Sunday, February 28, 2016





Farrakhan: Don’t Fall For ‘Satan’ Hillary Clinton’s ‘Crap’

Sunday at the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan said don’t “fall” for Democartic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “crap” on African-American issues because she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton are responsible for mass incarceration of black people.

Farrakhan said, “How many of you are going to vote for Hillary Clinton? You don’t have to raise your hands. I do not blame you for wanting a female president, but that is a wicked woman. She can be sweet but so can you. And you know when you are sweet but playing a game. All of a sudden she knows about Trayvon Martin. All of a sudden—the boy’s been dead two years now—she talking about him like she met the mother and oh… White people this is Satan. And you fall for that crap? Most of you went to jail for having a little blunt. They arranged that—the Clintons. Mass incarceration came about under the Clintons, Don’t forget that. They call my young gang bangers super predators. And Black Lives Matter put it to her—she didn’t know how to handle that. Call you a super predator, that has no conscience, no sense of dignity like you are a dog, an animal. She gotta bring you to heal you my young brothers. This is what she said about you and she didn’t just say it—it became law and policy of the U.S. government under Bill Clinton and his wife, and now she is apologizing, but apologizing can’t bring back the broken families. Apologizing cant bring back those that been destroyed in prison life.”

Saturday, February 27, 2016


Bill Clinton snaps at veteran during speech: ‘Shut up and listen to my answer’
The long hours and grueling pace of the presidential campaign may be finally catching up with a rapidly aging Bill Clinton.
During an appearance in Bluffton, South Carolina on Friday, a former Marine interrupted Clinton’s speech and asked him to address what Hillary was going to do about the VA.

“What do you think should be done with the VA?” Clinton said in a raspy voice, turning the question back on him and yielding the floor.

“The thing is, we had four lives in Benghazi killed and your wife tried to cover it up,” the Marine responded, eliciting boos and jeers from the crowd.

As the man continued to talk, audience members yelled at him to sit down. “Are you going to let me answer?” Clinton asked. “This is America. I get to answer,” he said. “You listen to me. I heard you,” Clinton snapped as the man turned around and began addressing the crowd.

“I heard your speech. They heard your speech. You listen to me now,” Clinton said, his voice cracking.

“Am I allowed to answer? I’m not your commander in chief anymore but if I were, I’d tell you to be more polite and sit down.”

“I wouldn’t listen!” the man shouted in return.

“Do you have the courage to listen to my answer? Don’t throw him out. Shut up and listen to my answer. I’ll answer it,” Clinton said as the man was pushed out of the gymnasium by sheriff’s deputies.

“Can I just saying something? That’s what’s wrong: his mind has been poisoned by lies and he won’t listen,” Clinton said.

A woman just jumped up and began shouting at the former president.

“Hillary lied over four coffins,” she said as a man near her yelled “Bullshit.”

“She lied and she lied to those families. So all those families are liars?” she said as Clinton tried to stop her and a Secret Service agent moved closer to the former president.

“Did she lie?” the woman said as Clinton responded, “Will you let me answer?”

“No,” he said. “Why are you afraid to listen to my answer?” Clinton said.

“Are you afraid?” he asked her. “No I’m not afraid because I know you’re going to lie,” she responded.

The video shows her then forcibly removed from the room. Clinton never did answer.

Friday, February 26, 2016


Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected (read un-represented)
Peggy NoonanFeb. 25, 2016 8:02 p.m. ET

We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact of the Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.

I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things?

In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious.

But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.

Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five.
But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.

There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.
The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time.

I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.

They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details.
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions.

One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens.

It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump.

Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.

If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Many Americans suffered from illegal immigration—its impact on labor markets, financial costs, crime, the sense that the rule of law was collapsing. But the protected did fine—more workers at lower wages. No effect of illegal immigration was likely to hurt them personally.
It was good for the protected. But the unprotected watched and saw. They realized the protected were not looking out for them, and they inferred that they were not looking out for the country, either.

The unprotected came to think they owed the establishment—another word for the protected—nothing, no particular loyalty, no old allegiance.

Mr. Trump came from that.

Similarly in Europe, citizens on the ground in member nations came to see the EU apparatus as a racket—an elite that operated in splendid isolation, looking after its own while looking down on the people.

In Germany the incident that tipped public opinion against the Chancellor Angela Merkel’s liberal refugee policy happened on New Year’s Eve in the public square of Cologne. Packs of men said to be recent migrants groped and molested groups of young women. It was called a clash of cultures, and it was that, but it was also wholly predictable if any policy maker had cared to think about it. And it was not the protected who were the victims—not a daughter of EU officials or members of the Bundestag. It was middle- and working-class girls—the unprotected, who didn’t even immediately protest what had happened to them. They must have understood that in the general scheme of things they’re nobodies.

