Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
One of Hillary's and Billary's scandals involves Russia, the global uranium market (OUR URANIUM), and Chelsea's Foundation (the Clinton Global Foundation)
Written by Tim Fernholz
April 23, 2015
In 2010, then-US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was part of a US government committee that approves foreign purchases of US assets. She signed off on a deal that allowed Russia’s atomic energy agency to purchase Uranium One, a mining company behind one-fifth of US uranium production. Since 2005, investors in the mining concern, and specifically a financier named Frank Giustra, gave tens of millions to the Clinton Global Foundation, and in 2010, while the committee was considering the deal, a Russian investment bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.
Failure to disclose. The Clinton Global Foundation had not previously disclosed $2.35 million donations from the Canadian chairman of Uranium One between 2009 and 2013, as Russia’s energy agency negotiated first a minority stake and eventually majority ownership of the company. This is despite an agreement with the Obama administration to disclose foreign donations.
Is there an innocent explanation?
Yes. In 2010, the US was still pushing for a “reset” of its relationship with Russia, and allowing this kind of investment is one way to reduce tensions. As the energy deal was progressing, Russia agreed to support increased sanctions on Iran to stop nuclear proliferation. The foreign investment committee had eight other members besides Clinton, including its chair, then-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates and then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Update: Brian Fallon, Clinton’s press secretary, further disputes pay-to-play narrative.
So what’s the scandal?
Crappy disclosure and enforcement. Whether or not anyone can prove that donations to Bill Clinton and the family foundation actually influenced Hillary Clinton’s role in approving this deal, the real scandal (repeat after me) is always what’s legal: We’ve already seen how secretary of state Clinton elided FOIA requests by using her own e-mail server. Clinton said she “opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”
The notion that she failed to live up to the voluntary disclosure program that was supposed to dispel accusations of foreign influence on her husband while she was secretary of state is ethically questionable, regardless of legality.
Putting aside the question of the Clintons’ ethics, there’s a larger and more worrisome national security concern: Despite the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s assertion that uranium from the mine can’t leave the US without its license, ——it has been shipped to Canada for refining under another company’s aegis, and 25% of it ends up outside the US——.
Is this a panic moment for the Clintons?
No. The trouble caused by Bill Clinton’s high-rolling ways in today’s story were also highlighted in 2008, in both cases by New York Times reporters. Republican candidate Rand Paul has been darkly warning of a Clinton scandal that will be revealed in a new book called Clinton Cash by conservative writer Peter Schweizer, but absent a smoking gun, file this scandal under “raises questions,” not “ends campaign.”
Due to a recent case where the FBI allegedly used a controversial book to entrap two female patsies, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is calling for a total ban on the book.
She wants to ban all print copies of the book. Not only that, she wants to ban the book from the Internet — a task that is, quite literally, impossible.
Barry Donegan reports:
In January of this year, Ben Swann pointed out the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is often accused of taking antisocial or weak-minded individuals and convincing them to begin planning terror attacks so that agents can bust them, declare victory, and use fear of future attacks to bolster anti-terror budget requests. Often, the agents in question are accused of providing the alleged terrorists with assistance in planning or carrying out their plots. On that note, the Department of Justice charged two New York women last Thursday in what it calls a conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction on US soil. The two women allegedly had ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda and intended to use information from a 1971 book called The Anarchist Cookbook to create bombs in an effort to launch a terror attack on the United States. Ars Technica notes the fact that the criminal complaint against them “seems to suggest that it was [an undercover FBI] agent that provided the text to the women.” The agent also reportedly took the alleged terrorists to the library for chemistry lessons. According to The Washington Post, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) issued a press release in response to the case that called for The Anarchist Cookbook to be banned and purged from the internet. Said Feinstein, “I am particularly struck that the alleged bombers made use of online bombmaking guides like The Anarchist Cookbook and Inspire Magazine. These documents are not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.”
Feinstein does not seem to question the FBI’s dubious practice of helping to create terror plots then, “foiling” them at the last second. In Feinstein’s world, it’s not the FBI that’s the problem… it’s the book! Never mind that these two women would probably never have done anything without the FBI’s aid and encouragement.
What do you think about this strange case and Feinstein’s call to ban a 1971 book? Leave a comment below.
GOP Should Focus on Americans' Desire for Less Government, Not the Clinton Scandals
The following article seems to miss one main point, conservatives are doing more to get Hillary's name out there than she or the democrats are accomplishing. If only just 3 percent of Americans trust the government then why do we think people are going to trust what they are saying about Hillary. I think Nick Gillespie is right that the GOP Should Focus on Americans' Desire for Less Government, Not the Clinton Scandals
Are Republicans going to prove Gillespie right, that:
Yes, "The Clintons Have Been Disorganized and Greedy," But the Republicans Are Still "the Stupid Party"
There's no question that Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations—perhaps expectations is the better word—are in serious trouble. Even before this week's bombshells about loosey-goosey relations between Clinton, her family's Global Initiative, and various far-flung autocrats, there was precious little "Hillary Fever" in the air. Last summer's book tour for her ironically titled Hard Choices was a flop, the only millennial who seems to care about her is her daughter (who's on the family payroll), and her recent trip to Chipotle was a bust.
No wonder her campaign is stammering over the allegations, as outlined in The New York Times and elsewhere, in Peter Schweizer's forthcoming Clinton Cash book.
Think of it this way: Clinton still won't say whether she'd vote for the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that's been talked to death since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. She's on a "listening tour" of America because she's only been on the national stage since the early 1990s and needs to get out to, what, "touch Indians" like Albert Brooks in Lost in America or see the real America like Billy and Wyatt in Easy Rider? If memory serves, neither of those pictures ended well for their protagonists.
Sure, part of what she is doing is what Politico's Jack Shafer calls "unrunning" for president. Given her lack of serious competition within the Democratic Party and a pandemic of chronic fatigue syndrome with her family (really, can't Roger Clinton drop in from his never-ending tour of North Korea to change up the storyline a bit?), Clinton really can't start any sort of serious pressing of the flesh for months or maybe even until early next year.
Yet things are so bad that even reliable Democratic partisans in the press such as New York's Jonathan Chait are writing thing such as this:
The best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.
Indeed. About the only thing missing so far is a cameo appearance of Sandy Berger stuffing uranium in his socks (you can almost hear him bluster in his defense: "Sorry, I thought they were classified documents").
Discussing "The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency," Chait says,
The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.
When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder....
The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.
That's from somebody who wants a Democrat, any Democrat, to win over any Republican in 2016.
I think it's far from clear what the ultimate damage to Hillary Clinton will be. Yes, it all looks awful and for most people simply having to deal with the fallout and recriminations from real and imagined sins and crimes for the rest of your public life would be enough to toss in your badge and retire to a remote mountaintop somewhere.
But the Clintons aren't most people and if the last time one of them was president is any indication, Hillary is uniquely equipped to live with a neverending, ongoing set of "scandals" that would fell virtually any other candidiate.
As Charles Paul Freund wrote in the April 2000 cover story for Reason, "Secrets of the Clinton Spectacle,"
How did [Bill Clinton] do it? How did he keep rising from the mat to revel in high public opinion numbers?... Clinton ignored traditional Washington wisdom for dealing with exploding scandal and instead used the capital’s notorious scandal machine against itself. Scandal is unlikely ever to be the same. Bill Clinton’s long-sought Legacy turns out to be a guide on how to rise from the dead.
Lest we forget, Bill Clinton is every bit as much invested in seeing his wife become president as she is. This is a guy who wants it all, baby, and what could be more incredible from a historical perspective than his wife becoming the first presidential spouse to occupy the Oval Office and the first female president? It should surprise no one if Hillary Clinton not only survives all this but flourishes despite an absolutely abysmal record as secretary of state, a so-so record as a senator, and a checkered, unconvincing record as a best-selling "author."
What I'm at least as interested in is how the emerging Clinton scandal—remember, Schweizer's book isn't on sale until early May—Republican presidential hopefuls respond to this opening.
At least since the 2000 campaign, when George W. Bush squeaked into office with an affirmative vision of a "humble foreign policy" and the promise of "compassionate conservatism," it has been years since the Republican Party's nominee has offered up any sort of positive, sweeping vision for the country. Running on the anti-terror status quo and free money for seniors, as Bush did in 2004, or simply as anti-Democrats, as John McCain and Mitt Romney did in 2008 and 2012, isn't enough to get the country's backing (as Matt Welch likes to point out, while railing against out of control spending, Romney refused to name a single significant program he would cut, a reluctance re-enacted by John Boehner just weeks before he assumed the speakership in 2011). Perhaps it's because it fashions itself as the party of the religious, but the GOP seems to always rely on the political equivalent of Hail Mary passes (anyone else remember Bob Dole's sad declaration that he would only serve one term if elected in 1996?). Some terrible revelation, or a tide of disgust with the Democrats, or a late-breaking news story, will fell the Democrats rather than a serious discussion of the country's finances and special interests. What do you know? Sometimes that works out just swell for Republicans.
But disliking the team in office isn't affirmation. As J.D. Tuccille noted here a couple of days ago, just 3 percent of Americans trust the government to do the right thing "just about always." Another 20 percent trust the government "most of the time." Republicans would do well to treat the latest Clinton scandal as a gift to serious political discourse, but not as a sign that they will take the White House no matter what (remember guys, your party was a shoo-in in 2012).
The early stages of the Republican race for the White House have been incredibly disappointing to date, with virtually all of the announced and unannounced candidates sounding like mimeographed copies of one another. With the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, who sounds seriously different notes on foreign policy, privacy, civil liberties, and, for the most part, overall levels of speding, none of the "top tier" candidates has advanced much beyond the "I'm not Obama and I pledge to be even tougher on defense than the president who bombed Libya, threatened to bomb Syria, and brought us back to Iraq." Beyond failing to advance true alternatives to Obamacare—indeed, the GOP Senate leadership is pushing to maintain health-care exchange subsidies through 2017 no matter what the Supreme Court decides this year—the Republican Party has been content to capitalize on the long, slow collapse of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama.
That's enough to win Congressional majorities and historic levels of state legislatures. But it won't be enough to win the White House in 2016 and, far more importantly, it won't be enough to move America forward into the 21st century. What's needed now more than ever is a governing vision that accords with the growing libertarian sensibilities of the country—record levels of people want a government that does less in the economic and moral spheres—not the go-to Republican response of, "Hey, we're not the other guy."
This is why we love Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).
The man is bold. He stands for what he believes and he doesn’t mind facing the fallout of sticking to his principles. He’s exactly the kind of philosophically devoted candidate we conservatives are always whining about. Which is why it’s high time more conservatives started supporting him over the other candidates. It’s not usually about “social” issues– in fact, more often than not, it’s about taxes or spending – but this time around Cruz focused on marriage and the church’s responsibility to speak out against the culture shift.
In a letter to Christian Pastors all over America, Senator Cruz reminds us that the church must stay involved in politics and culture if our nation is to have any hope of remaining great.
On Tuesday, April 28, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in favor of “same-sex marriage.”
How will the American church respond?
The prophet Daniel described the people who know their God as people who do two things: display strength and take action (Daniel 11:32).
How can the church rise to the occasion in this situation? Along with my friend David Lane of the American Renewal Project, I urge you to consider the following:
1. Preach about biblical marriage on Sunday, April 26.
We know that marriage is intended to be sacred, beautiful, and nourishing. If you do not influence your congregation’s understanding of marriage, who will fill the void? Hollywood? Divorce courts?
2. Lead prayer services on Tuesday, April 28.
Prayer moves our God to intervene in history. Prayer softens our hearts and brings us into alignment with the heart of God. The church has not shared the truth about marriage well: it is time to repent and commit ourselves to courage on this front.
Regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court, or anywhere else, we know that the truth will never be obsolete. The union of man and woman in marriage will always be relevant. People will continue to need marriage, and to desire it – because we are made in the image of God, creatures who value authentic companionship and intimate connection.
That leaves us only one question. Will we be on the right side of history, the side occupied by the Author of history? Otherwise we will fall victim to the fashions of the times.
Will we discard an institution, ordained by God, which has brought so much stability and happiness to the human family? Or will we stand in its support? Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court will take a stand on marriage this summer. Let’s take ours now.
God bless America,
Senator Ted Cruz
P.S. Thank you, as the prophet Daniel might have said, for taking action in defense of marriage. Marriage was God’s idea, and He will preserve it, with or without us. But how could we miss a chance to stand with Him on behalf of something so wonderful?
He’s right. God Bless Ted Cruz.
“Rabbi,” His disciples asked Him, “why was this man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his parents’ sins?” “It was not because of his sins or his parents’ sins,” Jesus answered. “This happened so the power of God could be seen in him.”
John 9:2–3, NLT
Jesus Is Your Solution
I love how our Lord Jesus is such a loving and practical God. When there is a problem, He goes straight to the solution!
Before Jesus stepped in to heal the man born blind, his disciples were caught up in uncovering whose sin had made the man blind. Jesus, on the other hand, was interested only in using His power to give the poor man sight!
The same way Jesus didn’t get sucked into the “blame game” is the same way He doesn’t want you to. So don’t ask what or whose sin caused your sickness. Forget about what you should or shouldn’t have done or why it happened. Be preoccupied instead with your solution—Jesus Christ, who through the cross has removed every sin in your life and who wants to work a miracle in your body!
Your support keeps freedom alive!