Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Humor? | Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need.

June 28, 2016

Let’s give all immigrants and Muslim “terror” groups what they want and need. Dan Miller’s Blog, June 28, 2016

(I marked the post as “Humor?” but it comes very close to reflecting Obama’s world view. The opinions implicit in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

This is a guest post by Loretta Lynchmob, Supreme Attorney of Imam Obama’s Loving America. Her younger sister is among the singers in the following inspirational video, as is Hillary Clinton. Here are her, er, inspiring words.

I also participated in this dazzling performance on my way to support an abortion clinic:

Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to sing What the World Needs Now is Love before or after making my remarks following the White supremacist hate-group’s attack in Orlando, Florida during which almost two hundred innocent  homosexuals and lesbians were killed or wounded. That sad incident, of course, had nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with the wonderful Religion of Peace and Tolerance. Rather than listen to the haters who claim that it was on account of our their beautiful Islam, we must give all Muslims at home and abroad love, not hate.

This brings me to the major point of this article: Since everyone — including Muslim “terror” groups — wants the same loving sort of life that all good Americans want, we must give them what they want and need to end their totally justified “depredations.” To do so is Imam Obama’s Loving American way and we cannot do otherwise; that would not be who we are and would put us on the wrong side of hisherstory.

What do immigrants and the so-called terror groups want and what can we give them?

“Terror” groups, like the immigrants fleeing the poverty and repression they suffer in much of Latin America, want to have the same prosperity and freedom that we have in Imam Obama’s already-great America; America was never greater than under the heel of Obama. The Latin American immigrants want it here, the “terror groups” want it in the countries we wrongfully took from them to give to radical firebrands such as President al-Sisi in Egypt and Prime Minister Netanyahu in Occupied Palestine. They will have the prosperity and freedom they want and deserve only when we give them love, not hate. Trump offers hate, we offer love. Surely, ours is not only the better way, it is the only way.

Aside from our abiding, non-judgmental love, what can we give them? They are poor so we need to give them money and the stuff that money can buy. Based on our outpourings of love, they will not use the money to purchase automatic weapons and other types of assault rifles to use against innocents or even against us. Obama’s wonderful peace deal with Iran is a case in point: due to His wisdom in returning to Iran economic power and money of which she had been unjustly deprived, Iran has joined the world community as a peaceful power, opposed to “terrorism,” and will never have nuclear bombs. Only those in America who cling hatefully to their guns and their religion of hate see the world differently and use weapons of war on innocents.

We can, and must, also help them to learn more about democracy. We encouraged democracy when the Egyptian masses overthrew “their” dictator Mubarak and replaced him with their own peace-loving, tolerant President Morsi. That’s the way true democracy works. Then, sadly, a few thousand Egyptian enemies of the brave and peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood conducted a coup, led by an Egyptian general, and replaced President Morsi with a fascist dictator named al-Sisi. The people of Egypt have not forgotten about how democracy should work, and given a chance will again rebel against fascist al-Sisi and depose him in favor of another brave, peace-loving Muslim Brotherhood advocate. We must do everything we can to help them in their loving quest for true freedom and true democracy.

Much of Occupied Palestine is rich; that’s where the Jews live and parade with their filthy feet in what they call “Temple Mount.”

What do the Jews give their Palestinian brothers — who want only their love and sustenance? When they provide water, they poison it. They often cut off electricity to Gaza, with no better excuse than that their poverty-stricken supplicants there can’t pay for it! Is money all that matters? Is gross human suffering of no consequence?

We can, and must, do everything possible to send the Jews festering in Occupied Palestine back to wherever they came from. It’s only just and fair! The blessed United Nations is one hundred percent with us on this; too long have we vetoed Security Council resolutions even modestly adverse to “Israel.” Were we to sponsor a decree by the UN Security Council to rid Occupied Palestine of its Jews, it would pass without veto. If we believe in love — not the hate spewed by “Israel” — that’s precisely what we must do.

Hillary Clinton is indisputably the best-qualified person to take up Obama’s great work when He, sadly, must leave office next January. There is much left to be done, and only She can and will do it. Even the proprietor of this vile right-wing hate blog has said so. Trump, on the other hand, would destroy everything that Obama has done and thereby destroy America as we know and love her. A vote for Hillary is a vote for honesty, candor and, most important, love. A vote for he-of-the-orange hair is a vote for dishonesty, lies and hate.

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

Editor’s comments

Ms. Lynchmob does a good job of articulating the differences between Trump and the Obama-Clinton cabal and their visions for America as seen by the left. How many in Obama’s America see things as she does?

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Egypt, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel and human rights, Jews, Love sweet love, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Palestinians, Sisi, Temple Mount, U.S. politics, United Nations, Zionists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why Trump frightens the GOP Illuminati

June 28, 2016

Why Trump frightens the GOP Illuminati, American Thinker, Lee Cary, June 28, 2016

Unlike the Democrats, who hunger for full power and control over the federal government, the GOPe aims to “go-along-to-get-along.”  They don’t want to lead. It’s too hard. They’d rather follow. It’s less risky.

Besides, the party is ill-equipped to lead.  It has no guiding, discernible political philosophy. It collectively swims in the neither hot,  nor cold, waters of moderation.

When conservative GOP Senators are elected, the moderates ostracize them as extremists, a la Cruz.

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

George Will, Brent Scowcroft, Hank Paulson, and Paul Ryan all fear Donald Trump.

They’re part of a growing list of GOP Establishment Illuminati that includes Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and Mitch McConnell.

George Will officially declared himself an independent – no longer aligned with the GOP.  He recommends that Republican conservative voters “grit their teeth” and hope Trump loses.  Referring to the GOP, Will said, “This is not my party.”

196758_5_(Screenshot, not a video)

George doesn’t understand that he never owned the party.

On June 23, 2016, CNN trumpeted that “a heavyweight foreign policy adviser to Republican presidents” had endorsed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy:

“Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton ‘brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House.’”

Then, on June 24, 2016, CNN gleefully announced that Hank Paulson “endorsed Hillary Clinton, adding his name to prominent GOP heavyweights who are backing the presumptive Democratic nominee.”

Yet another “prominent” GOP “heavyweight” for Clinton!

Paulson was Treasury Secretary during George W. Bush’s presidency.  Hank brought us the 2008 Big Bank Bailout – along with union pension fund bailouts – plus, funding for all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects that were never-ready for shovels.  A huge scam.

And there’s Robert Kagan, a reputed neoconservative who writes for the Washington Post. On July 21, 2016, Kagan is scheduled to headline a D.C. fundraiser for Clinton. TPM quotes him saying,

“For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

Kagan is concerned that America will become 1933 Germany.  His May 18, 2016, Post article led with this incendiary title: “This is how fascism comes to America.” In it, he deploys 1,300 words to describe Trump as America’s rendition of Adolf Hitler.

No hedging from Kagan there – we Americans are potential Nazis. Speak for yourself, Bob.

Kagan’s byline at the Post reads, “Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.”

The “Brookings” in Brookings Institution was Robert S. Brookings, once President Emeritus of Washington University (a signed, discarded book from WU Library is the source for the quote below).

In The Way Forward (1932), Brookings wrote,

“The economic consequences of what went on before the crash and of what has followed it, have been of such a drastic nature as to leave us, and indeed the whole world, after the lapse of more than two year’ time, in a state of industrial and agricultural depression requiring a thoroughly planned policy if we are to attain a sound healthy economic condition.”

Brookings firmly believed in central economic planning.

Brookings also wrote,

“This means that our present system for the distribution of wealth is unjust to those who mainly produce it and whose needs would easily absorb all of its products, could there be brought about some modification in our system of compensation providing a more equitable distribution and so increasing the consumption power of workers. This – distribution based on social justice – is the main problem of the world today.”

Sound familiar? 

Kagan is a poster boy for a GOPe that talks the limited-government-talk, but walks the bigger- government-walk.

Then there’s The Weekly Standard founder and editor, Bill Kristol.  Kristol, another neocon, came out early and loud against Trump.  In response to Will’s party abandonment, Kristol tweeted this:

Kristol tweet

Kristol declared he won’t vote for Trump.  He has encouraged Mitt Romney and Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse to step forward as alternative candidates.  And, he asked Sen. Lindsey Graham to “resurrect the campaign he suspended in December.”

How do you resurrect a campaign that was never alive?

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell display the anti-Trump style of politico-speak characterized by the English idiom, damn with faint praise.

Ryan called Trump “a very unique nominee.”  He might have added, “Bless his heart,” if he lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

McConnell’s comments about Trump, made to the Washington Post, went public on June 10, 2016, in an article with the blatantly editorialized title, “Mitch McConnell just made a devastating admission about Trump — and the GOP.”

“Mitch McConnell is getting a lot of attention this morning for his startlingly candid admission, in a new Bloomberg Politics podcast, that Donald Trump ‘doesn’t know a lot about the issues’ and has not displayed the requisite ‘seriousness of purpose’ for the presidency. And it certainly is clarifying to have the top Senate Republican admit this about the party’s standard bearer.”

The Washington Post always welcomes devastatingly clarifying negative comments from Republicans, about other Republicans.

The list of prominent GOPe anti-Trumpters is likely to grow as the Republican Convention approaches.  So why are some GOPe Illuminati so afraid of Trump?  Here’s why:

Trump threatens the complacent comfort they’ve long enjoyed as members of the junior political party – junior even though they now control both Houses of Congress.

Unlike the Democrats, who hunger for full power and control over the federal government, the GOPe aims to “go-along-to-get-along.”  They don’t want to lead. It’s too hard. They’d rather follow. It’s less risky.

Besides, the party is ill-equipped to lead.  It has no guiding, discernible political philosophy. It collectively swims in the neither hot, nor cold, waters of moderation.

When conservative GOP Senators are elected, the moderates ostracize them as extremists, a la Cruz.

When liberal GOP Senators are elected, the moderates see them as bridges across the proverbial aisle that allegedly separates the two parties.  In fact, no bridge is needed.  Just a stepping stone, or two, will suffice.

Because Trump threatens to destabilize the GOP’s status quo position as the junior political party, he presents an existential threat to the livelihoods of party apparatchiks. The GOPe is fully content to play the Washington Generals to the Democrat Globe Trotters.

Meanwhile, everybody gets paid. Not just the elected pols.

Faux dialectical partisanship in America is big business for a burgeoning host of enterprises.  In addition to the pols who benefit from this dualistic charade, there’s a long list of roadies who keep the show on the road, including, but not limited to: the professional fund-raisers; the career strategists and consultants; the crony-capitalism lobbyists; the political action groups’ administrators and accountants; the media pundits (including most of the FOX All Stars), who often play the roles of dueling talking-heads; the erudite fellows who swim in Think Tanks (like Kagan at the Brookings Institute); the multiple, redundant polling enterprises; the political-ad firms; big media that charges big fees to air political ads; the major-events planners and providers; caterers and sound technicians for those big events; the new myriad of social media hacks…the list goes on.

Let’s not forget the little people who make the bumper stickers, the hats, the signs, the flags, the banners, the campaign buttons, and the requisite convention balloons.

It’s like when the credits roll at the end of the latest blockbuster movies showing how many and varied are the workers who make a living in Hollywood – even when the film is a bust.

It’s no surprise that four of the ten richest neighborhoods in the U.S. surround Washington D.C.  The town is a bipartisan, bottomless sinkhole for taxpayer and donor greenbacks.

Then along comes a Donald Trump – an outsider, despite disingenuous efforts to stamp him as an “insider” – who threatens to lead the GOP from the here comfortable known, to the unknown somewhere else.

It’s no wonder that the Wills, Ryans, Kristols et al are threatened by Trump. He represents a clear and present danger to their comfortable lives.

And, since they know what’s best for the nation, much better than the rubes that determined the GOP primary results, the Illuminati despair at the thought that Trump will represent their beloved party in the General Election.

They don’t get it.  It’s not their party.  Maybe it was once.  But no longer.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, Republicans
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Benghazi Committee Releases Final Report, Slams Clinton

June 28, 2016

Benghazi Committee Releases Final Report, Slams Clinton, Breitbart, Joel B. Pollak, June 28, 2016

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report on Tuesday morning, comprising some 800 pages of investigations and conclusions that suggest former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats from the most significant terror attack on the U.S. since Sep. 11, 2001.

The report also details how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public about the cause of the attack.

The committee had already slammed a separate report Monday by its Democratic members, who had long maintained that the investigation was politically motivated. “Benghazi Committee Democrats’ obsession with the former Secretary of State is on full display. For over two years they refused to participate in the Majority’s serious, fact-centered investigation. The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been ‘asked and answered.’ They said the committee had found ‘absolutely nothing new.’ If that’s changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president,” an official statement by the committee declared.

For its own part, the committee published a list of facts that it said were new insights revealed by the investigation:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

The report also slams the Obama administration for “intentional failure to cooperate with this and other congressional investigations.”

 

Categories: Benghazi, CIA, Department of State, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Islamic jihad, Obama -Benghazi, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Worrying signs in Democratic platform

June 27, 2016

Worrying signs in Democratic platform, Israel Hayom, Zalman Shoval, June 27, 2016

Israel and its allies in the Democratic Party cannot afford to be complacent in light of the prevailing trends in the drafting committee.

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

As is the case every four years before U.S. presidential elections, Israelis try to figure out which candidate will be better for Israel. The answer is often: Whoever is elected.

This does not mean that both presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, are identical political twins. What it does mean is that candidates’ rhetoric on the campaign trail usually has little impact on their overall policy once they become president. In any case, it is not wise for Israelis to speak out on such issues. And in any event, such talk has no bearing on the election’s outcome.

But this should not prevent us from discussing the official party platforms, which are updated ahead of each election. Israelis will find it hard to stay ambivalent about the emerging Democratic platform in light of its clauses dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although the new platform will only be formally adopted at the Democratic National Convention in July, the new language introduced over the weekend on Israel-related issues makes it abundantly clear that the party is distancing itself from its traditional pro-Israel stance.

This trend was evident in 2012 as well, when the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee removed a clause mentioning Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — only to have it reinserted following pressure by party leaders. This time the very nature of the drafting committee underscores the negativity toward Israel. Five members of the committee were appointed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and six were appointed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and four more were appointed by the Democratic National Committee).

But what matters more is not the proportion of pro-Sanders members in the committee, but their identities. They include James Zogby, a leading pro-Arab activist; U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim; and Dr. Cornel West, a professor with provocative views on Israel who has embraced the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and has come out against the Israeli “occupation.”

The Clinton campaign is fully aware of the electoral damage an anti-Israeli platform could inflict on her candidacy, not to mention the financial fallout on her fund-raising efforts, even if the platform is described as “balanced.” This is why her allies took pains to make sure the drafting committee hears out expert testimony from the likes of Dennis Ross, who served as a Clinton’s Middle East adviser, and former key Democratic lawmakers, but this did not sway the hard-core Sanders loyalists. Sanders has been invigorated by his impressive campaign against Clinton, while Clinton has had to deal with very low favorability ratings.

Thus, Sanders has had the upper hand in the ideological arm twisting, even though Clinton’s supporters have gone out of their way to describe the new language as a compromise that does not depart from the party’s traditional stance. They explained that it was designed to help party unity.

But here are the facts. Ellison, who represents Sanders on the committee, and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez from Illinois, who represents Clinton, wrote a joint statement calling on party delegates to adopt the new language on Israel during the convention. They published it on left-wing organization J Street’s blog. Gutierrez recently returned from a trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority organized by a pro-Palestinian group.

“Israelis today live in fear of acts of terror that can turn peaceful marketplaces and neighborhoods into scenes of violence and horror,” the two warned in their statement. “Palestinians struggle under an unjust occupation that deprives them of the rights, opportunities and independence that they deserve.” The statement made no mention of Palestinian incitement, of the Palestinians’ unwillingness to hold talks without preconditions, of Hamas, or of the real reasons behind the century-old conflict.

The committee has yet to publish its views on Jerusalem, but judging from how things have recently unfolded, keeping the 2012 language on the city is anything but guaranteed.

Some play down the importance of party platforms, and sometimes this dismissive approach has merits, including in Israel. Having said that, Israel and its allies in the Democratic Party cannot afford to be complacent in light of the prevailing trends in the drafting committee.

Categories: 2016 elections, Bernie Sanders, Democrat party platform, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Israel, Palestinians
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech

June 27, 2016

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech, Fox News via YouTube, June 27, 2018

Categories: 2016 elections, BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Islamic immigration, Media, Obama, Opinion polls, Republican establishment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Exclusive – #FeelTheByrne: Secret Service Agent’s Expose Of Hillary Clinton Set To Rock 2016 Campaign

June 27, 2016

Exclusive – #FeelTheByrne: Secret Service Agent’s Expose Of Hillary Clinton Set To Rock 2016 Campaign, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, June 26, 2016

WASHINGTON, : US First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) greets Phil Lader in the receiving line at the White House 08 April in Washington. The Clintons hosted the Prime Minister of Canada and his wife at an official White House dinner. (ELECTRONIC IMAGE) AFP PHOTO/STEPHEN JAFFE (Photo credit should read STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, : US First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) greets Phil Lader in the receiving line at the White House 08 April in Washington. STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

A new trailer highlighting the media coverage of the forthcoming expose on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time as an irate First Lady to former President Bill Clinton shows viewers how much the Clinton machine fears the book’s publishing.

“I believe if I answered that question, I would be revealing privileged information,” former U.S. Secret Service Agent Gary Byrne — who was stationed right outside the Oval Office for three years during the Clinton administration — says in a clip of a videotaped deposition that opens up the video. “Yes I do know where he was — but I believe if I tell you though I’d be revealing privileged information.”

The deposition was one Byrne gave to special investigators digging into Bill Clinton during his presidency, and specifically this clip comes in a section of the deposition that focused on Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. That part of the three-hour-long videotaped deposition focused specifically on one of many incidents where Lewinsky was sneaking around the White House near the Oval Office — presumably to find the president and engage in sexual activity with him — and specifically whether Byrne knew the location of the president at that time.

“Without revealing any privileged information, do you know where the president was at that time?” the investigating attorney asked Byrne during that part of the deposition, which again focused on Lewinsky attempting to enter an area near the Oval Office where she was not supposed to go. The full June 25, 1998 deposition is available for the public to watch on C-SPAN and contains many details that prove, once again, Byrne is a completely credible source on everything Clinton.

As Hillary Clinton, Bill’s wife, runs for the presidency and has become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 after a failed White House bid of her own in 2008, the former president’s lurid history of affairs, alleged sexual assault and even alleged rape of various women during his time as president, as the governor of Arkansas and even before then have found their way back to the front and center of political discussion in America.

That’s thanks in no small part to the imminent book from Byrne, who for some time in the 1990s was the uniformed division officer posted right outside the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president. He personally knew Monica Lewinsky, and his testimony was critical in proving the sex scandal toward the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The president originally denied the sex scandal then some months later admitted to it.

Byrne’s book, Crisis of Character, exposes the Clintons in a manner that’s never been done before. This new trailer promoting the book, which Byrne’s team provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release, goes from that deposition clip to news clips about his forthcoming book.

“The man who stood outside the Oval Office door during the Bill Clinton presidency says he is doing what he can to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency,” Bret Baier of Fox News’ Special Report says in the next clip in the video.

It then shifts through several media clips of several more news anchors and commentators discussing the book, including a clip of Fox News’ Steve Doocy who noted that “none of the other networks are going to book this guy to be on.”

“Team Hillary apparently is trying to put the kibosh on all that,” Doocy said, referencing reports that surfaced on The Drudge Report last week that detail how the mainstream media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to silence and discredit Agent Byrne’s story.

WATCH THE FULL TRAILER VIDEO

Drudge, in a rare and high profile Drudge Report exclusive, reported that “Hillary’s campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread ‘lies’ on any of the nation’s broadcast networks.”

