Wednesday, August 21, 2013

6 “Inconvenient Truths” about Hillary Clinton




In light of all the Hillary buzz and the Clinton 2016 infomercials in the form of miniseries and movies to be produced by “Inconvenient Truth” producer Courtney Sexton, it’s worth a look at what we’re actually dealing with.
Is Hillary an unstoppable political force and inevitable first female president or scandal-ridden wannabe with a ton of baggage? Here are a few reasons to lean toward the latter.
1. Hillary’s involvement in scandals started early.
As a 27-year-old staffer, she was fired from the Watergate committee for fraud and unethical behavior.
Her former boss, Jerry Zeifman, finally spoke out in 2008:
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
So maybe the lying isn’t so much a new thing.
2. Seriously, she’s really into coverups.
Then, in 1993 the Clintons took the White House, and seven White House travel office employees were fired for “mismanagement.” The White House spokeswoman at the time, Dee Dee Myers, suggested that the employees were under FBI investigation. Some said it was all a show, because they wanted to get friends of the Clintons in office. Who knows.
From a June 2000 article in the Los Angeles Times:
There is “substantial evidence” that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel office firings, independent counsel Robert W. Ray reported Thursday.
The problem – again – was the cover up. They acted like they knew nothing, the truth never came out, and Hillary walked away.
3. She lied about being shot at by a Bosnian sniper.



3. She lied about being shot at by a Bosnian sniper.

FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton's Bogus "Bosnia Sniper Fire" Story Exposed by Sharyl Attkisson

CBS News Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has reportedly been criticized by her bosses for treading "dangerously close to advocacy" as a result of her pursuit of the Benghazi scandal. Which brings me to this, remember when Attkisson exposed Hillary Clinton's bogus "Bosnia sniper fire" lie? Good times. She's an amazing reporter, period.
4. She really isn’t that good for women.
Turns out that being a women in a high profile role isn’t enough to make you a role model for women. Hillary is novel as the first woman to have a real shot at the Presidency, and that earns her points with a lot of the feminists who seem to overlook some of her most glaring issues.
As Camille Paglia wrote during the 2008 campaign:
If they are to be truly equal, women must fight their own fights and not rely on a borrowed spotlight.
Hillary has tried to have it both ways: to batten on her husband’s nostalgic popularity while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of sexism.
Well, which is it? Are men convenient sugar daddies or condescending oppressors?
And for all of the fanfare, all of the opportunities her husband has handed her, what has she really done with her power? The truth is that, well, not much.
5. She hasn’t actually done much with her power.
Her husband was elected to the presidency in 1992. Hillary, by all accounts, was incredibly influential in his administration. That much we know. Since then, she’s been a senator from the state of New York. And then under Obama, she served as Secretary of State. What are her legacies?
Let’s start with her tenure as First Lady of the United States. The most memorable moments from her eight years as First Lady boil down to Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, and the defeat of Hillarycare. In 1994, her flagship effort to pass sweeping health care reform was a failure – we had to wait until Barack Obama for that destruction.
Then she had nine years in the U.S. Senate as the first woman elected from New York. She followed Sen. Chuck Schumer’s lead on getting funding to rebuild after 9/11, and then supported Bush’s military action in Afghanistan. She befriended Newt Gingrich to try to revive universal health care. She was re-elected easily in 2006, but by 2007 she was running for president and held the Democrat line. She served half of her second term before stepping down to accept her new position as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State.
As Secretary of State she was undoubtedly hard working and competent, but is that enough to make her a remarkable Secretary of State? She visited 112 countries. There were no major gaffes or screw-ups (which in and of itself is a win for a Clinton). Her Russia Reset Button fell flat, and they still hate us. She gave a beautiful speech the night Osama bin Laden was killed. Overall, it was an unremarkable run that boils down to one horrible night in Libya, where she failed to answer the 3 a.m. phone call. 
6. Benghazi.
On Sept. 11, 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered by Islamic militants in Benghazi, Libya. Originally the attack was blamed on outrage due to an anti-Muslim YouTube video, and then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds to all the Sunday shows to denounce the hate speech. For weeks, Hillary adamantly supported the ridiculous notion that these were “spontaneous demonstrations,” despite overwhelming evidence that she knew from the beginning that this was simply false.
More questions went unanswered. There were heated hearings, investigations, accusations, and cover-ups. The investigation still has not found out why requests for help were denied or who was responsible.
One thing, however, is clear. As CEO of the State Department, Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible. Frustrated with the line of questioning during the hearing, Hillary exploded. The clip below shows how she feels about figuring out how the murders actually happened.


Ted Cruz ally: Some Rand Paul supporters raising questions in Iowa about his eligibility



Expert shinola-stirring by Paul Bedard on a slow summer news day, but the evidence is basically one guy in Iowa reading Facebook posts from Paul fans that he can’t/won’t even cite. Other plugged-in Iowa righties say they’re not hearing anything about it from the Paulites, rather that it’s the local media that’s most interested in Cruz’s eligibility. (Surprise.) The closest we get to a smoking gun is the legislative director from Paul’s Campaign for Liberty being a tiny bit cute in saying he expects a smart lawyer like Cruz will have no problem “getting around” the natural-born requirement.
And yet, because a Cruz/Paul battle for the soul of grassroots conservatism would be the most gripping storyline of the 2016 primaries, the first inkling of conflict is bound to get attention even when there’s not much to it:
“They’re scared and they now keep bringing up the eligibility issue,” Jamie Johnson told the Washington Examiner. Johnson was coalitions director for Rick Santorum’s campaign during the 2012 Iowa caucuses, but he hopes Cruz wins the Republican nomination in 2016. “They are hitting the eligibility issue hard,” Johnson said. “They’re using third-party sources, though; they don’t want it tracked back to Campaign for Liberty [an organization that grew out of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid].”…
Johnson, who serves on the Iowa Republican Party State Central Committee, didn’t provide direct evidence that the whisper campaign is underway, but invoked his interaction with Paul’s supporters in the Iowa GOP. ”How do I know? because I talk with them,” he said. “I look at their Facebook posts and their Twitter [feeds].”
The reply from Campaign for Liberty legislative director Jeff Shipley:
“If you’re going to call yourself a true constitutionalist, well, it’s right there in the Constitution,” Shipley told the Washington Examiner during a phone interview. “Obviously, that’s something Mr. Cruz needs to address, that he’s eligible for the office.”
Shipley doesn’t think that’ll be difficult. “With the legal documents, it’s all language, and he’s a very competent lawyer, so I’m sure he can get around it,” he said.
He also addressed the claim that Campaign for Liberty is casting doubt on Cruz’s eligibility. “There probably are some Senator Paul supporters that feel threatened by Senator Cruz, and they may be saying some things, but I think that’s just kind of petty nonsense — I don’t think it’ll amount to much,” Shipley said, noting that he hadn’t heard any Campaign for Liberty people making the argument.
Paul himself said last week that he doesn’t question Cruz’s eligibility, which would make it … difficult for him to raise this later. In fact, I think the real news from Bedard’s piece is Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican website saying that political reporters he’s spoken to believe the eligibility issue will be Cruz’s “biggest hurdle” in Iowa. Really? Which rivals are going to make that an issue in the primaries? Hillary had that option against Obama five years ago and passed on it, sensing (correctly) that it would probably blow up on her by annoying undecideds and making her look desperate. If Paul or Christie or anyone else ends up reduced to navel-gazing about Cruz’s eligibility to win Iowa, that would likely mean Cruz has the caucus all but locked up. As for grassroots anti-Cruz Birtherism, the fuel for that in Obama’s case was antipathy to his liberalism; get O disqualified from office, the logic went, and you stop America’s leftward drift (or slow it, since Uncle Joe Biden was waiting in the wings). How much antipathy to the famously conservative Cruz are you likely to find in the famously conservative Iowa GOP electorate?
In other news today, Cruz reaffirmed that he stands with Rand in the dispute between him and Christie over national security. Exit question: Why would a former Santorum staffer want to set Paul and Cruz against each other this early? Hmmmm.

Ron Paul: In other words, Christie will “say anything, do anything” to get elected

Oh, my. Neil Cavuto had former longtime Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul on his show on Tuesday afternoon and asked him for a few of his thoughts on the recent inter-Republican, establishment v. tea party, neocon v. libertarian drama between Gov. Chris Christie and his son Sen. Rand Paul. We’re already well aware that Ron Paulwould be hard-pressed to ever find the motivation to support a candidate like Christie, and unsurprisingly, Christie’s comments that the GOP is “not a debating society” but rather “a political operation that needs to win” at the RNC last week were not much to his liking either. Via Mediaite:

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/20/ron-paul-in-other-words-christie-will-say-anything-do-anything-to-get-elected/

Howard Dean ‘testing the waters’ in Iowa and New Hampshire.






Is Howard Dean actually thinking about running for president again?
The former governor of Vermont, Democratic National Committee chairman and 2004 presidential candidate is headed back to Iowa and New Hampshire, according to local news reports.
James Pindell, the political director of New Hampshire’s WMUR, reported Tuesday in a story titled, “Howard Dean to visit NH during presidential campaign ‘testing the waters’ phase” that the Democrat is visiting the Granite State next month.

The popular liberal was once seen as the Democratic front-runner to take on President George W. Bush in 2004. But he is often remembered today for his infamous “Dean scream” the night of the Iowa caucuses after he placed third and vowed to continue his campaign.
The Daily Caller asked former Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi for his thoughts on a potential Dean campaign. Trippi emphasized that he does not know Dean’s thinking on a run, though predicted the Democratic Party base would be excited about it.
“I think many on the left would rally to his candidacy should he decide to run,” Trippi told TheDC. “I do not know how serious he is though. I think Hillary Clinton casts a shadow over any potential Democrats including Dean if she decides to run in 2016. If she doesn’t run Howard Dean would be a very strong contender for the nomination.”
Dean, according to WMUR, is set to deliver a speech on health care at the Saint Anselm College New Hampshire Institute of Politics on Sept. 23.
This week, he’s also heading to Hawkeye State.

In Iowa, Dean is traveling to Altoona on Tuesday for the Iowa Federation of Labor Convention. He’s expected to promote the group Democracy for America, which has the goal of turning more states blue.
In June, Dean told CNN he was open to another run.
“I am not driven by my own ambition,” Dean said. “What I am driven by is pushing the country in a direction that it desperately needs to be pushed; pushing other politicians who aren’t quite as frank as I am who need to be more candid with the American people about what needs to happen. I am not trying to hedge, it’s a hard job running. It’s really tough. I am doing a lot of things I really enjoy. But you should never say never in this business.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/howard-dean-testing-the-waters-in-iowa-and-new-hampshire/#ixzz2ccjMdWjq

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Hillary Throws Out The Tattered Race Card To Scare Up Support For Her Tattered Record

ith no real accomplishments as Secretary of State and much to defend while she occupied that position, Hillary Clinton signaled her upcoming presidential campaign strategy in a grand opening speech in San Francisco last week.

She threw down the dog eared and quite worn out Democrat hole card of racist scare tactics…..again.
If Hillary actually had something to offer besides being a woman with a burning ambition to be president, she would have featured it in her first unofficial campaign speech….
But as it turned out, her first speech inflamed paranoia in the black community by criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision striking down key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As if somehow, this decision would open the door for states to take the right to vote away from black voters…As if it is something that these states have been licking their chops to do.
I asked Richard Grenell, Fox News foreign policy expert, for a professional opinion on Hilary Clintons’ four year tenure as Secretary of State:
 As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton avoided dealing with all of the primary U.S. national security issues.  Her four year tenure was unimpressive and disappointing.  She failed to lead the U.S. in confronting the Syria crisis, the Iranian nuclear issue, the North Korean nuclear advancements and every other difficult foreign policy issue the U.S. was dealing with.  It was as if Hillary calculated that doing nothing as Secretary of State would allow her to build her resume and avoid controversy.  It was a selfish political move designed for personal gain.

But of course Hillary knows this decision has nothing to do with taking voting rights away from black voters, but has everything to do with ensuring there is integrity at the American ballot box, by requiring valid identification when voting or registering to vote.

But when did Hillary ever let truth get in the way of her agenda?
Black voter participation has risen dramatically since 1996, in spite of increasing amount of states tightening up their voter ID laws and there is NO evidence of black voter suppression….. If there was it would have been front page news.
No one is trying to suppress the black vote, the pure reason behind requiring voter ID that every civilized democratic nation in the world has, is to ensure the integrity of the system.
If the past is any predictor of future events, look for Hillary’s campaign to be negative and divisive, it’s not pretty and it is not good for the country, but it is effective. If your record is one of disastrous foreign policy, full of scandal and obfuscation, then you take the focus off of you and throw out the red herrings.
Look for Hillary to exploit the race card and create fear in her base of special interests. We will even watch her slowly morph into different dialects as she exploits old fears. See Hillarys Selma speech.
But Hillary’s going to have a slugfest ahead as old scandals erupt and new ones emerge. You can say a lot about the Clintons, but they have always been scandal plagued. Where there’s smoke there is going to be fire.
Even left leaning New York time columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing article on the unfettered greed exposed by the revelations in the Clinton Foundation. See article. This just might signal the first crack in the coronation plan Hillary/Bill have on the White House.


Read more: http://joemiller.us/2013/08/hillary-throws-out-the-tattered-race-card-to-scare-up-support-for-her-tattered-record/#ixzz2cYcoA0GK

Donald Trump: The GOP is going to need the “perfect candidate” in 2016 — and I might have someone in mind

Oh, good grief. This is a blip from last week, but heck — I suppose if Joe Biden really ismounting a presidential run for 2016, why not this guy? Amirite?
VAN SUSTEREN: I know 2016 seems like a long time away, with everyone in Iowa last weekend, including yourself… What is it going to take for the Republicans to win back the White House in 2016?
TRUMP: It’s going to take the perfect candidate — tough, smart, compassionate. If you don’t have the perfect candidate, Hillary will be president. I assume she’s going to get the nomination, it looks like that way, assuming good health and lots of other things. It would certainly seem Hillary’s going to get the nomination and she will be tougher to beat. Actually, she’ll be tougher to beat than president Obama in my opinion. So they need the perfect candidate.
VAN SUSTEREN: Two questions. Let me ask you the first one. What would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? The second one is, who could beat her?
TRUMP: Well, a lot of things, we’re dealing with years away, and it’s very hard to say who could beat her. It could be a person that hasn’t emerged. It could be something we’re talking about. It could be a lot of different people maybe. But I think she’s going to be tough. … I do think I can make fabulous deals for the country. I think I could make the country great again. I think I could make the country rich again. … The fact is our country is in serious economic trouble and you would ideally think that somebody coming out of business who has done very well in business who understands debt, who understands payrolls, who understands problems, you would think somebody like that would be good.
And etcetera. I was jesting above, of course, because this really is less serious than even Joe Biden’s looming potential candidacy (…oof). It’s just Donald Trump doing what Donald Trump does best — gunning after the publicity that he is very likely to freely receive and issuing grandiose proclamations about he could do everything bigger and better than any layman GOP candidate.
The media attention is already swirling, no doubt fueled along by the current off-year, slow-news summerfest, but I think it’s safe to say we don’t need to live in anticipation of a real-deal Donald Trump presidential bid. I am a little worried about a repeat of what David Weigel calls the Trump trauma of 2011 — ’cause “trauma” is probably a pretty good word for that erstwhile circus act.

Christie signs bill banning “conversion therapy” for gay kids in New Jersey

Last week he signed a bunch of minor gun-control bills, then vetoed one that would havebanned .50-caliber rifles. He vetoed the Democratic bill easing access to medical marijuana for sick kids, but promised he’d sign a new one if they made a few tweaks. Today he’s signing a bill that’ll ban “gay conversion therapy” from being administered to people under 18, but he’s also committing to supporting NJ’s Republican candidate for Senate despite expectations that he’d stay out of the race. Expect three more months of this from Christie — a little for the left to protect his gubernatorial bid and a little for the right to protect his presidential ambitions — and then a tilt towards conservatism once he’s reelected.
As for this, look at it this way: He wasn’t going to win Iowa anyway.
At the outset of this debate, I expressed my concerns about government limiting parental choice on the care and treatment of their own children. I still have those concerns. Government should tread carefully into this area and I do so here reluctantly. I have scrutinized this piece of legislation with that concern in mind.
However, I also believe that on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards. The American Psychological Association has found that efforts to change sexual orientation can pose critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts.
I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate. Based upon this analysis, I sign this bill into law.
His stance on medical marijuana for kids would give parents more control over their child’s treatment, which he probably assumes gives him a little extra leeway to take some control away on this. I’m looking forward to that reply at the debates when Santorum inevitably calls him out for signing this: “Of course I believe parents have a right to make medical decisions for their children. I greenlit weed for them, didn’t I?”
LGBT groups in the state are wondering if this is a sign that Christie will end up supporting gay marriage. Er, no, not for the next three years, at least. He’s already gone as far on this issue as he probably safely can to win a Republican primary: Watch him tell Piers Morgan below in 2011 that he doesn’t think homosexual behavior is sinful and that he thinks gays are born that way. That’s probably what forced his hand in signing today’s bill. He could have vetoed it, I guess, on grounds that his personal opinion is irrelevant and that parents should be free to choose conversion therapy if they wish, but then gay-rights activists would have hammered him with replays of this clip (as well as with what the APA said about health risks from the therapy). He’ll never be the social-con champion anyway, and there are worse fates for a centrist than being attacked on this subject by people to his right during a national primary campaign.
Exit question: Is this constitutional? Don’t be so sure.