Ben Weingarten

Reader. Writer. Thinker. Commentator. Truth Seeker.

Tag: Hillary Clinton (Page 2 of 3)

Reaction to Tarantino’s Anti-Cop, Black Lives Matter Rhetoric Illustrates Virtue of Free Markets and Free Minds

On Monday 11/2, I sat in as a guest again on Newsmax TV’s “The Daily Wrap.”

During the episode, we had the chance to discuss a variety of issues including Donald Trump and Ben Carson’s continued dominance in the polls, the RNC’s botching of the GOP debates, Quentin Tarantino’s siding with #BlackLivesMatter against cops and the market-driven backlash, our nation’s $43 million gas station in Afghanistan and much more!

You can watch the show in full, along with some particularly pertinent clips below.

Full Episode

Trump v. Carson and Current GOP Polls

The RNC’s Bungling of the GOP Debates

Quentin Tarantino’s Clinton-Like Phony “Apology”

Read More

Obama’s Jihad Empowering Foreign Policy and America’s National Interest in Syria

On Friday 10/31, I sat in as a guest again on Newsmax TV’s “The Daily Wrap.”

During the episode, we had the chance to discuss a variety of issues including Obama’s deployment of a limited number of American Special Forces members to Syria to help Syrian “rebels” (read: “good” jihadists) in the fight against ISIS, reaction to the CNBC GOP Debate and proposals for improving future ones, Hillary Clinton’s crude politicization of the VA, and more!

You can watch the show in full, along with some particularly pertinent clips below.

Full Episode

Obama’s Foreign Policy, Syria and ISIS

GOP Anger with the CNBC Debate

Read More

My Appearance on Newsmax TV’s ‘The Daily Wrap’: Democratic Knives Come Out for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and More!

On Friday 10/19 I again sat in as a guest on Newsmax TV’s “The Daily Wrap.”

During the episode, I had the chance to discuss President Obama’s comments regarding the national security implications of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the FBI’s reportedly angered reaction to said comments, the Dems’ disparaging of Debbie Wasserman Schultz over her DNC “dictatorship” and alleged favoritism towards Hillary, RNC Chair Reince Priebus’ comments about the Republican Party being “cooked” if the GOP loses the presidency in 2016, Ben Carson, Donald Trump and more.

You can watch some particularly pertinent clips below:

Dems With Knives Out for Debbie

Reince Priebus on the GOP Potentially Being “Cooked”

Trump and Carson

Read More

My Appearance on Newsmax TV’s ‘The Daily Wrap’: Trump and ‘El Chapo,’ Hillary Emailgate, Obama’s Convict Release and More

On Wednesday 10/7 I again sat in as a guest on Newsmax TV’s “The Daily Wrap.” During the episode I had the chance to discuss Trump’s “counter-punches” and the rumored bounty placed on his head by “El Chapo,” the rolling Hillary email scandal, President Obama’s decision to release 6,000 convicts and much more.

You can watch the show in full, along with some particularly pertinent clips below.

Full Episode

Trump and “El Chapo”

Hillary’s Rolling Email Scandal

Read More

My Appearance on Newsmax TV’s ‘The Daily Wrap’: Guns, Biden, Racism, Trump and More

I had the pleasure of sitting in as a guest on Newsmax TV’s “The Daily Wrap,” discussing President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s recent rhetoric (and in the case of the former, potential impending action) on guns in the wake of the Oregon shooting, Joe Biden’s alleged politicization of his son’s death, a potentially illegal affirmative action policy at U.C.-Berkeley, whether Donald Trump will stay in the Republican race for the long haul, and much more.

You can watch the show in full, along with some particularly pertinent clips below.

And be sure to tune in tonight (10/7) as I will be a guest for the full hour on the program again, from 6-7PM ET. You can watch live here.

Full Episode

Guns

Read More

The Unredacted Huma Abedin-Hillary Clinton Email on Libya, Weapons and Former Rep. Mike Rogers

In working through some of the 7,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department yesterday, I came across one curious one sent from aide Huma Abedin to the then-Secretary of State regarding a Koran-burning in the U.S.

Here is another intriguing email:

It is noteworthy that this message on a sensitive subject — presumably about a meeting between then-Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Sec. of State Clinton on weapons collections in Libya — would be left unredacted, while many other emails in the Clinton trove are redacted in toto.

This may be because news reports around the September 10, 2011 email date indicate that Rep. Rogers, former Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was concerned that weapons including anti-aircraft missiles could get into the “hands of bad actors” in the wake of the fall of former Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.

Read More

Why Did Huma Abedin Feel the Need to Bring the Desecration of a Koran to Sec of State Clinton’s Attention?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was understandably kept abreast of all manner of news from all over the world during her tenure as Secretary of State.

But buried amidst the thousands of emails recently released by the State Department is one news report of particular interest sent from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Here is Abedin’s note:

Unclassified email from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton dated September 12, 2010 and released August 31, 2015. Doc No. C05772407.

Unclassified email from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton dated September 12, 2010 and released August 31, 2015. Doc No. C05772407.

This email begs the question: Why did Huma Abedin feel the need to bring the desecration of a Koran in East Lansing, MI to the attention of the Secretary of State?

Did Abedin feel that Clinton might be concerned about the news “inciting” attacks in America or abroad?

Might she have felt that such a story could be leveraged politically?

Was it just something Abedin as a Muslim found personally reprehensible, that she felt her confidant ought to be made aware of?

Actions like Koran-burning presumably would have been important to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, given her stated support for suppressing such activity.

As I noted elsewhere:

Read More

The Ignored Influence of the Iran Lobby on Obama’s Useful Idiots

The incomparable Daniel Greenfield has the story:

Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby. Akbar Ghahary, the former co-founder of IAPAC, had donated and raised some $50,000 for Obama.

It’s an unprecedented track record that has received very little notice. While the so-called “Israel Lobby” is constantly scrutinized, the fact that key foreign policy positions under Obama are controlled by political figures with troubling ties to an enemy of this country has gone mostly unreported by the mainstream media.

This culture of silence allowed the Iran Lobby to get away with taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times before the Netanyahu speech asking, “Will Congress side with our President or a Foreign Leader?”

Iran’s stooges had taken a break from lobbying for ballistic missiles to play American patriots.

Obama and his allies, Iranian and domestic, have accused opponents of his dirty Iran deal of making “common cause” with that same terror regime and of treason. The ugly truth is that he and his political accomplices were the traitors all along.

Democrats in favor of a deal that will let a terrorist regime go nuclear have taken money from lobbies for that regime. They have broken their oath by taking bribes from a regime whose leaders chant, “Death to America”. Their pretense of examining the deal is nothing more than a hollow charade.

This deal has come down from Iran Lobby influenced politicians like Kerry and is being waved through by members of Congress who have taken money from the Iran Lobby. That is treason plain and simple.

Despite what we are told about its “moderate” leaders, Iran considers itself to be in a state of war with us. Iran and its agents have repeatedly carried out attacks against American soldiers, abducted and tortured to death American officials and have even engaged in attacks on American naval vessels.

Aiding an enemy state in developing nuclear weapons is the worst form of treason imaginable. Helping put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is the gravest of crimes.

The Democrats who have approved this deal are turning their party into a party of atom bomb spies.

Those politicians who have taken money from the Iran Lobby and are signing off on a deal that will let Iran go nuclear have engaged in the worst form of treason and committed the gravest of crimes. They must know that they will be held accountable. That when Iran detonates its first bomb, their names will be on it.

But will the Democrats who lavished the world’s largest state sponsor of jihad with billions of dollars, provided cover for its nuclear activities and spat in the eyes of America’s servicemen and women maimed and murdered by Iran and its proxies, along with the craven Republicans who willfully engaged in failure theater, actually pay a price for their treason?

 

Featured Image Source: PBS.

Hillary’s Hypocritical Fear Mongering on Voting Rights Ignores Her Party’s Past

“Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting,” said email destroyer Hillary Clinton during a speech at the historically black Texas Southern University in which she played the race card expressed her deep concern about the state of voting rights.

Let’s leave aside Hillary’s fear mongering about a concern the numbers show has proven unwarranted, and neglect of legitimate concerns over voter fraud.

There are two points that ought to be made about Democratic opposition to Republican policies geared towards rooting out such fraud, and the broad-based argument that Republicans seek to suppress minority voters.

First, those Democrats who oppose anti-fraud measures are in effect supporting the suppression of legal voters of all races, whose votes are diluted by fraudulent ones. Stated differently, legal voters are actually the ones being disenfranchised in a system rife with voter integrity issues, not those required to display easily obtainable IDs used for all manner of everyday tasks.

Read More

Hillary Clinton’s Hypocritical and Totalitarian War on Free Speech

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has suggested that a key litmus test in evaluating prospective Supreme Court appointees would be their willingness to challenge “the right of billionaires to buy elections.”

Presumably, a suitable judge would indicate a desire to overturn the Citizens United decision that struck down a ban on political expenditures by corporations and unions ruled to violate the First Amendment protection of free speech – a case coincidentally centered on Citizen United’s attempt to advertise for and air a film critical of none other than Clinton.

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. Clinton conceded that she should have used a government email to conduct business as secretary of state, saying her decision was simply a matter of "convenience." (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to the reporters at United Nations headquarters, Tuesday, March 10, 2015. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

In light of recent allegations swirling around the presidential favorite, Clinton’s support of such a position is highly ironic.

For while the former secretary of State may oppose the rights of the wealthy to spend money on politics, she seems to have no such concern with the wealthy spending money on the Clinton Foundation and her husband Bill – all while Hillary served in the Obama administration.

Would Clinton seek a Supreme Court justice who would protect the rights of the likes of Carlos Slim and James Murdoch to contribute to the favored cause of a politician and shower the politician’s spouse with millions for speaking engagements?

If so, this apparent hypocrisy can be read in one of two ways:

  1. Clinton believes that money does not have a corrupting influence so long as it is funneled through “indirect” channels
  2. Clinton believes that the wealthy and powerful ought to bypass funding elections and simply pay politicians outright.

Appearances of impropriety aside, there are a few substantive questions around political speech that Clinton should be required to address.

Why does Clinton believe that the government has a compelling interest in stifling the political speech of any American, rich or poor?

How does Clinton square her supposed advocacy of human rights with her belief in inhibiting the right to free speech — which facilitates the robust and vigorous debate essential to a liberal society?

More generally, given a system in which millions of dollars are spent on losing causes each election cycle on both the left and right, what have Americans to fear about spending so long as laws are enforced equally and impartially regarding “pay-to-play” schemes and other politically corrupt activity?

Continue reading at TheBlaze…

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén