Madam Hillary is on the right side of herstory

Lies are good and truth is bad because truth would damage Madam Hillary’s and even Imam Obama’s sterling images. Both, bravely and proudly, try to feed us what is “good.” Their people love it, so what difference does it make? 

According to John Hinderaker at Power Line, Madam Hillary

lies…it’s not exactly a news flash. On the contrary, based on the liberal media’s reaction to her Benghazi testimony, her willingness to lie, brazenly, is a positive virtue.

There’s always an excuse for having “misspoke.” It need not be a credible excuse, because an incredible excuse works just fine. Anyway, whatever happened was in the past and therefore doesn’t matter now:

What has Imam Obama lied about? Plenty. Here’s an incomplete list: Islam, the nuke “deal” with Iran, Libya, His strength and Putin’s weakness in the Middle East, Israel, Immigration, Crime, Obamacare, race relations and on and on and on. As with Madam Hillary’s spewings, the “legitimate media” generally love it.

Madam Hillary blamed the video repeatedly

According to an article titled “I didn’t blame the video,” Madam Hillary did just that while also managing to lie about substantially more than that.

Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” [Emphasis added.]

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton’s apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn’t actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” Clinton wrote Egypt’s prime minister the night of the attack. “It was a planned attack, not a protest.” But in public Clinton continued to blame the “offensive” video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip. [Emphasis added]

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said “Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators.”

You want to talk about Madam Hillary’s lies? She didn’t lie, of course, but let’s change the subject to something more important. Right now.

 

Conclusions

“Her people” not only don’t care, they are delighted with Madam Hillary’s numerous lies. Again, “what difference does it make?” Plenty.

Please think about Madam Hillary’s and Imam Obama’s impunity — and readiness —  to lie, violate laws and do pretty much whatever they please. We have become a nation without law enforcement where we need it most and very much where enforcement of Obama’s executive decrees harms us greatly (climate change and immigration for example). Do we want a nation the governance of which is increasingly based on, and perpetuated through, lies to “We the people?” Do we want Madam Hillary or another Obama clone as the next Commander in Chief?

Here’s what “Commander in Chief” Obama has done with his our military:

Do you approve of those and the other things He has done to our military? Want more of the same? Or even worse? If not, what can we do about it? Supporting Donald Trump may or may not be what we should do, but I think the songs in the video are superb. Back in September, I wrote an article titled To bring America back we need to break some stuff. We still do, and if someone other than Trump is ready, willing and able he (or, of course, she) should also be considered, very seriously.