RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is suing the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to obtain copies of a 20-year-old draft indictment against Hillary Clinton for her role in the Whitewater scandal.

In a press release sent to reporters late on Tuesday, Judicial Watch announced its intent to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NARA for withholding an indictment written by Hickman Ewing, Jr., the deputy independent counsel and prosecutor investigating Whitewater, in 1996. The agency admitted it had found the records in March 2015 but is withholding the documents, claiming their release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of Clinton’s privacy.

Las Vegas, Nev. — For years, Ronnie Najarro was a sports anchor at the local Univision affiliate in Las Vegas. He joined the station as a college intern and rose to become sports anchor and then host of the news special “8 Rounds con Oscar de la Hoya,” which won an Emmy in 2007.

He was laid off amidst the economic recession in 2008.

Last week, on a warm Thursday morning, Najarro was dropping in on volunteers with the Libre Initiative who were manning tables at a handful of Vegas-area colleges. Brochures, bracelets, sunglasses, and pens were spread across the tables. They were recruiting attendees for a policy forum with Jeb Bush set to take place this Wednesday. It was billed as an opportunity “for the Hispanic community and others to pose questions about key issues to an influential policymaker.”

“How’s it going?” Najarro asks. He’s the group’s regional press secretary.

Were an alien visitor to these United States to have picked up a newspaper this morning, he would presumably have been surprised to see which political topics were at present under discussion. There are just twelve months until the United States hosts an open presidential election — an election that will most likely determine the future of Obamacare, of the Supreme Court, and of America’s place in the world — and yet, to look across today’s buzzing media landscape is to wonder if anybody has yet noticed. On CNN, MSNBC, and Fox; in The Atlantic, the Times, and the Journal; and across talk radio, social media, and the broader political blogosphere, Americans are happily relitigating a host of fractious questions that were last debated in earnest in the fall of 2008. Among them: “Was the last Republican president responsible for the worst attack on American soil since the bombing at Pearl Harbor?”; “Should the U.S. military have been sent into Iraq or been focused instead on Afghanistan, the ‘good’ post-9/11 war?”; and “Is the current state of the Middle East the fault of local actors or of the United States?”

These are not the conversations the GOP was looking for.