Top 10 Cases of Plagiarizing Democrats

by JOEL B. POLLAK

Melania Trump — or her speechwriters — stand accused of plagiarizing several lines from First Lady Michelle Obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention speech (which was itself accused of lifting lines from Saul Alinsky).

When Democrats do the same — or worse — the political damage tends to be far worse, since a significant proportion of the media can be counted upon to distill the “larger truth” of whatever it was they are trying to say. Even for Democrats, however, excuses do run out.

Here are the top 10 most serious cases of Democratic plagiarism, among contemporary political figures:

10. Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA). The California doctor and congressman admittedborrowing lines in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee pushing for fast-track negotiating authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Buzzfeed, which made the initial catch, noted that Bera had borrowed heavily from Obama administration talking points and from pro-business sources.

9. Sen. John Walsh (D-MT): Walsh retired in 2014 after youthful plagiarism was uncovered. The New York Times reported: “His withdrawal from the race comes about two weeks after The New York Times reported that in 2007 Mr. Walsh plagiarized large sections of the final paper he completed to earn his master’s degree at the prestigious Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.”

8. Mary Burke, candidate for WI governor. The Democrats’ 2014 nominee against incumbent Republican Scott Walker was caught by Buzzfeed: “Large portions of Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke’s jobs plan for Wisconsin appear to be copied directly from the plans of three Democratic candidates who ran for governor in previous election cycles.”

7. Susan Wismer, candidate for SD governor. In another catch for Buzzfeed‘s Andrew Kaczynski, South Dakota’s 2014 Democratic nominee was caught borrowing campaign materials — including, ironically, biographical material from Mary Burke of Wisconsin (#8 above), who herself faced plagiarism accusations in the same election cycle, just days before.

6. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The liberal firebrand from Harvard, whose claims to Native American ancestry have never been authenticated, contributed several recipes to a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow in the 1980s. In 2012, it emerged that several of those recipes appeared to have been stolen from the New York Times — and were French, not Native American.

5. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). The current Secretary of State faced several accusations of plagiarism during his 2004 presidential campaign, including the claim that he copied several passages in his 2007 book from other sources, and speculation that he may have stolen a campaign trail “memory” from Hillary Clinton’s memoir of the 1992 election.

4. Michelle Obama. Though the accusation never found traction in the mainstream media, the aspiring First Lady appeared to have lifted phrases from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radical — a classic primer on community organizing — and attributed them to her husband. It is conceivable that Obama, an accused plagiarizer himself (see below), passed them off as his own. 

3. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE). Biden’s 1988 presidential aspirations were destroyed after it emerged that he borrowed heavily from British Labour Party politician Neal Kinnock — not just Kinnock’s words, but his biographical details. He was also found to have plagiarized in law school. Biden still made it to the top — or near the top — on charm and sheer perseverance.

2. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). The 2008 and 2016 presidential candidate was accused, both times, of plagiarizing others’ lines — and her own. Most recently, she was accused by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) of stealing his talking points, partly in an effort to convince left-wing voters that there was no distance between the two. Her effort inspired a hashtag: #StealtheBern.

1. Barack Obama. The supposedly great orator was caught lifting the major refrain, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, his friend and fellow Harvard Law graduate. The irony of arguing for the importance of words, and then borrowing those words without attribution, was a sign of just how empty so many of those words really were.

Obama’s disappearing financial disclosure reports…

20131124_082919000_iOS
Obama Admin Deletes Conflict Of Interest Disclosures For Top Bureaucrats [VIDEO]

BY LUKE ROSIAK

Conflict of interest disclosure reports filed by top federal officials were removed from public view by the Obama administration in recent months, a move that government transparency and accountability advocates condemn as a major setback.

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) reports are the primary tool that watchdog journalists, political activists and interested voters can use to guard against presidential appointees using their positions to enrich themselves or others.

For years, the OGE website featured a sortable, searchable list of over 1,000 government appointees, including their names, agencies and titles, and flagging new ones. By clicking on a name, users could easily access multiple disclosures for the appointee, including yearly financial accounting, stock ownership and a letter detailing any agreements surrounding conflicts, such as issues when the individual promises to recuse himself.

By January, the list was inexplicably removed, leaving only a search box. That action severely reduced the chance of officials’ finances being scrutinized because it became necessary to know the name of a person and have a reason to want to look up that individual, as opposed to, for example, looking for listings from an agency of interest.

Now, even that capability is gone, along with almost all references to actually seeing the disclosures. Thousands of PDFs have also been deleted, leaving dead links.

OGE referred press calls to Seth Jaffe, who didn’t respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s query placed on Monday.

“This is a problem,” Daniel Schuman, a policy analyst at the liberal group Demand Progress, told TheDCNF. “They should put it back. It’s very odd there’s no explanation.”

John Wonderlich, head of the transparency group the Sunlight Foundation, called it a “big step backward,” saying “the administration should be demonstrating how digital disclosure should strengthen our accountability systems, and creating barriers to access is the opposite of progress.”

Previously, Sunlight had praised President Barack Obama, who had pledged at the outset of his first term in the Oval Office to have the “most transparent [administration] in history.”

The OGE documents also include “ethics waivers,” documents that showed despite Obama making pledges such as not to appoint former lobbyists, this was frequently done.

Thanks to the disclosures, the public recently learned that Secretary of State John Kerry has millions invested in offshore tax havens. The disclosures also showed that Medicare chief Andy Slavitt took actions relating to firms he had financial ties to, and that he got a waiver to do so.

OGE’s role as an independent entity is important in serving as a check against self-interested departments. The disclosures showed that the Medicare agency lied about Slavitt getting preferential tax treatment.

They also showed a former union lawyer who was appointed to head a labor relations agency steered lucrative contracts to his old law firm despite signing an agreement saying he “will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which Bredhoff & Kaiser is a party or represents a party unless I am first authorized.”

The site’s menu now says nothing about viewing disclosures, but buried several clicks in to a section called “Media” allows you to fill out a form requiring highly specific information about a person and the disclosure you are requesting.

When TheDCNF called to inquire about the change, the form had to be sent in via snail mail. Soon after the call, they added a cumbersome online form that was submitted to an employee who supposedly would send the documents several days later.

TheDCNF filled out the form and several days later, got rejected without explanation.

“The records that you requested are not maintained in the Office of Government Ethics. Please contact the employing agency/agencies for these records,” Irene Houston wrote.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/25/obamas-admin-deletes-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-for-top-bureaucrats/#ixzz49nMRhnaZ

 

*(REALLY? AS ’embarrassing’ AS OBAMA?)* – John Kerry: Presidential race is ’embarrassing’

Published on Apr 6, 2016

Secretary of State John Kerry talked to MSNBC about the state of the 2016 presidential race and said the election is “embarrassing our country abroad.”

scooby dew

kerry you a bitch ,, obama you a bitch ?
milkmanmonroe

Whatever. What is being said about Clinton the Criminal?
Anx- ian

Love from England for #Tump2016
didyoulisiten

Traitor Kerry? He represents America? This bastard should be in jail with Hanoi Jane.
Daniel Placencia

what you think he was going to say it’s cuz of Obama these people or nuts
Hadley Pleasanton

No more “embarrassing” than a 70-year-old falling off a bicycle and breaking his hip. Grow up, Lurch! 😉
Jarrod Peterson

Only the Republican side of the race is embarrassing?

First it was the nuclear deal, then money, and now this…

Capture

by Adam Kredo

The Obama administration has been shipping historical artifacts to Iran since last year as part of a secret détente that also included a taxpayer-funded payment of nearly $2 billion, according to a letter written by the State Department and exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Obama administration officials engaged in secret talks with Iran between June 2014 through at least January 2015 over a series of legal claims leveled against the United States by the Islamic Republic, the State Department disclosed in its letter.

“These discussions led to the settlement of claims for architectural drawings, which are now in the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, and for fossils, which are now in the possession of Iran’s Ministry of the Environment, and the parties also discussed the possibility of broader settlements,” the State Department wrote, in response to an inquiry launched in January by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.).

The Obama administration is seeking further settlements with Tehran to transfer assets, according to the State Department.

The administration’s latest admission about the backroom dealings with Iran were offered in response to a broader inquiry launched by Pompeo, who is seeking further information about the Obama administration’s payment of $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to Iran, which many viewed as a “ransom payment” for Iran’s release of several U.S. hostages in January.

The administration’s official response to Pompeo was sent earlier this week, just days after a Free Beacon report detailing a months-long State Department effort to stall the lawmaker’s inquiry.

“After nearly two months of stalling, the State Department confirmed what I feared was true: the Obama administration is negotiating behind closed doors with the Islamic Republic of Iran and using taxpayer dollars to pay the regime,” Pompeo said in a statement on the letter. “Worse yet, more of these payments are likely coming.”

“Secretary Kerry still refuses to answer whether the $1.7 billion U.S. payment to Iran was related to the release of American hostages held by Iran,” Pompeo continued. “While we celebrate the return of these hostages, this administration could be setting a dangerous precedent, as innocent Americans continue to be held in Iran. I will not stop until we have all of the answers and will do all in my power to stop the Obama administration’s dangerous Iran policy.”

Iran recently renewed its desire to settle a series of longstanding legal disputes with the United States, according to the letter, which outlines at least two occasions in 2014 and early 2015 when talks took place.

This agreement paved the way for the United States and Iran to reach the $1.7 billion settlement over the breakdown on a decades-old arms pact known as the U.S.-Iran Foreign Military Sales Program.

“With the settlements over the artworks and fossils concluded in December, and with hearings in the FMS claims involving the disposition of the Iranian Trust Fund of the horizon, we were able to achieve this most recent settlement, which finally resolves Iran’s claims for funds in the FMS Trust Fund, as well as its claims for interest on the funds for more than 35 years,” the State Department wrote, using an acronym for the foreign military sales program.

However, many other claims remain unsettled and are being litigated by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at the Hague.

The Obama administration is pursuing further settlement agreements with Iran. It is likely that at least part of these agreements will be paid using a taxpayer fund operated by the Treasury Department.

“The United States is continuing to vigorously litigate these claims at the Tribunal, but is also open to discussing further settlements of claims with Iran, as we have done throughout the life of the Tribunal, with the aim of resolving them in furtherance of U.S. interests,” the letter states.

These settlements could arise from a large number of outstanding legal disputes that the United States would rather settle in private with Iran than see litigated by the Hague.

“There remain some large claims pending before the Tribunal, many of which are against the United States,” the State Department wrote. “They include Iran’s contract claims arising under the former FMS program. These fact-indecisive claims involve over 1,000 separate contracts between Iran and the United States. The partial settlement we achieved in January … was part of that case.”

In addition to outstanding claims about the failed military deal, “Iran also has claims for the alleged U.S. failure to transfer property that was blocked following the 1979 hostage crisis, the return of the former Shah’s assets, and the return of Iran’s diplomatic property,” according to the letter.

When asked Wednesday to provide further information on the recent transfer of the artwork and fossils to Iran, a State Department official who was not authorized to speak on record told the Free Beacon that the claims date back to the 1970s, before Iran’s Islamic revolution ushered in its current hardline government.

“A claim was brought before the Tribunal related to various pieces of artwork Iran contracted to purchase prior to 1979 but which were never delivered to Iran,” the official said. “That claim has now been resolved and the specific pieces of artwork have been transferred to Iran. The same goes for a set of fossils which had been sent to the United States prior to 1979 for studies and were returned to Iran.”

WATCH: Kerry on Gitmo Detainee Who Returned to Terrorism: “He’s Not Supposed to Be Doing That”

Screen Shot 2016-02-26 at 11.29.36 AM

“Well, Senator, he’s not supposed to be doing that. And there are consequences for that, and there will be.” Really? What consequences? The weakness and fecklessness of the Obama administration is open to the world. “But apart from that, the fact is that we’ve got people who’ve been held without charges for 13 years, 14 years in some cases. That’s not American, that’s not how we operate.” They are enemy combatants, as Ibrahim al-Qosi proves. We didn’t charge all the Nazi soldiers we captured, either. This is a war. That is what Kerry and Obama refuse to admit.

“Kerry on Gitmo Detainee Who Returned to Terrorism: ‘He’s Not Supposed to Be Doing That,’” by Aaron Kliegman, Washington Free Beacon, February 24, 2016:

Secretary of State John Kerry lamented Wednesday that a terrorist who the Obama administration released from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay subsequently returned to fight for al Qaeda, telling lawmakers “he’s not supposed to be doing that.”

Appearing before the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Kerry made the statement while testifying about the State Department’s budget request for the fiscal year 2017.

During the hearing, Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) asked Kerry for his thoughts on Ibrahim al Qosi, the former Guantanamo detainee who is now a prominent al Qaeda leader, and had staffers hold up a picture of the terrorist for Kerry to see.

“Let me just ask one question,” Kirk said to Kerry. “I want to show you a picture of Ibrahim al Qosi, who was recently released by the administration to the Sudanese, and he appeared on some al Qaeda videos recruiting people for AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula].”

Kirk went on to say, “Now that he’s out, I would hope we would end the policy of issuing terrorists to terrorist nations, and where they can get out.”

Sudan, where al Qosi was released, has a long history of terrorist activity with Sunni jihadist groups and individuals like al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as well as with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Sudanese government has also been internationally accused of committing genocide in Darfur.

Kerry paused for a moment before saying to Kirk, “Well, Senator, he’s not supposed to be doing that. And there are consequences for that, and there will be. But apart from that, the fact is that we’ve got people who’ve been held without charges for 13 years, 14 years in some cases. That’s not American, that’s not how we operate.”

Al Qosi was an aide to Osama bin Laden when he was taken to Guantanamo in 2002. He was released 10 years later after pleading guilty to war crimes in 2010 and was sent to his native Sudan. Upon the terrorist’s release, his lawyer, Paul Reichler, said al Qosi was looking forward to a quiet life of freedom, but the two never had contact after al Qosi left Guantanamo.

Al Qosi remerged this month as a prominent figure in AQAP propaganda videos calling for the takeover of Saudi Arabia and an end to the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

This recent development came shortly before President Obama announced his plan on Tuesday to close Guantanamo by releasing many of the remaining 91 detainees to foreign countries and transferring the rest to a prison on U.S. soil.

While it is currently illegal to move any of the detainees to the United States, Obama is hoping Congress will change the law so he can implement the policy, although majorities in both houses of Congress oppose the move….

Opponents of the president also point to the fact that the recidivism rate for released detainees who return to the battlefield is 30 percent, citing al Qosi as just one example of many.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/02/kerry-on-gitmo-detainee-who-returned-to-terrorism-hes-not-supposed-to-be-doing-that.html/#sthash.wpwsgTYe.dpuf

Libs DON’T Want You To See 4 Senators Who Filibustered GWB’s Final SCOTUS Pick In ‘06

Screen Shot 2016-02-17 at 11.17.23 AM

BY DEAN JAMES

Liberals are freaking out over the Senate Republicans saying they will block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. They are even going as far as calling us all racists! Nothing new there.

On the same day that news broke about Scalia’s death, several high-profile Republican senators said they would do everything possible to block Obama’s nominee because they think it should be left to the next elected president. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, also said that he would do the same out of fear that whoever Obama nominated would undoubtedly tilt the courts to the left.

Democrats have responded angrily to this by saying it is unconstitutional to block Obama’s nominee. They say that Republicans CAN’T filibuster. Well, take a look at the list of Democrats who voted to filibuster George W. Bush’s final pick for SCOTUS.

Do you notice any familiar names on that list?

Barack Obama voted to filibuster. So did Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry and others voted to block Bush’s nominee.

So, as you can see, the hypocrisy is thick as a brick. There was no problem when the Dems wanted to block Bush. But we are racists for blocking Obama. It’s unbelievable.

Let’s hope and pray that the Republicans stick to their guns and stop Obama from appointing anyone. This is a matter of life and death.

God Bless.

SAUDIS CLAIM TO HAVE NUCLEAR BOMB

Capture

Pakistan has agreed to deliver nuclear weapons to Riyadh

BY KURT NIMMO

Earlier this week a Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arab network the kingdom has a nuclear weapon.

Dahham Al-‘Anzi made the claim while saying Saudi Arabia is engaged in an effort to “minimize the Iranian threat in the Levant and Syria.”

Although Saudi Arabia has officially denied it has a nuclear weapons program and has publicly stated it opposes nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it has funded a military nuclear program and received scientific assistance from the United States and Pakistan.

Despite this cooperation, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Saudis in January there would be “all kinds of NPT consequences” if Riyadh received a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.

The Saudis began financing Pakistan’s atomic weapons project in 1974. “Our achievements are yours,” the Pakistani president, General Zia-ul-Haq, told the Saudis in the 1980s.

In the late 1980s the Saudis secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China. The CSS-2, also known as the Dong Feng, is based on the Russian 9K720 Iskander missile. The intercontinental ballistic missile is designed to carry a 3 megaton nuclear warhead to a distance up to 12,000 kilometers.

“I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan,” said Gary Samore, Obama’s former counter-proliferation adviser.

In 2013 a senior NATO spokesman told the BBC nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are ready to be delivered. In 2009 King Abdullah warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross Saudi Arabia “will get nuclear weapons” if Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program.

Following the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis reasserted their desire to obtain a nuclear weapon.

“I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It’s just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn’t want one, but when India got it, so did they,”said Jamal Khashoggi, the head of a Saudi news channel owned by the Saudi royal family.