Tag Archives: hillary

What is a Stein?

Well, Jill Stein is like a stein of day old beer…..flat —  with no head……..no head for the obvious, that is.

BECAUSE:

Although the election results have been certified, she is challenging the results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Although even “her” hacker experts say there is no reason to believe that hackers interfered in the voting process,  she is challenging the results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Although the CERTIFIED election results do not show a big enough  difference between Mr. Trump and Ms Clinton to trigger an automatic recount, Ms Stein is challenging the results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Ms Stein claims that she will raise enough money to pay for these recounts.  Ms. Clinton has joined in that effort because “she wants to ensure the results are fair to everyone!”  Ha ha  For Hillary to pretend that she is joining  the recount process to ensure fairness is as mendacious as when Bill claimed he never had “sex with that woman”.  However, to demand a frivolous recount of  a result that every honest American has already accepted, Ms Stein is determined to undermine Mr. Trump’s transition to the Presidency which she, of course, hopes will mean his Presidency starts off badly.

So, what does Ms Stein get out of fomenting even more controversy in our election process?

1….She gets the national spotlight which she really never had.

2…She gets to pretend she is apolitical and ONLY demanding a recount for the American people.

3…She gets to haul in big bucks from people who are desperate to overturn the election results, i.e., Hillary’s holligans!

And, what do the American people get out of Ms Stein’s arrogant insistence of a recount?

1…We get more of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC  trying to misdirect the American voters.    These networks have continuously contrived, contorted, and misconstrued everything that Mr. Trump said, did, or even might have thought of doing and have insulted Trump voters over and over.    Ms. Stein is just giving the media another chance to demonize Trump voters.

2…Instead of being able to enjoy the holidays, we will be forced to listen to more breathless reporters spewing out their meaningless accounts of this or that, rather than an honest accounting of issues that matter.  For example, it would be instructive to hear how Mr. Trump is progressing on his making America Great again program.

3…And, even though Ms Stein says she will pay for the recount, this ties up countless state workers who could, and should, be engaged in state business and not a recount that is unlikely to change anything, except increasing the polarization between Trump voters and those who preferred Jill Stein to Hillary!

Even though beer is a popular beverage, especially in Wisconsin, I have never liked the taste of beer. And, I certainly have a bad taste in my mouth from listening to Jill Stein pretend to be interested in what is good for Americans.

I say she, and Hillary, should accept the results of the election and stop trying to “tap” into the angst among those Lieberals who have yet to accept that Mr. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.

 

Trump and Hillary

Considering the results of last night’s debate, I agree with Dennis Green who said,  “They are who we thought they were!”

Hillary was robotic, snotty, arrogant and…..willing to lie about her support for the “gold standard”, the TTP….and exemplified  everything else we thought she was.

Hillary memorized talking points so she could list items.  She obviously didn’t think up all these things on the spur of the moment.  Hillary never had to defend her record because Lester Holt ONLY asked pointed questions of Donald Trump.  And, Hillary was given extensive time for her answers whereas Holt interrupted Trump and even cut him off several times.

Although I have never liked Hillary because she  escaped accountability and prosecution for her many crimes, as did her husband, I tried to watch with an open mind.  Her performance at the debate did not convince me that Hillary has improved her character from the annoying, arrogant, supercilious, self-serving politician that she has always been.

Trump, on the other hand,  was smooth, polite, and a gentleman even while Hillary was obnoxiously insulting.  He treated Hillary with far more respect than she deserved.  She, at every turn, insulted and belittled him and his successful career as a businessman.  Lester Holt never challenged her facts, especially the “gold standard” remark she denied ever making.

Trump defended himself well despite Hillary’s non-stop attack with scurrilous and untrue comments.  She never had to defend herself because Holt never asked her anything pointed.

Character should be the most important determining factor on who is suited to be President.

If you consider the performance of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the only conclusion to be reached is that Hillary’s character is devious and not suited to the Presidency.  Donald Trump spoke truthfully and does have the skills and character to be President.

So, Trump and Hillary definitely are who we thought they were.  And, Trump is the best choice for President.

Cokie Roberts is either blind or willfully ignorant!

So, Cokie Roberts is supporting Hillary Clinton and believes that those of us who support Donald Trump are morally tainted for that support?  It’s unbelievable that a “journalist”  — if she can be called that — would believe that she knows us all so well that she can decide our morality or immorality.  I think that supporting Hillary shows a decided inability to witness to the facts and decide upon the facts of Hillary’s despotic and criminal history.  After all, Cokie supports Hillary who:

1…Lied to Congress and the American people about Benghazi.

2…Lied to Congress and the American people about not allowing classified email to be unsecured on her server.

3….Lied to Congress and the American people about only using the private, UNSECURED, server for personal activities.

4….Lied to Congress and the American people about keeping her decisions as Secretary of State separate from her husband’s speaking fees.  Those fees brought in millions of dollars to them personally and millions, even billions, to the Clinton Foundation.

5…Lied to the American people about supporting rape victims when she attacked those women who say that Bill Clinton raped them.

6…Berated Secret Service and staff to the point where some of them were depressed and, it is said, that Vince Foster committed suicide.

7….Made more money in stocks than is possible by any measure.

8…Stole the White House’s silverware as Bill left office.

9…Lied to the American public about the Travel Office debacle.

10…Lied, lies, and will lie some more.  That is Hillary’s modus operandi.

And, Cokie Roberts thinks that Trump supporters are morally tainted?  

I take great exception to anyone judging my support for Donald Trump.  The talking heads should stop trying to save Hillary from her own immorality.  What does Cokie’s support for Hillary show about Cokie’s own morality?  Maybe COKIE should look in the mirror because HER nominee, Hillary Clinton, has been involved in scandal after scandal.  The only thing saving Hillary is people like Cokie Roberts who are either blind to Hillary’s criminal acts, or, are willing to accept a morally challenged nominee because it gains them some personal benefit!  Just like the book, Clinton Cash, reveals, the Clintons have used the influence of their offices to improve their own lot.  I wonder what supporting Hillary is going to do for Cokie?

After all, Cokie,  birds of a feather, flock together. 

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/16/cokie-roberts-trump-backers-are-morally-tainted

Cokie Roberts: Trump Backers Are ‘Morally Tainted’

Do Rules matter?

Do rules matter any more?  Even little, school  children understand and obey rules.  There are rules for standing in line……rules about potty breaks……rules on when to speak and when to be silent.  If only we adults were so obedient!

The likelihood of questioning a rule is especially prevalent in the political world.  Many of us who originally supported Donald Trump have lost our faith in his candidacy.  There are several reasons for that, but the most recent are his tirades against how delegates are selected….i.e., against the rules.  Regardless of whether he likes the way delegates are selected or not, the rules were in place when he entered the Presidential race.  To foment more anger by saying that the delegate selection process is “unfair” and that those who support him are being disenfranchised is a dishonest appraisal of what is happening in Republican parties across the country.  The selection process is absolutely being followed.  And, despite what Mr. Trump trumpets in public —  and tweets  —  the crux of his argument against the delegate selection process is that Mr. Cruz and his supporters understand how the process works better than Mr. Trump’s team does.

Unfortunately, the divisions that Mr. Trump is creating with his remarks will ultimately hurt whoever is the Republican candidate.

Of course, a similar process is happening in the Democrats’ selection of a candidate.  Although Bernie Sanders is winning many states, he is losing almost all of the Super Delegates to Hillary.   Why aren’t the rules of the Democrats an issue?  The difference is that Democrats are in lock step with Hillary and the rules benefit her.  So, only Bernie’s supporters are complaining and the party is comfortable ignoring them.  The media is, too.

So, do rules matter?

Well, if we expect little children to mind the rules, we should definitely expect adults to follow the rules.  Whether it be a game of Scrabble or a political contest, the rules are mutually agreed upon before the game, or nomination process, begins.

Mr. Trump should spend more time coalescing his supporters and less time tearing down the Republican selection process.  His constant assault of the system will only help the Democrats in the fall and lead to a criminal,  Hillary, entering the White House next January.

 

 

 

 

It’s a CRYING shame!

Crying is a natural human reaction to many different events.  Babies cry when they are tired, wet, hungry, lonesome………..or, just to get attention.

The rest of us often cry for the same reasons, or maybe for joy, shock………..or, just to get attention.

President Obama is no different than the rest of us and, I assume that like me or my family, he cries in private, too.  Usually, though, he has not cried in public.  He didn’t cry when Al Quiada beheaded a journalist, nor the multitude of others similarly murdered.  All those Christian men lined up on a beach and systematically and ruthlessly beheaded were not enough to make Obama cry in public.  The massacre at Charlie Hebdo did NOT make Obama cry.  The random and relentless assassination of Parisians did NOT make Obama cry.  Even his cause celebre of climate change did NOT make him cry.

But, gun control?  Well, that made him cry.

He pretended that he wants gun control to stop the tragedies that occur when someone guns down helpless people in restaurants, or any public place.  Those horrendous occasions cause all of us to cry.  The difference between Obama and most of us is that we don’t blame the gun.  We blame the person shooting the gun.  Murdering a group of people is always a cause for grief, but it does not make us want to ban the weapon.  After all, when suicide bombers drive into a United States barracks, setting off their bombs and killing our sons and daughters, Obama does not call for us to ban cars, or limit who can have a car……..NOR does he cry!

I believe that his tears in this particular public forum did come partially from sadness.  The loss of loved ones is absolutely a reason to cry.  But, I also believe that he went out of his way to cry for political purposes.  Why is there this pessimistic view of Obama’s tears?   Because he did NOT cry for other mass tragedies, it is out of character for him to cry in this instance.  The obvious conclusion is that his tears served some ulterior purpose and, I believe that purpose was to create the impression that gun control is so important that even the President of the United States cries   in public about it.  Trying to appear emotionally engaged on an issue is not a new tactic for Democrats.  Remember when Hillary Clinton cried in public,?  Her poll numbers went up, thanks to the media reporting those tears as proof that Hillary was a “truly wonderful and emotionally engaged woman”.

Ironically, when another politician cried in public, he was insulted and derided for not being able to control his emotions.  The media claimed that THAT politician was an immature hack and unqualified to hold his position.  That politician, of course, was Republican Representative Boehner, the Speaker of the House.

Why is it that both men, and Hillary,  cried in public and, yet, the media’s reaction is so different?

Obama was lauded for feeling so deeply about an issue.  Hillary tears were proof that she was not the robot she appeared to be.  Boehner was characterized as a buffoon and, according to the media, his lack of control of his feelings made him not worthy to hold the Speakership.

The plain truth is that the media never lets a “tragedy go to waste”, as Rahm Emmanuel once infamously said.  And, politician’ tears are just so useful in advancing a point of view.

It’s no wonder that the American electorate increasingly believes that the media has leaned so far to the left and Lieberalism that the media no longer recognizes honest men and women nor honest emotions.  The media manipulates issues, reports, and even TEARS to enable Lieberals to continue taking more power, money, and control of our lives.  Lieberals do NOT believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness………….unless THEY can define those Constitutional guarantees.   They now even “define” tears.

So,  it’s no wonder that the American electorate senses that we need a new President, like Trump or Cruz, or Rubio, or Christie, or Fiorina.  We need men and women in politics who are honest….honest with themselves and honest with us.  We do NOT need another President who manipulates policy or their public persona to gain political stature, as the Obama and the Clintons have done on multiple occasions, or who use emotions to further their agenda.

It’s too bad that the Democrats can’t find at least one, solid, honest person to run for President.  They rely upon a woman who has been involved in scandal after scandal, from Whitewater, to Foster’s death, to the multitude of women whom have been sexually abused by Governor and then President Clinton and, the women who have been consistently abused by Hillary in her attempts to disguise, hide, and minimize her husband’s sexual perversions.

It’s easy to understand a baby’s tears and even for us to understand and empathize with adults crying.  And, if those abused women cry, we would surely understand.  But, to see Obama or Hillary get teary eyed in public is just an obvious, and sickening, ploy for political gain.  Whether the media can bring themselves to couch the big O’s or the Big Hill’s tears as just another useful tool in their political tool box is unlikely.  More likely is that the media will laud them for their tears and pretend that the tears makes these politicians real people.

We should not fall for that lie.  If we do, THAT would be a real CRYING SHAME!

 

What’s in a name?

Well, sometimes, a lot.

Being called names when you are a child can cause lifelong, emotional scars from which people never recover.  Even adults can have their feelings hurt by someone’s harsh words.  But, adults are expected to roll with the punches.  Or, as my husband always says,  “Consider the source.”

So, if you know someone dislikes red hair, don’t be surprised if he yells  “carrot top” when he sees a redhead.   Knowing the person calling names is just being nasty might not take away all the sting;  but, it does let you know that it’s truly NOT you, it’s just that other person’s problematic attitude.

Unfortunately, some people can be mean, nasty, rude, and just plain hostile to others who don’t fit their personal preferences.  That was evident when the man at a Trump rally talked about Muslims and President Obama in one breath.  Rather than offering facts to support his comments, he threw out accusations and the PC police jumped on him?  Nope.  They jumped on Trump who was  the guest speaker.

However, that man was NOT a representative of Trump.  That man did NOT speak for Trump.  Those comments came from a man in the crowd!  But, of course, the Lieberals blamed Trump anyway.

It’s wrong to penalize one person for what another says.  But, in this day and age of Political Correctness, the PC police are everywhere and always, always, want to hang someone, especially if that someone is a Conservative.  That is what happened to Trump.  Rather than complain about the man in the crowd who was making offensive comments, the  PC police  attacked Trump’s “non” response.  Trump was innocent of any offensive comments — in that particular case — but his political opponents called him a racist because he didn’t correct the man in the crowd.

Of course, back when Hillary called Obama a Muslim, it was just hard politicking.  The media always loves and supports Lieberals.  But, Trump?  He was an easy target for the media’s and pundits’ scorn.  In the past, the media had no qualms about calling  Trump a clown and now, a racist.  None of that is true, of course, but after all, it’s “only” a name, right?   Names only matter if it is deemed that a Conservative might be using them.

So, what’s in a name?  Well, sometimes, as in this case,  nothing.  Sometimes, it’s all a political tempest in a teapot.

Hillary — playing games with words

So, President Obama has infamously said that if you are successful, don’t be proud because “you didn’t build that!”.

He believes you can’t take credit  for your own success, even if you worked your fingers to the bone and your family sacrificed along with you.

Now, we have another Democrat — who also wants to be President of the United States — saying something just as stupid.  Hillary, in her best pandering mode,  wanted to please her crowd.  Unfortunately for her, her quote is just as stupid as Obama’s,AND,  shows how little she understands how our economy actually works.   Here is Hillary’s  “gem”.

Don’t Let Anybody Tell You’ That ‘Businesses Create Jobs’.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/10/24/Hillary-Dont-Let-Anybody-Tell-You-That-Businesses-Create-Jobs

That is the most outlandish, stupid, and FALSE comment any politician could possibly make!  If corporations (that’s businesses, Hillary) don’t create jobs, who does she think does?

Of course,  she has never run a business in the private sector.  Nor, has she ever written the checks for a payroll.  She has never, personally,  dealt with employee concerns.

In short, before she ,makes such ludicrous pronouncements, maybe she should run a business and see if SHE can create a job in the private sector.

I think she will find creating jobs is a tough proposition.  Businesses should be thanked for the jobs they create which, in turn, generates a vibrant economy.   She is completely ignorant of how our economy works.

However, Hillary, like Obama, has never had to explain her inadequacies.  The media  gives both of them a pass.  The truth is that, as the Secretary of State, Hillary failed to secure our embassy and Ambassador Stevens was murdered.  And,now, when Hillary is playing games with words, even abut something of which she has NO KNOWLEDGE, it’s time to illustrate how incompetent she is.

Don’t let Anybody tell you that Hillary knows what she is talking about!

Lies, Lies, and more Lies!

How many lies does it take to make one a Democrat?  Well, here are some of the whoppers coming out of what was once a party “of the people”.

Al Gore — lying about Climategate:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record

Hillary’s nepotism for friends:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71353-mark-penn-got-6-million-from-stimulus

Obama urging “more of the same bad lending practices” that led to the recession while simultaneously complaining about being handed a recession.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

Obama pretending to have deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, while sending 30,000 more troops into harm’s way.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-accept-nobel-peace-prize-oslo-norway/story?id=9284977

And, our beloved Senator Reid, trying to drum up racism in order to promote his own agenda.

http://www.breitbart.tv/harry-reid-implies-radio-host-is-racist-for-tying-fannie-mae-exec-to-obama/

IS IT ANY WONDER THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS THE LOWEST APPROVAL RATING OF ANY PRESIDENT FOR THIS POINT IN HIS TERM?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/

Never ending corruption……

Or, maybe the title should be “you gets what you pay for!”. 

After all, President elect Obama promised change for America, but then he brought in all the old, corrupt, Democratic  leadership from years past.  Some of “you” asked for him, and you got him!  Unfortunately, now we all have to live under his learning curve and mistakes!

Take his nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.  Well, that pleased many of the Lieberals who, for some weird reason, believe she is “their” leader.  But, in choosing her, and others with similarly corrupt histories (can you say Daschle and Richardson?), Obama exonerates her and others from all their past misdeeds.

Hopefully, the nomination process will reveal many of Hillary’s past activities which, in anyone else except a Kennedy, would be criminal.  Online sources reveal that Hillary made many inappropriate requests for help from those who later donated to her husband’s charities.  Maybe this is not quite as blatant as taking the silverware when you leave the White House, but its deviousness alone should be a warning to not confirm her.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/clinton_letters___dollars

After all, pretty is as pretty does.  If she was corrupt in the past, odds are she will be corrupt in the future.  I’m afraid, with Obama’s submission to the old Establishment of the Democratic party, his presidency  will see never ending corruption.

You go, Girl!

An editorialist today suggested that Senator Clinton is not qualified to be Secretary of State in the new administration.  Although obviously true, it is irrelevant.  Experience is no longer a prerequisite for anything in America.  Nope.  If you’re a minority, we will pump up your qualifications until you meet job specifications.  If you’re a minority, you can be President….even when you have no legislative — or any other — experience.

Let’s be realistic.  When the Democratic party rallied behind the least experienced, least knowledgable candidate in the history of our country, they ignored the need for experience!  It’s true that Hillary has no experience in foreign affairs, except for those little tea parties she attended as First Lady.  But, why should the Secretary of State specs be any more challenging than those for the President?    Neither Obama nor Hillary have any experience in running a country or running to foreign countries with our policies, but, in today’s America, that apparently has no bearing on who is the best person for a job.

I can’t say that I have ever supported Hillary for anything.  But,  if it takes her out of the country, as Secretary of State duties will do, I say, “You go, Girl!”