Hillary's New Book "Stronger Together": A Would-be Caesar in a Pantsuit?

Not that I am a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, but the former First Lady and Secretary of State released a new book recently entitled "Stronger Together"; a fanciful trip down "what if" she had won the election and some of her policy decisions would have been . While she really needed to get over the fact that she didn't win and politics is not a static sport, so much of her statements are strictly speculative. Nevertheless, Hillary does go after her Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders, pretty hard even though she helped rig the Primary to ensure that she handily beat the self-defined "democratic socialist".

In addition, even after securing the Primary victory, Clinton and the head of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC, like its counterpart, the RNC, runs the internal party machine), Deborah Wasserman-Schultz worked to keep Sanders' supporters from having any input into the party platform or from voicing their anger over procedures (Wasserman was fired from her position but was immediately hired by the Clinton camp). Ironically, her replacement, Donna Brazile, would be fired too. She was accused of feeding Hillary debate questions prior to a debate with Trump. Although the Sanders' camp would file a class action lawsuit, Federal judge William Zloch, would latter rule that the party could do as it pleased with respect to the primary; even rigging the outcome.

Think about that for just a moment. Let that statement simmer in your mind for just a minute. Bernie Sanders, a duly filed Democrat candidate filed to run in the Democratic Primary. He campaigned hard throughout the United States. Whether you liked his proposed platform or not (and many Millennials did), was denied a fair shot so scared was the Clinton camp and her supporters within the DNC that they were willing to rig specific primaries to ensure that Hillary won, and won big. The hope, of course, was that Sanders would get discouraged and drop out. Sanders didn't, and in fact, his message hit a cord with voters, especially younger voters. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp was hoping (to say the least) that one of the pre-vetted and pre-scripted Republican candidates would finally take out "the circus clown", Donald Trump.

The actions by the DNC, and reaffirmed by a federal judge, is that our votes aren't all that important. The party ultimately decides who it wants and then gets behind that individual. In this case, it was Hillary. In the case of the RNC, they clearly didn't want Trump. However, "The Donald" was clearly the strongest candidate based on his ability to attract crowds to speaking engagements and generate voter turnout. Although the RNC did entertain the idea of throwing out a Trump Primary victory and selecting a candidate through its executive committee (some of you will recall that Mitt Romney offered his "services" while this was being discussed), the RNC decided to hold its nose and allow Trump to become their nominee. Why? Because the Trump camp had dropped several not-so-subtle hints that their candidate would run as third party if the RNC pulled any shenanigans. The RNC knew that given Trump's popularity and ability to self-finance, they simply didn't have a candidate strong enough beat Trump. Besides, a divided conservative ticket would all but guarantee a Clinton victory in November.

It would also convey the message which the Democrats were struggling with, namely, that what the voters wanted didn't count. Both parties had sought to protect the illusion that voters still mattered, even though both parties include the provision in their by-laws to ignore the voting results and select a candidate of their own through the executive committee. Given the mood of the country, this may attract even more support for Trump, while on the Democrat side, they were hoping this would be downplayed. It wasn't, and accordingly, Sander's camp filed suit only to lose as stated before.

On a related matter, one that's sure to play a central role in any story about or by Hillary, is Benghazi. I'm sure everyone knows the story of Benghazi by now. Benghazi has gone down as one the worse attacks on the United States, not because of the number killed (there were four individuals who lost their lives), but because it was one of those situations which should not have happened, both before and the shameful cover-up by the Obama Administration, and especially by the State Department, afterwards. The official line was that it was a unplanned random attack by a small group of Libyans on the American Embassy in Benghazi. What, we were told, raised their ere was an obscure film with a anti-Islamic message. Of course, this was a complete fabrication created by Hillary's staff.

Over time, through bits and pieces, as well as the occasional admission, the public was able to piece together what really happened, despite the efforts of the Obama Administration. We now know for instance, the Hillary had (illegally) authorized gun running through the embassy, which was also done without the knowledge of Ambassador Stevens. The guns, as well as military intelligence reports, were run under the cover of the embassy to aid rebels in Syria and possibly, on to other groups in Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere. We've also learned that the presence of radicalized Muslim fighters had been increasing over the preceding weeks. We learned that the security forces recruited locally were of dubious loyalty and that US personal were unarmed (weapons and ammo were available, however, they had been locked away in a secure vault). Repeated requests for additional security personal were largely ignored or declined by the State Department, as were requested for US personnel to be armed. As for the "obscure movie", it was so obscure that it hadn't even been shown yet. In fact, it had been produced by an independent producer who was strapped for money and was unable to finish the project.

During the attack itself, which lasted approximately seven hours, repeated requests for assistance were denied, including permission to evacuate US embassy personal to a more secure area or to the nearby airport where a charted plane was prepped and ready for takeoff. US military forces were monitoring the situation as well, and despite repeated requests to come to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and other members of his staff, were instructed to stand-down. We've learned since that the Navy had fighter planes fueled and armed and only an hour or less out from Sigonella Italy, as well at bases in Avlano Italy (U.S. Air Force and NATO) and Souda Bay Crete (US Navy).

The Army too had fighters fueled and armed sitting on the runway waiting for permission to launch. At the time of attack, we learned that two CIA operatives at nearby communications station within the embassy did had some light firepower to hold off the attackers briefly. Meanwhile, one of the individuals was "painting" targets in anticipation of a rescue which never came. We have since learned that flying in the vicinity was an AC-130 returning from a mission (an AC-130 is an ultra modern version of what we used to called "Puff the Magic Dragon" AC-47). The pilot had also been monitoring the situation and requested permission to lay down suppression fire until the cavalry came. He too was ordered to leave. In addition, the US had drones flying overhead during the attack. In the end, Ambassador Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods were left to die. Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group 3 and US Army General Carter Ham, Commander of United States African Command, were both relieved of command by President Obama for their insistence on sending a relief operation to the embassy on the recommendation of Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense.

There was obviously so much more to Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State and, of course, to run for President. However, even when taken as a whole, her record isn't great. Something happened to Hillary Clinton since the days when she was a bright idealist; one filled with passion for women's and children's issues; of when she served as an aide on the House Judiciary Committee's Impeach Inquiry Staff during the Watergate Hearings. Somewhere along the way, she was corrupted by the very system she, and other of our generation, sought to change. Her idealism became cynicism and ultimately, perhaps the end really did justifies the means. Perhaps the hand of History will write that Hillary Clinton was another reminder of Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" . I think her book, and any that follows, will be her attempts to rewrite history in order to justify her actions or perhaps her lack of actions not just for posterity's sake as much as for herself. I believe too that it shows how far government has strayed from the ideals of our Founding Fathers.


Sales of Hillary Clinton's New Book Are Off To A Slow Start



Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders



Benghazi: Military Commanders "Relieved of Duty"


Contractors say Clinton State Department silenced them on Benghazi security lapses

The Fall of Obama? / The Christian Exodus

A lot of folks on the Right are chattering about the pending "fall" of the Obama Administration over the Benghazi cover-up affair. Former Presidential candidate, radio and TV host, Mike Huckabee has stated that the Benghazi cover up will do to Obama what Watergate did to Nixon and the Monica Affair almost did to then President Bill Clinton. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has been stumbling all over himself; backtracking and spinning like a top to misdirect, redirect and distance the White House from the whole disaster. Carney has done more tapdancing than Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, and Donald O'Connor combined. But, the cold hard reality is that nothing will become of this American tragedy.

On Wednesday, May 8th, three State Department officers were finally allow to testify before Congress as to exactly what went down on September 11 2012 in Benghazi Libya which resulted in the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. The testimony came amid delays, accusations of harassment, threats, and attempted bribes. The result was a far cry from the official White House line and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23rd. The individuals on the ground in Libya had communicated their mounting concerns over increased Al Qaeda activity; the need for improved security and an evacuation plan. Later, with what would be an 8 hour assault on the compound, requests for assistance were repeated denied. US and allied assets in the region, which clearly could have affected the outcome, were repeatedly told to stand down (this also led to the removal of the two senior commanding officers, General Carter Ham and Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, for refusing to abandon embassy personnel).

We also learned that the official "talking points", which were to be spoon fed to the public, were rewritten 12 times! And that comes after the public was told by the White House that only one word---"embassy"--was replaced. Deleted were references to the type and origin of the assault as well as prior warnings and recommendations (the public was told it was a "spontaneous" riot over an irrelevant movie not even known about in the region, let alone in Benghazi. What we were left with was a cover up to protect an incumbent president running for reelection, a complaisant media, and four dead Americans, including a US Ambassador.

However, will this lead to the fall of the Obama Presidency? The answer is no. Just like Obama declared certain Wall Street companies were "too big to fail" despite gross mismanagement, incompetence, and greed, so too is the Obama Administration too big to fail. The Republicans are often protrayed as the party of big business. But the fact is, the Democrats are just as eaten up by corporate money as the Right. Both political parties are bought and paid for. Americans are given merely the illusion of choice. Right now, the big money needs the Obama Administration in power. Why? Frankly I don't know, and I don't pretend to know the mind of those trying to control and manipulate governments and the world economy. I can guess that whatever it is, it's to their benefit. Perhaps it's a payback for the bailouts. Perhaps its Obama's support of illegal immigration which will help drive down wages and benefits and increase job scarcity.

Still, there's the question of why the Obama Administration wanted all references to Al Qaeda and terrorist activity removed. Perhaps it's because it contradicts White House claims that Al Qaeda is a spent force, or that worldwide terrorism is in decline (which would affect financial markets), or was it because of our "Johnny-come-lately" support for the anti-Kaddafi pro-democratic forces while Moslem extremists were on the spot and successful in hijacking the pro-Democracy moment, just as they did in Egypt and are doing in Syria and will likely do in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. Then again, maybe Obama has another reason not to upset or "offend" Moslem extremist. Perhaps by downplaying their role, we were telescoping our acceptance of the attack as a justifiable (in their eyes) response to the killing of Osama bin Laden and that we would not retaliate. This could also be seen as acknowledging their defacto sphere of influence in the region. Signs of a tiring Empire?

We do know that members of the Obama Administration have met with key media executives (as an aside, David Rhodes, president of CBS, it the brother of Obama's National Security Director, Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in the talking point rewrites Do you think they talked about Benghazi? Yeah, me too). Again, surmising how the Benghazi cover up would be handled, most of the media outlets continue to treat the subject almost as a nonstory; a political ploy; and bury as deeply as they can. Given the media's power to influence public discussion, the support of the financial powerbrokers, the weakness of the GOP, there's little danger the Obama Administration will fall any time soon. What, in fact, may come out of this is a more refined means to manage the media and control how stories are presented to the public. Maybe former Secretary of State Clinton's word to Congress, "What difference does it make how they died" will ring true yet.

Liberal Media Spin Benghazi Scandal to Protect Team Obama
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/09/liberal-media-spin-benghazi-scandal-to-protect-team-obama/

Mike Huckabee predicts President Obama will resign
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/war-terror/mike-huckabee-predicts-president-obama-will-resign-over

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions Scrubbed of Terrorist References
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

CBS New President Brother of Obama National Security Official
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/11/Brother-top-Obama-Offical-Oust-Sharyl-Attkisson


The Christian Exodus

I came across an interesting story, which surprised me, not because of the content, but because of its implications and the fact the story has received virtually no mainstream coverage. The story relates how Christians in predominately Moslem nations are not just being actively harassed, but brutalized and even murdered with, at the very least, the knowledge of their governments.
Why is that? We all know the history of animosity between certain Moslem groups and Jews, especially those Jews who support the existence of Israel (the so-called "Zionists"). A few may know about the equally vindictive hatred between these same extremist Moslem groups and Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention the native religions in various other places, such as Africa and Southeast Asia, where Islam is spreading.

But this is something new. For centuries Christians (mainly Eastern Orthodox), have lived a relatively peaceful existence in places like Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, and Libya (which, by the way, continue to receive billions in US and Western aid). Now, Christians of all stripe have become the targets of an emerging hatred which has resulted in beatings, rapes, arson, gang violence, bombing of churches, and more recently, mass murder, including beheadings of ministers. Any action---a single word or perceived expression---can incite riots. To be seen reading a bible in public is to invite beatings. To hold a private bible study in one's own home can result in the home being burned down, sometimes with the occupants still inside. It recently came to light that Moslems extremists were kidnapping young pre or early teenage Christian girls and forcefully converting them to Islam, then shipping them off to other parts of the country or overseas into forced servitude, prostitution, marriages, which are often to men many times older and abusive. It was recently revealed that a terrorist ring plotting the assassination the head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew, was broken up in Turkey, a secular but increasing theocratic nation.

Many have been forced from their homes. In Egypt alone, over 100,000 Coptic Christians, have been forced to leave. In Mali, 200,000 have fled. In European nation of Bosnia, over 200,000 have fled. But nothing is being done. There is little to no international outcry, although not for lack of effort. No action from the United Nations (where countries like Iran have a seat on Human Rights Council) is expected. Their voices are ignored in the name of "multiculturalism", and appeasement.

In Europe, where churches are closing because of a decades of decline in attendance, in part from a "pew tax", the request for permits to build new mosques, or convert former churches, are on the rise. While there has been some clashes, where the Christian community and various EU governments have been overwhelmingly accepting, none have come anywhere close to level violence Christians are experiencing. One would expect similar treatment from a faith which calls itself a "religion of peace".

Mass Exodus of Christians from Muslim World
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/07/mass-exodus-christians-from-muslim-world/

Turkey uncovers alleged plot to kill Orthodox Patriarch
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2013/05/turkey-uncovers-alleged-plot-to-kill-orthodox-patriarch/

Islam the Religion of Europe
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1536/islam-religion-of-europe

The Quiet War

Our government, and indeed, most Americans just don't get it. I don't know if it's political correctness. Blind ignorance. Short attention span. Perhaps it's just plain laziness. It was announced today that there was another attack resulting in the death of six Americans, including another US diplomat, 25 year old Anne Smedinghoff, described as being "idealistic". Ms Smedinghoff was serving as an aide to Secretary of State, John "Fast Boat" Kerry. The murder, carried out by the Taliban, took place in Afghanistan where Ms. Smedinghoff was overseeing a program for the distribution of books for children. Apparently the Taliban are deeply afraid of not just women, especially in leadership positions, but also of books. Perhaps instead of bombing them, we should have just drop books.

Sadly, Ms. Smedinghoff's murder follows Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens who was murdered by Muslim terrorists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The Obama Administration nixed the rescue of Stevens and three other Americans. The subsequent investigation showed a clear cover-up by the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, and the Obama Administration.

Regardless, there has been marked increase in deaths of US soldiers and civilians by the hands of Iraqi and Afghan troops; the very people we've trained and who are supposed to be our allies. Already, US personnel are cautioned against speaking ill of Islam or the Taliban or Al Qaida or any of their leaders,or any perceived desecration of the Koran. US personnel are not to make comments, facial expressions or anything to offend the locals even when it comes to women or child abuse (that includes rape and pedophilia). Religious expression, such as openly reading a bible or displaying a cross or Star of David, are taboo. Women have to be especially careful with respect to their appearance and in their dealings with the local leaders, who are always men. There's been a low key approach when it comes to education, especially of women or girls (some of whom have been beaten, raped, had acid thrown on them, or shot while their families either do nothing or actively participate).

Conflict between Islam and the other two great regional religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, have been going on for centuries, including the destruction of ancient Buddhist monuments, but the level of violence has again been on the increase, not just in the region around India, but also in parts of Nepal, Tibet, China, and Indonesia. In India, there two terrorist attacks in the city of Hyderabad, one in 2008 and the other just recently on February 21, resulting in the deaths of 40 people while in New Delhi there was a bomb blast in September 2011 killing 13. China saw a terrorist attack in the Xinjiang Province killing 13 and wounding 13 just days before the 2008 Beijing Olympics started. More recent attacks occurred in 2010 and 2011.

In Egypt, since the election of extremist Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic Christians, who had, for centuries, lived in relative peace, have now come under violent assault with Copt Christian Churches being burned; destruction of Coptic Bible, brutal beatings, rapes, and murders. More recently, young daughters of Coptic Christians are being kidnapped and forcefully converted to Islam and then shipped off to arranged marriages in various parts of the Islamic world, never to be heard from again (and please recall, these marriages can to be to all male regardless of age. In fact, many older men, prefer young "virgin" girls). This kidnapping and statutory rape, of course, isn't limited just to Christian girls, some as young as 9 years old.

This trend, however, is not limited to just the Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the Middle East. It has spread to Europe, which has tripled in the last 30 years to 44.1 million (as of 2010) and shows no signs of either slowing or assimilating. Since the cowardly attack on America on 9/11, the Moslem population in the US has increased 67% with 2.1 million. So, what's going on here? Why is this happening?
Simply put, there is a war going on here. It's not entirely a war of land or resources, although that's part it. It's a war of ideology; of religion. It's a conquest if you will by numbers. It's overrunning the economic system of the host country until it's weaken to the point where it can no longer support the population; where the military is weakened to the point where it's exhausted and bleed dry. It's increasing the population to the point where it can, at first, stop "asking" and start "demanding"; where it goes influencing policy to making policy. Not only does Washington fail to grasp this simple concept, but it would seem neither does the heads of the European Union or other nations like India, which happens to be the world's largest democracy; something radical Islam violently opposes. So, what does this bode for America, and indeed, the West, as well as well as other nations like India and China?

Let's start with the latter two first. Both nations contain the majority of the world's population and either could withstand any onslaught, be it military, economic, or ideological. Granted, both China's and India's populations have dropped somewhat, the decline is relative. China still has 1.34 billion people while India has 1.2 billion. However, any pseuo-economic/religious/political/military conflict could, and probably will, result a very long and bloody struggle with hundreds of millions dead. The West, and that includes the United States, could face a very different fate. Neither have substantial populations in light to the increasing birthrates of immigrant Muslims and the declining birthrates of their host nations. Europe will likely succumb to Islam in the not too distant future. Russia, given its vastness, may survive a bit longer, but to faces a declining birthrates while the surrounding former client states, which are dominantly Muslim, continues to increase. In Israel, Palestinian birthrates far exceed Israeli, 2.6 to 1.7. Therefore, even if Israel maintains its current policy of expanding settlements, in the long run, it will fail unless it allows for the creation of a separate Palestinian state in order to maintain a Jewish majority.

As for America (and that includes Canada), the domestic birthrates also continue to decline while immigrant, including Moslem, increases. In the US, which has seen a massive influx of illegal immigrants (as much as 12 million), mostly from Latin America, which also has a high birthrate, may...just may...offset. When you consider that most of these are Catholic, America may be the last Citadel of Christianly left, albeit not the one we currently know.



American Diplomat Killed in Attack

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/anne-smedinghoff-amercian-diplomat-killed-afghanistan_n_3033074.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D294795

The future of the global Muslim Population in regional Europe

http://www.pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx

Muslim Europe: The demographic time bomb transforming our continent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

Why demographics are still a concern for some Israeli Jews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/01/why-demographics-are-still-a-concern-for-some-israeli-jews/