Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

Where’s the outrage over Hillary’s call for a ‘civil’ war?

Two events from the last two days stand out. The first came Monday night with President Trump’s forceful yet compassionate speech at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The president opened with an extraordinary apology on behalf of the country to Kav­anaugh and his family “for the terrible pain and suffering” they endured during the historically brutal confirmation process. He said the unfounded allegations violated fairness and “the presumption of innocence.”

Trump also tenderly addressed Kavanaugh’s young daughters, telling them “your father is a great man, a man of decency, character, kindness and courage.”

The event was something of a spike-the-football moment in front of a cheering White House audience and as such was a clever piece of stagecraft, where Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were saluted.

But the ceremony was much more than mere boosterism. With the eight other Supremes sitting in the front row, Trump aimed to restore dignity to the judiciary at a time when the dirtiest tricks of politics have buried the court in a mountain of mud.

The president is right to worry that the character-assassination attempt on Kavanaugh may turn out to be a seminal moment in American political and cultural history. The ideas that the court is just another political branch and that the presumption of innocence no longer applies if you are on the other team represent a seismic shift in how we look at each other and the nation as a whole.

If those ideas stick, we are in more trouble than we can imagine.

And while Trump has at times unnecessarily contributed to the rancor, he was terrific Monday in trying to repair what Senate Democrats and their media handmaidens tried to destroy.

Which brings me to the second event of note: Hillary Clinton’s statement Tuesday that Democrats “cannot be civil” as long as Republicans hold the White House and Congress.

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

There you have it — a declaration of war and a license for violence. Where is the media outrage?

Clinton knows we are already in the danger zone when it comes to the political temperature. Her comments, then, are as reckless as bringing a can of gasoline to a bonfire.

She’s stoking trouble to gain a foothold in the 2020 race — and damn the consequences.

Her claim that civility can return when Dems have power is an admission that the ends justify the means.

Then again, she never fails to disappoint. As I wrote Sunday, she has spent the last two years casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because the election didn’t go her way. That makes her guilty of the very thing she found “horrifying” when Trump suggested he might not abide by the results if he thought they were rigged.

“He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position,” she said in their final debate, in October 2016.

She added, “That is not the way our democracy works.”

But it does work exactly that way when Democrats are denied what they feel entitled to. They should be careful what they wish for.

For if the Kavanaugh experience revealed anything, it is that Trump’s GOP knows how to fight back and win. It is hard to imagine that Kavanaugh would have survived such an onslaught under any other ­recent Republican candidate or president.

There were so many reasons, and so much media pressure, that it would not have been surprising if a bloc of senators called the allegations a “distraction” and waved a white flag. They didn’t because Trump and Kavanaugh didn’t back down.

Still, there is danger when two sides both think they can outlast the other. Responding to my concern that America might be sleepwalking into a second civil war, a number of readers agreed. Some said they welcomed it.

Curt Doolittle wrote this: “We aren’t sleepwalking into it, we know exactly what we’re doing and why. The hard right and hard left are planning on it, ready for it, and looking for an opportunity.”

He said the pressure has been building and that “the only reason it hasn’t turned hot is the outlier of Trump’s election. If Clinton had won, we’d already be there.”

Read Full Post »

Bill Clinton convicted for felony draft dodging

 

BILL CLINTON’S MILITARY CAREER

Oh! You didn’t know he had a military career?

Bill & Hillary got about $12 million for their to-be written memoirs. Here’s some help for them since their memories are getting old.

BILL CLINTON’S MILITARY CAREER

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Selective Service Number is 326 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the military.

Bill Clinton, reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority Of COL. E. Holmes.

Bill Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton, reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton, now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2) (a) registrant who has failed to report… remain liable for induction.

Bill Clinton’s birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice.

Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President Carter.

Bill Clinton becomes the FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as President of the United States.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished .

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished .

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible be hunted down and punished .

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington , DC , who are now dead would be alive today.

THINK ABOUT IT!

It is a strange turn of events.

Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.

Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.

This from two people who spent 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath.

Sincerely,
Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)

Read Full Post »

From WND:

CLINTON FOUNDATION SCHEME ‘DEFRAUDS AIR TRAVELERS’
Wall Street analyst finds funds meant for Third World missing

Hillary, Chelsea and Bill Clinton

Hillary, Chelsea and Bill Clinton

WALL STREET – The Clintons appear to have siphoned off tens of millions of dollars annually from funds the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received from a United Nations-sponsored program that uses levies on airline tickets to help HIV/AIDs victims in the Third World, charges a Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel says the program through the U.N. group UNITAID used the Clintons’ international prestige to “leverage” manufacturers of prescription quality drugs and health-care products and sell them to developing countries at a discount price to combat AIDS/HIV.

