While the rest of the government prepared to shut down this fall, the State Department was busy stocking up on embassy liquor supplies…
What The End Of The Filibuster Could Mean For America
A person can win every game they play if they can always change the rules to their advantage. Harry Reid decided to do that for President Obama.
There were three judges Obama wanted to place on the Washington, DC federal bench to tip the advantage toward the Left. Many of the same Democrats, who thought the Republicans were wrong when they were in the majority and wanted to approve of judge selections by a simple majority of Senators, now want what they wouldn’t give to Republicans and President Bush. I call the cancellation of the filibuster the “Dictatorship of the Majority Act.”
Remember how Nancy Pelosi complained about Republicans obstructing what needed to be done when they were in the minority? I guess crashing the economy was something the Democrats needed to do when they regained control of Congress in 2007.
They also needed to pass Obamacare, which is now creating havoc in this country. I heard former Congressman Barney Frank complain about Republicans in Congress voting in favor of things they knew would not pass in the Senate. You could call his desire to have Republicans go along with the Democrats in the Senate the “Since Everybody Is Jumping Off A Bridge, You Should Do It Too” Strategy. When President Bush wanted to examine Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and their lending policies to see if they were fiscally sound, Barney Frank told Bush there was nothing wrong. Frank sounded like a stock trader during the second week of October 1929 telling everybody that investing in stock was a sure bet to get rich since the stock market was sound.
Here is a scenario that is possible since filibusters are no longer a weapon to prevent the majority from easily getting its way. It is 2019, and President Hillary Clinton decides she has too many political opponents. The Senate passes the Federal Anti-Defamation Act, which declares all people who protest against the government as criminals subject to fines and imprisonment. A federal judge appointed by the President decides it’s Constitutional; and the Supreme Court that is then split into six Liberals and three Conservatives (since the mysterious death of Justice Scalia) leans leftwards.
Conservative broadcasters and programs are shut down. Even common citizens who dare talk against the President and government are imprisoned because Democrats who control the Senate say it’s for the good of the country. The Public Safety Act of 2019 which is declared Constitutional by a judge appointed to the federal bench, and the Supreme Court allows camps to be built to “re-educate” those who oppose the government. People are disarmed because another judge feels that only the police and military deserve to be armed.
Millions revolt against the government and march toward Washington and state capitols. President Clinton declares marshal law and orders the troops out to confront the protesters around the nation. The DC federal court says the police and troops have the right to shoot and kill protesters if they feel that Washington and government entities are being threatened. Some of the judges that make that decision would have been filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. But with a majority of Democrats in the Senate, the filibuster is no longer a threat.
What if a Republican Congress and President gain power in 2033 after the state of emergency declared by President Clinton in 2020, and judged Constitutional by the DC federal court and Supreme Court, is ended to allow Hillary to serve four full terms? Don’t you think the Republicans will want revenge? The internment camps formerly occupied by Conservatives are now being occupied by Liberals who hate the new government. And with Obamacare being dismantled and the high tax rates coming down or abolished altogether, the economy soars. But the ones who most depended on Obamacare are more likely to die. America goes from being a Liberal police state to a Conservative police state; and it started with the Dictatorship of the Majority Act, as it has been nicknamed.
The Electoral College hasn’t been abolished so that small states still matter at election time instead of a handful of heavily populated states deciding who should be the President. The filibuster was meant to prevent the “wrong” people from controlling the justice system and perverting justice. Destroying a tradition that has worked for nearly two and a quarter centuries may bring down the Democrats because the public will consider them a bunch of dictators, with the “Dear Leader” being the most threatening. And if one day the Republicans regain total control of the government, you know the Democrats will want the law changed. And since many Republicans respect the Constitution and many traditions more than most Democrats do, the filibuster will make a comeback. Just hope and pray that the tyranny of the majority doesn’t have irreversible consequences.
Photo credit: CTPEKO3A (Creative Commons)
Ever since the founding of the United States of America, the idea that all men were created equal and free has faced scrutiny from those who prefer to live under cradle-to-grave government control.
In the 1700′s, our founders were considered to be rabble rousers and homeland terrorists by the Tories and other factions who were sworn to the king of England. Our founders realized that the unique concept of establishing freedom and liberty for all would take a lot of work and self sacrifice. Thank God they were willing to do it as they were able to establish the longest standing free Republic that the world has ever known. The only tools that they were able to employ at the time were the power of the pen, the pulpit, and, the printing press. Still, with only three percent of the nation’s population supporting them, and by the grace of God, they were able to win our freedom and independence from the king.
In the 1800′s, our country was literally torn in half due to the issue of slavery. Once the fire of freedom caught on to the slaves who were controlled from cradle to grave, they wanted it too. Unfortunately, a group of southern, slave owning Democrats decided that this concept was unacceptable since it threatened the survival of their plantations; and hence, the Ku Klux Klan was born, further launching us into civil war.
In the 1900′s, we witnessed the most fundamental changes in American society as we faced new threats from fascism and communism, again with the goal of controlling the masses from cradle to grave. Sen. Joe Mc Carthy warned us back in the fifties that Hollywood and institutions of higher learning were being infiltrated with communists; but no one headed his warnings, and they ran him out in disgrace. The sixties were wrought with the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King; while at the same time, the race war was being waged in Congress by Democrats to once again limit the rights of the newly freed black man. The sixties communists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, with their Weather Underground group, thought it best to just blow things up and overthrow the government; but a better way was found, without the violence. The communists divided; and hence, the Progressive party was re-born. It was an off-shoot of Teddy Roosevelt’s strategy, this time inspired by the Cloward-Piven strategy of forcing so many people onto a government welfare system that it would become unsustainable and eventually collapse. Their plan was to collapse the economy and then take over the government without even firing a shot. In order to protect this strategy, Saul Alinsky published a book titled “Rules for Radicals” as a guide to destroy any detractors of their plans. On a side note, Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of this New Progressive party.
As we move on to the 2000′s, it would appear that the Cloward-Piven strategy is working perfectly, as well as Alinsky’s tactics. The US economy is on the verge of collapse; welfare recipients now outnumber those who are working; our children are being indoctrinated every day in school by communist-leaning teachers and professors; and anyone who stands up for the US Constitution is being labeled as crazy, out of touch, and a homeland terrorist. Our media is now mostly government-controlled, our churches are preaching social justice, and our children barely even know how to write.
The battle for freedom continues just as it did back in the 1700′s. The ideology has remained the same; it is just that the players have changed. This all boils down to a choice: cradle to grave government enslavement, or the absolute Freedom that our founders envisioned. The tools haven’t even changed all that much either. Those who control the power of the pen, the pulpit, and the printing press will control the masses. As always, my fellow Patriots, may God bless you, stay safe, and be aware of your surroundings.
Photo credit: Roger Smith (Creative Commons)
According to recent reports, billionaire leftist George Soros has committed his support to Ready for Hillary, a political action committee designed to help Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Soros’ political director Michael Vachon said the famed investor “is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary,” indicating the move “is an extension of his long-held belief in the power of grassroots organizing.”
As a member of super PAC, Soros is required to make at least $25,000 in contributions — either through personal donations or fundraising efforts — to the organization organized by supporters of the former First Lady.
Ready for Hillary executive director Adam Parkhomenko said the PAC is concerned with “giving her the time to make the decision” regarding a White House bid while “knowing that there’s an operation out there of grassroots supporters who are organizing.”
Though it might seem odd to mention Soros in the same breath as a grassroots campaign, he is just one of several wealthy donors involved in the PAC.
The group is also involved in other campaigns, according to spokesman Seth Bringman, who said its “strategy is to amplify what Hillary is doing and promote the candidates she is out there advocating for.”
Thus far, Clinton herself has not been involved in the goings on of Ready for Hillary, though plenty of her former political allies and personal friends occupy positions of authority within the group.
The likely 2016 candidate has previously stated she wants to align herself with more grassroots efforts instead of other super PACs such as Priorities USA. That organization was instrumental in Obama’s re-election campaign and also counts Soros among its supporters.
Having such a radical ideologue as a vocal supporter might resonate with the extreme left in Clinton’s camp, though the outrageous policies Soros has endorsed in the past will only proliferate Clinton’s image among much of the U.S. as an out-of-touch elitist.
B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at email@example.com
Photo Credit: (Creative Commons)
While there was little news in last Sunday’s Benghazi story on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” it did make some key points that have rarely been heard from mainstream media outlets. The report proves, once again, just how culpable President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are for ignoring the deteriorating security situation in Libya last year, even though their names were never mentioned in the segment.
The segment, which can be viewed online, interviews one “Morgan Jones,” a self-identified Blue Mountain security chief who was at an apartment 15 minutes away when the attack started at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound on September 11, 2012.
Jones raced to the compound, scaled the 12-foot wall, and attempted to enter the compound to assist those inside; but they had already been rescued by a CIA rapid-response team that included the now-deceased Tyrone Woods.
“[The attackers] said, ‘We’re here to kill Americans, not Libyans,’” recounts Jones in an emotional moment. “So they’d give them a good beating, pistol whip them, beat them with their rifle, and let them go.”
Other than Fox News, it appears that the major networks are largely ignoring the “60 Minutes” piece. Fox’s Adam Housley noted on air that he was in contact with Jones as late as last December, until Jones began asking for money to continue talking. Jones apparently was training the unarmed guards inside the compound, and he told Housley, “…the men were supposed to go away when this attack started because they didn’t have any guns or any weapons. They were there basically to keep the riffraff out.”
The “60 Minutes” story highlighted Morgan’s new book on his experience in Benghazi, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There; but they failed to acknowledge that the book was published by Simon & Schuster, which is a division of the CBS Corporation. Was that CBS’s way of compensating Morgan?
“This colors in some of the story, but it doesn’t advance the scandal,” comments Dave Weigel for Slate Magazine about Morgan’s account of the events that evening (emphasis in original). Why doesn’t the “60 Minutes” piece advance the scandal, you might ask? “But the report tells us more about what we’ve known for a year, and known in detail since the spring of 2013,” writes Weigel. He might have missed the part where Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, who headed a Special Forces Site Security Team (SST) in Libya, told CBS’s Lara Logan that al Qaeda had posted online three threats: that they would attack the Red Cross, the British, and then the Americans in Benghazi. “They made good on two out of the three promises. It was a matter of time until they captured the third one,” said Wood. The Red Cross pulled out, as did the British after their ambassador survived an assassination attempt. Why didn’t the Americans pull out? Logan asks whether Washington was notified of these threats. “They [Washington] knew we monitored it. We included that in our reports to both State Department and DoD,” said Wood.
These reports were likely not just lost in the ether. Consider, for example, the State Department classified cable that said the Special Mission Compound could not defend against a “coordinated attack.” When asked about this cable, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified that although he didn’t read the cable himself, he heard about it and it “bothered” him a “great deal.” Did Wood’s report likewise go up the chain of command? If not, why not?
Wood tells Logan in the interview that before he left Libya, he told Ambassador Christopher Stevens in a meeting that he felt al Qaeda was in its final planning stages of an attack.
However, the “60 Minutes” report does not mention Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama once—failing to hold them culpable for the poor security, poor planning, and an unwillingness to recognize the deteriorating situation in Benghazi and pull their people out. “We had to make sure we weren’t used by anyone on the Left or the Right who had a political agenda,” said Logan for CBS. “So, we left about 98 percent of what we learned on the floor—didn’t even report it—because unless we could substantiate it with primary sources that we truly trusted and whose motivations we trusted, then we didn’t even go there.”
Speaking of leaving most of what they learned on the floor, astonishingly, CBS has recently again found new documents on the floor in the compound in Benghazi, that appear to have been classified material.
However, the “60 Minutes” segment does note that the White House was still arguing that the attack was prompted by the Innocence of Muslims film long after the evidence indicated a coordinated attack by al Qaeda. “Conservatives are apoplectic about Clinton’s public statements after the attack, which continued to mention the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video, and did not lead with how terrorists had actually planned and executed an attack,” asserts Weigel.
The report also notes that the CIA quick reaction force “ignored orders to wait” and went to assist the security guards at the Special Mission compound, and states that “the lingering question is why no larger military response ever crossed the border into Libya.”
It now turns out, according to a report in The Washington Times, that there were at least eight special operators on the ground in Tripoli, two of whom volunteered and flew the 400 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi to help rescue the people under attack at the CIA annex in Benghazi.
“The two special operations forces [Army Delta forces] arrived in time to engage in the final, ferocious firefight between the terrorists and Americans holed up in the CIA annex near the ill-fated diplomatic mission in Benghazi,” wrote Rowan Scarborough for the Times. Scarborough said his story shows that the military could have done more if they wanted to, since they arrived in Benghazi by plane.
Where are the questions about who knew what, at what time? The lack of a military response may be a “lingering question,” but CBS does not educate the viewer as to what forces were or were not available, glossing over this vital question. CBS calls this good journalism, for a report that was a year in the making. “CBS News, it should be noted, has been far more aggressive in pursuing the Benghazi story than its competitors…” writes John Hayward for Human Events.
As a result of the report, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “tweeted Monday that he will block every one of President Obama’s nominees on the Senate floor until the administration discloses information about the survivors of last year’s attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya,” reported The Washington Post.
We hear that “60 Minutes” is planning additional stories on the Benghazi scandal in the near future. Hopefully, they will advance the story further and attempt to hold senior people accountable.
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
The left-wing, George Soros-funded Media Matters has long held that the Benghazi scandal is a “phony scandal” and parroted the administration’s pronouncements minimizing the scandal. Now, they have penned a book, The Benghazi Hoax, which formalizes this theory.
“The book—the first such endeavor for Media Matters, which is self-publishing it—was conceived of in the spring, as the congressional hearings on Benghazi were taking place, he [David Brock] said,” according to Politico, which focused largely on the pro-Clinton aspects of the book. Brock is described in the article as the “Media Matters founder and Hillary Clinton ally,” and it points out that Brock acknowledges that part—a “fraction,” he claims—of their mission is “Supporting the Clintons.”
“The book is the latest effort this year in what is likely to be more Clinton-centric efforts ahead of 2016.” Indeed, the book mentions 2016 and Clinton several times and dismisses any attempts to tar Clinton’s reputation as part of the Republican-conservative smear machine. They even cry “sexism” on behalf of Clinton.
According to the book, authored by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt, the genesis of the manufactured Benghazi scandal started in an impromptu statement by then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was looking to gain the advantage over incumbent President Barack Obama on foreign policy. Romney did make mistakes in his presentation of the issue, a fact that dominated the media coverage for days afterward. But this was not mentioned by Brock and Rabin-Havt.
The authors maintain that “Reporters for established news outlets work with a healthy skepticism for the administration in power, but when Democrats are in the White House, conservatives have become adept at badgering a so-called ‘liberal media’ to prove its lack of bias by adopting their story ideas.” In other words, the liberal media should just ignore conservative points of view entirely, and stories that are embarrassing to liberals, while Democrats are in office.
If Media Matters had its way, the Benghazi incident would just be considered one of many violent incidents abroad and dismissed entirely. “Had the Benghazi attack not occurred at this unique moment—on a day when the Republican candidate for the presidency and his promoters in the conservative media were desperate for a new storyline, especially one that would undercut the popular effect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden the year before—this tragedy might not have been converted into a political scandal,” they suggest. “After all, Benghazi was just one of at least 157 attacks on our diplomatic facilities over a 15-year period, 9 of which resulted in U.S. fatalities.”
Actually, this was the first time in 33 years a U.S. ambassador had died as a result of terrorism.
Other important facts left out of the book include the deteriorating security situation leading up to the terrorist attack, the inadequate security at the Special Mission Compound, and the fact that CIA employees are reportedly being polygraphed and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding the Benghazi incident. The book fails to adequately explain what military forces were available at Sigonella, Aviano, and other U.S. military bases during the attack. There is a very shallow retelling of events that barely educates the reader as to what occurred at the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex. They also continue promoting the YouTube video myth, arguing that the question of whether or not this was a preplanned terrorist attack or an attack resulting from a spontaneous demonstration sparked by the anti-Islam video “would be an enduring part of the Benghazi conversation—one not fully resolved to this day.” While Obama’s explanation changed numerous times on this point, he did end up saying that he had called it an act of terrorism from day one. Apparently, Media Matters missed that memo.
The new book, The Benghazi Hoax, reads like a political treatise, spending much of the book “educating” readers about their imagined right-wing smear machine than on the Benghazi incident itself. The authors focus more on minor political fluff, such as rhetoric over Clinton’s ill-timed concussion, than on the facts.
The Media Matters authors call the criticism of the President over this incident “beyond the pale” and cry sexism over the treatment of Hillary Clinton and racism over the treatment of the “exotic” President—their words, not mine.
Plenty of relevant facts are omitted from the book in a way that misleads the reader, and the presentation of material is so lopsided and incomplete as to defy belief. For example, the books states that “[Former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory] Hicks actually contradicted the assessment of his attorney that he had been given his current job as a punishment, telling the committee: ‘[M]y family really didn’t want me to go back. We’d endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed—I accepted an offer of what’s called a no-fault curtailment.’”
“Hicks explained, ‘That means that there’s—there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions,’” continued Media Matters. They forgot to mention that Hicks went on to testify that he had been verbally offered preferential selection when he accepted his voluntary curtailment, but that this never materialized. Instead, he was placed back into the ordinary pool of candidates and had to accept a lower level assignment as a result.
As for the Accountability Review Board report, the Media Matters authors declare that “It was not a politically motivated document, nor did it leave blame on the doorsteps of the President or secretary of state.”
“For this reason alone, it came under attack from conservatives who sought to discredit it, convinced that it had to be a whitewash.”
The ARB report has been called a whitewash because senior State Department officials were not held accountable for the lack of security, or the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. In other words, it did not focus on the actions of Secretary Hillary Clinton, who was not interviewed, or Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, who was interviewed. Regional Security Officer (RSO) Eric Nordstrom critically stated at a May 2013 hearing that the message to his colleagues about the decision to focus on mid-level employees is that “if you’re above a certain level, no matter what your decision is, no one’s going to question it. And that’s my concern with the ARB.”
In fact, the Media Matters authors go out of their way to criticize the Republican hearings as politically motivated without really going over what was said at those many hearings. “House investigations have become maddeningly successful conduits for deceptively framed snippets of transcript from congressional interviews and cherry-picked administration documents,” write Brock and Rabin-Havt. They then refer to the most sensationalized tidbits of Congressional coverage themselves without delving into the meaning of the hearings. Instead, they focus largely on discrediting Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). It is not until seven chapters later, in Hoax 12: “Muzzled,” that they mention a revelation from the hearings: that upon Rep. Chaffetz’s trip to Libya, Cheryl Mills had required Hicks to speak with him only with “a State Department lawyer present.”
“Following the hearing, conservatives looked to save face by jumping on a portion of Hicks’ testimony to claim that he had been the subject of an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, complaining of his meeting with Chaffetz,” write the authors in inflammatory prose. They fail to mention the reason for Mills anger: Hicks had given a classified briefing to Chaffetz and others for which the State Department lawyer had no clearance and could not attend.
It bears mentioning that the Media Matters authors maintain that the Accountability Review Board (ARB) members had no personal reason to back the administration and politicize the review process; this despite the fact that the investigation did not take place in a political vacuum. What they also don’t mention is that Vice-Chair Admiral Michael Mullen was quite friendly with Cheryl Mills early on during the investigation, despite the fact that he was essentially investigating the State Department. According to Mullen’s own testimony, he gave Mills a friendly call less than 10 days into the investigation to let her know that one of the witnesses he had just interviewed less than 24 hours beforehand was not ready to testify before Congress. The witness in question: Charlene Lamb, who was temporarily placed on administrative leave due to her actions. In addition, it was Mills who had actually called Mullen just weeks earlier to ask him to co-chair the ARB.
“The Media Matters activists do not report [ARB Chair Ambassador Thomas] Pickering has largely unreported ties to the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, as WND revealed,” reported WorldNetDaily in one article of its three-part series by their excellent reporter, Aaron Klein. The articles debunk some of the myths promoted by the new Media Matters book, which has gone largely unacknowledged by the mainstream media.
Klein points out that Pickering is a board member, along with George Soros, of the International Crisis Group (ICG). Among other things, writes Klein, “The ICG itself has long petitioned for talks with Hamas as well as normalized relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, for years urging the Egyptian government to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party.”
The real hoax here is that Media Matters is anything other than a Soros-funded propaganda machine for the Obama administration, and especially for Hillary Clinton and her ambitions. If you want to learn about what really happened in Benghazi, check out the website of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which Accuracy in Media organized to attempt to establish the truth about Benghazi. The commission is continuing to expand its investigation to expose the scandalous cover-up of the facts by the Obama administration and its media lapdogs.
This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)
The battered wife syndrome is a well-known psychological malady in which an abused partner stays with her abuser, thinking that things would be worse without him. They think the separation would be more painful than the beatings and can’t really imagine life without their man.
For some victims, there finally comes a time when they have had enough, and they face the reality that this man is not good for them. He lies to them. He hurts them. Eventually, even his sweet talk falls on deaf ears.
Watching the news this week, I have seen clips of our President lying smoothly, comfortably, and repeatedly in his bait-and switch-sales pitch for the comically-named Affordable Health Care Act. “You like your doctor; you can keep your doctor.” “You like your plan; you can keep your plan, period.” “You will have much better insurance for less money”. “Your insurance costs will go down by an average of $2,500. “ “This plan will not increase our deficit by one dime.”
The public is being battered on health care, and that is becoming increasingly obvious.
Bill O’Reilly played clips of the President responding to various administration scandals. After the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal, after the Benghazi disaster, after the IRS was used as an instrument of political intimidation, and after the Obamacare rollout debacle, the President assured us that he would “get to the bottom of this” and “hold people accountable”. He comfortably played the role that was required at the time.
Then he endlessly stonewalled, held no high level officials accountable, and eventually said that it was time to move past these “phony scandals”. Scandals that he acted very concerned about had morphed into completely unimportant distractions.
His concern was an act, a lie. He does not need an investigation to know what he did on the night of September 11, 2012. He knows what orders he made and what orders he withheld. He knows what he discussed with Hillary Clinton in their 10 PM conversation. He knows why she used the video alibi immediately after the call. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were still fighting for their lives at the time of the call. And he knows perfectly well that the IRS targeting of conservative was a partisan operation. He knows that White House officials were involved in the operation and the cover-up.
There comes a point where abused people just get tired of the obvious lies. That may even be true of some in the mainstream media, a group deeply in love with Obama. They easily forgive him for any abuse of conservatives. In fact, they help him with that abuse. But some were unhappy when it was discovered that reporters’ phone lines were being bugged by the administration. And more recently, a NY Times reporter admitted that this administration is “the most closed, control-freak administration I have ever covered.” The abuser promised that it would be “the most open and transparent administration” ever. The media are now doing some honest reporting about the Obamacare roll-out disaster.
Another group that has been fully in love with Obama is the black community. But blacks have been disproportionately harmed by Obama’s policies. PBS host and Obama supporter Tavis Smiley recently admitted “The data is going to indicate, sadly, that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category.” At some point, this group may realize that this man is not good for them. Reality may overpower the imagined significance of half-blackness.
I am seeing signs that a battered public is tired of the lies and tired of the economic destruction. It is becoming clear that their man is a con-man, unworthy of their trust. This is a very tough transition for people who thought they were in love and had high hopes for the relationship.
The implementation of Obamacare is going to hurt a massive number of people. For many, it will be the end of the romance. If a significant number of those who thought they loved Obama become immune to his lies, then there is hope for the future.
Bryce Buchanan hosts a blog at www.realitybatslast.com.
Photo credit: terrellaftermath
The New Town Shooting; Kermit Gosnell murders; Benghazi; liberals see these sad events as opportunities to raise money by blaming them on Republicans. Ordinary people would recoil from such conduct, but liberal Democrats are not “ordinary people.”
In the wake of all of these outrages which honest evaluation places totally at their feet, liberals have used them as an opportunity to get “on stage” and parrot the attack de jour on conservatives or merely make one up. It’s anything for a shot of “ink.”
It never matters that the attack isn’t even vaguely rationale; what counts is getting face time and a quote from the sycophantic media. These quotes are then quickly added to fund raising letters designed to feed the hatred of conservatism which is the main sustenance of liberalism.
Commenting on the Newtown shooting former DNC Chairman Ed Rendell said, “The good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side.” The fact that he is despicable for uttering these words means nothing; Mission accomplished – he got his time “on stage” and his fund raising quote. No media lap dog challenged him.
Former Governor Bill Richardson who carries a decidedly Anglo name has said, “[Ted Cruz].. No, I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic.” He got his quote with this ridiculous remark. Mission accomplished.
NARAL spokeswoman Carol E. Tracy publicly blamed PRO LIFERS for Kermit Gosnell’s murders. She got some great ink for NARAL and that was all that counted.
Then there is Hillary Clinton’s famous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” dismissal of any value to getting to the bottom of the Benghazi murders. The implication was that doing so is unimportant compared to the sanctity of liberal policies.
Liberal Democrat Congressman, Steve Cohen of Tennessee said, “Tea Party Republicans are the ‘Domestic Enemies’ we took an oath to defend against.” He got his fund raiser quote; no one asked him any follow up questions, so it’s all good.
Florida Democrat Alan Grayson used a KKK style burning cross to spell TEA Party” in his latest hate filled fund raising letter. Again there was not a word of condemnation from the Democrat controlled media. He got his quotes and that’s what mattered. That’s always the only thing that matters.
Photo Credit: Standard Compliant
The National Security Agency (NSA) cannot spy on anyone, friend or foe, unless its activities are authorized by the White House. In short, for the low information voter, Barack Obama had to order it.
Feeling betrayed by a nation she considered a good friend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is very upset that the United States monitored her personal cell phone. Germany has had a long history of sharing information and intelligence with the United States. Allies obviously need a high level of trust in each other. The revelation that Obama’s NSA was spying on NATO ally leaders has dealt a serious blow to that necessary trust.
In addition to being thoroughly unacceptable and in exceptionally poor taste, Obama’s actions may well lead to the dissolution of NATO. European leaders have understandably lost trust in Obama. But don’t look for the mainstream press to report that fact.
Obama is possessed of a strong anti-colonial upbringing. It was first noted when he unceremoniously returned a bust of Winston Churchill loaned by the British to President Bush after 9-11. Obama was classless enough to send it back with a “no thank you” note! By spying on world leaders, he likely seeks to drive a wedge between the United States and her allies. It is his loutish way to fulfill the dream of his true father, Frank Marshal Davis, to get even with the former colonial powers and put the United States in its place. The world’s trust in its greatest nation has been compromised, precisely what Barack Obama hoped to accomplish.
The latest revelations by Edward Snowden have seriously compromised Mr. Obama’s Spite House relationship with foreign leaders. It is highly probable that the private phone numbers of these individuals were provided to the NSA by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Collecting information on American citizens and allied leaders is a waste of time for an agency that is supposed to be protecting this country from external threats. After all, the current concern of the Intelligence community is that Snowden has documents detailing secret cooperation between belligerent nations. American officials don’t know what documents Snowden has, but they are concerned with what hasn’t yet shown up on WikiLeaks.
In a statement aimed at Obama, Chancellor Merkel said “I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.” Remember that American Intelligence Agencies cannot do a thing unless they have been authorized or ordered by the President. Obama owns this latest example of corrupt and boorish behavior lock, stock, and barrel.
Photo credit: waif69 (Creative Commons)