The Dangerous Extremists Hiding In Plain View (Guest Post)


In an attempt to crush opposition, the ruling elites and the mainstream media will demonize people who dare to disagree with them as “extremists”. If you disagree with immigration you’re an extremist. If you oppose forcibly imposed multiculturalism you’re an extremist. If you’re against creeping Islamization and the imposition of sharia you’re an extremist. And if you dare to vote for any political party or politician who opposes the established political elite or global governmental organizations such as the European Union or the United Nations, you’re an extremist.

The aim is of course to portray opponents to the established parties and their pernicious social experiments as “right-wing extremists” thus framing them as hated Nazis and Fascists. It’s a devious tactic relying on the ignorance of the masses who’ve been brainwashed into believing that Nazism and Fascism are extreme right-wing ideologies. However, as I explained in a previous article, both Fascism and Nazism are of the left.

So who are the real extremists? On the outside, they’re nowhere near as obvious to spot as Hitler’s Nazis or Mussolini’s Fascists. Today’s dangerous extremists are far more cunning and much less obvious. Gone are the military uniforms and jackboots. Instead, they dress smartly in designer suits, they kiss babies and smile for the cameras and they claim to be champions of the people. They portray themselves as honourable, trustworthy moral crusaders fighting against oppression, discrimination, poverty and injustice.

Hiding behind this manufactured veneer of faux respectability lurks a very different picture. These self-proclaimed fighters against injustice who love to demonize those who have the audacity to oppose them as extremists are anything but honourable representatives of the people. Beyond the anaesthetizing narratives they’re determinedly conducting the most heinous crimes and deceptions ever carried out against a people. As these self-righteous devious authoritarians point an accusing finger at human beings whose only crime is the natural desire to preserve their identities and nations, they are:

1.Deceiving their people on an unprecedented scale. Since the end of the Second World War, the goal of Western ruling elites has been to establish one-world governance whether the people want it or not. In pursuing this long-term aim, power-hungry self-serving Western elites committed one of the grandest deceptions ever committed: The creation of what is now called the European Union. From the outset, this supra-national project was all about political union and the dismantling of Western European states. Not only was this concealed from the people of Europe, European politicians deceived their people into believing the aim was merely to establish a common trading block. And this deception was conducted using taxpayer money! Surrendering sovereignty then forcing people to pay taxes to two governments, one of which is entirely unaccountable, sounds like an extreme act to this author.

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose. But which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” – Jean Monet, Founding Father of the European Union

It’s a similar story with the United Nations. Equally as corrupt as the EU, the UN was sold as an organization to foster peace between nations after the horror of World War Two but is just another ever-growing leviathan pursuing global governance. That delegates from totalitarian states such as the People’s Republic of China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, nations that have no regard for human rights sit on UN human rights commissions tells you all you need to know about how corrupt this nest of vipers has become. In a world where morality has been turned upside down, accusations of extremism levelled at the UN are conspicuous by their absence.

2.Stealing from the people, paying themselves inflated salaries and awarding themselves all manner of expenses. In Great Britain, the expenses scandal exposed the contempt Members of Parliament hold for the British people. In addition to claiming expenses for essentials such as cleaning a moat and renting pornographic videos, MPs were also playing the housing market using taxpayer money. One can’t help but wonder why the British people don’t regard this outrageous abuse of taxpayers as “extreme.”

In the United States, the principle of government of the people, for the people, by the people, has been abandoned. Half of congress members are millionaires and surprisingly, there are more Democrat millionaires than Republican. As George Orwell rightly stated, some animals are more equal than others. Corruption in Congress is rife and instead of serving the best interests of the people, US politicians now serve the interests of powerful corporations. The Third Way, a merger of state and corporate power pioneered by Benito Mussolini, is alive and kicking in the home of the free but don’t expect anyone to call it extreme. Only patriots who oppose this perversion of democracy are the real fascists.

3.Implementing punitive taxation then redistributing this wealth of the people to a gamut of foreign governments via foreign aid. Recipients of this largesse include rogue governments such as Pakistan, Sudan, Colombia, Palestinian Authority, globalist organizations especially the UN and the EU and the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. Even failed, criminal banksters were bailed out by Western governments using taxpayer money. Welcome to corporate welfare! This was an act of Fascism committed in plain view but most Westerners were completely unaware of it. They didn’t seem to understand the message their rulers sent them either: If you fail, you pay. If banks and corporations fail, you pay. It’s like a game of Russian roulette but the gun is only ever pointed at the heads of the people.

Is bailing out failed, private – and in many cases, criminal – corporations with taxpayer cash acceptable or is it extreme? You tell me.

4.Refusing to protect and enforce borders and importing millions of aliens from the third world. Legally or illegally it matters not a jot. In doing so, Western governments are deliberately diluting the identities and cultures of their nations. The invasion is paid for by honest, law-abiding citizens who are paying for their own towns and cities to be colonized. Furthermore, these aliens will be allowed to vote and will of course vote for the elites who are importing them and handing them all manner of benefits. Such actions amount to the most appalling, may I say “extreme”? – acts of gerrymandering ever committed. And to add insult to injury, the elite “champions of the people and fighters for justice” impose punitive laws to enforce “positive discrimination” and put the interests of immigrants above the interests of the native population. But passing laws that demonize and criminalize your own people, disgracefully judging them to be guilty of the Orwellian thought-crime of racism by default isn’t extreme oh no. Patriots who refuse to cooperate with the surrender of their territory and with it their own gradual demise are the real extremists.

5.Waging a stealth war to dismantle the family unit. Sex education programs in schools promote promiscuity and pornography. The aim is to make marriage undesirable by encouraging women to place hedonism and a career above having a family. Feminist narratives are propagated in the mainstream media to portray men as women-haters who have abused women for centuries. Divorce is big business throughout the West with the goal being to remove the father from the family. Quickie divorces are now common, so much for the principle of upholding contracts. Instead of helping couples stay together, divorce laws make it easy for the family to be broken. This assault on the traditional family unit has resulted in such low birth rates, many Western countries are simply not breeding sufficiently to replace themselves and maintain the culture.

6. Aborting millions of healthy but unwanted babies. Eugenics, the practice of deciding who has the right to life is a alive and kicking in Western nations just as it was in Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Germany. By allowing women the legal right to murder their unwanted healthy babies, the fighters against oppression and injustice have relegated these most vulnerable of human beings as “untermenschen.” Their only crime is to live in the womb of their mothers but because they’re inconvenient, they lose the right to be treated as human beings and can be disposed of in the trash. Since abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973, over 55 million babies have been aborted. Such mass murder of innocents isn’t extreme though, the real extremists are the ones who oppose this holocaust of the innocents.

7.Importing millions of Muslims into their nations and are demanding the people tolerate Islam, an extremist religion which has waged non-stop jihad against unbelievers across all faiths since 622. It’s one of the greatest betrayals ever committed in Western history and the consequences have been beyond dire.

Islamic practices such as women being forced to wear hijabs, female genital mutilation, child brides , honour killings and halal ritual slaughter of animals all common in Islamic states have now been imported into a civilized society where these inhumane, cruel practices had ended long ago. It’s important to remember that the first victims of Islam are Muslims, especially women and girls.

Devout Muslim males emulating the perfect example of their prophet have brought a rape epidemic to Europe with gang rapes of infidel women being one of the most diabolical strategies of Islamic jihad. Yet those self-aggrandizing elites and their lickspittle lackeys in the media – who claim to fight for women’s rights and equality of the sexes – went to great lengths to cover up these heinous crimes against women. In the British town of Rotherham, it transpired that over 1400 girls had been raped by Muslims and that the government, police and social services had known about it and covered it up for a decade.

What’s that you say? Those responsible should be accountable for betraying those girls? Come on, what are you, some kind of “right-wing extremist?”

As if that wasn’t enough, after the terror attacks on 9/11 in New York, on 7/7 in London, and more recently in Paris in January and November 2015, deadly attacks carried out by jihadists fighting in the cause of Allah that slaughtered thousands of infidels, still the elites who are just as culpable for these atrocities dare to call those who correctly assert that Islam is not a peaceful religion “Islamophobic extremists.” By deceiving their own people about the reality of Islam, I assert they are knowingly and deliberately placing them in grave danger. In a sane society, those committing such a betrayal would be regarded as dangerous extremists.

You’ve just read seven examples of how the ruling elites throughout the West are deceiving their own people. I could add many more, not least the deceptions deployed by Western governments and the mainstream media to justify illegal, murderous wars in Serbia and Iraq. I will leave these deceptions for another time as there isn’t space here to cover them.

Far from being decent, honorable champions of the people fighting for justice and equality, the ruling elites are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’re the new “do as we say, not as we do, we know better than you” self-serving authoritarians who believe the people exist to serve them. They see human beings as guinea pigs and their nations as laboratories fit for conducting pernicious social experiments to mould society as they want it. They certainly don’t exist to serve the people who they deceive with impunity.

Yet somehow the people of the West do not regard the devious politicians and media charlatans as “extremists” and allow themselves to be deceived over and over again. One hopes that one day soon, they will wake up to their own betrayal committed by the real and very dangerous extremists hiding in plain view.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Sooty my bad I thought we were talking about conservatives
I didn’t realize that you were talking only “true” conservatives

You either have a reading deficiency or you have your head up your ass. I quite clearly defined “classical Republican Conservatism” (aka True conservative Republicans) as universally believing in a small, limited, less controlling government. This is the description the vast majority of Conservative Republicans consider as the beliefs of the party’s conservative base. I can not explain it in any simpler terms to meet your comprehension ability.


I view fascism as more a method than an ideology and it usually goes hand in hand with socialism because the fascist methods are necessary to keep people that prefer more freedoms under the government thumb.

As do I. Whether you have establishment “progressives” of either Republican or Democrat affiliation pushing us towards oligarchical-fascism, When you break it down to their end results, there isn’t much difference between the two. (With perhaps the exception of Democrat elites wanting extreme government control in the hands of a few over all facets of our life, or RINO Republicans who more simply want personal profit concentrated at the top with an elite class to rule.) Either way it puts all power and wealth in the hands of an elite social class.

@another vet:

Marx’s writings were done to counter classic liberal economic and political thought, i.e. free markets and small government.

Exactly. IMO, “Constitutional Conservatives” (whom some refer to as “constitutional purists”) view the Constitution as the founders did; with a conservative interpretation regarding the powers granted government, and a liberal interpretation of the freedom and rights reserved by The People. Which is a complete reversal of how Marxists of whatever type view the relationship between government and the people.

I expect we’re wasting our time with John. Some people insist on remaining ignorant.

@Bill, #97:

Your denial of clear and indisputable facts (over 2000 individual facts on Hillary’s serve and hundreds of indisputable Bernie-clad facts in the thug-mobs Soros organized in Chicago) is nothing but blind ideological ignorance.

There’s nothing clear and indisputable about anything, other than that no facts have actually been established. You might as well be asserting that the Easter Bunny exists and that it’s a clear and indisputable fact that 2,000 magic eggs have been found to be in its basket. I’ll need to see both the bunny and the eggs before I’m going to believe it.

Some people have very strong political motivations to be making false claims, while others have a very strong inclination to believe that they’re true. To believe them without a shred of actual evidence is ridiculous.

KKK Leader Endorses Hillary Clinton – Will The Media Attack Her Over It?

“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.

@Greg: Wrong again, Greg. It is a FACT that Hillary had over 2000 classified emails on her secret, private, unsecured server. It is also a FACT that 22 of those are SO sensitive that not even the investigators have the security clearance to view them.

It is a FACT that Hillary LIED about her server and ever having ANY classified information on it. And, it is a FACT that she is the subject of an FBI investigation of her mishandling of classified information.

Lastly, it is a fact that you are in total denial of facts, logic, reason and truth because one cannot accept those and still be a liberal.


I expect we’re wasting our time with John. Some people insist on remaining ignorant.

He did tell me on a another thread that he was taught in school that conservatives were fascists. Hence why people like Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin were able to re-write history to sway their supporters.

@Bill, #104:

Wrong again, Greg. It is a FACT that Hillary had over 2000 classified emails on her secret, private, unsecured server. It is also a FACT that 22 of those are SO sensitive that not even the investigators have the security clearance to view them.

According to whom? Who is the unbiased, totally reliable source of this information?

You’re simply repeating what has been endlessly repeated. It’s propaganda, not factual information. No evidence has been publicly presented. There are no unimpeachable, clearly established facts demonstrating that Clinton is guilty of any unlawful behavior.

The scandal is media fabrication. It’s as real as reality television, much like the GOP’s current most likely presidential nominee. Will the leader of the Duck Dynasty endorse Donald Trump? Inquiring minds want to know.

@Greg: The leader of Duck dynasty has already endorsed Cruz. tsk tsk keep up, happend in January
How could you miss such an election turning, earth shattering event? 😛
Willie, Phils son, is thought to be now shunned.


According to whom?

The State Department. Oh… but what do THEY know?

@John: Who is talking lon term? I don’t suppose your chances of surviving an automobile driven by a drunk smashing into you at 70 mph would afford you much chance of a long term existance. BTW, look up John Lott’s assessment of lives saved by the mere display of a gun. Full disclosure: retired cop, 27 years service.

@Bill: Kool Aid drinkers need a reliable source. The only one they believe is the little man talking in their head.

@Bill, #108:

Oh, right. You’re once again conflating emails that were recently deemed classified by the State Department as a result of the pre-public release screening with material and topics that have been formally classified from the start, owing to their intrinsic, highly sensitive nature.

So, what is it? Are you genuinely unable to make such a distinction, or are you unwilling to acknowledge it because it would expose the stupidity of a politically useful assertion to those not bright enough to figure it out for themselves?

Here’s how the pre-public release screening process works: Anything in Clinton’s email that the State Department does not wish to be plastered all over the internet for everyone in the world to read is being deemed classified by the State Department. Deeming an email to be classified is the only tool they have for that purpose.

There are undoubtedly thousands of internal, high level State Department communications that are best kept private, even though the content doesn’t reveal any formally classified information. This fact should not be difficult to understand.


Oh, right. You’re once again conflating emails that were recently deemed classified by the State Department as a result of the pre-public release screening with material and topics that have been formally classified from the start, owing to their intrinsic, highly sensitive nature.

If the Stated Department deemed it classified the first time they saw it on Hillary’s emails, then it was ALWAYS classified. See, if it is out there floating around in the public sphere, it does not later become classified because, well, everyone already knows about it. You may WANT to classify it, but that would do little good, now wouldn’t it? However, this is information that was ALWAYS classified. Now, why was it not MARKED classified? Well, because Hillary illegally AVOIDED that channel (sending it directly to her closet first) where it WOULD have been marked classified.

Anything in Clinton’s email that the State Department does not wish to be plastered all over the internet for everyone in the world to read is being deemed classified by the State Department.

I wonder, Greg, if you ever actually read the things you write after you have written them. Perhaps you should read them back to yourself OUT LOUD in order to determine if they sound ridiculously stupid, as this does.

I wonder why the State Department, reviewing emails of its own Secretary (found secreted away on a personal, secret, un-seccured server) would deem one of her emails something they did not want everyone to see? OH, I KNOW!!! (pick me, pick me) Because it’s CLASSIFIED!!!

There are undoubtedly thousands of internal, high level State Department communications that are best kept private, even though the content doesn’t reveal any formally classified information.

Indeed there are. In fact, there were over 2000 on Hillary’s private, secret, un-secured server. No doubt, some were mundane items that are simply no one’s business… but just as beyond any doubtful is that some were classified matters of national security, as at least 22 were… so sensitive that even the investigators cannot read them.

But, you know what matters, and is ALL that matters? They were classified and it is illegal to improperly store or distribute classified information. Does the State Department over-classify? Most likely… but that is not Hillary’s call to make, especially AFTER THE FACT.

Greg… Hillary is GUILTY of illegally having classified State Department and national security information on her server. Period. Done. Settled science. End of debate.

All that remains is for sycophantic doting followers to invent new excuses for their own consumption. Everyone else knows the facts.

@Bill, #112:

If the Stated Department deemed it classified the first time they saw it on Hillary’s emails, then it was ALWAYS classified.

That’s about as incorrect as any statement could get.

Owing to a Freedom of Information Act decision, ALL of a recent Secretary of State’s internal electronic communications could become public. The only way the State Department can prevent any particular email from becoming public is by deeming it to be classified as a result of the screening process. They can’t say, “Well there’s really nothing secret, per se, about anything discussed or mentioned in this email, but it’s really much better that it not be read by our friends in (fill in the name of whatever foreign intelligence agency or terrorist organization you wish).” Because of the court order, they’ve got only one tool to work with: deeming a document to be classified.


You are wasting your time with Greg. He is the type of fanatically loyal follower who wouldn’t even accept Hillary’s guilt if she ended-up in an orange pantsuit, in Leavenworth. Greg claims to know how information is classified – except he doesn’t (or is pretending he doesn’t) – as he continually gets the whole concept of how classified information is generated, well, Wrong. Greg is a typical, blindly loyal, ‘useful idiot’ party syncopate. It doesn’t matter that you are correct, Greg will stand there beating his chest and telling you that you have it wrong.

-except you don’t have it wrong. One of my duties in the military was to review and classify military satellite data as it was coming in created, for proper distribution. Data from “civilian” agency spacecraft (NOAA, GOES, etc..) was generally unclassified, (with the notable exception being; data that was part of a collection being assembled for certain government agencies – say, for an investigation – or where that data was being routed in support of a classified mission. Data from the military spacecraft was automatically classified at a specific level, but (depending on the sensitivity of what the data encompasses,) might be classified at a higher level. (For example; space-based photography or videography of military bases exercise or fleet operations, vehicle locations and travel, etc.. might be clearly visible, whereby an analysis of the data might compromise the mission, should that data fall into the wrong hands).

The same is true of the State Department, where the Secretary of State is required to be kept updated with classified information from government email sources. Yet we have in Hillary a SofS who didn’t give a damn about the sensitivity of data or whether it was classified in her arrogantly demanding that the traffic go through her own personal (unapproved and Insecure) server, that wasn’t even in of itself in a secure area. You would have to be some kind of dumb (Greg) to think that the SofS server was secure from hostil nation hackers.

Greg, as a Democrat troll, is either a complete idiot (as he seems to act,) or he is simply pretending to be a moron to run interference for the masters.he serves. Whichever it is, he is only succeeding in making his fellow Democrats appear to be uninformed rubes with their heads firmly inserted in their rectal cavities. (i.e. like John)

@Ditto, #114:

What you’ve just said doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the point made in #113. Would you care to address that point, or do you intend to keep on pretending that what’s obvious to anyone who isn’t as dumb as a box of rocks is totally invisible?

Clinton served 4 years as the nation’s Secretary of State. She was a U.S. Senator for 8 years. She was the politically active wife of a President of the United States for 8 years and the wife of a state governor for nearly 10 years. The concept of what constitutes classified information would not be unfamiliar to her.

Believing that Clinton carelessly mishandled some 2,000 examples of intrinsically classified material while filling one of the nation’s most important executive posts is ludicrous—particularly in the absence of any evidence establishing the actual nature of what has only recently been “deemed classified,” and when the political motive for promoting this sort of bullshit is so obvious that a 10-year-old could figure it out.

Here’s the basic situation: the Democratic Party has two highly competent, well-qualified people contending for nomination. The selection of our candidate will be made in the context of a series of issue-oriented debates and town hall meetings. Whichever is selected—most probably Clinton—will be backed by a unified party.

On the republican side? I can’t quite believe what I’m seeing and hearing.


Owing to a Freedom of Information Act decision, ALL of a recent Secretary of State’s internal electronic communications could become public.

Uh, no. That would be incorrect. If it is indeed classified, it does not have to be released on request. Really, Greg. Come on.

It really doesn’t matter if it is the employee break schedule of the State Department, if those who evaluate information seems it classified, it is classified. It may be ridiculous, but neither you or Hillary get to decide if it can be lackidasically stores or not. The procedure would be to have the classification addressed.

You do make a nice case that Hillary knowingly broke the law, though. Excellent.

What is the State Department’s “political motive” for making Hillary’s emails classified? That needs some explanation.

Hillary is incompetent by virtue of her intentional violation of security rules, in addition to a long list of other disqualifications. Bernie is just flat out incompetent, as exhibited by his socialist ideology. I used to regard his as at least honest, but when he denied that his own followers and supporters were responsible for the fascist shut down of Trump’s rally, he became just another liberal liar.


You see what I mean? Greg throws out these ridiculous claims trying to explain away Hillary’s cavalier treatment of classified information by blaming others. He totally misses the point of what I was saying.

What you’ve just said doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the point made in #113.

Anyone who will potentially handle classified information is trained in how to recognize they are dealing with classified information. Her state department staff were and so was Hillary. They all knew they were passing classified information ‘in the clear; because they received that same training that is required to be given by Federal law. I KNEW when I was handingig classified information and so did they. As you point out, Greg is trying to split hairs and claim that Hillary’s emails were suddenly classified by the State Department ‘because they were going to be released to the public.’ If there were no classified information discussed, then then there there is no reason to withhold the emails from FOIA requests. The only reason why they would need to place classification restrictions and redaction’s on Hillary’s emails, is if they contained classified information.

Greg has himself damned Hillary and her State Department staffers with his own twisted disassembly and he seemingly doesn’t even realize that he did so. Habitual liars like Greg will always eventually paint themselves in a corner.

Numbers for Democrat voters are way down, while those for Republicans are way above average. Some Democrats have quite the party and crossed over to become Republicans because the Democrat candidates are not acceptable to them. Many Democrats are staying home and not voting this primary season for the same reason. The only reason Hillary is doing “so well” is because the Democrat’s Establishment voter base is supporting her, while the radicals amongst the party are supporting Bernie. Until recently the majority of the MSM has evaded covering Hillary’s email scandal (Something they would never do if it were a Republican candidate. The public has also finally come to the realization that the MSM is also corrupt has it’s own agenda and is not to be trusted.

@Bill, #116:

Uh, no. That would be incorrect. If it is indeed classified, it does not have to be released on request. Really, Greg. Come on.

As the man said…

That’s the very FOIA loophole the State Department is utilizing in the review of some 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton has turned over for inspection and release. The State Department can “deem classified” anything that they don’t want plastered all over the internet for all the world to see.

None of the items in question had been classified to begin with. Formally classified material would have been handled through other designated channels. Some 1,200 to 2,000 items from the other 55,000-page collection have recently become classified, however. This is hardly surprising. Were this not done, every unclassified item of internal State Department communication that passed through a recent Secretary of State’s hands would suddenly be available for in depth, collective analysis.

There’s a large category of such unclassified items that’s officially designated by U.S. security protocol as “Sensitive but Unclassified.” That very designation clearly indicates the existence of unclassified material that you still don’t want to be exposed. There’s another large category of unclassified items designated as “For Official Use Only.” That could involve things like unclassified but sensitive internal procedures that you don’t want to become common knowledge. Neither category contains official state secrets, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a goldmine of useful information for terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence analysts.


None of the items in question had been classified to begin with.

Greg. Really. Come on, man! Of COURSE none were classified to begin with… they were never channeled through the process to BE classified. The information, classified at birth, went directly to Hillary’s bathroom server. Do you think she would call a State Department official over to her mansion to classify it there?

Why did she HAVE the secret, private, unsecured server in the first place, Greg? You buying that “two devices” story?

Some 1,200 to 2,000 items from the other 55,000-page collection have become classified, however.

Yeah. As soon as Hillary’s emails were finally seen by officials!

Funny thing is, by not keeping all the communications on a government run and maintained server she broke the law classified or not. Why are they messing about? Charge her with that. Her personal stuff about the wedding and love tweets to Bill could have gone through G mail. She in effect has extended investigations into her charity, must have been something in the emails or her handling of State dept funds that pointed the FBI in that direction.

@kitt, #120:

Funny thing is, by not keeping all the communications on a government run and maintained server she broke the law classified or not.

No, she didn’t break the law. There was no law or regulation at the time that made it unlawful to use a non-governmental server in the manner that she used it. That came about after her time in office.

Official State Department electronic communications were routinely transmitted outside the context of secured government channels during the tenures of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as well. The Bush administration famously conduced official business through private email servers owned by the Republican National Committee. This is all common knowledge.

Some 1,200 to 2,000 items from the other 55,000-page collection have become classified, however.

Yeah. As soon as Hillary’s emails were finally seen by officials!

The very reason they were looking at them in the first place was to screen them before their release for public examination. When routine high level internal communications intended to be private are about to be posted publicly for all the world to see, the guidelines defining what you want to classify suddenly become much tighter. It’s the State Department’s logical response to the assumption of their privacy suddenly being eliminated by court order. It’s actually their only available response. Either you “deem to be classifed,” or the document goes public.

@Greg: There was no law or regulation at the time that made it unlawful to use a non-governmental server in the manner that she used it. That came about after her time in office.

Gosh, Greg… waddaya suppose brought THAT on? Maybe Hillary’s server?

When routine high level internal communications intended to be private are about to be posted publicly for all the world to see, the criteria for you want to classify suddenly becomes much tighter.

Ahmmmmm… you used the “C” word. In other words, it was classified information. Which is what you just admitted. “Information you want to classify” is the same as “classified information”.

I swear, Greg… while arguing with you, I can actually let my brain rest. This is EASY!

Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records (18 USC 2071)
Theft of Government Property (18 USC 641)
Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended, 44 USC chapters 21, 29, 31, and 33 (including Preservation, Arrangement, Duplication, Exhibition of Records, Records Management by the Archivist of the United States, Records Management by Federal Agencies, Disposal of Records)
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 USC 484(k)(3) and (4))
Freedom of Information Act of 1974, as amended (5 USC 552)
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a)
Just because its electronic does not mean it is not a record.
She set up the private server the day she was sworn in.

@kitt: Yeah, but that was always intended only to apply to non-Hillary persons.

@Bill, #123:

I swear, Greg… while arguing with you, I can actually let my brain rest. This is EASY!

Maybe you should double check to see whose brain is actually in neutral.

The reason there’s not much coverage of the Clinton email scandal at this point, except on right-leaning media outlets, is because people have drawn their conclusions and ceased wasting their time following the story. The evidence everybody was waiting for never materialized. That’s because it wasn’t there in the first place.

The reason the law changed is because we’ve all become increasingly aware of the vulnerability of electronic files, communications, and control systems. My damn car can now be electronically tracked and listened in on, courtesy of an onboard OnStar voice communication system that wasn’t even optional. That remains the case even if you’ve opted out of the free trial period or declined to renew your service. You’d have to locate and disconnect the module to shut it down. If you snap a photograph, it may very well have a hidden embedded file revealing the time, date, and geographical coordinates it was taken at. (A good thing to remember if you’re posting photos to the internet.) The times have been rapidly changing. A lot of people have found themselves playing catch-up. That includes federal, state, county, and municipal governments.

@Greg: No, the reason there is not universal coverage of her incompetence, criminal behavior and corruption is because the majority of the media are corrupt liberals just like Hillary. That’s not too difficult to figure out.

Hillary illegally stored classified information improperly. Period.

Handing of classified documents

18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

US Code § 1924

§ 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than
one year, or both.

Electronic documents, are still documents. Transmission includes electronic transmission.

§ 3105. Safeguards
The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency—
(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301–3314 of this title,

(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1298; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, § 107(b)(22), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2290.)

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

46 CFR 503.59 – Safeguarding classified information.

§ 503.59 Safeguarding classified information.
(a) All classified information shall be afforded a level of protection against unauthorized disclosure commensurate with its level of classification.
(b) Whenever classified material is removed from a storage facility, such material shall not be left unattended and shall be protected by attaching an appropriate classified document cover sheet to each classified document.
(c) Classified information being transmitted from one Commission office to another shall be protected with a classified document cover sheet and hand delivered by an appropriately cleared person to another appropriately cleared person.
(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:
(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and
(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.
(e) The requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information, may be waived for persons who:
(1) Are engaged in historical research projects, or
(2) Previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.
(f) Waivers under paragraph (e) of this section may be granted when the Commission Senior Agency Official:
(1) Determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;
(2) Takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is properly safeguarded; and
(3) Limits the access granted to former presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a presidential appointee.
(g) Persons seeking access to classified information in accordance with paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must agree in writing:
(1) To be subject to a national security check;
(2) To protect the classified information in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 13526; and
(3) Not to publish or otherwise reveal to unauthorized persons any classified information.
(h) Except as authorized by the originating agency, or otherwise provided for by directives issued by the President, the Commission shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency.
(i) Only appropriately cleared personnel may receive, transmit, and maintain current access and accountability records for classified material.
(j) Each office which has custody of classified material shall maintain:
(1) A classified document register or log containing a listing of all classified holdings, and
(2) A classified document destruction register or log containing the title and date of all classified documents that have been destroyed.
(k) An inventory of all documents classified higher than confidential shall be made at least annually and whenever there is a change in classified document custodians. The Senior Agency Official shall be notified, in writing, of the results of each inventory.
(l) Reproduced copies of classified documents are subject to the same accountability and controls as the original documents.
(m) Combinations to dial-type locks shall be changed only by persons having an appropriate security clearance, and shall be changed whenever such equipment is placed in use; whenever a person knowing the combination no longer requires access to the combination; whenever a combination has been subject to possible compromise; whenever the equipment is taken out of service; and at least once each year. Records of combinations shall be classified no lower than the highest level of classified information to be stored in the security equipment concerned. One copy of the record of each combination shall be provided to the Senior Agency Official.
(n) Individuals charged with the custody of classified information shall conduct the necessary inspections within their areas to insure adherence to procedural safeguards prescribed to protect classified information. The Commission Senior Agency Official shall conduct periodic inspections to determine if the procedural safeguards prescribed in this subpart are in effect at all times.
(o) Whenever classified material is to be transmitted outside the Commission, the custodian of the classified material shall contact the Commission Senior Agency Official for preparation and receipting instructions. If the material is to be hand carried, the Senior Agency Official shall ensure that the person who will carry the material has the appropriate security clearance, is knowledgeable of safeguarding requirements, and is briefed, if appropriate, concerning restrictions with respect to carrying classified material on commercial carriers.
(p) Any person having access to and possession of classified information is responsible for protecting it from persons not authorized access to it, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities, whenever it is not under the direct supervision of authorized persons.
(q) Employees of the Commission shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation, if they:
(1) Knowingly, willfully, or negligently disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders;
(2) Knowingly and willfully classify or continue the classification of information in violation of Executive Order 13526 or any implementing directive; or
(3) Knowingly and willfully violate any other provision of Executive Order 13526 or implementing directive.
(r) Any person who discovers or believes that a classified document is lost or compromised shall immediately report the circumstances to his or her supervisor and the Commission Senior Agency Official, who shall conduct an immediate inquiry into the matter.
(s) Questions with respect to the Commission Information Security Program, particularly those concerning the classification, declassification, downgrading, and safeguarding of classified information, shall be directed to the Commission Senior Agency Official.

@Bill:Are you saying she stored classified materials illegally AND improperly..
My Gawd

@Richard Wheeler: Yeah, nowadays breaches in our national security is a real laugh riot, isn’t it? A real comedy cavalcade. Glad it entertains you.

Illegally, as it is illegal to take classified information and store it in an unauthorized location and improperly because the government was not able to secure her secret, private, unsecured server.

Enjoy your joke. I’m sure those intelligence assets whose names were zipped about by Hillary and her gang are highly amused.

@Bill: St Patty’s Day humor.–today I’m serious
Can you believe how that damn lame stream media is handing the nom. to Trump? Many millions in free advertising from his stalkers.
Keep banging on HRC—I’ll work Trump.
As David says “God help us if either get elected.”

@Richard Wheeler: Yes, I can absolutely believe it. They are trying, as they do with any non-liberal candidate, to destroy him but it appears every attempt on strengthens his support. Their failure also shows that candidates that are not reliant on outside funding do not have to fear the media; the electorate is beginning to finally see through the propaganda.

In other cases, the media attacks scares off the funding which silences the candidate.

@Ditto, #129:

Are you also intending to prosecute Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and just about everyone comprising the Bush administration, or is your understanding of that applicable only to Hillary Clinton?

I’m guessing in their cases you probably wouldn’t get much beyond a discussion of “knowingly and willfully.”

Maybe the GOP should take a time out on the email server and get back to another Benghazi investigation.

Or maybe they should find someone other than Donald Trump to offer voters as an alternative to Hillary Clinton.

@Bill: “Destroy him” Are you kidding-They’ve made him.. Who gives front page to all his foolishness?
Will they give the same coverage to a more qualified yet less bombastic Kasich?

@Greg: Did they have classified information on their emails, like Hillary did? If so, apply the same rules. Or, apply the same rules to General Petraeus as are applied to Hillary, reverse his conviction, return his fines and lie and make excuses for his failure.

@Richard Wheeler: Are you trying to suggest that the media is SUPPORTING Trump?

@Bill: They are tacitly supporting by supplying so much coverage—They report what Trump says and does 24/7 Some like Trump’s shtick–you, Nan and Petercat—some don’t –myself Ret05 and David
I’d like to see them start to cover Gov. Kasich–He’s moved up in recent national polls.

@Richard Wheeler:

They are tacitly supporting by supplying so much coverage—They report what Trump says and does 24/7

Exactly. However, they are not doing this to SUPPORT him. For instance, why would the media continue to report his hatred of immigrants when that was never what he said? Or, that he opposes Muslim immigration? How about the coverage of the attack on his rally, making HIM responsible for the violence inflicted upon his followers? Or, CNN giving a one on one interview with the nutjob that tried to attack him? Sure, it all works out to benefit him, but by no means is that the intention of the corrupt left wing media.

I’m not sure I have ever indicated I like Trump’s “shtick”. All I do is honestly discuss what he does and how the left (and some Republicans) treat him. However, I do not begin from a point of hatred… as you do. Given the choice of Trump or Hillary or Bernie, it’s Trump. That is an absolute no-brainer. My CHOICE is Cruz, but I am almost certain Trump will be the nominee.

Kasich is a good man but no match for Hillary. As was the case with McCain/Obama or Romney/Obama, it will be a dirty, knock down, drag out fight and Kasich is not up to it. Cruz is, but Trump is more so. And what’s more in favor of Trump, he is (or has been) immune to the media bias.

Why these ranking Republicans want to oppose Trump because he is not “conservative” baffles me… THEY aren’t conservative.