Sunday, December 20, 2015

Hillary Benghazi Cartoon


New England Police Union Endorses Trump


On Capitol Hill, every word, action seems an opportunity for timely 'Star Wars' reference

Cruz 
There has been an awakening. Have you felt it?
The seventh episode of the “Star Wars” saga is now playing in theatres. But the latest installment of Star Wars-themed political hooks and dialogue on seemingly premiered weeks ago on Capitol Hill.
Search your feelings. You know it to be true. The keyboards of congressional communications directors and wordsmiths cough up “Star Wars” references like General Grievous hacks up lungs. It’s surely liberating for these flaks who feel most Capitol Hill verbiage is practically frozen in carbonite.
Writing press releases for lawmakers insistent on sounding au courant (or perhaps, au Coruscant) ain’t like dusting crops, farm boy. You’ve got to get the meme of the moment.
Don’t believe me? 
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
To wit:
The Force is strong with GOP presidential aspirant Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. So much so that Cruz’s campaign set up a contest to award supporters tickets to see “The Force Awakens.”
Cruz’s backers score points in the “Star Wars” ticket lottery if they get involved in campaign activities and events.
Cruz has seemingly deployed “Star Wars” references since the Battle of Yavin. Back in 2013, Cruz seized the Senate floor for 21 hours to rail against ObamaCare.
“We need a rebellion against oppression,” Cruz argued at the time. “I will confess that the phrase of rebellion against oppression conjured up to me the Rebel Alliance fighting against the Empire. The Empire being the Washington, D.C., establishment.
Indeed, immediately upon hearing that phrase, I wondered if at some point we would see a tall gentleman in a mechanical breathing apparatus come forward and say in a deep voice, “(Sen.) Mike Lee (R-Utah), I am your father.’”
Naturally, Cruz suggested that the “Empire will strike back,” and added that the Rebel Alliance “will prevail.”
It’s unclear whether Cruz then headed to the Senate parking lot to preside over a ceremonial corpse burning of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.
Perhaps a bigger question is which Force Ghost appeared as an apparition in the background: Sebastian Shaw or Hayden Christensen?
So long as Cruz keeps the Ewoks out of this.
The U.S. Senate is a natural forum for “Star Wars” banter. The entire series is laced with political references. In “The Phantom Menace,” Senator Palpatine chastised the Galactic Senate.
“The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good. There is no civility. Only politics.”
This sounds familiar. Wonder if they used the nuclear option to change the filibuster precedent in the Galactic Senate, too?
You thought the Trans-Pacific Partnership was complicated? Try parsing the opening crawl of Episode I. It declares that “the taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute” and that “the congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events.”
Last week, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., took to the Senate floor (in this galaxy) to assail government waste. Flake titled his report “The Farce Awakens.” The senator spoke in front of a chart featuring pigs wielding lightsabers.
It’s unclear how hogs figured out how to use Kyber crystals. 
Flake then compared construction delays and cost overruns on the second Death Star to typical Washington waste.
He says those issues aren’t limited to a “galaxy, far, far away.” The senator cited a NASA initiative to engineer a cloud city on Venus to the Cloud City of Bespin, in, as Flake calls it “The Emperor Strikes Back.”
Flake also lambasted the Pentagon for trying to develop a robot greeter.
“These are not the droids the government is looking for,” he opines.
To hear Flake tell it, government waste should wind up in the trash compactor on the Death Star.
“I hope this gives Congress something to ‘Chewie’ on,” Flake deadpans.
Flake isn’t the only one making the rhetorical jump to hyperspace.
Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, recently introduced the YODA, the “You Own Devices Act.” Farenthold contends the “Internet of Things” and proprietary software could challenge the concept of  owning property.
Guess Farenthold never bargained with the Jawas.
As a part his Senate campaign, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., blasted out a fundraising appeal sprinkled with more “Star Wars” references than alien creatures imbibing at the Mos Eisley Cantina.
“Dear Padawan,” begins Grayson’s missive. “’Tis I, Rep. Jedi Master Alan Grayson. Here’s an update on our Senate race. We’re going to win, because we’re focused, and as Qui-Gon Jinn told us, your focus determines your reality. Or as Yoda put it, ‘Do. Or do not. There is no try.’”
Grayson proceeds to quote Han Solo, Admiral Ackbar, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Padme, Princess Leia and Ahsoka Tano in the fundraising request.
It’s unclear whether Grayson’s political opponents may respond by trying to convince voters he carries “the death sentence on 12 systems.”
Even House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., chimed in on “Star Wars” at the recent bust dedication of former Vice President Dick Cheney at the Capitol.
“When the vice president had his critics just going off the deep end, as they often do, he asked Lynne, his wife, ‘Does it bug you when people refer to me as Darth Vader?’ And she said, ‘No. It humanizes you,’ ” Ryan said.
Ryan followed this up Friday with a news release reiterating his opposition to congressional earmarks.
Earmarking is a former Capitol Hill practice that loaded up spending bills with specific money allocations for various projects. This often prompted lawmakers to support the legislation.
The speaker’s office alluded to the earmark phenomenon as residing “A long time ago in a Congress far, far away … .”
“Star Wars” devotees all know that Han shot first. But on Capitol Hill, it was the late-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who fired the first “Star Wars” verbal volley more than 30 years ago.
In the early 1980s, President Reagan pushed for the construction of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI.
The system would protect the United States from Soviet attacks by intercepting missiles with rockets.
Reagan had just designated the Soviet Union the “evil empire” in a speech. Kennedy then decried SDI as science fiction, referring to Reagan’s ideas as “reckless Star Wars schemes.”
The “Star Wars” moniker stuck. Support for SDI dissipated on Capitol Hill faster than spooked Sand People riding Banthas.
Since then, lawmakers have rarely missed a chance to indulge in “Star Wars” digressions, regardless of political issue or topic.
On Friday morning, the Senate was poised to take its final vote of the year to approve the massive $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package. Seconds before the roll call, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., took to the floor to encourage her colleagues to vote aye.
“Let’s vote for it and may the Force be with us,” implored Mikulski.
It must have been. Senators adopted the measure 65-33.

The media is giving Hillary a pass on her most vile lie

New York Post
On Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton appeared at Andrews Air Force Base, where she spoke with family members of those slain.
Shortly afterward, Tyrone Woods’ father reported that she told him, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.” Sean Smith’s mother recently repeated this, saying, “She said it was because of the video.” Glen Doherty’s sister said she chose “in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.In public remarks Clinton said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Those words and her assurances to the family members stand in stark contradiction to what Clinton said in messages she sent over her private email system at the time.
On Sept. 11, 2012, she told her daughter that the “officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group.” On the morning of Sept. 12 she told an Egyptian diplomat, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”
Blaming the Benghazi murders on spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video (whose maker was indeed arrested, on unrelated charges) was apparently part of an Obama administration strategy. On Sept. 15, Susan Rice, then ambassador to the United Nations, after White House briefing went on five Sunday interview programs and blamed the attacks on the video.
There was an obvious political motive for blaming the video. Early September polling showed the race between Obama and Mitt Romney tied. Obama was claiming success against terrorists, frequently citing the death of Osama bin Laden as evidence that the threat was reduced.
The Benghazi attack — the first murder of an American ambassador in 33 years — obviously cast doubt on those claims. It validated criticism of the administration’s “leading from behind” in Libya policy.
Yet now Clinton says the victims’ family members are mistaken and that she didn’t mention the video to them at all. On ABC News’ “This Week” last Sunday, George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House aide, asked the candidate, “Did you tell them it was about the film?”
“No,” Clinton said.
She went on to say she understood “the continuing grief at the loss that parents experienced,” thus suggesting that they are unreliable witnesses. She cited her testimony before the Benghazi committee three years later, as if that is relevant. She talked about “a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war.”
To believe that Clinton’s “no” is not a lie, you have to believe that multiple individuals each misremembered what the US secretary of state had said to them. Or that members of three different families, struck by tragedy, got together and conspired to invent and spread an identical story that would someday embarrass her. Or that this is somehow the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Journalists, if they are more interested in determining the truth than in making sure Clinton is elected president, should ask her if she believes any of these things.
There’s another area where journalists ought to be pressing Clinton for answers. On Dec. 3 a New Hampshire voter — not a journalist — asked her, “You say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones be believed as well?” All three in the 1990s accused Bill Clinton of acts that constitute sexual assault or harassment.
“Well,” replied Hillary Clinton, “I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
The obvious follow-up is: What evidence? Anything beyond Bill Clinton’s denials? Even after he had to retract his denials of sex with Monica Lewinsky and chose to settle a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones?
Some may argue that these are peripheral matters. But the video-made-them-do-it distraction was clearly designed to help secure the re-election of President Obama. The purpose of Hillary Clinton’s decision to stand by her husband and denigrate those making charges against him was clearly to keep him in the White House.
Hillary Clinton has not answered all the legitimate questions that can be asked about these matters. Legitimate journalists should keep asking them until she does.

Clinton claims US is ‘where we need to be’ in ISIS fight, takes heat


Hillary Clinton claimed during Saturday’s Democratic debate that the U.S. is “where we need to be” in the fight against the Islamic State, a comment that drew ridicule from Republicans and seemed to take some of the steam out of an earlier slam against Donald Trump.
The Democratic presidential front-runner addressed the anti-ISIS strategy after taking heat from primary rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley for backing “regime change” in places like Libya and Syria. She countered that these are “complex problems” and said:
“We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS which is a danger to us as well as the region, and we finally have a U.N. Security Council resolution bringing the world together to go after a political transition in Syria.”
Republicans seized on the comments, with the Republican National Committee circulating a clip of the moment and Jeb Bush tweeting: “No @HillaryClinton – We are not ‘where we need to be’ in fight against ISIS.”
Clinton's campaign stood by the comments after
the debate ended, arguing that the U.N. resolution is a positive step. 

But the claim is at odds with public skepticism about the current strategy for confronting ISIS, and marked an uneven moment for the candidate during an otherwise aggressive performance that saw her take on the Republican front-runner. Making an extraordinary claim early in the debate, Clinton alleged that ISIS is circulating videos of Trump’s comments about Islam to recruit more radical jihadists.
“He is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter,” Clinton said.
The Democratic front-runner did not offer evidence on the debate stage to back up her claim, but it was just one of several attacks from the former secretary of state against the Republican front-runner. While the three Democratic candidates sparred often over gun control and taxes and national security at the debate in New Hampshire, Clinton clearly endeavored to make the billionaire businessman her top target.
With the debate coming after Trump stirred controversy with his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the country in the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack, Clinton argued his remarks about Muslims are fanning the flames abroad for radical Islam.
“Mr. Trump has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people,” Clinton said. Of ISIS, she said, “They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.”
Vermont Sen. Sanders and former Maryland Gov. O’Malley also took shots at Trump, with the latter urging the country to ignore the “fascist pleas of billionaires with big mouths.”
Trump, who normally responds to his critics with lightning-fast speed on Twitter, has not yet fired back at Clinton over her ISIS claim. FoxNews.com has reached out to the campaign for comment.  
The debate, hosted by ABC News, is the third of the Democratic primary season. It comes at a time when Clinton seems to be cementing her lead over the slim field – though not in the debate host state of New Hampshire, where Sanders leads in some polls.
With Sanders – and O’Malley – trying once again to challenge Clinton’s dominance in the race, her two rivals criticized her foreign policy approach. Sanders blasted her vote in the Senate for the Iraq war, and accused her of being too fond overall of pursuing “regime change” abroad.
O’Malley was even tougher on that front, accusing Clinton of being “gleeful” when Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi was toppled and saying that in Syria, “We shouldn’t be the ones declaring that Assad must go.”
O’Malley also took a seeming shot at his rivals’ age when he prefaced his criticism by saying, “Can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this?”
The Democratic candidates also battled over gun control. O’Malley prompted the dispute by elbowing his way in and accusing his higher-polling rivals of being soft, or disingenuous, on the issue.
He blasted Sanders for voting against the landmark “Brady bill” and other measures, and added, “Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election season, it seems.”
After complaining about “flip-flopping,” both Sanders and Clinton interrupted him.
“Let’s calm down a little bit, Martin,” Sanders said. “Let’s tell the truth,” Clinton added.
Sanders argued that he showed “courage” by standing up to gun interests in his state of Vermont, by voting to ban assault weapons and other actions. Clinton said she applauds O’Malley’s pro-gun control record but, “I just wish he wouldn’t misrepresent mine.”
She continued to suggest Sanders has not embraced gun control as much as he could. Earlier, Clinton also suggested guns are not the answer to the mounting terror threat.
“Arming more people to do what, I think, is not the appropriate response to terrorism,” Clinton said.
She and Sanders also tussled over a range of other domestic policies, including the potential cost of Sanders’ many entitlement program proposals – which Clinton argued would lead to taxes on the middle class. She pledged there would be no such tax hikes on her watch.
And Clinton again confronted questions about her ties to corporate America and Wall Street. Asked if corporate America should love her, she quipped, “Everybody should.”
She then added, “I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.”
Sanders put some space between them on that issue.
“They ain’t gonna like me,” he said.
O’Malley also brought up a controversial moment from the last debate, when Clinton invoked 9/11 to explain her ties to Wall Street. O’Malley said she “very shamefully” tried to downplay her relationship with the financial sector by doing so.
An issue that surprisingly did not spark major fireworks at the debate was the developing controversy over Sanders’ staff improperly accessing Clinton voter files on a Democratic National Committee database.
At the very beginning of the debate, Sanders publicly apologized to Clinton for the episode -- even as he continued to blast the DNC for what he described as its heavy-handed punishment imposed against his campaign.
“I apologize,” Sanders said. He added, “I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run.”
With the apology, Sanders seemed to de-escalate the tensions between the two candidates over the issue. At the same time, he continued to blast the DNC for initially locking down his camp’s access to all voter data.
“That is an egregious act,” he said. He also needled Clinton’s campaign for sending out “many press releases” criticizing him for the breach.
Clinton, in response, said all should “move on” from the dispute.
The DNC had already restored Sanders’ access to the voter files late Friday after a round of legal threats and accusations. But the episode stirred up long-simmering complaints from Clinton’s rivals that some in DNC leadership are trying to boost her campaign.
The debate Saturday fell at a time when the Democratic race has been overshadowed by the intense sparring on the Republican side and the shifting dynamics in that race. By contrast, Clinton has mostly held a steady lead on the Democratic side. She leads nationally by a wide margin and has restored a consistent lead in most Iowa polls, after a period this fall where Sanders had closed the gap.
In the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, however, the Vermont senator continues to trade the lead with the Democratic front-runner.
The campaign itself has shifted in part to focus more on security issues in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks, a development seen by some analysts to put the economy-focused Sanders at a disadvantage. Sanders also has eased off criticism of Clinton’s personal email scandal, though it remains a major line of attack on the Republican side.

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos