Unusual Suspects

Look, it’s way too early in the next Presidential campaign cycle for all this hoopla over Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other generic candidates in the upcoming 2016 mess.

By Pat Merriman

Dunn Co. State’s Attorney

I’m already sick of it and the Iowa Primaries haven’t even happened yet, they’re 4 months away. However, columnist Deroy Murdock has made another great observation in his column last Friday. It’s not that politicians spin events to their own advantage… that’s the nature of Washington politics–i.e. taking the credit for your minions’ hard work when the good stuff happens and foisting your faux pas off on them when you screw up! What is most distressing about Hillary Clinton though is not simply that she is pandering to the usual leftists, but, rather, unlike The Donald, she just clubs the heads of all those who oppose her, to get elected solely on the basis of her gender. If you agree with her, you’re a progressive, if you disagree with her, you’re a sexist. Those are you’re two options, like the Borg in Star Trek, “Resistance is futile”. Submit and adapt or, perish. The same type of “racist” label that is threatened by Obama supporters when you dare to disagree with him. The Donald’s hair and sex life may be fodder, along with his politics, but…gee, we sure don’t want to be a racist, anti-feminist, right?

Regardless, Clinton II REALLY has an image problem right now because, unlike The Donald, she IS a political known. From her hands-on involvement in the Rose Law Firm, cover-ups for her hubby’s sexual forays or, her whining about Conservative Conspiracies, her shtick has just become plain tiresome and predictable. It’s always something other than her fault. At least The Donald sticks to gouging the media. It’s like those football players on Friday night who complain to me that their opponent is “hitting them too hard” and want a penalty flag. Is that the outcome-based reality to which we have now sunk in electing our President which is merely the ends (having our first woman President) justifies the means (Hillary always gets a pass no matter what)? I thought that the last Presidential Administration’s inept 7 years had taught us all a valuable lesson–look at the candidate’s competence NOT what they look like. Particularly, since I guarded candidate Alan Keyes (also an African- American) in his bid for President and watched as he, one of the brightest politicians I ever met, was eviscerated and marginalized (like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) merely because he was a conservative who didn’t toe the liberal party line. Oh, and by-the-by, even if true, what did Justice Thomas do that Bill Clinton (Clinton I) didn’t do? Hypocrisy, thy name is Clinton.

Clinton II is just more of the same old, tiresome thing. Case-in-point? St. Hillary’s latest Benghazi spin-off “Email-gate”. Murdock documents her shameless prevarications about allowing top secret government secrets to zoom about on the Internet unprotected. Upwards to 1,000 separate messages if this mathematical algorithm being touted by the FBI is true. Something that would get the rest of us federal prison time for the rest of our life but, heck, we’re just regular folks not St. Hillary. So, what’s your point Merriman, no harm no foul…a tempest in a teapot…just politics in general. Sigh! Have we really stooped so low and become so jaded? While Clinton II’s supporters march in lockstep as she fiddles, our illustrious former Secretary of State has allowed our enemies to not only catch up in infiltrating American intelligence, particularly the Chinese, but caused the death of some of our best heroes in the name of her own, and our President’s, naive world view. And, then, when you get called on it, whine about the “conspiracy”.

Harsh, Merriman, way too harsh! Really? Guys… you don’t conduct, clandestine foreign policy negotiations with terrorists, or their supporters, on a back-channel, open-source email account which is obviously what Clinton II was doing for this Administration. I’m sorry…that’s not incompetence, that’s just, at best, gross negligence in the same vein as the Jimmy Carter rubber bullet debacle in the desert back in 1979. I lost a buddy in that mess. And, if it’s true, and several federal agencies, independent of Clinton II, have been telling us that it is, we should all be concerned about this appalling, continued undermining of our Constitution and its separation of powers too. Congress, ultimately, not the Legislative branch, decides what is in the best interest of the rest of us when it comes to foreign relations. The Obama-Clinton Legacy notwithstanding.

And, in a true act of hypocrisy, Clinton II’s minions have now gone on the attack against the new Michael Bay movie “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi”, which doesn’t even open until January 15, 2016, and no one has even seen yet. “The Michael Bay movie will be released…right before a certain former secretary of state starts running in the Iowa primaries” bemoans Vanity Fair. So, lets see if I can wrap my dome around your point–if it was a puff piece on Clinton II, it would be a work of art, right Vanity Fair? The truth is probably more akin to Forbes magazine’s analysis, “it’s perhaps telling that Paramount isn’t platforming [this] picture for [a] 2015 Oscar contention. But then they probably know that the Academy is going to have a tough time rewarding a politically volatile movie (and potentially indirectly anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda) in the middle of an elections season.” Ya think?

This from the same folks who just don’t get why American Sniper or Lone Survivor were public hits that grossed far more than Hollywood’s Academy Award “art pieces” or trash like 50 Shades of Grey which, if it ain’t anti-feminist, sure sounds like it should be, but, I digress. Where’s the outrage on that one guys? And, in analyzing this current whining, I can only anticipate that Michael Bay is going to truthfully portray how St. Hillary’s direct orders and policy directives, directly to the CIA, to stand down on September 11, 2012, directly caused, or contributed to cause, the deaths of Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens (the first US ambassador killed since 1979), Information Officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods; all killed by mere “demonstrators” (Hillary’s words not mine) at the time. All debunked of course and, lest one forget, this all came on the heels of the Obama/ Clinton II hug-fest affectionately termed “Arab Spring” which deposed Dictator Libyan Muammar Gaddafi, at his execution, by the Libyan rebels du jour, on October 20, 2011.

So, at the end of the day, any opposition to Clinton II really has nothing to do with gender, it simply has to do with integrity, competence and leadership. A great man, Mel Hancock (R-MO), said once, “When you begin to confuse your political viability with the good of the people, it’s time for you to leave public office.” And, curiously untouched is a salient response to St. Hillary’s statements she made to ABC News’ Diane Sawyer on June 9, 2014, “It’s more of a reason [for me] to run [for President], because I do not believe our great country should be playing minor league ball. We ought to be in the majors.” And, the reason for the deaths of these American heroes at Benghazi was “irrelevant” to her. And, another question that has been persistently opined by Sen. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) deals with the current Administration’s (including Clinton II’s) role in smuggling arms to Libyan and Syrian rebels to defy Al Qaeda, St. Hillary’s State Department and its attempt to silence the whistleblowers about it, and why no one in Washington has been investigated about the facts, which if true, are a blatant violation of either the Arms Export Control Act, the Espionage Act or, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Where is Oliver North when you need him?

Share this post