Archive for the ‘HIllary Clinton’ Category.
We got out of bed at 5:30am yesterday to get ready and hit the polls before work. The parking lot of the Ruritan lodge was packed with a line of voters in front of the two young women struggling with the voter registration software on two Lenovo laptops. One issue was the number of people who hadn’t voted in recent elections. Evidently the software marked these people as dormant voters, and it took a few minutes for the election officials to reactivate their listing so that they could vote. By the time we made it through the queue the officials had solved the issue so the Wife, a dormant voter herself, could vote.
We knew voting was likely a futile effort on our part. Both of our “guts” told us the same thing the polls did: that our candidate would lose. Neither one of us liked Trump very much. He offended the Wife with his comments about women and I saw him as a egotistical billionaire who only became a Republican because the slot on the Democratic ticket was filled. But we voted for him because we live in an area decimated by globalization and illegal immigration, but mostly because we disliked Hillary Clinton.
Both of us voted for Bill Clinton in the 1990s but Hillary wasn’t Bill. She took the job as a senator of New York as if it were a ceremonial post (how long was she a New Yorker?) and then encouraged the expansion of offshoring and outsourcing in the State, sending jobs to India and China instead of creating them in the state she represented. It was one thing to lie as a first lady, but over time the fibs piled up until it became clear the woman was incapable of telling the truth. Her stint as Secretary of State was the pinnacle of her deceit. Telling the mother of a soldier who died in Benghazi that her son died because of an internet video all the while knowing it was a well-plotted terror attack was the tipping point for me. The mishandling of classified data would have sent me to jail but not Hillary. From then on it was clear to me the woman needed to be kept away from the Oval Office by all means.
There was nothing I could do to stop her except by casting my vote. I did so knowing that it was a futile gesture but it was the only one within my power so I did it. The entire US media supported her as did most of my own party’s elite, but I voted against her anyway. My gut told me she would win but my conscience demanded that I do everything in my power to stop her, even something as insignificant as casting a vote. Futile gestures serve a purpose when they are demanded by Conscience. So I cast my vote, gut and the American mainstream media be damned.
And woke up today to something completely unexpected and wonderful.
Hillary Clinton has tried to assure her 2nd Amendment supporters (who could likely all fit in one of those new Target gender neutral bathrooms) that she is not going to take away their right to self-defense.
Technically this is true, and this graphic explains why.
Cross-posted at Vladimir Putin’s favorite hangout, Wow! Magazine.
Joshuapundit reports on some small donors to the Clinton campaign getting scammed with multiple charges appearing on their credit card bills. This is what happens when you sign up for the new Goldman Sachs Hillary Clinton Visa card.
Bottom line: If you’re stupid enough to give money to the Clintons after all we know about them, then you deserve what happens to you.
What else do these people do? Give scissors to running children? Car keys to drunks? Gasoline to pyromaniacs?
Hillary willfully put herself above the rules — again — and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.
Obama aimed to have no shadows, but the Clintons operate in shadows.
Comey’s verdict that Hillary was “negligent” was met with sighs rather than shock. We know who Hillary and Bill are now. We’ve been held hostage to their predilections and braided intrigues for a long time.
The Clintons work hard but don’t play by the rules. Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations.
The above are quotes from an article by Rush Limbaugh? Bill O’Reilly? Sean Hannity?
March 15, 2017 – Washington DC
The investigation behind the nuclear attack on Los Angeles continues. Sources reveal that a high-level American official may have been victim of identity theft while accessing her Goldman Sachs account. In an attack known as “spear phishing” a link to a fraudulent website is sent by scammers directing the victim to a fictitious website where personal details can be harvested. A screenshot of the suspected fraudulent website has been released by the hacker known to authorities only as Guccifer 3.0.
Thomas Drake, former NSA official, was criminally prosecuted by the Obama administration in 2010 for disclosing to a journalist, Congress and a government watchdog millions of dollars wasted by surveillance programs after 9-11. Drake states, “It’s a clear double standard. If you’re high enough up, you’re the presumptive presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, then you get a huge pass. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. My life was shattered. She gets a pass to compete to be president of the United States.”
I belong to Pink Pistols, a group of 2nd amendment supporting LGTBQ and their allies, and would like to see local chapters to volunteer to post armed members at gay nightspots around the country. All it would have taken to save lives in Orlando would have been a single club goer carrying a handgun. Terrorists plan their attacks thoroughly. Orlando’s shooter had been to the club over a dozen times so he knew exactly what to expect and could carefully plan to maximize the carnage. Just the possibility of an armed defender changes the dynamic of terror, introducing an element of uncertainty that either forces the attacker to choose another target or causes him to stop and seek cover during the attack, giving victims precious seconds to escape.
Unfortunately liberals are taking the exact opposite approach, trying to convince the LGTBQ community to disarm itself further and take on the cause of gun control. As Ed Krayewski notes at Reason, this completely ignores the reality of attacks outside of the US where gun control is rife yet terrorists in France and Kenya have no difficulty obtaining full auto weapons banned in the United States.
But countries with stricter gun control laws than in the U.S. are struggling to find something to do to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists too. In Europe, while it may be far harder for law-abiding residents to acquire legal firearms, terrorists are able to acquire actual “weapons of war,” automatic weapons, that have are largely banned in the U.S. despite the misleading rhetoric used by the anti-gun left. Neither were tough gun laws able to stop the 2013 radical Islamist attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Kenya or the 2015 attack on Garissa University in Kenya or numerous other terrorist attacks around the world.
As I wrote in a previous post, I find this tactic of using terror attacks to advance gun control by the Left not only misguided but downright evil. Disarming law abiding citizens does not make us safer when terrorists have shown no difficulty in obtaining weapons in nations where they are banned. But the Left likes victims, so I suppose it makes sense to push policies that increases their numbers. Still, that’s pretty sick.
I found out about the shooting in Orlando while I was out of town. I watched on my smartphone as the body count doubled, and the major news outlets avoided using the term “Islam”. The “Religion-That-Must-Not-Be-Named” continued so when President Obama spoke and pushed banning guns as the solution, choosing to ignore the so-called Religion of Peace’s role in the slaughter.
How many people have to die before liberals admit they are wrong about Islam?
I avoided social media until today, but as I expected my mostly liberal friends followed the President’s lead, focusing on the type of rifle used instead of the terror ties, the shooter’s father’s belief that g-d will punish the gays, or that he attended a mosque where a visiting Imam preached gays should be executed.
As an ex-liberal myself I recognize the change is tough. 9-11 was the moment that I understood I had a choice: I could continue believing the fantasy that Islam wasn’t the problem, or I could accept the evidence to the contrary. 3000 people in 3 locations within 2 hours was enough evidence for me, and for weeks afterward I struggled with changing a lifetime of beliefs to fit the post-911 reality.
I saw the posts by ex-lovers and friends-for-life, and struggled with how to respond. Europe has some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet yet they didn’t stop full auto AK-47s from being used by Islamists to kill non-believers there last year. The recent attack in Brussels airport used bombs, which I would point out are also illegal in Europe. I didn’t point out that if banning works, why are people dying of heroin overdoses in my county? Liberals seem fixated on the AR-15 as being an “assault rifle” yet used a picture shared from Huffington Post showing an AR-15 that had been photoshopped into having an impossibly short (and illegal) barrel. And no mention of Islam anywhere.
I shut the site down. What’s the point in opening up myself to harassment from people who honestly don’t know what they are talking about? Few have ever fired a gun and I doubt that only a handful know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto. If I’m going to be beaten up online I’d prefer it to be done by someone who at least knows what they are talking about. I’m too scarred from previous attempts to try to educate these people and help them change their minds. If 50 dead gays won’t do it, I’m not sure what will.
Accepting that the threat isn’t from an inanimate object but a twisted idea in the form of world religion is pretty daunting. Blaming a scary looking gun is so much easier than blaming a world religion yet refusing to do so is like a drunk looking for his car keys under a street light because that’s where he can see them. It’s magical thinking that has no bearing on reality. So you ban AR-15s, how would that have stopped the Charlie Hebdo or the Bataclan Theater attacks in Paris? There’s a whole airplane missing in the Mediterranean and another that was blown out of the sky over the Sinai, how would the ban stop that? And what about the two men kissing that set him off. Should we ban that? How far down the slippery slope do we go before we realize we’ve realized we’ve traded freedom for security and gotten neither, to paraphrase Ben Franklin?
“Enough with the obfuscation. The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion.” The “islamophobe” behind those remarks? Liberal Daily Beast writer Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim who recognizes “(j)ust as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamic theocratic views wherever we find them. Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial.”
It’s been said that conservatives think that liberals are idiots while liberals think conservatives are evil. The silence after these terror attacks, the refusal to see them for what they are and to accept the clear motives of the attackers at face value, and the usage of the carnage to further their own political agendas instead of preventing attacks (how can you stop it if you can’t even name it?) not to mention the promotion of gun-free buildings and the disarmament of the public isn’t stupid, it’s evil.
How many people have to die before liberals admit they are wrong about Islam?
It’s evil that liberals support flooding the country with people who follow the religion of a 7th century warlord then blame guns when they decide to kill in the name of their religion. It’s evil that liberals call anyone who questions the tenets of that religion an “islamophobe”, equating the questioning with a form of racism. It’s evil that liberals seek to turn gays into martyrs for their cause by disarming them and forcing them to rely upon the police, often the same homophobic force that arrested them for indecency and sodomy and raided their hangouts just a few years ago.
And that’s why liberals are evil.
So far Bernie Sanders has tied Clinton in Iowa (surprise) and won New Hampshire by a 3-2 margin (not a surprise). Nevada is up next, and the last poll taken in December gave Clinton a formidable lead. Following that is South Carolina, and recent polls there have Clinton “beating Bernie Sanders soundly,” as NPR cheerily puts it.
Are we at peak Bernie?
I believe so. Sanders fires up the grassroots and college students but primaries and caucuses are insider affairs. Clinton allies are well-placed throughout the states and barring an unforeseen miracle, Sanders will lose Nevada and South Carolina by significant margins even without Clinton’s lock on superdelegates. Queue the “comeback kid” storylines fed by her operatives to the sycophant media and Hillary will be back on track to her coronation.
I haven’t added a “Bernie Sanders” category to this journal yet and given the cunning and fortitude of the Clintons I doubt I will have reason to.
As a libertarian and registered Republican, to say I’m disappointed with the GOP’s current crop of presidential candidates is a mild understatement. I pretty much hate them all. My top choices were Gov. Scott Walker (first to drop out) and Sen. Rand Paul (latest casualty). If Trump or Cruz become the GOP candidate there is only one scenario in which I will vote for either of them:
If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.
I don’t have a long history of Hillary bashing the way some on the Right have. 8 years ago I even said some nice things about her. But the woman simply doesn’t know how to tell the truth. She’s a pathological liar, and one that deserves prison for her handling of top secret data on her unsecured server, and ostracism for her role in wrecking Libya and sentencing an ambassador and his security detail to death – and covering up with lies by blaming it on a video afterward. She also exemplifies the crony capitalist, taking millions from Wall Street banks including Goldman Sachs then portraying herself as being soulmates with Occupy Wall Street. As the British newspaper columnist Tim Stanley for the Daily Telegraph writes, “Her politics is the politics of identity, narrowed down to a very specific constituency: she’s selling herself as the hope of everyday rich white women who want to be president.” There is only one thing worse than a Trump presidency in my view and that’s a Hillary presidency.
Which brings me to Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-avowed “democratic socialist”, a form of government more akin to those found in Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia than in the United States. Sanders has spent his entire life espousing socialism. He has not lied about it, nor has he hidden it the way Hillary has hidden her ties to Wall Street. Sanders is a socialist, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to vote for him.
While I don’t like his economic policies, especially now when I’m preparing to finalize my taxes whereby the Wife and I send an extremely large portion of our labor earnings to the Federal and State governments, I’m less averse to his social liberalism. If you want to revolutionize American economics, the Presidency is not the place to do it. Congress controls the country’s purse strings, and there is no way his socialist economic policies would see the light of day in a Congress dominated by Republicans.
It’s often said that Libertarians combine the fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party with the social liberalism of the Democrats, but it’s been a long time since either party came close to either stereotype. The Republicans under Bush spent like Democrats during their 8 years in power, 6 years of which they held control of Congress as well as the White House, and today’s Democratic Party is the party of censorship, gun confiscation, and state interference into the private lives of its citizenry.
It’s worth noting that until very recently Sanders wasn’t a member of the Democratic Party. His stances on social issues are much more libertarian-friendly than the woman appearing on Reason magazine’s cover next to the title, “Hail to the Censor! Hillary Clinton’s Long War on Free Speech.” Would a Sanders presidency be all that bad for libertarians?
Andrew Kirell, writing at The Daily Beast, doesn’t think so. In his piece The Libertarian Case for Bernie Kirell quotes Reason.com editor Nick Gillespie saying, “You could do worse than having Bernie Sanders in the White House,” he admitted. “The things that he would be able to direct in the White House would accord with libertarian values. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush; he would be much more likely to change the scheduling for marijuana, which the president can do; and he’d be in a much better position to push criminal justice reform.” Gillespie later responded on Reason.com’s website, writing “Suffice it to say that noting you could do worse than Sanders is not an endorsement.”
Unfortunately libertarians don’t have many choices this round, but isn’t this pretty much the SNAFU case every 4 years? When’s the last time you absolutely loved either candidate? I don’t think I’ve ever felt the thrill up the leg that Chris Mathews felt for Obama in 2008. I’m suspicious of any candidate who inspires such emotional charge.
But the truth is I think America would be better off under a President Sanders than it would be under a President Clinton or Trump. At the very least it would give both parties time to shake out the crazies so that in 2020 America would have saner choices than those offered by either parties today.
Liberal writer Doug Henwood is under fire for the cover of his book “My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency”. According to the MSNBC article Salon editor Joan Walsh and former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett called the cover by Sarah Sole “Gross.” In one of his Twitter posts Lovett sarcastically writes, “It’s going to really disappoint the right wingers who buy (the book).”
Here’s the cover in question.
Speaking as a “right winger” who won’t buy the book, the first thing that struck me about this cover was how badly drawn it was. Although Sarah Sole is a Hillary fan, “I love Hillary Clinton, I support Hillary Clinton, I very much want her to be president,” she has managed to make Hillary look even older than she is, with the ashen faced look I associate with the perpetual “5 o’clock shadow” illustrators used to show on Nixon’s face when they caricatured him. The Hillary in Sole’s illustration also needs a bra – badly. Far from appearing “pulpy and sexy” as Sole claims, Hillary looks ill, decrepit and about a dozen years older.
Sole’s talent also fails with Clinton’s eyes. I assume Sole meant to have Hillary staring directly out of the cover and at the viewer in order to illicit an emotional response, like “hey, this woman is pointing a gun at me.” Instead the eyes don’t quite connect, and it appears to me that she is looking somewhere over my right shoulder.
The gun is even more badly drawn. I suppose Sole being a typical liberal didn’t have access to a revolver to point at a mirror and see what the thing looks like from the “business end.” Since the typical liberal believes only guns kill people, merely holding one makes one an accessory to murder, so it’s not like she had one to use as a reference. And given the hatred liberals have for them, walking into a gun shop to actually hold a gun would be the equivalent of a pro-lifer walking into an abortion clinic to hold a vacuum pump, so I guess it’s no surprise it’s so poorly rendered. The trigger guard is drawn as it would be if the gun were pointed directly at the viewer, but the further you move away from that the worse the drawing becomes. The barrel isn’t even pointed in the same direction as the trigger guard, and like Clinton’s eyes, appears to point above the viewer’s right shoulder. And what’s that below the hand grip? Is that Hillary’s saggy forearm skin? Ewww… Are they absolutely SURE the artist isn’t a Republican?
If a gun existed as drawn by Sole and Hillary fired it, it could blow up in her hand, although the way the gun looks melted it’s likely to not fire at all. But if it did fire and it didn’t blow up, it would hit high and left from Hillary’s perspective.
Below is a target used to help shooters improve their accuracy. According to it, Hillary is anticipating recoil, pushing or no follow through.
Given how long Hillary has been running for the Presidency it’s no surprise she would have anticipation issues. I’m sure she saved the White House drape measurements from her stint as First Lady. And “no follow through” is an apt description of her handling of Libya. Like most marksmanship problems Hillary could work through her issues with training and practice, and the illustration makes it clear she needs both if what she’s “shooting at” is the Presidency.
Unfortunately for Clinton, guns are only tools that are as accurate as the person using them. If Clinton really wanted to improve her shooting here’s what she needs to do.
While the revolver is simpler, for accuracy I would recommend a semi-automatic handgun like a Glock. When you pull the trigger of the revolver your muscles have to turn the chamber into line with the barrel and pull the hammer back. With a semi-automatic pistol all your finger muscles have to do is release the firing pin (assuming you have charged the gun first by pulling the slide back.) Since movement is minimized semi-auto handguns are much more accurate as a result.
And that stance… What is she doing, mugging the presidency? The gun is held too low and is unlikely to hit whatever Hillary is looking at. She should hold it much higher so that her line of sight goes down her arm and between the sights of the gun. Plus the way she is holding it is making it much easier for the Presidency to disarm her. To avoid that I would recommend she used the Modified Weaver Stance pictured below. It’s much more stable and improves accuracy while at the same time protects the shooter.
Next I would spend a lot of time at the range, preferably with a good instructor. Given her wealth I’m sure she could hire one of the best trainers around, and time spent with him at the range would vastly improve her accuracy. Of course since she’s already surrounded by top shots carrying an assortment of semi and fully automatic weapons, Clinton doesn’t need to learn to shoot well, just like she hasn’t needed a driving license for 20 years. But hey who knows? Maybe if she spent as much time around firearms and legal gun owners as she does demonizing them she might become a better person. At her age I doubt it, but I suppose anything is possible.
The bottom line? If Reality mirrors this fantasy Hillary is going to miss the Presidency, likely by setting her expectations of the Left too high, missing the center.
Now if we could only get the GOP to shoot straight…