Poster Boy For the Democrat Party


Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New ‘Silent Majority’ in a Visit to Arizona


by Nicholas Fandos
PHOENIX — Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics — including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Macy’s — while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.

Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.

“How can I be tied with this guy?” Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican front-runner. “He’s terrible. He’s weak on immigration.”

Donald J. Trump, center, attended an event Monday at Trump Golf Links in the Bronx.Can’t Fire Him: Republican Party Frets Over What to Do With Donald TrumpJULY 9, 2015
Donald J. Trump talked with reporters after speaking to members of the City Club of Chicago last month.Donald Trump’s Comments Resonate With Some in G.O.P.JULY 9, 2015
Donald Trump said he stood by comments he made about Mexican immigrants.Donald Trump’s Lousy Week (Except for the Polling)JULY 2, 2015
The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the “massive” crowds he has drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said “weak” politicians were afraid to address.

What Donald Trump Would Need to Do to Win
It also demonstrated what his party fears most about him: that he is an orator without regard for decorum who is willing to mock other Republicans.

The speech, hosted by the Republican Party of Maricopa County, drew several thousand people to the Phoenix Convention Center, making it one of the largest events for any candidate so far, though short of the crowd of 10,000 predicted by the Trump campaign. Outside, in the 100-degree desert heat, supporters who could not make it into the room waved American flags and sparred with a smaller but vocal group of protesters.

“The silent majority is back, and we’re going to take our country back,” Mr. Trump declared as he left the stage.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, whose tactics in tracking down illegal immigrants drew national attention and a federal conviction for racial profiling in 2013, preceded Mr. Trump on stage at the businessman’s invitation.

As he had earlier in the day in Las Vegas, Mr. Trump also brought to the stage Jamiel Shaw Sr., the father of a teenager killed in 2008 by an undocumented immigrant in Los Angeles, to share the story of his son’s death and to endorse Mr. Trump.

Continue reading the main story

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?
Mr. Trump’s trip to the immigrant-heavy border region was the first since he asserted in his campaign announcement on June 16 that those crossing the United States-Mexico border illegally included rapists and criminals. Those remarks have earned Mr. Trump sharp criticism from business and political leaders across the country, including companies such as Macy’s, Univision and NBC that have cut ties with him in recent weeks.

He came to Phoenix after addressing a series of private and public audiences Friday and Saturday in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

“This has become a movement because people don’t know what’s happening,” Mr. Trump said. “We can’t be great if we don’t have a border.”

His welcome here was not entirely warm. Phoenix’s vice mayor and several pro-immigrant groups had called for the city to bar him from speaking at the convention center, which it owns. Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat, rejected those calls, saying he would respect Mr. Trump’s right to free speech.

But just as Mr. Trump’s presence in the nominating race has confounded national Republican leaders trying to expand the party’s appeal to minority groups, his visit here posed a dilemma for state officials trying to distance themselves from the anti-immigrant policies of the recent past.

Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors 10:28 PM ET
Hillary Clinton Picks Up Teachers’ Union Endorsement 4:45 PM ET
Did Scott Walker’s Twitter Account Get Ahead of His Campaign? 7:19 PM ET
Arizona’s senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans, decided not to attend the event, as did the Republican governor, Doug Ducey. Mr. Flake also called on the Maricopa County Republican Party to rescind its invitation to Mr. Trump, a request that was ignored.

On Saturday, Mr. Flake said Mr. Trump’s remarks, which he called “intolerant” and “inaccurate,” would hurt Republicans here and around the country as they attempt to appeal to a broader demographic of voters.

“Particularly in Arizona, we have had such a long stretch of this kind of rhetoric and this kind of talk,” Mr. Flake said in a telephone interview before Mr. Trump’s speech. “We seem to be moving beyond that here, and this kind of rhetoric just pulls us back.”

For many here, the event revived an image of the state, embodied by Sheriff Arpaio, as unwelcoming and harsh in its enforcement of illegal immigration laws — a perception that Mr. Ducey has worked hard to dispel. He barely discussed immigration during his campaign last year, and since taking office in January, he has worked to make his mark as a business-centric leader, focused on taxes and improving Arizona’s beleaguered public education system.

Saturday’s crowd, though, suggested that the topic remains a galvanizing force among the Republican Party’s conservative base here. Many who had lined up outside the convention center said Mr. Trump was the only candidate willing to speak up about what they see as the risks of illegal immigration and the failures of federal law enforcement to solve the problem.

“I’m very interested in Mr. Trump,” said Rod Patrick, a 72-year-old retired rancher and small business owner. “It’s not necessarily because he’s a good guy, but I’m fed up with politicians.”

Steve Donaldson, 31, agreed, saying that Mr. Trump’s experience in international business, rather than elective politics, made him the best-prepared candidate for the presidency. Mr. Donaldson said Mr. Trump could have been more artful in crafting his points about illegal immigration, in particular, but thought that the abrasive approach was actually helping him in the polls.

“I think his delivery on some of his points could use a little finesse,” he said, “but that’s also what I like most about him.”

Fernanda Santos and Kimberley McGee contributed reporting.

Insight into How We Are Turning into Greece

by Mark homebarrons-cover-3

In order to turn a town, city, state, or nation into Greece, you just need obscure terminology and plausible deniability.

The New York Time’s Dealbook blog has a great recent post: “Bad Math and a Coming Public Pension Crisis.”

The thing to remember when you read the post is that someone could have reported this five years ago or ten years ago. It could have been an above-the-fold headline instead of a blog post. It could have been a series of stories.

But no one at the Times wants to do that. They work for the people who plunder us and hope to get out of the game before it collapses. A story like this shows that the cracks in the foundation are now too obvious to be ignored.

When Jim Palermo was serving as a trustee of the village of La Grange, Ill., he noticed something peculiar about the local police officers and firefighters. They were not going to live as long as might be expected, at least according to pension tables.

After Mr. Palermo dug into the numbers, he found that the actuary — the person who advises pension plan trustees about how much money to set aside — was using a mortality table from 1971 that showed La Grange’s roughly 100 police officers and firefighters were expected to die, on average, before reaching 75, compared with 79 under a more recent table.

That seems like obvious fraud with a plan to be out of the system before someone realized it was broken and was held responsible for fixing it. By using the wrong tables, the government was given a false justification for not setting aside as much money.

Assuming shorter life spans reduces annual contributions and frees up money for other things, like bigger current paychecks. And if the plan bases pensions on pay, as those in most American cities do, shortening the workers’ life spans on paper could lead to both fatter paychecks now and bigger pensions in the future. In La Grange’s case, those four years meant tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to each retiree.

Now actuaries are worried about getting blamed for the looming economic implosion that will soon set upon us. The odd thing is that these worried actuaries use language that seems to indicate they think members of their profession are being wrongly blamed and then flip to language that indicates they are guilty.

[See also, “Warren Buffet Is as Much a “Tapeworm” as the Pensions He Finally Talks About.”]

“Actuaries make a juicy target,” said Mary Pat Campbell, an actuary who responded to the board’s call for comments.

She expressed concern that elected officials were using actuaries to lend respectability to “questionable behavior” like funding pensions with borrowed money, picking risky investments and “enacting benefit improvements based on lowballed costs.”

Other commentators have focused on the opacity of actuaries’ calculations and reports to the boards of trustees that govern public pension plans.

Trustees need clear and honest projections and do not receive them, a former pension trustee from Kentucky, Christopher Tobe, wrote.

I don’t know if the trustees really wanted “clear and honest projections,” but it was obviously the actuaries job to provide them regardless.

Another commentator, Mark Glennon, told the board that actuaries were churning out reports that no one but other actuaries could understand, providing cover for elected officials who were letting problems spin out of control.

“Chicago represents the most glaring example,” wrote Mr. Glennon, the founder of an online news service, WirePoints, which covers the fiscal morass in Illinois. “An actuary could have looked only briefly at some of its pension reports from years ago and seen the calamity to come. Reporters, political leadership and most pension trustees could not. Those who could understand were able to remain silent.”

But reporters could have asked for assistance. They didn’t want to know.

Pensions are massively underfunded now all over the country.


Can You Believe This -Feds Spent $2 Million to Have Wives Nag Men About Chewing Tobacco

By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times – Thursday, July 9, 2015
Since 2012 the government has spent nearly $2 million on a campaign to get women to nag the men in their lives to quit using smokeless tobacco.

The National Institutes of Health has sponsored a continuing grant for the Oregon Research Institute to “evaluate an innovative approach that encourages male smokeless tobacco users to quit by enlisting the support of their wives/partners, both to lead smokeless tobacco users to engage in treatment and to help them sustain abstinence.”

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Court filing suggests courtroom collusion against Arpaio

by Bob Unruh

A new filing in a legal dispute involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, is renewing the demand that the judge allow an investigator who was drawn into the case by others’ testimony be allowed to participate.

And it suggests, strongly, that the judge is pursuing his own interests by delaying a decision on the motion to allow Dennis L. Montgomery to intervene.

“By not granting the motions, but instead continuing to sit on them for the court’s apparent strategic reasons, Mr. Montgomery’s rights are being severely harmed, on an ongoing basis. Mr. Montgomery must respectfully be allowed to intervene in this lawsuit in order to protect his property and other interests, which was previously ordered by this court to be handed over to third parties,” a new filing by Montgomery’s attorney states.

“The delay in this lawsuit is creating much more than the appearance that this court is working in concert with the American Civil Liberties Union in order to harm defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio and intervenor Dennis Montgomery, as well as make good on its commitment, expressed by the court’s wife as confirmed by neutral persons, to ‘destroy’ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio so the sheriff cannot be reelected in 2016.”

The verbal barrage comes from attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who pointed out that the rancor is so bad in the case that his client, who had provided information at one point to Arpaio and was drawn into the current dispute that way, has filed a suit against the ACLU over their statements against him in the case.

“This case represents a multifaceted and growing conflict of interest not only by the ACLU and its attorneys but as important the equally unethical conduct by the court which must cease immediately,” the motion notes.

It continued, “Even more troubling, this court’s record reflects that the court has previously authorized significant payment of legal fees and costs to the law firm which represented plaintiffs, Covington and Burling LLP, where this court’s brother-in-law, Keith Teel, is a partner, insurance, patent and product-liability litigator. This has further created more than an appearance of bias or prejudice, as well as exacerbated the court’s egregious clear-cut conflict of interest, which this court continues to ignore and instead through its actions and intentional inactions thereby continues to harm Mr. Montgomery.”

WND reported earlier on the bitter fight.

It’s U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow who is hearing a contempt of court case against Arpaio, after earlier ruling that Arpaio’s office needed to stop targeting illegal aliens for contact.

Snow stayed proceedings in the contempt case after two different motions were made for him to remove himself.

What really goes on with the federal government? Read Andrew Napolitano’s warning that “It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong.”

At the center of the effort to remove the judge from the contempt case is a statement from a witness, Karen Morris Grissom, who told the sheriff the judge hates him. The witness explained to Arpaio that she was a childhood friend of the judge’s wife.

Mrs. Snow, Grissom said, “told me that her husband hates u and will do anything to get u out of office.”

“This has bothered me since last year when I saw her.”

Lawyers A. Melvin McDonald and Michele Iafrate have been representing Arpaio, and argued in their request for Snow’s recusal, “No doubt, moving for the recusal or disqualification of any sitting judge is a serious matter. Under statute, case law, and judicial canons, the perception of judicial bias and the appearance of impropriety, punctuated by the material witness status of the presiding judge’s spouse, mandate the recusal and disqualification of the Honorable G. Murray Snow.”

Worse, the motion says, the judge started asking questions apparently for his own investigation of the situation in court.

“By his own official inquiry, statements, and questions in open court on the record, one of the investigations into which Judge Snow unexpectedly inquired during recent contempt proceedings concerns his spouse, Sheri Snow,” the new motion explained. “No reasonable person with knowledge of the facts can deny that Judge Snow is now investigating and presiding over issues involving his own family. This alone is sufficient to mandate recusal and disqualification.”

Snow also raised questions about the sheriff’s department’s use of an informant, Montgomery, which, the motion states, violates judicial rules requiring an unbiased judge.

An affidavit from Arpaio explains that the judge’s behavior had been questionable several times throughout the case. At one point, the judge “demanded that I have ‘skin in the game’ and, specifically, that I pay a sanction from my personal funds and not from any fund created to assist me in my legal defense.”

The demand was made even though the sheriff was named as a defendant in his official capacity not as an individual.

Instead of approving the sheriff’s offer to pay $100,000 from his personal funds to a civil rights organization to settle concerns, the judge asked the U.S. attorney to attend the court proceedings to determine “whether sufficient evidence would be present to justify criminal contempt proceedings.”

Montgomery also is involved in a case in Washington in which Klayman asked a federal judge to interview him in secret “about the unconstitutional and illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency that is highly relevant and of crucial important … as he worked closely with these agencies following the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.”


Saudi Prince Pledges $32 Billion to Promote Islam/Sharia in America

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a senior member of the Saudi monarchy, says he’ll pledge his $32 billion to advance the islamization of America. This is a MOAB (mother of all bombs) in the information battle-space. Looks as if I will be keeping busy for quite some time.

The Saudis have spent billions already. 80% of the mosques build in America are Saudi funded. Islamic groups working to impose the sharia are largely funded by the Saudis.
We can look forward to 32 billion more of the “kingdom’s brand of Islam, while censoring criticism of Islam.”
And it’s not just the media that is on the receiving end of this blood money, but also Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, which spend millions whining about how lucrative the “islamophobia” business is. As if …
The Saudis have been wildly successful so far.
Wikileaks has begun releasing a trove of documents — half a million cables and other documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry. Wikileaks declares, “Media is not ‘controlled by Jews’ but by Saudi Arabia: media loyalties purchased around the world.”
Notice how this wikileaks release has garnered little press.
The American media is already in the tank for Islam.

32 billion more …. comin’ atcha. We are financing our demise. We should be energy independent and these billionaire barbarians would starve, and rightly so.
Arab Bill Gates Could Turn ‘Shariah Creep’ Into Full Trot,” IBD, July 8, 2015 (thanks to Religion of;
Islamofascism: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a senior member of the Saudi monarchy, says he’ll pledge his $32 billion fortune to charity. In light of his past donations, this is a highly concerning development.
Alwaleed says he will model his endowment on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, only with a twist: Much of his philanthropic work will help “foster cultural understanding” of Islam in America and the West.
That means promoting the kingdom’s brand of Islam, while censoring criticism of Islam.

Published reports and books reveal Alwaleed already has pledged millions to radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups that have a secret plan to Islamize America and spread Shariah law throughout the West. These pro-jihad groups can now count on a massive and virtually endless infusion of cash to their war chests.
Alwaleed has extensive ties to Brotherhood leaders. For example, he tapped “tele-Islamist” Tariq Al-Suwaidan, widely reported to be a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, as the channel director of his Islamic religious TV outlet Al Risala.
The network’s “Supreme Advisory Committee” has included Abdullah Omar Naseef, whom ex-federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy says is “a major Muslim Brotherhood figure” who has helped raise funds for al-Qaida.
Alwaleed made headlines after 9/11 when he donated $10 million to the World Trade Center fund only to have then-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani return the check. After presenting the money, the Saudi billionaire issued a press statement blaming the terrorist attacks on U.S. support for Israel while “our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of the Israelis.”
The next year, Alwaleed donated a whopping $27 million to a Saudi telethon for the violent Palestinian intifada against Israel, according to the Clarion Project.
Also in 2002, he gave $500,000 to the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which federal authorities have linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
In 2005, moreover, he spent $40 million to expand Islamic studies at U.S. colleges — donating $20 million to Harvard University to create a campuswide Shariah law studies program, while pumping another $20 million into Georgetown University for a “Muslim-Christian understanding” program run by notorious Islamic apologist John Esposito.
Despite fawning press reports, Alwaleed’s charitable pledge is no cause for celebration. It’s cause for alarm. His billions will finance Islamist pressure groups who exist to force Western civilization to yield to Islamic no-go zones, Shariah courts, and blasphemy laws.
If unmatched by patriotic philanthropists, the Saudi prince’s huge endowment could be a major setback for state and local efforts to push back against Islamization.


Islam is a Threat to America

We recently moved to the beautiful state of North Carolina – one of the fastest growing states in the nation. My family attended one of the local churches and a guest preacher was speaking about the church’s outreach to the ever-growing populace from all over the nation, and the world. The preacher explained that North Carolina has changed from a small town feel where everyone assumed his or her neighbor attended a church in the Christian faith. Now, people of many faiths, or no faith at all, have flooded the region. This has caused the church to re-evaluate their methods of outreach to the area. It has also caused great concern for North Carolina natives who desire to maintain the Christian value system of their state.

This got me thinking: America was founded by “immigrants.” Since the early 1600’s, America was known as the place where people could go to start a new life with freedom of religion, the liberty to choose your own occupation, and a place of refuge from oppressive governments.

The Mayflower Compact states why the Pilgrims came to America:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia…

During the time of our founding, Islam was a major religion in many parts of the world. Therefore, there were numerous Muslims living in America during the time of its founding. Naturally, there was great concern over Muslims taking over America’s Christian value system, especially since America was in a war against Islamic terrorists – the Barbary Powers War – that spanned over the presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

During this critical point in America’s history, we are facing the same thing today.

The difference is how our elected representatives and influential people confronted this critical predicament. While Obama has stated that we are no longer a Christian nation, our founders stated the opposite.

Concerning the fear of Muslims holding high office in America,

Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (nominated to the Court by President Washington) stated:

But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. . . . But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

Theophilus Parsons (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts) also affirmed:

No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security.

While the Constitution does not require men to be Christian in order to hold office, the beliefs of our founders’ highly encouraged this…and so did Americans.

[See also, “President Doubles Down: No Islamic Terrorists.”]

John Randolph was a Virginian Congressman during America’s founding. In his early years he held a position “in favor of Mahomedanism” and “rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross [Christianity].” Francis Scott Key, author of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” befriended Randolph and faithfully shared the Gospel with him. Randolph converted to Christianity and became a strong advocate for the Christian faith. He once stated:

“I am at last reconciled to my God and have assurance of His pardon through faith in Christ, against which the very gates of hell cannot prevail. Fear hath been driven out by perfect love.”

Key shared the Christian faith with many Muslims in America, and even bought them copies of the Bible in Arabic.

Today, in a world of “tolerance” toward anything but Christianity, America is in danger of losing her Virtue unless we, like our founders, uphold the Christian value system and the church obeys the great commission to preach the Gospel to every creature.

Reverend Francis Grimke (1850-1937) once proclaimed,

“If the time comes when America shall go to pieces, it will… [be] from… losing sight of the fact that ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people… Unless we hold… to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, America will be only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”


Obama’s Going to have Lunch with Each and Everyone on Islamic State Ideologies Will Not Defeated-by-guns-but-by-better-ideas

On the one hand you have Winston Churchill, who — when facing the threat of global Nazism in 1940 — rallied his troops and his countrymen by pledging, “We shall go on to the end. We shall fight … on the seas and oceans, we shall fight … in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” On the other you have State Department spokesmodel Marie Harf prescribing three hots and a cot as a means to winning over the Islamic State’s hearts and minds.

And somewhere in between (though sadly closer to Harf than to Churchill) you have Barack Obama whose solution to the ISIS problem has been a work in progress ever since he grossly underestimated the enemy by calling them the JV team.

Yesterday, the president conferred with military leaders at the Pentagon, then gave a speech on the subject of ISIS. After conceding that the terrorist group’s recruitment efforts have been “effective” — a point reinforced independently by a Clarion Project study, which found that 42 million Muslims view ISIS positively — he went on to outline his “strategy.” A transcript follows:
Read more at LibertyUnyielding


China Collapse Worse than Greece?

Australia media is reporting on a China collapse that might be “monstrous.”

An Australian news outlet is reporting, “Chinese chaos worse than Greece.”

WHILE the world worries about Greece, there’s an even bigger problem closer to home: China.

A stock market crash there has seen $3.2 trillion wiped from the value of Chinese shares in just three weeks, triggering an emergency response from the government and warnings of “monstrous” public disorder.

And the effects for Australia could be serious, affecting our key commodity exports and sparking the beginning of a period of recession-like conditions.

“State-owned newspapers have used their strongest language yet, telling people ‘not to lose their minds’ and ‘not to bury themselves in horror and anxiety’. [Our] positive measures will take time to produce results,” writes IG Markets.

