Category: Missouri

Did you happen to catch Hillary Clinton’s press conference on veterans’ issues? Oh, that’s right, she hasn’t had one of those since 2015.

Instead, Hillary hides behind her staff that sends out emails highlighting her veterans’ “plan” and offers a sanitized version of her record on veterans’ issues.

But perhaps if Hillary had the courage to actually stand in front of the media and answer tough questions, she could explain the following actions and votes that make up her actual record on veteran’s issues:

–Last year, Clinton claimed that the Veterans Administration Scandal had been exaggerated by Republicans. (MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” 10/23/15, Video, 0:52-1:48)

–In 2007, Clinton was one of only 14 senators to vote against a 2007 supplemental appropriations bill that contained $1.8 billion for veterans’ medical care. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181, Motion Agreed To 80-14, R: 42-3, D: 37-10, I: 1-1, Clinton Voted Nay, 5/24/07)

-In 2006, Clinton voted against an amendment that would have added $20 million for veterans’ health care facilities. (H.R. 4939, CQ Vote #111, Rejected 39-59, R: 35-19, D: 4-39, I: 0-1, Clinton Voted Nay, 5/4/06)

-In 2003, Clinton voted against a budget resolution that called for “$13 billion for veterans to receive concurrent disability and retirement benefits.” (S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108, Adopted 56-44, R: 50-1, D: 6-42, I: 0-1, Clinton Voted Nay, 3/26/03)

“We’re so glad Crooked Hillary brought up veterans’ issues, after claiming the VA scandal was overblown and voting against veterans’ benefits time and time again. Maybe she’s trying to deflect attention from Bernie Sanders’ much stronger record on veterans as the California primary looms.” – American Crossroads Spokesman Ian Prior

Today American Crossroads announced that it is endorsing Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District Democratic primary. Crossroads’ President and CEO Steven Law had this to say about the organization’s rare decision to endorse in a contested primary:

“Congresswoman and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has played a critical role over the past several years in the massive Republican gains we have achieved at the state level, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and in the U.S. Senate.

“Wasserman Schultz’s leadership has also been a catalyst for the emerging civil war in the Democratic Party this year, ensuring that their nominating process will drag on far longer than that of Republicans.

“Voters of the 23rd District of Florida should know – American Crossroads stands with Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in her primary against ultra-liberal outsider Tim Canova, and they should too.”

Last week the Washington Free Beacon highlighted Nasser Al-Rashid, a key advisor to the Saudi royal family who donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. The Free Beacon also reported on how Al-Rashid’s sons have donated hundreds of thousands to Democrat candidates, committees, and Super PACs over the past six years (with most of the money benefitting Florida’s Patrick Murphy).

It turns out that Nasser was reportedly the subject of a tell-all book by his ex-wife, Mouna Ayoub. The book, entitled La Verite, chronicled “the horrors of her 20-year, on-off marriage to Nasser al-Rashid, a Saudi businessman.”

Once again, this raises the very important question – If Hillary Clinton is really concerned with the advancement of women not named Hillary Clinton, why did her foundation take money from regimes and an individual with such a horrible history when it comes to the treatment of women?

ICYMI, Bloomberg is reporting that the Clinton gang is trying to distract from news of her mounting legal quagmire by smearing non-partisan government employees at the State Department Inspector General’s office. This comes just a few weeks after the Clinton gang tried to smear the non-partisan Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

Where have we seen this “smear the career government employee” play before? Oh yeah, Travelgate. You know, the controversy where Hillary wanted to privatize the White House travel office and give her campaign donors the contract? And to prevent blowback from firing seven non-partisan government employees, the Clinton gang brought the full weight of the justice department to prosecute Billy Ray Dale, the head of the travel office, for embezzlement. Dale was acquitted in under two hours, and it was Hillary who, in the subsequent investigation into her role in the firings, was found to have made false statements under oath.

So here we are again – the Clinton gang railroading career, non-partisan government employees for political gain.

“To quote Aerosmith, when it comes to Hillary Clinton throughout the decades ‘it’s the same old story, same old song and dance.’ When she finds herself in trouble, she targets innocent people and railroads them.

“If Hillary has evidence that non-partisan, government employees are engaging in misconduct, we call on her to produce it. Otherwise, she should go back to huddling with her lawyers to prepare for a possible criminal indictment.” – American Crossroads Communications Director, Ian Prior

Last night was not a particularly good one for Hillary Clinton. Not only was she grilled on why she wouldn’t release her paid speeches at a Nevada town hall, but in an interview with CBS News’ Scott Pelley, Hillary could not definitively say that she has not and would not lie to the American people.

Instead, she said she tries not to lie. Look at the video. Look at the body language from Clinton – does that look like the body language of someone who is telling the truth about her own capacity to tell the truth?

In the words of a wise green puppet from Dagobah, “do or do not, there is no try.” Well, when it comes to a president telling the truth to the American people, there is no TRY Hillary – you either do tell the truth or you do not. If you can’t give that guarantee, apply for a different job.

“It says a lot that in a nationally televised interview Hillary Clinton wouldn’t definitively say that she has never lied to the American people and will never lie to the American people. This kind of Clintonspeak is exactly why voters don’t trust Hillary and is why she is not qualified to be President of the United States.” – American Crossroads Communications Director, Ian Prior

Is there anything that Hillary Clinton won’t lie about in an effort to get votes? Remember her pointless lie about trying to join the Marines? Well, she’s at it again.

Today, speaking at an event in Chicago, Hillary told a nice little story about how her dad was a Republican and the two would get in arguments at the dinner table when she was in high school.

Of course, the problem here is that when Hillary was in High School she was a Republican. At 13 years old, she enthusiastically canvassed for Richard Nixon in the 1960 race against JFK. In 1964, a 17 year oldHillary volunteered for Barry Goldwater. Once in college, she became President of the Young Republicans and even attended the 1968 Republican Convention.

So either Hillary was telling yet another lie, or she had some serious dinner table arguments about who was more conservative.

“Clearly there is no aspect of her life that Hillary Clinton won’t twist for her own political advantage. The fact that she is now resorting to lame, pointless fibs about her childhood should make voters wonder if Hillary Clinton even has the capacity to tell the truth.” – American Crossroads Spokesman Ian Prior

I don’t know about you, but I’m old enough to remember a debate when Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for saying that Barack Obama hasn’t done enough to bridge the divide between Americans and Congress.

So it stands to reason that Hillary should now have to answer for the same criticism of Obama from her husband Bill, who told a crowd in Memphis last night that Obama wasn’t a “changemaker” who was able to get Congress to work with him.

What’s next? Is Bill going to go all 2008 and say that the whole Obama presidency was just a big fairy tale?

Bill Clinton makes Memphis stop for wife’s campaign

The Commercial Appeal – February 11, 2016

Ryan Poe

But in talking about the struggles of middle- and lower-class America, Clinton was met with silence when he said President Barack Obama wasn’t a “change-maker” like Hillary. He clarified a few sentences later that Obama has had accomplishments, including the Affordable Care Act.

“Yeah, it’s rigged,” he said, speaking of the financial system, “because you don’t have a president who’s a change-maker, who has a Congress who will work with him. But the president has done a better job than he has gotten credit for.”

Full article: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/government/bill-clinton-makes-memphis-stop-for-wifes-campaign-2b822367-7dc6-3729-e053-0100007f0adf-368546981.html?d=mobile

A few weeks ago American Crossroads purchased some real estate in Hillary Clinton’s head by launching a digital ad in Iowa entitled “Hillary’s Bull Market.” To our immense pleasure, she’s been talking about it ever since, including once again at last night’s debate.

Hillary is mentioning the ad because she is desperately trying to make the case that our focus on her is because she’ll be tougher on Wall Street. No one’s buying it.

If Hillary really wants to prove that she is not just a Ward of Wall Street, she’ll release transcripts of her paid speeches. After all, if she can’t be influenced by money, certainly her three $225K speeches to Goldman Sachs will sound just like the anti-Wall Street speeches that she has been giving on the campaign trail.

Right?

“The reason why Hillary Clinton won’t release transcripts of her paid speeches is simple – she knows they will show what a sellout she is. When she is paid $225K to speak at Goldman Sachs she is ‘pro-Wall Street’ Hillary; when she is on the campaign trail trying to get left of a socialist, she is ‘anti-Wall Street’ Hillary. And that is why no one trusts Hillary Clinton.” – American Crossroads Communications Director, Ian Prior

Last week the Washington Post reported that Congress is considering passing a law that would allow President Obama or his successor to revoke Bill Cosby’s Medal of Freedom, in light of the multiple allegations of sexual assault being made against him. Previously, Promoting Awareness Victim Empowerment advocated for the use of executive order authority to revoke the medal, with the support of Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

Given that Hillary Clinton has stated that “she is with” all victims of sexual assault and that they have the right to be “believed” and “heard,” American Crossroads has two very simple questions:

(1) Does Hillary believe that Bill Cosby’s Medal of Freedom should be revoked?

(2) If elected president, would Hillary wait for Congress to pass a law giving her the power to revoke Cosby’s medal, or would she simply do it by executive order? 

Remember when we suggested that Patrick Murphy was buying endorsements with Mom and Dad’s money? Check it out here.

Well, that trend continues with a big endorsement from the “progressive” camp: Al Franken. Patrick’s dad Thomas and his mom Leslie each gave Franken the maximum of $5200 in 2014.

So why would the Murphys (both business-oriented Republicans) give a far left-wing Senator from Minnesota $10,400? Two options: (1) they are big fans of Stuart Smalley, or (2) they were strategically giving money to politicians they knew would be needed when their son ran for the Senate.

We’re gonna go with option 2.

Patrick Murphy is having a rough day – first the Progressive Democrats of Florida accuse him of being on the take, now it looks like his endorsement by Al Franken was purchased with his parents’ campaign cash. It’s enough to make one wonder what else people will find if they start looking a little closer at Murphy’s sudden rise from obscurity to U.S. Senate candidate.

Today the Progressive Democrats of Florida swung hard at Patrick Murphy and accused him of improper influence. Specifically, they noted that Murphy initially supported the All Aboard Florida high-speed rail project but changed his tune when his family business Coastal Construction was not selected as general contractor of the project.

This is a pretty strong accusation that implies that Murphy is legislating under the influence of his family’s powerful construction company – one that also has donated big money to his campaign and Super PAC.

If true, it’s an especially problematic appearance of impropriety for Murphy who has also been accused of trading campaign cash for endorsements and recently said in an op-ed: “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”

Patrick Murphy has gotten a free pass from most of the media during his fledgling political career. But if they gave his record the scrutiny that most politicians receive, they would see a pattern of conflicts of interest and influence-peddling that underlie his sudden rise from obscurity to U.S. Senate candidate.

WASHINGTON – Today, American Crossroads released the results of its monthly Vox Populi battleground state tracking poll showing that Hillary Clinton continues to lose ground to a generic Republican. In an online poll of registered voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia, Clinton trails a generic Republican nominee by 35% to 54%; down from November’s poll when she trailed 40% to 52%.

The poll also found that 55% of respondents were less likely to vote for Clinton because of her support for continuing to accept Syrian refugees following the Paris attacks. Similarly damaging is the ongoing FBI investigation into possible Espionage Act violations arising from her use of a private email server – 56% of those surveyed are less likely to vote for her as a result.

The December poll can be viewed here, and the full trends from our monthly polls can be accessed here.

“Even with all the drama and uncertainty of the Republican nominating contest, voters aren’t buying Hillary—in fact, their distrust of her continues to grow each month, especially as her failed record as Secretary of State comes into focus.” – American Crossroads Communications Director, Ian Prior

“After years of spin, deception, and distraction from President Obama and Hillary Clinton, this email makes it clear that the Obama Administration and then-Secretary Clinton had a chance to save the four Americans killed in Benghazi – and shamefully did nothing.” – American Crossroads Communications Director, Ian Prior

‘Spinning up as we speak’: Email shows Pentagon was ready to roll as Benghazi attack occurred

Fox News, December 8, 2015

As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.

The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.

Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty.

“This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come,” Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.

Parts of the email from Bash were redacted before release, including details on what military forces were available.

In defending the Obama administration’s lack of a military response to the attack, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee nearly two years ago that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

The first assault occurred at the consulate at 3:40 p.m. ET. The second attack on the CIA annex a little over a mile away began three hours later. Bash’s email was sent approximately 40 minutes after that attack began.

Bash’s email, which bore the subject line “Libya,” was sent to Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff Jacob Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman and Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Thomas Nides.

The attack came in three waves at two locations. It began when a handful of attackers scaled the wall of the diplomatic post at dusk and opened a gate, allowing dozens of armed men inside who then set the building on fire. Stevens and Smith died after breathing in smoke while hiding in a safe room, and later died.

Hours later, a nearby CIA annex was attacked twice. Woods and Doherty died there while defending the annex from the rooftop. A team of six security officials summoned from Tripoli and a Libyan military unit helped evacuate the remaining U.S. personnel who were taken to an airport and flown out of Benghazi.

