Benghazi black hole

Not much has changed since these clips.

Oh, “the kind of insanity we’re dealing with.”


The outrage goes on. Boehner, complicit or just complacent?

Did CIA’s Mike Morell Lie Under Oath About Changing the Benghazi Talking Points?

April 2, 2014

After former acting CIA Director Mike Morell testified to the House Intelligence Committee that he is the one who changed the Benghazi talking points, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) renewed her call for a select committee to investigate the attack. She suggested that Morell either lied to senators shortly after the attack, or lied during his testimony today.

4 Dead in Benghazi
“Should have been done long ago.”
“How can you run when you know?”

What will it take?
 

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor

Published: 15:09 EST, 22 April 201 | Daily Mail UK

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

More: Dailymail.co.UK
 

Hillary Clinton Cancels Appearance Where Benghazi Victim’s Mom, Protestors Await

April 4, 2014

Hillary Clinton was the planned keynote speaker at the 17th Annual Western Healthcare Leadership Academy in San Diego on April 11 – but she’s cancelled her visit in the midst of planned protests from San Diego locals and military families.

Protestors organized by “The Difference Matters” do not want the former U.S. Secretary of State to come because of Clinton’s role in the Benghazi scandal.


What difference, at this point, does it make?”
How can you run when you know?

Can We Talk ?

Some things need to be said but the right people are not always listening.

I was commenting on Necessary and Proper Gov’t and saw things that inspired this. The subject there was the shape conservatives are in, and where it’s going. And Jeff suggested a David Horowitz article. It’s fairly long but if you check it out, you won’t be disappointed. Horowitz always brings a good perspective few others do.

David says it is time for a different dialogue. I agree. Some on the right mean well in zealously arguing for conservative ideas. That’s fine, but is it enough? I don’t think so, not even close. Here’s a hint, I know many conservatives get in the trenches and actually read articles. But Progressives do things different. Talking points are spoon fed to the left, from the top,  so Libs don’t have to read or decide.

We are up against a talking point battle. The public often only hears soundbites. It’s not their fault that is the way politics are on the left. Like Horowitz said: we hear about the war on women, on the poor, racism etc. It doesn’t matter that it is not true, people hear those soundbites  and Democrats  repeat them like parrots. Sure we are tired of hearing them. If you hear it, then other people hear it too. You have to know your enemy.

Long arguments are nice but don’t win the war. They have no impact on the Left.  No one except maybe loyal conservatives reads them. And this battle is a political campaign not a dissertation. I’m convinced we must boil concepts down to simple terms. Also, as Horowitz says, our tactics must change.

Who is going to take the time to read arguments, the liberals we are trying to convince? That ain’t going to happen. Liberals try not to read conservatives. On Townhall, they bash away without even reading it, or maybe a few lines just to aim their talking points at. We give them too much credit thinking logic and reason will work on them. What does work are political campaign soundbites.  That someone will convince them is an overrated goal. They do hear soundbites because that’s what everyone hears.

The problem, as Horowitz states it, is conservatives talk in business language. My idea is to use some biz-lingo on our leaders. Tell Boehner and McConnell to ‘listen up’:

We decided your services are no longer needed. Nothing personal… no, actually it is personal. Your job has been eliminated. The decision is final. That is the job as you define it, doing your own thing doesn’t cut it. You fashion yourselves as deal-makers but guess what, fellas? In case you hadn’t noticed, there is no one out there to make deals with. Do you see anyone? Progressives don’t deal. If they want to they know where to find us.

If an opportunity did come up, there are others capable of making a deal. You have become obsolete. We’re going in a different direction and your particular services are not part of that paradigm. Now if you want to stay on in some reduced capacity, then you will have to get with the program. The old way of operating is  over, do you understand? Form follows function now. This movement is much bigger than you guys and your silos.

This  is inevitable in business. Do you want to be a team player or freelance? Your choice. But if it’s doing your own thing… there’s the door. If you think you can handle being on the team, then its going to be a lot different than you are used to. This is not a top down thing. You guys aren’t our boss, quite the opposite. Your positions, as you know them, have been eliminated. Got it? And we’re not going back to that “business as usual” model. This is only the beginning, we’ll keep you informed if you stay on. “

Here’s what else will change: Mitch, you said we are going to crush the Tea Party:

“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” … “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

What’s the “we” stuff?  See, it is just the opposite, there’s a new crew in town — just in case you and Boehner missed the last few elections. I know you were both busy doing your own things. And the guys that stepped up are those Tea Party people. They’re already here.  You don’t talk to the other side that way. We have to “crush” Liberals not the Tea Party, except I don’t hear that spirited passion toward progressives. No one is bigger than everyone else.

If power and self-survival were your motives, bury it now.  Your power is limited by the people, like the rest of the Federal Government.  We stand for unlimited individual opportunity. They are the Party of unlimited government. Our “enemy”, the enemy of the country,  is the other side. And that’s exactly how we’re going to treat them. Progs are the antithesis of freedom and individual opportunity. Are we all clear?

By the way, Mitchster, the reason we are taking such a personal  interest in you is because that is where most of the problems are.

Reference:

Why Republicans Need the Tea Party

The movement provides an answer to the Left.

Teaser:

“You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.”

I endorse attacks and defining progressives for what they are. But Rove or Gingrich frown on “harsh tone” as a ticket to loss. What do they base that on? No one will pay attention to subtle, half-hearted, apologetic critiques just to avoid a harsh tone. The Left is begging to be branded, so give them what they want.

Newt told CPAC:

“If we spend the next three years being primarily anti-Hillary, we will virtually guarantee her election … “ Gingrich said. “To make sure that doesn’t happen, we must stop being the opposition movement, and we must become the alternative government movement that will help make the life of Americans better so that they understand what we would be doing that is right, not just what the left is doing that is wrong.”

We must define the Left. Horowitz knows that as an intellectual. All the right “ideas” don’t get the job done. Amazing, Newt lectured CPAC and the Tea Party on that.

RightRing | Bullright

Russian bear out of hibernation

The cost of stopping the Russian bear now is high—but it will only get higher if the West does nothing

The Economist | Apr 19th 2014


FIRST Vladimir Putin mauled Georgia, but the world forgave him—because Russia was too important to be cut adrift. Then he gobbled up Crimea, but the world accepted it—because Crimea should have been Russian all along. Now he has infiltrated eastern Ukraine, but the world is hesitating—because infiltration is not quite invasion. But if the West does not face up to Mr Putin now, it may find him at its door.

The storming of police stations in eastern Ukraine over the weekend by pro-Russian protesters (see article) is a clever move, for it has put the interim government in Kiev in an impossible position. Mr Putin has warned that Ukraine is on the brink of civil war. If the country’s government fails to take control, it will open itself to charges that it cannot keep order within its own borders. But its soldiers are poorly trained, so in using force (operations were under way as The Economist went to press) it risks escalation and bloodshed. Either way, it loses.

The West has seen Russia brush off its threats and warnings. It looks feeble and divided. Yet, after the destabilization of eastern Ukraine, even doves should grasp that the best chance of stability lies in standing up to Mr Putin, because firmness today is the way to avoid confrontation later.

Red lines and green men

Russia insists that it has played no part in the seizure of towns such as Sloviansk and Gorlivka. This is implausible. The attacks were coordinated, in strategically useful places that had seen few protests. Just as in Crimea six weeks ago, troops in unmarked uniforms and with Russian weapons carried out the initial assaults. Russian agents have turned up in custody and in reporters’ notebooks, organizing the protests and, some say, paying for them. Russia has been meddling in eastern Ukraine for weeks, occasionally with results from the pages of Gogol. On April 6th “local people” stormed what they thought was the regional administrative headquarters in Kharkiv only to find that they had taken control of the opera house.

Russian diplomats counter that they cannot be behind what is going on, because instability in eastern Ukraine is not in Russia’s interests. True, normal countries benefit from peace and prosperity next door. However, mindful of its own claim to power and the outlook for Russia’s stagnant economy, the Kremlin has much to fear from the pro-European demonstrations that toppled Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovych. It appears determined to see the new Ukraine fail.

See more at Economist.com

Instability in Ukraine is not in Russia’s interest? Really. Stand by to watch Ukraine be digested by Russia. If not in ‘name’, then surely by most principles. But the bear is not hibernating.

Flashback (refresher)

Readers here would know early this year I posted on Putin’s elaborate state of the nation address. How strange it sounded even then.

Coverage on Putin’s December, 2013, address:

“Vladimir Putin pointed out the well-known attempts in recent years to impose an allegedly more progressive development model on other countries. But the result was invariably retrogression, barbarity and a high price in blood. On the other hand, the situation around Syria and now around Iran, too, proves that any international problem can and must be settled exclusively through political means, without ever resorting to the use of force, which, the Russian leader is certain, has no future and provokes rejection in a majority of world nations.” VoR

Here is the text of Putin’s remarks:

The Syrian crisis, and now the situation in Iran as well, clearly demonstrate that any international problem can and should be resolved exclusively through political means, without resorting to forceful actions with little potential that are rejected by most nations in the world.”

At the time, it made for a great rhetorical soundbite. Note the words “any” and “exclusively.” I said he was channeling FDR. Some like Pat Buchanan applauded it.

What a difference a few months make. That’s completely at odds with the picture now.

RightRing | Bullright

Unsettled Liberal Hysteria

Charles Krauthammer attacked the “Myth of Settled-Science” and labeled Obama the “propagandist in chief”. Talk about hitting the nail on the head. No wonder Libs try to shut him up, so bad.

But even having their own radical crew in the White House and controlling the Senate, you would think that would pacify liberals. No, it only exacerbates them if they don’t get everything they want. They repeat the term the science is settled and that (any)debate is over. Challenge any of their conclusions and that is what you’ll hear.

In his article, The myth of ‘settled science’, Krauthammer says:

None of this is dispositive. It doesn’t settle the issue. But that’s the point. It mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term “denier” — an echo of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an established historical truth.

But welcome to the alternative reality of the progressive left. As my friend likes to say, they think they can repeal reality. (that’s their stand and their sticking to it.) The funny part is to call their self-labeled political enemies “deniers”. As science teaches it always wants certifiable proof. That should make scientists “deniers” by their nature. And it could make science an institution of denial.

But better than that, think of all the things the Left denies. For a crowd that accepts the “hockey stick” of global warming as a threat, they have an awful lot of denial. Denying Islamists’ agenda, denying effects of Obamacare. They deny the threat of fiscal crisis. They argue against the severity of the fiscal problem, as something that more spending will solve. It is akin to believing carbon is the biggest problem in the world, then calling to double the amount of carbon in ten years. That’s the equivalent. Their answer is always spend more money, it should be no surprise.

Their hysteria is far from settled; it’s fluid and flows in ebbs, but can always escalate at the swat of a fly. It has to outdo the last hysterical outrage. It’s on a collision course with reality. When faced with reality, it snorts and reverts to name-calling and the Alinsky tactics it is known for. It reflexively calls for the power of federal government to oppose their foes and opponents and silence them. It has an incessant dependency on big-government.

What is not settled is Liberal hysteria, its always looking for the next opportunity to be offended. Progressives reactions match or exceed the hysteria.

According to Progressives: “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!”

As Krauthammer says, we want a cleaner environment, and improve efficiency and resources. But the left would gladly prevent our use of resources and anything related, including the XL Pipeline.

Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads. If you whore after other gods, the Bible tells us, “the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit” (Deuteronomy 11).

Obama came out to rail against Republicans in a press conference, and lectured us on strengthening the infrastructure. The next day, the administration announces Kerry and the State Dep. needs more time to study comments on the Keystone XL Pipeline, putting off the decision until after the elections.(5 1/2 years is not enough) All convenient to raising money from outrage, and whooping up Liberal hysteria.

RightRing | Bullright

Fight club, West Wing style

It may be Holy week for everyone else, but for Obama’s West Wing regime it is:
“West Wing Week”: 4/18/14 or, “Pull Together, Fight Back, and Win” – week.

“Fight back”? Against what, non-believers?(in ObamaCare) Translated, “Fight Week”.

“Win”? What is that…. losing the soul of our nation?

