Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ category

Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked.

July 20, 2016

Chris Christie Made a Case Against Hillary Clinton. We Fact-Checked, NY Times

Like many indictments, the facts presented to the Republican jury were sometimes selective: not necessarily false, but often ignoring exculpatory evidence.

*********************************

CLEVELAND — Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, whom Donald J. Trump passed over to be his running mate, was one of the stars of the Republican convention’s second night on Tuesday, delivering a detailed case against Hillary Clinton with a prosecutorial zeal.

For about 15 minutes, he laid out one indictment of Mrs. Clinton after another, asking the audience after each one, “Guilty or not guilty?” It was part red meat, part courtroom procedural, and with each query, “GUILTY!” rang through the hall, interrupted only by an occasional, “Lock her up!”

Like many indictments, the facts presented to the Republican jury were sometimes selective: not necessarily false, but often ignoring exculpatory evidence. Below is a closer look at Mr. Christie’s case.

On Libya

Mr. Christie started in North Africa, accusing Mrs. Clinton of being the “chief engineer of the disastrous overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya.” Pretending to be a prosecutor speaking to a jury, he urged the raucous crowd to render a verdict. The crowd roared, “Guilty!”

Fact check: Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state during the period in question, and she did make a humanitarian case for intervening to prevent Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from taking over Benghazi in 2011, when it appeared that his forces might kill more than 10,000 Libyan citizens. President Obama has expressed regret that plans for the aftermath of the strikes were not well thought-out, and that the world was wrong to expect the rebels to build a stable government there.

On Terrorism

In Nigeria, Mr. Christie said, Mrs. Clinton “amazingly fought for two years to keep an Al Qaeda affiliate off the terrorist watch list.” He said her actions had led directly to the kidnapping of hundreds of young girls by the group, Boko Haram, and demanded a verdict for “an apologist for an Al Qaeda affiliate.”

Fact check: The Clinton State Department did decline to add Boko Haram to its list of terrorist groups, in part because Islamic scholars and regional experts had urged it to try other means of confronting the group’s tactics. It did, however, put several Boko Haram leaders on other terrorist lists, and added the group in 2013.

On Trade

Mr. Christie accused Mrs. Clinton of being “desperate for Chinese cash” and said that in exchange for money to finance the Obama administration’s stimulus package, she had promised China that she would oppose the “Buy America” provision in the legislation. For supporting “big-government spending financed by the Chinese,” he called, “guilty or not guilty?”

Fact check: The Obama administration and Mrs. Clinton opposed the “Buy America” provision because, they said, it was a protectionist measure that could cause a trade war with China in the midst of an economic crisis.

On Syria

When Mr. Christie got to the topic of Syria, he reminded the crowd that Mrs. Clinton had called President Bashar al-Assad a reformer and “a different kind of leader.” He said she bore some responsibility for the deaths of the 400,000 people who have been killed in Syria’s civil war: as he put it, “dead at the hands of the man that Hillary defended.”

“As an awful judge of the character of a dictator and butcher in the Middle East,” he said, “guilty or not guilty?”

Fact check: Mrs. Clinton’s comments about Mr. Assad came in an interview in 2011, before much of the bloodshed, when she said that some members of Congress in both parties “believe he’s a reformer.” Some in the George W. Bush administration had also expressed hope that he would be a better leader than his father, Hafez al-Assad. And Mrs. Clinton did not “defend” the atrocities committed by Mr. Assad during the later period of the civil war.

On Iran

Mr. Christie delivered a familiar critique of the signature agreement of the Obama administration, though it was reached a year ago last week, or two and a half years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department. “She launched the negotiations that brought about the worst nuclear deal in history,” he said.

Fact check: Mrs. Clinton did indeed press the effort, sending two secret emissaries to feel out the Iranians about beginning talks. Mr. Christie’s assertion that “America and the world are measurably less safe” because of the deal is far more questionable: Iran gave up 98 percent of its nuclear fuel, dismantled vast numbers of centrifuges and other nuclear infrastructure, and so far appears to have stuck to everything it agreed to. (It is in the areas outside the agreement — missile launches and support for terrorism — that Iran is pushing the envelope.)

On Russia

Mr. Christie accused Mrs. Clinton of giving President Vladimir V. Putin “that stupid, symbolic reset button,” and said she had harmed the United States’ security and sought instead to strengthen Russia.

Fact check: Mrs. Clinton did support a “reset” of relations with Russia early in the Obama administration, pursuing a hope of Mr. Obama’s that the United States could pull Russia into a closer and more effective working relationship. That effort failed as Mr. Putin consolidated power.

On Cuba

Mr. Christie said that Mrs. Clinton had “supported concessions to the Castro brothers” as part of the Obama administration’s outreach to Cuba. He also accused her of supporting the decision not to demand the release of a “cop killer” from Cuba who had murdered a New Jersey trooper. “As a coddler of the brutal Castro brothers,” he demanded, “guilty or not guilty?”

Fact check: Mrs. Clinton was already gone from the administration when Mr. Obama pursued secret negotiations with Cuba, though she did express support for his efforts.

On Her Emails

Finally, Mr. Christie accused Mrs. Clinton of choosing to set up a private email server in her home in order to protect her personal secrets. “Let’s face the facts: Hillary Clinton cared more about protecting her own secrets than she cared about protecting America’s secrets,” he said.

Fact check: Mrs. Clinton’s motivations for setting up the personal server have never been entirely clear. She said it was for her “convenience,” so she would not have to use multiple devices, though the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said recently that she had used several devices anyway. The F.B.I. investigation did find that Mrs. Clinton sent email over the unsecured network while in adversarial countries, though it did not determine whether she “cared more” about protecting her own secrets.

Chris Christie plays judge, jury and executioner at RNC (Full speech)

July 20, 2016

Chris Christie plays judge, jury, and executioner at RNC (Full speech), NJ.com via YouTube, July 19, 2016

A Big Night for Republicans

July 20, 2016

A Big Night for Republicans, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, July 19, 2016

Trump wasn’t my first choice for the nomination, or my second or fifth, or tenth. I labored pretty hard to help others get the nomination. But Trump was, obviously, the story of the election season. He may be an imperfect vessel, but he speaks powerfully to a great many Americans. For myself, I am feeling unified behind the nominee these days.

**********************

Day two of the Republican convention was a success. The first speaker I saw was Tiffany Trump. I read somewhere that Tiffany was the weak link in the family, I guess because she is Marla Maples’ daughter. In fact, she was great–a 22-year-old (or so) graduate of Penn, she was cool as a cucumber, and her speech was terrific. My wife, whose emotional intelligence is superior to mine, pointed out that Tiffany told the sorts of personal anecdotes that warm peoples’ attitudes toward Donald, and that Melania didn’t. It was a remarkable performance by an intelligent and poised young Republican.

She was followed by Chris Christie. Christie has taken a fair amount of abuse lately, but he is a formidable guy. Let me put it this way: for four decades, I was a litigator. I spent years of my life in court, tried over 100 jury cases, took thousands of depositions and argued hundreds if not thousands of motions. And I would not have liked to go up against Chris Christie. He is very, very good.

Christie put Hillary Clinton on trial. Maybe there was a teleprompter somewhere, but Christie wasn’t using it. He was on a roll, indicting Hillary for one failure, disaster or lie after another. The convention audience pronounced her guilty, bringing to mind the old Doonesbury cartoon:

guilty

Christie’s indictment was overwhelming, so Democratic commentators no doubt scrambled to term his speech dark, overly intense, too negative, and so on. I just hope millions were watching.

After Christie, Donald Trump Jr. took the stage. He spoke longer than his sister Tiffany, and was more nervous. But he did a very good job. He portrayed his father as a sort of blue-collar hero, and pointed out that Hillary Clinton is the first presidential candidate who couldn’t pass a background check. (That is true, actually, not hyperbole.) The Fox commentators thought Trump Jr. was dynamite; I wasn’t quite that impressed by him, but no doubt he moved the ball forward for the GOP.

trump kidsTiffany Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.

Ben Carson wrapped up the evening, but by the time he took the stage delegates were on their way out to enjoy, I guess, the pleasures of Cleveland’s night life. Dr. Carson did fine, I think, but I confess that I started this post before he was done.

It was a good night, because of the combination of Christie’s fiery denunciation of the eminently vulnerable Hillary and two very good appearances by members of the Trump family. Maybe liberals will be able to find words in Donald Jr’s speech that were previously uttered by a Democrat: “a,” “the,” “and,” who knows. But I doubt that they will be able to blunt the positive effect of the evening’s festivities.

A key goal of the convention is to unite the Republican Party behind Donald Trump. Trump wasn’t my first choice for the nomination, or my second or fifth, or tenth. I labored pretty hard to help others get the nomination. But Trump was, obviously, the story of the election season. He may be an imperfect vessel, but he speaks powerfully to a great many Americans. For myself, I am feeling unified behind the nominee these days.

Russian Commentator On U.S. Elections: Clinton Is Better For Russia

July 19, 2016

Russian Commentator On U.S. Elections: Clinton Is Better For Russia, MEMRI, July 19, 2016

“The U.S. is now in a very difficult situation. It is far from certain that Trump’s reforms will save it. It is far from certain that Trump will be allowed to implement them. But Trump is the U.S.’s chance at revival, after which it will be able to return to an aggressive foreign policy under more favorable conditions. Whereas Hillary Clinton is Washington’s guaranteed way into the abyss. After her, no Trump will be able to save America.”

******************

Rotislav Ischenko, an analyst for ‘Russia Today’ had an interesting take on the American elections. While the Russian public prefers Trump because he is viewed as an antagonist of the American elite epitomized by Hillary Clinton, Ischenko is rooting for Clinton. Republicans, excluding George W. Bush, generally proved themselves more skillful practitioners of international politics who skillfully manipulated Russia. The Clinton Administration began the American overstretch that committed resources to meaningless and unachievable goals. Therefore those who would prefer a weakened America should hope for a Clinton victory that would translate into America’s continued decline.

A translation of Ischenko’s article appears below:[1]

‘A Democrat Means A Guaranteed And Accelerated Continuation Of The Current Decline Of The American Supremacy’

RT ClintonVitaly, Vk.com/13studiya, May 27, 2016. While Clinton and Trump are fighting in the ring, the public cheers for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Most Russian experts, observers and even ordinary citizens who exhibit as much interest in the American electoral campaign as in the Olympics or the Football World Cup, side with Donald Trump in this race. This comes as no surprise.

“Firstly, Hillary Clinton is a lady who is too unpleasant in all respects. Secondly, her revoltingly negative attitude to Russia is widely known. Thirdly, Trump is outrageously flamboyant and he fights the traditional American elite. Who in this world likes the traditional American elite? In short, the Russians, without any reservations, are giving the People’s Choice Award to Donald Trump.

“One must admit that Donald Trump can become a better president for America than Hillary Clinton. At least, a Republican may give it a chance, whereas a Democrat means a guaranteed and accelerated continuation of the current decline of the American supremacy.

“But the Russians who side with Trump are hoping he will be a better American president for Russia as well. This view is, however, problematic. I would even call such hopes groundless and, if we could vote in the American elections, I would deliberately give my support to the former State Secretary and the wife of the 42nd president of the U.S. [Hillary Clinton].

“Here are my considerations: Firstly, historically the policies of the Republicans have always been more flexible and less dogmatic. Even [U.S. President Ronald] Reagan who proclaimed the USSR to be ‘The Empire of Evil’ quickly realized what advantages Washington could gain from the [former President of the Soviet Union] Mikhail Gorbachev’s version of de-escalation of tension and became the best friend of the Soviet Union. His successor, George Bush senior, also a Republican, even actively campaigned against the USSR breakup. He even visited Kiev specifically in order to convince the Ukrainian elites aspiring for independence that they would be much more comfortable in the Soviet Union.

“The 40th and the 41st U.S. presidents [Reagan and George H. W. Bush] were not altruists. Their thinking was less straightforward than that of the Democrats, and they knew that the direct way to their goal is not necessarily the shortest. As part of the theory of indirect action, they tried to hug the USSR to death, and they almost succeeded. In fact, they did not need the Soviet Union to collapse. They only wanted to weaken it and reduce it to the rank of a junior partner who would pull chestnuts out of the fire for the American hegemony even more effectively than the EU.

“It was a beautiful operation that should have led to the clear victory of the U.S. with the least costs. Even the collapse of the USSR did not invalidate it – just made it more complicated: now it was Russia that had to be hugged to death.

But then the Democrats came, represented by the Clintons, and they ruined everything. They rushed to stake out a claim on seemingly important but, in reality, strategically meaningless territories (in particular, in Yugoslavia). At the same time, the policy of deterrence against Russia was applied more and more noticeably in the post-Soviet territories.

Moscow grew wary, and public opinion in Russia, initially favorable to the U.S., became diametrically opposite. The chance was wasted, and the U.S. entered an exhausting race to maintain its supremacy, which has by now stretched its battle lines and eaten practically all the free resources, at the same time allowing Russia to concentrate, consolidate and launch a counter-offensive.

‘The Foreign Policy Paradigm Determined By The Clintons… Did Not Allow The U.S. To Choke The USSR/Russia In The Least Costly And Most Effective Way’

Obama’s Democratic administration proclaimed that it was aware of the necessity for significant reforms. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate [U.S. President Barack Obama] did make an attempt to break with the past, fold military activity all over the world, avoid confrontation with Russia and China, and concentrate on the domestic problems of the U.S. He failed for a number of reasons.

“Firstly, [Obama], personally, was not ready for the presidential office. Obama pronounced stirring speeches more often than tried to implement his own ideas.

“Secondly, since he understood little in foreign policy, he tried to focus on his domestic reforms (necessary, but insufficient), and gave the run of the foreign affairs to the same people who had implemented the idea of global ‘pawn-grabbing’ [a tendency of foolish chess-players] during Clinton’s term, neglecting the U.S. strategic interests.

“Thirdly, by the time of Obama’s presidency, the U.S. had advanced so far in the implementation of the idea of violent suppression of all potential foreign opponents, it had adhered so long to the tactics of ‘conquer everything, lose nothing,’ that without a single iron directing will that would implement an alternative comprehensive concept, neither the military nor the politicians nor the diplomats were able to break out of the vicious circle of decisions the inevitability of which was dictated by previous decisions.

“As a result, Obama became trapped by Clinton’s foreign policy, ruinous for the U.S., which had been implemented before by Clinton himself and then by the Republican administration of Bush junior. During the latter’s term, the inability of Washington to suppress all its opponents by force became evident, but Bush junior had neither experience nor will sufficient to turn the state ship around. Besides, for most of Bush’s term, the U.S. was euphoric about its formal foreign victories (Iraq, Afghanistan), and this inertial motion did not arouse any significant concern in anyone except a small number of domain specialists.

“On the whole, the foreign policy paradigm determined by the Clintons that has lasted as the leading one for six presidential terms of three presidents did not allow the U.S. to choke the USSR/Russia in the least costly and most effective way. The same paradigm caused the U.S. to overstrain itself; its resource base is no longer up to the task of global domination.

‘When We Deal With Hillary, We Deal With An Unpleasant But Predictable [Politician]… Trump Is Not Burdened By Rules Of Morality, At Least Not More Than Hillary’

Today, the Washington elites are facing a choice again. They can pig-headedly continue the same policy of pressure by force, hoping that the opponent will break before the U.S. is exhausted. In fact, today it means hoping for a miracle, like the coup of 1917, which took Russia out of the First World War and delayed Germany’s downfall by 18 months. Hillary Clinton is a supporter of this policy.

We understand what she will do and how. We understand we will have to deal with hysterics, attempts to apply pressure, blatant rudeness and undisguised threat of war. But we also understand that it is not Hillary who will decide whether or not to push the button. And the people who will decide are much more level-headed. In short, when we deal with Hillary, we deal with an unpleasant but predictable and see-through politician who will continue to lead the U.S. along the way towards resource overstrain.

“Trump is no Bush junior. He is the focus of all the strong points of the Republican party. He is not burdened by rules of morality, at least no more than Hillary. But he is more flexible and sees other ways of solving the American problem, besides the pig-headed direct pressure. Above all, Donald Trump understands that without stabilizing the economy and the financial system of the U.S., all its claims to world domination are no more than wishful thinking, and the U.S. is in danger of quickly becoming ‘Upper Volta’ with missiles”.

“One must realize that Trump is not alone. Of course, he speaks against the traditional Republican establishment, but it does not mean he does not enjoy the support of influential back-stage circles, who have become aware of the ruinous character of Clinton’s policy and are trying a more creative approach. Without powerful support (taking into account how the American press is controlled by the party elites), Trump would simply never have been given the opportunity to speak. All his billions would not have sufficed for a serious campaign. One can assume that Trump will try to offer the U.S. something like the policy Putin has been implementing in Russia.

“Firstly, [Trump seeks] an acceptable compromise in foreign policy. The U.S. reduces its activity in the major conflict areas, on condition that it saves its face. Secondly, [he will shift to] focusing on domestic problems. That is, tough reforms leading to painful but decisive revitalization of the financial and economic systems, in particular, at the expense of the outside world (Trump has already acknowledged the possibility of the U.S. defaulting). Thirdly, play on the contradictions of the remaining major players, whom the U.S. will find it easier to play off against each other in the context of reduced international activity, because their necessity to defend themselves from common danger – Washington – will disappear, but the mutual contradictions will exacerbate.

“The U.S. is now in a very difficult situation. It is far from certain that Trump’s reforms will save it. It is far from certain that Trump will be allowed to implement them. But Trump is the U.S.’s chance at revival, after which it will be able to return to an aggressive foreign policy under more favorable conditions. Whereas Hillary Clinton is Washington’s guaranteed way into the abyss. After her, no Trump will be able to save America.”

 

Endnote:

[1] Ria.ru, May 19, 2016.

Cartoons of the Day

July 19, 2016

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

endorse

 

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

loco-logo-1

 

Will the American voters be concerned with Hillary Clinton's history as she interviews for job as President?

Will the American voters be concerned with Hillary Clinton’s history as she interviews for job as President?

Part humor |Obama may have confused ISIS with Isis

July 17, 2016

Obama may have confused ISIS with Isis, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 17, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and are not necessarily those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Obama constantly tells us that ISIS (The Islamic State) has nothing to do with Islam, even though Islam is its foundation. However Isis, the Egyptian goddess of health, marriage, and wisdom, plainly had nothing to do with Islam. If Obama’s references are actually to Isis, then His characterization is true. 

After the silly stuff, there are some pertinent videos about the ongoing Islamist conquest of America under Obama.

First, a not-very-funny attempt at humor on a very unfunny topic.

Not a terrorist

Not  Islamist terrorist

Obama's wish list

Not Isis’ followers

 

 

 

Not an Egyptain goddess

Not Egyptian goddesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cultural appropriation Is our Right (CAIR) organization praised Obama for His appropriation of Egyptian mythology to defame Isis:

By confusing Isis with ISIS, President Obama has done a great service to fellow Muslims everywhere. Although neither Isis nor ISIS has anything to do with our Holy Religion of Islam, drawing public attention to an ancient Egyptian goddess draws it away from us. We commend our devout President for His efforts to muddy the waters and thereby to defend our uniquely True and Holy religion. Besides, the ancient Egyptians who believed in their false goddess have long been dead won’t be able to do anything about it, Insha’Allah.

Neptune

Despite CAIR’s hopes that Allah the All Mercurial Merciful would prevent the revenge of the ancient gods, Thor was heard to bellow loud thunder all over Washington. Neptune — the cause of man-made climate change — threatened to unleash a tsunami to submerge the White House. The Secret Service has positioned lifeboats in the rose garden and atop the White House roof. Helicopters are also standing by.

ISIS has issued a news release rejecting the Obama-CAIR position that it has nothing to do with Islam, reiterating that it has everything to do with Islam. “What do those traitors thing we are? The Jewish State, Allah forbid!”

Now, some serious stuff

Here are three videos about the Islamist infiltration of “our” Government. Paul Sutliff, the speaker in the first two videos, is neither particularly articulate nor handsome. However, he has interesting things to say, particularly about Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (the other CAIR) and where money appropriated for “Countering Violent Extremism” goes.

 

And then there’s this:

Finally, some pertinent music:

Hillary’s First Priority if She Wins? To Shut up Her Critics

July 17, 2016

Hillary’s First Priority if She Wins? To Shut up Her Critics, Power LineJohn Hinderaker,  July 16, 2016

(What Constitutional authority does a sitting president have to “introduce an amendment” to the Constitution? According to Article 5, that’s up to the Congress and to the States.– DM)

Hillary Clinton is giving a speech today in which she describes one of her top priorities as president:

Hillary Clinton will pledge on Saturday to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision within the first 30 days of her administration, an aide said Saturday.

A reader writes:

Global terrorism, coup in Turkey, unrest in USA, cops killed in cold blood by sniper in Dallas. And this is her top priority – silencing the opposition and overturning a case that said the First Amendment allows nonprofit or for profit entities to criticize her and other people running for public office.

The specific holding of Citizens United was that the federal government could not constitutionally ban the showing of a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton. (You didn’t know that? Go ahead, read the decision for yourself.) It is perhaps understandable that Hillary would want the power to ban criticism of her in movies, magazines, web sites and books–Barack Obama’s Solicitor General specifically stated in oral argument that the administration’s position was that it can constitutionally ban books if they criticize politicians who are running for office–but it is rather shocking that repealing the First Amendment would be one of Hillary’s key objectives as president.

CNN, by the way, does its best to go to bat for Hillary, stating this as a matter of fact:

Clinton first made the pledge to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for outside money in politics, while campaigning in Iowa in 2015.

That characterization is false. But I don’t suppose anyone depends on CNN for legal analysis.

Cartoons of the Day

July 16, 2016

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

sheeple

 

H/t Power Line

Hill pokeman

 

shady bunch

 

hill and bern

 

ginsburg sleeps

H/t Joopklepzeiker

political correctness

I had the sick feeling this would happen; here’s how we MUST respond…

July 15, 2016

I had the sick feeling this would happen; here’s how we MUST respond…, Allen B. West, July 14, 2016

Earlier this year I had the sick feeling the enemy knew this year was their last year, their chance to inflict levels of carnage unseen. And if we do not make the correct decision come November 2016, –and let me remind you, it was Hillary Clinton who stated “we must empathize with our enemies” — this will only escalate further.

We need to identify the enabler groups that are effectively well-dressed suit-wearing stealth jihadists and shut down their operations. Funny, there are Muslim nations that have declared the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a terrorist group, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, and we fail to do it?

No more just moving on after we bury our dead and have 96 hours of intense media coverage. No more insidious “sit-ins” about gun control by petulant left wing progressive socialists. Alexander the Great said, “I would not fear an army of lions if led by sheep, but I would fear an army of sheep if led by a lion.” It is time to select lions to lead this nation — men and women of courage and resolve, not petty apologists and Islamist sympathizers.

*********************

They are our longest running ally, and it was their version of Independence Day — Bastille Day. Sadly, the country that gave us the Marquis de Lafayette, whose portrait is displayed in our House of Representatives chamber, has once again been attacked. Attacked again by Islamic terrorism, jihadism, and we send, once again, our condolences to France.

But, I have to ask, when are we going to stop sending condolences? Friday evening I will be in Chattanooga for the “American Heroes Dinner.” It was not too long ago that an Islamic jihadist fired on a military recruiting station and then killed five Marines and Sailors, who were unarmed, at the Naval Reserve Support Facility there. Nothing. San Bernardino, nothing. Orlando, nothing. Charlie Hebdo, nothing. Paris Islamic terror attack: declaration that it meant war, then nothing. Brussels, nothing. Istanbul airport, nothing. Bangladesh, nothing.

Well, let me correct that statement, there are speeches, rhetoric and false narratives about gun control and statements of containment. For some that is something. To the enemy it is nothing.

Americans are beheaded and it’s off to play golf. Americans are abandoned to fight for their lives against Islamic jihadists, and we have a president, and a wannabe president, lie. And what happens to them? Nothing. We keep hearing about bringing those responsible to justice — as if this is about knocking on a door, apprehending them, reading them Miranda rights, and then trying them — well, just releasing them, since detaining them is the nexus of their recruitment to kill us.

Who among you are sickened by the abject weakness displayed by Western elected officials? As I am writing this, there are some 77 dead, close to 100 who are wounded, and the death toll could go higher.

We throw ourselves into gyrations about measured responses, restrictive rules of engagement, and reduction of collateral damage. In other words, we are providing the enemy sanctuary because of our reticence to unleash hell upon them. The people in Nice were not considered for collateral damage; they were brutally and savagely run down and shot — just as in Orlando, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino — and the list goes on.

Earlier this year I had the sick feeling the enemy knew this year was their last year, their chance to inflict levels of carnage unseen. And if we do not make the correct decision come November 2016, –and let me remind you, it was Hillary Clinton who stated “we must empathize with our enemies” — this will only escalate further.

Upon Neville Chamberlain’s return from Germany with the Munich Accord, and his statement of “peace in our time,” Winston Churchill chided him stating, “you had a choice between dishonor and war, you chose dishonor and we shall have war.”

This is where we are, and this is where Barack Obama and the progressive socialist left have taken us. We are being dishonored, killed, and we are told that actions are being taken to avoid war — hardly so. This 21st century battlefield of non-state, non-uniformed belligerents, Islamic fascism, has come to our shores and is killing our citizens. And these leftist cowards are telling us here in America that this is all about more gun control. This is their narrative, as ISIS is all over social media once again celebrating. And as I shared with you earlier today, our aviation maintenance crews are scouring aircraft boneyards for our combat aircraft readiness.

This MUST end, and it must end now — sadly, there will be no replacement of leadership at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until next year January. Sadly, we do not have a parliamentary system where a vote of NO CONFIDENCE can be taken and we get a new Prime Minister.

But we can start to prepare to rectify this travesty and lay the plans to begin the crushing of militant Islamic jihadism and fascism. And if you like your coexist bumper sticker, fine, just stay out of our way.

We must rebuild our military from the ground up, while reducing the bureaucratic overhead. We must prepare for strike operations and not nation building. This is not about launching some cruise missiles. This is about a concerted global effort with a dedicated coalition to eradicate any and all sanctuaries.

We must find the ISIS centers of gravity and surround Raqqa and reduce it, along with Mosul. At home, we must pursue any and all clerics and mosques that are proselytizing radical hatred and deport them. We must enact stringent immigration measures against single military-age Muslim males and focus on any country that has Islamic terror operations. We must declare war against Islamic fascism and define it in very specific terms and not provide any cover for seditious speech on our shores.

We need to identify the enabler groups that are effectively well-dressed suit-wearing stealth jihadists and shut down their operations. Funny, there are Muslim nations that have declared the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a terrorist group, along with the Muslim Brotherhood, and we fail to do it?

No more just moving on after we bury our dead and have 96 hours of intense media coverage. No more insidious “sit-ins” about gun control by petulant left wing progressive socialists. Alexander the Great said, “I would not fear an army of lions if led by sheep, but I would fear an army of sheep if led by a lion.” It is time to select lions to lead this nation — men and women of courage and resolve, not petty apologists and Islamist sympathizers.

Our men and women in uniform are chomping at the bit to deliver a first rate ass whipping on these jihadis. Sadly, the Obama administration is probably preparing to send John Kerry and James Taylor to sing another duet. It’s almost as if the progressive socialists are aligned with the Islamic fascists in not bringing the full bear of our power against this barbarism…and this is about a religion. It has been so for almost 1400 years and a drone strike here and there is not sending the message.

 

Hillary Clinton beats the rap while condemning others to face it

July 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton beats the rap while condemning others to face it, Washington TimesMonica Crowley, July 13, 2016

(Please see also, Is Hillary Guilty? — DM)

She obviously knew that her actions jeopardized national security and ongoing operations. And she knew these things because she terminated an ambassador for committing similar but lesser violations. His firing demonstrates more than gross negligence on her part. It shows clear intent and awareness of her own guilt.

*****************************

As he methodically laid out the case against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private, unsecure server and email accounts to carry out all of her official government business as secretary of state before declining to recommend criminal charges, FBI Director James B. Comey left out one major piece of evidence. It’s the one piece of the puzzle that truly nails her, since it demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

She fired an ambassador serving under her for doing eerily similar, but far less damaging, things.

There has been a lot of chatter about the “lack of criminal intent” since Mr. Comey’s announcement. Consider that “gross negligence” and not “intent” was the standard, and that she asked top staff to remove classified markings from documents sent to her, and that despite her original pronouncement that “there is no classified material,” the FBI found more than 100 classified documents, including several designated Top Secret/SAP. And consider that she instructed her aides to “design the system we want,” one that would prevent “the personal” from being “accessible.”

She knew what she was doing. But perhaps the ultimate demonstration of intent was her June 2012 decision to force the resignation of Scott Gration, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, for, in part, setting up and using an unapproved private email system in 2011.

The matter got scant attention, even after the department’s inspector general’s report was issued shortly after his resignation and after news of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a far more sophisticated private server arrangement broke last year.

“Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011,” the report stated, “he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business.”

It specifically called him out for willfully violating departmental information security policies, demonstrating his “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.”

When Mrs. Clinton’s far more dangerous use of a private, unsecure server came to light, her defenders rushed to fuzz up the issue by pointing to other issues for his dismissal. (At least he just got fired. His fate under this particular boss could have been worse. See: Ambassador Stevens, Christopher.)

But the inspector general’s report made clear that his use of an unauthorized private email system was the primary reason for his firing, stating outright that his unwillingness to obey governmental security policies was his “greatest weakness.”

Following the report’s disclosure, Mr. Gration took criticism from all sides, with leftist publications leading the charge. As the Federalist website detailed last March, The Washington Post recounted Mr. Gration’s various security violations as U.S. ambassador, noting that he had “repeatedly violated diplomatic security protocols at the embassy by using unsecured internet connections.”

A 2012 story in The New Republic noted that Mr. Gration’s email scheme “put classified information about the U.S.’s operations in East Africa at a higher risk for exposure.”

The New York Times wrote that Mr. Gration “preferred to use Gmail for official business and set up private offices in his residence — and an embassy bathroom — to work outside the purview of the embassy staff.”

Mr. Gration’s case takes on urgent importance in light of Mrs. Clinton’s excuses for having done worse: that she made a mistake, that the rules weren’t clear, that the guidelines had changed after she left State, that everyone knew she was using private email accounts.

All lies. And all now excused by the FBI.

Mr. Gration’s case demonstrates that she clearly knew what the rules were — and deliberately chose to violate them.

But Mr. Comey rejected that. She put classified information on a server that she knew was not secure. She caused it to be put there. By way of deferring to her, Mr. Comey chose to invoke the euphemism “extremely careless” rather than legal standard of “gross negligence”.

She obviously knew that her actions jeopardized national security and ongoing operations. And she knew these things because she terminated an ambassador for committing similar but lesser violations. His firing demonstrates more than gross negligence on her part. It shows clear intent and awareness of her own guilt.

Mr. Comey’s decision proves that what was good for the goose is not good for the gander — particularly if the goose’s last name is Clinton.