Tag: Latest

Latest Hitlery Document Release Includes 155 Classified Emails, Bringing The Total To 343

Latest Clinton Document Release Includes 155 Now-Classified Emails – Daily Caller

.

.
Among the 6,300 pages of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on Wednesday are approximately 155 messages containing now-classified information that the former secretary of state sent or received on her unsecured, private email server system.

That raises the overall number of emails that contain information deemed to contain classified information to 343. The 155 figure is based on a preliminary analysis of the release.

The emails, most of which were classified as “confidential,” were sent in 2010 and 2011. Two records included in the release contain information that is now marked as “secret,” the second-highest classification category. One was an email Clinton aide Jake Sullivan sent to her on Jan. 21, 2011 regarding diplomatic talks in Turkey.

The State Department has asserted following previous Clinton email releases that information in the emails was not classified at the time the records were sent. But many observers have pushed back against the claim because many of the messages appear to discuss topics that were time- and event-specific.

Many of the emails contained information provided by foreign government officials. Executive orders have determined that such information should be “presumed” to be classified when originated.

Clinton herself has maintained that she did not send or receive emails containing information that was classified when sent. The Intelligence Community’s inspector general has disputed that claim, however, saying that it reviewed at least two emails that traversed Clinton’s server which contained information that was “top secret” at the time they were sent.

Wednesday’s release marks the fifth mass publication of Clinton emails. The first release, which occurred in May, was of nearly 300 pages of Clinton emails related to Libya and Benghazi. The other four releases were ordered by U.S. District Court judge Rudolph Contreras who is presiding over a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold.

According to the State Department, 37 percent of Clinton’s emails have now been released, putting the agency ahead of a timeline set by Contreras.

Clinton turned over approximately 55,000 pages of her work-related emails to the State Department in December, nearly two years after leaving the agency.

Clinton herself sent a number of those now-classified emails. Wednesday’s release shows that Clinton sent at least two emails that contain sensitive information.

One was sent on March 6, 2010 and discussed Indonesia. The other was sent on March 4, 2010 and discussed Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister.

The first four releases contained at least eight emails containing information now deemed classified.

The topics of those heavily-redacted emails included discussions about Iran, Egypt, and Futenma Marine Corps base in Japan.

One of the more mysterious now-classified emails Clinton sent was to her longtime friend and ally, Sidney Blumenthal.

On Nov. 10, 2009 Blumenthal forwarded an email from Joe Wilson, who served as an ambassador during the Bill Clinton administration. In the email, Wilson pitched Clinton on an African energy company for which he was consulting. Clinton’s response to Blumenthal is redacted and has been classified as “confidential.”

Blumenthal himself has been a central figure in the email scandal. He sent Clinton dozens of intelligence reports on her personal email address. Clinton initially claimed that Blumenthal’s emails were “unsolicited.” But Clinton’s responses to her friend indicated that that was not the case. Clinton often encouraged Blumenthal to keep her posted on geopolitical developments.

Clinton was caught in another inconsistency regarding Blumenthal. Though she has claimed that she turned over all of her work-related emails, Blumenthal provided the House Select Committee on Benghazi with at least 15 emails that he exchanged with Clinton which were not included in the trove she gave to the State Department. That gap raised questions over whether Clinton or the State Department failed to turn over the emails.

Last week, the State Department said it recently handed over an additional 900 Benghazi-related emails it has had since December.

It was also reported last week that Clinton failed to turn over an email exchange she had shortly after becoming secretary of state in early 2009 with then-CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus. Clinton has said that at that time, she was using an email address she used while she was in the Senate. Months into her State Department tenure, Clinton began using an email address hosted on her private server.

.

.

The Donald Pulls Away From Pack In Latest Poll – Gingrich Weighs In On Race

Latest National Poll: Donald Trump Crushes Field With 36% Support, No-One Even Close – Conservative Treehouse

With favorables improving, unfavorables decreasing and two-thirds of the electorate now believing Trump can win the nomination, the latest YouGov National Poll shows Donald Trump dominating the rest of the field.

.

.
This is the eighth consecutive regional and national poll with Jeb Bush in single digits; a devastating reality for the RNC/GOPe machine.

The debate this week will be their final opportunity to save Jeb – the pressure is astronomical, and you can guarantee Fiorina and Rubio will be called upon to deliver the goods and take out Trump.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t even need the debate. Full poll results here.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

Ben Carson Moves Within 5 Points Of Donald Trump In Latest Iowa Poll

Ben Carson Edging Close To Front-Runner Trump In Latest Iowa Poll – Bloomberg

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has emerged as a leading Republican presidential candidate in Iowa and is closing in on frontrunner Donald Trump in the state that hosts the first 2016 nomination balloting contest.

The latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows billionaire Trump with the support of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, followed by Carson at 18 percent. When first and second choices are combined, Carson is tied with Trump.

Trump finds himself in a vastly better position than when the previous Iowa Poll was taken. He has become a credible presidential candidate to many likely Republican caucus-goers. The real estate mogul is rated favorably by 61 percent and unfavorably by 35 percent, an almost complete reversal since the Iowa Poll in May. He finds his highest ratings among those planning to attend the caucuses for the first time (69 percent) and limited-government Tea Party activists (73 percent). Just 29 percent say they could never vote for him, a number cut in half since May.

Although he isn’t generating the headlines enjoyed by Trump, Carson has quietly built a dedicated network of supporters in Iowa. During the past month, he also aired more ads than any other presidential candidate in Iowa. Carson has the highest favorability rating among Republican candidates, with 79 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers seeing him positively.

Those glowing views of Carson, who has a compelling life story and is seeking to become the nation’s second black president, could make it hard for Trump or other rivals to attack him as the campaign heats up this fall. Christian conservatives, who represent nearly 40 percent of likely caucus participants in the poll, may be starting to coalesce around the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.

The poll displays the political benefit, at least for now, of not being part of the Republican establishment. When their totals are combined, Trump and Carson – two men without any elected experience – are backed by more than 4 in 10 likely caucus participants. Add in former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who also has never held elective office, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is running an explicitly anti-establishment campaign, and the total reaches 54 percent of the likely electorate.

“Trump and Carson, one bombastic and the other sometimes soft-spoken, could hardly be more different in their outward presentations,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “Yet they’re both finding traction because they don’t seem like politicians and there’s a strong demand for that right now.”

.

.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the previous Iowa frontrunner, has been hurt the most by the Trump and Carson summer surges and is now backed by just 8 percent of likely caucus-goers, less than half what he recorded in the last Iowa Poll in late May. Cruz, who will need to cut into Carson’s support among social conservatives if he’s to advance in Iowa, is tied with Walker at 8 percent.

Jeb Bush, who continues to face major headwinds in Iowa, scored below Walker and Cruz. The former Florida governor is backed by just 6 percent, has one of the highest unfavorable ratings among the 17 Republican candidates tested, and has the support of just 16 percent of those who consider themselves business-oriented establishment Republicans, the group most central to his brand.

Bush’s fellow Floridian, Senator Marco Rubio, is also backed by 6 percent. He’s closely followed by Fiorina, who is supported by 5 percent after her strong showing in the Aug. 6 debate.

In the 2008 and 2012 Republican caucuses, Christian conservatives broke late in the race and helped determine the outcome in Iowa. While some of their leaders have expressed skepticism about the potential to unify behind one candidate in such a crowded race, there’s an opening for that. More than three-quarters of Christian conservatives in the poll say they could be convinced to back someone other than their first or second choice, if they could be assured that another Christian conservative would win.

At the moment, Carson is leading with voters in that bloc at 23 percent, followed by Trump at 16 percent and Cruz and Walker tied at third. If his competitors can successfully raise questions about Trump’s credentials as a Christian conservative, they could potentially peel off some of the front-runner’s support.

One major unknown for the caucuses is the size of the electorate, which has been around 120,000 on the Republican side for the past two Iowa caucuses. One of Trump’s campaign goals is to get thousands of new people to vote, a move that helped Barack Obama score an upset on the Democratic side in 2008.

First-time caucus-goers are clearly an important part of Trump’s Iowa base. Among those who say they’ll be attending for the first time, Trump is ahead of Carson, 28 percent to 20 percent.

For now, the poll suggests about a fifth of those attending the Feb. 1 precinct meetings will be doing so for the first time. That’s comparable to four years ago, when 24 percent said that on the Republican side in an October 2011 Iowa Poll.

