Monday, December 28, 2015

Schlichter squared

The following essay by Kurt Schlichter appeared at the December 28, 2015, edition of In it, he asks a question of the Republican candidates: "Are you going to just sit there and let Hillary's minions tell you what you can and can't say?"

It's an important question, and Schlichter ably (and sometimes hilariously) shows why.

I'm reprinting it here because there's a wider, even more important point to be made.

Today we learned that former -- in many circles, appropriately disgraced -- president William Jefferson Clinton will be campaigning for his wife. The male Clinton --  a lying, legally defrocked, abuser of women who soiled the Oval Office -- will be attesting to the character and qualifications of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

By inviting and accepting her husband's support, Mrs. Clinton (and her supporters) has waived all objections that can, and should, be made to the moral character and behavior of her husband. It's as if Trotsky vouched for Stalin.

So not only must Schlichter's question be asked of Republican presidential candidates. It must be asked of every one of us in the coming months. When Hillary, Inc. invokes her "victim-hood," political correctness, good taste, piling on, fair play, and other attempts to block criticism of Bill Clinton, "Are [we] going to just sit there and let Hillary's minions tell [us] what [we] can and can't say?"

Well, I'm not.

Here's Schlichter..........

*          *          *

Don't let liberals tell you what you
can and can't say about Hillary Clinton

CNN Don Lemon’s terrified cry of “Abandon ship!” when I refused to play my designated Trump Thumper role last week was a moment the GOP candidates need to learn from. It was more than just a hilarious meltdown by a stalwart defender of all things liberal – and the inspiration for multiple media appearances and hordes of new Twitter followers for me. It was a warning that the Democrat-defending, palace guard mainstream media is going to fight to place many of the most devastating criticisms of Hillary out-of-bounds, and the incident offered a demonstration of how it will try to do so.

Here’s the question to the Republican candidates: Are you going to just sit there and let Hillary’s minions tell you what you can and can’t say?

Are you going to gloss over Hillary’s shameful command of the Clinton attack machine’s cruel evisceration of the women who suffered the depredations of her lecherous husband?

Are you going to fail to ask the question of how we can expect Hillary to stand up to America’s enemies, like Putin and the mullahs, when they are laughing at her for allowing her priapic hubby to publicly and repeatedly humiliate her in front of the entire world?

Are you going to shrug your shoulders about her legacy of monetary corruption (cattle futures!), her track record of deadly failures (Libya!), and her sub-par intellect (when I mentioned to another lawyer how she failed the Washington, D.C., bar exam, he started giggling incredulously and asked “How?”)?

Are you going to avoid speaking the painfully, utterly obvious truth: This unaccomplished, malicious, pant-suited punchline is where she is only because she married Bill Clinton?

The fact is that Hillary is a grossly incompetent, venal, poisonous shrew, a monstrous hypocrite who runs as a feminist yet trashes her partner’s sexual abuse victims as nuts n’ sluts with a viciousness that nauseates any decent human being. Are you going to let her win because you can’t take the heat that will come with raising these issues after the mainstream media and her liberal elite defenders have deemed them unraisable?

Now, your establishment consultants will tell you that you can’t possibly mention these issues, that no one cares, that they will turn voters against you, and that they will distract from your message.

But of course, your strongest message must be that you aren’t Hillary Clinton, the Constitution-shredding plutocrat’s pal who takes her completely understandable hatred of her husband for what he’s done to her and aims it at the rest of us XY chromosome people.

Your consultants are wrong about honoring these new taboos, just as they were wrong when they advised Presidents McCain and Romney to handle Obama with kid gloves. America isn’t a nation of Chardonnay-sipping coastal libs; what Hillary undeniably did will offend normal Americans to their core – if they hear about it. Remember, no one under 37 voted in Bill’s last election. Many voters were too young to remember the Clinton Corruption Capers of the 1990s. Some were not tuned into politics then. Others have simply forgotten what the Lady Macbeth of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was truly like. Just recently, a liberal acquaintance berated me for accurately describing Bill as a serial sexual abuser; when I asked, “What about Juanita Broaddrick?”, she returned a blank stare and asked, “Who?”

I say let’s let the Democrats be the party that calls sexual assault victims liars.

Ignore your timid consultants, GOP candidates. In their insular Beltway universe, it’s true that no one wants to hear the truth about Hillary. That’s because the truth hurts her. But in America, people are dying to hear it. Throw Juanita Broaddrick and the dozens of other forbidden subjects in Hillary’s smug face and watch the fun begin.

My little encounter with Don Lemon on CNN graphically illustrated exactly how the mainstream media will come at you to keep you from stating the facts they have decreed must remain unstated. First, they will try to shepherd you back to a topic of their liking. I am a conservative who is no Trump fan, so they brought me on to discuss the “schlonged” scandal. But I can’t get outraged about a GOP guy using a minor Yiddish vulgarity when the Democrat frontrunner excuses and covers for her husband’s use of the Oval Office as a kinky sex dungeon – and I said so. Lemon tried to tell me I was off topic, but I wasn’t – my opinion about Schlongate was that it is irrelevant in light of the disgraceful tackiness Hillary helped set as the standard of presidential conduct.

Next, I was being “unfair” for raising the issue because Hillary can’t be blamed for the actions of her husband. Leaving aside our common understanding that foul fowl tend to flock together, and that Her Majesty is threatening to drag Bill away from his bimbos du jour to stump for her, I was not blaming Hillary for Bill’s creepy shenanigans and sicko cigar storage scenarios. I was blaming her for enthusiastically and remorselessly covering them up by unleashing her attack dogs on the women who had the courage to stand up to him.

Then Lemon told me that the matter has already been “litigated.” Damn right it has – and Hillary was found guilty. This is just another take on the old “Let's move on” okie-doke in which Democrats essentially admit she’s a monster then assert it doesn’t matter. But it matters to me, and to many millions of others. And liberals know it – that’s why they are so eager to shut us up.

Next, Lemon started filibustering, offering an endless, incoherent, complex monologue designed to keep me from talking. That didn't work so well – trial lawyers get this all the time – and when it didn't, he finally decided he had to shut me up by cutting off my mic. Scratch a liberal, and he always bleeds fascism.

That's a little taste of what will happen in the general election, but we conservatives have to face the heat and tell the truth. Imagine Supreme Court litigator Ted Cruz (or whoever) on the stage at a debate with Hillary, when everybody's watching and she's minimally able to rely on the media to save her. Hillary starts talking about what a friend to women she is, and Cruz comes back with her shameful treatment of the women her husband abused. Yeah, I expect the moderators to pull a Candy Crowley and screech and intervene to stop it, and the next day the mainstream media will be full of pearl-clutching outrage about the Republican daring to bring up a subject that they've decreed was off-limits. But normal people will ask. “Hey, wait a minute. Hillary did what? Why are we only hearing about this now?” And the fact that we have an alternative media – talk radio, Twitter, Facebook, the net in general, means that we can get our ideas and our views out there. They can't gatekeep her track record of perfidy forever.

Thank you Don Lemon, not only for bringing me an ungodly amount of attention and making me a conservative martyr, but for revealing the mainstream media’s tactics, techniques and procedures to silence conservatives and keep them from telling the truth about your gal Hillary. We have the truth, Republicans – let’s not be afraid to tell it.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Mrs. Clinton and Sergeant Rickie

Although no one in the United States can be convicted of a crime unless the defendant confesses, a judge so finds in a “bench” trial, or a jury renders a “guilty” verdict, nothing prevents American citizens from drawing their own conclusions about someone’s criminal conduct, particularly a public figure.

Which brings me, inevitably, to Democrat Party presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It is no longer legitimately arguable that for many, if not all, of Clinton's emails she used a private, unsecured server located in the civilian world.

Nor is there any doubt that some of that email was secret and top secret (whether or not it was so marked with a yellow highlighter).

These are facts, which even her cabal of spinners, stooges, and sycophants cannot evade.

Which brings me to Sergeant Rickie, a pseudonym, and an illustrative case under a major federal statute to which Mrs. Clinton is exposed.

The sergeant was responsible for all “code word” and other classified material being received by the intelligence division at the headquarters of a military branch in Washington, D.C.

Over the course of several months, he places classified materials in his desk, located in an authorized secured area (SCIF).

Due to a conflict with his supervisor, the sergeant requests a transfer, which is approved.

On his last day at work, the sergeant hastily packs his briefcase which contains classified material from his desk and leaves the SCIF. He has no authority to remove the classified material.

Now he has the classified material at home.

Several weeks later, he stumbles on it.

What now?

Justifiably fearing he’s in big trouble, he has three choices. Destroy it immediately, and lie when the military shows up (a federal crime). Or return it, and face whatever music the military wants to play. Or keep it and, figure out what to do with it later.

Stupidly, he stashes it in his garage.

Enter the movers, and the packers.

And then at his new duty station, the unpackers.

You know what’s coming next.

An unpacker finds the classified material from the sergeant's desk.

Enter the military investigators, who find even more classified material in the sergeant’s new home, some of which is marked “NOFORN,” “Secret,” and even “Top Secret.” Some of this material is marked “compartmented,” another mega-serious classification.

Title 18, Section 793(f) of the United States Criminal Code, the federal espionage statute, provides that:

          Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, 
                    (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed or 
                    (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Sergeant Rickie is tried at a general court-martial by a military judge without a jury, and eventually takes a plea to one count of violating Section 793(f). He is sentenced to three years' confinement, busted to private, forfeits pay, and receives a dishonorable discharge. (Later, the prison sentence is reduced to ten months.)

There are other cases under Section 793(f), both in the military and civilian jurisdictions, with outcomes considerably harsher for those who with gross negligence mishandle classified information or don’t promptly report its loss.

Whether Hillary Rodham Clinton will be indicted by Obama’s Department of [In]Justice is unknown. 

Whether she violated the Espionage Act is not.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Why Mrs. Clinton lies

During Sunday night's underground Democrat Party debate, America's most prominent serial liar, Hillary Clinton, lied about ISIS using Donald Trump's rants about Muslims as a recruiting tool.

Since then, the commentariat -- Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Gang, and many others on the Right -- have knocked themselves out trying to analyze why Hillary keeps lying. Recall sniper fire in Bosnia, the Rose law firm records, the hapless patsy who made the Benghazi video, and much more.

To me, the answer has been obvious for years. I wrote about it some two-and-a-half years ago:

*          *          *

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Hillary Clinton: Immoral or Amoral?

During her recent Congressional testimony about the notorious Benghazi Affair Hillary Clinton uttered the now infamous rhetorical question “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Note my emphasis on the word “it.” In the context the question was asked and answered Clinton’s “it” referred at least to the murder of four Americans, and probably the State Department’s antecedent failure to provide adequate security and the White House’s subsequent stonewalling cover-up. 

In other words — according to the former First Lady, United States Senator, presidential aspirant, Secretary of State, and putative 2016 democratic party presidential candidate — it made no difference that the government of which she was then a high-ranking member exposed Americans to high-risk danger, left them defenseless in a hotbed of terrorists, made no effort to rescue them, literally watched them being murdered, and then tried to cover up apparatchik  malfeasance by lying through officialdom's teeth to the people of the United States.

“What difference?” indeed.

But beyond what has become obvious about Clinton’s and her colleagues’ betrayal of the deceased Americans and the rest of the government’s malfeasance, the Benghazi Affair reveals something even more sinister.

Over the years, some of Hillary Clinton’s questionable conduct has not involved issues of morality. She has been a poseur, playing the role of victimized, yet forgiving, wife during the Lewinsky scandal. She has been a hypocrite, castigating George W. Bush for warrantless surveillance but using purloined tapes to her own political advantage. She has been a paranoid, complaining to the world about the alleged “right wing conspiracy.” She has been a conniver, ousting career White House travel office employees in favor of her cronies. She has been a dilettante, presuming to make over America’s health care system. 

While this conduct, and much more like it, has been unseemly and at odds with the dignified and trustworthy image that had been projected by modern-era First Ladies from Bess Truman to Laura Bush, none of Hillary Clinton’s conduct raised serious moral questions.

On the other hand, Clinton has done many other things that have raised serious questions of immorality (immoral defined as “not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior; contrary to the moral code of the community” [Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (13th ed.)]; in other words knowing, but disregarding, principles of morality).

Mrs. Clinton authored a brief reeking with fraud while a staff lawyer for the Watergate Committee. She was a beneficiary of illegal commodities transactions that turned her a large profit.  She fraudulently stung lenders in the Whitewater land scheme. She bought votes and campaign contributions with criminal pardons issued by her husband. She lied about Chinese contributions to her political campaigns. She participated in slandering and intimidating women whom her husband sexually and otherwise abused, and was complicit in covering up his salacious conduct. She blithely desecrated the presidency by selling the Lincoln Bedroom to donors and celebrities. She stole furniture and furnishings from the White House. And much more, including her recent complicity in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi and the attempted cover-up of the entire sordid affair. All immoral conduct.

There’s more, but to elucidate all of it would be to gild the lily. Hillary Clinton’s immoral conduct— rationalized by her adherence to the “Rules for Radicals” promulgated by her mentor Saul Alinsky — has been detailed on the public record for decades, especially since her abortive campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2007. 

At that time, I raised the question of whether Clinton’s decades-old questionable character traits and corner-cutting conduct demonstrated that she was merely immoral or, worse: Whether she was amoral—and whether there’s any important difference between the two concepts.
The answer is that there is a difference, a profound one, and with Hillary Clinton’s eye on a 2016 presidential nomination it’s crucially important for the future of the United States of America that the voters of this country understand it.

I begin with the concept of “morality” itself, one which Americans instinctively understand.  Rooted in fundamental notions of “right” and “wrong,” most Americans know (or knew!) that it’s right to pay our bills and protect our loved ones; that it is wrong to defraud creditors and abuse children. It’s immoral to buy votes, lie to investigators, release terrorists for a political quid pro quo, attack the defenseless, steal from the White House — all conduct Hillary Clinton was a party to — as well as to engage in countless other actions which, by anyone’s definition, must be characterized as immoral.  That this prospective candidate for the presidency of the United States has acted immorally time and time again is clear beyond any legitimate disagreement.

But what about amorality?—defined as “being neither moral nor immoral; specifically: lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply; lacking moral sensibility . . . .”  (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.); emphasis in original.)

A person who is amoral does not accept any moral standard by which her conduct is to be judged by othersShe simply does not care about the concept of morality, about right or wrong, in what she thinks, says, or doesMorality does not apply to such a person. What difference, at this point, does it make?” could well be such person’s mantra.


 Thus, the questions arise: Does all of Hillary Clinton’s dubious conduct over the course of decades reflect a simple, garden-variety immorality—knowing but eschewing the right, and deliberately doing the wrong? Or does Alinsky’s acolyte — the leading candidate of the Democrat Party for the presidency of the United States — at root care nothing for morality and deem it to have no application to her? Is Hillary Clinton amoral?

Her record (let alone her character) leaves no doubt about the answer.  Yet Clinton and her supporters ask: “What difference, at this point, does [morality] make?” 

To ask the question is to answer it.