One of the things I notice while searching feminist Tumblr accounts is the high level of support for Bernie Sanders. This wouldn’t seem to make sense — shouldn’t feminists support Hillary Clinton? But feminism is a left-wing movement and Sanders is an unapologetic socialist, plus Hillary Clinton has a history of defending “rape culture”:
Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them. She attacked them. When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”
That’s from Katherine Timpf at National Review, who is definitely not a socialist for Sanders. And I’m neither a socialist nor a feminist, so I certainly can’t advise socialist feminists whom to support. But it is newsworthy, I think, that the Democrats are the party of socialists and feminists. And also, rapists.
Via Instapundit and Don Surber:Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, thinks Her Majesty is hiding a serious health concern, but is setting up Donald Trump.
Let me lay out a few thoughts.
Her Majesty and BHO are bound by Benghazi, though 13 Hours might change that situation.
BHO is concerned about his “legacy” (I’ll wait while you vomit).
Her Majesty only really cares about being sworn in as POTUS. Past the pomp & circumstance, actually carrying out the office could prove a Royal Bore.
She actually has enough health issues to make a full administration problematic.
So:
She ran interference for BHO over Benghazi in 2012, when the truth kryptonite would have wilted Superwimp.
BHO runs legal interference, stifling any proper Benghazi inquiry for her campaing, with the proviso that she permit him to name the VP (Corey Booker? Deval Patrick), who is really going to be the President anyway.
Her majesty enjoys the first 100 days of honeymoon, so that she doesn’t look as bad as William Henry Harrison.
Then she retires for medical reasons, securing the Obama legacy.
Note that this is a Trump-free conspiracy theory. I still maintain that he is a mercenary, building up a large voter base to sell to whoever is writing the fattest check. If Hillary, he goes independent, or takes the GOP nomination and his speeches start giving it the Full Tarantino until the GOP implodes entirely.
If he stays GOP, he can either try to convince enough conservatives that he has a statesman bone somewhere under his ridiculous hairstyle, or just sell his endorsement to another candidate with something like a plausible political style.
The “deal” Trump is likely referring to is his agreement in September to sign a pledge not to run as an independent. He said at the time he was given the “assurance that I would be treated fairly” by RNC chairman Reince Priebus in return for signing the pledge.
The Wall Street Journal article referenced by Trump is titled “GOP Operative Plans ‘Guerrilla Campaign’ Against Donald Trump.”
It’s blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer that Her Majesty’s best shot is a 1992 reprise.
I’ve long suspected that DJT is just an incendiary mercenary. I also suspect that Her Majesty has sufficient dirt (irrespective of what she gave away via Chappaquaiddick) to bend pretty much anyone among the elite to Her Royal Will.
The September détente between DJT and the GOP always looked like a convenience; DJT gets his ratings, and the GOP liquidates some smaller players.
The question moves to when DJT has his Ross Perot ephiphany. The reason will be some sort of kerfuffle with the GOP. Given that, how many of his anti-elite supporters are willing to play the Perot game again? I’ve said that I’ll vote Trump as a heckler veto of Jeb, because #NoMasBush. Short of that, though, He Of The Ridiculous Hairstyle can pound sand.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s embassy in Tripoli, Libya, warned State Department officials in Washington, D.C., not to blame the Youtube video, Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack.
The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clinton’s underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to use the administration’s “video” talking point.
“Colleagues, I mentioned to [redacted] this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” the official wrote.
You can read the whole thing. The official in Tripoli told the State Department that it was “increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence,” and warned against conflating the simultaneous protests in Egypt with “this well-planned attack by militant extremists” in Libya. What this email shows is that Clinton cannot plausibly claim she believed the lies about the Benghazi attack that she and others (including Susan Rice) promoted in the days after Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, 2012.
The Benghazi cover-up was necessary, first of all, to protect Obama’s re-election campaign message that, with the death of Osama bin Laden, the threat of Islamic terrorism had been defeated. By deliberately lying — portraying the Benghazi attack as a protest against a YouTube video — Clinton sought to reverse the meaning of this event, creating the false impression that right-wing “Islamophobia” was a greater threat than radical Islam itself. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what happened at Benghazi was a consequence of U.S. covert operations to influence the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings that had begun in 2011. Questions about what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi, and the nature of the CIA operations in Libya he was apparently overseeing, are at the heart of what this scandal is really about.
The answer to Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous question is that the death of four Americans in Benghazi brought to light an aspect of Obama administration policy that continues to have consequences for U.S. national security. Was the “Arab Spring” a spontaneous occurrence or was it a result of a U.S. covert policy intended to overthrow the governments of Libya, Egypt and Syria? There have been reports that the United States supplied weapons to the rebels who toppled Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi and then sought to recover those weapons, shipping them to opponents of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It is believed that Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, as part of that operation, to conduct negotiations with Libyan rebels who were refusing to give up their U.S.-supplied weapons. This backstory of the Benghazi attack, as part of a much larger U.S. policy in the North Africa/Middle East region, is why this ongoing investigation cannot be dismissed as mere partisan politics or a trivial concern with Hillary Clinton’s personal emails. The current crisis surrounding ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq, which has caused the deployment of U.S. Special Forces to Syria, is directly connected to the policies that Hillary Clinton implemented and supervised during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, Islamic extremists are exploiting the instability that the Obama administration’s policies have created. Egypt:
ISIS has released a video purporting to show the final moments of the Russian jet that crashed in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board.
The terror group has claimed it downed the aircraft, but has not said how it might have done so. The horrific footage . . . shows a large structure resembling a plane falling through the air, before being consumed by a mass of smoke.
Cairo and Moscow have denied any possible terrorism link in the incident, which was one of the deadliest Airbus crashes in the past decade.
However, it has emerged that the aircraft broke up mid-air scattering debris and bodies over a wide area. . . .
Professor Michael Clarke, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute said early indications suggest that the jet may have been destroyed by a bomb on the aircraft.
He told BBC Radio Five Live: ‘This aircraft was 200km north of its take-off zone, that means it was flying at around 31,000 feet. Terrorists, as far as we know, don’t have equipment to take down an aircraft at that height.
‘They have shoulder-launched missiles, known as man-portable missiles. They can get aircraft when they are taking off or landing, when they are going low and slow. But anything above 8,000 or 9,000 feet is out of the range of the weapons that they’ve got.’
He said the area where the jet crashed is a known location for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda and ISIS, but it was highly unlikely that a ground-based weapon was responsible for the in-flight break up.
‘Early reports said it split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but perhaps an explosion on board, so I would be much more inclined to think, if we have to guess at this stage, it is much more likely to have been a bomb on board than a missile fired from the ground.’
A terrorist attack in Egypt against a Russian airliner, at a time when Russian forces are engaged in defending Assad’s regime in Syria? We are seeing the consequences of a disastrous policy failure by the Obama administration, a failure in which Hillary Clinton is deeply implicated.
Breaking: 2007 War Protesters Reunite in Massive Protest Against President Sending US Combat Troops to Syria pic.twitter.com/nKtlrKq4nG
Hinderaker over at PowerLine seems to confuse Her Majesty’s non-command of reasonable, accurate speech with lying.
Let’s take [Her Royal declamation in Alexandria] apart:
The NRA basically represents manufactures and the sellers.
No, the NRA represents firearm owners and others who want to preserve our constitutional rights. And, by the way, the NRA’s approval rating is 50% higher than Hillary’s.
One of the most outrageous votes that I ever had to take when I was in the Senate was an NRA bill to give immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers for just about everything.
She is talking about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It doesn’t give immunity to gun manufacturers for “just about everything,” but rather, subject to various exceptions, for “the criminal or unlawful misuse of a [firearm].” So if a criminal shoots you with a Ruger pistol, you can’t sue Ruger.
It was unique. No other industry in America has anything like it.
Liberals haven’t threatened to bankrupt any other industry by bringing frivolous lawsuits. If someone hits you with a baseball bat, you can’t sue Louisville Slugger. If you try, you will be laughed out of court. The law with respect to guns is the same as with regard to other products: if a gun is defective and you are injured as a result, you can sue.
Read in full. And understand that next year, we’re past all discussion of whether “this is the most important election of your lifetime”. If Her Majesty achieves the Full Coronation, it’s not clear whether there will be another election.
Her Majesty promises to turn the entire country into a Safe Space, where everyone is treated like an Ambassador. https://t.co/t2073jdkX8
