Hillary Won’t Say If She’s Ever Lied To American People

Well, on the bright side, at least she won’t lie about lying. She will dissemble and obfuscate, though

(Daily Caller) During a Thursday interview with CBS’s Scott Pelley, Clinton said, “I don’t believe I ever have” lied to voters.

Pelley began by asking Clinton, “You know in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, ‘I will not lie to you.’”

“Well, I will tell you, I have tried in every way I know how, literally from my years as a young lawyer, all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people,” Clinton claimed.

Pelley replied, “You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?”

“I’ve have always tried to, always, always,” Clinton suggested.

After being asked a third time by Pelley, she went with “You know, you’re asking me to say, ‘Have I ever?’ I don’t believe I ever have… I don’t believe I ever will. I’m going to do the best I can to level with the American people.” The woman is incapable of giving a straight answer, but, hey, she tried to tell the truth. Except for things like

  • Saying Chelsea was jogging around the WTC on 9/11
  • Landing under sniper fire in Bosnia
  • Being dead broke after leaving White House
  • Being part of the Northern Ireland peace process
  • Benghazi

Politifact has a nice long list of Hillary false statements. Her conflicts of interest between her job as Secretary of State and hooking up her Clinton Foundation and her inability to admit it is a lie on her part.

She’s lied about her insecure, home-brew server, which has exposed many of America’s biggest secrets and put people in danger.

Hillary backed Bill’s lies about his sexual assaults on numerous women, and lied about them directly herself.

Her lies go on and on and on. It’s no wonder that only 67% find her trustworthy.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Hillary Won’t Say If She’s Ever Lied To American People »

Pope Francis: Say, That Trump Guy Really Isn’t A Christian

Say, remember all the times Pope Francis has said that people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the majority of the Democratic Party, and Leftists world wide aren’t Christians due to their support for abortion on demand?

(NY Times) Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico.

Perhaps Pope Francis should consider the walls around Vatican City, and tear them down. It’s just absurd to think that wanting to secure the border of the United States against people coming here illegally, some (supposedly) for a better life, others who want to simply take advantage of the country, and others here to be bad people means that Trump is not a Christian. At the end of the day, the only two who can truly judge that are God and Jesus.

Oh, and Pope Francis did discuss abortion (and contraception) in regards to the spread of the Zika virus, totally condemning abortion. Yet, not the people who support and push it.

Anyhow, The Donald responds

If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story – he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.

Personally, I think he should have just gone with the last paragraph, leaving out the first two, and perhaps should have chided the Pontiff, saying how disappointed he was.

Read: Pope Francis: Say, That Trump Guy Really Isn’t A Christian »

If All You See…

…is an evil pool for the 1%ers causing climate change for the rest, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on the Trump clown show.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: Shark Attacks Increasing Because Of ‘Climate Change’

Today’s scaremongering story from the Cult of Climastrology, which would probably be more effective if published in June, rather than February

Shark Attack Numbers Hit Record Heights in 2015; Overpopulation, Climate Change to Blame

Shark hysteria around the globe is reaching an all-time high. It’s like the scene in Jaws where everyone is getting their kids out of the water, screaming and flailing and choking and running. It’s a great scene. It’s not so great in real life. And 2015 now officially holds the record for the most shark attacks in a single year, which is never a good thing for mass hysteria.

According to the International Shark Attack File (ISAF), an organization that’s basically the end-all-be-all of shark encounters around the world, there were 98 unprovoked shark attacks in 2015. The previous record was set back in 2000, when there were 88. Over half of the attacks (59) last year happened in US waters, and 30 of those occurred in Florida. Australia recorded 18 attacks, while South Africa came in at 8–one of which, of course, was broadcast live to the world.

So, what are the causes?

The report from ISAF doesn’t say anything about sharks getting hungrier, or meaner, or more bent on spilling human blood. It does say, however, that there are more of us in the water, which in turn leads to more encounters with sharks. “As world population continues its upsurge and interest in aquatic recreation concurrently rises, we realistically should expect increases in the number of shark attacks and other aquatic recreation-related injuries,” said George Burgess, curator of the ISAF and director of the Florida Program for Shark Research. “In theory, we should see a record number of shark attacks every year, because a shark attack is fundamentally an odd situation that’s built on the number of humans in the water and the number of sharks in the water.”

Shark numbers have increased due to environmental regulations on killing sharks and the aquatic creatures they eat. Of course, Warmists have to bring ‘climate change’ in

But it isn’t just the number of people in the water that led to the record number of attacks. It’s climate change and an exceptionally strong El Nino year, as well. “Since most sharks are warm-water species, they now are covering a wider area than they once did,” Burgess said. “In the summertime, they head farther north or south depending on which hemisphere they are in.”

See? They can’t help themselves.

(Daily News) Sharks that like tropical water, like bull sharks and tiger sharks, have moved beyond the traditional waters of Florida and up the southeastern coast of the United States to the Carolinas, for instance. There, an increase in population has led to more people going in the water from spring to fall, as air temperatures were also warmer in 2015. The combination leads to more potential encounters between sharks and humans and, thus, more attacks, Burgess said.

Two points: first, the horrible shark attacks in New Jersey, 1916, were mostly likely caused by a Bull shark, due to the brackish water in which the initial attacks took place. Few other sharks could survive in that water. Second, none of what they are saying is proof of anthropogenic causation, at least in regards to the climate. Warmer waters and air are simply that: warmer. It doesn’t prove that mankind, via “carbon pollution”, is the cause. As more and more people from the cooler north move to the warmer south, it means more and more people in waters with shark populations, putting them in direct contact. The coast from North Carolina to Florida continues to see population increases, along with people who live inland who travel to the beach.

But, hey, in Warmist world, it must be mostly ‘climate change’. They have to keep the scaremongering strong. I really hope they will stop contributing by jumping in their fossil fueled vehicles for trips to the beach.

Read: Bummer: Shark Attacks Increasing Because Of ‘Climate Change’ »

GOP Opposition To Obama On Supreme Court Racist Or Something

You knew this was coming, right? The appearance of the raaaaacism card was such a sure thing that Vegas wouldn’t set a line. First up, we have Hillary (via Twitchy)

Nice bit of racism from the woman whose campaign started the Birther issue in 2008. And, of course, the NY Times chimes in

Blacks See Bias in Delay on a Scalia Successor

As he left Martha Lou’s Kitchen, a soul food institution here on Wednesday, Edward Gadsden expressed irritation about the Republican determination to block President Obama from selecting Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court.

“They’ve been fighting that man since he’s been there,” Mr. Gadsden, who is African-American, said of Mr. Obama, before pointing at his forearm to explain what he said was driving the Republican opposition: “The color of his skin, that’s all, the color of his skin.” (snip)

After years of watching political opponents question the president’s birthplace and his faith, and hearing a member of Congress shout “You lie!” at him from the House floor, some African-Americans saw the move by Senate Republicans as another attempt to deny the legitimacy of the country’s first black president. And they call it increasingly infuriating after Mr. Obama has spent seven years in the White House and won two resounding election victories.

“Our president, the president of the United States, has been disrespected from Day 1,” Carol Richardson, 61, said on Wednesday as she colored a customer’s hair at Ultra Beauty Salon in Hollywood, S.C., a mostly black town near Charleston. “The words that have been said, the things the Republicans have done they’d have never have done to another president. Let’s talk like it is, it’s because of his skin color.”

Or, it could be, well, it is, opposition to Obama’s uber-leftist, America destroying, enemy loving, economy killing policies and beliefs. Of course, when you have a political Party that has been pushing raaaaacism for decades, trying to keep Blacks voting for them after over a century of being the party of Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings, forced sterilization, and the KKK, you get an atmosphere where everything is seen in terms of raaaaacism. Surprisingly, most see no racism in the Democratic policies which lead to Black on Black violence, low graduation rates, lower than other races earnings, higher incarceration, and so forth, especially in Democratic Party run cities.

“It’s more than a political motive — it has a smell of racism,” said Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“I can tick instance after instance over the last seven years where Republicans have purposely tried to diminish the president’s authority,” Mr. Butterfield said. “This is just really extreme, and leads me to the conclusion that if this was any other president who was not African-American, it would not have been handled this way.”

He sees raaaaacism, we see an out of control authoritarian Progressive. Oh, and hey, did you know opposition to not just this SCOTUS fight, but Obamacare, was racist? So says Solomon Jones at philly.com

THE SUDDEN DEATH of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has again revealed America’s racial divide on the powers of the Presidency.

We initially saw that racial schism during the battle over Obamacare. Though Obama’s landmark legislation was gleaned from a Republican idea that had worked successfully in Massachusetts, the white-male-dominated GOP declared Obama’s signature health-care law a failure before it went into effect. We saw the racial animus again with the fierce resistance to president Obama’s executive orders on immigration – orders that looked very much like those previously implemented by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

He is right, at least in terms of his opening sentence: we do see the racial divide. We see people on one side who are opposed to Obama on policy, and on the other we see people who will place the race card for everything. Which is not surprising during a time period where the president has used his bully pulpit to divide along racial lines rather than the healing he promised.

Read: GOP Opposition To Obama On Supreme Court Racist Or Something »

Cruz Dares Trump To File Suit On Ad

I listened to Trump hold a pity party earlier about how the media, especially Fox News, was being oh-so-mean to him (despite him having been on Fox And Friends this morning, and no meanness involved). Of course, the only one really making threats is Trump, and Cruz has responded in force

(Politico)  Ted Cruz on Wednesday said Donald Trump’s campaign had threatened legal action over a campaign ad. His response: Bring it on.

“Donald, if you want to file a lawsuit challenging this ad, claiming it’s defamation, file the lawsuit,” Cruz told reporters here after playing the ad, which shows clips of Trump espousing more liberal positions on issues like abortion from an interview with Tim Russert more than a decade ago.

Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer and former Texas solicitor general, went on to say he might depose Trump in court himself. And he warned that should Trump proceed, he and his lawyers would be “sanctioned in court for filing frivolous litigation.”

The Right Scoop has video of what he calls “Cruz throwing down the gauntlet.” Trump had a hissy fit back

Trump fired back at Cruz with a sharp statement. “He is a liar and these ads and statements made by Cruz are clearly desperate moves by a guy who is tanking in the polls — watching his campaign go up in flames finally explains Cruz’s logo,” Trump replied in a statement. He went on to pledge, “If I want to bring a lawsuit it would be legitimate. Likewise, if I want to bring the lawsuit regarding Senator Cruz being a natural born Canadian I will do so. Time will tell, Teddy.”

I triple dog dare him. There’s no way someone like Cruz decides to run for POTUS without doing their due diligence on whether he is eligible. I’d also like to see him file the suit on the add, because it would surely highlight all of Trump’s liberal leanings.

Read: Cruz Dares Trump To File Suit On Ad »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful low carbon bike, which Everyone Else should be forced to use instead of fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on Juan Williams ordering a cheeseburger and finding raaaaacism.

Read: If All You See… »

To Solve Hotcoldwetdry, Europeans Need “Profound Lifestyle Changes”

You don’t say

(UK Guardian) European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on the “profound lifestyle changes” required to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.

Sadly, the Guardian doesn’t actually provide a link to that document. It’d be wonderful to read it to see what those “profound lifestyle changes” are, since the Guardian is rather cagey.

The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian. (snip)

“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.”

Negative emissions can refer to carbon capture and storage technology powered by biomass, geo-engineering of the atmosphere and oceans, or CO2 removal that sucks emissions out of the air.

Yet, what of these “profound lifestyle changes”? What are they? It’s very easy to guess, based on what the Cult of Climastrology has been recommending for decades. A higher cost of living, higher energy prices, limiting travel, dietary changes, the Government taking more and more power away from the People and giving it to the government, etc and so forth.

One has to wonder why Warmists are always so cagey and circumspect in regards to their ultimate and ulterior goals.

Read: To Solve Hotcoldwetdry, Europeans Need “Profound Lifestyle Changes” »

Surprise? Obama Misses Deadline For ISIS Strategy

One does have to wonder why anyone would possibly think Obama would be on time for releasing an ISIS strategy. About the only thing he’s ever on time for are non-governmental duties, such as golf outings, fundraisers, and vacations

(Daily Caller) The Obama Administration’s deadline to present a plan to defeat Islamic State to Congress by Feb. 15 has come and gone, with no strategy presented.

The report, which is required by law, is officially passed due, according to a press release by House Committee on Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry . When contacted by The Daily Caller News Foundation about the delivery of the report, committee communications director Claude Chafin actually said he triple checked, and the report had not been delivered.

“Unsurprisingly the Administration cannot articulate a strategy for countering violent extremists in the Middle East,” said Thornberry’s press release. “Time and again, the President has told us his strategy to defeat extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida is well underway; yet, months after the legal requirement was established, his Administration cannot deliver that strategy to Congress.”

The full press release states

“Unsurprisingly the Administration cannot articulate a strategy for countering violent extremists in the Middle East. Time and again, the President has told us his strategy to defeat extremist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda is well underway; yet, months after the legal requirement was established, his Administration cannot deliver that strategy to Congress. I fear the President’s failure to deliver this report says far more about the state of his strategy to defeat terrorists than any empty reassurance he may offer from the podium.

“The Committee is working now to shape the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act and the Pentagon has already begun requesting authorities our troops need to defeat this enemy. Without a strategy, this amounts to leaving our troops in the wilderness with a compass, but no map. Failing to comply with the report deadline represents more than a failure of strategic vision for the White House. It is a lost opportunity for the Administration and Congress to work together on a common approach to face this threat.”

It all goes to show that Obama is less than concerned with fighting ISIS

“I guess President Obama takes his deadlines as seriously as he does his red line,” said Rep. Peter J. Roskam to TheDCNF via email. “I can’t say I’m surprised President Obama still underestimates ISIS or, as he likes to call them, the ‘JV squad.’”

Good thing he wasn’t in California attending fundraisers and playing golf, prior to some “meetings” with Southeast Asia leaders for a bit, since late last week.

Read: Surprise? Obama Misses Deadline For ISIS Strategy »

Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee?

As you remember, close after the death of Justice Scalia, Senate Majority Leader and many others proclaimed that no Obama nominee would be considered. Many Republican supporters were concerned that the elected Republicans in the Senate would backslide. Is this about to happen?

(The Hill) Freshman GOP Sen. Thom Tillis warned Tuesday that his party risks being seen as “obstructionist” in a fight over Supreme Court nominations with President Obama.

The remarks from the North Carolina Republican are the first crack in GOP unity since Saturday’s stunning news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, whose passing has put the tilt of the court in question. Scalia’s successor seems likely to determine whether its majority will lean liberal or conservative.

Republicans are under enormous pressure to block any nominee from Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) quickly put out a statement after Scalia’s death stating that the vacancy should not be filled until a new president takes office.

Yet the GOP also faces enormous risks with its strategy if it turns off independent voters already irritated by Washington’s dysfunction.

Of course, they face enormous risk if they do not block any Obama nominee, and simply rubber stamp the pick. Tillis had this to say right after Scalia’s passing

“We are in midst of a great debate about the future of our country, including the future make-up of the highest court in the land, which makes decisions that affect the lives of all Americans,” Tillis said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the uninhibited expansion of President Obama’s administrative state and his penchant for executive orders that contort the rule of law suggest an utter contempt for our nation’s system of checks and balances.

“It is highly likely that the President will nominate someone who shares his views and will rubber-stamp his unilateral actions, which run counter to the original intent of our Constitution. This is why it is incumbent upon the Senate to assert its co-equal authority in the constitutionally prescribed process of determining the make-up of the highest court. I firmly believe the voice of the American people should be heavily weighted in that decision and their voice will soon be heard on Election Day. Given the current circumstances, the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy would be best left to the next President.”

Then you have this (from the Hill article)

On Tuesday, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) appeared to back away from that position, arguing it was at least possible a hearing could be held on an Obama nominee.

“I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions. … In other words, take it a step at a time,” he told reporters, according to Radio Iowa.

IMO, Republicans shouldn’t have stated that there would be nothing done in the Senate when Obama nominates yet another hardcore Leftist who rules by whim and politics instead of law and the Constitution. Let Obama have his hearings. They can take it very slow during the Judiciary committee and full Senate hearings, and ask questions that expose the person, showing they’re not the right person for the job. Then take a vote and all vote “nay”. That is where concern should be. Will the GOP hold strong in the face of elected Democrats, the White House, and the leftist media putting pressure on the Republican Senators to confirm?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Is The GOP Cracking On A Potential Obama Supreme Court Nominee? »

Pirate's Cove