October 13-24, 2015
Oct 13 16:19 Mills vs. Nolan, Round II Oct 14 14:33 Awaiting the first Democrat debate Oct 15 04:23 Rep. Hanna's ironclad innuendo Oct 15 17:08 Donald Trump, big government & crony capitalism Oct 18 09:27 Democrats' politics of division Oct 22 09:20 Lanny Davis, Hillary's fiercest defender Oct 23 07:42 Smiling Stevens buys barricades? Oct 23 18:58 Hillary's unanswered Benghazi questions Oct 24 23:22 Palmieri: Hillary will run negative campaign
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Mills vs. Nolan, Round II
Stewart Mills officially announced that he's running for Congress in Minnesota's Eighth District . Rick Nolan, his opponent and the incumbent in the race, said that he welcomed the challenge while promising to run a positive race. Of course, Nolan's definition of running a positive race is questionable considering he said "I welcome Mr. Mills III back into the race, and I'm looking forward to a positive campaign based on facts and issues affecting the voters in the 8th Congressional District- a campaign very much different from the negative and misleading campaign Mr. Mills III and his allies have already launched against me here in the 8th District."
In 2014, Nolan's definition of a positive campaign included dishonest attacks from Nolan himself. What's more is that the Star Tribune criticized Nolan while endorsing Mills , saying that "Nolan already translates Mills' position as wanting to 'privatize' and even 'abolish' the safety-net programs. It's the kind of extravagant rhetoric that makes reasoned discussion, public understanding and progress so difficult on these issues."
The Star Tribune added this insult to Nolan's injuries:
On foreign affairs, too, Mills' view is the tough-minded one. While Nolan wishfully believes America can safely ignore Mideast turmoil, Mills cautiously supports President Obama's military intervention to roll back the advances of ISIL in Iraq and Syria, recognizing that regional chaos endangers U.S. interests.
Nolan still supports President Obama's plan, which is a total failure. Not only isn't ISIL defeated, it's spreading. Russia has emerged as the leader of the Middle East, too, while Iran's mullahs build their hegemon one step at a time.
In short, it's clear that Nolan is blinded by partisan loyalties. It's apparent that he isn't a solutions-oriented statesman. He's just another cheap politician who can be bought off.
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:19 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Oct-15 10:28 AM
I have no faith in Nolan running a positive and honest campaign or in the people of CD -8 to elect the best person for the job. No different than the people voting in CD-4 for McCollum time and time again when much better candidates are running.
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Oct-15 10:19 AM
Whether you like Nolan or not, is Mills III the candidate who can win CD8? He comes across as a weak and unindustrious campaigner, born on third base and talking about hitting triples. Too much of that impression and he has to show something, or lose again. Is he a hard working candidate? This time? Or again going to be only relying on family money and name recognition?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Oct-15 05:00 PM
Nolan is a master con artist. Period. He said that he's against negative campaigns but he, Pelosi & AFSCME joined forces to run ads that were so false that they were lifted from TV.
As for Stewart Mills, he's forgotten more about health care than Nolan has ever known about the subject. Mills is a great candidate. Period.
Awaiting the first Democrat debate
I wrote this article to analyze the Democrats' first presidential debate, which was moderated by CNN. I must confess that I made a mistake in considering last night's DNC/CNN event a debate. It wasn't a debate because nobody attempted to lay a glove on Queen Hillary. Whether that's because the 4 males (I can't call them men for obvious reasons) self-neutered, whether it's because they didn't dare cross DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or whether they want a cabinet post in a Hillary administration, the 4 males acted more like eunuchs than candidates.
The outcomes were predictable. First, CNN lost in the sense that 9,000,000 fewer people tuned into their non-event . Second, despite Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's spin to the contrary, America saw the pathetic cast of candidates the Democrats have. Third, Hillary wasn't helped by the fact that she still hasn't faced a legitimate challenge on a debate stage. Fourth, Hillary's contention that she's an outsider because she's a woman running for president is getting tiresome to voters.
During the 2014 election cycle, Mark Udall ran a campaign focused on women's issues. His campaign was all-women-all-the-time. It earned him the nickname of "Mark Uterus" from the Denver Post. Things didn't end well for Sen. Udall:
It's indisputable that Democrats captured lightning in a bottle in 2012 with their war on women campaign. Based on Hillary's mediocre polling results, the lightning is gone. Hillary has certainly played up the fact that she'd be the first woman president at every opportunity. Still, Hillary's polling is lackluster.
Pundits across the nation are chatting up how confident Hillary looked. My reply to that is simple: If you're essentially in a competition-free zone, why wouldn't you feel confident? The minute Bernie Sanders said that he's tired of hearing about Hillary's "damn emails", Hillary lit up like a Christmas tree. It was the most genuine emotion she's shown since marrying Bill Clinton. (Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration but it isn't like most of her emotional displays aren't contrived and calculated.)
The bottom line is this: a) Hillary is now all but officially the Democrats' presidential nominee and b) some people are still waiting for the first Democratic Party presidential debate.
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:33 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Oct-15 08:10 AM
I agree 100% that this was not a debate and more of a let's give Hilary a platform to show she's not so bad and it is her turn at the presidency. Clinton is a horrible and unlikeable candidate but the GOP better figure out how to combat her (or Bernie for that matter) give away programs to lure the LIV to her side. Tough to beat someone who is promising free stuff and you are peddling responsibility, education and hard work as ways to obtain the American Dream.
Rep. Hanna's ironclad innuendo
First, Kevin McCarthy insisted that the House Select Committee on Benghazi was designed to cut into Hillary Clinton's favorable/unfavorable ratings. It didn't matter that Rep. McCarthy was an outsider. His words were treated like they were etched in stone tablets atop Mount Sinai. Now, another outsider, Rep. Richard Hanna , (R-NY), has stepped forward to opine that the Benghazi Committee is all about politics. When Rep. Hanna said "This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton", he said it without confirming what the Committee has spent its time doing.
Simply put, it's an uninformed opinion. If Rep. Hanna would've said that he talked with committee staff who showed him documentation showing that they'd been pulled off of one investigation to start investigating Hillary, and if Rep. Hanna named the committee staffer, then I'd have something concrete to buy into.
Rep. Hanna later said "After what Kevin McCarthy said, it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that's the way Washington works. But you'd like to expect more from a committee that's spent millions of dollars and tons of time."
Listen to those weasel words:
it's difficult to accept at least a part of it was not.
If Rep. Hanna had documented proof, he wouldn't have to accept anything. He'd be able to say that he can provide documentation that proves that part of the Committee's assignment was to cripple Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
Forgive me for being skeptical but I can't classify this as anything but ironclad innuendo.
Posted Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:23 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Oct-15 10:10 AM
The one California rep in a fit of honesty, on FOX no less, admitted what the Republicans are up to with that get-Hillary effort. The fig leaf on that thing is gone. And never coming back.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Oct-15 04:52 PM
The idiot from California didn't know what he was talking about. That's why he had to drop his run for Speaker. People that stupid shouldn't be given a position in leadership. Period. Look at what the committee has done, not what idiots on the outside have said.
Donald Trump, big government & crony capitalism
Donald Trump's love of eminent domain abuse isn't sitting well with constitutional conservatives. Recently, Carly Fiorina explained why Mr. Trump's love of eminent domain abuse runs contrary to limited government conservatism when she said "I think Donald Trump, among others, has engaged in crony capitalism in its most raw and abusive form. When commercial interests get together with government to take away private property for their own commercial interests, that's a big problem. And I think I join so many conservatives in saying that eminent domain has been abused. And it has been abused by the collusion between governments eager for revenue and businesses eager for competitive advantage. So I find the Kelo case - if ever there was a case for judicial engagement instead of judicial restraint, it's this set of issues."
There's nothing pro-limited government about developers who don't respect private property rights buying off city officials in their effort to steal land from a private property owner. That's the definition of crony capitalism :
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.[1][2] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when business cronyism and related self-serving behavior by businesses or businesspeople spills over into politics and government,[3] or when self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.
Donald Trump isn't a constitutionalist. He definitely isn't a limited government conservative. Finally, it's apparent that he thinks that he should get anything he wants even if that something is owned by someone else.
That's the definition of evil. If we want an evil president, we can just keep the corrupt SOB that's currently in the White House or elect a corrupt career politician that's running as a Democrat. The day that the Republicans nominate another corrupt politician is the day I leave the GOP.
Posted Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:08 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Oct-15 08:36 PM
But Gary, the 5th amendment says that your property can't be taken without just compensation.
Trump isn't a constitutionalist or conservative, he's an opportunist seizing on America's disgust with all politicians. Sadly this is what happens when you elect an unqualified person who ran on platitudes and slogans and hasn't delivered on either. The people are still waiting for the Hope and Change and Trump is singing the same song to the desperate masses.
Comment 2 by eric z at 18-Oct-15 09:31 AM
Seeing Trump as an opportunist is not difficult. But how does that differ him from Fiorina? Look at Trump as the only New York area candidate - of any statute, never mind Pataki - who has not screwed with commuter morning traffic. That's a third-rail deadly sin, back east.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-15 08:07 AM
The difference between Trump & Fiorina is that Mrs. Fiorina is ethical, Mr. Trump isn't. Mrs. Fiorina took over HP at a time when many major tech companies disappeared completely. While HP laid off lots of people, they eventually rebuilt the company.
Mr. Trump had a vision of a glitzy casino. He bought up lots of land but couldn't get the elderly widow to sell her property so he took her to court to grab her property. A man's house is his castle, meaning that his (or her in this instance) property is his kingdom.
There is nothing honorable about a man who bragged about paying off politicians & bureaucrats, then using those people to push a person out of her house through eminent domain abuse.
Democrats' politics of division
In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton, then the First Lady, started something that she called 'the politics of meaning'. Some conservatives, myself included, sarcastically highlighted that this might've been the first time she noticed that ordinary people (janitors, carpenters and other blue collar workers) actually added value to society. We said this because we were astonished that our First Lady hadn't figured that out by then.
This year, Hillary is running for president. Her chief strategy is to tell America that she's qualified for the job of POTUS because she doesn't have a pair of testicles. That isn't to say that she doesn't have a darker, nastier message that should frighten Americans. It's something that Salena Zito wrote about in her latest column .
In 2008, then-candidate Obama criticized Pennsylvanians who cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. That was the first hint that an Obama administration wouldn't be inclusive. That was a hint that President Obama's administration would be the most divisive administration in recent US history.
President Obama has celebrated that he is not, nor ever intended to be, such a leader. He has used his position as one of deep correction, to change what his elite and academic prisms view as a deeply flawed country.
Those corrections were not made in the spirit of taking us together to a better place. Instead, they have been bitterly divisive and intended to produce 'justice.' There is nothing wrong with change, but a good leader would have invited all of us to take that journey. Not doing so has been Obama's greatest flaw.
It appears that President Obama's disdain for blue collar America is hereditary:
Last week's Democrat debate was incredibly revealing of where this party wants to take the country. With the exception of Jim Webb, everyone on stage seemed to loathe anyone who wouldn't vote for them in a primary.
They hate gun owners and supporters of traditional values; unless you're 'progressive,' you have no place in their view of the world.
They think America's worst enemies are climate change, the NRA, and Republicans.
Compare the Democrats' divisiveness agenda with Marco Rubio's prosperity and inclusiveness agenda:
The difference between the Democrats' divisiveness agenda and Sen. Rubio's prosperity and inclusiveness agenda is dramatically different in both substance and tone. The Democrats want to divide America because they think a significant portion of America is evil. When Howard Dean ran for chairman of the DNC, he said "There's a fight between good and evil...and we're the good." Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is currently the chair of the DNC. She's still practicing the politics of division.
It's time to unite America. It's time we rejected the Democrats' politics of division. It's time we threw their policies of division onto the trash heap of history's rejected ideas.
Posted Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Oct-15 09:35 AM
If it wasn't for the politics of division, the democrat voters might actually see that it is their own party that is keeping them down and dividing this great country and not the "evil" GOP.
Lanny Davis, Hillary's fiercest defender
Nobody will ever be able to accuse Lanny Davis of not being loyal to Hillary Clinton. In fact, the accusation that people could make is that he's so loyal to Hillary Clinton that he's willing to shill for Hillary rather than doing the right thing for the nation.
This morning, Davis' op-ed instructs Republicans to ask Hillary some questions, starting with "Secretary Clinton, can you tell us why you appointed the Accountability Review Board, chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen, to investigate the Benghazi tragedy and what was the result of their work?"
Davis then replies that if Republicans did that they'd find "she gave the board, led by a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Republican President George H.W. Bush and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, complete independence and access. She committed ahead of time, unlike any prior secretaries before her, to full transparency. And when she published the full report (except for some classified material), she immediately accepted all the board's recommendations to correct 'systemic failures' of the department prior to and during the tragedy, and took responsibility."
It's a great question if your interest is to distract attention away from the ARB's failure to actually investigate the murder of 4 American patriots. Mssrs. Pickering and Mullen didn't interview any of the high ranking officials in the State Department who were responsible for security in Benghazi. They didn't question Secretary Clinton about what information got to her desk. They didn't ask her if she was aware of the increasing terrorist activity in the area. They didn't ask her why Christopher Stevens' urgent requests for additional security were rejected. They didn't ask Secretary Clinton why her senior staff reduced Christopher Stevens' security staff in Benghazi.
That's before asking them why they didn't bother getting Secretary Clinton's emails or getting Christopher Stevens' emails. Without communications documentation between Hillary's senior staff and Christopher Stevens, it's impossible to know who failed to protect Christopher Stevens.
Anyone that thinks that the ARB did a thorough investigation isn't worth listening to. I'm being charitable when I say that the ARB's investigation and report are incomplete.
Secretary Clinton, as you know, seven other congressional committees have investigated the Benghazi attack. Is there anything they missed that we should be looking into?
Of course, if Gowdy and the Republican members ask this question, they will have to try to explain why their committee exists at all (other than the anti-Clinton reason that everyone knows) unless they are willing to criticize other Republican Benghazi committees for not doing an adequate job, such as the Republican-controlled House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, which published extensive reports and findings about Benghazi.
I'm perfectly willing to accuse these other committees of not conducting a thorough investigation. They didn't know that Hillary had a private, unsecured, email server. That's a glaring, unforgiveable, mistake that these 7 committees made.
It's proof that they didn't conduct thorough investigations.
Secretary Clinton, did your choice to use a single BlackBerry to send out emails during your tenure as secretary of State rather than two, or your decision to store emails on a private server at your home, have any impact whatsoever on the tragic events of what happened at Benghazi and its aftermath?
Of course, the truthful, and indisputable, answer to this question is: No. Gowdy and his fellow Republicans know this.
Every single member who asks any question about emails, Gowdy, Brooks, Jordan, Pompeo, Roby, Roskam and Westmoreland, should be asked by the media and all constituents back home who care about wasteful government spending: How can you justify spending almost $5 million of taxpayer money when you have uncovered nothing new, duplicated spending by fellow Republicans, and have spent so much time on a subject having nothing to do with the tragedy at Benghazi?
Mr. Davis, how do you know that this committee hasn't uncovered new information? While it's certain that committee Democrats have funneled information to the Clinton campaign, I'm equally certain that Mr. Davis would be willing to ignore new information, especially if it's damaging to Hillary, in writing a dishonest op-ed while defending Secretary Clinton's indefensible actions.
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:20 AM
No comments.
Smiling Stevens buys barricades?
According to Hillary Clinton's testimony yesterday, Christopher Stevens, the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, had a great sense of humor. When Mrs. Clinton was questioned by Rep. Susan Brooks, (R-IN), about security conditions in Benghazi, Mrs. Clinton said "Well, Congresswoman, one of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor. And I just see him smiling as he's typing this, because it is clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few 'fire sale' items from the Brits." Rep. Brooks responded indignantly, saying "Those 'fire sale' items by the way, are barricades. They are additional requests for security for the compound." Doing her best to look unflappable, Mrs. Clinton replied, saying "Well, I thought it showed their entrepreneurial spirit, Congresswoman. And I applaud them for doing so."
Making light of Benghazi's deteriorating security conditions after an ambassador and 3 other American patriots were murdered is ghoulishly morbid. It's the type of thing that only pathological liars are capable of doing.
This morning on Morning Joe, Chuck Todd said that "Hillary was untouched" yesterday. Last night on Special Report, A.B. Stoddard said that Hillary "looked presidential" while fielding the Committee's difficult questions. Stoddard and Todd are making my case. Mrs. Clinton looked unflappable because she doesn't think that she failed Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, the 4 American patriots that were murdered during the terrorist attack of 9/11/2012.
When Mrs. Clinton was told that Christopher Stevens made over 600 requests for additional security, it was after she'd admitted that she'd personally responded to over 180 emails from Sid Blumenthal. Mrs. Clinton then said that "Chris Stevens certainly knew how to get in touch with me directly." That's an especially damning statement considering the fact that Mrs. Clinton later testified that she never saw Christopher Stevens' 600+ requests for additional security. In that testimony, Mrs. Clinton said that she neither rejected or approved Christopher Stevens' security requests.
If "Chris" knew how to get directly in touch with Mrs. Clinton and if "Chris" was Mrs. Clinton's dear friend and if Mrs. Clinton knew that the Benghazi compound's security had been breached, why didn't Mrs. Clinton reach out directly to Christopher Stevens?
The answer is contained in Mrs. Clinton's testimony that she couldn't recall meeting with or talking to Christopher Stevens after his swearing in as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
The unspoken gist of Mrs. Clinton's testimony is that "Chris" was a dear friend of hers that Mrs. Clinton never talked to literally for months and that she didn't lift a finger to protect. To real human beings, that isn't the definition of a friend.
Posted Friday, October 23, 2015 7:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Oct-15 09:06 AM
That particular Republican witch hunt is wearing thin, it is hurting the GOP's credibility, and they should have the good sense to stop. It is parallel to their never learning from their government shutdown strategy always failing to help them, always working to discredit their motives and maturity. Totally flat learning curves.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-15 07:18 PM
Eric, it's nice to get a Democrat to publicly state that gathering new information on a Democrat whose mistake got 4 American patriots killed is a witch hunt.
I'm thankful that you're honest enough to admit that Democrats put a higher priority on protecting corrupt Democrats than they put on doing the right thing.
First irrefutable fact: Christopher Stevens made 77 urgent requests for beefed up security in Benghazi.
Next irrefutable fact: Hillary Clinton testified yesterday that none of those requests made it to her desk.
Next irrefutable fact: When asked by Rep. Susan Brooks if she'd talked directly with Ambassador Stevens after his swearing in, Hillary Clinton said "I must have." When questioned when this conversation took place, Hillary couldn't be specific.
Fourth irrefutable fact: Terrorists attacked the British consulate and the office for the International Red Cross in Benghazi more than a month before the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound.
Fifth irrefutable fact: While the attack was still going on, Hillary issued a statement blaming the anti-Islamic video an hour before she told Chelsea that the attack was a terrorist attack. The next day, Hillary told the Libyan president and the Egyptian prime minister that it was a terrorist attack. This was confirmed as fact by the Libyan president.
Q: Why did Hillary tell the American people, including the parents of those 4 American patriots who died in Benghazi, that it was the result of a Youtube video when they knew it was a pre-planned terrorist attack?
Q: Why didn't Hillary personally contact Christopher Stevens after she heard about the terrorist attacks on the IRC & the British consulate? Is it because she didn't give a shit? Was it because she's incompetent at her job?
When a major political party thinks that it's ok for a high profile person to make a mistake that gets American patriots killed and that oversight into the incident isn't needed, then the Democratic Party is corrupt, immoral and untrustworthy.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 24-Oct-15 01:48 PM
"What difference - at this point, what difference does it make?"
I honestly believe that 4 dead Americans mean nothing to her because she only cares about the power of the office. Progressives have already started circling the wagons around this vile, lying, incompetent woman and will make her the candidate since the ends always justifies the means for these people.
Answers to your questions:
A)Because she really thought that the American people wouldn't find out about her and Obama's incompetence.
B) Yes, yes, and it wasn't 3AM (Who would you rather have answer the phone at 3AM).
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Oct-15 03:44 PM
Chad, I know I'm a little fickle but I'd prefer honest people in positions of power.
Comment 4 by eric z at 25-Oct-15 11:42 AM
Why did they not call CIA and DOD to find out wtf was being done out of Benghazi, and why that might have engendered hate and/or distrust among Lybians? If they wanted answers about the situation, they'd have called those decision making people aside from the State Department. It was a witch hunt, McCarthy admitted it, so trim the waste and run the nation instead of this dog/pony/Gowdy circus.
Hillary's unanswered Benghazi questions
During her testimony Thursday at the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Hillary Clinton made some exotic statements that require follow-up questioning. During Rep. Adam Schiff's, (D-CA), first round of questioning, Hillary testified that "I've thought more about what happened than all the rest of you put together. I've lost more sleep than all the rest of you put together. I have been racking my brain about what more could've been done or should've been done."
Stephen Hayes' article includes a quote from Charles Woods, the father of murdered American patriot Ty Woods, about what he was looking for at the hearing. In the quote, Mr. Woods said "The truth, hopefully." One of the unasked questions from Thursday's hearing relates to Mrs. Clinton's statement that she's racked her brain about what more could've been done. The proper follow-up questions should've been 'Mrs. Clinton, while you were thinking about what more could've been done, did you think that you should've contacted Christopher Stevens directly? After all, you knew from your daily CIA briefings that the security situation in Benghazi was rapidly deteriorating. At minimum, shouldn't you have directed your staff in charge of embassy security to contact Ambassador Stevens directly to see if his security was adequate?'
Another important question that didn't get asked was with regards to the steep decline in email traffic between Mrs. Clinton and her staff about Libya. In 2011, there were sometimes hourly updates on Libya. The stack of printed out emails for 2011 was almost a foot high. The pile of emails for 2012 was 67 pages. Mrs. Clinton explained that little of her communications were via email. The proper follow-up question should've been 'How do you explain the significant use of emails in 2011 to the virtual elimination of using emails to communicate in 2012? Mrs. Clinton, what caused you to virtually stop using emails in 2012 after using prolific amounts of emails in 2011?
During one of his outbursts, Elijah Cummings wondered aloud why people focused on Sid Blumenthal. The easy explanation is that Mrs. Clinton promptly replied to more than 180 of Mr. Blumenthal's emails compared with Mrs. Clinton's testimony that she never approved or rejected Christopher Stevens' requests for additional security because they never got to her desk.
The logical question at that point should've been 'Mrs. Clinton, how can you justify prompt responses, many of which happened while you were in the State Department Building, to an employee at the Clinton Foundation, especially considering the fact that you never responded to security requests from your ambassador serving in one of the biggest hot spots for terror in the world? Shouldn't you have put a higher priority on making sure U.S. ambassadors are safe than you put on responding to Clinton Foundation employees?'
During questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, (R-OH), the American people found out that Mrs. Clinton told daughter Chelsea that "two" people had been killed by al-Qa'ida-inspired terrorists less than an hour after she'd issued an official statement that suggested a video sparked an attack in Benghazi. Here's part of Mrs. Clinton's testimony:
And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.
The logical question should be which people "have sought to justify the attack because of the video"?
Isn't it reasonable to say that Mrs. Clinton's priorities were badly wrong? Isn't it reasonable to ask why she put a higher priority on taking time during a terrorist attack to tell her daughter about a terrorist attack while the terrorist attack was still being fought? In 2008, Mrs. Clinton ran a campaign ad about a phone call coming in at 3:00 am that suggested she, not Barack Obama, was the only one prepared to take that call.
The call from Libya came in at 5:00 pm ET. Mrs. Clinton and President Obama both failed to protect Christopher Stevens and 3 other American Patriots. Then they failed to tell the American people the truth about the terrorists' coordinated attacks. Doesn't that mean that the biggest unanswered question should be whether either of them was qualified to be commander-in-chief?
Here's Hillary's racking my brain video:
Posted Friday, October 23, 2015 6:58 PM
No comments.
Palmieri: Hillary will run negative campaign
We've known that Hillary's been planning on running a negative campaign. That's why it isn't surprising that Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton's communications director, stopped just short of admitting that Hillary intends on running a thoroughly negative campaign . When Ms. Palmieri said that Hillary "will launch a forceful fight against the Republicans," she might as well have said she plans on throwing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink at the GOP nominee.
That's because Hillary can't win without tearing her GOP "enemy" down. That's because Hillary's accomplishment list, whether we're talking about as First Lady, senator or Secretary of State, is microscopic. As First Lady, Hillary was put in charge of implementing universal health care. The initial reviews were glowing. That was its high point. HillaryCare didn't even get a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee. As New York's junior senator, Mrs. Clinton didn't author any major legislation. As President Obama's Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton's first act was to give Russia's Foreign Minister the infamous Reset Button. Since then, Russia has disrespected the United States, first by annexing the Crimean Peninsula, which was part of Ukraine until the Obama administration rose to power. Then Russia 'mediated' a deal for the world to get rid of Syria's chemical weapons. Syria still has those WMDs plus it's got Russian protection from the United States.
Hillary was part of President Obama's foreign policy team that pushed for the removal of U.S. troops in Iraq, which led to the rise of ISIS, aka the JV team in Lakers uniforms.
All of those things pale in comparison with Hillary's decision to not protect Christopher Stevens. Thanks to her inattention, 4 American patriots were murdered by terrorists while serving their country. Hillary's deceitfulness and Hillary's incompetence got Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glenn Doherty murdered in a well-coordinated, well-trained terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
Other than that, Hillary's list of stellar accomplishments is impressive.
Posted Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:22 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 25-Oct-15 06:04 PM
Hillary can't run a positive campaign because there is nothing positive about her or her message. As for her accomplishments, they aren't microscopic, they're non-existent unless you count staying with her philandering husband to keep climbing up the political power ladder.
