The Clintons Continue To Clinton

What a mess. Every week, seemingly every other day, there is a new shady revelation about Bill and Hillary Clinton that manages to top the last one. For them there seems to be no bottom; for their supporters, there seems to be no self-respect.

The hundreds of millions of dollars from corrupt governments, billionaires with agendas and God knows who else. The server wiped so thoroughly – and no, not with a cloth – you can tell someone learned the importance of cleanliness from the blue dress. And now we learn Bill, the former president, with more money than he possibly could spend in his lifetime, sought approval to take even more from some of the worst human garbage ever to walk upright. (More on this later.)

It’s enough to make the sane wonder what the hell is wrong with these people.

But Clinton lovers are not sane. They are not rational. Hillary could give a press conference and explicitly call her supporters the dumbest people on the planet while Bill stood behind her throwing puppies and kittens into a wood-chipper, and she’d still have a base of support.

A new Quinnipiac Poll found the top three words Americans associated with her were: 1. Liar; 2. Dishonest; 3. Untrustworthy. The first positive word people associated with her was “experience,” which was given by less than half the number of respondents who answered “liar.”

That is awful, yet she is the best the Democratic Party has to offer.

As “the best,” Hillary Clinton is now so weak that Joe Biden – JOE FREAKING BIDEN – is now seriously considered a possible savior for the party’s chances.

It’s because the Clintons are known by those three words – dishonest, untrustworthy liars.

How else to explain Bill Clinton, a former president and even then a potential future first husband, asking for (and not getting) State Department permission to deliver a paid speech in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Women are terrorized in the Congo, routinely raped and worse. Why on Earth would anyone, let alone a former president, wish to speak there and, as part of the package, have a photo-op with the country’s leaders?

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading.....

Fanning the flames of another black church arson hoax by Michelle Malkin

America is still reeling from the horrific Charleston, S.C., massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church that claimed the lives of nine innocent people.

The last thing the community and our country need are hysterical journalists compounding the pain with inflammatory reporting on an unsubstantiated “epidemic” of black church arsons.

On Monday, a Baltimore Sun lead editorial decried “a series of mysterious fires at African-American churches across the South” in the wake of the Charleston murders. The newspaper cited a “pattern” of attacks, including what it claimed was an “uptick in attacks on 37 black churches in the South” in the 1990s that “prompted President Bill Clinton to set up a church-arson investigative task force.”

The Sun neglected to mention that Clinton had falsely claimed at the time that he had “vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child”— an assertion immediately debunked by theArkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The Sun also neglected to mention that the manufactured media coverage that launched the 1990s black church arson juggernaut, fueled by former USA Today reporter Gary Fields’ 61 fear-mongering stories, fell apart under scrutiny. Fields’ own employer was forced to admit that “analysis of the 64 fires since 1995 shows only four can be conclusively shown to be racially motivated.”

Reminder: Several of the hyped hate crimes against black churches had been committed by black suspects; a significant number of the black churches were, in fact, white churches; and the complex motives behind the crimes included mental illness, vandalism and concealment of theft.

Once again, falsified history is repeating itself.

The NAACP, which capitalized on the Clinton-era race hustle, is now pushing the new arson epidemic narrative. The organization remains shamelessly undaunted after fueling the fake NAACP “bombing” in Colorado Springs earlier this year. The group’s CEO, Cornell Brooks, tweeted the incendiary“#WhoIsBurningBlackChurches” hashtag on Tuesday and disclosed that he is “informing churches, reviewing legislation, pushing media awareness and deciding legal options.”

Via: Michelle Malkin

Continue Reading....

Democrats' Vanishing Future

May 21, 2015 One of the most underappreciated stories in recent years is the deterioration of the Democratic bench under President Obama's tenure in office. The party has become much more ideologically homogenous, losing most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections. By one new catch-all measure, a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler, Democrats are in their worst position since 1928. That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democratic presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.

But less attention has been paid to how the shrinking number of Democratic officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is affecting the party's Senate races. It's awfully unusual to see how dependent Democrats are in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016. Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak, Indiana's Baron Hill, and Ohio's Ted Strickland all ran underwhelming campaigns in losing office in 2010—and are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats' Senate challengers in 2016 are comeback candidates.

On one hand, most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. Feingold and Strickland are running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls. Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.

(RELATED: What's Next In the House Benghazi Committee's Hillary Clinton Investigation)

But look more closely, and the reliance on former failures is a direct result of the party having no one else to turn to. If the brand-name challengers didn't run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short. They're also facing an ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. As political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they're asking "voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired." Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hillary Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren't any better alternatives.

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....

Former Aide On Obama: ‘It’s Stunning That He’s In Politics, Because He Really Doesn’t Like People’

Neera Tanden, a former aide to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, had this to say about the relationship of the two presidents:

Clinton, being Clinton, had plenty of advice in mind and was desperate to impart it. But for the first two years of Obama’s term, the phone calls Clinton kept expecting rarely came. “People say the reason Obama wouldn’t call Clinton is because he doesn’t like him,” observes Tanden. “The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”

It's a revealing statement from Tanden, who "served as senior advisor for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services, advising Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and working on President Barack Obama’s health reform team in the White House to pass the bill," according to her bio at the Center for American Progress. She is currently president and CEO of the liberal organization.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

PEROT: FISCAL NIGHTMARE MEANS USA COULD BE TAKEN OVER

“In it, Perot talks about his fear of the United States being taken over.

“If we are that weak, just think of who wants to come here first and take us over and the last thing I ever want to see is to see this country, our country taken over because we’re so financially weak we can’t do anything and we’re moving in that direct. … We could even lose our country if we don’t get this fixed and straightened out and nobody that’s running really talks about it, about what we have to do and why we have to do it. They would prefer not to have it discussed.

Perot chimed in on some other topics, including:

The prosperous Clinton years: “We were just lucky, going through a period where we had the money flowing. … It was just good luck that made it happened. Right now we’re going through a period of bad luck.”

The Tea Party: “It’s had an interesting impact. … It’s not the solution but I think it was a healthy thing to happen. … It wakes up everybody running for office.””

Via Politico

Have Polls Always Underestimated The GOP Vote?

Knowing that exit polling has historically overestimated the Democratic vote and knowing how much the final regular polling in the 1980 race understated Ronald Reagan’s support compared to Jimmy Carter, it is worth looking at what the final poll results said in other presidential election years.

The facts show a similar trend in a pro-Democratic direction almost uniformly. Historically speaking, pollsters have underestimated how many people would vote for the Republican presidential candidate:

Writing at National Review, reporter Jim Geraghty quotes an anonymous pollster who provides a helpful review of past polling data:

In 1992, Gallup’s final poll had Clinton winning by 12 percentage points, he won by 5.6 percentage points. In late October 1992, Pew had Clinton up 10.

In 1996, some reputable pollsters had Clinton winning by 18 percentage points late, and Pew had Clinton up by 19 in November; on Election Day, he won by 8.5 percentage points… In 2004, pollsters were spread out, but most underestimated Bush’s margin. (2000 may have been a unique set of circumstances with the last-minute DUI revelation dropping Bush’s performance lower than his standing in the final polls; alternatively, some may argue that the Osama bin Laden tape the Friday before the election in 2004 altered the dynamic in those final days.) In 2008, Marist had Obama up 9, as did  CBS/New York Times and Washington Post/ABC News, while Reuters and Gallup both had Obama up 11.

Now, if this was just random chance of mistakes, you would see pollsters being wrong in both directions and by about the same margin in each direction at the same rate – sometimes overestimating how well the Democrats do some years, sometimes overestimating how well the Republicans do. But the problem seems pretty systemic – sometimes underestimating the GOP by a little, sometimes by a lot.

In 2004, the final telephone surveys mostly favored George W. Bush against John Kerry but the exit polls clearly did not. As usual, they overstated the Democrat vote (see our earlier report on reasons for this) which led many Democrats to expect that Kerry would win the popular vote and the presidency. When that did not happen, it triggered a widespread belief among hardcore Democrats that Republicans had somehow managed to “steal” the election in several different states, particularly in Ohio.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

Israeli Government Tweets Article Critical Of Obama…

An official Israeli government Twitter account linked to an article critical of President Obama in a Tuesday tweet, in another sign on ongoing differences between the Obama administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government.

"Israeli official: Obama doesn’t give us same sense Clinton did that he’ll be there if things go bad - Times of #Israel," the government press office's official Twitter account wrote.

The Times of Israel article it links quotes an anonymous government official attacking Obama's policies towards the region, while simultaneously praising former President Bill Clinton.

“Clinton made us feel like he had our back," the official told the newspaper about the 1990s Camp David accords. "When we made concessions that were greater than anything an Israeli government had ever offered, we felt he’d be there if things went bad. Would he have been there? I don’t know. But it felt that way, and it put us in a different frame of mind. President Obama doesn’t give us the same sense that he’d be there.”

In a statement, the Israeli embassy in Washington said that the tweet did not constitute an endorsement — something that the Twitter account makes clear with a disclaimer that "tweet/RT does not constitute endorsement of view."

"The GPO distributes links to various articles to members of the press community and does not represent the government policy," the embassy told POLITICO. "The quote in this article doesn't reflect the position of the government of Israel. Israel deeply appreciates President Obama's commitment to its security and the superb defense cooperation between our two countries."

Still, the anonymous Israeli official's take on the current security situation contradicts the official line of the Netanyahu government. On the record, the Netanyahu government has said that Obama has given the Jewish state every security assurance on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

"President Obama has said that he’s determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and I appreciate that and I respect that.  I think implicit in that is that if you’re determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it means you’ll act before they get nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said recently on NBC's "Meet the Press."