Who can you trust?

Not too long ago I remember hearing a chant being led by the group called Black Lives Matter. It went like this. "What do you want?" "Dead cops!" "When do you want it?" "Now". Anyone not suffering from Alzheimer disease must remember this chant. I also remember another chant led by Black Lives Matter. It went like this. "Pigs in a blanket. Fry'em like bacon". It is obvious that they were advocating the wholesale murder of police officers. I remember that right after they led these chants, Obama invited them to the White House so that he could expressly endorse them, with the obvious implication of also endorsing the idea of wholesale murders of our police officers. What else could Obama's immediate endorsement of the Black Lives Matter group have inplied?
Now at the DNC, the democratic parties leaders have invited the Black Lives Matter leaders to speak. This further legitimizes a radical group that has advocated killing police officers. Does this mean that the democratic party endorses the idea of murdering police officers? If the democratic party is opposed to killing police, why endorse an organization advocating it? Since Obama and the democratic party have publically endorsed Black Lives Matter, doesn't that imply that they agree with what Black Lives Matter advocates, which is an endorsement of killing police?
If I were a police officer, I would have zero trust in anyone associated with Black Lives Matter. I would have zero trust in anyone who endorses Black Lives Matter. I can't think of one reason that a police officer, a friend of a police officer, or a relative of a police officer should trust anyone who advocates killing police officers. Can you?

A fanciful trip through imagination

Today I would like to take you on a short trip of imagination. I want you to picture yourself as a business owner in a small business that you started with a friend several years ago. You and your friend are partners with each of you owning 50% of the business.  Since you have the expertise in the business and your partner has a degree in business finance, you have been the one planning and directing projects and your partner has been handling the financial areas of the business. The business has been profitable, but money has always been tight. Both you and your partner have drawn adequate salaries for years, but in the last couple of years you slowly became aware that your partner's standard of living seemed to be a little out of line with the salary he had been drawing. Feeling a little guilty for being suspicious, you nevertheless hired someone to secretly investigate your partner, and you were shocked to discover after an extensive investigation that your partner had been skimming profits and doctoring the company's financial records. Although you can be certain that he has stolen money from the company, you can't be sure just how much. You are a little unsure how to proceed because your investigator has told you that your partner has been very skillful with his financial manipulations and with the lies he has told to cover his trail. Prosecution will probably be very difficult. Today, your partner has approached you with a business proposition whereby the two of you may start another business. He has painted a glowing picture of how well the two of you can do in the new business, and is looking for you to make a substantial investment in setting up the business soon.
Now I want to ask you a simple question. Will you give your partner this large sum of money to start another business with him? Oh, by the way, he will handle all of the financial aspects of the new business. If you have answered that you will give him the money, don't bother to read the rest of this post.
Any reasonable person should dump the partner and initiate whatever process is available to recover the money he has already stolen, right? Any reasonable person should want to steer clear of any further business involvement because the partner has proven himself to be a liar and a thief, right?
I have one final question. Because of Hillary's actions, people died in Benghazi, right? For political reasons, Hillary told the public that the Benghazi attack happened because of a film, which she knew was a lie, right? The lie was exposed by her emails to her family stating that the attack was a terrorist attack, right? Hillary lied when she said that none of her emails on her private server was classified, right? Hillary lied when she said that she only deleted personal emails, right? Hillary claims to support women's rights while accepting 10's of millions of dollars of donations from countries with the worst possible history of abuses against women, right? Here is the last question. Given that Hillary has a history of lying about so many things, how can any reasonable person put any trust into anything that she says? How can anyone believe that anything she says during the campaign has any bearing on what she will actually do if she is elected/

Hillory hates coal

Finally, some of the people in coal country in the south have started to wake up and smell the dung. Hillary's statement "We are going to put a lot of coal miners out of business." coupled with thousands of lost jobs finally showed her lack of empathy for the average working person. Both she and Bill are totally disconnected from understanding the average person's needs and concerns. Instead of working with the coal companies to set up a workable solution to reducing pollution, she cuts off her nose to spite her face. She and Obama totally ignored the fact that the coal industry has made great strides in reducing the impact on the environment. Instead they set up standards which were purposely impossible to meet with the express purpose of putting the coal companies out of business. If they were really interested in doing what is best for people, they would have put standards in place to accomplish a constructive purpose rather than destruction for the sake of destruction.

It is most likely that Hillary's other comment regarding the oil and gas business went unnoticed by the majority of the people. She is not content with simply destroying the coal industry and destroying thousands of good paying jobs. She said that she intends to do the same thing to our entire oil and gas industry. It is total insanity. It is comparable to a person who has an itch in their foot. Obviously the solution to an itchy foot is to amputate the foot. Mark my words, Hillary intends to destroy the entire energy industry in America in the guise of controlling pollution. Has she ever even looked at how clean natural gas is as an energy source? Of course not! Does she even have any idea of the impossibility of producing all of our energy needed from solar and wind? Of course not! Has she even considered the cost to our economy once her actions cause the cost of energy to quadruple? Of course not! Once she accomplishes her next goal (i.e. non-existent energy), the economic disaster is beyond estimation, millions of jobs lost and America back in the stone age.

What she conveniently excludes from her comments is the grossly obvious point that the coal mining industry in China is expanding, and they don't care about the pollution that they cause. She also ignores the fact that the other oil-producing nations have no intention of cutting back on oil and gas production or on oil and gas consumption. In Hillary's world, only the U.S. must make sacrifices while the rest of the world profits at America's expense. You can be sure that the Clinton's will do just fine. They will have millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation from the other oil and gas producing nations of the world even as the average American is economically destroyed.

Obama's Latest

Whenever I think that Obama has sunk as low as possible, he continues to find new lower depths. Last week he gave a speech mocking Donald Trump's GOP speech. That is not surprising. Mocking other people is a disgusting habit to begin with, but it is one of Obama's main tools. However, the content of what he said was infuriating. He tried to present the current war on police as the 'norm' in American society. Trump basically said that our police deserve our respect and support, and that the current "war on cops" will stop once he becomes president. Obama tried to make it sound like there has been no deliberate killings of our police officers. He tried to imply that everything is just fine in America. In other words, according to Obama, killing our police officers is normal and no cause for alarm. Based on Obama's rhetoric depicting every white police officer as a wild-eyed racist looking for an opportunity to kill black people, and his open approval of the blatantly racist Black Lives Matter organization, are you surprised that Obama implies that killing police officers is OK? After all, Black Lives Matter led chants in demonstrations inciting people to kill police officers, and immediately after that Obama invited the Black Lives Matter group to the white house to express his approval for the group.

Ted Cruz speech

I was very disappointed with Ted Cruz. At one time, I was very positively impressed with him during his campaign. However, he did make a pledge to support the GOP nominee last year. One should not take a pledge lightly. In my opinion, it is a matter of honor. If you make a pledge, then stand by it! Ted Cruz apparently thinks that if something happens between when he makes a pledge and when he is obliged to honor the pledge, then he can walk away from his commitment. That said, I can understand that Ted has strong negative feelings regarding Trump, but he could have found a way to say that he was going to honor his pledge in spite of his feelings. In other words, he could have been straightforward and acknowledged the personal animosity which exists between them and specifically stated that he was still going to honor his pledge. I would have respect for him. Instead, I find that I have doubts that I would ever believe Ted in the future if he makes any commitments. I certainly have reservations about the idea of ever voting for him for any kind of office in the future.

Borders are necessary

How do you know where a country is? You look at a map which shows the country as outlined by its borders. It should not be necessary to say this, but the PC left will argue about anything. A country that does not defend its borders will cease to exist as a country. If you love America, then defend it! If you don't love America, then Get Out! If you don't want to defend our borders, then you want America to cease to exist. Go somewhere else! America has a history of welcoming immigrants which exceeds the immigrant welcome of any other country in the world. Please note that I said immigrant. For those of you on the left, an illegal alien is not an immigrant. By definition, an immigrant is someone who has come to America LEGALLY! If a person is here illegally, they can not logically be referred to as an immigrant. An illegal alien is breaking our law by being here. In other words, they have no respect for our laws. Let's state that a little more clearly for the PC police. We don't need people here that think that they are above the law. We don't need lawless people sneaking into our country.
For those of you who want to say that someone has the right to try to improve their life, and therefore should be allowed to be here illegally, let me say this. Immigrants are welcome. Immigrants are our lifeblood. Immigrants have contributed greatly to American history. However, in the last couple of years there have been over half a million felonies committed in the state of Texas by illegal aliens against American citizens. That is in just the state of Texas. I will readily concede that most of the illegal aliens don't commit felonies, but there are millions of felonies committed by illegal aliens. Any illegal alien who commits a felony in the U.S. should receive the maximum punishment permitted under the law, and then be deported after serving their prison term. People who are not American citizens have no inherent right to reside in the U.S. They are welcome here as visitors as long as they follow our laws. That specifically means following our immigration laws. Those here illegally should either follow the law and become a legal visitor or get out of our country.
Obama's administration has purposely refused to enforce our immigration laws. By not protecting our borders, they have purposely permitted criminals and terrorists to freely invade our country along with the illegals. You can make any kind of argument you want to regarding why Obama wants to erase our borders, but his actions have greatly decreased the safety for American citizens and increased the lawlessness in our country. It is his desire to admit at least 100,000 people into our country WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CHECKS TO VERIFY WHO THEY ARE. Hillary wants to increase that number to over half a million people WITHOUT REASONABLE BACKGROUND CHECKS. As usual, Hillary cares little or not at all about the safety of American citizens, just like Obama.
To recap what I have said. A person who is not an American citizen has no inherent right to stay in our country. We have the right to refuse entry to the U.S. to anyone, just like every other country in the world. If someone breaks our laws, we have the right and the obligation to punish them. A person who is in our country illegally is obviously breaking our laws, and by definition is a lawbreaker. Last of all, if we don't protect our borders, then we will cease to exist as a country.

Hillary - Obama's third term

Hillary has made it crystal clear that she intends to continue Obama's policies. You can place whatever faith in that statement you think is worthy. Does Hillary ever tell the truth? But for the sake of discussion, I will assume that she is being truthful. If you are making any effort to know the truth, then you must be fully aware that the Obama administration's policies have been an economic disaster for blacks in America. Unemployment has skyrocketed among blacks during Obama's terms in office. The blacks that are fortunate enough to still be employed have experienced a dramatic loss in real income. Inflation has continued during Obama's terms of office, but the actual dollar income for blacks has gone down, a double whammy. It is a part of the failed economic policies of the Obama administration. Due to Obamacare policies, many people (not just blacks) have found it harder and harder to obtain a full-time job. This problem rests squarely on Obama's shoulders and his supporters. In addition, the jobs that have been created during Obama's administration have generally been inferior jobs. To be fair, not all of this disaster can be laid on Obama. When you have disastrous trade agreements negotiated combined with a business tax rate in the U.S. which is the highest in the world, can you blame companies for moving their business (read that as job openings) out of the U.S. But I will not give Obama too much slack. He has not voiced any resistance to astronomical business tax rates, and it appears that he approves of trade agreements that are meant to give  away America's wealth.  And if Hillary is telling the truth, she intends to continue with Obamanomics (Economics theory as defined by Obama and his supporters). If Hillary is elected president, you can be sure that the wealthy individuals will do very well. They will pay the Clintons whatever tribute is necessary to have special rules for them, but the overall economic situation will move further into the toilet. The Clintons will do very well because the 'payoffs' to the Clinton Foundation will explode upwards. How much more 'tribute' can they collect for presidential political influence as compared to the secretary of state political influence which they were previously selling?
Combine this with Hillary's statements that she will put all 'fossil fuel' companies out of business, and the economic disaster will be complete. How can anyone believe that Hillary cares about anyone but Hillary when her past actions are analyzed? She has been a principal player is bankrupting the coal companies in America. She had total disregard for the thousands of people who lost good paying jobs because of her efforts. She claims to support women's rights, but the Clinton Foundation has received tens of millions of dollars from countries that deny women any kind of human rights. Neither she nor Bill have made any kind of statements regarding the abuse of women in these countries, and you can be sure that they never will in the future just as long as the 'donations' continue to pour in. Hillary and Obama continue to maintain the fantasy that Obama's economic policies are working to the people's benefit while statistics prove that the average income in the U.S. has dropped significantly during Obama's administration. To reiterate, the economic disaster for blacks will continue unabated if Hillary is elected president!

An Article by Congressman Mike Pompeo

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS):

In June 2011 President Obama addressed the nation, announcing that the American people could “take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.”  He liked this phrase so much that he repeated it just months later.

On September 11, 2012, as fire engulfed the State Department’s temporary mission facility in Benghazi, Libya, the survivors and a CIA security team who had come to their rescue made a desperate dash for a CIA Annex located nearby from which they would fend off a continued and determined jihadist attack.Despite heroic efforts that night, four Americans lost their lives: For the first time in over 30 years, a U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was assassinated.Another State Department employee, Sean Smith, was also killed.Two former Navy Seals who worked for the CIA, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, died defending their fellow Americans at the Annex.

The President was wrong. The tide of war was not receding, nor was the threat of radical Islamic terror around the world.

Rep. Pompeo speaks at the press conference announcing the release of the Committee’s report

As part of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, I have devoted myself to providing the American people with every relevant fact surrounding the attack. With the release of the report, my colleague Jim Jordan and I wrote separately about our conclusions, drawn from the facts brought to light by the committee. Here are our conclusions:

1. The Obama administration misled the public about the attack in Benghazi. State Department officials, including Secretary Clinton, learned quickly that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  Rather than tell the American people the truth and risk losing an election, the administration opted to cite a video-inspired protest that never occurred.
2. The American people expect that when our leaders send Americans to dangerous places, every effort should be made to ensure that they are safe.  Secretary Hillary Clinton had “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish” according to her senior staff.  Yet, in the months before the attack, the security at U.S. government facilities in Benghazi was desperately inadequate. Secretary Clinton failed to act to correct that.  As late as August 2012, she had that chance, but in the end, failed to protect those she put in harm’s way.
3. Our government did not move heaven and earth to rescue our people.  Americans expect their government to protect our nation’s representatives who they have put in harm’s way.  They also expect that our leaders will do whatever is necessary to save them when things go badly. The U.S. military never reached Benghazi.  We now believe that the government never even directed men or machines to enter the fight there.
4. The administration broke its promise to bring the terrorists to justice.  President Obama assured us that “justice will be done.” America has the capacity to bring about that justice.  Yet almost four years later, only one of the terrorists has been captured.
5. The administration was not interested in helping the Committee find the truth.  A national tragedy demands that we, as elected leaders, put politics aside and join together to find the truth.  Yet in this instance, the truth was inconvenient for an administration in the midst of an election.

In short: the administration put politics above people.  In doing so, our most senior leaders in Washington, D.C. let down our warriors in Benghazi, Libya.  At every turn, these leaders resisted doing the right thing when it was most needed that night and in the months – now years – that followed.

It is my hope that the efforts of the Committee laid out in our report, and Congressmen Jordan’s and my effort to provide conclusions based on those facts, will help to turn the page on this terrible chapter of American history.The families of those killed, the American people deserve nothing less.

Sincerely,

Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS)

Pompeo serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Select Committee on Benghazi.He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, an Army veteran, and ran two small businesses before joining Congress in 2011.

Hillary - obstruction of justice

It is an uncontested fact that Hillary destroyed over 30,000 emails. Let's say that differently. Hillary was directed to turn over all of her emails, but she chose to selectively destroy 30,000 of them. Destruction of material documents during a criminal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice, a felony. But you say, "She said it was only personal emails she destroyed." Hillary's assurance plus ten dollars will buy you a cup of starbuck's coffee. But, in addition to that, the FBI director testified that they were able to recover some of the emails Hillary tried to destroy. Guess what! They were not all personal emails as Hillary said. You guessed it. Hillary lied again! Why hasn't she been indicted for obstruction of justice?

The war on our police officers

Obama's constant tirade accusing white police officers of racial hatred has reinstated the racial tension and hatred from the 1950's and 1960's. Now the killing of white police officers is happening constantly. I don't think that Obama will be happy until there is open warfare in our streets like any third-world country. Could this be Obama's objective? Could it be that he wants to declare martial law once the situation gets totally out of hand so he can declare himself as dictator? One thing is blatantly clear. Obama has done more damage to our country in his two terms as president than would have seemed possible just 8 years ago. Combine this with his goal of permitting anyone to enter our country without restriction. Could it be that he wants the terrorists to have unfettered entry into our country so that they can commit any acts of terrorism they desire while our police are put into the position of fighting for their very lives?

I put the responsibility for the Dallas police officers murders squarely on Obama's shoulders. His obvious efforts to destroy the respect for our police officers in his wild-eyed efforts to convict every white police officer of racial bias, and his blatant support for racist organizations such as "Black Lives Matter" who led chants to kill police officers is directly responsible for most of the murders of police officers which is now occurring in our nation. Of course, what do you expect from a president who has no respect for, and disregards enforcement of our nation's laws (i.e. ignoring the enforcement of immigration laws). Obama has set our nation back 50 years by trying to build an aura of racial tension and hatred reminiscent of attitudes back in the 1950's. By the way, Hillary has promised to continue Obama's destructive policies if she is elected president. However, who can tell if anything she says is the truth.

An Article by Dick Morris

FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress Thursday that Hillary Clinton lied when she said that she neither sent nor received classified material. And that nothing was marked classified on the emails on her server. And that she lied when she said her server was not hacked. And that she lied when she said that she turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department.

All these lies where spoken in media interviews on virtually every news show in the country.

They were also repeated before Congress in her sworn testimony during the Benghazi hearings.

Asked why he did not recommend prosecution for perjury, Comey answered that he did not have a referral and that he needed one to investigate further. Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said he would send a referral over in a matter of "hours."

Now, maybe we've finally got her.

The Justice Department has decided not to indict her for mishandling of classified material. But how about lying under oath to Congress?

The FBI will find it hard not to recommend prosecution. The facts are evident and clear.

If the Justice Department won't prosecute this clear instance of perjury, their partisanship will be on display. And the decision will have been made following an FBI recommendation, but most likely opposing it.

Lying under oath seems to run in the Clinton family. Maybe it is contagious.

Well, were you surprised? The Teflon Clintons once again slide out of a morass of clutter that would have drowned other politicians. We will never know what went on behind the scenes, but I can say that if anyone else had broken the rules as blatantly as Hillary, there would have been dire consequences a la Nixon and Watergate. I am very disappointed with the FBI director because I will always believe that there is plenty of proof that Hillary broke multiple laws, and I am quite sure that the director surrendered to political pressure. The news media is trying to paint a picture depicting Hillary being 'punished' for her email fiasco by 'public opinion', but you know as well as I do that the democrats who support Hillary would vote for her even if she were running for president from a prison cell. There will be no significant impact on her or on Bill. The Teflon coating is still intact. Unfortunately, I am quite sure that the 'investigation of the Clinton Foundation' will also be derailed by back door politics in the same manner.

Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch tried to have a secret meeting. They would have gotten away with it if not for one Fox News reporter who was astute and persistent. They tried to cover up any proof of the meeting by denying the reporter the right to take pictures. Now they are trying to pretend that it was just an innocent meeting to talk about grandchildren and golf. Right! It smells  to high heaven. If Loretta Lynch has any sense of morality she would recuse herself entirely from anything to do with the ongoing Clinton investigation. Instead she has issued a statement that she 'expects to proceed in the case as the FBI suggests'. What does that mean? It means that she will refuse to recuse herself from the proceedings! It means that she IS RETAINING THE POWER TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION! When the time comes and the FBI recommends that Hillary be indicted, you can be sure that Loretta Lynch will find a way to block the indictment from proceeding. She is as corrupt as the Clintons, and she is an integral piece of the even more corrupt Obama administration.

One quick word regarding the Hillary Emails. She has readily admitted that she used her private email server exclusively while she was Secretary of State. Let's state that in a more obvious way. All of her emails were on her private server. She made this statement while "explaining" that she was "only" trying to simplify her job by not having to maintain the use of two servers and multiple phones, etc. She also made the statement that none of her emails were classified. I want to ask one simple question. Is she saying that during her entire tenure as Secretary of State, there was never an email sent to her which was classified? How would it be possible to be Secretary of State and never have any correspondence which was classified? Her denial of receiving or sending classified emails is ridiculous and obviously untrue. Then she modified what she said to say that none of her emails were "marked" as classified. In the FBI investigation, many of the emails were considered so sensitive that the FBI agents were not allowed to even see the content without special clearance, and a large portion of her emails content has been redacted. So, she is trying to claim that since the emails were not "marked" classified, how was she to know that the material was too sensitive to be seen without security clearance. How ridiculous! A leader in a position of power is supposed to have enough sense to be able to independently think and make good decisions. She did not!