The Uprising of the American Party?

These days, being a lifelong republican is met with some angst. Many times in the past I have written about the disarray of the democrat party and how that ultimately effects their standing with the voters, and of course, how it effects elections. But here we are, republicans, pretty much in a mess worse than I have ever seen on the democrat side. And what is it all about? Donald J. Trump, of course. He's absolutely frazzled the establishment—and frankly I don't think they know how to handle this. But it should be easily explained away for these guys if you ask me.

Why is Donald Trump, our nominee, resonating with the voters of our party?

Look, it's a simple thing really. I have long said that I do not feel a need for term limits in Congress and the Senate so long as the voters are engaged and paying attention. We have a system designed where it is the people's choice who stays or who goes when it comes to elections. The only reason term limits would be needed is when voters are pretty much tuned out, not paying attention, and just checking boxes at the polls without knowing what it is their elected officials accomplished...or did not accomplish.

Clearly the voters are engaged right now, at least for sure on the republican side, and what they have concluded is that the republican party has not done their job. Thus, Donald Trump gets their vote.

But yes, this is a time of angst. If you have paid attention to the republican party over the years the one thing many of us have argued is that we do not ever have a candidate that speaks directly to the people. We wind up with guys who look exactly like the tired and old stereotype of a typical republican. Old rich guys.

Granted, Trump is old. And he's rich.

But, he's Donald Trump. And say what you will about why Donald Trump is a household name for many Americans no matter which side they happen to be on, he has at least accomplished one major thing—he has tuned in many Americans to the electoral process who may have never bothered to care or tune in at all to.

So, he at least has our attention. Republicans and democrats and independents and non-voters alike mind you.

And because they (the American people) are now tuned in they now also realize an awful truth. Washington D.C. and all of these elites who reside there now, and who frankly have been there before them for many years, are screwing us over and good. And they have gotten away with it largely because no one was paying attention, and no one was there to bring it all to light. Donald Trump is saying to the American people what is wrong with the process, what is wrong with America, and why it is so important we all get it this time around and begin the long and daunting process toward real change. To start the process of restoring America to HER people as it was intended by our founders, and stop dead in their tracks the establishments on both sides to stack the deck and rig the whole kit and kaboodle to the detriment of everyone.

Americans rejoiced about change not so long ago when Obama made it his promise to bring it about. But he didn't change anything for the better, and unfortunately no one was paying attention to what he failed to do, and thus he was elected twice.

So, the republican party now has a guy at the forefront who is speaking to swaths of Americans, who is bringing new excitement to the electorate and bringing new-found interest to the party, but yet all they want to do is shut him down. Why? Because they don't like what he says, or how he says what he says. Look, the truth is that Donald Trump is more like you and I despite his billions of dollars in the bank than any career politician, and frankly I think this is one of the reasons why he scares the hell out the establishment the way he does, and why they are so eager to try to shut him down. He's an American. Dare I say an everyday American? When he speaks about economics, and when he speaks about wars, and when he speaks about back room deals in Washington he speaks like each and every one of us speaks in our break rooms, at our family gatherings, and in general to our friends. He says what is wrong, he does not parse his words, he does not spout off in terms no one can understand, and in ways that skirt the truth and make the ugly sound pretty. And again, this scares the hell out of the establishment because for years they have been able to use words in fancy ways to make the American public see things in a different light than the truth would lay out before them.

If you have a good thing going and no one is any the wiser, why throw a cog in the wheel to mess that up?

That's exactly what the establishment has had for years. A good thing. The people were none the wiser. And so long as they were none the wiser, why mess that up?

Trump is the bad guy, and the target of establishment republicans, because he threatens to mess up a good thing they have had going for years. That's why they want to shut him down. That's why they want to rally around Hillary Clinton, attacking Trump instead of her. Because Trump threatens their existence in a way no one before him really has. He's telling the American people the truth. He's shedding light on well hidden realities. He's engaging regular, working people like you and I. He's getting us, the American people, the average working Joe, to see that what politicians tell us, what they promise us, and what they do, and what the effects of lies, innuendo, and spin do to hurt us greatly with us virtually unaware it is even happening—but slowly. The pain comes slowly. The tactics and the policies and the fancy speak hurts us in calculated measure over time so that piece by piece, bit by bit, wrong by wrong, we simply get used to things as they are, and by the time things are so bad—we don't feel the pain as greatly. It has become the norm. It has become our way of life.