What marks this political moment, in Europe and the U.S., is the rise of the unprotected. It is the rise of people who don’t have all that much against those who’ve been given many blessings and seem to believe they have them not because they’re fortunate but because they’re better.

You see the dynamic in many spheres. In Hollywood, as we still call it, where they make our rough culture, they are careful to protect their own children from its ill effects. In places with failing schools, they choose not to help them through the school liberation movement—charter schools, choice, etc.—because they fear to go up against the most reactionary professional group in America, the teachers unions. They let the public schools flounder. But their children go to the best private schools.

This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care that much about their unprotected fellow citizens.

And a country really can’t continue this way.

In wise governments the top is attentive to the realities of the lives of normal people, and careful about their anxieties. That’s more or less how America used to be. There didn’t seem to be so much distance between the top and the bottom.

Now it seems the attitude of the top half is: You’re on your own. Get with the program, little racist.

Social philosophers are always saying the underclass must re-moralize. Maybe it is the overclass that must re-moralize.

I don’t know if the protected see how serious this moment is, or their role in it.


Army Testing New Weapons to Combat Weaponized Drones ... Duh, get a grip!  There already exists technology to create a "dome" covering an area wherein no frequencies operate ... 
The U.S. Army is close to selecting a new style of weapon designed to stop an imminent threat of terrorists using drones to fly bombs into military and government facilities.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, commonly known as drones, have become an effective, reliable tool to help commanders gather battlefield intelligence. They have also exploded on the commercial market, flooding toy stores and hobby shops with inexpensive, multi-propeller drones.

They're small, extremely quiet and fly at high altitudes, making them difficult to detect. A year ago, a DJI Phantom evaded Secret Service radar and landed on the White House lawn.

The Federal Aviation Administration instituted a no drone zone around the nation's capital in July with a 15-mile no-fly zone around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, just south of Washington. The FAA expanded the no-drone zone in late December to a 30-mile radius, encircling much of southern and central Maryland and northern Virginia.

"It's a tough mission set because of the size and the altitude of these devices ... you can buy them off the Internet; you can buy them in a store," said Col. Steve Sliwa, director of the Army's Rapid Equipping Force. "They are not really that expensive. The ones that could threaten an installation, they are a little more expensive, but we are not talking about big dollars here."

The REF has teamed up with several Army commands such as the Asymmetric Warfare Group and the Fires Center of Excellence to find a weapon that can detect, classify and disrupt a weaponized drone from reaching its target.

"We want to get to a solution, even if it's is just an interim solution, that we can put in the hands of soldiers ... something that is inexpensive, that soldiers can use to detect, classify and assess what is going on and select a course of action if necessary," Sliwa said.

But finding an effective defense against drones has been no easy task. Conventional small arms, everything from shotguns to machine guns, failed to bring down drones armed with explosives in an early evaluation last January, according to an Army source not authorized to speak on the effort.

The small, fast-moving drones were difficult to hit but also very durable. Detecting their location before they got too close to their intended target also proved very challenging, the source said.

The Army then invited companies to Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, in September to participate in demonstrations of technology designed to detect, classify and potentially defeat drones, Sliwa said. Army officials tried to develop unique vignettes of how a free-thinking enemy might use drones against U.S. forces on the battlefield, he said.

Sliwa would not talk about any specific system since it is too early in the evaluation.

But DroneDefender, a system made by Battelle, proved very effective, the Army source said.

"It's available now, and it's is effective," he said.

The DroneDefender, a shoulder-fired weapon that looks like something out of a bad science-fiction movie, uses radio waves to cut the link between the drone and its controller, the source said.

Battelle has "temporarily removed information related to DroneDefender while we evaluate the permissible applications of the product under current regulations," according to the company's website.

DroneDefender has a range of "several hundred meters," but it's made much more effective when it is teamed with an Israeli-made radar, the Army source said. The radar system consists of two, 40-pound components and can be carried in two mountain rucksacks.

When assembled, it provides 360-degree radar, detecting drones from "several kilometers" away, the source said.

CONTROP Presents TORNADO 360˚ Panoramic Infrared System
PARIS AIR SHOW 2015: CONTROP PRESENTS TORNADO 360˚ PANORAMIC INFRARED SYSTEMCONTROP Precision Technologies debuted its TORNADO lightweight rapid-scanning infrared (IR) camera for air defence applications at Le Bourget in Paris.

Using a cooled mid-wave infrared (MWIR) camera with an unspecified (but high value) array format on a rapid 360˚ coverage mounting, TORNADO offers panoramic coverage from ground level to 18˚ above the horizon all around its location.

