The Media-Created Myth of Hillary's "Success"

     We live in an age where truth is malleable, like a ball of Silly Putty. On both the Left and the Right, the truth seems to be subject to the advancement of an agenda by the political ideology that is proffering it. The most recent and glaring example of this phenomenon is the media's reaction to Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House committee on the Benghazi affair last week. Had one not watched the hearing and just relied on the media for analysis, one would have thought there was no there there, and that former Secretary of State Clinton made mince meat of the Republican's case against her, while enjoying all the Democrat members of the committee act as her defense team.
     I wonder how many of the political media pundits on either side of the aisle actually watched the hearings, or simply made their analysis based on the narrative being advanced by the rest of the pro-Hilary media? If in fact they watched the hearings and were not troubled by what was revealed, then either they are in full Hillary defense mode, or they have no moral compass to guide them. For Hillary Clinton's glib and rambling responses that represented the best in circumlocution to be considered an apt defense of her actions or inactions is ludicrous.
     For those who are not swayed by presentation over substance, it was more than just a little troubling that Ambassador Stevens, who was so brutally murdered along with three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 by terrorists, had sent over 600 emails to Secretary Clinton asking for beefier security in the days and weeks before the attack. It is incredulous that, as former Secretary Clinton purposed, she did not see any of Ambassador Steven's emails and that they all went to underlings. If true, then I see nothing that would preclude the legitimacy of a charge of gross incompetence against Mrs. Clinton.
     Of course one of the most disturbing aspects of the hearings is the evidence produced that supported what we knew directly after the attacks, i.e. that Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration deliberately engaged in a bald-faced lie about the attacks being a spontaneous demonstration inspired by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. But what has been missed is the illegal act perpetrated by Hillary Clinton in telling her daughter about the attacks the night of the attacks. This breach of not only protocol, but the law governing the handling of classified information, was not even given a second look by most of the media. It was the same kind of actions that placed General Petraeus in so much hot water.
     And then there is the lie itself perpetrated by the Secretary of State of an administration that had been downright braggadocios about the retreating influence of terrorism in the Middle East under its watch. A false narrative advanced in the face of a challenging re-election campaign, made even more so by an economy in the depths of mediocrity after more than 3 years into a supposed recovery. The administration could not win re-election if the American people knew the truth about the groundswell of terrorism growing rapidly, in large part to the very policies and ineptness that were highlighted by last week's hearing.
     Yes, Mrs. Clinton may have done her best impression of her husband wagging his finger at the camera. But for anyone with even a scintilla of fidelity to the truth and morality, there is no escaping her culpability in the deaths of four brave Americans and her deliberate attempt to hide the truth. For those "impressed" with her performance, God help this country if the majority of the electorate is as gullible and ethically out-of-balance as you appear to be.

Real Justice On Benghazi May Have To Wait

     The House select committee to investigate the happenings surrounding four dead Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, has a chairman in the person of former prosecutor and current congressman, Trey Goudy. The committee is comprised of seven Republicants that have already been named, and five Democrats, not yet assigned. In fact the Democrats have been discussing a boycott of the committee, which could spell political suicide if something earth shattering were to be revealed by the investigation. And although the Republicants genuinely want to uncover the truth about those tragic events, one would have to be drowning in a pool of delusion not to admit the political implications for both parties.
     For the House Republicant leadership, who have all but ignored this issue, and given President Obama a pass on many others, it is essential that they are seen as being tough on the administration prior to this November's mid-term elections. The base of the party having been shunned by the establishment, this special Benghazi committee gives the latter a way toward political redemption with the former.
     It is troubling that the appointment of the select committee had to come only after the Ben Rhodes email, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the administration consciously and deliberately concocted the YouTube video story to keep the American public from the truth just weeks before Barack Obama's re-election. The surreal tapestry of lies played out by the administration on television, in press releases, and on the tarmac with the grieving families of the dead being told simultaneously by then Secretary of State Clinton that they were going to "get the film maker who was responsible," and Joe Biden, administration king of crass, telling the parents of dead Seal Ty Woods that their son's testicles were as large as cue balls, was more befitting a Martin Scorsese film than the honor and dignity that once was befitting the highest officials of this great country.
      This would all be disgusting enough, but is made even more so by the fact that the night of the attack, as President Obama hid under the presidential bed, those in charge of the administration's response, or non-response as it were, knew the attack was well orchestrated by terrorists, and had nothing to do with any video. Mrs. Clinton, who was a congressional aid on the Watergate investigation back in the 1970s, famously said that any president that lies to the American people should be forced to resign. It is dubious at best whether or not President Nixon actually lied directly to the American people, he certainly did not go before the United Nations to continue his lie, and there were no dead Americans, including an ambassador, in the wake of Watergate.
      I am not buoyant  about this committee's chances of producing any real outcomes on those in the administration responsible for such an egregious violation of public trust. I fear any repercussions for their abhorrent behavior must wait for a higher prosecutor, not of this world, but of the next. Because before the court of the Almighty there can be no lies, nor mitigating of sins, there is only the truth which convicts the sinners of their transgressions.

Dead Men Tell No Tales, Apparently Neither Does The U.S. Senate

     The bi-partisan senate report on the Benghazi debacle was released this week. And while it stated that the Al Qaeda murder of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three others could have been avoided, it stopped short of assigning any accountability. The report used the political device of blaming agencies like the State Department, as if it were capable of making decisions without any human agency. This is convenient for those humans whose agency is responsible for the operation of such governmental departments.
     Hillary Clinton's name is not present in the report once, which is shocking considering that she was a major player in denying the security needed for embassy personnel, and figured prominently in the cover-up which involved the story about a YouTube video being responsible for the attack. Hillary Clinton's name being conspicuously missing from the report is analogous to leaving out the name of Pontius Pilate in a report about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
     The report further appears to blame the dead ambassador, Chris Stevens, for not making security requests for Benghazi, even after he had done so for Tripoli, the capitol city of Libya. Is it not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to weigh all data available to her, and after concluding that further security is needed, authorize it in spite of what her underlings may say. Hillary Clinton belongs to an ethos which informs its members that they have some divine charter to impose their decisions upon citizens of this country when it comes to everything from health care insurance to light bulbs. But when it comes to executing their jobs as it relates to foreign policy and the safety of those abroad executing it for them, all of the sudden they do not want to take responsibility for making decisions.
     Shame on Senate Republicants on the Intelligence committee who signed off on this report without proper responsibility being assigned to those who, first created the security risk for the attack to occur, and then blatantly lied about the source of the attack being a spontaneous demonstration initiated by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. Why did the report not include President Obama's promise that "justice would be served," and yet a year and a half after the attack Mohsen Al-Azazi, the man known to have masterminded the attack, is free to eat and drink openly in the cafes of Libya, thumbing his nose at the United States of America?
     So often, as is the case with these congressional reports, they serve no other purpose than to make our elected representatives look as though they are doing something other than wasting tax payer dollars. Four Americans, including an ambassador, died because of the deliberate incompetence of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their deaths require not only justice be served against those who orchestrated the actual attack, but also those who created its circumstance, heard the cries for help and turned a callous deaf ear to the men who eventually were horribly murdered, and then lied for weeks afterwards to cover their ideologically-driven incompetence.

The Latest In Barack Obama's Management Of Our Decline

     Since the late 1980s, a law has existed that resulted in the aftermath of the Libyan government-sponsored terrorist attack over Lockerbie, Scotland, which destroyed Pan Am flight 103 and killed almost 300 people in total. The law to which I allude prevents and restricts the immigration of Libyan nationals into the United States with the intent to study or work in the aeronautics industry. This law, which is a cog in the wheel of U.S. national security, is now being assaulted by the Obama administration.
     President Obama and his national security team wish to eliminated any and all restrictions on Libyan nationals immigrating to this country. The reason for the current administration's willingness to put the American people at risk in such a spectacular way is pure hubris. The Obama White House has deemed that it is more important for Americans to believe their actions in Libya have lead to a more tenable situation for the Libyan people and greater stability in the region as a whole, than it is for Americans to surmise that those actions have lead to a destabilization of the Middle East. One can not be sure if the President and his folks actually believe their own deception (sometimes people tell a lie so often they begin to believe it themselves) or if they simply desire that the American people believe it. Either way, out of ignorance or blatant deception, rescinding such an important national security measure could be risky to the continued safety and security of the homeland.
     This is not the first time that President Obama and the college fraternity he calls an administration has tried to pull a cuddly bunny out of the Libyan hat of turmoil and terrorism they helped in part to create. The Attack a little over a year ago that saw ambassador Stevens and three others senselessly murdered by terrorists, occurred as the Obama administration was trying to convince a wary public that the sows ear of the President's Libyan intervention was actually a beautiful silk purse of a democratic society. Hence the lack of security for American diplomats serving in Libya. But the truth is that not all is well in Libya. The people in control are Muslim Brotherhood devotees and children of Al Qaeda.
     The tip of this issue, like so many others, belies hundreds of feet of danger lurking just below the surface, waiting to cause havoc with the U.S. ship of state. Barack Obama's willingness to place this country's national security, fiscal security, and constitutional security at risk to fulfill his radically Leftist agenda never ceases to amaze me. Never has there been a President that has opened so many doors to our enemies, whether out of ignorance or blind devotion to a destructive ideology.
     This latest attempt to place the super power status of the United States on a level playing field with our enemies, comes on the heels of President Obama removing missile defense from Poland and Czechoslovakia, ignoring Iran's leaps towards becoming nuclear-tipped, allowing the Russians to bail out Bashar Al Assad in Syria, reducing our nuclear weapons arsenal by more than half, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and its splinter groups of terrorists controlling more of the strategically important Middle East, and on and on, almost ad infinitum. We ignore the deliberate attempt to manage America's decline by this President at our own risk, or worse yet, we accept as incompetence an ideologically driven strategy to place the United States on equal footing with those who are vehemently opposed to the values of liberty and freedom upon which this country was founded. 

The Habit Of The Creature

     There have been many who have suggested that much analysis of the events surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is pure speculation. And that may be true. But as was a popular Democrat refrain shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, one should be able to connect the dots to get an accurate picture from the available information. Using the same process, we can  flesh out the actions and non-actions of the Obama administration by connecting the dots of what we know to be concrete in order to add substance to those areas which may not be as hardened with facts.
     What we do know is that the consulate was attacked by an Al Qaeda-style group, four Americans including our Ambassador were killed and the Obama administration deliberately mischaracterized the attack as a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. We also know that Hillary Clinton received a call from Gregory Hicks, second in command of the U.S. diplomatic core in Libya, at 8:00pm Washington time on the night of the attack. Mr. Hicks told then Secretary Clinton that the Benghazi consulate was under attack by terrorists and he feared Ambassador Stevens had been captured by local Al Qaeda operatives. And further, we know from the official record, that Hillary Clinton spoke to President Obama at 10:00pm Washington time and it was shortly thereafter that the media reported that the attack was the result of a protest spurred by the video.
     It was convenient for the Obama administration that there was an actual protest of the anti-Muslim YouTube video in Cairo, Egypt, instigated by U.S. embassy personnel there apologizing for the video before any Muslims were even aware of its existence. Thereby informing Muslim radicals that they should be offended by it. We may never know if President Obama ordered the preemptive apology, but he is responsible for the ethos which spawned it. The classical definition of which is, "the habit of a creature in its place." The habit of the Obama administration creature is to hold American exceptionalism responsible for the bad behavior of every anti-social in the world and to apologize for that very exceptionalism. Just as it is the habit of the Obama administration creature to think of conservative groups like the Tea Party as enemies of the state worthy of special attention by government agencies like the IRS.
     Aristotle talked about the immediate cause and the final cause, e.g., the immediate cause of a sculpture is the tools and stone used to bring it to life, the final cause is the reason for which the thing is done. The immediate cause of Benghazi and the other Obama administration scandals recently coming into public view, are the events themselves. The final cause is the ideology and world view of Barack Obama who, like the creature in its place, creates the ethos or habit of anti-Americanism abroad and corruption at home.
       

The Bizarro World Of Barack Obama

     In an issue of Superman comic, the caped crusader enters a bizarro world where everything is the opposite of reality in the real world. In this bizarro world, up is down, black is white and truth is fiction. Watching the Obama administration over the last four plus years has been analogous to entering a bizarro world. Never more so than watching a delusional President Obama struggling through his press conference yesterday. The president, if he actually believes what he said, is worthy of psychological study as a severely delusional person, or he is just a pathological liar.
     When President Obama was asked about the Benghazi terrorist attack last September 11, I am surprised he did not say, "What attack?" I half expected the president to deny that any Americans were killed in Benghazi, and that he had just had lunch with the deceased Ambassador Stevens a few days ago. When asked about crucial emails, which not only contradicted the administration's version of events, but showed a deliberate attempt to lie to the American people, the president said there was no there there. He said no emails would be forthcoming because they were already shared with Congress months ago. The truth is that the emails were viewed by Congressional members investigating the attack, but they were not allowed to copy them or leave a guarded room with the information. This is why the request for the administration to release the emails was made by Darrell Issa's committee. So the president was a little disingenuous when he made the statement that emails were "turned over" to congress. Common sense would inform a rational person that if Congress had the emails already, the request for them would not have been necessary. But in the bizarro world of Barack Obama, his administration shows cooperation simply by saying they are cooperating.
     President Obama took viewers of his press conference into his bizarro world again when he said that Susan Rice was speaking from the information the administration knew at the time when she went on the Sunday shows five days after the attack and stated that it was a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. We know from the testimony last week of Gregory Hicks, the number two diplomat in Libya under Ambassador Stevens, that the administration knew from the start that the attack was pre-planned and orchestrated by an Al Qaeda-style terrorist group. Besides, President Obama proffered the video lie several times in his speech to the United Nations a full two weeks after the attack, which even by the administration's timeline, places it well after they knew it was a terrorist attack and not in response to a video. And the President's spokeskid, James Carney, was publicly blaming the video for the attack months later.
     One of the most effective characteristics of any leader is being tethered to reality and willing to accept responsibility for solutions to problems. An illustration of this point is how Tylenol handled the tampering of their product which lead to several deaths back in the 1980s. They admitted what happened, recalled all their outstanding product and developed the first tamper-resistant cap for their medications. If Barack Obama had been in charge of Tylenol, he would have denied that the company even made any medications, and of course blamed the deaths on Republicants. Such is the dangerous foolishness that we must now suffer as a result of so many voters who willingly inhabit the bizarro world of Barack Obama.
    

Hope Springs Eternal From Benghazi Hearings

     As State Department employees, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom testified before Congressman Darrell Issa's House Oversight committee, I felt hopeful about our country's future. The hope I felt watching these brave Americans testify to the truth in their hearts mitigated some of the hopelessness I have felt since Barack Obama hi-jacked the constitutional position that the voters entrusted to him a little over four years ago. The hope did not reside in any foolish optimism that those at the highest level of our government would finally be held accountable for the uncontested terrorist attack that led to four dead Americans. Nor did the hope I felt reveal itself in some knowledge that Hillary Clinton's complete incompetence and her resulting dishonesty would somehow destroy her worthiness to run for the office of President of the United States of America, as it should. I would not be surprised if the growing number of low to no information voters in this country ensured her election in 2016.
     The hope that I felt was in the bravery and courage of Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom to place the pursuit of truth above their own careers. Mr. Hicks has already suffered a severe demotion for even daring to question his superiors and walk hand-in-hand with honesty. The others will be dealt with likewise by an administration which greedily rewards its friends and supporters and severely punishes its detractors and those who dare to be independent soldiers in the army of truth and honor. The courage shown by these great Americans is rarely seen at all in this administration, which sees truth and fidelity to ethics as commodities which can be traded and sold when political benefit trumps the sacred oath they have taken to protect the American people.
     I felt the pain in Gregory Hicks' heart that was given voice by his opening statement, a statement that was an unlabeled rebuke of Hillary Clinton's statement in January when she indignantly shouted, "What difference, at this point, does it make." Mr. Hicks told his former boss, and anyone else who was listening, that four Americans who were left to die by the current administration made a difference to him and his colleagues at the State Department who still embodied honor and integrity. It makes a difference, Mr. Hicks continued, to the family and friends of the four who were senselessly murdered. And finally, it makes a difference to the American people, whose sacred trust was given to those who employed callousness of heart when they placed politics over the lives of those serving the people of this great nation.
     In the charred remains of the constitution that is the current administration, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom are the struggling green shoots of traditional American values breathed to life by the constitution, made strong by a people with an indelible thirst for liberty, and lately trampled upon by Leftists who use the people's government to the selfish end of increasing their own political power. If we are taking bets, mine are with the struggling shoots that revealed themselves this week in the men of honor named Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom.

Benghazi Revisted

     The terrorist attack, most probably an Al Queda operation, that took the lives of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans last September 11, was in fact one of the worst deliberate failures of an administration in recent history. And tomorrow when Republicant Darrell Issa's House oversight committee engages in another round of questioning officials with intimate knowledge of the attack, it is almost certain they will proffer no new information. That is why I do not harbor any anticipation that State Department employees, Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson and Eric Nordstrom will sink the Obama ship of fools with their testimony.
     The "revelations" from these whistle blowers that have leaked out prior to their testimony are all things that have been known from the start. Like the fact that there was inadequate security for our diplomats in Benghazi, even after repeated requests from Ambassador Stevens. And that President Obama learned of the attack 5 pm Washington time on September 11, 2012 in the course of a regular meeting with then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. He told Secretary Panetta and Secretary Clinton to handle it, he then disappeared and to this day his whereabouts during the attack are unknown. We also know that Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom, along with other State Department employees, knew that U.N Ambassador Susan Rice was telling a huge whopper of a lie when she went on the Sunday shows days after the incident and said the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration prompted by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. A lie, by the way, that the entire administration, including the President himself, told Americans constantly for two weeks following the attack. President Obama and Secretary Clinton even appeared in a public service announcement that aired in Pakistan that apologized for the American value of free speech and repeated the YouTube video lie.
     The cover-up of the truth about Benghazi was unraveling from the start when the Libyan President was contradicted by Ambassador Rice when he said they knew the attack was a planned terrorist operation instigated by Al Queda, and not the result of some video. The Libyan president was so angered by the slight that he delayed FBI access to investigate the scene of the attack, leading to a less thorough investigation as a result of evidence being disturbed or destroyed. The reason for the clumsily constructed cover-up was so that the Obama re-election effort could continue to claim that Al Queada was in decline with the death of Osama Bin Laden. And it worked, the President was re-elected and the American public did not seem to mind the obvious and blatant lie told about Benghazi.
     Many conservatives have hung much hope on the Issa hearings as a way to neuter or even destroy the Obama presidency. But I am not holding my breath and would be surprised if anything more than a few low to mid-level State Department employees lost their jobs as a result. The reason for my pessimism is the public's demonstrated apathy over this issue and the main stream media's collusion with the Obama administration to continue the cover-up, no matter how far down the sewer of journalistic integrity they have to sink.

The Difference It Makes

     The Hillary Clinton love-fest, disguised as a Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, was illustrative of the unwillingness of politicians on either side of the isle to hold one of their own accountable. For a majority of the hearing, we heard from various senators how courageous Hillary Clinton was and how well she had served her country. This, of course, is how every politician wishes to be seen, as a selfless public servant who sacrifices for the benefit of the little people in the country. In Hillary Clinton's case, nothing could be further from the truth.
     During her remarks, Hillary recounted the story about how she met the flag-draped coffins returning from Benghazi and comforted grieving family members. It was such a moving experience that Mrs. Clinton started to cry during her retelling of it. The only problem is that it never happened the way Secretary Clinton said it did. Family members in attendance say that Mrs. Clinton was cold and aloof, and one of the parents of a murdered American said Hillary wouldn't even make eye contact. This is not the first time that Mrs. Clinton stretched the truth and revised history in order to make herself look better than she is. Remember the story she told during the 2008 campaign about having to duck gunfire when she visited a war zone as first lady? That never happened either, but truth and facts don't stop her from trying to bestow upon herself the honor, dignity and courage that she doesn't otherwise warrant from her actions.
     Secretary of State Clinton did receive a few tough questions, most notably one from Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. Senator Johnson asked Secretary Clinton the sixty four thousand dollar question about the attack not being characterized as an Al Queda operation until much later, when it was known all along that it wasn't the result of a protest. Mrs. Clinton mustered her best manufactured outrage and almost screamed, "What difference does it make now?" She even went so far as to boldly and blatantly lie when she stated that she never claimed the attack was executed by anyone other than militant extremists. There is at least two weeks of video and audio evidence of Hillary Clinton blaming the attack on a protest inspired by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. In fact, the Secretary of State and President Obama made a TV commercial that ran in Pakistan which blamed the video for the attack. And one more factoid of interest on this subject, Hillary told one of the fathers whose son was murdered in Benghazi that they would bring to justice the film maker responsible for this tragedy.
     But for a few exceptions, the Senators questioning Secretary Clinton gave her a pass on her culpability for the terrorist attack in Benghazi this past September 11. She herself said that a a review board put the blame squarely on lower level State Department employees. It is ironic how Democrats have screamed since the 2008 financial crisis about holding accountable the CEOs of these large banks and financial institutions, but when they are at the helm of a large organization, it's always the underlings that are at fault for any mistakes. Make no error in analysis, Hillary Clinton knew of the dangers in Benghazi as illuminated by Ambassador Steven's cables, and in her Leftist arrogance decided not to provide adequate security for U.S. personnel serving in a war zone. Then she lied for several weeks about the impetus for the attack. Yes, Mrs. Clinton, it does make a difference and the fact that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that difference shows how utterly unqualified and untrustworthy you are to be anywhere near the sacred trust of government. The difference it makes is the difference between responsible and culpable government and the incompetent and unaccountable government you have been a part of the last four years.

A Rice Pretzel

     It's an upside down time in which we live where a highly decorated general like David Petraeus, who has spent the better part of 40 years serving his country, must retire in shame as the result of an affair, but Susan Rice, who purposely deceived the country about the deaths of four Americans, is being considered for a promotion. After all, didn't the left try to make the case that an affair was a private matter when they defended Bill Clinton during his many dalliances? 
     Republican senators Phil Graham, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte met with UN ambassador Susan Rice yesterday to discuss her role in the Benghazi cover-up. The result of the meeting was best summed up by Senator Graham, who said he was more disturbed after the meeting than he had been before. As well he should have been. Ms. Rice twisted herself into a pretzel trying to explain why she lied when she appeared on 5 Sunday shows after the terrorist attack on September 11 in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.
     Ambassador Rice claims that her statements in the days following the attacks were guided by the official talking points disseminated by the intelligence community. But according to the testimony of former CIA Director, David Petraeus, the intelligence community knew almost immediately that the attacks were a result of planned terrorism and not, as Ms. Rice said on the Sunday shows, a spontaneous demonstration as a result of an anti-Muslim YouTube video. Mr. Petraeus also testified that the official talking points that were distributed by the CIA reflected the terrorism angle and nothing was said about the video.
     And therein lies the rub. The White House claims that someone changed the talking points and removed the reference to terrorism and inserted the claim about the video being responsible for the attack. It just isn't believable that the talking points from the CIA would have been changed without the knowledge of the President and his senior staff, including Ms Rice. It is also not feasible that when Mr. Petraeus saw the changed talking points, he would not have tried to correct the inaccurate information. This would have taken place before Ms. Rice appeared on the Sunday shows and purposely disseminated the lies about the video.
     There are many unanswered questions about the biggest foreign policy disaster in recent memory. One thing is clear, the administration, including Ms. Rice, engaged in a cover-up to hide the truth from the American people that Al Queda is resurgent and is not on the run as the President has said. There is no more obvious lie in American politics than the Benghazi cover-up, and oddly enough there is no greater lack of interest in the truth than there is by the main stream media and the left. In response to the absurd twisted defense of Ms. Rice's lies in recent days from the media, all I can say is, "These pretzels are making me thirsty."

Click here to watch my latest political song parody. Posted November 26, 2012.

Don't Expect Much From Petraeus Testimony

     Today is the day that the now disgraced former Director of Central Intelligence, David Petraeus, will testify about the Benghazi affair. It has been made clear that there will be no talk of the other more salacious affair that has come to light in recent days. The testimony will proceed behind closed doors, for reasons that aren't exactly clear. Many on the right are hoping for a bombshell testimony from Mr. Petraeus, that at most will lead to the removal of Barrack Obama as President, and at the least will neuter the President's second term.
     I hate to put a crimp in any one's optimism, but I highly doubt either of the two aforementioned scenarios will come to fruition. Acting Director of Central Intelligence, John McLaughlin, has already held the administration's line on Benghazi, and I don't expect the former director to do any different. Many on the right think General Petraeus will recant his previous statements, made shortly after the attacks, that they were a spontaneous riot in reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. It seems that the administration's story now is that when they said the attacks were in response to the video, they were telling the truth based on the intelligence they had at the time. I would be very surprised if the former CIA Director made any testimony to dispute this story. Especially in light of the fact that it would have been his agency that provided the bulk of the "faulty" intelligence.
     Another reason I don't think David Petraeus will stray to far off the administrations plantation, is he doesn't want his personal life to be thrown into anymore turmoil. He knows, I would venture to say better than most, the power that the administration has to instruct the FBI to conduct searches of his and his family's homes. The image of the FBI carrying boxes and computers out of the former Director's house would destroy any shreds of a reputation that he has left. The administration also has both the ability and the inclination to alter or eliminate completely the former General's pension. He knows that as bad as things may be for him and his family at this time, the administration can easily make his current problems seem like a few ants at a picnic in comparison.
     With the administration controlling most of the levers of power, I wouldn't expect the Benghazi affair to result in anything more than a few resignations and some hand-wringing about changing procedures to avoid a repeat of such an event in the future. This may sound cynical, but I've learned not to expect much truth and justice in the new American way that exists in the age of Obama.

Click here to watch my political song parodies.

Questions Linger On Benghazi

     The terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three others on September 11th of this year, has been talked about and written about to the extent that the subject has filled a large part of our collective public discourse over that period. But for all that discussion, we still do not know the truth. It's not so much the facts about the actual attack, but rather remaining questions about the administration's action and inaction that are the unknown aspects of this story.
     What has been brought to light by the House Intelligence Committee, is the existence of a security video that shows the attack on our consulate. The video makes clear that there was no demonstration and the attack was executed by a group of well-armed, well-organized terrorists. The video would tend to contradict the administration's immediate characterization of the attack as a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim You Tube video. The larger question is not so much why the administration mislead the American people for two weeks after the attack, but when did they see the events recorded on this video?
     Clare Lopez, former CIA operations officer, makes the startling assertion that the real time live feed from Benghazi would have been watched by the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House as the attacks occurred. This, Ms. Lopez claims, would have been standard operating procedure for such an event. If Ms. Lopez's assessment is correct, two conclusions are clear. First, that multiple members of the administration witnessed the attacks in real time and knew the truth from the outset. And secondly, members of the administration sat by and took no actions that may have saved the lives of Ambassador Stevens and the others.
     The attack in Benghazi proceeded for an agonizing 6 hours. The U.S. has three military bases within a couple of hours of the attack site, one only half an hour away. One has to question why a rapid response team was not sent to Benghazi to secure the compound. The dots can easily be connected linking President Obama's ideology to any decision made to not protect a U.S. consulate with an armed military unit designed specifically for the task. Knowing that the President has a disdain for projecting American military strength, it is clear that he felt defending American lives in Benghazi would have been too provocative. But if the President understood our enemies and the nature of geopolitical relationships, he would know that not defending our interest, here or abroad, is a sign of weakness and an open invitation for similar attacks as the one in Benghazi.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

The Lessons of Benghazi

     Last week at a press conference, Hillary Clinton made an odd statement. She said that they still don't know what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of this year when our consulate was attacked and our ambassador and three others were murdered. Mrs. Clinton, along with the rest of the administration must not watch or read any news, if they did, clarity about the events in Benghazi would be theirs. Everyone else in the world, besides the Obama administration, seems to understand that terrorists planned and executed an attack against America, committing the previously mentioned murders. The President of Libya, Mohammed Magarief, knew the facts of the assault within 24 hours after it happened, and stated so on world-wide media.
     Whether Hillary Clinton is being honest, or she is knowingly participating in the White House cover-up about Libya, one thing is clear, i.e. our enemies know what happened and what it means. They know that American targets, especially overseas, will not be properly securitized and will be vulnerable to attack. They further understand that once an attack is planned and executed, the current American leadership will find a way to blame it on their own country. And lastly, our enemies know that there will be no consequences to killing Americans. These lessons, being taught to our enemies by the Obama administration, embolden not only the enemies of the United States, but the enemies of free people everywhere.
     Abraham Lincoln called America, "The last best hope of man on earth." That statement is never so true as it is right now in history. No where else in the world are the values of individualism and personal liberty still a guiding principle. Even with the current bloated government, when people around the world want to escape tyranny and oppression and live a life of opportunity, they set their eyes on America. There is something I read once about a "gates test." That is if you raise the imaginary gates around any country, do people rush in or rush out. If the values of our founding documents are lost to history, the United States and the world will fall into an age of darkness and oppression.
     That is why it is so important for the United States to be a force for good in the world, and to provide strong, un-equivocating leadership based on the principles of our founders. If we fail at this time in history, we fail not only ourselves and the current people of the world, but our founding fathers and every man of conscience that has taken up the cause of freedom throughout history.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

Why Presidential Daily Briefings Matter

     Last month it was reported by multiple media outlets that President Obama attends fewer than half of his daily intelligence briefings. He chose instead to scan the talking points of the meetings. At the time we told by White House spokeskid, Jay Carney, that President Obama is, "The most sophisticated consumer of intelligence on the planet and he doesn't need to attend all the briefings in person."  We also learned in last night's vice-presidential debate that the President and Vice-President didn't know of any request for additional security from our diplomats on the ground in Libya. As we all now know, that diplomatic outpost was attacked on September 11 of this year by Al Queda, which resulted in the deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans.
     Also this week, State Department officials testified before the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican Darrell Issa. We learned two bits of information: 1) That there were numerous requests for increased security in Libya from our Ambassador (the requests went unanswered) and 2) The State Department never issued any intelligence at any time that stated the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Muslim video. The Obama administration in the persons of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and even the President himself advanced the "protests spurred by the video" angle for up to two weeks after the incident. The Libyan President said the attacks were perpetrated by terrorists and had nothing to do with any video. He said this within 24 hours after the attacks. The administration engaged in the video lie so they could continue to advance the narrative that since Osama Bin Laden was dead, so was Al Queda. When they were recently caught in their lie, they blamed their public assertions about the video on faulty intelligence, which the State Department now says they never gave.
     If Vice-President Biden is to be believed, which is in serious doubt after his debate performance last night, the administration didn't know what was going on in it's own State Department with regards to such a volatile country as Libya and that President Obama's own ambassador there had requested increased security more than once. This is why it is essential for the President, who is the Commander in Chief with people he has put in harm's way, to attend the daily briefings. By not attending his briefings he has shown he has no desire to execute the primary duty of his office, the national security of this country. I just hope the voters next month relieve him of that duty he finds so burdensome.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

The Secret Mission of Ambassador Stevens

     When the U.S. consulate was attacked in Libya on September 11, leading to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration engaged in diversionary tactics for over a week. At first, their tactics were assumed to be a cover-up for their incompetence in providing the Ambassador and others with the proper security. They blamed spontaneous attacks, instigated by an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video. It wasn't long before the truth was known, that the attacks were pre-planned by Al Queda and that the administration knew this even as they continued to blame the video. Then CNN found Ambassador Stevens' journal among the rubble in Benghazi. The journal showed that the Ambassador had security concerns and probably expressed those concerns to the administration.
     Recent documents unearth in Benghazi tell a story of an even greater sin committed by the Obama administration than incompetence. These newly discovered documents suggest that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on a mission to track and confiscate weapons that the administration had put in the hands of Al Queda when they thought they were arming the Libyan rebels. If it was discovered that the Obama administration had armed Al Queda, it would have been a double whammy for the White House. First, it would have completely destroyed the narrative advanced by the administration that Al Queda had been neutered with the  death of Osama Bin Laden. And secondly, the specter of an administration that is so feckless as to arm our enemies, is not the impression you want the American people to have in their minds as they go to the voting booth in November.
     The administration did not want to draw attention to Ambassador Stevens' secret mission, so they gave him only the most basic security detail. When the Ambassador realized that the mission had become more dangerous, he requested more security. Unfortunately, for the ambassador and the others, the administration ignored his requests. This, of course, was deadly for Ambassador Stevens and his people. The greater realization is that the Obama administration thought so little of American lives when they weighed them against their own political fortunes. The President, with his actions, made his re-election a priority over the lives of those who serve him. Then he called their deaths, "A bump in the road". I wonder how many more "bumps" will be forthcoming in the weeks before the election.

Click here to check out my political song parodies.

The Arrogance of the Propagandist

     It has been three weeks since the terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in the middle east which left our Libyan ambassador and three others dead. Since then, we have learned that the administration knew the attacks were pre-planned by Al Qeada within 24 hours of the incident, and that Ambassador Stevens had expressed security concerns prior to the attacks. Nothing was done to beef-up security or to mitigate the effects of such attacks. The President, as recently as last week, was still blaming an obscure anti-Muslim video on YouTube for the attacks and proffering the narrative that the attacks were spontaneous. This kind of blind arrogance, that they could subjugate the truth to their own propaganda, has been the modus operandi of an administration and a President that has employed the tactics of all authoritarian leaders.
     I like to call it, "The Arrogance of the Propagandist." They have used the same tactic with everything they have done, from health care to their campaign to win re-election. They believe that, with their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, they can control the flow of information to the masses. This is the driving force behind their demonization of anyone who disagrees with them or that report facts that don't support their agenda. It is this arrogance which recently allowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to accuse Mitt Romney of paying no income tax for the last ten years. Even after Governor Romeny's tax returns were released and exposed Senator Reid's lie, he continued to engage in the deception. This kind of outright deception has been a favorite tactic of the left for decades. From the revision of history that casts the Democrat KKK as being a right-wing organization to the sanitising of history of the fact that the Jim Crow laws in the segregationist south were the handiwork of Democrat politicians.
     This arrogance has been fed by the left's control of the media, which up until 20 years ago, was a monopoly. And even with the advent of talk radio, the Internet and Fox News, they still believe they have a media monopoly. That is why they try so hard to marginalize the sources of balanced news, making some people believe that they are radical outliers. They never debate the substance of the news and commentary that flows from the alternative media, they only demonize and personally attack its practitioners.
     Which brings me back to the terrorist attacks of three weeks ago. It is frightening enough to me the ease with which the administration deliberately lied to gain a political advantage. By blaming the attacks on a video made by a Christain filmmaker, the administration was hoping to make the link in peoples minds between the filmmaker and Conservatives. What is more frightening is the arrogance of the President to keep lying, even after the Libyan President, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and many in the mainstream media said the attacks were pre-planned and had nothing to do some obscure video. I dare say, the emperor has no clothes.