TOTUS
Live from the White House at 3:00 pm Klown time.
I wasn’t gonna start drinking this early but if Obama’s giving a speech then I’m getting drunk.
How much you want to bet he says he takes responsibility and won’t rest until he gets to the bottom of the IRS scandal?
The drinking game words are “accountable” and “inappropriate”.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 85 Comments »
The Examiner:
David Axelrod: ‘The government is so vast’
On Morning Joe Wednesday, former Obama Senior Strategist David Axelrod essentially pleaded ignorance on behalf of his former boss when MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asked him what he would tell his University of Chicago politics class about the recent IRS scandal.
“Well, look, it’s an interesting case study, right, because if you look at the Inspector General’s report, apparently some folks down in the, bureaucracy, ya know — we have a large government — took it upon themselves to shorthand these applications for tax exempt status in a way that, as I said, was idiotic,” Axelrod began. “Part of being president is, there is so much beneath you that you can’t know, because the government is so vast.”
More than a few people were surprised to see Obama’s Chief Dog Robber make the case for smaller government.
Ever since FDR took office the trend has been for the growth of a big, centralized federal government. It didn’t happen overnight, and it was done with the best of intentions. And ironically all that growth of the federal bureaucracy did nothing to stop the growth of state and local governments.
When Wall Street melted down in October 2008 (helping Obama to win the election) we heard the term “too big to fail” in reference to some of our nation’s banks. What that expression means is not that big banks can’t fail, it means we can’t allow them to fail. That’s why we had to bail them out.
At the time I said “Any bank that is too big to fail is too damn big”. In that same vein let me say “Any government that is too big to control is too damn big”.
Don’t get me wrong – we need government. But government, like fire, is a poor servant and a terrible master.
To quote Votermom:
The virtue of a government is inversely proportional to its size.
Filed under: Klown Musings | Tagged: Klown Musings | 30 Comments »
Eric Holder in the Hot Seat as Congress Probes Scandals
Eric Holder comes to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for a show of fireworks that could be unlike any seen in this Congress so far.
And if he doesn’t offer the House Judiciary Committee more details on the scandals piling up at the White House’s doorstep than Jay Carney did on Tuesday, the Obama administration is in for another full news cycle of criticism from not only their adversaries on the right but their Democratic allies as well.
It’s a full committee hearing where members of the panel’s Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Subcommittee will lead the questioning. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has outlined an agenda that covers the AP phone-records grab by the Justice Department, the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, agencies’ failure to share information that might have prevented the Boston bombings, and, as if that were not enough, allegedly lavish spending at DOJ under Holder’s watch.
“This administration is having more ethical lapses and what seems to fall under the heading of scandal than anything I’ve seen in a long time,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., a member of House Judiciary.
Holder’s testimony to Congress at 1:00 pm eastern (4:20 Klown time) will be live on C-SPAN. I may not be here but I plan to DVR this sucker cuz it should be some good theater.
Filed under: Scandalpalooza | Tagged: Scandalpalooza | 75 Comments »
Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals — will buck ever stop with Obama?
The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday’s press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:
In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?”
That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.
[...]
Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.
Again, who’s in charge here?
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised that Obama is a “Know Nothing” president. He has spent his whole life knowing nothing and doing little except campaigning and self-promotion.
This is the guy who floated through Columbia University without leaving a mark. This is the guy who got elected president of the Harvard Law Review without publishing anything. This is the guy who voted “present” over and over again as a state senator.
This is the guy who sat in a pew at Trinity United every week for twenty years but never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright say anything controversial. This is the guy who didn’t know that Tony Rezko was a crook or that his own constituents were freezing in Rezko’s unheated slums. This is the guy who didn’t know that Bill Ayers was an unrepentant terrorist.
This is the guy who as a US senator spent all his time running for president. This is the guy who didn’t know about any of the nasty things his campaign was doing. This is the guy who every time the shit hits the fan claims he didn’t know and wasn’t involved.
Why would anyone expect him to change now?
Leaders lead. Obama campaigns.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Scandalpalooza | Tagged: Scandalpalooza | 135 Comments »
This is Rocky Zombie the pistol target. He is a rectangular sheet of paper (approx. 3ft x 2 ft) that you can hang up at the pistol range to shoot at. Some people say it’s racist because it looks like Barack Obama. I disagree.
Obama isn’t green.
BTW – You know it’s gonna be a bad day when you go afk for a couple hours and when you return there are 666 tweets waiting for you.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 28 Comments »
The Hill:
White House: ‘No knowledge’ of AP phone record seizure
The White House on Monday distanced President Obama from the Department of Justice’s seizure of Associated Press telephone records.
“Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
Previous presidents have claimed amnesia on occasion, but I can’t recall another administration that so frequently professed ignorance about the activities of the various departments within the Executive Branch. Not only does the president rely on the news media to make him aware of scandals, but his department heads are equally ignorant of what goes on in their departments. It’s the “Know Nothing” administration.
Atlantic Wire:
Obama Tells Harvey Weinstein, Justin Timberlake to Blame Rush Limbaugh
President Obama told donors like Jessica Biel, Justin Timberlake (who was wearing hipster glasses), and Tommy Hilfiger that Washington gridlock is pretty much Rush Limbaugh’s fault on Monday evening at a fundraiser at Harvey Weinstein’s house in New York’s Greenwich Village. Obama admitted that his theory — that after the 2012 election, the Republican “fever” would break, and they’d decide to co-sign some of his agenda — was wrong. “My thinking was when we beat them in 2012 that might break the fever, and it’s not quite broken yet,” Obama said, according to the White House pool report. This is because of a certain corpulent radio host. “I genuinely believe there are Republicans out there who would like to work with us but they’re fearful of their base and they’re concerned about what Rush Limbaugh might say about them. And as a consequence we get the kind of gridlock that makes people cynical about government.”
Multiple scandals in Washington DC, Obama claims he knows nothing about any of them, but he’s in New York City fundraising and blaming it all on Rush Limbaugh. If that is what Obama truly believes then he really is ignorant.
Politico:
Carl Bernstein: IRS targeting not Watergate
Journalist Carl Bernstein said President Barack Obama is no Richard Nixon on Monday, and he would know.
“It’s terrible,” Bernstein said of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Outrageous. Heads ought to roll. Simple as that. … From what we know so far, some high-up heads.”
But Bernstein said that conservatives who are eager to equate the IRS scandal to Watergate should hold their horses.
While the Nixon-era IRS investigated his political enemies and subjected them to audits, it did so at the direction of the president and his aides. No evidence has emerged linking Obama or the White House to the IRS scandal.
“In the Nixon White House, we heard the president of the United States on tape saying ‘Use the IRS to get back on our enemies,” said Bernstein, whose reporting helped lead to Nixon’s eventual resignation. “We know a lot about President Obama, and I think the idea that he would want the IRS used for retribution — we have no evidence of any such thing.”
Obama wouldn’t do a nasty thing like that, would he? This is circular logic – we have an abuse of Executive Branch power but since there is no smoking gun directly linking it to Obama there is no reason to investigate and see if a link exists. That’s like saying that cops should only investigate crimes that were already solved.
I would truthfully be surprised if a smoking gun existed in this case. One of the lessons of Watergate was “plausible deniability”. There won’t be any memos or tapes, and the guys who carry out orders never speak directly to the head cheese.
We are supposed to believe that numerous low-level IRS employees across the country took it upon themselves to inappropriately focus on conservative groups. When their higher-up found out they told them to stop but they just used different criteria to reach the same result. Somehow it continued for two years but the White House was totally unaware. To date, nobody has been fired or disciplined.
Maybe Carl Bernstein should write another book and call it “All The President’s Low-Level Employees”.
Filed under: Barack Obama | Tagged: Barack Obama | 137 Comments »
Watch these two videos and then pray for our republic.
Filed under: Benghazi | Tagged: Benghazi | 66 Comments »
Dr. Kermit Gosnell
Life News:
Kermit Gosnell Found Guilty on Three First-Degree Murder Charges
The jury in the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell returned a verdict and found him guilty on three of the four first-degree murder charges he faced.
Gosnell is charged with four counts of first-degree murder for killing babies following delivery in an abortion process that involved “snipping” their necks and spinal cords. He also faces a third-degree murder charge related to the death of a woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Virginia, from a botched legal abortion. Gosnell, who has been in jail since his January 2011 arrest.
Updates to follow.
Filed under: Kermit Gosnell | Tagged: Kermit Gosnell | 20 Comments »
Roger Simon at Pajamas Media raises a good point:
[...]
But the most extraordinary aspect of the talking points editing process is what was never mentioned, at least as far I have seen — the supposedly infamous Mohammed video. Not a word of that. While emailing each other, these officials from the CIA, State, the Pentagon, and the White House seem to have completely ignored it.
In other words, like the lady in the classic Hitchcock movie, the video vanished.
But if this mystery has a MacGuffin, it may be the provenance of that video Innocence of Muslims itself. Made in the California desert by a bizarre and hapless character named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, working under the nom d’auteur of Sam Bacile, it first surfaced on YouTube in July 2012 in English language form. (I viewed the video — a trailer — and, like others, found it to be unwatchable amateurish junk.)
In September 2012 it, was translated into Arabic. Wikipedia does not provide the precise date or the identity of the translator. These would be interesting to know, obviously. The film apparently played in its full form in June as well, at the Vine Theater on Hollywood Boulevard, reportedly to an empty house.
In other words, hardly anyone saw this film, except for the trailer, yet it was blamed for demonstrations and burning in Cairo and all the carnage in Benghazi.
[...]
And who was Nakoula, a Coptic Christian immigrated to the U.S. from Egypt, in all of this? When he, as Sam Bacile, first took credit for the video, he identified himself to both the AP and the Wall Street Journal as an Israeli Jew with “100 Jewish donors” backing a putatively five million dollar film (that looks as if it could have been made for the cost of gas to his Mojave desert location).
Come se dice?
That weird notion disappeared quickly, but where did it come from? Who really is Nakoula Nakoula anyway, other than another deadbeat scalawag with a trail of six-figure unpaid bills? And why would an Egyptian Copt identify himself as an Israeli, of all things?
I don’t know. He’s in jail. Maybe someone should go ask him.
Nowhere in the final draft of the Official White House Lies Talking Points does it mention the video. So where exactly did that idea come from?
Hmmm?
The video story was floating around in the media right from the beginning. Who first mentioned it? What was their source? If we didn’t know whodunnit, how did we know what motivated them?
Filed under: Benghazi | Tagged: Benghazi | 38 Comments »
Red Alert Politics:
Bill Maher on Benghazi: “I still don’t know what the scandal is”
Someone needs to sit down and explain the Benghazi attack and subsequent outrage to HBO‘s Bill Maher, because he just doesn’t get it.
The “Real Time with Bill Maher” host asked three panelists on his show Friday night to explain the controversy over the Benghazi attacks.
“I still don’t know what the scandal is,” he said, after discussing the conservative and liberal media portrayals of the 9/11 attack in Libya.
“Tell me what the scandal is,” he added. “I honestly want to know.”
The Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald explained to Maher that before the 2012 election both sides tried to spin the Benghazi attacks to protect their candidates. But he also added that because only six U.S. ambassadors have been killed during the country’s history — and the Obama administration spread information that wasn’t true — the attack deserves an investigation.
“The President went on the air — and other people did too — and they made statements that proved to be untrue about why the attack took place, that it was a reaction to this film,” Greenwald added. “That’s just a reality, whether they were lying or was in error, the statements they made — it was untrue.”
“It was a fluid situation,” Maher responded.
“No, but when the government goes on the air and says things that prove to be untrue, that is something that needs to be investigated,” Greenwald answered back. “And it was a place where President Obama and NATO had gone, and invaded and bombed and changed the regime.”
Like Maher, Miami Herald columnist Joy Reid tried to downplay the Benghazi attacks. Charles Cooke of The National Review argued that the media was simply siding with which party was in power.
“You don’t think that when a U.S. ambassador is killed and there are people within the State Department saying that they were asking for more help and not getting it and that the U.S. government went onto the world stage for a week and made claims about what happened that turned out not to be true that that doesn’t merit any investigation?” Greenwald asked.
“No I don’t,” Maher replied. He then ended the discussion — even though the panelists clearly had more to say — because he was “bored with it.”
Glenn Greenwald is certainly no GOP stooge. His lefty credentials are impeccable. Joy Reid and Bill Maher try spouting the official White House lies talking points but Greenwald won’t play ball so Maher changes the subject.
Maher’s problem isn’t that he doesn’t get it. Maher’s problem is he doesn’t want to get it. That’s not surprising – he’s a Vile Prog and they personify the expression “blissfully ignorant”. That’s why there is no point in arguing with any of them.
Filed under: Benghazi, Vile Progs | Tagged: Benghazi, Vile Progs | 22 Comments »
This story started breaking yesterday:
19 people, including 2 kids, are shot at Mother’s Day parade in New Orleans
Gunmen opened fire on dozens of people marching in a neighborhood Mother’s Day parade in New Orleans on Sunday, wounding at least 19 people, police said.
The FBI said that the shooting appeared to be “street violence” and wasn’t linked to terrorism.
Many of the victims were grazed and most of the wounds weren’t life-threatening, according to a police news release. No deaths were reported.
The victims included 10 men, seven women, a boy and a girl. The children, both 10 years old, were grazed and in good condition. Police said at least two people were in surgery Sunday night.
Mary Beth Romig, a spokeswoman for the FBI in New Orleans, said federal investigators have no indication that the shooting was an act of terrorism.
“It’s strictly an act of street violence in New Orleans,” she said.
Piers Morgan excitedly tweeted the news. The usual gun control fanatics got wood. Then they found out it was just street violence in a bad neighborhood and the suspects were dark skinned so they lost interest.
Why is urban violence and black-on-black crime taboo to talk about? Why is the killing of a young black man by a “white Hispanic” national news?
Filed under: Crime, Gun Control | Tagged: Crime, Gun Control | 10 Comments »
He sure seems to like my advice.
NBC’s First Read:
On Benghazi probe, GOP’s Issa says ‘Hillary Clinton’s not a target’
A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year’s Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Obama is not a target.”
Nobody should be the target. The only goal should be uncovering the truth. Then let the chips fall where they may. If Hillary ends up buried in chip she has no one but herself to blame.
But wait! There’s more!
Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, said on Meet the Press that Issa’s panel has deliberately put Clinton’s ambitions in its crosshairs.
“My concern is when Hillary Clinton’s name is mentioned 32 times in a hearing, then the point of the hearing is to discredit the Secretary of State, who has very high popularity and may well be a candidate for president,” Feinstein said.
Sorry DiFi, but one of our diplomatic facilities was attacked and our ambassador was murdered. Then some lies were told to the public. The State Department was involved in every facet of this mess and Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State.
They’re not gonna be talking about Mitt Romney.
(h/t Hot Air)
Mitt Romney
Filed under: Benghazi | Tagged: Benghazi | 50 Comments »
Mark Mardell, North American Editor of BBC News:
After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
There’s new evidence, obtained by ABC, that the Obama administration did deliberately purge references to “terrorism” from accounts of the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission, which killed four people including the US ambassador to Libya.
