This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: “Your Tax Dollars At Work”

  • More Evidence of Clintoon “Pay-for-Play”? Sure Looks Like It.

    I’ve written before about the Clintoon Foundation’s “interesting” financial dealings.  In fact, I’ve observed – on more than one occasion – that appearances indicate there could well be a “pay for play” component to the Clintoon Foundation’s dealings while Clintoon was SECSTATE.

    Well the news today to me seems, as Alice said in Wonderland might have put it, “Curioser and curioser”.

    While Clintoon was SECSTATE, it turns out her chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills was in reasonably frequent contact with top executives at the Clintoon Foundaton.  “Reasonably frequent” here translates to 148 phone messages for Mills from senior Clintoon Foundation executives over a 2 –year period (2010-2012).  State Department phone logs show that no other private individual or concern came anywhere close in terms of the number of contacts with Mills over this period.

    Further, regarding Mills there’s also this:

    Last week, the State Department acknowledged that in June 2012, Mills spent two days traveling to New York to interview job applicants at the foundation. The State Department said Mills “volunteered” to do so, but neither the department nor a spokesman for the Clinton presidential campaign, nor Mills’s attorney, would say whether Mills used annual leave or unpaid days to perform that work – or whether it was done on the taxpayers’ time.

    If that was done while Mills was “on the clock” as a Federal employee, that means it was done on taxpayer’s nickle.  If so, yeah – IMO that’s a serious problem on multiple levels.  Ditto if taxpayers funded Mills’ travel.

    Moreover, some additional and previously unreleased email involving Clintoon confidante and protégé Huma Abedin has also come to light.  What it contains is similarly quite disturbing.

    Specifically, the public interest group Judicial Watch obtained a number of Abedin’s emails recently.  Collectively, these emails show a pattern of high-dollar donors to the Clintoon Foundation receiving expedited access to the SECSTATE.  Abedin appears to have been instrumental in coordinating that expedited access.

    . . . the messages show Clinton aide Huma Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.” The documents include exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department.

    You can view the 725 pages of Abedin email recently released by Judicial Watch here if you like.

    IMO, that’s disturbing as hell.  It appears to bolster the theory that Clintoon was engaging in “quid quo pro” trading of official influence (as SECSTATE) for contributions to the Clintoon foundation.

    And that’s not all, either.  It appears a total of over 150 non-government officials representing private concerns met with Clintoon while she was SECSTATE.  The exact number appears to have been 154.

    So, how many of those private individuals have perchance “donated” to the Clintoon Foundation?  Glad you asked.

    Of those 154 private individuals, 85 – or over 55% of those individuals representing private concerns – also “dontated” to the Clintoon Foundation.  At least 40 of those individuals – or nearly 26% –“donated” in excess of $100k.  And 20 of them – or roughly 13% – “dontated” $1M or more.

    That makes the lower limit for those “dontations” somewhere north of $22M.  It’s estimated that the total “dontated” could be over $150M.

    One extreme case was that of the the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had previously contributed $32M to the Clintoon Foundation for a “scholarship fund”.  That individual was given virtually immediate access to Clintoon in terms of getting a personal meeting with her after contacting Abedin.

    After seeing all of that, well, it’s kinda hard to avoid the conclusion that there’s a damn good chance that “pay for play” is indeed exactly what was going on.  Circumstantial?  Yeah, it is. But here, the circumstances seem persuasive as hell.

    Even so, Clintoon has her       weak-minded sycophants incapable of facing ugly reality      defenders.     Predictably, both Clintoon and her defenders say that occurrences such as these are “coincidental”.

    Yeah, right.  And Al Capone was just a savvy businessman in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, too.

    Clintoon and her cronies might want to remember one thing, though.  Capone didn’t go to jail for racketeering.

    He ended up in prison because investigators “followed the money”.

     

    (Edited to Add:  here’s an article from Yahoo News giving more details.  I don’t recommend you read it immediately after eating.)

     

    Author’s Note:  new or occasional readers may notice the spelling “Clintoon” and assume that is a typographical error.  It is not.  That is intentional.

    In behavior, both famous Clintoons are IMO exemplars of the stereotypical corrupt politician – and are such compelling exemplars that they appear to be near-cartoonish representations of same.  (However, though each is IMO thoroughly corrupted they do appear to be corrupted in different ways.)  Thus, referring to them as “Clintoons” simply seems apropos.

