-
Rush Limbaugh: TPNN’s Scottie Hughes ‘Called it Exactly Right’ on Hillary’s Immunity to Criticism
September 30, 2014 By Greg Campbell
http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploa...4/09/ZRush.jpg On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh, the voice that reaches millions of conservatives each and every day, piled praise on one of TPNN’s own, Scottie Nell Hughes.
Hughes, the author the new book “Roar: The New Conservative Woman Speaks Out,” has been outspoken about her belief that the left’s elite and the mainstream media are working to set the stage for a Hillary presidency in 2016. In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Hughes claimed,
“[T]hey’re going to take the playbook that they used in the 2008 and 2012 elections and they’re going to sit there and make this to be a very sexist, chauvinist society. Therefore, when you go in that voting booth, if you don’t sit there and push that button for Hillary Clinton, you’re a chauvinist as well.”
On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh spoke out on his program and noted that Hughes’ assertion is spot-on. The radio giant recalled how he had long warned that the left would try and insulate Barack Obama from criticism by claiming that to criticize Obama is to give in to our racist ideology as a nation.
Limbaugh discussed how the same game is being played now with Hillary and praised Hughes and TPNN for sounding the alarm bell: “‘First female president! No criticism permitted. Any criticism that’s offered is sexist and part of the War on Women.’ Then after the first woman serves, then the Democrats will nominate the first Hispanic and repeat the whole thing. ‘First Hispanic president! No criticism permitted. If you criticize, you’re a bigot.’…
Last week, Scottie Hughes made an appearance on Fox News’ the O’Reilly Factor where she warned that the progressive mafia, in preparation for Hillary 2016, are starting to establish a narrative that asserts women are under attack and that the sexism danger must confronted.” Scottie is a commentator on Fox, by the way. Scottie Hughes a commentator, and Scottie Hughes out there saying sexism is gonna be the new black, and Hillary is the next protected victim.
Now, congratulations to Scottie Hughes. She’s called it exactly right, and that’s why I’m doing the piece. This is a See, I Told You So, because other people are now beginning to see what’s in store. ‘The narrative inevitably continues with any legitimate critique of Hillary, when she inevitably runs, is not legitimate because it’s sexist-based. This game was played before or as Mrs. Hughes eloquently put it, “This came right out of the election 2008 playbook.”’
So the Tea Party News Network is praising one of its own, but you have heard about this for the past two, maybe four years. This was easily spotted. And as I say, when they get around, if they do succeed nominating Hillary or electing her, then the next — after her whatever number of years, eight, 16, 24, whatever. The next nominee will be Hispanic, and just repeat the same thing. This is how they’re planning on doing it.
It’s the Tea Party News Network is running the story warning everybody, but you, my friends, See, I Told You So, on the cutting edge.”
Democrats are living by the mantra of “it’s it not broken, don’t fix it.” The 2008 race card worked very well for them. By exploiting white guilt, liberals were able to craft an ironclad defense- “Those that criticize do so because of an inherent racism.”
Now, with just a minor tweak in the game plan, those that criticize Hillary Clinton can be labeled as a chauvinist.
Kudos to Hughes and Limbaugh for having the guts to call it like they see it.
audio at the page link:
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/30/rush-...-to-criticism/
-
State Dept. inspector general: More evidence of rampant mismanagement under Hillary Clinton
By T. Becket Adams | October 6, 2014 | 6:03 pm
http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/ca...384a911f4d.jpg The State Department's Office of Inspector General has released another "management alert"... The State Department's Office of Inspector General has released another “management alert” detailing rampant mismanagement within the agency, much of it during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's tenure.
The inspector general’s latest “management alert” — the third released by the agency's internal watchdog in a little over a year — warns that the State Department’s management and oversight of grants has become a serious financial liability.
“The management and oversight of grants poses heightened financial risk to the Department of State,” Inspector General Steve A. Linick said in a report dated Sept. 26 but released Sept. 30.
Linick became the agency’s inspector general in September 2013, ending a vacancy that had lasted nearly six years.
After Linick assumed the role, he almost immediately issued two "management alerts." The latest alert in September marks the third of its kind in the IG’s history. Each alert issued by Linick has related to issues that festered and went unaddressed during Hillary Clinton’s tenure.
The State Department’s grant program spends more than $1 billion annually, and this amount will likely continue to spiral out of control due to the fact that the program has terrible management, the IG reported.
“In FY 2012, the Department obligated more than $1.6 billion for approximately 14,000 grants and cooperative agreements worldwide,” Linick reported. “The Office of Inspector General … and other oversight agencies have identified a number of significant deficiencies in the grant-management process.
“Audits conducted by OIG have reported similar deficiencies, including insufficient oversight caused by too few staff managing too many grants, insufficient training of grant officials, and inadequate documentation and closeout of grant activities,” he added.
Oddly, the State Department has made it a habit to outsource the job of awarding grants to contractors in many overseas locations.
"GAO has also reported on the Department’s grant workforce shortage and criticized the over-reliance on contractor employees to oversee grants in Iraq and Afghanistan, which it concluded could lead to conflicts of interest and the potential for loss of government control and accountability for mission-related policy, as well as waste, fraud, and abuse,” the report said.
Unfortunately, the grants issue is not exactly new: The Inspector General's office identified this problem back in 2008, shortly before President Obama was inaugurated. Even more unfortunate is the fact that little or no effort has been spent on fixing the issue since.
In response to the agency’s failings in this area, the IG suggested that the agency take "immediate action" to fix its "unacceptable lack of internal control" in regard to the grants program, which exposes the agency to "significant financial risk.”
“The Department should take immediate action to ensure that adequate numbers of properly trained [Grants Officers] and [Grants Officer Representatives] are assigned, required documentation is maintained in grant files, and expired grants are closed out in a timely manner. The failure to maintain appropriate oversight over grants results in an unacceptable lack of internal control and exposes the Department to significant financial risk,” the report reads.
Failure to address the department's grant management, the IG argued, would of course open the door to corruption and fraud.
“These conditions could lead to the misuse or misappropriation of grant funds, failure to meet grant program objectives, or the inability to use unobligated grant funds before they expire,” the report noted. “Furthermore, the lack of documentation impairs OIG oversight of Department programs and operations that administer or finance grants, and it creates conditions conducive to fraud, where corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from grant files.”
Scribd document at the page link:
232496
Web URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2554455
25Comments
http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-...rticle/2554455
-
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net...ab0e523020fc12 POLITICO
Ron Paul says Hillary Clinton would be a "mediocre" president and would likely bring about little substantive change.
Ron Paul: Hillary ‘mediocre, pro war’
Ron Paul says Hillary Clinton would be a “mediocre” president and would likely bring about little substantive change. In a Thursday evening interview, host Larry King asked the former Republican Texas congressman and three-time...
politi.co|By Jonathan Topaz
Ron Paul: Hillary ‘mediocre, pro war’
By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 10/17/14 12:36 PM EDT
Video at the page link:
Ron Paul says Hillary Clinton would be a “mediocre” president and would likely bring about little substantive change.
In a Thursday evening interview, host Larry King asked the former Republican Texas congressman and three-time presidential candidate what kind of president Clinton would be.
“I would think she’d be pretty average, pretty mediocre, pretty much for war, pretty much for welfare-ism, pretty much for deficits, pretty supportive of the Federal Reserve and loving the military-industrial complex,” Paul said in the conversation on Ora.tv’s “PoliticKING.”
(Also on POLITICO: Paul makes big vow on black vote)
The libertarian darling hasgained a large following for his strong positions against the Federal Reserve, which he considers to be unconstitutional, and against U.S. foreign entanglements, particularly in the Middle East. Clinton has been criticized by some, on the left in particular, for being hawkish on foreign policy, including during her time as secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first term.
On Thursday, Paul said that Clinton’s stances on foreign and monetary policy make her similar to the recent inhabitants of the White House.
“[T]hat’s what we’ve been having, so I don’t think she would provide any change whatsoever in a positive sense,” Paul said of a potential Clinton presidency.
(Also on POLITICO: Clinton takes a shot at Romney)
He added that he thought Clinton would be a formidable presidential candidate, when King asked, saying that “the media will love her.” Clinton is widely considered to be the likely front-runner to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination if she chooses to run. Both Clinton and Paul ran unsuccessfully for their respective parties’ nominations in 2008.
His son, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, is openly considering a 2016 bid, but Paul said during the interview that he wasn’t strongly encouraging him to run.
“I have mixed feelings about it because I know what is entailed and how much punishment he gets — it always annoys me he has to suffer some of the consequences because of something I said or did,” the former congressman said of his son. He later added that he thought “it’s great” that Rand Paul is considering a run and that the senator has a “good message.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...#ixzz3GS7uZ1fR
