What is She Hiding?

Poor Hillary Clinton, now the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is after her again, trying to derail her coronation as the Democrat candidate for president. I guess the “vast right-wing conspiracy” was just waiting to cause her to use a private e-mail account against State Department rules? I guess the “vast right-wing conspiracy” told her to accuse (wrongly) an obscure film maker of producing an anti-Islam video that caused a spontaneous attack on our embassy compound in Benghazi that resulted in the murder of 4 Americans (one of which was our ambassador)? I guess the “vast right-wing conspiracy” caused her to erase 30,000 e-mails from her private account, claiming that they were personal messages between her and her husband and messages concerning the upcoming wedding of her daughter? (If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you).

Yes, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is relentless in savaging the Simon-pure Clinton's, don't you think?

The dilemma for the Democrats is that they “put all their eggs in one basket” by attempting to plan a coronation for Hillary as their nominee for president. It was a “fait- accompli”, but it has not worked out so well for the Democrats, as scandal after scandal has arisen over her conduct as Secretary of State, and her campaign and candidacy seems to be imploding right before our eyes. What are the powers-to-be of the Democrats going to do if she goes up in flames? Would they support a 73 year old avowed socialist (Bernie Sanders) as a replacement and who seems to need a charisma transplant? Or a failed former Mayor of Baltimore and former Governor of Maryland (Martin O'Malley)? Or are they waiting for gaffe-prone Joe Biden to jump in to save the party? Over the past 30 years, the “Teflon Coated” Clinton's have skirted the law by using their political clout to stymie all the scandals that have surrounded them from Arkansas to the White House and beyond. Maybe this time the law will finally catch up with them, but, knowing the Clinton's, don't bet on it. They still have people in high places (bureaucrats, politicians, judges, and celebrity fat-cats) who are beholden to them and who will try to protect them at all costs.

The Clinton's, especially Hillary, are not looked upon by the electorate as being honest and trustworthy - the latest poll put her at 60% negative rating for honesty and trustworthiness. Does that portend a winning resume for the presidency? Her husband, jokingly called Slick Willie during his public life, was known for parsing words and gaming the system, as he tried to excuse his sexual dalliances with various women who have accused him of unwanted sexual advances, including rape. A mere mortal would've had his public and political life ruined with those accusations, but with the Clinton's, it was always some else's fault or it was the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, again and again.

Now it seems that “the chickens are coming home to roost” and they will finally have to pay for the consequences of their actions. As the old saying goes, “they can run but they cannot hide”.

So the answer to our headline of “What is She Hiding”, will probably be answered after the Justice Dep't. and the F.B.I. conclude their investigations, and the “Teflon” Clinton's may finally be brought to justice (is that wishful thinking?).

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

A Message to Israel: Beware of Obama

Written by Michael Goodwin, Columnist of the N.Y. Post

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.

Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.

Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.

Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

See the entire article at Do You See it Yet - Michael Goodwin

Should Babies Born to Illegal Alien Mothers, on U.S. Soil, be Automatic U.S. Citizens?

That arrangement is called “birthright citizenship”.

If an illegal alien pregnant woman comes into our country and gives birth on American soil, should that baby get automatic U.S. citizenship? As of now, we grant citizenship to babies born on American soil, but no where in the U.S Constitution does it state that we should do that, contrary to what some might say.

The people who are in favor of granting “birthright citizenship”, argue that the 14th Amendment to our constitution gives those rights to those babies, but that was not the intent of the wording in the 14th Amendment. The wording in the 14th Amendment was intended for the freed slaves after the Civil War. The amendment reads as follows:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born into the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States........”

The key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When illegal alien mothers, who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on that mother and child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisprudence of that native country, as is her baby. (this interpretation was taken from the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform).

The only industrialized nations who have this “birthright citizenship” is the United States and Canada. This is what has attracted this influx of illegal alien mothers giving birth on American soil. Are we stupid or what?

Since these babies are now considered American citizens, they are eligible for all kinds of welfare and government handouts including food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care.

The question posed at the outset of this editorial, “Should Babies Born to Illegal Alien Mothers, on U.S. Soil, Be Automatic U.S. Citizens”, should be answered with a resounding “NO”. We are running a national debt of over $18 trillion, and by us giving all this financial and humanitarian assistance to these “birthright babies” and their immediate families (that's why they are referred to as “anchor babies”), we are causing many hardships on both the federal and state governments. If we stop granting automatic citizenship to the babies born on U.S. soil by illegal alien mothers, the flow of illegal immigrants will be dramatically reduced. That's the humanitarian way to uphold the laws of the U.S. by sending them back to their native countries without granting them U.S. citizenship. Of course, we should make the transition back to their native countries as humanely as possible, but it is something that has to be done in order to protect the sovereignty of our country. A country without borders is not a country, but just a way station for others to take advantage of our good nature by entering our country illegally and collecting government benefits paid for by U.S. citizen taxes.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Always Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

President Barack Obama's administration is stressing out knowledgeable Americans
when you consider the clumsiness of his operational skills. It's like putting him in the
cockpit of a sophisticated fighter jet when all the previous experiences he had was
no more complicated than running a lawn mower.

I don't know where to begin, because he and his chosen cabinet and staff have made
too many gaffs to list or remember.

Backing green energy financial failures like bankrupt Solyndra. The blunder of arms
deals known as "Fast and Furious." Untethered NSA (National Security Agency).

Illegal targeting conservative organizations and companies to deny them tax exemptions.
Stonewalling the attempt to get answers about mishandling the Benghazi tragedy, or the
where about of the lead principals of responsibility...the President and Secretary of State.
A six year pending promise to fix the problems with the Veterans Administration.
The legal prison break of 36000 illegal criminal immigrants by Obama's Department of
Homeland Security, to direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement to open the gates.
Obama's benevolence toward the Muslim Brotherhood.

Negotiating a flawed nuclear agreement with Iran to create a legacy. Resuming diplomatic
 relations with Cuba and taking them off the terrorist nation list. Carelessly leaking the
 names of the CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan. Bypassing Congress and the
 required 30 day notification law by releasing five of the to most notorious terrorists
 from Guantanamo, in swap to free alleged deserter, Sgt Bowe Bergdahl. And playing
 second banana to Vladimir Putin on the world stage.

Some of the above might not have happened, or occurring to a lesser degree, if the
President wasn't so detached, and exert so much effort and resources on his "Affordable
 Care Act." It was put together by politicos who dismantled the medical profession in
order to overhaul it; but it turns out they knew little about how to put it back into working
 order. Millions added to our over eighteen trillion dollar debt have been wasted with cost
over-runs, by engaging foreign technologists in its chaotic implementation.

There are skunks in the room emitting those repugnant odors by the Obama administration
and nobody has done. or is doing anything about it. It remains to be seen if the new AG,
 Loretta Lynch has the independent integrity to begin clearing out the stench, or will she
 interpret and prosecute the law as seen by her personal beliefs. The caution flag went up
during her confirmation hearing she espoused, illegal residents have all the rights afforded
 to legal American citizens.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Texas Senator Ted Cruz on the Mark Levin Show: I Stand with Kim Davis

Ted Cruz made the statements which are “for every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?"

"Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?"

"When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis."

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail."

Was There a Quid Pro Quo?

The definition of of “Quid Pro Quo” is: “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something of value”. Do any prominent people in our political system seem to be engaged in the practice of a “quid pro quo”? Does the name Clinton come to mind?

Well, if not, maybe it should. It seems that every time the Clinton's got paid for a speech or a donation to the Clinton Foundation, something good happened to the donor (mostly financial). That smelled something like a “quid pro quo”, don't you think?

When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Hillary declared that she and Bill were “broke” (mainly because of legal fees to fight Bill Clinton's legal woes regarding his philandering and lying before a grand jury). Well, since that time up until the present, the Clinton's net worth has reached more than $150 million. What did they do to amass such wealth in such a short period of time? Did they invent a product, did they introduce a marketable service concept, or did they inherit money in order to be able to generate such a windfall of riches? The answer, quite obviously, is “NO”, they offered themselves, their contacts, and their insider trading among the political and business elite to become extremely wealthy.

The best selling book, by author Peter Schweizer, called “Clinton Cash”, laid out a whole lot of instances where the Clinton's used their influence to get things that other “mortals” couldn't get. Even though Bill Clinton was no longer in office, he was an ex-president, and Hillary was a senator representing New York, and then in 2009, Secretary of State in the first term of the Obama administration, and with her eyes on running for president in 2016. The Clinton's also set up a “slush fund” called the Clinton Foundation, which was set up to perform humanitarian good works around the world. Quite a lofty goal, if they followed through.

From 2001 to the present, the Clinton's used their positions to “feather their nest” financially by getting large speaking fees (from $200,000 to $750,000 per speech) for themselves, and donations to the Clinton Foundation, as “cash cows” to spread their influence around the U.S. and around the world.

Just recently, it has been revealed that during her (Hillary) stint as Secretary of State, Hillary intervened with the IRS on behalf of the behemoth bank UBS, located in Switzerland, in mitigating the problems UBS had with the IRS about foreign bank accounts of Americans. The problem was solved as a result of her intervention, and immediately a donation by UBS ($600,000) to the Clinton Foundation was made, and speaking fees was paid to Bill Clinton (totaling$1.5 million). Was that just a coincidence, or was it a “quid pro quo”?

Another instance in which the Clinton's got involved in was with the cell phone giant company, Ericsson, a Swedish company doing a lot of business in the U.S. Ericsson was accused of dealing with Iran while economic sanctions on Iran were still in effect. Ericsson paid a large speaking fee to Bill Clinton and made a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and voila, the problem they had by violating the sanctions on Iran were settled in Ericsson's favor. Did the position that Hillary held as Secretary of State have anything to do with the outcome? Was this just another coincidence or was this this just another “quid pro quo”?

The list of shady deals as described in the book, “Clinton's Cash”, goes on and on. Were the actions of the Clinton's in creating financial windfalls for themselves and their cronies, if looked at by any impartial observer, would they feel that a “quid pro quo” was attached and in play? And now we have Hillary running for president with a honesty and trustworthy rating at a minus 60%. I think the electorate may have finally seen that both Bill and Hillary are inveterate grifters, and shouldn't be sent back to the White House.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann