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies. And he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor.We had some woeful laughs about the insurance policies metaphor. Everyone knows they make sense, but it’s still hard to get people to buy them. They want to think things might just work out, so why pay for the insurance? It’s the old “young invincibles” problem that underlies Obamcare.
As late as 2010, things were going so well in Iraq that Obama and Biden were bragging. Now, after Obama’s politically-motivated pullout and disengagement, the whole thing’s fallen apart. This is near-criminal neglect and incompetence, and an awful lot of people will pay a steep price for the Obama Administration’s fecklessness.
Related: National Journal: The World Will Blame Obama If Iraq Falls.
Related: What Kind Of Iraq Did Obama Inherit?
Plus, I’m just going to keep running this video of what the Democrats, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, were saying on Iraq before the invasion:
Because I expect a lot of revisionist history over the next few months.
Plus: 2008 Flashback: Obama Says Preventing Genocide Not A Reason To Stay In Iraq. He was warned. He didn’t care.
And who can forget this?
Yes, I keep repeating this stuff. Because it bears repeating. In Iraq, Obama took a war that we had won at a considerable expense in lives and treasure, and threw it away for the callowest of political reasons. In Syria and Libya, he involved us in wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and proceeded to hand victories to the Islamists. Obama’s policy here has been a debacle of the first order, and the press wants to talk about Bush as a way of protecting him. Whenever you see anyone in the media bringing up 2003, you will know that they are serving as palace guard, not as press.
Related: Obama’s Betrayal Of The Iraqis.
Posted at 1:02 pm by Glenn Reynolds 
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Judge Slams Hillary and Huma, Orders Answers
Judge Slams Hillary and Huma, Orders Answers
Judge Sullivan strikes again, demanding explanation for missing emails from Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills under penalty of perjury
By Sidney Powell | 08/01/15 12:56am COMMENT
While Hillary Clinton’s lawyers are stalling Congress and “negotiating” the terms of her testimony before the Benghazi committee—an option not allowed to ordinary Americans like bankers, executives, or accountants— federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has hit “Refrigerator Rule #6: Enough Is Enough.”
Earlier this week, federal Judge Richard Leon lambasted the State Department lawyers for their stonewalling. Now Judge Sullivan has chiseled a line in concrete. He has given the State Department only a week—until August 7—to get some answers from Hillary Clinton, and her top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills—under penalty of perjury. Last night on NewsMax TV with Emmy-award winning host Ed Berliner, I noted that Judge Sullivan recently reopened the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch to obtain emails from Huma Abedin, the top Clinton aide who is married to infamous and disgraced former Congressman Anthony Wiener.
Judge Sullivan reopened the case when he learned that Clinton and her staff used personal email accounts to conduct government business. This is a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act and jeopardizes national security—prompting rapidly escalating concerns of countless ramifications internationally, nationally, and criminally. Just hours ago, in that very case, Judge Sullivan entered a remarkable order, and he has given the State Department only a week to comply. Now the State Department must produce for the court’s docket its correspondence with and between Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the government records in their possession; identify what servers, etc. the State Department has; require Ms. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to state under oath whether they have produced all responsive materials; and, have Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills describe the extent to which they used Ms. Clinton’s server for government business.
The order reads: As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession. These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith. In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to:
(1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information;
(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and
(3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business. The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Wikipedia).
We know from the way Judge Sullivan has chipped away at the IRS and its lies and obstruction, this is just the start. A hero for his dismissal of the indictment against Senator Ted Stevens and his appointment of a special prosecutor—as told in my non-fiction thriller LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice—Judge Sullivan is proving to be more and more like Judge John Sirica who kept asking questions until the Watergate scandal was fully exposed. Judge Sullivan also has the Freedom of Information Act suit by Judicial Watch against the IRS, about which we have often written.
