Israel Solved the School Shooter Problem, US Should Follow

Chuck Morse
By Chuck Morse
Tuesday, 27 Feb 2018 12:34 PM

On May 15, 1974, three shooters entered the Netiv Meir Elementary School in the Jewish-Arab town of Ma’alot in northern Israel taking 115 people including 105 children hostage. At the time, Israel was on a leftist utopian bender with social experiments that included disarmament and gun free zones. On the second day of the standoff, the Israeli army stormed the building as the shooters murdered children with grenades and automatic weapons. 25 hostages were killed including 22 children, 68 were injured.

Israel responded to the atrocity by mandating armed security in every school. Retired military veterans and police, often grandfathers and grandmothers, began to monitor schools. Teachers and school staff began to volunteer for gun training and began to carry concealed weapons after registering with their school administration. Teachers started to participate in active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings in Israel since that slaughter and in both cases the shooter was killed and stopped from killing more innocents.

In September 2015, Israel responded to a plethora of knife attacks by making it easier for citizens to obtain guns. Army officers with the rank of Lieutenant and above would be permitted to purchase guns freely and security guards would be allowed to take their guns home after work. The minimum age for gun purchases was dropped from 21 to 18. Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat urged residents to carry a gun and was photographed carrying a Glock 23. Israelis overwhelmingly view the right to bear arms as the best means of deterring gun violence.

The mainstream media is lying about President Trump’s call for arming teachers in one of the ugliest and most dangerous pieces of fake news yet.

The president has not called for arming all teachers, only making it possible for the approximately 10 percent of teachers who are former military or security personnel, who are already licensed and trained, or who would like to obtain a license and training to be permitted to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to do so. In fact, 17 states already allow teachers who register with their school boards and who are cleared to carry concealed weapons. I’m proud to note that my own state of Massachusetts is one of those states. Apparently, Florida is not on the list.

The use by the left of impressionable young children who have been traumatized by school shootings to push their gun grabbing agenda is a particularly odious and despicable manipulation of emotions. If these leftists possessed a shred of decency or genuine concern for the safety of school children they might inquire as to whether the child feels safe going to school in a gun free zone where no one is properly equipped to stop a shooter. They might consider no longer stigmatizing and mocking gun training or the teaching of self-defense.

The social phenomena that constitutes school shootings and its uptick since Columbine, the social and psychological factors that led to this uptick, is a broad and profound subject that urgently calls out for a national discussion and a scientific inquiry free of ideology and invective from all sides. The question of gun regulation, particularly of semi-automatic weapons, is also an important topic that needs to be addressed without histrionics and posturing.

Meanwhile, and in these times of clear and present danger to our school children, common sense steps such as securing our school buildings and allowing trained and willing teachers and administrators to defend the students with concealed weapons is urgently needed.

Chuck Morse hosts “The Morse Force” live Monday-Friday at Noon, ET on YouTube. The program is also available on iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play and his books are available on For more of his reports — Click Here Now.


Don’t You Take Anything That Big Pharma Isn’t Making Money On. Next they will be putting people into jail for using homeopathic medications.

(Chamille White/

FDA Is Taking a More Aggressive Stance Toward Homeopathic Drugs

“Just silly from a scientific point of view.”
19 DEC 2017

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Monday proposed a tougher enforcement policy toward homeopathic drugs, saying it would target products posing the greatest safety risks, including those containing potentially harmful ingredients or being marketed for cancer, heart disease and opioid and alcohol addictions.

Homeopathy is based on an 18th-century idea that substances that cause disease symptoms can, in very small doses, cure the same symptoms.

Modern medicine, backed up by numerous studies, has disproved the central tenets of homeopathy and shown that the products are worthless at best and harmful at worst.

Under US law, homeopathic drugs are required to meet the same approval rules as other drugs. But under a policy adopted in 1988, the agency has used “enforcement discretion” to allow the items to be manufactured and distributed without FDA approval.

Agency officials don’t plan to begin requiring that homeopathic products get approval – officials say that would be impractical – but they are signalling stepped-up scrutiny for items deemed a possible health threat.

Examples of high-risk products include ones that are administered by injection, are intended for vulnerable populations like children or the elderly, or are marketed for serious diseases, the agency said.

