The recent election and being accountable

November 13, 2016
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

“Okay, Fahrquar, say the words!”

Before I write anything else, I have to say one thing: I was wrong.

When I wrote after the Indiana primary, where Donald Trump de facto secured the Republican nomination:

When Trump gets swamped in November; when Obamacare becomes irreversible; when the Senate flips back to the Democrats; when even the House is lost; when Hillary gets away with her felonies; when all the gains we made in state legislatures and governorships are pissed away; when the economy still stinks; when the IRS goes back to abusing people whose opinions it doesn’t like; when the state grows and grows and grows and our rights shrink ever further and the world becomes ever more dangerous, well, that’s the choice you made.

I, along with so many others, got it all wrong. In fact, about the only people to forecast the election correctly were the Trump team itself, and a few perceptive journalists who saw the growing populist wave for what it was. My friend Salena Zito was one of the latter. You should really read her articles — she knows her stuff.

So, too, did Donald Trump, who spotted and gambled on a popular discontent with the governing class that most everyone else underestimated, and won.

So, just as I demand accountability in others, I expect it of myself. I freely admit I was wrong about Trump’s chances and the outcome of the election.

Does this mean I’ve become a Trump fan or supporter? No. I stand by my criticisms of him, whom I consider unqualified for the job, and his supporters, who’ve made an extremely risky bet with the nation’s future at stake. Were the election to be replayed, I would still oppose him and I would still vote for almost anyone but.

But, the election is over, and Trump has won in a legitimate, fair election. In a constitutional republic, that means we accept the results and give Trump and his team their chance to prove themselves. That’s what I intend to do: skeptical as I am, I will give President Trump the benefit of the doubt and a chance to prove me wrong, just as I did with President Obama.

And I hope he does just that. The passions of politics aside, the responsibilities of he presidency are so great, and the state of the world so parlous, only a fool would do otherwise.

I may have been wrong, but I am no fool. I hope President Trump succeeds and turns out to be a fine Chief Executive.

One thing has struck me in the days since the election: just how calm and accepting I and other “Never Trumpers” have been about the results. (Unlike the juvenile, thuggish Left.) I think it’s due to a couple of things:

First, relief that the Republicans retained the Senate and House with minimal losses, while expanding their hold over governorships and state legislatures. This bodes well for getting needed reforms done, and spares the nation of the horror of New York Senator Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader. It also gives me hope that the Supreme Court won’t swing in a more progressive, anti-Constitutional direction. Fingers crossed.

But, what gave me joy the day after was not Trump’s election, but the crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton crime family. To see “Lady Macbeth” denied that prize for which she’d sacrificed almost everything, including her professed feminist principles… Well, I’ll admit something else: I laughed out loud. Literally. That her and her clan of grifters and corruptionists and all their progressive hangers-on were left crying through the egg on their faces was a joy I’ll savor for a long time.

Whatever else comes of the election of Donald Trump, the banishment of Hillary and Bill Clinton from our political life can only be a good thing.

So, what comes in the future? Watching and waiting. I’ll support Trump when I think he’s right and I’ll oppose him when I think he’s wrong. I won’t rush to rejoin the Republican Party, because I don’t like the populist direction it’s gone in. But I will be willing to ally with them for the right causes. And I hope Congress will take this opportunity to reassert its role as a co-equal branch of government, checking the Executive when needed. Passing the REINS act to check the out of control regulatory state would be a great start.

But, for now, congratulations President-elect Trump, and best of luck to you in your administration.

The nation needs it.


You’ll be shocked to learn Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) may be corrupt.

October 24, 2016
No way!!

No way!!

Call me “crazy,” “paranoid,” or even late for dinner, but, somehow, it seems just a wee bit suspicious that Governor McAuliffe, a close Clinton retainer known to play fast and loose with the rules (1), saw to it that that over $600,000 was donated to the state senate campaign of the wife of the FBI Agent who was investigating… Hillary Clinton.

What. A. Coincidence.

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

Mr. McAuliffe and other state party leaders recruited Dr. McCabe to run, according to party officials. She lost the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black.

Via Jim Geraghty, who points out in his Morning Jolt newsletter that there may really be nothing there, but it sure looks bad when the spouse of a law enforcement officer takes money from a known supporter of the woman her husband happens to be investigating. Even if there’s no fire beneath the smoke, in our cynical age the suspicion of a corrupt quid pro quo is unavoidable and only helps deepen the sense of citizens that the system is rotten and rigged to protect the powerful.

For what it’s worth, given what we already know of the whitewash of the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal by the FBI Director and the Department of Justice, not only do I think there’s fire under the smoke, but it’s a five-alarm fire. Congress and the DoJ’s inspector general need to look into this right now.

Footnote:
(1) And that’s giving McAuliffe every benefit of the doubt that’s left in the world. For all time.


FBI won’t recommend charges against @HillaryClinton. R.I.P. Rule of Law

July 5, 2016
Above the rules.

Guilty as sin, free as a bird.

This is a very depressing moment:

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against anyone involved with Hillary Clinton’s private email network, even after finding that Clinton’s team was “extremely careless” in handling classified emails.

“We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” he told reporters in Washington. Comey added that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges.

Still, he said Clinton sent or received dozens of emails that were classified at the time they were sent and noted the former secretary of state did not turn over thousands of work-related emails to the State Department.

Comey said 110 emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent, including eight emails that were top secret. That finding marked a direct contradiction to Clinton’s previous statements, in which she said she never sent any information that was classified at the time it was sent.

Comey said the investigation focused on whether Clinton violated federal statutes prohibiting the removal of classified information from secure areas, which is a crime whether that is done intentionally or inadvertently.

I have to agree with attorney Gabriel Malor:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This is the statute in question:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

How, I ask, is Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server, which was in her mansion in Chappaqua, in any way, shape or form a “proper place of custody?” And how in God’s name do any of her actions while in charge of national secrets as Secretary of State constitute anything other than “gross negligence?” General Petraeus was prosecuted for less. The information that passed through her servers is likely in the hands of the Russians and Chinese — and who know who else? Clandestine human and technical sources were almost certainly compromised by her “gross negligence.” Intent is immaterial: the existence of the unauthorized server itself is the smoking gun here.

Mere words aren’t enough to convey my disgust.

The Rule of Law may not be dead in this country, but it is gut-shot and bleeding.

RELATED: One small smidgen of good news. While declining to prosecute, Director Comey’s statement point by point demolished all Hillary’s claims of innocence. Not that anyone seems to care that she’s a congenital liar.

 


Of course @HillaryClinton can’t say if bearing arms is a constitutional right.

June 5, 2016
x

“I support… Which answer do you want?”

That would require her to have read and actually understood the document, instead of just paying it cursory lip service:

Hillary Clinton couldn’t definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment. While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn’t true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left.

“Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” he asked.

“I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” she said. “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment.”

She then went on to blather more about “common sense” and “reasonable” regulations, but, to Stephanopoulos’ credit, he didn’t let her off the hook, pressing her about whether the right to bear arms is individual.

And, of course, the answer is “yes, it is an individual right.” Even A-level progressive constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe agrees with that:

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

And he’s not the only one, as you’ll see at the article.

But Hillary is in a bit of a pickle: On the one hand, as a good Progressive, she thinks the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the doctrine of natural rights that lie behind them and were at the core of the American Founding, have been made obsolete by the march of History. In fact, they positively get in the way of the better managed society (managed by progressive experts, of course) we need to head toward. The right to self-defense is one of those bothersome natural rights. If Hillary came out and said an unequivocal “yes,” then she risks alienating her progressive-Socialist base.

On the other hand, Hillary needs to retain traditional Democrat voters, who also happen to like their guns and think it’s their business and no one else’s if they own won. Trump strongly appeals to a large swathe of these voters, and Lady Macbeth risks losing them if she gives in to her inner gun-grabber.

Hence the clumsy evasions. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

I’ll just sit back and enjoy watching Her Inevitableness squirm. smiley popcorn

PS: If you want to read an excellent book about the right to bear arms as understood at the time of the Constitution’s writing, I can recommend “The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms” by Stephen Halbrook.


California Primary: my last ballot as a Republican, and the cowardice of state Democrats

May 22, 2016
"I get to vote twice? Gee, thanks, pal!"

Thrilled to vote against Trump

Well, that’s that. I’ve just filled in my mail-in ballot and cast my last vote as a Republican, the party I’ve identified with for 45 years. Like I said before, I refuse to be part of a party that nominates an anti-constitutional authoritarian populist demagogue. (1)

Instead I cast my vote for president for… (drumroll) …John Kasich. Not that I would ever vote for him normally (I still think he’s a sanctimonious ass), but what little polling there was for California showed he had the best chance of beating Trump in my congressional district. So, strategic voting it was. Go, Kasich.

"This is my happy face"

“This is my happy face”

 

That aside, there were a few other elections of note. In the race to be among the top two finishers and thus earn a spot in the general election for the federal Senate, we had 34 (!) candidates to choose from. (2) Since there was no way I was voting for Attorney General Kamala Harris or bigoted dimwit Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, and most of the other candidates I’d never heard of, I cast my ballot for Thomas Del Beccaro, a former state chair of (what’s left of) the Republican Party in California. Who knows, with so many Democrats splitting the vote, he just might sneak into the top two.

For the House and  State Assembly races, I voted for the Republican as the only other choice besides the (statist, progressive) Democrat incumbents. Not that the Rs have any chance: there are so few in these districts, I think they can be counted on two hands with fingers left over.

Judicial races are always frustrating: few candidates even have web sites, and I never see them campaigning, so I know next to nothing about them when election day rolls around. My default is to vote for the incumbent or, if there is none, to prefer a prosecutor.

There was only one proposition on the ballot: a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to suspend members without pay. I voted for it. However, this is also where the “cowardice of state Democrats” part comes in.

This proposition should have been named the “Senator Leland Yee” bill in honor of the Democrat state senator indicted for arms-trafficking. In addition, that same year, another Democrat state senator was convicted of voter fraud and perjury, while a third Democrat was indicted for bribery. 2014 was a banner year for California Democrats.

Funny thing, though. They weren’t expelled from the Senate, even though that body had plenary power and every reason to do so. Why, you may ask? Because expulsion meant special elections to fill those seats and, with all the negative publicity for Democrats these scandals and the expulsions would bring, there would have been a decent chance of Republicans capturing one or more. This, in turn, would have made it harder for Democrats to regain the filibuster-proof two-thirds majority in the state senate (they have that easily in the Assembly) that would enable them to tax-and-spend even more wildly than they do now. So, no expulsions, and the corrupt Democrat senators kept their seats until one finally resigned. (3)

However, to make themselves look good, Senate Democrats under then-Senate President Steinberg proposed this amendment to allow suspension without pay. That’ll show those crooks! This proves California Democrats are tough on political corruption!

Even though they refused to expel three corrupt Democrat senators… smiley well I'm waiting

Cowards.

Still, the bill is worthwhile on its own merits, so I voted for it. Ballot marked, envelope signed and sealed, ready to mail.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to change my registration to “decline to state.”

 

Footnote:
(1) And those are Trump’s good points.
(2) And you thought the Republican presidential primary was overcrowded…
(3) Senator Calderon (D), indicted for bribery, took a “leave of absence” and was term-limited out at the next election. Senator Yee was suspended with pay until replaced in the next election. Only Senator Wright had the decency to resign.


Worst. Election. Ever.

May 5, 2016

satire head desk

Yuval Levin provides yet another example of why:

For many years now, it has been the practice of the intelligence community to start providing classified intelligence briefings to the presidential nominees of the two major parties (those who aren’t incumbents, who get them anyway) soon after the party conventions. This year, that will mean giving these very sensitive briefings to a woman who is clearly guilty of gross failures to protect classified information and a man who seems less trustworthy and disciplined about what he allows out of his mouth than almost everyone in America. Just a snapshot of this less than glorious election year.

I’m going to wake up and realize this was all a bad dream, right?

Right??


(Video) Protester to @HillaryClinton – “You are evil and guilty!”

April 16, 2016

But, really, tell me something I don’t know:

The Free Beacon explains:

Two protestors interrupted a Hillary Clinton campaign event on Saturday, with one being escorted out after shouting that the Democratic presidential frontrunner is “evil” and “guilty.”

Clinton was speaking to a crowd of supporters in Los Angeles when two individuals separately protested the rally and her candidacy. One man could be heard shouting, “She is guilty, she is guilty, she is evil,” as security removed him from the event.

Supposedly these were Sanders supporters. If so, take note of this moment: it is the one time I will probably ever agree with Bernie Sanders fans on anything.

Bipartisanship at last!


#NoTrump Thought for the Day

March 6, 2016

Choices Trump or Hillary

 

That’s pretty much how I feel about the prospect of having those two as the nominees in November.

via… someone on Facebook


“Dear Trump Fan, So You Want Someone To ‘Tell It Like It Is’? OK, Here You Go.”

February 23, 2016
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

“I can do or say anything, and they still love me!”

Via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt, Matt Walsh at The Blaze hits Trump fans over their asinine double-standard:

You say you want some straight-shooting, honest, politically incorrect tough talk, but that’s simply a lie. If it were true, my inbox would not be filled to capacity with cartoonishly shocked and outraged Trump fans every time I utter a word of criticism in his direction. It shouldn’t matter that my criticisms are sharp and severe; you ought to revere me all the more for it. I thought you were tired of people walking on egg shells?

It turns out you don’t want Donald Trump to walk on egg shells, but you have fortified your own perimeter with a thick layer of egg shells and you expect anyone who comes near it to tip toe with extreme caution. It turns out you want to be coddled and cuddled and pandered to and excused. You’re in favor of whatever Trump says because Trump said it, but when it comes to how people talk about you and him, you expect to be treated like a soft and delicate flower.

You flock eagerly to a flamboyant, authoritarian billionaire fascist, and you feel you ought to be completely insulated from criticism while you do so. Everyone else ought to be subject to relentless and profane invective from an elderly Manhattan real estate heir, but you and he should be above reproach.

Tell it like it is? I’ll tell you like it is: In my life I’ve never encountered a group of people more averse to being told how it is. Of course, you believe you’re entitled to this attitude because you’re “angry.” Your “anger” indulges you with the moral authority to take leave of your reason and your common sense. Your anger, you believe, places you beyond judgment, even as you attempt to drag this country into a future of (more) tyranny and cultism. You believe the rest of us ought to take your supposedly righteous rage into account while you refuse to take anything but your own infatuation with spectacle and celebrity into account.

Whatever concerns we raise, including the ones I’m raising now, can be written off in an instant. “WE’RE TIRED OF POLITICS AS USUAL! WE’RE ANGRY!” And that’s supposed to be some kind of rhetorical hall pass, permitting you to do and say what you please unchallenged.

Pardon me while I cheer and applaud: smiley dance smiley cheering

Preach it, Brother Walsh! I’ve encountered this myself many times on Twitter: say anything critical of Trump, point out how his positions are no different than a progressive Democrat’s, that they’re often to the Left of Hillary, that his proposals are usually harmful, stupid, or both (but, don’t worry, he’ll have new ones tomorrow and deny he ever had the old ones), that he himself is a crass vulgarian and dishonest cronyist who is playing his fans for suckers, and…

And they just don’t care. They’re too busy being angry to use their brains and the reason God gave them.

This is the fate of the Republic we’re talking about, and there is no functional difference between Hillary, Bernie, or The Donald. They would all be disasters.

For pity’s sake, lay down your anger and act like the adult, serious voters to whom the Founders entrusted this marvelous nation.

Donald Trump is an authoritarian strongman, an American caudillo. He’s the heir of Juan Peron, not George Washington.

Breathe deep and think, before it’s too late.

PS: Read the whole thing, and make America awesome, again.

PPS: About the only point at which I disagree with Walsh is where he calls Trump a “fascist.” Trump is just a blowhard strongman: he’s too callow intellectually to grasp fascist theory.

PPPS: Don’t be a maniac.


Hillary’s Email: can she be inaugurated from inside a jail cell?

January 20, 2016
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

The latest bombshell, which begs the question, “Do we have any secrets left?”

Intelligence officials have discovered sensitive national security information on Hillary Clinton’s server that goes beyond the “top secret” level, the intelligence community inspector general told lawmakers in a letter last week.

In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as “special access programs,” or SAP. That’s an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

Emphasis added.

If this selfish, imbecilic, entitled exemplar of our governing elites (God help us) doesn’t face prosecution for this, then equality before the law for all is dead in America.

Charles Krauthammer:

A new report that Hillary Clinton’s personal server contained information about “special access programs” makes her handling of sensitive material “worse than what Snowden did,” Charles Krauthammer said tonight.

“What people have to understand is that there is nothing higher, more secret than an SAP,” Krauthammer said on Tuesday’s Special Report. “From some people I have talked to, this is worse than what Snowden did because he didn’t have access to SAP.”

“The reason it’s [so sensitive] is if it’s compromised, people die,” he said. “It also means that operations that have been embedded for years and years get destroyed and cannot be reconstituted. This is very serious.”

Emphasis added.

It’s hard for me to describe just how much that woman and her family –including her daughter, who seems to be a chip off the old money-grubbing block– disgust me. She was privy to the deepest, most sensitive secrets held by the government in trust for the American people, for our safety and prosperity in a dangerous world.

And yet she treated them like afterthoughts, with no regard to the consequences. The nation’s interests —our interests— were subordinated to her desire to avoid FOIA requests, to her Nixonian need for secrecy and control.

The closest Hillary Clinton should ever come to the Oval Office is on a bus passing nearby on its way to deliver her to federal prison.

 


So-Called Paycheck Fairness Was the Nuttiest Idea at the Democrats’ debate

December 20, 2015

Remember what Margaret Thatcher said; it applies to the Democrats: They would rather everyone were poorer, as long as the gap between rich and poor were narrower. We would rather *everyone* be richer, and the “gap” be damned. The difference is crucial and fundamental.

International Liberty

Normally I’m very happy to work for the Cato Institute, both because it is a principled and effective organization.

But I wondered about my career choices last night because I was stuck with the very unpleasant task of live-tweeting the Democrat presidential debate. Cleaning out septic tanks would have been a more enjoyable way to spend my time.

Of all the crazy things that were discussed (you can see my contemporaneous reactions on my Twitter feed), the Clinton-Sanders-O’Malley support for so-called Paycheck Fairness legislation would be at the top of my list.

Yes, I was irked by the myopic fixation on income inequality, the support for class-warfare taxation, and the reflexive advocacy for more government spending, but messing around with the price system – because of an assertion that women are paid 77 cents for every $1 received by men – is an entirely different level…

View original post 887 more words


Another of @HillaryClinton’s many qualifications to be president: Confusion

November 16, 2015
x

Confused

Don’t take my word for it, Man, this comes straight from an email written by one of her top aides, Huma Abedin:

Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows singh is at 8? [India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh]
Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her
Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.

“Hanley” is Monica Hanley, another aide to Clinton when she was Secretary of State. The email is part of a batch obtained by Judicial Watch and was written from Abedin’s clintonemail.com address — you know, the private email server with laughable security Clinton operated at home and on which she illegally conducted government business. With messages like the ones quoted above from someone who knows her very well, I think we can see why Lady Macbeth didn’t want them revealed.

They certainly make me comfortable with the idea of an often-confused Hillary being in charge in a time of crisis. How about you?

via Byron York


No posting today

November 6, 2015
Long day

Tuckered out

It’s been a long day, and I’m too tired to care.

You might want to look at this, though. Just as a reminder that there’s no way Hillary Clinton should ever again come close to the Oval Office.


Most Transparent Administration Ever: No, you can’t see Obama’s emails to Hillary at her private address he didn’t know about

November 2, 2015

satire transparency

And no way was he looking at the address when he entered it or sent it, so he didn’t know, okay? Racist!

From Doug Powers writing at Michelle Malkin’s blog:

President Obama said previously he was unaware at the time Hillary Clinton was secretary of state that she used only a private email address. Now the White House is refusing to release emails between Obama and Hillary… the ones he sent to the email address he was unaware she used. It’s the kind of honesty and historic transparency we’ve come to expect.

Here’s one good, likely reason Obama doesn’t want those emails to come into the public eye:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

We know Obama and Clinton talked by phone that night at around 10 PM, at about the same time she issued her infamous “It was that darned video’s fault!” statement, and 45 minutes before she told her daughter it was an Al Qaeda attack. Election Day was just a couple of months away, and Obama had staked a large portion of his claim to reelection on the assertion that “Al Qaeda was on the run.” In fact, for two full weeks after the night of the attack, he kept claiming falsely that the video was to blame — even in a speech to the UN General Assembly.

Now, do you think it possible any emails in that time period dealt with the events of that night and what public spin they should give? Coordinating stories, perhaps? Guess we’ll never know, since Hillary probably deleted them and Obama won’t give them up, and will likely delete them when he leaves office. (1)

Got to love that commitment to transparency.

Footnote:
(1) Oh, come on. We’re talking about a leftist who learned his political trade in Chicago! Of course he’ll delete them.


Benghazi: Proof of what we knew, that @HillaryClinton is a lying suckweasel

October 23, 2015
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Those of us who’ve followed the story of the attack by al Qaeda affiliates on our post in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador, have known all along that Hillary Clinton was lying about what she did and knew that night, and in her public statements afterwards. Whether about the causes of the attack, or her concern for security in Benghazi, or about what she did that night, Hillary Clinton has stonewalled Congress and dissembled –lied– to the American people, all to protect, first, Barack Obama’s reelection and then her own chances at the presidency.

One of the big questions concerns her efforts from the night of the attack, itself, and for another 10-11 days to blame the catastrophe on an obscure YouTube video made by an Islam-hating Coptic Egyptian and minor crook living in the US. The man was rousted by Orange County, CA, Sheriff’s Department on a ticky-tack parole violation and he spent about a year in jail, in fear of his life from Muslim retaliation, his First Amendment rights curb-stomped by this administration, including Hillary Clinton.

Even more appalling, just a few days after the attack and when the bodies were being returned to the US, Clinton stood before the families of the dead and promised the US would “get” the guy who made that video. She said this to their faces, in personal conversation.

Few paying attention gave the video explanation any credence, but, we now know, thanks to her appearance before the Benghazi committee yesterday, that she knew that night that it was a terrorist attack, yet she chose to lie:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.

The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.

She could tell her daughter the truth, but not the American people, not even the parents of the dead. She not only withheld the truth, she absolutely lied to them.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, nor is it a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or progressive “talking point.” This isn’t a case where reasonable people can disagree over policy and call it a draw.

No, this is an issue of character. Of personality. Of ethics and morals. Of not just one person’s qualifications to hold public office, but their fundamental worthiness to do so.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has shown she has no sense of duty or honor, nor even any personal decency. Nothing beyond the raw need to protect herself and her dream. It is as plain as the noses on all our faces that she would act the same way, should she become president. She would be Dick Nixon in a pants suit, but without the competence. No one, but no one who cares about the United States and, indeed, the world, should ever vote to put this loathsome creature in the Oval Office.

I’ve often referred to Hillary as “Lady Macbeth” in the past for her obvious, ruthless lust for power. Somewhere in the afterlife, Shakespeare smiles grimly: he knew her type all too well.

RELATED: The Benghazi committee bombshell.

UPDATE: Michael Haz on Twitter asks an excellent question I wish the committee had asked:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js


“Black Lives Matter” to host Democrat townhall, popcorn sales skyrocket

October 22, 2015

satire cat with popcorn

Oh, this should be entertaining:

The Democratic National Committee, which has not budged after numerous calls for more scheduled presidential debates, has approved a town hall that will feature Democratic presidential candidates and will be hosted by leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The town hall will focus on race-related issues and is being heralded as an opportunity for the Democratic candidates to address issues such as racism in America.

“We believe that your organization would be an ideal host for a presidential candidate forum — where all of the Democratic candidates can showcase their ideas and policy positions that will expand opportunity for all, strengthen the middle class and address racism in America,” DNC CEO Amy K. Dacey said in a letter to sent to the activists.

“Black Lives Matter” has become (in)famous for its “activism” in the wake of some notorious killings of Black men by police, such as the shooting in 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. (Which, by the way, was justified.) They’ve driven Bernie Sanders from the stage, taking over his campaign event to demand obeisance to their leftist, racialist agenda. And, at the recent Democratic debate, the candidates (except for Jim Webb) were intimidated into agreeing that “Black lives matter” after candidate O’Malley had been forced to apologize for earlier saying the anodyne and utterly true “all lives matter.”

And now they’re going to be asking the questions of *all* the remaining candidates (1)? Given that the Democratic party anymore is nothing but a congeries of interest groups to be pandered to with no unifying principles, the groveling from Hillary and the Three Dwarfs (2) should be… memorable.

PS: I wonder if any of the candidates will have the gumption to ask the moderators if a Black life still matters, when that Black man is a cop killed by another Black man? Nah. Not from this crowd.

PPS: No, I’m not excusing genuine police abuse or violence against anyone. A cop who abuses his power or takes a life without just cause should be severely punished. But “Black Lives Matters” conveniently ignores that the majority of Black deaths by violence are caused by other Blacks, leading one to doubt their stated agenda. Don’t these lives matter?

Footnotes:
(1) Jim Webb withdrew from the race after the debate, having found, as had Ronald Reagan, that he hadn’t left the Democratic Party. The party had left him.
(2) These being Sanders, O’Malley, and Chaffee. You will be forgiven for wondering “who?” at the last two.

 


You are how you treat others, right @HillaryClinton?

October 1, 2015
Above the rules.

“Silence, peasant!”

In which case, she’s a witch with a capital “B.”:

In a recent book, former Secret Service agent Ron Kessler writes about the presidents, their families, and how they treated the people who are duty-bound to give their own lives to save theirs. According to the National Review article, most come off more or less well, treating their protective details and other staff with respect. The Reagan and Bush 43 households were especially well-known for that.

And then there is Hillary Clinton.

Read the whole article, but here are a few choice excerpts:

Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

One former Secret Service agent states, “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”

Hillary one day ran into a White House electrician who was changing a light bulb in the upstairs family quarters. She screamed at him, because she had demanded that all repairs be performed while the Clintons were outside the Executive Mansion. “She caught the guy on a ladder doing the light bulb,” says Franette McCulloch, who served at that time as assistant White House pastry chef. “He was a basket case.”

White House usher Christopher B. Emery unwisely called back Barbara Bush after she phoned him for computer troubleshooting. Emery helped the former first lady twice. Consequently, Kessler reports, Hillary sacked him. The father of four stayed jobless for a year.

Thanks to Hillary.

Many years ago, in his brilliant The Case for Democracy, Israeli author Natan Sharansky wrote that one could tell how a government and its rulers would behave in the international community by how they treated their own people. It’s a lesson I’ve never forgotten.

And, if true, then how can we expect Hillary Clinton –a self-entitled, arrogant, mean-spirited Leftist who treats her staff like filth stuck to her shoe, including the people sworn to protect her…

How can we expect her as president to treat us any better?

Character counts, and Hillary Clinton’s character is one more reason why she should never be president.


Quote Of The Day: 2015 is the new 1938 edition

September 12, 2015
x

The fruit of appeasement

National Review’s David French on Democrats voting for the Iran deal:

It’s entirely appropriate that the Democrats filibustered Republican efforts to block the Iran Deal on September 10. After all, the Democrats — now fully the party of jihadist appeasement — are the primary political repository of September 10 thinking, but without the excuse of ignorance. We know what jihadists are capable of. We know their war aims. And yet the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to grant the world’s most powerful terrorist state a $150 billion economic stimulus, access to international arms markets, and access to ballistic missile technology – without even stopping their nuclear program or establishing a viable inspection program

Remember that. Democrats know just how bad a deal Obama and Kerry have crafted: that’s why they filibustered the cloture motion — the cowards didn’t want to be on record voting to let genocidal maniacs in Tehran get their hands on nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter, however; the public knows the Democrats own this fiasco-in-the-making.

And for those who forget, we’ll make sure to remind them. This is unforgivable.

To paraphrase Cato the Elder: Factio Democratica delenda est.

PS: Click through to the original post for video explaining the subject line.


How much damage has @HillaryClinton done to our national security?

September 10, 2015
x

Hillary’s legacy

While everyone focuses on just what Hillary did when she routed all her (classified, top secret) work emails through an unsecure private email server, the question left hanging is just how much damage was done to our national security by having our secrets left in the open like laundry on the line.

I’ve assumed any intelligence service worth its pay –especially, but not exclusively, those of our enemies– was of course reading these communications. But Stanley Kurtz points out the harm done even if no one did:

“There’s a widely held belief among American counterspies that foreign intelligence agencies had to be reading the e-mails on Hillary’s private server, particularly since it was wholly unencrypted for months….senior counterintelligence officials are assuming the worst about what the Russians and Chinese know.”

So America’s intelligence agencies are assuming that every communication of America’s Secretary of State for months or more was read by our adversaries. Isn’t that likely to amount to one of the worst intelligence breaches in American history? And here’s the kicker. Even if we got lucky and the Russians and Chinese didn’t actually intercept some or all of Hillary’s e-mails, our intelligence agencies now have to behave as if they did.

Doesn’t that mean that we are now making massive changes to the sources and methods of our intelligence? Are we now withdrawing valuable agents? Are we trying to replace methods that cannot be easily replicated? Are we now forced to rebuild a good deal of our intelligence capabilities from the ground up? Are we not suffering tremendous intelligence damage right now, regardless of what foreign intelligence services did or did not manage to snatch from Hillary’s server—simply because we are forced to assume that they got it all?

The extent of this train wreck will itself be secret: that’s the nature of intelligence work — you don’t want your enemy to know you know how much they know.

But the fact itself that we have to go through all this because of her sense of entitlement and her miserable judgment should be enough for any reasonable person to disqualify her from ever holding another office, let alone the presidency.

It should also land her before a judge and jury.


Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies

September 9, 2015

An interesting discussion of how the same piece of information can wind up assigned different levels of classification by different agencies: it depends on how the information is obtained.

The XX Committee

I’ve been doing my best to explain the complex intelligence realities behind Hillary Clinton’s on-going #EmailGate scandal for months now, and we’re still far from the end of this messy saga.

Hillary’s take on what happened with her State Department “unclassified” email and her “private” server has see-sawed with the customary Clintonian lawyerly evasions, untruths, and now something approaching half-truths.

First it was: everything done was legal and acceptable.

Then came: mistakes were perhaps made, but not by me, and I’m not apologizing.

Followed by: the inevitable Clintonian sorry-not-sorry.

Now, having seen her polls dropping in rock-like fashion, we’re at: I’m kinda sorry but still nothing I emailed was “marked” classified.

The last is a particularly dishonest evasion, given that the Intelligence Community has twicedetermined that in fact TOPSECRET//SCI information was included in Hillary’s “private” email on at least two occasions. Given that’s from a sample of just forty…

View original post 1,185 more words