It’s because of Judge Sullivan that more and more emails have come to light—along with exposing the lies of Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Koskinen and assorted acts of destruction of evidence. Only Wednesday of this week, Judge Sullivan dismantled counsel for the Department of Justice and the IRS for their “absurd and ridiculous” stalling tactics in revealing the emails evidencing the Lois Lerner scandal and raised the specter of holding Commissioner Koskinen in contempt.
Thanks to Judge Sullivan, Judge Leon, and other Article III judges like them, the country has a chance of learning the truth. This story will only get more interesting as the fearless Emmet G. Sullivan digs deeper. Mrs. Clinton herself should be hearing that whistle blowin’ now. Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years and was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.
Read more at http://observer.com/2015/08/judge-sullivan-strikes-again/#ixzz3hrRH3Y58 Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at:http://tr.im/Sm32k
Judge Sullivan strikes again, demanding explanation for missing emails from Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills under penalty of perjury
By Sidney Powell | 08/01/15 12:56am COMMENT
While Hillary Clinton’s lawyers are stalling Congress and “negotiating” the terms of her testimony before the Benghazi committee—an option not allowed to ordinary Americans like bankers, executives, or accountants— federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has hit “Refrigerator Rule #6: Enough Is Enough.”
Earlier this week, federal Judge Richard Leon lambasted the State Department lawyers for their stonewalling. Now Judge Sullivan has chiseled a line in concrete. He has given the State Department only a week—until August 7—to get some answers from Hillary Clinton, and her top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills—under penalty of perjury. Last night on NewsMax TV with Emmy-award winning host Ed Berliner, I noted that Judge Sullivan recently reopened the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch to obtain emails from Huma Abedin, the top Clinton aide who is married to infamous and disgraced former Congressman Anthony Wiener.
Judge Sullivan reopened the case when he learned that Clinton and her staff used personal email accounts to conduct government business. This is a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act and jeopardizes national security—prompting rapidly escalating concerns of countless ramifications internationally, nationally, and criminally. Just hours ago, in that very case, Judge Sullivan entered a remarkable order, and he has given the State Department only a week to comply. Now the State Department must produce for the court’s docket its correspondence with and between Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the government records in their possession; identify what servers, etc. the State Department has; require Ms. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to state under oath whether they have produced all responsive materials; and, have Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills describe the extent to which they used Ms. Clinton’s server for government business.
The order reads: As agreed by the parties at the July 31, 2015 status hearing, the Government shall produce a copy of the letters sent by the State Department to Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills regarding the collection of government records in their possession. These communications shall be posted on the docket forthwith. The Government has also agreed to share with Plaintiff’s counsel the responses sent by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. These communications shall also be posted on the docket forthwith. In addition, as related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to:
(1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information;
(2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department. If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and
(3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business. The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 7, 2015, including any response received from Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (Wikipedia).
We know from the way Judge Sullivan has chipped away at the IRS and its lies and obstruction, this is just the start. A hero for his dismissal of the indictment against Senator Ted Stevens and his appointment of a special prosecutor—as told in my non-fiction thriller LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice—Judge Sullivan is proving to be more and more like Judge John Sirica who kept asking questions until the Watergate scandal was fully exposed. Judge Sullivan also has the Freedom of Information Act suit by Judicial Watch against the IRS, about which we have often written.
It’s because of Judge Sullivan that more and more emails have come to light—along with exposing the lies of Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Koskinen and assorted acts of destruction of evidence. Only Wednesday of this week, Judge Sullivan dismantled counsel for the Department of Justice and the IRS for their “absurd and ridiculous” stalling tactics in revealing the emails evidencing the Lois Lerner scandal and raised the specter of holding Commissioner Koskinen in contempt.
Thanks to Judge Sullivan, Judge Leon, and other Article III judges like them, the country has a chance of learning the truth. This story will only get more interesting as the fearless Emmet G. Sullivan digs deeper. Mrs. Clinton herself should be hearing that whistle blowin’ now. Sidney Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years and was lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals. She is the author of Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.
Read more at http://observer.com/2015/08/judge-sullivan-strikes-again/#ixzz3hrRH3Y58 Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at:http://tr.im/Sm32k
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)