The FDA’s proposed approach, outlined in a draft guidance that will be open for public for 90 days, comes more than a year after homeopathic teething tablets and gels containing belladonna were linked to 400 injuries and the deaths of 10 children.

An FDA lab analysis later confirmed that some of the products “contained elevated and inconsistent levels of belladonna”, a toxic substance, the agency said.

Once a niche field, homeopathy has grown into to a US$3 billion industry that peddles treatments for everything from cancer to colds, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb noted in a statement.

“In many cases, people may be placing their trust and money in therapies that may bring little or no benefit in combating serious ailments, or worse – that may cause significant and even irreparable harm” because of poor manufacturing quality or unsafe ingredients, he said.

Still, he said, the agency wants to balance its safety concerns with the desires of consumers who want to continue using the products.

Under its planned approach, many products won’t be considered high risk and will remain available to consumers, Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told reporters during a teleconference.

But she said, the agency would “go after” products that cause – or might cause – “overt harm”.

The National Center for Homeopathy, which advocates for homeopathy and is based in Mount Laurel, NJ, says on its website that “homeopathy is a safe, gentle, and natural system of healing that works with your body to relieve symptoms, restore itself, and improve your overall health.”

Steven Salzberg, a biomedical engineer at Johns Hopkins University who in the past has criticised the FDA for not taking action against homeopathy, said it was “terrific” that the agency now plans to try to rein in the industry.

He cautioned that product makers are likely to “hit back hard with lots of spurious claims in an effort to confuse consumers and to protect their profits.”

Salzberg added that homeopathic products’ packaging suggests that the items “cure all sorts of conditions – pain, colds, asthma, indigestion, arthritis, you name it – and yet there’s not a whit of evidence” that they cure anything.

The homeopathy field, he said, is “just silly from a scientific point of view, more like a religious belief than a scientific belief.”

In July, Britain’s National Health System announced plans to stop doctors from prescribing homeopathic drugs. Simon Stevens, the system’s chief executive, described homeopathy as “at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds”.

The move came years after the House of Commons called on the government health service to stop paying for homeopathic prescriptions, saying, “To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy.”

In April 2015, the FDA held public hearings on the way it regulates homeopathic products as part of an effort to get public input on its enforcement polices.

The agency said Monday that as a result of the hearing and 9,000 comments submitted by the public, the FDA had decided to propose a new “comprehensive, risk-based enforcement approach to drug products labelled as homeopathic and marketed without FDA approval.”

Over the past several years, the FDA has issued warnings about other homeopathic drug products, including zinc-containing intranasal products that may cause a loss of sense of smell; certain homeopathic asthma products that have not been effective in treating asthma and other products that contain strychnine, a poison used to kill rodents.

2017 © The Washington Post

This article was originally published by The Washington Post.

“I Cannot Express How Wrong I Was…” BY TIM SCHMIDT – USCCA FOUNDER

Concealed Carry Report – Click Display Images to view this email properly.
October 2017 • Issue No. 41

“I Cannot Express How Wrong I Was…”
Tim Schmidt
It’s no surprise that, in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre that occurred just two Sundays ago, things have really heated up in the ongoing gun-control debate.

I mentioned in last week’s Concealed Carry Report that the divisiveness over guns, gun laws and even the 2nd Amendment has finally seemed to reach its boiling point following the tragic events of Oct. 1.

As expected, the usual suspects wasted no time pointing fingers and assigning blame to the NRA, Republican lawmakers, responsible guns owners and pretty much anyone else who believes in and supports the God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Late night TV show host Jimmy Kimmel implied that the groups of people mentioned above simply “don’t care” about what happened in Vegas, questioning why they continually “allow this to happen” and suggesting that those folks should “pray for God to forgive them.”

While his response was typical of what we’re used to hearing from anti-gunners following such a devastating event, other seemingly pro-gun folks seemed to quickly cave to the likes of Kimmel’s — and others’ — emotional pleas to “do something.”

One Phoenix gun owner, Jonathan Pring, contacted his local police department and then turned over his firearms to them, hoping that his actions would inspire others to do the same. He claimed he was “trying to be the change he wanted to see in the world.”

Caleb Keeter, the lead guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band, a Texas-based collective that played at the Route 91 Harvest Festival just hours before the shooting, went so far as to renounce his support of the 2nd Amendment:

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. Enough is enough. We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.”

Of course, the most surprising reaction came from the National Rifle Association:

“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

I have to be honest: I’m equal parts shocked and disappointed in all of these responses.

As I mentioned last week, the events in Las Vegas, as heartbreaking as they are, don’t change my stance on firearms or other firearms-related equipment, the 2nd Amendment or concealed carry. I stand by the simple truth that no piece of equipment — regulated or not — is going to have one bit of an effect on an evil man or woman hell-bent on doing harm.

Bump stocks were a relatively obscure accessory before the Las Vegas massacre. We have to stop demonizing inanimate objects.

Let’s be honest:

The anti-gunners aren’t going to be happy with only banning bump stocks.

A little bit here, a little bit there … and pretty soon we’ve lost one of the cornerstones of our freedom.

Remember: Having the right to life also guarantees the right to defend life. And nothing acts as a greater equalizer than does a firearm.

I stand proudly for the 2nd Amendment, and I always will.

I hope you’re with me.

Take Care and Stay Safe,

Tim Schmidt
Publisher – Concealed Carry Report
USCCA Founder

P.S. – Have you upgraded to the brand-new USCCA Elite Membership level yet? Act now to be covered by $2,250,000 in Self-Defense SHIELD protection, and I’ll enter you to win today’s gun: the ADCOR ELITE Gas Piston Carbine 5.56mm/.223, valued at a whopping $2,295!

Congress expands ‘unmasking’ probe amid questions over Rice role

As seen on:
If It Walks Like A Duck…
Stately McDaniel Manor
An enormous amount has already been written about the Obama Administration’s coopting of American intelligence agencies for the domestic surveillance of members of the Trump campaign and eventual transition team. Virtually none of that has been written by the mainstream media, who have actually categorized it a non or false story, preferring instead to beat the long dead horse of Trump collaboration with Russia. Fox News has been the media leader in accurately reporting that particular, ever-expanding story. Fox now adds to the mounting revelations and evidence:

Congress expands ‘unmasking’ probe amid questions over Rice role
Malia Zimmerman
Now Playing
What is the status of the Susan Rice investigation?

The House and Senate intelligence committees are expanding their investigation into the so-called “unmasking” controversy, Fox News has learned, to examine whether other candidates or lawmakers beyond President Trump’s associates were affected.

Until now, the investigation focused on how the identities and communications of Trump transition members were collected by U.S. intelligence agencies and then revealed to, and disseminated among, high-ranking members of the Obama administration.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now plans to audit files from the National Security Agency and White House to determine whether identities and conversations of presidential candidates — or members of Congress — also were swept up during NSA surveillance of foreign leaders. He also plans to review whether Obama’s National Security Council and White House counsel collected and distributed the intelligence for reasons unrelated to foreign intelligence.

“We will be performing an accounting of all unmasking for political purposes focused on the previous White House administration,” a member of the committee told Fox News. “This is now a full-blown investigation.”

Staffers on the Senate committee told Fox News they also have expanded their investigation into whether presidential candidates were unmasked and information was misused — and what role former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, among others, played following reports that she requested Trump-affiliated names be unmasked.

For a private U.S. citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare and typically only done if it has some foreign intelligence value. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.

The intelligence reports that Rice and others in the administration reportedly assembled are similar to what a private investigator might piece together, congressional and U.S. intelligence sources said. In some cases, rather than documenting foreign intelligence, the files included salacious personal information that, if released, could be embarrassing or harmful to the person’s reputation, U.S. intelligence and House Intelligence Committee sources said.

These reports were then disseminated to about 20 to 30 people who had classified clearance in the Obama administration hierarchy, these sources said.

Trump, members of his family, and members of his campaign and transition teams, were likely subjects of “incidental electronic surveillance” by U.S. intelligence agencies, Fox News reported.

Sources told Fox News that names were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan — as well as Rice and her former deputy Ben Rhodes, even though the names were supposed to be reported only to the initial requester.