“If China does not find support today, the disorder could be monstrous.”

In an extraordinary move, the People’s Bank of China has begun lending money to investors to buy shares in the flailing market. The Wall Street Journal reports this “liquidity assistance” will be provided to the regulator-owned China Securities Finance Corp, which will lend the money to brokerages, which will in turn lend to investors.

Loaning money to people to buy stock in order to try to boost stock prices sound like an incredibly desperate move. And if the government media is admitting that people are in danger of losing their minds and burying themselves in horror and anxiety, the situation must be really bad.

So now we have China added to the list with Greece and Puerto Rico. We know that in Europe there are other nations waiting to collapse after Greece does. Likewise, there are states and cities in the United States that are also effectively insolvent.

I have no way of timing all these things perfectly, but it does seem like the financial problems are accelerating and amplifying one another.


Private Email: Hillary Received Early Advice From A Shady Friend


by Javier Manjarres

Remember when President Bill Clinton famously and infatically stated that he “did not have sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky?

Well, the world found out that Bubba lied, as Lewinsky “blew” the whistle on him, and divulged what really happened between the two.

Now his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may have been caught in a lie of her own.

Are you surprised?

I didn’t think so.

Mrs. Clinton has been saying that she received “unsolicited” advise from her friend and long-time advisor Syndey Blumenthal, a character that the Obama administration believed to be so shady, that in 2009, administration officials kept Blumenthal from working alongside then-Secretary of State Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has never denied her friendship with Blumenthal, nor has she denied the “unsolicited” advise he gave her, and never did state when the advise began.

The Clintons being the Clintons, disregarded the fact that the Obama administration “was prohibiting” Blumenthal f rom officially advising Clinton at the Department of State.

According to one of Hillary Clinton’s recently released private email(s) from her home server, Blumenthal was advising Clinton on foreign matters as far back as 2009.

In other words, Clinton hid, or just didn’t feel compelled to say exactly when Blumenthal was advising her.

“…In an email dated November 5, 2009, Blumenthal sent Clinton an email titled “Agenda with Merkel,” Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to develop the Transatlantic Economic Council, which he said “now languishes.” Noting that it was German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s major initiative when Germany held the EU Presidency in 2007, Blumenthal advised that “raising Merkel’s project and reinvigorating it would undoubtedly be well received.”

Emails previously released by the State Department and the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack showed that Blumenthal forwarded intelligence information to then-Secretary Clinton about Libya around the time of the attack that killed four Americans. Clinton then asked that his insight be circulated amongst the staff.

The 2009 email shows that Clinton was receiving advice from the controversial confidant much earlier than had been previously believed.

Additionally, a conversation between Clinton and her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills on June 22, 2009 shows Clinton’s interest in getting Blumenthal hired. In response to an unrelated matter, Clinton writes to Mills: “Good. What is latest re: Sid Blumenthal.”

In response Mills writes “Will see – he is doing the paperwork.”

The confidant’s role with Clinton became clearer in a June 2009 email. Blumenthal passed an email along to Clinton from then-UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and spoke of her helping him with “Adams” in a meeting with Martin McGuiness of Northern Island. Adams is apparently referring to Gerry Adams.

“Shaun briefed me that Gordon will be meeting with Martin McGuiness together on Wednesday and may want your help with Adams. I said that he and Gordon should let me know before Wednesday and may want your help with Adams. I said that he and Gordon should let me know before Wednesday whether your involvement is essential and what they request.”

Blumenthal gave more of his input before Clinton’s 2009 speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. Blumenthal told Clinton her speech must have “a distinctive and authoritative voice.”

“The speech must be crafted with a sense of real time and cannot be delivered out of sync with it,” he wrote. “Slogans can become shopworm, especially those that lack analytical, historical and descriptive power.”

Blumenthal also gave tips for policy on Afghanistan.

“Hillary: FYI,” the message read. “I found this one of the most sensible and informed brief articles on Afghanistan.” Patrick Cockburn, of the London Independent, is one of the best informed on-the-ground journalists. He was almost always correct on Iraq.”–FOX

You be the judge. Is there more to this?

What was, is, the real reason why the former Secretary of State felt the need to scrub clean her home email server?