Will Hillary Run?

Hillary Clinton is back in the spotlight. But once again it's a negative spotlight. This time it's about her failure to use official federal e-mail servers for her electronic correspondence(s) while she was Secretary of State. She instead used personal, private e-mail servers that kept her e-mails from being recorded publicly unless she herself submitted them to the public record. According to legal experts this practice is illegal and violates all policies on public record keeping by the federal government.

It wasn't long ago that Hillary was under fire for her complicit role (or absence thereof) in the Benghazi murders of four Americans. Although she denied knowledge of requests by then Ambassador Chris Stevens for increased security, records and protocol seem to indicate that she did, in fact, know about the requests and denied them. She also played along with the "it was caused by a video" scenario promoted (dishonestly) by the Obama administration then, when pressed on it, screamed "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

It makes a large difference to those of us who still love this country and want truth and integrity from our elected officials. But truth and integrity are not in Hillary Clinton's dictionary, it seems.

So will Hillary actually run for President in 2016? The indications are that she will and I am convinced she believes the Presidency should be hers - that she is not only destined to be President but deserves it. And that's not something I see her giving up easily.

I have a friend or two who believe Hillary is simply playing a game right now, that she will be bought off and won't actually run for President. Some believe Elizabeth Warren will be the candidate and others believe it will be New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Neither of those two offer anything better than Hillary (both far-left radicals who embrace the policies of Obama) except they don't come with the long, questionable history that accompanies Hillary.

Some believe Hillary was bought off in 2008 so Obama could become President. I don't know if that's true or not but I do know that if she's voluntarily opting out of being President there is a price attached to it. We shall see what happens.

In other news, the Obama administration is still at arms with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Prime Minister's speech to Congress earlier this week. It seems the two heads of state have different opinions of what would be best for Iran.

"Our goal here is to be able to verify that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon," Obama said after a meeting with the emir of Qatar last week.

Uh... does that mean we don't know if they have one or is that simply a poor choice of words to mean "verify that Iran does not attain a nuclear weapon," as in we will prevent them from getting one? 

"We must prevent Iran from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons. And I want to reiterate that point. Not just to prevent them from having the weapon, but to prevent them from having the capacity to make the weapon," Netanyahu said last year.

It seems the goals of the two men are somewhat different. Netanyahu has been against Iran developing any type of nuclear capabilities because of their constant threats toward Israel. I happen to agree with him. Iran's pretense that they are developing nuclear energy for electrical use has been a lie from day one and President Obama knows it. What's unbelievable is Obama's response. Cutting sanctions, negotiating with the enemy, allowing them to continue enrichment capabilities. They already have a short range ballistic missile system in place that could easily reach Israel. What about that does our President not understand?

The President's Liar-in-Chief Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, said the other day that Netanyahu doesn't have a strategy to deal with Iran and their nuclear program and that Obama is the only one who has come up with a negotiation strategy. I beg to differ. Netanyahu has a strategy. That strategy is this. Tell Iran to cease its enrichment of nuclear materials and shut down its centrifuges or the Israelis will blow the entire facility to kingdom come. Period. No further negotiations or deals necessary. 

If President Obama believes Iran will strike a deal and stick to it he's naive. If he knows they will make a deal and not stick to it and goes ahead with it he's got another agenda. Personally, I don't believe Obama cares one way or the other about Iran attaining a nuclear weapon. They're not going to attack the Untied States. They want to destroy Israel. And I believe, given the things Obama has said and done, that he wouldn't really have a problem with that. He hates Israel and Bibi Netanyahu. And if Iran was to destroy them it would be one less thorn in Obama's side.

Of course, we already know that Bibi won't allow that to happen. He has said more than once that Israel will stand up to the threat that is Iran with allies or without. And he means it. And if Obama actually launches U.S. air forces against Israel in defense of our enemy it would be the end of his Presidency. The American people would revolt. And I think Obama knows that.

Finally, the Justice Department released their report about the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, last year and exonerated Officer Darren Wilson of any wrongdoing. There was no evidence, according to the report, that the officer in any way violated Michael Brown's civil rights when Wilson shot Brown in self-defense, the report says.

There are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. The accounts of the witnesses who have claimed that Brown raised his hands above his head to surrender and said “I don’t have a gun,” or “okay, okay, okay” are inconsistent with the physical evidence or can be challenged in other material ways, and thus cannot be relied upon to form the foundation of a federal prosecution. The two most prominent witnesses who have stated that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender are Witness 101 and Witness 127, both of whom claim that Brown turned around with his hands raised in surrender, that he never reached for his waistband, that he never moved forward toward Wilson after turning to face him with his hands up, and that he fell to the ground with his hands raised. These and other aspects of their statements are contradicted by the physical evidence.

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law.

The report clearly says that Darren Wilson acted in self-defense and that the entire "hands up - don't shoot" mantra was a fabrication. Yet Eric Holder and even President Obama allowed people like Al Sharpton and others to perpetuate it to the point of violence. Athletes and celebrities also took up the cause and promoted the lie.

Although he cleared Wilson of any wrongdoing, Attorney General Holder couldn't resist justifying the violence that followed the shooting even while denouncing it. The violence was not justified, Holder said but“amid a highly toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment, stoked by years of bad feelings, and spurred by illegal and misguided practices, it is not difficult to imagine how a single tragic incident set off the city of Ferguson like a powder keg.”

Not to mention being stoked by yourself and Al Sharpton huh, Mr. Holder? You did nothing to dissuade the protesters from their violent acts and, in fact, supported and even helped it along by condemning Darren Wilson before the facts were even known. The violence is all over your hands.

President Obama, clearly unhappy with the Justice Department's findings , or lack thereof, weighed in and said "Officer Wilson benefited from our legal system." In other words - Wilson was guilty and our imperfect justice system simply didn't measure up to what I wanted it to do. It's a sad commentary by the President of the United States when all evidence points to the officer being in the right and the President still wants him convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

The New York Times responded to the report that the "hands up don't shoot" mantra was a lie. "It remains not only valid -- but essential -- to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily."

It's not difficult for a thinking person to figure out. The punk that was with Michael Brown told a lie about what happened, on national television. The lie was perpetuated by Sharpton, Holder and the main stream media to the point where many people wanted to believe it to be true. It sells air time and brings in dollars, for the networks and leeches like Al Sharpton.

It will be interesting to see, now that the liars in the case have been identified, if any action is taken by the Justice Department or local authorities against them. Lying in court and lying to federal investigators are both crimes punishable by prison time. The liars helped perpetuate the violence and destruction in Ferguson and around the nation. Will the government take any action against them? Anyone want to make a wager....?