If the names were unmasked in intelligence reports and then leaked to the media for political reasons, it could constitute criminal behavior.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s initial national security adviser, is one known example of a Trump campaign official whose name was unmasked from an intelligence report and leaked to the press. While Rice hasn’t said whether she unmasked Flynn, the leak of his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak where he discussed U.S. sanctions led Flynn to resign three weeks into his term.

Nunes first announced on March 22 that he’d viewed intelligence reports that contained incidental surveillance on members of the Trump team.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page also was monitored by the FBI after the agency obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant as part of an ongoing investigation into possible links between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign.

In a statement to Fox News, Page said he has done nothing wrong and was a political target.

Malia Zimmerman is an award-winning investigative reporter focusing on crime, homeland security, illegal immigration crime, terrorism and political corruption. Follow her on twitter at @MaliaMZimmerman

Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based senior correspondent.

Killing Ron Brown: A Clinton Crime Family Story


Killing Ron Brown: A Clinton Crime Family Story
Reading Time: 7 minutesYour life is in danger. At this moment, a Chinese nuclear warhead sits in a missile silo. Its guidance, if launched, instructs the warhead to detonate a mile or two above your home. And this was all made possible by extortion, murder, and illegal campaign contributions to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember Ron Brown? Brown was Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce.

Ron Brown ran the Clintons’ extortion racket in the 1990s.

Ron Brown played a role . . . he would rather not have. Targeted by an independent counsel along with his son Michael and his confidante (and my source) Nolanda Butler Hill on unrelated charges, Brown desperately needed the Clintons’ help to keep himself, Hill, and especially Michael out of prison. In true Underwood fashion, the Clintons exploited Brown’s vulnerability by making him their international bagman.

Jack Cashill writing on American Thinker

Follow the Money

Records show that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown used his position to raise illegal donations for the Clintons. Brown turned the Commerce Department into a shakedown machine, just the way the Mafia shakes down businesses. Commerce under Clinton was a protection racket. Donate to the Clintons or something bad might happen to your company. Or your kids.

In a 1998 summary of Clinton’s criminal activities involving Chinese campaign contributions, Phyllis Schlafly wrote:

Bill Clinton’s friend and ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from the Communist Chinese military to the Democratic campaign in the summer of 1996. The money was handed to Chung by the daughter of the top commander of China’s People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing, who was also one of the top five members of the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling Politburo.

Remember that illegal influence peddling is the primary mission of the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton used the State Department to extort cash payments from corporations and foreign governments. Clinton laundered the dirty money through the Clinton Foundation.

In the 1990s, the Clintons ran the same money laundering scheme through Ron Brown’s Commerce Department.

The More You Know About the Clintons, the Sooner You Will Die

After a religious experience, Ron Brown’s confidante Nolanda Hill told her story to former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporter Jack Cashill. Writing on the 10th anniversary of Brown’s likely assassination, Cashill says:

Hill is convinced and always has been that Ron Brown was assassinated. At the time of his death, I had refused to believe such a scenario possible. I was doing talk radio then in Kansas City, and I vigorously rejected all speculation about conspiracy. When I started research for my book, Ron Brown’s Body, in 2003, I began with the conviction that the plane crash was accidental and the famed hole in Brown’s head was some sort of anomaly. To say the least, I have lost that conviction.

Cashill has made the story his life’s work. And for good reason. Bill and Hillary Clinton are extortion artists at best and murdering traitors at worst.

You should believe the worst. As Jack Cashill wrote in American Thinking in 2014:

As Hill tells it, Brown arranged a meeting with Clinton at the White House family quarters. It did not go well. When Clinton said there was nothing he could do for Michael, Brown resorted to his ultimate bargaining chip. If he had to, he told Clinton, he was prepared to reveal the president’s treasonous dealings with China, news of which had yet to break.

We now know the China deal involved selling US military secrets to China in exchange for Chinese contributions to the DNC laundered through a tech company called Loral. The latePhyllis Schlafly explained in 1998:

In June 1994, the CEO of Loral Space and Communications, Bernard Schwartz, made a $100,000 contribution to the Democratic National Committee. He then joined a Ron Brown trip to China that led to a $250 million telecommunications deal for Loral’s satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets [in violation of US law at the time].

In October 1994, Clinton lifted the sanctions he had imposed on China for selling missile technology to Pakistan. In early 1995, Schwartz sent a letter to Clinton urging that responsibility for satellite-export licenses be shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, both Schwartz and Johnny Chung made more huge donations, in excess of $100,000, to the Democratic Party.

Back to Ron Brown’s desperate meeting with Clinton. Guess how Bill and Hillary dealt with Brown’s threat.

Next thing you know, Ron was on his final seat-selling trade mission, this one to Croatia to cut a deal between the neo-fascists who ran the country and the Enron Corporation. Yes, that Enron. He never got there. The Air Force plane that carried Brown, the military version of a Boeing 737, crashed into a hillside outside Dubrovnik. Brown and 34 others were killed.

After the crash that took out the US Secretary of Commerce and 33 others, the Clinton Administration covered up everything. They prohibited an autopsy of Ron Brown’s body despite evidence of a bullet wound in Brown’s skull. The military general in charge of the “investigation” repeatedly lied to the press and to Congress. The US Air Force released false press statements claiming the plane’s wreckage was found in the Adriatic. The US government said the plane crashed in the “worst storm in a decade,” which was a laughable lie even at the time. And many involved in the investigation died by accident or gunshot wound before testifying.

Those are facts on the record.


But Nolanda Hill thinks the Clinton’s ordered their hit on Brown before that White House meeting. Here’s how Jack Cashill recounts Hill’s thinking:

Today, after much reflection, Hill no longer believes that the meeting with President Clinton triggered the trip to Croatia. She believes that the planning of Brown’s demise had already begun. “They [the president’s advisors] knew he was going to get indicted. They knew that he was gone.” Brown was the classic “man who knew too much.” The knowledge that had protected when his legal problems could still be fixed left him vulnerable when those problems were beyond fixing.

Back to Cashill’s American Thinker article:

The Enron executives landed safely in their own jet just a few minutes earlier despite what the Clinton administration called “the worst storm in a decade.” As I learned in reading the 22-volume USAF report on the crash, it was not even raining at the time, and the sun was peeking through the clouds. I requested that report eight years after the crash. As far as I know, I was the first person in the media to request it, and the New York Times had a reporter on the plane.

And the Enron flight carried a very important connection to Hillary Rodham Clinton, as will see very soon.

Clinton’s Treason Goes Deeper Still

These paragraphs from Phyllis Schlafly’s excellent summary of the Chinese missile scandal will make you shudder:

The rationale for allowing U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets is that the technology is safely locked up in a black box, and Americans monitor the launch to assure that it stays secured. But when the Loral rocket blew up, the parts were scattered. The Pentagon refused comment on the Drudge report that the Loral engineers who reviewed the recovered debris said that the encryption hardware was missing.

U.S. intelligence has reported that China has targeted 13 of its 18 CSS-4 long-range missiles against U.S. cities. The CIA says that China’s targeting was made more accurate by Loral’s unauthorized help. The Justice Department started a criminal investigation of Loral, and the State Department warned that Loral’s actions were “criminal, likely to be indicted, knowing and unlawful.”

In March 1996, despite the objections of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, the Defense Department and our intelligence agencies, Clinton personally transferred jurisdiction over satellite-export licensing from the State Department to his pal, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Meanwhile, Bernard Schwartz stepped up his contributions to the Democratic Party and became the largest single contributor in the 1996 election cycle. Clinton signed another waiver this year to allow Loral Space to export a satellite that is scheduled to be launched by the Chinese in November.

To cover up their treason, the Clintons apparently ordered the assassination of Ron Brown and 33 others who boarded a doomed Air Force flight on a trade mission to Croatia.

So why haven’t the Clintons been tried and convicted for these capital crimes? Becausethey’re out of reach of US law, protected by the Wall Street and corporate interestswho laundered Chinese money to the Clintons in the 1990s. That and Republican fecklessness. The GOP impeached and tried Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal when the real crime of the Clinton Administration involved treason and state assassinations. Assassinations and sham investigations.

The Mysterious, Beautiful Woman

While the Ron Brown assassination story has yet to reach its end, Jack Cashill’s reporting explains Clinton’s desperation to win the White House in 2016. And it involves a mysterious woman.

Zdenka Gast
Zdenka Gast

Cashill found an intriguing open loop in an Air Force report on the assassination of Ron Brown. (The USAF does not call the report an assassination report, but you know by now that it was.) This open loop was a Croatian woman named Zdenka Gast.

[For more about Zdenka Gast and Hillary’s serial lies, click here.]Gast was supposed to be on Ron Brown’s plane. At the last minute, she was removed from that death flight’s manifest and moved to the Enron plane.

Why the move?

According to a witness, “There were problems in — in — in this — in concluding this deal where they wanted to sign a letter of intent, and so, rather than — than go on the Brown trip, she stayed with the Inron [sic] people to do the final negotiations.”

The Air Force never interviewed Gast. The USAF claimed they were unable to find her. But Cashill found in a few minutes of searching. He contacted her office. Gast’s office said she’d return the call shortly. Six years later, Cashill is still waiting.

Well, no. Cashill isn’t waiting. He knows he’ll never hear from Gast. As Jack Cashill explains in his American Thinker story:

Inquiring into Gast’s background, I came across the Croatian-language magazine Gloria. The photo that graced this article leapt off the page at me. In the center of three smiling women, all linked arm in arm, was Gast, an attractive, full-figured redhead. On her left was the then Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. On her right was none other than Hillary Clinton. Gast was one of only forty guests at a 2000 White House wedding reception for Herman, the woman who dispatched Brown on his fatal trip. Most of the other guests the reader would recognize by name.

According to public records, Gast lives in Grand Island, New York with a home in Florida. She’s listed as CEO of Z Global Consulting Ltd., a company with no apparent legal formation in any state. Except for a bare-bones LinkedIn profile, Gast seems to have been wiped from the internet.

Let’s hope Zdenka, now 67, is still alive.


Hillary Clinton keeps her friends close . . . and her witnesses closer. Just ask Ron Brown.

Also published on Medium.

Cashill and Clinton here.

Senator Clinton, Just Who Is Zdenka Gast?

Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future
Ron Brown’s Body: How One Man’s Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary’s Future

© Jack Cashill
December 4, 2008

Although his colleagues on the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be content to throw Hillary Clinton softballs during her confirmation hearing, I suspect Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has moxie enough to throw the would-be secretary of state a nasty curve as follows:

DeMint: Senator Clinton, just who Is Zdenka Gast?

Clinton: Zdenka Gast? Help me out here.

DeMint: Let me refresh your memory. Gast played a key role in Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s fatal trip to Croatia in April 1996. Ostensibly at least, Brown went to Croatia to broker a deal between the Croatian government and a certain American corporation. Gast served as liaison between the two.

Clinton: Why is this an issue?

DeMint: For starters, it was a sweetheart deal that the White House coerced Croatia to sign. For another, the White House’s Croatian client was president Franjo Tudjman, a notorious anti-Semite. And for a third, the company in question was Enron. Otherwise, no problem.

Clinton: Enron? Please! What’s your source? Some right-wing blog?

DeMint: No, your ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith. He told Air Force investigators that Gast had been scheduled to fly with Brown on the USAF plane that crashed but flew in instead on a Swiss Air Charter with the Enron guys.

Clinton: You’re making this up.

DeMint: Let me quote the official, 22-volume U.S, Air Force Report. Said Galbraith, “There were problems in—in—in this—in concluding this deal where they wanted to sign a letter of intent, and so, rather than—than go on the Brown trip, she stayed with the Inron [sic] people to do the final negotiations.”

Clinton: Bull. Enron was a Republican company.

DeMint: That is what the media tell us, and Gast was allegedly a Republican too, but in the nineties Enron execs were frequent flyers on Brown trade missions. Remember the deal in 1995 when you all held up a $13.5 million aid package to Mozambique until its president agreed to give Enron a major stake in a local gas field?

Clinton: I have no recollection of that.

DeMint: As you probably heard, Brown more or less sold seats on these missions to raise money for what Senator Fred Thompson’s committee would call “the most corrupt political campaign in modern history.”

Clinton: I had nothing to do with that campaign.

DeMint: Dick Morris says otherwise. As he tells it, you were the one who brought him into the White House after the Dem’s November 1994 whipping, and you were there with the president, Al Gore, Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and DNC chair Don Fowler when his plan for a massively expensive ad campaign was approved. In fact, The DNC cupboard was bare. The money had to come from somewhere.

Clinton: Prove it.

DeMint: Brown could have. In fact, Judicial Watch had scheduled him to give a deposition on this subject as soon as he returned from Croatia. It’s a shame he never returned.

Clinton: And why would Tudjman submit to such a deal?

DeMint: Glad you asked. According to the Financial Times of London, Tudjman linked the Enron deal to a variety of political demands, chief among them—and this is a quote–“avoiding his arrest and that of other senior figures by the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal.”

Clinton: You’ve got it backwards. The Serbs were the war criminals.

DeMint: The Serbs had no monopoly on ethnic cleansing. If you recall, just months before Brown’s death, Croatian forces drove more than 200,000 Serbian civilians from their homes in the Krajina region and killed some 14,000 of them. The White House and Galbraith aided and abetted the Croats as something of a reward for their agreeing to the federation between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.

Clinton: I had nothing to do with that.

DeMint: I didn’t say you did. But I am curious as to why you took a one-day detour to Tuzla in Bosnia just nine days before Brown left Tuzla on his fatal flight. You may have fudged about the sniper fire, but Tuzla was a dangerous place in 1996. As the White House spun it, “No first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has made a trip into such a hostile military environment.” And you brought Chelsea?

Clinton: I wanted to say “thank you” to our troops. What are you insinuating?

DeMint: Nothing, just asking. Much of this would be clearer if we had all the facts.

Clinton: What are you missing?

DeMint: Our best witness. After Galbraith told the Air Force about Zdenka, the investigator said, “We’ve been looking for her.” Apparently, they did not find her. The report lists 148 witness interviews, but Zdenka’s was not among them. You might have been able to help.

Above: Zdenka Gast

Clinton: How is that?

DeMint: You know the lady. I have this photo here from a Croatian language magazine named Gloria taken a few years after Brown’s death. In the center of the photo is Zdenka, the redhead, not bad looking. On her left, as you can see, is Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. On her right is you.

Clinton : Probably some big fundraiser. I get my picture taken with all kinds of people.

DeMint: This is a little more intimate, a lot more. This was taken at a wedding reception for Herman at the White House. You hosted it. Only 40 people attended, just about all of them DC big shots except Zdenka. Zdenka boasts that she was supporting your senate run and that—quote–“Hillary paid special attention to me.”

Clinton: And that’s somehow suspicious?

DeMint: It’s no more suspicious than your detour to Tuzla or the hole in Ron Brown’s head or the White House refusal to do an autopsy on Brown or the “inexplicable” deviation of the aircraft into the mountainside or the lethal bullet hole in the chest of the airport aviation manager.

Clinton: Are you finished?

DeMint: This is just question one, Senator. Fasten your seat belt.

to top of page

Subscribe to the Cashill Newsletter. It’s FREE!

Receive political news, invitations to political events and special offers.

Home | Professional | Personal | International | National | Regional | Books & DVDs | Articles By Title | Email Jack

copyright 2005 Jack Cashill









































eXTReMe Tracker

WikiLeaks CONFIRMS Hillary Sold Weapons to ISIS… Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL!


Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.

Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.

WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested:

The Reagan administration officials hoped to secure the release of several U.S. hostages, and then take proceeds from the arms sales to Iran, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua.

Sounds familiar?

In Obama’s second term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood, and friendly to the Libyan rebels, in an effort to topple the Libyan/Gaddafi government, and then ship those arms to Syria in order to fund Al Qaeda, and topple Assad in Syria.

Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” (aka Al Qaeda/ISIS) to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria.

Under oath Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is now stating that 1,700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly connect Hillary to Libya to Syria, and directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Via The Duran

Here is the incredible transcript:

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, I want to mention something else. In March, you launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents span the time from June 2010 to August 2014; 7,500 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton herself. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. Why did you do this, and what’s the importance, from your perspective, of being able to create a searchable base?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form, about how modern institutions actually behave. And it’s gone on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some case—or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so on. So, you know, our civilizations can only be as good as our knowledge of what our civilisation is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that which we do not understand.

So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.

It appears that Hillary Clinton committed perjury, just like her husband was caught doing as President.

Do you support WikiLeaks revealing Hillary’s crimes? Let us know in the comments!

 Facebook Like ButtonTHE POLITICAL INSIDER on Facebook

Bob Unruh: Obama amnesty shot down – again!

Obama amnesty shot down – again!
Posted By Bob Unruh On 10/03/2016 @ 12:37 pm In APP Frontpage,Front

For the second time, and without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected President Obama’s tactic of granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens through administrative actions.

The high court on Monday declined to revisit the dispute, as the White House had wanted.

Fox News reported the case might still return to the Supreme Court at a later date but almost certainly not while Obama is president.

The issue has been percolating throughout Obama’s tenure in the White House. He repeatedly stated he alone didn’t have the authority to change America’s immigration laws to allow amnesty for millions of illegals and tried to pressure Congress to take action.

When the lawmakers refused to do what he wanted, he had administration officials re-interpret existing law to allow as many as 5 million illegal aliens to remain in the country.

But his plan was shot down by a federal judge in Texas, whose decision in a case brought by 26 states, led by Texas, was upheld by an appeals court. The Supreme Court earlier this year voted 4-4 on the case, leaving the lower court precedent standing.

Now the court has declined to revisit the fight.

The district judge’s ruling found the Constitution doesn’t give the president that authority.

Ann Coulter’s back, and she’s never been better than in “Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn our Country into a Third World Hellhole.”

When he was speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner listed 22 times when Obama made statements that he is not allowed to do what he did.

For example, in October 2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”

But in 2014, the administration announced an immigration-law change that would “shield more than four million people from deportation,” NBC News said.

Read WND’s investigative report on Obama’s plan to “institutionalize” his immigration policies throughout 16 federal agencies that will do his bidding long after he’s gone from the White House.

Texas sued and was joined by more than two dozen other states, citing the massive new demands for public services such as school and health care that would be imposed by those who previously had been subject to deportation.

“In seeking rehearing – a [chance] to argue the same case over again – the Justice Department said the move ‘is consistent with historical practice and reflects the need for prompt and definitive resolution of this important case,’” NBC said.

The 4-4 tie was set up by the death earlier this year of Justice Antonin Scalia. A tie at the high court means the lower court ruling is left standing.

It was Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program that was derailed. It was set up to let certain categories of illegal aliens stay in America.

The Obama administration announced the program as a series of administrative orders in November 2014. It said the actions were necessary because Congress refused to make the changes in law that he wanted.

The lawsuit was filed to halt the plan, and shortly after, a federal district judge in Texas and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of the states.

But the Obama administration fought back, claiming the states don’t have standing to sue the federal government over immigration policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans had ruled 2-1 to uphold a lower court’s injunction blocking the White House from going forward with its deferred-action plan and to make the injunction permanent.

“The president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else,” argued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was leading up the coalition of 26 states suing the Obama administration.

He went on, the Washington Post reported: “Throughout this process, the Obama administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power.”

While the case was pending at the lower courts, 113 members of Congress said in a court brief Obama’s amnesty program violates the Constitution.

“Our position is clear – President Obama’s executive action is unconstitutional and impermissibly disrupts the separation of powers,” said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed on behalf of Congress.

WND broke the story when a federal judge in Texas granted a temporary injunction halting Obama’s executive-order driven amnesty program.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the government not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.

“The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents,” the ruling said.

The dispute elevated to the astonishing when, in his Texas courtroom, the judge bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not President Obama and federal officials can be believed regarding the administration’s executive action on immigration.

“I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, “That’s a yes or no question.”

She responded, “Yes, your honor.”

Hanen called for the hearing because of questions about whether the Justice Department misled the judge by claiming that deportation reprieves would not go forward before he made a ruling. It turned out that federal officials had delayed deportation for 108,000 people for three years and granted them work permits.

The administration had argued the reprieves were granted under a 2012 program that was not impacted by Hanen’s order. But the 2012 program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, granted only two-year reprieves, while Obama’s November 2014 order allows three-year deferrals.

Hartnett told the judge “government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action,” Fox reported.

Hanen remained skeptical, and it was then he asked, “Can I trust what the president says?”

He later told the lawyers representing the government to go to ethics classes.
Copyright 2016 WND