I Don’t Need A Citizenship Lesson From The Democrats

Chaos wants to devour this election.  It is already devoid of any sense of decency.

In an emotionally raw speech Pat Smith, the mother of American Foreign Service official Sean Smith killed in Benghazi, maintained Hillary Clinton lied to her and argued that Donald Trump would improve national security at the Republican convention.

A week later, Khizr Khan and his wife took to the stage at the Democratic National Convention to deliver an impassioned rebuke of Donald Trump that was universally celebrated by the media.

Why were the families of the soldiers of the Ft. Hood massacre not asked to speak at the DNC?  Why not ask the parents of the fallen who died defending the Benghazi consulate to speak?  Because the Democrats are unadulterated hypocrites and liars of the first order.  Their nominee is unworthy of belief.

Palestinian flags were prominently displayed by activists at the Democratic National Convention amid an apparent lack of American flags, according to numerous media and social media postings. In addition, activists were seen holding up signs reading, “I support Palestinian human rights.”  There was a sit-in under the Mississippi state flag outside the Wells Fargo Arena demanding it’s removal because it depicts the Confederate standard.  Also outside the convention hall, demonstrators proudly waved the Soviet Union flag.

Capt. Humayun Khan was one of just 14 Muslim-Americans (the number was compiled by the House Homeland Security Committee) among the 6,885 US troops who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Khan’s anguish is very real and their story very powerful and it has become a cudgel to be wielded against Trump until Election Day.

Khan admonished, “Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you:  Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.  In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law."

By telling Trump to "look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law'" in the Constitution, Khan was suggesting that the ban on Muslims entering the United States would violate the 14th Amendment. This is the relevant portion of that amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Byron York, noted in The Washington Examiner, “The text makes clear that its protections apply to ‘all persons born or naturalized’ in the US; persons ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’; and persons ‘within its jurisdiction.’  None refers to foreign persons in foreign countries. Pakistanis in Pakistan, to take one example, regardless of religion, do not have US constitutional rights. As far as ‘liberty’, the other word mentioned by Khan, is concerned, the Constitution says the government may not deprive someone of liberty without due process of law, which of course means the government may deprive someone of liberty with due process of law.”

I hardly think Mr. Khan has stature to give any American a lesson in citizenship.

Khan’s son died in 2004 in a war that Hillary Clinton voted for when she was the senator from New York.  It was her vote to invade Iraq that sent Capt. Khan to his death. And…her failure to acknowledge a terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate or to even send help during the more than 9-hour siege caused four Americans to be murdered.

State Department Finally Gives (Almost) Four Year Old Benghazi Phone Transcripts to Judicial Watch, and They're Filled With LIES

Judicial Watch(Washington, DC)– The Obama State Department last week admitted it withheld a key Benghazi email of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Judicial Watch since at least September 2014. If the State Department disclosed the email when first supposedly found, Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been disclosed nearly two years ago, before Clinton authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails.

It gets worse...Read the rest about the phone transcripts finally delivered that prove State Department and White House lying about Benghazi at Judicial Watch and Breitbart.

This Will Not End Well

Last night CNN hosted a Republican Presidential Town Hall in which we saw all three GOP contenders go back on their pledge to support the eventual nominee of the party. 

John Kasich said of the pledge, “All of us shouldn’t have answered that question.”

Ted Cruz told host Anderson Cooper, “I’m not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and my family.  I think nominating Donald Trump would be an absolute train wreck.  I think it would hand the general election to Hillary Clinton.”

Cooper posed the pledge question to Trump who said, “No, I don’t anymore.  I’ve been treated very unfairly” by the Republican National Committee and party establishment figures.  He added, Cruz “doesn’t need to support me.  I have tremendous support right now from the people.  I don’t really want him to do something he’s not comfortable with.”

I worry the festering animus by the candidates on “our” side of the aisle is contaminating the discourse among ordinarily sensible people.  The fans, speaking metaphorically, are beginning to fight each other in the stands.  If you’re a Trump supporter Cruz people call you stupid.  And vice versa if you’re a Cruz supporter.  This is a frightening scenario that will not end well.

I’ve have heard some say they will vote for Hillary if Trump is the nominee.  Don’t mistake what I am saying.  Please.

I have said all along that I believe voters must have their say at the ballot box.  Whoever emerges the winner in each state’s primary should receive the delegates that well-established rules dictate they should be awarded. 

The convention in Cleveland should not devolve into a melee in which everyone has their long knives out.  We’ve come too far to surrender to the Marxists and socialists and poodle press who coronated their “messiah” and lied to the American people about Benghazi and the countless classified emails that placed our national security in grave peril and sought to fundamentally transform America. 

Are we willing to surrender without a fight to a fossil socialist or a corrupt and bloodless woman who lied to the four families who lost loved ones in a far-off hell hole in Libya who could be destined for a stretch in a federal penitentiary?

If we can’t get our shit together, the transformation we most fear will be complete in November.  I don’t want that.  Do you?

Five-Cent Advice

Welcome readers of Adrienne's Corner.

Hillary The Souless Ghoul: “I Remember Fondly My Good Friend Chris”

As U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans lay dead and the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi was left in smoldering ruins, the Ice Cube In Heels asked her three closest aides for advice about how to announce the death of “Chris Smith.”

That name—the wrong one—was the subject line of the email Clinton sent them as night turned to day in Libya and the full extent of the Islamist terror attack was becoming apparent.

During the 11-hour hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee there was one moment that epitomized the decades-long training Hillary has perfected to simulate anger or passion or outrage for the cameras.

In one emotional exchange, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), asked Clinton what it was like "to be the subject of an allegation that you deliberately interfered with security that cost the life of a friend."

“It’s a very personally painful accusation. It has been rejected and disproven by nonpartisan, dispassionate investigators, but nevertheless, having it continue to be bandied around is deeply distressing to me,” Clinton said. “You know, I would imagine that I’ve thought far more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together.”

Flanked by her attorney David Kendall and top aide Cheryl Mills, they made certain to feed her notes when the noose began to tighten around her neck and Democrats on the panel were there to rescue her with a series of prepped counterpoints.

Clinton is under the deepest scrutiny of her life and yet she manages, like a greased pig, to slip out of the hands of those who are trying to hold her to account.

There are, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, 25 FBI agents and investigators in the Justice Department who will be looking at her testimony for material misrepresentations, her willingness to deceive, actual material lies while under oath and how many different versions she gave of various events.  He suggests that they had a “field day” today.  She’s also being investigated for four crimes:  espionage, the failure to secure national security secrets, destruction of government property and lying under oath to a federal judge.

Punishment comes from God.  Justice must be exacted for our ambassador who was murdered in the most inhuman of ways, for the untold savagery on the part of America’s enemies and a night of criminal failure.

How do the families of these murdered men restrain themselves? Listening to her blame Stevens for his own death is evil. #BenghaziHearing

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 22, 2015

Live Streaming Hillary’s Benghazi Select Committee Hearing (Scheduled Start 10:00 AM ET)

Excerpts from Stephen Hayes’ piece at Weekly Standard:

Hillary Clinton will hide behind the State Department’s Accountability Review Board report.

The ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton. It never sought to obtain her emails and never learned that she had set up a private server. The ARB chose not to interview State Department officials who were likely to offer testimony that contradicted the Obama administration’s preferred narrative, including Mark Thompson, the senior counterterrorism official at the State Department on duty the night of the attacks, who repeatedly offered to testify but was never contacted by the ARB investigators.  

[SNIP]

Among the issues that have dominated the attention of investigators is the matter of security before the attack. In previous congressional testimony, Clinton has volunteered that she was ultimately responsible for what happens at the State Department under her watch. 

But Libya was different. US facilities there were increasingly under threat and those responsible for securing them—and those who worked in them—were sounding alarms about inadequate security. A long trail of documents make clear that Clinton was intimately involved virtually every aspect of Libya policymaking and was receiving detailed reports from both formal State Department channels and from outside advisers (Sidney Blumenthal and others). 

[SNIP]

And, second, she will be asked why she had time to read, share and respond to a regular stream of emails from Blumenthal, who was barred by the Obama administration from working at the State Department, but did not have time to read urgent reports from State Department officials responsible for addressing the deteriorating security situation in Libya.

In that email, which Blumenthal sent Clinton in preparation for a meeting she was to have about the Libyan opposition; Blumenthal described at length the qualifications of an American security firm seeking contracts in Libya. 

According to Blumenthal, the firm, Osprey Global Solutions, had unique experience in chaotic wartime security environments. The training and assistance they could provide the Libyan opposition could break the stalemate between the rebels and the Qaddafi government. The opposition, Blumenthal wrote, had finally recognized that Qaddafi would not fall on his own and that they needed American assistance to force him out. Blumenthal argued that Osprey was the firm to provide that assistance and noted that he and two associates had secured an agreement between Osprey and the Libyan opposition.

Bloody Fingerprints On The Wall

Sean Smith’s mother is still waiting to hear from Hillary Clinton three years after she and the president presided over a transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012.

Appearing on CNN’s Newsroom, Pat Smith told anchor Carol Costello that Clinton told her the death of her son was due to a video and that “she would get back to me and tell me what happened to my son.  She has not only not gotten back to me, but all I’ve ever heard is that I am not to know because I am not a member of the immediate family.  I still want to know.  I saw on TV the bloody fingerprints on the walls over there.  I asked specifically, are those my son’s fingerprints crawling down the wall, the bloody fingerprints?  Nobody ever got back to me on that.  Are those his fingerprints?  Were those his fingerprints?  What happened?  Somebody’s got to tell me from the government.”

The American people and this grieving mother have a right to know what Hillary’s role in formulating the U.S. response to the Benghazi attack was.  Rather than the president busily contacting YouTube™ to decide which video to blame for the coldblooded killing of four Americans did either of them consider retaliation for the attack or order our forces to try to rescue them?  

While the long knives are out for Trey Gowdy and the Select Committee on Benghazi, Gowdy addressed his critics saying, “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is more than a rote phrase.  It should be the guiding principle of a serious investigation."

"Perhaps our critics could live without the 41 new witnesses, seven eyewitnesses, 50,000 new documents and emails from the secretary of State and Ambassador Stevens. We could not. We will keep working until the last fact is uncovered.”

I think Sean Smith’s mother can rest assured that Hillary and the president will not be shielded by America’s willful political amnesia.

CSPAN3 will be carrying the hearing beginning at 10:00 AM ET.  You can watch it at the link.

She Cackles Like A Witch

The Ice Cube In Heels thinks she’s going to breeze through the debacle called Benghazi which, in another more just time, would have her in an orange jumpsuit. 

Why is she laughing?  What is wrong with this woman?  Does she think that everyone within the sound of her voice is on government medication?

An American ambassador is dead.  His residence was burned to the ground. Three other Americans are dead. 

To all the press poodles and sycophants of the Progressive Left saying the Benghazi hearing is a witch hunt, we say FOUND HER.

Hey, You Can’t Take My Shady Shit

The woman who stood in front of four flag-draped caskets and lied her ass off is feeling the heat from a digital dragnet that has expanded to include a probe by the FBI into a second tech company, Connecticut-based Datto, Inc., which was hired to help back up data from her server.

Datto’s work on the Clinton e-mail system became public Tuesday when the Republican chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee sent the company a lengthy letter seeking information about the role it and other firms played in managing the Clinton e-mail system.

The letter to Datto from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) cited e-mails and other documents that have been turned over to the committee by Platte River in recent weeks that show a more complicated array of companies involved in managing the Clinton e-mail system than had previously been publicly known.

The letter, in requesting additional information, describes a Clinton family entity called Clinton Executive Service, which contracted with Platte River after Hillary Clinton left the State Department.

The letter cites some colorful internal e-mails from Platte River that were sent in August as the company’s role in the controversy gained widespread attention.

In one exchange, a Platte River employee working on the Clinton account discusses with a colleague whether there was a written record of a “directive to cut the backup.”

The context is not clear, but it suggests there was growing anxiety over how the system was managed and who would be held responsible.  At about the time of that exchange, Platte River had been in discussions with Datto about the length of time Clinton e-mail data was preserved and whether copies were saved, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

“If we had that email we are golden,” the employee wrote.  “Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit.”

According to Politico, a Platte River spokesman said they weren’t supposed to be doing the cloud backup and the client, Clinton, had never asked for such a backup.

“Datto was never supposed to have a cloud…We specifically instructed Datto to only keep 30 days of information onsite and what they did, against our explicate instructions was to build a cloud and put this information on a cloud,” said company spokesman Andy Boian. “So I don’t know what was on the cloud because they violated the exact instruction we gave them.

The Clinton campaign blasted Johnson for trying to sensationalize the matter for political points.  But Politifact calls the Clinton claim the Benghazi probe is Congress’ longest FALSE.

The FBI seized four computer servers located at the State Department’s Headquarters as part of its probe into how classified information was compromised on the Ice Cube in Heel’s private email system, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The clanging noise you probably heard was Clinton’s asshole slamming shut.

There is more evidence Monica Lewinsky was part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy than that #Hillary turned over all her official emails.

— Mike aka Proof (@ProofBlog) October 6, 2015

Cankles Has Fallen

Jonah Goldberg painted captivating images in his article this past Saturday at National Review.  He imagines the veteran grifters of Team Clinton:  Lanny Davis “in the middle of a meeting with an African dictator when, suddenly, his assistant hands him a note.”  Upon reading the note, which simply read “Cankles Is Down”, Davis abruptly terminates the meeting declaring, “The Clintons need me.” 

Goldberg then directs us to the banks of a bayou where James Carville, who has caught a catfish, proceeds to devour its entrails in the manner of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Gollum.  His snack is interrupted by a signal flare.  He knows instantly its meaning.  Quickly, he steps into his waiting limousine which speeds him to an MSNBC studio.  Meanwhile the other gutter rat, David Brock, “slinks out of his leather onesie” racing to his command center barking orders, “This is a level-one Alpha scenario.  Cancel all leave.”

Goldberg was, of course, thinking of action movies where grizzled old pros get together one last time to spin furiously as their dowager queen rapidly sinks in the quicksand of scandal.

Goldberg continues to posit, ”For 30 years, Hillary Clinton has been defensive bordering on paranoia (with occasional forays far over the border). For 30 years, Hillary Clinton has responded to every challenge—not just every scandal, but every challenge (like HillaryCare)—by convening huge task forces of loyalists."

We now know that Cankles’ Emailghazi troubles are just beginning as we learn that a State Department whistleblower told The Daily Signal a “boiler-room operation” was set up to hide documents after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others attached to the CIA complex in Benghazi perished in a hail of gunfire and mortar rounds.

As one commenter noted, this movie will be a “popcorn bonanza.”

UPDATE:  Dvorak News broke the news today that the former Secretary of State used MX Logic, a spam filtering service now owned by McAfee that had full access to all her classified State Department email in unencrypted form.  It could be read, tapped, archived or forwarded to anyone in the world without anyone ever knowing.

Curmudgeonly Cartoon: New York Times Cooks Hillary’s Goose; Time To Circle The Wagons

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

Read the rest of the story here.

This NYT -Hillary story is a testament how @TGowdySC is running the Benghazi committee -it's been a serious endeavor, credit where it's due
— Jackie Kucinich (@JFKucinich) March 3, 2015

Benghazi: Marie Harf Never Had An Unprogrammed Thought In Her Life

Ostensibly the pre-requisites for working at the State Department are an adroit inability to reason, being utterly devoid of common sense, possessing the ability to be a remorseless liar and a proclivity for being a front man for the failed foreign policy of The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer.

On Friday, September 5, 2014 State Department spokeshipster Marie Harf denied that the security team was told to stand down in Benghazi, but acknowledged that they were told not to enter the battle yet because they were under-equipped.  “I don’t see a big difference between these two accounts. In any event, the security team thought it had what it needed to make a difference in the fight without waiting.”

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three others lost their lives in the brutal attack by Islamist terrorists who launched RPGs, mortars and heavy fire into both the consulate in Benghazi and its nearby annex for thirteen hours while the White House and State Department ignored their cries for help.  Harf dishonestly suggested the three CIA military contractors are lying.

From the transcript of the press briefing:

QUESTION:  Three security operators at the secret CIA annex in Benghazi claim that they were given an order from the CIA station chief to stand down and wait to save the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans during the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya. What is your response to… 

MS. HARF:  Well, let’s be clear here. There was no stand-down order from anyone in Washington, in the military community, or in the intelligence community. I would point you to Congressman Ruppersberger who is the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who released a statement today that said, “Although some security officers voiced a greater urgency to depart for the compound, no evidence was ever found by the committee that CIA personnel were ever told to stand down. This finding is completely consistent with the Senate’s report as well.” Congressman Ruppersberger went on to say, “After interviewing these individuals, including those writing this book, and all of the others on the ground that night, both Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded there was not, in fact, an order to stand down. No evidence was found to support such a claim.” 

I think that, again, this is one of those topics of conversation that keeps coming up. It’s a question that keeps coming up and every time it comes up it is repeatedly proven otherwise by multiple bipartisan investigations, by the independent Accountability Review Board here at the State Department as well. The Senate, the House, a number of people have looked at this and cannot find any evidence for this even after including interviewing the authors of this book. 

QUESTION:  Well, who at embassy in Tripoli was aware that there was a CIA annex in Benghazi? 

MS. HARF:  Well, it’s a different place. Benghazi is a different place than Tripoli. Obviously… 

QUESTION:  Yeah, but did—was anyone aware that this place existed, that these people were actually willing to help and that… 

MS. HARF:  Well, obviously there is a chief of mission authority under—for our embassy in Tripoli, which includes the entire country. They are aware of all of our facilities in any given country, State Department or otherwise. As I said, there—this has been looked into multiple times and found that there was no stand-down order, period. Multiple people have said that in multiple investigations. Obviously, these gentlemen wanted to go help, but it was the smart and prudent thing to do to take a short delay for very good security reasons to get additional backup and to get additional weapons. But again, there was no stand-down order, period. That has been debunked multiple times by multiple investigations. 

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that what they’re saying—their claims are false then? 

MS. HARF:  Their claims have been proven false not by me, but by the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department’s independent Accountability Review Board and a number of other people as well, and including some of those committees who interviewed these same gentlemen. 

QUESTION:  Wait, Marie. There’s a difference, I think, between what you’re saying and what—are you saying that the CIA station chief on the ground did not tell them to hold off? 

MS. HARF:  There’s not a station chief in Benghazi because the station wouldn’t be there. 

QUESTION:  Well, the—whoever the—are you saying that they… 

MS. HARF:  Well, details matter. 

QUESTION:  Well, yeah, they do, which is… 

MS. HARF:  Correct, yes. 

QUESTION:  You’re saying that no one in Washington… 

MS. HARF:  No, I’m saying there. 

QUESTION:  No one—so you’re saying that their claim… 

MS. HARF:  They—wait—is wrong—is correct. 

QUESTION:  —that their boss—that their boss did not say… 

MS. HARF:  Correct. No evidence was ever found by the House Intelligence Committee that CIA personnel were ever told to stand down, period. They found no evidence to back that up. 

QUESTION:  So—and you would take issue with the—you just said, though, that they were told hold off a bit. You’re—so you’re making—you’re drawing a distinction between a stand down order and a delay. 

MS. HARF:  Correct. There was a short delay—there was a short delay so they could get backup and get additional weaponry before they went into a situation that they were unaware of what they were going to be encountering on the other side. But to be clear… 

QUESTION:  Okay. 

MS. HARF:  —there was no stand down order given from anyone. There has been no evidence to support that claim throughout this entire process. It keeps coming up, and every time it does, we will keep saying there’s no evidence. 

QUESTION:  There was a wait order. They said wait up to 30 minutes before they went in, though, so you’re not disputing that. 

MS. HARF:  To get backup and additional weapons so they—when they did engage, they had additional—again, weapons and backup and resources to fight back, because they did not know the full situation they were going into, and it would be irresponsible to send our security officers into an unknown security situation without additional weapons and additional backup. But the notion that the CIA and its team in Benghazi did anything less than act heroically in the middle of a crisis, I think, is really just totally at odds with reality.\ 

QUESTION:  So just to put a fine point on this, hopefully once and for all—so you’re not disputing that the guy on the ground in Benghazi said hold off. You’re just disputing that it was a stand down order, and… 

MS. HARF:  Those are two very different things. 

QUESTION:  I know. I understand that. 

MS. HARF:  Okay. 

QUESTION:  I just want to make sure that—and—but you’re also saying that this hold off or wait 30 minutes or whatever it was didn’t come from Washington at all; it came from the local person on the ground. 

MS. HARF:  Correct, who said let’s assess the situation, let’s get you guys more weapons and more backup. 

QUESTION:  But no one in D.C. said hold off for 30 minutes, or… 

MS. HARF:  Not that I’ve found any evidence of. And I think this is just an example of what I would call sort of this stand down story that is increasingly—every time it comes up, it’s—the story changed and it keeps shrinking and what you’re saying, right? It’s—first it was Washington; it was the President, it was the Secretary. Then it was Panetta, it was Secretary Panetta. Then it was the military, then it was the guy on the ground. It’s like you can’t find evidence for any of those, so you keep moving the ball and trying to find evidence. 

QUESTION:  I mean, these guys are coming out with a book. The three guys that were there—these special operatives—said this is what happened. So—and then… 

MS. HARF:  Well, these three men were also interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan fashion, who found there is no evidence of any stand down order, period. So I think I’ll… 

QUESTION: No, I mean, you can’t—moving the ball forward, I mean, this is a new thing. This is a new claim that’s coming out, and that’s why… 

MS. HARF:  Well, it’s just this incredibly shrinking stand down story that it seems to be perpetrated by some parts of this country who want to keep this story going, but there’s no evidence to back it up. 

QUESTION:  I mean, the book, and then along—The New York Times had an article written up on that. Are you saying that they’re trying to move the ball forward and saying that—what are you… 

MS. HARF:  I’m saying that the notion that there was evidence of stand down order given by anybody, including the CIA chief on the ground in Benghazi, is false. There’s no evidence to back it up, and when we make claims, I think it behooves all of us to have evidence there. And the notion that people on the ground didn’t want to do everything to help, but do it in a responsible and safe way—that’s what happened that night, and trying to find evidence otherwise when there isn’t any is just irresponsible. 

QUESTION: Can we change topics? 

MS. HARF: Yes, we can.

Later that same evening, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren said, “Since day one of Benghazi Fox News has been aggressively investigating.  It hasn’t been easy.  It’s been more like pulling teeth to get answers from the Obama administration.  The Obama administration’s behavior post-Benghazi has been weird.  Like they’re trying to hide something.  First that silly story about that video.  Remember Susan Rice on all the Sunday talk shows?  Even President Obama kept talking about the video for weeks.  So Fox continued to press for information.  A few weeks later when Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin said she was told there was a stand-down order at Benghazi, I got a weird call from the Obama administration trying to pressure me to get Jennifer to back down on her report.  I thought the call from the Obama administration was dirty. Incidentally, I don’t control my colleagues and they don’t control me.”

Will The Public Remain Less Informed Than It Would Otherwise Be Chucky?

The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer will be Chuck Todd’s first guest as the new moderator of "Meet the Press," NBC announced Thursday.

Todd told The Washington Post, “I’m as pissed off as anybody else is at Washington.” His plan:  make sure he’s well versed enough in every topic to knock people off their talking points and to highlight more news from outside the Beltway.

It will be the first appearance of our semi-retired president on “Meet the Press” since December 2012, when he discussed negotiations on the fiscal cliff and his second-term priorities.

Chris Cillizza brainstormed with fellow WaPo sycophants a “handful of questions Todd could ask that might elicit interesting or illuminating responses.”

What, specifically, is your timeline for making a decision on using your executive authority in regards the nation's millions of undocumented immigrants? 

You've taken a lot of heat for your summation of your foreign policy as "don't do stupid shit."  So, what sentence (or two) better describes your overall approach to foreign policy? 

Despite suffering some setbacks during his time in office, Bill Clinton reshaped the Democratic Party. To what extent have you done that, and which of these changes are most likely to outlast you once you’re gone?  

Should you have gone golfing after saying you were "heartbroken" about James Foley’s execution? 

Did you discuss the Ferguson riots with your daughters? What questions did they ask and how did you respond as a father?  

Would you change your approach to dealing with Congress if Republicans win the Senate this fall? How?

With the upcoming release of the book “13 Hours:  The Inside Account Of What Really Happened In Benghazi”, perhaps one of those questions Todd should be asking would be why were the five commandos who were guarding the CIA Annex in Benghazi ordered to “stand down” from any rescue attempt?  That would certainly be fertile ground for a tough question.

Instead, little Chucky will doubtless ask the burning question about the president’s bucket list visit to Stonehenge and his intellectual comment, “How cool is this?”

I hope I’m wrong.  I strongly suspect that Todd, like his predecessor, will ask inane softball questions.  There was a time when landing an interview with the president was considered an achievement.  That is no longer the case due to the shameful willingness of the poodle press to conduct fluff interviews and the American people, as a result, remain less informed than they might otherwise be.

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ on Ukraine, Syria & the Economy

 

Our peerless Narcissist-in-Chief made a few remarks today:

Our focus right now is to protect American personnel on the ground in Iraq, to protect our embassy, to protect our consulates, to make sure that critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected...our core priority right now is just to make sure that our folks are safe...

The president is focused. Got it!

It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as commander in chief to protect the American people. And that requires me to act fast based on information I receive if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened.

You mean like you did in Benghazi?? Surely I am not the only one to have Benghazi come to mind while the Poseur-in-Chief preens mindlessly about a "sacred duty" to "act fast based on information I receive if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened." Again, Mr. President, what exactly did you do Sept. 11th, 2011? Did you not say, Mr. President,

"... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”-Barack Obama, Oct. 26, 2012

What orders did you give and to whom? Were they carried out? If not, why not? And if not, what were the consequences of refusing to carry out a direct order from the President of the United States? Was this person fired? Disciplined in any way??

Based upon your performance in office, or lack thereof, what makes you think your remarks today have the slightest bit of credibility? Along that same line, maybe you should go back to letting Michelle pick out your suits for you?

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Look Upon These Faces

The parlor games in the nation’s capitol are rife with speculation about a vengeful shrew who may seek the nomination of her party for the presidency in 2016.

The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained documents exposing a “secretive dark money group backed by George Soros” whose aspirations are to steer nearly $40M to “left-wing groups in 2014 to support high-profile political and policy efforts.”

International economic terrorist and former Nazi collaborator, George Soros, is also finance co-chair for super PAC Ready for Hillary.  The group’s focus is and will be to create a visually arresting world to enchant voters.

But I ask you to look upon the two faces in the graphic above.  In it you see an aging woman and a young boy.  The boy appears sullen.  There is no rage in his eyes and yet he is donning the black flag of al-Qaeda, al-raya, which means death on his bandana.  He holds a toy Khyber rifle with his finger on the trigger his face marked with war paint.  He is the next generation of terror.

Boko Haram, the African Islamist terror group whose April kidnapping of nearly 300 young girls promised to assassinate U.S. ambassador to Nigeria Terence McCulley in February 2012, vowed to murder him if America signed a terrorism-fighting Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the government in Abuja.

McCulley, now the U.S. ambassador to Ivory Coast, was not harmed. But the threat, coming amid a years-long bombing campaign that killed more than 1,400 Nigerian civilians, did not persuade then-Secretary of State Clinton to fast-track the addition of Boko Haram to the U.S. government's official list of international terrorist groups.

The revelation of that apathy provides a stark parallel with assassination warnings issued by Islamist groups in Benghazi months before the September 11, 2012 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Ty Woods and Sean Smith.

The Clintons have always been preoccupied with their own political fortunes.  The February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole provoked little more than tough talk against the terrorists.

Byron York noted “the key to understanding Bill Clinton’s handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn’t his thing.”

Clearly it wasn’t his thing given the well-sourced book written by Richard Miniter entitled Losing bin Laden that carefully lays out the maddening history of the number of opportunities that Bubba had laid in his horny lap to capture and incarcerate bin Laden.

“A bureaucratic feud” between CIA Director James Woolsey and Sen. Dennis DeConcini coupled with “Clinton’s indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.”

Running as an “old and stale” woman to be commander-in-chief at a time when international terrorism is once again on the rise, Mrs. Clinton and her State Department lackeys have been engaged in an exercise of obfuscation and verbal gymnastics.

Hillary’s résumé as America's top diplomat is razor thin, judging from a press conference in which the State Department's chief spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, couldn't convey any of her achievements.

“Hashtag” Jen is not the only one flummoxed by such a challenge.  Foreign policy experts of all political stripes have the same problem.

The former Secretary of State herself had trouble articulating any lasting achievements from her tenure, during an April 3, 2014 appearance at the Women of the World Summit.

Dinesh D’Souza cautions in his new book, America—Imagine a World Without Her, “that as students of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama and Clinton could have enough time to unmake and then remake America into a nation the founding fathers wouldn't recognize.”

He continues, “They may not be responsible for the suicide of America, but they certainly will have helped to finish off a certain way of life in America, and they will leave us with a country unrecognizable not only to Washington and Jefferson but also to those of us who grew up in the 20th century.  If they succeed, there may be no going back. Then it will be their America, not ours, and we will be a people bereft of a country, with no place to go.”

Their America.  Let that wash over you for a moment.

When the House Intelligence committee convenes its special investigation into the deadly Benghazi attacks we will hopefully learn just how distracted she was and how dangerous she would be as president in dealing with the next generation of terror.

Hillary Visits With The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer For A Let’s Get Our Story Straight On That Despicable Video Thingy Meeting

People Magazine blew their cover.  Cankles had “lunch” with The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer on Thursday.  The meeting, which was not on the public schedule, became public knowledge after a tweet went out from Sandra Westfall.

Only naiveté would lead one to believe the “lunch” was merely a friendly get together for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and cherry Kool-Aid given the fact that the Select Committee formed to investigate the Benghazi scandal is developing a timeline that could have a significant impact on her much-anticipated presidential run.  Allies of the former Secretary of State have admitted as much.

Hillary’s shills will try to smear Trey Gowdy and other members of the select committee as they dig deeper into who made the decisions about security at the consulate, who was in on the call not to send our military when the attack was underway and why none of the attackers has been arrested.

The shadow opposition is in full swing strategizing how to cover up the truth about Benghazi.  From the moment the world learned of the deaths of our four Americans TWMDCO and Cankles have dismissed the incident as a “phony scandal”.

If it’s so damned phony why are they putting so much energy into this appalling cover-up?  I guess it makes a difference now, huh?

Pool reporter assigned to cover Obama today complained to Jay Carney about "lack of transparency" for trying to hide lunch with Hillary.

— Dave Boyer (@DaveBoyer) May 29, 2014

White House will tell us when CIA chief in Afghanistan is at Obama event but not when Hillary Clinton is having lunch with him.

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) May 29, 2014