One Hillary Clinton campaign official, according to Drudge Report exclusive, even warned a television network producer that Byrne’s book is “trash for cash.”

Experts close with many agents and high-levels inside the Secret Service, however, including Ron Kessler — an award winning journalist formerly with both the Washington Post and Boston Herald — have backed up Byrne’s book. Byrne, as Breitbart News has reported, has also been commended not only by the agency but also by several political appointees of none other than President Bill Clinton for his service.

As Drudge predicted, Politico—the degrading mainstream media outlet that Breitbart News has exposed as having been taken over by a group of Democrats who are not impartial — sure enough ran a hit piece on Byrne shortly after details of the book started trickling out. Politico’s national editor now claims she is no longer a Democrat, but admits she was once a member of Clinton’s political party. Media Matters for America, the far-left progressive political operation that seeks to push the mainstream media in an even more liberal direction than it already is and is closely aligned with the Clinton machine through its founder and renowned Clinton enforcer David Brock, actually published its own attempted takedown of Byrne’s book that ran concurrently with the Clintons’ allies’ piece at Politico.

This new exclusive video also includes at the end a pun on the failed campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders against Clinton. Sanders’ slogan was #FeelTheBern, and this video includes the hashtag #FeelTheByrne.

This Breitbart News exclusive is the second such video promoting Byrne’s tell-all on the Clintons.

“It was a terrible tumultuous time for us,” Byrne says in the first video, out in early June. “We were being subpoenaed by the U.S. government. We didn’t have confidentiality agreements with our lawyers because we were government employees. It was horrendous and it affected over 20 Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and agents. So this story is all true — it is basically about my life and one of my biggest fears was, especially after President Clinton showed up one morning with a black eye after a fight that night in the mansion that everybody working that night heard it was: ‘How do you protect the president from his wife?’ I’m not telling this story, I didn’t write this book for partisan politics. I wrote it so I could get the truth out. Now that I’m retired, I also feel that I have a responsibility to the American public to tell my story so you know what the truth is. I was the first Secret Service employee to be subpoenaed to testify against the president in a criminal case. I was subpoenaed six times before the Supreme Court Justice [William] Rehnquist forced me to testify — and many other Secret Service employees. If she gets elected, it’s probably going to be another four to eight years of the same double standard: ‘Do as I say, not as I do. Do as I say, or off with your head.’ This is why I felt compelled to come out and tell my story.”

WATCH THE FULL FIRST TRAILER VIDEO

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Hillary Clinton, Media
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why we must support Donald Trump

June 27, 2016

Why we must support Donald Trump, American Thinker, Carol Brown, June 27, 2016

I supported Ted Cruz during the primaries and struggled mightily with Donald Trump (and in many ways, still do). But I will vote for Trump in November because as intrigued as I was early on by the NeverTrump movement, it’s clear these folks (who stand on soap boxes of personal integrity) are putting self before country.

David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine are two conservatives among many who have been covering the urgent need to get behind Trump. Writing in forceful and eloquent ways, they are sounding the alarm, pointing out critical differences between Trump and Clinton. Most recently Horowitz wrote:

Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America’s mortal enemy in the Middle East…

But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting “radical Islam,” securing America’s borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself. [snip]

…Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run…This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.

The threat of Islam, terror, and open borders drives home the fact that without national security, all else is moot. And on this front alone, Donald Trump’s views are dramatically different from Hillary Clinton’s. The gap between Trump and Clinton on national security is so wide it is one that might one day save your life. Or mine. Or the lives of Republicans who will not vote for Trump because, you know: integrity. As if casting a vote that helps ensure that a criminal, socialist, Islamist sympathizer gets to plop herself down in the oval office in order to continue the destructive and downright evil work of the past eight years is an act brimming with integrity.

To those whose delicate sensibilities are offended by Trump, I ask: Are your sensibilities not offended by Clinton? Because if they’re not, then you should register as a Democrat. And if they are, then the reality is that it will be Clinton or Trump.

Choose one. “Conscientious objector” is an adolescent cop-out. Our nation is at war (albeit a one-sided one we refuse to fight). All adults are needed on deck.

As Daniel Greenfield wrote concerning those who are committed to abandoning our presumptive nominee and helping to “usher in eight years of left-wing rule” that embraces “positions well to the left of Obama”:

Political campaigns can get ugly and Trump’s style is, at times, to get as nasty as possible, but it’s a sign of misplaced insider priorities to allow personal animus to matter more than the war against the left. It’s not unreasonable for some conservatives to be angry at Trump and his tactics. It is unreasonable to let that anger turn into a petulance that would let the left rule the nation for another eight years.

So to those holier-than-thou conservatives who refuse to vote for Donald Trump because their personal integrity will not allow them to do so, I say: If you want more jihad, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. If you want to be sure our borders remain open, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And if you want the next president to be someone who got Americans killed and then lied about it, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And when Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the next president, you can pat yourself on the back, know you did the right thing, and raise a glass to your integrity, which will have served your ego but not the nation.

The primaries are over. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever rude, obnoxious, manipulative behavior Trump engaged in is in the past. Voting for him doesn’t mean you condone such behavior, you support everything he has expressed, you trust him implicitly, or that you even like the guy. It means you understand what’s at stake and have the maturity to move beyond your own ego in order to be a true patriot.

We either have a shot at a future or we don’t.

Trump gives America a chance to survive. And maybe even do better than that.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Never Trumpers, Republican establishment, Republican Party
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons of the Day

June 25, 2016

H/t The Conservative Tree House

trust-the-government-they-know-best

H/t Power Line

Brexit-Godzilla-copy

 

Media-Obamabots-copy

 

Obama-to-Middle-East-Bitter-Clingers-copy

 

Hillary-Build-on-Success-copy

Categories: Guns and Bibles, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Media, Obama
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Brexit – Backlash from mass migration and ISIS

June 25, 2016

Brexit – Backlash from mass migration and ISIS. DEBKAfile, June 24,2016

BREXIT_23.6.16

In a historic referendum, millions of British citizens voted Thursday, June 23, to leave the European Union after 43 years by a margin of 52 to 48 percent. Many were undoubtedly moved into approving this pivotal step by three seismic world events:

1. The mass migration flowing into Europe from the Middle East and Africa under the EU aegis. Forebodings in the UK were fueled by figures released a week before the referendum showing an influx of 330,000 migrants to Britain in 2015.

2. The war on the Islamic State which poses a peril which most Western governments avoid addressing by name as World War III in the making.

3. The inability of those governments, beyond empty words, to grapple with the war on ISIS or cope with the  mass of migrants expected to beat on the gates of Western societies for many more hard years.

Many Americans and Europeans are dissatisfied and resentful of President Barack Obama’s approach to the war on ISIS, which is to dismiss the enemy as a minor band of fanatics and thus, rather than a war against Islam. Neither do they accept German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s magnanimous invitation to take refugees in – 1.5 million in two years – as her country’s moral responsibility.

This popular disgruntlement has thrown up such antiestablishment figures as Donald Trump in the US and Boris Johnson in Britain and contributes to the rise of far right-wing movements and extremist violence on both continents.

Those two leaders, though different in most other ways, owe much of their popularity to the pervasive fear in their countries that surging immigration will forever alter the fabric of their societies.

Such social upheaval is the result of a trap deliberately set for the West by two Muslim leaders: ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Turkish President Tayyip Reccep Erdogan.

Al-Baghdadi conceived the idea of flooding the western world with waves of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East as a way to achieve three targets:

a) To change the composition of the population of Western countries by expanding the Muslim increment.

b) To plant networks of ISIS terrorists in the West.

c) To boost ISIS Middle Eastern arms, people and drugs smuggling networks as the organization’s main source of income. Migrants are willing to pay an average of between 5,000 and 10,000 dollars to reach the West even though they know that many never make it alive.

Al Baghdadi made up for the revenue shortfall caused by the US bombing of ISIS-held oil fields and money reserves by pushing over a new wave of immigrants.

President Erdogan’s motives are quite different.

He allowed the waves of immigrants to pass through Turkey on their way to the US and Europe – just as for years, he allowed Western jihadists joining ISIS to reach Siria via Turkey – because he was consumed with the desire to punish the US, namely, the Obama administration, for refusing to back up his hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East; Europe was punished for denying Turkey EU membership year after year.

The victory of Boris Johnson’s “leave” campaign – in the face of Obama’s personal championship of Prime Minister David Cameron’s bid to keep his country in, supported by the Democratic presumptive nominee Hilary Clinton – was a loud and clear signal for politicians running in future elections in the West, including the US presidential vote in November.

Republican candidate Donald Trump’s call to stop Muslim immigration into the US until proper screening measures are in place may sound like an unformed idea, but no other US politician has dared put it on the table, or directly challenge the hollow words and self-righteous hypocrisy of Obama and Clinton on the issues of terror, wars in the Middle East and mass immigration. This alone gives Trump a popular edge in widening circles in the USA over his rival.

Trump is not likely to lose votes either by his pledge to rebuild NATO for leading the West in the war against Islamic terror.

During the five months up until the US presidential election, the West can expect more large-scale ISIS terror coupled with dramatic events in the wars raging in at least seven countries  – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan. Refugees in vast numbers will continue to batter down the doors of countries that are increasingly unable and unwilling to accept them.

Wars in general and religious wars in particular, have throughout history thrown up massive shifts of population displaced by violence, plague, falling regimes, famine and economic hardship.

The year 2016 will go down as the year in which Middle East crises spilled over into the west, bringing social change and far-reaching political turmoil in their wake.

And this is only the beginning.

Categories: 2016 elections, Boris Johnson, BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, Erdogan, Establishment, European Union, Hillary Clinton, Islamic invasion, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Obama and Islam
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Jeff Sessions and Hillary Clinton React to Brexit

June 24, 2016

Jeff Sessions and Hillary Clinton React to Brexit, Power Line, John Hinderaker, June 24, 2016

Senator Jeff Sessions released a statement on yesterday’s Brexit vote. As usual, Sessions has his finger on the pulse:

[The people’s] strong vote arose not out of fear and pique but out of love for country and pride of place. Their experience with a distant government in Brussels was given a long and fair chance to succeed. In the end, however, they concluded that the costs outweighed the benefits. …

Now it’s our time. The period of the nation state has not ended. No far off global government or union can command the loyalty of a people like their own country. Vague unions have no ability to call on the people to sacrifice for the common good. They seem incapable of making decisions and when they do, they have difficulty executing the decision.
***
In negotiations and relationships, national leaders should first ensure they have protected the safety and legitimate interests of their own people. This principle has been eroded and Brexit is a warning for America. Our British friends have sent the message loud and clear.

The interests of powerful international corporations, media, special interests, and leftist international forces are not coterminous with those of our people. This we must understand. The ultimate interest that our government is legally and morally bound to serve is that of our people.

Just as in the U.K., our November presidential election presents a stark contrast. The establishment forces, the global powers, are promoting their values and their interests. They want to erode borders, rapidly open America’s markets to foreign produced goods, while having little interest in advancing America’s ability to sell abroad. These forces have zero interest in better job opportunities and higher wages for our citizens.

It has been known for years that the European Union has often served as a barrier to its members taking action that would serve their own interests. Perhaps nothing proves this more definitively than the current migrant crisis, where the EU has clearly been part of the problem, not the solution.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, had this to say:

Hillary Clinton foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said on a conference call Friday that Clinton “doesn’t believe Americans are isolationist” and that the results of Britain’s Brexit vote will not affect the outcome of the American presidential election.

Huh? What does standing up for British sovereignty have to do with being isolationist? If you don’t want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats, you’re an isolationist? If you don’t want your country’s borders to be dissolved by unlimited immigration, you’re an isolationist?

As is so often the case, it is hard to tell whether Hillary is clueless or disingenuous. Or both.

Categories: 2016 elections, BREXIT, Britain, European Union, Hillary Clinton, Jeff Sessions
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »