Do you watch FOX news?

I do. 

Why?

 Because they're not quite as 'fair and balanced' as they say. That's why I watch FOX. They definitely lean right. So I was shocked when I read the story below! I find this disconcerting to say the least. Liberals have badmouthed FOX relentlessly through the years especially Killary and Barry. So for taking all the abuse they donate money to them? Has the last bastion of anything resembling a conservative viewpoint gone up in smoke?





 I always thought FOX represented more then legs, tits , and ass. According to this it does... but not in a good way.

-------------------------------------




On a tip from Ed Kilbane

FOX News is One of Top 10 Largest Donors to the Clintons

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/fox-news-is-top-ten-largest-donor-to-the-clintons/

Christians and conservatives continue to be hoodwinked by FOX News. Not only has the organization been supporting the sodomite agenda, but they have also been one of the top ten donors to the Clinton Family since 1992. 

Michael Lotfi reported: 

To many, it seems contrary to intuition that Fox News could be one of the Clinton family's largest donors for the better part of two decades. Check your intuition at the door- it's true. According to Federal Election Commission and Center for Responsive Politics data, 21st Century Fox News Corp. has donated more than $3 million to Clinton family accounts. Overall, this lands Fox as the Clinton family's 9th largest donor over the course of the family's political involvement.


Click to enlarge

Top corporate and union donors to the Clintons over two decades, compared with top corporate and union donors to Obama's 2012 campaign.


Click to enlarge

Sadly, too many people think that FOX is giving them the truth all the time. They war against others who watch MSNBC, CNN, and the various other alphabet media corporations, who are basically owned by a few. 

This is why it is always a good idea to watch or listen with discernment no matter who is reporting news to you. Personally, I would rather someone present to me the documentation and let me view it for myself, something I have often tried to do here. I make no attempt to disguise my bias towards Christianity, law or the Constitution. Otherwise, how would one know if someone was being unethical? Yet, I still make attempts to provide the documentation and if people want to continue on in their ignorance, that is their decision. 

Considering the information above, one does find it ironic that the FOX hosts on Thursday evening would have asked Donald Trump about money he gave to 

Hillary Clinton: 

Personally, I think Trump is a liberal. The fact that he claims Socialist, single-payer healthcare "works in Canada" and "Scotland" just points out that he does not believe in freedom, but socialism. The fact that the father of the Canada system claims it is a failure must have slipped Trump's mind at the time. Scotland is pretty much the same deal. I'll have more on the questionable actions of Donald Trump soon, but the point is that he was asked about this by talking heads whose company has supported the Clintons to the tune of over $3 million! 

Hello pot? This is kettle!

Do you watch FOX news?

If this story is true what good is Congress?

Obama can do Iran nuclear deal even if Congress disapproves

 If his veto is overridden he may still go ahead with the deal. 

So when this happens:

 His "legacy" will be forever recorded in the annals of time... and he'll own 100%. 

You have to say to yourself...why would he want this as his legacy? The only possible conclusion you can come to, he wants a nuclear armed Iran. 

--------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (AP) — The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers reject the agreement, it's not game-over for the White House.

A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.

>Accomplishments?<

Obama doesn't need a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program — at least for now.

"A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial political reverberations, but limited practical impact," says Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It would not override President Obama's authority to enter into the agreement."

Lawmakers on their summer break are deciding how to vote. A look at the current state of play:

---

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN SEPTEMBER?

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the House and Senate are expected to turn down the deal.

Obama has pledged to veto such a resolution of disapproval, so the question has turned to whether Congress could muster the votes to override him, in what would be a stinging, bipartisan vote of no-confidence against the president. And Obama would forfeit the authority he now enjoys to waive sanctions that Congress has imposed.

But Democrats and Republicans have predicted that his expected veto will be sustained — that opponents lack the votes to one-up Obama. More than half of the Senate Democrats and Independents of the 34 needed to sustain a veto are backing the deal. There is one notable defection so far — New York's Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate and the party leader-in-waiting.

In the House, more than 45 Democrats have expressed support. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California has spoken confidently about rounding up the votes to save the deal. Ten House Democrats have announced their opposition.

---

WHAT CAN OBAMA DO ON HIS OWN?

The president could suspend some U.S. sanctions. He could issue new orders to permit financial transactions that otherwise are banned now. On the financial sector, Obama could use executive orders to remove certain Iranians and entities, including nearly two dozen Iranian banks, from U.S. lists, meaning they no longer would be subject to economic penalties.

Only Congress can terminate legislative sanctions, and they're some of the toughest, aimed at Iran's energy sector, central bank and essential parts of its economy. Still, experts say Obama, on his own, can neutralize the effect of some of those sanctions, too, and work with the Europeans on softening others.

"Obama can give most of the sanctions relief under the agreement through executive order," said Mark Dubowitz, a leading sanctions proponent with the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

If Obama and the Europeans erase the Iranian banks from the sanctions list, those institutions would regain access to the global financial system.

---

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BEING DISCUSSED IN CONGRESS?

The September votes won't be the final word.

One looming question is whether Congress should try to reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act, which authorizes many of the congressional sanctions.

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., have introduced legislation to renew it. Menendez says that if administration is serious about reimposing sanctions if Iran cheats, there has to be something to "snap back to."

Iran could interpret a U.S. move to reauthorize the law as a breach of the nuclear agreement. Administration officials won't say whether it is or isn't, only that it's premature to address it.

Should Congress push for a different deal? The administration says renegotiating the agreement is a nonstarter.

In a webcast, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told members of the Jewish Federations across North America and the Jewish Council of Public Affairs that trying to renegotiate the deal was "about the riskiest strategy" he could imagine. "I just don't think that's a credible Plan B."

Schumer and others opponents think the administration should go back to the bargaining table.

Over history, Congress has rejected outright or demanded changes to more than 200 treaties and international agreements, including 80 that were multilateral.

If this story is true what good is Congress?

Hillary Clinton’s five email lies

‘I remember landing under sniper fire.”

“I actually started criticizing the war in Iraq before [Obama] did.”

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.”

Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the truth has always been one of disdain, as shown by her accounts of landing in Bosnia (she was actually greeted by a child on the tarmac), her policies (she voted for the war in Iraq and only criticized it later, after the winds shifted, and after Obama) and her finances (if owning two multi-million-dollar homes is “dead broke,” then sure).

But the Democratic front-runner has really outdone herself with her varying explanations for her home e-mail server. Here are her five fabrications in the shifting story of why she hid her correspondence from public records and compromised national security.

1. “I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work.”

Truth: This was Clinton’s excuse on March 10 for why she used a personal e-mail address for official business as secretary of state — so that all her e-mails came to one device. “Looking back, it would have been probably, you know, smarter to have used two devices,” she said.

A couple weeks later, a freedom of information request by the AP discovered that Clinton used multiple electronic devices, including an iPad and a BlackBerry, to send e-mail.

2. “The server contains personal communications from my husband and me.”

Truth: If that’s true, it will come as a surprise to Bill Clinton. “The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two e-mails during his life, both as president,” said his spokesman, Matt McKenna, in an interview published around the same time.

3. “I’ve never had a subpoena…Let’s take a deep breath here.”

Truth: Confronted by CNN’s Brianna Keilar on July 8 about why she had deleted 33,000 e-mails while under investigation, Clinton said it was common practice. Keilar pressed: Even if you’re under subpeona?

Clinton was under subpoena when the question was asked. After requesting Clinton’s e-mails in December 2014, Trey Gowdy (R-SC) got nowhere, so he sent her a subpoena in March. A Clinton lawyer, David Kendall, responded to the subpoena later that month, saying that Hillary Clinton was waiting for approval from the State Department before releasing the e-mails.

Clinton’s people argued she deleted the e-mails before she was under subpoena, so her answer was correct. Except they were deleted in December, when she already knew Congress was interested in them. Before the hard drive was erased, e-mails were handed over to the State Department — but only the ones Clinton’s staff deemed relevant. Since all the rest were deleted, no one else could check their work.

Like so many Clinton statements, while the line may be technically correct, it ignores the spirit of the complaint.

