Exposed: Donors To Clinton Foundation Got Something Shocking From Hillary’s State Dept.

Hillary Clinton’s Department of State gave favorable defense contracts to countries and companies who contributed heavily to the Clinton Foundation, a new report finds.

International Business Times reported that several defense contractors, led by Boeing, gave $29 billion worth of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia in late 2011. Although this infuriated the Israelis, the State Department asserted the move was in the national interest.

In the years before the deal was made, the Saudis gave approximately $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, while Boeing gave the organization $900,000 two months before the deal, a company press release said. IBTimes breaks down more specifics from Clinton’s time at Foggy Bottom:

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.

That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to…those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department also facilitated $151 billion in deals between the Pentagon and 16 nations that donated to the Clinton Foundation, a 143 percent increase in sales compared to the Bush administration.

IBTimes additionally pointed out that several American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state and paid former President Bill Clinton for speaking engagements.

Although foreign entities are banned from giving to political campaigns to buy American-made weapons, nothing prohibits them from contributing to a charitable or philanthropic organization.

The former first lady is seeking the Democratic nomination for president and is the clear front-runner in a field that includes Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is expected to announce his bid later this week.

Will this news come back to haunt Hillary? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Iran Just Slapped Obama In The Face With A Nuclear Move That Ruins His Entire Plan

So much for President Obama’s heralded “framework” for a negotiated nuclear deal with Iran. Only six weeks after Obama strode confidently into the Rose Garden to announce to the world what he called “a good deal” resulting from “many months of tough, principled diplomacy,” Iran has essentially blown up the president’s plan to keep the Islamic regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Despite Obama’s self-congratulatory rhetoric last month praising the framework that included the assertion that “Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history,” the Muslim nation’s supreme leader has just firmly and flatly rejected that provision.

Fox News reports on the move by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that basically cuts the legs out from under Obama’s shaky stick-figure of a deal to prevent Iran’s development of a nuke that could threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia, or even the United States itself.

“Iran’s supreme leader vowed Wednesday he will not allow international inspection of Iran’s military sites or access to Iranian scientists under any nuclear agreement with world powers,” reports Fox News.

This determined defiance by the most powerful man in Iran not only runs counter to what Obama announced in April; it also contradicts a fact sheet on the supposed accord presented by the State Department. Secretary of State John Kerry is, of course, one of the chief negotiators who have now launched yet another round of talks in Vienna aimed a reaching a final deal. With this wrench hurled into the works by Ayatollah Khamenei, the shape and substance of such a deal now appears to be very much in doubt.

The Fox News report quoted Khamenei as saying: “‘The impudent and brazen enemy expects that we allow them talk to our scientists and researchers about a fundamental local achievement but no such permission will be allowed…. No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed.’”

Verification of Iran’s compliance with the requirements imposed by any negotiated nuclear deal has been a key sticking point for critics of the Obama administration who claim that the regime cannot be trusted. As Katie Pavlich observes in an article on Townhall:

Khamenei said today weapons inspectors will not be allowed to monitor or visit nuclear facilities to verify nuclear energy is being pursued for peaceful purposes. Further, Iranian nuclear scientists will not be available for interviews, or what he calls “foreign interrogation.”

Given the stunning disconnect between what President Obama told America and the world in his prepared statement on April 2nd, and the latest proclamation of “no inspections” by Iran’s supreme leader, it would seem reasonable to assume that one (or more) of the following is true:

1. In his Rose Garden victory dance, Obama was projecting what he wanted to believe in order to score political points,
2. Obama didn’t know what was really agreed to in the so-called “framework” for what he praised as “a good deal,”
3. The president’s naiveté about the true nature of the enemy was on full display, and/or
4. Obama lied.

Again, drawing from the text of his now-discredited Rose Garden speech: “International inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program — from uranium mills that provide the raw materials, to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Breaking: What A Federal Judge Has Just Done Destroys Hillary’s Email Coverup Scheme

Many critics of Hillary Clinton would no doubt agree with National Journal’s Ron Fournier — a frequent panelist on the Fox News program Special Report — when he says he doesn’t believe the former secretary of state and Democrat frontrunner for her party’s presidential nomination. Fournier cut loose today with an eye-popping post that slapped Clinton with the words “I don’t believe” not once or twice, but seven times in describing his deep-seated doubts about Hillary’s credibility and truth-telling on a range of topics.

On the subject of her emails and the highly controversial practice of keeping official communications on a personal, private server when she ran the State Department, Fournier writes that he doesn’t buy what Hillary said in a brief encounter with reporters on Tuesday. The candidate, in a rare moment or two answering press questions in Iowa, said she has no control over how and when the State Department would release emails relating to, among other things, her official interactions on Benghazi.

I don’t believe her because a person’s actions are more revealing than words: She kept her government email on a secret server and, only under pressure from Congress, returned less than half of them to the State Department. She deleted the rest. She considered them hers.

I don’t believe her when she says, “I want those emails out. Nobody has a bigger interest in those being released than I do.”

State Department officials had indicated it would be next year before they would release emails Mrs. Clinton had turned over to them. However, responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News, a federal judge has just said that distant timetable isn’t acceptable. As Politico first reported on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a written order that State must soon propose a new schedule for disclosing Clinton’s records batch-by-batch on a regular basis.

The Politico coverage noted: “The 55,000 pages of emails have become the source of much heartburn, speculation and bureaucratic man-hours since news emerged earlier this year that Clinton used a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

“The controversy has complicated the roll-out of Clinton’s presidential bid and played into criticism that she and her husband are unduly secretive.”

The court ruling that rejects the State Department’s attempt to delay the release of the Hillary emails — thus allowing the candidate to stall their disclosure until the emailgate scandal is “old news” — comes on the heels of another Clinton controversy involving a second personal email address. As The Blaze and other conservative news sites noted earlier today, it was thought that Hillary Clinton may have been less than truthful when she told investigators that she only used one private email account as Secretary of State.

Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender’s office.

Multiple emails show Clinton used account “” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

However, as CBS News later pointed out, subsequent investigation — and a strong defense of the candidate from Clinton’s campaign office — indicated that second email account may have shown up because Clinton’s primary account had been closed.

After Gawker published Clinton’s old address when she left the state department, she changed her email address to Any messages printed after that time, even if they were several years old, reflected the new address.

In any event, controversy and criticism continue to follow Hillary Clinton wherever she goes and no matter what she says. The intensity of the Democrats’ concern over their leading contender’s viability is so great that, as The Washington Times notes in an opinion piece by Wesley Pruden, party leaders are seriously looking at alternatives for 2016.

And who’s waiting in the wings? Reports say Joe Biden and Martin O’Malley may be lacing up their running shoes.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Trey Gowdy Delays Clinton’s Appearance Before Benghazi Committee; State Department Won’t Turn Over Documents

The House Select Committee on Benghazi will not be calling former secretary of state Hillary Clinton to testify before their panel after its chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told Secretary of State John Kerry that the lack of disclosure of documents by the State Department has been hindering progress.

“Secretary Clinton is insistent she will appear once and only once before the Select Committee,” Gowdy said in a statement Thursday. “The Committee must be equally insistent that her appearance is thorough and fully productive. This requires the record to be complete so the Members can effectively base their questions on documents and the Secretary can base her answers on those same documents.”

Gowdy told Kerry in a letter that he wanted Clinton to come to the committee to discuss the private emails that came to light in March.

In an effort to ensure her public record was complete, we invited the former Secretary to explore the unusual email arrangement she had with herself while serving as Secretary. Secretary Clinton rejected our request that she provide her server, which houses public records, to a neutral, third party arbiter. She also rejected our invitation to testify in a transcribed interview.

Secretary Clinton has insisted she will appear before our Committee a single time. Consequently our Committee is equally insistent any appearance be as thorough and constructive as possible.

In the letter, Gowdy also told Kerry that “it is impossible for the Committee and the former Secretary to constructively discuss policies, decisions, and activities, related to Benghazi without your Department cooperating efficiently with the legitimate requests for relevant and salient information,” National Journal reported.

In fact, not a single document has been produced by the State Department pursuant to these requests despite the Committee’s successive efforts, at the State Department’s insistence, to narrow its request.

“Simply put, the Committee must have the records of communication requested more than six months ago before the Secretary’s appearance can be scheduled,” he wrote. “There is still the possibility of scheduling the former Secretary’s appearance soon, but that is contingent upon Department of State compliance.”

h/t: Hot Air

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Has Just Thrown His Own Country Under The Bus At The UN, Inviting International Ridicule

When President Obama launched what critics widely called his “apology tour” shortly after his first inauguration, he made highly publicized speeches in a number of other countries in which he repeatedly pointed the finger of blame at the United States for its supposed past transgressions. For instance, he traveled to another country and chastised his own nation for having “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.

As Karl Rove wrote in an April 2009 commentary for The Wall Street Journal, “President Barack Obama has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors.”

Now, once again, the president has shown he is more than willing to paint the U.S. in a very bad light. He has put his stamp of approval on a report from the State Department to the United Nations in which the administration cites what it claims are widespread human rights violations within the U.S. itself. Breitbart News notes that the alleged violations cited in the report to the U.N. Human Rights Council include a number of so-called abuses which many say Obama and his radical policies have caused or worsened:

– Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
– Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
– Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
– Predatory lending in home mortgages
– Suspension of black children in schools
– Women earning “78 cents on the dollar” (a false statistic)

And what’s been the reaction from other member countries of the United Nations — countries in which human rights abuses have often been documented? Breitbart says the U.S. has come under withering criticism from a “variety of dictatorships,” including Pakistan, Russian, China, and Iran.

“Iran, for example, complained about racial discrimination in the United States, among other criticisms, calling on the U.S. to ‘protect the rights of African-Americans against police brutality.’”

Following the Obama administration’s report to the U.N., the headline on the Middle East-based Al Jazeera network blared: “US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights.” In fact, as the Al Jazeera report does not make clear, it was the President of the United States himself, through his own State Department, who condemned his own country’s human rights record and subjected America once again to scorn and ridicule in a troubled world where Obama’s “apology tour” supposedly elevated other nations’ opinion of the United States.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth