Hillary Clinton's emails may be recovered

It is possible that copies or logs of Hillary Clinton's emails are stored on servers of companies she used for her private email domain. If so, these additional emails would provide more information to hackers and they would also allow federal agencies investigating the former secretary of state's server to compare those records with what she turned over to the State Department in December.

Hillary said she handed over all work-related emails to State, but if you believe that, you might think that dark cloud above you is a gaggle of chickens coming home to roost.

The Daily Caller interviewed an IT pro who explained that mail exchange records (MX records) for Hillary's email domain, clintonemail.com, indicate that emails entering her server first entered via MxLogic, a spam management and compliance company now owned by McAfee. It's unclear if her outbound email also went through MxLogic, but it's a good bet that it did.

An apparent IT expert interviewed by TheDC, and whose last name is Walker (first name not given) said, "I'd bet to some extent that [Clinton's] emails are sitting in an MxLogic data center either on the server used to service her domain, or within their elaborate backup system. Even if she somehow wiped the data from MxLogic through their interfaces, it probably still exists somewhere within their organization."

Walker admits the company might not have the actual contents of the emails, "but they do have logs of all of the transactions that took place." He was also surprised that Hillary's server configuration was pointing to MxLogic's servers, not her own.

"If I'm in the business of hiding email servers from governments I think I would point my MX record directly to my mail server and handle my anti-spam problem on my own server, and not through a third-party company," Walker said.

Another IT expert (who wishes to remain anonymous due to the Clinton's history of causing others to mysteriously commit suicide) has been looking into the Clinton email scandal and says he has no doubt that McAfee "has log files of all the email traffic that passed through their firewall to or from clintonemail.com."

This same expert believes that a congressional committee investigating the Clinton's server setup "should require McAfee to describe in detail the disposition of transaction logs kept by their servers covering email transfers to and from clintonemail.com." And if they destroyed the logs, they need to ask McAfee why and when.

Unlike some Americans, I have no doubts about Hillary Clinton.

Some people think she's God's gift to womankind; I see her as God's "Punk'd" to women. She pays them less and in countries that oppress women, she takes bribes from their leaders as a "donation" to her foundation.

Some people think Hillary is as truthful as Mother Theresa. I see her as truthful as her husband, Bill, when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." 

Some people see Hillary as a strong, competent leader. Those people have Hillary confused with Carly Fiorina, Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann.

Hillary Clinton is a fraud. She was impotent as Secretary of State but the liberal media never challenged her on those supposed accomplishments.

Somehow the liberal public is convinced that she has a date with destiny to be our next president. I hope her date with destiny is in a federal prison if she is found guilty of the charges regarding national security. It is unacceptable for there to be two rules  of law: one for the public and another for high-ranking politicians.

We have become a nation cleaved in the middle by this administration, led by a man who promised to bring us together, to end racism and poverty, to part the ocean. He hawked "Hope and Change."

Now intelligent Americans are hoping to change what Obama has brought to us and what Hillary Clinton would carry on if somehow she becomes our next president.

But some liberals vote based on the demographics of the liberal candidate, not with logic and facts. They want the first black president to be followed by the first female president, but they don't have a problem with schools like Washington University to ban words like 'female.' 

As things stand now, Clinton's emails may be recovered by the FBI and handed over to the Benghazi committee and scrutinized to find if any classified information was sent or received on her server. 

Whether or not the FBI finds she lied about the emails she sent or received, there should be no mistaking the fact that Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president.

But since when has that fact gotten in the way of liberal voters?

Tweet

The Last 2011 GOP Debate on Fox

So, who won last night's GOP campaign debate on Fox? In my opinion, it was definitely Newt, and it was absolutely necessary for his campaign that he did win in Iowa because he had lost 12 points from the previous one. His responses on the Keystone pipeline, defense and what he said about judges, was excellent. Not so excellent was how he responded to Michele Bachmann's attack on the money Newt received from Fannie and Freddiem where he kept claiming he wasn't a lobbyist. Sorry, but anyone with anything beyond a medulla knows he had to be getting Republican support for those programs. Otherwise, Newt kicked butt. Interestingly, the New York Times did not even mention Fox News, nor any on the panel--they remain the Democratic campaign information center.

With Cain gone, Ron Paul picked up lots of numbers and went into Iowa as the great Democratic hope--the dems know that if Paul runs, Obama wins--but after last night, the American public should have come to its senses with Paul's delusions that 9-11 and terrorist attacks in the United States is due to the fact that we are in their country and this pisses them off. This, of course, discounts the Islamic concept of jihad, the clear statement of Ahmadinejad that he will destroy us, Israel, and anyone else who plans to eat at a kosher deli. It discounts the Beirut bombing, the shores of Tripoli, and even what Mohammad has said of us infidels. Paul is not a fool--Paul is a dangerous fool. Worse, he's even anti-Semitic with the pretense of cutting off aid to them for their own good. That's like putting a cigarette out on the carpet to make it stronger. So hopefully, Paul is in the toilet where he can do no harm as he spins down into the oblivion of where Chamberlain dwells.


Mitt was okay, especially on his defense of his governor stint in Massachusetts, and I do not believe he hurt himself and will stay around the 20s in the race. Michele Bachmann, I feel, attacked Newt a little more than necessary, but she drew blood at the Fannie Freddie attack. Does that help or hurt her? We shall find out.


Rick Perry has become more proficient as a debater, but is too stuck on his talking points, and needs to get out of Dodge, literally--he needs to get beyond Texas if he plans to run the rest of the country.

Rick Santorum looked as if the Alka Seltzer is working. There was no uncomfortable gassy look on his face, and his record as a conservative rings true, as Michele's does too. 


Finally, my last word on Newt was his high point, which came when he mentioned that he would kick Obama's butt in a debate.  If he refused to debate with Newt, he would do what Lincoln did to Douglas and follow his schedule, show up 4 hours behind Obama, and rip his speeches apart. Everyone knows debating is Newt's strength, so this was the perfect response. But let's not forget that Obama is no slouch when it comes to talking--that's all he does, and nobody says nothing better than him. It's going to be an interesting ride in the months ahead.





Tweet

ABC or Anything But Conservative Debate of GOP Candidates Hoping to Make Obama Unemployed

Last night's debate on ABC was missing something but I can't remember what--wait--Jon Huntsman was missing, that's what. Wherever Jon was, galivanting around with his "I know better than anyone" smirk, he was not missed by the debaters, and was not mentioned by George "I-Kissed-Bill's-Bellybutton-Ring-Stephanoploulis nor by Diane-My-Throat-Needs-a-Lozenge-Sawyer. But in spite of Huntsman's absence, the debate still had a somewhat sucky feeling.

In referencing that sucky feeling, I refer to how Stephano (as his friend calls him) tried to get the others on the podiums to attack Newt-I-Did-Have-Sex-With-Those-Women-Gingrich.  It didn't work out as planned, since Mitt-I-Never-Farted-in-my-Life-Romney decided to attack Barack-Hope-and-Change-LOL-Obama instead. Mitt was wonderful and presidential, and for the first time in my adult life, I was proud of my Mormon.

The first question of the debate was from Sawyer, who asked: What is your distinguishing idea on how to create jobs, how long would it take, and specifically, how many jobs would your plan create, rounding up to the nearest hundred? Okay, that wasn't exactly how she asked it, but wanting to have an actual number was stupid, which only goes to prove my personal hypothesis: Diane Sawyer is stupid. 

This was the first debate since Newt's numbers surpassed the rest of the field and he answered Diane Sawyer's question first, discussing how lowering taxes and doing everything opposite to what Obama has been doing, would create jobs. He received a sitting ovation from Calista and several others in the audience at Drake University, and I like that he listened to his grandkids and actually smiled.  Mitt then got the Sawyer nod and he explained how we need to go after China like bulls in some kind of shop, which I can't recall. He was very presidential and controlled, and I liked his hair. Ron-Israel-Can-Take-a-Hike-Paul went next, making one syllable words into polysyllable words, and he talked about TARP, the US Constitution, and how he nearly froze his testicles off when speaking to Fox News the previous morning in Iowa. Well, he didn't actually talk about it, but I saw it myself when he was being interviewed. Rick-All-My-Taxes-Come-From-Texas Perry discussed his flat tax, and to be honest, he sounded like he finally got over his case of Alzheimer's. Michelle-I-Am-Conservative-Hear-Me-Pray-Bachmann's plan was to ensure that every American pay something in tax, and the 47% who pay nothing, can start shelling out too. I imagine she will lose about 47% of those independent voters who qualify for her plan. Finally, Rick-It-Hurts-When-I-Laugh-Santorum emphasized how increasing manufacturing, where "Made in the USA" takes a front seat in the roller coaster of American business, is most important, in spite of the fact that it's the last seat in the roller coaster that's the most fun.

Of course the panel could not keep themselves from asking the most important question of the debate: So how important is this fidelity thingy regarding one's qualifications for the Presidency of the United States of America? Like, is it okay to be unfaithful, have multiple marriages, and simultaneously be courting Donald Trump?


To his credit, Mitt didn't take the bait, and I believe that he was the big winner--and George Stephanopoulis was a master baiter.

Tweet

The Next Liberal Attack

"All ready on the right. All ready on the left.  All ready on the firing line. Watch your targets .  .  .  dog targets! Commence fire."

And all liberal "guns" are aimed at Newt Gingrich and begin to fire; it's inevitable. Of course, while the GOP campaign will also create targets amongst Republicans, it will be the Democrats with fists full of feces to hurl at the campaigners. The charge will be led by the media--they are the spokespeople for the Obama campaign and are as biased as a fanatical terrorist.  But this is a good thing.

The fact that liberals and the lame stream media will attack the top running candidate(s) will inoculate them for what will come down the road to the White House. Newt Gingrich's extra marital junk is already out there, Cain's false accusations have seen the light of day, and the Perry and Bachmann gaffes and blunders, along with Cain's, is old news to a public with short memories.

So I predict the media is going to go full bore into Newt. They will leave Ron Paul alone because he's more of a RHINO than the rest of the gang. In fact, Paul would be an asset to the DemocRATS if he were nominated, but we would have a better chance of catching Bill Clinton having sex with Nancy Pelosi in a congressional washroom than having Ron Paul as the next president of the United States of America. 

Just sayin' 

Tweet

Weekend at Barry's and Mental Whack-a-Mole

Saef isn't safe anymore

Saef Ghadaffi, (or however he plans to spell his name to sell his book, if he isn't shot and beheaded before he gets the chance) has been caught. We know his captors will treat him with the same dignity and respect they treated his fashion plate dad, Moammar That's-My-Buttskin-On-My-Face Ghadaffy. Remember how Saef's finger-pointing into the camera pissed you off when this all started? Remember how he said he would fight to the death to keep power in the hands of his dad and his family? Remember his smirky grin as he spewed his venom on those who refused to do what Obama did for his country--bow down to royalty?  

Do you see the similarities of Saef's passion for power and that of BO's? Notice how Saef did not fight to the death as he promised, nor did BO, who agreed to leave office if, by his third year, the budget hadn't improved.  In fact, BO has been campaigning for his second term ever since he was sworn in for his first. But that's politics and that's why so many good people are avoiding getting into the game.

Newt knows

Newt Gingrich has moved up in the polls. He is slowly convincing the nation that having a grown-up at the helm isn't such a bad thing. It certainly beats having a socialist. Okay, we all know Newt has had a past that one never finds in children's stories and nursery rhymes--maybe you'll find his behavior mentioned in a limerick or two--but who cares? Who amongst us is totally free from sin-and of those of us who are now free, we got there by confessing and truly wanting to change ourselves. Newt has done that; Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Van Jones, and myriad more politicians, have not. Even a few Republicans, I might add.

But according to the lame stream media, Bill's behavior was just a case of men-will-be-men shenanigans, while the alleged behavior of Herman Cain, all coming from the Chicago smear machine, was a black mark (you should excuse the expression) against him. Will Cain recover? I don't think so--it will be hard to raise Cain to a viable position. What strikes me as jinky, is the claim made by the fourth woman, Sharon Bialek.  If she didn't live in Chicago I might have wondered about the truth to her claim. But not only does she live in the Windy City, she lives in the SAME FREAKING BUILDING as David I'm-Barry's-Biggest-Fan Axelrod! Now that makes me wonder whether Dave made a deal with her to lie, but hey, they never do that in Chicago, right? If you don't believe me, go ask Rahm Emmanuel.                                                    

"I honestly love you . . . "

Mitt Romney, while real conservatives don't cotton to him like they do to real conservatives, is maintaining his marathon pace and picking 'em up and layin' them down. He's still polling in the 20s and seems to be a good second choice for many.


I heard that Ron Paul has just returned from Deneb, the brightest star in the constellation Cygnus, and plans to withdraw from the--wait--no, he plans to run in spite of the fact that he has as much of a chance of winning as Obama has of running our country out of debt. Paul continues to insist that Iran is just another nation that simply wants to mind its own business and be left alone until such time it sets out to destroy the world as we know it. Wait, he never admitted that, did he? Ronny is too naive to be our president. Maybe he should be Surgeon General, if he still has a license to practice medicine.

She's no Nancy Pelosi

Michele Bachmann is actually doing worse than Crazy Ron, and that's too bad. She actually has a realistic outlook on national security, and holds true conservative values that she honestly believes in, rather than just uses for personal political gain. But perhaps that is her downfall.

Mirror mirror on the wall

Rick Perry, if he wins the nomination, will win because he smells like bacon, coffee, and gun powder. He seems to finally have it together, but it may be too late in the race for his final kick. I believe he still has a better chance of getting the nod than Paul has of scoring with Nancy Pelosi. But hey, you never know.


Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman ought to be out looking for work--maybe they are refusing because they don't want Obama's jobs numbers to improve; but judging from BO's refusal to partner with Canada on the pipeline, it looks like he doesn't care about job numbers either. Doesn't Santorum look like he's sucking on a lemon or that someone took his kiddy car away? Huntsman always looks like he's smarter than you and only he knows it.





Tweet

GOP Debate Number 895637

First question about last night's debate: why is Jon Huntsman even there? He's at point zilch in the polls and is more RHINO than Republican. But he has lovely daughters who support him and lend him a smidgeon of cred.

Scott Your-Time-is-Up Pelley

Now the debate. Scott Pelley from CBS, and Major Garrett, from National Journal, (and a mother who gave her son a somewhat mediocre ranking for a military position), moderated the debate, which lasted 90 minutes, 60 of which was televised and 30 of which was on the internet for those with longer attention spans. The questions were asked by these liberal moderators, and one minute was given for the answers with 30 seconds for follow-up questions by liberal moderators not satisfied they heard what they wanted to hear, or thought they could get the debaters to fight it out between themselves.


Herman Cain got the first question which was about Iran's weapon threat and what he would do about it. Herman basically talked about how he would involve the Iranian opposition forces within the country and help them fight back. Cain was clear that if push came to shove, he would not engage Iran militarily if they developed a weapon. For me, bad answer--they will use a nuke as quickly as they would use a prayer rug.


Mitt Romney was asked the same question by the Major moderator and he was clear that if Obama was re-elected, Iran would have a weapon; if Romney was elected, they would not. He also made it clear that he would do whatever was necessary militarily to stop weapons production. Good answer--I want a happy future without having to pray to Kukla, Fran, or Allah. After 30 seconds of trying to answer the question, Scott Pelley cut Mitt off then realized he was a jerk and apologized. Mitt kept his presidential smile intact and continued on in his Mitt-like way.


Then Newt was asked by Major Garrett about Romney and he tried to get Newt to attack him. But Newt refused to comply with the minor Major, and made it clear that every single person up on the dais would do a far better job running the country than Obama. Newt rocks when he isn't rolling.

Perry tried to speak about Iran but was disparaged by the moderator (I believe it was Pelley, but it doesn't matter since they both were as vacuous as a black hole). He made it clear that he could answer both the moderator's new question and the more important one as he sees it. Perry's answer, like Cain's was okay, but it was something that he could have gotten from a conservative newspaper, like the Daily Planet, since that may be the only conservative newspaper left.

Then we have Ron Paul, along with his enthusiastic and loud audience, The Pauliberalatos. They cheer when he speaks, and boo when anyone else does. They hang on every word he utters, much like baby monkeys hang onto mommy's udders when they suckle. But Paul, who probably wasn't much of a physician, would not be much of a president, heaven-forbid that would ever happen. He is the epitome of what a true RHINO is, and even said that if he is not nominated (speaking like the proverbial snowball in hell), he would not support the Republican nominee. This, to me, is an excellent reason to not have him speak at the Republican debates--he's not a true Republican.

About three days into the debate, the moderator asked Michele Bachmann her first question and her answer, about tactical strategy in Afghanistan, was spot on. Of course the moronic moderator Pelley, interrupted her, but that's to be expected on CBS, which stands for Consistent Balless Swill. Both she and Perry made it clear that Obama was wrong and dangerous to our troops for announcing to the enemy when the pullout would take place. Next thing you know, Obama will email Ahmadinejad the plans for our nuclear weapons systems and brag that he'll never be able to duplicate them.


For me, Newt won the debate, hands down. He consistently refuses to allow the left to dictate the rules of engagement in these debates, and his knowledge, encyclopedic information, and verbal acumen makes him stand out and makes him outstanding. 

Dumbest and Dumbester

I think a pretty cool guy once said, "He who amongst us is free from sin, should cast the first stone." Newt's past is laden with mistakes that men of power frequently make. Does that make them poor leaders? I don't think so. Does it make them bad people? Definitely no worse than many of us who refuse to cast stones. Oh, and while that goes for Newt, it also goes for Herman, who I still believe is totally innocent of all claims that were made without proof. The left, as I've said before, never needs actual proof--their proof is their feelings. And how can feelings be wrong? Just ask Roseann Barr and Michael Moore.





Tweet

The Fox-Google Republican Debate

"Not payin' for illegal's education is heartless"

I just finished watching the Fox-Google Republican Debate. I feel this was the best one of the three debates. I can't help but like Newt and his directness and intelligence when he finally gets the chance to speak. Michele Bachmann wore red, indicating that she was feeling her oats, and I thought she also made some good points. She was in the Spin Room afterward and spoke with Sean Hannity, explaining her thoughts on immigration and how she would seal off the border whereas Perry is too moderate on this issue, and it doesn't sit well with conservatives--Bachmann may just get back some of those people that Perry won over before he joined the debates.

Perry and Romney slugged it out, as predicted, but I think Perry was kind of flat, and when he spoke about the 32 year old woman who had cervical cancer and who approached him about her dilemma regarding her health care, I didn't think he was being genuine. In fact, it seemed like he was doing his Texas rodeo thing of throwing the bull. But the worst thing he did was to say that people who were against supporting college funding for illegal aliens were heartless. Romney destroyed him with his comeback and Perry deserved the beatback. I cannot believe any normal conservative would not see it as unfair for illegal aliens to pay in-state financial rates for college and out of state Americans pay $100 thousand more for tuition--not only does it not make sense, as Romney put it, but it isn't fair.


One thing that came out of this debate, that should be perfectly clear to anyone who is fairminded, is how the Fox News team handled the questions. Nobody on the panel did a Brian Williams and editorialized their left wing agenda with such a snarky question as he did over the death penalty (see video). Nobody went gently into the night with softball questions like the liberal media did with Obama in his run for the White House. It was a fair debate with questions coming from the public and the panelists, and overall, the debaters handled it well.

While it doesn't appear that any of the candidates are ready to jump off the bandwagon, I thought Johnson should have considered it; but after seeing a Fox poll asking who people believed won the debate, Johnson actually did a lot better than I would have guessed, and came in second with about 14% of the vote--a total surprise as I thought he appeared nervous and unsure of himself. What do I know?


I like Ron Paul, not as a candidate, but as an uncle. I can see him telling me his thoughts about the world, and I could listen to him for hours, then I would use what is useful and discard what was crazy with his thinking. For example, his beliefs about Iran are not accurate and his permissiveness regarding their nuclear program are incredibly dangerous. Iran is a clear and present danger, a nuclear threat, and populated by a suicidal people who believe they will get to heaven by killing us. Not a good idea to say they have the same rights as the rest of us to have nuclear weapons. I rest my case with Ron Paul (notice how you never say only his last name because it's also a first name).


Rick Santorum seems like a bright guy, but when he speaks, he looks pained. I always get the impression that he's constipated. But Santorum had the guts to give an opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan and would continue our efforts there--you don't have to agree with him to see that he is, at least, a guy with principals.

Herman Cain rocks, but I don't believe he has a chance in getting the nomination. If he did, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. His "9-9-9" plan actually sounds interesting and rather practical--I just wonder if it would work. I like the straightforwardness of his approach and his sharp answers. I worry, however, that he'd get eaten up in the political arena if he became president, and I suspect I'm not alone in that thinking.


Well, that's the way I see it for now--this will likely change as time shows us the flaws and inconsistencies of the candidates. For now, I'm going with Romney, but that's just for now. He is probably the best choice to beat Obama, and Obama must be beaten if this country is to succeed and not go the road to socialism. Sarah Palin waited too long to jump in, I believe, and she would be too much of a distraction at this point. I think it will be important to discover who she ends up endorsing, so let us wait and watch.

I'd love to know what you think.  




Tweet

Chris Matthews: from Hardball to Oddball

It’s incredibly obvious just how liberal the lame stream media is—they can easily be mistaken for Obama’s campaign strategists. But to listen to Chris Matthews and take him seriously, you would have to suspend your intellect and take a flight of fantasy on the Oddball Blimp. Michele Bachmann's campaign announcement and Matthews' response follows.

MICHELE BACHMANN: I want my candidacy for the presidency of the United States to stand for a moment when we, the people, stand once again for the independence from a government that has gotten too big and spends too much and has taken away too much of our liberties. Government thinks it knows better. Government thinks it knows better how to spend our money. Government thinks it knows better how to make a better life for us. They think they create jobs. They even think they can make us healthier, but that's not the case. We have to recapture the Founders' vision of a constitutionally conservative government if we are to secure the promise for the future.

So naturally, this MSM idiot had a different take as he spoke to Michael Steele, former RNC Chair:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What is this, Michael? The Protestant Reformation? That somehow we're going back to the purity of the original Christian church? We're going back to the original perfection of slaveholders and how perfect they were and government is the enemy. She speaks pure Tea Party lingo.

‘Lingo?’ Matthews’ use of the word ‘lingo’ takes me back to bell bottoms and “Saturday Night Fever.” Can you picture Matthews “cutting up a rug” at the disco? But the purpose of my blogging about him isn’t to put forth an ad hominem attack on the man who would be drooling, but to look at his take on all things not socialistic.  So Michael Steele responds:

MICHAEL STEELE: Well, she's like the Council of Trent for the Catholic Church.

MATTHEWS: Right. What is it she's going back to the purity of the old days?

STEELE: She's not going back to the purity of the old days.

MATTHEWS: Yes, she is.

Isn’t it enlightening to listen to the persuasiveness of the Matthews comeback?  He’s like the kid in the schoolyard who thinks he wins the argument because he yelled louder than the other kids.


STEELE: It's reminding us of some of the foundational principles.

STEELE: What? Slavery?

MATTHEWS: Well, that was in the original founding principles.

Was slavery considered a principal? I don’t think so—while it is mentioned in the Constitution, it seems the Democrats forget that it was the Republicans who fought against slavery in the Civil War, not the slave-owning Democrats. Many liberals like to think of themselves as the only moral group of individuals on earth, as they sail the Gaza flotilla to protest the only moral and civilized country in the Middle East, with their anti-Semitic agenda. The truth is, liberal social systems, like Welfare, keep people slaves to those systems, and most of these people are minorities. Abortion is another liberal notion that is killing more black children than any other killer right now. So don’t tell a conservative about racism. We just have too much dignity to use that term on liberals because we know the real power of that word and we don’t want to make you cry.

STEELE: Please, Chris. Stop. Stop jumping in. You know that's not what this is about. And the reality is, when I became chairman of the RNC in 2009, I inherited a party that was lost. Its moorings not anchored as they once were. And, so, you've have candidates now who have emerged out of the last two years who understand by going around the country and listening to the people what some of those foundational issues are for them. Let me speak to that.

               
MATTHEWS: Okay, let's take Michael at his word. The foundational issues: Government is bad.

This simplistic response from Matthews should not trick you into believing he is an idiot—I’m sure he isn’t really an idiot. That would give idiots a bad name and label them liberals. Matthews is a man whose TV audience is limited to viewers who will only watch whatever preconceived notions they have gotten from The Daily Show. They don’t like Fox because the moment a report disagrees with something Jon Stewart has said in order to make conservatives look stupid, these viewers become angry, lost, and confused. They find solace in finding someone to call a racist, because while race seems to be the one issue they cannot get out of their mind, they know how to hurt with the label. So Chris Matthews stoops to the lowest level he can find in order to appease his zombie followers.  His “racist-oriented.”

Click here to sample Jihad Joe, a novel

 


Tweet