Surely the democrats have mastered that with the welfare state. 

It's like the mindset of an embezzler really. I can take a few pennies here and a few pennies there and no one really notices. The ones who get away with it are the smart embezzlers. The ones who get caught are the ones who grow impatient with the process of embezzling a little bit and then just go for broke. Politicians don't have to grow impatient. They control the process. For them they don't have to worry about getting noticed. There is nothing more friendly to an embezzler than the lack of an accountant. And for a politician, there is nothing more friendly than a voting public who is none the wiser.

Trump is the accountant who just walked in on a huge and long-time embezzlement.

And just take a look at who's who in the establishment now denouncing Trump—again—either directly or indirectly. Career politicians. Elites. Paul Ryan, the Bush family, and John McCain just to name a few. Go ahead and toss in the Romney family as well if you want to. These are family businesses...careers in politics. These are the embezzlers of our freedom and of our lives, stripping away one piece at a time, slowly but surely, but with calculation. And now someone has called their bluff. Now someone has shed light on their deeds, And now someone has the ear of the people.

Again, this scares the hell out of them.

The fact is that I am a republican. But I am also able to observe. I know what's going on and I don't like it. And that is why I can and do support Trump. Maybe it's not even a republican thing. Maybe that is just what I have been calling it all these years for lack of a better word. But I have checked the boxes just the same, and I had faith that the guys I sent to Washington with R's behind their names would do my bidding and make America a great place to live. I sent them there with the faith that they would right the wrongs of progressives and slam the door on liberal policies. I sent them there with faith that they would tell the American people the truth about why conservative principles worked better, and why anyone should rejoice in the implementation of conservative policy and ideology.

But they failed. And Trump is winning, at least when it comes to republicans. And he is dismantling the party. So being a republican these days is met with angst. Because I am angry as hell at my party and like so many American people are too. I am so angry that Trump resonates with me too. And I am angry that the republican party in all but denouncing Trump has shed light on the real corruption I denied was ever there within even my own beloved GOP. I am angry that it appears that the republican party, when all is said and done, really were no better than the democrats I so deplored were. I am angry that it appears that a two-party system is really just one party.

The political party.

And the rest of America be damned.

I am voting for Trump, now, not because he happens to the republican nominee. I am voting for Trump because I think he has the right plan to bring the country back to the people. Parties be damned. Republican, democrat, green party, libertarian, independent? To hell with all of that garbage. It's time to simply be an American.

Be Smart Tonight During the Debate!

Don't fall for it!

That is my suggestion as you prepare yourself for what is expected to be a monster debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which by the way, is a calculated and orchestrated timed event if you throw in the recent release (or leak, whatever you want to call it) of tapes showing Donald Trump engaged in vulgar language directed at women.

Look, this what the DNC and the media are all too well known for. They want to skirt the issues and the reason they want to do that is because they cannot speak to the issues. This is a tactic the media and the DNC have been engaged in for years and for years they have gotten away with it.

Don't fall for it!

Do I think that the leaked tapes shed good light on Donald Trump? Of course not. But really, you could easily suggest that the words he used, and the conversations he engaged in are not unlike conversations that occur every single day in nearly every facet of society. It's real talk even if it's not necessarily appropriate talk.

And by the way, has anyone questioned statements Hillary Clinton made to secret service agents while she was First Lady? There's some pretty damning language there if you ask me. And while her language may not necessarily be directed in the way Trump's comments were in the leaked tape, they are still nonetheless foul, and certainly disrespectful and outright horrible.

May I use the word deplorable?

The DNC and the media want nothing but one thing to happen, because it works for them. They have designed campaigns around finger pointing—if you put all of the emphasis on the other guy, and you push hard enough, all you have to do is simply sit there in the debate and watch the nuts go after your opponent and eat up all of the time in the debate without ever once having to have your positions or your failures addressed at all.

If you fall for it then the media and the DNC will have their way once again. Hillary Clinton will not have to address her 33,000 missing emails, nor the clear and numerous lies she made to the FBI, which Comey has confirmed, nor the clear and numerous lies she made to the American people about the whole thing. She will not have to address what she did with the more than 600 calls for help by U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Chris Stevens, who of course is now dead along with three other Americans due to a lack of concern and action by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State. And while we're on the subject, neither will she have to explain to the American people why she lied about that too, not only to the American people, but to the very families of the dead. You have to ask the question, because anyone paying attention knows the reason the lies were made in the first place was to secure a second term for President Obama, "Mrs. Clinton, how can you guarantee that you will put America first and keep Americans safe from clear and present danger when it is clear that you put lives in danger in order to support a false narrative that 'Al-Qaeda was on the run,' that would have been proved false had the true nature of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi had been revealed?" And the question also has to be asked, "Mrs. Clinton, how can the American people be assured you will be honest with them when it was clearly illustrated that you lied to the American people and to the FBI about the nature of your missing emails?"

And then we're back to the issue of what Trump said in those leaked tapes which should directly lead anyone paying attention to now shift focus onto the stuff that Trump made all too clear he did not want to touch. And that is the question of Hillary Clinton's own attitude towards women which is—again for anyone paying attention—deplorable.

Yep, I chose to use that word again.

Hillary Clinton allowed a child rapist to get off while she was a defense attorney. This was a 13-year old girl, keep in mind, who was raped. And tapes that exist of Hillary talking about the case show very clearly that she knew the guy she was defending was guilty. She knew it. And not only did she know it, she reveled in the fact that she got the guy off, and she also reveled in putting the onus and emphasis on the girl who was raped.

She put the onus on the girl who was raped. She blamed the victim. When she knew the guy she was defending was guilty.

This bears emphasis and it is why I chose to repeat it in italics. War on women? This is what this essentially comes down to right? Only the DNC and the media are painting it with a different brush and they have been doing this right from the moment it became clear that Trump was going to be the nominee for the republican party. They have focused on Trump's three marriages. They have focused on Trump calling women this or calling women that. And now there's the leaked tape.

And not a single question to Hillary Clinton about her own husband's infidelities nor about documented attempts by Hillary Clinton herself to silence the victims.

Hillary Clinton's own record with regard to women is deplorable and yet no one is reminded of that, no one brings it up—which is especially amazing when stuff like this comes up in regard to Trump. It should. Any reasonable person should conclude that this entire issue is really an issue of the pot calling the kettle black, and if you ask me, the DNC and the media knowing this should steer clear of any mention of any of this sort of thing because under normal circumstances it would be damning because there is enough on the other side to bring up that it would make the entire issue moot to bring up on the Trump side.

Don't fall for it like the media and the DNC are sure you will.

How clear it is that the media and even so many Americans just don't pay attention. Even in the first debate (and even Trump missed the opportunity), while Clinton smugly shirked her shoulders and did some weird little torso dance at the podium saying, "By the time the night is over I suspect I will be blamed for everything," it should have been brought to the fore that that was the excuse made for every single failure of the Obama administration including the failures of Clinton while she was Secretary of State that all of it could be blamed on the mess that George W. Bush left for them all. George W. Bush was blamed for everything. Why didn't anyone bring that up? Why didn't Trump bring that up? Why didn't the American people catch that? Why didn't the media catch that, or the moderator of the debate? Hell, even the pundits didn't catch that.

Don't fall for it!

Look, in no way am I defending anything Trump has said or done during or before the time he was running for president. But clearly there are defenseless things on both sides, and frankly I think the things on the Clinton side are more defenseless—but that may simply be an opinion. So again, why the focus on Donald Trump's statements? Why the focus on Donald Trump's actions? Why can these defenseless acts not be put to bed like they should be by the mere fact that both sides have defenseless things in their bags?

I stand before a man having killed someone. I too killed someone. It is established we're both

murderers. So, logically one should conclude we go on to the next topic. Neither of us can point toward the act of murder because we are both guilty of the same thing. It's moot.

Okay, both sides have horrible records with women. So let's just move on shall we? Let's move on, in fact, to what is important for Christ's sake and not again fall for the tactics employed to skirt the important issues.

What are we going to do about ISIS? What are we going to do with the Iran deal? What are we going to do about jobs? What are we going to do about the economy? What are we going to do about the failures of the Veteran's Administration? What are we going to do about North Korea? How will we address the issue of illegal immigration?

And again, if we fall for it, if we allow the DNC and the media to do it again, we won't hear about these issues and the American people will have effectively been duped yet again. We'll only hear about how bad a guy Trump is while not hearing about how bad a woman Clinton is. How bad her husband was.

The entire thing just irritates the hell out of me because I so badly want to believe that not only are the American people supposed to be smarter than all of this—for crying out loud republicans are supposed to be smarter than all of this. But they're falling for it. So many are falling for it. Smirks on their faces, haha's in their commentaries, I told you so's and innuendos...

Can you not read between the lines? Can you not see past the smoke and mirrors? Are you unable to see the forest for the trees? Are you so easily duped and swindled? My God, if this is so easily accomplished by the DNC and the media—how the hell do you get through life without the wool constantly being pulled out? Do magicians seem like a real thing to you? At this point I swear if the DNC and the media worked hard enough at it you might even believe that world is indeed flat. The DNC and the media is so convinced of your stupidity that they comfortably report it as news that the Syrian conflict, and the greatest threat to national security is absolutely climate change.

That last thing should really allow you to see what's going on here because surely you don't believe that climate change is responsible for a fucking war! Clearly you don't believe that climate change is the greatest threat to national security!

Don't fall for it!

As for the line of questioning we will witness in tonight's debate, of course it will be more of the same. Skirting the issues, focusing on Trump this and Trump that, Clinton smirking and smiling, moderators clearly in the tank for Clinton, and hand selected robots of the DNC and the media who will ignore Clinton and trounce sharply on Trump. And you have a choice when you watch this go down. You can either show your true intelligence and see the writing on the wall...

Or you can fall for it.

And now for something completely different:

Lena Dunham Cries Sexism in Hillary Coverage

Here we fucking go again!!!

Pardon my harsh opening line for this one, but Lena Dunham of HBO series Girls fame, and many others like her mind you, just make my effing blood boil. She is honestly coming out and making her claim that the media coverage of Hillary Clinton is "rabidly sexist." My gosh, they are focusing on her clothing and her personal life? 

In her mind ONLY conservatives or conservative minds can be sexist.

Say nothing of the horrible and totally inappropriate comments that Bill Maher made about Sarah Palin's daughter. And of course Palin herself. And was Lena Dunham around for the entire media circus that surrounded Sarah Palin? 

The focus was on Palin's intelligence (or lack thereof), the way she talked, the fact that she hunted for her food, and the list goes on.

Ms. Dunham, understand that the reason Palin became the darling buffoon for the largely liberal media is two-fold. She was a threat. And she was a woman. And by the way, when Lena Dunham talks about "if we were allowed to talk about male candidates like that, I'd have a fucking field day," it becomes all too clear that she, and those of her ilk, are simply living in the stars somewhere. 

Because male candidates DO get talked about like that all day long, twice on Sundays!

Remember the jokes about George W. Bush? Look at some of the stuff that is being said about Donald Trump for crying out loud. Remember the fat jokes about Christie when he ran in the last race? Do you remember the cartoons of Christie with turkey drums, or perhaps were there some that depicted him actually eating his opposing candidates?

Without sounding sexist myself there is one thing I say to these fucking women who constantly want to play this game. Man up! Suck it up, buttercup. It is what it is, and nobody likes it, but it DOES happen, and let's be real shall we? 

It happens WAY MORE OFTEN to conservatives than it ever happens to liberals.

But there is another thing that typically happens as well in these such matters and that is that more often than not the liberals become crybabies about it, and while conservatives moan a bit—they rarely get their panties all in a bunch. They simply see it for what it is, ridiculousness, and they move on to the more important matters.

Because there really is no point, to my mind, in pointing out the wrongs of the coverage however annoying and unfair it may be—or seem to be—because what does this sort of thing really seek to do? What does it really seek to accomplish? To shift the conversation and hide the facts. That is what it is exactly designed to do. It is designed to focus the watcher, listener, reader, voter on things other than rhetoric, policy, strengths, weaknesses, prowess, ability, lack of ability, or whatever it is that the media wishes to hide from the truth.

When one goes out of their way to call this sort of thing out I think it just goes to show one very important thing to know—the complainers do not know the facts and so rather than dig in and fight back with the truth, they resort to simple name calling. 

Sexist, racist...

And yep. Conservatives sometimes do it too to be fair. Baby killer comes to mind. But again it is less pronounced and less frequent, and often times comes from those on the fringe. 

Let's all take a lesson from the pages of Dragnet screenplays. "All we want are the facts." The rest of it is just crap that doesn't matter, and should be recognized for what it is—unintelligent puerile crap that everyone should simply ignore. We can easily disengage from the childish conversations most teens have. So let's do the same here and understand that "kids will be kids," and meanwhile the rest of us can act like grown ups and have adult conversations.

The Dynamics in 2016 May Be Why Trump Wins

The other day I spoke a little bit about history having a tendency to follow the future when it comes to elections and politics in general, and how I felt that due to some historical and current data it strongly suggests that Hillary Clinton cannot win the upcoming presidential election. I stand by the arguments I made for my case on that. But there is something else that we know about history when it comes to primaries and who ultimately winds up winning nominations; The front runners rarely become the nominee.

I also talked a bit about some changing demographics and dynamics in this election cycle which could have at least some influence on things. For much the same reasons I believe those changing demographics and dynamics hurt Hillary's chances, I think they bolster Trump's.

For all intents and purposes you could say that Hillary Clinton has been the front runner for her party's nomination for at least the past four years and running. Despite her obvious troubles I don't see anyone emerging in the democratic party who stands a chance of unseating her strong lead within her party.

Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee for president without a doubt.

I am beginning to think that when it comes to who the republican nominee will be, it will be Donald Trump. He is going to manage to buck the trend that suggests that someone would ultimately otherwise knock him out of first place. And again, it is that changing demographic and dynamic that will help him maintain his lead. One of the brilliant things Trump has managed to do throughout his campaign, and continues to do to this day, is run against even his own party. He's running as much as an independent as he is running as a republican, and this just happens to be resonating with the electorate—and handily. I think Donald Trump, in many ways, is also managing to do something that any other republican candidate would be hard pressed to do and that is to capture at least a portion of the liberal voting public's interest. I actually believe that Trump can win the majority of the swing vote and take up enough of the democratic vote and ultimately win the White House.

Whether or not you totally agree with the movement of the 99%, and certainly everyone can agree that Donald Trump is certainly not in that majority, the movement did strongly suggest at least the idea that the citizens were becoming more and more dissatisfied with the way of the world. Granted, this anger was directed toward the fat cats. The rich and the powerful. But I think it was also a protest against an establishment that they (the 99% people) felt gave license to the rise of the rich and paved the way for a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Or in this case, the 1% and the rest of us. Trump may well be a part of that 1% the 99%ers hate so much, but he is not a part of the establishment.

Trump may not be for a $15 an hour minimum wage, but he is for restoring the kinds of jobs in the country that will provide a better chance for better wages, and moreover, more opportunities for the average citizen to get a good job that pays well and provides for their families and their basic needs. Even the 99%ers argued that the evildoers of the corporations raped and pilfered not only by becoming rich off the people (their claim, not mine), but they also did it by sending good paying jobs away to places like Mexico and China.

Donald Trump has said he wants to fix that.

Whether it is by design or by default, it seems that Trump is speaking to the masses. He's bucking all of the trends. He takes no prisoners. He draws a hard line in the sand. He has also managed to draw a good many people into the realm of politics who would not otherwise be so inclined. Perhaps it is still too early to draw such conclusions, but with the times being what they are and mindsets in places we haven't seen in our past, there is enough here to strongly suggest politics are out (leaving Hillary out), and anti-establishment in, meaning Trump may enjoy a rather surprise victory. Trump's success may well come partly from a combination of rules, history, and timing. If the dynamics were not what they are, Hillary could certainly have bucked history. Those dynamics are key to understanding exactly why the historical trend may perpetuate even with very different aspects as to why they will, and why perhaps they would not have.

Why Hillary Will Not Win The Election

In the stock market we typically follow the philosophy that past history is not necessarily indicative of future results. But a lot of the time when it comes to presidential elections and politics in general, history can be very telling. Even while there are some changing demographics and of course, different dynamics at play with this upcoming election, there is still enough data among the electorate right now that tend to suggest that history may well be very telling as to whether or not Hillary Clinton can seat herself in the Oval Office.

I am taking the position that Hillary Clinton cannot win, although I am also openly saying that it is too early to firmly stake that claim.

Set aside some of the issues of her political tenure that I think should be enough to preclude her from ever holding an elected office or cabinet position of any kind such as Benghazi, or the email scandal. The question becomes whether or not Americans are satisfied with the current state of the Union, and how they feel about the direction the country is headed.

In a recent Monmouth University poll likely voters were asked whether or not they would vote for Obama for a third term if he was able to run, and only 27% of those polled said yes. 43% said they wanted someone else. With Hillary Clinton not having clearly defined how her presidency would be different than Obama's, and how her candidacy is not necessarily a continuation of the same policies of the Obama administration, this puts her almost in lock-step with Obama. If 43% would be unlikely to vote for Obama, how would they then circle back to Clinton, essentially equating to a third Obama term?

I do not believe that voters will.

Let's not forget that many Americans, even those who typically have supported Obama, are also becoming more aware that perhaps the policies of the Obama administration, for all of the hope and change promised, have simply fallen short. The economic numbers have not improved much. The jobs situation has perhaps seen lower unemployment numbers, but there are still many quality of life issues when it comes to what types of jobs are being filled. Even having more people working means nothing if those jobs aren't helping to dramatically improve anyone's bottom lines. And it would appear that foreign policy has been a disaster at best—and the recent events in France won't help Clinton either—and according to other polls Americans are not exactly convinced that the country is safer today, and many are also considering that the next attack on American soil may just be a matter of time.

History shows that it is extremely rare in any event for one party to maintain the White House for 12 years straight. I do not believe that, despite all of the hype surrounding Obama's two-terms, and any excitement for another historical moment in the making if Hillary makes it to the White House, that there is enough there to provide her an opportunity to buck the trend.

And Hillary is also trailing every single one of the republican candidates, and I think that is quite telling considering who she is ultimately up against. The usual players are not the front runners. Who is leading in nearly every single poll?

The non-establishment. Non-politicians. Non-government.

The numbers alone seem to signal if not for a history repeating shift to the republican party as would otherwise be the case, but a strong and growing dissent and resentment toward the status-quo when it comes to the entire landscape of politics. Hillary is clearly completely immersed in this world that a growing number of Americans are simply tired of. As well, it seems to me that even if you take a look at the small list of democratic candidates, and any enthusiasm that may exist in the democratic side going to just one primary candidate, it begs the question; If the democrats, or any democrat in the party, felt strongly that the Obama presidency was a huge success, would there not be more candidates coming front and center to eagerly make an attempt at continuing the legacy? Enthusiasm can sometimes be defined by who shows up to take a shot, and on the democratic side that number is quite small. This becomes even more glaring when you consider the controversies which have surfaced during Clinton's run. Anyone eager to take up any slack in what would be considered a strong and in-the-bag victory would readily step forward and say, "What about me?"

I think the truth is that Hillary Clinton is not the automatic president everyone seemed to want to suggest she was going to be. That becomes even more clear to me now.

It is still too early to tell as I stated before. But what does seem clear to me is that the republicans have the best shot they have had in a long time to secure a victory, and I would not be at all surprised if that victory doesn't even necessarily go to the republican party even if the future president bears an "R" after their name, but to the non-establishment which just happens to be strongest running on the republican tickets.

I simply feel that history will prevail despite the changing demographics and dynamics of this election, and democrats will not enjoy another four years in the White House. That leaves Hillary out almost indefinitely since Bernie Sanders, her strongest opponent, comes nowhere near the numbers of any of the republican candidates. If Donald Trump is a "long shot," Bernie Sanders is a shot in the dark in comparison.

Whoever wins the White House, rest assured it will not be Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Not Fit To Lead

Soon the presidential election cycle will begin anew, and I think it will be a rather interesting election cycle to watch after what has clearly been a failed Obama presidency. Even people on the far left have to come to grips with the reality that the policies of this president have not worked.

What makes it interesting, in part, is that both sides of the political fence will be contending for their party's nomination. That means many people, both republican and democrat, will be tossing their hat into the ring vying for the top spot. The debates are the most interesting part of the equation for me.

Enter Hillary. Of course, it appears quite evident that not only will Hillary Clinton run for the democratic nomination, based on the hype surrounding her she could even get it. But she is clearly not fit to lead, and the glaring reason for that should be the tragic events that unfolded in Benghazi. If for no other reason, this event and the death of four Americans at her watch, and the fact that she did nothing to stop it, lied to the American people about what happened, and never truly provided answers to Congress when questioned about it, even being quite glib about the whole thing, this should bar her in the eyes of the public from ever holding the highest office in the land.

Still, Americans have been a bit asleep at the wheel, so it is anyone's guess whether Benghazi will have an impact on her chances at all. It certainly did not stop the American people from reelecting Barack Obama, and it well should have.

How to increase earnings at WebAnswers
When angels are not angels
Kicked out of McDonald's