Conservatives have long maintained that the administration deliberately suppressed the truth about the attacks.
This is the first hard evidence that the state department did ask for changes to the CIA’s original assessment.
Specifically, they wanted references to previous warnings deleted and this sentence removed: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.”
There’s little doubt in my mind that this will haunt Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president, unless she executes some pretty fancy footwork.
State department spokesperson Victoria Nuland is directly implicated, and the fingerprints of senior White House aides Ben Rhodes and Jay Carney are there as well.
In the interests of full disclosure I have to say I have not in the past been persuaded that allegations of a cover-up were a big deal. It seemed to me a partisan attack based on very little.
I remember listening to reports from the BBC and others at the time that did suggest the attack in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a rather puerile anti-Islamic video.
[...]
However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.
The cover-up was obviously politically motivated. The shit hit the fan less than two months before an election. That reaction is understandable and yet still deplorable. So far all the focus has been on the cover-up. But what were they covering up?
Was it merely a case of bad judgment or was this some secret CIA/State Department joint operation that went bad? Hopefully the US media has finally awakened from their five year slumber and will finally begin to do their job.
Yeah, I know. Hope is not a strategy. Hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
BTW – Whatever they were covering up, then-CIA Director Petraeus apparently didn’t want to play ball. This makes his sudden departure all the more suspicious.
Filed under: Benghazi, Media Zombies | Tagged: Benghazi, Media Zombies | 32 Comments »
Alternate title: A Tale of Two White House Scandals
The last few days some of you Republicans have been using the “I” word. Bad move. If you really want to maximize the political damage from the events last year in Benghazi, less is more. Focus on the truth and let the public decide the outcome.
Let’s look at two second-term scandals that altered two presidential administrations.
The first is Watergate, the granddaddy of modern political scandals. In 1972 Richard Nixon won the most lopsided electoral victory ever. Less than two years later he resigned in disgrace.
The actual Watergate burglary took place in June 1972, several months before the election. But as the sordid truth dripped out in the years that followed, public support for Nixon dropped as Congressional Democrats methodically peeled away the layers of deception and corruption.
I remember Watergate. I was twelve when it started and fourteen when Nixon resigned. Initially the media was reluctant to cover it but the truth was too powerful to ignore. The Senate Watergate hearings were compelling theater.
Fast-forward about 20-25 years. There were Republicans talking about impeachment before Bill Clinton even took the oath of office. After numerous official and unofficial investigations into every aspect of Bill and Hillary’s public and private lives, they got proof that Bill lied about getting a hummer while under oath in a civil deposition.
When the smoke cleared Slick Willie was still standing and Newt Gingrich was unemployed. If the GOP had been able to exercise some self-restraint Bill might have been forced to resign. Instead they behaved like a lynch mob.
Regarding Benghazi, the GOP needs to focus on getting the facts out into the public sphere. Last Wednesday’s committee hearing was a good start. Don’t speechify, speculate or bloviate. Avoid tinfoil at all costs. DO NOT USE THE “I” WORD!!! Stick to the evidence and let people draw their own conclusions.
Behave like a nonpartisan who is only interested in finding the truth. Then let nature take its course. Will it end in a resignation or impeachment? Highly unlikely. But if you handle it right it will help you in the next couple elections.
Here is the key: The harder you push, the less effective the results. I know that seems counterintuitive but it’s true.
Filed under: Benghazi | 56 Comments »
Mad Bum and the SF Giants manhandled the Atlanta Braves this afternoon. The Klown is very pleased.
FYI: If you watch the movie Looper do not miss the first 10 minutes and turn on the captions cuz it’s one of those movies where they turn down the volume on the dialog and turn it up full blast for the violence.
Filed under: Music | Tagged: Music | 27 Comments »
The CIA’s role in the Benghazi facility’s security was part of an arrangement with the State Department, according to a November 1 Wall Street Journal story that first disclosed several details about the true nature of the U.S. mission in Benghazi. That piece also said 23 of the 30 people evacuated from the Benghazi compound on the evening of the attack were CIA officers using State Department cover. Other U.S. officials confirmed this to The Daily Beast. “The Benghazi compound was a U.S. intelligence station with State Department cover,” one U.S. official said.
Blog Rule #1: It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
What was Chris Stevens doing in Benghazi on September 11th of last year? He was the ambassador to Libya, and the capitol of Libya is Tripoli where our embassy is located. He must have had some specific reason to be in Benghazi that night.
Is it just me or does it seem like the Obama administration isn’t really concerned with bringing any Benghazi terrorists to justice? They don’t even seem interested in finding out who they were. It’s as if they already know who did it but don’t care.
One of the major foreign policy initiatives during Obama’s first term was the so-called “Arab Spring” where we encouraged the overthrow of certain Middle Eastern dictators. The theory was if we could get rid of the existing authoritarian leaders that democracy would bloom across the deserts.
Among the nations targeted were Libya, Egypt and Syria (but not Saudi Arabia). As of last summer two were down and one was left to go. (Well, the dictators were gone, but democracy still hasn’t bloomed yet.)
In Egypt the transition was initially peaceful as Hosni Mubarak stepped down. We were able to intervene in Libya because Muammar Gaddafi was an international pariah and we didn’t have to send in ground troops, just air support for the rebels.
But Syria is a tougher nut to crack. They have lots of support from Russia and Iran as well as a fairly formidable army. They are no match for us or the Israelis, but against lightly armed rebels their tanks and planes give a decisive advantage.
More than once we have covertly armed rebels in various parts of the world. (We have overtly armed friendly dictators too, our policy on supplying arms is very flexible.) But quite often the arms we supplied came back to shoot us in the ass.
2012 was an election year. There was no way that Congress would agree to a direct military aid to either side in Syria. Even proposing it would be politically risky for Obama – the left and right would both oppose it. There was no way to give US arms to the Syrian rebels without Congress finding out.
On the other hand there were too many left over weapons in Libya. Many of them came directly from us. These weren’t just rifles and bullets, they were things like Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank weapons. Things that could be used by terrorists to shoot down 747 jet lines or take out armored limos. We were trying to recover those weapons, usually by buying them back from the militias that had them.
Then somebody had a bright idea. What if we gathered up those left-over weapons in Libya and then somehow they got stolen and moved to Syria? Benghazi is a port city on the Mediterranean Sea, a short boat ride from Syria. It wasn’t under the control of the central government in Tripoli but was instead controlled by various militias.
Is the picture starting to come into focus?
What if the plan was for a raid to be staged at some poorly defended warehouses at the Benghazi “diplomatic facility” and the arms stolen? Nobody was supposed to get hurt, but the raiders got carried away and torched a few buildings. Unexpectedly, Ambassador Stevens and another man (Sean Smith) took refuge in the main building’s safe room. They would have been safe if the building was not set on fire.
Both men died of smoke inhalation. The official story is that Stevens’ body was recovered by Benghazi residents who rushed him to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. Is it possible that these “residents” were actually part of the terrorist group and they genuinely tried to rescue Stevens once they realized he was in the building?
If this was a planned covert operation then we wouldn’t want a military rescue team to come in and start shooting up the place. The “terrorists” might think they had been double-crossed, and the arms might get blown up.
Ever since the Office of Strategic Services (OSS – the forerunner of the CIA) was formed we have been involved in covert operations around the world. Although both organizations are supposed to be engaged in “espionage” the temptation to engage in assassination, sabotage and subversion is apparently just too great to resist.
I’m just speculating here, but it does fit the facts.
BTW – If you watched Wednesday’s Oversight Committee hearing you may recall Chairman Issa start to ask a question concerning the CIA annex and then an aide stepped up and whispered in his ear. He changed the subject.
Libyan arms captured in Syria
Filed under: Benghazi | Tagged: Benghazi | 63 Comments »
I keep seeing crap like this:
It's as if Mrs. Clinton has had a protective bubble around her ever since she first embarked on her "listening tour" of New York State—
JWF (@JammieWF) May 10, 2013
And I just have to respond.
Let’s get this straight: The Vile Progs/Obots and the media despise Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Anyone who was paying attention in the Spring of 2008 knows that. I had been a yellow-dog Democrat for over 20 years by then, and I was stunned to discover how deeply Clinton Derangement Syndrome infected the Democratic party.
It’s no secret that the GOP has hated Bill and Hillary since 1992. Anyone who was old enough to read or watch television in the Nineties knows that. The media has hated them almost as long, and that hatred was amped up when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. But it wasn’t until 2008 that I realized how many progressives and leaders of the Democratic party establishment hated them too.
Back in 2006 Hillary was the consensus front-runner for the 2008 Democratic nomination. But there were quite a few people in the media and Democratic leadership determined to prevent her from winning. Ted Kennedy was one of the leaders of that movement, as were Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. John Edwards was the original ABC (Anybody But Clinton) candidate but by the end of 2007 Barack Obama had assumed that mantle.
When Obama won in Iowa the media openly celebrated the defeat of Hillary’s presidential aspirations. Then she won in New Hampshire. The 2008 Democratic primary was an ugly affair, primarily because of the Obama supporters and the media. They kept proclaiming that Obama was unbeatable but Hillary kept doggedly coming back.
Here’s a little known fact: When the smoke cleared in June 2008, Hillary led Barack Obama in votes. While Obama held a slight lead in pledged delegates, that was due entirely to the Rules and Bylaws Committee ruling on May 31, 2008 that gave Obama all the uncommitted delegates and some of Hillary’s delegates from Michigan. If you didn’t know that it’s because the media didn’t report it.
Obama “won” the nomination because of the superdelegates – the Democratic party establishment. Then the delegate voting at the DNC convention was rigged so that people would not realize exactly how close it had been.
The media and the Vile Progs quit attacking Hillary when she suspended her campaign and made a deal to begin endorsing Obama. Then after the election she was paid off by being nominated as Secretary of State. As a loyal member of Obama’s Cabinet she was immune from attack by the media. But that deal would eventually prove to be her undoing.
Now Hillary is no longer Secretary of State and if somebody has to take the fall for Benghazi she is the perfect sacrificial lamb. I’m not saying that she’s innocent in this affair – she’s not. But neither is she totally to blame. Her most grievous offense was trying to cover-up for Obama. She should have just told the truth.
The media and the Vile Progs are biding their time. They are waiting to crush her presidential ambitions in 2016 when Obama’s second term is almost over because they want to destroy her without hurting him. But if Benghazi continues to blow up they will throw her under the bus to protect him.
They would rather not have to do that because they want to sweep Benghazi under the rug. But Plan B is to put it all on Hillary. The GOP might go for that – they have wanted a Clinton scalp for a long time.
If that’s what happens, Hillary has no one but herself to blame. She never should have made a deal with the Devil in the first place.
Filed under: Benghazi, Hillary Clinton | Tagged: Benghazi, Hillary Clinton | 45 Comments »
Katie Whats-her-name had a TV Mom special but she skipped my personal favorite – Joanna Kerns/Maggie Seaver from Growing Pains. (A little bird tells me that Dandy Tiger has always had a “thing” for June Cleaver.)
I am almost tempted to watch the network news tonight to see how much of today’s Benghazi revelations get reported. Almost.
It’s Beer Thirty here. What are you doing?
BTW – I’m starting to think that Tim McGraw and Faith Hill are never gonna get deevorced. I’m really getting tired of waiting for her to be available again.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 34 Comments »
