Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

The news is unreal today, almost mocking.

Our new Secretary of State, John Kerry, has decreed that four State Department officials who were on administrative leave related to the attack in Benghazi last year are to be reinstated and will not be subject to any disciplinary action.

They had been placed on leave under former Secretary Hillary Clinton who had promised the families of those who were murdered in Benghazi that there would be a thorough investigation and justice would be served.  Yet, almost a year later, no one has paid any price.  Well, except the guy who made the video that everyone lied about.  He’s still in prison.

Mrs. Clinton, who famously asked, “What difference does it make?”  remains the front-runner in the race for the democrat presidential candidate.

The prosecution has rested in the case of Nidal Hassan.  The judge in that case has blocked any evidence or witnesses proving his motive, which we all know was jihad.  While shouting Allahu Akbar, Hassan opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 and wounding 32 others.

Because Eric Holder’s Justice Department declared Hassan’s act to be “workplace violence” and not a terrorist attack as it was, those killed, their families and the survivors have all been denied the honors and benefits that America legitimately owes to them.

The media breathlessly waits to see how Hassan, who is representing himself, plans to conduct his defense.

While the administration ignores the big, giant, red flags indicating that Hassan is a terrorist, we are told that the NSA is perfectly within its jurisdiction to troll our private lives because they have to find the terrorists among us.  It begs the question what they will do when they find one.

And there is the awful story of three teens who murdered an Australian man who was here attending college.  Reports are that the teens have admitted their guilt and say they did this for fun because they were bored.  The victim was white.  Two of the accused, including the one assumed to have pulled the trigger, are black.

Racial fires are still being stoked over Trayvon Martin’s death, so it’s no surprise that some are asking what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have to say.  Allen West tweeted “Who will POTUS identify w/this time?”  This is a reference to President Obama comparing himself to Trayvon Martin last month.

These are legitimate questions but like those asked in the Martin/Zimmerman case, they get in the way of any attempt to expose and deal with the real problem.  Why do these young men turn to gang life?  How do they become so cold and indifferent to human life?

It is, of course, all about politics.  Honesty is run down by those who would exploit all this to push their agendas of gun control or the “social justice” du jour.

We’re now getting daily reports of Obamacare driving up insurance premiums, causing employers to cut hours or let workers go, and of course, the selected groups given more and more waivers.

All the while we’re told everything is fine.  Don’t worry, your government has it all under control and it’s all going to be great.  Sunshine, lollipops and unicorns.

The news is certainly strange today.

But none of it is real.


Read Full Post »

The only difference between this guy

Flasherand this guy

AnthonyWeineris an internet connection.

What is going on in New York?  Anthony Weiner is a reprobate.  He’s a pervert – an exhibitionist.  He’s a liar.  And he’s wildly arrogant about all of it.  Why are New Yorkers even entertaining the idea that he might make a good mayor?

And what about the Missus?  What’s the difference between this woman

Hillaryand this woman?

HumaAbedinThey both swallowed their pride, accepted the unacceptable, and stood by their man.  The first did so in order to secure her position and her political future.

Why is Huma doing it?


Read Full Post »

The last in our trifecta of scandals is Benghazi.  This saga is another long and often twisted one, so in an effort to reach out again to our LIVs who are trying to catch up, I’ll try to keep it simple.

On 9/11/12 our consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by Islamic terrorists.  Our ambassador, Chris Stevens, was killed as were three other Americans, and dozens were wounded in the attack which went on for hours.

The Obama administration told us that the attack was in response to a You Tube video, made by a guy in California that none of us had ever heard of, that insulted Islam.  This was just a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand.

Since then, we have learned that this was not true and the reason for the deception is one of the three main questions we’ve all had about what happened that night.

The first question is about the lack of security.  Since the attack it has become common knowledge that Ambassador Stevens had repeatedly requested more security, but it was denied by the State Department.  Initially, this was blamed on budget cuts caused by Republican lawmakers, but we have since learned that the State Dept. security budget actually had a surplus.

The second question is about why no one went to rescue these men that night.  We’ve learned that Stevens and others asked repeatedly through the night for help, but none was sent.  Those who were close enough to go and were prepared to do so, were told to stand down.  We would like to know who gave that order.

The third question is about the video fantasy.  We now know that there was no question that night that what was happening in Benghazi was an attack by Islamic terrorists.  So who decided to put out the story of the video and why?

More than eight months later we still have not gotten answers to these questions.  We’ve had investigations and hearings, but no one wants to tell the truth.  Some have given answers, but they are always inadequate, inaccurate or simply lies.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks are now famous.

Her feigned indignation still makes me cringe.  But this has become the battle cry of the Obama administration – what difference does it make?

Well, apparently it makes a big difference, because instead of answers, all we get are more mysteries.  Dozens of people survived the attack that night.  But we don’t know who they are.  They were put into hospitals under assumed names.  Members of Congress have asked the administration about these people, but they refuse to even supply their names, let alone allow us to question them about the events of that night.

Who was in charge here at home that night?  Where was our president?  We all know where he was the night Osama Bin Laden was killed.


Who was in that room on 9/11/12?  As far as we can tell, it looked like this.


Obama went to Las Vegas the next morning for a reelection campaign event.  Didn’t he think this was important enough to warrant his attention?

Where was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Who was making decisions while Americans were being slaughtered?

Who made up the story about the video?  Why?  Who sent Susan Rice out to all the Sunday talk shows that weekend to tell the lie?

And of course, what the heck was Stevens doing there.  Benghazi is a very dangerous place.  Yet he was there with a tiny security force on that date.   Why?  Some have speculated that he was on the front lines of a program to run guns to the Syrian rebels and was meeting with someone about that.  This certainly would answer a whole lot of our questions.  But no one’s talking.

This scandal wears on and on and already the president’s spokesman has tried to tell us that this is “an old story” and that we should all move on.  There’s nothing to see here.  Their tactic seems to be to drag it all out for as long as possible, until people finally give up, or some other shiny object comes along to divert their attention.

Sorry, but that’s not good enough.  And it’s certainly not good enough for the families of those who were killed.

As with the other scandals currently facing the administration, it’s time for a little truth, please.


Next- why these thngs matter to all of us.

Read Full Post »


Friend of Liberty Trail, Max, sent this one and I’m passing it along.  It seems very relevant right now.

From PatDollard.com:

Excerpted from EO-History: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.


“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.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

More here…

There is a well established pattern here – Hillary Clinton’s propensity to lie and the media’s willingness to provide cover for her.


Read Full Post »