Armageddon (4 page)

Donald Trump will exploit the rampant distrust of Hillary every single day. He's already calling her “Hillary the Crook.” This pet name evokes the worst of Hillary and we'll be hearing it from now until November. It's like a Rorschach test—each time Trump says it, every voter can conjure up the meaning for themselves. (And there's so much to choose from!)

The nomination contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders has been nothing less than a civil war, splitting the Democratic Party and publicly shattering its unity. Even as Hillary closes in on the nomination, the party's grassroots is in full revolt against the establishment, embodied by Hillary Clinton. The privilege, entitlement, and corruption that she and Bill have manifested by taking $153 million in speaking fees from major special interests makes her the epitome of corruption, the poster child for the establishment.

The outing of the covert and illicit liaison between the Democratic Party and Wall Street has dramatically shattered the faith of the average Democratic activist in their party's leaders. Hilary Clinton's millions in speakers fees from Wall Street and her refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs have fueled the anger of the Sanders voters, who rightfully connect the dots and see the quid pro quos that are lurking out there—and still due.

This discord in the Democratic Party has not been merely a personal repudiation of Hillary Clinton; it challenges the very essence of the Democratic Party and what it claims to stand for. The grass roots are fed up. A revolt is in progress. Even as Hillary proceeds to do battle with us in November, the rifts that have surrounded
her party are not about to heal by themselves. The Sanders voters are not going away. Hillary's futile attempts to scare the party's base with lurid warnings about the evil Republicans won't be enough to bring them back into the fold. Remember what happened in 1968 when the Democratic Party was last ripped apart by its young college activists challenging the leadership. Back then, it was the students protesting the war in Vietnam. Led by Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, they attacked President Lyndon Johnson and the party's candidate, Hubert Humphrey. The establishment won. But the kids stayed home and Richard Nixon won the election. That's what may be happening here. All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put the Democratic Party together again.

But the Democratic civil war holds opportunity for us in November only if we exploit it—only if the Republicans stand on the same ground as Bernie Sanders did in the primaries. We must pick up where he left off in his critique of Hillary and the sell-outs who comprise her party's leadership.

Count on Donald Trump to do that.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limits presidents to two terms. But history is full of men who reached their eighth year in the White House and sought to install their favored successor to extend their power for four more. Andrew Jackson had Van Buren. Theodore Roosevelt had Taft. FDR had Truman. Reagan had Bush. Now Obama seeks to have a figurative third term through Hillary.

She may not have been his first choice. Rumor has it that he would rather his successor were to be his VP, Joe Biden. But Hillary will do. Whatever the personal friction between Bill and Barack, Hillary can be counted on to follow Obama's agenda faithfully. To the letter. So the question is: Are we about to grant Obama a third term? We have a moral duty to protect America from that future, to protect our families from that future. Let's do it together.

We've already seen what eight years of Obama has done to us at home as well as to our standing in the world. Four more years would permanently expand Obama's massive assaults on our national psyche, our national culture, and our national reputation. It has to end. November 5, 2016, will be our Armageddon, our last battle to stop Obama, to stop Clinton, and to stop the advent of socialism. Our last battle to save America. If we don't change the power structure by throwing the Democrats out of the White House in November, we are unquestionably doomed to Obama's third term.

We've seen a preview of what to expect in the future. Already, Hillary Clinton has grabbed on to every last one of Obama's catastrophic policies and, in most cases, suggests expanding them. They're two peas in a dangerous pod. Even during the Democratic primary, Obama has shown his preference for Hillary and brazenly commented on an FBI investigation that he admits he knows nothing about, but dismisses to help Hillary. It's a mutually beneficial political deal. He supports her and she agrees to protect his legacy. That won't be a big problem for Hillary because she sincerely embraces Obama's warped vision. Let's get rid of them both.

We need you to enlist and join the ultimate battle, the war to stop Hillary Clinton once and for all. Yes, we're all weary. The battles of the past eight years of the Obama presidency have sapped our strength. But we are not dead, not by a long shot. As the poet John Dryden wrote, “I am sore wounded, but not slain. I will lay me down and bleed a while and then rise to fight again.” We have bled for eight years as we have been bludgeoned by Obama's actions that will be expanded by an emboldened Hillary Clinton. But now it's time to rise up to fight again. And this time, we have to win. We will win.

This election truly our last chance—and we must take it.

It is our last chance to stop Obama and Hillary from so permanently changing America that it will be impossible to restore the ideals that we have cherished all of our lives. 2016 will be our last, and decisive,
battle in the struggle against the socialist uniformity, collective anti-individualism, executive usurpation, and political corruption that will unquestionably be the hallmark of a Hillary Clinton presidency. If we win, we can rebound and return to what we once were before Obama and Clinton. If we lose, we will be condemned to a traumatic loss of our historical freedoms and constitutional protections.

Donald Trump can stop that. We have to help him do it.

If Hillary wins, we can expect cataclysmic changes to voting rights. November 5, 2016, may well be our last chance to cast votes in an election where our votes are not drowned out by those of millions of illegal immigrants. First, Hillary will grant them amnesty, then citizenship, and then she will use their votes to stuff the ballot box and let her party govern in perpetuity. That's what immigration “reform” is all about—loading up Democratic Party votes by generating a massive pool of new voters beholden to the Democrats.

This election will be our last chance to vote to curb the myriad of welfare payments that are sucking our nation dry. Obama and Clinton want to transform America into a European model of social welfare in which a majority of citizens receive government support and see no problem in taxing the minority who pay for the entitlements. Taxes are paid by fewer and fewer people each year—only 45% last year—at the same time that entitlements are drawn by more and more. We have to stop this. This election is our very last chance to stop the insanity. If we can't, we are bound to go the way of Detroit or Greece.

It is also our last chance to stand up against ISIS and terrorism before the cancer metastasizes and spreads throughout the West. Before we see terrorists, disguised as refugees, flock to our soil and wreak their havoc and mayhem directly on our families, we must defeat Hillary. Because she wants to let them in and will not admit that there is no way to “vet” migrant immigrants from Syria and Libya. Why does she want them? Because surveys show that 80% of Muslims vote Democrat.

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.

H
illary 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.

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:

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.” Think 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?