The Obama administration later falsely claimed that the attack was triggered by an Internet video that insulted Islam.

Lawmakers investigating the events surrounding Benghazi already had acquired the e-mail, along with tens of thousands of others related to the probe, according to Matt Wolking, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

“The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months,” Wolking told FoxNews.com. “While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan’s response.”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/12/08/spinning-up-as-speak-email-shows-pentagon-was-ready-to-roll-as-benghazi-attack/

Last week, America suffered its most deadly terror attack since 9/11. Since then, Ohio Senate candidate Ted Strickland has said NOTHING publicly about that attack or the larger question of national security.

Not on Facebook, not on Twitter, not on his website.

And when Strickland was contacted by a reporter to discuss whether he agreed with the liberal reflex of more gun control to stop terror attacks, Strickland’s representative said he was too busy “fundraising.”

Sounds like the tag line for a political ad – Ted Strickland, too busy fundraising to talk about national security.

“Ted Strickland has been embarrassingly silent on the terrorist attack that struck our nation last week. It’s well past time that Strickland realizes that running for Senate requires real leadership, not merely fundraising in Washington D.C. and posting Throwback Thursday pictures on Facebook.”

“President Obama is playing defense, not offense: defending his ineffective policies instead of adopting a new offensive strategy to decisively destroy ISIS. And other than a few rhetorical flourishes, Hillary Clinton’s position is essentially the same: clinging to their weak policies that have made us and the world less safe.

“Even as the San Bernardino attack was still playing out, both Obama and Clinton called for liberal gun control against Americans instead of hard-hitting terrorist control against Islamic extremists.  This is a defining moment in the fight to keep our country safe from terror, and Obama and Hillary showed why they have failed to meet that challenge.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton will spend the next twelve months in the Granite State, faking a New Hampshire accent and telling voters that she is one of them. Today, however, she will be collecting #Deflategate cash at the Manhattan law firm that collected millions to get laughed out of Federal Court for the NFL’s bogus witch hunt of Tom Brady.

Here is our challenge to Hillary Clinton – cancel the #Deflategate fundraiser and prove to New Hampshire voters that she won’t stand for wasting taxpayer dollars on ill-conceived witch hunts.

“It says a lot that the perpetually tone deaf Hillary Clinton would raise tainted Deflategate money from the lawyers that collected millions in a frivolous witch hunt of New England Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady. Granite Staters would do well to remember this when she is hosting rallies in January shouting ‘Go Patriots’ in her fake New Hampshire accent.” American Crossroads Communications Director Ian Prior

“From Libya to Russia to China, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the chief architect of the Obama administration’s failed policy of coddling adversaries, disrespecting allies and leading from behind. We will continue do whatever is necessary to demonstrate to voters how Clinton’s disastrous record as Secretary of State makes her unfit for the presidency.”

As Hillary Rodham Clinton prepares to give her national security speech today, here are a few questions that she should have to answer:

(1) Hillary Clinton has criticized Republicans for wanting to halt the influx of Syrian refugees. Does that harsh criticism also apply to Democrats who have taken a similar position such as New Hampshire Governor and Senate candidate Maggie Hassan, Ohio Senate candidate Ted Strickland, and Nevada Senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto?

(2) Leaders take responsibility for their mistakes. Given that Hillary was a lead proponent of the strategy to effect regime change in Libya, will she admit any mistakes in a strategy that has led to chaos, lawlessness, and ISIS gaining a strong foothold in the country?

(3) Hillary justifies intervention in Libya based on the fact that Gadaffi was a tyrant that had American blood on his hands. However, Hillary warmly welcomed that tyrant’s son to the State Department in 2009 and only took a stance against the Gadaffi regime when it was politically expedient to do so. Was Hillary’s formerly pro-Gadaffi stance influenced by (A) the fact that major Clinton Foundation donors had significant business interests in Libya, and/or (B) that her first international energy envoy, David Goldwyn, had formerly served as executive director of the U.S.-Libya Business Association and had lobbied for new U.S. business deals with Gadaffi’s government?

(4) Hillary Clinton was the chief architect of the Obama Administration’s “pivot” to Asia, which would counter China’s growing hegemony in the region. In fact, Clinton called it “among the most important diplomatic efforts of our time.” That effort has been a failure and the repercussions of that failure are a threat to the stability of the region. Looking back on the failure of the “pivot” to Asia, what would Hillary now do differently?

(5) In 2013, Hillary wrote a memo to President Obama proposing to close GITMO and transfer terrorists. In that memo, she outlined a strategy for Obama to get around a requirement that the Secretary of Defense certify that transferred detainees would not engage in acts of terrorism. What was Hillary’s logic in advising Obama to end-around a certification that a GITMO detainee would not engage in acts of terrorism?

As Hillary Rodham Clinton prepares to give a national security speech tomorrow, it is worth looking again at perhaps her biggest foreign policy failure – Libya. While initially Hillary and her close advisor Sidney Blumenthal thought that her Libya policy could be something to hang her hat on, those in the know – like former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – said that Hillary was “playing it by ear” in Libya.

As we now know, Hillary’s strategy in Libya was an abject failure and has helped ISIS gain a massive foothold in the vacuum created by Hillary’s policy. But she has repeatedly defended her intervention policy by reminding everyone that Muammar Gaddafi was a tyrant who had “more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else.”

But here is the question that more in the media need to start asking Hillary – Gaddafi was a murderous dictator well before Hillary became Secretary of State; so why did she so warmly welcome Mutassim Gaddafi, the Libyan tyrant’s son and national security adviser, to the State Department in April, 2009?

Check out the video of Hillary’s meeting with Mutassim here.

Could it be that Hillary’s warm welcome of Gaddafi was because, as the Washington Examiner reports, so many donors to the Clinton Foundation had business interests in Libya?

This weekend, Patrick Murphy strongly endorsed the Obama/Clinton Doctrine of leading from behind in world affairs.

Speaking at the “Democrat of the Year” luncheon in Boca Raton (video here) two days after the Paris attacks, Murphy praised Obama’s leadership even as other Democrats like Senator Diane Feinstein andCongressman Seth Moulton have criticized Obama’s weakness in taking on ISIS.

Three questions for Patrick Murphy:

(1) Is Murphy, like Obama, also not interested in “pursuing some notion of ‘American leadership’ or ‘America winning’”?

(2) Does Murphy favor letting all the Syrian refugees in the country?

(3) Does he agree with Senator Chris Murphy, who endorsed him, that the U.S. military is to blame for the rise of ISIS?

Floridians deserve to know the answers to these questions. Yet Murphy appears to have gone radio-silent on Paris, ISIS, Syrian refugees or any other important national security issue. In fact, as of this email, there was no mention about any of those issues on either his official website, his campaign website, his official Twitter handle, or his campaign Twitter handle. Talk about leading from behind.

Two months ago Patrick Murphy naively asserted that the Iran nuclear deal would bring ‘peace in our time.’ Now he is doubling down on the Obama/Clinton Doctrine of leading from behind. One thing is clear – in these increasingly dangerous times, Young Patrick Murphy is simply unqualified to be in the United States Senate.

Yesterday, following a CNN report that Hillary Clinton once again claimed to have tried to join the Marines in 1975, we asked if the media would investigate that claim as vigorously as it did Ben Carson’s claim about being offered a scholarship at West Point.

Unfortunately, only the Washington Post’s Fact Checker followed up on the claim, and in doing so gave Hillary two Pinocchios – for the time being. Some highlights from the Post:

“A [Clinton] campaign spokesman declined to comment.”

“There are enough holes here that Clinton has an obligation to address the circumstances under which she approached the Marines, now that she had once again raised it in a campaign context.”

“So far, we do not have enough documentary proof to say the incident never happened, such as supposedly landing under sniper fire in Bosnia or getting the date wrong for hearing a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. * * * But the circumstances are in question. She pitches it as a matter of public service, but her friends suggest it was something different. So at this point Clinton’s story is worthy of Two Pinocchios, subject to change if more information becomes available.”

It is time for the media to investigate this strange claim from Clinton and demand answers as it did with Carson. And while we’re looking into questionable claims by Clinton, maybe someone should look into her dubious claim that when she wrote a letter to NASA asking how to become an astronaut, she received a letter back saying that NASA was “not interested in women astronauts.”

Last week the media did a thorough investigation of Ben Carson’s claim that he was offered a scholarship to West Point.

This week, per CNN, Hillary Clinton has revived an interesting anecdote about how a young, anti-war Hillary tried to join the Marines but was rejected. CNN also notes how this claim has been met with skepticism over the years.

So what gives – is this story true as told, exaggerated, or is it another “we landed under sniper fire” lie from Hillary?

I guess the only way we’ll find out is if the media is as dogged in its investigation into Hillary’s claim as it was investigating Carson’s.

WASHINGTON – American Crossroads President and CEO Steven Law issued the following statement on Vice President Joe Biden’s decision not to enter the 2016 presidential race:

“Joe Biden is a well-liked, decent public servant, and I applaud him for basing his decision on the best of reasons: his family.  Our publicly expressed view has been that the Vice President would have been a tough opponent in a general election.  And while we don’t agree with him on a lot of issues, we wish him and his family well as they continue to come to terms with the loss of their son.”

Is Hillary Clinton joining national Democrats in showing “total insensitivity to Chicago, African-American women and the Democratic process”?

That’s a question people should be asking after Hillary followed the DSCC’s lead and endorsed Tammy Duckworth over Andrea Zopp in the Illinois Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate.

Zopp called out the DSCC for its endorsement, saying that it showed “total insensitivity to Chicago, African-American women and the democratic process.” Shortly thereafter, Jesse Jackson also slammed Senate Democrats for the slight.

Shouldn’t the same criticisms levied at the DSCC by Zopp and Jackson also apply to Hillary Clinton? While Hillary courts the African-American community in her embattled primary, Hillary doesn’t give the time of day to a leading African-American woman running for the U.S. Senate in Hillary’s original home state.

Like the DSCC, Hillary Clinton’s willingness to insert herself into the Illinois Democratic Senate primary and endorse Tammy Duckworth over Andrea Zopp shows a “total insensitivity to Chicago, African American women and the democratic process.”

Yesterday we pointed out the interesting circumstance of young Patrick Murphy’s parents maxing out to federal members of Congress who just happened to have also been early endorsers of young Patrick in his race against Alan Grayson.

As it turns out, that’s not the only way Patrick has used his family’s money over the years. While it may have slipped under the radar in Florida, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported last year that the parents of several Democrat members of Congress and candidates were involved in a donor swap scheme. From the report:

“In June, Robert Strouse sent $5,200 to the campaign of U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D., Fla.). (The Floridian is no relation to the former Bucks County congressman with the same name.) Four days later, Murphy’s father, Thomas P. Murphy Jr., sent an identical campaign contribution to Kevin Strouse.

 Lance Callis and Bera’s father, Babulal Bera, each gave to the reelection campaign of Murphy, the Florida congressman. Murphy’s mother, Leslie, also sent $5,200 to Ami Bera.”

 And how much did Murphy get from this swap scheme with the Strouses and Beras? At least $22,900.  $5200 from Kevin Strouse’s father, $2300 from Strouse’s mother, $5200 from Ami Bera’s father, $5200 from Bera’s mother, & $5000 from Bera’s wife.

Patrick ‘Silver Spoon’ Murphy proves over and over again that he’s willing to use his family’s millions to bend the rules for the sake of climbing the political ladder.

Young Patrick Murphy is super excited about “winning” Democrat endorsements in his primary battle against Alan Grayson. But here’s the thing – did he really “win” those endorsements, or were they given in return for major campaign donations from his parents? Let’s take a quick look at the federal legislators endorsing Murphy referenced in this SaintPetersBlog article:

Ted Deutch: Thomas P. Murphy donated $4800 to Deutch in 2011 and $5400 to him in 2015. Patrick’s mother Leslie Murphy also donated $4800 to Deutch in 2011 and $5400 to him in 2015. Total $ from Patrick’s parents to his endorser Ted Deutch – $20,400.

Alcee Hastings: Thomas P. Murphy donated $5000 to Hastings in 2011 and $5400 to him in 2015. Leslie Murphy also donated $1000 to Hastings in 2011 and $5400 to him in 2015. Total $ from Patrick’s parents to his endorser Alcee Hastings – $16,800.

Frederica Wilson: Thomas P. Murphy donated $5400 to Wilson in 2015. Leslie Murphy also donated $5400 to Wilson in 2015. Total $ from Patrick’s parents to his endorser Frederica Wilson – $10,800.

Alex Sink: Thomas P. Murphy donated $10,000 to the Alex Sink Victory Fund in 2014.

Interestingly, Murphy’s parents donated in 2011 (when Patrick switched from Republican to Democrat and needed some D) friends, they skipped 2013 when Patrick didn’t have much of a race, then they came back to the table big time in 2015 when Patrick needed D friends again for a possible primary in his run for the Senate.

One thing is abundantly clear here – young Patrick Murphy spends a lot of time bemoaning money in politics, but he sure has put his family’s millions to use trying to buy himself a political career.

Last week we learned that Hillary Clinton did not turn over all of her work related emails, despite claiming to have done so under oath. When asked about it by Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, Clinton did her best to dip, dodge, duck, dive and dodge.

But really, is anyone really surprised that Hillary would make a false statement under oath? Not if they have been following Hillary’s political career. Just take a look at this sampling of news from Hillary’s past that could have just as easily been written today:

“Hillary testimony was ‘factually false.’” – Rochester Sentinel, October 19, 2000.

 “Mr. Ray disclosed parts of Mrs. Clinton’s 1995 deposition he now says are demonstrably false.” – NY Times, October 19, 2000.

 “There is ‘substantial evidence’that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel office firings, independent counsel Robert W. Ray reported Thursday.” – LA Times, June 23, 2000.

 “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that [Hillary Clinton] — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.” – NY Times, January 8, 1996.

 Perhaps it might be time to stop counting how many times Hillary has lied, and start the easier task of counting how many times she hasn’t.

WASHINGTON – American Crossroads President and CEO Steven Law today issued the following statement following House Speaker John Boehner’s retirement announcement:

“John Boehner has been the most gracious and selfless Speaker of the House in my political lifetime. He has always shown such a great sense of humor and style, matched with a common decency rooted in his humble Ohio beginnings. As Joni Mitchell sings, ‘You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.’  As John Boehner exits the public stage, we will feel the loss of this steady, seasoned, and decent statesman.”

Young Patrick Murphy has been more follower than leader in his unremarkable career as a politician, but perhaps now that he is trying to pander to his base there is an issue on which he can take a stand – the Democrats’ growing debate problem.

Specifically, Murphy can join other liberals and activists (and even Nancy Pelosi) and demand that DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz schedule more debates.

And if Murphy agrees with Wasserman Schultz that Democrats should have the fewest primary debates since 1980 and twenty less than they did in 2008, he needs to explain to Florida’s Democratic primary voters exactly why he thinks so.

Either way, it’s time for Murphy to take a stand – otherwise, he might find himself following the lead of Alan Grayson in more than just the polls.

In this post on TMZ yesterday, Hillary Clinton was asked about which woman she thinks should be on the 10-dollar bill. What happened next was pure Hillary.

First, she accused the Republican field of not being able to name a single American woman for the honor. Well, any of the 23 million people who watched last week’s debate would know that’s another Hillary lie.

Then, when pressed on who Hillary thought should be on the 10-dollar bill, she claimed to have a “long list,” but couldn’t name a single woman – not one.

Another day, another Hillary lie, another Hillary backfire – we’ve got binders full of them.

New Web Ad – “Orange is the New Black” – Fact Checks Hillary’s Email Deceptions

WASHINGTON – As Hillary Clinton tries a new apology strategy to put her email scandal in the rearview mirror, today American Crossroads welcomed Hillary Clinton back to New Hampshire with a digital ad entitled “Orange is the New Black.” The ad uses footage from Hillary Clinton’s infamous August 18th press conference in Las Vegas.

The new ad is part of a targeted online buy that began in Iowa on Monday.  The spot can be viewed here.

“Hillary Clinton is trying to wipe her email server scandal from the news, but this issue is not going away,” said Ian Prior, Communications Director for American Crossroads. “With a monthly release of her emails, an ongoing FBI investigation and congressional hearings, her continued bad press may end up being the least of her problems.”

New Web Ad – “Orange is the New Black” – Fact Checks Hillary’s Email Deceptions

WASHINGTON – As Hillary Clinton tries a new apology strategy to put her email scandal in the rearview mirror, today American Crossroads began a new online campaign in Iowa with a digital ad entitled “Orange is the New Black.” The ad uses footage from Hillary Clinton’s infamous August 18th press conference in Las Vegas.

The new ad is part of a targeted online buy initially focused on Iowa beginning on Monday, September 14. The spot can be viewed here.

“Hillary Clinton is trying to wipe her email server scandal from the news, but this issue is not going away,” said Ian Prior, Communications Director for American Crossroads. “With a monthly release of her emails, an ongoing FBI investigation and congressional hearings, her continued bad press may end up being the least of her problems.”