Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Celebrities vs Sniper

american sniperIt seems to me that the attacks on the character and heroics of American Snipers  by American celebrities and other anti-military bloggers and talking heads are their way of  trying to justify their own cowardice.

Lets face it,  most of  the critics of the American Sniper have not and would not ever volunteer to risk their supposedly superior hides to defend anything,  not even their own right to critic and criticize at will.

They are perfectly happy to wallow in the perks of an American citizen while unwilling to recognize the sacrifices others have made and are now making to preserve those perks for them.  I think people like that are not just ungrateful but despicable

Read Full Post »

Hillary

Hillary? Really!. That’s the best Feminists can offer up? Or for that matter the Democrat Party?

We have over 300 million people in this Nation and She is the best bet for President according to Billionaire Buffet. What has happened to this nation? Have we learned nothing from electing her fellow Saul Alinsky sycophant?> Read the Hillary letters to Alinsky,

Put aside her complicity in the Benghazi debacle, put aside her duplicity in trying to cover up her activities in the Rose’s Law Firm. Forget her trying to blame her husband’s perversions on a Right Wing Conspiracy. If you put all that aside (I can’t) lets examine what she has done to earn the right to lead this country.

The only person who has done less to advance the interests of most Americans Is President Obama.She rode  into office on the coattails of her adulterous husband whose flagrant womanizing she has not only tolerated but (like the cookie baking housewives she abhors) in an abject effort to acquire her own political power she has stood by her man, no matter the humiliation to which he has subjected her.

Bill, Bubba, Clinton claims she is the most intelligent woman her has known, that is probably true but to my mind that is damning with faint praise.
Let’s review what she did as First Lady. How about Hillary care, a health plan even the Democrats wouldn’t sign off on. Other than that, like Michelle, she mostly took advantage of the White House Perks, piling up frequent flyer miles on her global vacations for her and Chelsea, sure she stopped in to great applause on various tax payer funded international meetings of various UN sponsored Liberal organizations. But what American policies did that advance? Anywhere?

How about as Secretary of State. More of the same. She made a joke of our policies toward Russia, as has Obama. Hillary is a Obama re-do. Although she doesn’t play golf and talks like a hawk basically we are looking at the same narcissistic, self-indulgent, self adulating, ideologue whose only claim to fame is her ability to sustain her delusions of superior ability among the talking heads in the Democratic party without a smidgen of evidence to support her ambitions.

She thrives in a bubble created by Feminists and Democrats who are as delusional as she is and would rather destroy this country than relinquish their political power.

Biden would do more to forward the interests of this country than this duplicitous whore to power and he would be good for a few laughs, which Hillary has never been

Read Full Post »

Image

All this talk about Bush being responsible for Iraq’s current condition is ludicrous,  it presumes that Iraq was a wonderland of peace and security in the Mideast.  What a joke.  Saddam and his sons were perverted despots who kept all of the Mideast fearful of what that crazy bunch would do next to the Kurds and the Shiites.  I suspect the protest to Bush deposing Saddam  were based on the fact that many of the leading liberals in Washington and internationally  were up to their eyeballs in profits from Saddam’s oil for food scam

The only lies told about the Iraq situation  all come from the Mainstream Media.  Lie #1.  W started  an unnecessary  war in Iraq.  Saddam Hussein started the war with the US when he invaded Kuwait years before.  At the time W decided to dispose the pervert  ,after consulting with Congress and the UN,, our forces had been operating under a cease-fire agreement for 12 years.  W didn’t start that war he ended it. Lie #2,  Bush lied about the justification for disposing Saddam and his possession of WMD.  Bush didn’t lie, he believed that Saddam did have WMD, To lie you have to know what you are saying is not true,  not only did Bush and Cheney believe Saddam had WMDs so did the UN inspectors, our Congress and probably Saddam since he sent truckloads of something to Syria before Bush deposed him;   Lie#3 Bush is responsible for the current situation in Iraq,  He didn’t pull our troops out of Iraq,  nor did he plan to.

Our mainstream media not only lied about W throughout his administration,  they have never been willing to tell the truth about the Obama administration.   Obama is a profuse liar,  you would not know it from  our media that swears to all his lies,  Crowley is a case in point.

 

Read Full Post »

Photograph of marijuana plants As hard as I might try,  the only explanation I can find for the actions of the current Administration is a liberal inhaling of smoke from their  plant of choice as well as other drugs.

How else can you explain Hillary’s hallucinations about videos being the root cause of our ambassador’s death in Benghazi?

Or our President thinking he could jabber Putin out of taking over the Crimea (of course President Obama may have just been bending over to show his flexibility)

Or our Attorney General Holder believing he could somehow out maneuver the Mexican Cartels by having our Gun Dealers sell assault rifles to straw men as the DEA turned a blind eye, Or that releasing a bunch of Drug Dealers would improve our prison system.

A dope soaked brain would definitely explain why Sibelius thought she could bluff her way through the Obama care roll out, while all those around her were screaming skepticism

And what else would explain Harry Reid’s maliciously perpetuating obvious slander against conservatives of all stripes while barely restraining his giggles?

Or Michelle and Barrack blithely vacationing from one end of the world to the other as though unaware the country has a 17 trillion-dollar plus debt

Or friends of the earth jetting around the country on Earth Day in order to  promote energy conservation or how could the Robert Redford crowd sit on their Redwood decks surrounding their log cabins discussing how to save our redwoods without any awareness of the  ludicrousness of their actions unless  they were floating on a cloud of marijuana

How else to explain the unbelievable pronouncement from The President himself that there wasn’t even a smidgen of wrong doing involved in the IRS preventing Conservative groups from participating in fund-raising during the 2012 elections,  which of course worked to the Democrats favor and probably led to Obama’s successful return to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

I don’t know what others might think of what is going on in Washington DC these days but I suggest someone check that haze hovering over Progressives, it is probably the best explanation for what is going on and where our taxes are going, namely to pay for the drug hallucinations of those committed to bringing utopian wet dreams to life.  It should be obvious that a drug laden life jacket is the only thing saving  our current crop of collectivist ideologues from drowning in a sea of hypocrisy.

Read Full Post »

untitledTo believe that promoting Obamacare is doing God’s work,  you have to believe Government is God and Obama is his Messiah.   Unfortunately the Bible President Obama swore upon doesn’t guide him in Office.

Social Justice isn’t the same as collectivists redistribution of wealth.  You can’t rob Peter to buy Paul’s vote for your political ambitions and say you are doing God’s work.

Christ spoke of individual responsibility, you loving your neighbor, not expecting the Government to do all the loving for you.  Paying taxes doesn’t equate with freely giving of your time and money to aid those less fortunate.   The truth is, for all their talk wealthy Democrats give less to charity than Republicans yet  they claim they are the ones who truly care for their neighbor,  truth is most liberals don’t much care  for their neighbors, their siblings, their families,  the most important consideration is not doing something to show love for their fellow-man but instructing everyone else on how not supporting their bright utopian ideas on saving the world  proves their opponents are evil.

Secularism is basically self-love, “Here’s to thee and Here’s to me may we never disagree, if we do to Hell with You.  Here’s to Me” and justifies its existence by promoting loathing for those who still cling to their guns and Churches the heart of true freedom as put forth in our Declaration of Independence and reinforced with the Constitution.  No wonder President Obama is so contemptuous of both the Constitution and his opponents and thinks pushing Government Programs is doing GOD’s (aka Government of Democrats) work

Also explains why Eric Holder feels free to only enforce the laws he agrees with.  What a bunch of arrogant,  head up their butts, ignorant ideologues we have running this country.  However,  I don’t fear them as much as I do those in this Nation who support them because they run our Universities and Media and thus control what our youth know about America and their fellow citizens .   Unfortunately our students are taught more about Socialist Utopian aspirations then they are about what really made this country work.

Read Full Post »

BHRPHOTONever gave too much thought to Michelle Obama’s lunch box activities or her self-indulgent vacations but holding Jane Fonda up as a role model did get my attention. Michelle may chose to immerse  her own daughters i that toilet bowl of narcissism posing as a super star, it’s a free country, but frankly I think there is something twisted in the homage the  drug sex rock and roll retreads and want to be 60’s activists and other  ignoramuses are willing to give to a self-serving, ignorant, dope soaked slut like Hanoi Jane who would use our POW’s as a stepping-stone to boost her celebrity.
Of course I shouldn’t be surprised that Michelle would admire Jane Fonda considering her and her husband’s associations with Bill Ayers and his wife. Still, as wife of the Commander-in-Chief of the US military you would think she might be more discreet about her admiration for anti-military pin heads like Fonda. However, it seems that disrespecting the military and their mission prevails over any other consideration in the Obama family. I don’t know what is more discouraging, President Obama and his policies, or the fact my fellow citizens would vote him back into office after knowing that he truly meant to fundamentally change America and not for the good.  Of course, as with any Democrat Administration, it is always the military that takes the brunt of the change.
And they have the chutzpah to call the Tea Party Extremists.

Read Full Post »

untitledThe following article was sent to me via e-mail.   I think it explains why Gates felt compelled to write the Book he did,  the only real question is why didn’t he write it sooner.  I think he had a duty to do so and think he himself did a disservice to the military.

Another step in destroying our military.

LTC Dooley Fired

This story should make your blood boil – how Obama tears the heart out of our military …..

Lt. Col Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University .

He had 19 years of service and experience, and was considered one of the most highly qualified military instructors on Radical Islam & Terrorism. He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the mindset of Islamic extremists.

Passing down first-hand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the Joint Forces Staff College . The course”Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism”, which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College , caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him.

They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey.

Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged “He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged.” – Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center ”

All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive, or just too informative.” – Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez (about Lt. Col Dooley)The Obama Administration has demonstrated lightning speed to dismiss Military brass that does not conform to it’s agenda, and not surprisingly, nobody is speaking up for Lt. Col. Dooley.

IT’S A SAD DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN GOOD LOYAL MEN LIKE THIS GET THROWN UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP!

Share this if you would. Let’s bring some attention to this.

Go to these links to confirm it:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/19/Lt-Col-Matthew-Dooley-Loses-Teaching-Position-at-Joint-Forces-Staff-College-For-Criticizing-Islam

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/dooley.asp

Read Full Post »

Duty Honor Country on Parade

Duty Honor Country on Parade

The following article gives everyone good reason to question Hillary Clinton’s veracity and thus her fitness to be President. What difference does it make? To me integrity makes a big difference. .

 

By DAN CALABRESE – Bet you didn’t know this.

I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

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.

Why?

“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 investigatio

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.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Read Full Post »

God Bless the USA - Remembering 9/11

God Bless the USA – Remembering 9/11 (Photo credit: Al_HikesAZ)

I hope all those who are out of work find employment that not only meets their financial needs but brings them personal satisfaction.  May all the newborn children enjoy a world better than the one their parents were born into,  may all those who suffer with health problems find relief from their suffering and may God Bless Us All.

Read Full Post »

Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillar...

Guess the NY Times decided to get ahead of the pack in electing Hillary as first Women President.  As usual all they can do is lie for her because the truth has never served the Lady well. The New York Times so called investigative report on what happened in Benghazi is as Bogus as their theme, all the News That’s fit to Print, make that “Which we see fit to print”

 

As some may remember, there was very little truth involved in Hillaary’s Congressional testimony regarding The Rose law firm
( for example, the files found on a desk in the Presidential quarters at the White House?); or how about Billy Boys philandering (remember that was all a right-wing conspiracy); and of course we had all those around the world vacations she took her daughter on at Government expense,  oh excuse me I forgot, they were diplomatic excursions for  the President, nice being an ambassador even before you become Secretary of State.  Now we have Benghazi and the insidious video that caused four Americans including our Ambassador to be killed, sans  security in an area known to be threatened by terrorists.  These are the same people who accuse Bush of being a liar.  Bush may have been wrong about Weapons of Mass Destruction but he didn’t lie about it,  he believed Saddam had them, with good reason since he had used them before on the Kurds.   

 Oh well,  I guess it doesn’t much matter to some voters whether a President has integrity,  maybe that’s because many of them don’t even know what that means.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: