Anyone Else Sick Of Hearing About Hillary 24/7?

We’re just a week into her long, slow victory trot to the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nomination; and already, I’m sick of the media coverage of Hillary Clinton.

You can’t escape her. She’s everywhere.

And I’m not talking about the usual hugs and kisses she’s been getting from her idolaters and cheerleaders in the liberal mainstream news media.

I’m talking about the conservative media outlets — Fox News and the radio talk shows.

It’s been all-Hillary-all-the-time for 10 days. I’m the biggest anti-Hillary guy I know, but I’m tired of listening to Fox and talk radio beat up on her so much.

I know they have to keep their conservative choirs happy with nonstop Hillary bash-fests. But they’re way overdoing it.

Apparently, they have nothing else to talk about besides Hillary.

I did an interview Wednesday morning with a conservative talk show, and the first question I got was about her.

I said that if conservative outlets would stop talking about Hillary, almost no one would mention her name.

I’m not kidding. I’m going to ask my friend Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center to compare how many times the name ‘Hillary’ is heard on liberal outlets versus conservative outlets. I guarantee she’s getting more airtime from conservatives.

I understand talk radio is all about getting higher ratings.

I also realize there are a few million people out there who are frustrated by eight years of Obama and who enjoy nothing better than hearing Hillary being bashed 24/7 by conservatives.

But beating up on Hillary so heavily now is a waste of valuable conservative airtime, and it might backfire in the election next year.

Everyone can see already that she’ll be a certain loser in 2016. Even her fellow Democrats are nervous. She’s washed up. She’s all failure and scandal and deceitfulness.

On top of that, she’s gone beyond predictable. She’s already said everything she’s ever going to say — a hundred times — and she never had anything to say in the first place.

And anyway, Hillary’s old, old news. Is there anything about her we don’t know yet? If she discovers a new mole on her arm at noon, we’ll hear about it tonight on the evening news.

Beating on Hillary is great fun, I admit. But conservatives should be careful not to be too rough on her too soon.

She’s the best (i.e., the weakest and worst) Democrat candidate Republicans could hope for in 2016. The last thing conservatives want is to see her knocked out of the race early and give another Democrat like Martin O’Malley of Maryland a chance to get in the race.

So let’s give Hillary some slack. Let’s try to keep her off the conservative airwaves for a while.

To make room for more news that matters, I challenge the radio talk shows and Fox News to go Hillary-free for a week.

I don’t care if Hillary is caught on camera burning her email server in her fireplace tomorrow, or if she is abducted and held for ransom by space aliens tonight.

Please spare us the details, conservative media — at least until next week.

I’m tired of running into people at the supermarket who ask me, “What do you think about Hillary?”

For a week I don’t want to think or talk about Hillary. I want to talk about baseball. About Peter Rose being hired by Fox as an analyst. About country music. Anything but Hillary.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary For America? Why?

Hillary’s all in for 2016.


She officially arrived Sunday — but not in the flesh.

She announced her decision with a low-key tweet and a two-minute video featuring a diverse lineup of adorable Democrat voters, a sappy message about being “a champion of everyday Americans,” and very little face-time for herself.

Then, to prove she’s still a grassroots Chicago girl at heart, the multimillionaire from Chappaqua sneaked out of New York at 70 mph on one of the phoniest “road trips” of all time.

Chauffeured by Secret Service men in a three-van convoy bound for Iowa, she actually met a few regular “flyover people” at a gas station in Altoona; and she made a sneaky pit stop in Ohio at a Chipotle.

With her oversized shades and trusty aide Huma Abedin paying the bill, however, Hillary was spotted standing in line at the popular Mexican chain restaurant.

When the media swooped into the Chipotle a day later, they learned that Hillary and Huma had stiffed the kids behind the counter.

Caught not leaving a tip for the working class is not a good PR move for a wealthy everywoman who says she’ll fight for the struggling everyman.

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, that little socioeconomic gaffe revealed how badly out of touch Hillary is with the people she’s counting on to vote her and Bill back into power.

Which raises the big question: “Why ‘Hillary for President’?”

She’s the Democrats’ default presidential nominee, the Entitled One; but she’s a lightweight on every scale.

Quick. What does Hillary stand for?

Has she ever had a deep thought or a good idea about policy — foreign or domestic?

What has she done in her public life so far to make this country a better place? What is her great vision for America?

And what are her great career accomplishments? Not many.

She was basically handed a U.S. Senate seat.

Big deal — a liberal Democrat carpetbagger wins in liberal New York. And then makes herself invisible for six years in the Senate.

As secretary of state, her highlight reel includes Benghazi and a string of failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, and China.

Her biggest achievement as secretary of state was racking up a record number of frequent flyer miles.

For her debut in Iowa this week, Hillary was dodging tough questions from reporters and carefully speaking in political generalities, platitudes, and soundbites.

She was trying so hard to put some daylight between herself and President Obama that she almost sounded like my dad.

She was promising to make the economy grow by cutting bad regulations, and she mentioned adding market-based reforms to what’s she thinks are the good parts of Obamacare.

Maybe Ms. Authentic 2016 was trying out her Maggie Thatcher impersonation. (Believe me, I knew Maggie Thatcher–and Hillary is no Maggie Thatcher.)

Unfortunately for the country, Hillary can’t escape being Hillary. And if she’s saying anything about the economy that makes sense, it’s pure accident.

Hillary can’t compare to Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, the first of a gang of young, smart, accomplished conservative Republican presidential candidates who are not stuck in the 1990s.

The announcement speeches by Rubio and Paul were great — full of vision and ideas about reform in Washington and calls for reasserting America’s prosperity at home and leadership abroad.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s really just running on a single issue — that she’s a woman and it’s time for America to have its first woman president.

Over the next 19 months I think millions of everyday voters are going to figure that out. Maybe the liberal media might too.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Slow-Motion Justice


Justice has been done in Boston, but it’s not finished.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been found guilty in the Boston Marathon terrorism bombing.

The verdict Wednesday was no surprise.

Everyone in the country already knew that Tsarnaev and his dead brother planted two bombs in the crowd at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.

Even Tsarnaev’s defense team acknowledged that he took part in the act of domestic terrorism that killed three and wounded 260 others.

After 16 days and 95 witnesses, it took the jury just 11 hours to render their verdict on the 30 federal counts against the 21-year-old.

Gulity, guilty, guilty…. Seventeen of those guilty verdicts carried death penalties.

Tsarnaev’s lawyers knew that 30-0 guilty verdict was coming. Their only hope has always been to save him from the death penalty.

For the next several weeks, during the sentencing phase of the trial, they’ll try to persuade the seven women and five men of the jury that their client’s miserable young life should be spared.

He had a bad home life. He was made fun of in school. He was under the control of his evil older brother who did all the planning and force-fed him radical Islamist ideology.

It might work. If just one juror out of 12 votes against the death penalty, Tsarnaev will be spared; and he’ll get life without parole instead.

That would be a shame because I really hope he gets the chair — or whatever method federal prosecutors end up choosing if the time comes.

I also hope to God that if he is sentenced to die, justice is carried out as fast as possible.

Otherwise, the whole country — but especially the families of the dead and the physically and psychologically battered survivors of the bombing — will be kept waiting while the legal appeals process drags on.

It’s already been too long. It’s been almost two years since Tsarnaev was caught.

The names of the three innocents his bombs killed — Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu, and Martin Richard, who was 8 — have been largely forgotten by the rest of us.

Has anyone outside Boston ever heard the names of the 17 people who had their arms or legs blown off?

Meanwhile, the name Tsarnaev — a name that should be forgotten by the world as soon as possible — haunts the whole country.

It must be hell in Boston. As long as he is alive, his victims will be forced to relive the worst moments of their lives over and over as his appeal crawls through the judicial process.

Even if he gets the death penalty, it won’t happen quick. It never does, except maybe in Texas.

No matter how obviously guilty a murderer is, or how horrible their crime was, justice drags on and on. Especially on the federal level.

Since the federal government reinstated the death penalty in 1988, it has sentenced 74 people to death.

Today, 61 remain on the federal government’s death row. About 35 have been there at least 10 years. Three of those death sentences have been carried out.

Many of the people Tsarnaev hurt and their families will die of old age before the justice system gets around to give him what he deserves, even if it’s death.

I don’t want Tsarnaev to be alive 10 years from now.

I wish they could just take him out back of the courthouse tomorrow, shoot him or hang him, and get it over with. But that won’t happen.

Giving him a life sentence is a waste of money, but it might be the best and quickest way to rid ourselves of Tsarnaev forever.

We’d never see his face or hear his name in the news again until he dies.

And if we’re real lucky, that happy event will come sooner than later, when one of his fellow lifers delivers justice by sticking a sharpened spoon in his neck.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Democrats Just Won In Indiana

Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

March Madness hit Indiana hard this week.

It had nothing to do with the NCAA’s Final Four Championship, which is coming to Indianapolis on Saturday.

And despite what you think, it wasn’t about ‘gay rights’, either.

It was really all about 2016 presidential politics.

The firestorm of media attention and orchestrated liberal outrage started last week after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed his state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The act was broadly written to protect all citizens of all faiths from being forced by government to do things that violated their religious principles.

It was not written to permit Christians or any other religious group to discriminate against gay people or any other minority. And it had nothing to do with the civil rights of gay people.

What Gov. Pence signed into law was hardly different from the federal law that Bill Clinton signed in 1993 and the laws that at least 19 other states already have put on their books.

That didn’t matter to the national media.

Neither did the fact that Democrats never made a peep about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for 20-plus years — and never saw the need to fix the law until Republicans got in power.

None of the fine print or legal nitpicking pertaining to religious freedom versus minority rights matters to the public now.

The media war of words is over. As usual, Republicans, Pence, and conservatives lost. They were whipped in the public relations battle and the political battle, just as liberals hoped.

Pence caved. After the NCAA, the tourist bureau, Angie’s List, half the major corporations based in Indiana, and everyone else who buys or sells something in Indiana begged him to surrender, he did.

That tough stand he took in defense of Indiana’s law with George Stephanopoulos last Sunday on ABC? History. Pence now says he “mishandled” the interview and says the state law needs to be clarified or fixed.

Until the culture war caught Pence and his state legislature off guard and transformed him overnight into the meanest Republican in America, he was seen as a possible dark horse candidate for the GOP in 2016.

The former Congressman had balanced his first two state budgets, cut unemployment rates, and was pals with big moneymen like the Kochs.

Some thought the governor could be a worthy compromise for the Republican presidential nomination — or at least a solid VP choice.

Not now. He’s probably burnt toast.

It’s the usual story. Republicans were again discredited, put on the defensive, and embarrassed by the Democrats and their attack dogs in the national media.

Pence, the GOP, and conservatives were made to look like they don’t believe in freedom of choice or tolerance when it’s actually the liberals, the gay lobby, and the Democrats who don’t believe in either.

The madness in Indiana looked to the public like a battle over the rights of Christians and gay people, but it was really the political version of one of David Copperfield’s slight-of-hand magic tricks.

Gay rights was the liberals’ distraction for the audience. Their real trick — their larger long-term trick — was inciting their ground troops and creating a polarizing issue that could help Democrats hold onto the White House in 2016.

The other day, Rush Limbaugh had a good idea. He said that if he were Gov. Pence, he’d turn the tables on the Democrats.

Rush said Pence should pull his state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and rewrite it word-for word, period-for period, the way Clinton and then-Congressman Chuck Schumer penned it in 1993.

What would the fair and balanced national media then?

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Republicans Versus Republicans

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

When Ted Cruz officially stepped into the 2016 presidential ring last week, the boo-birds attacked immediately.

But it wasn’t just the liberals of the mainstream media who threw bottles and chairs at the conservative Texan.

It was Cruz’s fellow Republicans.

Is he qualified after only three years in the Senate? Where was he born again? Isn’t he too aggressively Christian?

Isn’t he too conservative to win the general election? Shouldn’t we nominate someone more moderate, someone who isn’t hated by the MSM and wouldn’t scare independents?

Unfortunately, we’re already heard lots of negative chatter — from Republicans — about the political weaknesses and ideological imperfections of candidates like Cruz, Bush, and Christie. There will be more.

It’s a shame. Thanks to Obama and his failures at home and abroad, Republicans are in a great position to retake the presidency next year.

Almost anyone who’s thinking of running in 2016 — Walker, Bush, Paul, Rubio, Christie, Huckabee, Jindal, Santorum, Kasich, Carson, Fiorina, Pataki, Bolton, even Donald Trump — has a decent chance of winning the keys to the White House.

But America’s most consistently conservative institution, talk radio, has already started stirring up trouble among Republicans the way it did in 2008 and 2012.

Talk radio is already taking sides and trying to tell conservatives which potential nominee is most worthy to wear the mantle of Ronald Reagan.

When my father ran in the 1980 primaries, he was lucky. He was a lone conservative in a sea of moderate and liberal Republicans. The moderates split the moderate vote, and he won the nomination.

Today, the situation is reversed. Conservatives are splitting the conservative vote in the primaries, and moderates like McCain and Romney are winning the GOP nomination.

Conservatives better watch out. If what happened in ’08 and ’12 happens in ’16, we are going to blow our chance to regain the White House once again.

We need to decide early who we want to lead the GOP ticket in 2016. Unfortunately, we probably won’t do that because we all have our favorite contenders.

When I tweeted that Cruz said something I agreed with in his speech, I got a flurry of tweets from Rand Paul people.

“Why do you hate Rand Paul?”

When I tweeted something nice about Rand Paul, I got a flurry of tweets from Cruz’s people. “Why do you hate Ted Cruz?”

This is one of the worst problems with conservatives. Liberals are led by ideology, and they’ll always support their nominee in the general election because of that.

Conservatives are always looking for their next leader — their next Ronald Reagan. But conservative nominees are all over the ideological map, and each one has too many spiteful followers.

If Rand Paul gets the GOP nomination, the Cruz people will stay home in November. If Cruz gets it, the Paul people will stay home. Ditto for the followers of Huckabee and others.

Barack Obama is president of the USA today because too many conservative Republicans didn’t show up to vote for Romney in 2012, not because too many Democrats voted to reelect Obama.

The GOP should nominate a strong conservative for 2016. I prefer ex-governors; but Cruz, Paul, Walker, Perry, Rubio, and Kasich all come to mind as good candidates.

It’ll take a miracle for Republicans to get their act together this time.

They should follow “The Buckley Rule” and choose the best conservative who has the best chance of winning the general election. In other words, not a Goldwater of 1964 but a Reagan of 1980.

But no matter who Republicans nominate, to win back the White House, they’ll all have to follow my father’s 11th Commandment and fully support their party’s presidential nominee — no matter who it is.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom