Democrats Aren’t Rushing To Defend Hillary Clinton

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.


Wouldn’t it be great to see, as Rev Jeremiah Wright said it, “The Chickens come home to roost?”

Obama will certainly go down as the worst occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in history.

 However, nobody has it coming to her like the “Broad.” Hillary Clinton.




This reporter would not call a woman a broad, but Hillary is literally and  figuratively speaking very broad. 

Hillary exceeded at nothing while she served as Secretary of State, her staff could come up without a single accomplishment of note, thus mirroring her lack luster performance as the junior Senator from New Your.

Well it’s time for the pathological liar and serial perjurer to get hers and we can only hope it will lead to the end of the so-called, “Clinton dynasty,” a figment of their imaginations to be sure.

God Damn America?  I don’t think so, but if he chooses to damn Hillary she will have great company in the fires of hell.


00000001 a obamas liars


Hillary Clinton is responsible for the deaths of our Ambassador in Benghazi, a U.S. Diplomat and two Navy SEALS.

None of those questioning her in her congressional hearing on the matter thought to get her on the record with a simple question.  Mrs. Clinton who gave you the order to stand down and not rescue Americans?


The National Journal

After e-mail revelations, some Democrats are dodging questions more than offering Clinton cover

 New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen repeated the same refrain later, saying “I don’t know enough about it to appropriately respond.”

As the elevator doors closed, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said at about 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, “I literally don’t know anything about her home internet system.”

And as Sen. Ron Wyden—a strong advocate for government transparency—headed toward the Senate office buildings, he said he was busy at the Supreme Court all Wednesday morning.

“I haven’t had a chance to go through that. … I’m going to have to go onto health,” as other reporters waited to ask their questions. “I just don’t have time for that one,” Wyden said, indicating the question could be revisited after he’d had more time to read the latest Clinton news.

Senators Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin, however, neither avoided the question nor toed the party line. While, McCaskill too wanted to know more, she said she is “focused” on making sure the information is publicly available somewhere.

“The most important thing is to make sure the information was archived in some way and made available in some way,” McCaskill said. When probed by a reporter as to what happens if the e-mails are not archived somewhere, McCaskill said”It has to be now.”

Manchin also had heard the news. He wants to see what other facts, if any, come out of the controversy, but “it sounds like somebody made a mistake.”

But did that mean Clinton herself made a mistake? “I don’t know. We’ll find out,” he said. “I guess that someone must have advised her that this is how other people have operated.” It’s a position he’s been in himself, Manchin said, when he asks advisors what to do, and they respond with how a task was performed previously.

“So, I don’t know,” Manchin said. “I don’t know the facts. I really don’t know the facts.”

Even Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the Select Committee on Benghazi, said he was still wading through the news and was unsure how it would affect his committee’s probe. He said, however, that his job on the committee has never been simply to protect his party’s potential presidential nominee.

“We will see, but I want to be clear, I am not trying to defend Hillary Clinton,” Cummings said. “I am trying to defend the truth … we have some things we are going to try and figure out.”

Already, Cummings’ counterpart, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said he would take all legal recourse to get Clinton’s emails.

“We’ve had new revelations even before this, we just have not trumpeted them,” Gowdy said. The committee was preparing Wednesday to subpoena emails on Benghazi from accounts and staffers’ personal accounts, The Washington Post reported Wednesday afternoon.

Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona said Clinton needs to respond quicker to avoid revisiting the issue.

“I hate the idea that it would revitalize this whole Benghazi investigations when they were dead, and they were not only conclusive, nothing was found,” Grijalva said. “So the sooner the participants in this case, Hillary and the State Department, provide full disclosure, the better off we’re going to be.”

Some top House Democrats, such as Reps. Joe Crowley and Steve Israel, were quick to Clinton’s defense.

“I don’t believe that the secretary of state should be responsible for figuring out whether it was dot gov vs. dot com, and quite honestly I don’t think most Americans wake up in the morning thinking about it,” Israel, the former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, said. “I’m sure the Republicans will now create a special select committee on dot gov, that’s what they do, and nobody should be surprised that they’re responding the way that they are.”

The Clinton controversy highlights a major vulnerability that has plagued the Clinton family before. As Hillary Clinton attempts to rebrand herself and gear up for a retooled 2016 campaign, Republicans will continue to paint her as a political machine, a politician so overtly concerned about her rise to the Oval Office that she was willing to safeguard every correspondence to protect her public persona.

“The Clinton’s always have a way of not telling us something that is bad news,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Potential 2016 Republican challenger Sen. Rand Paul said that the emails fit a pattern of behavior.

“I think we need to be very careful about elected officials obeying the law,” Paul said. “The thing that concerns me more than the emails is the fact that she has been receiving money from foreign countries … the Constitution specifically prohibits people from taking gifts while in office.”

Sen. John McCain said Clinton could have simply avoided the controversy by not sending emails, the policy he holds.

“I don’t email at all,” McCain says. “I have other people and I tell them to email because I am just always worried I might say something. I am not the most calm and reserved person you know? I am afraid I might email something that in retrospect I wish I hadn’t.”




Continue reading

The Nobel Committee seems to regret giving Obama the Peace Prize




March 4, 2015


Zero Hedge

By Bonnie Kristian

In what has been described as an “unprecedented” decision, the Nobel Committee has chosen to replace its chair, Thorbjoern Jagland, after a six-year tenure—and his role in giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 is a big reason why.

In what has been described as an “unprecedented” decision, the Nobel Committee has chosen to replace its chair, Thorbjoern Jagland, after a six-year tenure—and his role in giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize back in 2009 is a big reason why.

The Associated Press reports:

Jagland will remain a member of the voting panel but was a contentious leader, attracting criticism for his dual role as committee chairman and head of the European Council when the prize was awarded to the European Union in 2012. His leadership also was clouded by the decision to give the prize to Barack Obama in 2009 after he had just been elected president, and the 2010 prize to the jailed dissident Liu Xiabo drew fury from China. (Emphasis added.)

As the Zero Hedge blog notes, this move seems inevitably connected to the Committee’s regret over giving the Peace Prize to Obama, who “has since the aware become a neo-con warhawk, who has put some of the most bloodthirsty [R]epublicans to shame, and whose actions (and lack thereof) have led to not only global conflict intensity spiking to a 7-year high, but have generated untold riches to the shareholders of the military industrial complex.”

Continue reading

Artist Creates Controversial Painting of Obama Playing Golf while the back ground is exploding

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.


This is much like the artist who painted Bill Clinton’s picture which hangs in the National Archives and the Clinton’s are trying to no avail to take down.

Of course it was Monica Lewinsky’s seaman stained dress, Obama probably has a couple of those as well but he left them at his local D.C. bath house.



 “He Has Risen”

Jon McNaughton is my favorite artist.  Originally he focused of beautiful religious portraits.



“Wake Up America,” above, I proudly have hanging in my living room.




His destruction of the U.S. Constitution is show here.

A switch has switched with in him as he has gone to eviscerating the Obama administration for destroy America at home and abroad.

In the image and video below McNaughton takes the gloves off spanking Obama hard!



 Other images of McNaughton feature prayer, patriotism and our troops.


To Visit the entire Jon McNaughton Galleries images and videos Please click here.

H/T Ms. Lorra B.

Continue reading

Pomp and Petulance from the boy who would be king

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper, Patriot and Infidel


If you can find a site filled with a weeks full of information, and funnier than this one please go there.

P.S. Joe Dan gets a lot of his information from me during my daily Email posts with him.




Liberals are a ‘never-ending’ source of material…. And this episode should not disappoint. 

“The government voted to give the government control of the internet…that sounds fair, lol. But keep in mind that it’s for our own good! And since they can’t ban the guns…Obama is going to ban bullets.



And probably the worst news of all—-there’s a ‘country song’ about supporting Hillary Clinton for president… You can tell how clever the writer is by how he masterfully rhymed the word “lady’ with the word ‘lady’







What a slam on Dale Evans !


And if you are wrestling with the concept of God versus science—remember there are scientists that DO believe in God.”



Continue reading

Roberts Nearly Silent as Partisan Sparks Fly In Obamacare Case

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.


There should be more than sparks flying as Obama’s health care debacle was even a bigger fraud perpetrated on Americans than Obama’s “So-called election.”


Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Smauel Alito Jr., Elena Kagan

It’s bad enough that there have been question regarding Chief Justice, John Roberts flip-flop and changing his vote to protect a 17% GDP take over by the federal government.



If the Fourth Branch of government can’t be trusted to uphold the Constitution then we have become a country governed by zealots and would be tin pot dictators, just the way Obama wants it.

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision reaches much farther than ObamaCare standing or falling, it may well be the firstserious test of our Constitutionally driven Republic since the Civil War.

Roberts Nearly Silent as Partisan Sparks Fly In Obamacare Case.

Anthony Kennedy may be the key to Obamacare’s survival.





National Journal
By Sam Baker



March 4, 2015 Chief Justice John Roberts kept his cards close to the chest Wednesday as the Supreme Court weighed a potentially devastating challenge to Obamacare.

Roberts, who is seen the most likely swing vote in the case, asked relatively few questions and gave no hints about how he’s likely to rule in the high-profile challenge to Obamacare’s insurance subsidies.

But the White House may not need Roberts’s vote: Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed at least open to part of the administration’s argument, if not entirely sold on it.

“It seems to me that under your argument, there’s a serious constitutional problem,” Kennedy said to Michael Carvin, the attorney who argued against the subsidies Wednesday.

The rest of the Court’s conservative wing seemed willing to invalidate those subsidies in most of the country—and hand the law’s critics the body blow they were denied in 2012, when Roberts cast the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate.

A loss for the White House would significantly damage Obamacare: Some 7 million to 8 million people would likely lose their coverage. It also would weaken Obamacare’s individual mandate and its employer mandate, and could send states’ insurance markets into a tailspin.

The challengers in King v. Burwell argues that Obamacare provides its subsidies—which help low-and middle-income consumers cover part of their premiums—only to people who live in states that set up their own insurance exchanges. The IRS is acting illegally by making subsidies available to residents of the 34 states that punted their exchanges to the federal government, the challengers argue.

They point to a section of the law that refers to subsidies flowing through “an Exchange established by the State.” That text alone should clearly limit the subsidies to state-based exchanges, they say.

But the challengers have had a hard time persuading lower courts that Congress actually intended to limit subsidies to certain states.

The Justice Department argues that the text of the statute, read in its entirety, clearly treats state- and federally run exchanges the same. The law directs states to set up their own marketplaces, but if they don’t, it directs the Health and Human Services Department to establish “such Exchange” in their absence.

That equivalence shows that Congress intended to treat all exchanges the same for all practical purposes—including subsidiea—the Justice Department argues.

Lower courts split on the issue: On the same day last summer, one federal Appeals Court ruled that subsidies were illegal in federally run exchanges, while another deferred to the IRS’s interpretation and allowed the payments to continue.

Continue reading

A Drop in the bucket? : Leader of Mexico’s Zetas drug cartel and Knights of Templar captured !

Alejandro Trevino-Morales was captured Wednesday in Monterrey, Mexico, officials said. (US State Department)

The leader of Mexico’s notorious Zetas drug cartel was captured Wednesday during a pre-dawn raid in the city of Monterrey, officials announced.

Alejandro Trevino-Morales, also known as “Omar” and “42,” was taken into custody by federal forces, an official – who was not authorized to be quoted by name due to government policy – told The Associated Press.


The arrest comes days after the capture of the head of the Knights Templar drug cartel, “La Tuta” Gomez Martinez.servando030315_8col

Trevino-Morales is reported to have run the cartel since the 2013 arrest of his brother, Miguel. The Zetas’ other biggest leader, Heriberto Lazcano, or “El Lazca,” was killed by Mexican marines in 2012.

Trevino-Morales, 41, is allegedly responsible for several abductions and murders committed in Nuevo Laredo between 2005 and 2006, the U.S. State Department says. He also was allegedly the supply source for multi-kilogram loads of cocaine smuggled from Mexico to the United States.

The Mexican government had offered a $2 million reward for Trevino-Morales’ capture on weapons and organized crime charges, while the U.S. State Department offered a reward of up to $5 million.

The Zetas cartel evolved from a small group of Mexican Special Forces deserters that were hired to protect Osiel Cardenas-Guillen, the former leader of the Gulf Cartel.

The organization grew into a ruthless security force that took responsibility for the smuggling of the Gulf Cartel’s cocaine and other drugs from Mexico into the United States, in addition to running their own smuggling operations.

Last week, police captured another suspected drug lord, Servando “La Tuta” Gomez, who was the leader of the Knights Templar cartel.




Continue reading

Big Media Blacks Out the Clinton Foundation Foreign-Money Story Even Though It’s A Crime

crew-2231Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.


Seriously, if foreign countries and entities want Hillary Clinton to be the next U.S. President shouldn’t that be the final nail in the coffin of the chronic liar and serial perjurer?  Hillary is bringing an entire new meaning to the phrase, “Know your Enemies.”

It makes perfect sense when one considers the knowledge level of those voting in United States Elections.



Trie-Chung-HuangRemember,  Johnny Chung: contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (“Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty” March 17, 1998).

Chung, has told federal investigators that the chief of China’s military intelligence funneled $300,000 through him to back President Clinton’s 1996 campaign



Among the many, many reasons why Americans hate and distrust the mainstream media, we’ve got the amazing spectacle of a major story directly impacting a likely presidential candidate — Hillary Clinton — completely blacked out in favor of obsessive coverage for llamas on the loose.

To mix animal metaphors, many liberal-media critics smell a rat every time the airwaves are filled with obsession over a frivolous story.  NewsBusters clocked six minutes on the story of llamas running loose in Arizona, but only 32 seconds of coverage on one of the major networks (CBS) for the incredible tale of Hillary Clinton’s foundation raking in foreign and corporate cash both during and after her tenure as Secretary of State.


This is the same media that squeezed a solid week of shrieking, hysterical news coverage out of Rudy Giuliani, who isn’t even running for anything, expressing doubts about the depth of Barack Obama’s love for America.  Even the casual news consumer realized the intensity of this coverage had little to do with its news-worthiness.  

It was, in part, a cynical attempt to use Giuliani’s remarks as a hydraulic piston to hammer the Republicans who probably are running for president, beginning with — but by no means limited to — Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, but mostly it was a sustained wail of anguish and outrage from media elites, who identify so strongly with their beloved Barack Obama that they took Giuliani’s s remarks as a personal slight against them.

There’s no question about the depth of Hillary Clinton’s love for money.  As the Clinton Foundation story gets deeper, it’s increasingly difficult for the mainstream press to justify ignoring it.  They’ll be even more reluctant to ask her about it, the way hordes of them followed Walker around and interrogated him about what he thinks Barack Obama is thinking.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t get asked about anything.

The media allows her to remain invisible for as long as she likes, and since her public appearances tend to become gaffe avalanches, she stays invisible quite a bit.  It would be a certain sign that the media favoritism her nascent candidacy depends on was evaporating if they actually asked her about the Clinton Foundation stories.

The story we’ve been hearing so little about from the press came in two stages.  First, the Wall Street Journal dished on the Clinton Foundation quietly dropping its “self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments” and collecting a rapidly increasing amount of foreign money.  Second, the Washington Post discovered that “self-imposed ban” wasn’t exactly imposed with rigorous discipline to begin with:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.

See entire fiasco below.

Continue reading