Clinton Spokesperson Absurdly Claims “Absolutely Nothing Controversial” About Clinton Emails






------------------------------------
Hillary needs better liars with a better poker face. Did you see how he was slightly bobbleheading at the end? Very proud of himself...

 

Surely democrats did not vote for Romney as they never supported him either...  Why would you want to support someone who told you to shut up?

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-them-2015-1


0bama is the definition of narcissism. Look it up. You do not have to believe me.

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- Walking into Mexico at the nation's busiest border crossing with the United States is no longer an uninterrupted stroll for foreigners.

Starting late Wednesday, pedestrians going to Tijuana from San Diego at the San Ysidro crossing must choose between a line for Mexicans who get waved through, and a line for foreigners who must show a passport, fill out a form and - if staying more than a week - pay 322 pesos, or roughly $20, for a six-month permit.

About a dozen foreigners stood in line Wednesday night, directed by English-speaking agents to six inspection booths where they got passports stamped. It took about 10 minutes from start to finish.

Travelers have long followed similar protocol at Mexican airports, but the new border procedure marks a big change at land crossings that weren't designed to question everyone. Pedestrians and motorists have generally entered Mexico unencumbered along the 1,954-mile border with the United States.

"This is about putting our house in order," said Rodulfo Figueroa, Mexico's top immigration official in Baja California state, which includes Tijuana.

The changes, which have been in the works for years, come as Donald Trump has surged to the top of the Republican field in the U.S. presidential race. He has insisted that Mexico sends criminals to the U.S. and pledges to build a border wall at Mexico's expense.

For Mexico, it is a step toward closing an escape route for American criminals who disappear in Mexico. Border inspectors will tap into international criminal databases. Motorists will see no change, and if lines get too long, officials will also wave pedestrians through.

More than 120 Americans expelled from Mexico this year while living in Baja California had arrest warrants in the U.S., according to Figueroa, delegate of the National Migration Institute. Some ordered to leave last year were on the FBI's most-wanted list.

But authorities say benefits extend beyond stopping unwanted visitors. A recent hurricane stranded twice as many Americans in Cabo San Lucas than U.S. authorities thought were there, Figueroa said, and registering as a foreigner would have made it easier to identify those who needed help.

Figueroa said Mexico can initially process about 1,000 foreigners daily, up from about 50 currently.

"If the line becomes clogged up, we will just let everybody through," Figueroa said. "If we can't check everybody, we won't."

Figueroa said San Ysidro is believed to be the first U.S. land crossing to have a separate line for foreigners to show passports and that it will serve as a model for others as they are upgraded. Aurora Vega, a spokeswoman for the National Migration Institute, referred questions to other departments. Officials at the Foreign Relations Department and Mexican Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment.

About 25,000 pedestrians (and 50,000 motorists) cross daily at San Ysidro to work, shop and play but it is unclear how many are foreigners in Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Protection says about one-third entering San Diego are U.S. citizens, one-third are U.S. legal residents and the rest are from other countries, largely Mexico. An unknown number have dual citizenship or residency in the U.S. and Mexico.

Both countries have long wrestled with logistical hurdles of stopping people going to Mexico by land. The U.S. occasionally stops motorists and pedestrians as they leave - mainly to check for guns and cash - but it doesn't have a system to record exits like at airports, seen by many as a significant shortcoming in border security.

Previous efforts to question more foreigners entering Mexico met resistance in Tijuana, whose economy partly relies on Americans who visit restaurants, beaches, doctors and dentists. Lines to enter the United States at San Ysidro have exceeded four hours.

Roberto Arteaga, who has made tacos, shined shoes and sold tickets for private bus and van rides in Southern California during 28 years as a street vendor near the border crossing, says requiring passports and imposing a fee for longer stays sends the wrong message.

"We should be welcoming," he said during a lull in business Tuesday. "This will hurt Tijuana's economy."

Other crossers said the move was overdue.

"Anything to keep the country safer is much better for everyone," Cynthia Diaz of Oceanside, near San Diego, said as she stood in line to return to the U.S with her niece, who visited Tijuana for a root canal. "It's safer for us on the other side too."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MEXICO_CHECKS_FOREIGNERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-20-09-23-54

Reporter Lectures Donald Trump on Anchor Babies - Donald Trump Responds


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9X1U1Nwwg



Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump debated the use of the term “anchor baby” with a reporter at a press conference in New Hampshire on Wednesday.

