Hillary 2016

If the next Presidential election grants me no other boon, I sincerely wish that it will grant me the Presidential candidacy of former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. To borrow one of President Barack Obama’s favorite phrases, “let me be clear.” I want Hillary Clinton to run for President as badly as Obama wants to birdie the 9th at Doral. Before you compose an angry email to Mr. Livingston demanding I be consigned to an eternity of serving as Oprah Winfrey’s towel boy, allow me to elaborate.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds a hearing on Benghazi in Washington, DC
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chats with Senator John McCain during testimony on the Benghazi slayings. Credit: UPI

I don’t want Hillary Clinton to run for President because I think she’d make such a marvelous leader of the free world. Outside some of America’s more fearsome correctional facilities, I can’t imagine too many folks over whom I would choose Clinton for President. I just want to observe as the smartest woman in her world discovers the hard way that her world is a great deal smaller than THE world. Plus, the theatre of the absurd which will be the 2016 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination will make the cast of the next Judd Apatow stoner comedy look like narcoleptic Gregorian monks by comparison. Think of it:

Hillary Clinton should be President because she’s a strong woman.

A silver-spoon-fed rich girl comes of age in the Weather Underground section of the 1960s, falls in love with the fat kid from the band, abandons a promising career as a hatchet-lawyer for the Democratic Party, latches on to Fatty’s big’n’tall coattails, smiles blankly through his endless philandering and finally reaches the big time after he’s through with it. Oh yeah, she’s a veritable Susan B. Anthony. I know every time I think of my niece, I hope she finds an overweight, sex-addicted liar who can spirit her through the pitfalls of work and accomplishment and into authority she didn’t earn and can’t exercise properly. What’s dignity when measured against the ability to perjure oneself and get away with it?

Hillary Clinton should be President because she’s so smart.

She’s well-spoken, I suppose. But well-spoken doesn’t necessarily equate to well-regarded. History is littered with examples of people who used a good command of the lexicon to advance beyond their peers. Some of them used their new station to benefit those whom they had outstripped. Others used their station to invent “vast right wing conspiracies.” Her tenure as First Lady revealed a hyper-ambitious streak which – combined with what appears to be a total lack of compunction – led to her ill-fated attempt to make Obamacare the law 14 years before Obama proved it wouldn’t work. Her tenure as a Senator from New York really didn’t amount to much of a legacy; mostly because she never intended for it to be anything but a springboard. Her tenure as Secretary of State was a complete and utter disaster (See also: Benghazi, “what difference…does it make?”, Syria and the death spiral in which America’s overseas credibility is now trapped). Smart? Why, because she went to Yale? So did President George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton should be President because it’s high time a woman held the office.

Actually, it’s high time a competent Chief Executive held the office. Liberals consider things like race and gender before they consider things like merit and quality. Actually, liberals pretty much ALWAYS consider the former before the latter. That’s how people who possess neither tend to rise to the top of the Democratic molehill. If the right woman were to run, then she’d have my support. Dr. Condoleeza Rice remains someone for whom I would gladly cast a ballot; though she seems about as interested in the gig as Hillary is in testifying before Congress. It’s worth noting that the Democrats seem to have left their political feminine sides handcuffed to the stove in 2008; and remain decidedly less than feminine any time Sarah Palin walks by.

Hillary Clinton should be President because she’s eminently qualified.

If by “eminently qualified,” her supporters mean “currently breathing,” then I suppose she’s in. If they mean “shrill, angry and self-entitled,” then she’s a definitive front runner. Hillary Clinton has hovered around the highest offices in the land for 20 years. In that time, she has yet to demonstrate any particular political acumen beyond blaming others for her own mistakes. For that matter, she seems to blame others for her occasional successes; especially in such arenas as commodities trading and real estate investment. Of all the people who stumbled across the missing records from an Arkansas law firm while wandering through the White House years later, Hillary is clearly the most qualified to head up the Federal government.

Hillary Clinton should be President because she’s so well-respected.

And why shouldn’t she be? She has endured a “vast right wing conspiracy” which she fabricated out of her own imaginary cloth. She dodged non-existent sniper fire in Serbia – or was it Ireland? She ferretted out that execrable bastard who made the YouTube video responsible for the totally spontaneous attack on the American compound in Benghazi. She even managed to fight off those evil Republicans who dared question her diplomatic acumen in the wake of the Benghazi attack. Indeed, between the states-woman-ship of Clinton and her big buddy Barack, the United States has built an international reputation at least as strong as – say – North Korea’s or Myanmar’s.

Meanwhile, imagine the hijinks in store for the rest of us in the 2016 electoral cycle. Tell me you’re not looking forward to Hillary invoking the imaginary “war on women” to deflect criticism like Van Helsing waving a crucifix in front of Dracula. Tell me you’re not looking forward to Hillary explaining how she’ll bring peace to the parts of the world which turned into even more exciting terrorist havens during her Secretary-ship. Tell me you’re not looking forward to Hillary explaining how she will either continue or discontinue the Obama policy of providing weapons to Al Qaida-linked terrorists in Syria.

Moreover, tell me you’re not looking forward to the Democratic debates; especially if Vice President Joe Biden follows through on his threats to run. Joe Biden vs. Hillary Clinton? Vegas wishes it could book that battle royale every weekend. If someone convinces former Congressman Dennis Kucinich to jump in, then the Democrats could conceivably sell their debates to the WWE.

“TONIGHT ON RAW: Hillary “ThunderLies” Clinton, “Jellybean” Joe Biden and Dennis “The Spaceman” Kucinich in the cage match to end all cage matches!” 

My money would be on Hillary. Kucinich is a mile out of his weight class; and Biden’s moves are all cribbed from Neil Kinnock. Plus, look for her finisher, the “Pantsuit Leglock.”

Mostly, I want to watch former President Bill Clinton adjust to his new role as a prospective First Gentleman. Of course, I’ll probably have to subscribe to Cinemax™ to do so. Hillary 2016: they’ll sell us the seat; but we’ll only need the front edge.


- Ben Crystal

Benghazi Revisited

It’s official, kids. President Barack Obama lied to the American people about the events surrounding the al-Qaida-planned and led attack on the compound in Benghazi; notably the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods.

Actually, everyone outside the Moveon.org mailing list already knew. But now, it is super-duper-double-secret official. And, despite the fact that they’ve probably endangered their spot on the White House Ramadan Card list, the people who have finally kicked in the door Obama has tried mightily to keep locked are none other than the former employers of disgraced ex-anchor Dan Rather: CBS News.

On Sunday night, “60 Minutes” aired an interview conducted by Lara Logan – no stranger to the violence of which inadequately contained Islamofascists are capable – with unqualified experts on the events of that fateful night. Deputy Ambassador to Libya Greg Hicks, whose Congressional testimony on Benghazi knocked a few bricks out of the Obama Administration’s wall of silence a few months back, brought his sledgehammer out of retirement for the sit-down. According to Hicks, not only was the then-Hillary Clinton-led State Department well aware of the worsening situation in Libya, they had been specifically apprised of the amplification of al-Qaida ululating in area. And not only did the State Department not move to increase security after Stevens specifically noted that “(T)he al-Qaida flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings,” they ignored three requests for security assets.

If that alone doesn’t jolt you out of your reality-TV reverie, try this on for size: According to Lt. Col. Andy Wood, nearly everyone from the muezzins at the Benghazi mosques to Hillary Clinton’s yard guy knew that al-Qaida was coming. And Wood didn’t arrive at this conclusion through any in-depth intelligence gathering or Jason Bourne-like spycraft. Nope, all Wood had to do was log on to the Internet, where the terrorists had posted their plans.

Asked by Logan if he had passed his concerns on to Washington, Wood affirmed: “We included that in our reports to both State Department and DOD…” That means the Clinton “what difference does it make” narrative was dead and buried long before she dragged it into the Congressional hearing during which she blatantly lied.

We already knew Obama and his accomplices lied about virtually everything connected to the Benghazi massacre. The infamous “YouTube” excuse floated by Rice and pushed by hapless sock puppets like Chris Matthews barely staggered through a week before someone bothered to notice it was sillier than most of Matthews’ MSNBC yammering. In fact, the Democrats’ desperate attempts to muddy the waters with ridiculous whining about the manner in which Clinton was treated during her shocking displays of mendacity are proof in and of themselves of the con they tried to play.

The sad truth is that all the lies Obama and his accomplices have told us have bounced harmlessly off the iron-sided ignorance of the low-information liberal base. And the fact that Obama and Clinton lied through their teeth about literally EVERY aspect of Benghazi will have little to no effect on that same base. To them, partisanship comes before everything including – perhaps ESPECIALLY – life itself. Of COURSE they value Obama’s Presidency – not to mention Clinton’s Presidential aspirations – over the lives of Stevens, Doherty, Smith and Woods. These are people who proudly support Representative Wendy “Abortion Barbie” Davis (D-Kermit Gosnell’s abattoir).

They just don’t care. And they’re not likely to start now. After all, what’s four dead Americans, a cover-up which extends from the deserts of Libya to the White House and the brutal murder of whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had left in her purse when weighed against politics?


-Ben Crystal

Representative Alan Grayson And The New (Old) Tone

I’ll say this about President Barack Obama: He’s a giver. After all, without the daily disco of dishonest disgrace that his Administration has delivered in unprecedented amounts, we wouldn’t enjoy the new level of partisan rancor with which the Democrats have replaced any hope of responsible and responsive government. And let us all thank Representative Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) for the latest reminder that there are no depths so low that liberals haven’t plumbed, roughed-in and constructed Section 8 housing in them. Grayson is no stranger to the political septic system. Indeed, he’s well-known for his bouts of verbal diarrhea, notably claiming conservatives want Americans to “die quickly.” Of course, we know that was actually former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders’ “plan.” Grayson also infamously referred to a senior aide to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “whore,” but he may have been cribbing Democrat talking points about any woman with whom they disagree.

Observe the magnificent lunacy of Grayson’s latest fundraiser:

While Grayson’s basic message, which I’m guessing aims to equate the Tea Party with the Ku Klux Klan, is pretty much par for the liberals’ kicky new rhetorical course, it wildly misses the mark for historical accuracy. The last time the KKK held any real relevance, they served as the punch line to a running gag in “The Blues Brothers.” The only exception to that might be the distinguished career of former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, a longtime Democratic power-player who donned his first hoodie decades before Trayvon Martin made them cool.

But this sort of inane ranting isn’t new to the Democrats; slander has been their M.O. for decades. However, the real tinfoil-hat brigadiers have generally been kept at arm’s length from such Democrats’ inner sancta as Malibu, Chappaqua and Hyannis Port. Either they’ve been shunted off to mid-level staff positions in places like the California Bureau of Snail Darter Habitat Enforcement, settled into digs at lapdog media asylums like MSNBC or — if they’re really off the deep end — the office of the Vice President of the United States.

Unfortunately, the advent of the Teflon Presidency in the person of Obama has unchained the snarling mutts of the far left; and now they have infested the highest halls of power in the land. Hence, the hypocritical ramblings of the global warmists, America-lasters and outright socialist sociopaths of the far left, which moved from the barely-audible squeak of President Jimmy Carter to the muffled giggling of President Bill Clinton, are now the full-throated roar of the Obama-era Democrats. Grayson’s repulsively mendacious shrieking used to be the stuff of Bill Ayers’ bomb threats and Louis Farrakhan’s tirades. Now, they’re Congressional fundraising pitches.

Imagine the sort of people who respond in the affirmative to Grayson’s craven intellectual thuggery. Imagine them voting. And imagine the sort of people for whom they vote. Imagine the sort of party that proudly digests them all. No wonder Grayson sits in Congress, instead of somewhere more fitting, like a cardboard box under a freeway overpass or the lovely Section 8 housing to which so many Democratic voters are consigned. And no wonder America faces its darkest days in decades.

–Ben Crystal

The Debate Is Over

Last Friday afternoon, a group of people described by CBS News’ San Francisco bureau as “dozens of undocumented immigrants and immigrants’ rights advocates” rallied to successfully stop a bus. Now, given the nature of most “undocumented immigrants and immigrants’ rights advocates,” I’m left wondering why the bus bothered to stop. Nonetheless, the bus did stop; and its cargo of criminals was delayed in reaching its ultimate destination south of the border.

Stories like this one spur many people to wonder about the state of our border security. I should point out that stories like this one ought to spur many to recognize that meaningful border security is — to put a fine point on it — done like dinner. There was a time when people who deliberately assisted criminals in the commission of a crime were known as “accomplices.” Now, they’re “undocumented immigrants and immigrants’ rights advocates.” Kids, we’re parsing words in order to avoid offending the delicate feelings of people who are brazenly flouting the law just by being here. From where I sit, the point at which actually securing the border was still a possibility has disappeared behind the horizon.

Here’s how CBS San Francisco reported the human blockade: “[D]ozens of undocumented immigrants and immigrants’ rights advocates… blocked what was believed to be a bus carrying immigrants to be deported.”

And here’s how CBS should have reported the human blockade: “Assisted by accomplices, dozens of illegal aliens attempted to block what was believed to be a bus carrying other illegal aliens to be deported. They were promptly arrested, shackled, bundled onto the same bus and given free transportation to Tijuana.”

There is no debate over border security. At least, there is no longer a debate over border security that is worth having. With stories like the one above, the only question I have left is this: How do I say “Bartender, two fingers of scotch over ice, please” in Spanish?

–Ben Crystal

Who’s The Boss?

One day, as you’re trudging slowly over the mountain of work between you and the blessed relief of the stiff drink and the soft couch in your living room, one of your employees walks into your office. You’ve never liked this guy; in fact, he got the job over your objections. You remain suspicious of his qualifications, and you have some lingering doubts about some the entries on his resume. For example, you couldn’t find anyone except for some shifty-looking dudes who call themselves “community organizers” who were willing to act as references. Nonetheless, he demands your attention.

“Boss, I’ve got this great idea! If we implement it, everything about our company will improve. We’ll be more efficient, more productive and more profitable. Meanwhile, the morale of the employees will improve dramatically. Even the guys on the janitorial staff will reap benefits! I can’t believe anyone hasn’t thought of it before! And all I need is” — you brace yourself — “more money.”

When you ask how much more money he needs to make his dream a reality, he demurs. “Let’s get back to that in a moment.” And then he lays out a plan that will require you to hand over virtually total control of the company, following which he will impose a series of cutbacks to vital areas while simultaneously funneling capital into shady investment schemes and outright fraudulent enterprises. He will force the company to ignore industrial espionage by competitors, even giving them the passcodes to the company’s secure servers. He will change the pay structure so that the most productive and valuable employees are punished for their achievements, while throwing bonuses at some employees who seem unwilling to work at all. He will restructure human resources so that diversity quotas are introduced that supersede merit and accomplishment. He will add functionaries and paper-pushers while forcing blue-collar-level employees to endure either twice the workload or face unemployment. The IT component of his plan would need a ladder to climb to “slapdash.” Even without a computer science degree, you can see the system will fail at a catastrophic level — maybe on the first day. In addition, he wants corporate security to give him unfettered access to every employee’s personnel files — although he never makes it clear how spying on the workforce will benefit the company.

His plan is insane, unworkable and even dangerous. His budgeting makes no sense. He’s either grossly underestimating the company’s fiscal liabilities, or he’s deliberately fudging the numbers. His idea requires the accounting and legal departments to grow exponentially at the cost of virtually every tangibly productive sector of the company. He also lacks the support of well more than half the company’s employees, although most of the dissent is halfhearted and more for show than anything else. Moreover, those who have weighed in on either side of the plan are mostly soft-handed, pudgy, middle-management types who don’t seem to represent the rest of the payroll particularly well. The employees who really make the company successful are far too busy working to pay attention to either side.

As he continues his meandering, backtracking and even outright dishonest pitch, something occurs to you: His plan has been tried before. Back in the early 90s, some fat guy whom everyone seemed to like despite a few fairly serious breaches of the company’s sexual harassment policy tried to foist off a similarly horrendous idea on the company. He got the idea from his wife, although she didn’t work for the company at the time.

You sit up, preparing to tell him that not only are you denying his request, you’re seriously considering firing him for insubordination, theft, dishonesty and even killing some of the company’s finest employees. He grins and says: “I’m not asking you. I’m telling you. Since you hired me, I can do whatever I want. Now, how about you sign this check for $2 trillion?”

Just imagine.

–Ben Crystal

Faking The News

I’m not sure why MSNBC chose network honcho Phil Griffin to host a briefing on their decision to abandon the pretense of balanced journalism in a web transformation which started beta-testing this morning. Surely, they could have presented a video compilation of Chris Matthews’ top tantrums, thereby allowing everyone to go back to playing Robot Unicorn Attack on their IPads without seeming rude. Perhaps Al Sharpton was forced to bow out after a tragic Soul-Glo mishap at the barbershop. Whatever the reason, Griffin took full advantage of the opportunity; bemoaning the trials and tribulations he faces trying to keep the flagging Democratic Party’s primary mouthpiece from imploding.


To that end, Griffin has decided the reason his charges can’t achieve the same ratings success as those crazy kids on Fox News isn’t that Megyn Kelly is a lot easier to look at than Rachel Maddow; nor that Kelly is eminently more trustworthy. Nope, our boy Phil thinks something fishy must be going on; and someone ought to get to the bottom of it.

According to Griffin, Fox News, which regularly trounces not only MSNBC but MSNBC and CNN combined, has somehow found a way to cheat the ratings system. Whined Griffin: “You guys should be doing some investigations – I have never seen it in all my years of cable. Same overnight, same everything, and they doubled their ratings in a day? It is impossible…”

Since Griffin and his retinue of has-beens, never-wases and never-will-bes operate as a de facto branch of the Administration of President Barack Obama, it’s clear that they suffer from the same cloudy thinking which has allowed the Democrats to transform from the party of slavery, Jim Crow and Chappaquiddick into an even sleazier collection of thugs, crooks and lunatics. In the twisted liberal mindset, conservative opposition to Obama’s daily drumbeat of disgrace must be a product of racism. Likewise, MSNBC can’t beat Fox – or that noisy guy hawking “Flowbies” on the Home Shopping Channel — and that must be a result of a secret plot involving Fox News, the Nielsen Corporation and the cable providers (one of which is MSNBC step-parent Comcast).

It never occurs to liberals that conservative opposition to Obama’s daily drumbeat of disgrace and dishonesty is actually a product of revulsion at his tendency to behave like a cheap knockoff of one of those old guys who used to own the Soviet Union. And it never occurs to a liberal like Griffin that MSNBC’s poor showing is actually a product of a lineup comprised of racist filth like Sharpton, two talking hairdos who are clearly clones of Keith Olbermann gone horribly awry (Maddow and that squeaky little fellow with the hipster glasses; like most of the universe, I’ve forgotten his name), and the essentially-unwatchable daytime filler MSNBC features instead of actual news.

Just as those who refuse to bow down to Obama’s fraudulent assaults on everything from our health to our wealth are smeared as “terrorists” and “traitors” by Democrats; those who refuse to waste viewing hours on a channel which the Pew Research Center noted is by far and away the least reliable in delivering unbiased reporting are presumed to be non-existent. Poor Phil Griffin; he’s confusing the available television viewing audience with Lawrence O’Donnell’s viewing audience.

To be honest, I’m not much of a Fox News watcher. Actually, I’m not much of a television “news” viewer. With resources like the Personal Liberty Digest™ and others, expecting to gain a meaningful insight into current events from the aptly-nicknamed “boob tube” is every bit the fool’s errand that is expecting MSNBC to attract viewers by hiring a violent – and quite possibly disturbed — racist like Alec Baldwin.

I have no idea who Griffin expects to lead the “investigation” of Fox News’ ratings. Evidently, the millions upon millions of Americans who find the Democrat Channel less palatable than the local cable-access channel’s “Houseplants with Henrietta” didn’t make his short list of TV detectives. Given that the incestuous relationship between the Democrats and the lapdog media produces inbred refuse like MSNBC, I wouldn’t be stunned to learn Attorney General Eric “Guns” Holder is on the job.

Let’s look at the bright side, kids. After carrying President Barack Obama’s water on Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS intimidation program, the NSA spying program and the rest of the scandals which have defined Obama’s tenure, the Democrat Channel finally found something worth investigating.

-Ben Crystal

The Democrats’ War On Everyone

Earlier this week, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Every Democrat’s Nightmare) stepped in a puddle of controversy when she linked President Barack Obama to the really nasty parts of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. Bachmann said: “[T]he United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists… what this says to me… we are in God’s end times history.”

I’m willing to admit that kind of rhetoric carries a lot of weight. And I’ll further admit that I don’t share Bachmann’s apocalyptic world view. Among other things, the end times require some seriously heavyweight bad guys, and I have yet to see them appear. I’m not suggesting the world doesn’t have its share of creeps, and al-Qaida certainly qualifies. But for all the bloodshed and pain they’ve inflicted, al-Qaida terrorists live like cockroaches, constantly scurrying from the light to stay alive. I honestly don’t believe Armageddon can be engineered by guys who dream of one day moving out of that drafty cave in Waziristan and into a suicide vest. Even if they could force the world over the brink of destruction, their methods preclude them from enjoying the fruits of their labor.

Nonetheless, Bachmann’s pronouncement — which included the entirely accurate part about Obama’s arming terrorists — touched off a whole new round of Democratic hysteria. Among those who lambasted Bachmann was a friend of mine who happens to be a Democrat. This pal, whom I’ll call Darrow in reference to his career as a criminal defense attorney, is also a very nice fellow who plays a decent game of golf and knows a good glass of scotch when he drinks one, the truest test of a man’s character. When Bachmann fired off her catastrophic caveat, Darrow took her to task. A few of his fellow liberals piled on. And until I mentioned it, I doubt anyone realized that the whole conversation was essentially just a remix of the same songs Democrats sang about Sarah Palin, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer or any other woman who steps outside the role assigned to them by liberal men.

After all, Bachmann might be putting from the proverbial rough when it comes to apocalyptic predictions, but she’s dead-solid perfect on Obama’s shocking foreign policy ineptitude. And even if you refuse to believe that Obama is funneling weapons to some of the worst people on Earth, Bachmann’s warning is hardly the silliest thing said by someone in government. In fact, compared to a number of Democrats who seem stuck in their own personal auditions for “Liberals Say the Darndest Things,” Bachmann is a veritable sage. At the very least, I’d be willing to stake a pretty sizable claim that Bachmann:

  • Knows the moon is not a planet and that Neil Armstrong never walked on Mars.
  • Is aware that Guam is buoyant enough to withstand the U.S. military without capsizing.
  • Knows there are 50 States, and knows which ones border the Gulf of Mexico.
  • Can tell the difference between Tina Fey and Palin.
  • Recognizes handing weapons to al-Qaida is generally a bad idea.
  • Knows the difference between an actual terrorist and someone who simply believes the Constitution is worth more than a cocktail napkin.
  • Would prefer World War II veterans get the run of their memorial over, say, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a herd of illegal aliens.

Bachmann hardly lives above reproach. But it strikes me that some folks can’t wait to pounce on Bachmann’s gaffes — or even ones Palin didn’t actually make — but can’t seem to find their righteous outrage when Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Clinton (pick one), comedian Bill Maher, Secretary of State John Kerry, Representatives Hank Johnson and Sheila Jackson Lee, the “Revs.” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Anthony Weiner, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, etc. choke on their own toe fungus.

I’d call that a “war on women” were it not for the fact that the Democrats seem to be fighting pretty much everyone these days — except for al-Qaida.

–Ben Crystal