Terry Crews filming anti-Trump ads that will only energize Trump supporters


Regular readers of this website know that their friendly neighborhood blogger is rooting for the Sweet Meteor of Death in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This is a propaganda-free zone in terms of the race for the White House, which is why Terry Crews must be called out for the decision to film anti-Trump commercials with screenwriter Etan Coan and director Mike Judge.

Buzzfeed reported June 3:

Idiocracy screenwriter Etan Cohen talks to BuzzFeed News about his 2006 movie “coming true” with the 2016 election and the anti-Trump ads he’s working on with Camacho himself, Terry Crews. …

Cohen and [director Mike] Judge have always maintained that the movie had a kernel of truth to it, but, Cohen said, “We just thought it would take much, much longer to get to this point.” The film was meant as a satire of the obsession with celebrity and entertainment culture in America. “Obviously, when writing the movie, we knew that that was true about TV and movies and pop culture,” he said. “But it was a crazy joke to think that it could be extrapolated to politics. It seems to be happening really rapidly.” …

Cohen felt a call to action, saying these ads are very important to him. “This is what satire is for … to be able to hold up a mirror and say, ‘This is crazy,’” he said. “Idiocracy was like that, but this all of a sudden felt like a very immediate need for the true meaning of satire and what it can actually do.”

Terry Crews seems like an amazing guy. It is hard to resist his charm. He probably has the best of intentions in terms of filming his anti-Trump ads, but if he really wants to help stop a Trump administration from ever happening then he will not say a word about politics until after Nov. 8, 2016.

Donald Trump’s popularity is a symptom of a much larger cultural disease. Many factors were at play during his race to secure the Republican presidential nomination, but one of them was the predilection of Hollywood actors and actresses to mock anyone who does not share their political preferences.

The people who will laugh and giggle at anti-Trump ads featuring Idiocracy’s “President Camacho” were never going to vote for Donald Trump to begin with. The commercials will do little more than reenforce Trump’s critics’ existing beliefs. Meanwhile, the ads will serve as further proof to Mr. Trump’s supporters that Hollywood, the mainstream media, and “the establishment” are out to get them.

  • Mr. Crews’ videos will turn passive Trump supporters into people who make phone calls for the man.
  • Mr. Crews’ videos will prompt people who already make phone calls for Mr. Trump to now go door-to-door on his behalf.
  • Mr. Crews’ videos will inspire small donors to Mr. Trump’s campaign to find an extra $50-$100 to donate.

In short, Hollywood’s efforts to destroy Mr. Trump’s campaign through expensive media mockery plays right into his Us vs. Them stump speech. Worse, it causes guys like me — Sweet Meteor of Death supporters — to feel sympathy for Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Question: If Mr. Cohen was worried about celebrity culture seeping into U.S. politics, then why did he never make satirical videos mocking President Obama’s decision to sell Obamacare on “Between Two Ferns” with Zach Galifianakis?

Question: If Mr. Cohen was worried about celebrity culture corrupting U.S. politics, then why wasn’t he making satirical videos when all of Hollywood created creepy political ads straight out of a Star Trek episode featuring The Borg.

Giant Meteor 2016

Hollywood turned the 2008 and 2012 U.S. presidential elections into a popularity contest akin to an episode of American Idol, and now that Mr. Trump transformed it into The Apprentice they want to quickly unwind the clock. It’s too late for that.

The best option is for Hollywood screenwriters, directors, and actors to go away. If they do not, then they will only have themselves to blame when Mr. Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States.

R.I.P. America: State Dept. says no emails by Clinton’s top IT aide in 4 years

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email joke

There comes a point in time when a nation becomes so corrupt that its death becomes imminent. The United States, in all likelihood, has crossed that threshold. One only needs to look at Monday’s revelation by the State Department that it has no emails from Hillary Clinton’s top IT aide during her four years as secretary of state.

Correction: A single “happy birthday” email was found in 30,000 pages of documents related to the personal server Mrs. Clinton ran out of her home in New York.

The Associated Press reported Monday:

The State Department can find no emails to or from a former Hillary Clinton aide who worked for the agency and also managed Clinton’s private computer server while she served as secretary of state, the government told a Republican party group in a court filing made public Monday. The agency insisted later that some messages to and from the ex-aide were recovered and turned over in other inquiries.

The government’s revelation in U.S. District Court in Washington came in answer to a lawsuit by the Republican National Committee. The committee had sued over its public records request for all work-related emails sent to or received by Clinton’s former aide, Bryan Pagliano, between 2009 and 2013, the years of Clinton’s tenure. The lawsuit also pressed for other State Department records from the Clinton era.

The lack of any official State Department emails raises the question whether he limited his email traffic using a private account, much like Clinton did during her four years as secretary, or whether his government emails were deleted. …

State Department officials told Senate investigators last year they could not find a file containing Pagliano’s work emails during Clinton’s tenure, an assertion first reported by Politico.

Pagliano has been offered immunity by the Justice Department in its continuing investigation into Clinton’s server and emails and whether the setup violated national security laws. Pagliano’s lawyer, Mark MacDougall, declined to comment.

The one email sent by Pagliano that surfaced among Clinton’s 30,000 emails was sent to Clinton was a November 2012 birthday greeting. He wished her “Happy Birthday Madam Secretary. To many more!”

As has been stated on this blog multiple times: It would take the federal government less than five minutes to have someone like me handcuffed and dressed in an orange jumpsuit if I were given access to highly classified information and then funneled it through a private server in my basement to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests.

Years ago I was an IT intern for a major think tank in Washington, D.C. It was filled with well-established men and women who may have met or interacted with the former secretary of state over the years. They were old, and like most old people they needed a lot of help with technical issues. In fact, some of them seemingly could not go one week without help from the IT department.

The point is this: Anyone who says he believes Mr. Pagliano sent just a single birthday email to Mrs. Clinton in the four years after setting up a private email server for her is either a liar or an idiot.

On a similar note, the individuals at the U.S. State Department who say with a straight face that Mr. Pagliano did his job without emailing Mrs. Clinton are in a special class of liars.

Bryan Pagliano FOIA

The FBI is expected to finish its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of government documents within weeks. If the agency does not recommend she face some kind of charges related to “gross negligence” on the job, then it will be further proof that America is a dead man walking.

Jazz Shaw puts it well over at Hotair:

Look, I understand that a criminal investigation has to rely on the facts and they must be supportable in a court of law. And sometimes strange things which defy conventional explanation do happen. (How else do you explain all those UFO sightings?) But at some point the public has to be allowed a reasonable level of incredulity when politicians and government officials begin spinning yarns which require us to believe that the sky is actually bright green instead of blue.

The idea that Pagliano didn’t send or receive any emails while managing Clinton’s email services is not just far fetched… it’s insulting to ask us to believe it.

Unfortunately, what the State Department is asking Americans to believe is much more than “insulting.” It’s actually the kind of state-sponsored middle finger to citizens that can spark a revolution.

There are only so many times a corrupt government can do the equivalent of kicking its own people in the groin before things turn ugly. Allowing Mrs. Clinton to make a mockery of government transparency and safeguards to national security may be one boot to the crotch too many.

America, like ant infected with Phorid fly, faces decapitation

NH results

Phorid flies, also known as “ant-decapitating flies,”  are nasty little creatures. They lay their eggs inside the thorax of an ant. Then larvae crawl up into the host’s brain and eat it. The ant, unaware of the assassins within, ends life with its head literally falling off.

Tuesday’s election results in New Hampshire demonstrate what this blog has been trying to say for over five years: Cultural phorid flies are eating away at America’s brain, and it may be too late to excise the parasite.

Reuters reported Wednesday, Nov. 10:

[Bernie] Sanders coasted to victory in Tuesday’s primary on a wave of voter anger at traditional U.S. politicians. New York billionaire Donald Trump swept the Republican contest in the same state.

The results testified to the sizable share of American voters upset at U.S. economic conditions and willing to send a shockwave to Washington in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

A self-described socialist pummeled Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and Donald Trump did the same to his Republican rivals.

The results in New Hampshire are exactly what happens when moral relativism, political corruption, and crony capitalism eat away at society’s innards for a long enough time. America, once a proud worker ant, now has something weird and different growing inside it. Unless the parasite is removed — now — it will burst forth from the nation’s corpse and usher in a wholly new reality, likely something from our Founding Fathers’ worst nightmares.

To give us a better idea of what is going on, I will now turn to Saint Augustine’s classic, City of God.

He writes on the fall of Rome:

“If the prince is unjust, or a tyrant (to use the Greek word), or if the aristocrats are unjust (in which case their group  is merely a faction), or if the people themselves are unjust (and must be called, for lack of a better word, a tyrant also), then the commonwealth is not merely bad … but is no commonwealth at all. The reason for that is that there is no longer the welfare of the people, once a tyrant or a faction seizes it; nor would the people, if unjust, be any longer a people, because they would not then be regarded as a multitude bound together by a common recognition of rights, and a mutual cooperation for the common good, as the standard definition of a people demands.

When, therefore, the Roman republic was such as Sallust describes it, it was not only ‘very wicked and corrupt’ — ‘a sink of iniquity,’ as he puts it — it was no republic at all, if measured by the criterion established by its ablest representatives when they met to debate the nature of the republic.” — Saint Augustine, City of God.

Augustine goes on to say, “By our own vices, not by chance, we have lost the republic, though we retain the name.”

If America truly is a decapitated ant that does not know it yet, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. We invited the parasites of moral relativism, political corruption, and crony capitalism into our body and now must pay the price, whatever that may be.

Kanye West announces 2020 presidential bid: ‘We da Millennials, bro’

Kanye West 2020Kanye West announced at the MTV Music Awards on Sunday night that he plans to run for president in 2020. Viewers would have saved a lot of time if they had followed the Twitter feed of yours truly.

I wrote on August 12: “America can no longer tell the difference between a political pugilist and a narcissistic peacock. I wonder when Kanye West will run…”

Kanye West campaignI did not say “if” Kanye West will run — I said “when.” The American Idol presidency started with Barack Obama and its mutation now exists in the form of Donald Trump’s current popularity. And, while the future is not linear, one does not need to have mystical gifts of prognostication to see the very real possibility of a Kanye West political campaign.

Mr. West said Thursday:

“We da Millennials, bro. Dis is a new — dis is a new mentality. We not gonna control our kids with brands. We not gonna teach low self esteem and hate to our kids. We gonna teach our kids dat they can be somethin’. We gonna teach our kids that they can stand up for dey self. We gonna teach our kids to believe in themselves. If my grandfather was here right now, he would not let me back down. I don’t know what I’m fittin’ da lose after this. It don’t matta doh, cause it ain’t about me. It’s about ideas, bro. New ideas. People with ideas. People who believe in truth.

And yes, as you probably could’ve guessed by this moment, I have decided, in 2020, to run for president.

Kanye West 2020: We may not be able to master the English language, but we can master the world! We ain’t fittin’ da lose cause we fittin’ da win, bro!

Sometimes a man needs to hit rock bottom before he realizes that he has a serious problem. On some level I hope that Mr. West launches a serious presidential run with his “new” ideas (that are actually quite old). Maybe then it will sink in with enough people that America is a very sick nation. Or not, and we can continue our embarrassing slide into irrelevance.

Obama, guy who said ‘core principle’ is ‘never…to divide,’ now calls his critics ‘the crazies’

Obama core principle divideIt was only June 1, 2015 that President Obama said one of his “core principles” is to “never engage in a politics in which I’m trying to divide people.” The commander in chief must have let his stomach get flabby on his vacation, because he is now calling political opponents “the crazies.”

Politico reported Monday:

Ruddy from the sun, Obama described himself as “refreshed, renewed, recharged — a little feisty.”

And he delivered, recounting the ride he and Reid had just taken from the conference to the fundraiser in his up-armored presidential limo, where they talked about old times and getting back to Washington to “deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems.”

The line evoked the late Dean Acheson, who as secretary of state liked to refer to opponents of Harry Truman’s foreign policy as ”the primitives.”

Getting the Iran deal through Congress will be Obama’s major hurdle coming into September.

Likely incoming Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is against the deal, as are a number of other Hill Democrats. Obama’s already been under fire for saying opponents of the deal have made “common cause” with Iranian hardliners, with Republicans pressing him on whether he’d lump Democrats into that group along with the GOP.

If you are a Democrat or a Republican who thinks it is a bad idea to give Iran’s Holocaust-denying rulers billions of dollars in sanctions relief — money they say will be used to undermine U.S. foreign policy — then Mr. Obama considers you one of “the crazies.”

