► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Double Flying Pig Alert: Morgan & Scarborough Say Obama Scandals Prove Gun Advocates Not Crazy

by huckfunn ( 3 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Censorship, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, DOJ, Eric Holder, Headlines, Hillary Clinton, IRS, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Marxism, Media, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Second Amendment, Socialism, taxation at May 19th, 2013 - 11:15 pm

That’s right! Two of MSM’s biggest Obama rumpswabs now admit that the IRS and AP scandals pretty much prove that the fear of increased background checks by Pro-Second Amendment groups  may have some merit.

How big of a wake-up call are the Obama scandals, especially the ones surrounding the seizing of phone records from the Associated Press and the IRS’s targeting of conservatives? So big that two of the media’s most shameful and shameless gun control advocates — Joe Scarborough and Piers Morgan — have finally conceded that arguments made by pro-Second Amendment activists against the expanding of background checks might not be so ridiculous.

In a roundtable discussion on Friday’s “Morning Joe,”  Scarborough said that because of the IRS scandal, “My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals.” He added: “People say, ‘Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?’”

Mika agreed completely: “That is a really, really good point.” Even the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein agreed.

Scarborough added that, when it comes to both background checks and immigration reform, the IRS scandal is “devastating,” because both of those pieces of legislation ask us to trust the kind of government that would seize the media’s phone records and use the IRS to target a president’s political foes.

Also courtesy of NRO, here is no-less than Piers Morgan conceding he was wrong to ridicule gun-rights activists (including our own Ben Shapiro) for making the argument that a legitimate fear of government tyranny is what makes the Second Amendment so crucial:

Read the entire article here. Hat tip Breitbart.

Your Government Gone Wild

by huckfunn ( 164 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Debt, Democratic Party, DOJ, Economy, EPA, Eric Holder, Free Speech, government, Healthcare, Hillary Clinton, IRS, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Misery Index, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation at May 19th, 2013 - 2:00 pm

The above Youtube is an excerpt of Obama’s commencement address at Ohio State on May 5, just days before the IRS and AP scandals broke. The cynicism and hypocrisy of his words are truly epic. Obama is all about tyranny and all about a sinister big government that is hell-bent on using our tax dollars to take away our freedoms. If you can’t stand the sound of Dear Leader’s voice, here is the transcript of what he said.

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

Now this is straight from the White House. “The Law Is Irrelevant”

For anyone who took the time to watch the Eric Holder and/or IRS hearings this week, the corruption, incompetence and arrogance of the ruling parasite elite class was on full display.  Eric Holder and Steven Miller, chief executives of the Department of Injustice and the IRS respectively, testified before Congress as to their utter cluelessness and unaccountability of the nefarious goings on in the powerful agencies that they run. Steven Miller’s testimony was by far the most interesting. He testified to Congress that IRS persecution of groups of people of a particular political view is not illegal. He further testified that questioning  individuals as to the subject matter of their prayers was not improper. When asked “what would make a difference in ending the unlawful practices of the IRS?”, Miller stated that he simply needed a bigger budget. Unbelievable stuff. Holder’s testimony was not nearly as entertaining. He simply testified that he either didn’t know or couldn’t remember anything about anything that was asked of him. Both of these bureaucrats made it perfectly clear that they are above the law and are not accountable to you commoners. In fact, Steven Miller wants you to know that he views us taxpaying bumpkins as his “customers”.  EXCUSE ME, ASSHOLE!  I AM NOT YOUR CUSTOMER!  YOU WORK FOR ME AND I’M THE ONE WHO PAYS YOUR SALARY!

We need to have every cabinet secretary testify before Congress and explain their relevance and reason for existence. The former EPA Secretary needs to explain how she used bogus emails to circumvent Freedom of Information inquiries. The Department of Energy does not produce or create energy yet its 2013 budget is $27 Billion. The Department of Education does not produce or create education yet its 2013 budget is $68.9 Billion. Those 2 departments do nothing but create onerous regulations and indoctrinate socialist dogma into our youth. They should both be abolished. BTW, whatever happened to Hot Tub Bub of the GSA?

What We Know About The GSA’s Jeffrey Neely

The Incestuous Relationship Between the Mainstream Media and the Obama Regime

by huckfunn ( 42 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Censorship, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Free Speech, government, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism at May 11th, 2013 - 10:04 am

CBS News President, David Rhodes, is the brother of Obama’s deputy national security, Ben Rhodes. Ben Rhodes was instrumental in changing the Benghazi talking points. Now, the top turds at CBS are trying to dump Sheryl Attkisson, the only CBS investigative reporter with a set of gonads. CBS says her reporting on Benghazi is bordering on “advocacy”. She was also the reporter who broke the Fast & Furious story.

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,”Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

Now here’s the funny part:

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

And I thought that fiction was the exclusive province of Jay Carney. Read the entire article here. Hat tip – The Daily Caller

Obama ‘covertly recruiting’ militant Muslims as diplomats

by 1389AD ( 21 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Muslim Brotherhood at May 8th, 2013 - 11:30 am

We told you so! The US federal government is riddled with Muslim Brotherhood moles.

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Colludes with Terrorist Front Groups?

(h/t: The Muslim Issue Worldwide)

[...]
Many Weekly Update readers will recall that in late January, we sounded the alarm about a top Obama State Department official, Mark Ward, participating in a December 2012, conference sponsored by two groups — the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) – both with chillingly close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is known as the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.

At the conference, Ward conducted a seminar focused on career opportunities for Muslim youth. Here is how the event was billed: “Besides being a citizenship duty, there are benefits that Muslims can add to the American Muslim community and the global Muslim world by joining the US Foreign Services. This session will shed light on the different career opportunities for Muslim youth in the US Foreign Services Department. It will also clear any concerns that many people have feared about pursuing in this career.”

Ward was joined at the Chicago, Illinois, by a number of speakers well known for advocating violent jihad. Among them was Kifah Mustapha, a fundraiser for the terrorist group the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). In November 2008, HLF was convicted on 108 counts of supporting international terrorism. The charges included funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, providing material support to a foreign terrorist, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Also at the podium with Ward was MAS co-founder Jamal Badawi , who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against the HLF and who praised the jihad of Gaza terrorists during a speech titled “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom.” With Ward and Badawi were Ayman Hammous and Oussama Jammal. Hammous is the Executive Director of the New York chapter of MAS and Jammal is the president of the Mosque Foundation, an extremist Islamist mosque in Bridgeview, Illinois, that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the HLF and other Islamic charities accused of financing terrorism.

As Deputy Special Coordinator of the State Department’s Middle East Transition office Ward apparently heads a secretive campaign, discovered in the course of a Judicial Watch investigation, to add Muslims to its foreign service roster. It appears to be part of the administration’s Muslim outreach effort, which includes a variety of controversial moves.

Among the moves are Department of Homeland Security (DHS) meetings with extremist Islamic organizations; sending mosque leader Feisal Abdul Rauf, who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks, on a Middle Eastern outreach mission; and revamping the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

So, it turns out that not only is the Obama administration providing cover, it is also working with known terrorists front groups to help them recruit their followers for key State Department positions. Judicial Watch is determined to get to the bottom of this unholy alliance. This past week, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking all records relating to a speech given by Ward, as well as all records of communication between any State Department employee and any representative of the Muslim American Society and/or the Islamic Council of North America regarding the Muslim recruitment conference. The administration is in full stonewall on this issue and once again we have to go to court to get “the most transparent administration in history” to obey the federal government’s main transparency law, the Freedom of Information Act.
[...]
Much more here.

Hillary is no Barack

by Speranza ( 52 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politics at May 7th, 2013 - 11:30 am

The thought of that overrated, overhyped, appallingly mediocre woman (who was a God awful Secretary of State) coming back into the White House (along with her attention starved husband) makes we wish that the Democrats would nominate a Martin O’Malley or Deval Patrick (better yet Joe Biden). Seriously though this whole notion of “next in line” is how we wind up with the Bush’s, Dole, McCain and Mitt.

by Jonah Goldberg

In a move that had some of us dropping to our knees and shaking our fists at an indifferent God, C-SPAN recently announced that it is launching its “Road to the White House” programming for 2016.

For others, however, the response was more like “it’s about time!” Chief among them is that happy band of political warriors who think it’s “Hillary’s turn.”

Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi admitted that she prays Hillary will run. Also last week, Emily’s List, the liberal feminist organization dedicated to getting liberal feminist women elected to public office, announced it’s big new “Madam President” campaign dedicated to removing some imaginary “men only” sign on the Oval Office.

Emily’s List President Stefanie Schriock says the effort isn’t — wink, wink — all about Clinton, but she concedes, “There’s one name on all our minds: Hillary Clinton.  [......]

Translation: If Hillary runs, get out of her — and our — way. The same day Emily’s List announced its spectacularly unsubtle Madam President campaign, Quinnipiac released a poll finding that Clinton was the overwhelming favorite of Democratic primary voters. Sixty-five percent said they preferred Hillary, compared with 13% for next-in-line Joe Biden (who also may think he’s owed the presidency because it’s “his turn”).

‘Rendezvous with destiny’?

Ironically, Clinton might be borrowing a page from Barack Obama. In a less ham-fisted way, the Obama campaign cultivated a sense that America had a “rendezvous with destiny” (Franklin Roosevelt’s famous phrase) to elect the first African-American president. Obama himself often underplayed the point, merely referring to the “historic” nature of the election, his candidacy, etc. His supporters weren’t nearly so understated.

Director Spike Lee declared in the summer of ’08 that when Obama is elected, “it will change everything. … You’ll have to measure time by ‘Before Obama’ and ‘After Obama.’”

Though some of us might have rolled our eyes at that kind of hyperbole, it was precisely the kind of thing that got millions of idealistic young people and other first-time voters to rush to the polls for Obama.

[......]

Maybe. But there’s reason for skepticism. Leave aside the fact that it is very rare for a party to hold the White House for three elections in a row. George H.W. Bush pulled it off in 1988. Before that it was FDR in 1940 and then Teddy Roosevelt in 1904.

First of all, gender and race have different historic and political frequencies. Charges of sexism, deserved or undeserved, simply do not have the same sting as charges of racism. And while most Americans would like to see a female president, that aspiration doesn’t pull on the heartstrings in the same way.

More specifically, the simple fact is that Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. In 2008, Obama was still an exciting unknown. Clinton has been in the news for two decades. And even with Obama’s glory in full fade, it’s worth noting he’s still a vastly more compelling personality. Watch January’s (journalistically vapid) 60 Minutesinterview with both Clinton and Obama. The president comes across as engaged and energetic. Clinton seems like the person who comes up to tell you “there’s no eating in the library.”

Fickle approval ratings

Her supporters cite her high approval ratings upon stepping down as secretary of State. But that popularity almost surely has more to do with the fact she stayed out of the unappetizing food fight of domestic politics over the past five years.

George W. Bush’s approval ratings have gone up over the past few years for the same reasons. But if Bush publicly started taking controversial positions, it’s doubtful that his approval trends would continue. The same holds for Clinton. The sooner she starts acting the partisan she is — and has to be to win the Democratic nomination — the sooner she will return to her role as a polarizing figure.

Clinton’s performance as secretary of State almost surely has nothing to do with her poll numbers because her performance was awfully lackluster. It’s damning with faint praise that often the first — and sometimes only — thing her promoters cite as an accomplishment is that she flew a “million miles” as secretary of State. [.......]Talk about celebrating quantity over quality. Her tenures as senator and first lady are pretty light on major accomplishments as well.

Maybe she can pull it off. Maybe after eight years of a fairly moribund economy (so far at least) and eight years of vicious partisan squabbling, Hillary Clinton can win with essentially a “more of the same” economic agenda, a lot of hoopla about being a woman and excitement over it being “her turn.”  [.......]

Read the rest – Hillary is no Barack

Huma Abedin, perhaps our next Secretary of State?

by Speranza ( 114 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Muslim Brotherhood at May 2nd, 2013 - 7:00 am

If Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president in 2017 do not be shocked if Huma Abedin becomes Secretary of State. What a nightmare scenario that will be! A woman whose family has Muslim Brotherhood connections as National Security Adviser or even Secretary of State – in other words the perfect Democratic nominee and of course the aged John McCain and his buddy Miss Lindsey Graham would fall over backwards in praising her.

by Daniel Greenfield

In 2017, Huma Abedin may be the wife of the mayor of New York City or the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States. It’s even possible that she might be both.

Huma Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner, was once the front-runner for the top job. Weiner’s career was temporarily torpedoed by a sex scandal, but a weak campaign field has tempted him back into the race and already positioned him at the number two spot.

Weiner’s competition is a lesbian City Council speaker, who is seen as a Bloomberg toady, a Comptroller who may soon be headed to jail for campaign finance fraud and a radical leftist Public Advocate who quotes Che and whose wife once claimed to be a lesbian.

In that company, Weiner no longer looks as freakish as he once did and with a $4.3 million war chest, he could win by drowning his Democratic opponents in cash and then fundraising all over again during the general election when he becomes the only alternative to a Republican mayor.

Bloomberg proved that even an unpopular candidate despised by most voters could win elections by flooding community and interest groups with cash and Weiner’s biggest asset isn’t even his war chest; it’s his connection to the Clintons.  [........]

The woman at the heart of that connection is his wife. Media reports say that Huma Abedin is the one to decide whether Weiner runs and the existence of the New York Times Magazine image rehab profile makes it clear that she has already decided. But no one really believed that Huma Abedin would have stayed married to a formerly promising politician who would never again run for public office.

The only thing standing between Huma Abedin and Gracie Mansion is Joe Lhota, a balding Giuliani official and Weiner’s likely Republican opponent, whose biggest asset is the Giuliani brand.  Lhota is pitching himself as a libertarian alternative to the Bloombergian nanny state, but the chances are still good that the Clinton machine will roll over him on Election Day.

For most politicians, Gracie Mansion is the last stop of their political careers. Ed Koch, the last mayor to try and move to higher office, couldn’t make it. Lindsay took a shot at the White House in 1972 and Weiner likely has dreams of following in his footsteps. It’s an unlikely project, but if Weiner climbs into the top spot in the city, it will only be as a stepping stone to higher office.

By then Huma Abedin is likely to have an even bigger place in the political sun. Bill Clinton traded his support in the last election for the coronation of his wife. Hillary Clinton does have a likability problem, despite the media’s best efforts to pretend otherwise, and she lost the last time she was the inevitable candidate for the Democratic Party nomination.  [.......]

The prospective Democratic presidential candidates for 2016 include such charismatic figures as Joe Biden, Maryland Governor Martin “Rain Tax” O’Malley and New York’s Machiavellian governor Andrew Cuomo. It’s the kind of race that even Hillary might be able to win. And then it’s up to the Republican Party to put up a candidate who can communicate better than any of its candidates have in the last generation.

President Hillary Clinton is almost certain to take along Huma Abedin. The two women were virtually inseparable and politicians like to keep their close confidants and aides by their side. Huma Abedin served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary Clinton during her Secretary of State days.  [.......]

Moving Huma Abedin over into a job like the director of policy planning would allow her to reshape the State Department’s foreign policy worldview. And from there it would not be impossible to move her up to National Security Advisor or even Secretary of State.

Both of those positions might be a little too high profile for Abedin who works best in the shade. A 2007 Observer profile of her struggled to dig up any information on her official role, and whether with Clinton or Weiner, she has stuck to the background part.

The controversy that flared up over her background shows why she avoids the spotlight. With close family members, including her parents, involved in the Muslim Brotherhood and her own work at their Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, which was set up by the Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood to build a fifth column of Islamization within the United States; Huma Abedin has every reason to be the woman behind the man or the woman behind the woman.

The Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Muslim Brotherhood player who has been accused of funding Al Qaeda front groups, is not an ideal mention on any resume. And yet few Republicans have been willing to challenge Huma Abedin when she was serving as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Secretary of State. Would they be willing to challenge an emboldened Secretary of State Huma Abedin?

[.....]

By 2014, Huma Abedin may be married to the mayor of the biggest city in the country. By 2018, she may be the National Security Advisor.

It would be a rapid ascension, but the process of moving agents of influence up the ladder has shredded the normal seasoning process that would usually required for the top spots. The Center for American Progress’ Denis McDonough went from being an aide to an advisor to the Deputy National Security Advisor to the Chief of Staff in a handful of years. It would not be too hard to imagine Abedin making the same rush up the ladder while the media gushes at her ambition and her posh designer handbags.

In an age of terror and appeasement, Huma Abedin’s Muslim background is her best credential. The close collaboration between the Obama and Clinton foreign policy infrastructure and the Muslim Brotherhood makes her own Muslim Brotherhood background another plus.

What seems like treason to most ordinary Americans is ideologically convenient to a political and diplomatic clique that believes empowering “moderate” Islamists is our best defense against Al Qaeda. Placing Huma Abedin in a position where she can shape American foreign policy would be their show of sincerity to the Brotherhood.

None of this is inevitable. Another Twitter scandal could sink Weiner’s comeback and a more likable Democrat could pull together enough support and media adoration to challenge Hillary Clinton. And the work of researchers and investigators could still sink Huma Abedin the way it sank Susan Rice.

Read the rest – Secretary of State Huma Abedin?

The only remaining virtue in the Democratic Party is shamelessness

by Speranza ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Libya, Media, Politics at February 5th, 2013 - 7:00 am

To prove the Knish’s point, one needs only to  look at Obama’s appalling first term and yet the poseur was re-elected. Good economy, bad economy, foreign policy triumphs, foreign policy disasters – it does not matter if you are a Democrat. Right now (and it can change) I think that Hillary Clinton if she wants it will win the presidency in 2016 despite the fact she looks awful.

by Daniel Greenfield

On Friday, Hillary Rodham Clinton left the Harry S. Truman Building of the State Department after doing a grand media tour of every media outlet with a camera and a microphone. Meanwhile in Benghazi, where it was twenty degrees warmer, foreign organizations were fleeing the city while the killers who stayed behind still walked the streets.

In her joint appearance with Obama on 60 Minutes, Clinton claimed that her critics were not living in an “evidence-based world”. This is the same world of which she wrote in her goodbye letter to her State Department colleagues; “I am proud of what we have accomplished together.” Those accomplishments are hard to find among the debris of three failed wars, two failed containment policies in Iran and North Korea, and more attacks on American diplomatic facilities than ever before.

Hillary Clinton presided over the first murder of an American ambassador in thirty years. It was the closest thing to a notable moment in her time as Secretary of State, which concluded, in true Clinton style, with a cover-up, Senate hearings and more finger-wagging.

And yet, despite all that, the media threw her a farewell party in preparation for the 2016 election.  Four Americans died in Benghazi and in four years, Hillary Rodham Clinton expects to take the White House.

There is a certain symmetry to that. A year of political exile for every man she left unguarded and unsupported while lavishing millions on mosque renovations, embassy paintings and assorted trinkets. A year for every man whose blood was spilled on the warm streets of Benghazi. Four dead men and four years in which to prepare to do the same thing all over again as President of the United States.

[.........]

The Benghazi attackers came out of Al Qaeda in Iraq; an organization that is showing more staying power than General Motors, and like the maker of the Aztek, it’s spending a lot of time and energy expanding internationally.

When Obama turned his back on Iraq, discarding the sacrifices of the Surge, like he did the lives of the four men murdered in Benghazi, the terror didn’t stop. Al Qaeda bombs have kept going off as Iraq melted down into a conflict between its Iranian-backed Shiite government, the Kurds and Sunni Islamists. And Al Qaeda found new wars. Like a persistent suitor, it followed BHO and HRC to Benghazi.

[.........]

Like Hillary, Obama has never been held accountable for any of it. And Hillary’s very lack of accountability, her immunity from accountability makes her eminently qualified for the top spot in a Democratic Party where it’s more important to know how to shrug off accountability than it is to get things right.

Bill Clinton ushered in the post-accountability era, where evidence no longer mattered and the law was something that you could ignore if you felt like it. It is the thing that Obama, Clinton 2 and Biden all have in common. They are the poster-children of the post-accountability era where the synergy of media and party is so complete that it no longer matters what you do; only which side you’re on.

Jimmy Carter, the man under whose administration the last American ambassador was murdered, was also the last Democratic president to be held accountable for anything. [.........]

Looking back on the last two decades, it almost seems as if the Clinton era never ended. Not only are both Clintons on television all the time, but so is Al Gore, still playing the guru in a suit, the deep thinker with a hand out to foreign governments. In the Clinton era, it was Communist China. Today it’s Islamist Qatar. At the time Gore said that he had done nothing wrong because there was no controlling legal authority. There still isn’t. Not where Democrats are concerned.

Al Gore, whose palm always itches for money from the enemies of the United States, nearly made it to the White House, where his influence peddling would have taken place on a whole other scale. Clinton, who did make it, deported a little boy to a Communist country at gunpoint and murdered more children at Waco, in the world’s bloodiest training exercise.

But again no one was held responsible. It’s a long way from Benghazi to Waco, but the Clintons retain their talent for walking over corpses to reach their ambition. And their critics, who notice the bodies, are accused of harboring personal vendettas and of not living in an “evidence-based world.”

The Democratic Party in the last two decades has absorbed Bill Clinton’s ability to avoid accountability. The ranks of its congressmen are full of liars, felons and lunatics. It is a party so devoid of accountability that the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee can sit on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics without being able to tell apart the Moon and Mars, while Hank Johnson can warn that Guam may tip over if too many Marines land on it.

The Party of Jefferson has made the long sad trip to a party that views Massachusetts scandal machines like Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank as elder statesmen, instead of criminals who were never locked up, on account of their political influence. And it is full of these elder statesmen, men like Joe Biden, whose only gift is an inability to shut up and a media unwilling to condemn even the worst of their shenanigans.

The only remaining virtue in the Democratic Party is shamelessness. Those Democrats who have no shame prosper, those who do turn themselves in and serve their time.

After having trashed the housing market, the likes of Barack Obama and Andrew Cuomo step forward as reformers. After having murdered a woman, Ted Kennedy retired as a champion of women’s rights.  [........] And four years from now, Hillary Clinton will be touting her experience in Benghazi as a reason that she should be elected to the White House where she will be able to do it all over again.

Read the rest – Things only a Democrat could get away with

Hillary Clinton leaves office triumphant despite few accomplishments

by Speranza ( 105 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton at January 28th, 2013 - 6:00 pm

Hillary Clinton makes Condi Rice’s tenure at Foggy Bottom seem almost “Kissingerian”.

Oddly, Clinton concluded soon after losing to Obama in 2008 that she could not challenge him in 2012 because even if she won the nomination, black voters would not show up for her in the general election.

by Michael Goodwin

She came, she cried, she conquered, proving it will take more than a lethal terror attack on her watch to sink the unsinkable Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton sailed triumphantly through Congress last week on her way out the State Department door, shredding expectations she would face a tough grilling. The cooling breezes from Democratic punkahwallahs and the fearful quaking from Republican wimps turned what should have been riveting revelations about the Benghazi slaughter into a day of air balls.

The highlights of her appearances — Clinton’s teary eyes over the deaths and furious “What difference does it make?” outburst — mattered only because she showed emotion. Otherwise, she was forced to give up nothing except a few hours of her time.

She was all smiles and chipper the next day when she went back to the Senate with her nominated successor, Sen. John Kerry. Her glide out of government, and almost certainly into the 2016 campaign, will climax tonight when she and President Obama appear together on “60 Minutes.” Expect mutual slobbering praise as the former rivals link arms to the permanent profit of both.

The choreographed Hillary Farewell Tour is the latest reminder that Republicans have no answer for the Democrats’ potent brew of identity politics and the cult of celebrity.

No longer a test of performance and results, the political game now is about building a following based on race, gender and other identity markers that are immune to traditional standards of accountability.

Barack Obama wins re-election with one of the more dismal Oval Office records in memory, and Clinton is hailed as a great secretary of state without actually having done anything great.

Obama belongs on Mount Rushmore. If you don’t agree, you’re a racist.

Clinton was a brilliant diplomat. If you don’t agree, you’re a sexist.

The heads-I-win, tails-you-lose nature of Democratic politics these days snuffs out honest debate and competition, but in the short run, it’s an election juggernaut.

And it’s not just Republicans who should worry. As the Democratic Party loses more white men, white male Dems increasingly will face an uphill climb against female and nonwhite primary competitors.

Vice President Joe Biden and Gov. Cuomo, for example, are likely to seek the Dem presidential nomination in four years. If they do, they will be instant underdogs against Clinton. No matter their records and history of pandering to the base, they have no built-in constituency the way Obama did or Clinton does.

Oddly, Clinton concluded soon after losing to Obama in 2008 that she could not challenge him in 2012 because even if she won the nomination, black voters would not show up for her in the general election.

So she traveled the world and kept her mouth shut if she ever disagreed, and is now rewarded with a send-off that smacks of departing royalty. With Obama helping propel her into orbit, she instantly becomes the front-runner for 2016.

But now, while the record is fresh, is the time to apply some inconvenient facts to her tenure at State. A fair reading of the last four years is that America is weaker around the globe, largely by her and Obama’s choice.

Start with the twin terrors of Iran and North Korea. Both are marching toward what they insist will be confrontations with America. While Obama and Clinton tried to stop their nuclear programs with sanctions and, in the case of Iran, sabotage, the policies failed. The confrontation is closer than when the dynamic duo took office.

[......]

Syria and Libya prove that leading from behind is not leading at all. Al Qaeda groups are rising throughout Africa. China and Russia show they neither fear nor respect the United States.

As for our friends, important ones like Israel, Poland and Colombia are alarmed. The Saudis are turning to China, and even Canada wonders whether we are reliable.

Finally, this: Can anyone name a country that Obama and Clinton turned from an adversary into a friend? No, you can’t, because there aren’t any. Not one.

But, as Clinton said about Benghazi, what difference does it make? Absolutely none, and that’s her real legacy.

Selling out for a sweet $100,000

Once, the NAACP commanded respect. These days, it’s more likely to command cash for lending its name to destructive causes.

Consider that the New York chapter of the once-honorable civil-rights group received $100,000 from Coca-Cola at about the time it agreed to support the beverage industry’s lawsuit against a city restriction on sugary drinks.

More than a year ago, the NAACP also took at least $25,000 from the teachers union after supporting its lawsuit to stop City Hall from shutting down failing schools.

“An outright disgrace” is how Mayor Bloomberg described the move by the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation for trying to stop his ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces. The mayor says the drinks are a major factor in childhood obesity, which is a plague in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

“How can the NAACP chapter look at themselves in the mirror knowing they are deliberately hurting the life expectancy and quality of life for the people they’re supposed to serve?” Bloomberg said on WOR radio. Similarly, he said the Hispanic Federation “sold its soul” because it, too, got money from the soda makers.

Bloomberg won’t get a good response because there isn’t one. Neither was there one when the NAACP fought against the closing of failing schools that mostly serve black and Hispanic students.

In the soda case, Coke’s lawyers helped write the court filings for both the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation. Surprise, surprise, both groups wrap their discrimination claims in language that echoes the industry.

Shame, shame.

New gun bill misses the mark

Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced her gun-control bill with great fanfare, but the fine print suggests the impact might not be dramatic. Buried in a summary, the California Democrat says that, since the last weapons ban expired in 2004, 350 people have been killed with guns covered by that ban.

That’s a lot of people. But with as many as 13,000 homicides in America each year, that means about 100,000 murders took place since 2004 involving weapons not covered by the ban.

[........]
One nation under Bam

Best line of the week comes from my colleague at Fox News, K.T. McFarland: “Of our last two presidents, one thought he talked to God and the other one thinks he is God.”

Read the rest -  Hillary’s Farewell Act

When you arm Islamists, you become a willing collaborator in your own destruction

by Speranza ( 106 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Anti-semitism, Christianity, Dhimmitude, Egypt, George W. Bush, Hamas, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Israel, Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Religion, Sharia (Islamic Law) at January 28th, 2013 - 11:00 am

Looking at a map of Egypt, one must wonder where the military threat to that nation lies. Hillary Clinton’s (aka Mrs. Macbeth) reign as Secretary of State (one of the worst in my lifetime- starting with the Eisenhower Administration) has been nothing but one apologia for Islamists after another.

by Andrew C. McCarthy

When Mohamed Morsi dehumanizes Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” there’s an elephant in the room. We find it here:

Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil — these are many times worse in rank, and far more astray from the even Path!

You see, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood mahoff–turned–president did not conjure up the apes-and-pigs riff on his own. When Morsi fulminates that Muslims “must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them,” he is taking his cues straight from the Koran. Or rather, from the Holy Koran, as “progressive” American politicians take pains to call it in the off hours from their campaign to drive every last vestige of Judeo-Christian culture from the public square.

The excerpt above is not from the Life and Times of Mohamed Morsi. It originates with that other Mohammed. Specifically, it is Sura 5:60 of the Koran, the tome Muslims take to be the immutable, verbatim commands of Allah, as revealed to the prophet. And as Andrew Bostom illustrates (with a disquieting amplitude of examples), the verse is not an outlier. It states an Islamic leitmotif.

Contrary to the fairy tale weaved by apologists for Islamists on both sides of America’s political aisle, Jew hatred is not a pathogen insidiously injected into Islam by the Nazis (with whom Middle Eastern Muslims enthusiastically aligned). Nor did the ummah come by it through exposure to other strains of anti-Semitism that blight the history of Christendom. Jew hatred is ingrained in Islamic doctrine. Consequently, despite the efforts of enlightened Muslim reformers, Jew hatred is — and will remain — a pillar of Islamist ideology.

You may recall hearing this little ditty from the Hamas charter — often echoed by ministers of the Palestinian Authority and in the preachments of Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on whose every word millions hang weekly on al-Jazeera (or is it al-Gore?):

The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: “Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!”

Again, these are not sentiments dreamt up by “violent extremists” waging a modern, purely political “resistance” against oppressive “Zionists.” The prophet’s admonition that Muslims will be spared the hellfire by killing Jews is repeated in numerous authoritative hadiths (see, e.g., Sahih Muslim Book 41, No. 6985; Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, No. 791).

Hadiths, it is worth emphasizing, are the recorded actions and instructions of Mohammed, who is taken by Muslims to be the “perfect example” they are to emulate. And in case you suppose, after years of listening to Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama, that the prophet must ultimately have come around on the Jews, you might want to rethink that one. Another hadith, relating Mohammed’s dying words, recounts his final plea: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, No. 427.)

Now of course, none of this is to say that it is impossible for Islam to evolve beyond anti-Semitism. As individuals, millions of Muslims want no part of the ancient hatreds. As scholars and activists, a number of Muslim reformers admirably endeavor to erase this legacy by limiting it to its historical context, reducing it to allegory, or casting doubt on its provenance. [........]

Nevertheless, the humility with which we must acknowledge this history is not an excuse for failing to grapple with what it means. Elite Western opinion came to condemn what it once practiced by correctly reasoning that those noxious practices cut against the grain of our guiding doctrine, which is predominantly Christian. Evolution was in no way easy, but it was logical.

In Islam, to the contrary, the doctrine itself is the most daunting barrier against evolution. And now, with the self-defeating encouragement of the West, Islamic-supremacist ideology has, throughout the Middle East, broken out of the shackles that kept it in check. [........]

The answer to this challenge is to take the Islamists head-on. It is to show them for what they truly are: enemies of civil rights, totalitarian tormentors of women and non-Muslims. The answer is not to arm them — as the Obama administration, with the maddening support of some leading Republicans, is arming Morsi’s regime — with a score of F-16 fighter jets and a couple of hundred Abrams tanks.

When not manufacturing history, tears, and indignation this week during her long-overdue testimony on the Benghazi massacre, outgoing secretary of state Hillary Clinton stunned careful listeners by repeatedly mentioning the “global jihad” against America. These were stark violations of Obama-administration strictures against any reference to Islam in discussions of the threat to the West.

They also marked quite a departure for Mrs. Clinton. She has played no small part in propagating the “Islamophobia” canard. She has championed the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on speech that is protected by the First Amendment. And, with an assist from Senator John McCain, she has cowed 99 percent of Beltway Republicans into silence over the longstanding ties of her top adviser, Huma Abedin, to the Muslim Brotherhood and to an al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose now-defunct “charity” (the Rabita Trust) was designated as a global terrorist organization under American law.  [.........]

In the Clinton tradition, there was more calculated confusion than clarity in the secretary’s meandering testimony. Mrs. Clinton frets over the “jihadists” but insists that we must be able to “partner” with the region’s Islamists . . . like Morsi and the Brotherhood. Do you suppose she’s noticed that the Muslim Brotherhood demands the release of the Blind Sheikh, just like al-Qaeda does? That Morsi and Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian terror branch) publicly yearn for the destruction of Israel, just like al-Qaeda does? [........]

Alas, this is not a series of strange coincidences. These are the major points that define a Muslim — violent or nonviolent — as an Islamist. When you “partner” with Islamists, you are abetting the global jihad, not opposing it. When you arm Islamists, you become a willing participant in your own undoing.

Read the rest – Apes, pigs and F-16s

127 Sheriffs Won’t Enforce Obama Gun Laws

by huckfunn ( 8 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Eric Holder, Fascism, Free Speech, government, Headlines, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Patriotism, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Second Amendment, Socialism, taxation, Weapons at January 25th, 2013 - 9:23 am

As of January 23, 127 sheriffs from around the country have pledged that they will not enforce Obama’s unconstitutional gun control laws or orders. I expect that this number will grow substantially as Obama and Biden take their gun control campaign on the road. Currently, 28 of 29 Utah sheriffs have taken the pledge and 30 of 33 New Mexico sheriffs. This is the kind of grass roots action that we need to push back against Obama’s onslaught against the Constitution and our liberties. Contact you sheriff and ask him/her to take the pledge.

At least 127, but possible 139 (counting pending declarations from 12 Missouri sheriffs) now publicly oppose proposed federal gun bans and will not enforce them should they become law. We provide the list of those sheriffs to you below, current as of Jan 23, 2013.

Alabama sheriffs (3) (as reported by local news station WHNT, gun rights organization Oath Keepers, media outlet Dothanfirst);

  1. Houston County Sheriff Andy Hughes
  2. Madison County Sheriff Blake Dorning
  3. Morgan County Sheriff Ana Franklin

Arizona sheriffs (2) (according to news outlets TPM and Reason);

  1. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio
  2. Yavapai County Sheriff Scott Mascher

Califonia sheriffs(13) (according to The Modesto Bee, local news stations KRNVand KFSN, and CSPOA);

  1. Del Norte County Sheriff Dean Wilson
  2. El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini
  3. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims
  4. Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey
  5. Lassen County Sheriff Dean Growden
  6. Mendocino County Sheriff Thomas Allman
  7. Modoc County Sheriff Mike Poindexter
  8. Plumas County Sheriff Greg Hagwood
  9. Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko
  10. Tehama County Sheriff David Hencraft
  11. Trinity County Sheriff Bruce Haney
  12. Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey (letter)
  13. Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson (letter)

Colorado sheriffs (4) (as reported by local television station KWGN, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Official website, the Mesa County Sheriff’s Official Facebook page, the Denver Post);

  1. El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa
  2. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith
  3. Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey
  4. Weld County Sheriff John Cooke

Delaware sheriffs (1) (according to CSPOA)

  1. Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher

Georgia sheriffs (3) (as reported by the Cherokee TribuneMinnPost Christian Science Monitor and CSPOA);

  1. Cherokee County Sheriff Roger Garrison
  2. Gilmer County Sheriff Stacy Nicholson
  3. Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry

Florida sheriffs (3) (according to local news station WPTV and Sheriff McKiethen’s personalFacebook page)

  1. Bay County Florida Sheriff Frank McKiethen
  2. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott
  3. Martin County Sheriff Bill Snyder

Idaho sheriffs (2) (according to news station KIFI and newspaper Idaho Statesman);

  1. Canyon County, Idaho Sheriff Kieran Donahue
  2. Madison County Sheriff Roy Klingler

Indiana sheriffs (1) (according to CSPOA)

  1. Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers

Kansas sheriffs (1) (according to the Kansas City Star)

  1. Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning

Kentucky sheriffs (2) ( as reported by NBC News and CSPOA)

  1. Bath County Sheriff John Snedegar
  2. Jackson County Sheriff Denny Peyman

Minnesota sheriffs (1) (according to NewsMax)

  1. Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole

Missouri sheriffs (4) (as reported on BeforeItsNewsIRN News, news stations KOAM andKCTV, and CSPOA);

  1. Johnson County Sheriff Charles Heiss (letter)
  2. Lawrence County Sheriff Brad DeLay (letter)
  3. Livingston County Sheriff Steve Cox (letter)
  4. Osage County Michael Dixon

Montana sheriffs (2) (according to radio station 96.3TheBlaze and CSPOA)

  1. Ravalli County Sheriff Chris Hoffman
  2. Sanders County Sheriff Tom Rummel (letter)

Nevada sheriffs (1) (as reported by local news station KRNV)

  1. Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore

New Mexico sheriffs (30) (according to the Portales News-TribuneGuns.com and CSPOA)

  1. Roosevelt county sheriff Darren Hooker and the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association (30 out of 33 New Mexico sheriffs)

New York sheriffs (2) (according to CSPOA)

  1. Otsego County Sheriff Richard Devlin Jr.
  2. Schoharie County Sheriff Tony Desmond

Ohio sheriffs (2) (according to radio station KyPost and WCPO);

  1. Boone County Sheriff Michael A. Helmig
  2. Clermont County Sheriff A.J. Rodenberg

Oklahoma sheriffs (1) (according to CSPOA)

  1. Wagoner County Sheriff Bob ‘Big Block’ Colbert

Oregon sheriffs (14) (as reported by Fox News, online newspaper OregonLive, local radio station KCMB, local television station KMTRHerald News, gun rights organization Oregon Firearms and CSPOA);

  1. Baker County Sheriff Mitchell Southwick
  2. Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni (letter)
  3. Crook County Sheriff Jim Hensley
  4. Curry County Sheriff John Bishop (letter)
  5. Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton
  6. Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin (letter)
  7. Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer (letter)
  8. Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters (letter)
  9. Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson (letter)
  10. Klamath County Sheriff Frank Skrah
  11. Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller (letter)
  12. Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe (letter)
  13. Multnomah County Sheriff Dan Staton
  14. Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett

South Carolina sheriffs (3) (according to The Post and Courier, news station WYFF andCSPOA);

  1. Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt
  2. Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon
  3. Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright

Texas sheriffs (3) (as reported by local news station KLTVDallas News and CSPOA)

  1. Collin County Sheriff Terry Box
  2. Randall County Sheriff Joel W. Richardson
  3. Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith

Utah sheriffs (28) (as reported by CSPOA)

  1. Beaver County Sheriff Cameron M. Noel (letter)
  2. Box Elder County Sheriff J. Lynn Yeates
  3. Chache County Sheriff G. Lynn Nelson
  4. Carbon County Sheriff James Cordova
  5. Daggett County Sheriff Jerry Jorgensen
  6. Davis County Sheriff Todd Richardson
  7. Duchesne County Sheriff Travis Mitchell Utah
  8. Emery County Sheriff Greg Funk
  9. Garfield County Sheriff James D. Perkins
  10. Grand County Sheriff Steven White
  11. Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower
  12. Juab County Sheriff Alden Orme
  13. Kane County Sheriff Lamont Smith
  14. Millard County Sheriff Robert Dekker
  15. Morgan County Sheriff Blaine Breshears
  16. Puite County Sheriff Marty Gleave
  17. Rich County Sheriff Dale Stacey
  18. San Juan County Sheriff Rick Eldredge
  19. Sanpete County Sheriff Brian Nielson
  20. Sevier County Sheriff Nathan Curtis
  21. Summit County Sheriff David Edmunds
  22. Tooele County Sheriff Frank Park
  23. Uintah County Sheriff Jeff Merrell
  24. Wasatch County Sheriff Todd Bonner
  25. Washington County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher
  26. Wayne County Sheriff Kurt Taylor
  27. Weber County Sheriff Terry Thompson
  28. Utah County Sheriff James Tracy

Check the list and see if your sheriff is has taken the pledge. As of this morning, mine hasn’t and I’m going to ask him why. Read the entire article here.