Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

Posts Tagged ‘clinton’

Hillary’s memoir needs a name

Posted by Richard on June 3, 2017

Hillary Clinton hasn’t decided on a name for her memoir yet. Lots of helpful suggestions have been posted on Twitter, and Twitchy has collected some of them.

My favorite:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Liberal professors stunned by results of their sex-swap experiment

Posted by Richard on March 10, 2017

Two New York University professors conducted an interesting experiment to test this question: what if Trump had been female and Clinton had been male? Their assumption going in was that a  male acting like Hillary Clinton did in the debates would have been perceived more positively.

Tad Cronn explains the experiment and its surprising (to leftists) results:

The idea was simple: Re-create a portion of the presidential debates, putting Hillary’s exact words into the mouth of a man and putting Donald Trump’s exact words into the mouth of a woman.

To isolate the gender factor as much as possible, the two actors hired even went so far as to copy each candidate’s posture, movements and inflections.

The professors hoped to show that Trump’s aggressive manner would not have been acceptable to viewers coming from a woman, while Hillary’s presentation would have won her fans if she were a man.

Upon showing the resulting video to audiences, the results were eye-opening. The male version of Hillary came across as an even bigger pompous jackass, while the female Trump won over viewers with her feistiness and courage.

“We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate,” said Professor Joe Salvatore. “But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.”

Cronn closes with an intriguing thought:

 I wonder, if anyone was brave enough to try it, if a similar experiment involving race would finally show liberals that, yes, it really was Obama’s policies that people hated.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

A reason to celebrate

Posted by Richard on November 9, 2016

No, I’m not celebrating because The Donald was elected. He wasn’t in my list of top ten candidates for president. If I’d bothered to put together a list of my top 100 (or 1000) candidates, he wouldn’t have been in that list either.

I’m celebrating because Felonia McPantsuit (as Kurt Schlichter dubbed her) won’t be bringing her toxic, Chavista-like mixture of unbridled corruption and radical leftist ideology to the White House. And won’t be carting out yet more of its furnishings after four or eight years.

Oh, yeah, and I’m celebrating because … no hanging chads!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Apparently, “spirit cooking” isn’t about cooking with booze

Posted by Richard on November 5, 2016

The hashtag #SpiritCooking keeps popping up in my Twitter timeline, with references to Wikileaks, John Podesta, and the Clinton campaign. So when I saw a YouTube video about it, I checked it out.

The guy who posted it, Mark Dice, appears to be a nutcase. But the information about Marina Abramovic, who is clearly a nutcase, appears to be true. Her email inviting John Podesta to a Spirit Cooking dinner also appears to be legitimate, and strongly suggests that he too is a nutcase.

I don’t freak out worrying about Satanists (or see anything specifically Satanic in this), but I think it’s pretty amusing. And another interesting data point about the kinds of people running our country. Enjoy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Vote for the asshole, it’s important

Posted by Richard on October 31, 2016

Billll has updated the “window sticker” he posted earlier this month (tape it to your car’s rear window), but hasn’t posted the new version yet. Here it is.

Vote for the Asshole sticker

 

It really is that simple. On the one hand, we have a person of flawed character (to put it mildly) who embraces our self-defense rights, cutting taxes, rolling back economy-stifling regulation, and “draining the swamp” of a corrupt Washington, D.C. On the other hand, we have a person with a decades-long history of corruption and self-dealing who promises to overturn Heller, likes Australian-style gun confiscation, and committed multiple felonies to cover up her corrupt reign at the State Department. One of the two will be the next president.

If you live in a state where there is no doubt about the outcome (like Massachusetts), please support and vote for the Libertarian candidates, Johnson and Weld. But if you live in a state that’s in doubt (like Colorado), and if the Second Amendment matters to you, download, print, and put this thing to work. Then put a big clothespin on your nose and vote for the asshole. It’s important.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

“Fake but accurate”: another Clinton anti-gun fraud

Posted by Richard on October 23, 2016

The Podesta emails released by Wikileaks contain a wealth of examples of how dependent on fraud, fakery, and manipulation of a compliant press the Clinton campaign is. Gateway Pundit pointed out an example of interest to those of us concerned about our civil gun rights:

So much about Hillary’s campaign is fake, even some of her supporters. A blog posted to Medium in January was made to look like it was written by a Hillary supporter who was a victim of gun violence was actually orchestrated and written by her staff. Then the piece was customized for the person assigned as the author.

RTWT.

HT: Billlls Idle Mind, which appropriately labeled the Medium post as fantastic, according to one of the definitions of that word.

UPDATE: NRA-ILA reported this story along with a lot of other evidence from the leaked emails of the Clinton campaign’s commitment to make war on gun owners. See also their dissection of the preposterous lie Clinton told during the third debate when asked about her statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The October surprise ignored by the media

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2016

On Tuesday, Clinton cheerleaders and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) were practically chortling because a much-anticipated Julian Assange press conference turned out to be just about WikiLeaks’ tenth anniversary, with no Clinton-damaging October surprise.

But there had already been an October surprise on Monday. It’s just that only Fox News (and various alternative media sites piggy-backing on their story) chose to report it (emphasis added):

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.

Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.

Think about that for a moment. Not only did the Department of Justice and FBI hand out immunity deals to most of the people involved in the Clinton email affair (apparently without the usual requirement that they provide complete and truthful testimony), but they also agreed not to examine documents that might reveal a cover-up and to destroy the computers holding those documents so that no one could ever examine them.

I can think of only two explanations. Either the DOJ/FBI people responsible are so naive and easily duped that they shouldn’t be trusted to manage a kindergarten classroom or they colluded with the Clinton team to destroy evidence and obstruct justice. The latter is clearly far more likely. And it makes Watergate seem like the equivalent of jaywalking.

This is an October surprise that should have been breathlessly declared breaking news. It should have led off questioning at the vice presidential debate. It should have led to countless reporters clamoring for answers from Mills, Samuelson, FBI Director James Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton herself. It should still be dominating the news cycle today.

Instead, a Google News search for “fbi destroy laptops clinton aides” (sans quotes) yields only this. Nothing from the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or Boston Globe; nothing from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC; nothing from the Associated Press or Reuters.

The people who in journalism school worshiped Woodward and Bernstein, who preened about how they were going to “speak truth to power,” are in cahoots with the Democratic power elite to keep the American people in the dark.

Meanwhile, four Republican congressional committee chairmen have sent a letter to AG Lynch:

… The Republicans expressed “concern” that the “FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.”

The letter repeatedly cited Congress’ interest in the “evidence” that may have been jeopardized under the side arrangement.

The new letter asked Lynch why the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops and, significantly, what legal authority the FBI has to destroy records subject to a congressional investigation or subpoena. The letter also asked if the FBI followed through and in fact destroyed “evidence” from the laptops or the laptops themselves.

Asked for comment, a Justice Department spokesman said: “We have received the letter and are reviewing it.”

Based on past history, I predict DOJ will provide a less than satisfying response, various Republicans will bluster for a few minutes in front of microphones (and will be completely ignored by the MSM), and nothing more will come of it.

This country has become no better than a banana republic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Hillary’s health problem

Posted by Richard on September 15, 2016

First, there were weeks of recurring coughing fits (which prompted this gem from Mad Magazine). Then, she was rushed out of the 9/11 remembrance ceremony, and some private citizens recorded her collapsing and being dragged into a waiting van. She became overheated, her staff said. It was 77° at the time. Oh, she was dehydrated, they added, due to the pneumonia she was diagnosed with last Friday. That’s why she’s been so frail that she needs to be helped up steps and is always coughing.

So of course, that van rushed her to the nearest hospital emergency room to get IV fluids and be checked out, right? Um, no. They took her to her daughter’s apartment. An hour later she came out and danced a jig. And a small child just happened to walk toward her, so she exposed the child to her pneumonia in order to complete the photo op.

Bill filled in for her on the campaign trail and, having failed to get the pneumonia memo, talked about her “flu.”

If you’re confused and/or suspicious, some posts by Aesop at Raconteur Report will make you less confused (but much more suspicious). He apparently has expertise in emergency medicine, as well as some personal history that’s relevant. The first post from last Tuesday includes this about the latter (emphasis in original):

1) I’ve had actual “walking” pneumonia, for real. In my twenties.
It absolutely kicked my 20-year old ass, around the block, and down the hill.
Forget about what it would do to a corpulent 68-year old woman.
I did not, for instance, simply go into an air-conditioned apartment for an hour, and come bouncing back to normalcy, same day.
Not just no, but HELL NO.
I was put on a course of antibiotics for a week. I dropped half my college classes for a semester, and it took two weeks at home, doing abso-effing-lutely nothing, to get to where I could come back and struggle through the half that I didn’t drop.
And before and after I got to that point, I looked and felt like death warmed over, thinking I just had a bad chest cold. I did not, for example, look bright and perky in the morning, and then faint dead away in a matter of an hour and a half on a pleasant fall day.

After you’ve read the eight other important points he makes in that post (note: I think he was wrong about Chelsea’s apartment), read the follow-up from Wednesday. And then read today’s update regarding Hillary’s miraculous recovery. If, by the time you read this, Aesop has posted again, you’ll probably want to read that too.

Hillary’s real health problem isn’t her health per se. It’s that this health issue has further exposed the fact that Hillary and her campaign staff are, as Kurt Schlichter says in his latest must-read column, not even competent liars. Even Bill, once the world’s greatest prevaricator, has become maladroit.

Yet why should they bother? Why should Task Force Pantsuit expend any effort at all trying to construct convincing prevarications when the mainstream media is going to smile and nod at whatever they say? Without resistance, you aren’t going to get any stronger, and Clinton’s lies have just gotten weaker and weaker. For her, lying to the mainstream media is like weightlifting by pumping Styrofoam.

Personally, I think all the covering for them that their sycophants in the media can muster isn’t enough to hide the clumsiness of their lies from the public.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Socialist, Democrat – “What difference does it make now, anyway?”

Posted by Richard on January 8, 2016

Shot:

Video: Matthews discovers that Hillary can’t tell the difference between Democrats and socialists, either

By this time, Chris Matthews must be panicked. When he asked DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists, the MSNBC host expressed considerable angst that the party’s leading officer couldn’t do so. “I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews lamented at the time.

Fast forward five months. Matthews posed the question to the party’s leading candidate for its presidential nomination, and … Hillary Clinton couldn’t explain it either. Who else can Matthews ask? Joe Manchin, please pick up the red courtesy phone:

Chaser:

Party-Dif-NRD-600

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Mind-boggling self-assessment at the State Department

Posted by Richard on December 29, 2015

Yes, John Effin’ Kerry has replaced Hillary as Secretary of State, but you can’t tell from the State Department’s year-in-review. It’s just so … Clintonesque. Reason Hit & Run has details:

Ahh, Syria circa 2015: an idyllic land of peace, prosperity, and security… said no one ever. Well, except for the U.S. State Department, which counts “bringing peace [and] security to Syria” among its top 2015 accomplishments. In a year-in-review post on the department’s official blog, it also takes credit for “step[ping] up to to aid the Syrian people during their time of need” and developing a plan for “political transition” that “is responsive to the needs of the Syrian people.”

… Other things the department sees fit to brag about as top 2015 accomplishments include “winning [the] fight against violent extremists,” by which it means holding a conference with that title; Secretary of State John Kerry assuming a two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council; and making a pie-in-the-sky pact with other nations to “end poverty” and “ensure prosperity for all.”

On second thought, it could fairly be called Kerryesque. Clintonesque and Kerryesque are very different stylistically, but actually have a lot in common. Mendacity, self-aggrandizement, …

On third thought, the State Department has been a cesspool for many years, so neither Clinton nor Kerry is entirely responsible for this latest bit of bushwah.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Let’s return to the golden years of the Clinton presidency

Posted by Richard on March 6, 2014

On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled his Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal, for what it’s worth (not much, according to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which describes it as “[i]ncomplete, inconclusive, and indecipherable”). He proposes to spend $3.901 trillion (that’s $3,901,000,000,000), almost $1 trillion (33%) more than in 2008. The Obama administration describes this budget as ending the “era of austerity.” The “era of austerity” is apparently FY2012 and FY2013, when actual outlays declined by a whopping 4% from the stimulus-swollen FY2011 level.

Me, I’d rather look back at a different “era.” Remember Bill “the era of big government is over” Clinton? He’s revered by the Socialist Democrats, and his eight years in office are viewed as some kind of golden age. Let’s set the Wayback Machine to FY1999, the last full fiscal year of the Clinton presidency.

Actual FY1999 outlays were $1.702 trillion. According to this price deflator calculator, that’s $2.266 trillion in 2013 dollars. About 42% lower than Obama’s proposed FY2015 budget. Now that’s what I call austerity — or at least a good start.

My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I don’t recall children starving, bridges collapsing, and old people dying in the streets during the Clinton years.

If we had a decent opposition party in this country, it would demand a return to Clinton-era spending levels, adjusted for inflation. Heck, I wouldn’t even mind too much if they threw in an adjustment for the 14% population growth since 1999 (even though there’s no logical reason why all federal spending should rise with population). That would still leave the budget 28% lower than Obama’s proposal.

Actually, it’s pointless spending a lot of time on the Obama budget proposal since it’s going nowhere. The Senate’s Socialist Democrats have already made it clear that they won’t be considering a budget resolution this year. Doing so would force all those vulnerable senators up for reelection to choose between rebuffing their president or going on record supporting higher taxes, more spending, and an ever-growing debt burden. This budget proposal is purely PR and talking points.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stunning Benghazi revelations

Posted by Richard on October 26, 2012

Fox News has a shocking story about the attacks in Benghazi on the US consulate and the CIA “annex” (safe house) to which consulate personnel were evacuated. During the seven hours of fighting, repeated requests for air support and other help were turned down:

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they … requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Earlier reports revealed that during the attack the State Department was in direct communication with the consulate staff (who reported being under mortar fire and pleaded for help), that at least initially there was real-time video from the consulate security cameras, and that there was real-time video from a drone over the area. Now we learn that there was “constant radio contact” between the CIA safe house and CIA headquarters. And that air support and special operations forces were only an hour or two away, but not deployed.

What possible explanation could there be for such a shameful failure to take any action whatsoever in defense of an American ambassador and his staff?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

And then there’s this (emphasis added):

They also say they needed permission from the Libyan government to enter the country’s airspace, though West, the former deputy defense secretary, dismissed such an argument.

Unbelievable. Unbe-frickin-lievable.

In response to all the dissembling and misinformation coming out of the Obama administration, Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, has spoken out:

“I want to honor my son, Ty Woods, who responded to the cries for help and voluntarily sacrificed his life to protect the lives of other Americans. In the last few days it has become public knowledge that within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied. Apparently, C-130s were ready to respond immediately. In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision. This has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with integrity and honor. My son was a true American hero. We need more heroes today. My son showed moral courage. This is an opportunity for the person or persons who made the decision to sacrifice my son’s life to stand up.”

Woods reported disturbing details of his meeting with the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton at Andrews Air Force Base upon the return of his son’s body (emphasis in original):

Woods said Biden came over to his family and asked in a “loud and boisterous” voice, “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”

The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

Hillary Clinton’s comments to Woods raise even more questions about the White House’s official story on the Benghazi attack, which has already been extremely inconsistent.

After apologizing for his loss, Woods said Clinton told him that the U.S. would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.

Obviously, Clinton was referring to the anti-Muslim YouTube video that the Obama administration spent nearly two weeks blaming for the attack. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, Clinton and the president himself all blamed the video at various points. Beck pointed out that the White House is now trying to claim that it has always considered terrorism as the cause of the attack.

If this were a Republican administration, every mainstream media outlet in the country would have been screaming “coverup,” “gross incompetence,” and “shameful behavior” for days on end by now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

An unhappy anniversary

Posted by Richard on June 18, 2011

Mark J. Perry remembered the grim historical significance of this day (emphasis in original):

This is a post to recognize the 40th anniversary of the day in 1971 that President Nixon declared that the U.S. government would start waging a "War on Drugs" war on peaceful Americans who chose to use intoxicants not approved of by the U.S. government (HT: Don B.).

Q: Which repressive country puts the most people in jail for violating government laws? 

A. Iran
B. Saudi Arabia
C. Libya
D. Egypt
E. United States of America

Well, it's not even close…………..

Read the whole thing. And read Perry's other recent posts on the subject here, here, and here.

It's widely known that in their youth, each of our last three presidents chose to use intoxicants not approved by the U.S. government. Yet each of them subsequently supported, advocated, and directed a policy of imprisoning hundreds of thousands of non-violent "drug offenders" every year, and even sanctimoniously claimed that it's for their own good.

Would Clinton, Bush, and Obama be better off today if they'd been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for 3-5 years when they were young, destroying their careers before they got started? Would the country be better off today if they'd been … 

Um … maybe I shouldn't go there. Just weakens my argument.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

This is the imperial presidency on drugs — any questions?

Posted by Richard on April 2, 2011

They told me if I voted for McCain, an increasingly imperial presidency would defy Congress … aw, that's just too easy. In a classified briefing, Secretary of State Clinton told House members that the Obama administration would simply ignore any congressional effort to stop the war kinetic military action in Libya.

That was the day after Clinton, in London, declared US support for the rebels while conceding she has no idea who they are

Most of the media headlined Clinton’s statement about possibly arming the rebels. Many stories left out what I consider her more important statement: that she really had no idea who the rebels are and that, in fact, they might actually include members of Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.

And just a day after that, in what sounds like an April Fool's Day joke, the Obama administration threatened to bomb the rebels we're backing:

Fresh off claiming victory not over Qaddafi, but over responsibility itself, with its touted handoff of the war kinetic military effort to itself-under-different-name, the Obama administration is now swinging the guns around on those on whose behalf we have, until now, been firing, and is threatening to start bombarding the rebels along with Qaddafi’s military. This is an amazing change of direction for an administration which spent the last several days not only defending its rush to war on behalf of a group about which it had little knowledge, but openly defending its right to arm the Libyan opposition, …

In other words, we’ve apparently (finally) learned enough about this group of rebels/al Qaeda terrorists/rapistsandindiscriminantkillers/who-knows-what-else that we’ve been fighting alongside (primarily from 15,000 feet and up, of course) that the Obama administration is now ready to fight them, as well – an action which would, amazingly and dumbfoundingly, make the U.S. a participant in both sides of an Arab civil war being fought in the desert of North Africa.  Just amazing.

These are the Keystone Kops of foreign policy, the gang that couldn't shoot straight, the imperial presidency on drugs. This endless fumbling of the Libyan war kinetic military action would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

It’s not personal this time

Posted by Richard on April 22, 2010

On the way home this evening, I heard Hugh Hewitt talking with National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. Ponnuru made an interesting point that I hadn't thought about, but which strikes me as quite valid: the opposition to the Obama administration is much more programmatic and policy-driven, and much less personal, than the opposition to the Clinton administration was.

Think back — the right's dislike of both Bill and Hillary was quite intense, personal, and visceral. Yes, there are a few whose reaction to Obama is similar — but they're mostly marginalized fringe people like the birthers. The Tea Party people, who are the opposition mainstream, are thoroughly focused on issues: out-of-control spending, out-of-control growth of government, out-of-control deficits, "stimulus" pork, cap-and-tax, health care takeover, etc.

When Clinton was called names, they tended to focus on his character and were quite personal. When Obama is called names, they tend to focus on his agenda — ends and means — and are quite ideological: socialist, radical, Alinskyite, etc. 

To the extent that this comparison is valid, it seems to further discredit the spurious claim that opposition to Obama is racially motivated.

Although I'm sure someone will point out that Bill Clinton was proclaimed our nation's first black president, so the opposition to him must have been racist, too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »