XCR1250

Maybe it's because she has gotten away with it for so long, but Hillary Clinton seems to get more brazen in her mendacity as she gets closer to the White House. Case in point is her interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News over the weekend. At one point, Wallace asks Clinton about claims she made about her use of a private, unsecured email server while secretary of state, which the FBI investigation determined were completely false. Wallace shows clips where Clinton says things like: "I did not email any classified material to anyone," and "I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time," and "I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified." Note the subtle change in language between the first and last claim, which Clinton had to modify after thousands of emails turned up that the State Department determined to contain classified information. But it was all a lie. As FBI Director James Comey pointed out at his press briefing, out of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over, 110 contain "classified information at the time they were sent or received.Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent." (Emphasis added.) Among the thousands of work emails Clinton failed to turn over -- despite her repeated statements that she had turned over everything -- "three were classified at the time they were sent or received." When Comey testified at a Congressional hearing about his findings, Rep. Trey Gowdy asked him point-blank where Clinton was being truthful in her claims. "That's not true," he said. So what was Clinton's response when Wallace confronted her with her own quotes, as well as Comey's statement? "Director Comey said my answers were truthful," she told Wallace. Let that sink in for a minute. Her lie was so blatant that even the Washington Post's in-house fact checker awarded Clinton "Four Pinocchios" -- aka "whoppers." In her interview with Wallace, Clinton went on to blame the 300 people she emailed with, some of whom, she said, "made the wrong call" when it came to handling classified material. But Comey had blown up that defense as well, saying at his press briefing that she and anyone in her position "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," adding that "even if information is not marked 'classified' in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." In other words, one of those people who "made the wrong call" was Clinton herself, since she authored some of the classified emails she sent from her unsecured private email server, and should have known better. Her statement to Wallace that "I take classification seriously" looks like just another lie. Clinton defenders will no doubt respond to this by saying that "At this point, what difference does it make?" The FBI let Clinton off the hook. Only her Clinton-hating Republicans critics won't let it go. But criminal or not, Clinton's actions when she was secretary of state -- and her lies and obfuscations about it since -- are about judgment, honesty and trustworthiness, which are baseline qualifications for being president. As she demonstrated again over the weekend, Clinton glaringly lacks any of these qualities. by Taboola Sponsored Links You May Like

At the recent Democratic National Convention, the party of the donkey worked overtime at remaking Hillary Clinton's image from one of an ethically challenged political operator to one of a caring champion of children and families. But as new revelations about her shady dealings with Russia emerge, it may all be for nought. New revelations from Peter Schweizer, the author of the meticulously documented book "Clinton Cash," and Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart, show that Hillary's campaign Chairman John Podesta "sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund." Making things worse, Podesta never fully disclosed the relationship, as the law requires. But of greater concern than Podesta is what it says about Clinton's strange and mutually beneficial relationship with Russia that led to Clinton lending a hand in helping Vladimir Putin build Skolkovo, a high-tech community meant to be "the Russian equivalent of America's Silicon Valley." This is not some sort of free-enterprise experiment. As the authors detail in a study published by the Government Accountability Institute, some 30,000 workers toiled in the state-of-the-art tech hub "under strict governmental control." While Clinton was in charge at the State Department, the U.S. recruited a bunch of U.S. high-tech powerhouses -- including Google, Cisco and Intel -- to take part in the project. Of the 28 companies from the U.S., Europe and Russia that took part, 17 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or paid for Bill Clinton to give speeches. It's yet another stunning example of the Clinton Foundation's growing list of conflicts of interest, suggesting that Hillary used the State Department's offices to line her family's pockets through the Clinton Foundation. Don't forget that, with her email carelessness on her home-brew server during her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary has already exposed the United States' most secret information to the Russian government. As radio talk show host and law professor Hugh Hewitt noted Monday: "Hillary is already a Putin pawn." This was no accident. Nor was it innocent. FBI Assistant Special Agent Lucia Ziobro in 2014 sent a letter to several U.S. corporate participants in the project warning: "The (Skolkovo) foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation's sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application." Ziobro continued, "The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by the government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies." Which brings us back to Podesta. He sat on the board of a tiny energy company named Joule Unlimited, write Bannon and Schweizer. A mere two months after he joined the board, Rusnano, founded by Vladimir Putin in 2007, invested $35 million in the company. Podesta sat on three separate boards of Joule-affiliated corporate entities, but only reported two. Moreover, Podesta's own leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, got $5.25 million from a group called the Sea Change Foundation in the four years ending in 2013. Sea Change, in return, had received what the authors call "a large infusion of funds from a mysterious Bermuda-based entity called 'Klein Ltd.,' " which appears to have Russian ties. This puts Clinton's actions while in office under deep suspicion -- including her enabling a "reset" with Russia that seems to have led to a resurgent Russia expanding its military, diplomatic and economic power in Eastern Europe and the Mideast. In a wide-ranging interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Hillary suggested that Donald Trump "has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin, whether it's saying that NATO wouldn't come to the rescue of allies if they were invaded, talking about removing sanctions from Russian officials after they were imposed by the United States and Europe together, because of Russia's aggressiveness in Crimea and Ukraine, his praise for Putin which is I think quite remarkable." Extraordinary chutzpah. Last May, Clinton told MSNBC's Closing Bell that she had been the "most transparent public official in modern times." If you simply replaced "most" with "least" that statement would be true. What's sad is the mainstream media will once again do their best to cover up and ignore this latest scandal, which reeks of illicit payola. In other words, just another day in the ethically challenged campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Peter Schweizer

During his physical, the doctor asked the patient about his daily activity level He described a typical day this way: "Well, yesterday afternoon, I waded along the edge of a lake, drank eight beers, escaped from wild dogs in the heavy brush, jumped away from an aggressive rattlesnake, marched up and down several rocky hills, stood in a patch of poison ivy, crawled out of quicksand and took four leaks behind big trees." Inspired by the story, the doctor said, "You must be one hell of an outdoors man!" "NAH," he replied, "I'm just a shitty golfer."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/30/politics/julian-assange-wikileaks-democrats/index.html

"I'm really proud that your leaders here in Connecticut have shown the way. That's why what happened here in Connecticut really needs to be a model.'' - Hillary Clinton In a revealing comment, Clinton told her audience, “I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every single day if I’m so fortunate enough to be your president looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture.” This was a rare moment of honesty from the would-be president, an admission that she would relentlessly use the power of that office to attack a “culture” that she detests. And that was exactly what the Connecticut law sought to do – not to reduce crime, not to punish violent behavior, not to target ways criminals actually obtain firearms– but to add needless expense and red tape to discourage ownership of firearms by ordinary, law-abiding people. Falsely styled “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety,” the bill delivered neither, while outlawing the possession of firearms and magazines that had been legally obtained and throwing roadblocks in the way of lawfully acquiring firearms and ammunition. The centerpiece of the bill was an expanded ban on AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms, which, though rarely used in crime, remain among the most popular, fastest selling guns in America today. Also banned were so-called “large capacity magazines,” defined as any magazine that has the capacity to accept, or “can be readily restored or converted to accept,” more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Limited exceptions to these prohibitions applied to people who obtained the items lawfully before the act took effect and who registered them with authorities. Besides chilling images of Americans queuing up to report themselves to the government simply for having exercised their rights, the registration requirements also produced widespread confusion and non-compliance. Shortly after the law took effect, copies of a letter from the Connecticut State Police surfaced online that had been sent to gun owners who tried to register but had missed the deadline. The letters (supposedly sent as a “public service”) outlined ways for the recipients to permanently dispose of their newly-illegal firearms before they were arrested for possessing them. The Connecticut law also established new “eligibility certificates” to acquire long guns, including requirements for training, photographs, fingerprints, or any other “method of positive identification required by the State Police.” Ammunition purchases likewise became forbidden without an “ammunition certificate” or one of the state’s other firearm-related licenses or certificates. Each certificate requires the payment of processing fees, in addition to the expense of any required training. On top of the eligibility certificates for long gun sales, Connecticut added a redundant requirement for a separate background check in the case of a retail sale or private transfer, with additional fees. Needless to say, failure to comply with the transfer formalities would also be a felony. And that is merely a sampling. The full list of additional restriction and bureaucracy in Connecticut’s 2013 law is considerably longer. Clinton, like Barack Obama before her, hopes her embrace of gun control will lead to a similar “national movement.” Whether that will ever happen remains to be seen, but in the meantime, the main movement Americans are making on guns is to buy them in unprecedented numbers. For months, we have reported on Hillary Clinton’s open endorsement of Australian-style confiscatory gun control. While Connecticut hasn’t yet gone that far, her fawning praise for the state’s restrictive laws ahead of its upcoming primary has nothing to do with moderating her position. “[W]e have just too many guns,”Clinton told supporters in Philadelphia early in the week, “On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods.” Hillary doesn’t just want to stop you from getting a gun. She’s worried about the ones you already have in your homes and the “culture” that recognizes your right to have them. And we have no doubt, should America allow her to ascend to the White House, that she’ll make good on her promise to obsessively pursue every opportunity to make both those guns and America’s Second Amendment heritage disappear.

Here’s perhaps the most compelling argument we’ve heard against Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. Continuing her streak of adopting terrible (and perhaps planted) suggestions raised at campaign stops, Clinton on Tuesday called the appointment of Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court “a great idea,” according to an article in the Washington Examiner. Should that happen, Obama’s continued assault on the rights of America’s gun owners could last for decades. As a Supreme Court justice, he would have the power he has always craved as president to “fundamentally transform” America by issuing proclamations about the meaning and scope of the Constitution, all without pesky voters or members of Congress interfering with his plans. Hillary Clinton has already stated that she believes the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is little doubt that Obama would pass Clinton’s Second Amendment litmus test if she is elected and has the chance to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court. Obama, meanwhile, has admitted “the Second Amendment” is “there written on the paper,” while at the same time praising the confiscatory gun control of Australia and Great Britain. He has also called his inability to push gun control through Congress the thing that has made him “most frustrated” as president. In other words, he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth on the Second Amendment as president, and there’s no reason to believe he would change course as a Supreme Court justice. It would be little comfort to have an individual right under the Second Amendment if that right allowed for the sort of gun bans and enforced surrender of once lawful property that have plagued firearm owners in democracies with no recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms. This future, fortunately, is not set in stone. You can ensure that Barack Obama espouses his constitutional theories only in speaking engagements at universities and law schools, rather than from the bench, by electing candidates who believe in the Founders’ Constitution. Hillary Clinton has made clear that she and Barack Obama would be a package deal. Remember that come November.

MENU × APPEARS IN NEWS Just in Time for His Party’s Convention, Obama Administration Releases Latest Executive Gun Control WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2016 More On Friday, July 22, just as members of his party were gathering in Philadelphia to coronate Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee, the Obama Administration once again released a sweeping gun control measure by executive fiat. This time the bad news came via the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily responsible for administering the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The upshot is that DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as “manufacturers” for performing relatively simple work such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, “manufacturers” are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties. By way of background, the AECA and ITAR concern rules by which military materiel is exported from, and imported to, the United States. The so-called “defense articles” governed by the AECA/ITAR are compiled in what is known as the U.S. Munitions List and include some, but not all, firearms and ammunition, as well as their parts and components. Thus, for purposes of the regime, a spring or floorplate from the magazine of a controlled firearm is subject to the same regulatory framework as the firearm itself.As with prior executive actions on guns, the administration released its dictate suddenly and without advance warning to or prior input from affected businesses, completely bypassing the normal formalities associated with a significant rulemaking. The guidance is also likely to result in more confusion than clarity and may significantly chill heretofore legal conduct associated with gunsmithing. The AECA/ITAR require anybody who engages in the business of “manufacturing” a defense article to register with DDTC and pay a registration fee that for new applicants is currently $2,250 per year. These requirements apply, even if the business does not, and does not intend to, export any defense article. Moreover, under ITAR, “only one occasion of manufacturing … a defense article” is necessary for a commercial entity to be considered “engaged in the business” and therefore subject to the regime’s requirements. Adding to the confusion, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and its amendments (GCA) also regulate firearm manufacturing, importing, and exporting. Both of the laws also use the same or similar terms but apply them in different ways. Thus, what triggers the legal requirement for an entity to be registered as a “manufacturer” under the AECA/ITAR may or may not also bring that entity within the scope of the GCA, and vice versa. DDTC’s new “guidance” only makes this situation worse by coming up with a confusing and counterintuitive list of activities that it considers “gunsmithing” versus “manufacturing” (despite the fact that it insists it relies on the “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” of those terms). For example, DDTC generally labels procedures that involve cutting, drilling, or machining of an existing firearm in order to improve its accuracy or operation or to change its caliber as “manufacturing,” even if they do not create a new and distinct firearm. This includes threading a muzzle for a muzzle brake or blueprinting that requires machining of a barrel. On the other hand, DDTC contends that gunsmithing includes only very simple procedures, such as the one-for-one drop-in replacement of parts that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining for installation. But even then, if the parts “improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation,” “manufacturing” may occur. Finishing treatments for firearms generally are not considered manufacturing under the guidance, nor are cosmetic flourishes such as engraving. Meanwhile the mounting of a scope that involves the machining of new dovetails or the drilling and tapping of holes may or not be “manufacturing,” depending on whether the scope improves the accuracy of the firearm beyond its prior configuration. For those who are confused by the guidance, DDTC offers the option of requesting an advisory opinion through the agency. The regulation providing for such opinions, however, states they “are not binding on the Department of State, and may not be used in future matters before the Department.” Moreover, the request involves typical bureaucratic hoops to negotiate, including providing both an original and seven copies of the request and supporting information in hardcopy form. DDTC’s move appears aimed at expanding the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the annual registration fee or the sophistication to negotiate DDTC’s confusing maze of bureaucracy. Like ATF’s early “guidance” this year on the GCA’s licensing requirement for firearm “dealers,” it is also likely to have a significant chilling effect on activity that would not even be considered regulated. The administration’s latest move serves as a timely reminder of how the politicized and arrogant abuse of executive power can be used to suppress Second Amendment rights and curtail lawful firearm-related commerce. That lesson should not be forgotten when voters go to the polls this November. I

From the NRA If there was any uncertainty about the animosity Hillary Clinton and the elites of her party have toward America’s gun owners, those doubts were conclusively resolved by this week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA. Again and again, the convention’s organizers made sure the issue of “gun violence” was front and center, even though – with more guns being sold than at any time in American history– the U.S. homicide rate remains at a historic low. President Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” has been so thorough and dramatic in other ways that it seems America’s gun owners and outdoor sporting traditions are virtually all that remain of a country many remember from childhood. No wonder, then, the “gun lobby” – Clinton-speak for NRA and its millions of members and supporters – was the subject of so much attention and abuse. Let’s not mince words. Hillary Clinton does not believe in the Second Amendment. She does not believe in the U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a fundamental, constitutional right to have a firearm in one’s own home for self-defense. What she does believe in is the confiscatory gun control policies of Australia, a regime that so demonized and abused gun owners that a territorial “public service announcement” evenmocked them with the specter of a prison sentence should they fail to comply. That’s the Hillary Clinton and national Democratic Party of today. How would they behave if they exercised authority without the restraining hand of a strong opposition party and of grassroots organizations like the NRA to hold them accountable? Look no further than Australia and Great Britain, where private ownership of firearms for self-defense has been effectively abolished, or even California, where every legislative session brings ever more hackneyed and superfluous gun control to suppress lawful firearm ownership. But wait. Weren’t newspapers reporting that Hillary Clinton won’t “repeal the Second Amendment”? Isn’t that what she said fifty minutes into her monotonous, droning acceptance speech that seemed to promise American voters everything and nothing, from every point of view, all at the same time? How much more does it need to be said? Hillary Clinton – infamous across the political spectrum and amongst broad demographics for her dishonesty – never speaks with more duplicity than when talking about the Second Amendment. But don’t take our word for it. The national Democratic Party has clear marching order for how its members are supposed to articulate their stance on guns. As an article on Politico’s website explained, “[R]epresentatives from a broad mix of progressive groups sat around a table [the week before the convention] at the Washington offices of Global Strategy Group, where they received a tutorial on how — and how not — to talk about guns.” Members are not supposed to talk about “gun control” but “gun violence prevention.” They are supposed to invoke “common sense.” They are instructed to appeal to emotion with “victim and survivor stories” but not to “[o]verload the argument with numbers” (which of course don’t favor them). They are even told to lie, by characterizing intentional limits to the sweep of gun control laws as “loopholes” and by decrying a “new normal” of “gun violence” that statistics refute. All this and more is outlined in a glossy booklet produced by the Gabby Giffords anti-gun group, Americans For Responsible Solutions and, according to the Politico article, “distributed to every House Democrat ….” What does this all really mean? We can’t provide a better explanation than was offered by Mary Bayer, whoThe Daily Caller described as “a former Democratic delegate and a volunteer organizer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Bayer was caught on tape speaking to an undercover journalist posing as a gun control advocate. Bayer confirmed elements of the speech code in response to questions, but when asked outright if Hillary Clinton would support banning guns, Bayer answered, “Oh, for sure.” Believing she was counseling a fellow traveler, Bayer explained why the party must nevertheless couch its gun control agenda in more benign, focus-group tested phrases, “You say [expletive] like that and people will buy into it.” And so Hillary Clinton did say “[expletive] like that” in her nomination acceptance speech on Wednesday. “I'm not here to repeal the Second Amendment,” she said (as if any president has the unilateral authority to amend the Constitution). “I'm not here to take away your guns,” she insisted. “I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.” She reminded viewers, “You heard, you saw, family members of people killed by gun violence” (although she omitted the fact that some of those incidents were determined, including by Obama’s Department of Justice, to involve acts of defensive force). “You heard, you saw,” Clinton said, “family members of police officers killed in the line of duty because they were outgunned by criminals” (cravenly ambushed, yes, outgunned, no). She offered no actual solutions but referred to some undefined “common ground” she believes must exist. Hillary Clinton’s predecessor and ideological compatriot Barack Obama has said similar things. And then came his calls to ban America’s most popular rifle. And the Administration’s actual attempt to ban one of the most popular types of ammunition for that rifle. And his appointment of Supreme Court Justices who voted against an individual right under the Second Amendment and for expansions of federal gun control. And the Administration’s use of banking regulators to try to drive gun dealers out business. And its gun sales to Mexico drug cartels, even as it cited narco-terrorism to call for gun control in the United States. And it’s latest measure to force commercial gunsmiths to fork over thousands of dollars annually to the U.S. State Department to register as “manufacturers,” whether or not they manufacture anything. And the list continues. View Related Articles “Fool me once,” the saying goes, “shame on you.” But, “Fool me twice, shame on me.” There are, perhaps, American gun owners who were fooled by Barack Obama’s reassuring rhetoric before his second term. And there may be a new generation of American gun owners who are tempted to believe that Hillary Clinton will behave moderately in pursuit of “gun violence prevention” and “common sense” gun restrictions. But if they’re fooled this time, there may not be a second time. After this week’s convention, the consensus of the Democratic Party elite has been laid bare. And this may well be the last chance American gun owners will get to safeguard their rights.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/media/democratic-convention-night-four-ratings/index.html

I may have to take it apart to have a look see, although I really hate to do that as it has a 3 year warranty and cost $229. When I put my hand near it the reception changes, perhaps placing the wires from my Tower antenna on the radios case would help??? dunno.

This has a power cord and will also run off any slide on DeWalt battery.

My other radios are hooked to an Antenna more that 70 high on my communications tower and play very well.

Yes it changes. Thing sounds really good..but I'm 25 miles from a station with a Forest between.

Yes, that's the one.

Station strength gets better if I place my hand near the handle and screen. This is a new model DeWalt called "Tough System Music + Charger" Has BlueTooth plays MP3 & MP4 too.

Is there a way to use some kind of wireless Antenna to improve FM reception for a new radio which has no provision to use a plug in external Antenna?? I'm quite far from any radio stations and just bought a new radio today, I can only get 2 stations now, (barely).

Who says building a border wall won't work? The Chinese built one over 2,000 years ago. They still don't have any Mexicans.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3452613/posts