Istanbul Ataturk Airport, the largest air transport hub in Turkey, was hit by two explosions Tuesday evening. State-run TRT television said the blasts took place in the international arrival terminal. More than 10 people were reported killed and up to 100 hurt.
Initial reports said there was also gunfire from a car park at the airport. Other accounts said a suicide bomber sprayed the crowd with an automatic weapon before blowing himself up.
It was uncertain in the immediate aftermath of the attack exactly how many people were hurt. CBS News reported “dozens” were injured. A witness told CNN Turk that taxis were driving wounded people to local hospitals.
The Express reported 10 dead and 40 wounded and said that Turkish officials told the British publication that the attack was caused by two suicide bombers. On its website, the Express reported that video “allegedly from the scene shows passengers cowering on the floor while others shout: ‘Get down.’”
Other reports put the death toll higher.
BREAKING NEWS – TURKEY: At least 12 dead & 100 wounded in double suicide bombing terror attack in Ataturk airport. pic.twitter.com/V3S07u0KwN
Turkey has been no stranger to explosions and violence. Earlier this month, 11 people were killed in a car bomb explosion in downtown Istanbul. In March, at least 37 people died in a car bomb in Ankara, the nation’s capital. Recent bomb attacks in Turkey have been linked to Kurdish separatists or the Islamic State group.
The State Department first put out a warning against travel to Turkey in March. It updated that warning Monday, urging Americans to “exercise heightened vigilance and caution when visiting public access areas, especially those heavily frequented by tourists.” (For more from the author of “Gunfire, Massive Explosions Rock Major Airport, Numerous Deaths Reported” please click HERE)
In 1957, at the age of 10, Norma (Nelson) McCorvey robbed a gas station and started on a path that no one would want for their child. Norma’s mother was an alcoholic, and violent, and Norma would spend a lot of time abusing drugs, alcohol and wasting her life.
When Norma became pregnant for the third time after her first child was taken by her mother and her second child was raised by the father, Norma tried to get an illegal abortion. Her doctor explained that it was illegal, and referred her to an adoption lawyer who in turn introduced her to recent law school graduates Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
The two lawyers, who were plaintiff-shopping for the purposes of changing abortion law in the state of Texas, used Norma as she had been used and abused her entire life. She signed an affidavit without even knowing what it said, and the two lawyers, Coffee and Weddington, took the case to the Supreme Court, eventually overturning state laws that restricted abortion. During the legal battles, Norma’s baby was born and adopted, but the case partially centered around the fact that Jane Roe “wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion ‘performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions’…”
Fast forward to this past week’s Supreme Court decision which determined that the
State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion… is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient… [But that] a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends… and unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.
Note the lie that pro-abortionists have any interest whatsoever in women’s civil rights. This ruling means that abortion advocates have taken 43 years to fight for abortion not performed by a competent, licensed physician “under safe, clinical conditions,” because after all, the main objective is their “right”; the sanitary conditions of the facility places a “substantial obstacle.”
This decision has exposed the Abortion Pigs for who and what they are.
The states that have recently enacted the safe abortion facilities laws will now see their legislation overturned, and all abortion facilities can be truly described as slaughterhouses.
For the good people who are fighting against abortion, this Supreme Court decision only strengthens their argument because it exposes the abortion industry as primarily interested in keeping the industry going regardless of the danger of infection, shock or death of the mother. And pro-lifers ought to take heed: Though the ruling continues abortion mills which have a certain cost/volume/profit standard to stay open, it should be explained, especially to the young, that it means the clinic can perform more and more abortions, now with no recognizable sanitary guidelines and safety to the mother. Any young woman seeking an abortion ought to be informed of the lowest standards their so-called “abortion rights advocates” have fought for.
McCorvey, as she grew older, became a fierce pro-lifer, but after Roe v. Wade, she in fact lived as a kind of celebrity between 1973 and the 1990’s while being active in the pro-abort movement. But in 1992, Norma began working in abortion facilities and in a later affidavit, described a “typical” abortion facility where she worked in 1995, 21 years ago.
One clinic where I worked in 1995 was typical: Light fixtures and plaster falling from the ceiling; rat droppings over the sinks; backed up sinks; and blood splattered on the walls. But, the most distressing room in the facility was the ‘parts room.’ Aborted babies were stored here. There were dead babies and baby parts stacked like cordwood. Some of the babies made it into buckets and others did not, and because of its disgusting features, no one ever cleaned the room. The stench was horrible. Plastic bags full of baby parts that were swimming in blood were tied up, stored in the room and picked up once a week. At another clinic, the dead babies were kept in a big white freezer full of dozens of jars, all full of baby parts, little tiny hands, feet and faces visible through the jars, frozen in blood.
That’s what the Abortion Pigs have fought to continue.
In 2013, the Gosnell trial cast a light upon the standards at his abortion facility, described as, “filthy, wretched and macabre… The smells were just unbearable,” Philadelphia Police Crime Scene Investigator John Taggart said following the trial. “You could tell there was death somewhere.” NBC 10 Philadelphia reported further on the conditions inside Gosnell’s house of horrors.
Stained and tattered, the table still had sanitary paper and stirrups attached. Prosecutors said the table would regularly be used for abortion procedures and that former employees said dried blood would often be caked to the medical equipment.
A garbage disposal taken from the clinic’s break room was set on top of a storage drawer. Taggart said investigators learned the employees would dispose of fetal remains in the sink and use the disposal to move them down the drain. Human bones were found inside the appliance, prosecutors said.
‘They were shoving body parts down the garbage disposal,’ said Taggart. ‘To the point where they plunged it one day and an arm popped out on Lancaster Avenue.’
Filthy, corroded tubing — stained over time by blood and dirt — were left coiled on the floor. Some of the tubing that was used for suction during abortion procedures also doubled as a suction source for patient resuscitation, according to prosecutors.
Again, that is what the Abortion Pigs have fought to maintain, and they won.
With reports that Planned Parenthood clinics were steam-cooking and throwing dead children in landfills; that in Great Britain clinics were using babies as raw material for “waste to energy” programs; that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts in a Goebbels-inspired industry to profit off the “products of conception”; and that facilities don’t have to be regulated like a health-care facility, pro-lifers must continue to remind fellow Americans of the disrespect, or rather, disgust, for human life on the part of the abortion advocates.
The Abortion Pigs, the advocates of this barbaric slaughter of innocents, seem clean and intelligent when they are actually abusing women and murdering children as much as profitability will allow, and now that they are heralding this Supreme Court decision, every pro-lifer has more ammunition to help change the hearts and minds of fellow Americans.
The greatest evil in this nation is the protected status of abortion, and it is important to note that the Abortion Pigs try very hard to “sanitize” the act of abortion, just as they had to Norma, just as they do now by claiming abortion is a woman’s right, which really means that women alone have the right to murder. And as they are giddy with delight that their clinics don’t need to be sanitary, let’s please go ahead and remind everyone that they fought for it to be that way.
The only way to stop the abortion industry’s dominance in America is to change minds and hearts about the horrors of abortion, and the lies told by the Abortion Pigs. Take away their industry and their income, educate young women, and their satanic crusade of slaughter will end. God help us. (For more from the author of “Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Ones Putting Women at Risk” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/University_of_Toronto_pro-life_protest_1-1.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 22:52:402016-07-03 15:06:31Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Ones Putting Women at Risk
Let’s talk for a bit about the so-called “narrow” and “common sense” compromise being put forward by Democrats — and a few Republicans, notably Susan Collins (R-ME), to block people from buying guns if they’re “on a terror watch list.”
Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, it’s not.
And the reason it’s not has nothing to do with letting terrorists have guns. Nobody in their right mind wants to have someone who is an actual terrorist walk into a gun store and buy a firearm — or 10.
Rather, we blew it when we allowed the creation of “watch lists” that are (1) secret, (2) constrain people (e.g. “no-fly” lists) and (3) have no due process protections of any sort associated with them.
These are all unconstitutional, I remind you, to the extent they apply to American citizens.
Now it happens to be completely constitutional for The President (via the State Department) to bar anyone that is not a US Citizen from entering the country — whether by air, train, boat, car, walking or teleportation. Not only is there no Constitutional problem with doing so it is explicitly authorized by statute and no less than Jimmy Carter did exactly that during the Iranian Hostage Crisis (I’ll bet you know what group of people he banned too, right?)
Today politicians on both sides of the aisle — including Obama — like to claim that this is not “who we are.” Did they forget Carter?
It sure sounds like it.
The problem with “Secret Lists” is that there is no way to know if you’re on one up front and, if you discover you are (while trying to board a plane or buy a gun, for example) your liberties are infringed without due process of law and, often, without any means of challenge.
The government claims that disclosing this information means that their investigations may be “thwarted.” And? The issue isn’t that they have a list of people they’re watching — that’s called investigation and is part and parcel of any legitimate law enforcement agency. No, it’s the disability they impose without due process, without trial and without, in many cases, anything that would be regarded as actionable evidence of a crime.
If the government wishes to conduct investigations before getting warrants, that’s part of police work.
But imposing disabilities, including barring people from getting on a plane or buying a gun when you cannot make the case that a crime is in the process of being committed is unconstitutional, impermissible in a free society and must be stopped in its entirety.
Those who argue otherwise are IMHO not Americans and to the extent they’re in positions of political power they are not only not American they’re violating long-standing law (18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983) and must be both civilly sued and criminally prosecuted for their crimes. (For more from the author of “How We Lost the Constitution” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/4249886990_107e92c466_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 22:33:042016-06-28 22:33:04How We Lost the Constitution
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case challenging a Washington state law that forces a family-owned pharmacy to dispense emergency contraceptives is an “ominous sign” for those who value religious freedom, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.
“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Alito said Tuesday in a critical dissent.
Alito was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, falling one justice short of the four needed for the court to accept a case.
The case involves the Storman family, owners of Ralph’s Thriftway, a small, family-run grocery store and pharmacy in Olympia, Wash. In 2007, after Washington state passed a law that requires all pharmacies to dispense “all lawfully prescribed drugs or devices” in a timely manner to all customers, the Stormans found themselves in the cultural crosshairs.
Because of their Christian belief that life begins at conception, the Stormans objected to dispensing drugs such as Plan B that they believe aid in the destruction of human life.
Under the state law, denying Plan B could result in the Stormans losing their pharmacy license.
The Stormans then entered a long legal battle. In February 2012, a federal court struck down the law as unconstitutional. The court found “abundant evidence” that the law was designed to force religious pharmacists and pharmacy owners to violate their faith.
But last July, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, upholding the law mandating pharmacists to dispense legal drugs and devices. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case today allows the 9th Circuit’s ruling—and the law—to stand.
If a customer at Ralph’s Thriftway requests a drug such as Plan B, employees refer customers to other local pharmacies that do carry the drug. According to court documents, over 30 pharmacies and drug stores within five miles of Ralph’s carry Plan B, and none of Ralph’s customers has ever been denied timely access to Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.
Alito, in his dissent, suggested the 2007 law, which is unique to Washington state, was designed specifically to target Christian believers.
“There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose,” Alito wrote, adding:
And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the 9th Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this court does not deem the case worthy of our time.
Kristen Waggoner, a senior attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom who has defended the Stormans for a decade, expressed disappointment that the high court opted not to take the case.
“All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life,” Waggoner said in a prepared statement. “We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to reaffirm these long-held principles.”
The Daily Signal last week interviewed Greg Storman about why the family-run pharmacy objects to dispensing Plan B.
“Our company revolves around faith, family, and community,” Storman said. “We serve every customer that comes to our pharmacy, but where we draw the line in the sand is we will not sell any drug that takes a human life, and we will not sell any drug that results in an abortion.”
While the Stormans were the public face of this case, two other pharmacists facing a similar dilemma were a part of the challenge.
Margo Thelen is one of them. Earlier this year, during an interview with The Daily Signal, Thelen said she would not dispense Plan B even if it meant losing her pharmacist’s license. Now, her future is unclear.
In his 15-page dissent, Alito confronted her dilemma head-on: “Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.” (For more from the author of “Justice Alito: ‘Those Who Value Religious Freedom Have Cause for Great Concern'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Asmara_Eritrea_-_St_Georges_Episcopal_Church.jpg11792000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 22:24:282016-06-28 22:24:28Justice Alito: ‘Those Who Value Religious Freedom Have Cause for Great Concern’
The hypocrisy of Democrats in Congress when it comes to combatting the Zika virus is not only outrageous, it’s dangerous.
The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there are now over 2,600 cases of the Zika virus confirmed in the United States and its territories. Most cases are occurring in Puerto Rico, but there are at least 162 cases in Florida and 198 in New York. And scariest of all is that over 450 of the reported cases are pregnant women. It is their unborn children for which the disease poses the greatest harm.
Despite the fact there is plenty of money scattered across the federal government that could be used without Congress adding another dime to the debt, Democrats have made the decision to hold hostage the health of the American people until they get more money and until some of those dollars are given to Planned Parenthood.
Proof of that is the decision by Senate Democrats this week to block funding of $1.1 billion to fight the Zika virus. These are the same Senate Democrats, by the way, who voted for $1.1 billion of funding just last month.
Back in May, House Republicans balked at such a high number but changed their minds saying they had found “savings” from other government programs to offset the spending. They passed a bill last week at the $1.1 billion level.
But what the GOP calls “savings,” Democrats call “cuts” and will not support the measure unless it’s all additional spending.
I asked my Heritage Foundation colleague and senior policy analyst in fiscal affairs, Justin Bogie, to explain whether these were savings or cuts. Turns out, they aren’t really either:
The Republicans proposed offsets of $750 million on the $1.1 billion emergency bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the reality is that only about $127 million of that is real savings and the other $623 million would have never been spent anyway. So by ‘saving’ $750 million they actually are spending an additional $623 million over what would have been spent from those accounts.
So, if you’re a Republican, spending money you weren’t going to spend is now considered “savings.” If you’re a Democrat, spending money you weren’t going to spend is now considered a “cut.”
Only in Washington.
The truth is no new money is needed and Republicans were wrong to cave on that front. But compromise they did and it still wasn’t enough to get the Democrats to go along. And therein lies the hypocrisy.
Democrats have proven by their behavior this week that their true cause celebs are not fighting the Zika virus and protecting women’s health, but big spending and special interests like the abortion lobby. (For more from the author of “Why Democrats Are Really Blocking Funding to Fight Zika Virus” please click HERE)
The Supreme Court has just issued what could become a landmark ruling against gun rights advocates.
The case, Stephen Voisine vs. The United States, “involves two plaintiffs who were convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes and were subsequently denied their rights to own a firearm, although no one was seriously injured during the commission of the crimes. The case seeks to answer the question, what kind of domestic abuse does one have to be convicted of in order to have constitutionally protected gun rights taken away?” wrote Western Journalism in February.
According to the SCOTUS ruling, even texting while driving can fall under the crimes resulting in a person’s forfeiture of their rights to own a firearm.
WAIT, WHAT?!? Texting and driving can now STOP you from getting a gun?
The SCOTUS concluded individuals convicted of “reckless domestic assault,” a misdemeanor, can now have their gun rights revoked and receive a lifetime ban on ownership of firearms.
States like Connecticut have already passed laws banning individuals from gun ownership who have been convicted of one crime of domestic assault.
The ruling passed with a 6-2 vote, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion of the court. “In sum, Congress’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior. A person who assaults another recklessly ‘use[s]’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally.”
Justice Thomas offered the dissenting opinion. He argued that a person who texts while driving could “lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash.”
Thomas wrote, “And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state and local prosecutors.”
Those who may have recently been convicted of the crime, or received a conviction years, or even decades ago, may now be in jeopardy of losing their right to own a weapon, and conceivably, having their weapons confiscated. (For more from the author of “Gun Rights SCOTUS Ruling Has Far Reaching Implications” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5394773690_f78b4db535_b.jpg1024682Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 03:21:252016-07-03 03:47:11Horrendous SCOTUS Ruling Deprives Average Citizens of Gun Rights for Minor Offenses
“Most ambitious and progressive platform our party has ever seen.”
Those are words spoken by Hillary Clinton’s senior policy advisor about the draft of the Democratic Party platform and they should frighten every American that supports free enterprise and a restrained federal government. The platform draft approved by the Democratic drafting committee consisting of both Clinton and Sanders allies includes proposals that will make it more difficult for individuals to break free from government constraints and achieve the American Dream.
There are many dangerous proposals in the Democratic Party’s platform that should raise concern:
A $15 minimum wage, including one for tipped workers, will force businesses to slash jobs, shift to automation, and put companies out of business
Burdensome regulations will make companies subservient to the government and prevent them from expanding.
Massive new spending on government programs that won’t be paid for and will substantially increase the national debt.
In addition, Sanders allies proposed some costly ideas that were just a vote away from becoming part of the platform and will no doubt be under consideration in a Democratic administration. Those include:
An unaffordable national energy tax on Americans that will increase costs across the board and make it tougher for families to make ends meet.
Going further than ObamaCare and implementing a one-size fits all single-payer system controlled solely by the government.
Labeling Israel for causing an “occupation” and saying that they have “illegal settlements” in the Gaza strip.
These policy prescriptions are threatening, not only to conservatives but for the country as a whole. They represent a sharp left turn in favor of policies that radically expands the size of government and continues to restrict freedoms of individuals across the country. (For more from the author of “DEMOCRAT PARTY GOES FULL RADICAL NUTJOB: ‘Most Progressive Platform Our Party Has Ever Seen'” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/3177408973_31af61c3ab_b-1.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 03:10:502016-06-28 03:11:08DEMOCRAT PARTY GOES FULL RADICAL NUTJOB: ‘Most Progressive Platform Our Party Has Ever Seen’
Democrats on the House Benghazi Committee released their own report Monday excusing Hillary Clinton ahead of the full committee report which is expected to be sharply critical of the Democratic nominee.
In the report, Democrats says that while the State Department’s security measures were “woefully inadequate,” Clinton herself never personally denied requests for increased security. Thus even in admitting to the existence of a serious systemic failure and offering 12 recommendations to alleviate it, Democrats were unwilling to assign blame to the former secretary of state.
The goal of the preemptive separate release is to cast doubt on the majority report in the coming days or weeks, again showing the Democrats to be more concerned with blame-shifting and political maneuvering than with exposing the truth.
According to CNN, the report also excused the Obama administration’s inaction in deploying military personnel to rescue the Americans, saying “the Pentagon could not have done anything on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans.”
Democrats have consistently labeled the investigation a political witch hunt and “conspiracy theory,” a claim which they reiterated again in their final report.
The Associated Press reports that the panel’s five Democrats called the two-year investigation “one of the most partisan congressional investigations in history.”
A much different tone can be expected in the House Benghazi Committee’s upcoming majority report. (For more from the author of “Dems Shift Blame to Protect Clinton in Benghazi Report” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/25887497611_0d7afcf19c_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 03:09:362016-06-28 03:10:58Dems Shift Blame to Protect Clinton in Benghazi Report
The company behind the Keystone XL pipeline filed a $15 billion lawsuit Friday against the Obama administration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
TransCanada claimed that Obama spent seven years using “arbitrary and contrived” analyses and justifications to delay the pipeline for political reasons. TransCanada’s suit also says that the company had reason to believe that the pipeline would be approved before it was rejected by the Obama administration in November.
“None of that technical analysis or legal wrangling was material to the administration’s final decision,” TransCanada said in its lawsuit. “Instead, the rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change, even though the State Department had itself concluded that denial would have no significant impact on the environment.”
President Barack Obama rejected the pipeline due to the perception among environmentalists that it would increase global warming. The Keystone XL pipeline would have increased America’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by less than three-tenths of one percent of the country’s total annual CO2 emissions, according to analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Obama’s own U.S. State Department found that the pipeline wouldn’t make global warming worse, would reduce the risk of an oil spill and create more than 42,000 new jobs. If it had been approved by the Obama administration, Keystone would have sent oil sands from Alberta, Canada to American oil refineries on the Gulf Coast. Republicans pushed Obama to approve the pipeline as it would create jobs.
Despite the State Department and EPA’s findings, Obama vetoed legislation early last to approve Keystone XL as well. Obama’s critics say he was pressured by environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer, who spent $73 million in the 2014 election supporting Democratic candidates, to veto the project.
Environmental groups heavily pressured Obama to block Keystone as well and immediately used the lawsuit to attack NAFTA and the very idea of free trade agreements, due to their alleged negative impacts on global warming.
“TransCanada’s attempt to make American taxpayers hand over more than $15 billion because the company’s dirty Keystone XL pipeline was rejected shows exactly why NAFTA was wrong and why the even more dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped in its tracks,” Michael Brune, the executive director of The Sierra Club, wrote in a Saturday press statement. “The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. Today, we have a prime example of how polluter-friendly trade deals threaten our efforts to tackle the climate crisis.”
Other environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund, have also spoken out against TPP.
A civil war has erupted between environmentalists and President Barack Obama and other Democrats over TPP and free trade. The full text of TPP noticeably does not directly address global warming and contains only a token mention of “clean energy.” The green groups say that free trade agreements such as TPP and NAFTA lack environmental protections and will benefit corporations, which will ultimately make global warming worse.
The green pressure against free trade has been so intense that even presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has felt it. Clinton helped negotiate TPP and called it “the gold standard” of trade agreements before dramatically changing her position to oppose it during the Democratic primaries. (For more from the author of “Keystone XL Company Sues Obama and US for $15 Billion Under NAFTA” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Pipes_for_keystone_pipeline_in_2009.jpg12001600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 03:09:002016-06-28 03:09:00Keystone XL Company Sues Obama and US for $15 Billion Under NAFTA
An additional 165 pages of emails from Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department surfaced Monday, including nearly three dozen that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee failed to hand over last year that were sent through her private server.
The latest emails were released under court order by the State Department to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch. The batch includes 34 new emails Clinton exchanged through her private account with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin. The aide, who also had a private email account on Clinton’s home server, later gave her copies to the government.
The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. They include a March 2009 message where the then-secretary of state discusses how her official records would be kept. (Read more from “More Clinton Emails Released, Including Some She Deleted” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/17179732078_df07e60e9e_b.jpg504706Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-28 02:59:522016-06-28 02:59:52More Clinton Emails Released, Including Some She Deleted