Introducing the Lily Camera

Quote of the Day 02/08/16

“Who is the fascist? Individualism and the political philosophy of limited government is not only inconsistent with but is the exact opposite of fascism and Nazism. Under fascism and Nazism, the state reigns supreme with absolute power over everyone and all forms of property. It can well be asked: who is the fascist, when the president of the United States and many Democrats and Republicans in congress call for expanded authority for the FBI and other federal security agencies to intrude into the lives of the American citizenry? Who is the fascist, when the call is made for increased power for the FBI to undertake “roving wiretapping” or have easier access to the telephone and credit-card records of the general population? Who is the fascist, when the proposal is made to make it easier for the FBI to investigate and infiltrate any political organization or association because the government views it as a potential terrorist danger?”– Richard M. Ebeling (1950- ) Author, Professor of Economics, Hillsdale College

The establishment takes a beating in Iowa By Marc A. Thiessen

On both the left and right, the big loser in Monday’s Iowa caucuses was the political establishment. On the GOP side, the three establishment candidates — Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie — won 6.5 percent of the vote . . . combined. Bush’s campaign and his super PAC, Right to Rise, together have spent $89.1 million so far — and about $14.9 million in Iowa alone. He won just 5,238 votes in the Hawkeye State, at a cost of about $2,674 per vote there.

Much of that money was spent attacking Marco Rubio. That strategy failed as well. In December, the Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll showed Rubio with just 10 percent support. Last night, he won 23 percent and barely missed passing Donald Trump to win second place. Rubio, who was elected to the Senate as an anti-establishment insurgent in the 2010 tea party wave and has one of the most consistently conservative voting records in the Senate, is now in a three-man race with Cruz and Trump. In the wake of Iowa, the “establishment lane” in the Republican race is effectively closed.

On the Democratic side, the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, effectively tied with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Exactly one year ago, Clinton led Sanders 68 percent to 7 percent in the NBC News/Marist poll. That means she blew a 61-point lead. Worse, she has spent $90.2 million in the race so far. To put the Iowa vote in perspective, in 2008 Clinton lost the state to a young, attractive, articulate, rising political star; last night, she effectively tied with a 74-year-old disheveled socialist from Vermont. Not a good sign.

As my Post colleague Chris Cillizza correctly predicted, Clinton survived only because Sanders failed to make an issue of the scandal surrounding her emails. Big mistake. Sanders should have stolen a page from Donald Trump’s playbook and copied how Trump raised the issue of Ted Cruz’s Canadian birth. He did not have to argue Clinton did anything illegal; he simply had to say: “She’s got a problem, and she has to solve it. We can’t have a Democratic nominee who could be indicted before the election. She needs to get it resolved.” Most Democratic voters don’t care about the illegality of Clinton’s actions, but they do care about the impact on her electability.

Sanders will have to make the investigation an issue if he wants to win the nomination. He has an 18-point lead in New Hampshire and will almost certainly win the state. But after that, the field becomes much more favorable to Clinton. It’s not enough for Sanders to argue that he is more electable (though polls suggest he is). To win, he needs to raise doubts about Clinton’s electability in November by tapping into Democrats’ worst fear — that the FBI could actually find that she committed a crime.

The fact is there is no great love for Clinton among Democrats (just 22 percent say Clinton is “honest,” and just 40 percent say she is “likable”). Her husband was elected in 1992 for one simple reason: With the brief exception of Jimmy Carter, Democrats had been locked out of the White House since 1969. They were so desperate for power, they were willing to put up with Bill Clinton’s New Democrat triangulation — even if it meant welfare reform, free-trade agreements and a promised end to the “era of big government.” When Democrats were given a choice in 2008 between a return to Clinton-style triangulation or the real liberal in Barack Obama, they went for the real thing.

But Obama has been a disappointment for the Democratic left — a president who personally approved terrorist kill lists, eavesdropped on our calls and emails and failed to take on Wall Street or deliver universal single-payer health care. So now they have the same choice again: a return to Clinton-style triangulation or the real thing in Sanders. In their hearts, they feel the Bern.

Sanders appeals to the hearts of the Democratic base because he represents what Democrats wanted but did not get in Obama: a socialist who is not afraid to say he is one. But to close the deal, Sanders also has to appeal to their minds as well. He needs to make the case that if Democrats nominate Clinton, she could end up in the Big House instead of the White House.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Old Gray Lady Carries Water for Compromised Inevitability Poser! By John W.Lillpop

Political pundits are describing the 2016 presidential season as non-conventional, bizarre,revolutionary, and just plain silly what with the antics of Donald Trump, the legal topsy-turvy provided by the Hillary Clinton camp, the saga of a 73-yearold avowed socialist taking on an established “Inevitability” figure, the bitter clash of Hispanic GOP hopefuls, and what appears to be the end of a family dynasty involving a broken Bush.

Indeed,uncommon events have become common place in this tortured exercise that America undertakes every four years to prove our cultural and political superiority to a skeptical world.Despite all the untoward doings this year, one segment of the political elitist class clutches to the status quo for dear life: That would be the unshakeable, mindless bias of the main stream media toward candidates competing under the banner of the Democrat Party.

Particularly disgusting is the hair-brained endorsement of Democrat Hillary Clinton by the New York Times, said folly souring the image of media as professional and objective in its January 30 edition. Unfortunately,The Old Gray Lady was not content with just lauding a candidate whose integrity and competence are being seriously challenged by the government, the NYT wentout of its way to bash the Republican presidential candidates with innuendo andslime attacks.

From the referenced endorsement:For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present them as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world.

Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Absent from the Times hatchet job is proper acknowledgement of Hillary Clinton’s dubious role in the Benghazi terrorist attack and cover up, her incessant lying, and her unprofessional mishandling of documents deemed “Too damaging to national security” for release to the general public.Clinton’s legal problems with computer servers, emails, and national security are based on FBI and State Department information, not “propaganda slogans” by Republican presidential aspirants.

The NYT endorsement is the sort of mindless patronage to unworthy,corrupt politicians that has America in a downward spiral and has driven the American people into the arms of people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.Shame on “The Old Gray Lady” for willful surrender to political bias and PC-driven sexism in this crucial election!

Should Hillary Be in Prison? By Don Boys

Yes, Hillary Clinton should be in prison. And when she is there, she will probably run for the presidency from her prison cell! Another question is: Will her retirement checks to be sent to Sing Sing or Leavenworth Prison? I don’t care.

With Hillary’s unsavory, unlawful and unethical history, she shows incredible gall to put herself up as a candidate for the President of the United States of America. In light of her past, I should think she would skulk back to her cabin on White River, assuming they did what they wanted others to do: Purchase land on the river and build a vacation home. Clinton’s shady business partners, James and Susan McDougal, were jailed for fraud and Bill Clinton’s successor, Governor Jim Tucker, was jailed for fraud along with municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh who worked with James McDougal. The Clintons walked away from that scandal battered, bruised and bloodied, but not bowed. They survived to scheme again.

Hillary decided to try her hand at cattle futures and turned $1,000 into $6,300 overnight, and within ten months she had $100,000. The financial service that handled her trade paid the largest fine in exchange history and was suspended for three years. She had some help from a lawyer who was outside counsel to Tyson Foods, the largest employer in Arkansas at the time, but he advised her because of “friendship” rather than to secure political favors from Governor Clinton. Hillary said that she was able to negotiate the complex futures trading by reading The Wall Street Journal. Hey, I was trained and licensed to sell stock along with insurance policies in the 1960s, but I wouldn’t know where to start with futures trading. Hillary learned from reading a newspaper. Again, she walked away unscathed, unashamed and unshackled.

She failed in her effort to establish a new health care system, but then her training was not in the health field. Her specialty was law. So Bill asked her to find a female attorney general. Her first two recommendations had been indiscreet so they withdrew their names. Hillary then went to Florida and came back with Janet Reno. Janet led the charge at Waco against the Branch Davidian sect (weird, cultic followers of David Koresh) resulting in the battering, blasting and burning of 82 innocent people (including 22 children) accused of gun violations that turned out to be false. Bill later opined that Reno was his “worst mistake.” One of many, it turned out.

When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, she was required to return about $200,000 in items she and her lowlife comrades had stolen.

Hillary was dragged, kicking and screaming, before the Starr investigation and repeated “I do not recall” or its equivalent 56 times. Her loss of memory kept her out of prison.

On September 11, 2012, about 150 terrorists whose trucks bore the Al Qaeda logo attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. It was widely reported that the U.S. ambassador was tortured, sodomized and dragged through the streets followed by the deaths of three other Americans; however, those reports have been angrily denied. Whatever the case, the harried, hapless and helpless Americans repeatedly requested military help, but help was denied from Washington. Hillary lied about many requests that had come to her to reinforce security at the consulate and lied about the attack being prompted by a video ridiculing Mohammed. Four Americans died and Hillary lied. The subsequent cover-up has caused a stench that has gagged decent people around the globe.

It is a fact that during the attack Hillary told the president of Libya and the Egyptian prime minister that there was a terrorist attack, not a reaction to a third-class video telling the truth about Mohammed. She also told members of her family that fact. But it gets worse: Two days later she was at Andrews Air Force Base when the coffin of Tyrone Woods arrived and she lied to his family, telling them America would get the person who made the video and prosecute him to the fullest.

Then it was discovered that Hillary used her personal email account to conduct government business, contrary to federal law. A former federal prosecutor declared on the “Laura Ingraham Show” on Jan. 5 that “she’s going to have to be charged with a crime.” Joseph DiGenova said that the FBI has found 1,200 classified emails from her private account and expect to find more. While Hillary is a high exposure person that the judicial system doesn’t like dealing with, her crimes are so egregious they must do so or there will be a revolt among the FBI.

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City (and former prosecutor), told Fox News, “[There are] 13 violations of federal law that she arguably committed. It is about as clear as it gets. It is a crime to negligently handle top secret material.” Count on Hillary being arrested — finally.

The Clinton Foundation is hip deep into scandal that would have already put others in prison. It seems their “non-profit” company has accepted millions of dollars from nations and people who had business with the secretary of state’s office. That’s conflict of interest.

If there is any justice in this nation, maybe she will finally discover “what difference it makes.” And as for sending her retirement checks, I would revoke them and pay her .25 cents an hour to work in the prison laundry. After all, she’s spent her life washing Bill’s dirty laundry.

No, since she’s a former first lady, I would pay her .50 cents an hour. But that’s more than she is worth.

Hillary said in the Democrat debate that no bank was “too big to fail,” but would she agree that no Clinton is too big for jail?

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters, was recently published by Barbwire Books. To get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available. Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives and wrote for USA Today for eight years.) Visit his blog here.
Source: Patriot Post