REAL, CONFIDENTIAL, FREE, NON-JUDGMENTAL HELP TO AVOID ABORTION, FROM MANY PLACES:
3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

"the Pentagon acknowledges they get attacked about 100,000 times a day, I think the odds are pretty high."

alternate blog post title:

"Which is the way you know whether something is...is"


The primary blog post title is what former Defense Secretary/former Director of the CIA Robert Gates [who served under both Presidents Obama and Bush] said, when asked if he thought it possible that "Russians, Chinese and Iranians had compromised the home brew server of the former Secretary of State [Hillar Clinton]."

The alternate blog post title is explained further below. Here now, some light background reading:

"Clinton's Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified: Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day."

"As Clinton email scandal moves to new level, former AG Mukasey predicts a criminal charge" (you remember the Powerline Blog? The lawyers who helped expose the Dan Rather-reported but forged "proof" of Bush's disappearance from service in the Texas Air National Guard over 10 years ago, that was then confirmed by others in the mainstream media?)

In "How Bad Is Hillary's Email Problem?", the IWF (Independent Women's Forum) picks out select quotes like these:

"Yet—from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.

"This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information."

Powerline's also just now quoted two others among the ranks of former federal prosecutors, both of whom have worked with FBI Director Jim Comey, and one whose "experience encompasses years at Main Justice, years as an assistant U.S. Attorney, and a stint in the White House Counsel’s office," in their answers to the question "Will Hillary Be Indicted?"
  1. Andy McCarthy: "Of course, making the case would not mean the FBI could force attorney general Loretta Lynch — and the president to whom she answers — to pursue the case. The FBI cannot convene a grand jury and present an indictment...But you’d best believe the FBI can make the Obama administration look very bad if it shrinks from doing so. Then it will be a matter of how far Barack Obama is willing to stick his neck out for Hillary Clinton."
  2. Bill Otis:
    "First, the case on the merits seems strong from what I can gather, and, if standard practice holds true, is stronger than public sources have yet disclosed.

    "Second, while Lynch is capable of bending to pressure — I know of one case in which she caved to a district judge she knew was up to some very questionable behavior — she likes to think of herself as rule-bound, virtuous and “speaking truth to power,” as the Left never tires of lecturing. She is in some ways an old-fashioned person.

    "I thus think she will go along with a recommendation to indict. I doubt this will get over-ruled at the White House, since (1) Obama seemingly doesn’t care for Hillary, although I don’t know that from any first-hand sources; and (2) Obama, being no dummy as a Democratic politician, probably thinks that Hillary will lose the general election, and would prefer a different candidate.

    "I don’t think that, even in a culture as degraded as this one has become, a major party can nominate a Presidential candidate under credible indictment." [emphases mine]

It's true that David Petraeus's career and reputation are being ruined, for similar or lesser security breaches than Hillary has done.

Why do you think the FBI has hundreds of agents working on the Hillary case? They want to uncover the truth, either way, to cross all the t's and dot the i's.

After what they're finding, including items that look like NSA intercepts, if the law doesn't apply equally to Hillary as it does to Petraeus and anyone else, then the FBI becomes the biggest laughingstock joke of all time.

At the very least, it's felony material: over 1,300 disclosed classified messages mishandled...Hillary directed a staff member to erase the heading on a classified document and send it anyway on a nonsecure device: in this instance, "Clinton’s 'gross negligence' may have violated the federal Espionage Act, 18 U.S. Code § 793."

And it's more than just mishandling classified information; it's now also about Clinton Foundation donors getting cushy State Department contracts.

Google it. Liberal Mainstream media does an almost virtual blackout on all this, except NBC News saying it's merely "innocuous", NPR quoting her as saying this new news "changes nothing" and surprisingly, CNN aired an interview with someone saying "As Secretary of State, Hillary should've known better [than to mishandle top secret and classified information even if it didn't have the official stamp on the header]."

As Secretary of State, she should have known better:

"If Clinton were a lifelong academic in her first big federal job (visualize a Jeane Kirkpatrick of the Left), she might deserve a little slack. But Clinton spent eight years as first lady and eight more as a U.S. senator. Even more inconveniently for Clinton, she served six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Even if Clinton had not spent a half-dozen years handling secret documents on America’s military plans and capabilities, she surely knew that classified materials are a secretary of state’s stock in trade. Regardless, Clinton claimed that her server never harbored classified e-mails."
And she has the further audacity to also claim that the way for her to have known something was classified, Top Secret or the even more sensitive SAP, was that it had to have that stamped as a header on it?
“I did not send classified material and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified — which is the way you know whether something is,” Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday. - from The Wall Street Journal Aug. 19, 2015 article. [emphasis mine]
Note that the New York Times and just about every other major news publication completely withheld from you, the adoring public, that conspicuous tail end of her quote. But the UK's Daily Mail got it right too. Funny how US Mainstream Media covers and scrubs up Clinton's stupidity for you all, isn't it?

Watch the video of it yourselves, here. I'm not the first to note how she had to glance down repeatedly at her notes to be sure she spoke the precise scripted words she'd written down ahead of time, to make sure she kept on script. WGN-TV also has the full transcript here.

And as a lawyer and as a Secretary of State, she is supposed to know that whether or not anything was marked classified, Top Secret, SAP, etc., "isn't legally relevant":

"It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than a year to keep 'documents or materials containing classified information . . . at an unauthorized location.' Note that it is the information that is protected; the issue doesn’t turn on whether the document or materials bear a classified marking. [also quoted here]
...
"Mrs. Clinton’s holding of classified information on a personal server was a violation of that law. So is transferring that information on a thumb drive to David Kendall, her lawyer. "Moving up the scale, the law relating to public records generally makes it a felony for anyone having custody of a 'record or other thing' that is 'deposited with . . . a public officer' to 'remove' or 'destroy' it, with a maximum penalty of three years. Emails are records, and the secretary of state is a public officer and by statute their custodian.

"The Espionage Act defines as a felony, punishable by up to 10 years, the grossly negligent loss or destruction of 'information relating to the national defense.' Note that at least one of the emails from the small random sample taken by the inspector general for the intelligence community contained signals intelligence and was classified top secret."

For Hillary then to "play dumb, blond, woman"? Really? To play that card by pretending she didn't know what "to wipe a server" actually means? To actually stoop so low as to say, even jokingly, "What, like with a cloth or something?"

Are you kidding me? She was Secretary of STATE, one of a handful of deciders of what is classified, and heading a department charged with the utmost in national security. She has long been savvy enough to use multiple Blackberries and emails and servers, and you expect me to believe she didn't have the basic technical knowledge of high tech? You don't have to be a high tech worker, especially in the last several years, to know about "deleting" and "erasing" data from computers, and she's been around and (ab)using computers since at least 1993, as reported in 1997:

  1. "When [Bill and I] arrived [in the White House]," she said, "there was no computer system, and you can't run any kind of modern enterprise without a modern computer system."

  2. A highly regarded (female, I might add) White House computer expert sued Hillary over her and other high ranking officials' harassing and railroading her out of her job because she objected to their turning that White House database into a political fundraising/favor-paying-back tool:
    "...the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight investigated, and held hearings. In a report issued last October [1998], that panel found that WhoDB 'was used not just for official purposes; senior White House staff planned and, in fact, used it to advance the campaign fund raising objectives of the Democratic National Committee. This conversion of government property to the use of the DNC constitutes a theft of government property.'

    "That House committee concluded 'persons at the highest level of the White House, including the First Lady, knew of, and approved the planned use of the White House database for partisan political purposes, or the use of governmental personnel and resources to work on outside partisan political databases. Either scenario is simply unlawful.

  3. That abuse-of-database story is confirmed in the LA Times, not known for being a conservative paper in the least:
    "Let my team work with the DNC to help them design a system that will meet our needs and technical specifications," aide Marsha Scott wrote on White House stationery in a memo copied to the first lady. "We can show them what to do."

    Mrs. Clinton, in a notation scrawled on top of the letter, responded: "This sounds promising. Please advise. HRC."

    The document, along with other memos, suggests that the first lady personally directed Scott to oversee the development of a computer system--paid for by government funds--to keep records on as many as 350,000 people and help the Democrats solicit large donations during last year's election.

  4. Not to mention Hillary's numerous other incidents of hiding documents.

That's twenty-three years of knowing exactly what she wanted from computers, databases, and electronic documents, and how to get it herself and to manipulate all the people involved in getting her what she wanted.

Are we really to understand that Mrs. Clinton really isn't smart enough, intelligent enough, to recognize classified information when she sees it unless it's stamped with big bold letters? And that she's so dumb she doesn't understand how computers basically work, how data is stored, secured, or eliminated? That she wasn't fit to be Secretary of State?

I may be blond and I may be a woman, but I am not as dumb as Hillary likes to pretend, when it suits her. If she's that dumb or innocent, how in the world, then, is she fit or smart enough to be POTUS?

Can you imagine the injustice if Richard Nixon had had the vast majority of the media in his pocket, as the Clintons and Democrats do? Imagine if this were a Republican former Secretary of State? The Republican would already be indicted. And I would say that even if it had been Ronald Reagan himself.

"...there should be ... no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that." Oh, yes, on that one point we do agree.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion,...run by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice



-------------------------------------------------
COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom
-------------------------------------------------

PREGNANT? UPSET? SCARED?
4,800 confidential groups helping now.
-------------------------------------------------

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 , www.samaritans.org.uk

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or
1-800-5WE-CARE

...more help below...

AbortionChangesYou.com

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

MORE HELP:
Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Ramah
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
NOPARH
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **


Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
---------------------------------------------
LOOKING FOR SOMETHING?
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by
Google

ARCHIVES:

"Do As We Say, Republicans, Not As We Do" - All 8 Parts

Why NOT Hillary?


  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"
---------------------------------------------------

The sidebar continues...

** ENTIRE REST OF OUR SIDEBAR -
CLICK HERE for 2015 UPDATES
**
(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)

*************************************

*************************************


------------------------------------------------
Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)



--------------------------------

RSS
Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2016 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2016. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."


Since 6/13/2005