Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Server

20 Reasons Why Hillary Would Wipe Her Server Clean
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on March 31, 2015

Hillary is a hoarder.  So is Bill.  So if she actually removed everything from her server, she had to be convinced that it would be more dangerous to keep the emails than to ride through a scandal, no matter how rough.

This scandal isn't about Hillary's privacy, it's about her self-preservation.  So here's what would make her do it:

1.  The emails contained damaging information about Benghazi that conflicted with her testimony and statements.

2.  The emails -- and those of her closest aides -- showed her improper use of her position to benefit the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Teneo, and herself.

3.  If she gave the Benghazi Committee electronic access to the emails, they could easily determine whether any had been edited or altered.  It would have been extremely difficult to delete just some of the information in the emails.  If she tried to doctor them, the system would likely show when it was last edited.  Any edits after she left the State Department would be highly suspicious and the earlier versions could probably be retrieved anyway.  So, it would be much easier to give out only hard copies, which can be easily doctored without detection and which would be difficult to search electronically.

4.  The emails would show the improper coordination with the Clinton Global Initiative and U.S. corporations.  Huma Abedin worked for the State Department as Clinton's right hand person, Teneo, and the Clinton Global Initiative all at once.  She used one of Hillary's private email accounts on Hillary's server.  Were her emails deleted too?

5.  The emails would show just how many of her political cronies she brought into the State Department.

6.  She wanted to hide any policy disagreements with Obama.

7.  She wanted to hide any knowledge of and role in the NSA spying on foreign leaders.

8.  She wanted to conceal efforts to topple pro-democracy regime in Honduras and restore a would- be dictator.

9.  She wanted to hide efforts to arm Syrian rebels.

10.  She wanted to hide her push to keep Egypt President Mubarek in office.

11.  The emails would show her back channel Benghazi "intelligence" briefings from Sidney Blumenthal and any responses, and...

12.  Conceal her role in postponing signing the UN Arms Control Treaty until after the 2012 election, and... 

13.  Conceal her opposition to designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, and... 

14.  Hide her comments critical of Israel in the settlement controversy, and... 

15.  Conceal her position on troop surge for Afghanistan, and... 

16.  Hide her support for accommodation with China despite its well documented human rights abuses, and...

17.  Conceal her comments on the DEA Fast and Furious program and its impact on US-Mexican relations, and...  

18.  Hide what we were doing in Benghazi in the first place, and...

19.  Conceal the possible role disgraced former NSA advisor -- and Hillary pal -- Sandy Berger played in advising her, and finally...

20.  Because she's Hillary Clinton and she doesn't have to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

Given the highly suspicious timing of the mass deletions -- about two years after she left the State Department -- the only inference that can be drawn about why she dumped the documents is that she was HIDING a lot.  There's just no way to conclude otherwise.  It's typical Hillary.  Do we need four more years of her messes?

Monday, March 30, 2015

News Today

Iranian Defector Blasts Talks
It's not surprising that Israel's leader has harsh words for these negotiations. His nation faces an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. But if you question Benjamin Netanyahu's objectivity, consider what Amir Hossein Motaghi has to say about the negotiations.

Motaghi is the former editor of the Iran Student Correspondents Association. According to various reports, Motaghi was a personal aide to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during the 2013 elections and may have served as his campaign's communications director. He was in Switzerland covering the nuclear negotiations until he defected over the weekend.

Motaghi says that journalism in Iran is a sham and that the media are heavily censored by the regime. No surprise there. He also blasted the Obama/Kerry team, saying, "The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran's behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal."

If a former top campaign aide to the Iranian president says our negotiators are representing Iran's interests, then Prime Minister Netanyahu is right -- this is a really bad deal.

By the way, what explains the impulse of Obama Administration officials to speak in Arabic? This time it is Secretary of State John Kerry. While reportedly shopping for chocolate in Switzerland, Kerry was approached by an individual who told him that friends in Iran are optimistic about a deal. Kerry responded, "Inshallah!," which means "if Allah wills it."

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, told reporters Friday that Secretary Clinton's lawyers failed to provide any new documents in response to a subpoena, even after they had been given a two week extension in order to comply.

Gowdy added, "We learned today, from her attorney, [that] Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server."

During her March 10th press conference, Hillary admitted that tens of thousands of personal emails were deleted. But she also acknowledged that she delivered 55,000 pages of emails related to her service as secretary of state after the State Department had requested she hand them over.

That request came near the end of October, so we know the server was cleaned sometime after that, after there were demands for the information contained on the server.

The House of Representatives voted to establish the Benghazi Select Committee on May 8, 2014. As a lawyer, Hillary certainly understood that any information in her possession related to Benghazi was subject to congressional subpoena.

Whether or not Hillary was trying to obstruct the committee may be irrelevant. Legislation she voted for in 2002 created a new criminal offense known as "anticipatory obstruction of justice" -- destroying documents in order to frustrate a potential future investigation.

Faith Under Fire
The debate over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act intensified over the weekend. The radical left is determined to make an example of Governor Mike Pence and shut down this debate as more than a dozen other states are considering similar legislation protecting religious liberty.

Appearing yesterday on ABC's "This Week," Pence held his own against former Clinton apologist George Stephanopoulos. The governor denounced the "shameless rhetoric" that has been used to distort the law and accused Stephanopoulos of engaging in it. Rush Limbaugh devoted an hour of his show today to this subject, and praised Pence's defense of the law.

Just as disturbing as the media's willful distortions are the threats from some large companies. Major corporations -- including Apple, Salesforce and Angie's List -- are essentially accusing Governor Pence and state legislators of resurrecting Jim Crow laws.

They are attempting to extort the people's elected representatives by threatening to boycott the state. They are demanding that Indiana legislators restrict religious liberty in order to comply with the demands of the radical left and its intolerant agenda. At a time when strong economic growth is still elusive, this pressure is a powerful weapon.

But it is an opportunity for pro-family officials too. They should tell left-wing corporate bosses to take a hike!

While conservatives support free markets, lower taxes and less regulation, they also stand for religious freedom and family values. Big business has no more right to dictate the values of Indiana's families or restrict religious liberty than do unelected left-wing judges!

It can be hard to influence mega-companies like Apple. But Angie's List may be vulnerable to a backlash. Our family called today to cancel our Angie's List membership because our faith is more important than saving a few bucks on a home repair. There are competing services available, including a new one launched just today by Amazon.

Crossdressing Gate Crashers?
Washington, D.C., was on edge today after two men, dressed as women, attempted to crash through the gates of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland. An armed guard shot both men, killing one and critically wounding the other.

Officials were quick to downplay terrorism as a motive. But unless crossdressers crashing the gates of our most sensitive intelligence facilities is more common than I realized, investigators should not eliminate anything until their investigation is complete.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic (former Greenpeace Founder)

March 20, 2015
By  Patrick Moore

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.

Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.

Vote With Your Feet

About two years ago, the Georgia legislature surprised a handful of Tennessee residents by resuscitating a decades-old dispute: some 30,000 Tennesseans, they said, were actually Georgians. The border between the two states, established in 1818, had been botched. It was supposed to run along the 35th parallel, the Georgia legislators argued, but in some places the border that exists today runs slightly to the south of that line.

Its easy to understand why the Georgians were looking to reclaim this small strip of land from Tennessee after almost two centuries: it would give their state access to the Tennessee River and the water rights that come with it--water Georgia legislators think they'll need as a result of the tremendous population growth in the past few decades.

The Tennesseans, however, quickly made clear they had no interest in becoming Georgians. Their hostility wasn’t to the state itself but to its tax policies. In Georgia, the income tax was 6 percent. In Tennessee, there was no income tax at all--zero. And at a time when incomes have been relatively stagnant, the Tennesseans didn't think the honor of becoming Georgians was an opportunity worth hundreds (or thousands) of dollars a year.

The Tennessee residents response to the prospect of paying income tax is anecdotal proof of a real phenomenon in the United States--one that historically has received far too little attention: to a surprising degree, Americans and the companies they work for are willing to choose what state they call home based on tax policy.

Indeed, the historical record shows that people vote with their feet. Whether directly (to benefit their own personal tax bills) or indirectly (to seek better job opportunities), for decades Americans have been leaving high tax states for low tax states. The result has been economic decline in the states with high income taxes and a surge of jobs and investment in states with low income taxes.

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry has been one of the leading elected officials to highlight the connection between states tax policies and the opportunities they create (or destroy) for their citizens. Governor Perry routinely points out that in the past 14 years, one third of all the net new jobs created in the United States have been created in Texas. This so-called Texas miracle is not really a mystery at all. For one thing, the state has no individual income tax. And in 2014 for the tenth year in a row, Chief Executive magazine ranked it best state in the country to do business, in large part because of its lower tax burden and lighter regulatory regime.

There’s no reason this miracle couldn’t be replicated by other states, too. In fact, a major new analysis published last year confirms that income tax is the single most important factor state legislatures can control in trying to improve their economic competitiveness.

In their book published last year, economists Art Laffer, Stephen Moore, Rex Sinquefield and Travis Brown demonstrate that the 11 states that adopted income taxes after 1960 have declined economically--many disastrously so--in relation to the 39 other states. In Michigan, for instance, gross domestic product declined 57 percent relative to the others.

That slump is reflected in population, as well, as people flee to lower taxes and the better job opportunities that come with them. In terms of population growth, the economists write, “each of the 11 states [that imposed an income tax after 1960] is in the bottom half of the U.S. rankings: nine are in the worst 13 states, and three are the worst three states.”

Where have all the people been going? Well, in large part they’ve been heading to the nine states without an income tax. Over the past 10 years, the economists find, the zero income tax states gained net 3.9 percent of their population solely due to interstate net in-migration. The nine states without an income tax grew at more than twice the rate, on average, as the nine states with the highest income taxes. The contrast in economic growth and jobs was similarly stark.

With results as clear as those Laffer, Moore and their coauthors document in The Wealth of States, you’d think more of our laboratories of democracy would be moving toward eliminating income taxes, the effects of which cause compounding damage over time.

This is just one of the reasons I was encouraged to see that Vince Haley, a candidate for Virginia Senate in Virginia’s 12th Senate District and a colleague with whom I’ve worked closely on policy for more than a decade, has called for phasing out Virginia's income tax--which would make it the 10th state in the nation with no income tax.

Vince argues that by controlling spending, Virginia will generate budget surpluses, which can then be applied to lowering income tax rates. Over time, this consistent budget restraint, and the increased growth that will occur due to lowering the income tax burden, will allow Virginia to phase out the income tax entirely.

All that’s required is to cap the growth in spending and put the surpluses that follow toward permanently eliminating the state’s income tax.

And it’s about time for Virginia to control its spending: the state budget has grown by almost 65% in the past ten years. One result has been a substantial collapse in the state’s economic competitiveness as scored by the Tax Foundation, from the 13th best business climate in 2007 into the bottom half--27th place--today.

The experience of states like Texas--along with the overwhelming evidence Laffer, Moore and their colleagues have assembled--suggests phasing out the income tax is the single greatest thing Virginia could do to create jobs, increase take-home pay, and encourage economic growth for the benefit of all Virginians. And not just Virginians: every state could learn from the experiences of Texas, Florida, New Hampshire and Tennessee, among others--and all Americans could benefit from lower taxes if their states followed the same model.

Your Friend,
Newt Gingrich