To this coverage, TORNADO applies software algorithms to detect subtle changes in the scenery which, the company says, can automatically detect and track any flying aircraft along its path – from mini-unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) through various-sized helicopters to large fixed-wing aircraft – at low level ('a few feet above ground level') and at varying flight velocities.

CONTROP states TORNADO can provide surveillance at low altitudes and over cluttered urban areas, as opposed to just against a background of sky. The company declined to be specific beyond indicating that, for small targets, detection is measured in hundreds of metres while large targets are detected tens of kilometers away.

Most radar-based air-defence systems are not designed to address the threat posed by small UAVs that fly below 100 ft, but "we recognised this gap in technology and came up with an IR-based solution," said Johnny Carni, CONTROP's vice-president marketing, adding that TORNADO "was recently tested and proven capable of detecting and tracking even the smallest and lowest flying drones". Carni declined to expand on this statement.

Operationally, TORNADO is able to provide an automatic audio and visual alert which notifies the operator that a flying object has entered a pre-defined 'no-fly' zone. It can be operated locally or remotely from a command-and-control centre, either in stand-alone mode or as part of an integrated system, bringing together a variety of other sensor inputs.

The standard TORNADO sensor unit weighs 16 kg, with a 30 cm diameter and 48 cm height; while a smaller unit of 26x47 cm and weighing 11 kg is also planned.


While a 360˚ panoramic infrared systems (such as HGH Infrared's Spynel range) are already available, CONTROP's TORNADO is smaller and lighter and, at first glance, appears tuned to an operational application on air-defence vehicles as well as static mounting for fixed-site defence. The key to its success will be demonstrating that the software can, indeed deliver the claimed performance against cluttered urban backgrounds.
 There are other anti-drone technologies being looked at, but Army officials hope to select a system within six months, Sliwa said.

"We are very close to putting a capability forward," he said. "It should be reassuring for those that are concerned about this ... there is testing going on and I think in the very near future, there will be an equipping decision of some sort to at least get an interim capability to take on the threat."



Wednesday, February 24, 2016


Kerry on Gitmo Detainee Who Returned to Terrorism: ‘He’s Not Supposed to Be Doing That’ ... DUH, WTF!!!
February 24, 2016 5:45 pm
Ibrahim al Qosi, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, now serves as a leader and spokesman for al Qaeda in Yemen
Secretary of State John Kerry lamented Wednesday that a terrorist who the Obama administration released from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay subsequently returned to fight for al Qaeda, telling lawmakers “he’s not supposed to be doing that.”
Appearing before the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Kerry made the statement while testifying about the State Department’s budget request for the fiscal year 2017.

During the hearing, Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) asked Kerry for his thoughts on Ibrahim al Qosi, the former Guantanamo detainee who is now a prominent al Qaeda leader, and had staffers hold up a picture of the terrorist for Kerry to see.

“Let me just ask one question,” Kirk said to Kerry. “I want to show you a picture of Ibrahim al Qosi, who was recently released by the administration to the Sudanese, and he appeared on some al Qaeda videos recruiting people for AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula].”

Kirk went on to say, “Now that he’s out, I would hope we would end the policy of issuing terrorists to terrorist nations, and where they can get out.”

Sudan, where al Qosi was released, has a long history of terrorist activity with Sunni jihadist groups and individuals like al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as well as with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Sudanese government has also been internationally accused of committing genocide in Darfur.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) released a new video featuring a former Guantanamo detainee, Ibrahim Qosi, who is also known as Sheikh Khubayb al Sudani.

In July 2010, Qosi plead guilty to charges of conspiracy and material support for terrorismbefore a military commission. His plea was part of a deal in which he agreed to cooperate with prosecutors during his remaining time in US custody. Qosi was transferred to his home country of Sudan two years later, in July 2012.

Qosi joined AQAP in 2014 and became one of its leaders. Qosi and other AQAP commanders discussed their time waging jihad at length in the video, entitled “Guardians of Sharia.”

Islamic scholars ensure the “correctness” of the “jihadist project,” according to Qosi. And the war against America continues through “individual jihad,” which al Qaeda encourages from abroad. Here, Qosi referred to al Qaeda’s policy of encouraging attacks by individual adherents and smaller terror cells. Indeed, AQAP’s video celebrates jihadists who have acted in accordance with this call, such as the Kouachi brothers, who struck Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris earlier this year. The Kouachi brothers’ operation was sponsored by AQAP.

The al Qaeda veterans shown in the video emphasized the importance of following the advice of recognized jihadist ideologues. Although AQAP’s men do not mention the Islamic State by name, they clearly have Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s group in mind. Al Qaeda has criticized the Islamic State for failing to follow the teachings of widely respected jihadist authorities, most of whom reject the legitimacy of Baghdadi’s self-declared “caliphate.”

Qosi’s appearance marks the first time he has starred in jihadist propaganda since he left Guantanamo. His personal relationship with Osama bin Laden and time in American detention make him an especially high-profile spokesman.

A leaked Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment and other declassified files documented Qosi’s extensive al Qaeda dossier. In the threat assessment, dated Nov. 15, 2007, US intelligence analysts described Qosi as a “high” risk to the US and its allies.

“Detainee is an admitted veteran jihadist with combat experience beginning in 1990 and it is assessed he would engage in hostilities against US forces, if released,” JTF-GTMO found.

In 1990, Qosi met two al Qaeda members who recruited him for jihad in Afghanistan.

Qosi was then trained at al Qaeda’s al Farouq camp, which was the terror group’s primary training facility in pre-9/11 Afghanistan. In 1991, Osama bin Laden relocated to Sudan and Qosi followed. He worked as an accountant and treasurer for bin Laden’s front companies, a role he would continue to fill after al Qaeda moved back to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the mid-1990s.

JTF-GTMO found that after an attempt on bin Laden’s life in 1994, Qosi was chosen to be a member of the al Qaeda founder’s elite security detail. He was also picked to perform sensitive missions around that time.

For example, Qosi served as a courier and may have delivered funds to the terrorist cell responsible for the June 25, 1995 assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Qosi relocated to Chechnya that same year, before returning to bin Laden’s side in Afghanistan some time in 1996 or 1997.

“From 1998 to 2001,” JTF-GTMO’s analysts wrote, Qosi “traveled back and forth between the front lines near Kabul and Kandahar to help with the fight against the Northern Alliance.”

In Dec. 2001, the Pakistanis captured Qosi as he fled the Battle of Tora Bora. He was detained as part of a group dubbed the “Dirty 30” by US intelligence officials. The “Dirty 30” included other members of bin Laden’s bodyguard unit, as well as Mohammed al Qahtani, the would-be 20th hijacker. Qahtani, who was slated to take part in the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, had been denied entry into the US just months before.

While detained at Guantanamo in 2003, Qosi was asked why he stayed true to bin Laden for so many years. According to JTF-GTMO, Qosi explained it was his “religious duty to defend Islam and fulfill the obligation of jihad and that the war between America and al Qaeda is a war between Islam and aggression of the infidels.”

Qosi made it clear in AQAP’s new production that he hasn’t changed his opinion in the twelve years since.

Opponents of the president also point to the fact that the recidivism rate for released detainees who return to the battlefield is 30 percent, citing al Qosi as just one example of many.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016


Secretary of State John Kerry’s testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday produced a number of revelations about the ongoing Hillary Clinton email probe, including that she was provided an email account during her time at the agency designed to handle classified information but never used it.
During one part of an at-times intense exchange, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson  read from a letter from Julia Frifield, who serves as State Department assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs.

“Secretary Clinton did not use a classified email account at the State Department. An account was set up on ClassNet on her calendar, but it was not used,” Frifield wrote in response to a Sept. 21, 2015 letter from the committee asking for information about Clinton’s use of an account equipped to handle classified information.
ClassNet refers to the State Department workstations that are designed to allow employees to view classified information.



Monday, February 22, 2016


Marco Rubio: the GOP's Very Own Barack Obama

This story in today's Washington Post ought to give even the most ardent Rubio supporters pause:
Marco Rubio is a U.S. senator. And he just can’t stand it anymore. “I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word,” Rubio said in an interview. “I’m frustrated.”
This year, as Rubio runs for president, he has cast the Senate — the very place that cemented him as a national politician — as a place he’s given up on, after less than one term. It’s too slow. Too rule-bound. So Rubio, 44, has decided not to run for his seat again. It’s the White House or bust.

“That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection,” Rubio said in the last Republican debate, after Donald Trump had mocked him for his unusual number of absences during Senate votes.

If I were a Rubio fan, which I'm not, this would worry me. A lot. For Rubio resembles nobody in our current political life as much as Barack Obama, another freshman senator who took almost no interest in the Senate and instead spent much of his one and only term planning a run for the presidency; so did Hillary Clinton, although she got sidetracked into the State Department when she lost to Obama in 2008.
But in many ways, Rubio is even more audacious than Obama. Obama was the hand-picked choice of the Chicago Machine, a non-entity back bencher in the corrupt state legislature suddenly elevated into a safe seat in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body. Proving once again that any tomato can is electorally viable in Illinois.
Rubio, though, won a hard-fought Senate seat in Florida and for a time was a Tea Party/conservative Golden Boy. But he quickly showed his true colors as an amnesty backer with his participation in the infamous Gang of Eight scheme. And when that came a cropper, he pouted, retreated and then suddenly decided that what America really needs is him in the White House:

Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party.

But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something.

Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not. Which makes for an odd campaign message.

Rubio must convince voters that his decision to leave the Senate — giving up the power he already has — is actually a mark of character, a sign that he is too dedicated to public service to stay. Rubio is not a quitter, the argument goes. In fact, that’s precisely why he’s quitting this place. “He wouldn’t be doing what he’s doing now if he were a quitter,” said Norman Braman, a Florida auto dealer and one of Rubio’s longtime donors. Impatience had been a hallmark of Rubio’s career, for good and ill ...

Rubio trails 2016 counterparts in floor speeches, vote attendance

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) made the fewest floor speeches and had the worst vote attendance record of any senator running for president, according to data compiled by C-SPAN. Rubio made eight floor speeches this year, only two of which came after he launched his presidential campaign in April, and showed up for 64 percent of the votes. The Florida lawmaker has been criticized by Republican primary rivals for his poor attendance record.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) set the pace for senators when it came to delivering floor speeches, giving 37 throughout the year. He also attended 91 percent of the votes in the upper chamber.

Although he only spoke 13 times, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had the highest attendance record, making 94 percent of the votes.

Paul called for Rubio to resign from Congress over his missed vote on the government spending bill earlier this month.

Rubio defended his absence from the omnibus vote, saying, “Not voting for it is a vote against it.”
In an interview on Fox News's "On the Record" on Tuesday, Rubio said he didn't show up for the vote on the omnibus because "the outcome was predetermined."
"They went behind closed doors, they cut this deal, they sprung it on everybody saying 'take it or leave it vote,'" he said. "The outcome was predetermined. I'm running for president so this never happens again."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who suspended his presidential campaign on Monday, spoke 16 times and showed up for 71 percent of the votes.



COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- Donald Trump's rivals are running out of time to stop him after his dominant performance in South Carolina.

A close look at the election calendar suggests that if the New York billionaire's rivals don't slow him by mid-March, their only chance to deny him the Republican presidential nomination may be a nasty and public fight at the party's convention this summer.

"When you look at it right now, it looks like there's this juggernaut," said Rich Beeson, a senior aide to one of Trump's main rivals, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

The reason is delegates and how they're awarded.

Winning states generates headlines, but the nomination is earned by collecting a majority of the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses. Next up: Nevada's caucuses on Tuesday.

This year, most contests award delegates proportionally, based on each candidate's share of the vote. Beeson and strategists for other campaigns argue that could make it hard for Trump to build a big lead because even the second- and third-place finisher can win delegates.

If one candidate can run up a significant lead, as Trump has begun to, then proportional contests also make it difficult for rivals to catch up.

South Carolina is the perfect example of this problem for Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. The state isn't winner-take-all when it comes to delegates, but Trump's strength in all parts of South Carolina allowed him to haul in all 50 delegates awarded in Saturday's primary.

Trump now has 67 delegates. Cruz and Rubio took home none from South Carolina, leaving them with a total of 11 and 10, respectively.

Trump is well on his way, and he knows it.

"Folks, let's go, let's have a big win in Nevada, let's have a big win in the SEC," Trump said in his South Carolina victory speech, referring to the states with universities in the Southeastern Conference that will vote next month. "Let's put this thing away."

Only a small fraction of the delegates to be won in the GOP primary season, which began Feb. 1 in Iowa and ends June 7 in California and a handful of other states, have been awarded to date. But some of Trump's opponents acknowledge he could build an insurmountable lead by mid-March if current trends continue.

"There are going to be a lot of circumstances where we can declare some victories and at least get this thing to March 15," Beeson said. "Once we get to March 15, if the die has not been cast by then, it's a different game."
Why March 15?

That's the first day on which the GOP's rules allow states to hold a winner-take-all contest.

Florida will award 99 delegates that day, while Ohio will give out 66. The Missouri primary is that day, too.

Like South Carolina, Missouri awards a pot of delegates to the statewide winner, as well as three delegates each to the winner of each congressional district. That makes it possible for one candidate to win all of Missouri's 52 delegates, or at least a large majority.

Put simply, it's a day in which a candidate running second to Trump could catch up. Or fall even further behind.

Altogether, there are 14 such contests on the GOP primary calendar, offering a total of 752 delegates. That's not enough delegates to claim the nomination; it takes 1,237. But if one candidate wins most of those states, he could build a lead too big to overcome.

In the modern political era, a candidate usually wins enough delegates to emerge as the presumptive nominee several weeks - or even months - before the end of primary voting. That happens when the candidate claims so many delegates it's all but impossible for anyone else to catch up.

But the nomination isn't formalized until the party's presidential nominating convention, scheduled for July this year. The last time the Republican nomination wasn't decided before the convention was 1976. Yet some of Trump's rivals are already talking about the possibility of a "contested" convention as they envision a series of second- or third-place finishes in the upcoming GOP primaries.

Rubio's campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, recently told The Associated Press, "I would be surprised if it's not May or the convention" when the party settles on its nominee.

At the convention, a lead in the race for delegates guarantees nothing if the candidate doesn't have an outright majority, said Ben Ginsberg, a leading Republican election attorney. Under most state party rules, delegates are only required to vote for their candidate on the first ballot at the convention.

"If no one comes into the convention with a majority of delegates, then all bets are off," Ginsberg said. "You're dealing with a potentially unruly and independent group of people."

Sunday, February 21, 2016






“They’re letting them into the caucus right now without registering them,” a woman can be heard yelling as a steady line of people stream by.

“They’re going to do the count. They’re all going to be part of the count,” anther woman can be heard saying in reply.

“But they’re not registered,” a man says.

“They will register after this,” the woman can be heard saying.

“Clinton supports caught BREAKING the rules,” Porter writes in the video description. “This just happened at caucus location in Nevada. Hillary supporters were not registering to caucus, which is NOT allowed by the Democratic Party.”

Friday, February 19, 2016


Clinton email chain discussed Afghan national's CIA ties, official says

EXCLUSIVE: One of the classified email chains discovered on Hillary Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News.

The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President Obama said unauthorized disclosures are “presumed to cause damage to the national security."

The U.S. government official said the Clinton email exchange, which referred to a New York Times report, was among 29 classified emails recently provided to congressional committees with specific clearances to review them. In that batch were 22 “top secret” exchanges deemed too damaging to national security to release.

Confirmation that one of these exchanges concerned a reported CIA asset means the emails went beyond issues like the drone strike campaign. Democrats repeatedly have said some messages referred to this, reinforcing Clinton's position that the documents are over-classified.


Based on the timing and other details, the email chain likely refers to either an October 2009 Times story that identified Afghan national Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of then-Afghan president Hamid Karzai, as a person who received “regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency” -- or an August 2010 Times story that identified Karzai aide Mohammed Zia Salehi as being on the CIA payroll. Ahmed Wali Karzai was murdered during a 2011 shoot-out, a killing later claimed by the Taliban.

Fox News was told the email chain included then-Secretary of State Clinton and then-special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and possibly others. The basic details of this email exchange were backed up to Fox News by a separate U.S. government source who was not authorized to speak on the record.

It’s unclear who initiated the discussion – Clinton, Holbrooke or a subordinate – or whether the CIA's relationship with the Afghan national was confirmed, because the classified documents are not public.

Holbrooke died in December 2010, during his service as a special envoy.


A CIA spokesperson told Fox News they had no comment on the email chain.

A spokeswoman for the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General also had no comment.

The U.S. government official's account of the Clinton email chain dovetails with a Feb. 3 interview on Fox News’ “America's Newsroom,” where Republican Rep. Chris Stewart, a member of the House intelligence committee, said, "I have never read anything more sensitive than what these emails contain. They do reveal classified methods. They do reveal classified sources and they do reveal human assets."

Stewart added, "I can't imagine how anyone could be familiar with these emails, whether they're sending them or receiving them, and not realize that these are highly classified."
While the Clinton campaign claims the government classification review has gone too far, Executive Order 13526, in a section called "classification standards,” says, "the unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

Fox News was first to report that the Clinton emails contained intelligence beyond “top secret,” and some of the information was deemed "HCS-O"a code that refers to human intelligence from ongoing operations.

National security and intelligence experts emphasized to Fox News that security clearance holders are trained to not confirm or deny details of a classified program in an unclassified setting, which would include a personal unsecured email network, even if the classified program appears in press reports.

“The rules of handling classified information dictate if something is reported in open source [news reports] you don’t confirm it because it’s still classified information,” said Dan Maguire, who spent more than four decades handling highly classified programs and specialized in human intelligence operations.

As secretary of state, Clinton signed at least two non-disclosure agreements (NDA) on Jan. 22, 2009, and received a briefing from a security officer whose identity was redacted. As part of the NDA for “sensitive compartmented information” (SCI), Clinton acknowledged any “breach” could result in “termination of my access to SCI and removal from a position of special confidence and trust requiring such access as well as the termination of my employment or any other relationships with any Department or Agency that provides me with access to SCI."

It is remains unclear how classified materials “jumped the gap” from a classified system to her personal server.

On Feb. 12, Clinton’s national press secretary Brian Fallon emphasized that classified information would have been marked as such. “I think when this review plays itself out, at the end they’ll find that what we have said is true,” he told CNN. “Nothing was marked classified at the time it was sent.”

Fallon also attacked the State Department inspector general, Steve Linick, for what he described as “fishing expedition-style investigations” since Clinton decided to run for president. “There is no basis. It is intended to create headwinds for her campaign, but it is not going to work,” Fallon said. He leveled a similar allegation against Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough, III, after his office notified Congress the emails contained information beyond top secret.

Inquiries by Fox News to Clinton's attorney David Kendall about the status of or changes to her security clearance, and access to classified information, have not been returned.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”

Thursday, February 18, 2016


Clinton raking in super delegate votes

Hillary Clinton has increased her lead in the Democratic primary since her resounding loss to Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire by wooing 87 new party superdelegates to support her campaign over the past week.

The Associated Press reports that Sanders won the support of 11 superdelegates over that same time period.

While Sanders holds a small lead among pledged delegates awarded to him for his showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton's massive superdelegate lead puts her ahead 481-55 in delegates to the Democratic National Convention, according to the AP's count.

Superdelegates are party leaders — mainly members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee — who are allowed to support the candidate of their choosing at the summer nominating convention.
But these party leaders are free to change their minds until they cast their votes. So Tad Devine, a top Sanders campaign aide, told the AP he's not worried about Clinton's current lead.

"It is hardly an insurmountable lead and it can change overnight," he said. "We are confident that superdelegates want to be behind the strongest candidates in a general election and have a nominee to help candidates win up and down the ballot."

Jesse Ferguson, a Clinton campaign spokesman, told the AP that Clinton plans to "build a lead with pledged delegates," awarded based on the candidates' results in the state contests.

The presence of these superdelegates has so far insulated Clinton. Despite losing the popular vote in the New Hampshire primary, she left the state with the same number of delegates as Sanders thanks to a boost from six superdelegates.

That drew the ire of Sanders supporters — a petition calling on superdelegates to back their state's popular votes had 162,000 signatures as of Thursday.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016


Amid a resurgence in the pace of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the U.S. border, President Barack Obama is facing angry opposition as he searches for places to house them temporarily.

The administration is attempting to assemble a network of shelters on military bases and other federal facilities to lodge thousands of children awaiting immigration proceedings after fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. That’s hit a nerve in communities, some in crucial presidential swing states such as Colorado and Florida, where potential facilities were announced without community input and later scrapped.

“I don’t want a military base to be an orphanage,” said Veronica Kemeny, president of the Republican Veterans of Florida, who lives in Panama City near an Air Force Base that was named as a potential shelter.

Since Oct. 1, 20,000 unaccompanied children have been apprehended at the U.S. border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That’s compared with nearly 70,000 in all of 2014 when the humanitarian crisis was at its worst. The influx that year stunned unprepared officials, who crammed children into school gymnasiums and on concrete floors of Border Patrol stations.

The recent surge of unaccompanied minors is the latest controversy surrounding Obama’s immigration policies that have angered Democrats and Republicans and alienated Hispanics, a critical voting bloc 27 million strong. There’s a push in Congress to see the children deported, a position that follows Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s call to build a border wall to keep out undocumented immigrants. A separate bill sponsored by Texas Representative John Carter, also a Republican, would prohibit them from being kept at military installations.
“They’re politicizing the kids,” said Representative Luis Gutiérrez, a Democrat from Illinois. “They’re saying, ‘Let’s talk about what we feel like are issues that are going to encourage Republicans to come out to vote in the upcoming election.”’

Political Cost

Democrat Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Obama after he ordered raids targeting undocumented Central Americans. Obama has formally deported more people than any other U.S. president. A congressional investigation found that the federal government had delivered some unaccompanied children into the hands of human traffickers amid a rush to process them.

“We want the Democrats to realize that there’s a political cost to some of these Obama actions,” said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director at America’s Voice, a Washington immigration reform group. “Democrats cannot afford to leave Latino votes on the table.”

Under a 2008 law, unaccompanied children from countries other than Mexico and Canada are granted access to the U.S. pending their asylum claim. In December, Health and Human Services, which cares for them until they can be placed with relatives, announced it would establish temporary shelters to avoid a crisis like the one two years ago. The first such facilities were to include a total of 2,500 beds at a federal building near Denver, a Job Corps site in Homestead, Florida, and an Air Force base outside Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Ten additional military bases were under review by the government. Six were dropped as potential sites last week, leaving under consideration bases in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Alabama and California, according to Defense Department spokesman Tom Crosson.

“As a nation, we must secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws consistent with our priorities,” said White House spokesman Peter Boogaard. “At all times, we endeavor to do this consistent with American values, and basic principles of decency, fairness, and humanity.”

Denver Complex

In Colorado, a political prize that Obama visited 11 times in 2012, residents and elected officials demanded answers from the Health and Human Services Department about how the government planned to convert and manage parts of a federal complex outside Denver to shelter as many as 1,000 migrant children by April.

More than 3,000 people joined an hour-long call Jan. 19 with federal officials to discuss the plan. Residents asked who would pay for the shelter, how long it would remain, where children would be placed and how the federal government would ensure they didn’t present a security risk.

“I respect the fact that the children have to go somewhere,” said Mike Coffman, a Republican congressman from Aurora, Colorado. “The fundamental problem to me is the Obama administration has brought this problem on themselves.”
Last week, HHS abandoned plans to use the Denver campus, saying architects and engineers concluded that necessary renovations would be too expensive and time consuming.

Democratic U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter, who represents the area, said in a news release that he wished the government would have done a more thorough review of the site before notifying the public.
“After personally visiting the site, it quickly became evident that setting up a facility of this magnitude was going to be a monumental undertaking,” Perlmutter said.

Unintended Consequences

In Ohio, Republican Governor and presidential candidate John Kasich in December denied requests by the Obama administration to use the state’s National Guard facilities to house children. The governor has been an outspoken critic of the government’s handling of the children since last year after a federal grand jury indicted a group of people for trafficking Guatemalan children into slave-labor conditions on an Ohio egg farm.

“The federal government has attempted to increase capacity and push people through the system too quickly, causing unintended consequences,” said Ohio adjutant general Mark Bartman in an e-mail declining the administration’s request. “The Governor and I have concerns about the federal government’s ability to handle the increased number.”

In Florida, before it was crossed it off the list last week, Obama’s plan to house children at Tyndall Air Force Base outside Panama City had turned into a political fight in a heated congressional race featuring two Republicans trying to unseat a Democratic incumbent.

In Alabama, U.S. Representative Martha Roby, a Republican whose seat is being challenged, has vowed to fight the use of an Air Force Base in her district.

“It is entirely inappropriate to house illegal immigrants at this or other active military installations,” Roby said in a January letter to the Obama administration. The military’s “mission is challenging enough without the added responsibility of housing, feeding and securing detainees.”


Here’s a look at the latest GOP polling data in South Carolina:

RealClear Politics Polling Average

The RealClear Politics South Carolina polling average consists of five polls conducted between February 10 and February 16: The Monmouth poll, conducted February 14-16; a South Carolina House GOP caucus poll conducted February 15; an American Research Group (ARG) poll conducted February 14-16; a Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll conducted February 14-15; and a CNN/ORC poll conducted February 10-16.
Donald Trump35%
Ted Cruz17.8%
Marco Rubio16%
Jeb Bush9.8%
John Kasich9%
Ben Carson6%

Monmouth University Poll

The Monmouth poll was conducted February 14-16. It has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
Donald Trump35%
Ted Cruz19%
Marco Rubio17%
John Kasich9%
Jeb Bush8%
Ben Carson7%

South Carolina House GOP Caucus Poll

The latest House GOP caucus poll was conducted February 15. It has a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.
Donald Trump34%
Ted Cruz16%
Marco Rubio15%
Jeb Bush15%
John Kasich8%
Ben Carson7%

ARG Poll

The latest ARG poll was conducted February 14-16. It has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.
Donald Trump33%
Marco Rubio16%
Ted Cruz14%
John Kasich14%
Jeb Bush9%
Ben Carson3%

PPP Poll

Public Policy Polling released its latest South Carolina survey on Tuesday morning. The poll was conducted February 14 and 15 and has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points. In addition to asking respondents for whom they plan to vote in Saturday’s primary, PPP asked respondents who they would pick in hypothetical matchups if there were fewer choices. You can check out the full poll for all of the data. But a sampling of the key findings is below.

6-Way Race (Slate of Candidates in the Race Now)

Donald Trump35%
Marco Rubio18%
Ted Cruz18%
John Kasich10%
Jeb Bush7%
Ben Carson7%

4 Way Race Between Trump, Cruz, Rubio & Bush

Donald Trump39%
Marco Rubio21%
Ted Cruz20%
Jeb Bush12%

3-Way Race Between Trump, Rubio & Cruz

Donald Trump40%
Marco Rubio28%
Ted Cruz22%

2-Way Race Between Trump & Rubio

Donald Trump46%
Marco Rubio45%

2-Way Race Between Trump & Cruz

Donald Trump48%
Ted Cruz38%

2-Way Race Between Trump & Bush

 Donald Trump 50%
 Jeb Bush 40%

2-Way Race Between Rubio & Cruz

Marco Rubio47%
Ted Cruz37%


The CNN/ORC poll was conducted February 10-15. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Donald Trump36%
Ted Cruz22%
Marco Rubio14%
Jeb Bush10%
Ben Carson6%
John Kasich4%