BOMBSHELL: Watch Krauthammer Unload On Hillary As ‘Clinton Cash’ Scandal Goes Radioactive

As one considers the near-constant wave upon wave of disclosures and revelations about Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and the allegedly related oceans of cash that flowed into the Clinton Foundation coffers, one can’t help but wonder if Sen. Elizabeth Warren is already preparing her explanation as to why she’s entering the presidential race.

Yes, the Massachusetts Democrat has said time and again that she won’t run for president in 2016, but Hillary’s political ship is arguably taking on so much water that it could well be at risk of sinking, at least in the eyes of Democrat power brokers, donors and strategists whose nervousness about the mounting Clinton controversies could prompt them to change course…and candidates.

Among the latest shockwaves to batter the Clinton campaign is an explosive front-page article in The New York Times detailing how the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary was secretary of state, may have benefited from a huge deal to put a Russian company — and essentially the Putin government — in control of much of the world’s uranium supply.

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

The Times article reveals that not long after a majority stake in that massive mining enterprise, Uranium One, was set to he acquired by the Russians, “Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

In addition, as the Times’ exhaustive investigation indicates, the Clinton Foundation took in millions of dollars in connection with the uranium deal — money that reportedly was not properly disclosed.

“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.”

This may help explain why, as Reuters reports in an exclusive story, Hillary Clinton’s non-profit “charities” have decided to amend and refile at least five years worth of tax returns.

“The charities’ errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.”

Plus, as Western Journalism reported, a former Clinton Foundation employee with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — a man who represented the Foundation’s Climate Initiative in Egypt — has been sentenced to life in prison. His offense was said to have been supporting an Islamist protest against the military-led ousting of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Clearly, with The New York Times featuring a detailed exposé of disturbing Clinton high-dollar dealings and potential influence peddling, liberal media are not backing away from this growing scandal surrounding the woman who wants to be president. Ron Fournier, writing in National Journal, lays out a scorching assessment of the Clintons’ political operation as it seeks to downplay and dismiss a scandal such as the one that’s building around the soon-to-be-released book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

1. Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.
2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.
3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts.

Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer’s appearance Wednesday night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor in which another aspect of the deepening scandal — a deal involving General Electric — was explored. In a lively exchange with Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News contributor hammered Hillary for her “moral corruption” and took a look ahead at what might happen to Mrs. Clinton in light of the fact that, “She burned the tapes, she eliminated the emails.”

You can watch Krauthammer’s fiery segment by clicking on the video above. A Fox News special report based on the new book Clinton Cash — a program called “The Tangled Clinton Web” — will air Friday night at 10p ET on Fox News Channel.

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

7 Undeniable Reasons You CANNOT Vote Hillary…

HillaryRed Link

Courtesy of

Yes, this post could have had 100 reasons. That’s not the point. Let us explain…

Now that Hillary Clinton has announced her run for the Presidency, anyone who says they will not vote for her will be deemed a sexist. You need concise, accurate, and relatable reasons why you won’t vote for her that are easy to articulate and which any American should be able to understand. That said, here are seven things to remember when it comes to discussing Hillary Clinton with your friends:

1.  Hillary Clinton is a liar. I don’t mean this as political conjecture, but a proven, verifiable liar. She lied about the Irish peace process, her vote in favor of the Iraq war, her reason for illegally using a personal email server, that her family was dead broke when they left the White House, about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, where Chelsea was on 9/11, who she was named after, Benghazi… and the list goes on. We don’t need a liar-in-chief. We tried that already. It didn’t work.


2.  Hillary Clinton was MIA when the 3 am phone call came from Benghazi. What difference does it make?  The lives of four Americans – a huge difference. The Russian Reset?  Russia invaded Ukraine on her watch. Again. And again. And again. Boko Haram? Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused to call it a terrorist organization.

AgentOfChaos GIF

3.  Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist. And laughed about it. If you don’t know this story, you need to. Read all about it. I repeat. She defended a child rapist… and laughed about it.


4.  Hillary Clinton accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments. While serving as Secretary of State, The Clinton Foundation (illegally) accepted boatloads of cash from countries that fund Hamas, harbor terrorists, suppress women, and regularly execute gays and lesbians. Conflict of interest much?


5.  Hillary Clinton is endorsed by Barack Obama. (Although, given his track record, he may not have meant what he said about her being an “excellent choice” for President.) Ask your friends if they’re better off now than they were six years ago. Ask your friends if they like the direction the country is headed. If they answer “yes,” then they might actually legitimately like Hillary. But if they want some serious hope and change, they can’t vote for more of the same.

Reaction GIF

6.  Hillary Clinton wants women to shut up. At least all of the women who tried to come forward regarding her hubby’s sexual harassment, misogyny, and overall perpetuation of “rape culture.” She referred to these victims as “trailer trash” and even went so far as to threaten one of the victims in person.


7.  Hillary Clinton is not a champion of the middle class. Despite her campaign slogan, she is definitely not just like you. Hillary Clinton was married to a President, had a personal chef, flies in a environment-polluting personal jet, has sent her daughter exclusively to private schools, and makes about $200K for every speaking engagement. That’s so you, right?  And your middle-class neighbors – they’ve got a private jet out back, yeah?


America’s not ready for Hillary. But we are ready to take our country back.

What are some of the reasons you’d never vote for Hillary? Sound off in the comments below!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What Just Happened To Obama’s Iran Deal Framework Shows It Was A Shoddy House Of Cards

Image Credit: The Telegraph/Twitter

Within hours of his boastful declaration to the world that the framework of a nuclear deal worked out by his negotiators and other world powers offered “an historic opportunity” to promote peace and cooperation, President Obama found the flimsy structure of the sketchy arrangement swiftly collapsing around him.

Obama’s bid for a celebrated legacy seems to have lasted only slightly longer than one of his golf games.

Following up on their quick questioning of the terms of the prospective deal announced by the U.S. State Department and heralded by the White House, the Iranian regime has now dismissed the so-called agreement to curb its nuclear ambitions as “not acceptable.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports that the Obama administration’s depiction of the deal vastly differs from Tehran’s take, with the Iranians vowing they will agree to nothing until all sanctions against their country are lifted.

On Wednesday, Iran rejected most of the concessions it reportedly agreed to undertake. Top Iranian leaders are describing the framework as a ‘lie’ and announced that international nuclear inspectors will not be permitted to enter any of its contested military sites.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has now followed up with an all-or-nothing demand that all sanctions on Iran be lifted at the same time as any final agreement is signed. Obama had indicated the sanctions would be eased over time.

A post on Breitbart elaborates on the swift disintegration of the “thin fiction” of Obama’s trumpeted framework. Citing an article in the Times of Israel, Breitbart author John Hayward notes that the Iranians are already reportedly violating the terms of the deal–even as Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are still cooling down after their vigorous victory lap.

The alleged violation concerns Iran’s stated intent to fire up its latest generation of centrifuges that could contribute to the production of nuclear materials for other-than-peaceful purposes.

“If accurate, the report makes a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb.”

Iran is also reportedly denying that the nuclear framework, contrary to what the Obama negotiators contend, includes a provision to allow for inspection of the regime’s military facilities.

“‘Basically, inspection of military facilities is a red line and no inspection of any kind from such facilities would be accepted,’ said Iranian defense minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan.”

National Review notes that virtually all the restrictions the deal places on Iran’s pursuit and development of nuclear capabilities that could lead to their having the bomb would be in place for only 10-15 years, and “there is no pretense that they will be continued after that.”

Even the president himself — displaying a worrisome lack of consistency on describing his own position on Iran and the progress of the talks — has contradicted himself on if/when Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon.

NPR points out what the president just said, which runs counter to his earlier pledge that he would make sure Iran never gets the bomb.

“As President Obama makes his sales pitch for a nuclear deal with Iran, critics have seized on his remark that Iran’s ‘breakout’ time for acquiring the nuclear material needed for a bomb could shrink as restrictions ease after about 13 years.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Awesome: See How Israel Just Flexed Its Military Muscle In A Powerful Warning To Iran

Image Credit: Washington Free Beacon

Even as the U.S.-led negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue — with Secretary of State John Kerry doing all he can to strike a deal — the commander of an Iranian militia has renewed his country’s call for the annihilation of Israel.

The Times of Israel reports: “The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is ‘nonnegotiable,’ according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.”

So it’s no wonder that — faced with this continuing existential threat from a nation with which Western powers are intent on coming to terms — Israel would show off one of the latest and potentially most lethal weapons in its defense arsenal.

The Washington Free Beacon notes that the Israeli navy has hosted military reporters on a tour of its newest submarine, “part of an underwater fleet reportedly armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that will serve as Israel’s major deterrent against a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic.”

The INS Tanin is reportedly undergoing final tests in advance of its deployment as Israel’s “second strike” force, to be activated in retaliation for a nuclear attack.

In English, Tanin means “Crocodile,” and the fearsome teeth in this beast are said to be nuclear-tipped cruise missiles with a range of close to 1,000 miles.

Image Credit: YNet News

Image Credit: YNet News

Image Credit: YNet News

Image Credit: YNet News

Image Credit: YNet News

Image Credit: YNet News

Ironically, according to the Free Beacon report, sophisticated new Israeli submarines have either been fully paid for or heavily subsidized by Germany.

“Ostensibly, this was because of revelations after the first Gulf War in 1991 that German firms had assisted Iraq in modernizing its missile arsenal, which was used to target Israel. It was widely believed that guilt stemming from the Holocaust also played a part in Germany’s decision.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

John Kerry Responds To Iran Question With One-Word Reference To Islam

Image Credit: Yahoo! news

As the negotiations come down to the wire over a multi-nation deal supposedly aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly gave a short and surprising answer when asked if an agreement would be reached by the self-imposed Tuesday deadline.

Laura Rozen, a reporter for Al-Monitor, which focuses on events affecting the Middle East, has told her more than 52,000 twitter followers that Kerry referred to “Allah” in his answer.

Not only did the chief U.S. negotiator at the Iran nuclear talks make reference to Allah; he supposedly did it by speaking Arabic.

In her tweet, Rozen was referencing an earlier twitter post by an Iranian-American journalist. The Arabic term Kerry is said to have used translates as “God willing” or “If Allah wills it.”

Though John Kerry’s reported use of “Inshallah” hasn’t yet generated a lot of social media reaction, a number of Twitter posts have noted with some concern that the U.S. secretary of state is commenting in Arabic about such an important deal involving the interests of the United States and its Western allies.

Kerry3 Kerry4 Kerry5
Although the U.S. has taken the lead in the Iran nuclear talks, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China also are involved. It’s noteworthy that Israel, America’s biggest friend and ally in the Middle East and the country that would be most threatened should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, is not participating directly in the negotiations.

h/t: BizPac Review


What do you think? Vote! in Polls on LockerDome



This post originally appeared on Western Journalism - Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom