More Blame From Crooked Hilary?

It never ceased to amaze me throughout Barack Obama's eight years in office his narcissistic ways. And yet, Hilary Clinton appears to suffer a similar syndrome which is made ever more evident with what is being reported to be the contents of her new book coming out in mid-September which is to bring forth her version of why she thinks she lost the election. The thing I marvel at is how much everything about the book seems to suggest that the devastating loss in the 2016 election was due to everyone else around her and had nothing to do with her. 

In the aftermath we have heard it all. It was uneducated deplorables. It was Bernie soaking up too much of what should have been her air in the room. It was James Comey. It was her team. It was bad advice from even Barack Obama which she said made her feel like she was in a straitjacket. It was the Russians.

Everyone but Hilary Clinton herself was the root cause of her epic failed presidential run.

It seems to me that people will still buy the book. Not because it is going to be informative or enlightening in any way, because we know all too well that is not going to be the case. People are going to buy the book for the same reason they might tune into Jerry Springer. You simply want to know what she is going to say even if you go into the whole thing with a clear head knowing it will be nothing but passing the buck and probably all-out lies to boot.

Some have suggested that Hilary's daughter may even be getting pegged for a possible future democratic run for president. Look, the one thing that is clear to me here is that a large part of the reason Hilary Clinton did not win has everything to do with who Hilary Clinton is. Yes, she is crooked as President Trump stated over and over again during his campaign. She's as crooked as they come. She was arrogant as was demonstrated time and time again from accounts from secret service agents when she was First Lady, to her time in office as Secretary of State using private servers and potentially compromising national security—because she felt she was above the law. The fact is that the Clinton's are done politically. So her daughter was stand no discernible chance at any time in the future for the highest office in the land.

The book is not one I will buy. I simply have no desire to read a bunch of worn out whining and complaining, deflection, woe-is-me, and whatever other bullshit she wants to spin with it. She's a piece of work. The people saw it. Voters responded. Trump won. Enough said.

As I said before, what is sad to me is that she doesn't get it. But luckily, apparently neither does the entire democrat party. That will help us in the mid-terms and help Trump to win handily again when he comes up for reelection.

Benghazi Hearings Shed Light On Clinton's Viability

It's no secret that I am not a fan of Hilary Clinton. Still, unlike most democrats, republicans such as myself can be fair about the issues, the controversies, and the scandals. My take away from the recent congressional hearings with Mrs. Clinton regarding the entire Benghazi thing is that she was not hurt by the hearings, and the republicans missed an opportunity to bring to light what I think is one very important and crucial question.

Why did she choose to openly lie to the American people about the nature of the attack on the facility in Benghazi?

Because the fact that she did in fact lie is quite clear if anyone was paying an ounce of attention to the hearings. She told the American people that the attack in Benghazi was due to a video that riled the core of factions of terrorist groups. Yet at the same time confided to family members, the Egyptian prime minister and the Lybian president that it was a planned attack that had, in her words, nothing at all to do with any video.

The open question for me is did the video narrative come into play because we were two weeks from Obama's reelection campaign, and because he was campaigning that his war on terror was effective and was telling us that "Al-Qaeda is on the run," and the true facts of the attack would have squarely rendered those claims false, and could have had serious implications for Barack Obama winning a second term in office?

I think the answer is yes. She did not come out and say it. And unfortunately the republicans did not press the issue. But why should this be so important to anyone? Republican, democrat or independent? Because it should have people asking the question of what kind of a leader can we trust who puts politics before being truthful to the American people, especially in a case where four American lives were lost?

Quite clearly this should immediately disqualify her for ever holding the highest office in the land.

What else might she lie about? What kind of transparency can we expect? Do we want more secrecy in government, or less? Do we want a president who tells us one thing, and knows that what they are telling us is patently false? Or do we want a president who can be honest and forthcoming, even when the truth hurts?

I think the latter is what we truly want.

This is not to suggest that anyone in politics, on either side of the aisle, tells the truth one hundred percent of the time. We know this is not true at all. But it is when lives are at stake and when people have a right to know what we are doing, what is happening, and when politicians are reluctant to tell the truth because it might hurt their careers that we really have to start asking crucial questions and holding those politicians accountable for their actions.

Keep in mind that our system of government was never set up to protect our leaders. It was never set up to protect our elected officials. Our system of government was set up to protect the citizens of this country, and to protect those who we put in harms way on behalf of our government and for the protection of our people. If the American people do not hold Hilary Clinton accountable for outright lying for political gain then we have a serious problem in this country, and the country as a whole is in trouble.

Okay. So there is an underlying perspective that Hilary and Barack are not friends. Why would she be on board to lie and protect the president to win reelection? What would she have to gain?

For me this a very easy answer.

Quite simply, she wants her shot at the White House. She wanted it before Barack Obama became president and probably felt that the election should have been hers in the first place. If the truth about Benghazi would have come out at the time, it is quite possible that Barack Obama would have lost, Mitt Romney would have won, and due to her age, and the possibility that Romney could have remained in office for two terms, her chance to ever effectively run for the White House would likely never have happened.

She was protecting Barack Obama to ultimately protect herself and protect her chance at the presidency further down the road.

That should make anyone quite scared to have her in the Oval Office if you ask me. Her interests are not, and have not been the interests of the American people. Her interests at the core are hers alone. To advance herself to the White House and gain power. She will stop at nothing, as the Clintons have proven through the years, to get what she wants. And if it means outright lying or leaving people dead...let the bodies hit the floor. "What difference does it make?" She wants to be president. Nothing else matters. 

After The First Democratic Debate

After watching the first democratic presidential debate on CNN it left me with one primary insight. For the first time in a long time, the GOP has a strong chance of actually winning the White House. Say what you will about the top contenders on the stage in the GOP primary race, but I think their message is stronger, is more resonant with the American people, and I think that the American people are tired with the failed policies of our current president, the democratic party leadership, and are ready once more to try something different for at least the next four years.

In a way, for all of the pull and tug of the democratic party to put Hilary Clinton front and center in the race, I think this has actually worked to greatly harm their chances. Hilary was a darling with The People for a time. That much is clear. But that love affair, if you want to call it that, is waning in the face of more scandal, and a much clearer picture of where president Barack Obama has left us—in muddy waters in nearly every single thing he has touched. So what you have in the field of runners are what I can only classify as terribly weak contenders. If there are any real hopefuls out there, they have largely stood in the shadows feeling as though they have no chance against Clinton, so why bother?

And by the way, what the hell is Lincoln Chaffee even doing in the race?

I have been a republican. I have been an independent. And now I am a proud democrat. What? So basically what you are telling the American people is you don't know a thing about where you stand, who you are, what you want to be, and if one thing is clear, if you can't make up your mind about what you want to be called, how the heck can we trust that you can make your mind up on any of the important issues you might face as the president?

Give me a break, dude.

As for Bernie Sanders, let's face it. He is simply cow-towing to a largely growing population of people who want something for nothing. But, what he and others in his party fail to understand when they try like hell to demonize the rich, is that a large part of the reason the poor have grown, the middle class have shrunk, and the rich have blossomed is due to the very policies they wish to advance and promote which have failed. The economy is in the dumps and people are feeling the pinch because the democratic party since Obama took office has not been able to take on the task of fixing the problem with the right approach. Rather than acknowledge that, the democratic party does what it always does. It points the finger at the republicans and of course, believe it or not, it's still Bush's fault.

If you wanted to use a word to describe what Bernie Sanders is proposing it could be bankruptcy. Why bankruptcy? Because it's what people resort to when all else is failed. Fuck it. I'm done. Time to tell everyone else to go fuck themselves too since I can't get it together on my own. Rather than dig deep into things like the state of jobs in America, the low labor participation rate, and the reasons why welfare recipients are more likely to sustain collecting benefits rather than go out and get a job and go it alone, the democrats—and Bernie specifically—just want to artificially lift the bottom rungs of the ladder because it happens to be the easiest answer for them. Capitalism is just an evil beast that much be destroyed.

Yet amazingly, the truth of the matter is, that had the United States not made it's economy largely capitalistic, we would never have become the nation that we are. Capitalism brought America to power, and the lack of it will bring the country to its knees. Is that what we really want? Is that what the democrats really want?

All in all I would call the debate interesting. Enlightening? Yes. But only because it confirms for me, and hopefully for a good many others that we cannot continue on the path we are on, and therefore we must look to someone on the other side to right the country, and get us back on a path forward. Not a single one of these candidates is worth a damn. Not a single one of these candidates is offering us anything solid in answers as to how we acknowledge what has not worked, and how we do something different to make it work going forward.

It is still a long road ahead to the White House. So long as the American people are tuned in and paying attention we have a shot at actually getting the hope and change we were historically promised nearly eight years ago. If their not, or if they are still in bankruptcy mode, we are doomed.