Trump’s supporters in Iowa a have a higher level of trust in their candidate than others in the field to make the right decisions, if he makes it to the White House. Among all Republicans likely to attend the caucuses, 41 percent want their candidate to be clear about the specific policies they would address if elected, while 57 percent trust their candidate to figure it out once elected.

For Trump, nearly two-thirds of his supporters trust him to figure out the right decisions once in office. That’s in keeping with a claim he made to reporters Aug. 15, shortly after landing by helicopter outside the Iowa State Fair, saying it’s mostly the media that cares about policy papers and positions.

Among most of the subgroups measured in the poll, Trump has the advantage, although Carson beats him or comes close with several. Carson has an 11-percentage-point advantage over Trump among seniors and 7-percentage-point edge among Christian conservatives.

“I’m sick and tired of the political class,” said Lisa Pilch, 54, a middle school physical education teacher leaning toward Carson who lives in Springville, Iowa. “I just like his tone and think he’s someone who could pull us together, rather than the polarization we have right now. He has a lot of wisdom, even if he doesn’t have political savviness.”

While Carson is doing slightly better than Trump among women, the billionaire has the advantage among men, 28 percent to 17 percent.

“He’s got a no-nonsense approach,” said Patrick Messmore, 32, a construction equipment sales manager who lives near Grundy Center and plans to back Trump. “His history as a businessman is potentially a good change for our country, so that we don’t just have another life-time politician taking over as president.”

In some ways, Messmore sees Trump as an antidote to Bush. “I’m not OK with another Bush presidency,” he said. “We’ve had two of them now and I don’t see that there will be enough of a different approach than his dad or brother had. It’s just not something I’m interested in.”

.

.
The poll shows Walker and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, especially, aren’t performing anywhere close to earlier expectations.

Paul, who was backed by just 4 percent, was perceived a year ago to have an advantage in Iowa, given the third-place finish in the 2012 caucuses recorded by his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas. In October, his favorable rating outweighed his unfavorable by nearly 3-to-1.

“Whatever advantage he had has eroded,” Selzer said. “Now, more Iowa caucus-goers have negative than positive feelings about him.”

For Walker, who has been in a slump since his lackluster debate performance, the poll is certain to further reduce expectations around his performance in Iowa, which had grown to the point where anything short of a win would have been viewed as a loss. One upside for him in the poll: Besides Carson, he’s the only candidate to exceed 70 percent in favorability.

Iowa Republicans are showing little interest in re-runs. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses, is at 4 percent. He’s followed at 2 percent by candidates who are governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and John Kasich of Ohio.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who narrowly beat eventual nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 caucuses, is backed by just 1 percent, the same level of support recorded by former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is also struggling in his second White House bid even amid heavy spending in Iowa on the part of a super political action committee backing him.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former New York Governor George Pataki and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore all recorded support of less than 1 percent.

The survey, taken Aug. 23-26, included 400 likely Republican caucus participants. On the full sample, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

.

.
Besides the nearly the nearly 40 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers who say Christian conservative is the best way to identify them, “business-oriented establishment Republicans” and Tea Party activists are roughly tied as the next largest groups, at 22 percent and 21 percent. Those who feel they are most closely aligned with the “liberty movement,” a bloc associated with Paul, represent only about 8 percent.

To offer another assessment of candidate strength – something difficult to divine in such a crowded field – Selzer created an index built on multiple measures in the poll. The index takes into account first and second choices, as well as a question that was asked on whether respondents could ever – or would never – support each candidate they didn’t name as their first or second pick. First choices were given double weight, while “ever support” was given a half weighting.

Using that system, Carson is narrowly ahead of Trump, 75 to 73. Walker comes next at 55, followed by Cruz at 53 and Rubio at 50. The index and never/ever question also show some of the candidates could struggle to expand their support. Nearly half of likely Republican caucus participants, 48 percent, say they could never support Christie. For Paul, it’s 43 percent and for Bush it’s 39 percent.

.

.

Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama’s Latest EPA Regulatory Scheme

Obama’s Environmental Agenda Suffers A Big Setback In Court – Daily Caller

.

.
A federal judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction late on Thursday that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward on an ambitious plan to expand the federal government’s power to regulate water pollution.

Judge Ralph Erickson concluded that the 13 states which collaborated to challenge the new Waters of the United States rule were likely to be harmed if the rule was allowed to be implemented, and he also concluded that the rule is unlikely to survive a final court judgment.

The ruling is a tough blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed hard for the new rule. For the time being, the injunction only applies to the 13 states in the lawsuit, while the rule will go into place for the rest of the country starting Friday.

The Waters of the United States rule, proposed in April 2014, the Obama administration’s effort to enforce its vision of the Clean Water Act. The rule would alter the definition of what constitutes the “waters of the United States” under the act, thereby increasing the amount of water subject to federal regulation. Critics, comprising Republicans along with many agricultural and business interests, argue that the new rule is a power grab by the federal government, which would give them unprecedented control over bodies of water located entirely within individual states. Some have argued that even flooded ditches could fall under federal oversight through the new rule.

The 13 states winning in Thursday’s ruling aren’t the only ones challenging the rule. Several other lawsuits have sought injunctions in federal courts, but those injunction requests have not succeeded thus far.

In his ruling, Erickson characterizes the rule as “exceptionally expansive” in how it defines the waters of the United States. If implemented, Erickson writes, it would “irreparably diminish” states’ sovereignty over their own waterways. He also found that states would incur major financial distress from the new rule, noting that North Dakota would now have to spend millions on costly mapping and survey projects before it could approve new oil wells in the state.

“The breadth of the definition of a tributary set forth in the Rule allows for regulation of any area that has a trace amount of water so long as ‘the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark’ exist,” Erickson writes. Erickson added that many parts of the rule were made without any clear scientific basis, and thus the rule appears to be “arbitrary and capricious” in nature.

“I am thrilled that Chief Judge Erickson agrees EPA’s WOTUS rule should be enjoined,” said Pam Bondi, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA overstepped its authority, again. The EPA should not be permitted to intrude unlawfully on state authority and burden farmers, businesses and landowners.”

The League of Conservation Voters, on the other hand, quickly slammed the new injunction.

“This is a terrible decision for the 1 in 3 Americans who have already been waiting too long for these vital protections for their drinking water,”said League legislative representative Madeleine Foote in a statement. “The District Court for North Dakota’s decision puts the interests of big polluters over people in need of clean water. Blocking the implementation of the Clean Water Rule leaves in place an unworkable status quo that jeopardizes the clean water our families, economy, and communities depend on.”

.

.

Septuagenarian Socialist Nutcase Overtakes Wicked Witch Of Benghazi In Latest New Hampshire Poll

Poll: Bernie Leads Hillary In New Hampshire – Weekly Standard

.

.
Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in a new poll of “usual” New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. According to Public Policy polling, a Democratic firm, Sanders has 42 percent support to Clinton’s 35 percent support.

The Vermont senator also has great favorability ratings among New Hampshire Democrats, with 78 percent viewing him favorably and just 12 percent viewing him unfavorably. Compare that to just 63 percent who say they have a favorable view of Clinton and 25 percent who say they have an unfavorable view.

PPP notes that Democrats of different ideological groups appear somewhat evenly split between Sanders and Clinton, but the former secretary of state is hurting among Democrats under the age of 65. Clinton leads with seniors, 51 percent to Sanders’s 34 percent, but Sanders does much better with younger voters, 45 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent.

This isn’t the first poll to show Sanders leading in New Hampshire, and according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Clinton’s lead in the Granite State has shrunk to just one point.

.

.

The Donald Extends Lead In Latest GOP Candidates Poll – Carson A Distant Second

New National Poll: Donald Trump Has Biggest Lead Ever With Carson A Distant 2nd – Right Scoop

A new national poll out today by OANN and Gravis Marketing has Trump up to 40%, his YUGEST lead ever over his Republican contenders. Here’s how each candidate rated:

.

.
While Carson’s lead more than doubled, he’s still a distant second place with the rest of the GOP field behind him. Jeb lost a bit as both Cruz and Fiorina gained.

Here’s the info on the poll:

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 3,567 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2%. The total may not equal exactly 100% due to rounding. The polls were conducted on August 21-22 using interactive voice response, IVR, technology and weighted separately for each population in the question presented.

.

.

*VIDEO* Mark Steyn Discusses The Latest Islamo-Nazi Terrorist Attack In Paris


.

.

Obama’s Latest Dumbass Move On Iran

The Dumbest Move Yet On Iran? – Washinton Post

.

.
The news media broke (or were given) the story that President Obama penned a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader:

The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.

Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say. The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government.

Writing one letter, let alone four, is among the dumbest moves in a foreign policy with far too many blunders in it already. Even worse, Obama seemed to be suggesting just the sort of alliance critics have suspected was his objective all along and which will certainly terrify Israel and our Sunni allies.

Along with outgoing intelligence chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) a number of senators blasted the move:

Senate Armed Services Committee Republicans John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina upbraided Obama’s actions:

“It is outrageous that, while the cries of moderate Syrian forces for greater U.S. assistance fall on deaf ears in the White House, President Obama is apparently urging Ayatollah Khamenei to join the fight against ISIS,” the senators said in a joint statement.

Graham and McCain, frequent critics of the Obama White House foreign policy, added that cooperating with Iran would “harm U.S. national security interests” and allies with Arab partners.

Later Friday, Sen. Ron Johnson said the report further indicated Obama’s “weakness” in foreign affairs.

“It’s just a further demonstration of this president’s weakness on foreign policy,” the Wisconsin Republican said on MSNBC.

They are right to be concerned. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams told me, “We are casting ourselves as an inferior power pleading with Tehran to be reasonable. That regime respects only power, and its disrespect for the United States must grow and grow.” At a time when we have leverage we seem only to want to throw it away. ” After all, oil prices are dropping through the floor and yet we still importune them?” says Abrams. “In our shoes, they would be squeezing us to death, so they must see this most recent letter as a sure indication we are desperate and are incapable of making life hard for them.”

And to boot, this comes at a time Iran is defying inspection obligations that would be essential to any final deal. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency’s report confirms Iran’s “consistent failure to address inspectors’ concerns” that it had a full-blown nuclear weapons program which “may be on-going today.” Moreover, Iran’s human rights atrocities continue to mount. In an op-ed by Sens. Marc Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) the senators observe:

The world is rightly focused on Iran’s growing nuclear threat and the regime’s destabilizing support for international terrorism. Yet Iran’s state of injustice—the regime’s systematic human rights abuses and suppression of the Iranian people’s aspirations to be free – deserves equal attention.

A new report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, helps cast light on the regime’s dark record.

The Shaheed report blasts Iran’s growing use of executions, with 687 in 2013 and already 411 in the first half of 2014. Under Iranian law, citizens can face executions for a shockingly broad range of non-violent crimes, including “adultery, recidivist alcohol use, drug possession and trafficking” and corruption, in addition to moharebeh (sometimes translated as “enmity against God”). Indeed, the report observes that the regime in Tehran, in practical terms, is disproportionately executing individuals from religious and ethnic minority groups “for exercising their protected rights, including freedom of expression and association.”

We have not heard of any senior official using a barnyard epithet in regard to the mullahs, or even becoming irate about their monstrous regime.

Pro-Israel groups, shell-shocked from this president’s stream of invectives against our ally Israel and worried about a rotten deal, are also up in arms. An official of one group emails, “As has been said, Iran is the arsonist not the firefighter in the region. Any demonstration of obsequiousness to the Supreme Leader will be seen as a clear indication of weakness and will be deeply counterproductive.”

What is so stunning is how little the president has learned in 6 years. “The letter… is the latest of a series of such blunders where the Obama Administration does the exact opposite of what it should to advance U.S. strategic interests,” says the CEO of the pro-Israel group JINSA, Mike Makovsky. “If the reports are true, it is another incident where the Obama Administration: looked weak and a supplicant of Iran, thereby further undermining our leverage with Iran in the nuclear negotiations, linked the nuclear talks with ISIS, suggesting again that we need Iran and thus weakening our hand further with the nuclear talks; reinforced the view of our Israeli and Arab allies that they can’t depend upon us to confront Iran and that we’ve realigned our interests against them and in favor of Iran and its allies; enticed other regional powers on the fence to accommodate Iran; and abandoned our pledge to support the removal of Assad regime and weaken the forces supporting it, which further alienates our Arab allies and complicates help we could use from Turkey.”

Congress, when it returns, should pass a resolution condemning Iran’s failure to cooperate with inspectors and enacting new sanctions that go into effect Nov. 25, if there is no final deal on the deadline the day before. Congress should also make clear that all these schemes for unplugging equipment or relying only on inspections (!) are grossly insufficient and not in the country’s interest.

.

.

Lying Sack O’ Crap Alert! HHS Secretary Sebelius Says Latest Obamacare Extension Is Not An Extension

Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Extension ‘Is Not An Extension’ – Big Government

.

.
Embattled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday that the Obama administration’s decision to extend the Obamacare open enrollment period is not, in fact, an extension.

“This is not an extension of open enrollment,” Sebelius told Michigan Fox 2. “It is just saying, like you do on election day, if you’re in line to vote, we want to make sure you vote.”

However, unlike election day, the Washington Post says the Obama administration will give people several weeks – until mid-April – to enroll.

The Post says the Obama White House will rely on the “honor system” and will “not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.”

In congressional testimony last month before the House Ways and Means Committee, Sebelius told Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) that there would be no delay of the enrollment deadline. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokeswoman Julie Bataille said last month that the open enrollment period would not be extended and that, “In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.”

Now, however, Bataille presumably believes the Obama administration does have statutory authority.

“We are… making sure that we will be ready to help consumers who may be in line by the deadline to complete enrollment – either online or over the phone,” said Bataille.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Neil Cavuto Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Over His Latest, Asinine Attack Against Fox News (Video)

Neil Cavuto Crushes Obama Over Latest Attack Against FOX News – TPNN

.

Neil Cavuto responded today, in a powerful opening statement, to Obama’s latest attack against the First Amendment and freedom of the press. Obama, fresh from using the NSA to spy on the Associated Press and James Rosen, a FOX News reporter, is back to attacking one of his favorite targets, FOX News, the only major network who doesn’t completely work for the Obama regime. Watch below (followed by text) to see Cavuto’s response:

.

.
NEIL CAVUTO: This just in. This has just got to stop:

OBAMA: If you’ve talked to somebody who said, ‘Well, I don’t know. I was watching FOX News and they said this is horrible…”

NEIL CAVUTO: Mr. President, we at FOX News are not the problem. I hate to break it to you, sir. you are. Your words are, your promises are. We didn’t sell this healthcare law, sir. You did. Remember this?

OBAMA: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.

NEIL CAVUTO: Not so. Mr. President, tell that to tens of thousands of retirees at IBM and Time Warner and dozens of others, who have been dumped from their coverage and told to find their own coverage. Now, FOX News didn’t break that news to them, Mr. President, their companies did.

FOX News didn’t push more of those firms to hire part-time workers, your healthcare law did.

FOX News didn’t incentivize fast-food restaurants to scale back their benefits, your healthcare law did.

FOX News didn’t make doctors want to opt out, your health care did.

FOX News didn’t make insurance premiums skyrocket, your health care law did that.

Just like FOX News did not grant hundreds of exemptions to companies that needed them, you did.

And FOX News didn’t delay one key provision after another, including (just today) online enrollment for those small business exchanges. You did that, sir.

Just like it wasn’t FOX News that said, “We had to pass this to see what was in this.” You did. Or, was that Nancy Pelosi? Sometimes, I’m confused. but of this I am not.

FOX News didn’t redo basic math. sir, you did.

FOX News didn’t say you can cover 30 million more Americans and not see a hit in premiums, you did.

FOX News didn’t say you could throw in those with pre-existing conditions and not have to pay for it, you did.

FOX News didn’t all but say you can get something for nothing. You did.

FOX News didn’t come back years later and say, “Oh yeah, we did raise some taxes.” You did, just the other night.

Here’s where you are right about FOX News, however, Mr. President. We were on this very early. We can do math, and did. You cannot and did not. We said it and proved it. You didn’t and we’re suffering for it.

Take it from the numbers guy here at FOX. Numbers don’t lie. The number of Americans working part-time and nervous, the number of retirees days away from being dumped on exchanges, and anxious. The number of company bosses with news to pass along on those exchanges, still clueless. The number of doctors who want out. The number of congressmen opting out.

No, Mr. President, none of those numbers lie, but with all due respect, sir, I can only conclude, you do.

I know, I know, I know, you hate us at FOX, but please, please, look in a mirror and fast. You think we’re the skunk at your picnic, but that does not mean we are the ones that stink, because that smell account isn’t coming from the folks reporting on your law. Mr. President, that smell is your law.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.