Hillary Doubles Down, But #WhatDifferenceDoesItMake



Clinton resigned officially yesterday, just in time too, as the 8th embassy to be attacked on her watch was announced in Turkey. The Middle East is melting down under your “leadership”, China, N. Korea and Russia are all nipping at our heels and threatening our interests.  Try and run in 2016, former Madam Secretary. I double dog dare ya.


Related reading: #BENGHAZI: Hillary Pulls A Bill

Piers Morgan Slapped by RuPaul in Ratings
Sen. Ted Cruz: Rahm Emanuel a Bully
  • jim_m

    She wanted to go out with a Bang!

  • GarandFan

    Thanks to “Smart Diplomacy” we’re sitting on top of the world.

  • 914

    Obviously it does not matter as much as Bills bimbo eruptions. Therefore no scorned earth policy necessary.

  • Vagabond661

    The smartest woman in the world who thought Monica Lewinsky was a “vast right wing conspiracy” and who blamed the attack on Benghazi on a video wants to be President in 2016? Puhhhhhlease.

    Has she thought about putting up “Bomb Free Zones” around the embassies?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      She’d no doubt get the soi disant “cognoscenti” vote. The Dead and the Brain Dead remain the most reliable Democratic voting blocks after all.

  • Brucehenry

    You guys should totally run with the whole #WhatDifferenceDoesItMake thing. Because the #YouDidn’tBuildThat thing worked out so well for you.

    BTW, how many times has a certain self-styled expert on higher culture used a certain French/Italian mongrelized cliche in two days?

    • jim_m

      You’re right Bruce because just letting the left have their way really doesn’t make any difference. For example: The left has run Chicago for decades. It has one of the most corrupt governments in the nation. Guns have been illegal for over 30 years yet it is the murder capital of the nation. And with a defenseless citizenry the police have become predators upon the public. The CPD has had to pay out over $30 million in jury awards for civil rights violations including torture of suspects.

      Chicago is exactly what the left desires in society. They have everything there exactly the way the want it.

      What difference does it make? All the difference in the world Bruce.

      • Brucehenry

        “And with a defenseless citizenry the police have become predators upon the public.”

        So, in other cities, where the police are NOT predators on the public, is that because an armed citizenry shoots at the police if the police try to prey upon them?

        Are you advocating firing on police officers if one feels that one is being unfairly targeted by them?

        • jim_m

          I posted a link last week where CPD officers were breaking into private homes and shaking down the occupants.

          I suppose your solution is to just pay off the police and STFU. My solution is to defend yourself. And whatever that takes you do it. You want the American public to become victims of your fascist state. You don’t consciously intend it as you start down the road, but you are perfectly content to let it happen. You are already defending such a state in your comment above.

          • Brucehenry

            “Whatever it takes,” huh?

            Let the record show that Jim supports firing on the police if one feels that the police are abusing their power. Who decides what constitutes abuse of power, Jim?

            Now, if police are “breaking into your home and shaking down the occupants” I suppose one may be morally justified in shooting at them, though I doubt that the homeowner would be immune to negative consequences from such an action.

            But what about if one is pulled over in one’s car without valid cause? Should one blow the cop away for his attempt to tyrannize? Or if one is stopped and frisked, having done nothing wrong? Shoot ‘im?

            I support using legal, peaceful means (politics, lawsuits, etc) to fight police corruption and/or brutality. You would, too, if a Republican were President and the, say, Black Panthers were arguing for the need for armed self-defense against crooked Chicago cops. But since a Dem is in charge, you’re condoning cop-killing if “necessary.” Whatever it takes.

            BTW, answer my question: Are the police refraining from preying on citizens in cities other than Chicago because they’re afraid of being killed by armed citizens?

          • jim_m

            Amadou Diallo could not be reached for comment on Bruce’s support of a fascist police state.

            No Bruce. If you have broken the law you should not be resisting. But if the police are breaking the law they should be resisted. Unfortunately, often when the police break the law you end up dead to cover their mistake.

            [edit] Oh, and Bruce, the Commissioner of the CPD a week and a half ago made a public statement that his officers could not be held accountable if they “accidentally” murdered a CCW holder should the state of Illinois comply with the Federal Court order and pass a CCW law. So when the police are taking the position that they can murder civilians and they have a record of corruption like the CPD does, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that if they are doing something illegal they should be stopped. The CPD is a criminal enterprise and has been for a long time. While you may support the activities of CPD favorites like John Burge, the rest of us are less impressed.

          • Brucehenry

            If Diallo had been packing he’d be just as dead and all those NY cops would still be employed.

          • jim_m

            The point is that we have an out of control police that believes they can shoot anyone they want with impunity. In Chicago they believe that they can shake down the public without fear of reprisal. They beat up bartenders who refuse to serve them when hey are already drunk and use their police friends to cover it up. They arrest young women and then release then into dangerous neighborhoods where they are then gang raped and thrown from 7 story buildings.

            The police believe that they are above the law, just like all your dem friends.

          • Brucehenry

            Your use of Diallo as an example makes me think you really do support shooting at cops if you feel they are targeting you wrongly or mistakenly.

            What if I HAVEN’T broken the law but a SWAT team breaks down my door mistakenly or maliciously? Should I shoot them, Jim?

            Is the reason the police have never broken down my door that they’re afraid I will kill them? Is that what you think?

          • jim_m

            What if I HAVEN’T broken the law but a SWAT team breaks down my door mistakenly or maliciously? Should I shoot them, Jim?

            You should ask US Marine Jose Guerena, Oh wait, you can’t because the police murdered him. Never mind.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, yes, but what should I do? What is your advice? What would your advice have been to Guerena? Take a few of them with him?

            You talk a big game, Jim. I want to know, yes or no, do you advocate shooting at police if they invade your home, car, or person mistakenly or maliciously?

            I want to know, yes or no, do you think that the reason citizens are not preyed upon by police in, say for example, Raleigh, NC is that the police fear them because they may be armed?

          • jim_m

            I would say that the police respect them because they can defend themselves. If, like in Chicago, an off duty, non uniformed policeman forced his way into your home would you not feel justified in putting a bullet in him? I sure as hell would. That is what has been going on in Chicago. Just the same as if an off duty, out of uniform, drunk off his ass policeman assaulted me I would shoot his ass too.

            But you believe that the police should have carte blanche to do whatever they want to whoever they want just because they represent the state.

          • jim_m

            I would say that the police respect them because they can defend themselves. If, like in Chicago, an off duty, non uniformed policeman forced his way into your home would you not feel justified in putting a bullet in him? I sure as hell would. That is what has been going on in Chicago. Just the same as if an off duty, out of uniform, drunk off his ass policeman assaulted me I would shoot his ass too.

            But you believe that the police should have carte blanche to do whatever they want to whoever they want just because they represent the state.

          • Brucehenry

            Weasel stuff, Jim. You made a blanket statement above that, since guns have been illegal for 30 years” the Chicago police feel comfortable preying upon the public. Implying that other police departments would behave similarly if similar gun control laws were in effect in their cities.

            Now you narrow everything down! NOW these corrupt power mad cops are all off duty and out of uniform, and maybe drunk to boot.

            Well, if any random fuckhead was breaking into my house, whatever he was wearing and whether he was drunk or sober, yeah, I’d feel justified in shooting him.

            If an off-duty, out-of-uniform cop was drunkenly assaulting me, how would I know he was a cop?

            You take a position that the police would abuse their power all over the country if they were sure that the citizenry was unarmed. The clear mirror image of that position is that they don’t abuse their power NOW because they are afraid armed citizens will kill them if they try.

            Kind of funny in a lot of ways. Do you imagine police never violate anyone’s rights in states with permissive gun laws? Like Texas and Oklahoma sheriff’s departments never ride roughshod over anyone’s liberties? Like Arpaio’s boys always adhere to the letter of the law?

          • jim_m

            I believe that the cops do feel safe preying upon the public. They know that they are the ones with the weapons and the public is not. I specified originally that if the police were breaking the law that a person was justified in defending themselves against them. You twisted that to say that if the police were performing their duty that I was saying that they should be shot. I never said any such thing.

            How do you know the drunk, off duty cop is a cop? I believe in the case of the female bartender she already knew he was a cop. He was in the company of other cops as well. She would have been fully justified in shooting him. She should have.

            I don’t imagine that the police don’t violate people’s rights elsewhere. You just show me where there is a police department with more court penalties against them in the last 30 years than Chicago.

          • Brucehenry

            I asked if I should shoot a cop, in your opinion, if my home, car, or person were violated MISTAKENLY or MALICIOUSLY. Asked it several times. You never said what I should do.

            Do you imagine that, if a SWAT team came to my home by mistake or on some trumped-up charge, and I shot one of them, that I would not suffer severe consequences?

            If a prosecutor sends a SWAT team to my house on a trumped-up charge, is the state not breaking the law? Do you think if I shoot a police officer acting in good faith on orders of his superiors who ARE NOT acting in good faith, I should be excused or even commended? You know, for standing up for liberty?

            If police misbehave or abuse power, civilized society has peaceful, legal recourse to deal with it. We can’t have a situation where every citizen takes it upon himself to decide how much power to assign a police officer and when, and to shoot that officer dead if he decides the officer has gone too far.

          • jim_m

            If police misbehave or abuse power, civilized society has peaceful, legal recourse to deal with it.

            It took two decades to bring John Burge to justice. Creating a political culture that believes that they are preferred over the public and exempted form the laws that the public must obey is what created the CPD.

            And I have already said that I do not advocate shooting police in the line of duty. But my point in the above paragraph stands. Disarming the public and selective enforcement of the law as obama does and is done in Chicago, creates a police state where the public is deemed to be merely subjects to be ruled over and where public officials and the police believe that they can violate the rights of the public with impunity.

          • herddog505

            What would Capt. John Parker do?


            Or the former GI’s in McMinn County, Tenn.?


            Nobody in his right mind WANTS to shoot at a police officer. Quite aside from it being a good way to commit suicide, I think that most American police officers are – rightly – held in good regard by the citizens they protect and serve. Further, there ARE peaceful means to deal with police excesses and misbehavior.

            But, otherwise, I think the answer is obvious: citizens have the same right to defend themselves from rogue, out of control policemen as our ancestors did to defend themselves against redcoats.

            God grant it never comes to that.

          • jim_m

            Oh know. Bruce insists that you must go throw proper legal channels. It only took 2 decades to deliver justice for the people John Burge tortured into making false confessions. You don’t mind spending nearly a third of your life in prison while we sort things out for you do you? Bruce certainly is willing to do so.

          • herddog505

            I agree: in extremis, a man has to decide whether to throw himself on the mercy of a hoodlum with a badge, or else trust that a jury will see that he was defending himself if he resists.

            On the other hand, I can see where Brucehenry is coming from: it is not in anybody’s interest to, in any way, encourage people to shoot at police officers. Indeed, it is in society’s interest to DISCOURAGE that… so long as the police are behaving (as the vast majority of them do) as honest public servants. If the police are NOT, then the initial remedies are to be found in the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box. Only if they fail should we resort to the cartridge box.

            When we speak of Second Amendment “remedies” (and I firmly believe in them), it is – or should be – in the context of a general breakdown in the government, an unmistakable case of tyranny. In such a case, it’s not an issue of shooting at the rogue policeman, but rather than the police (or their political masters) have made themselves into redcoats.

            In such a case, if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.

          • Brucehenry

            There you go — what Herddog said! Very well put.

            But I would add that Internet Tough Guys and Keyboard Kommandos can not be compared to real patriots like Captain Parker. They shouldn’t delude themselves that they are comparable.

            And even though the “Battle of Athens” story was compelling, modern media and legal steps like the VRA have made future similar situations unlikely. As to the Chicago situation, the cockroaches already seem to be scurrying as the the details of long-ongoing corruption and brutality emerge.

          • herddog505

            The problem of being a “tough guy” predates the internet: a man with even the slightest lick of sense must always wonder whether he would meet a crisis with courage or with cowardice even while he promises (as soldiers do when they enlist) to do his duty even if it costs him his life. I suppose that one can find historical examples of men who talked a big game and damned well played it when the time came* as well as braggarts who showed yellow at the first instant that danger threatened. Still, it seems to me better for a man to determine that he WILL do his duty, to set that as his goal, rather than to wait until the last moment to make up his mind.

            As for what happened in Athens, I’m not so sure that modern methods of communication could make a repeat impossible. Indeed, I think it’s reasonable to argue that they make it EASIER: if such things as the internet and the twenty-four hour news cycle make it easier for “the Truth” to get out, how much easier to they make it for lies to get into circulation?


            (*) “I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm’s way.”

            Captain John Paul Jones
            Letter to Le Ray de Chaumont, November 16, 1778

            I think that we may safely say that Capt. Jones wasn’t making an idle boast.

          • Brucehenry

            Let me just say that I’ll wager Jim never posted comments about the police murdering anyone during the Bush administration; or made an issue of police brutality until just lately.

            I’d love to have a time machine to see what he DID say when Diallo was gunned down. What do you bet he thought the cops’ actions were justified, or at least excusable?

          • jim_m

            Well, we weren’t talking about a President who wanted to completely disarm the American public with George W Bush either were we?

            You would have a good time finding a contemporary post on the Diallo issue since it happened 4 years before this blog was started. Hell, it was pretty much before blogs period.

            As to what I thought at the time? That NYPD were a bunch of incompetent, out of control thugs and while they had little cause to kill the man, that they need to learn how to aim properly because most of their shots missed.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You have made an accusation you could prove were it actually factual and were you not lazy.

            It isn’t true and you are lazy and a slanderer.

            An honorable man would delete that comment above and apologize to jim. You will do neither.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Speak of the brain dead and up they jump:

    You guys should totally run with…

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE