Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, March 22, 2019

With the happy news that Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky expect their first child later this year, the Clinton family can anticipate warm good wishes from most Americans – and a less uplifting response from all of the usual suspects.

The inane but mostly harmless speculation from the pundit class already has begun. How will Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospective future as a grandmother, they ask, affect her potential candidacy for the presidency? (Not at all, except in the minds of the geniuses who have never noticed that most presidents and many candidates were grandfathers.) Even more inanely, a prominent columnist hinted on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that her daughter’s pregnancy might actually be a scheme to “soften” Mrs. Clinton’s image and improve voters’ opinion of her.

Still not inane enough? Steve Malzberg eagerly picked up the challenge.

“Well, now I’m not saying, when I say staged I have to believe she’s pregnant, if she says she’s pregnant,” blurted the NewsmaxTV host. “I don’t mean that they’re making up she’s pregnant. But what great timing! I mean purely accidental, purely an act of nature, purely just left up to God.

“And God answered Hillary Clinton’s prayers and she’s going to have the prop of being a new grandma while she runs for president,” he added. “It just warms the heart, it brings a tear to my eye. It really does.”

While Malzberg plainly has no clue about human nature or reproductive biology, he can always rely on that heavy-handed wit to sustain him as an entertainer. (Plus his persistent taste for every poisonous flavor of conspiracy, from standard Obama birther swill to “federal internment camps,” and so on.)

Now it is true, of course, that Bill and Hillary Clinton have persistently and sometimes publicly urged their daughter to produce a grandchild, in that slightly kidding, wholly serious way that almost all parents do with their married offspring. It is not true — except in the deranged fantasies of the minority of Clinton haters in the press and on the political right – that any woman gets pregnant in order to advance a parent’s presidential campaign.

Indeed, like everything else that the Clintons do – or that merely happens to them – Chelsea’s impending motherhood becomes fodder for the perverse imagination of their critics. In the bizarre universe inhabited by such people, the Clintons are capable only of political calculation and conspiracy, rather than the range of human behaviors and emotions that all of us experience. These weird projections have always told us little about the Clintons and everything about the character of adversaries who don’t hesitate to fabricate nonsense from nothingness.

Consider the latest moronic episode in the annals of the Hillary Conspiracy, starring a mentally disturbed woman who hurled a shoe at the former secretary of state during a speech.  Within hours, a post on the website of Fox News “media analyst” Bernard Goldberg claimed that the shoe-thrower had been inspired (paid?) by the Hillary camp, to make her seem more presidential – like George W. Bush, who once had to dodge shoes thrown by an angry Muslim protester.

Although Goldberg has long posed as a journalism expert, his site continues to host this absurd accusation without the slightest evidence. Naturally, Rush Limbaugh and Herman Cain, among others, soon parroted the “shoe-truther” canard on talk radio and Twitter. The crafty Limbaugh went on to offer his own theory about the real motive for the shoe tossing.

“I know these people so well,” he rumbled, referring to the Clintons. “I just do not attach much genuineness to them at all and I don’t know why anybody would be throwing a shoe at Hillary unless, maybe it’s an attempt to make the Benghazi people look like nuts and lunatics and wackos.”

Of course, a crazy person just might do something crazy without any political motivation at all. The lady who threw that shoe had previously disrupted legal proceedings against James Holmes, the Colorado theatre shooter, because she claimed he had “entered” her mind through “subliminal messaging.” But that is just another annoying fact of the kind that the Hillary paranoia-mongers, both respectable and disreputable, have long since learned to ignore.

Perhaps we should be relieved that the Clinton conspiracy industry is no longer marketing its old allegations of murder and cocaine trafficking to its credulous customers, of whom there still appear to be millions. Strange speculation about shoes and babies seems almost benign compared with the past products peddled by this same gang.  But so long as Hillary Clinton may run to make history as the nation’s first female president – and so long as she trounces every possible Republican opponent in voter surveys, as she does now – the stream of salacious garbage will swell.

Will her adversaries ever realize how often and reliably these tactics tend to boomerang? They ought to listen to Bill Clinton: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.”

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 730

170 responses to “Congratulations, Chelsea! A New Conspiracy Is Born”

  1. Gadfly81 says:

    No mention of Sarah Palin?

    • stcroixcarp says:

      Didn’t Sarah Palin have a child with Down Syndrome just so she could run for Vice President? And that charade about her having a pregnant teen daughter was just a publicity stunt!

  2. I Hate Tea says:

    Sick. Sick. Sick. The Right are just plain evil!

    • patrick g van meter says:

      Its hard to say what came first. Reminds me of the chichen and the egg. You can’t have good politics with evil people. In this case, the people on both sides have to share in the blame. Politics are just ugly.

      • Duckbudder says:

        Both sides DO NOT engage in this insane bullshit. Get lost TROLL.

        • bikejedi says:

          There’s that famous Liberal tolerance again . In effect I think you proved your own comment right . Yes the left is the only side that wants to engage in this insane bullshit and your intolerance just proved it .

          • cthetruth says:

            Your name should be synonymous with intolerance. Why can you not look in the mirror and see the person that you really are. There are none so blind as those who will not see! Just for your info all of the people that oppose what you are saying are not liberal, just truthful.

        • patrick g van meter says:

          Hey Duckbudder. When did they let you out?

      • idamag says:

        Start making a list. Get a tablet and make two columns. Head one, “ugly rumors started by the right.” and the other, “ugly rumors started by the left.” Make sure you put all the hate words in there. In about six months come back.

  3. dmhlt_66 says:

    Let’s see … Chelsea Clinton, who is 34 y/o, graduated from Stanford U., Rhodes Scholar at Oxford and received her Masters from Columbia U. She’s married and gainfully employed.

    Compare that to “Brisket” Palin who was a teenager in High School
    when she got pregnant. She has NO advanced degrees at all, besides her High School diploma. Brisket had a child out of wedlock, is still single and is employed only as a grifter (although she has had a lifetime of tutoring from her Momma on grifting).

    Well, we can see why Sarah Palin – and ALL Repubicans – are such paradigms of “Family Values”.

    • bikejedi says:

      And exactly what does she have to do with this ? Are you angling for Jay Carney’s job of paid Liar and spin/deflection master . Send Chelsea to Benghazi I say …after all no one has made an Anti Islamic You Tube video for a while so according to the left she should perfectly safe over there …right ?

      • Independent1 says:

        Why not send “Brisket” to Karachi Pakistan where the Bush Administration allowed 3 terrorist attacks to happen there over a 4 year period with NOT 4 but 18 people being killed!! One of them a diplomat!!

        18 DIED IN THOSE ATTACKS IDIOT NOT 4!! And no one in the Bush Administration did a damn thing when any of them occured aside from sitting back and letting 18 PEOPLE DIE!!

        Where were you IDIOT!! When that happened?? Why didn’t you make similar comments then?? I know why, because Bush was a slimy Republican, that’s why!!!

        You TOTALLY CLUELESS RIGHT-WING IDIOTS ARE SO DISGUSTING IT’S BEYOND BELIEF!!

        Go soak your stinking head in the nearest bucket of BS!!!!

        There isn’t a rock on the planet that’s low enough for slime bags like you to slither under!!!

        • idamag says:

          bikenut fits the description of internet trolls. Cowardly – would never say anything to your face. Sadistic and hoping they are hurting your feelings with their name calling. Remember the playground bullies who used name calling to get someone to do what they wanted? When I went to school, they threw around “chicken” and “yellow” a lot.

          • bikejedi says:

            I have no problem saying it to your face . If you are in Chicago let me know . And I don’t have to attempt to demean you …You try to do that to me because you know Im right and cant debate that … You just don’t like it and think anyone with a differing opinion to yours shouldn’t be allowed to speak … guess what this is still America even though you wish we were a Communist State which by your actions and word you wish we were .

          • Independent1 says:

            Of course you wouldn’t – because you’re the typical GOP pathogical liar who can look anyone in the face, including millions of Americans like Romney, and spew one lie and distortion after another!!! You’re the poster boy of today’s depraved GOP lover!!!

          • idamag says:

            Since can’t is a contraction for can not, you need to use an apostrophe.

        • bikejedi says:

          Wow Here we go again … Spin and deflect right …Heres the difference and it has been pointed out by many before and ignored by the Liberals . The attacks during Bush were during a time of war and Bush NEVER LIED or made EXCUSES . He never left them without Security . He NEVER denied them immediate aid . He and the Intelligence community and the Military hunted a lot of those perps down and killed them or put them in Gitmo . He Never LIED to make an election year excuse that any of those were caused by a Spontaneous protest spurred by a You Tube Video by some guys just out for a walk on the anniversary of 9/11 . He Never Lied in a U N Speech weeks after the CIA told him he was LYING and his SEC OF STATE never said what difference does it make . So the two are no way comparable and neither are the actions of each administration comparable . It is very telling that people on the left cant just comment on the topic at hand and chose to try to spin and deflect this to something else … In that you lose everytime because they are not comparable to anyone who isn’t an Obamabot ???

          • Independent1 says:

            You can spew the BS faster than a speeding bullet!! EVerything you said is total BS – the majority of the embassey and consulate attacks under Bush did not occur anywhere near where war was going on. And if Bush protected them so well, why were there fatalities in over 90% of the attacks???

            You just don’t know any level of depravity do you?? You’ll just use lies and distortions to try and justify your unfettered garbage.

            Benghazi WAS NOT LEFT UNPROTECTED – the CIA, which had responsibilty for the office had reinforcements there in less than an hour. And the fact is, the diplomat that was killed there – HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!! He knew FULL WELL the risk he was taking when he went there – the attack was more his fault than anyone elses.

            Benhazi WAS NOT A CONSULATE!! It was a CIA detachment!! IN A COUNTRY THAT HAD JUST GONE THROUGH A CIVIL WAR!!!!!!

          • cthetruth says:

            Just goes to show you how ignorant to the truth some people can be.

          • JPHALL says:

            You repeat the same unproven statements over and over again with no proof. Who are these “many” who said what you keep repeating? Cite your sources. By refusing this you prove that you are merely a troll.

          • idamag says:

            The 18 attacks during the Reagan Administration were not war time attacks. And the unprecedented attack on Iraq has caused the mideast to distrust and hate us so the Iraq war could have been catalyst for the Benghazi attack.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The embassies and consulates that were attacked in the Bush era had the same level of security they always had. They were not in a war zone (Afghanistan or Iraq), and little was done to prevent a recurrence. The consulate in Karachi was attacked twice. There were no investigations, and Bush did not have to make excuses because he was never asked. In those days, even the worst foreign terrorist attack in U.S. history, was somebody else fault.

      • Independent1 says:

        And while you’re at it, why don’t you come out with an explanation as to why the Bush Administration allowed 13 attacks to happen over 8 years with more than 70 people being killed!!

        And why the slimy members of the GOP Congresses in office during that time did absolutely nothing about questioning why the Bush administration was letting that go on!!

        Why weren’t McCain and other GOP scandal makers making a fuss about why there were so many Americans dying in those attacks like they’re raising such a ruckous about 4 people in 6 years when more than 70 died in 8 years!!!

        Tell me why scumbag!! Come on!! crawl out from under your slimy rock!!!

        • idamag says:

          That was 18 attacks and it happened when Amercia came together in outrage, before the push to divide the United States so someone can conquer it. BTW, you never hear them talk about finding the perps. They make political fodder out of everything. Talk about stupid thinking it is a virtue.

          • bikejedi says:

            Sure ….Heres the difference and it has been pointed out by many before and ignored by the Liberals . The attacks during Bush were during a time of war and Bush NEVER LIED or made EXCUSES . He never left them without Security . He NEVER denied them immediate aid . He and the Intelligence community and the Military hunted a lot of those perps down and killed them or put them in Gitmo . He Never LIED to make an election year excuse that any of those were caused by a Spontaneous protest spurred by a You Tube Video by some guys just out for a walk on the anniversary of 9/11 . He Never Lied in a U N Speech weeks after the CIA told him he was LYING and his SEC OF STATE never said what difference does it make . So the two are no way comparable and neither are the actions of each administration comparable . It is very telling that people on the left cant just comment on the topic at hand and chose to try to spin and deflect this to something else … In that you lose everytime because they are not comparable to anyone who isn’t an Obamabot .

          • cthetruth says:

            BUSH NEVER LIED! The whole Iraq war was a lie, based on phony intelligence. Bush stole the election in Florida. Cheney met in secret with the energy department before the Iraq war to scope out the oil fields to put his no bid company Halliburton right in there to acquire all the oil contracts .Bush and Cheney ran this country into the ground and almost destroyed us by being in bed with the banks and allowing all these illegal shenanigans to go on. Check out the Reagan administration”s Keating savings and loan scandal. Bush senior and his son Neil were in bed with The S&L then also, and cost the taxpayers billions. Read your history before you make up these fairy tales. Also read about Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson. The Bush administration tried to destroy them because they told the truth. There was no weapons of mass destruction. All Lies!

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Don’t forget Reagan’s Iran-Contra….

          • idamag says:

            Weapons of mass destruction – that lie has caused the deaths of many more than 4 people.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Oh yes he lied, and the biggest lie was to insinuate that Afghanistan and Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and let the homeland of those responsible for that tragedy off the hook in exchange for lucrative contracts and purchases of U.S. bonds to offset the effects of irresponsible tax breaks.
            As was already pointed out, not only did Bush lie, he sent Gen Powell to the UN where the latter delivered an embarrassing speech showing photos of warehouses and trucks that, according to the W administration, were being used to store and transport chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. No evidence has been found to substantiate that claim.
            The difference between these incidents and Benghazi is that W’s were deliberate attempts to mislead people, and the Benghazi tragedy was an unexpected terrorist attack facilitated by an inflammatory film made by people determined to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. As I have pointed out before, protesters incensed by the contents of that film may not have been among those who attacked our consulate, but they, and the mayhem they created, served as a catalyst to what followed.

          • cthetruth says:

            Well said and finally a discussion with someone who is truthful about the Bush administration. Thank you for your comments

          • idamag says:

            Those mobile chemical weapons trucks turned out to be water trucks. The Iraqis developed invisible paint and painted the WMDs so they were invisible. The other disgusting thing about that fiasco is that Saddam Hussein Was begging the UN inspectors to come into Iraq and they were going to. The other thing for the kid to take a look at – who was given no-bid contracts to build roads to the oil fields? What Halliburton subsidiary charged the government $100 load to do the soldiers’ laundry? Which Halliburton subsidiary was caught driving empty semi trucks 100 miles round trip because they were getting paid by the mile? Which Halliburton subsidiary charged the soldiers $15 for a 6 pack of Coca Cola that the Coca Cola Company was sending them free? Which government official was the former CEO of Halliburton whose stock was being held in abeyance until he was no longer in government? What happened to the missing 6 million dollars in cash? Which administration violated the Geneva Conference?

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Interestingly, the same people who ignored the largest redistribution of wealth – to the tune of $1T – to “rebuild” Iraq, is suddenly enraged by the need to rebuild our decaying and antiquated infrastructure.
            Corruption, from the Federal government handouts in Iraq to AIG, ENRON, Bernie Madoff and the rest was, indeed, rampant. Maybe that explains why they get so upset with issues such as the audacity of an IRS manager catching Tea Party organizations lying…and why they want us to take us back to the good ole days…

          • bikejedi says:

            Obamacare is by far the biggest wealth redistribution in American History . Also when in penalty fees for people who work . It is the biggest Tax increase . Then you can factor in the 1 T they gave the Insurance industry to get them on board

          • Dominick Vila says:

            First of all, the penalty that may be levied on those who refuse to get insurance coverage is not the biggest tax increase, in fact, the problem is that the penalty is so inadequate that it will not dissuade Republicans from continuing to use ER freebies when they get sick. The Obama administration did not give $1T to the insurance industry to get them on board. The insurance industry got on board when they realized the potential for profit associated with getting millions of new customers.
            Even if it was true that a large amount of public funds had been redistributed to whomever to facilitate the implementation of adequate insurance coverage in the USA, I much rather see it happen to help fellow Americans than give it to people who hate our guts.

          • bikejedi says:

            Dom you are doing spin and deflection . Bush NEVER lied about an Embassy attack . He never refused aid to Americans under attack and did everything he could to hunt down those known Muslim Terrorists . Obama knows where these guys are ( they gave a poolside interview to CNN ) and still nada . We were right to go into IRAQ and all the Dems agreed . However , that should of all been taken care of during Desert Storm . Bush and Powell did believe some erroneous intel from an ally however it still should of been done ( IMHO ) Anyone that believes that Hussein didn’t have WMD’s lives in a dream world where he didn’t use them on his own people . Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic that was being discussed but it is a typical ploy of the left .

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Bush did not have to make any excuses for 9/11 and/or the 12 terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates that took place during his tenure because he was never confronted or asked to elaborate. The 9/11 investigation was focused on determining security apparatus flaws and trying to find ways to minimize the probability of a recurrence. Not once, was W’s decision to delegate responsibility to attend the daily national security briefings or his failure to alert law enforcement about an impending attack on U.S. soil mentioned or even insinuated.
            Yes, with the exception of Al Liby, who was captured and arrested as he approached his home in Tripoli, the rest of the mob that attacked our diplomatic facilities (consulate and annex) in Benghazi remain at large. Don’t forget what W said about the importance of capturing OBL and bringing justice to that monster. If I am not mistaken it was something like “that was not a big deal”. I guess that for him it was similar to his opinion on accumulating debt: “IOUs…pieces of paper”.
            Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against the Kurds when the Reagan administration showed him satellite imagery that suggested cooperation between the Kurds and the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Those chemical weapons, which were provided to the Saddam regime by the USA during the iran-Iraq war, were destroyed and their destruction was verified by U.S. and UN inspectors.

          • idamag says:

            I doubt if you were even paying attention during the Bush Administration. You weren’t searching for a scandal against the administration back then.

          • bikejedi says:

            Yes I watched that admin as well but there weren’t many scandals . Maybe that was because Bush never tried to lie or make excuses

          • MJRinPA says:

            Wow! What nonsense. The Bush/Cheney lies that Iraq had WMDs (false intel that they fed to Congress), that Iraq was ready to drop a bomb on the US. “Bush never tried to lie… No, he didn’t try to lie, he just lied his butt off!

          • bikejedi says:

            Try to follow along . The topic was Muslim Terrorist attacks on Embassy’s and such . And as for Iraq every Dem of note also believed that intel and voted and supported action in Iraq

        • bikejedi says:

          Heres the difference and it has been pointed out by many before and ignored by the Liberals . The attacks during Bush were during a time of war and Bush NEVER LIED or made EXCUSES . He never left them without Security . He NEVER denied them immediate aid . He and the Intelligence community and the Military hunted a lot of those perps down and killed them or put them in Gitmo . He Never LIED to make an election year excuse that any of those were caused by a Spontaneous protest spurred by a You Tube Video by some guys just out for a walk on the anniversary of 9/11 . He Never Lied in a U N Speech weeks after the CIA told him he was LYING and his SEC OF STATE never said what difference does it make . So the two are no way comparable and neither are the actions of each administration comparable . It is very telling that people on the left cant just comment on the topic at hand and chose to try to spin and deflect this to something else … In that you lose everytime because they are not comparable to anyone who isn’t an Obamabot .

      • elw says:

        Yes I too would like to know why you choose to suggest punishing a daughter for what you think her mother did. Sounds a bit like the radical Muslim Right to me. Are you even an American?

        • bikejedi says:

          Its not what I think her mother did it is what she did and what she said about it afterwards . That talking point LIE was used by Obama Rice and Killary for weeks after they knew it was a Muslim Terrorist Attack . But all of you said it was a Spontaneous protest sparked by an Anti Islamic You tube Video … Since that is what you believe and what you all repeated and since there is no Video to protest she should be perfectly fine …. right ? Really I don’t wish Ill on anyone and I am using the words of Killary and the left to point out your hypocrisy using the fine art of satire

          • elw says:

            When exactly did Hillary say anything that implied the child of someone should be punished for the actions of the parent? You really need to get some help if you have that much hate in you.

          • bikejedi says:

            Uh excuse me … I never implied Killary said any such thing …Since you are projecting that onto me maybe you should get some help . Great hate in you I sense … seek help you should .

          • elw says:

            Excuse me – you never implied??? What is the purpose of calling her “killary” then? And, if you were not implying anything – why choose her child to punish?

          • awakenaustin says:

            You realize he is mentally ill as well as an idiot. His mental issues practically leap out of his writing. He is still in his Star Wars phase pretending that fantasy is reality. He tries to speak as Yoda in a serious(?) conversation. I would not be surprised to hear he thinks there really are Jedi mind tricks.

          • elw says:

            Yes, I do think he has mental health problems. Some days he worse than others. I do not think that means he should get away with saying things as dangerous as his statement about Chelsea. Even the mentally ill can learn about boundaries.

          • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh says:

            That’s because “bike” still lives in his Mommy’s basement.

          • JPHALL says:

            Lies are not satire.

        • bikejedi says:

          There is no Muslim right . That would be the left who capitulates bows and shows sensitivity to Islam and Obama today went against the Law he signed to allow an Iranian terrorist to come here . That law he signed had total bi partisan support . It is Obama and the left that capitulates to Islam not Conservatives … Get your facts straight or don’t debate ….

          • elw says:

            Showing interest and sensitivity to others that are different is not wrong, but imitating the habits and values of people who do horrible things is. It is the Taliban that punish the children for the behavior of the parents, and that is what I was talking about and what you suggested. You should apologize for what you said instead of trying to justify it.

          • cthetruth says:

            You are really twisted!

          • WhutHeSaid says:

            Good Lord — are you out here flapping your gums again? You, the rabid bigot and terrorist sympathizer?

            Please take your floppy belly and sissy foreign bike back to your trailer park and behave yourself.

          • cthetruth says:

            Reagan is the one who opened the doors for the Muslin community to enter the U.S. Reagan is also the one who gave amnesty to over three million immigrants. Reagan also raised taxes over 10 tens during his administration .Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. Unemployment soared after one of his tax cuts. Regan grew the size of government tremendously. Reagan did very little to fight a woman’s right to choose. Reagan as I said before illegally funneled weapons to Iran our enemy. Reagan was for Apartheid, he failed to sign an anti-apartheid bill. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming ,equipping and funding Islamist Mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan .Reagan funneled billions of dollars along with top secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden a prominent Mujahidin commander emerged from these groups Reagan helped create and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relation to these fighters. Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascent to power. This is documented info that all should now before posting things that are untruthful. This info is for you bikejedi !

          • idamag says:

            And, during the Reagan Administration, the U.S. gave military aid and trained the Taliban to repel the Communists.

          • bikejedi says:

            So many lies and distortions I don’t know where to start . Reagan didn’t change Immigration law to allow Muslims to enter Legally . He did do a limited immigration reform package for immigrants and so far he is the ONLY President to try to do something on the subject that was fair to America . Reagan cut Taxes and increased real employment . He shrunk the size of the govt while increasing National Security and the Military . You know what just believe what you want … theres no helping someone as biased as you

          • cthetruth says:

            I voted for the man so I am not biased. Reagan allowed Muslim students access to this country. He gave amnesty to three million illegal immigrants that entered this country before 1982. During his years the debt increased to three trillion. Unemployment soared to 10.8 percent He promised to shrink government , but under his administration it ballooned. He spent over 100 billion on defense, sold weapons to our enemy, conducted an illegal war with the contras. Under Reagan income inequality soared and I can go on and on. This country is still feeling the effects of trickle down economics that failed. I voted for him, but at the time I fell for the actor. Unfortunately this was one role that he did not play well.

          • bikejedi says:

            Your version rewrite of History betrays your Liberal bias . Are you a Union Teacher ? Your version of course is wrong . When Reagan took over a terrible economy from Carter the GDP was going -6% and unemp

            loyment reached those number shortly after the PATCO disaster which Reagan handled correctly . That PATCO strike was an attempt by a Union to hold the Nation hostage and could’ve effected National Security . As it was it did effect the economy . The unemployment number you quote by the way was calculated using the old U6 method not the U3 Obama uses . If we were using the U6 method to calculate unemployment today Obama’s numbers for unemployment would be between 14 to 18% . The U6 method of course is a much more accurate barometer of what is actually going on . At this stage in Reagan second term we were adding almost 300,000 REAL ( not part time or minimum wage ) jobs a month . No one had to worry about raising the minimum wage because only teenagers were working those jobs . Not heads of households like under Obamanomics . Also we didn’t have the lowest Labor participation rates in 35 year when Reagan was President . We didn’t even have to worry about that number . Under Obama we do as that number is at the lowest point in 35 years . You do realize that 35 years ago there were almost 100 million FEWER Americans right . So that means two things . The Labor Participation rate today is at Depression era levels and YOUR media purposely ignores that and two , When no one is looking for a job the Unemployment can be as low as you want to say it is . Especially since under Obama we use the U 3 method to calculate that figure and the U3 is only based on those who file Unemployment claims. That makes that figure useless except for Liberal propaganda . When Reagan left office we were growing our economy exponentially and GDP was sky rocketing . He also brought the Soviet Empire down without firing a single shot .

            Now lets talk Obamanomics and compare . Today we have the greatest number and percentage of Americans working part time jobs in the history of this Nation . We have the greatest number and percentage of Americans working minimum wage jobs . Average incomes have dropped not gone up like they did under Reagan . They have dropped an average of $4000/ year . It is appalling this isn’t being covered by the Liberal Media . We have the lowest labor participation numbers in 35 years . All while we have the greatest number and percentage of Americans on entitlements . In a recent poll done by Liberals Americans were asked if they think they are being over Taxed by the Federal Govt . 52% said OH YEAH …. Now you might think that number low until you factor in that that is almost the exact percentage of Americans who PAY FEDERAL TAXES … So Romney was right … the 47odd % who don’t pay taxes don’t care what the producers pay … Only that Obama is going to give them free phones …. Hooray for Socialism … Forward Comrades

            Ask yourself a simple question and suppose that you asked everyone who was alive and working age during Reagan and Obama … When were you better off ??… Of course we ALL know the answer and that is why this Liberal re write of Reaganonmics doesn’t work . Just like the one about the Dem Slave owners really being Republicans doesn’t hold water … I guess Lincoln was a Democrat right ???hahahahahaha …. That is how silly it is to try to re write History to fit your agenda . It just doesn’t work with rational informed people and fortunately there are still a few Americans who know History .

          • cthetruth says:

            Wow! Must have hit a nerve biker dude. No I am not a teacher , but I would be proud to have that job. What do you have something against teachers you poor misguided soul. Reagan did not have to do too much to bring down the Soviet Union . Ten years of war in Afghanistan pretty much did them in. Just like Bush spending over nine billion a month with no revenue coming in to pay for it. His administration almost buried this country with his policies. We would have been out of this mess along time ago if those obstructionists in Congress would have cared more about this country than trying to get their party back in power.

          • bikejedi says:

            Translation ….. You cant debate a single thing I stated because you know I’m right and that I am better versed on economics and recent history then you are . So you just revert to the Alinsky tactic of trying to debase or demean your opponent through the fine art of ridicule . ( No I’m not a ” poor misguided soul ” but thank you for your concern ) You do know Alinsky was a Communist Community Organizer right ? I hope you are now informed between the U3 and U6 methods of determining the Unemployment . If you aren’t sure I can explain it and remember there is no shame …not everyone knows this . Reaganomics worked and was a smashing Success . Obamanomics is a resounding failure . A Republican President waged a Civil War against Dem Slave owners to free the Blacks . The Dems responded after the Civil war by founding the KKK and enacting the Jim Crow laws . So please no more Liberal interpretations of History or you just make yourself seem uneducated and uninformed . Thank You .

      • cthetruth says:

        Pathetic!

    • bikejedi says:

      Wow …The only conspiracy is that the Liberal Media will treat this like it is a Royal birth . I say have Killary show some fairness and send Chelsea to go live in Benghazi with the same type of security that was afforded Amb Stevens … I mean no one has made an Anti Islamic You Tube Video in a while so she should be perfectly safe right ? I mean according to the left that was the cause of that spontaneous Muslim Terrorist Er I mean spontaneous protest by some guys out for a walk one night ( that just happened to be the anniversary of 9/11 ) so Chelsea should be perfectly safe right Liberals ??? And anyway even if she did get caught up in a protest What difference would it make right ?

      • cthetruth says:

        Or Beirut where Reagan who had almost no security for our Marines who were blown up in the bunks while they slept. Two hundred and 50 of them, and Kenya and Tanzania where hundreds died shortly after the Beirut bombing. There was never an investigation in depth to find out what happened there. He ran for the hills, no retaliation and empowered our enemies with his weak response. Oh! And let us not forget Reagan selling weapons to our enemies Iran. Can you imagine this president doing that. Talk about an impeachable offense.

        • Dominick Vila says:

          Don’t forget the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, two attacks on U.S. soil that cost the lives of 3,000 people while our former President delegated responsibility to attend the daily national security briefings (dereliction of duty) and spent his time chopping wood in Crawford and reading primers to children in Florida.
          It is also worth remembering the 12 U.S. embassies/consulates that were attacked in the W era, one of them, Karachi, was attacked twice. The only response from our illustrious, misunderestimated, former President was indifference and a small article on the back pages of local newspapers.

          • cthetruth says:

            Dominick, a pleasure hearing from someone who does not suffer from selective memory. All of what you say is true and should not be forgotten. Those events helped set the path that led us to where we are today.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            In an oblique way, I admire the courage of Republicans to broach to subject of terrorism. Most political parties and individuals with a record like theirs would not touch that topic with a ten foot pole. I guess their obsession with Benghazi is a desperate attempt to establish a non-existent parallel between the worst act of terrorism in history – 9/11 which happened when Republicans controlled the WH and both chambers of Congress – and the only act of terrorism during President Obama’s tenure.
            A contrast between these tragedies is what happened in their aftermath. In the case of 9/11, the investigation that followed focused on ways to prevent or at least minimize the probability of a recurrence. President Bush’s decision to delegate responsibility to attend the daily national security briefings was not even insinuated. Incredibly, the party that was in power when that tragedy occurred managed to transform a pathetic president into a war president, thanks largely to the de facto help they got from Democrats too scared to even suggest that President Bush’s performance, if not directly responsible for the attack, did nothing to prevent it.

          • Independent1 says:

            I think what disgusts me as much as anything, is that Bush deliberately took a 30 day vacation in Crawford after getting the 7th briefing about an impending al Qaeda attack. And then after returning to Washington only days before 9/11, was suddenly off again in Florida, away from Washington, on the day that the attacks actually took place.
            I find it hard to believe that the CIA’s 7th briefing on 8/6 didn’t convince him that something bad was going to happen, and instead of owning up and alowing the CIA to focus on trying to stop it; he and Chaney decided to “get out of town” until the attack the CIA was warning him about happened.
            I’m convincedthat Bush and Cheney knew 9/11 was coming and deliberately allowed it to happen. They may not have dreamed it was going to be to the extent it was, but it’s my feeling that they thought they could use whatever happened as one more way to convince Congress into letting them attack Iraq – which is exactly what they did.

          • bikejedi says:

            Wow sure Republicans were in office when the attacks took place but the planning for it took place during the Clinton . He knew Bin Laden was a MAJOR threat and didn’t take him out … This will be similar to that tactic and you people will use after an Iranian Nuke . Its Chicken and egg time people

          • Dominick Vila says:

            OBL issued a Fatwa promising to punish the USA for our relationship with Israel and for building military bases near Mecca and Medina when President Clinton was in office. He was hunted, and a missile was fired towards the camp where he was staying in Afghanistan, minutes after he left the premises.
            After 9/11, Bush did absolutely nothing to take him out and eliminate the biggest threat against Western values and interests for seven years!!!

          • bikejedi says:

            If you think Bush wasn’t working behind the scenes to get Bin Laden you don’t know or understand him very well . Did it ever occur to you that maybe he just wasn’t going to tip his hand ? Of course not , the only tactics the left understands is vote fraud . Maybe Bush didn’t want to tip his hand to the world like Obama did with the Ukraine … Putin of course used that card . Now what we do know is that it was the intel that was gleaned at Gitmo during Bush that led out intelligence community to find Osama …. And then of course they dragged Obama off the Golf Course ( see the Situation room photo where Obama looks like a lost little boy just wanting to finish his round ) and then Panetta and Killary lent him a pair

          • Dominick Vila says:

            If W knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and did nothing to capture or kill him, his performance was worse than I thought. He was expressing his true feelings when he said that getting OBL was not a big deal.
            The all time vacation record holder was a Republican President named George W. Bush. Yes, President Obama likes sports. So do most Americans.

          • tr60 says:

            Twenty five years ago I started a federal job. My first impression was that everyone else seemed to be privy to “secret plans” because they knew somebody in power. (The nepotism and cronyism was unbelievable!) As I knew no one I could only observe and wait to see what would happen. It dawned on me that the secret was, there was no plan! Nobody knew what they were doing, didn’t know what they wanted to do and didn’t give a damn about what had been done, just didn’t want to know.

            You don’t impress me with saying “Bush didn’t want to tip his hand”. Bush didn’t want others to know what he didn’t know.

          • tr60 says:

            Bush had thousands of troops and other assets within the area and couldn’t find or kill OBL. What did Clinton know or have that would have worked better?

          • tr60 says:

            They spent 9 times as much money investigating Whitewater and all they came up with was a dirty dress.

        • Independent1 says:

          I’ve heard that the main reason the terrorists were able to get their truck into the compound before it could be stopped, is because Reagan had insisted that our troops couldn’t carry loaded weapons. So when the terrorists’ truck charged the compound gate, the guards didn’t have bullets in their weapons to disable the driver, so he was able to charge through the gate and get well inside the compound (right up to the barracks) before he detonated the explosives.

      • jamcrky says:

        your a moron

      • JPHALL says:

        It always amazes me that you trolls blame Clinton for Benghazi. Especially since most Consulates have little or no security. That is generally reserved for the Embassy.
        Also you always forget that the Republican House and the Senate voted to cut the budget for security

        • Dominick Vila says:

          The most important part of the so-called Benghazi “scandal” is that when a person or political party accuses someone else of lying, it implies that they know the truth. The obvious questions is how did the GOP know the administration was lying, hours after the attack, that the protests that were taking place throughout the Islamic world had nothing to do with the attack? How did they know that Ambassador Stevens security detail was too small to repel an attack? How did they know that military units could have reached the Benghazi area in time to repel the attack?
          Considering the fact that the only Americans with extensive financial investments in that area are the Koch brothers, and that both the release of an anti-Islam film two days before the attack against our consulate, and the attack itself, were clearly designed to undermine President Obama’s foreign policy credibility and influence the outcome of an upcoming presidential election, I think it is fair to agree with those who clamor for a more in-depth investigation. The only difference is the type of questions that ought to be asked.

          • Independent1 says:

            You bring out some good points which raises the question in my mind of collusion. How was it that Mitt Romney who was out campaigning, was suddently aware of the attack while it was actually going on???
            You’re so right about needing a further investigation.

            What we need is to have the Dems start a committee to start asking questions about how the GOP was so cognizant, so quickly, of this attack. It’s like something they had expected to happen and were all primed, ready to go on the attack before the battle in Benghazi was actually over. It’s scary to think that the Kochs could have been part of this – but then I wouldn’t put anything past them – the love of money truly is the root of all evil!!!

          • plc97477 says:

            That may also have been part of the reason that mittens was blind-sided when he lost.

          • bikejedi says:

            Maybe it was just because they listened to intel from the C the Military and made informed discussions while Obama and Killary were playing CYA and making up lies and excuse … You see like most Americans Romney wasn’t afraid to call it what it was . A Muslim Terrorist Attack . And you want to talk immature and whack job conspiracy theories The Koch brothers ???? hahahahahah real mature and rational right ???

          • Independent1 says:

            Surely you’re joking!! A Republican making “AN INFORMED DECISION”!!! (not ‘discussions’ by the way)

            Republicans DON’T MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS!! They simply make up LIES!!!!

            Let me show you!! Here’s a link to the LIE BY LIE run up to the Iraq war. One LIE after LIe after LIE by almost everyone in the Bush Adminitration!!!

            Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

          • bikejedi says:

            Surely even you yourself realize you need help .. Im typing on a phone that went all auto correct … get over yourself grammar Nazi . What does Mother jones hahahahah or Iraq have anything to do with what we were talking about . Try to focus and don’t just automatically go for spin and deflection when you cant debate the topic … You are starting to make yourself look as foolish as Jay Carney . If you were watching the news that night it seems you were better informed then Obama who came off the golf course in time to catch a flight to Vegas to Beyoncé and Jay z … All while 4 Americans were dying in what now appears to be about an 8 hour fight

          • tr60 says:

            Why would Romney know anything more than the rest of us? He was not a government employee.

          • latebloomingrandma says:

            I guess Democrats don’t have a comparable bulldog idiot like Issa.

          • bikejedi says:

            Here’s some good points
            Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley is credited with the highest speed air- to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F-4D and F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star.

            Here is what Col. Handley wrote in response to Panetta and Dempsey’s claims there was no time to send help to Benghazi

            —————————————

            Betrayal in Benghazi
            Phil “Hands” Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

            The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.

            Among America ‘s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

            The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEAL’s who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

            Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

            It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog” press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.

            The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention “that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference” mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.

            This is simply Bull Shit, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

            The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing.

            The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base , Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.

            Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), Hicks immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.”

            At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down”. By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various “Command and Control Agencies” so everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

            At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

            So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really “was not available” what about this:

            When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

            By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

            The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.

            Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

            Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to return to Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.

            As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act — screw them. It is time our “leadership” get its priorities straight and put America ‘s interests first.

            The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins” and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless P.O.S. terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug” on Superman’s cape.

            Of course all this depends upon a Commander In Chief more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. It also depends upon a Secretary of State who actually understood “What difference did it make?”, and a Secretary of Defense who was watching the feed from the drone and understood what the attack consisted of instead of making an immediate response that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.”

            YGBSM! ( You Gotta Be Shittin’ Me)

            Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

          • bikejedi says:

            You asked how did anyone know the truth , because the CIA told them and everyone else that it was a Muslim Terrorist attack and Obama Rice and Killary all continued to LIE about it for weeks . They had to know Amb Stevens security was too small to repel an attack . While they may have been caught off guard on the anniversary of 9/11 the fact that they wouldn’t have been prepared shows the incompetence of this administration . Also Amb Stevens asked for increased security many times and was rebuffed . You ask how did they know military units could reach that area in time . Well all the Military units said they could’ve and were willing to go but they were ordered to stand down and an Admiral was fired over telling the truth on that issue . And there you go throwing the Koch brothers into this … Your favorite villians who donated to Obama Reid and Pelosi . What do they have to do with this ? Real Mature there . I don’t think these attacks had anything to do with undermining Obama . Why would any Muslim want to do that when he clearly has shown a track record of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and capitulating to Islam . They want him around to release Money to Iran and not block their Nuke plans … They want him pounding Israel at every turn … Where do you get your ideas from ? At least you agree with a more thorough investigation … That is progress Dom

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Nobody ever disputed the fact that the attack against our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Obviously, it was not carried out by peacemakers. What was in dispute was what prompted the attack. Yes, we could have dispatched USAF and Navy fighters from Aviano and Rota to the area and leveled the consulate, but was that a solution?
            Ambassador Stevens, a rising star in the Democratic party, did ask for additional security, along with all the other Ambassadors in the Islamic world. All our diplomatic missions were – and remain – vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I suspect additional security was not granted for two reasons: Congress denied the funding needed to do it, and the U.S. decided that turning our embassies and consulates into bunkers sent the wrong message. Turning our diplomatic missions into fortresses while those of other countries rely on local security would have simply confirmed what should be obvious to everyone: our values, policies, interests and our very presence are rejected and hated in some parts of the world.
            I mentioned the Koch brothers because they are the only Americans with enough influence in that part of the world, because of their large investments, to know what actually happened, and because I don’t believe the timing of the making and release of a provocative film that inflamed passions throughout the Islamic world, and its aftermath, were an innocent coincidence. I believe the goals were to influence the outcome of an upcoming presidential election, and fire a warning shot at the potential nomination of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

          • Independent1 says:

            Dominick, Stevens had actually refused added security at Benghazi which is possibly why Hillary had approved a cut back.

            See this:

            U.S. envoy Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in which he was killed, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

            Why Stevens turned down the offers was unclear, given embassy officials during an Aug. 15 meeting concluded they could not defend the consulate in Benghazi amid deteriorating conditions in the city, government officials told McClatchy in an article published Tuesday.

            In a cable, the embassy outlined the circumstances and said it would detail what it needed in a separate cable.

            “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

            Rather than wait for the second cable, however, Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command, called Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team, the officials said. Stevens told Ham it did not, the government officials said.

          • bikejedi says:

            That was a pretty good comment until the stuff about Muslims wanting to influence a presidential election when they already have the best most favorable guy in the oval office . I mean he gives them everything they want for god sakes

          • Dominick Vila says:

            No, Muslims could care less about our presidential elections, the Americans that made and release a provocative film, the Floridian “reverend” who promised to burn the Qu’ran, and some Americans who considerable influence in the Benghazi area, wanted to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. The fact that President Obama ordered a raid that closed a sad chapter in U.S. history, and ordered effective drone strikes against known Al Qaeda targets, was a dangerous contrast with what happened when Republicans were in control of the WH and Congress and had to be dealt with.

          • Independent1 says:

            More lies!! When are you going to stop regurgitating the lie after lie spewed by FAUX NEWS!!!

          • cthetruth says:

            Right on Independent 1. You can always tell a person that has his or her head buried in the fox hole. Misinformed and full of propaganda. Fair and balanced my ***.

          • bikejedi says:

            Here’s how they know they could of reached the scene in time and this has been echoed by several combat Pilots but what do they know right ?

            Colonel Phil “Hands” Handley is credited with the highest speed air- to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F-4D and F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star.

            Here is what Col. Handley wrote in response to Panetta and Dempsey’s claims there was no time to send help to Benghazi

            —————————————

            Betrayal in Benghazi
            Phil “Hands” Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

            The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.

            Among America ‘s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.

            The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEAL’s who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

            Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

            It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog” press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.

            The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention “that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference” mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.

            This is simply Bull Shit, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

            The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing.

            The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base , Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.

            Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), Hicks immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.”

            At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down”. By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various “Command and Control Agencies” so everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

            At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

            So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really “was not available” what about this:

            When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

            By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

            The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.

            Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

            Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to return to Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.

            As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act — screw them. It is time our “leadership” get its priorities straight and put America ‘s interests first.

            The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins” and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless P.O.S. terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug” on Superman’s cape.

            Of course all this depends upon a Commander In Chief more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. It also depends upon a Secretary of State who actually understood “What difference did it make?”, and a Secretary of Defense who was watching the feed from the drone and understood what the attack consisted of instead of making an immediate response that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.”

            YGBSM! ( You Gotta Be Shittin’ Me)

            Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Looks like we are making progress. After months of claiming that no help was sent to our abandoned consulate in Benghazi, FOX News acknowledge, implicitly and based on the report you so graciously provided, that a CIA team headed by a former Navy Seal named Doherty was, in fact, dispatched from Tripoli and arrived in Benghazi while the terrorist attack was still in progress. The rescuers managed to get to the top of the building, where they were killed within minutes by a mortar attack. How could F16s have managed to save Doherty (Stevens and his colleagues were dead by then) is something that could only be conceived by the maker of a new Rambo movie. Again, Doherty and his team mate, Tyrone Woods, were killed within minutes. According to the report you included it would have taken the F16s at least an hour to arrive to the scene of this tragedy.

            I think it is important to note that the body of a State Department official named Sean Smith had been brought to the CIA Annex, about a mile away, after the initial attack. The body of Ambassador Stevens was missing at the time.
            Your response does not explain how the GOP knew all the details of the attack and who carried it out or ordered it. What is evident is that there was mass confusion, and that there is now a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking.

          • bikejedi says:

            Dom , first off FOX news doesn’t have anything to do with this . This was written by a former Fighter Pilot who would know . If you notice the time line and even read Liberal accounts ( I know right ) of the attack you would know that Woods and Doherty were there for over 4 hours not the minutes you describe and that the F 16’s would of been on scene just minutes after Woods and Doherty . And oh yes Muslim Terrorists run from F 16’s

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The first media outlet to report Col. Handley’s interpretation of events was aired by NBC, and broadcasted shortly thereafter by FOX.
            Col. Handley is well aware of how long it takes to fly from Aviano to Benghazi and F16 capabilities, but he was unaware of exactly what was going on at the U.S. consulate in that city, other than the fact that a terrorist attack carried out by about 150 Islamic militants was in progress.
            CIA agents from the Annex about 1 mile away from the consulate went to the compound, fought their way in, recovered the body of a U.S. diplomat, but could not find Ambassador Stevens who had been rushed to a hospital by pro-Western Libyans. He was administered CPR to no avail. Doherty and his team, as well as two JSOC members, arrived at the Benghazi airport around midnight, but we not allow to leave by local Libyan authorities. They arrived at the consulate around 5 am, fought the attackers, got to the roof and were killed when a mortar hut that part of the compound.
            The only way a F16 would have produced positive results under those circumstances would have been zero range bombing, which nobody would have authorized since we did not know for sure whether or not Americans were still alive and within the perimeter of the consulate building.
            Trying to second guess what happened and what may or may not have worked is like trying to do the same for 9/11/01 when 3,000 people died on U.S. soil, or trying to second guess what may have worked when over 100 people were killed during attacks on U.S. diplomatic mission in the Bush era, or the attack that killed over 200 Marines near the Beirut airport, etc.
            What is important is to learn from these acts of cowardice and take steps to minimize the probability of a recurrence, which is easier said than done. We simply cannot afford to turn our facilities into bunkers. That is, unless we don’t mind acknowledging that our values, interests, and physical presence is so abhorrent to so many people worldwide that the only way we can survive is to build medieval fortresses.

          • bikejedi says:

            Your version of events is the very liberal version not what actually happened and that was borne out by the Hicks testimony . And the spin to just way what are we going to do to prevent it in the future is the same tactic and rhetoric that Killary tried when she indignantly and totally disrespectfully states ” What difference at this point does it make ” to try to absolve herself from the mess she and Obama created . It is as if she was saying you cant prosecute me I am Killary for godsakes… lets just move on and concentrate on the future and that has Americans pissed at her chutzpah . And there you go again as you always have trying to spin it back to Bush . Bush NEVER blamed a Muslim Terrorist Attack on a You Tube video . He Never LIED or MADE excuses about a Muslim terrorist attack and he NEVER said ” what difference at this point does it make ” . The fact you would support and spin for people like this and that other Liberals will do the same speaks volumes about Liberals .

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Hillary Clinton did not try to absolve herself from the only terrorist attack against a U.S. diplomatic mission since President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. She accepted responsibility, as head of the State Department, and the President accepted responsibility for what happened during his tenure. Compare that to what happened when over 200 Marines were killed in Beirut when Reagan was President, what W did when 3,000 people were killed on U.S. soil, and what W did when a dozen U.S. diplomatic facilities were attacked during his tenure. After the Beirut tragedy Reagan stated “that is not our war” and ordered our troops to withdraw. That was one of the most bizarre cut and runs in U.S. history. How did most Americans react to his chutzpah? With total indifference, after an effective political campaign that transformed the man who was in office when that tragedy took place into a hero. How did Americans react when W was whisked away to undisclosed locations, and Cheney hid in a bunker, during the 9/11/01 attack on U.S. soil and the only officials trying to calm a shocked nation were Ted Kennedy and Alexander Haig? After the usual GOP smoke screen, we turned him into a war hero. Did anybody bother to second guess his decision to delegate responsibility to attend the daily national security meetings? Not a word or even an insinuation. The “investigation” (perhaps it should have been called the exoneration) focused on how to improve the effectiveness of our security agencies to prevent a recurrence. How did the American people react to W’s chutzpah when he gave a free pass to Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attack, the man who planned it, and the homeland of the Wahhabi princes who financed that crime? Total indifference. After all, Saddam, the darling of the Reagan administration during the Iran-Iraq war, was a bad guy, and the Taliban was committing crimes against humanity in Afghanistan.
            I have to admit, that I do admire the GOP chutzpah by absolving themselves from responsibility for what happened when they were in office, and their ability to turn a dismal record into a chimera, and a single terrorist attack under Obama into an unprecedented event. That’s no easy task. Judging by what I have seen in the past, I doubt the Democratic party will ever be able to match the GOP when it comes to convincing people that what they saw is not real, and that recurrences are unprecedented and totally unacceptable.

        • idamag says:

          You know what is strange? They don’t give a diddle-dee who did it. They only care about who was president when it happened.And if these liver-lips hve proof there was error, or worse, in Benghazi, why aren’t they taking that proof to Issa? He would love them.

        • bikejedi says:

          Of course that is a lie and of course Amb Stevens who was there on the ground had requested more security and was denied by Killary

          • Independent1 says:

            Even here. YOU ARE WRONG!!

            Ambassador Stevens ACTUALLY REFUSED added security. If Clinton cut back on security, IT WAS BECAUSE STEVENS SAID IT WASN’T NEEDED!!!

            See this:

            U.S. envoy Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya in which he was killed, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

            Why Stevens turned down the offers was unclear, given embassy officials during an Aug. 15 meeting concluded they could not defend the consulate in Benghazi amid deteriorating conditions in the city, government officials told McClatchy in an article published Tuesday.

            In a cable, the embassy outlined the circumstances and said it would detail what it needed in a separate cable.

            “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

            Rather than wait for the second cable, however, Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command, called Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team, the officials said. Stevens told Ham it did not, the government officials said.

            NOTE: GENERAL HAM CALLED STEVENS AND ASKED IF THE EMBASSY NEEDED A SPECIAL SECURITY TEAM, AND STEVENS SAID NO!!!!!!!!

            WHEN ARE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS GOING TO STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • bikejedi says:

            Is that the same General that was fired by Obama … Even you cant be that gullible enough to believe that Stevens who is on record as having asked for more Security turned any down unless he knew Killary would be mad … Really come on now man … step up your game already

          • Independent1 says:

            You’re regurgitating more Faux News lies!! No credible news source has ever published that lie!! Stevens never asked for additional security at Benghazi!!!!

          • JPHALL says:

            No, you are the liar.

      • Sand_Cat says:

        No more than they treat other presidents’ and other celebrities’ relatives as “royal.”
        Come on, do you really want to sink into the gutter with the morons?

        • bikejedi says:

          Cat take it up with MSNBC then because in their fawning over Killary that is exactly what they called it . Two hosts did that . And I don’t think me pointing out that the Liberal Media has and will continue to do that means I am sinking into the gutter rather that they are is ridiculous . Their bias and lack of integrity knows no bounds

    • idamag says:

      I had a co-worker tell me that he did not believe I never cheated on my income tax, because “everybody does it” Nothing like packing your special needs child around as a prop. Levi Johnson said when she was off camera, one of the child’s siblings took care of him. And she paraded her pregnant teen-age daughter about, using it as a prop to show that they were so virtuous, they didn’t have an abortion. The same with her special needs child. They didn’t abort him. Well duh, I know quite a few people who have special needs children and don’t abort them. Talk about political fodder.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        It could have been worse. Some claimed dancing horses as instruments of therapeutic values…

        • idamag says:

          Great post!

        • FT66 says:

          Are you talking about “Rafalca”? The horse which was flown across the ocean to England, just only to lose the race like his master! Losing is roaming around the entire family including their pets.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            In all fairness, that family, like so many other Republicans, has done very well financially. There is no loophole or foreign tax shelter they don’t love. Rafalca was just one of many. Lots of unemployed people, whose places of work were shut down when the Romneys decided to liquidate and run with the loot can attest to their success.

          • bikejedi says:

            Juvenile comment . If the Dems hadn’t gifted America with the Highest Corporate Tax rates none of that would be happening and more Dems take advantage of Tax Shelters then Republicans

          • tr60 says:

            “Highest Corporate Tax rates” that are riddled with loopholes and clauses that leave most of these companies with much lower effective tax rates than they would like you to know.

    • paulyz says:

      Liberals just can’t wait to attack Palin’s daughter. This is a non-issue with Conservatives in that Chelsea Clinton having a child. So what? But the Liberals like dmhlt brings up the facts about a child out-of-wedlock, like their Socialist policies are good for traditional marriages, which they usually make fun of, promote same-sex marriage, and encourage alternate lifestyles.

  4. Henry Trouducu says:

    You’d better change your political personnel altogether America.

    Nobody makes the grade anymore.

    Get a lottery going and chose your leaders that way.

    It will do you good.

    All of them right now are opportunistic puppets run by the financial occult establishment. Including Hilarious Hillary….

    You are being taken for many rides under so many false pretenses… and flags…

    • elw says:

      I actually agree with you to a point. However, there are still those who are better of two bad choices. I did very well during the Clinton Presidency and watch much of what I gained washed away during Bush 2’s time in office. We need to pick the lesser of the evils and vote for them, while continuing to work with groups trying to make a difference in the campaign finance scandal that no one wants to talk about. Do not give up – fight.

      • idamag says:

        I don’t know if it can be accomplished, now, but we need to get money out of politics.

        • elw says:

          And to never give up trying. It took 60 years to get Medicare and close to another 50 to get the ACA. I say we fight as long as it takes.

      • Henry Trouducu says:

        Lesser of two evils, plague or cholera. Where is the America we loved. Will it ever come back???

        • elw says:

          Yes if we don’t sit around and suck our thumbs. Vote, get others to vote and if you have the time find a good candidate to volunteer for.

          • Henry Trouducu says:

            Yes inertia is enormous and the guys in don’t want to get out, especially since Americans are so prone to believe the propaganda lies.
            Many recent false flags have proven that beyond a doubt.
            Unfortunately. I am pessimistic that you will find your Cincinnatus… And the world too…

          • Henry Trouducu says:

            Sorry cat, I talked about false flags so I’m censored….

          • Henry Trouducu says:

            Why they censor me in my false flag pyjamas I’ll never know? Groucho….

    • awakenaustin says:

      Wow, kid jedi gave you a thumbs up! There is something you can go brag about.

  5. marriea says:

    Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, ‘Morning Joe’ Bernard Goldberg and the many others who can’t do anything but create conspiracy theories concerning the Clintons need to say anything that comes up as a way to make their shows relevant, otherwise their ratings will fall and their shows will be cancelled. As for their listeners, there are sheep all over the world and has been for eons. They obviously need someone to dictate their thought progress, or lack thereof, for or to them. One thing about talk shows host and the ‘legit’ news media for that matter there is a grain of truth in everything they say. But ‘A’ truth doesn’t ‘THE TRUTH’ make. I don’t know if mankind is capable of telling the complete truth without some personal editorial involved. When one puts in their own editorial, then ‘THE TRUTH’ disappears.

    • bikejedi says:

      The only people labeling it a conspiracy would be people on the left . Everyone on the right expects you and your media to just play it like it was a Royal birth … We expect that . You want to label it a conspiracy and put that on the right to try to diminish the word Conspiracy as it applies to Obama ….

    • idamag says:

      What about their followers who go around with their mouths drooping oven and their knuckles dragging the ground?

  6. bikejedi says:

    The only conspiracy is that the Liberal Media will treat this like it is a Royal birth . I say have Killary show some fairness and send Chelsea to go live in Benghazi with the same type of security that was afforded Amb Stevens … I mean no one has made an Anti Islamic You Tube Video in a while so she should be perfectly safe right ? I mean according to the left that was the cause of that spontaneous Muslim Terrorist Er I mean spontaneous protest by some guys out for a walk one night ( that just happened to be the anniversary of 9/11 ) so Chelsea should be perfectly safe right Liberals ??? And anyway even if she did get caught up in a protest What difference would it make right ?

    • elw says:

      And of course in this situation you have zero concern for the unborn baby that Chelsea is carrying. Your a pig.

      • bikejedi says:

        I have more concern for her and her unborn then Killary had for Amb Stevens . You will notice I pointed out that she should be perfectly safe as no one has done a You Tube video as of late and according to all of you Liberals that is what sparked a spontaneous Muslim Terrorist Attack er …. Er Ummm I mean Spontaneous Protest by some guys out for a walk on the anniversary of 9/11

        • elw says:

          You are a very sick person, who needs help. There is no excuse for what you said, it was hateful. No one should ever be punished for what someone else had done or said – the only place that happens is Radicalized Right Religious based Countries or by the right leaning hate groups like the KKK and Nazis. What you said was un-American.

        • kevin robinson says:

          you seem to be obsessed in your concern over the 4 deaths in benghazi. well what about your concern over the deaths in iraq when we were losing more than that per day, in bushs’ phony war over WMD? & what about your concern over the deaths of thousands on the original 9/11 under bush when he ignored his intelligence brief? do you consider those deaths just as important as the 4 in benghazi?

          • awakenaustin says:

            He hasn’t the least bit of concern about Ambassador Steven’s death. He has been celebrating his good fortune that it occurred. He feeds on carrion, just like Rush Limbaugh and their friends at FOX.
            Do you really think that given the choice any one of them would give up this fake scandal in order to have Ambassador Stevens alive again?

        • WhutHeSaid says:

          YOU talking about TERRORISM? Say, aren’t you the terrorist sympathizer that loves Timothy McVeigh, and seethes with anger over Obama nailing Osama Bin Laden?

    • Daniel Jones says:

      No matter how many times you copy/paste this bilious tripe, it is just that. Therefore, I am flagging it as inappropriate.
      Have a nice day.

      • bikejedi says:

        Uh , so in your Liberal World you find the truth inappropriate ? Sweet … Maybe its just an Inconvenient truth that you don’t want anyone to read . Stifle all other opinion that doesn’t agree with your narrow view right Daniel ? Seems to be the Liberal way these days . Just use bullying tactics and peer pressure to try to stifle other opinions .

    • cthetruth says:

      I think perhaps we should feel sorry for you. There is something really wrong with you. It is a sad day for the GOP when they have too many that think like you.

  7. JimW says:

    Chelsea has time to have a second or even third grand child before the 2016 race….maybe even old Willy might father another….???.this will be the least of the vicious attacks on Hillary in the months to come……

  8. elw says:

    I am amazed that the crazy Right can still come up with crazier and crazier ideas that they actually think enough people will believe it to get them elected. Of course, I can see that they complete and utter lack of understanding about how reproductive systems work could make this believable to their shrinking base. I do have one question for them; if God and pray is what makes babies happen, then how could they not accept the fact that God wants Chelsea to have a baby and therefore is can only be a good thing even if it does help Hillary get elected?

    • idamag says:

      Even though I think it is exciting that Hiliary is about to become a grandmother, I can’t see how that would help her campaign.

      • elw says:

        It can’t help it or hurt it. She is a woman in her 60s, everyone expects her to be a grandma, which is why making it big deal is so completely stupid.

  9. kanawah says:

    These right wing loons make the christmas turkey look like it is dying of terminal diarrhea.

  10. idamag says:

    she got pregnant, because she was so moved by Rick Santorum’s stance against birth control. I don’t know about your part of the country, but where I come from, married people do have children. And if Hiliary acts nuts about a new grandchild, that is also something we do out here.

  11. roberto says:

    well, well, well, Should be surprised for this new conspiracy theory? I do not believe so and by the same talking, we all know that more conspiracies are coming forward with not stopping point until we reach 2016. How could we call this GOP’s maneuvers? They are simple afraid of Virginia Wolf

  12. ExRadioGuy15 says:

    Judas H. Priest and FFS! Seriously, FRWNJs: knock off the Fascist propaganda and conspiracy theories! 🙁 ssmdh
    And, btw, to that person that’s using False Equivalency regarding Benghazi and the dozen consulates/embassies that were attacked during the Bush 43 administration: you need to overcome your fear, ignorance and cognitive dissonance. When you’re able to do that, you’ll realize that there’s no cover-up. There’s nothing for HIllary Clinton and President Obama’s administration to cover up. Everybody knew about the attack, as we’re now on a 24-7 news cycle. Almost nothing gets past media these days. In addition, it’s the GOP employing their favorite form of hypocrisy, a psychiatric ploy known as “projection”, to cover for their misconduct in regards to Benghazi. It was the GOP-led US House that cut the State Department’s embassy/consulate security budget by more than $100 million in 2011, more than $300 million in 2012 and more than $100 million again last year. That’s more than a half-BILLION dollars in three years. If you and your beloved Fascist GOP love this country enough, how about REVERSING those cuts, so that security can be strengthened at ALL embassies and consulates across the world?!?
    (I’m not expecting an INTELLIGENT or cogent argument in response from the FRWNJs regarding this, btw….so, don’t bother responding….)

    • Independent1 says:

      And just think about how striking it is that despite all those cuts to security for our overseas offices, that the Obama administration has kept would be terrorists so off balance the past 6 years, that instead of an average of well over a dozen attacks on our overseas offices during an 8 year period (as has been the case for the past 30 plus years), there have only be a handful of attacks with only 1 of them resulting in fatalities. In contrast to 10 plus attacks with fatalities during Bush Jr’s administration with over 70 dead, and more than a dozen in 4 years during Bush Sr’s administration with over 60 dead, and 10 attacks during Reagan’s administration with almost 300 dead including the 241 Marines killed while they slept in their barracks in Lebanon .

      • ExRadioGuy15 says:

        Yes, Independent1, it is rather striking how a Democratic President that’s supposed to be “weak” has had significantly less resistance than his GOP predecessors in the White House in foreign policy matters. As a matter of fact, outside of the Republican Party internally, he’s received the most resistance by foreigners and foreign countries who share the same political ideology as the GOP (aka, FASCISM).
        The truth and facts are funny that way, FRWNJs. While you have the right to your own uneducated and bigoted opinion, you DO NOT have the right to your own facts and truth.

      • ExRadioGuy15 says:

        BTW, Independent1: thank you for an intelligent response that happens to be based on facts instead of Fascist GOP propaganda, deflection, distortion, projection and false equivalence. I was expecting a crush of vitriol and propaganda from the FRWNJs in response….

      • cthetruth says:

        Please do not forget that the Bush administration had the opportunity to get Bin Laden In Afghanistan. One of the top brass in the military stated that they had Bin Laden in their sights and could get him. The Mujahidin who are supposed to be our allies at this time turned their weapons on our military and said that Bin Laden is still their hero and would kill our men if we went after him. A few hours later our top brass notified Washington that they could still get him because they followed his trail but Rumsfeld told them to let him go. Could it be that they wanted an excuse years ago not to get out of Afghanistan. Let us not forget that it was this president that was successful in killing him! All of this is fact. Research it.

  13. Elliot J. Stamler says:

    That last aphorism you attributed to Pres. Clinton was first uttered by Dr. Albert Einstein. As for Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, there is no depth to which the so-called “conservatives” (who make honorable conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft turn over in their graves) will not descend in order to smear, insult, slander and just plain lie about everyone they disagree with. But the good news is they are only preaching to the choir of their own repulsive 20% of the population.

  14. cwals99 says:

    I think 99% of Americans see Bill and Hillary as the face of neo-liberal policies that took the US from a thriving first world country to a stagnant, corrupt, and criminal second world country today. Handing the people’s party to corporations all the while pretending to be progressive—–lying, cheating, stealing all the way—-does not take intelligence—-it takes sociopathy and that is exactly what the world and 99% of America think of the Clintons.

    So, as corporate media prepare to paint Hillary with the next mantra—-FIRST WOMEN PRESIDENT the world has taken her last mantra—–IT TAKES A VILLAGE and now calls her HILLARY—-IT TAKES A DRONE TO RAZE A VILLAGE. There is no amount of media propaganda that will fool the American people with a Clinton.

    • JPHALL says:

      Where did you come from? Mars. Only a small group of right wing bigots believe that nonsense.

    • Independent1 says:

      A thriving first world country to a stagnant, corrupt, criminal world????]

      Wow!! We’ve had some nutjobs posting on the NM today – but you really take the cake!! You’re obviously living in your own alternate world!! You better go back and wake up on the right side of the bed – only total idiots would spout the absolute nonsense you just spewed!!!

      Any sane American will tell you that the 8 years under Bill Clinton were the most prosperous 8 years in American history BY FAR!!!!

      You were obviously delirious and mistook Clinton for Bush Jr!! Those 8 years were the most disastrous America has experienced in virtually every way!! Any American you meet on the street will attest to that.

      And do you have any idea why you haven’t read in the news the past 6 years or so about Georgie Baby doing any traveling outside the U.S.??? Or even Dickie Baby??? Because they don’t dare leave the country!! Both of these turkeys are hated by virtually the citizens of every country in the world and would be arrested on sight and tried for crimes against humanity. Both of them should have been tried for dereliction of duty for their refusal to let the CIA try and stop the 9/11 attacks.

      And here’s just a little factoid for you: During the disastrous 20 years that Reagan and the two Bushes were in office, the American economy was so lackluster, that only 20 million jobs were created in 20 years. While in contrast, during the 14 years that Carter, Clinton and Obama have been in office, 37.7 million jobs were created. That’s 37.7 million jobs in 14 years versus a measly 20 million jobs in 20 years – I mean talk about destroying the economy – the GOP really knows nothing about running a federal or even state government – and just these jobs statistics PROVE THAT!!! Not to mention the thousands of Americans who are dead because of the wars and travesties the last 3 GOP presidents allowed to happen.

      And let’s just talk about America’s debt: Carter was the only president since 1900 to bring America’s debt down to 35% of our GDP, while in contrast, Reagan was the 1st drunken sailor spending American president, by running up more debt during his 8 years in office than all the previous presidents before him COMBINED!!

      YUP! Our worst president ever, Ronnie Baby, actually almost quadrupled America’s debt in 8 years like he tripled the debt of California in 8 years when he was governor there. And then Bush Sr and Bush Jr followed his lead as drunken sailor spending presidents and proceeded to add another 13 trillion to our debts making those 3 responsible for more than 90% of our 17 trillion in debt.

      You better go back to the drawing board clueless and get your facts straight!!!!!!

    • idamag says:

      Many people remember Clinton left office with a surplus.

  15. Darklady says:

    When Sarah Palin waved her disabled infant around on an international stage, she was a saint.

    When Hillary Clinton becomes a grandmother, she’s suddenly getting a “prop.”

    Hypocrite much, right wingers?

  16. Buford2k11 says:

    It is a wonderful day to sharpen the Hate by the wingers for all un-believers…Hate is what Jesus preached, fear is what He preached…and there is no one gonna tell em different…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.