Charles Ortel says the program through the U.N. group UNITAID used the Clintons’ international prestige to “leverage” manufacturers of prescription quality drugs and health-care products and sell them to developing countries at a discount price to combat AIDS/HIV.

As WND reported Wednesday, over the past six weeks, Ortel has shared with WND, prior to publication, the results of his six-month, in-depth investigation into what he characterizes as an elaborate scheme devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves.

The findings come amid separate charges in Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

Cartoonist Gary Varvel: The new Clinton scandals

To put in perspective the possible magnitude of the fraud, the levy imposed on airline tickets by the French government alone, according to the French Civil Aviation Authority, is more than $1 billion euros in the approximately six years the UNITAID program ran, from 2006 through Jan. 23, 2013.

“The air ticket levy, a predictable and robust source of revenue, contributes to the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, diseases that cause more than 4 million deaths every year,” UNITAID, the principal beneficiary of the levy, said in January 2013 when congratulating France “for its pivotal role and leadership in innovative financing for development.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

“One of Obama’s chief opponents alleges the president ‘views himself primarily as a Muslim and acts accordingly in favoring Islamic interests,’ at the cost of Jewish and Christian lives. That’s why he’s taking this dramatic step.”

– – –

From WND:

OBAMA NAMED IN RICO LAWSUIT

horse shit

Attorney Larry Klayman, fresh off a preliminary court ruling that the National Security Agency’s spying on Americans likely is unconstitutional, now has named President Obama and others in a racketeering complaint.

Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch and a columnist for WND, alleges the president and others laundered U.S. taxpayer money that was spent on Hamas rockets fired against Israel.

The civil lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, alleges criminal acts by Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Seeking $1.5 billion in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages, it accuses the global figures of “laundering U.S. dollars” to Hamas, which is officially designated by the U.S. government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

“This money has been foreseeably used to buy rockets and construct tunnels to attack Israel and terrorize and kill American and dual American-Israeli citizens who reside or are located in Israel,” Klayman said in a statement.

“The nation and the world have increasingly come to see that Obama views himself primarily as a Muslim and acts accordingly in favoring Islamic interests over Judeo-Christian ones, and the complaint lays out Obama’s history in documented detail,” he said.

Klayman said Obama’s actions “were calculated to harm the nation of Israel.”

“His facilitating and ordering financial and other material aid to Hamas, along with his equally anti-Israel Secretaries of State Kerry and Clinton, and the U.N. Secretary General, is just the latest deadly chapter in what amounts to criminal activity which has logically resulted in harm and death to Jews and Christians and threatens the continued existence of Israel,” he said.

“That is why he and the other defendants were sued under RICO and other relevant laws,” said Klayman.

The White House media office declined to respond by telephone to a request from WND for comment, instructing a reporter to send an email. There was no immediately [sic] response to the email inquiry.

The case, No. 14-1484, alleges the defendants conspired to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas “under the false pretext that this financial support will be used for humanitarian purposes.”

“However,” the complaint states, “as recently reported by Voice of America and the New York Times, the recent killing of the chief Hamas financial officer by the IDF confirmed that these U.S. dollars, only some of which [were] found in his bombed out car, [have] predictably fallen into the hands of Hamas’ terrorist wing, which controls and was elected by Gazans to govern over them.”

Klayman’s recent case against the NSA challenged its program of spying on Americans. Two privacy-rights heavyweights, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Klayman’s arguments.

The case has been advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Klayman sued the NSA over the collection of telephone metadata from Verizon customers that was detailed in documents released by intelligence-document leaker Edward Snowden. In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

His newest complaint, with himself and a number of John Does as plaintiffs, is a civil action and seeks damages from the defendants “for violating plaintiffs’ and decedents’ rights, for engaging in racketeering and other prohibited activities, for engaging in international terrorism, for harboring and concealing terrorists, for providing material support to terrorists and terrorist groups, for directly and proximately causing the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents, and for directly and proximately causing mental anguish, severe emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, and the loss of society, earnings, companionship, comfort, protection, care, attention, advice, counsel or guidance, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their sons, plaintiffs’ decedents, have experienced and will experience in the future.”

It alleges fraud, money-laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, conversion and corruption.

The complaint notes Klayman recently was in Israel when it was attacked by Hamas.

Klayman, it says, “was subject to terroristic threats, fear, intimidation and blackmail from Hamas, aimed at coercing him from the exercise of his legal rights in violation of the Hobbs Act by Hamas seeking to deny his freedom of travel and public advocacy and business activities in Israel and other activities in Israel by threats and intimidation aimed at coercing him as a person engaged in public advocacy and business activities in and with Israel to leave Israel and disengage with Israel.”

Other “John Doe” plaintiffs also were in Israel at the time of the attacks, the complaint states.

It explains that, according to the law, a person “knowingly finances terrorism when fully aware of facts that would inform an alert person of average intelligence that the probable results of their actions will be to provide funding to a terrorist organization.”

“One may not naively turn a blind eye, not even a president of the United States,” the complaint states.

It says considerable amounts of charity money, public assistance, international assistance and humanitarian aid is motivated toward ending the violence in the Holy Land, but it “gets diverted to the corrupt enterprise, and becomes money that – fell off a truck into the hands of the criminals actually causing the violence and their enablers.”

The complaint says all of the defendants know or have reason to know that “funds and material support provided to Gaza under Hamas’s rule are actually used entirely or in the most part to finance the acts of terrorism, violence, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, assault, injury, physical attacks, and other criminal activity by Hamas.’

The complaint says the defendants known [as] Hamas uses building materials for home-made rockets and underground bunkers.

The complaint also notes Obama knows Hamas is officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by State Department and uses resources it receives for terrorist attacks, including the $900 million the Obama administration sent to Gaza in 2009.

It even accuses Obama of “siding with” militants known as “ISIS or ISIL, signaling to the people of Israel and Jews and Christians that Hamas’ crimes against Israel and Jews and Christians are tacitly supported and approved of by the president of the United States.”

The case also names Malik Obama, a half-brother of the president who runs the Barack Obama Foundation. The case alleges the organization raises money for the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Two leaked classified documents show Egyptian security forces have been monitoring Malik Obama’s activities and they also implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists.”

Klayman explained the documents were entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Read Full Post »

From WND:

YeeHaaaaw!!!!!! Ride em' Cowboy!!

YeeHaaaaw!!!!!! Ride em’ Cowboy!!

The Democrats have successfully conned the Republican majority in the House – or at least the leadership – into believing they welcome it.

This is an example of counter intuitive Saul Alinsky-style disinformation at its best.

Democrats say they’re raising money fighting impeachment.

They say it will help them in the midterm election.

They say talk of impeaching the first black president smacks of racism.

And the Republican leadership, the Republican elite, the Rockefeller country-club Republicans believe them.

That’s the incredible story of what is happening right now in Washington.

House Speaker John Boehner has taken it off the table. Karl Rove says it’s only Democrats talking about impeachment. Yet polls show at least 57 percent of grassroots Republicans support impeachment.

Why do they support impeachment?

Because Barack Obama is making a mockery of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Let’s just take one of dozens of potential articles of impeachment – the use of the Internal Revenue Service to target political enemies of Obama. Here are some of the salient facts:

Lois Lerner pleaded the Fifth Amendment when subpoenaed to testify before Congress on her role in this scandal. It may be the first time this despicable woman found a part of the Constitution she could get behind. When her emails were subpoenaed, the IRS claimed her hard drive crashed and all of them were destroyed in a remarkable coincidence. Then we were told there were a whole series of computer crashes within the IRS and the hard drives were all shredded, apparently to keep this computer virus from spreading like Ebola throughout the federal government. Then a few random emails were discovered. And what did they show? They showed Lois Lerner, who will be paid by taxpayers she targeted for the rest of her life, had a palpable contempt for conservatives and tea-party people whom she maligned in barnyard terminology, explaining that these citizens represented a bigger threat to society than foreign terrorists.

Yet, Obama says there’s not a smidgeon of a scandal here.

Do I exaggerate? No, I am deliberately understating the facts.

I could add Justice Department stonewalling to the list. I could add excuse-making by IRS officials that rivals in absurdity to the old “my dog ate my homework” childhood story.

Could Richard Nixon have survived such a scandal when the House and Senate were under the control of Democrats?

We know the answer. The Democrats drafted articles of impeachment against Nixon that included the charge of using the IRS to target his political enemies with far less evidence. Nixon took the honorable way out and resigned in disgrace. (By the way, it’s worth noting that Nixon did not actually use the IRS to target political enemies. He only mused about it. But that was enough for people like Hillary Clinton, who helped draft the articles of impeachment.)

Now, let me stipulate that there are dozens and dozens of other impeachable offenses for which Obama should be charged by the House. In the interests of brevity, I will refer you to the book by Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott called “Impeachable Offenses” for the details, though the potential indictments are growing almost daily.

Let me also point out that when Democrats began probing Nixon’s Watergate scandals, Nixon was at the height of his popularity. Democrats never considered they were dooming their own political fortunes by attempting to impeach a popular president. Nor did they concern themselves with the horror of being left with Gerald Ford as a successor. In fact, Watergate led directly to the election of an unknown Democratic peanut farmer from Georgia in 1976 – something that was unthinkable in 1973.

What Republicans really fear is a repeat of the successful impeachment of Bill Clinton, only the second president in American history to be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors. Well, maybe I should say, almost tried. What happened? Few seem to remember this relatively recent event clearly, while others were too young to recall.

Republicans actually controlled the Senate when Clinton was impeached by the House. The Republican leadership of the Senate determined before any hearings were held that it would be inadvisable politically to remove Clinton from office. Everyone knew Clinton was guilty – Democrats included. But that was beside the point.

You can read all about it in the best book ever written on the subject, “Catching Our Flag,” by James Rogan, one of the House impeachment managers. (You will also be shocked by some of the famous-name Republicans who caved in that historic fight.)

So what are we to take away from this modern history of impeachment fights?

Democrats play hard and play for keeps.

Republicans are afraid of their shadows, even when they are in the political driver’s seat.

I don’t know whether impeachment could be successful if the House Republicans chose that course.

That’s not really the point. The point should be: What is the right thing to do?

If Obama is not impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors before he leaves office of his own accord, then it is hard to imagine any future president ever being impeached, again. The crimes he has committed against the Constitution are breathtaking and legion, unsurpassed in American history and, hopefully, in America’s future.

In other words, if Obama is not impeached, we should write off this constitutional provision forever.

Read Full Post »

Reblogged from RT

Published time: June 14, 2014 13:08

COMBO: (L) Confederate infantry re-enactors in Sharpsburg, Maryland, September 15, 2012; (R) Armed men ride an armored personnel carrier in Slavyansk April 16, 2014. (AFP Photo/Reuters)

COMBO: (L) Confederate infantry re-enactors in Sharpsburg, Maryland, September 15, 2012; (R) Armed men ride an armored personnel carrier in Slavyansk April 16, 2014. (AFP Photo/Reuters)

Historical analogies may be inaccurate, but Americans may need to look at their own civil war and compare it to what is happening in Ukraine now. Today the US supports a murderous criminal adventure that has little to do with unifying the country.

This assessment came from Professor Stephen Cohen, prominent US scholar of Russian studies and author, who advised George H.W. Bush in the late 1980s. He spoke to RT about the mistakes of the consecutive American administrations in their Russia policies, the worst crisis in decades that they led to and the deterioration of political discourse in America that prevents things from changing in Washington.

Cohen challenged the narrative of the Ukrainian events dominating in the US, calling the military crackdown by the government an “unwise, reckless, murderous, inhuman campaign that Kiev is conduction against what are admittedly rebel provinces.”

Stephen Frand Cohen

Stephen Frand Cohen

“Lincoln never called the Confederacy terrorists,” the scholar pointed out. “He always [called them], no matter how bad the civil war was, fellow citizens he wanted to come back to the union. Why is Kiev calling its own citizens terrorists? They are rebels. They are protesters. They have a political agenda. Why isn’t Kiev sending a delegation there to negotiate with them?

“Their demands are not unreasonable. They want to elect their own governors – we elect our own governors. They want a say on where their taxes go – ‘no taxation without representation.’ We know what that is,” Cohen said. “There are extremists among them, but there are also people who simply want to live in a Ukraine that is for everybody. And instead the Kiev army, with the full support of the United States, is conducting this assault.”

A man looks at a residential building, where he resides, which was damaged by what locals say was overnight shelling by Ukrainian forces, in the eastern Ukrainian town of Slaviansk June 12, 2014. (Reuters/Gleb Garanich)

A man looks at a residential building, where he resides, which was damaged by what locals say was overnight shelling by Ukrainian forces, in the eastern Ukrainian town of Slaviansk June 12, 2014. (Reuters/Gleb Garanich)

‘Kremlin an essential ally Washington pushes away’

What the US doing with Ukraine now is alienating arguably the best potential ally it has now, Cohen said.

“I am convinced that the most essential partner for the American national security in all of these areas from Iran to Syria, Afghanistan and beyond is the Kremlin, currently occupied by Putin. And the way the United States has treated Putin – I would call it a betrayal of American national interest.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

To: Lance, Marshal, Lawrence, Shlomo, et al

By Aulddog

I’ve been motivated by recent events within DoD to write this piece, after reading yet another article on MSNBC (I ought’a stop doing that—it only hurts, and not in a good way) on yet ANOTHER general getting canned for something. Interestingly enough, the last few generals to get the hammer have been in charge of nuclear assets:

—MGEN Michael Carey—the most recent chop—was relieved for personal misbehavior. Carey was the head of 20th Air Force, responsible for roughly 450 nuclear ICBMs at multiple locations US-wide. The nature of the personal misbehavior was not specified. (Pay attention to that last part—I’ll bring it up again later. *foot stamp*)

—VADM Tim Giardina was demoted from three-star to two-star and relieved of his command duties. Giardina was the deputy for nuclear forces at USSTRATCOM (U.S. Strategic Command, for you non-military types). The charges were—again—unspecified, although gambling was alleged in the mix.

These are just the most recent. It’s scary that the nuke guys are getting leveled now, especially when you factor in the reports that Obama’s cronies are relocating nuclear weapons to the east coast, without apparent justification or reason.

Looking back, MGEN Stanley McChrystal was among the first to go down in the early years of the Obama regime, after a Rolling Stone (Rolling Stoned?) reporter used his access to McChrystal to do a hatchet piece. The comparisons between this situation and Truman’s relieving MacArthur are obvious…Truman was a Democrat too. All told, this country’s probably lost about a dozen generals in high-ranking positions since Obama took office. Lance may be able to offer a more specific list (another *foot stamp*…we could use names here.)

For someone like me who’s a student of history, this is all-too-scarily similar to something I’ve seen before. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You

Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You

By Mychal Massie | 27 Aug 2013 | Daily Rant

This is intended to be an open letter to you Barack Obama. I will dispense with the usual salutatory “Dear Mr. blah blah” because to address you as same would mean that I accept you as my president which I cannot and do not. I know my words will offend those for whom the color of your skin means more than the quality of your job performance. But I place a high premium on the performance of the man who occupies the position you do. A performance that is based on leadership, loyalty to America, and adherence to the Constitution of The United States. I view you, in the absence of any of those qualities, as a seat-holder for an American leader who embodies those qualities, and who has respect for We the People of this great nation which you are doing your best to defile. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Re-blogged from the syndicated column The Daily Rant:

– – –

By Dan Bubalo | July 8, 2013Kangaroo Court

You can run from reality, but it will eventually catch up to you. If you don’t believe me, try out-running your shadow.

James Clapper is the head of an obscenely mismanaged and misguided espionage machine known as the National Security Agency. Its purpose was to spy on our enemies but instead it spies on Americans. But that’s no longer called spying in the Obama administration. Clapper claimed to be “clearly erroneous.” That’s called lying, but not under the Obama administration. There’s a consequence for lying called perjury, but there is not a ramification under the Obama administration. Morsi’s Arab Spring was rejected in Egypt and he was deposed by the military, which is called a coup d’etat [sic: d’état], but that’s no longer called a coup according to the Obama administration.

Smoke and mirrors. Sleight of hand. A façade covering a mask hiding a disguise, and euphemisms substituted for anything remotely resembling candor.

Honesty? So passé……………………………………so jejeune……………………………

(more…)

Read Full Post »

slick.willy

Then a week later he offers this advice:

Bill Clinton: Democrats Must Respect Gun Rights, Culture

Former President Bill Clinton has a warning for top Democratic donors: Don’t underestimate weapons rights supporters.

Clinton, speaking to a group of Democrats at the Obama National Finance Committee Saturday, said gun control gets a special emotional response from people in rural states, and dismissing pro-gun arguments can backfire.

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said, Politico reported.

“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things,” Clinton said. “I know because I come from this world.”

Some polls say that the public supports proposals for increased gun control, Politico reports, but Clinton said emotions will rule when it comes to legislation on gun control.

“All these polls that you see saying the public is for us on all these issues — they are meaningless if they’re not voting issues,” Clinton said.

Clinton dedicated most of his 40-minute address to guns and gun control, and said the issue will be a test for Obama’s grassroots movements.

“The way the Obama campaign won Florida, won Ohio, won this election by more than projected was the combination of technology, social media and personal contact,” Clinton said. That’s “the only way that our side will ever be able to even up the votes in the midterms and as these issues come up, really touch people and talk to them about it.”

Obama’s gun control measures, announced last week, need a congressional vote, but the Republican-controlled House isn’t likely to approve the legislation – and many Democrats from gun-strong states are wary of discussing the issue.

Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms. In fact, then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley, D-Wash., lost his job and his seat in Congress.

“I’ve had many sleepless nights in the many years since,” Clinton said. One reason? “I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable,” he explained — saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: