Young Female Voter Nails Hillary On Benghazi, Server

And Hillary is unable to give more than a typical foolish answer

(Washington Post) The question was just what Hillary Clinton asked for when she came to a small college campus Saturday to directly tackle the exodus of support for her among young voters, many of whom are drawn to opponent Bernie Sanders.

A young woman, speaking slowly, told Clinton she had worked for her in 2008. A smiling Clinton thanked her. But then the woman posed among the toughest challenges anyone has yet put to the former secretary of state. It covered the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Clinton’s watch, and her use of a private email system for her government work.

“I’ve heard your somewhat pat answer,” that other secretaries of state had also used non-government email, the woman said. “But they didn’t have a private server.”

And why, she asked, did Clinton tell her daughter Chelsea Clinton on the night of the Benghazi attacks that they were the work of an al-Qaeda-like group, at a time when the public explanation was that a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islamic video had turned deadly.

The WP says Hillary looked “startled” and went into a long, rambling explanation, sounding very defensive, which included

“When Benghazi happened, it was the fog of war. There was no clear understanding, and there wasn’t for many, many days,” Clinton said. The group that had initially claimed responsibility withdrew that claim a day later, after Clinton had sent the email, she said.

That still doesn’t answer the question as to why she told her daughter (and others) that it was terrorism, then told the public that it was a video that no one had seen. Nor why the intelligence community was saying it was terrorism. Nor why she told others in private days later that it was terrorism, not a video. And she never answered the question on her server (she certainly doesn’t want to make a statement that can be used against her in a courtroom).

“But in the end of the day it was a terrorist attack,” Clinton said. “I wish I could give you an absolute answer,” she added, before posing a question of her own.

“Why is this being used as a great political issue? I really regret it is.”

She regrets that she’s being attacked for her actions and incompetence, not for leaving 4 Americans to die. Once again she attempts to turn the question around.

During much of the rest of the appearance, she played the “I’m a woman so misogyny” card.

As for the “fog of war” answer, well, do we really need a president who is not cool and calm in the face of adversity? One who is unable to answer that “3am call”? She stated Obama wasn’t ready for it, and she was right. She sure seems unable to answer it, and, if she manages to garner the Democratic nomination, she’ll have to answer questions from whoever the Republican nominee is. Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Christie, Fiorina, Carson, all would certainly come after her. Not so sure about Kasich or Bush. But, then, I doubt it will be anyone either than Cruz, Rubio, or Trump. And Hillary will get asked these questions. In public. In debates. And she’ll have to answer them.

Of course, this all supposes she isn’t under indictment by the time the general election period comes around. Not that Democrats will care. They seem not to care about either what happened in Benghazi nor Hillary’s illegalities with her home-brew, insecure server.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Young Female Voter Nails Hillary On Benghazi, Server »

If All You See…

…is a sea that will rise due to Other People driving fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post with proof showing Leftists are bat guano crazy.

Read: If All You See… »

Surprise: German Secret Service Have Received 100 Tips About ISIS Embedded With “Refugees”

This is all working so well. “Refugees”, comprised primarily of young fighting age men, stream into Europe. Idiots get all teary eyed about their plight and welcome them with open arms (but not open homes, because they aren’t that stupid). The refugees sexually abuse and rape women. They deface property. They poop in public pools. They steal. They fight. They cause all sorts of problems. They want the money and welfare and stuff but have no intention of assimilating. Oh, and they bring along hardcore Islamist terrorists

(UK Daily Mail) Germany’s secret service has received more than 100 tip-offs that ISIS militants are hiding out among asylum seekers, it was reported today.

The head of the domestic intelligence agency (BfV), Hans-Georg Maassen, mentioned the figure at a discussion in the Interior Ministry, according to local media.

It comes a day after police conducted raids on suspected Islamist militants at locations across the country, including two refugee centres.

Not all are good tips, but, we know it is just the tip of the iceberg. ISIS and other Islamist groups know that Leftist idiots will do all they can to protect the migrants, no matter how much they sexually assault European citizens. Let’s look at a few other headlines

Liberals should invite these people to stay at their own homes.

Read: Surprise: German Secret Service Have Received 100 Tips About ISIS Embedded With “Refugees” »

Surprise: Obama Has Stock Holdings In Gun Company

Obama is typically referred to as the Gun Salesman Of The Year, and I often wonder in posts whether he has a financial stake in gun companies. Well, it turns out he does

(Reuters) Barack Obama might seem an unlikely investor in the firearms industry. But the U.S. president, a fierce advocate for gun regulation, has money in a pension fund that holds stock in gun and ammunition companies.

Although Obama’s stake is minuscule, worth no more than $30, it reflects a much larger surge of investment.

The president is among millions of Americans buying into gun companies – often unwittingly – as mutual funds have increased such holdings to record levels, according to a Reuters analysis of institutional investment in firearms companies.

OK, let’s be clear and honest: Obama didn’t voluntarily go out and purchase stock in a gun company, and, it does represent a tiny holding. He could, though, easily give up his investment in the pension and invest in ones that do not have gun companies (BTW, why does any elected official have a pension? That’s always annoyed me). More importantly

Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million from $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufacturers with publicly traded shares, Smith & Wesson Corp and Sturm, Ruger & Co . That means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans.

The influx has helped to boost both companies’ shares by more than 750 percent during the Obama presidency; each now has a market value of about $1 billion.

Amazing. Obama and Democrats have railed against guns, and made them and the gun companies more valuable, and more and more funds, pensions, etc., are including gun and ammo companies in their portfolios.

What’s more, many anti-gun Congressional Democrats and anti-gun advocates also have holdings in different funds types that include gun and ammunition companies, many for which they could easily divest and choose other funds. But, they don’t, because these funds have too great a rate of return.

Read: Surprise: Obama Has Stock Holdings In Gun Company »

White House Has Hissy Fit Over GOP Refusal To Discuss Obama’s Worthless Budget

Would it surprise you that Obama actually produced a budget almost on time? It is rather unusual, as he is typically late. He even holds the record for the longest delay among presidents, 98 days. It was due by the previous Monday. Now we get this

(The Hill) White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Friday tore into Republican leaders for their decision to not grant a hearing to President Obama’s budget.

“Maybe they’re taking the Donald Trump approach to debates about the budget — they’re just not going to show up,” Earnest quipped, referring to the presidential frontrunner’s decision to skip last week’s Fox News debate.

Leaders of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) said they would not hold hearings with Shaun Donovan, the White House’s budget director, to review the president’s fiscal 2017 budget.

“I guess the future is pretty dim if you have Republicans in Congress unwilling to even talk about the budget with the White House,” Earnest said Friday.

Spokesweasel Earnest continued whining for quite a bit longer. Perhaps the press should have asked why it will be over a week late.

“It certainly does raise some questions about how serious Republicans actually are about governing the country,” Earnest said.

GOP leaders have previously called Obama’s budgets “not serious,” “irresponsible” and “dead on arrival.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)  called the move “outrageous,” and said it called into doubt the Republicans’ “seriousness about fulfilling their promise to complete a budget process.”

“Never before in modern Congressional history have we seen the Majority declare that it would refuse to extend to the President’s top budget representative the courtesy of a hearing,” Hoyer wrote in a statement.

Huh. That’s quite a bit of whining. Of course, it is all political, as, let’s remember that every time Congress has voted on any Obama budget, it has failed miserably, even when Democrats were in control. The previous one was defeated 413-2, and 98-1 in the Senate, and Democrats have called forcing votes on Obama’s budget recommendations as “stunts”. Let’s also remember that Harry Reid, while still Senate majority leader, refused to even allow a vote on Obama’s budget proposal one year. Obama’s budgets are dead on arrival. They never pass. So, why even bother to discuss them in the first place?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: White House Has Hissy Fit Over GOP Refusal To Discuss Obama’s Worthless Budget »

Bummer: We Now Have To Look Forward To Doom From Killer Robots Along With ‘Climate Change’

First the robots take all the jobs from the minimum wage earners, who then have to suffer out in the scorching heat and bitter cold from too much heat trapping carbon pollution, then the robots rise up and wipe us all out.

Pandemics, killer robots and climate change ‘urgent’ security fears

Killer robots, cyber attacks, Islamic fundamentalism, pandemics and climate change are among the major threats facing modern life.

Those are some of the conclusions in an 80-page report published ahead of the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering of top military thinkers, academics and politicians.

“The conflicts and crises that most preoccupy the world transcend and put into question borders and boundaries to a stunning extent,” write the report’s authors.

Prolonged droughts or fierce storms linked to a warming world are likely to exacerbate instability across Africa, the Middle East and in small island states, they argue.

And then the robots kill everyone. Unless the “extreme weather” makes them all rust. Or they get stuck in the rising seas. Or maybe the totally acidified oceans melt the robots.

I do love how they say things are going to be worse in areas of the world that are typically shitholes because of Hotcoldwetdry. This is the MO of Warmists: everything is either caused by or linked to anthropogenic climate change. I’d recommend reading this article on Sir Karl Popper and the line between science and pseudoscience. I’ll leave you with this one snippet

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory.

OK, one more, regarding whether something is scientific or not

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

I wonder what he would think of ‘climate change’?

Read: Bummer: We Now Have To Look Forward To Doom From Killer Robots Along With ‘Climate Change’ »

If All You See…

…is coffee which will be decimated by too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post noting Hillary lied about her Goldman-Sachs speaking fees.

Read: If All You See… »

Say, What’s Happening With Cimate Change In Super Bowl States?

It’s axiom that almost any occurrence will lead the Cult of Climastrology to interject their idiocy into said subject. In this case, the Super Bowl

(WKYC) How is climate change impacting the home states of Super Bowl teams Broncos and Panthers?

On Sunday, February 7, the Carolina Panthers and the Denver Broncos will hit the field at Levi’s Stadium to go head-to-head in the Super Bowl.

While one of these teams will take home the big trophy, there’s no winner when it comes to the climate change impacts each state is experiencing. Colorado, the home state of the Denver Broncos, is experiencing increases in droughts and wildfires, and decreases in snowpack. North Carolina, the home state of the Carolina Panthers, is experiencing increases in sea level rise, extreme heat, and flooding.

 photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Let’s be clear: there’s no scientific proof that any of those things are happening due to the activities of mankind. For North Carolina, it was a rather boring summer, with only 1 day above 100 here in the Raleigh area, where the average is 5-6. Flooding was less than normal. The only NOAA station with long term data is in Wilmington, which shows 2.1mm per year, which equates to .69 feet over 100 years, less than is expected during a Holocene warm period.

But, Warmists just can’t help themselves.

Read: Say, What’s Happening With Cimate Change In Super Bowl States? »

Trump: Those Who Came To America Legally Are The Backbone Of The Nation

I’m still not a supporter of Donald Trump, and he still hasn’t rescinded his plan for a so-called “touchback” amnesty plan, namely, where illegals would have to briefly leave the USA before coming back for immediate legalization. The first part would probably not happen, the second part would. But, this is a fantastic answer to an illegal alien supporter

(The Hill) Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday drew a stark distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, saying it was legal immigrants who made America great.

Trump responded after a questioner at an Exeter, N.H., rally said illegal immigrants are the “backbone” of America.

“Oh, illegal immigrants are the backbone of our country? I don’t think so, darling,” Trump replied. “I don’t think so. I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. They’re not the backbone.

“Let me just tell you something. Let me just tell you something,” he added. “You know what the backbone of our country [is]? People that came here, and they came here legally — people that came here to this country legally, and they worked their ass off, and they made this country great.”

Trump went on to claim that the woman might be a plant from the Sanders campaign, per the article (and many others) and, a little context is needed. A woman claimed she was from Southern California, and knew lots of people who came to the US illegally. She was questioning Trump’s hardline approach to illegals. She’s the one he accused of being a Sanders plant, and asked if she was a liberal Democrat. It was a second woman, one Lucy Weller, who then said illegal were the backbone of the country. Watch

Read: Trump: Those Who Came To America Legally Are The Backbone Of The Nation »

Obama’s Super Excited To Add A $10 A Barrel Oil Tax

Mr. Obama wants to raise the cost of gasoline, which will negatively affect middle and lower class citizens, in order to fund “green” transportation

(Fox News) President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday — although Republicans were quick to declare the plan “dead on arrival” in Congress.

The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.

Obama is expected to formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. However, the proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.

“Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans. (snip)

The White House claims the added cost of gasoline would incentivize the private sector to reduce the reliance on oil and to increase investment in clean energy technology.

Paul Ryan and other Republican lawmakers should ask Obama why he uses so much fossil fuels in his own life, fuels which he really doesn’t pay for himself. Why does it always seem that “green” energy cannot be developed without generous subsidies, loans that rarely get paid off, straight taxpayer cash giveaways, and regressive taxes? As Eric Worrall notes

Why does the green version of “encouragement” always seem to involve beating ordinary people with price hikes until they comply?

The American Petroleum Institute released a statement, which includes

The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader.” He continued,”On his way out of office, President Obama has now proposed making the United States less competitive.

As noted, this lame-duck proposal from a massive user of fossil fuels will go exactly nowhere, and probably won’t even get a debate. I’d be surprised if Obama sends over more than a short plan on a sticky note to Congress.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama’s Super Excited To Add A $10 A Barrel Oil Tax »

Pirate's Cove