Armageddon Page 4
We can count on Donald Trump to carry that banner and stop her plans to change America.
It is definitely our last chance to prevent a new crime wave from sweeping our land, animated by those who will be released from prison by so-called sentencing “reform.” It’s not reform; it’s appeasing Democratic Party constituents who have disproportionately high numbers of arrests in their family. Our police will be helpless to stop them, checkmated by the Black Lives Matter movement so dear to Hillary.
Likewise, it is our last chance to preserve our private health care system. With Obamacare failing, the Left will move on to its real goal: socialized medicine. If insurance companies cannot make a profit in the jerry-rigged Obamacare system, the Left will cut them out and go to a single-payer government-controlled system.
Beating Hillary Clinton will be our last chance to keep the Second Amendment in force. If we lose, Hillary Clinton will bind us hand-and-foot to international gun control treaties that override our inherent constitutional protections and the established laws of our land. These treaties, rarely submitted to Congress for review and approval, nevertheless impose registration requirements on our citizens and will ultimately result in the confiscation of privately owned firearms. Hillary supported these UN treaties when she was secretary of state and she will promote them as president. One more good reason to stop her.
Hillary’s subservience to Chinese American business interests and her addiction to their campaign donations and speaking fees will lead her to surrender our entire economy to Beijing. With Beijing finding willing allies in the corrupt establishments of both parties, it will proceed to extinguish all American manufacturing and finish the job it started when Bill Clinton misguidedly let the Chinese into the World Trade Organization in 2000, causing a massive loss of American jobs.
Defeating Hillary will be our last chance to eliminate the crony capitalism that is the trademark of her career. Her coziness with Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Corning, GE, and so many others in return for campaign contributions has led her to put their interests well ahead of those of the American worker or our people. But it is our civil liberties that will face the sharpest curtailment. Through a combination of federal regulation and the decisions of a newly compliant Supreme Court, the Second Amendment will become a nullity. The NSA will run amok and will increasingly be used as a tool of domestic oppression.
Can you imagine if the woman who sent private detectives all over the country to track down, investigate, and intimidate all the women with whom her husband was involved got power over the FBI, CIA, IRS, NSA, DOD, and FCC? The extent of her use of government agencies to blackmail and besmirch political opponents is mind boggling—and terrifying—to contemplate.
Finally, defeating Hillary is our last chance to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances. If we lose, she will replace conservative Supreme Court Justices with rubber stamps jurists who will OK the unprecedented executive seizure of power that has been the hallmark of the Obama presidency. This will only embolden a President Hillary. The Obama executive orders will all be enforced, and unfavored industries, such as coal, will, pardon the pun, bite the dust. She will use environmental enforcement to regulate every aspect of our lives as smart meters monitor our every move, even within our own homes.
And she will get us into wars. A hawk by nature, Hillary will perpetually feel pressure to show strength as the first woman president. Faced with options of diplomacy or force, she will wilt under charges of weakness and will opt for military action every time. The woman who backed both wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Libya, and intervention in Syria will get us into more wars to prove her toughness—by shedding our blood. She can’t stop; she won’t stop. But Donald Trump can stop her.
Armageddon is here. We have our work cut out for us—and we can do it. We must do it. America is well worth it. Let the fight begin.
CHAPTER 1
A Dozen Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Not Be President
Reason One: She Demonstrated Her Inability to Be Commander in Chief at Benghazi
Hillary had all the warning in the world that things were brewing in Benghazi. But she did nothing. In fact, she cut the security at the consulate. Few candidates for president have the chance to show how they would handle a crisis of the sort that arises in most administrations. Hillary had the chance in 2012 and showed up wanting.
• March 28: Ambassador Gene Cretz cabled Clinton requesting additional security in Benghazi.
• April 10: An explosive device was thrown at a convoy traveling in Benghazi carrying United Nations envoy Ian Martin.1
• April 19: Cretz got a reply acknowledging his request, but was told that we were going to scale back our security, not enhance it.
• May 22: A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) hit the Benghazi offices of the Red Cross.2 Terrorists attacked the Red Cross in Benghazi. That should have been a warning.
• May 30: The State Department turned down the request from Ambassador Cretz for security aircraft.
• June 6: An improvised explosive device detonated just outside the Benghazi consulate compound.3
• June 11: An RPG hit a convoy carrying the British ambassador in Benghazi. The United Kingdom left the city for good.4
• June 15: Charlene Lamb, on Hillary’s staff, said the security team contract to protect Benghazi would not be renewed.
• June 22: Ambassador Chris Stevens warned State that extremist groups were operating in the open in Benghazi carrying out terror attacks and said he was a target.
If a president ignored warnings of this sort and frequency, he would be excoriated as a failed commander in chief. In fact, Hillary set up the State Department bureaucracy in such a way that she would not be annoyed by such matters as requests for additional security. She testified before Congress that none of the approximately 600 requests for extra personnel in Libya and Benghazi alone ever reached her desk.5
In the run-up to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, the Defense Department offered to increase the security at the compound in Benghazi. But Ambassador Stevens pointed out that Defense Department personnel, unlike the State Department counterparts, would not have diplomatic immunity, so he turned down their offer. He was, naturally, worried that if Defense personnel had to shoot, they could be prosecuted in a Libyan court, while State personnel would be shielded. But Hillary’s State Department never came through with the additional guards he requested.
The dreadfully eloquent film 13 Hours recounts the desperation of a handful of US troops trying to defend the CIA compound against an attack by hundreds of organized terrorists armed with mortars. As Fox News reported, when the attack in Benghazi unfolded, “a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an e-mail obtained by Judicial Watch.” Fox News noted that “the revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya.”6
Actually, Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash was actively trying to get troops to Benghazi. He wrote to one of Hillary’s deputies: “I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]. After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham, and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”7 But no forces were sent. Why not? Hillary and Obama were more concerned with limiting the footprint of the operation so that it would not be so high profile that it would contradict their campaign narrative that al-Qaeda was on the ropes after bin Laden was killed. Because additional reinforcements were not sent, four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died.
Symptomatic of Hillary’s isolation is the unfortunate fact that Ambassador Stevens did not have Hillary’s e-mail address, so he could not figuratively have made the 3:00 a.m. phone call that Hillary’s ads say only someone of her
experience would know how to handle. Then the lying started. Anxious not to alarm the country and let people figure out that al-Qaeda was far from dead even after bin Laden was slain, the president and his secretary of state conspired to lie to the American people about the attack, describing it as a demonstration against a film criticizing the Prophet Mohammed gone awry.
Hillary not only lied to us, but she fabricated the tale of the movie demonstration and repeated it to the grieving families of the victims. Several of them reported that Hillary promised them that they would get the person who made the anti-Muslim video. The public Hillary released a statement at 10:00 p.m., as the attack was still in progress, blaming the movie for the attack. But one hour later, the private Hillary sent an e-mail to her daughter, Chelsea, saying that “two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda-like group.”8
The next day, the public Hillary kept up the lie that the attack was a demonstration gone violent. But as she did, she was telling the truth to the Egyptian prime minister in a telephone call. The notes of the call indicate that she made no mention of the anti-Muslim Internet video that she publicly claimed triggered the demonstration, but described the situation in Libya as a “terrorist attack.”9 Confronted by her lie, Hillary retreated from her bland assertion that the attack stemmed from a demonstration to say that it was a possibility but that, at the moment of the attack, the “fog of war” prevented American officials from determining the truth.10
It was no fog of war. Fog of war is a description usually used by commanders who, on the battlefield, cannot see through the smoke and the fire to what is going on beneath. Mistakes made because of these conditions are often attributed to the “fog of war.” Used in a political context, we are not dealing with the romantic notion of the fog of war. Instead, Hillary’s and Obama’s lies were a smokescreen designed to conceal the facts from the American people. What a wonderful qualification to find in a presidential candidate.
Despite a lengthy Congressional hearing on Benghazi, Hillary has never really been held to account. The revelations of her inaction and concealment have come in such dribs and drabs that we have never really had the full story. Leave it to Donald Trump to set it in perspective. One can only imagine how the Donald will rip her apart in a debate raking her over the coals for her lies and duplicity.
Reason Two: She Is a Compulsive, Pathological, and Serial Liar Who Cannot Be Trusted to Tell the Truth to the American People
Hillary has always believed that she can put something over on us, that she can lie with impunity and get away with it. And for a long time, that’s exactly what she’s done. But those days are over. We’re on to her now. And Donald Trump is on to her, too, and he will relentlessly point out each and every one of her lies.
That doesn’t mean she’s stopped trying. Not at all. It seems that she really can’t help herself. Because, for Hillary, lying is routine. It comes naturally—like breathing. For the last 40 years, she’s been embellishing her credentials and experience, covering up corrupt conduct, erasing unflattering incidents, confirming Bill’s false statements, disseminating disinformation about her enemies and Bill’s women, distorting the truth about her conduct in office, and making up self-congratulatory fake stories about herself. She just can’t stop.
But her lies have finally caught up with her. By any measurement, an overwhelming majority of American voters recognize that Hillary doesn’t tell the truth and can’t be trusted. They simply don’t believe what she has to say. Every major poll conducted over the last year has shown an increase in the number of people who think she is dishonest. And they are unambiguous about it.
A Quinnipiac poll in late August 2015 asked respondents to describe Hillary Clinton in a single word. The results were brutal. The most frequently mentioned answer was “liar,” followed by similar words like dishonest, untrustworthy, crook, untruthful, deceitful, crooked, sneaky, and devious.11 That is an amazing indictment of her credibility and her overall image.
Take a look at the list of the words selected to describe Hillary along with the number of people, out of a sample of 1,000 Americans, who chose the particular word:
liar
178
dishonest
123
untrustworthy
93
crook
21
untruthful
19
criminal
18
deceitful
18
e-mail
14
Benghazi
12
corrupt
12
crooked
11
murderer
9
bitch
9
phony
8
cheat
7
deceptive
7
sneaky
7
thief
6
devious
5
unqualified
5
Those voters sure know whom they are dealing with.
In addition to the negative image, the cynicism about her has reached historic levels. Two later polls in December 2015 by Quinnipiac and ABC News found that only a little more than a third of the voters believe that Hillary is “honest and trustworthy.” That’s stunning: 59% of the voters don’t believe that she is genuine. And why should they? She’s been caught in so many lies that nothing she says is believable anymore. Years ago, voters and the press accepted what she said at face value, but now her claims are routinely challenged because so much of what she says is just pure fiction.
Whether reacting to Benghazi or covering up her use of a private server, she lies out of a well-honed instinct for self-preservation. Essentially, she has escaped indictment by lying, sometimes under oath.
• She lied about being instrumental in the Travel Office firings.
• She lied about being the attorney for a fraudulent real estate transaction in Arkansas connected with Whitewater.
• She lied about how she transformed a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 windfall through insider trading on the commodities market.
• She lied about Benghazi.
• And she lied about why she created a secret e-mail server and when she said that she never sent or received classified material on her private e-mail server at the State Department.
Her standard lie, especially when confronted with evidence of Bill’s inappropriate behavior, is to say “it never happened.” That’s the world according to Hillary—if she says it never happened, it goes away. Dick can attest to this lie from a personal experience. During Bill’s 1992 run for president, a reporter from the Los Angeles Times appeared at the door to our home and asked about a physical altercation between Dick and Bill Clinton that had occurred in 1990 in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion. Dick called Hillary to tell her about it and discuss how to handle it. “Just tell them it never happened,” she told him. “We’ll deny it on our end.” When Dick told her that he could not do that because he had already told another political consultant about it right after it happened—and that this consultant was likely the source, she wasn’t at all worried. “Deny it. It’ll be your word against his.”
The story was, of course, absolutely true. And Hillary had been right in the middle of it—literally. During a contentious late night meeting in May of 1990, Bill, furious, spewed out a stream of verbal abuse aimed at Dick. Finally, after a particularly obnoxious exchange, Dick stood up and started to walk out the front door. Bill immediately ran after him, tackling him and throwing him onto the foyer floor.
As Dick was struggling to get up, Bill raised his fist and leaned down to strike Dick. Hillary ran in, screaming at Bill: “Stop it, Bill! Think about what you are doing! Stop it!” She grabbed his arm and he moved away. As Dick got up and stormed out, Hillary followed him and asked him to walk around the grounds, apologizing profusely and telling him, “He only does this to people he loves.” Th
ink about that line. Was it supposed to be a compliment? Sounds like a lot more.
Without Dick to confirm the story, it went away for a while. But months later, when the story finally came out, Hillary asked Dick to at least modulate his description of what had happened, leaving out the physical assault. She never gives up. And then, years later in 1997 when Dick eventually wrote about it, Bill read the galleys and asked Dick if he could just say that he tripped. Dick wouldn’t.
That’s how the Clintons solve embarrassing problems. Pretend they never happened. Swear that it never happened, if you have to. They would have handled the Monica Lewinsky scandal that way except for DNA on a blue dress. That was a big issue for the Clintons, obviously. But so many of Hillary’s lies are gratuitous. The obvious question is this: Why does such an accomplished and successful woman who has been First Lady, a US senator, and secretary of state find it necessary to lie so often about herself and her record? Why does she do this?
An analysis of her most well-known lies indicates that a lot of them are exaggerations of her background and experiences that are carefully designed to make her look better. Others are devices for feigning camaraderie and identification with the audience. Her constant lying suggests an underlying problem with self-esteem, which seems surprising in a woman of her position and her verbal confidence. But what else could account for her recurring aggrandizement of her achievements and her obsessive need to create an inflated image of herself?