05/6/15

Showdown with Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The liberal media remain derelict in their duty to vet presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s record on Benghazi, just as they have abandoned any pretense of holding the Obama administration accountable for the many “phony” scandals including the IRS scandal, Fast & Furious, or even the VA scandal. We at Accuracy in Media have repeatedly exposed the mainstream media’s reluctance to question the Obama administration narrative on issues that might threaten their agenda.

Recent offenders circumventing the need to vet Mrs. Clinton’s and President Obama’s Benghazi record include CNN, Reuters and The New York Times—all of which consider themselves premier sources of information.

Rather than waiting for the process of sifting through and then reporting the details of the approximately 30,000 emails that former Secretary of State Clinton has submitted to the State Department—only about half the reported total 62,320 emails on her private email server—CNN instead turned to anonymous government sources for its alleged scoop. CNN’s Elise Labott wrote on April 27 that “the sources who described the emails said they offer no ‘smoking gun’ on Clinton’s actions in the days and weeks leading up to the attack or while the siege on the U.S. facility was ongoing.”

The next day Reuters published a very similar article by Mark Hosenball citing “two people familiar with the material” who made broad, sweeping claims about the information contained within those emails.

CNN’s Labott clearly stated that, like The New York Times’ Michael Schmidt, she was “not permitted to review the emails ahead of their release, but several government officials characterized them and offered detail on some of them on the condition of anonymity.”

But no “smoking gun” email from Mrs. Clinton is necessary to break this scandal wide open or prove that a Benghazi cover-up is still alive and well. And none may ever materialize from that corner, given her decision to wipe clean her private email server. Assertions by media organizations that releasing her emails, which were vetted by Clinton aides before being turned over to the State Department, will somehow clear her record are simply an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the public.

In addition, Labott reports that “Several former Clinton staffers have told CNN [that Mrs. Clinton] did the vast majority of work in person or on the phone, which is evident by her emails.” Thus, evidence that could prove to be a smoking gun may not exist under those circumstances, even if Mrs. Clinton had directly influenced the security situation in Benghazi or participated in a post-attack cover-up.

Evidence has already been released demonstrating that the former Secretary of State’s aides became aware that this was a terrorist attack about a half an hour after the initial attack began on the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. It strains credulity to presume that these aides did not inform then-Secretary Clinton of the known facts at that time.

“Mrs. Clinton actually issued a statement on the night of [the attack] stating, ‘Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,’ a clear reference to the Internet video,” I noted in a recent column criticizing Schmidt’s reporting.

The public record has already established that President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, AFRICOM’s Carter Ham, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey were all told that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack almost immediately after they began. Yet the President and his administration still continued to blame a YouTube video titled “The Innocence of Muslims.”

As revealed in their book, 13 Hours, the Annex Security Team (AST) was also told by employees of the Central Intelligence Agency to stand down three times before they unilaterally left the CIA Annex one mile away and went to the aid of the beleaguered diplomatic personnel at the Special Mission Compound.

Labott continued, writing that CNN’s anonymous sources “added that contrary to charges by Republican lawmakers like McCain, there is no evidence that a ‘stand down’ order was given to prevent American forces from responding to the violence in Benghazi and none of the emails suggest Clinton was involved in any sort of cover-up regarding its response to the attack.”

Similarly, Hosenball writes that people “familiar with the emails” told him that the email cache “contains no support for Republican accusations that Clinton was involved in efforts to downplay the role of Islamic militants in the deadly 2012 attacks on U.S. installations in Benghazi” and “do not demonstrate that Clinton…was personally involved in decisions that resulted in weak security at the Benghazi outposts.”

“If the sources wouldn’t show them the documents, why are they so confident that what they are being told is the truth—especially if the information is self-serving to the administration, as these revelations clearly were,” I wrote regarding The New York Times.

The same standard should apply to CNN and Reuters.

The point is, how can all these reporters be certain they are getting the facts, sight unseen?

More information regarding the truth about the Benghazi scandal could become available in the near future. Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) requested that Mrs. Clinton appear publicly before the Select Committee in May and June, and has now “received more than 4,000 pages of documents and notes from the State Department’s Benghazi Accountability Review Board” investigation, according to USA Today. Rep. Gowdy offered for Mrs. Clinton to testify under oath that all the necessary documents had been submitted to the Select Committee, testimony which he says “would probably shut off that line of inquiry.” He was referring to the issue of how the emails were turned over from her private server to the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton, through her attorney David Kendall, stated this week that she is willing to take questions from Rep. Gowdy’s Select Committee—but only one time, and only in public. She is refusing the committee’s request to meet twice: once in private to discuss her controversial email usage while at the State Department, and once in public to talk about Benghazi. She has also refused to turn over her email server to the committee, but said that she did turn the rest of her emails over to the State Department. Whether any of the more than 30,000 emails that she destroyed contained communications about Benghazi, or any business of the Clinton Foundation that might reveal coordination over donations, may never be revealed. The public is instead being asked to blindly trust Hillary’s claims that the emails were all personal and had nothing to do with either one of these situations.

Both Labott and Hosenball reported last week that the State Department could be releasing Mrs. Clinton’s emails to the public very soon. With the deadline getting closer, why not just wait until the emails are released and review their actual contents? Instead, these three news organizations published “scoops” which only serve to reiterate and perpetuate the Obama administration’s Benghazi narrative.

Although certain mainstream media organizations refuse to acknowledge the facts about the ongoing Benghazi scandal, turning a blind eye to the truth is no excuse for taking the administration’s word about documents which will soon become public. Not that there are likely to be any smoking guns in these soon-to-be-released emails. The decision to publish articles based on the word of unnamed administration officials instead of demanding to see Mrs. Clinton’s emails first has perpetuated the image of these news outlets as little more than propaganda mouthpieces for the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton.

03/23/15

Overwrought

Arlene from Israel

That’s been the overriding climate here in Israel for several days now – whether it is a mood of anguish or of euphoria, it has all been rather frenetic.

In the days leading up to the election, I observed (and experienced) a mood akin to grief, at the prospect that Buji Herzog might win; this then morphed into jubilation at the subsequent electoral victory of Bibi.

But in some quarters on the right, there was an over-reaction.  Bibi was hailed as the leader of the free world (there is a case for this, as he’s the only one who has spoken out on Iran with courage), and it was assumed that he would now have the latitude to move forward in significant ways.  There was even an assumption voiced that he would now be able to annex Judea and Samaria.

Because he garnered 30 mandates?  He still has to face down the world, and form his coalition. Ain’t gonna happen now, no how, however fervent the desire that it should.

~~~~~~~~~~

What Bibi had said in the course of the last days of the campaign was that there would be no Palestinian state established on his watch as prime minister.  The day before the election, in an interview, he declared:

“Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel. This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years.”  (Emphasis added)

Those on the left, who say otherwise, are “sticking their head in the sand, time and time again.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/16/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-palestinian-state/

~~~~~~~~~~

Bibi was only stating an obvious truth that anyone with a minimal grasp of the situation can see. His statement is not radical.  It could have (we might have said, should have) gone further: No state, because it’s our land.  But he didn’t say this.

~~~~~~~~~~

After the election, the Obama administration came out swinging at Bibi.  The American government, it was announced, was going to be re-evaluating its relationship with Israel and might opt to change its policy regarding standing with us in the UN.

Again, enormous anxiety: What if the Security Council voted to demand that we move back to the ‘67 line, or created a full Palestinian state?

My own feeling on this was that there was a certain amount of grandstanding in this statement of “re-evaluation.” It was, quite simply, a threat:  You don’t want to move with me in my desire to achieve a two-state solution? (Which solution is impossible anyway, but never mind that.) This is what you have to look forward to.

I believe that Obama will do whatever he can to damage us, that there is an irrational hatred at work with regard to how he responds to us.  For example, he has just allowed a forty-year agreement guaranteeing that Israel would be able to purchase oil to lapse.  A maliced act:

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/obama-let-40-year-old-oil-supply-guarantee-to-israel-expire-in-november-2014/2015/03/17/0/

He should never, ever be trusted.

But at the same time, I believe he retains sufficient rationality to do what he perceives as being most prudent or in his own best interest – in terms of achieving his own goals, looking good, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~

My first thought on learning about the “re-evaluation” was that the possible scenarios in the UN that were being projected carried within them their own stumbling blocks: It was very likely not as simple as was being suggested. The UN, according to international law, cannot “create” a state; and to vote for Israel to move back to the ‘67 lines conflicts with Security Council Resolution 242, which said this was not required.

Israel, it seemed to me, had to consult with the finest of international lawyers, military advisors and diplomats and respond offensively.  It might be pointed out, for example, that a UN resolution demanding that we move back to the ‘67 lines would render Oslo – which requires negotiations to determine a border – deader than dead. Deader than it already is now.  We might let US officials know that if this were the case, there would be absolutely no cooperation with the Palestinian Authority at all from the day the vote was taken.  No tax collection, no security provisions, no electricity or water, no cooperation in marketing of produce (all of these things spelled out in Oslo).  Obama might think twice about this, and the repercussions that would follow.

~~~~~~~~~~

As it is,  Netanyahu took the step of “explaining” what he meant.  In an interview early on Thursday, he said:

“I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4638988,00.html

In other words, don’t point a finger at me – my commitment has stayed the same.  It’s the situation that is different.

Bibi was then accused here in Israel of backtracking on his pre-election position of no Palestinian state.  But if you look carefully, it’s not quite so – although his emphasis has certainly shifted. Painful as it is to hear him reiterate commitment to a “two state solution,” he did say there would be no Palestinian state because of a changed situation; he never actually said that he had changed his mind on two-states, in principle.

~~~~~~~~~~

My first impulse was Oi!  Did he have to say this?  He backed off – or gave the appearance of backing off – in the face of Obama’s threats.  This can come across as weakness and encourage even more threats.

But I’ve since re-thought the matter.  The situation Bibi is facing on several fronts is horrendous.  I think it behooves us to cut him a bit of slack here, if he has decided that minimizing the tensions with the US administration is in Israel’s best interest right now.

What must be watched carefully are the decisions he makes once there is a government. He has said that there will be no more releasing of prisoners as a “gesture.”  If the PA should demand this, and Obama push for it, we must see that it does not happen.  This, or similar other “gestures.”

~~~~~~~~~~

The big question is whether Bibi means it when he speaks of a “two-state solution,” whether he meant it when he gave his Bar Ilan speech. My guessing is that this is not his ideology, but his MO – which involves “playing the game” at some level, rather than being confrontational.  If he says he is for two-states, but then refuses to move forward in real terms because of the security risks implicit, he will be holding the line for the short term. (We’ll get to the long term when there is recognition at the highest levels of government that we have legal rights in Judea and Samaria, and all of Jerusalem.)

~~~~~~~~~~

At first, Obama declared himself suspicious of the sincerity of Bibi’s statement. But by later on Thursday, he had called our prime minister to offer congratulations.  Reports are that it was a “tough” conversation, but what was made public was that the two leaders had agreed to move forward on ways to find peace (whatever that means).

US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, said today that there was no choice but to examine Netanyahu’s “confusing” statements. But he also indicated that at the moment there are no changes in policy.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/pms-comments-confusing-but-no-changes-yet-says-us-envoy/

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the things that I believe made Obama think twice regarding his attack on Netanyahu has been the response of several members of Congress.

Take the stunning speech by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdMWbqZsyuM&feature=youtu.be

Or that of Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), which is even stronger:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=426721624156045

These distinguished gentleman forthrightly call Obama on his irrational antipathy to Netanyahu.

It is said that this very autocratic/non-democratic president does as he pleases. But this is not quite so.  Congress can cut funding for programs that Obama wants to see sustained, and can use its leverage to make things difficult for a president who chooses to make matters difficult for Israel.

Senator Cotton has now said he will support legislation to cut US funding to the UN, if it takes action against Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

And this morning Senator John McCain (R-AZ) severely criticized Obama on CNN:

Noting that Israel had a “free and fair” democratic election – “the only nation in the region that will have such a thing,” he said it’s time for Obama to “get over it,” if he doesn’t like the results.

“Get over your temper tantrum, Mr. President. It’s time that we work together with our Israeli friends and try to stem this tide of ISIS and Iranian movement throughout the region which is threatening the very fabric of the region. The least of your problems is what Bibi Netanyahu said during a reelection campaign.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/22/mccain-obama-needs-to-get-over-his-temper-tantrum-about-netanyahus-reelection/

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to briefly comment on one accusation that is being made against Netanyahu: It is being said that he made “racist” remarks against Israeli Arabs during the election, pointing out that they were coming to vote in large numbers, which required the right wing to come out in large numbers as well.

That is not quite accurate.  Netanyahu’s concern was with the fact that US money had been utilized to promote the left in the campaign, and it was believed that US money was paying for the buses to bring the Arabs to the polls.  This is clearly not as it should be, and he was calling for a strong response against it.

One very interesting news item helps put lie to the accusation that Netanyahu is racist:  In one Bedouin village in the north of Israel, over 76% of the votes were cast for Netanyahu and Likud:

http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/03/19/bedouin-village-gave-76-of-its-votes-to-netanyahu/

~~~~~~~~~~

As to the election, the early stages of coalition building are in process now.  I will write about this when next I post.  It is not a pretty picture, not as I write tonight, at any rate.

~~~~~~~~~~

I cannot close without a mention of the vile/hateful/destructive and totally perverse positions of Obama, whatever his motivations (do NOT write to tell me what they are, please – this is rhetorical).  Right after the elections here, the PLO moved to increase its connection with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in order to establish a “unity government.” I’ve lost count of how many times they’ve moved towards a unity government.  But the point is that there can be no “negotiations” for a “two-state solution” if the PA is in bed with Hamas. And yet, from the Obama administration I’ve seen not a single word of criticism about this being “counterproductive” to peace – never mind threats to re-evaluate the US support for the PA.

~~~~~~~~~~

But then again, what can we expect:

“An annual security report submitted recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, removed both Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorism threats to the United States for the first time in years.” (emphasis added)

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/17579-us-removes-iran-and-hezbollah-from-list-of-terror-threats

~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of Iran…

There are officials here in Jerusalem who believe that Obama’s attack on Netanyahu was designed to deflect attention from the nuclear negotiations, which should be coming to a close within days.  Obama may be seeking ways to “discourage” Netanyahu from speaking out on what is taking place.

http://www.pressreader.com/israel/jerusalem-post/textview

~~~~~~~~~~

No wonder the climate here is overwrought.  The situation to be coped with is insane.  Not least is a pogrom that took place in London last night.  A terrifying harbinger of things to come?

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Attackers-yelling-we-will-kill-you-storm-synagogue-in-London-suburb-leave-worshipers-bloody-394684

There is no room for complacency or apathy now.  And support for Israel and her rights is essential. What happens to the Jews of the world depends in good part upon the Jewish state.

02/5/15

White House Won’t Reveal Which Muslim Leaders Attended Obama’s Secret Meeting

Hat Tip: BB

The Muslim Brotherhood Calls For “A Long, Uncompromising Jihad” In Egypt After Meeting With US State Department

FROM TURKEY: Muslim Brotherhood TV issues warning that all foreigners, tourists, and foreign companies in Egypt must leave quickly, or face devastating attacks with dire consequences

The Ghosts of Auschwitz in the Middle East

EGYPTIAN EMBASSY blasts Washington Post for its pro-radical Islamist bias

Perpetrators of Sudan’s Genocide Invited to the National Prayer Breakfast

ISIS Caliph offers BIG REWARD for anyone who kills a coalition pilot

Levin BURNS Obama: Is he going to sit down with ISIS NEXT?

Yes, we are comfortable doing business with the Muslim Brotherhood

Qatar’s embattled Brotherhood exiles see hope in new Saudi king

Obama: ‘People Committed Terrible Deeds in the Name of Christ’

LEAKED EVIDENCE Shows Senator McCain Involved in Major Islamic Conspiracy to Transform Middle East into Islamic State

Iran’s Militias Are Taking Over Iraq’s Army

01/3/15

John McCain’s Progressive Hand Is Behind The Purge Of Tea Party Detractors From The Arizona GOP

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton


AP Photo/Jim Cole

John McCain is the quintessential enemy from within on the right. I am long past the argument of honoring his service to this country. He served his country long ago with distinction, now he’s serving it on a platter to the Communists. At every turn he has betrayed America in recent years. Just two words describe the good he has done this country: Sarah Palin and she is Tea Party. Now, in an act of political cleansing, McCain has set about to gut the Arizona GOP of Tea Party riff-raff using an Obama San Francisco donor. How richly appropriate for a man who is a Marxist Progressive and much more of a friend to the Leftist policies of Barack Obama than to the Constitutional Conservative premise of Ronald Reagan.

Behold the machinations of the troll that is McCain:

As the longtime Republican senator lays the groundwork for a likely 2016 reelection bid, his political team is engaging in an aggressive and systematic campaign to reshape the state GOP apparatus by ridding it of conservative firebrands and replacing them with steadfast allies…

The ambitious effort — detailed to POLITICO by nearly a dozen McCain operatives, donors, and friends — has stretched from office buildings in Alexandria, Virginia, where strategists plotted and fundraisers collected cash for a super PAC, to Vietnamese-American communities across Arizona, where recruiters sought out supporters eager to help the incumbent defeat the tea party.

McCain is much more likely to be besties with the likes of Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. You remember her… she endorsed a Communist Party May Day appeal back in 2002. She did it again in 2003. He probably also hearts Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva who penned an article for the Communist Party paper back in 1993. Don’t forget the fascist moves of La Raza either in the Red State of Arizona. Arizona has big problems on the Left and the Right.

I don’t believe McCain ever really intended to win his last run for President. I think he wanted to enable Obama and taint Palin. If he had employed even a fraction of his time fighting for conservatives that he spent fighting against them, he might have occupied the Oval Office:

Until this year, however, McCain aides had never seriously considered a concerted effort to remake the state GOP apparatus, which has traditionally been dominated by his conservative antagonists. That changed after the January censure, which rapped the senator for having an insufficiently conservative record that was “harmful” to Arizona.

“He was very unhappy with the censure and wanted to make sure it never happened again,” said Mike Hellon, McCain’s deputy campaign manager in 2010.

In the days after the state party’s rebuke, a group of top McCain political hands, including Jon Seaton and Christian Ferry — who worked for McCain in his 2008 campaign and have remained with him since — hatched a plan to form a super PAC that would spend money to elect a more friendly slate of precinct committeemen.

The super PAC, which was based out of offices in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and Phoenix and given the generic name “Arizona Grassroots Action PAC,” raised nearly $300,000. The largest checks, according to contribution reports, came from Gregory Maffei, a Colorado businessman, and Gregory Wendt, a San Francisco-based financial adviser, both longtime McCain donors.

But the most stunning part of a story linked to Politico’s puff piece: McCain’s big purge, has to be the money behind McCain’s move:

Greg Wendt and Lisa Wendt of San Francisco, CA (generous benefactors of the Democrat Party and its candidates) gave over 40% of the funds for Grassroots Arizona; a PAC set up to target the Republican chairman of legislative district 11.

Greg and Lisa have been very generous to Democrats. Greg has donated to such people as Ron Wyden, Max Cleland, Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, and Claire McCaskill, among many other Democrats.

Though some of these links go back to 2006, Wendt is still giving large amounts to Arizona Grassroots Action PAC who is funding McCain.

The other donor you should note here is Greg Maffei from Colorado. He’s a bud of Colorado gun control Governor Hickenlooper. He gave 100k to the anti-Tea Party war chest for McCain.

This is nothing new for McCain. He’s been doing it for as long as I can remember. He is roundly despised by true conservatives in Arizona and with good reason. If you are an out-spoken critic of him, he destroys you, or at least he tries to. Ethics be damned. McCain is for McCain and the wealthy elites in Arizona and those he pals around with. He’s despicable and has no morals or sense of decorum. He has stood for Amnesty and for just about every Progressive platform out there. The only one left in the State of Arizona that hearts McCain is freshman Senator Jeff Flake, who I have serious issues with. He is a Progressive as well and is the only Republican to travel with Democrats to Cuba on junkets and profess his admiration for a Communist regime. ‘Nough said there for now.

And what brought on the ire of this corrupt politician who counts himself as a good friend to Barack Obama? He’s out for payback for the those that backed his embarrassing censure earlier this year. He’s paving the way for a possible 2016 run.

McCain’s team has been busy tolling away to reform the state party by forcibly removing hostile Tea Party-aligned members from local GOP offices and replacing them with allies ahead of the senator’s 2016 re-election bid. He’s at war with the Tea Party and McCain is taking no hostages.

More from Politico:

Under the byzantine rules of Arizona Republican Party politics, these elected officials, known as precinct committeemen, vote for local party chairmen. The chairmen, in turn, determine how state and local GOP funds are spent, which candidates are promoted in an election year, and which political issues are highlighted — all matters of central concern for McCain heading into 2016, when the threat of a primary looms.

Prior to Aug. 26, when the races for the party offices were held, the vast majority of the 3,925 precinct slots were filled by people McCain’s team considered opponents. Now, after an influx of candidates were recruited by the senator’s allies, around 40 percent of those offices — 1,531 to be exact — will be held by people McCain’s team regards as friendly. They will have the power to vote down hostile Republican chairmen in each of their respective localities.

“There’s been a huge organizational effort that I’ve never seen before,” said Gordon James, an Arizona public relations executive and longtime McCain confidant. “A lot of the party folks who were hostile to John McCain have been marginalized, and that’s a good thing.”

The biggest foe to fall: Timothy Schwartz, the man who authored the McCain censure resolution. Earlier this month, Schwartz was ousted from his post as a GOP legislative district chairman by a group of newly elected precinct committeemen who voted in favor of a McCain-aligned candidate. Another outspoken McCain detractor, A.J. LaFaro, recently announced that he wouldn’t be seeking reelection to the Maricopa County Republican chairmanship, a tacit recognition that he didn’t have enough support to win.

And from the Inquisitr:

The resolution was passed by a 1,150-to-351 vote. The Tea Party vote listed a number of what the party called “disastrous” and “harmful” policy decisions toward Arizona and the country. The “liberal” policy record he holds included votes for amnesty, and a refusal to defund Obamacare are among the charges. The amnesty charge comes from the fact that Arizona is border state, and the issue has been boiling over the past several years. The Inquisitr reported on the ongoing fights over illegal immigration.

The wording of the resolution was very serious and stern in its declaration, the Arizona Repubic reports.

“Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both. For too long we have waited, hoping Senator McCain would return to our Party’s values on his own. That has not happened.”

Along with McCain’s jabs at Sarah Palin, who can forget his infamous labeling of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul as wacko birds last year. Or when he called them ‘Tea Party Hobbits.’ He haaates the Tea Party – McCain despises the independence and freedom it stands for, along with the Constitutional precepts of limited government and taxation, as well as the rights that are inherent to all Americans. McCain went to the dark side of politics long ago. As Investor’s Business Daily sagely points out… purges may work in totalitarian states, but not in a Constitutional Republic. Republicans would do well to remember that, unless of course they relish living under the heavy hand of a dictator. Cavorting with the enemy leads to becoming the enemy.

McCain believes with his money, power and influence he can rule Arizona and the nation at the tender age of 78. He’s a megalomaniac of epic proportions. But does he really think the patriots of the Tea Party will just roll over and wet themselves? If he does, he’s even more delusional than I thought. Schwartz, the ousted McCain foe, hinted that Tea Party forces were planning on a counterstrike after the holidays. He didn’t provide specifics, but trust me… it is coming. “They think it’s over,” Schwartz told Politico. “But the fat lady hasn’t sung.” Indeed, this big boy is just warming up – let’s dance. If McCain wants a war with the Tea Party, he’s got one.