4. “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

Truth: Another claim made during that March 10 press conference that has fallen apart. After taking a random sample of 40 of Clinton’s e-mails, the inspector general for 17 spy agencies told Congress that two contained information deemed “Top Secret.”

Clinton’s camp put out a long technical defense saying that the information wasn’t classified when she received it and that different agencies disagreed over what should be classified. But it begged the question: Why take the risk at all?

After months of resisting, Clinton agreed to hand over her home server to the FBI, though it’s been wiped clean. Experts will try to recover what they can — and if even more surprises await.

5. “Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate.”

Truth: As The Washington Post points out, “In 2009, just eight months after Clinton became secretary of state, the US Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records was updated:

‘Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic-mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.’ The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to ‘the head of each federal agency.’”

“On top of that, when Clinton was secretary, a cable went out under her signature warning employees to ‘avoid conducting official department business from your personal e-mail accounts.’ ”

The State Department requires employees to preserve records, even saying explicitly that on the rare occasion a personal e-mail address is used, those e-mails should be forwarded to the work address for archiving. Clinton never did this.

The Washington Post concludes: “She appears to be arguing her case on narrow, technical grounds, but that’s not the same as actually complying with existing rules as virtually everyone else understood them.”

Can we expect any less of the spouse of the man who argued what “is” is? Columnist Charles Krauthammer said it best when he noted last week, “Nothing she says ever is true three weeks later.”

What will be revealed as a lie next? 

Bear in mind Abedin, a Muslim, is to Clinton, what Jarrett is to Barry.

Hillary Clinton’s five email lies

Clinton dismisses controversies surrounding Benghazi, emails at event

----------------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton defended her handling of the 2012 Benghazi attacks and her use of a private email server as secretary of state, dismissing the controversies as “partisan games” in a speech in Iowa on Friday.

"They'll try to tell you it's about Benghazi, but it's not," Clinton said, pointing to Republican-led congressional inquiries that she said had "debunked all the conspiracy theories."

"It's not about emails or servers either. It's about politics," she said.

"I won't get down in the mud with them. I won't play politics with national security," Clinton said at the annual Wing Ding, a Democratic fundraiser in northern Iowa that attracted three other presidential candidates.

A little late for that.

What was actually in those 31,000 emails far outweighed how 'suspicious' it was going to look... so she had to delete them.

To put things in context when Monica was on her knees taking care of her husband didn't she say, "This is nothing more then a vast right wing conspiracy." In other words Bill gets a BJ and Republicans get the blame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

Clinton sought to take the scandals head on while presenting herself as combative, tough and prepared to fight Republicans in an effort to ultimately succeed President Barack Obama. Her appearance comes days after she agreed to turn over to the FBI the private serve she used a secretary of state. Republican lawmakers have said she was negligent in handling classified information.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders received loud cheers when he pointed to his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been reviled by environmentalists and his vote against Iraq War in the Senate. Sanders’ campaign has gained steam with the growing Clinton controversy.

Sanders, whose recent appearance at a Seattle event was disrupted by activists with the Black Lives Matter movement, also took steps to emphasize his civil rights record.

"No one will fight harder to end racism in America," he said.

Clinton’s forceful defense started when she noted that the Supreme Court case Citizens United, started with a “hit-job film” about her.

“Now I’m in the crosshairs,” she said of Republicans.

Clinton said she would "do my part to provide transparency to Americans — that's why I'm insisting 55,000 pages of my emails be published as soon as possible" and turned over the server.

"I won't pretend that this is anything other than what it is: the same old partisan games we've seen so many times before," she said. "So I don't care how many super PACs and Republicans pile on. I've been fighting for families and underdogs my entire life and I'm not going to stop now."

Clinton also made light of the email probe on her Snapchat social media account. "I love it," she said. "Those messages disappear all by themselves."

Her speech included critiques of potential Republican rivals Scott Walker, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. But she saved her most pointed barbs for Donald Trump, saying the attention in the GOP race had centered on a "certain flamboyant front-runner." The country, she said, shouldn't be distracted. "Most of the other candidates are just Trump with the pizazz or the hair."

The candidates spoke before about 2,000 Democrats at the Surf Ballroom, the site of the last concert by rock pioneers Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper before their fatal 1959 plane crash, later dubbed "The Day the Music Died."

Clinton and Sanders spoke first, prompting some activists to file out of the ballroom before former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and ex-Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee took the stage.

O'Malley pointed to a laundry list of progressive proposals he would pursue if elected president, saying his years as Baltimore mayor and Maryland's two-term governor were about "action, not words."

"In tougher times than these, Franklin Roosevelt told us not to be afraid. In changing times, John Kennedy told us to govern is to choose," O'Malley said. "I say to you, progress is a choice."

Chafee took aim at Bush's recent critique of Obama's handling of Iraq, telling activists, "What kind of neocon Kool-Aid is this man drinking?"

Clinton kicked off a weekend of campaigning in Dubuque on Friday by outlining proposals for more quality child care on college campuses and additional scholarships to help students who are parents. The Democratic front-runner also picked up two endorsements aimed at reinforcing her standing among liberals: former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a party luminary who served three decades in the Senate, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, a union of nearly 600,000 members. Clinton was joining Harkin at the Iowa State Fair on Saturday morning.

Clinton dismisses controversies surrounding Benghazi, emails at event

University of Texas to Move Jefferson Davis Statue

The Civil War along with slavery never happened. It's just a figment of our imagination.

There are literally hundreds of streets, highways, and avenues named after prominent Confederates. Are we going to change all those too? At what cost? Should any depiction of the founding fathers be removed? After all many of them had slaves.

-----------------------------------------------

The statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis will be moved to an American history center on campus.

 

Photo: ERIC GRAY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By

Ana Campoy Updated Aug. 13, 2015 6:59 p.m. ET

The University of Texas at Austin on Thursday said it is moving a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from its main mall to an American history center on campus, amid a backlash against Confederate symbols in the country.

The decision follows a request from students to remove the statue, which depicts the Confederate leader in a long coat atop a towering pedestal, as well as a review by a special task force that weighed public opinion on the controversial piece.

“While every historical figure leaves a mixed legacy, I believe Jefferson Davis is in a separate category, and that it is not in the university’s best interest to continue commemorating him on our main mall,” university President Gregory Fenves said in a letter to students and faculty. Mr. Fenves said other sculptures on the mall depicting Confederacy figures, including Robert E. Leeand Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, will stay where they are.

Officials across the U.S. are struggling to balance conflicting views about Confederate symbols after the killing of nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church earlier this year. The shooter had espoused racist views, according to family and friends, and was photographed with the Confederate flag.

The Jefferson Davis sculpture at UT-Austin has been vandalized several times since the beginning of the year. After it was marked with a “Black Lives Matter” tag in June, Mr. Fenves said he was convening a task force to explore the future of the statue and the others surrounding it, which were created between 1916 and 1933.

Polls conducted by the task force found that 33% of respondents were in favor of moving the Jefferson Davis statue, while another 33% were in favor of keeping all of the statues in their current position.

“Statutes are meant to celebrate and memorialize the people they depict and putting Jefferson Davis on a pedestal isn’t in line with the university’s core values,” said Rohit Mandalapu, vice president of the university’s student body.

And all it took was 82 years to come to this conclusion? If it wasn't for Charleston it would still be standing.

BTW...Meet Rohit Mandalapu:

We're going to allow this slob to dictate what true American values are?

Terry Ayers, a spokesman for the Descendants of Confederate Veterans, a Texas group that had opposed the removal of the statues, said the organization supports Mr. Fenves’s decision to keep all of them on campus.

“It is vitally important that the University of Texas at Austin preserve and understand its history and help its students and the public learn from it in meaningful ways,” he said in a statement.

Separately, a New Orleans city commission on Thursday recommended removing four monuments related to the Confederacy, including a prominent statue of Lee. The vote is part of a process initiated by Mayor Mitch Landrieuto replace Confederate symbols throughout the city. The city council could decide on the issue as early as September, a city spokesman said. 

University of Texas to Move Jefferson Davis Statue