But he is a walking talking contradiction and the Hypocrite-in-Chief. Just like he told us, the ACA-Obamacare is working. Wow is it working, too bad the rest of the country isn’t. We don’t like it by a wide majority, but that isn’t a problem for Obama. ‘Don’t let them chew on it, just keep ramming it down their throat and tell them “they like it.”‘

 

Krauthammer: Obama ‘Makes This Stuff Up’ on Obamacare

Friday, 18 Apr 2014 | Newsmax

By Courtney Coren

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer says that President Barack Obama makes stuff up with “brazenness” when he says that Obamacare is working.

Obama said Thursday while appearing in the White House briefing room about the Affordable Care Act that “this thing is working.”

Krauthammer challenged the president’s assertion during an appearance Thursday on Fox News’ “Special Report.”

“Look, it’s working in that it exists. It breathes,” Krauthammer said. “But if it’s hurting the doctor, it’s hurting the hospital, it’s hurting the patient, it’s hurting the economy, it’s going to cost a fortune.”

“I love the way the president says healthcare costs are reduced, as if there is any relationship between a reduction, which occurred during a recession and a healthcare implementation which occurs today,” Krauthammer added.

“So it couldn’t possibly have retroactively affected last year’s numbers. I mean, he makes this stuff up with brazenness that is almost admirable,” The Washington Post columnist said.

“Everybody is getting a worse deal,” Krauthammer said. “If the providers are, that means the doctors aren’t getting their usual payments, which means they have to see much more patients, which means they spend less time, which means the care is inferior, that means they are reimbursed at a lower rate, which means some of them will go out of business.”

Krauthammer added that Republicans shouldn’t back down from going after Obamacare in their midterm election campaigns even if the president is now praising the new healthcare law.

“I think it’s an organ worth playing day and night,” he said. “Which is going to have more affect on the voter — Obama in a press conference in a holiday week throwing out a number, 8 million, which means nothing? Or knowing someone in your family, or you, losing health insurance, having your hours reduced so your employer can call you part-time — losing your job, losing hours — all of this stuff affecting you personally?

“Even if the numbers between the approvers and disapprovers narrows, the intensity of those who oppose it because of real life affects — higher premiums, higher deductibles, narrower networks — that is real stuff,” he said.

“All the other stuff, that is theoretical stuff.”

Newsmax

And the White House sees it as a Chicago street fight.

Media Matters fighting SEIU

Media Matters Forces Secret Ballot Union Election

Lefty org adopts tactics it has decried to stifle workers rights

BY: Bill McMorris | Free Beacon
April 17, 2014 1:53 pm

Leftwing lapdog Media Matters for America is taking advantage of the Republican’s “anti-union” agenda to stonewall the SEIU’s attempt to unionize its staff.

MMFA is forcing its employees to conduct a secret ballot election that will determine whether or not they can join SEIU Local 500, a Maryland union, according to papers filed with the National Labor Relations Board.

The liberal organization, which is headed by Hillary Clinton cheerleader David Brock, has hired management-side labor attorneys at Perkins Coie, a firm that has represented dozens of Democratic candidates and liberal PACs, to oversee the process.

It is unclear why Media Matters did not opt to allow its employees to organize through a card check campaign, in which a union submits signed petitions from employees expressing their interest to join the union. MMFA, its attorneys, and the SEIU did not return requests for comment.

Media Matters has a long record of slamming Republicans and conservatives who want to protect secret ballot union elections.

The organization published multiple pieces celebrating the Democrat’s so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize through card check campaigns and prevent employers from forcing a secret ballot election.

Media Matters researcher Meagan Hatcher-Mays took to the organization’s blog to criticize “a wave of Republican anti-union legislation [that] has placed obstacles between workers and union representatives and disrupted opportunities for workplace productivity.”

Hatcher-Mays cited a Wall Street Journal editorial that noted card check campaigns are far more likely to produce union victories than secret ballot elections.

The Journal’s “characterization of the card check process as a ‘deceptive procedure,’ is wholly misleading. Research shows that secret ballot elections, which the WSJ suggests are somehow more equitable than card checks, are deeply flawed,” Hatcher-Mays wrote.

Liberal writers criticized Media Matters for refusing to allow a card check campaign. Nick Baumann, a writer at Mother Jones, which is unionized by the Teamsters, tweeted out his support of workers on Thursday.

“Lefty orgs should walk the walk,” he said.

Labor watchdogs, including Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Union Facts, slammed the perceived hypocrisy of Media Matters.

“One can only laugh at the number of ironies and hypocrisies in this situation,” he said in a statement. “It epitomizes the ‘not in my backyard’ complex that is also shown by unions themselves.”

Media Matters treatment of the SEIU undermines the pro-union rhetoric peppered on its website, according to Berman.

“Actions always speak louder than words, and what Media Matters’ actions show is that maybe unions aren’t that great after all,” he said.

When the Left starts to cannibalize themselves, get out of their way.

Follow the money

Joel Osteen’s church theft opens can of worms: Jaws drop as folks do the math

Roz Zurko | March 18, 2014 | Examiner

Joel Osteen recently reported the theft of $600,000 from the safe in his church, but the theft wasn’t the only information of interest revealed. After finding out that this large chunk of money was from just one weekend of Osteen’s collected church donations, jaws dropped around the nation.

According to News Max on March 18, it didn’t take long for folks on the outside to do the math. Based on Osteen’s reported amount of money in this theft, it appears his Lakewood Church takes in $32 million a year. Calculator keys were punched around the nation taking the $600,000 for Olsteen’s weekend donation collection and timing this by the 52 weeks in a year.

Many consider this a conservative estimate of donations this church receives, as March is just an average month with no holidays for the church. The spirit of giving around the holidays has to net this church more than the average week. Then there’s Easter and other holidays.

Osteen’s church released a statement at the time of the theft last week saying:

“It is important to note this was not an electronic data breach, but was instead limited to donations made in the services on March 8 and 9, 2014. You were not affected if you put your offering in a drop box, you gave online or through other electronic means, or you made a bookstore purchase.”

If you combine the stolen money with what Osteen’s church rakes in “other electronic means” and from the folks who give “online,” this amount must be astronomical. This was an undisclosed amount of money that wasn’t included in the money stolen. Putting all this together you are more than likely talking about a substantial amount of money, much more than the $32 million each year.

With Osteen’s best selling books, his TV work and the tours around the world, Osteen’s church is pulling in much more than the quick estimation of $32 million.

If you think about it, this heist got the sum of money that you’d expect to hear was raked in from a casino heist! It seems that the reported theft of the money in Osteen’s church last week opened a new can of worms. It’s the church’s astronomical donations that should really be the headlines here. What happened to the days of the poor boxes filled with change?

I’ll just avoid expounding on that.

Standup standoff ends with backoff ploy

Federal SWAT Team Backs Down In Armed Standoff With Militia, Will Return Cattle

Patrick Brown — April 12, 2014 | Western Journalism

After an announcement (Watch Video) by Clark County Sheriff  Douglas C. Gillespie that BLM officials would back down from their seizure of Cliven Bundy’s cattle, a tense standoff with protesters still was taking place as late as 1pm PST. That armed standoff, however, has been resolved.

According to Brandon Darby of Breitbart news, a Federal SWAT Team has agreed to retreat from a tension ridden stand-off with protesters.

1:01pm Pacific – “It was strange to see armed ranchers and militias stand off against a federal SWAT team under a bridge in a desert wash,” Darby said. “After a few tense moments, the feds agreed to retreat and allow the ranchers and the militia to guide the remaining cattle back to tracts of land used by the Bundy ranch. Both sides were demanding the other disarm first. Both the ranchers and law enforcement refused; ultimately the federal agents began to walk backwards behind retreating vehicles and leave the area.

The Bundy family has also been informed that their cattle will be returned.

…they allowed a member of the Bundy family to travel a half-mile back beyond the conflict area and to see the family’s cattle. The family member returned and made the announcement that the family would receive the remaining heads of cattle and he requested that the ranchers and militia help corral and guide the cattle back.”

Here is a recent image tweet from the standoff area:

As Brandon Darby describes, it was a very tense standoff between armed militia and the Federal SWAT team, with each side demanding that the other disarm.

Last night, WesternJournalism released a email petition tool for individuals to send emails to BLM officials. As of the time of this writing, more than 8000 individuals have used this tool to petition BLM officials to end this standoff peaceably.

H/T to Dave

Protesters at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada faced off with federal agents this past weekend, sending the message that overreaching government power can be resisted.

The ranch protesters had a clear message: This is not about cattle. “People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power,” Bundy’s wife Carol told ABC News – including the power to push your cattle off land where they’ve grazed for over 140 years.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/15/Standoff-at-Nevada-Ranch-Americas-Ready-to-Resist

How far is all this from the grimy hands of Harry Reid? Sources close to BLM say that the backoff could be just a ploy for a planned raid of the ranch. Dubious Harry saying “it’s not over” seems to confirm that.

Democrats always seem to support civil disobedience, don’t they? They could not defend the dragged-out dispute in Wisconsin enough. Progressives recommend it, speaking truth to power. They support union strikes. They support enviro-wackos. To say nothing of supporting a Radical-in-chief in the White House or his renegade actions. (Obama even said he’d put on his shoes to march with strikers.) But they never seem to defend private property, as evidenced from the Kelo decision. However, they salute civil disobedience from teachers to gay marriage to spotted owls. And they don’t even protest rampant abuses by the IRS.

Pot-Pandering for votes in Florida

Democrats Hope Pot Gives Them Boost in Florida

by Mike Flynn 14 Apr 2014 | Breitbart

DNC stimulant of choice

Democrat operatives are openly touting a medical marijuana ballot initiative in Florida as a means of helping Democrats win elections in 2014, saying the move, which will likely help bring young voters to the poll, is necessary for the greater good.

“I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters to go and vote,” said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party told the Associated Press. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”
Midterm elections experience a steep drop-off in voter turnout compared with presidential elections. Those less likely to vote include young, minority and low-income voters, who are all important parts of the Democrat vote in elections.

In 2006, Democrat and union activists backed initiatives to increase the minimum wage in several battleground states to draw voters inclined to support Democrats to the polls. Democrats took control of Congress that year, although their win likely had more to do with Bush-fatigue and set-backs in Iraq than the narrow wage issue.

Democrats are banking on the chance to legalize some pot use to draw young voters in Florida, which is host to several competitive House races and a close Governor race.

It is a kind of “bank-shot” campaigning. The party fears that its direct message and platform isn’t enough to draw voters to the polls. So, it hopes that a side issue like medical marijuana will increase interest in the election and the voters most likely to support that initiative will then reflexively back the Democrat candidates.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/14/Democrats-Hope-Pot-Gives-Them-Boost-in-Florida

If you didn’t like pot as an issue before, how do you feel about pot-the political issue now?

Pot is now THC to the DNC. “But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it”: doesn’t that sum it up? I suppose that qualifies as medicinal use to them.

Police discover 7 dead babies in Garage

Police in Utah found seven dead babies in garage.

Police seek answers after 7 dead babies found in home

    Woman accused of killing seven babies

    This photo provided by the Utah County jail shows Megan Huntsman, who was booked into the Utah County jail on suspicion of killing six of her newborn children over the past decade. Seven dead babies were found in a garage at a Pleasant Grove home where Huntsman lived up until 2011. (AP Photo/Utah County Jail) Courtesy Utah County Jail

See article

Going to get ya, Islamic speech police

Brandeis Flap Marks Another Win for Islamist Intimidation

IPT News
April 10, 2014

We’re only 10 days into April, but 2014 already is shaping up to be a banner year for those who consider any criticism of Islam, radical or otherwise, to be something unfit for public consideration.

The decision by Brandeis University to withdraw its plans to bestow an honorary degree on Ayaan Hirsi Ali came after one day of protests from groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association. Both groups have documented roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks global Islamic dominance, a reality neither is willing to acknowledge.

Hirsi Ali, born and raised into a Muslim family, renounced her faith and chronicled her reasons why in two best-selling books. She has been targeted for death by radical Islamists, including in a note pinned onto the body of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh after he was shot and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street.

The two collaborated on a short film, “Submission,” which was critical of the way women are treated in Islam. Hirsi Ali has made many statements critical of the religion, and her foundation works to protect women from physical abuse like honor violence, genital mutilation and forced marriage.

Such a life, such a dedication to improving women’s lives, is deserving of an honor like the one Brandeis planned. But the school reneged, issuing a statement which said it could not fulfill its promise due to “certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

The move comes on the heels of ABC Family’s decision to scrub a new series about a teenage girl forced to live with extended family in Saudi Arabia. CAIR led the charge against “Alice in Arabia,” saying it “may engage in stereotyping that can lead to things like bullying of Muslim students.”

Never mind that something quite similar to the show’s premise actually happened. And never mind the show creator Brooke Eikmeier’s belief that “Alice in Arabia” could be “a step in the right direction for all cultures and all women, sparking greater tolerance, understanding and empathy.” CAIR squawked and ABC yielded.

And just last week, screenings of the documentary “Honor Diaries” were scrubbed at two University of Michigan campuses and at the University of Illinois-Chicago after CAIR and other Islamist groups protested.

“With this act of censorship,” wrote practicing Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed, a participant in the film, “the movie has become a metaphor for its message. Just like the women and girls it portrays, the movie has been silenced and its progenitors shamed.”

Criticism from Islamists has focused on the film’s producer and financers, not on its content. One Islamist critic, Linda Sarsour, honored as a White House “Champion of Change” in 2011, inadvertently made a point that shows the vacuous nature of the argument. If the finances were relevant, a Twitter poster suggested, perhaps the sources of CAIR operations warranted attention.

“CAIR,” Sarsour responded, “is not making domestic violence documentaries saving women.”

No one else is either. The one party who took up this legitimate issue has been pilloried for doing so.

In none of these cases has CAIR or other Islamist critics expressed willingness to debate the issue.

Instead, Brandeis is joined by a television network and two state universities in cutting off opportunities to challenge views on all sides of the issues involved. Isn’t that the kind of intellectual pursuit universities are supposed to foster and embrace?

Muslim reformist Irshad Manji thought so, too, commenting on Twitter that, “At too many universities, ‘respect me’ has come to mean ‘don’t challenge me.’

So the Islamists are on a roll.  [..../more details]

More http://www.investigativeproject.org/4348/brandeis-flap-marks-another-win-for-islamist

So much hypocrisy it should make anyone sick, except Brandeis, but just like the Left they don’t care. (Cair doesn’t care) So one group can claim it speaks for Islam and all, and it is not challenged within. Then it steps up to become the speech police for the country.

When they start condemning their Mo-Bro brothers, they might have a microbe of credibility. That will happen on the first day of never. But people that haven’t progressed in centuries don’t show much promise. They make a strong case against evolution. But its just as hard to believe academia would empower them as the speech police. And progressives and the Left fall right in line with it.

They can honor Harry Belafonte, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite with degrees… but they have to draw the line at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s over the top. Someone really should have tipped them off who she was before they invited her. Hope they don’t replicate that mistake.

They also honored Thurgood Marshall. One wonders what he would think of their erratic decision to reverse their invite? Perhaps one of their illustrious recipients will be prompted to return his/her degree in protest. I doubt it but if it happened to be a certain notable ‘progressive’ who was slighted, it would be a different story.

Now that is something everyone should be able to get behind: standing up for centuries old attitudes of inequality and discrimination of women. I’m glad that many of our youth are taking up that banner. There is hope for change after all. They should be more careful about such mistakes in the future. (pardon sarcasm)

Alternative energy meets alternative reality

That’s right, another electric car company pulls the plug on manufacturing in the US, as its cash dwindles. And guess what? It’s another stimulated company.

Sure pick on those green car companies again — but can we substitute another color because they aren’t profitable?

They got ’09 stimulus funds to a tune of a 29 million dollar grant to produce 510 electric vehicles. Since then to 2013 they produced 439 vehicles for municipal use.

Now the company CEO Bryan Hansel said:

“We didn’t see value in continuing to build a small number of vehicles at the price point we were,” said Hansel, who noted that despite federal support the company was manufacturing vehicles at a loss. Smith has been struggling for some time. It reported annual losses in the millions after receiving DOE funds.

You think you’re operating at a loss?? But they didn’t mind producing them at a loss with our money. Better still, Energy Secretary, Ernest Moniz, is eager to restart the stalled program and crank up subsidies to companies, with 16 billion still in the program.

The DOE news comes on the heels of two other companies going belly up in the program. This one just packed up the US plant and will continue overseas operations.

But the DOE secretary said:

Moniz expressed confidence that the electric vehicle market has improved since those high-profile failures.

“The U.S. auto industry has evolved since the ATVM Program was established and today we are presented with an opportunity to hit the accelerator on U.S. auto manufacturing growth.”

“Hit the accelerator” after another company slammed on the brakes. Its evolved all right, into a spiral and they are running out of the country.

Now this is not an alternative energy agenda, this is an alternative reality agenda.

See article Taxpayer-Backed Electric Car Company Closes U.S. Factory
Government watchdog recommends DOE wind down controversial program

RightRing | Bullright

Reid’s Koch-a-phobia running wild

 

DSCC to Combat Koch Contributions Using Unnamed Dem Donors

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 11, 2014 3:29 pm

The Democratic Party’s Senate campaign arm is warning donors about the pernicious influence of the Koch Brothers, and offering to match contributions—using money from unnamed Democratic donors—to combat them.

Campaign literature from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee features Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) ranting against the Kochs for four pages.

Reid pledges that the DSCC will match all contributions made in response to the solicitation.

He did not say which of the DSCC’s shadowy donors would be providing the matching funds.

 

Harry Reid said in a fund raising letter to Democrats:

“In fact, Koch Brothers AFP has already spent a staggering 27 million this election cycle alone on television ads – and this early spending has sent Senate Democrats’ approval ratings plummeting.

We simply cannot allow them to buy our Democracy.“

What sent their approvals plummeting to the depths was their record and non-accountable actions. He wants to blame the Koch’s for that? People are fed up. He says it is a matter of fact. More twisted lies from Harry-the Judas-Reid. How much are those shekels of silver worth, Harry?

Secondly, what people cannot allow is Harry and his colleagues to continue to hold the country hostage to their precious power.

He will feel so much better after election, in a smaller office without all those concerns .

All Harry and his cohorts care about is their political power slipping through their evil fingers, nothing else. For Americans, the question is not what Harry and company have done for you but what they have done to you that matters.

RightRing | Bullright

Benghazi played?

Just when you think you have witnessed the bottom, out pops someone to probe the depths. In this case Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC host). It’s really nothing new for him but it does tell you something about modern, socialist progressives.

The other day Krauthammer made a statement that Benghazi, the issue, is about played out. Well, I always appreciate his insight but I cringed when he said it. Sure, he had his reasons but that’s a whole other matter. Along comes the Left to ride that side-car as long and hard as they can. Sort of like the Iraq war. Here’s the clip:

So there I was flipping through the channels Thursday night, and O’Donnell plays the clip as a highlight — but only that particular part. The camera returns to Lawrence who is grinning ear to ear. Facial expressions do say it all, in this case. ‘It’s over, ha ha.’

Whatever you think of Benghazi or him, it said it all about the Left. As insulting as his smiling face is, Benghazi is just about politics to the left. Just as I said many times, everything is only politics to the Left. That’s all it ever was. The four dead Americans, the heroes, the negligence of government response, the lying and coverup, the lack of accountability and responsibility…. only politics matter in the end, beginning, middle, or investigation. All politics all the time.

But soon after they turned their attention to another important real issue, Bridgegate and Chris Christie. So bury Benghazi, but Bridgegate has more legs than a centipede to them.

This comes as the left declared another story dead in the last few weeks: the IRS scandal. But may “Bridgegate” live on in infamy forever. This says all anyone needs to know about the Progressives — or whatever name they call themselves today.

So a pundit makes the gloomy point about Benghazi fading and the left stands up, cheers and jumps for joy. Says all you need to know.

Never forget.

RightRing | Bullright