Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category
It isn’t a secret that the media has seen protecting President Obama and Hillary Clinton as one of their primary responsibilities. Still, it’s stunning that it’s outdone itself with this Miami Herald editorial.
With regards to absolving Hillary of all wrongdoing, it created a preposterous argument, saying “Yes, it found a series of failings by the national security bureaucracy, but here’s what else it did: Cleared former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of the absurd accusation that she somehow knew about the attack on the diplomatic compound in Libya before it happened and did nothing about it.” That’s breathtakingly dishonest. I’ve followed this story for almost 4 years. In that time, I’ve never heard anyone accuse Mrs. Clinton of knowing “about the attack on the diplomatic compound before it happened and did nothing about it.”
What has happened is that people accused Mrs. Clinton of not acting on repeated requests from Christopher Stevens for additional security. Then as now, Democrats have insisted that the cables, many of them labeled as urgent, never were brought to Mrs. Clinton’s attention. Then as now, nobody outside of her inner circle believes her. That’s why her honest and trustworthy numbers stink.
This part really stinks:
The GOP-led committee’s desire to find evidence of malfeasance by Ms. Clinton to support all the conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi went unfulfilled. Had there been real facts to support it, surely this committee would have found it.
First, the thing that sets Benghazi apart from other tragic events is the relative scarcity of conspiracy theories of what happened that night. Next, this article highlights the evidence showing the utter incompetence of Mrs. Clinton and the disinterest shown by President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:
The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:
- Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
- With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
- The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
- A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
- None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
- The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]
How can a patriotic American read that information and not be infuriated? That the Miami Herald read that and dismissed it says that a) there aren’t any patriots on the Miami Herald’s Editorial Board and b) the Miami Herald’s Editorial Board can’t be trusted to offer insightful, honest opinions about the biggest events of our time. That’s how it can say this with a straight face:
The report, a product of the longest Congressional investigation in memory on possible wrongdoing in the executive branch, longer than Watergate or 9/11, went a bit further and deeper than the earlier ones, but the general outline was already known.
TRANSLATION: This report was far more detailed than the other ‘investigations’ but we the media have already determined the narrative we’re going to push. If it conflicts with the truth, then the truth be damned. It’s the narrative, damn it.
Watch Andrea Mitchell’s interview of Chairman Gowdy. Then tell me his committee didn’t uncover important new information:
If this plethora of new information doesn’t constitute important new information, what would constitute something new and important?
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Christopher Stevens, Benghazi Terrorist Attack, Leon Panetta, Barack Obama, Miami Herald Editorial Board, Media Bias, Trey Gowdy, House Select Committee on Benghazi, Benghazi Report
Glenn Reynolds’ USA Today article highlights some points of peril that elitists haven’t paid attention to.
In the opening paragraph to his article, Reynolds writes “So the post-Brexit number-crunching is over and it turns out that the decisive support for Britain’s leaving the EU came not from right-wing nationalists but from working-class Labour voters. This offers some lessons for British and European politicians — and for us in America, too.”
This is potentially significant if you’re Hillary Clinton. The American equivalent to Labour voters are what used to be called Reagan Democrats. Eventually, they stopped being Democrats because the Democratic Party stopped being the party of the little guy. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were the first unabashed friends of ‘Too Big To Fail’ banks. Later, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama caught on and started cashing in with Wall Street.
Meanwhile, it’s impossible to highlight this part of Dr. Reynolds’ article too much:
The result, Mandler writes, is that “For the rest of the country has felt more and more excluded, not only from participation in the creativity and prosperity of London, but more crucially from power. . . . A majority of people around the United Kingdom are feeling like non-people, un-citizens, their lives jerked about like marionettes by wire-pullers far away. In those circumstances, very bad things indeed can be expected.”
Given a chance, these people seized an opportunity to give the wires a yank of their own. A lot of people felt powerless, and the political system not only didn’t address that, but seemed to glory in it.
These Brits’ votes were their way of saying this:
It was their opportunity to tell their country’s elites that they weren’t going to get talked down to anymore. Think of it as the British people’s visceral reaction to the elitists’ control over their lives.
America, of course, faces the same kind of division, as Dana Loesch writes in her new book, Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run A Country You’ve Never Been To. Every once in a while, she notes, a publisher or a newspaper from a coastal city will send a reporter, like an intrepid African explorer of the 19th century, to report on the odd beliefs and doings of the inhabitants of the interior. But even the politicians who represent Flyover Country tend to spend most of their time, and, crucially, their post-elective careers, in Washington, DC.
Simply put, DC and New York have viewed Heartlanders like aliens from outer space. They’re insulated from reality. While he was a presidential candidate, Gov. Walker had it right when he called Washington, DC “68 square miles surrounded by reality.”
Whether Heartlanders experience their own version of Brexit remains to be seen. Is it possible? Without question. Will it happen? I’m hoping.
Greg Gutfeld has a theory about Orlando. Unfortunately, it’s a depressing theory. The silver lining to society’s dark cloud is that it’s possible, albeit a longshot, to change things.
The turning point will happen when we answer some important questions in unison. Right now, we’re nowhere close to that point. Don’t think in-the-next-town-over distant. I’m thinking the-next-solar-system-over-then-hang-a-left distant. Gutfeld lays it out with this illustration: “We quarrel about the quarrel. We cannot agree on the fight. And therefore we cannot begin to fight. Instead, we are like that proverbial snake that devours its own tail. Except, we think it’s sushi. But it’s blowfish. You get the idea. We’re dead.”
Then Mr. Gutfeld applies that illustration to the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, saying “How can America defeat ISIS if we have vocal factions believing that we are worse? How can we fight the enemy if a large portion of our population thinks an inanimate object, a gun, caused Orlando?”
Mr. Gutfeld’s logic is indisputable. Yesterday in the Senate, they debated 4 gun control bills. Each bill predictably failed on (more-or-less) party line votes. Last night, I wrote this article to highlight how ideologically blind the Left is about guns and terrorism. In the article, I quote Sen. Franken as saying “I will continue to do everything I can to disarm hate and get these measures passed into law despite today’s setback.” I reject Sen. Franken’s belief that he’s done everything he could to “disarm hate” because he hasn’t done a thing to annihilate ISIS. Greg Gutfeld has another illustration that might break the logjam:
As I said earlier, Dr. Gutfeld’s logic is indisputably correct. Therein lies the bigger problem. The first problem identified is an identification problem: was Orlando a gun problem or a terrorist problem? That’s the first problem but yesterday’s Senate votes expose the bigger problem. It’s impossible to persuade people who don’t apply logic in their decision-making. Picture this hypothetical conversation:
FBI Agent: Did the terrorist have a gun?
Night Club Witness: Al-Qa’ida is on the run. GM is alive but bin Laden is dead.
FBI Agent: Sir, the terrorist called 9-1-1 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Night Club Witness: We need more gun control laws.
FBI Agent (getting impatient): Sir, witnesses said the terrorist used an assault rifle. Can you confirm that?
Night Club Witness: The Religious Right is responsible for all the hate speech.
FBI Agent: Thanks for your time.
Here’s the next logical question for gun grabbers: What’s the right number of gun control laws to protect people? 1? 12? 123? What’s the right number of laws that would protect citizens from terrorists? This picture says it all:
As long as we have to deal with logic-resistant Democrats, we won’t be able to defeat ISIS.
The deadly Orlando night club shooting represents the Democrats’ worst PR and policy nightmare. They’re forced to defend members of the LGBT community or whether they’ll admit that a radicalized Islamic terrorist killed gays because of their sexual orientation. Predictably, President Obama chose an alternate route, focusing attention on guns, not the shooter. During his speech, he said “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”
Some of the far left websites took it a step further. ThinkProgress published a photo of gun, with the caption reading “This is the gun that committed the deadliest shooting in U.S. history.”
Ted Cruz asked cut through the Democrats’ background noise, saying in this statement “For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn’t share their faith or sexual orientation. If you’re a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.”
It’s time for Democrats to finally make a decision. There isn’t a fence to sit on with this. There isn’t any middle ground to find. This is a binary choice. Democrats either can support the LGBT community or they can quietly say nothing. When President Obama tried putting the onus on gun control, he said “we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”
Mr. President, not addressing radicalized Islamic jihad is a decision, too. The question is whether President Obama, Mrs. Clinton or other Democrats have the character to identify the terrorists. Based on ThinkProgress’s picture, I’m betting they won’t be profiles in courage.
While writing this op-ed for Trumpbart, David Horowitz slipped back into his fascist-progressive habits that he learned from his parents growing up.
That’s when Horowitz learned that the fastest way to shut down a debate was to call the other person a racist or a bigot or some other pejorative. In this instance, Horowitz insisted that Bill Kristol’s argument that Trump isn’t equipped for the job is proof of Kristol’s betrayal of America. With that fascist taunt, Horowitz must hope he isn’t challenged. I’ll just say this: dreams die hard. I’m perfectly willing to challenge Horowitz’ thinking, if it can be called that.
For example, Horowitz wrote that David Brooks’ column was proof of Trump Derangement Syndrome, adding that “This is a perfect instance of ‘Trump derangement syndrome,’ the underlying animus that motivates Kristol and his destructive cohorts. Dismissing Trump as an ignoramus and a stunted twelve-year-old is the stuff of schoolyard put-downs, not a serious critique of someone with Trump’s considerable achievements. Yet this is typical of Trump’s diehard opponents on the right.”
Frankly, Trump’s understanding of public policy and his utter disrespect for this nation’s laws and our Constitution make him a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. Candidate Trump has repeatedly frozen out media outlets who haven’t praised him sufficiently. When Trump questioned Sen. McCain’s patriotism, the Des Moines Register wrote an editorial calling for Mr. Trump to resign. The next time he was in Iowa, his campaign wouldn’t permit the Des Moines Register’s Katie Obradovich into his event.
The Founding Fathers, the greatest collection of political leaders in the history of the world, wrote that free speech was essential to society and that political speech was to be the most protected speech of all. Trump thinks it’s more important for the press to stroke his ego.
That trait alone disqualifies him from office. That’s why I’m still #NeverTrump. Some things, like brushing aside the Constitution, aren’t just about politics. It’s about saying political victories aren’t sufficient when a tyrant wants to destroy the things that made America the greatest nation on earth.
Is Trump more unprepared than Barack Obama whose qualification for the presidency was a lifetime career as a left-wing agitator? And how did that work out? Despite the lacunae in his executive resume, Obama is now regarded as “one of the most consequential presidents in American history” by reasonably qualified experts.
At best, Trump is just as unqualified to be president as President Obama was. Further, saying that President Obama is “one of the most consequential presidents in American history” isn’t praising him. There are lots of despots who’ve been consequential. That doesn’t make we should elect another despot to replace him.
Can Trump be reasonably criticized, and is he something of a loose cannon? Of course he can, and yes he is. But criticisms that focus exclusively on the candidate miss the larger reality of this election, which is not merely a contest between two candidates but a clash between two parties and constituencies with radically differing views of what this country is and should be about, and even more importantly about the threats we face and how to deal with them.
What BS. Trump vs. Hillary isn’t “a clash between two parties and constituencies with radically differing views of what this country is and should be about.” They’re opposite sides of the same coin. They both think that the rules don’t apply to them. They both think that they’re entitled to ignore this nation’s laws and our Constitution because they’re entitled.
Finally, useful idiots like Laura Ingraham, Charles Hurt and Eric Bolling have been telling us about how America is going through a populist moment. That’s true. They insist that Trump is the right man for the job. They never talk about Trump’s qualifications, though. Their silence is deafening. Mr. Trump’s understanding of policy really is like a 12-year-old’s.
Jim Geraghty’s post, titled If You’re Explaining, You Los- Eh, No, Wait, You’re Doing Your Job., demolishes Donald Trump’s fanatical rant that voters were disenfranchised. When Geraghty wrote “You vote for delegates at your precinct March 1; the delegates you elect vote among themselves for delegates to district and statewide conventions; at the district and statewide conventions, those delegates vote on who goes to Cleveland. Boom. Done.” he gutted Trump’s whining complaints with the greatest of ease.
Still, I’d add that Trump’s done something much more disgusting than just lie about the process. By saying that “one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined,” Trump essentially said that the 65,000 people that participated in Colorado’s precinct caucuses on March 1 don’t count as real Republicans. Shame on Mr. Trump. They did something he wasn’t willing to do. They participated in the political process. They didn’t just whine about how awful America is. They stepped forward. They offered solutions for fixing the mess left by 8 years of Barack Obama. By now, they’re working hard getting legislative and congressional candidates elected.
By comparison, Mr. Trump has flown around the country, held rallies where he complained about being treated unfairly, told people that they should punch protesters if they acted up and bragged about how he’s doing in the polls.
If saying outrageous things and lying are qualifications for being president, talk radio is filled with qualified presidential candidates.
Mr. Trump complains about the power brokers who’ve rigged the game in their favor while pretending to fight for working people. That’s another myth worth dispelling. Trump is for Trump. Period. If Trump cared about voters, he wouldn’t be disparaging them for their participation in the political process. Why isn’t he working as hard as they are in getting conservatives elected?
If Trump wants to make America great again, here’s a suggestion: don’t contribute to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Here’s another suggestion: stop supporting single-payer health care. Stop supporting tax increases. Stop supporting economic isolationism.
Comparatively speaking, Trump isn’t a patriot. In fact, Trump doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of patriot:
- a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
- a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
Standing behind a podium and complaining isn’t defending “his nation and its interests with devotion.” That’s what whiners do. Here’s the definition of whiner:
to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way
It’s stunning that a man who’s received $2,000,000,000+ worth of free air time on TV and radio think that he’s being mistreated.
When Trump isn’t bragging about how good he’s doing in the polls, he’s complaining about getting mistreated. I can’t wait until we don’t have to deal with Trump’s complaining.
Comparing the GOP activists in Colorado with Trump isn’t fair. The activists work hard to make America the best it can possibly be. Trump complains, then passes the buck for his lack of leadership.
Based on what his campaign manager just said, Rick Nolan isn’t living in northern Minnesota. Based on Joe Radinovich’s statement, it’s more likely that Nolan’s current neighbors include the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and some unicorns.
After the Tarrance Group released its first poll of the campaign, Radinovich said “The real takeaway from this poll and others we’ve seen is that, despite seemingly favorable conditions for Republicans, Congressman Nolan’s integrity, effectiveness and strong leadership is recognized by voters across the district and is reflected in his strong performance in this and other polls.”
Radinovich’s statements show that the Nolan campaign will rely on class warfare to win again. Radinovich also said “This poll also seems to show that voters remember Stewart Mills III and his support for tax breaks for the wealthy, while also believing that Congress should be ‘putting all options on the table’ when it comes to Social Security. Even in favorable conditions for Republicans, Mills can’t buy a lead.”
The poll that Radinovich is talking about shows some interesting things. For starters, it “has Nolan with 49 percent and Mills at 46 percent.” It also shows this:
The survey also showed 8th District voters supporting both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton — Cruz by 49 percent to 40 percent and Trump 43 percent to 40 percent.
This isn’t good news for Hillary but it isn’t surprising either. This isn’t a tangential issue, either. If Cruz is the nominee and he’s able to maintain this lead, Nolan would have to run 10 points better than Hillary. That’s a daunting task for any candidate.
Put differently, if the presidential race tightens, which is inevitable, to a 5-point Cruz lead, Nolan would have to run 5 points better than Hillary. Another way of looking at it is to say Hillary will be a drag on Nolan.
Leon Wolf’s post over at RedState highlights Donald Trump’s pampered mentality. The newest argument that they’re making is that their voters will have been disenfranchised if he’s the leading vote-getter in the primaries and caucuses but doesn’t get the nomination.
Trump’s argument, as stated on CNN, is that “I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but if we didn’t and we’re 20 votes short, or we’re, you know, a hundred short, and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, ’cause we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say we don’t get it automatically. I think you’d have riots”, adding “if you disenfranchise those people … I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before.”
RedState states things exceptionally clearly, stating “this is very simple; the RNC’s rules very clearly state – as they have from the beginning – that you have to have a majority of delegates in order to win the nomination. If no candidate gets that majority on the first ballot, then there’s a process for selecting a nominee that leaves the ballot results behind. There’s no rule that says that the top delegate-getter in the first ballot has to be the choice; if there were such a rule, then whoever got a plurality of the delegates would just automatically win per the rules.”
It isn’t like Trump hasn’t known this from the start. He’s known it. What’s happening is that Trump thought he didn’t have to build a campaign organization, that his fame would carry him to the nomination. That still might happen but Trump’s definitely discovering some challenges now that the field has finally narrowed.
Imagine that Hillary gets 230 electoral votes, Trump gets 170, and Perry gets 140. The election would then go to the House of Representatives. If they chose Trump, then Hillary’s voters haven’t been “disenfranchised.” There just weren’t enough of them for her to win the election per the clearly stated rules.
Without question, Hillary’s people would complain but that’s life. The Constitution spells things out clearly. For someone to be elected president, they need a majority of electoral votes. If nobody gets a majority, then the House of Representatives decides the election.
This article isn’t surprising. What’s unfortunate is that the Democratic Party insists that they’re for campaign finance reform while taking tons of money from the special interests that they publicly criticize. This year, they aren’t even letting the democratic process determine their party’s presidential nominee.
Let’s stipulate something at the outset. Both political parties use superdelegates to determine their party’s presidential nominee. This article does a great job of explaining how superdelegates work in the Democratic and Republican parties. For instance, in “the Democratic Party, you’re a superdelegate if you’re a member of the official party apparatus. That includes all current Democratic governors and members of Congress as well as former presidents, former vice presidents, state party chairs, and that sort of thing. In the Democratic Party, superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they wish regardless of how the state that they come from votes, and in total, superdelegates comprise about 15 percent of the total delegates that determine the nomination.”
That explains how Hillary has a 350 delegate lead over Bernie Sanders even though they tied in Iowa and Sanders annihilated Hillary in New Hampshire. It’s a different story for superdelegates in the GOP:
The more important distinction, though, is that Republican superdelegates do not have the freedom to vote for whichever candidate they please. The national Republican Party ruled in 2015 that their superdelegates must vote for the candidate that their state voted for, and that’s the biggest difference between Republican and Democratic superdelegates.
Potentially, there are further complications for the DNC and their presidential nominee:
Like Ms. Clinton, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also accepts money from super PACs and corporate interests. Given Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s campaign financing strategies—in conjunction with the virtual bankruptcy the DNC is facing under her leadership—the rescinding of the ban on donations from federal lobbyists and super PACs should come as no surprise, but what it demonstrates is still sobering. Special interests have undermined the trust between the government and the American people to the extent that public outcry against corporate influences are resulting in regressing policies for campaign finance reform. As Mr. Sanders leads calls for politicians to ethically rid themselves of ties to wealthy individuals and corporations, the Democratic Establishment is doing everything possible to inoculate themselves from those calls to action.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz isn’t just corrupt. She’s inept, too. It isn’t just her fault, though. The Democratic Party is a dying party. That’s why their presidential candidates are both fossils. Many of their younger politicians have gotten defeated in 2010 and 2014.
During those GOP landslides, Democrats lost tons of seats in Congress, the US Senate and in state legislatures. Their bench is thinner than thin. It’s virtually nonexistent. The Democratic Party is heading for a massive shake-up after this election. If Hillary wins because the DNC rigged the rules, rest assured that the activists that fought for Bernie Sanders will lead a revolt against Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has more egg on her face now that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have agreed to do 4 more debates. Though the details of the agreement are still being worked out, what’s clear is that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s iron-fisted statement that there would be 6 debates was thrown under the proverbial bus. This just additional proof that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has lost control of the party she supposedly leads.
When the article starts by saying “If the Democratic National Committee were to sanction a Democratic debate on Feb. 4 in New Hampshire, it would likely do so without being co-sponsored by the state’s largest newspaper, three sources familiar with the plans have confirmed,” that’s stating the DNC has essentially lost control. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s past statements can now be hung around her neck. She fought for keeping a lid on the debates.
Now that Hillary’s in trouble, Hillary wants additional debates. Sen. Sanders agreed but only if it was expanded to multiple debates. Mrs. Clinton wanted a single debate right before the New Hampshire Primary. Here’s a hint for Hillary. Additional debates might help in the short-term but they won’t help save her from the fact that she’s a terrible candidate.