Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Chattanooga…to the shores of Tripoli

A country legend, rock and roll icon, and a true southern gentleman with credentials, Charlie Daniels once immortalized those words “the Devil went down to Georgia.”
To play on that theme:

Well, this week a Devil went to Chattanooga with very much the same thing on his mind: he was looking for souls to steal. Not just any but proud American ones. Ones who, in the prime of their lives, had something to offer America and more than the will to serve it, giving it. Yes, a devil sneaked in there to snatch someone up and all he got was their vain assassin for the trouble.

Instead, the shooter got what he bargained for, the devil’s cauldron stew. His due for the purchase was what he meant for others, paid in full. But it cost him his soul that day, all he had — or thought he had. He played the game and got snake eyes. The men who lost their lives had something so precious he couldn’t even have dreamed of: freedom, honor and dignity, and a country who appreciated them. But the shooter met his match. No paradise of which he wrote. No glory for his cause. Just another lost, stolen and used up soul on a wasted effort. He bartered it all and lost it all that day.

He got his name in the press, the name he claimed caused security alerts. But in the end, it was not his name that caused all the damage. We know what it was. So now that name will cause nothing but grief. He staked out his lot and his plot staked him. But there was no respect and glory in what he did. Nothing in return. A failed bid to make a failed stand. Instead of hope, he got the short straw. Five lives were lost, but their immortal souls were gained, five more for the trumpet to sound. A pity the shooter will never know that honor and glory he tried to cheat. Just another wasted soul, on the road from Tripoli.

RIP now five Chattanooga heroes.

 ~~~~~~

Now for a President who always lectures on the importance of context — or the context of important matters — what Obama did after should be seen then in the light of the terrorist attack in Chattanooga and the questions it raised.

The White House released a statement later in the day to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan.

As Muslim Americans celebrate Eid across America, the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs.

Michelle and I hope today brings joy to all of your homes, both here in the U.S. and around the world. From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak!

As an article at Western Journalism framed the context, for the preoccupied White House:

“Chattanooga killings reality: The morning of Eid was marked with the sound of gunfire echoing through quiet neighborhoods across a peaceful Tennessee city forever scarred by the attacks.”

“It is a heartbreaking circumstance”, according to Obama’s WH statement:

“It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion.” He added in his statement that “we take all shootings seriously.”

(except when the shooter is an illegal in a sanctuary city, already deported 5 times.)

I couldn’t tell if that was Obama making that statement or Deepak Chopra. Apparently “heartbreaking circumstance” are the new code words for domestic terrorism.

RightRing | Bullright

What’s the definition of “In fact”?

Trey Gowdy severely excoriates Susan Rice and Carney and demands answers from Obama’s administration for Benghazi massacre cover-up.

It must mean that everything this administration decides to say is fact: your premiums will go down; if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; it was a transparent process; there “is not a smidgen of corruption” in IRS scandal.

And they still repeat those assertions as if they are true. Now Benghazi goes to Ferguson. One of the best comments I’ve seen is: so if …”Obama made Gov.Nixon not send in the National Guard Monday night, that would make Ferguson Obama’s domestic Benghazi.’

RightRing | Bullright

ISIS closer than you think

Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US Border

Baghdadi

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

AUGUST 29, 2014 | Judicial Watch

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.  Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.

Judicial Watch

Cover up continues: oozing Benghazi

Sometimes thinking out loud is a good form of clarifying one’s thoughts. And sometimes that just adds to more questions and suspicions.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Article and video

Sadly, only now this comes out about Benghazi. It is filed with irony.

First is the direct intention of government — presumably from all levels — to assert the Internet video as the root cause. This of course is lying and rewriting the events, but who cared about that when they had a presidential campaign to save and defend? Then is their intent to put the UN ambassador’s stamp of approval on it. Of course, it was the opposite: the White House putting its stamp of approval on what Rice would say. (the reverse of their intentions) Throwing the WH voice from the mouth of the ambassador.

Plus their choreography of the events directly contradicted the campaign’s central theme of a president with steady leadership at the helm. In fact, he was AWOL and no where to be found even though the day it took place on the infamous date of the 9/11 attack. So the irony is as thick as pea soup. And the subtext of the campaign theme was a defeated al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

The campaign message was interjected, as a priority, into their depiction of the events. But Obama was no where around, almost intentionally absent. As was Hillary and her steady leadership at the State Department.

The video itself, which had nothing to do with the events was described as hate-filled. What was clear was the violent nature of the attack itself. To think that they nearly pulled it off, as far as media is concerned anyway, is an astonishing piece of history. That to this day they still give the president default plausible deniability for it is equally troubling.

So on one hand you have the event and circumstances themselves, and on the other you have the media disintegration around the major story of the year. But then we have the way each of them played out, Obama’s statements at the UN; and the media charade at the debate vouching for Obama. (Candy Crowley played right along)

There was the speed by which this story spread around the globe in criticizing and blaming a video, as much of the real criticism belonged to the White House and the State Department.(Not to mention all the operatives who did their part)

Then we had Hillary who had to be almost dragged to Congress to testify about the attack. (after blunt head injury) And her stunning absence in the actual events was shrouded in mystery. Then convey this to people at the time as steady leadership. That it took a year and a half to even get this information is another testimony against the duo.(doesn’t speak much for media either) It’s as if not only were they both asleep at the switch, but they took a sleeping pill at the onset.

It is obvious (and ironic) that White House’s biggest priorities were the president protecting himself, and blaming an Internet video. Neither of those fit the Constitutional definition for the president. (…protecting Americans or being honest with the people.)

And contrary to the posture of the two leaders in charge, were the intricate plans of the operation in Libya from the beginning: from Obama’s stealthy, unilateral action to Hillary’s priority to establish an outpost in Benghazi by a certain date. Then afterward to act as if it was not even on their radar, and that they were surprised at the events is beyond belief. And it all would, again ironically, “require the willing suspension of disbelief”. After all, why would so many subordinates go to such lengths to obfuscate the truth, covering for their superiors, all by their own initiative?

Now that we know what was going on in the White House on Benghazi, one can imagine what was going on in sycophant media conference rooms amidst the campaign. Oddly enough, by the time of that debate they had come full circle to try to claim that they said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Well, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble then.

What this email trail makes clear is that it was not happenstance, that it was a wide-spread, coordinated, choreographed initiative driven by the White House with concerns about the campaign. Isn’t it funny what an email trail reveals? The campaign message drove the false narrative.

Obama does have a formal doctrine, its called the Denial Doctrine.

Ben Rhodes is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting.

RightRing | Bullright

Here come the Muslim victims

Just a rant on some very old territory.

One little Muslim, two little Muslims, three… victims.

It has already begun on the heels of the Boston bombing, Muslims are out in defense of, well, just about anything relating to Islam. They do what they always do…attack any criticism of Islamisists’ radical ideology as “criticism of all Muslims”.

Yea, that might be a good rally point for Muslims (hello, are they connecting the dots? – likely just what radicals had in mind.) but it really serves no other purpose. We get it, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But the terrorists are predominately Islamists. Do they get it?

Who has time for all this crapola being hoisted on outraged Americans? Muslims were not the victims here and they certainly were not the intended targets. Yet here they are saying Muslims are being victimized putting everyone on notice not to “generalize”. Imagine that, someone indiscriminately bombs random innocent people, and they tell us not to generalize? Go figure.

**This sounds like Obama: his administration does something and we get the lecture.

Maybe instead of spending all their time in defense of their “peacefulness”, they should be facing off, marginalizing and criticizing the Islamists for doing what they are doing? Why doesn’t that occur to them? Why don’t we hear and see it? Are they afraid?

There is one ironic note in the saga, Muslims are distancing themselves from the funeral of the eldest bomber. Imams and mosques have been asked, in the greater Muslim community in Boston, about the funeral for him and they decline to say they will hold it or hold the prayers for him. That is a positive note. Though I wonder if it is just talk?

Now if Muslims were victims of stereotyping etc. — IF it is happening — then you’d think they would focus on the source of that characterization, Islamist radicals and radicalism in general. No, they would rather blame us and “broad brush” Americans for discriminating against them.

The problem is how many times and years have we been through this. Its old. If the caliphate is the chief goal among Islamist radicals, they are all beneficiaries to the same agenda. Do they stand up and protest that agenda? Hardly. But then why is it all the rest of us, outsiders, are the immediate problem when one of them detonates something? Who are they kidding?

Seems to me we played out this act before too, we tried the dialogue route. About all we get in return is “Americans are picking on, stereotyping, and discriminating against Muslims.” But that is not the case.

I’m sorry, when people are losing limbs, their livelihood, and their very lives, my first reaction is not “poor Muslims“. So if they are not happy, then its time they face the real problem not rally up another false flag.

It is much easier for them to point to Americans lack of sensitivity for Muslims. When do I, Christians, Jews, or Americans get to be “offended”?

The week in news

This isn’t a list of the events this week, you can get that elswhere.

I saw some media coverage at the end of the week saying how media did not cover other important stories, as they were continuously covering the Boston bombing. (was that an apology?…nah) Let their navel gazing begin.

Now I’m not complaining about the coverage given Boston. That was deserved. But they hardly gave even a mention of other news, specifically the explosion in Texas. Actually the death count was higher in Texas than Boston but that is beside the point.

The real point is that they virtually locked out everything else. At a time when the Dep of Defense is expected to handle two wars simultaneously, MSM cannot get past a single story. Then they did something sort of even more hypocritical, they complained at the end of the week that media didn’t cover or mention these other stories,  which weren’t small potatoes.   Then they mention them.  I’m not going to list them.

They were obsessed by the one Boston story and nothing moved them off of it. Half the time there was nothing more to do than speculate, and they did, but they still stuck to it.

The shocker to me was that they complained that these other stories got ignored or cheated. I guess when Obama is their idol, we should expect that sort of thing. He does that self-contradicting, blatant hypocrisy constantly. Who were they complaining to, viewers? That was not clear. Was it a slip of conscience that they mentioned it? I don’t know.

If in a 24-hour news cycle, with this many competing networks, they cannot handle more than one story… well, the press is toast. Stick a fork in it. Of course, we already knew the press was dead or at least on life support since Obama. But I’m willing to bet they aren’t finished making excuses for it though. They usually say they just cover what the people care about, and they are serving the needs of the people. They were serving the needs of the people when they campaigned for Obama too.

It takes me back to an experience with media years ago. A reporter told me “on a given night, we have 6 million people watching and we get to decide what they are going to see.” Oh, how true and boldly arrogant.

Speaking of the bombastic hypocrisy of Obama, he  mentioned the Texas explosion in his Boston Bombing victory speech, which he had dismissed up to then.

He did issue a statement to Texas on the 18th:

“Today our prayers go out to the people of West, Texas in the aftermath of last night’s deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant. A tight-knit community has been shaken, and good, hard-working people have lost their lives. I want to thank the first responders who worked tirelessly through the night to contain the situation and treat the wounded.

My Administration, through FEMA and other agencies, is in close contact with our state and local partners on the ground to make sure there are no unmet needs as search and rescue and response operations continue. West is a town that many Texans hold near and dear to their hearts, and as residents continue to respond to this tragedy, they will have the support of the American people.”

Then in his speech at the conclusion of the Boston bombing, as if by afterthought, he added the following spoken words:

… Finally, let me say that even as so much attention has been focused on the tragic events in Boston, understandably, we’ve also seen a tight-knit community in Texas devastated by a terrible explosion. And I want them to know that they are not forgotten. Our thoughts, our prayers are with the people of West, Texas, where so many good people lost their lives; some lost their homes; many are injured; many are still missing.

I’ve talked to Governor Perry and Mayor Muska and I’ve pledged that the people of West will have the resources that they need to recover and rebuild. And I want everybody in Texas to know that we will follow through with those commitments.

All in all, this has been a tough week. But we’ve seen the character of our country once more.

And that is just the way it was in the news. Or as Texas Rep Ted Poe always says:
And that’s just the way it is.”

Hillary vs. Johnson : no holds barred

Miss full accountability, “the buck stops with me”, Hillary Clinton testifies to say “what difference does it make?”

I know it’s still only January but that is the line of the year. And it took her four months just to say that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.

Johnson: I understand.

Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. But the fact is that people were trying in real-time to get the best information….But, you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Clinton: “What difference, at this point, does it make?

She also misconstrued the purpose. The point is even more about the response and reaction of our government and why. This is the way they argue by moving the point. We thought it was about our governments’ response and she twisted it to just the terrorist’s motives. Both are questionable.

Then use the four dead Americans to mitigate government’s culpability. (logic took a vaction) And she tried to trump terrorists’ motives by a goal to “bring them to justice” — which they haven’t. See how this game works? Argued in true Liberal BS.

“What difference does it make?” It makes a big difference. How could you prevent this in the future if you dismiss the facts as irrelevant? Does that sound anything like, “do everything we can to prevent it happening again”?

We hold this non-truth to be self-evident, what does it matter?

PS: and the media yawns and says what difference does it make?