Evaluate Hillary Clinton on More Than the Odometer Reading

Despite the impression one may have gotten from the drooling, sloppy tongue bath she received for her service as Secretary of State from her Democrat colleagues prior to her Congressional testimony on the attack on our consulate in Benghazi or the lavish praise heaped upon her by the liberal media for her performance at that same event, Hillary's tenure at the helm of the State Department was anything but stellar and her testimony at the hearing was down right disgraceful.

From her embarrassing initial trip to Russia where she presented the Foreign Minister with a "Staples Easy" button to show America's desire to reset our relationship with his country which didn't translate very well to her unbelievably weak final act as Secretary of State trying to explain away what happened in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton has been a disaster as our top diplomat.

For me the last straw came during her exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) when she apparently didn't like his questions. Johnson asked questions trying to get the Secretary to explain why the Administration didn't clarify the record as to the events that led up to the Benghazi attack. A frustrated Clinton snapped back, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.  Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" What difference indeed? With all due respect Madame Secretary, it makes a great deal of difference - unless the truth doesn't make any difference. She went on to say the important thing is to understand why it happened and to keep it from happening again in the future. Exactly how were we to determine what happened when she and other Administration officials insisted that there was some connection between an anti-Islam YouTube video when it was clear early on that there was none. Further, I'm sure it would make a difference to her had one of the dead Americans been her daughter, Chelsea. The loved ones of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others deserve answers. And while months were wasted perpetuating the falsehood about the a video, we recently learned from Algerian military officials that some of the very same terrorists responsible for the attack in Benghazi were also responsible for the Algerian Gas facility hostage crisis in which 3 more Americans lost their lives. So much for preventing something like this from happening again.

As bad as the complete disregard for the truth is, the political ramifications are far worse and will have much longer lasting adverse effects. It played an important role in the re-election of President Obama by giving the impression that his policies in North Africa and against Al Qaeda have been successful. In fairness, progress has been made in combatting Al Qaeda but it isn't "on the ropes" as the American public was led to believe during the 2012 presidential campaign and the handling of the Arab Spring has been nothing short of completely incompetent. Instead of governments friendly to the United States, North Africa is now run by Islamic regimes that are openly hostile to America. This and the compromising political impact of the Benghazi cover-up will direct the course of the United States for decades.

Hillary's champions declare her to be one of American's greatest Secretaries of State but the assessment of her performance has to be based on more than just the number of foreign countries she visited or miles she racked up on the odometer. America's standing in the world has not improved under Clinton which is the true measure of success not her frequent flyer miles. My high school football coach used to say, "People remember best what you do last." For the sake of the country,  I hope he is right and America remembers Hillary for the intellectually, politically, ethically, spiritually and moral bankrupt person she is based on her Benghazi testimony. Then maybe this will be the last we hear of America's most travelled Secretary of State.

Yea! Girl SEALS!!! Now That's Progress!

Is there anything that the US does well that our politicians won't foul up?

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced today that he is lifting the ban on females serving in frontline combat roles.

Does anyone honestly believe that the physical standards won't be changed for women? Certainly, there will be some women who might be able to meet the real standards but without a doubt not enough to satisfy the politically correct fairness police.

In a world where we already aren't respected by our enemies for our stupid policy of buying their oil when we have plenty available to us in our own country, will we gain respect in their eyes by letting our women fight our battles for us?

Democrat Leadership and Violence Connection in Our Cities

FBI published its list of 10 most dangerous US cities for 2012.

1. Detroit
2. St Louis
3. Oakland
4. Cleveland
5. New Orleans
6. Newark
7. Atlanta
8. Baltimore
9. Memphis
10. Kansas City, Mo

Common thread, anyone?
Long history of Democrat leadership and strict gun laws.

Gun Control Information For The Low Information Voter

If you are someone who gets most of their information from the three major network evening news broadcasts, CNN, one of the major metropolitan newspapers (e.g. New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post), The Daily Show (yes some people actually believe this is a news program) or even the Sunday morning talk shows, then contrary to what you might think, you are a Low Information Voter. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to give you some perspective. These media outlets are committed to giving you one point of view - the liberal point of view. Ordinarily, when one gets corroborating answers or opinions from several "independent, reliable sources" that is a pretty good indication you are getting good information. This assumes that the sources are independent. However,  on several occasions these main stream media types have been caught coordinating their message. Most recently while discussing the debt ceiling on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Nobel Laureate Economist Paul Krugman said, "I get calls" and George quickly interjected, "from the White House." So instead of getting independent ideas from the likes of Krugman and Stephanopoulos, what one gets is coordinated talking points. This used to be called propaganda not news. Prior to one of the presidential debates, liberal reporters who were there to ask questions were caught on open mike coordinating their questions in order to make Mitt Romney look bad. This isn't what the media is supposed to do. The value of having a free press is supposed to be as an objective watchdog against both political parties not as a promoter of either the Democrats or Republicans. I recommend that, as distasteful as you believe you would find it, you add Fox News, National Review, The Weekly Standard, or The American Spectator to your sources of information. I mention this as a introduction to my discussion on gun control and in particular the problems I have with the Administration's new gun reform proposals.
At the beginning of his press announcement, the President said, "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act." I find this a bit disingenuous coming from a man who, as an Illinois State Senator, voted three times against bills requiring hospitals to provide medical assistance to babies who survive botched abortions. This was reported in the Washington Post article "Is Obama Guilty of 'Infanticide'? of 10/24/2008 by Michael Dobbs. In fairness, the article does quote Mr. Obama as saying that he would probably vote differently now. I guess this is another case of his view "evolving".
Another accusation made by the president regarding gun control is that the Congress has failed to confirm a permanent Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for the last seven years. While this is technically true, it is deceptive because this it allows the listener to draw the wrong conclusion. The use of the word Congress implies The House of Representative and Senate which may lead one to believe the Republican controlled House played a role in blocking the confirmation of B. Todd Jones as the permanent director of the ATF. However, only the Senate is responsible for confirming presidential appointments and Democrats have had control of the Senate for at least the last five years.  They have a majority of members of the Judicial Committee which requires a majority vote to send the nominee to the full Senate for a vote. Even if the Republicans attempted to filibuster the full vote, the Democrats could have gotten around this using reconciliation as they did with the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare). Or had he chosen to, Mr Obama could have made a recess appointment like he did recently with three members of the National Labor Relations Board. In that case which is being challenged in federal court, he didn't even wait for the Senate to be in recess as required. His deceptive, lawyerly choice of words is intended to shift blame, at least in the minds of some Americans, from the Democrats where it belongs to Republicans and is just plain wrong!
Next, in the new policies to control gun violence, "The Administration is calling on Congress to help schools hire up to 1,000 more school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors, as well as make other investments in school safety." This makes it appear as though Mr. Obama is compromising on putting armed security in our schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2010 there were 98,817 public schools in the US. Only the resource officers (read armed police officers) would have possibly helped prevent the Newtown shooting. Since the shooter, Adam Lanza, wasn't a student at Sandy Hook Elementary, the presence of additional school psychologists, social workers, and counselors would have had no effect in this case and might have just added more potential victims. Even if all 1000 new positions are resource officers, that is only a 1% increase which isn't exactly a major step in my opinion. Apparently, just like with school choice which would allow poor and middle-class children to attend better performing public and private schools, only the children of elites in Washington and New York who can afford to pay, deserve a better education and secure schools.
One of the other proposed new measures calls for stricter penalties for gun trafficking. I find this particularly ironic from the Administration responsible for the ATF's botched Fast and Furious program that allowed known Mexican Drug Cartel members to buy assault weapons in the US and transport them back to Mexico where they were used to kill thousands of men, women, and children not to mention US Border Agent, Brian Terry. In Fast and Furious, our government was supposed to track the weapons as is being proposed in the new measures but they failed to do so. In fact, they never even made a good faith effort to do so. I'm sure under these new proposals, the government will do a much better job. I guess the only Mexicans that really count are those living in the US illegally and who vote Democrat.
Look, I'm not saying that there should be absolutely no rules regarding guns. My point is that any new laws should help solve the problem and not just be a "We have to do 'something' response. And anyone opposing more rules, regulations and executive orders that do nothing to help prevent another Sandy Hook Elementary type tragedy have valid views regarding restricting the rights of the 99.999% of law abiding citizens who own guns. When coupled with the statements of prominent Democrats like Rahm Emanuel who said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." measures that won't achieve their stated purpose, should be received with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Liberal Thinking 101 (Part 1 of n): Using Illogic to Justify Illogic

On the eve of the release of Vice President Biden's report of recommendations for curbing gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, it seemed like an appropriate time for me to do something I have considered doing for some time now namely, trying to describe what I believe to be faulty liberal thinking. I say Part 1 of n because there are so many examples that deserve comment that I can't honestly predict how many parts this line of commentary made end up comprising.
The gun control debate that has been re-ignited following the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut has provided a wealth of examples of liberals using one illogical argument to justify another illogical argument. In the interest of brevity, I will address three which I consider typical of liberal flawed thinking. The examples I will cite are: Bob Beckel's comments on the political talk show, The Five; Congressman Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) comments during an interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier, and the comments of Vice President Biden himself.
First, let me recount the discussion that took place on The Five in which Beckel tried to make the case for banning guns and more gun laws. Beckel claimed that banning guns and stiffer gun laws would reduce violence. When fellow panelist , conservative Greg Gutfeld pointed out that Chicago had over 500 hundred murders in 2012 despite some of the toughest gun laws in the country, Beckel said, Well that is because of the drug problem. Hey wait a minute Bob, aren't drugs banned too? So let me get this straight. The failure of gun control to curb violence in Chicago can be attributed to another failed effort to ban something - drugs. So the answer is more of the same? Brilliant!!! But the illogic doesn't end there.
Next, not to be outdone, Rep. Van Hollen advocated more similarly ineffective measures to combat gun violence in an interview with Bret Baier. Van Hollen argued that as a result of the Sandy Hook shootings we need to consider additional gun laws such as harsher penalties for bringing guns into school zones, gun registration, and more background checks for gun buyers. When Baier pointed out that none of these measures would have prevented the Newtown shooting, Van Hollen said that, Just because a measure won't prevent every situation, that doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing. So is Van Hollen's goal preventing another Sandy Hook style tragedy or just furthering a more general liberal gun control agenda? He went on to say that, Right now someone on the FBI's Terrorist No-Fly Watch list can't get on a plane but could go down the block and buy an assault rifle. Not exactly what I consider a ringing endorsement of the government's ability to effectively manage programs to protect the public or check someone's suitability to do certain activities. Why in the world wouldn't a program to identify potential terrorist be able to both prevent them from boarding a commercial airliner and buying weapons? Once again, illogic plus more illogic equals logic? No, I don't think so. That brings us to our esteemed Vice President.
Last, there is the genius that is Joseph R. Biden. When asked what types of measure his committee might consider, the Vice President suggested that nothing is off the table and, If a measure could save even one life, we should do it. Really? Without regard to cost, effectiveness, the rights of the vast majority of law abiding citizens? By that logic, we shouldn't stop with assault rifles when according to a report in the Washington Post, 100 children 14 and under die from chocking on hot dogs every year. Why does anyone need to eat hot dogs anyway. They are full of fat, high in sodium and worse yet, they are made of meat! It doesn't matter that it is a $1.7 billion market, it would save at least one life so according to Biden's logic, it is worth it.
These are just a few recent examples of how liberals justify ideas that logically don't make any sense by using equally illogical arguments. With liberals in charge, if they are allowed to argue for illogical laws, regulations and restrictions using other illogical ideas, then are any of our freedoms safe?

Albert Gore Jr: World-class Hypocrite of the People

       Hypocrite is so often used these days that the label has lost most of its sting and I try to stay away from using it. In the case of Al Gore, the name is so well deserved it is unavoidable. We recently learned that Mr. Gore sold his failing cable network, Current TV, to Al Jazeera for $500 million. What makes him a world-class hypocrite are three main aspects of the deal.
       First, despite claiming that he believes that rich people like himself should pay more of their fair share in higher taxes, when it came time to sell his television network, Mr Gore (who reportedly received $100 million in the deal) and his partners did everything in their power to close the deal in 2012 to avoid the higher 2013 tax rates. Had it gone through in time, it would have saved the former VP tens of millions of dollars in capital gains taxes. I don't blame him but then again, I'm not the one claiming the rich should pay more in taxes. As with most liberals, we need to listen to Mr. Gore's words more closely. He said "people like me" but obviously he didn't mean himself.
       Second, Gore who is already a multi-millionaire which he gained largely from his Global Warming crusade in which he demonizes the use of fossil fuels apparently had no problem selling his network to Al Jazeera which is owned by Qatar. Qatar as we all know is a rich, oil-producing, Arabian Gulf kingdom. Aren't liberals always boycotting businesses they disagree with? Couldn't Mr. "No Fossil Fuels" Gore have found a more politically correct buyer? Oh that is only when they are talking about a $6 Chick-fil-A sandwich not a sweet deal like this!
       Third, the buyer Mr. Gore and partners sold Current TV to, Al Jazeera, is rabidly anti-American and is a propaganda outlet for our enemies. And why would Al Jazeera be willing to pay a half a billion dollars for a failing TV network? Is it because they think they can turn Current TV around? No, it is for access to our television market where they can spread their political views, propaganda, anti-Semitic rhetoric, and attack America in millions of our homes everyday. To me, this seems like a security threat but when the price is right, Mr. Gore doesn't seem to be bothered by that. I wonder if it even crossed his mind?
       These new "Inconvenient Truths" in addition to his house which uses 20 times more fuel than the national average and his jet setting life-style where he travels via a Gulfstream G5 which uses more fuel per trip than the average American family burns in their evil SUV in an entire year do make him a world-class hypocrite, don't they? Or is hypocrisy reserved for Republicans, the rich, and the "Little People"?

The Hagel Nomination: Republicans' Next Opportunity to Fold

       President Obama's nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense has been met by initial opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. The Senate confirmation process will undoubtedly be interesting. Both sides of the aisle have cause for concern. Hagel's stand on Israel and support for her enemies, opposition to sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons and his calls for huge cuts to the military are but a few reasons this nominee is less than ideal. There will be spirited questioning from all sides during the hearings of course. Democrats will appear earnest as will Republicans and they will have ample cause to block his confirmation. In the end, however, like a Roman phalanx the Democrats will close ranks and support Hagel's nomination. One thing that can certainly be said for Democrat is, above all else, they value party loyalty and they stand united. Republicans, on the other hand, pride themselves on their principles but when push comes to shove, they never seem to be able to find it within themselves to stick to those principles. Even though they might be able to prevent Hagel's confirmation, ultimately, either to appear fair-minded or to curry favor with the liberal media, they will fold like a cheap suit. Mark my words.