  • More Clintoon “Private” Email Surfaces

    Remember those roughly 30,000 work-related emails on Clintoon’s unsecured private email server?  You know, the ones that were turned over to State for review by Clintoon’s lawyers in 2014?   The batch of emails turned over by Clintoon’s lawyers was supposed to consist of “all of them” – right?

    Well, it turns out that 2014 bunch wasn’t exactly “all of them”.  Rather, it turns out that that first batch of 30,000 was only about 2/3 of the total.

    State Department lawyers confirmed recently that the FBI has uncovered another nearly 15,000 emails sent by or to Clintoon at that “private” address while she was SECSTATE.  This new batch of emails wasn’t previously disclosed.  And they haven’t yet been reviewed.

    State is currently “prioritizing” the appraisal of this new batch of email to see what can be released to the public.

    This story at The Hill has more details.  It’s worth a read.

    Sheesh.  If you or I had pulled this stunt, we’d be in jail awaiting trial.  And we’d have been there for months already.

  • Clintoon Associates . . . and Hypocrisy

    The NY Post today is reporting that Ms. Huma Abedin – protégé of a certain lady not exactly known for espousing conservative political tenets – was formerly assistant editor for a highly conservative Islamic magazine.  That magazine is the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

    Vogue it’s not.  It’s been described as a “radical Muslim journal” and as “hate filled”.

    Predictably, Abedin today denies having an “active role” with the magazine.

    Yeah, right.  And noted cigar aficionado BJ Willie didn’t inhale, either.

    In fact, Abedin appears to have been listed as co-editor for that magazine for a period of roughly 12 years – from 1996 to 2008.  Her mother apparently is still the magazine’s editor-in-chief today.

    Dunno about you, but I believe 2008 is the year Ms. Abedin’s mentor first tried to con the US public into electing her POTUS.   But like that recent      ransom payment to spring hostages      return of seized assets to Iran, I’m sure the timing there was “mere coincidence”.

    The magazine Abedin co-edited from 1996 to 2008 promoted anti-feminist views, and endorsed strict interpretations of Islamic law.   In 1996 articles, it took issues with the current Clintoon presidential candidate’s positions on women’s empowerment and rights, saying that they were against Islam.

    Indeed, while assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Abedin herself publishedarticles in another Saudi publication in 1996.  Those articles – like the magazine for which she was assistant editor – took issue with Clintoon’s positions on women’s rights.  Indeed, some have called Abedin’s 1996 articles a point-by-point rebuttal of her now-mentor’s positions concerning women’s rights.

    Oh, and did I mention that she wrote those articles in 1996 – while she was also working for Clintoon as a (presumably) non-beret-wearing White House Intern?  Well, if I didn’t make that clear before . . . I guess I just did.

    Hypocrisy?  You betcha.

    But then again, we should expect nothing else.  We are talking about the Clintoons and those close to them.  We should know full well what to expect from that crowd by now:  hypocrisy, bullsh!t, and a shove to the left.

    Oh, and if you’re wondering why this matters . . . wanna guess who’s the “smart money” bet as likely White House Chief of Staff if Clintoon is elected POTUS?

  • Yeah, It Was Ransom. The State Department Now Admits It.

    Something curious happened last week, on Thursday.

    Asked by a reporter if the U.S. wouldn’t have paid the money until the prisoners were released, State Department spokesman John Kirby replied, “That’s correct.”

    Hmm.  From Merriam-Webster

    ransom:  a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity

    Seems pretty clear to me that the US State Department has now contradicted the POTUS’s (and its own) prior public statements regarding the Iran payment.  Above, State now plainly admits that the USA paid ransom to Iran for the return of some of our citizens.  Previously, the “party line” was that the timing was “a coincidence”.

    “Coincidence?”  Yeah, right.  The payment was ransom, plain and simple.  Anyone with half a functional brain could see that.

    The media’s reaction to this admission has also been interesting.  While in a rare display of responsible journalism the New York Times apparently gave this story the Page 1 treatment it deserves, some       pernicious “Progressive” propaganda purveyors      mainstream media outlets did not.  The Washington Post and USA Today each chose to bury the story deep inside their respective Friday editions.

    But the fact that at least some of the media would try to bury this isn’t surprising, either.  Most of the US media has been de facto cheerleaders for the political left for virtually my entire life.

    The only surprising parts of this disgusting incident are that this “most transparent administration in history” actually admitted the sordid truth here – and that at least some of the media didn’t try to hide that fact.

  • Yet Another Installment of ObamaCare “Good News”

    Well, we have more “good news” about that wonderful Federal law called the      Patently Pathetic Accumulated Conglomerate of Asininity         Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA “ObamaCare”.

    I’ve written before about issues with ObamaCare health care cooperatives  – and again here.  And I’ve also written about how some insurers were starting to abandon the ObamaCare market.

    Well, it seems another ObamaCare domino toppled yesterday.   Aetna – the nation’s 3rd largest health insurance provider – has announced that they’re largely pulling out of the ObamaCare insurance exchange market as well.

    This year, Aetna offered ObamaCare plans through government-run exchanges in 15 states.  Next year, they’re cutting back to a whopping four states:  VA, DE, IA, and NE.  They’re pulling out of the ObamaCare exchange market everywhere else – though they’ll still offer individual health insurance plans in some or all of those states.

    This is significant.  Earlier this year, Aetna was among those saying it was “too early to give up on” ObamaCare insurance exchanges.  Apparently they changed their minds.

    Why?  Simple:  they’re losing their butts financially.

    This year, Aetna had a 2nd quarter pretax loss on the ObamaCare exchange market of $200M.  They’ve lost $430M since those markets began in 2014.  Losing that much money – as well as losing money consistently over time – isn’t exactly conducive to staying in business.

    But don’t worry, folks.  Dear Leader will explain to us how we’ve misinterpreted what’s going on here.  We just need to give it more time, and it will work as desired!

    Yeah, right.  The Communist Party of the Soviet Union spent just short of 69 years trying to perfect their brand of command-driven economic socialism.  The idiotic concepts on which their cockamamie theories were based were no closer to being viable on day 25,198 than they were on day 0.

    ObamaCare will fare no differently.  It’s similarly based on ideology-driven idiocy that ignores economic reality.

  • Benghazi Redux? Maybe.

    “I know the U.S. Embassy was working on a plan, but it’s a shell of what they need. There appears to be a lack of coordinated effort between the U.S. Embassy and the American companies and personnel here . . . .”

    So, the above was written about Benghazi, right?  Um, that would be a, “No.”

    The above is a statement by Mike Warren, a security director for the USAID-backed Mining Investment and Development for Afghanistan Sustainability Project.  He’s referring to the current state of US emergency evacuation planning for Afghanistan should things go bad there.

    As Santayana said:  “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

    Circa.com has a detailed article discussing the above today.  IMO it’s worth reading.

    Sheesh.  If the linked article is anywhere near accurate, nothing has changed.  DoS appears to be just as institutionally clueless and inept as it was 4 years ago.

    But for the current      gang of fools and tools calling the shots in DC       Administration, being institutionally clueless and inept is nothing new.  Besides:  “What difference does it make?”

  • The USAF Is Short Pilots and Maintenance Personnel. SECAF Solution? Raise Pilot Bonuses and Pay Them to Drone Drivers.

    Jonn mentioned this in an article earlier today.  But I’ve got a bit of a different take on it than he did.

    Per this report from Fox News, the USAF is short 700 pilots, and the SECAF expects the pilot shortage to increase to 1,000 over the next few years.  The shortage is greatest among fighter pilots.

    The SECAF also indicated the service is short 4,000 mechanics.  Both shortages are causing issues.

    Now, the reason given by the SECAF for the pilot shortage is that the current deployment cycle is causing lowered quality of life among pilots, causing many to leave the service.  She also says that “airlines are forecast to be hiring a lot more” in the near-term future, which will make the problem worse soon.

    The SECAF’s proposed solution?  Increase the USAF pilot bonus to $35k annually – and pay that bonus to drone drivers also.

    Maybe raising the pilot bonus is necessary; maybe not.  At this point, I’m not really convinced  that that’s either necessary or will work.  I’m willing to listen to a good argument – but I haven’t yet heard one.

    And maybe it’s just me, but from what the SECAF’s saying . . . I just don’t “get it”.

    Per the SECAF, the biggest current USAF shortage seems to be among fighter pilots.  I thought airlines generally preferred to try and hire those with multi-engine ratings and experience flying larger aircraft – like C-17s and C-130s.  Maybe I’m wrong.

    Plus, I need an explanation of how paying drone drivers a bonus would help.  Aren’t many of them not rated to fly manned aircraft?  And even if some RPA pilots are qualified to fly manned aircraft, doesn’t my question in the previous paragraph apply?  Do airlines really go after RPA pilots?

    In short – is this bonus proposal by the SECAF something that might actually work?  Or is it a “solution in search of a problem” that will suck up money but will do little or nothing to fix the actual problem at hand?  At this point, I’m just not convinced it will work as advertised.

    If “quality of life issues due to multiple deployments” are driving this, it seems to me that a better solution to the pilot shortage problem might be for the USAF to simply train more pilots – then use some of those additional pilots to “spell” those who have done repeated deployments and/or replace those who choose to depart.  Alternatively, if instead it’s lack of flight time due to ground duty assignments that’s driving experienced pilots to “punch out” and leave the service . . . I’m not sure that a bigger bonus will work particularly well.

    Finally, I also don’t see how increasing the pilot bonus will do a damn thing to cure the shortage in maintenance personnel.  Someone needs to explain that one to me, too.  Last time I checked, you can’t fly an aircraft that’s grounded due to lack of maintenance.

    Well, Madame SECAF?  Could you perhaps enlighten us?  What are we missing?

  • About that San Bernardino “Valor Award” . . . .

    A few weeks ago, Jonn wrote about Irene Martinez – chief of an USICS office in San Bernardino – being nominated to receive the DHS “Award for Valor”.  However, at the time USICS was reluctant to disclose precisely what it was that Ms. Martinez had done to merit nomination to receive the award.

    Well, now we know.  Apparently DHS has finally responded to a FOIA request concerning the matter.

    During the San Bernardino terrorist shootings that occurred about a mile and a half away from her facility, Ms. Martinez first “warned [her] employees to be very careful and to be vigil (sic) about their surroundings”.  While the facility was on lockdown, she then went out to the parking lot and fetched one of her employees who was sitting in his car after returning from lunch, bringing him inside.

    She afterwards “soothed members of the public who were temporarily stranded in the building.”  According to the paperwork nominating her for the DHS Award for Valor, her actions that day “demonstrated not only her professionalism and exceptional leadership, but also her compassion and caring for her employees and the public we serve.”

    Yes, I’m serious.  That’s really why she was nominated.  The material in quotes above are reportedly direct quotes from the award nomination paperwork.

    Now, I don’t know about you – but something strikes me as a bit odd here.  Previous recipients of the same award apparently received the award for actions such as confronting armed criminals, or for rescuing persons from sinking ships or burning cars.  You know, for situations in which actual honest-to-God bravery was required.

    Ms. Martinez, in contrast, was apparently nominated for the award for nothing more than taking those routine actions any supervisor would be expected to take during a facility lockdown.  In short:  she was nominated simply for doing her freaking job.

    Oh, and in case anyone’s forgotten:  Ms. Martinez also apparently has a rather odd view of what consititutes “doing her job”.  It turns out that Ms. Martinez was quite uncooperative when 5 DHS LE personnel came to her facility the next day looking for a person of interest in connection with the previous day’s terrorist shooting.  That person of interest – Enrique Marquez – was believed at the time to have supplied the two terrorist bastards who’d perpetrated the previous day’s attack the weapons they’d used.  Marquez was scheduled for an appointment at Ms. Martinez’s facility, but was a no-show.

    Ms. Martinez delayed those 5 Federal LE agents for approximately 1 1/2 hours in the performance of their duties, apparently for bureaucratic “turf war” reasons.  She then outright lied to DHS IG investigators about her actions that day when the matter was later investigated.

    It seems to me that both of those later actions by Ms. Martinez may well qualify as crimes – the former possibly as interfering with a Federal investigation (18 USC 111, or 18 USC 1512(b)3) and the latter as giving a false statement to Federal investigators (18 USC 1001).  But it doesn’t seem as if anyone at DHS much cares about that.

    But they sure seem to want to give the lady an award for doing nothing more than her job.  Go figure.