Inevitabillary?

Polls are indicating this could be a big November for Republicans. They are poised to regain control of the Senate along with retaining leadership of the House. For some people, of course, this is viewed as a calamity. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her usual understated manner, declared that a Republican takeover just might lead to the end of civilization as we know it:

Great Threats

No, a Republican takeover would be more of a threat to Nancy Pelosi and her dreams of creating the perfect Nanny State. If she needs any comfort, someone should remind her that she will still have her man in the White House, regardless of what occurs in the congressional elections.

Speaking of the White House, that 2016 race is already on everyone’s mind. Is there really any question about who will be the Democrat nominee?

Is Hillary Running

She put in an appearance in Iowa the other day, along with her presumed husband:

Came Back

Even though these two don’t see each other that often, you can be sure they will be together a lot in the coming months. Does anyone with a memory really have Clinton nostalgia?

Inevitabillary

Along her path to the nomination, speed bumps will appear, if anyone is paying attention. Benghazi hearings have now begun, and a former State Department official who was in the know has come forward to say that Hillary’s functionaries were busy cleansing the files of anything that incriminated her in that fiasco. This is the typical Clinton coverup routine. It’s just an extension of what they’ve always done. I continue to believe this is one of the most corrupt couples ever to come on our political scene.

However, the general public may not get all the truth if they depend on the mainstream news for information. Just as the networks actively ignore the truth about the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they have already begun shielding the heir-apparent:

Perfect Team Work

Will the networks be able to achieve a total blackout on whatever comes from the Benghazi hearings? If not, these hearings could have a major impact on 2016.

The Phoniness of Being Hillary Clinton

My final “catch-up” blog  on things I missed while on vacation in June centers on the astounding claim by Hillary Clinton that when she and her husband left the White House in 2001, they were dead broke. That comment was widely ridiculed by all segments of the political spectrum and further tarnished the Clinton image, reinforcing their reputation as tellers of tall tales. It also aroused the political cartoon class to new heights of humor. I can let those cartoonists carry most of the weight of commentary today.

What Difference

To me, it makes no difference at all. My view of the supposed frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president is unchanged by this newest faux pas. All it does is confirm what I already know about her—she will say anything for political advantage:

Never Easy

She has rather innovative definitions:

Dictionary

Speaking of definitions, I’m waiting for her to pick up on the tactic Bill made so infamous back in 1998:

That Depends

In fact, Bill has made over $100 million since he left office and Hillary gets six figures for every speech she makes. If that’s the definition of dead broke, I’m sure a good number of their fellow citizens would like to become as dead broke as they are:

Will Work

A Few Words

Meanwhile, her book tour hasn’t gone as planned either. Sales for her new self-congratulatory epic written by someone else have been disappointing. There might be a good reason for that:

Accomplishments

When even her most ardent supporters are asked what she has done to deserve the highest office in the land, they come up stammering. It’s difficult to think of any good reason why she should be elevated to the presidency. About the best they can offer is that she’s a Clinton, and they want to revive the Clinton brand, and that it’s “her turn.” You know, now that we’ve had our first black president and that’s worked out so swimmingly, a woman needs to step into the Oval Office next. Forget whether she is actually qualified for the job; ignore her lack of genuine accomplishments; and by all means, don’t mention her awful decisions and failures:

Hillary Arrested

Benghazi is her legacy, no matter how she attempts to spin it, and her ideology meshes nicely with Obama’s, thereby making a Hillary presidency an extension of the radicalism we’re currently suffering through. Are we so deluded that we will choose another four years of this? Time will tell.

Derailing Benghazi

No, I’m not going to let go of Benghazi. It’s too important. No matter how Democrats try to derail this investigation, it must proceed. Knowing their opposition to anything critical of the president (despite their own whispered criticisms of his actions), we can expect little or no cooperation as Republicans attempt to unearth the facts:

Benghazi Grave

And the lack of cooperation, of course, stems from the very top, on any number of issues:

Beautiful Day

Meanwhile, the chief foreign policy architect of the Benghazi fiasco has the nerve to run for president herself:

What Difference

If the nation is so foolish as to entrust Hillary Clinton with the office of the presidency, that sign will be accurate.

About That “Smidgen” of Corruption

Newly revealed e-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show clearly that administrators and lawyers within the IRS headquarters in DC were actively engaged in targeting conservative groups. It wasn’t just some rogue agents in the Cincinnati office; it was orchestrated from the top. And where does the top get its marching orders? Who’s in charge of the IRS? Oh, yes, that would be the president.

Yet even this revelation doesn’t shake the Obama administration’s response; full-denial mode is in operation. Does anyone remember President Obama’s reaction to the IRS scandal when it first broke? He was “outraged” and was going “to get to the bottom of this.” Those responsible were going to be found. Does that sound somewhat similar to his Benghazi pronouncements? Yet nothing has been done, at least by the administration, on either count.

Then Obama did an about-face, declaring that there wasn’t even a “smidgen” of corruption to be found with respect to the IRS. Will any reporter have the nerve to challenge that statement now? If one does, how will Obama respond?

Wasn't a Smidgen

Since shame is non-existent with these people, don’t be surprised if he puts on another “outrage” act followed by no discernible action. It’s not easy to be outraged over something you desired to see happen anyway, whether your fingerprints can be traced to it or not. I’m of the opinion the targeting was directed from the White House, but that they were extremely careful to ensure nothing can trace it back to the man at the top.

The investigation must proceed. Justice has not yet been achieved.

Hashtag Foreign Policy?

I feel compelled to do one more Benghazi commentary for this week. The inspiration for today is the new foreign policy created by the Obama administration lately. Let’s call it “hashtag policy.” Do you recall the photo of Michelle Obama holding up a sign with a hashtag on it regarding the abduction of Nigerian girls by an Islamic terrorist group? In case you missed it, here it is:

Bring Back Our Girls

Call me cynical, but for some reason, I don’t believe terrorists are intimidated by tweets. I think they’re more responsive to action on our part. Perhaps the president can use the same technique on Benghazi?

Hashtag Response

Pretty effective, huh? From the administration’s point of view, this approach is preferable to a genuine investigation into wrongdoing relating to the attack. They continue to portray this as old news and say all questions have been answered. Well, only if you haven’t been paying attention:

Answered Every Question

For those of us who follow these things, there are a lot of gaps in the timeline for that event. And lest we forget, four men died. They were the first victims. If Democrats have their way, one more victim will be added:

Graves

It’s well past time to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The Democrats’ Investigative Angst

The new select committee to investigate Benghazi has the Democrats in a tizzy. What? Investigate why four men died in a terrorist attack at a consulate that didn’t have proper security despite repeated requests, where no one gave the word to send help when lives could have been saved, and a fanciful story about an obscure internet video became the excuse because we were in the middle of a presidential campaign in which the incumbent had said Al Qaeda was on the run and he had a fundraiser in Las Vegas to attend and couldn’t be bothered by a small thing like a terrorist attack? You mean that necessitates an investigation? Why, how absurd! What difference does it make now, dude, two years after the fact? Nothing to see here. Move on.

If that’s the case, why the angst over a committee tasked to get the facts? Could it be because of where the investigation may lead?

Up a Tree

The Democrats naturally will do whatever they can to shield their presumptive 2016 presidential nominee:

Brick Wall

But if truth should actually come to light, there will be no loss of poise on their side. They can always shift the blame:

Cookie Jar

This investigation must go forward. It is essential. I say that not as a political statement or partisan ploy. It is essential to good government and holding people accountable for their actions and/or inactions.

A Select Benghazi Committee

Trey GowdyToday, the House of Representatives will vote on whether to set up a special select committee to deal with all the issues stemming from the Benghazi terrorist attack. Unless some unforeseen circumstance intervenes, this committee will finally become reality and may provide the answers that should have been forthcoming long ago. Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina has been chosen by Speaker Boehner to chair the committee; he already is receiving death threats from the Tolerant Left.

Gowdy seems to be the right person for this task: he has been one of the most articulate of all the congressmen on a variety of scandals plaguing the Obama administration; he comes across as someone who won’t be intimidated and will see this through to completion. Democrats in the House have threatened not to participate on the committee, labeling it purely political. The deaths of diplomats, the tardy response to the attack, and the ensuing misrepresentation of what transpired that day in Benghazi are not political talking points; they are serious events that deserve special attention and resolution.

The Obama media has done its best to aid in the coverup. This committee is important if the average American who has no idea what’s going on is ever to be informed:

Who Is Ben

The real question is whether the administration’s lapdog media will give the investigation its due:

Page One

Some information, though, is hard to contain. The recently divulged e-mails that point to collusion within the administration to concoct the false story about an internet video being the cause of the attack have sneaked into some news outlets:

Smoking-Gun Control

There’s also a lot of mystery concerning Obama’s whereabouts while the Benghazi tragedy was unfolding. Where was he? What was he doing?

Integrity

Prepping for a debate? Getting ready for his Las Vegas fundraiser? Well, that’s all old news, isn’t it? That’s what we’re told constantly. Like, dude, that was two years ago:

Two Dozen Lies Ago

And the White House press conferences lately, with ringmaster Jay Carney, have been a real circus. At least some members of the White House press corps have decided to step up and demand answers that aren’t ridiculous. It’s been tougher for Carney the past couple weeks; what must he be thinking by now?

Please God

On the administration’s side, this entire episode has the makings of a bestseller with movie rights:

Liar Liar

Yet the Democrat theme will always be that there’s no there there—let’s just move on:

Move On

That theme is becoming overused. Hopefully, the public will see it for what it really is: a stonewall that seeks to sweep away a genuine investigation.