I don't remember anybody breaking Naked Cowboy's balls like this.

"What I said is that corporate media talks about all kinds of issues except the most important issues, okay?" Sanders said sternly. "And time after time, I'm being asked to criticize Hillary Clinton. That's the sport that you guys like."

"The issue I want to be talking about," he said, "is the collapse of the American middle class. Are you guys gonna write about that?"

"I am not going to get into the game of sitting around and criticizing Hillary Clinton," Sanders said.

On Friday evening in Mobile, AL, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he expects to participate in a rally promoting his presidential candidacy that will have at least 30,000 people in attendance.

In 2013, conservative reality TV star Josh Duggar--of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting fame--was named the executive director of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group in D.C. which seeks "to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society." During that time, he also maintained a paid account on Ashley Madison, a web site created for the express purpose of cheating on your spouse.

"Younger Americans aren't as set on their political views as their parents or grandparents because socialism means different things to different generations, Michelle Diggles, a senior political analyst at liberal think tank Third Way, told The International Business Times.

"For older people, socialism is associated with Communism and the Soviet Union and the Cold War," she said.

Well, guess what. Along with Dr Jones telling us that he wished MMGW would happen and Dr Schneider saying we need to decide if it is okay to not be honest....we now find that

Science publishing giant Springer, with over 2900 journals, has announced on its website that 64 articles published in 10 of its journals are being retracted.  Editorial staff found evidence of fake email addresses for peer reviewers.
No word yet on what type of papers, or if any climate papers are involved

Link

Looks like that is a thing of the past.  Mexico is checking passports at border crossings now, including the big ones in CA to try and stop folks wanted by the police.

Coming Friday, August 28th... Narcos

I just watch the 8 part Netflix series of Wet Hot America Summer, which is suppose to be a prequel to the movie of the same name.  Very funny and all the same characters.

The above is described as:

The true story of Columbia's infamously violent and powerful drug cartels fuels this gritty new gangster drama series.

I stated:

She removed documents at the very least when she left government office with documents belonging to the government, if not earlier since she may have possessed government documents on her private server that were not properly preserved in government control.

you stated:

So far, none of the materials reviewed were classified at the time they were sent or received, none of them were marked in any way that indicated they were classified.  It is also worth noting that there are two phrases that bear on this matter: "containing classified information" and "without authority."  Are you certain that (1) retroactive classification required Clinton - or whoever else sent or received the documents - to treat everything as classified in order to stay within the law and (2) that any "removal" was done without authority?

 I reply: that my statement does not address the classification or  time of classification of the documents she removed from government custody, and was in direct response to BTD's false statement she removed "nothing".

Next BTD claimed as fact:

"None of the information was "determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security." at the time of removal

I repled:

SEZ You, and a  handful of Clinton lackeys. This will obviously have to be determined by an investigation rather than by the self-serving assertions of partisan hacks , especially since it is contradicted by people whose job it is to make such determinations and who work for the Obama Administration.

You state:

The materials did not begin to be examined until fairly recently, but long after they were sent/received and long after Clinton left her position.  Absent the FOIA requests, it's not clear to me that they would ever have been reviewed. ..

   Well, then thank god for the FOIA requests because if that is true that may be the only reason the, at best, foolishly careless and negligent review and handling of the documents by Secretary Clinton's State Department would have evaded the sanitizing effect of sunlight. I, apparently in the minority here, want to keep the light on and learn exactly what happened and why. I can fathom only one  reason whatsoever why anyone would oppose that and would not want a thorough investigation to proceed with the facts publicly recounted. Obviously that sole reason is to protect Clinton from being held accountable for her and her agency's conduct.

Finally I stated:

No, she did not have the power to unilaterally decide information deemed classified by other agencies was not classified.

You respond:

So, wait - you want to claim that she had the power to classify material - in fact, you and others have repeatedly stated that she had an obligation to classify these materials that she "should have known" were classified, but no authority or power to remove a classified determination?  Are you asserting, then, that this was a one way street?

  Yes. The Secretary of State does not have the authority to simply decide that information classified by a different agency is henceforth declassified. Cite anything in any statute, rule, regulation or executive order that would even arguably authorize the head of the State Department or any other agency to unilaterally declassify information previously designated as classified by an intelligence agency.

   And, even if such power did exist, don't ya kinda figure that there would at least be a requirement that the person exercising such supreme powers would be required to ya know, document the fact it was done? Or do you believe she possesses some sort of royal prerogative?

PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING

Sec. 3.1.  Authority for Declassification.  (a)  Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b)  Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1)  the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;

(2)  the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;

(3)  a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or

(4)  officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.

(c)  The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.

(d)  It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection.  In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified.  When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official.  That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.  This provision does not:

(1)  amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2)  create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(e)  If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification.  Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the National Security Advisor.  The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

(f)  The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders.

(g)  No information may be excluded from declassification under section 3.3 of this order based solely on the type of document or record in which it is found.  Rather, the classified information must be considered on the basis of its content.

(h)  Classified nonrecord materials, including artifacts, shall be declassified as soon as they no longer meet the standards for classification under this order.

KEENE, N.H. -- A feistier, combative Jeb Bush said Thursday that he doesn't believe the term "anchor babies" is offensive and blamed Democrats for perpetuating the idea that it's a loaded term.

In one of his most aggressive exchanges with reporters to date, Bush dismissed suggestions that the two-word term deemed offensive by many Hispanics and denounced by Democrats is improper.

"Do you have a better term? You give me a better term and I'll use it," he snapped at a reporter who asked him.

He is pi$$ing away any advantage he ever had on this subject.

I think that her character was shown by her votes on the Iraq war and the Patriot Act and various kinds of intrusive and dubiously necessary financial reporting expansions . . .

in 2008, I supported, if you could call it that, Obama based on her behavior over the previous several years.  Of course, by supported, I mean, I wished and preferred he would win the nomination . . . cause he had at least a slightly better record on those things than she did . . .

  No, I'm not. I am however of the opinion that the one who is running for President is rightfully subject  to greater scrutiny and a greater level of accountability. I'd also question whether the argument that the person who was in charge of the agency is somehow helped by claims her underlings did such things on her watch.

   The  argument that well, heck, we ran such a loose ship none of us really bothered to think about these things and good golly  it was commonplace to ignore security issues because doing so was a pain in the butt, don't you know, wouldn't even work for Sarah Palin.