Highmark

Vinny the Clinton cunt licker. 

Well that's what happens when you purger yourself.

It's hilarious to hear the dems in the media and the Clinton cunt lickers on here act like the same wouldn't be being done with a reversal of parties involved.  

12 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but since Lynch did not recuse herself ...she still has the final say right?

I mean she has to publicly say what her final decision is?

She said she most likely would follow the FBI's recommendation so she already cowardly removed herself from it.  The fact that the FBI announced their decision without informing her speaks volumes of what they thought about her meeting with Bill. 

2 hours ago, Mainecat said:

Jesus another one

Its ok not to respond MC, we all know your voting for her.  

Do some searches for things like, Benghazi, killed, video.   Interesting reading for sure.  

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

17 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Does anyone think she did this intentionally?

Why else would have she done it other than to hide stuff from the Admin and the American people?  The Blumenthal issue is proof alone.  

Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation^{[citation needed]}. During the 2011 uprising in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi, Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent as emails to Clinton in 2011 and 2012, which she shared through her aide, Jake Sullivan, with senior State Department personnel. In the form of intelligence briefings, the memos sometimes touted his business associates and, at times contained inaccurate information.^[20][21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903520204576480542593887906

Dubuque, Iowa, is struggling with an influx of Section 8 recipients from Chicago housing projects. Section 8 concentrations account for 11 of 13 local violent crime hot spots, according to a study by the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies. Though Section 8 residents account for only 5% of the local population, a 2010 report released by the city government found that more than 20% of arrestees resided at Section 8 addresses.

Dubuque's city government responded by trimming the size of the local Section 8 program. HUD retaliated by launching a "civil rights compliance review" of the program (final results pending).

HUD seems far more enthusiastic about cracking down on localities than on troublesome Section 8 recipients who make life miserable for the rest of the community. And because Section 8 recipients in some areas are mostly black or Latino, almost any enforcement effort can be denounced as discriminatory.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/

34 minutes ago, racer254 said:

psycho....SECTION 8 HOUSING.  Democrats!!!!  Let me guess, they moved there for the jobs.  Yeah right.

You wouldn't believe how much the "city" of Dubuque has changed.  

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429693/affh-preview-obamas-hud-takes-over-dubuque-iowa

How Obama Stole Dubuque

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429693/affh-preview-obamas-hud-takes-over-dubuque-iowa

What state is Dubuque in? If you answered Chicago, you are correct. Chicago’s no state, you say? Don’t be so 18th century — so “constitutional.” Dubuque is in Chicago, which is now a kind of state. Or to put it differently, the Obama administration is in the process of replacing our entire system of government — made up of nested local, state, and national, levels — with a regional framework. In Obama’s new dispensation, suburbs, small towns, and modest-sized cities like Dubuque will be turned into subordinate satellites of regional mega-cities like Chicago, regardless of which state these local governments are formally a part of. Welcome to the world of “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH), President Obama’s transformative new regulation. How will AFFH work? The city of Dubuque gives us one of our best and most frightening previews yet. I hope the presidential candidates are watching, because Obama’s new AFFH regulation and the Dubuque fiasco ought to be an issue in this year’s Iowa caucuses. I also hope American citizens pay attention to the travesty in Dubuque, because it’s not too late to save your hometown from Dubuque’s fate. (I’ll tell you how to do this below.) An account of Dubuque as a forerunner of a post-AFFH world comes to us courtesy of a stunning report by Deborah Thornton, a policy analyst for Iowa’s Public Interest Institute. The report tells the story of how Dubuque was pressured to cede large swathes of its governing authority to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has forced the city to direct its limited low-income “Section 8” housing resources, not to its own needy citizens, but to voucher-holders from Chicago. Unlike the more familiar forerunner of AFFH, Westchester County, Dubuque is not an upper-middle-class suburb but a small and economically struggling city. At $44,600, median income in Dubuque is well below the state median of $51,843. Like other nearby Mississippi river towns with aging populations, Dubuque is hard-pressed to provide good jobs and decent housing for the low-income people already there: poor families with children, retired elderly, and disabled adults. The city’s priority is to revive its economy by keeping its young people from moving away, and by attracting new residents who are willing and able to start businesses. Like any city, Dubuque’s first obligation is to see to the needs of the citizens who already live there, vote, and pay taxes. Or so it was in pre-AFFH America. Our story begins about eight years ago. Just as Dubuque was reeling from the effects of the 2008 recession and dealing with an uptick in its own low-income housing needs, the city was hit with a wave of “Section 8” low-income housing voucher applicants from Chicago. A few years earlier, Chicago had systematically demolished its most drug- and crime-ridden high-rise public housing facilities, using grants from HUD. Yet through its own mismanagement, Chicago had failed to properly replace its now depleted low-income housing stock, leaving many Chicago residents looking to use their Section 8 vouchers elsewhere. With many more Section 8 applicants than it could house, Dubuque instituted a low-income housing point system granting preference to Dubuque residents, county residents, state residents, and out-of-state residents, in that order. Although HUD’s rules ostensibly allow localities to craft their own housing priorities, Dubuque’s point system was deemed unacceptable by HUD. The feds undertook a review of Dubuque’s housing policy that effectively treated the city as part of greater Chicago. This, of course, is ridiculous. Dubuque is 200 miles and a four-to-five hour drive away from Chicago, even without traffic. And of course the two cities are in different states. But by effectively treating Dubuque and Chicago as part of the same “region,” HUD was able to declare Dubuque’s low-income housing point system discriminatory. Since the vast majority of Section 8 applicants from Chicago were African-Americans, Dubuque’s preferences for citizens of its own city, county, and state were deemed racist. HUD insisted that Dubuque would have to admit housing applicants in conformity with the demographics of the larger (HUD-defined) region. Somehow Dubuque had become a satellite of Chicago. Having previously accepted HUD funding through the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program, as well as HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program, Dubuque was formally obligated to “affirmatively further fair housing” in whatever way HUD defined that obligation. Refusal to submit to HUD’s dictates would have led to the withdrawal of federal funding, a lawsuit for supposed discrimination, or both. The cowed elected officials of Dubuque accordingly signed a “voluntary” (in truth, forced) consent agreement that effectively ceded control of the city’s housing policy to HUD for at least five years. Under HUD’s detailed oversight, Dubuque must now actively recruit Section 8 voucher holders from the Chicago area. In fact, as of January 2015, the percentage of African-American voucher users in Dubuque was larger than the percentage of African-Americans living in Chicago. The problem is that very few of these new public housing residents have ever lived or paid taxes in Dubuque, or even Iowa. The feds have essentially commandeered Dubuque to solve Chicago’s public housing shortage. HUD’s diktat also imposes a huge administrative burden on Dubuque, with monthly, quarterly, annual, and five-year plans to be filed and followed up on. (Yes, a “five-year plan.”) Having “voluntarily” consented to a federal takeover, Dubuque is now obligated to follow HUD’s every command for at least five years. Thornton rightly notes that Dubuque is a template for the coming implementation of AFFH. The rule will make it easy for HUD to effectively annex other Iowa river-towns—like Clinton, Davenport, and Burlington—to greater Chicago, although those cities are no closer to Chicago than Dubuque. The same pattern will play out nationally under AFFH, Thornton warns. In a post-AFFH world, every region of the United States will be compelled “to meet nationally determined standards for the management and makeup of every aspect” of local life, says Thornton. AFFH will also force local communities into regional consortia directed by what Thornton calls “unelected governing boards who do not represent the voters.” Those electorally unaccountable regional commissions, she continues, “will set targets for the desired percentage of ‘types’ of people to live in each area of the region.” Cities and businesses, “buried under mounds of paperwork,” will have no choice but to submit. How can a housing rule control every aspect of local life? It’s far easier than you might imagine. AFFH redefines “fair housing” to include proximity to transportation, jobs, and schools. This will effectively extend the power that HUD now exercises over Dubuque’s housing policy to nearly every other aspect of local development and planning. Under AFFH, once a town takes HUD money, it effectively loses control not only over housing but schools, zoning, transportation, the environment, and business location.  As Thornton concludes, “If you take their money, you play by their rules.” Dubuque shows that, over time, Obama’s AFFH rule could spell the end of local government in America. Thornton rightly warns against the regional consortia provided for in AFFH.  Once HUD pressures a municipality into such a regional governing entity, local control is lost. But the Dubuque case strikes me as an even scarier precedent than Thornton implies. A city may not even have to formally join a regional consortium to lose its capacity for self-government. After all, HUD didn’t need to force Dubuque to formally join a regional consortium in order to turn it into a satellite of Chicago. All the feds had to do was classify Dubuque as part of greater Chicago, then judge the city’s housing demographics as out-of-balance with reference to the racial and ethnic make-up of the region as a whole. At that point, a trumped-up charge of racism and threats to withdraw funding or file a lawsuit “logically” followed. Without joining anything, Dubuque is for all practical purposes now part of Chicago, essentially because HUD has declared it so. AFFH makes this trick particularly easy to pull off because the rule instructs all localities in receipt of federal grants to analyze their housing practices with reference to “regional data” provided by HUD.  By forcing every town, small city, or suburb that takes HUD money to evaluate the “fairness” of its demographic mix with reference to the demographics of the nearest mega-city, HUD can effectively institute regional government in America by fiat. If the ethnic mix of your town is substantially different than the ethnic mix of a city even 200 miles, a five-hour drive, and another state away, you will have to recruit that city’s dominant ethnicities to populate your low-income housing, so long as HUD declares you to be in that “region.” As Iowa is to Chicago, so may New Hampshire soon be to Boston. Are you listening presidential candidates? In its story on the announcement of AFFH, The New York Times quoted Secretary Julian Castro downplaying HUD’s intended enforcement efforts. Castro portrays the cutoff of federal funds as a last resort that he barely intends to use, if at all. Dubuque makes a mockery of Castro’s claim, unless you credit the absurd pretense that the Dubuque’s compliance agreement was in fact voluntary, rather than the response of a financially-strapped town to threats of federal defunding and/or lawsuits—threats levied on the basis of a thoroughly contrived “regionalist” premise. When it comes to housing, Secretary Castro is now forcibly controlling virtually every move Dubuque makes. Come to think of it, Dubuque may not be in the state of Chicago after all. What state is Dubuque really in? If you answered H.U.D., you are correct. If you don’t want your hometown to become the next Dubuque, there’s something you can do to prevent it right now. Organize your neighbors and force your local government to stop taking HUD money. (For more on how to do this, go here.)

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429693/affh-preview-obamas-hud-takes-over-dubuque-iowa

1 hour ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Clinton crushed Dole in 96..........CRUSHED

That's all you got?  

12 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Well that's your opinion.

Just now, Capt.Storm said:

Well like I said I truly believe we have the farthest right and left candidates of all time ...America will speak in Nov.

I completely disagree.   Trump is not far right by any way shape or form.   Neither was Romney or McCain.  

4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Oh boy..the Clinton's have their very own  Iran-Contra affair.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/surviving_a_multitude_of_fools.html#ixzz4De8P2s4C 
 

Not so sure I agree anymore if Hillary is voted in.   She may be an equal or greater threat than the idiots who vote in a liar like her.  

23 hours ago, Mainecat said:

No intent was found.

Now on to Trumps foreign campaign contributions......yeah its OK to have other countries influence us.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation — and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton — also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments’ human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.

8 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Disgusting eh?

Said this from the beginning.  You needed to look at this two ways, she was rather lying and broke the law or so fucking stupid its a joke anyone could vote for her.   Turns out both were right.   Just because the FBI refused to recommend charges doesn't mean she didn't break the law, its obvious now she did in multiple ways.  

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 5, 2016 12:45 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

 

1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said:

Well I dunno..you would think her talking with the fbi before they recommended was as bad as her talking to Billy no?

That was nothing more than them informing her of what they were going to do and a plan being put together as to what statement the director would be releasing.  

From CNN the day of her "interview."

The meeting signals the investigation is coming to an end, and sources tell CNN the expectation is Clinton will not face charges.

4 minutes ago, Elkhorn said:

Lol, you're proof you can't read or comprehend English. 

 

Come out losers the last 20 years yet have held the house and senate a majority of those years.   I won't even get into the lead in Governors.   

5 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

I hear you..and he walked right by two fbi guys even

The FBI wouldn't let anyone take any pictures of him going off and on the plane.  Of course the AG and FBI director discussed this case.   He's lost all credibility.  

Without question not serving in the military.  Not sure I could have ever gotten in with asthma even though I was in excellent physical condition.   College sports allowed use of an inhaler, not sure the military would have.

10 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Oh I think she had some idea, you have to figure it under her orders that the private server was setup.

Saying the Republicans are going to overplay this is not a deflection; it's my opinion of how the Republicans will fuck it up and help her get a sympathy vote.

Ole Newt figured it out after he overplayed his hand when he shutdown the government in 95, and then he came to his senses when Ole Bubba invited him to the WH for a meeting to discuss SS reform in 98, what Ole Newt understood by then is that the Clinton's are very, very clever politicians.............and that is a very important thing to grasp and understand, my guess is that Paul Ryan will figure it out when it's too late just like Ole Newt figured it out in 95 with the G shutdown.

So how exactly was the GOP hurt by shutting down the govt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

• He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
• He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
• He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
• He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
• And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

Beyond explanation why no charges were filed.  Any other American would have been charged. 

Considering what WE left happen in those countries I would agree with him.

To each their own.   Rather rural or urban both offer things the other doesn't both good and bad.

I know when I drive thru poor area's in cities I thank my lucky stars to be where I'm at.  We have seen a large push of people from the Chicago area out to the Dubuque area because of the easier access to section 8 housing, better schools and less crime.   Unfortunately some of the crime has came with it.  I think in some of our "cities" it has also put stress on other public aide.   

Rural America will not survive on agriculture alone.  Technology allows for a few to farm thousands of acres now.  Our successful towns have a number of manufacturing facilities in each.   The communities have embraced their importance to the vitality of the town.  Sure we might not be growing at the same percentage as large urban area's but we also don't have the issues those area's have as well.   

19 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Whatever gets you through the day...I know what I saw. Cheers!

Common sense gets me thru many days.   Sorry you are lacking it on this.  

You deny she was resisting?