Saturday, October 8, 2016

So Apparently Bill Went Around Telling His Mistresses Hillary Was a Lesbian!

The Daily Wire ^ | February 17, 2016 | Amanda Prestigiacomo 

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been hounded by rumors that their marriage is nothing but an arrangement set up by two power-hungry budding politicians with big dreams. Rumors have even floated around the idea that the former First Lady is, in fact, a lesbian.
Possibly adding some credence to these rumors, two former mistresses of Bill Clinton, Sally Miller and Gennifer Flowers, have claimed that Mr. Clinton told the ladies that Hillary is a lesbian who apparently ate “more p***y” than he did.
On Tuesday, former Miss Arkansas Sally Miller claimed that Bill told her about Hillary’s preferences during their 1983 affair while Mr. Clinton was Governor of Arkansas.
“Hillary is a lesbian,” Miller bluntly told the Daily Mail.
“Let's just get down to the facts,” Miller added. “Firstly, Bill didn't mind telling me that Hillary doesn't like sex.”
Continuing, Miller said, “I take him at his word and he told me she liked females more than men. She was the child of a more progressive community. She was exposed to all the liberals, she was a flower child.”
“Hillary does drugs too, that's the only time that she would entertain the idea - again, this is what Bill told me,” she added.
In a 2013 interview with the Daily Mail, Flowers said that the Clinton’s marriage was far from “traditional,” adding that she was not surprised by the rumors between Hillary and her then-transition office chief, Huma Abedin.
“I don’t know Huma or the Weiners. I just know what Bill told me and that was that he was aware that Hillary was bisexual and he didn’t care. He should know,” said Flowers.
“He said Hillary had eaten more p***y than he had,” she added.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Clinton and Democrats Are So Keen on Early Voting

American Thinker ^ | October 8, 2016 | Ed Lasky 

Democrats are out in force to ensure their supporters vote early. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook boasted that he had hopes to build an insurmountable lead in early voting in key battleground states that will cut off any viable path for Donald Trump to become president, according to The Hill:

Nevada, North Carolina and Florida could all be decided before Election Day because of historic spikes in early voting, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Thursday."We are encouraging supporters to cast their vote early because it is possible ... that we could build an insurmountable lead in those key states before Election Day," Mook said on a press call with reporters.
Wins in those three states would make it very difficult to imagine an Electoral College scenario in which Trump, the Republican nominee, would win the White House.
Victories in North Carolina, which Republican Mitt Romney won in 2012, and Florida are especially important.
Mook estimated that 40 percent of votes in those battleground states could be cast before Election Day.
"So that's why we're not just encouraging everyone to vote and to make sure they vote, but to take advantage of early voting," he said.
For example, 2.7 million Floridians have already requested to vote by mail, compared to the 1.8 million who have done so at the same time of the 2012 election cycle.
Despite claims by Democrats about the importance of informed voters, the party seems to be making a concerted and very expensive effort to get people to vote as early as the various states’ laws allow them.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Clintons playing prude the height of hypocrisy!

Boston Herald ^ | October 8, 2016 | Adriana Cohen 

But now we have the Clinton camp — and the media who carry water for the Democrats — feigning outrage over Trump’s private comments, comments he made more than a decade ago.

Consider Hillary’s unspeakable hypocrisy in light of her own husband’s wandering ways, and the sexting shenanigans of her best friend Huma Abedin’s hubby, Anthony Weiner.
Donald Trump is not a Boy Scout. If that’s what Americans were looking for they could have elected Mitt Romney in 2012. But they didn’t, proving these latest attacks are nothing more than slimy political theater.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong!

Telegraph UK ^ | October 8, 2016 | Sarah Knapton 

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.
Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.
Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.
As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.
Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.
For the month of September overall, there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show. This amounts to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice, making the month only the fifth lowest since records began.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Leaked emails appear to show Clinton campaign illegally coordinating with Soros

Hot ^ | October 8, 2016 | JAZZ SHAW 

You wouldn’t know it from the cable news crapstorm currently going on over Donald Trump’s 2006 bus ride with Billy Bush, but there was another Wikileaks document drop yesterday. While there’s plenty of material to dig through, the Daily Caller almost immediately highlightedone item which could involve a violation of the law on the part of the Clinton campaign. Super PACs and other outside groups spending big money on political advertising aren’t supposed to be coordinating with the campaigns they support, but at least one email exchange between Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and an organization run by Democrat super-donor George Soros clearly seems to show just such joint planning taking place.
The group is the Open Society Foundations (OSF) which is directly financed and directed by Soros, and they are working on various Social Justice Warrior issues such as “reforming” the nation’s police in support of Black Lives Matter. In the leaked exchange between Podesta and Chris Stone, the president of OSF, we see what looks to be obvious message coordination.
A December 2015 email exchange between Podesta and OSF president Chris Stone was included in the batch of Podesta’s emails released by WikiLeaks on Friday.
“Hi, John. Your policy team was asking me for ideas on police reform a couple of months ago. Here’s a concrete idea I’ve written up, and a good hook for it in Chicago,” Stone wrote.
Stone attached to the email an article he wrote that advocated putting federally-funded bureaucrats in charge of police oversight.
“Thanks Chris. Will circulate. Hope all is well,” Podesta replied.
Is this the sort of thing that anyone will notice, say nothing of bring before the FEC in the midst of such a chaotic election cycle? Proving any sort of illegal coordination between PACs and campaigns is widely acknowledged as being notoriously difficult and the FEC rarely even tries to go after anyone. But that doesn’t mean that it never happens. One case which was successfully prosecuted involved the 2006 race of Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz of Michigan, and the evidence the FEC cited looks suspiciously similar to what’s been revealed here. (Center for Public Integrity, emphasis added)
The most recent FEC investigation regarding coordination was settled in May 2009 and involved the election committee of former Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., and the Republican Main Street Partnership PAC.
The FEC uncovered emails spanning six months in 2006 between members of the PAC and the Schwarz campaign. One email revealed Schwarz campaign director Matt Marsden had contacted the PAC’s treasurer with a suggestion for a radio ad on behalf of Schwarz. One week later, two radio stations ran ads following the theme the Schwarz director suggested. Other emails revealed Schwarz staffers recommended which radio stations the PAC should target.
Unfortunately, the Schwarz case highlights how sketchy (and virtually pointless) some of these campaign finance laws are. This was a situation where they had emails in hand showing the coordination (much as we seem to have with Podesta and OSF now) and it still took the FEC three years to make their way though the case. And in the end they handed down a $2,500 fine to the campaign and that was the end of it. The Clinton team could cover a fine like that out of their donut and coffee fund for one campaign office.
Of course, coordination between campaigns and big money groups is one of those dirty little “open secrets” which everyone knows about but rarely discusses. Who knows what goes on during private phone calls and email exchanges unless a leak like this takes place? And even when you find out, it’s too easy to simply say that the campaign was just hitting a hot topic which much of the country was already talking about anyway. In the end, I don’t know if this is more of a signal that Clinton’s campaign should be prosecuted or that we should just abandon these silly rules once and for all.
Hillary press conference

PUSSYGATE: Horrors! Trump Caught in Guy Talk!

Dan Miller's Blog ^ | October 8, 2016 | Dan Miller 

The left apparently believes that the Trump campaign must end in disgrace because, in 2005, Trump was recorded (apparently surreptitiously) bragging in a private conversation with George H.W. Bush's nephew, Billy Bush, about how he tried (but failed) to get a Hollywood starlet to have sex with him. For shame! Wait a minute. That's "guy talk" and most healthy males occasionally engage in it when not in mixed company. Methinks I smell a bit of hypocrisy.
"Girl talk?" I don't know. Do they discuss how sexy voting should be?
Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bill Clinton's "alleged" rape victims, had this to say about Trump's words:

“How many times must it be said,” she tweeted Saturday morning.“Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! (Hillary Clinton) threatened me after (Bill Clinton) raped me.”
Broaddrick’s dose of perspective comes as the mainstream media has been silent and uninterested in the ongoing accusations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s attempts to silence his accusers.
But in the last 24 hours, they’ve reported ad nauseam about Trump’s 2005 locker room talk caught on a hot mic.
I agree with this statement in an article at Kingsjester's Blog:

This has to be one of the biggest exercises in hypocrisy that I have ever seen.Modern American Liberals are the same ones who brought us a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it, applauding them both as avant-garde art and the “artists” who created those vile exhibits as “artistic geniuses”.
The same followers of the political philosophy who have been supporters  of relative morality and situational ethics, are now acting so grossly offended by an 11-year-old video of Donald J.Trump engaging in a private conversation with a friend, in which he used a word that can be heard in every men’s and boys’ locker room across this nation, that they are curled up in their safe spaces, clutching their pearls and their blankie, sucking their thumbs, and crying out for their Mommy to “make the bad man stop”. [Emphasis added.]
The overwhelming hypocrisy of it all is that they want Americans to be so reviled by Donald Trump’s use of that word that they overlook the documented fact that Bill Clinton is a Serial Adulterer and that Hillary Clinton swears like a drunken sailor and has admitted in documents released by Julian Assange yesterday that she is “far removed from the troubles of Middle Class Americans”. [Emphasis added.]
I stole this cartoon from that article, and it fits:
I also agree with this article at Canada Free Press titled Liberals are Prudes -- Who Knew?

Recently much ado has been made of some crude comments that Donald Trump made some years back.  Media mavens are all aflutter with outraged disgust.  I do not know what convent these shocked sisters came from, but I have heard similar male braggadocio my entire adult life.  Perhaps they need to get out more. [Emphasis added.]Apparently many of the pundits we watch on TV have been closet Puritans all this time – who knew?  Many of them are the same ones that informed us that displaying Christ crucified in a jar of human urine is art; that murdering fetuses in order to harvest their organs is not obscene, and who insist that our children be taught the ins and outs of fornication at younger and younger ages (pun noted)—so one can be forgiven for being somewhat surprised by their air of affronted prudery.  Poor dears, one does wish them a speedy recovery – hand out the smelling salts please.
So Donald Trump has feet of clay—guess what?  I like him that way! I am so sick of polished, slick talking, glad-handing, backstabbing, dishonest corrupt politicians that I could scream.  I’ll take the real deal—I’ll take Trump with his rough edges and sharp elbows, warts and all, over any of the oh-so-refined thoroughly corrupt bought-and-paid-for globalists being shoved down our throats.  Now they are disgusting.
Trump's "nasty" talk was hardly unique. Here are some audio cuts of former presidents, and even the current president for whom Ms. Dunham thought voting for would be sexy, being "nasty:"
In one of his many addresses to his troops during World War II, General George Patton commented that "a man who won't f**k won't fight." The quote is from a 2011 Washington Post article titled "No sex, please. We're soldiers." That address, like many of General Patton's others, was well laced with profanity; it helped to motivate the troops and they loved it. Would today's "metrosexuals?" They would not likely admit it even if they did.

Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent. "But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did". The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!"The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!
"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.
. . . .
He could, when necessary, open up with both barrels and let forth such blue-flamed phrases that they seemed almost eloquent in their delivery. When asked by his nephew about his profanity, Patton remarked, "When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag." [Emphasis added.]
I remember that many years ago (1959 or 1960) when I was in ROTC at Yale -- then an all-male college -- an instructor (an Army captain) mentioned that he hadn't seen one of the cadets with his date much over the weekend. The cadet responded, "even the best ***** gets moldy." We all laughed.
From the Washington Post article linked above,

As late as the 1980s, officers' clubs on military bases in the United States and abroad regularly featured performances by strippers. "I think we used to call them exotic dancers," Scales recalled.
Some things have changed in our current enlightened age. Obama is gung-ho for diversity in the military and wants as many women and "others" as possible in combat branches. While the left still praises "art" such as "a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it," it finds guy talk and cartoons depicting Mohammad disgusting.
Paul Ryan was apparently "sickened" by Trump's remarks.

He decried Trump’s newly revealed comments in stark terms.“I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”
Congressman Ryan must be "sickened" quite easily, but then perhaps there was never any guy talk in his presence, lest he "sicken." Assuming that many others also are unaware that men engage in guy talk when women are absent and find Trump's insulting comments outrageous, perhaps they should keep in mind that he is an equal opportunity insulter. Although he does not likely engage in guy talk with women and does not have sex with men, otherwise he treats men and women the same.
Leftists insist that we be politically correct and say nothing that they find offensive  -- No cartoons depicting Mohammad, no disparaging references to Sharia law, Islamist persecution of non-Muslims, sex slaves and even Muslim females, no "racist" comments that "Black Lives Matter" is racist, and no opposition to uncontrolled, unvetted immigration and resettlement of refugees from Islamic areas where Sharia law and Islamist violence are endemic. And, of course, there must be no mention of Hillary's many lies, her corruption, the Clinton Foundation, or her foul treatment of Bill's bimbos. That would be "sexist" or something. Boo hoo.

What if She Loses? If Hillary loses the election, the Democratic Party is in big trouble!

US News & World Report ^ | October 7, 2016 | Mary Kate Cary, Contributing Editor 

For the last year, all eyes have been focused on the future of the Republican Party. Pundits love to talk about the collapse of the party, the fractures between social and fiscal conservatives, the number of party leaders who say they will not vote for the GOP nominee and what the party will do to rebuild the day after the election – in the wake of what the media now believes will be the defeat of Donald Trump.

But here's what no one is talking about – the one awkward subject that will stop a Washington dinner party cold and send guests into stunned silence – and that is, what if Hillary Clinton loses the election? Right now, it looks like the GOP will hold the House, and my U.S. News colleague Joseph Williams wrote recently that there are growing predictions Republicans will hold the Senate as well. If the Republicans sweep the House, the Senate and the White House, the Democratic Party will implode....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Judicial Watch: Federal Contractor Tells Local Official to Keep Syria Refugee Plans Secret ^ | Oct. 7, 2016 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 128 pages of documents it obtained from the mayor of Rutland, Vermont, showing a concerted effort by the mayor and a number of private organizations to conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the small southern Vermont town.

The documents include an April 14, 2016, email from Amila Merdzanovic, executive director of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, to Mayor Christopher Louras, in which she wrote:

I want to share with you the concern my HQ has about holding a public forum. If we open it up to anybody and everybody, all sorts of people will come out of woodwork. Anti-immigrant, anti-anything. They suggest that the forum be invite only but make it as wide as possible. Work with faith leaders, United Way, etc… Perhaps, we could go back to the Congregational Church and continue the conversation there.

The mayor and resettlement organizations shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town’s aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors. The aldermen eventually wrote to the U.S. Department of State protesting the plan and opened an investigation into the mayor’s actions. The State Department has not yet ruled on whether it will resettle refugees in Rutland despite the aldermen’s protest.

Handwritten notes state that the issue was, “Not what can ‘we’ do for ‘them,’ but what the diversity, cultural richness do for the community.” The documents contain detailed discussions of what Rutland will need to provide for the refugees – including housing, jobs, medical care, and places for worship.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Faces Boycott After Endorsing Black Lives Matter

Big Hollywood ^ | 7 Oct 2016 | Jerome Hudson 

Socially conscious ice cream company Ben & Jerry’s faces calls for a boycott after the company announced its support for the Black Lives Matter protest movement this week. “Systemic and institutionalized racism are the defining civil rights issues of our time,” the Vermont-based company said in a statement. “We’ve come to understand that to be silent about the violence and threats to the lives and well-being of black people is to be complicit in that violence and those threats.”
Sending a pointed message to its detractors, Ben and Jerry’s said: “All lives do matter. But all lives will not matter until black lives matter.”
The company posted its support for Black Lives Matter on Facebook and Twitter.
The company added that it does not place blame for racism against the black community on individual police officers.
Rather, we believe it is due to the systemic racism built into the fabric of our institutions at every level, disadvantaging and discriminating against people of color in ways that go beyond individual intent to discriminate. For this reason, we are not pointing fingers at individuals; we are instead urging us to come together to better our society and institutions so that we may finally fulfill the founding promise of this country: to be a country with dignity and justice for all.
In May, the company announced that proceeds from its new flavor of ice cream, “Empower Mint,” would help benefit the North Carolina NAACP’s campaign to repeal the state’s voter ID law.
The company has previously released ice cream flavors in support of same-sex marriage equality and climate change. Company co-founders Jerry Greenfield and Ben Cohen have also come out in support of the Iran nuclear deal.
But after backing Black Lives Matter, the online backlash against the ice cream-making duo is mounting.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Canada Free Press ^ | 10/07/16 | Jeffrey A. Friedberg 

These are jes’ plain, ole, ordinary, good-time folks who just want to integrate, become good Americans, work, read something other than their One Book, and fight alongside our variegated forces, for truth, justice, and the American way

It’s no secret these alleged murderers (I have to say “alleged”) want to kill us, destroy all other religions, obliterate western civilization, and impose a purported barbarous, primitive, vicious, seventh century tribal rule of Shariah Law upon the civilized world.

Reminder: Billy Bush is Jeb Bush’s Cousin (So-called "scandal")

The Wrap ^ | October 7, 2016 | Rosemary Rossi 

Just imagine if Billy Bush had remembered his talk with Donald Trump in time to help Jeb

Donald Trump’s lewd 2005 talk with Billy Bush — in which he talked about getting away with groping women because he is “a star” — isn’t going to help his presidential campaign.
Just imagine if anyone had discovered it in the primaries, when Trump easily outmaneuvered ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by calling him “low-energy.” It might have buried the Trump candidacy before Trump won the nomination.
Adding insult to Jeb’s injury: Billy Bush is his cousin.
Rather than sticking up for Billy, Jeb used the scandal as a chance to make a dig at Trump, tweeting after the tape was released: “As the grandfather of two precious girls, I find that no apology can excuse away Donald Trump’s reprehensible comments degrading women,” he wrote in a tweet that Hillary Clinton then retweeted.


Meanwhile, CBS managing editor for politics Will Rahn took to Twitter to imagine an awkward moment at the Bush compound:

In a conversation released Friday, Trump boasted about groping women, saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do anything.”
“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet,” Trump told Billy Bush, the “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush in a conversation that was caught on a hot mic.
“I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said. “Grab ‘em by the pussy.”

FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe!

New York POST ^ | 10/7/2016 | By Paul Sperry 

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

State Department Sued Over Collusion with Clinton Foundation

WND ^ | Oct. 6, 2016 | Bob Unruh 

Questions 'involve potential pay-for-play corruption at highest levels of government.

A lawsuit has been filed against the State Department demanding information about its cooperation with the Clinton Foundation, as “pay-for-play” allegations swirl around the Democratic candidate and the possibility a Hillary Clinton victory could embroil the presidency in the same activities.
“Answers to these questions are extremely important to the American people, as they involve potential pay-for-play corruption at the highest levels of government. Furthermore, it is critical that government officials, at every level, know that they are not above the law – they are accountable to the people,” the American Center for Law and Justice explained.
ACLJ previously filed several lawsuits over the State Department’s failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, and the latest “ratchets up our litigation efforts against the Obama administration by asking the federal district court in Washington, D.C., to deal with the administration’s pattern and practice of flouting the law.”
“It’s no longer just about getting the records and the truth. We are fighting back against repeated and unabashed lawlessness. We’re now demanding that our federal judiciary get to the core of the problem here – where the Obama administration claims openness and transparency, it continues to practice a pattern of lawless corruption,” the group said.
ACLJ said the information already obtained raises more questions.
Now more than ever, Bill and Hill are “Partners in Crime.” Jerome Corsi reveals “The Clintons’ scheme to monetize the White House for personal profit.” . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Tweets Out Attack Against Trump For “Horrific” Comment, Backfires Immediately!

Young Conservatives ^ | 10/7/2016 | Andrew Mark Miller 

Hillary Clinton has absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to defending women.

Her husband was accused of rape, sexual misconduct by many women, and of course we all know how he preyed on that one young White House intern.

He’s a really bad guy.

But Hillary thought it would be a good idea to go after Trump for misogyny.

It didn’t work out so well.

"This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president." - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 7, 2016

Wow. Bold move.

What did Twitter have to say?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Is the Era of Polling Over? Time and time again, pollsters are getting it wrong!

The Observer ^ | October 7, 2016 | Ashe Schow 

The downturn in the accuracy of polling seems to have picked up steam in 2012, after major pollsters Rasmussen (which is right-leaning) and Gallup (which is not) showed that Republican challenger Mitt Romney would best incumbent President Barack Obama.

Obviously, Romney did not win, and Gallup ended up holding a news conference about the errors in its polling and correcting its methodology. Gallup listed four reasons why its polls were so wrong, including the way it weighted white respondents and categorized likely voters.

Not every pollster was wrong about the 2012 election. The Real Clear Politics average ended up being accurate and Public Policy Polling, a liberal firm, was actually the most accurate pollster of the election....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Hillary's record on Libya is even worse than you think

Fox News ^ | 6 Oct, 2016 | Michael Flynn 

But new evidence -- and a review of the public record -- reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.

A recent report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on "inaccurate intelligence" and "erroneous assumptions." Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element," and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the "growth of ISIL" in North Africa.
However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya.
False pretenses
The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses.....
Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011.
The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


 by pacificus

I have a 9 year old daughter whom Ive been closely safeguarding from the horrors of the modern world. Beheadings at the hands of isis, mothers being fed their own children, christians being raped and murdered for their faith, drug cartels infiltrating our sovereign borders with the goal of poisoning and murdering our vulnerable youth.

Yet we still turn and run when the democrats who openly vilolate us law accuse us of rudeness? I am telling my daughter, who plays' sports, that this is just a strategy designed to drive a wedge between decent people. She understands, girls her age have said horribly rude and insulting things to her face, in order to undermine her resolve, but she never takes to bait, and plays stronger and harder as a result.

So I ask all of you readers, do you have less resolve in our cause than my 9 year old daughter? She wants to see Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States of America. What say you!?!

Clintons Mock Trump's Lewd Conversation from 2005

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 9 Oct 2016 | John Semmens 

A Washington Post story about a lewd conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush of "Access Hollywood" in 2005 was viewed with scorn and derision by both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Bill homed in on Trump's description of his attempt to seduce a woman by offering to buy her furniture. "What kind of a loser has to stoop so low to garner the attentions of a woman?" he asked. "On top of that Trump admits that he failed to achieve his objective. Kissinger was the one who had it right—power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Maybe if Trump had been a governor or president he would've had better luck."
Hillary cited the crude talk as "further proof of his unfitness to be president. Anyone who's view of women is so crass and disrespectful doesn't belong in the Oval Office." Hillary dismissed suggestions that Trump's attitudes might resemble her husband's, saying "for the record, Bill has neither been convicted or even indicted for inappropriate behavior toward women," and alleged that "the women who accused him have all been discredited. That's why you won't see the media repeating their lies."
There might be some technical validity to Hillary's contentions. After all, Bill was never indicted. He was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury rather than for inappropriate behavior toward women. Though he was not convicted by the Senate he was stripped of his license to practice law. And the mainstream media, which has openly veered from journalistic ethics to try to ensure another Clinton presidency, has steadfastly neglected to pursue the testimony of the many women claiming they were physically molested, or worse, by Bill.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) defended the Clintons, claiming that "the good they both have done on the political front for women by ensuring that abortions remain freely available outweighs whatever either of them may have done to harm them on a more personal level. Even the high estimates of the number of women fondled or assaulted by Bill and the number whose reputations were smeared by Hillary only amounts to a few dozen individuals. Against this small negative number millions of women have been aided in terminating unwanted pregnancies thanks to the tireless efforts of the Clintons against those seeking to limit this vital women's right."
To date, the worst that can be said of Trump his that his words have sometimes been unkind toward women. No women have come forward with anything stronger than to say "he called me fat" or "he said I was ugly." The question is whether Trump's words are worse than Bill's actions or Hillary's efforts to trash the reputations of his accusers. Perhaps voters will render a verdict on this come November.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...

#NoShame: Obama Leaves US Taxpayers a $9,000,000,000,000 Tab ^ | October 7, 2016 | Justin Holcomb 

When Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017, he can look in the mirror and proudly tell himself that it was he who amassed more federal debt than the 43 men who stood before him, combined.  Just after calling Americans lazy and racist, it is he who holds the honor of plunging the United States into to it's worst debt crisis ever.

As of Monday, October 3rd, Obama has officially signed enough lucrative business deals, foreign ransom payments, and government healthcare extensions to create a $19,573,444,713,936.79 federal debt.  That is exactly $9,000,000,000,000 more than when he took office in 2009.
A graph produced by CNS News shows the massive increase over the past eight years.

This is substantial.  This leaves each American household $76,442 in the hole.
One can only ask, how does it feel Obama?