Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

The ONLY Thing Worse Than Hillary Clinton’s Fake Concern For ‘Everyday Americans’ Is The Media’s Blatant Bias And Propaganda-as-‘News’

April 16, 2015

As you probably know, Hillary Clinton has announced that she is running for president.  Why?  Because she cares so deeply about “everyday Americans.”

Some synonyms of “everyday” according to any Thesaurus: commonplace, mundane, prosaic, dull, dime-a-dozen, lowly, unexceptional, unimaginative, unremarkable.  But hey, when Democrats insult you, the media celebrates it.  Just thank God Ted Cruz didn’t use the same term, because one of the synonyms is “vanilla.”  And as we all know, that’s code for white, which means he’s a racist.  I know, even if his parents were Cuban.

Oh, well, let’s move on.  After all, as Hillary put it on a separate issue: “What difference can it possibly make” if she insulted the American people and suggested that we’re all dime-a-dozen in her vision of dull socialist Utopia?

The important thing is that Hillary loves us “lowly” people, you see.

Or DOES she?

Not so much, given how she actually treats her “everyday Americans” on what she has the elephant balls to call her “LISTENING TOUR“.  I mean, who the hell was she “listening” to in her closed door meeting where those pesky “everyday Americans” barely got an opportunity to so much as glimpse their future imperial god-queen:

I Am An ‘Everyday Iowan’ And Here Is How Close I Got To Hillary Clinton Today
By Erika Smalley (2 days ago) | Editor’s Choice

Hi. My name is Erika Smalley. I grew up in Iowa. I am currently a student at Kirkwood Community College.

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 6.24.15 PM

That’s the same place that Hillary Clinton visited on her first campaign stop to my state. I went there to see if I could meet Hillary. Here is Hillary’s press release:

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 3.36.14 PM

I arrived about an hour before the event and all I could find were reporters.

IMG_0180

Lots of reporters.

IMG_0156

Which is funny, because all they had to stare at was an empty Iowa field.

IMG_0179

Anyway, some protesters trickled in.

IMG_0158

These guys were funny. They were called the ‘Nerd Squad.’

IMG_0159

They wanted to ‘fix Hillary’s server for free.’

IMG_0154

I also found some Hillary supporters.

IMG_0151

It was getting close to the time when she would arrive so I tried to enter the college. I was told ‘Sorry, press only,’ by a Hillary staffer.

IMG_0178-e1429047591605-768x1024

So I took a selfie.

IMG_0170

Then someone shouted “She’s coming!” And everyone started running. So I ran with them. Here is my point of view:

 [You have to go to the site to see this video, but it’s worth it to see all the reporters running like school girls who just heard the Beatles were nearby giving away kisses.  As you watch it, tell me that you’ve seen anything like that from a Republican who just announced that he or she is running for president while refusing to answer ANY questions from the media]

Here is how close I got to Hillary when she arrived:

IMG_0160

She snuck in the backdoor and reporters were complaining that they were ‘here for hours’ and she wouldn’t even ‘let them see her.’

thirst-2

I noticed students pressed up against the glass in their classrooms so I took this photo. I learned later that they had been locked down for Hillary’s arrival.

IMG_0164

Then everyone just waited like kids staring over a fence.

Screen Shot 2015-04-15 at 12.39.18 AM

I wandered around and found this awesome guy who shared some of my sentiment.

IMG_0168

I take that back.

IMG_0169

The guy in orange pants was taking a break after all of the running when someone yelled “There she is!”

reporters-thirst

Look closely: There she is!  People asked her what it’s like to be back in the game. She said, “Great!” Waved and got in car and left.

IMG_0171

Then she drove right by me in her black van.

IMG_0173

This is as close as this ‘everyday Iowan’ got to Hillary. Her van zoomed right by me, though I could not see her.

IMG_0172

“Goodbye Hillary!”

IMG_0174

And that was my experience as an Iowan trying to see Hillary.

This is all you need to see to know that the media is and will continue to be pathologically unfair and biased in their reporting of Hillary Clinton vis a vie any Republicans challenger(s):

Which corresponds to precisely what our “everyday” – i.e., “lowly,” “unexceptional,” “unimaginative” Iowan accurately reported when she tried to get a glimpse of her royal majesty.

The ONLY time the mainstream media would EVER swarm after ANY Republican presidential candidate is if that candidate was in the middle of a terrible scandal and the media were desperately trying to be the first to get in that Republican’s face with a microphone and wipe some mud in that hated enemy party’s candidate’s face.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t give one flying damn about anybody and she will stick a knife in the back of anybody who in any way, shape or form tries to interfere with her ambition to be the next imperial emperor after the emperor pharaoh god-king Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, the ONLY question I have for Hillary Clinton is that she say whether she is in favor of every single Republican or Republican appointee to enjoy the communications privilege which SHE enjoyed, whereby she ONLY shared communications that she and her staff deemed to be harmless, such that no Republican or Republican appointee ever again need to obey a freedom of information act request, or any subpoenasfrom Democrats, or be forced to share ANYTHING that could indict or impeach them????

We find out that Republicans legally subpoenaed Hillary Clinton’s private email account back in 2012.  And what did this fascist do?  Purge half of them and then wiped her private server clean to destroy evidence.

Does Hillary Clinton authorize that behavior from all future Republicans, such that no Republican or Republican appointee ever need to release any communications they don’t want to release ever again?  Or was Hillary Clinton anti-democratic and anti-American????

Hillary Clinton is a rabid fascist and to be a Democrat today is nothing short of being a fascist.  But that’s okay, because so is the mainstream media that so utterly adores her.

How To Destroy Hillary Clinton And Every Democrat Who Wants To Have Anything To Do With Her

March 30, 2015

Remember when reporters were flying all the way to Wasilla, Alaska to dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage and all of her emails?  Do you remember, as the last link documents, how liberal news organizations actually even asked for the public to assist in digging through all of Palin’s emails to find the nugget of dirt so they could attack her???

Of course, if you are Empress of the Universe Hillary Clinton, you are above the press and you are above the petty government rules and regulations and you are far, FAR above the unwashed masses of humanity.

It comes down to this: expose what this wicked fascist woman has done and demand that Republicans be given the exact same “right” to destroy incriminating evidence that she gave herself.

In any and every debate, force Hillary Clinton to either say that what she did was fundamentally and profoundly wrong and a disgusting perversion of any government of the people, or else get her on the record saying that if every single Republican and Republican appointee installs servers in his/her own home, and has his/her own handpicked staff decide which emails to wipe before turning anything over and thus being able to flout any investigation or any freedom of information act request for what had previously always been public records, that Hillary Clinton and every single Democrat would accept and embrace the resulting corruption and accept the responsibility for it.

Take a look at what we’re now learning: Hillary Clinton not only installed a server in her own home to maintain fascist-Nazi-Stalinist control over her communications such that neither the government, nor an email service such as Yahoo, nor any investigator, nor anyone else, could view any communications that Hillary Clinton did not want them to see; she not only purged her server of tens of thousands of emails before turning over only what she wanted to allow anyone to see; but she actually purged her emails AFTER receiving a lawful subpoena for the very records that she purged.

We’ve learned that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama never bothered with an Inspector General whose job it would have been to keep the State Department honest during the ENTIRE TIME she was Secretary of State:

The State Department had no permanent inspector general—the lead watchdog charged with uncovering misconduct and waste—during Hillary Clinton’s entire tenure as secretary, leaving in place an acting inspector who had close ties to State Department leadership.

President Barack Obama didn’t put forward a nominee to lead the inspector general’s office while Mrs. Clinton led the State Department, making it the only agency with a presidentially appointed inspector general that had neither a confirmed nor nominated head watchdog during that full time period.

Five months after Mrs. Clinton left office, Mr. Obama nominated a permanent inspector general, who was confirmed by the Senate three months later.

The lack of a confirmed inspector general raises questions about oversight of the department under Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. The department has been criticized for its failure to gather and archive the email records of Mrs. Clinton and other officials and for responses to public-record requests that lawmakers and advocacy groups say were insufficient, including its response to requests for information from a congressional panel investigating the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The vacancy in the top watchdog spot left the State Department with no confirmed inspector general for more than five years, the longest gap since the position was created in 1957, according to department records. While other agencies have had no permanent inspectors general at various points in recent years, some of those vacancies were due to a lack of confirmation by the Senate on nominees put forward by Mr. Obama.

Is isn’t clear whether Mrs. Clinton had any role in the lack of a nomination.

But yes, it actually is pretty damn clear: if Clinton had wanted an IG, she could have and in fact would have demanded one be appointed.  She DIDN’T want one – and her corrupt behavior that exploited the fact that there wasn’t an IG proves it.

We’ve learned that Hillary Clinton was soliciting foreign governments to give her personal so-called “non-profit” organization millions of dollars and doing so even WHILE SHE WAS SERVING as Secretary of State:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might have had her last pleasant day for quite some time on Tuesday when she received $300,000 to gush insipid platitudes about glass ceilings and everyone coming together for altruism’s sake in Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, the story involving the Clinton Foundation’s scandalous sources of financing have been gaining steam for weeks. Late Wednesday night, it exploded.

On the 19th, the Clinton Foundation revealed that it might shift its policy on accepting foreign donations if Hillary Clinton decides to mount a presidential bid. The foundation did not, however, commit to rejecting foreign donations entirely, a practice from which many Clinton allies have long urged the foundation to abstain. “Democrats in several states that vote early in the presidential nominating process said Thursday they were uneasy with the donations from Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and other nations,” The Wall Street Journal reported on the 19th. These warnings proved prescient.

Outwardly, the Clinton Foundation insisted that it had ceased to accept funds from foreign sources after 2008 so as to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest with Hillary serving as America’s chief diplomat. “During Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, the foundation banned all donations from foreign governments due to conflict of interest it would pose for the foundation and the Obama administration,” CNN reported. “Clinton stepped down as America’s top diplomat in early 2013 and the foundation began, once again, to collect donations from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.”

Since its founding in 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed $2 billion in contributions, and many of those donations came from sources in foreign governments and businesses. Despite the fact that Clinton has been out of public office for two years, activists still warned that these contributions might soon prove ethically problematic. But the political press seemed initially inclined to frame the Clinton Foundation’s questionable funding sources as a political attack line, and a subject that primarily interested Republicans.

“GOP seeks to make Clinton Foundation a 2016 headache,” a CNN headline read. “If the biggest attack on Hillary’s going to be that she raised too much money for her charity, okay, I’ll take that,” Virginia governor and longtime Clinton Ally Terry McAuliffe told The Washington Post. Like so many allegations of unscrupulous behavior that the Clintons manage to convince the press to forget, this one seemed like it might soon join the myriad of questionable episodes in this family’s past that are nothing more than background radiation ahead of 2016.

Shortly before 9 p.m. on the East Coast on Wednesday, the other shoe in the burgeoning scandal involving the Clinton Foundation’s finances landed with a thud. “The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday,” The Washington Post revealed.

In The Post’s sprawling dispatch, it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation sought and accepted donations from foreign governments both during and after Hillary Clinton’s tenure as chief diplomat at Foggy Bottom. “In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government,” The Post’s report read.

The donation from Algeria for Haiti earthquake relief, they said, arrived without notice within days of the 2010 quake and was distributed as direct aid to assist in relief. Algeria has not donated to the foundation since, officials said.

The contribution coincided with a spike in the North African country’s lobbying visits to the State Department.

That year, Algeria spent $422,097 lobbying U.S. government officials on human rights issues and U.S.-Algerian relations, according to filings made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Data tracked by the Sunlight Foundation shows that while the Algerian government’s overall spending on lobbying in the United States remained steady, there was an increase in 2010 in State Department meetings held with lobbyists representing the country — with 12 visits to department officials that year, including some visits with top political appointees. In the years before and after, only a handful of State Department visits were recorded by Algeria lobbyists.

According to the terms of an ethics agreement the Clinton Foundation signed with the Obama administration before Hillary Clinton was tapped to serve as secretary of state, the foundation was not to accept foreign donations but could continue to operate in order to fulfil its philanthropic mission. That agreement was signed by the foundation’s chief executive, Bruce Lindsey, and Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett. The revelation that those terms were violated not only raises questions about Hillary Clinton’s ethics, but also about the White House’s administrational competence.

If a right-wing Republican had this kind of obvious, blatant conflict-of-interest and real possibility of corruption hanging over his head, do you think his communications should be off limits???

We’ve learned that at least some of the emails that Hillary Clinton didn’t want the American people to see likely involved her corruption using her brother as a conduit of the worst kind of government kickback scheme:

The latest baggage threatening to dog Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the White House comes in the form of her brother, who allegedly got help from the Department of Homeland Security in smoothing a business deal.

The department’s inspector general found that Tony Rodham was given special treatment by DHS’ No. 2 in securing visas for foreigners connected to a deal.

Rodham was CEO of an electric car company owned by another longtime Clinton pal, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, when he got help from DHS official Alejandro Mayorkas securing the visas for investors in the firm. It is not clear that Clinton played any role. But the determination could, at least, fuel new questions about what was contained in the thousands of emails sent and received on Clinton’s private server while she was secretary of state — many of which she says were deleted.

Ah, those pesky inspector generals.  Good thing that Hillary Clinton was a good fascist who abolished them from her State Department the way any self-respecting Hitler goon would have done.

If a right-wing Republican had this kind of obvious, blatant, DOCUMENTED example of personal corruption hanging over his head, do you think his communications should be off-limits???

So here’s where we’re at now: Hillary Clinton scrubbed her emails.  AFTER they were lawfully subpoenaed:

Trey Gowdy: Hillary Clinton wiped her server clean
By Lauren French
3/27/15 6:23 PM EDT
Updated 3/27/15 7:57 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton is pictured. | Getty

Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.

Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.

Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.

Gowdy said that Clinton’s response to the subpoena means he and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will now contemplate new legal actions against Clinton.

“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Gowdy said.

Clinton previously said she decided to delete the emails after her lawyers reviewed the server for work-related correspondence. She said the deletion of private emails occurred “at the end” of that review.

In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home.

“There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the hdr22@clintonemail.com account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”

If Republicans take the White House again, and assuming that Democrats are able to take control of the House and Senate, should any and all Republican communications be off limits to lawful congressional and Senate investigations???

And all I’m doing is demanding that every single Republican on earth have the same exact right.  And the more pathologically distrusted any Republican is by Democrats, the more that Republican ought to follow Hillary Clinton’s example and do exactly what she did.

All I’m demanding is that President Ted Cruz or whatever rightwing president the Democrat Party despises the most along with all of his appointees gets to purge all of his records and be accountable to NO ONE the same way Hillary Clinton was.

That’s what it comes down to: the pollsters are saying that support or opposition of Hillary Clinton is baked in; that people by now either love her or hate her.  So let’s inform those who love her that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to banish any accountability from government – and that if a Republican gets elected president, that you as a member of the Democrat Party have permanently voided any right to ever see the communications of any Republican or Republican appointee ever again.  Because that’s what you voted for when you voted to make Hillary Clinton your party’s nominee.

I’m demanding that if anti-democratic fascism is good for the goose-stepping goose, it ought to be just as damn good for the gander.

And don’t you dare try to pass a law after the fact while continuing to support Hillary Clinton, you fascist cockroach Democrat pile of moral slime: because if what she did was in any way okay, then you shouldn’t pass any laws to stop someone from doing it in the future; whereas if what she did was wrong, THEN SHE HAS NO MORE BUSINESS BEING PRESIDENT THAN THE WORSE SCUMBAG IN AMERICA.

ANY attempt by Democrats to make what Hillary Clinton did illegal after the fact should have a provision inserted within it stating for the official government record that what Hillary Clinton was wrong and both by intent and by consequence violated the democratic process of public official accountability whether her army of lawyers argue it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is or NOT.

Keep pushing home the FACT that a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton is a vote for the most despicable form of unconstitutional and anti-democratic form of fascism there is.  And do it by repeatedly asking voters the question whether every Republican and every Republican official ought to be allowed to keep their communications above the law the same way Hillary Clinton did.

Either Hillary Clinton Needs To Be Utterly Destroyed Over Her Emails Or The Experiment In Constitutional Republican Democracy Needs To End.

March 11, 2015

Hillary Clinton had every right to use all the private email she wanted; all she had to do was STAY THE HELL OUT OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

There is one and only one question that needs to be put to Hillary Clinton.  And put to her again and again at every event in which she talks to ANYONE until she drops out of public life and becomes a recluse with about a thousand cats for the rest of her life.

That question is this: “Secretary Clinton, do you believe that every government official ought to be allowed to do what you did by setting up your own private system such that there is no possibility of impartial third-party accountability, or do you believe that you are an elitist entitlement whore and that you alone ought to be above the laws that protect representative government from corruption?”

I mean, look, either from now on every single person who holds a government job should put his or her emails on a private server beyond access or control by the government such that each government worker must be trusted implicitly, or Hillary Clinton needs to be permanently publicly destroyed and utterly despised as a symbol of tyranny and corruption.

If Hillary Clinton is allowed to do this, then from now on your right-wing Karl Roves or Dick Cheneys working in their uber-right-wing bunkers writing orders and commands to destroy liberalism ought to have the exact same freedom to be above the law and immune from the law.

And any representative democracy needs to be abolished today and from this moment forward.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Hillary Clinton set up a system to make her immune from the federal records act and freedom of information requests.  In her system, she and her staff of priestesses get to decide what is relevant and what is not and everyone is required to believe her.

I don’t even think Joseph Stalin’s fascist tyrant balls were that big.

Fact checks reveal that Hillary Clinton is either lying or massively equivocating on every single thing she is saying about her emails.  But then again, the Clintons are people who could find some way to insinuate “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” when they are explaining to a traffic cop whey they refused to stop at a damn stop sign.  Liberals are people who believe that laws are things for them to pass and impose and for little people to follow.

We have a pathologically partisan and dishonest media, but it is nice to know that even the mainstream press is going after Hillary Clinton’s fascist tyrant balls:

The Associated Press said Wednesday it has sued the State Department to force the release of government documents and e-mails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State, an action taken a day after she defended her use of a private e-mail account to conduct business and after six formal attempts by the news agency to obtain records.

“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” AP General Counsel Karen Kaiser said in a statement.

“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests,” Kaiser said.

At a news conference following a speech at a United Nations conference on women’s economic status Tuesday, Clinton defended her use of a private e-mail account, saying it was done for convenience. Using a personal account was permissible during her tenure as long as she kept the records, and she did not discuss classified information on her personal e-mail, Clinton said.

“Looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two separate e-mail accounts,” Clinton said. “I thought using one (mobile) device would be simpler. Obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.”

Clinton sent or received 62,320 total e-mails while heading the State Department, and deleted 31,830 that she deemed personal.

She turned over 30,490 e-mails to the State Department last fall at its request. More than 27,500 involved official government e-mail addresses.

Clinton said she “chose not to keep” personal e-mails, such as those related to daughter Chelsea’s wedding in 2010 or the funeral for her mother, Dorothy Rodham, who died in 2011. “No one wants their personal e-mails made public and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy,” she said.

Filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the lawsuit says “AP seeks the records in question from the State Department to inform citizens both regarding the operation of their government and regarding Secretary Clinton’s official actions as Secretary of State.”

Beginning in 2010, AP filed six requests under FOIA to obtain records from the State Department regarding Clinton’s tenure as secretary, including her calendars and schedules and records concerning the designation of Special Government Employee status given to her former deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin.

The news agency also sought records related to the raid in Pakistan in which Osama bin Laden was killed and surveillance and other anti-terrorism programs conducted by the U.S. government.

AP also requested documents detailing the State Department’s dealings with defense contractor BAE Systems. The State Department reached a settlement with BAE in 2011 over violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Since the first FOIA request was submitted, the State Department “has failed to respond substantively to five of the requests, and has only partially responded to one request” related to BAE Systems, according to the lawsuit.

Consider this factoid: even if you believe Clinton’s story – which makes you a FOOL, just for the official record – you have this issue to deal with: Hillary Clinton says that she spent half of her time (31,830 personal emails out of a TOTAL of 63,320 emails as Secretary of State) engaged in personal business.  Do you know what I call somebody who spends half their damn work time on personal emails?  A FORMER employee.  Because she’s fired.

If you want to believe Hillary Clinton’s story – and again you just identified yourself as a true FOOL – she is an astonishingly incompetent and self-centered pathological narcissist.

But no, Hillary Clinton set up her “private server” to avoid transparency and to avoid accountability.  And she is refusing to turn over her server because she is a liar with something very, very serious to hide.

Meanwhile, the pissy, pathologically fascist Obama Administration that praised and adored itself as “the most transparent” (communist dictatorship) in history has refused for FOR AT LEAST FIVE DAMN YEARS to turn over so much as an email saying “good morning” from the Secretary of State of the United States of America.  Oh, yeah, Obama will have his lawthug Eric Holder investigate the police department in Ferguson forever, but here’s a giant scandal involving his very top official and he can’t be bothered.

Obama is in this over his eyeballs.  He did what he always did and lied about it and said that he is a detached incompetent fool who didn’t even know what the hell was happening all around him, but yeah, he received emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server that was in graphic violation of the rules and policies and regulations that had been set up to protect the integrity of government service:

President Barack Obama communicated via email with Hillary Clinton while she used her personal email, according to the White House.

In a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama did correspond with his secretary of state via her private email address.

“The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his secretary of state,” Earnest said. “I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email each other.”

Earnest’s admission comes after Obama said on CBS on Saturday that he learned about Clinton’s use of a private email and server “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.” According to Earnest, this comment should not be assumed to mean that Obama and Clinton never emailed back and forth. […]

When pressed on whether Obama was aware that Clinton was conducting business over her private email, Earnest responded, “the point is the president did email with Secretary Clinton. I assume that he recognized the email address that he was emailing back to,” before saying that the important issue is whether she complied with the Federal Records Act.

I mean, “Oh, THOSE private emails!”

Just another day in the fascist life of fascists doing their fascist thing.

Even the leftist Democracy Now is publicly calling Obama “the least transparent president in history”:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” So wrote President Barack Obama, back on Jan. 29, 2009, just days into his presidency. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Now, six years into the Obama administration, his promise of “a new era of open Government” seems just another grand promise, cynically broken.

As the news industry observed its annual “Sunshine Week” in mid-March, The Associated Press reported that “[m]ore often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The AP report continued, “The government’s efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.”

That article is within days of being a year old now, and Obama had only just BEGUN to be a fascist thug at that point compared to what he’s done since.

In the same way, even the leftist New York Times acknowledges that Barack Obama’s regime “is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

Consider what this rat-bastard lying fascist thug promised us when he seized power in his own now-proven-to-have-been-demonic-lying words:

“A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.
The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.” {…}

Yeah, that sure happened.

In reality, if you ask ANY SENTIENT LIFE FORM – obviously that description excludes liberals – you get the type of statements I recorded above that Barack Obama is THE most closed, THE most secretive, THE most paranoid, THE most intolerant of the press, THE most intolerant to foia requests, of any president.

Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a fascist thug trying to take over the job of a fascist thug.  Period.  She claims her emails would have gone to .gov accounts that would have fallen under the law (you know, as the lesser people who had to follow the damn laws picked up for Hillary who refused to obey the requirements of government service).  But that’s a lie.  For example, her two most senior aides ALSO had their own private email accounts and did not use .gov accounts.  So those three wicked witches could literally have conspired to commit treason and none of us would ever know about it.  And to the best of my knowledge, the foreign governments – such as the sponsors of terrorism that Hillary Clinton illegitimately raked in MILLIONS from even while she was serving as Secretary of State on behalf of the Clinton Foundation – didn’t use .got accounts and sending all their emails to the US government.

We have to trust that what Hillary Clinton and her two senior priestesses decided to save and what they decided to purge was above-board.  Because we must trust Hillary Clinton’s, Huma Abedin’s and Cheryl Mills’ integrity the same way we should have had boundless confidence and trust in everything that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove did.  We should allow all government officials to conceal their communications and only cherry pick what they deem “relevant” from now on.

It is wrong to brand Hillary Clinton “Nixonian.”  But that is because it is a blatant dishonor of Richard Nixon when Nixon makes Clinton look like Billy Graham or whatever pope you think was the holiest holiness.  Nixon, remember, set up his taping system to PRESERVE THE RECORD.  He installed it to write his memoirs and probably to remind people of exactly what they’d told him.  And he only deleted what, eighteen minutes? from that taping system when those records may have incriminated him.  Hillary Clinton, by contrast, set up her servers to CONCEAL THE RECORD.  And she didn’t delete eighteen minutes, but rather four entire YEARS, from disclosure.

Clinton has now conclusively proven – by setting up a private server in her home to dodge reporting requirements such that there is no possibility whatsoever for transparent, accountable government beyond being required to implicitly trust the word of your dictator; she has already proven in her refusal to turn over records without spending more than two years having her staff of priestesses pouring over them for anything potentially incriminating against her and purging records; she has already proven in her imperious statements that she does not have to turn over anything to anybody because she like Obama is ontologically superior to the rest of us pathetic herd animals – that she is either not fit to be in ANY government position.  Or that our government should be “fundamentally transformed” to a tyranny.

We are now learning that Hillary Clinton’s “personal, private serve” was not so very private, after all, but that it was established by taxpayer funds and should belong to the people and not the tyrant.  Hillary claims she can’t turn over any actual records because after all, her decision to ONLY use a private server for official business somehow inadvertently resulted in mixing her personal emails in with official emails.  And after all, think of all of those intimate email exchanges she had with her husband, Bill.  Mind you, Bill says that he’s only sent two emails in his entire life and neither was to his shrew wife.  So that’s a stinking load of crap.

Hillary Clinton is like Al Sharpton, who somehow mysteriously suffered from not one but TWO suspicious fires that destroyed all of his financial records when he was running for public office.  And of course, neither Hillary’s corruption nor Al Sharpton’s corruption is enough to disqualify them from being liberal Democrats in good standing.  Because, of course, it’s actually dishonesty and corruption and a fascist disregard for the rule of law that qualifies them to be Democrats.

Make your choice, liberals.  But realize that if you choose Hillary Clinton, you also just chose your own personal nightmare of the most rabidly right-wing tyrant the world has ever seen having his records immune from disclosure.  And it will have been YOU who set that nightmare up and brought it to life.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need to go down and go down hard and go down in history as treasonous disgraces to everything that representative democracy and any kind of government by the people should be.  Either that, or else the next rabid right-wing tyrant needs to follow their example and run down the damn field with it.

 

 

Hillary Clinton Continues Liberal Pattern Of Thinking They Are Above The Law As They Impose The Law On Everyone Else

March 5, 2015

Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been charged with the same crime that General David Petraeus was charged with?  Petraeus pled guilty to removing and retaining classified information.  Well, what the hell did Hillary Clinton do when she violated the Federal Records Act to use her own private email account on her own private server to a) avoid any oversight by Congress and by her own State Department; and b) remove herself from all the protections that would have and should have been available from the IT and security staff at the State Department to protect her emails from spying/eavesdropping?

Even the way, waaaaay left of center New York Times is all but branding Hillary Clinton a felon:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Aside from ignoring the “serious breach”, Hillary Clinton has done two remarkably dishonest things: 1) she has essentially labeled this criticism a “vast, right wing conspiracy” and 2) she has laughably said that she has asked the State Department to release her emails.

As for the last, we had this:

Late Wednesday night, Mrs. Clinton tweeted: “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

I mean,holy crap, what are you even talking about, you Stalinist priestess?  YOU have all the emails.  You created your own damn SERVER in your damn HOUSE and NEVER had a State Department official account:

The move followed the revelation that Clinton had installed a private server at her New York home that allowed her, and not the State Department, to store her e-mail correspondence and later decide which ones to turn over as public records.

and:

But, agency officials said, the decision over which e-mails would be deemed public record fell to Clinton and her private advisers — not to government officials or archivists.

That last sentence ought to scare the hell out of you.  This is your Joseph Stalin, your Adolf Hitler, your Chairman Mao, Your Kim Jong Un – and yes, your Barack Hussein Obama and now Hillary Clinton – declaration that they are above the law because they alone get to decide what the law is both for themselves in pursuit of their own partisan and ideological axes and for everyone else.

And that vein keeps being mined by the article:

But government transparency advocates said the use of a private e-mail account and a private server meant that for years, Clinton’s e-mails were off-limits to public records requests filed with the State Department.

The long delay in turning records over to the State Department also places enormous power in the hands of her closest aides to decide which of her e-mails should be made public and which should be shielded from view.

“There’s no legitimate way to claim that there wasn’t a requirement, certainly to keep with the spirit of the law, to make real-time copies available to the agency,” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said new subpoenas were a good step because lawmakers do not have confidence Clinton has turned over all of her relevant e-mails to the State Department.

Agency officials have said they have submitted 300 of Clinton’s e-mails to the committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

“The prime reason to set up an account like this is to skirt the law, avoid disclosure,” Chaffetz said. “The question isn’t the number of e-mails she has turned over, it’s the percentage. I want to know who decided what we could see.”

There is simply no question that an untrustworthy woman acted in a blatantly untrustworthy manner and covered it up the same way Benghazi was covered up.  Who gets to cherry-pick the record?  Hillary Clinton and her troupe of traitors, that’s who.

She doesn’t want the public to “see” anything but LIES.

The Washington Post article also points out that:

Meanwhile, government transparency advocates expressed concern over the level of control Clinton had asserted over her records. Security experts wondered if hackers could exploit weaknesses in the Clinton server to gain access to sensitive information.

Was that merely a possibility, or did something like that actual happen due to Hillary Clinton’s indifference to US security?  We find that Hillary Clinton exposed the United States of America to every threat you can imagine.  These paragraphs from MRC TV say it all:

A Romanian hacker currently imprisoned in Bucharest (alias “Guccifer”) is responsible for exposing Hillary Clinton’s secret use of a private email account to the world, and Clinton registered the domain “clintonemails.com” the day she was confirmed to be Secretary of State. Clinton used only this email address (hdr22@clintonemail.com) for her entire four-year tenure at the State Department. […]

The server that hosted Hillary Clinton’s email was run out of her New York home, according to the AP, and despite the Federal Records Act, no record was kept of her emails. Top Hillary aides also have @clintonemail.com addresses and have used them to conduct government business, Gawker reports.

Hosting email through one’s own server is typically the exclusive domain of technical experts, so Clinton’s move was highly unusual. It would give her “impressive control over limiting access to her message archives,” reported the AP, because investigators would have to go directly through her, and could not appeal to a corporate email host like Google or Microsoft.

So we have Clinton and her fellow Clinton goons having complete and total and solitary access to pretty much everything that Hillary Clinton did and no one else.  We have an intentional violation of the law from the very damn getgo of the debacle of the Hillary Clinton Secretary of State-ship.  We have an obvious callous disregard for the security of the United States in favor of Hillary Clinton’s pathological penchant for secrecy.

And for the record, this came out in the Benghazi hearings in which a criminal Obama Administration, in participation with a criminal Clinton State Department, criminally covered up a TERRORIST ATTACK during which the first U.S. ambassador since the failed CARTER YEARS was murdered as a result of shocking and disgraceful incompetence and shocking and disgraceful politicized foreign policy.

What else was happening?  What OTHER Clinton shenanigans were going on during this corrupt woman’s corrupt tenure as the corrupt Obama regime’s corrupt Secretary of a corrupt State?  This Washington Post headline says it pretty well:

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger February 25 

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

What are the chances that we will find Hillary Clinton offering quid pro quo conditions to foreign governments – including governments that have terrorist connections – in exchange for money to Hillary’s greedy foundation?  ZERO, because Hillary Clinton and her priestesses are the sole key-keepers to the Clinton secrets vault.

Hillary Clinton would be charged with federal crimes and be forced to plead guilty to avoid doing hard time in prison.  Because she did FAR WORSE than General David Petraeus did.

According to a 2009 federal law which applied during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, you have to archive any and all private emails with your government agency.  Hillary Clinton CLEARLY did not do that according to the above quotes from the above Washington Post:

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Liberals are trying to raise dust clouds by saying Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the same thing.  In fifteen words, let’s take that on by the horns: “Did either of them run for president either before or after their tenures as SecState?”  NO.  That fact ALONE obviates any comparison with Powell and Rice unless Hillary does NOT run for president.  Because if you run for president, you put yourself under a completely different standard and a completely different level of scrutiny.  And secondly, did the law change AFTER both Powell and Rice served their terms?  YES:

The Times article, by Washington-based reporter Michael Schmidt, stated that Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email address at the State Department “may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.” In reports and press releases, Brock’s groups argued that Schmidt’s article neglected to mention that the relevant portions of the Federal Records Act pertaining to such requirement did not go into effect until November 2014, after Clinton’s tenure at State.

Unfortunately for these pro-Hillary groups, the regulations that are relevant to Schmidt’s report – the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements – have been in place since at least 2009, when Clinton became secretary of state.

According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which Schmidt provided in an email, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

In short, the State Department was required to ensure that Secretary Clinton’s emails, including those on personal accounts, were preserved in an agency record-keeping system. The failure to ensure such preservation would therefore likely be in violation of the federal requirements, though it’s not clear whether all of her personal emails – or just those related to official business – would be required.

Schmidt believes that all of Clinton’s emails would be required, and pointed to a 2008 definition from NARA that defines federal records as “documentary materials that agencies create and receive while conducting business that provide evidence of the agency’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and operations, or because they contain information of value.”

The law regarding emails dates back to 1995 stating that all such communications be archived.

If Hillary Clinton created a system whereby her private/personal and official emails were intermixed – which she clearly did by creating a server and an email account in her own home – then ALL of her emails become “official.”  And if ANYONE ought to decide which emails are off limits at this point, it ought to be the most rabidly partisan conservative tea party member in America.  Because she created this mess for HERSELF.

I submit that Hillary Clinton did not violate the Federal Records Act once; she violated it thousands and in fact likely tens of thousands of times.  Because every single time she sent an email from her private account and did not archive it with the State Department – EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME SHE SENT A NEW EMAIL – she broke the law anew.  And we know as a FACT that she set out to break the law from the very moment she was foolishly and wickedly confirmed by the Stalinist Democrat Party.

So where’s Eric Holder spending the next three years investigating her and preventing her from even mounting a campaign the way he did to General David Petraeus?  Nowhere to be found.  Because under the criminal Obama administration the law has become a political weapon just like the IRS became a political weapon.

As for the Hillary Clinton team charge that this is nothing but a vast, right wing conspiracy – such as the one that someone managed to secretly insinuate Bill Clinton’s semen on a very young woman’s dress – this isn’t just Republicans anymore:

  • “There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary,” said Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina who has said he hopes Vice President Biden runs. “Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails?”
  • Don Paulson, chairman of the Muscatine County Democrats in Iowa, said he was disturbed by the Clinton Foundation’s practice of accepting donations from foreign governments at a time when Mrs. Clinton was preparing a campaign for the White House. He saw that as one reason why the party should vet her and other candidates in a competitive primary, rather than allow her to coast to the nomination without a real fight. “It’s a healthier thing all around if there’s competition,” he said.
  • Kim Weaver, chairman of the O’Brien County Democrats in Iowa, which holds the nation’s first presidential contest, said: “The questions need to be answered.” She added she would like to hear whether the personal email system Mrs. Clinton used carried adequate security protections. “If it’s no big deal, why not just come out and say what it is.”

Trust this radical disciple of leftist radical Saul Alinsky to your peril.

At this point, it is safe to say that another Democrat president means another fascist in the White House.

Hillary Clinton is a dangerous woman with a dangerous past who has dangerous future plans to finish off the United States of America for good.

She needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.  In her case, extinction is a GOOD thing.

 

It’s Now Crystal Clear: If You Have Courage And Want To Fight Terrorism, Vote GOP; If You’re A Coward And Want To Be A Slave, Vote Democrat

August 29, 2014

Yesterday pretty much nailed it: John McCain and Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement way back on August 7 that said, “The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS.”  And then Obama went on vacation and played golf.  Lots and lots of golf, prompting the liberal editorialist Maureen Dowd to point out on August 23:

FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.

I mean, Obama literally left to play golf NINE MINUTES after delivering his “statement of resolve” following Foley’s beheading.

Wednesday, John McCain says what is by now beyond painfully obvious yet again:

Asked if he would want Obama to seek congressional authorization for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, McCain said the president still hadn’t developed a strategy.

“Under the War Powers Act he can bomb and then come to Congress after 30 days,” McCain said. “But what he really needs to do is come to Congress with a strategy, with policies that implement this strategy. Does anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?”

Well, DOES anyone on earth know what the president’s strategy is?  When the Turd-in-Chief finally comes back from vacation even HE says, “Hell no!”  He pointed out yesterday, “Hey, I’m the fool president and even I don’t have a damn clue what the president’s strategy is.”  That’s basically what Obama said:

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

At least the fool didn’t say, “I don’t want to put the cart before the clubs.”  As in GOLF clubs.

Now, he could have gone on to say, “But don’t worry.  I will be going straight to the Situation Room and will not be coming out until America has an effective strategy to  deal with the terrorist army that I foolishly and stupidly called “JayVee” just a few months ago.”  But then he’d have to say, “PSYCH!  I’m only kidding.  I’m not going to the Situation Room.  I’m going to another damn FUNDRAISER!  I don’t give a damn about the American people.  They’re less than cockroaches to me.”

Mind you, it’s not like this terrorist army that Obama only recently was mocking as “JayVee” has been building and growing for the last four years.  Except oh, wait, it HAS been.

Obama having no strategy is a national disgrace that will cause serious damage to America.  There IS no enemy who presents a greater threat to the security of the United States than our Fool-in-Chief.  It is FAR easier to destroy a nation from within than it is from without; as Obama is proving every day.

Amazingly, Obama the coward is trying to blame both the media and the Pentagon for his being a fool without a damn plan.  It’s not the Pentagon that doesn’t have a damn plan; it’s the failed fool who is supposed to be the damn commander-in-chief.  The Pentagon has ALL SORTS of plans that are just waiting for a president to ask for them.  That’s all some top brass DO is formulate plans for every possible scenario.  The only possible crisis disaster that the Pentagon doesn’t have a plan for is what happens if a moronic thug assumes the office of the presidency of the United States.  At the same time, Obama is trying to blame the media for the stupidity of his words, as if it’s the media’s fault that they are quoting exactly what he said exactly as he said it, as if Obama views himself a hand-puppet and is accusing some reporter of forcing his lips to mouth “I don’t have a plan” as he impersonated Obama’s voice just off the platform.

That sort of moral cowardice is the hallmark of his entire presidency as he first demonized and blamed Bush for his first failed term as president and then began to blame the House of Representatives for his second failed term as president.  Every president since George WASHINGTON had a predecessor and even WASHINGTON had politicians from the other party in Congress.  Obama is the first true coward who believes that a single opponent with any power is a threat to his status as a fascist dictating tyrant.  And that’s why this malevolent narcissist is so paranoid about Republicans.

And of course what’s Hillary Clinton saying about Obama’s not having any plan?  She’s repeating her Benghazi line saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?”  She said in testimony about that utter and disgraceful fiasco, “With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or because of guys out for a walk one night who decide to kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”  And she couldn’t even provide the correct motive – a TERRORIST ATTACK – as one of her possible scenario options to consider.

We had THREE WEEKS WARNING of that attack which resulted in the murder of the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter years in the 1970s.  But what difference does it make, indeed.

There’s a crystal-clear pattern of Democrat behavior: an inability to see or face danger which results in our being viciously caught unprepared.  It’s been the case since World War I, frankly.  World War II, happened again.  Korea, happened again.  Vietnam, happened again.

Mind you, it’s not just Hillary Clinton.  Her replacement as Secretary of State has also twisted reality into a pretzel to suit the Obama talking points spin.  A year ago they refused to arm the rebellion in Syria when the experts (and the Republicans) were urging them to, citing their fear that the weapons would fall into the hands of the more radical elements.  Until it suited their talking point to claim the EXACT OPPOSITE and argue that in fact the rebel opposition was actually somehow growing more moderate as a result of Obama’s dithering and refusing to lift a damn finger to help them.  And the facts that documented the opposite just be damned.

Now, I would submit to you that the forces of ISIS/ISIL that pretty much OWN everything that Syrian dictator Assad doesn’t rather proves the fact that John Kerry and the damn Obama regime couldn’t have been more freaking wrong.  With the result that Obama literally cemented both ISIL AND Assad to permanent power in the region.

Meanwhile, Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan wrote a letter asking to join ISIS/ISIL and become a “citizen” of the terrorist state.  But keep in mind according to Barack Obama, Nidal Hasan is NOT a terrorist.  He’s only guilty of “work-place violence.”  And the fact that he screamed Allah Akbar while he was murdering American servicemen after passing out business cards that announced him as a “soldier of Allah” meant NOTHING to Democrats.  Not ONE DAMN THING.  So let’s bury our heads in the sand and not call reality what it is and hope it goes away.  That’s the security platform of the Democrat Party.

Democrats are pathologically weak on national security.  And they have been ever since they hounded Lyndon Baines Johnson – who of course is to blame for the Vietnam War if ANYONE is – back in 1968 when they showed that the heart of the modern Democrat Party is VIOLENT FASCISM at the 1968 riot otherwise known as the Democrat National Convention.

There’s a reason for that.  And that reason is that the Democrat Party is completely wedded to secular humanism, and therefore to atheism, to postmodernism and to existentialism.  They don’t believe in Truth as an objective category, and therefore they do not believe in any ultimate line between good and evil.  It’s all infinite shades of gray to them.  At least unless they’re talking about homosexuality and abortion – in which they take a firm stand landing on the completely opposite side from God and His Word.

And that moral idiocy makes Democrats moral cowards.

Consider a few FACTS as I demonstrate this point and drive it home:

On many levels these ISIL terrorists are worse than the Nazis EVER were and a far greater threat to the world than the Nazis ever were.

Who let this happen???  If you say “Bush” you are both stupid and depraved.  By the end of 2007, al Qaeda in Iraq was routed.  In fact, al Qaeda had not only been defeated, but humiliated.  Obama kept claiming that al Qaeda was on the run while in reality he was allowing them to rebuild.  But al Qaeda truly WAS on the run when Bush left office – having been routed and humiliated in Iraq – and ISIS basically didn’t even exist yet.

It is simply a documented FACT that Barack Obama cut and ran from Iraq AFTER the United States under George W. Bush had secured victory in the form of a safe and stable Iraq that Obama and Biden BOASTED about.

It is a documented FACT that back in early 2009 we have Obama ON THE RECORD overruling his generals and his experts and deciding that he would completely abandon Iraq.  That is simply a FACT and anybody who tries to whine about Obama desperately trying to obtain a suitable status of forces agreement is a LYING FOOL.  In the same manner, we have Obama ON THE FACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD OVERRULING HIS ENTIRE NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM AND DECIDING IN HIS OWN INCOMPETENT STUPIDITY NOT TO ARM THE PRO-DEMOCRACY REBELS IN SYRIA WHEN THEY HAD A REAL CHANCE TO ATTAIN VICTORY.

There is simply no question that Obama gave his fiasco of a “red line” warning and then did NOTHING.  Except allow Putin and Russia to step in and ensure the continued rule of Syrian dictator Assad who suddenly became instrumental because of his part in cooperating to destroy the WMD (much of which almost certainly came to Syria via IRAQ, fwiw).  And allow ISIS to spread like the cancer it is, first exploiting Obama’s weakness in failing to attack in Syria and then in Obama’s weakness in completely pulling out and abandoning Iraq.

If you ask any liberal, “Which wins wars, materiel or will?”  That Democrat will say “Materiel, of course”  They view war as pushing a button and defeating an enemy.  But to any graduate of West Point or Annapolis, that answer is WRONG.  It is WILL that defeats opponents and wins wars.  And under Obama we don’t have any will to fight.  Polls show that the American people don’t want to fight because their president has taught them his moral foolishness and cowardice.  A people need to be led; Obama has led them to the pen where they can be slaughtered like the sheep they have become.

And now we have not a terrorist group but a terrorist ARMY that is even WORSE than al Qaeda with a stranglehold over a 36,000 mile CALIPHATE that Osama bin Laden DREAMED of to show for it.  Obama’s own experts are pointing out the FACT that they are more dangerous than al Qaeda EVER was.  And it was Obama who allowed this terrorist army to metastasize.  They called themselves “ISIS” which meant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.  But since Obama literally GAVE them Iraq and Syria, they are now calling themselves simply “IS” for “Islamic State.”  Because the more you give these monsters, the more they become hungry to TAKE.  You cannot negotiate with them.  You cannot appease them.  You can only either defeat them or bow down before them.  That is your stark, black-and-white choice.

Back in 2005, US intelligence captured a letter from the top al Qaeda leadership that put the aims of al Qaeda into four stages: 1) Drive America out of Iraq; 2) create a caliphate; 3) use that as a base to attack the United States and other countries; 4) attack Israel.  They didn’t drive us out of Iraq; Obama drove us out of Iraq when we had already secured victory.  And we have since watched them systematically succeed in their plan beyond all of the worst possible scenarios.  They’re coming right back at us and we’re now far too weary, weak and divided to fight them.

Liberals don’t believe in “black-and-white.”  Their world consists of infinite shades of gray.  There are no transcendent absolutes; there is no objective right or objective wrong.  Morality is relative, constantly changing and evolving according to Obama’s whim rather than according to God’s timeless Word.

There is no question that Obama and Democrats allowed this.  The only question is WHY did they allow it.  And here’s the answer:

Jonah Goldberg reminded us of the attacks that came from the left when George W. Bush had the narrow-mindedness to refer to terrorists as “evildoers.”  Goldberg pointed out the left’s objection to the word “evil” because to them:

it was, variously, simplistic, Manichean, imperialistic, cartoonish, etc.

“Perhaps without even realizing it,” Peter Roff, then with UPI, wrote in October 2001, “the president is using language that recalls a simpler time when good and evil seemed more easy to identify — a time when issues, television programs and movies were more black and white, not colored by subtle hues of meaning.”

A few years later, as the memory of 9/11 faded and the animosity toward Bush grew, the criticism became more biting. But the substance was basically the same. Sophisticated people don’t talk about “evil,” save perhaps when it comes to America’s legacy of racism, homophobia, capitalistic greed and the other usual targets of American self-loathing.

For most of the Obama years, talk of evil was largely banished from mainstream discourse. An attitude of “goodbye to all that” prevailed, as the war on terror was rhetorically and legally disassembled and the spare parts put toward building a law-enforcement operation. War was euphemized into “overseas contingency operations” and “kinetic military action.” There was still bloodshed, but the language was often bloodless. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a protege of al-Qaida guru Anwar al-Awlaki, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed his colleagues at Fort Hood. The military called the incident “workplace violence.”

But sanitizing the language only works so long as people aren’t paying too much attention. That’s why the Islamic State is so inconvenient to those who hate the word “evil.” Last week, after the group released a video showing American journalist James Foley getting his head cut off, the administration’s rhetoric changed dramatically. The president called the Islamic State a “cancer” that had to be eradicated. Secretary of State John Kerry referred to it as the “face of . . . evil.”

Although most people across the ideological spectrum see no problem with calling Islamic State evil, the change in rhetoric elicited a predictable knee-jerk response. Political scientist Michael Boyle hears an “eerie echo” of Bush’s “evildoers” talk. “Indeed,” he wrote in The New York Times, “condemning the black-clad, masked militants as purely ‘evil’ is seductive, for it conveys a moral clarity and separates ourselves and our tactics from the enemy and theirs.”

James Dawes, the director of the Program in Human Rights and Humanitarianism at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., agreed in a piece for CNN.com. Using the word “evil,” he wrote, “stops us from thinking.”

But as Goldberg points out, it’s not the people who use the term “evil” who “stop thinking”; it’s the idiots who refuse to think in the category that clearly reflects basic human reality.

The Bible nails these people.  They are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  And “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

When James Dawes says that “using the term evil stops us from thinking,” he’s not referring to himself or to his leftist ideology.  Of course not.  He’s referring to narrow-minded conservatives who think in ancient and therefore non-progressive and therefore obsolete terms of right and wrong.  He’s referring to those who in their narrow-mindedness refuse to understand morality as “colored by subtle hues of meaning” the way he does, the way Peter Roff does, the way Michael Boyle does, the way Barack Obama does.

Understand that Obama’s political rhetoric may have changed but he is still a doctrinaire liberal who continues to think like the doctrinaire liberal he is.

Obama referred to ISIS after the choreographed video of James Foley’s public beheading as a “cancer.”  But it’s just words.  If Obama truly realized the Islamic State terrorist army was a “cancer” he would order all of our resources to cut that cancer out and remove it no matter how painful that “surgery” would be.  But General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said with crystal clarity that the only way to defeat ISIS is to take them out in Syria:

WASHINGTON — The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” said the chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, in his most expansive public remarks on the crisis since American airstrikes began in Iraq. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Obama’s meaningless response to ISIS in Syria makes it clear: Obama will NOT defeat ISIS.  At best, he will play patty cake with “cancer.”   Thank God Obama will eventually go, but when he [finally!!!] does, the “cancer” of ISIS will remain.  Due to the pathological weakness and cowardice of Obama.

ISIS/ISIL has been growing and building for all the years that Obama has been our failed president.  While Obama was mocking them as “JayVee” they were building up with experienced terrorist personnel, seizing territory, seizing BILLIONS of dollars, seizing a vast arsenal of military equipment such that they literally have the power of a true state, and absorbing whole networks to keep becoming more and more and more effective.  While Obama did NOTHING.

Now, understand why I call Obama a “coward” for not taking on a fight that his previous weakness and cowardice caused.  Obama doesn’t give a DAMN if our soldiers die; he’s out golfing.  What makes Obama afraid and a COWARD is that if he tries to stand up and do the right thing, his own leftist base will viciously turn on him.  Because liberals are evil and cowardly and everything that is truly contemptible.  Obama isn’t man enough to deal with his own base; THAT’S what makes him a “coward.”  And a coward he is.

This is a story of of Overseas Contingency Operations, Man-Caused Disasters and how the pathological weakness and moral cowardice of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party has inspired ad emboldened our worst enemies.

One of the things I vividly recall after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was his statement – after being waterboarded and broken – that he believed that the United States response after the 9/11 attack was so massive and so lethal and so devastating that he doubted that al Qaeda would ever dare to attack the United States again.

The terrorist mastermind was waterboarded until he was “vomiting and screaming.”  He was waterboarded and he was interrogated until he was broken.

Now, we were told by a dishonest media that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “waterboarded 183 times.”  Which is bullcrap.  He was waterboarded FIVE TIMES, which consisted in 183 pourings of water.

Another lie of the dishonest leftist media is that Mohammed was interrogated during his waterboarding and we could somehow not trust anything he said because people will say anything you want them to say when they are being tortured.  Again, bullcrap.  For one thing, waterboarding consisted in only one aspect of his interrogation.  He wasn’t interrogated AT ALL while he was being waterboarded; the entire process was intended to acheive one thing and one thing only: to alter the terrorist’s perception and to force them to understand their new reality, that the United States of America owned them and would stop at nothing to defeat them and to crush their ideology.  Waterboarding was only one PART of that process that Obama has ENDED.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was wrong, of course, in his assessment that terrorists would never dare to attack the United States again due to the astonishing massiveness of the American response.  He was wrong because his waterboarding colored his thinking such that he failed to remember how pathologically weak the Democrat Party truly is and how inspired and emboldened the pathological weakness of the Democrat Party makes our enemies.  All it took was for one Democrat regime to get elected to re-embolden the stunned and dismayed terrorists.

It was via waterboarding and that breaking process that KSM and the other two terrorists who were WATERBOARDED gave up two key facts that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden: the name of Osama bin Laden’s courier – Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq – and the city in Pakistan -Abbottabad – where bin Laden was hiding.  Those two crucial pieces of information ultimately enabled American intelligence to track Osama bin Laden to the very house he was living in in that large city.

Barack Obama was able to boast that he got bin Laden.  But he only got him because of the very thing he demonized and criminalized.

America will NEVER break another terrorist until every Democrat has been hunted down with dogs and burned alive.  Because the platform of the Democrat Party is treasonous self-loathing and the refusal to stand up to our enemies and punch them in the mouth before you blow their smirking heads right off their shoulders.

Obama has GUTTED our intelligence capability and he was already at work doing so back in 2009.

Right now we’re seeing the fruits of Obama’s pathological weakness.  For example, when you see the images of beheaded journalist James Foley and the other captured Americans in orange jumpsuits

Both prisoners in the video are wearing orange shirts and pants, similar to orange jumpsuits worn by detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A similar outfit, believed to be a jihadist symbol of the prison, was worn by Nicholas Berg, an American businessman kidnapped in Iraq in 2004 whose execution by an Islamic State precursor organization was recorded on video and posted online.

– realize that Barack Obama is very obviously far too much of a damn coward to put terrorists in orange jumpsuits (which scream GITMO), but our terrorist enemies have no such fear of putting Americans in them.

In the same manner, consider how liberals came completely unglued over “the scandal” of Abu Ghraib and terrorists being “abused” and “humiliated.”  And of course it was all Bush’s fault.  But of course the even worse scandals that happened under Obama WEREN’T his fault.  But forget about the leftist abject hypocrisy and simply contrast our Abu Ghraib with how the same people who were such “victims” act when THEY get power: they strip them to their underwear, march them humiliated into the desert and mass-execute them.  The Islamic jihadist terrorists view us as weak because we don’t have the stomach to impose our power the way THEY clearly have.  And liberals are literally morally incapable of saying which is worse – Abu Ghraib where nobody died or ISIS where they slaughter their prisoners like sheep – because their hatred of Bush is only surpassed by their hatred of Truth and Objective, Transcendent Morality.

We’ve got a very firm and clear pattern established: Republicans fight evil and liberals surrender to it.

You look at the disastrous cuts of the 1970s under Carter.  You look at the disastrous cuts under Clinton in the 1990sYou look at the disastrous gutting of the military under Obama now.  And you realize that Democrats are pathologically stupid people because they are pathological moral idiots who cannot understand the nature of the world because at their core they do not believe in good or evil due to their abandonment of God.

We had the weak disgrace Jimmy Carter.  And then we had Ronald Reagan who had to pick up the pieces of Carter’s disgraceful weakening of America.

Then we had George H.W. Bush’s “This will not stand” contrasted with the Bill Clinton subsequent legacy of disgraceful policy toward terrorism.  Bill Clinton’s legacy was to leave America both weak militarily and blind due to his crippling of our intelligence capabilities.  As I’ve documented more than once:

Why did we get attacked on 9/11? Let’s find out in the words of the man who attacked us after Bill Clinton’s abject fiasco commonly known as Black Hawk Down in Somalia:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Our military was weak as a result of Clinton’s cuts. How about our intelligence that is tasked with seeing an attack coming??? Clinton gutted that too:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”
The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately
.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

The 9/11 attack was the result of the joke that the military had become as a result of a Bill Clinton who gutted the military budget. Bush I took Reagan’s mantle and won the Cold War and defeated the Soviet-armed Iraqi regime; Bill Clinton tore that great, powerful military apart. And we paid dearly for it. And every single penny that Clinton saved by dismantling our military and our intelligence Bush had to pay a thousandfold.

As Bill Clinton turned over the presidency to George Bush, he turned over a nation that had already been infected with the 9/11 attack.  Every single 9/11 attacker was ALREADY IN AMERICA while Bill Clinton was president.  They already had most of their training.  They already had their funding.

And now we’ve got George W. Bush contrasted with Barack Obama.  Carter tore the military down.  Reagan built it back up and won the Cold War that had begun under the presidency of Harry Truman in the aftermath of World War II.  Bush II continued the military build-up to confront the new threats that were arising in the Middle East; Clinton said a strong military was obsolete and tore it down again.  Bush II built the military up because Clinton had failed America and ignored the warnings of the cancer of terrorism.  And now Obama has gutted it again.  Our military is a shambles under ObamaThree calendar years ago I was pointing out how evil was spreading like  cancer in the Middle East under Obama.  That is simply a fact and has BEEN a fact that our enemies have noted just as they have taken Obama’s measure and noted his personal weakness.  And if you want to tell me that Obama’s putrid weakness has worked better for us that Bush’s policy of FIGHTING OUR ENEMIES, please don’t write to me, because weaklings and cowards make me sick and I’m sick of being sickened by people like you.

Bill Clinton said the right things when it was politically expedient for him to do so and then denied the very things he said when it was politically expedient for him to do so.  He stood for nothing.  And it was just hollow words, much like when Obama calls ISIS/ISIL a “cancer” and then refuses to stop its spread and kill it.

A liberal writer writing for the liberal Daily Beast and quoted by a different liberal publication framed the rise of al Qaeda from the dust of death it had been in thus:

The regeneration of al Qaeda in Iraq and its expansion into Syria is a warning to American decision makers. Few al Qaeda franchises or associated movements have ever been permanently destroyed. They can be disrupted and dismantled and yet fully regenerate once the pressure subsides. [Daily Beast]

Let me simply ask you: who kept the pressure on and who took the pressure OFF?  It was OBAMA who took the pressure off these terrorists and allowed them to rebuild.  Who on the other hand has been screaming to keep the pressure ON and been repeatedly demonized for doing so?  The Republicans who have the courage to face reality while the Democrats are COWARDS to their cores.

Which is why Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, “both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines.”  As they New York Times put it in describing how these two nations took matters into their own hands (because Obama was cowering in a corner when he wasn’t strutting around on a golf green) and bombed ISIS in Syria.  We are now completely irrelevant, even to our closest ALLIES in the region.  We spent the last century building our power and our alliances so that we could shape events.  And one weak, cowardly petty tyrant has squandered all of our influence and prestige and ability to project power away from us.

There is something chilling about the execution by beheading of James Foley that you need to understand:

A video posted on YouTube, later removed, purported to show the execution of James Foley after he recited a statement in which he called the U.S. government “my real killers.”

Foley gave them what they wanted.  He said everything they wanted him to say, did everything they wanted him to do.  And then they slaughtered him anyway.

You can’t appease these people.  You can’t compromise with them.  You can’t negotiate with them.  You can’t “seek to understand them.”  Tolerance is a form of suicide.

The Democrat Party has not understood that since 1968.

You either fight and defeat jihadist terrorism or you knuckle under and surrender to it.  And history has now proven again and again that Democrats will surrender to terrorism every chance they get.  Because they are moral idiots who are incapable of truly believing in good and evil and therefore have an innate tendency to seek to compromise with evil and negotiate with it and ultimately to surrender to it.

There is a simple formula of wisdom or common sense: when it comes to a strong military and reliable intelligence, would you rather have when you may not need – as conservatives have been arguing we should have since we were caught completely flat-footed and weak when we were attacked to start World War II – or would you rather desperately need when you do not have as Democrats desire?  That formula has led to disaster over and over again.  And it has led to disaster now.  Conservatives want a greater projection of strength to DETER aggression; Democrats want more welfare, more dependency, fewer people with jobs, a weaker America, an America that will bare its throat to the scimitar.

There are TWO forms of evil that are both working in concert to destroy America today: one is the evil of ISIS terrorists and the other is the evil of the Democrat Party that has enabled them to so gain the upper hand and which continues to be the only barrier to America having the resolve to fight them and destroy them.  And interestingly both forms of evil are mutually parasitic upon the other: the terrorists cannot win without the Democrat’s movement of cowardly appeasement and surrender; and the modern Democrats need to have Republicans take a strong stand against evil so they can backstab and undermine and demagogue and demonize and fearmonger that strong resolve as they whine, “They’re going to drag you into another war if you vote for them!”

Your vote in November, in 2016 and beyond will be a historic affirmation of whether you have courage or whether you are a true coward.

When Did Women Become So GODLESS That ‘Religious Freedom’ Is Somehow Tantamount To ‘War On Women’???

July 3, 2014

If you allow the left to frame the narrative for you, women NEVER had reproductive freedom until Barack Obama – their lord, their master, their savior and their god – GAVE it to them.

And of course now – because of conservatives and mostly of course because of conservative men who clearly hate women unless they’re a) barefoot and b) pregnant – just took it away from them.

Hillary Clinton’s tirade borders beyond idiotic and reaches evil:

Hillary Clinton Sees “Elements” Of Hobby Lobby Ruling In Treatment Of Women In Islamic World…

Does this woman ever think before she speaks?

Via BuzzFeed:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday called the Supreme Court’s ruling that employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for insurance coverage for contraception “deeply disturbing.” […]

During her remarks on the topic, Clinton said “this element” is seen in foreign countries where women are deprived of rights. “Among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families,” she said. “It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism.”

“Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury but as a central issue, is because they’re often the canaries in the mine,” Clinton said. “You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights, some of them never have them, some of them lose them. Among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism. Where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people — men — to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever. So to introduce this element into our society… it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

I want to point out a very important fact: to the extent that this Supreme Court decision is truly sweeping – as many liberals are claiming it is – they have only THEMSELVES and their false messiah Barack Hussein Obama to blame.  Because Hobby Lobby IN POINT OF FACT – demon-possessed liberal liars to the contrary – OFFERED CONTRACEPTION in its generous health coverage for its workers.  In point of fact, they offered SIXTEEN DIFFERENT FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL.

If you claim that Hobby Lobby was denying birth control to women, you are simply a LIAR without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity of any kind.  You are utterly immune from reality.  It is so false it’s evil.

The ONLY thing they refused to pay for was abortifacients that aren’t “birth control” but rather kill babies.  These drugs that Hobby Lobby opposes don’t prevent conception; they end pregnancy by terminating the baby.

The drugs Hobby Lobby opposed do NOT prevent a woman from releasing eggs (ovulating); they do NOT prevent sperm from reaching or fertilizing an egg; they act on the zygote – read BABY – AFTER conception.

Hillary Clinton is a mentally- and morally-diseased LIAR for claiming that Hobby Lobby denies contraception.  And that is precisely what she did:

“it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Is Hillary Clinton simply ignorant?  Does she not know that Hobby Lobby provided every actual form of legitimate contraception that WASN’T an abortion-causing drug for their employees???  I don’t think she’s stupid; I THINK SHE’S A LIAR.  She KNOWS what she is saying is false – just as most of the talking heads on the left know what they are saying is false – but then she and they dishonesty say it anyway.

Because in fascism – as in ALL godless systems – the ends always justify the means.  And it is only out of “religious values” that include the sanctity of human life that keeps someone from lying out of their ass whenever it aids their self-centered cause.

I am so beyond sick of the pathological dishonesty and wickedness of the left.

Do you want to know something else?  To whatever extent this case has the sort of sweeping, draconian results that the left is screaming about, there is ONE PERSON to blame: Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama should have allowed Hobby Lobby and businesses which share Hobby Lobby’s moral and religious values to provide the abundant birth control that they WERE ALREADY PROVIDING and simply granted them the waiver from the abortifacients that they requested.

Had Barack Obama been willing to listen to reason, been able to reach compromise like a grown-up rather than being the rabid ideologue he has always been, there would have BEEN no Supreme Court decision and there would have BEEN no sweeping decision that the left is weeping over.  But Barack Obama is a demon-possessed Nazi fascist who MUST have his way and pushed it to beyond the breaking point.

Which is why Obama now stands ALONE in the entire history of our republic as the ONLY president who has suffered THIRTEEN UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AGAINST HIM.  That’s right: thirteen times, the Supreme Court has told America that Barack Obama is a rabid ideologue fascist who violated the Constitution again… and then again… and then again…. and then again… ad nauseum.

But, nope.  Obama was as Nazi with this case as Hitler was Nazi with his invasion of the Soviet Union.  And so he just suffered the “major blow” that liberals are now whining about as they weep and wail in their sackcloth and ashes.

If these businesses start denying ALL birth control, and that upsets you, you make damn sure you take it out on THE DEMOCRATS WHO CAUSED THE CRISIS by their rabid fascist refusal to compromise with morality or reality.  But wheat liberals will do instead – as we can see from all the lies and slander and propaganda – is to try to depict the people whose “crime” has been trying to make a rabid ideologue president listen to REASON for once in his bubbled life.

But it is the question as to how liberal women burned their Bibles when they burned their bras that I really want to talk about.

I want to know when the hell “women” decided that to allow ANYONE else to worship the God of the Bible and protect the sanctity of human life constituted a direct attack upon their “womanhood.”  I want to know when “godless” and “woman” became synonyms – as they very clearly are to this particular demon-possessed liberal woman, Hillary Clinton.

When did being a “woman” mean hating God, hating Christ, hating the Holy Bible, hating religion and hating babies???

How is it that women have morally degenerated to this point, when they have become such idiots that they are incapable of distinguishing between the FACTS that someone ELSE not being forced to pay for something is NOT equivalent to criminalizing the thing that they can on their own still go out and buy if they want it???  When did women become so evil that like Hillary Clinton they can’t differentiate between people who want to preserve the sanctity of human life by following the Judeo-Christian worldview as well as the Hippocratic Oath that shaped culture (“I will not give to a woman a pessary to procure an abortion“) with the murderous Taliban???  Since when did women become such complete moral imbeciles that they cannot tell the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Hippocrates and a Taliban terrorist???

I know the above isn’t true simply because I know that N.O.W. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with most actual WOMEN.  I know a lot of women in my church, for instance, who are every bit as outraged by the baby-massacring left as I am.  But from the point of view of the Democratic Party, from the point of view of the secular humanist, progressive liberal ideology that Democrats embrace and from the point of view of the mainstream media that serves as the propagandist for the aforementioned political party and the aforementioned worldview, it IS true.  So I ask from their perspective, when did women become so stupid, so ignorant and so evil that they are little more than the mindless herd animals that liberalism essential says they are???

Not With A Bang But A Whimper: LA Times Admits That Obama’s (And Hillary Clinton’s) Intervention In Libya Was A MAJOR Disaster

June 27, 2014

We hear all the time from liberals that George W. Bush broke the law when he attacked Iraq and that Bush turned Iraq into a hellhole with his warmongering.

It’s time to point out a few things.

Number one, no, Bush DIDN’T break the law when he attacked Iraq; he actually passed “the Iraq War Resolution” that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. voted for.  And when George Bush attacked Iraq, he did what nearly sixty percent of the Democrats in the US Senate authorized him to do.  And number two, when George Bush LEFT Iraq, he left a safe, stable region that prompted Joe Biden to say:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

… and for Barack Obama to boast in 2011:

“This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

and:

“[W]e will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe haven to terrorists.”

Bush left behind a safe, stable Iraq.  And all Barack Obama had to do was keep a small US force there to keep safe and stable what we had fought to make safe and stable.  Obama failed as only the worst kind of FOOL can fail by ignoring his top general’s urgent warnings and pleas to keep a force in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Do you want to know who broke the law and then left a ruined country that is completely going to pot now?

Barry Hussein Obama, that’s who.  Even the fool’s own damn LAWYERS told him that what he was doing was illegal and criminal.  But the thug in chief was above the law.

Obama’s reckless action in Libya prompted even a DEMOCRAT to say this about false messiah Obama:

Representative Lynn Woolsey charged the President of showing “contempt” for the Constitution, and insulting the intelligence of the American people.  Woolsey made the following statement: “The Obama Administration’s argument is one that shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive’s co-equal branch of government, the United States Congress.  To say that our aggressive bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ‘hostilities’ flies in the face of common sense and is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  This act must not stand, because we can’t afford another full-blown war—the ones we’re already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally.  Let those who support the military campaign against Libya make their case, in an open debate culminating with a vote in the U.S. Congress.  The American people deserve nothing less.”

And yes, the criminal fascist thug Obama DID what he ACCUSED George Bush of doing when he attacked Libya without bothering to get ANY Congressional approval:

Senator Obama, taking a cheap shot at then-President Bush:

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Do you remember being attacked by Libya?  Did the Libyans invade us?  I mean, maybe I was just asleep when it happened or something.  Otherwise, Barack Obama ought to be impeached, and the single witness against him should be … Barack Obama.  Barack Obama trampled all over the Constitution according to none other than … that’s right, Barack Obama.

George Bush got Congress’ approval before BOTH of his attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

And not only did Obama’s adventure in Libya NOT have the approval of Congress, but it also has less approval than ANY US military action in the last four decades going back to Vietnam.

And just what in the hell made our Idiot-in-Chief decide to be the first president in the sorry history of Gaddafi’s forty-plus years of abusing his own people to shake hands with the monster?

Do you see what a meandering idiot this guy is?

So having just taken that trip down memory lane, let’s see what the uberliberal leftist snot rag the Los Angeles Times has to say about the hellhole that Libya has become under Obama’s hypocritical and incompetent watch:

U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale
By Paul Richter,  Christi Parsons
June 27, 2014, 4:00 AM|Reporting from Washington

  • SHARELINES
    3 years after U.S. military intervention, Libya has become what U.S. officials dread most
    As the U.S. considers a limited intervention in Iraq, the experience in Libya is seen as a cautionary tale
    More than 50,000 people, including refugee and migrants, have flooded to Europe through Libya’s porous borders

A group of U.S. diplomats arrived in Libya three years ago to a memorable reception: a throng of cheering men and women who pressed in on the startled group “just to touch us and thank us,” recalled Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security advisor.

The Libyans were emotional because the U.S. and its allies had toppled leader Moammar Kadafi in a military campaign that averted a feared slaughter of Kadafi’s foes. Obama administration officials called the international effort, accomplished with no Western casualties, a “model intervention.”

But in three years Libya has turned into the kind of place U.S. officials most fear: a lawless land that attracts terrorists, pumps out illegal arms and drugs and destabilizes its neighbors.

Now, as Obama considers a limited military intervention in Iraq, the Libya experience is seen by many as a cautionary tale of the unintended damage big powers can inflict when they aim for a limited involvement in an unpredictable conflict.

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

Though they succeeded in their military effort, the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies fell short in the broader goal of putting Libya on a path toward democracy and stability. Exhausted after a decade of war and mindful of the failures in Iraq, U.S. officials didn’t want to embark on another nation-building effort in an oil-rich country that seemed to pose no threat to Western security.

But by limiting efforts to help the new Libyan government gain control over the country, critics say, the U.S. and its allies have inadvertently helped turn Libya into a higher security threat than it was before the military intervention.

Libya has become North Africa’s most active militant sanctuary, at the center of the resurgent threat that Obama warned about in a May address at West Point. A 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Arms trafficking from Libya “is fueling conflict and insecurity — including terrorism — on several continents,” an expert panel reported to the United Nations Security Council in February. Weapons smuggled out of Libya have been used by insurgents in Mali, by Boko Haram terrorists in Nigeria and by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

More than 50,000 people, including refugees from Syria and migrants from North Africa, have flooded into Europe through Libya’s porous borders, sharpening the continent’s immigration crisis.

The latest U.S. State Department travel warning portrays Libya as a society in near-collapse, beset by crime, terrorism, factional fighting, government failure and the wide availability of portable antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down commercial airplanes.

U.S. officials, now scrambling to reverse Libya’s downward spiral, say blame rests with the Libyans who took control of a country that has proved more dysfunctional than expected.

[…]

Some observers are warning that the administration eventually may be forced to do more. A Rand Corp. report this spring predicted that if Libya’s problems continue to worsen, another NATO intervention might be required.

“Libya is a lesson about the risks,” said Robert Danin, a longtime U.S. diplomat in the Middle East who warned about the risks of ensuing chaos. “With nation-building in disrepute, there’s a tendency now to want to declare victory and move on. But interventions can’t be done neatly.”

Here’s the money quote:

“If Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of overkill and overreach, Libya is the reverse case, where you do too little and get an unacceptable result,” said Brian Katulis, a Middle East specialist at the Center for American Progress, a think tank. “The lesson is that a low tolerance of risk can have its costs.”

That’s precisely what Obama did across the Middle East: he declared victory and moved on.  It’s what he did in Iraq in spite of the fact that he refused to deploy ANY security force whatsoever; it’s what he did in Libya after he bombed the country into rioting and terrorism that led to the Benghazi debacle and Obama’s cover-up of that debacle; it’s what he did in Syria after his weakness-personified “red line” and his deal with Putin that secured Assad’s power-grip and ultimately led to the rise of ISIS that is owning Obama right now.  Again and again, Obama declared victory and moved on, having done little or nothing.  He assured us that al Qaeda – which is now larger, more powerful, wealthier and controls more territory than EVER in it’s history – was “decimated” and “on the run.”  But they WEREN’T running; they were running their FLAG up over OUR embassies!!!  And Obama declared that ISIS was “JV” and that just because they dressed up in Laker’s uniforms didn’t make them Kobe Bryant.  When we can now see that it’s OBAMA who is “JV” and ISIS is looking like Kobe Bryant at the very top of his game in comparison to anything our weak president is doing.

Obama lied to you, America: you can’t eat your cake and have it, too.  We either fight to win or we lose and ultimately we die.  Those are out choices.

Whether in Iraq, or Libya, or anywhere ELSE you want to name, “worst-case scenario” is now becoming the normal state of affairs under this spectacularly failed presidency.

The point is this: Bush went on the offensive and there are those who argue that he failed.  Mind you, Bush left office with a JUST A SMALL FRACTION OF THE FORCE that Obama escalated Afghanistan into and was responsible for about a fifth of the casualties suffered in Afghanistan and HE WON IN IRAQ UNTIL OBAMA PISSED VICTORY AWAY (see also here and here).  And here for what I predicted back in 2011.

Obama’s “red line” fiasco turned into a bloodbath in Syria.  Obama’s complete withdrawal from and abandonment of Iraq turned into the largest terrorist caliphate the world has ever seen.  And it will be coming at us soon because they’ve SAID it would be coming:

[The United States] intercepted a letter written from Al-Zawahiri to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The letter described four stages that they would engage in: drive the Americans out, establish a caliphate in Bahgdad, use that base to attack other countries, attack Israel.

And as Obama has – as a result of his “policy” – utterly abandoned the Middle East to chaos and terrorism and murder – it is now obvious that Obama has failed FAR WORSE than Bush or any other president who ever lived.

Did you notice that Susan Rice was there again, she who is Obama’s top liar of choice first in Benghazi and more recently in the Bowe Bergdahl trade-your-soul and your five captured terrorist generals for a worthless turd deal???

I also can’t help but laugh that the same damn fool president who caused such a humanitarian crisis in Libya has also caused a similar one on our very own border with his ridiculously failed morally idiotic policies.

Somehow I remember the mainstream media propaganda that is our “journalism” today going ape poop over the Bush administration prediction that “we’ll be greeted as liberators” line.  But where have they been in the three years since Obama’s reckless, criminal and incompetent action in Libya broke down all civilized structures in Libya?  NOWHERE.  Because if you’re a reporter today, you view yourself as serving your messiah Obama and the Ultimate Cause of liberalism and secular humanism.  And you are willing to lie for your god and for your cause because you believe the ends justify the means.

George Bush essentially won the Iraq War in 21 days.  That’s how long it took for the air power to cripple Iraq’s ability to wage war and for US troops to largely secure the most vital parts of the country.  The rest of it was the attempt to “build and hold.”  Obama didn’t bother with that in Libya.  Hell, he didn’t even bother with it in Iraq.  As Jonah Goldberg pointed out:

Hillary Clinton has defined leadership in a democracy as a relay race: “You run the best race you can run; you hand off the baton.” Obama was handed a baton he didn’t want, so he dropped it.

Which is to say that even by Hillary Clinton’s standard, Barack Obama was a complete, unmitigated FAILURE who screwed America horribly in Iraq.  Obama lost what had been won at great cost because he didn’t like the baton he was held and threw it away like it was a piece of trash even as he claimed credit for the victory that he was about to piss away with his abject fool stupidity.

When you secure something, you stay there to make sure it STAYS secured.  That’s one of the great lessons that we learned in Vietnam.  We would take a hill at bloody cost, like “Hamburger Hill, and then withdraw a day after we took it to allow the communists to occupy it all over again.  We learned not to do that by paying a terrible price for our stupidity.  Only to have Barack Obama UN-learn it for us so we get Vietnam all over again.

At this point I submit that there is only one thing left to try regarding the Middle East: the World War II strategy.

In World War II we did not concern ourselves with “collateral damage.”  If you were a civilian and you were sitting on a Nazi tank, too damn bad for you.

We FIREBOMBED Dresden.  We killed something like 135,000 people.

We FIREBOMBED Tokyo.  We killed about 100,000 people – nearly as many as both the two atomic bombs combined did.

We were able to do that because we were a people who had something to live for, something to fight for, and therefore something to kill our enemies for.

We HAVE to respond to terrorist attacks.  And frankly at the same time, we’re simply not prepared any more – for various reasons including sheer exhaustion – to conquer, hold and rebuild.

All that is left is to bomb the populations that allow terrorism to fester into the stone age.  And if they start to get nasty again, bomb the rubble into smaller particles of rubble.  And DON’T GO IN.  LEAVE THEM to the consequences of their evil ideology.

Turn Afghanistan into “Lake Afghanistan” if that is what it takes to end the scourge of Islamic violence.  Because at this point, if these people are going to act like cockroaches, they need to be STOMPED like cockroaches.  And we don’t need to send in troops as long as we’ve got a big enough fly swatter from the air and our naval platforms out at sea.

I truly believe that if the message – the clear, consistent message regardless of president or party – was, “If you threaten us or our interests, we will bring the fire of hell to you, to your women and to your children,” terrorism would become a lot less popular.  All these Muslims would have to see is that yes, we DO mean business and we mean it in a very painful way.  But as it is now, there is no down-side to fostering terrorism whatsoever.  We do these precise, surgical strikes to avoid actually hurting anybody.  And all our enemies have to do is put a hand-lettered sign that reads “Baby milk factory” and our destruction of a weapons-of-mass-destruction facility becomes a war crime:

One of [CNN reporter Peter] Arnett’s most controversial reports during the Gulf War was a report on how the coalition had bombed a baby milk factory. Shortly after the report, an Air Force spokesman stated “Numerous sources have indicated that [the factory] is associated with biological warfare production”. Later the same day, Colin Powell stated “It was a biological weapons facility, of that we are sure”. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater stated “That factory is, in fact, a production facility for biological weapons” and “The Iraqis have hidden this facility behind a façade of baby-milk production as a form of disinformation.”

The image of a crudely made hand-painted sign reading “Baby Milk” in English and Arabic in front of the factory, and a lab coat dressed in a suit containing stitched lettering reading “BABY MILK PLANT IRAQ” only served to further the perception that purportedly civilian targets were simply being made to look like that by Saddam Hussein, and that Arnett was duped by the Iraqi government. The sign appeared to have been added by the Iraqis before the camera crews arrived as a cheap publicity ploy. Newsweek called the incident a “ham-handed attempt to depict a bombed-out biological-weapons plant near Baghdad as a baby-formula factory.”

Arnett remained firm. He had toured the plant in the previous August, and was insistent that “Whatever else it did, it did produce infant formula”. Described as being a veritable fortress by the Pentagon[citation needed], the plant, Arnett reported, had only one guard at the gate and a lot of powdered baby milk. “That’s as much as I could tell you about it … [I]t looked innocent enough from what we could see.” A CNN camera crew had been invited to tour this plant in August 1990. They videotaped workers wearing new uniforms with lettering in English reading, “Iraq Baby Milk Plant”.

If we’re not going to fight back – and fight back like we really mean it – we truly deserve to die.

I mean, my God, you pathetic, apathetic coward herd animals, just bleat until you die like the sheep you are.

Here’s another thing: the terrorists ARE fighting for a cause that they believe is very much worth dying for.  Versus us: what the hell are WE fighting for?  Are we fighting for Obama?  Are we fighting for political correctness?  Are we fighting for the determination to not allow God or any transcendent cause whatsoever to interfere with our abortion and our homosexual sodomy???

If I had a son, I would urge him with all the passion I had not to waste his life for this country at this point.  I served, as did my father, my father, my grandfather and my grandfather’s father before me.  But we served a very different nation which did not piss in the Eye of God.

We are losing the war on terror because secular humanist liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have eradicated ANY reason whatsoever to actually fight for our own worthless lives – and if you believe in abortion your life is worthless by definition because you acknowledge that you began as the kind of thing that could have and even SHOULD HAVE been killed as a parasite or a disease – and our own worthless values.

We need to either figure out what it is that is worth fighting for in our age of secular humanism or we need to go out “not with a bang but a whimper” as the T.S. Elliot poem predicted we would.

Because in the age of Obama, a whimper is about all we’ve got.

Obama’s policy of inaction, of too-little-action-way-too-late, of bogus “red lines,” of retreat, of withdrawal, of apologizing, of weakening America and broadcasting the message of weakness to the world, has resulted in the world erupting into a firestorm that we now cannot put out with our meaningless and frankly depraved values.

Our own pathetic secular humanist values have been used against us and turned into a weapon of our own mass destruction.  We COULD fight, but as morally insane secular humanists we put on a strait jacket – and now we’re helpless while our rabid enemies are coming at us with the passion that comes from having a powerful cause that we long-since abandoned as a post-Christian culture.

And that’s why Armageddon is coming.

 

Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’

June 25, 2014

The ONLY president whose “mess” is literally staining the blue dress of an intern talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney’s “mess.”

So maybe you should just shut the hell up about “messes,” huh, Slick Willie?

At least Dick Cheney never had to redefine the word “is” in order to get his dishonest ass not only impeached but get his law license stripped from him FOR PERJURY.

But let me point out a little bit more about another Bill Clinton “mess”: we call it the 9/11 attack.  Given that Iraq falling to pieces six years into to Obama’s presidency is “Cheney’s mess,” just how much are YOU to blame for the “mess” that George Bush found himself in when you’d been out of office for less than eight months???

Let’s see what Slick Willie had to say about Dick Cheney:

Clinton Says Cheney Criticism of Obama on Iraq Was ‘Unseemly’
By Erin McClam

Former President Bill Clinton told NBC News on Tuesday that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Iraq amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”

Cheney, in an Op-Ed and a YouTube video last week, said that President Barack Obama had emboldened jihadists by mishandling the crisis in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have rampaged across northern cities.

Clinton responded in an interview from Denver, where he is hosting a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, his post-presidency foundation.

“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”

“And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it.”

In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, written with his daughter Liz, Cheney wrote that Obama “abandoned” Iraq by withdrawing American troops in 2011 without leaving some forces behind.

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the former vice president wrote. He concluded that Obama was securing a legacy “as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

In 2007, during his wife’s presidential campaign, Clinton said that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” His aides told reporters that Clinton had supported giving weapons inspectors more time.

In May 2003, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Clinton said that he supported President George W. Bush’s authority “to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” according to The Associated Press. He was also quoted praising Bush’s early handling of the conflict, the AP reported.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator in 2002, voted for the authorization of force against Iraq. She wrote in her recently released memoir, “Hard Choices,” that she “got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

I mean, really, President Sperm?  UNSEEMLY, you say?  I mean, boy, THERE’S a word that certainly applies to YOU.

But let’s consider Slick Willie’s rather bogus arguments first.

What did Bill Clinton USE to say about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton – mind you this was BEFORE the gigantic attack on the homeland of the United States – ordered an attack against Iraq.  What did he say in ordering that attack?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [..]

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

Clearly, even Bill Clinton says we tried the diplomatic route – and exhausted it – to no avail.  Next we spanked Saddam.  When diplomacy fails and the spanking fails, what the hell do you do?

You demonize the president who made the decision after the fact, of course.  While saying “Shame on you for doing to Obama the same thing that I’m doing now to Bush.”

What did Hillary say?

 “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”  — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

And:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary couldn’t wait to share in the credit for when we got that rat bastard Saddam:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

But there’s more here about Bill Clinton’s “mess” than the one one the blue dress.  There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 crash.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

George Bush spent the rest of his presidency cleaning up your messes, Bill, you vile hypocrite.

The last thing this nation needs is another dishonest leftist hypocrite to run America even further into abject defeat than it is already.

Hold Multi-Millionaire Hillary Clinton To The Same Standard As ‘Out-Of-Touch’ ‘Filthy-Rich’ Mitt Romney Or Just Acknowledge You’re A Hypocrite

June 24, 2014

Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:

“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”

I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.”  But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.

But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.

Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.

Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.”  And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.

Do you know what “dead broke” means?  It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back.  It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch.  Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.

It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).

The year “dead broke” Hillary left the White House, she and “worked hard” Bill made over $12 million:

As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.

Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.

But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.

Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.

And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.

As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.

All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.

But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?

And now this “dead broke” lady is worth at least $120 million:

NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.

The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.

Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.”  Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.

On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:

Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”

Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.

America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?

“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.

Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”

I mean, what would she have us believe?  Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman?  Homeless people???  Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear.  And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???

She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???

I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.

Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy.  Which is why liberals love her so much.  She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off.  And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.

When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.

And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.”  Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOESObama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women.  Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.”  I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.

This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.

You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 574 other followers