RUTHFULLY YOURS

Hillary Clinton, by wearing the Hijab, is advertising that she is the property of a man

Hillary’s latest campaign video tries to build up her non-existent foreign policy experience. That means making as much as possible out of her feminist speech in China… which avoided criticizing a Communist regime that forces women to have abortion. (Or as her Planned Parenthood pals call it, health care outreach.) And showing her travel photo slideshow.

It’s basically like those travel videos friends force you to watch… except this is a really expensive commercial and no one can force you to watch it.

But in odd contrast to touting Hillary’s feminism and strength, is this shot of her wearing a Hijab; an Islamic garment of submission.

Not only has the Hijab consistently been a source of Muslim violence against women, both in punishing women who don’t wear it and punishing women who take it off, but its origins lie in an Islamic commandment distinguishing Muslim women, who couldn’t be raped, from non-Muslim slave women captured by Mohammed’s rampaging gang.

It’s really quite explicit.

Hillary Clinton has only one accomplishment; the Libyan War. Bombing Libya in support of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover was Hillary’s pet project.

Obama unenthusiastically signed off on a war that he had told members of Congress “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter.”

The Pentagon fought Hillary’s illegal war every step of the way. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs opposed Hillary’s plan to bomb Libya. One of the Chairman’s top aides said that he did not trust the reports coming out of the State Department and the CIA, then controlled by Clinton loyalist Leon Panetta. When it was clear that the Clintonites had gotten their war on, an irritated Secretary of Defense Gates resigned after failing to stop Hillary’s war and was replaced by Panetta.

As the State Department set the military agenda, the Pentagon retaliated by taking over the diplomatic agenda attempting to arrange a ceasefire with the Gaddafi regime over Hillary’s objections.

Hillary was using the State Department to start a war while the military was trying to use diplomacy to stop a war. The Pentagon lost the power struggle and one of her minions took over the military to make sure that the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadists would be able to overrun another country.

Huma Abedin had beaten the Secretary of Defense.

Donald Trump has recovered from a post-debate dip to post his highest national average, 27.2 percent, since the month between the first and second GOP debates. This includes his single highest national poll result, 32 percent in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, since his 33 percent in the early September edition of that same poll.

Trump’s demographic-support trends remain steady. He does better among non-college graduates than among college grads; among men than among women; among moderates and liberals than among conservatives; and among independents than among Republicans. His support remains unusually similar across all factions, however, making him the least factional of any GOP front runner in the modern era.

Trump’s state average support also remains high, although the smaller number of state-level polls means this week’s average is not directly comparable to the averages from weeks two and three. Seven state-level polls, including three of New Hampshire, have been released since last week. Including the average from the three New Hampshire polls, Trump’s state average is now 34.1 percent. The states polled, however, include only 54 of the nation’s 435 congressional districts, down from the over 130 CDs included in the state averages from prior weeks.

Hillary Clinton has done Trey Gowdy an enormous favor. In anticipation of her testimony on Thursday before the Benghazi select committee he chairs, and with a lot of Republican help, she has framed the committee as a partisan political witch-hunt obsessed with dashing her presidential ambitions.

To regain credibility, all Gowdy needs to do is demonstrate that it is not. Meaning: all Gowdy needs to do is focus on why the United States had its officials stationed in Benghazi, one of the world’s most dangerous places for Americans.

What mission was so essential that it was necessary to keep Americans on-site when the jihadist threat had become so intense that other nations and organizations were pulling their people out?

These questions implicate disastrous policy that was, very much, bipartisan policy: (a) withdrawing American support for the Qaddafi regime that our government was funding and allied with against jihadist terror; (b) switching sides to aid and arm the jihadist-rife “rebels” who opposed Qaddafi; (c) waging a war under false pretenses – i.e., working for Qaddafi’s ouster, without congressional authorization, under the guise of a U.N. mandate that only permitted the protection of civilians; and (d) transitioning from support of Libyan jihadists to support for Syrian jihadists – i.e., transitioning from the policy that has left Libya a failed state with a growing ISIS and al Qaeda foot print, to a policy that contributed to the ascendancy of ISIS – by among other things, abetting the shipment of weapons from Libya to Syria.

Let me get this straight. Two weeks ago Donald Trump said we shouldn’t have gone into Afghanistan, that it was a “terrible mistake” and now he says he was misunderstood?

Uhuh.

Sounds remarkably like the same dude who mixed up Hamas and Hezbollah and claimed he was hearing the word Kurds when Hugh Hewitt was asking him about the Quds force. Or the know-nothing who sloughed off his lack of knowledge of terror leader names because, he insisted, they’d be gone before he took office, when the likes of Hasan Nasrallah have been around for decades. Fool me once, as they say…

Anyway, here’s CNN on the subject. Yes, I know it’s CNN but read the transcript:

Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that he has consistently supported the decision to invade Afghanistan and that his earlier comment calling the war there a “terrible mistake” was a result of him misunderstanding the question he was asked.

Marco Rubio titled his autobiography An American Son. It’s a good read. It’s apparently his own work, and it reflects well on him. I read a couple of Kasich’s books, Every Other Monday and Stand for Something, and all I learned is that Kasich’s a golf nut who has learned some incredibly important things about life on the golf course.

Rubio is a family candidate. His paternal grandfather quit school for work at eight, was orphaned at fourteen, and in middle age was widowed with seven children between four and sixteen. They were left on their own while he scratched out a miserable living on the streets of Havana, with Marco’s father and Aunt Georgina getting their own jobs at nine.

The maternal grandfather was the son of middling Spanish immigrants to Cuba, and was able to get an education only because polio left him partially disabled. This man, Pedro Victor Garcia, is responsible for the political education of Marco Rubio. In 1980 Marco was nine, living in Las Vegas, and took an interest in the Kennedy-Carter fight for the Democratic nomination. His grandfather — Papa — quickly set him right. While his parents were at work, Marco sat at the feet of this Cuban immigrant, listening in Spanish, learning the virtues of free market capitalism, Ronald Reagan, and the United States of America. Papa believed in the great man theory of history, and assured his grandson that Reagan was a great man who would destroy the communists. Marco decided he believed in the great man theory as well, and dreamed of being one himself, leading an exile army back to Cuba to overthrow the Castros.

Having led the polls for three months, Donald Trump has shown he’s no flash in the pan. Voters and the media should therefore treat him as a traditional front-runner, examine his temperament and require him to go beyond sound bites. A governing agenda is essential to win the White House. Candidates must demonstrate mastery of the issues and cannot wing it. Platitudes don’t cut it for swing voters. Inquiring minds might like to hear Mr. Trump explain what specifically he would do as president.

He has said that he would deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., and in two years or less, thanks to “really good management.” But what exactly is Mr. Trump’s plan to arrest, detain and deport—with all the litigation that entails—15,000 people a day? That’s roughly 10 times the number of daily arrests in the U.S. for violent crime. How will Mr. Trump round up these people in a way that is, as he promises, “very humane” and “very nice”? And how many tens of billions will this cost?

Republicans Say Committee will concentrate questions on details of fatal 2012 assault, according to GOP lawmakers

WASHINGTON—The House Committee on Benghazi will focus its long-awaited questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on details of the 2012 attack on a Libyan diplomatic outpost, rather than on Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangements, Republicans said this week.

The panel’s hand has been forced by recent suggestions, including by some Republicans, that the committee’s motivations are chiefly political. That has shifted the dynamics of Thursday’s high-profile hearing, with Republicans facing pressure to show they are playing fair just as Mrs. Clinton faces pressure to show she didn’t botch a tragic incident.

Republicans remain eager to press Mrs. Clinton publicly on the State Department’s Libya policy before, during and after the attack in which four Americans died, while she looks to defuse lingering claims that the incident reveals flaws in her management of the State Department, her leadership or her judgment.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has been dogged for months by her decision to use a private email server while she served as secretary of state, an arrangement revealed by the committee’s work. But Republicans say most of Thursday’s hearing will tackle topics more directly related to the attack in Libya.

http://www.blackconservativesfund.com/

ABOUT BLACK CONSERVATIVES FUND
The Black Conservatives Fund is a political action committee committed to turning out the black vote and elect black conservatives at every level of government.
We provide direct contributions in addition to running TV and radio ads, conducting get-out-the vote drives, and funding any other activities our endorsed candidates need.
We are first and foremost a CONSERVATIVE political action committee. We are committed to assisting candidates who support reining in the size and scope of government, protecting our nation through a strong military, and promoting American values – especially the right to life.

We believe that despite the election of Barack Obama, the conservative movement has a golden opportunity to expand our coalition by supporting black conservative candidates whenever possible.

An entirely new generation of black leaders is stepping forward to help save this nation. They believe that the welfare state and a corrupt education system are destroying our future. They understand that big government has created nothing but big problems.
And they are willing to fight back against the left-wing race baiters of the Democratic Party.
These black conservative heroes are willing to endure the personal attacks and outright ridicule from the liberal political establishment and the left wing media in order to stand up for what’s right. And for that, they deserve our encouragement and our support.