Hillary used a private email address while conduction official State Department business. We all know that. She obviously did it to hide incriminating information. The only question is what is her lie going to be?

I have a guess as to what she's going to say. First she will start by saying that it was legal at the time she did it, she didn't know that it was wrong and she's providing the data now anyway. Upon further questioning she's going to say that she did it in part because of national security, she figured that her personal email was more secure than her government email. Remember Hillary is no stranger to email leaks.

Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, "should resign." Speaking over Skype from an undisclosed location on Tuesday, the WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel over the diplomatic-cable dump that Assange's organization loosed on the world this past weekend. Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like "the fall guy" in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. "I don't think it would make much of a difference either way," Assange said. "But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."

Remember Hillary was making fun of foreign leaders in official "diplomatic cables" which really means emails.

WASHINGTON: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has spoken with 12 world leaders, including the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the past one week to express her regret over the embarrassing release of secret diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.

According to the list provided by the state department, Clinton has also called president Ellen Johnson Sirlef of Liberia, China state councilor Dai Bingguo, Canada foreign minister Lawrence Cannon, Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi, German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle, new French foreign minister Michelle Alliot-Marie, British foreign secretary William Hague and Saudi foreign minister Saud Al-Faisal.

So, Hillary has good reason to keep her emails out of government hands. They could be leaked, requested by way of the Freedom of Information Act, or worse be subpoenaed in an investigation.

The fact is that she kept the emails private because she was saying things that she didn't want to get out to the public. I doubt national security was the largest of her concerns.

Also, Obama claims that he was unaware that Hillary was conducting State Department business from her private email. Obama claims he found out about it in the news.

President Obama discovered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email at the same time as news readers.

Obama, after delivering a Saturday speech in Selma, Ala., was asked when he found out about Clinton’s personal email system run from her Chappaqua home.

“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” he told CBS News.

Obama waded into the controversy for the first time since Clinton’s use of a private email account was revealed last week — raising questions about whether key messages were preserved.

Does anyone actually believe this?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I don't know about you, but I can't recall hearing of a rally where people were asking for the FCC to takeover the Internet. Where did this all come from?

Network Connector RJ45

I'll give you a hint, we've seen this all before with health care.

Now the exact same tactics are being applied to the Internet.

http://watchdog.org/203631/fcc-commissioners-regulations/

Ajit Pai openly questioned what the problem was, saying, “There’s never been a systemic analysis of what the problem with the Internet is. In this order, you see scattered niche examples [Comcast and BitTorrent, Apple and FaceTime, others] all of which were resolved, mind you, through private sector initiatives.” He continued, saying that the FCC’s net neutrality regulatory regime is a solution that won’t work in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.” Essentially, this is, contrary to the assertion of activists and others, a vaguely justified power grab by a government agency.

This man is correct. Where is the problem with the Internet and freedom of expression? I don't see it. But it's on the horizon. The government will soon be determining what is "neutral" and what is not. Any guess which way it will lean? Really...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Bio-hazard_Sign

Most of us realize the dangers that come with a new infectious disease in the population; that is unless you work for the CDC.

In the case of Amber Vinson, the Dallas nurse who flew commercially as she was becoming ill with Ebola, one health official said "somebody dropped the ball."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that Vinson called the agency several times before flying, saying that she had a fever with a temperature of 99.5 degrees. But because her fever wasn't 100.4 degrees or higher, she didn't officially fall into the group of "high risk" and was allowed to fly.

Officials in the U.S. have been trying to calm fears over the Ebola crisis, but time and again events have overtaken their assurances.

In August, before the first U.S. infection, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said: "We're confident that we have the facilities here to isolate patients, not only at the highly advanced ones like the one at Emory, but really at virtually every major hospital in the U.S."

On Sept. 30, Thomas Duncan tested positive in Dallas.

"This case is serious," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said in reaction. "Rest assured that our system is working as it should."

And there was reassurance from the White House.

I'm sorry, is the CDC trying to spread Ebola? If they are worried now about everyone that Duncan was in contact with, why are they letting those people fly? Does the grade of fever really matter? If you were anywhere near this guy and you show symptoms of any infection you should be tested, period.

The CDC has been completely dishonest about this from the beginning. The risks keep being downplayed, while at the same time they are searching for hundreds of people who may have come within the general vicinity of Duncan. How about the fact that the CDC is now trying to get in contact with everyone that was on the flight with the second nurse? I thought that she was not contagious? I thought it required direct contact. Did she touch everyone on the flight?

If you ask me we have a completely politically motivated CDC making poor decisions based on political motives. People need to be aware of the dangers of disease transfer so it can be contained. Keeping people calm while they spread a deadly disease is not containment.

The CDC playbook for quarantine goes like this... Lie about the dangers of the disease and it's transferability while hoping that it doesn't spread, because if they (citizens) knew how easy it was to transfer, they might panic.

I believe that the disease has not been well studied because it was considered unlikely to enter the U.S. It's always been one of those diseases you get by traveling to regions where it's prevalent. Ebola was always --way over there... Most of the data available about the spread of the disease is based on information provided from areas where the disease is prevalent, there poor hygiene and sanitation are usually assumed.

Remember this each time you hear about how Obamacare is working. These are the same clowns that want to control the decisions your doctor makes about your treatment. Just relax, they're the "experts." Funny how none of the "experts" have mentioned the possibility of a carrier; someone who has the disease with no symptoms, but can still transmit it.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Note: You need to register by email to leave a comment. Once you are a registered user, you will be able submit comments.

!! UPDATE !! 04/23/14

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn't been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,' Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

'Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

'The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.'

Original Post: 02/26/11

Many have speculated as to how exactly the Middle East is all of a sudden full of protesting and riots seemingly out of nowhere. I wonder to myself; how much of this is random, and how much of this was really set off by the rioting in Tunisia.

This article brings to light issues that so far have been ignored.

CAIRO (AP) - Al-Qaida's offshoot in Yemen urged Muslims to revolt against Arab rulers and establish governments based on Islamic law, according to an audio tape posted Saturday on militant websites.

The appeal came at a time of growing political unrest in the Arab world. Popular uprisings have deposed the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt, and anti-government protests are gaining momentum in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain.

In the 10-minute recording, Al-Rubeish criticized Saudi Arabia for providing a haven for deposed Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

He also said toppling longtime rulers is not enough and that new governments must be established based on Islamic religious law, or Shariah.

It seems strange to me that this is a little reported story. I don't know how much involvement Al-Qaida has in all of this but it seems right up their alley.

I know that most people think that Moammar Gadaffi is insane, but he may not be too far off on all of this.

Moammar Gadaffi blamed al-Qaeda on Thursday for an insurrection that has wrenched control of much of eastern Libya as he addressed his divided nation for the second time this week to galvanize support for his crumbling regime.

Speaking on state television, the embattled Gadaffi insisted the uprising against his 41-year rule was not a people's revolt as in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia, but fueled by Osama bin Laden's network.

I don't think that Al-Qaida is the entire reason for uprising in Libya, but I wouldn't doubt that they more involvement than we know of at this time. There has to be some level of organization behind the protests. When you have a crowd of thousands holding printed signs (some in English) in a country where the majority of people can't read, something is up. The media seems to be scared to consider this possibility.

If all of these uprisings are a result of a want for freedom; why are they all happening now? Why didn't they happen earlier? It all seems a little too coincidental if you ask me.

Consider; what if the fundamentalist Muslims are tired of secular "strong-man" leaders. It could be a replay of what happened in Iran.

I'm sure that if you asked someone from Iran who was around during the time of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 they would tell you that they didn't know what they were getting into. I'm afraid that the same thing is happening all over the middle east. The stage is being set for the "Radical" Muslims to come to power.

You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Single Payer Actuality

I have for a long time stated that Obamacare is nothing but the entryway to Socialized Medicine in America. Harry Reid has said the same.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Now take a peek at this!

Dr. Kenneth L. Davis, CEO and president of Mount Sinai Health System, the largest health care provider in the state of New York, said that starting next year, Mt. Sinai will begin offering its own Medicare Advantage plan. It will look for other opportunities to bring premium payments directly into the hospital system, rather than filtering them through insurance companies.

Davis said he expects organizations similar to his to move in the same direction. “Inevitably the large systems are going to move to take part of the premium dollar,” he said.

For both non-profit systems like Mt. Sinai and for-profit systems, he said, retaining more and more of the health care premiums paid by consumers is essential to providing a full spectrum of care. He said that his system’s St. Luke’s Hospital in New York runs a psychiatric program that loses $14 million per year.

It’s “not sustainable,” he said, so the system needs to cross-subsidize the money-losing services that it nonetheless must continue to provide, with income from more profitable services, such as orthopedic surgery.

It's not profitable by design. Removing the insurance end of the deal has been essential to Obamacare since the beginning. The end result is Socialized Medicine/Single Payer... That means that the government will be calling all of the shot between you and your doctor.

Obamacare/The Affordable Care Act has been a fraud since the beginning. I just wonder why so many people are willfully ignorant.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!