Obama BuzzfeedOne week Mr. Obama is tweeting pictures of himself sending out magical unicorn-like rainbow waves from his right hand, and the next he is calling out “the crazies.” If media were honest, then reporters would call out the guy who campaigned on “hope and change” for his hypocritical behavior. Unfortunately, most mainstream media outlets appear to encourage work that is better suited for Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

White House RainbowMr. Obama’s rhetoric is prime example of the Law of Attraction in action. For roughly eight years the president of the United States has demonized his opponents as some variation of “the crazies.” Failed Republican nominee John McCain and others like him have done exactly the same thing (e.g., McCain referring to “the crazies” who want a secure border). For close to a decade, Washington, D.C.’s so-called masterminds have told millions of patriotic Americans that they are kooks and nuts; the righteous anger of these voters has now boiled over and they are embracing men like Donald Trump.

In many ways, it feels as though a perfect storm is gathering. If it comes to pass, then the political “leaders” who have shown nothing but contempt for the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans will bear much of the blame.

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email jokeDear FBI director James Comey and the men and women of the FBI,

By now you know that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s response to turning over her personal e-mail server to FBI investigators was to mock their work with a Snapchat joke at a campaign event.

“You may have seen that I’ve recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Iowa.

As an American who respects the rule of law, I interpret this joke as a giant middle finger to the FBI. It is the mark of a woman who thinks “My husband plays golf with the president while visiting Martha’s Vineyard. You won’t touch me. You can’t touch me.”

Given that the inspector general (IG) for U.S. intelligence agencies revealed Top Secret information had passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private server, and given that at least 305 more documents have now been sent to different agencies for review, I am pleading with you to respond to Mrs. Clinton’s rhetorical “Screw you” as you do to every other American who acts like they are above the law.

To every young FBI agent out there I ask the following questions:

  • What would happen if you somehow managed to have Platte River Networks set up your own private e-mail server, and then used it to conduct day-to-day operations?
  • What would happen if Top Secret information and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of classified documents passed through that server?
  • What if your supervisors found out about your private e-mail server and then you tried to wipe the device clean, held onto it for months, and only then turned it over to investigators?
  • Where would your career be after all of this, and what would happen if you joked about it in public?

In order for the great American experiment to work, citizens need to have faith in the system. When powerful people openly flaunt their ability to play by a completely different set of rules, civil society breaks down. When a politician’s behavior is so grossly irresponsible that the FBI needs to get involved to figure out if national security was compromised — and then she makes cavalier jokes about the matter — it sends the wrong message to anyone who cares about the future of the nation.

Mr. Comey, the pressure put upon you by well-connected people to make this all go away will be great. It must be hard to look at President Obama playing golf with Bill Clinton immediately after the FBI took Hillary’s private email server, and then move ahead with honesty and integrity. Mr. Obama has non-verbally asked the FBI to take the easy wrong instead of the hard right.

Now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon you to remember that the FBI motto — Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity — exists for a reason. I pray that you will go where the evidence takes you and do what is right.



Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

Clinton APFormer Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had a pretty good gig — she got to filter Top Secret e-mails, Clinton Foundation work, and personal correspondences through a single server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. For months she tried to downplay the implications of her decision, but after the inspector general (IG) for U.S. intelligence agencies found out that top-secret information went through that server, she turned it over to the FBI. Her campaign’s response: “this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president.” Seriously.

The Washington Post reported Aug. 12:

The FBI transfer Wednesday occurred one day after a top intelligence official whose office has been reviewing some of Clinton’s e-mails informed congressional leaders that top-secret information had been contained in two e-mails that traveled across the server.

The e-mail issue has become problematic for Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. On Wednesday, her campaign worked to reassure donors and supporters amid the rising controversy over the e-mail issue. In a blast e-mail, the campaign’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said “this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president.”

The controversy over Clinton’s e-mail dates to the summer of 2014, when, according to government officials, State Department lawyers realized they didn’t have access to some of her records as they prepared responses to congressional requests related to the 2012 attacks on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Imagine you were General David Petraeus, who was indicted, prosecuted, and ultimately convicted of sharing confidential information (i.e., the lowest level of classified materials).

Imagine you were Sandy Berger, who was found guilty of stealing classified material out of the National Archives — he shoved them down his pants — to better protect Bill Clinton’s reputation after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Imagine you were Chelsea Manning, sitting in prison for the next three decades for leaking government files to WikiLeaks.

Now imagine how you would feel if you watched the former Secretary of State get away with housing Top Secret information on her own personal e-mail server — completely out of reach of the federal government during her tenure with the Obama administration. You would feel pretty angry, wouldn’t you?

This is not the “kind of nonsense” one must deal with when he or she runs for president. “Nonsense” would something along the lines of The New York Times reporting on Marco Rubio’s four speeding tickets — since 1997. “Nonsense” would be like The Times reporting that Marco Rubio might not make a good president because he acquired a lot of student loans on his way to becoming a Florida Senator.

It is not “nonsense” when the FBI essentially says “Give us your person e-mail server before we make you give it to us” after finding out that it contained Top Secret information.

Reason magazine reported Aug. 12 just how bad the situation really is for Mrs. Clinton:

Given that 10 percent of the emails in the small batch examined by the IG were classified, it’s more than likely that there are many, many more of the communications on that server are classified too. Clinton claimed that “there is no classified material,” but what we know is that there’s definitely some, and almost certainly quite a lot of it.

Since her initial statement in March, Clinton’s campaign has updated her story. Her claim is now that none of the emails were classified at the time they were sent. “She followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials,” campaign spokesperson Nick Merrill told Politico in July. “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

A joint statement in July from IGs at the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence indicates otherwise.

“[The four classified] emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department,” the statement says. “Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Only the most pathetic kind of partisan hack can look at this story and call it a non-issue or “nonsense.” In a best-case scenario for Mrs. Clinton, it shows that she thinks that the rules others have to live by do not apply to her or close associates. Rules are for “the little people.” And sadly, if her friends in high places make all of this go away, it will send a message to millions of Americans that, indeed, the so-called masterminds in Washington, D.C. can do just about anything they want and get away with it — if they know how to pull the right combination of strings at their disposal.

If Americans want to know why Donald Trump’s campaign has traction, then they need to look no further than Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal. If Mrs. Clinton and her media allies convince enough Americans that the cloud of dishonesty over her head is really an angelic halo — and if her political allies in Washington, D.C., find a way to bury this controversy in a deep dark Memory Hole — then it will on many levels vindicate the Trump voter’s “Burning Down the House” mentality.

Wasserman-Schultz can’t tell ‘the difference between a Democrat and a socialist’ on ‘Hardball’

Wasserman Schultz HardballChris Matthews’ “Hardball” delivered one of the most revealing moments on cable news in years on Tuesday when he asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what the difference is between modern Democrats and socialists. She literally refused to answer the question. The spokeswoman for the DNC could not give an intelligent answer on what separates Democrats from socialists.

Mediaite reported:

Matthews: “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is? Between a Democrat like Hillary Clinton and a socialist like Bernie Sanders?”

Wasserman-Schultz: The more important question is the difference between being a Democrat and a Republican.

Matthews: But what’s the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist? You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.

Wasserman-Schultz: The relevant debate that we’ll be having over the course of this campaign [Chris Matthews’ slight laughter in the background] is ‘What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?’

Matthews: “I think there’s a big difference. I think there’s a huge difference.”

Wasserman-Schultz: The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to succeed, and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists.

The look on Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz’s face when Chris Matthews asked her to differentiate modern Democrats from socialists spoke volumes. It was as if she were locked in a room with a man whose stomach was well into its way of processing a dozen rotten eggs he had eaten hours before.

Republicans are “strangled” be “extremists,” and yet the DNC chairwoman can’t tell a cable news host the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Classic.

Ask yourself this question: If there was such a “huge difference” that wasn’t elucidated for Chris Matthews’ audience, then why did he move on to another subject instead of explaining it to them? The answer is that a “huge” difference does not exist.

Years ago I had a job that allowed me to travel all across the country talking to people about public policy issues. There were often older men and women at these events who really seemed to believe the Democratic Party was still one that would welcome a man like John F. Kennedy. As the DNC chair’s non-response demonstrates, those days are over.

The sad truth of the matter is that the modern Democratic Party essentially sees no area of American life that should be shielded from the bureaucratic bombardments of an ever-expansive federal government. The modern Republican Party is filled with spineless men whose jiggle-jowls wobble back and forth while they play lip service to the virtues of limited government, but little else.

The American people get what they deserve, and right now we deserve Debbie Wasserman-Schultz leading the DNC and Donald Trump leading in the polls. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know, then it is highly likely that you were a key player in creating the political climate that now exists.

Hillary Clinton used personal email account for all State Dept. business: Laws are for little people

Clinton APAt what point in time do the American people wake from their XBox and iPhone induced slumber and realize that the bureaucratic masterminds in Washington, D.C. are the nightmares of our founding fathers vivified? It may not be too far off because even The New York Times is drawing attention to the fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively used — yes, exclusively — her personal email account to conduct all business as Secretary of State.

The New York Times reported March 2:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. …

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Only a woman who believes herself to be exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us would exclusively use her personal email to conduct all official business as the Secretary of State. Most shady officials at least try to create a false veneer of transparency before finding ways to circumvent laws that inconvenience their plans — but not Hillary Clinton.

Ask yourself this question: What would be the reaction if, under a Republican president, his Secretary of State exclusively used her personal email account to conduct all official business? Now ask yourself if that individual could realistically ever run for president. The answer is simple: she would be laughed out of the room. She would be disqualified. She would be an embarrassment to everyone who ever vouched for her integrity.

The Hill reported Tuesday on what Ms. Clinton’s close friend John Podesta thought of the Bush administration’s partial use of personal email accounts in 2007:

A top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign-in-waiting accused the George W. Bush administration of using private emails to skirt transparency rules in 2007.

John Podesta, who left the White House in February for an unofficial role with Clinton, criticized Bush administration officials for using Republican National Committee email accounts for official business.

“At the end of the day, it looks like they were trying to avoid the Records Act . . . by operating official business off the official systems,” Podesta said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

The Bush White House admitted that it lost thousands of emails that weren’t backed up. Spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters in 2007 that the White House had “not done a good job” of complying with transparency laws, according to The Los Angeles Times. …

Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, said in an email that, “the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved.”

Wrong, Mr. Merrill. The rules were crafted as an acknowledgement that politicians get boatloads of email every single day from a variety of sources, and that some of those emails might exist in a grey area where professional and personal life meet. Conducting zero business on an official government email account is not in accordance with the “spirit” of the law — it is anathema to the spirit of the law.

Here is Ms. Clinton’s thoughts on government transparency in 2008:

I want to have a much more transparent government and I think we now have the tools to make that happen. … For me, we’re now in an era which didn’t exist before, where you can have Instant access to information. I want to see my government be more transparent.” — Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press, 2008.

Odd how things change when you’re the Secretary of State, isn’t it? Yes, the government does have the “tools” make transparency happen — it’s called an official government email account, Ms. Clinton — coupled with the timely response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. In that regard, you have essentially spit in the American public’s face and said, “I do what I want. Deal with it.”

If the American people elect Ms. Clinton president in 2016 — a woman who thinks she is above the rule of law — then they deserve all the consequences that follow.

Obama amnesty response? 5 million Americans should march on the White House

White HouseIt’s been said that President Obama is going to do his best Venezuelan dictator impression and issue a far-reaching decree to undermine the rule of law. Newspapers all around the country are asking “What will the GOP do?” if Mr. Obama grants amnesty to 1-5 million illegal immigrants in the absence of any bill passed by Congress. At this point, it’s not what the Republicans should do — it’s what Americans should do. Millions of them should march on the White House.

Fact: Mr. Obama said himself that what he now threatens the country with is a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution. He said so himself.

Hotair nicely consolidated a few choice quotes by the constitutional lawyer who now plans to completely disregard the U.S. Constitution:

“I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. This could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. (President Obama, July, 2010).

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” (President Obama, March 2011).

“I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true. We are doing everything we can administratively,” (President Obama, Sept. 2011).

“Until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. (President Obama, March 2014).

There must be millions of Democrats out there who know that what the president plans to do would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. The constitutional crisis that will result from attempting to use an executive order to do something of such magnitude for millions upon millions of Americans is unconscionable. It is short-sighted, but it is also something out of a tyrant’s handbook.

The media is doing its best not to talk about the constitutional implications of such an action, and instead focusing on the politics. That is an abdication of its important role in keeping those with their hands on the levers of power honest, but at this juncture all that matters is that the American people — not just politicians in Washington — must stand up to the utter lawlessness of such a move.

Impeachment? Budgetary tricks? Republican-led government shutdown? It’s beyond that. If 5 million Americans marched on up to the White House, then it would give members of Congress — of any party — the political cover they need to check a U.S. president who takes cues from the ghost of Hugo Chavez.