Trump was asked, “You said that you have a big heart, and that you’re not mean-spirited. Are you aware that the term ‘anchor baby,’ that’s an offensive term? People find that hurtful.”

Trump responded, “You mean it’s not politically correct, and yet everybody uses it?” He then suggested the reporter give him a different term to use, to which the reporter suggested “The American-born [children] of undocumented immigrants.” Trump said in response, “I’ll use the word ‘anchor baby.’”


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/trump-reporter-spar-over-term-anchor-baby/


--------------------------------------------
In Yo' Face! Chump!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzQI3kiuKw



Bad news for nine percent of likely voters in North Carolina: Their preferred presidential candidate doesn’t exist.
 
The candidate called Deez Nuts — who has filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to run for president — is actually a 15-year-old from Iowa named Brady Olson, according to the Daily Beast.
 
The high school sophomore said he was inspired by news that Limberbutt McCubbins — a Kentucky cat — had filed paperwork for run for president.
 
Deez Nuts became a social media phenomenon after a Public Policy Polling poll of North Carolina released Wednesday showed that in a race with Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and Republican leader Donald Trump, Deez Nuts would garner nine percent support.
 
The poll also found that six percent of North Carolina voters had a favorable opinion of Deez Nuts, with 13 percent unfavorable and 81 percent not sure.
 
Olson filed the FEC paperwork in late July. Anyone can fill out a statement of candidacy, and the information included is not checked against public records, the Daily Beast reported.
 
After a candidate raises $5,000, he or she must fill out forms with legal names and legit contact information.
 
“The next step is to get some party nominations, like the Minnesota Independence Party or the Modern Whig Party,” Olson told the Daily Beast. “It would also be great to find a VP, preferably McCubbins because the Nuts/McCubbins ticket sounds amazing.”


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/presidential-candidate-deez-nuts-north-carolina-actually-a-15-year-old-iowa

It's an Invasion, Not Immigration


Jeff Lord, who writes for the American Spectator, also has a piece for the Conservative Review he has out now. He’s just been hired by CNN to do analysis and commentary, and he sent me a note late last night and he was digging around… He’s been intrigued by this kerfuffle that Trump started in which he claimed that Mexico is sending us their human debris. Mexico is purposely sending us their worst.

Mexico is getting rid of the people they don’t want; they’re sending them here.  And he said that he had a faint memory of a news story that would actual confirm this, and he searched and searched and he found it, and I’m now holding that story right here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.  It’s from the Associated Press. It was published atArizonaCentral.com, January 16th of 2008.  So almost eight years ago. Not 7-1/2 years ago, this story ran.

“A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora traveled to Tucson to make the case against Arizona’s new employer sanctions law[.] The lawmakers say it will have a devastating affect [sic] on the Mexican state. At a news conference Tuesday, they said Sonora cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers in Arizona return to their hometowns without jobs or money.” In other words, the Mexican government sent representatives, the equivalent of our state senators and representatives…

“The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don’t have valid legal documents to work,” and those people get deported. “Businesses found violating the law face suspension or loss of a business license. The [Mexican] lawmakers were to travel to Phoenix Wednesday for a breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators.” The Sonora delegation, rather, was going to “travel to Phoenix Wednesday for a breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators. … ‘How can they pass a law like this?’ asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales. ‘There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,’ Amparano[-Gamez] said in Spanish.”

In other words, what Trump has been saying is right:  Mexico does actively send undesirables here.  When we send them back, Mexico sent a delegation to Arizona eight years ago to complain about our deporting them.  They don’t want them back.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/08/19/it_s_an_invasion_not_immigration

Jeb Bush Trashes Trump In Spanish TV Interview – Promises Amnesty



Noting the strong “Hispanic influence” in his family, GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush vowed that, if elected, he’d enact the comprehensive immigration reform that President Barack Obama promised, but failed, to achieve.

In a nearly half-hour interview with Telemundo Monday, a portion of which was aired on MSNBC, Bush, speaking entirely in Spanish, also told anchor Jose Diaz-Balart that he was “hurt” by GOP presidential primary rival Donald Trump’s comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico.

“I was hurt hearing somebody speaking in such a vulgar fashion,” he said. “This makes the solving of this problem much more difficult when we have politicians talking like that.

“Besides that, he was offending millions of people that are here legally. It makes no sense. In a political sense, it’s bad and it creates an environment that is worse. … And I believe it’s important that I as a candidate offer a more optimistic version than Trump’s negativeness.”


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/jeb-bush-donald-trump-spanish-interview/2015/07/27/id/659178/



--------------------------------------------------------

Alternate parallel universe on earth 2: "Mexican Presidential Candidate Trashes Contender Who's Against Illegal Yankee immigration, In English"

 

What a great thread...

 

Latest pro-Hillary spin: Classifications are dumb, y’all





Old and busted: You can trust Hillary Clinton with national security. New hotness: National security protections are so overrated! With the FBI probing the data trail from Hillary’s secret e-mail server and more than 300 e-mails flagged as possibly containing classified material, the strategy now is to claim that the material was overclassified from the start. Longtime Clinton defender David Brock told Politico that he wants to push the idea that classification is “elastic,” a term that has suddenly popped up more than once in the media of late.

In another Politico piece, Matthew Miller claims that the “real Clinton e-mail scandal” is classification itself. He claims that the appearance of classified material in more than 300 e-mails out of 6,000 is “far less scandalous than the headlines make it appear,” and that the true failure is overclassification of material that should be in the public domain:



As a former Department of Justice official who regularly dealt with classified information, I am glad a team of officials from the FBI, the intelligence community and other agencies is not currently reviewing every email I sent and received while I worked in government. If they did, they would likely find arguably classified information that was transmitted over unclassified networks—and the same thing is undoubtedly true for other senior officials at the White House, the State Department and other top national security agencies.

The sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two.

From the intelligence community’s perspective, the border between these two worlds looks like a brick wall. Many intelligence officials spend their entire day working inside so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, designed to be impenetrable to eavesdropping, and using only separate, classified email systems to communicate with others in government. In these hermetically sealed environments, there is no need to ever sort through the differences between classified and unclassified information.

But for officials charged with dealing with the public, the media and other governments, the lines become much harder to draw.



This glosses over a couple of very important points. First, the proper way to reclassify material is to have the issuing authority review it. That duty does not fall to the Secretary of State or her aides, but to the agencies that produced the data, and their direct chain of command, all the way to the President. Not even Congress can declassify material, at least not directly. Users of this material have a positive responsibility to protect it, are briefed constantly on how to handle it while it remains classified, and face severe consequences for violating those protocols and laws, most definitely including prosecution when it involves willful violations or gross negligence (18 USC 793, especially in (f)(1), the application of which is not limited to classified material).

Second, while much of the e-mails flagged (so far) are classified at Confidential and Secret levels — where overclassification is a chronic issue — two e-mails contained information that the issuing agencies considered Top Secret and compartmented. That data came from the NSA and other signals intelligence operations, including satellite-gathered data. Those kinds of information carry high classifications for very substantial reasons, including the protection of our methods of collecting it.

Finally, all of this starts and ends with the exclusive use of an unsecured and unauthorized communications system located in Hillary Clinton’s house, effectively an unauthorized retention of classified material (a crime under 18 USC 1924). There is no valid reason for a federal official with compliance requirements not just for secure transmission of sensitive materials but also with the Federal Records Act to conduct official business through a home-brew server. It was a deliberate attempt to circumvent both responsibilities, and largely succeeded at the latter until the existence of the server became public. As a result, the State Department made numerous misrepresentations in courts in response to FOIA demands that involved communications from Hillary and her team that were required to be part of the public record.

Classifications are not “elastic” either, not to those who handle the material, and especially not when it comes to signals intelligence. They are required to handle it according to the markings no matter what they personally think of its necessity. If Hillary and her staff had a problem with the classification levels cited, then they should have requested a review of the material — and there is no indication that anyone ever did. Even if they had, Hillary and her team were still were required to comply with the laws and protocols while the material was still classified.

Overclassification may be a problem, but it’s not this problem.  This problem is that a high-ranking public official secretly evaded legitimate constitutional oversight from Congress and the courts with this e-mail system, which recklessly endangered US national security for four years to service her own personal motives.

This is a pathetic attempt at spin, especially given the progression of defenses that have been offered over the last six months. The RNC’s James Hewitt notes the moving goalposts of Hillary defenders:






http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/19/latest-pro-hillary-spin-classifications-are-dumb-yall/

Obama Says He Could Win Again - True or False?



[..]
Just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters say they would vote for the president if he ran for a third term. Sixty-three percent (63%) would not. . . .

Most Democrats (57%) would vote to give Obama a third term. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party – and 32% of Democrats – would not.

Voters also favored leaving the two-term limit in place by a margin of 4 to 1.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/obama_says_he_could_win_again_true_or_false

Rasmussen: Voters Want to Build A Wall, Deport Felon Illegal Immigrants



Wednesday, August 19, 2015

As far as voters are concerned – and not just Republicans -  Donald Trump has a winning formula for fighting illegal immigration.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Seventeen percent (17%) of GOP voters disagree, while 13% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Republicans agree that the United States should deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country. Only four percent (4%) disagree.

Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed.

Trump made both proposals in a policy paper he released this past weekend that calls for getting tough on illegal immigration. He cites a Rasmussen Reports survey to back up his proposal to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in this country. Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters disagree with the current federal policy that says a child born to an illegal immigrant here is automatically a U.S. citizen.

Just 34% favor President Obama’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation.   Most voters continue to think instead that the United States is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are here illegally.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 17-18, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Gallup released a new survey last week with the headline, “In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants.”  But the actual question shows that 65% of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants “if they meet certain requirements over time.” Unspecified in the question is what those requirements are and the length of time in question.

Rasmussen Reports has found consistently for years that most voters want the border with Mexico secured to prevent further illegal immigration before there is any talk of amnesty. In May, 63% said gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States, the highest level of support for border control since December 2011.

Men and those 40 and over are stronger supporters of building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border than women and younger voters are. But the groups are much closer to agreement when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants convicted of felonies in this country.

Sizable majorities in nearly all demographic categories favor deporting illegal immigrants convicted here of felony crimes.

But Democrats are less enthusiastic about such a policy than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are. Only 30% of Democrats favor building a wall, compared to 57% of unaffiliated voters.

Whites voters are much stronger supporters of a wall on the southern U.S. border than black and other minority voters are.

Ninety-four percent (94%) of all voters who favor building a wall also support deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of a felony in this country. But even 65% of those who oppose a wall agree with such a policy.

Trump took a lot of criticism last month from Democrats and other Republican presidential hopefuls over his candid remarks about the criminality of many illegal immigrants, but most voters agree with Trump that illegal immigration increases serious crime in this country.

The reaction to his comments also increased media coverage of the murder of a young woman in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant from Mexico who said he came to that city because it does not enforce immigration laws. Most voters now want to get tough on so-called “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce these laws.

We noted in a commentary last month how the media spins the illegal immigration issue, comparing its coverage of Trump’s positions with those taken by leading Democratic contender Hillary Clinton.

Trump continues to lead the pack of Republican presidential candidates, but his support fell following the first GOP debate.  It will be interesting to see if his aggressive proposals for dealing with illegal immigration help or hurt him in the overall Republican race.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/august_2015/voters_want_to_build_a_wall_deport_felon_illegal_immigrants

Clinton Refuses To Give Supporter A Hug


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr4DOwk1lWg


It's a hug of love hillary... Love... Look it up.


 

Karl Rove: Donald Trump Is “Running Against the Grain of Republicans” With His Immigration Plan







---------------------------
Maybe that's the reason why he is popular with the base. Not 'the grain', but 'your grain'... Chump!

Much better as a destroyer, on any level, that we can agree...

CNN poll: Hillary’s lead over Trump in hypothetical match-up shrinks to just six points





[...]
Here’s my favorite of the many, many photoshops circulating on Twitter after Hillary’s trainwreck press conference yesterday. Oh, by the way: When registered Democratic voters were asked whether Biden should run, 53 percent said yes — which, coincidentally, equals the precise share of the primary electorate that’s not supporting Hillary in this poll. Not Hillary 53, Hillary 47?


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/19/cnn-poll-hillarys-lead-over-trump-in-hypothetical-match-up-shrinks-to-just-six-points/

Since announcing his campaign in late June, Donald Trump has quickly leapt to the top of the Republican field, leading recent polls nationally, in Iowa and in New Hampshire. And now, for the first time in CNN/ORC polling, his gains among the Republican Party have boosted him enough to be competitive in the general election.

The poll finds Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump by just 6 points, a dramatic tightening since July. Trump is the one of three Republican candidates who have been matched against Clinton multiple times in CNN/ORC polling to significantly whittle the gap between himself and the Democratic frontrunner.

He trailed Clinton by 16 points in a July poll, and narrowed that gap by boosting his standing among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (from 67% support in July to 79% now), men (from 46% in July to 53% now) and white voters (from 50% to 55%).



http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html