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.

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.

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

Under Hillary’s Watch

Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused to place Boko Haram, known for years for its legendary psychopathic hatred of women, on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a “safe haven” for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Was Hillary's refusal to label Boko Haram a terrorist group born of the same belligerent blindness that caused her to fail to recognize the security concerns in Benghazi?

The fatal mishandling of Benghazi and Boko Haram will haunt Hillary all the days remaining in her miserable, misguided life.

An Honorable Man

This past Saturday I had the distinct honor of meeting Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) as he was returning to Washington to attend the White House Correspondents Dinner as a guest of Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

As you may know by now, Congressman Gowdy has been appointed as Chairman of a select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attacks during which “four of our fellow citizens were murdered, and a facility emblematic and representative of our country was attacked and burned on the anniversary of 9-11.”

At first, when I saw him standing about twenty feet from me I couldn’t believe my eyes.  I quickly walked up to him and asked if I might shake his hand.  He immediately reached out his hand to shake mine.

I told him that America was counting on him to get to the bottom of this god-awful tragedy.  My eyes began to tear up as I uttered those words.

He looked me dead in the eyes and said, "Yes Ma'am," and assured me that we are entitled to hear the truth about the attacks and its aftermath.

I wanted him to know that America supports him and he promised he would not let us down.

I was so excited about my chance meeting that I wanted to write a blog post about it, but when I got home I wasn’t able to access the Internet.  All I could do was post a Tweet.

Thank you @TGowdySC for the privilege of meeting you and shaking your hand yesterday. America is counting on you:
— PoliticalClownParade (@Carry_That_Load) May 4, 2014

About the four who were left to die at the brutal hands of Islamic radical terrorists Gowdy said, “They did what their country asked them to do.  They stood their post under dangerous circumstances even after requests for security were denied.  They stood their post.  The least we can do is stand this meager post that we have been assigned and demand that this Administration speak the truth to the people they’re supposed to serve.”

Gowdy’s appointment has struck a nerve and today reports reveal that Capitol Police are investigating emails that have been sent to the Congressman threatening him with harm. 

Benghazi: Wanting To Respond But Unable To Do So

Brigadier Gen. Robert Lovell, Ret.  had an anguished look on his face and his voice was filled with emotion as he testified that from the U.S. base in Stuttgart, Germany he watched the message traffic relating to Benghazi, in real time, as the attack was unfolding.

The general stated, it is “my duty” to come forward to give the American people a “full forthcoming” about what happened.  The discussion in the post-Benghazi investigations has focused on issues such as time, distance and assets that could have been used to rescue the Americans under attack.

“The point is we should have tried. The military is trained to go in the direction of gunfire.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon issued this statement about the testimony of Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today:       

“I appreciate the service of Brigadier General Robert Lovell and his willingness to testify.  He confirmed what my committee has understood for some time, that the military never believed this was a protest gone bad, and that the President fundamentally failed to posture our forces respond to any emergency in the weeks before 9/11.”  

"Beyond those confirmations, BG Lovell did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken.  The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents.  We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources DoD had available to respond.”   

"In the end, while BG Lovell did not further the investigation or reveal anything new, he was another painful reminder of the agony our military felt that night; wanting to respond but unable to do so."     

You’ve Got Mail

Nearly four years ago former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor and his juvenile BFF Jon Favreau, chief speechwriter for The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer, took their shirts off for an impromptu game of beer pong. 

Though they claimed later that they’d been caught in the rain before going into the bar where the photograph was taken, I believe now, as I did then that the West Wing is filled to overflowing with a bunch of vainglorious frat brats who forget they represent the White House, the president and the American people 24/7 and must comport themselves appropriately.  (Remember when Favreau was pilloried when a photograph was published of him groping the breast of a cardboard Hillary?)

Today I was watching Special Report with Bret Baier and the juvenile high-jinks continued when he responded to a question about the newly released “Benghazi email” talking points:

BRET BAIER:  According to the e-mails and the time line, the CIA circulates new talking points after they’ve removed the mention of al Qaeda, and then at 6:21 the White House—you—add a line about the administration warning of September 10th of social media reports calling for demonstrations. True? 

TOMMY VIETOR: Uh, I believe so. 

BAIER: Did you also change “attacks” to “demonstrations” in the talking points? 

VIETOR: Maybe. I don’t really remember. 

BAIER: You don’t remember? 

VIETOR: Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process. 

BAIER: Dude, it is the thing that everybody is talking about.

Earlier in the day, paid liar Jay Carney again deflected questions, saying the House Oversight Committee is searching for an attack by saying, “This is a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy.”

Tommy Vietor on Benghazi: 'Dude...That Was Two Years Ago' http://t.co/i2fDOK7M1f Hey, dude, four Americans died, dude. #tcot #Benghazi

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) May 1, 2014

In fairness to @TVietor08, two years ago he was graduating from Huggies pull-ups to Spiderman Underoos.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 1, 2014

Hillary’s Poll Numbers Sinking Faster Than Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile

A new Fox News poll based on interviews of 1,012 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide between April 13-15 shows former Secretary of State Shillary Clinton's numbers hitting their lowest point in six years.  Six years!

It must’ve killed the WaPo to report the results.

“The Fox News poll, from Democratic pollster Anderson Robbins Research and GOP pollster Shaw & Company, shows Clinton's favorable rating dropping to 49 percent, compared to 45 percent unfavorable.”

“The last time her numbers were in that ballpark was during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary race. After she ended her campaign, her favorable/unfavorable split was 47/46.”

“Other polls have shown Clinton's numbers—which were stellar during her time as secretary of state—steadily dropping since she left her post last year.”

Americans remember with disdain how she and Bubba sold nights in the White House Lincoln Bedroom and her State Department’s favoritism towards Boeing which has, for years, invested its resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s public and political image.

The Rose Law Firm, Vincent Foster’s “suicide”, Whitewater, Jim and Susan McDougal, illegal contributions and Travelgate are just some of the scandals in which Cankles has been involved.  Let’s also remember Doug Band and a consulting firm known as Teneo.

But the Clinton worshippers, who choose to have selective memories, are drooling over a possible run in 2016.  Why?  They consist of filthy rich donors to the DCCC and its myriad pet causes, power players and corrupt lobbyists, CEOs, film execs, shady trial lawyers, plutocratic bankers and radical tree huggers all of whom would have unfettered access to the Oval Office to maintain their cronyism and despicable divvying up of political plunder.

Clinton insiders admit that nothing [emphasis mine] about Hillary Clinton’s record as Secretary of State “shines that brightly” and ponders whether that will hurt her if she runs for office.

Oh, I think a little thing like lying right to the faces of the parents of Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods who were abandoned by their government to be murdered by savages might have a little something to do with hurting her chances.  Ambassador Christopher Stevens could not be reached for comment, but what difference, at this point, does it make?

Shillary Ducks

A woman was taken into federal custody Thursday after throwing a shoe at Shillary Rodham Clinton as the former Secretary of State began a Las Vegas convention keynote speech.

The incident happened moments after “Cankles” took the stage before an Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries meeting at the Mandalay Bay resort.

The incident reminded some of former President George W. Bush dodging two shoes thrown by an Iraqi journalist during a news conference in Baghdad in December 2008. Shoe-throwing is considered an insult in Arab cultures.

Ducking the truth seems to be a well-honed talent as evidenced by the fact that she cancelled her visit to San Diego in the midst of a planned “The Difference Matters” protest for her role in Benghazi where Pat Smith, mother of slain son Sean Smith, appeared along with 70 protesters.  Clinton bravely dodged the truth by appearing via satellite instead.

"I was promised answers, and to this day I don't have any, and I want them before I die," said Smith.

It hasn’t been a good week for Shillary, but then what difference, at this point, does it make?

See B.S.

Several days ago a story broke that Emmy Award winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson had resigned as a decades-long employee from CBS.

Attkisson is best known for her investigation of the gun-running scandal known as "Fast and Furious" that allowed firearms to reach a myriad of Mexican drug cartels.  One of those guns was used in the murder of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry.  Her work on the story garnered an Edward R. Murrow Award in 2012.

A media analyst suggests that the CBS News investigative reporter resigned because her bosses were annoyed with her efforts to uncover several scandals within the Obama Administration including the Benghazi debacle and Solyndra.

It was Attkisson who roundly refuted Hillary Clinton’s claim that "I remember landing under sniper fire" on a visit to Bosnia.  Attkisson was covering the First Lady on that trip and her memories are:  "To be sure, it was not the 'safest' trip for a first lady to take: there were serious risks in traveling to Bosnia, even for the president's wife under the vigilant protection of the U.S. military. It took some guts for her to go. But I don't recall, and did not note, any close calls on this trip with sniper fire or any other dangers. "

Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what George Orwell called the 'official truth'.

Bogus characterizations of her work contend that her reporting had become agenda-driven.  CBS executives “doubt the impartiality” of her reporting.

If by “doubt the impartiality” of her work CBS is inferring that Attkisson refrains from exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism then, yes, Attkisson is guilty as charged.

If by “agenda-driven” the Left is implying that she is fighting for truth in Washington when they exude extreme cowardice then, yes, they pegged her correctly.

Carrying the water for this Administration smacks of yellow journalism.  The Liberal stenographers and White House poodles have abdicated their role as the Fourth Estate and have morphed into a Fifth Column overtly supporting a Progressive movement.

I strongly suspect that Ms. Attkisson’s departure from CBS may well become a precursor to the wheels coming off The Ministry of Propaganda.

They say the truth shall set you free.  Ms. Attkisson is surely free now.  Good for her.  I wish her well.

America, What Have They Done To You?

I’m going to begin this post by echoing the words of University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn Reynolds AKA Instapundit:

“Though people have taken to the streets from Egypt, to Ukraine, to Venezuela to Thailand, many have wondered whether Americans would ever resist the increasing encroachments on their freedom. I think they've begun.”

For 700 years, Britain’s rule over Ireland had been resisted by attempts at rebellion and revolution, all of which ended in failure.  As a result, what emerged in the early 20^th Century was a strategy known as “Irish Democracy.”

If you are unfamiliar with the term “Irish Democracy”, it is a way of shedding the yoke of oppression and injustice through the strategy of stubborn disregard for authority.  Its clearest expression is credited to Michael Collins, the Irish leader, who is purported to have told angry crowds going head-to-head with London:  “We have a weapon more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of the British Empire.  That weapon is our refusal.  There is one weapon that the British cannot take away from us:  we can ignore them.”

The growing cancer of cronyism and corruption in our federal government needs a healthy dose of stubborn disregard for authority.  The sweat, sacrifice and courage of our Founding Fathers established a nation of laws not of men.

Five days after The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer defeated John McCain in 2008, Valerie Jarrett appeared on Meet The Press.  Jarrett, then Co-Chair for the Obama Transition Team, was interviewed by Tom Brokaw who asked this of Jarrett, “What’s the working model?  Are you going to be a shadow government or just a very interested spectator off to the side?”

Jarrett’s answer was jarring: 

“There is one president at a time, President Bush is still president.  He has graciously invited President-elect Obama to the White House tomorrow to begin real conversations about transition.  So we respect that.  He will be the president until January 20^th.  However, given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that President-elect Obama is prepared to take power and begin to rule Day One.” [Emphasis mine]

One month before the general election, while on the campaign trail in Columbia, MO, candidate Obama said, "Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” [Emphasis mine]

"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor."

Yep.  This Oval Office is embroiled in provocative controversies scandals involving the troubled rollout of the health care website, the Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of politically active conservative groups, the National Security Agency’s massive yottabytes collection of Americans’ phone records and the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, leaving four Americans murdered.

America, God love her, is increasingly under the jackboot of those more interested in managing its decline and looting its treasury than protecting our liberty or reviving free market growth and prosperity.

According to the U.S Census Bureau real median household income has declined from $53,644 in 2008 to $51,000 in 2013.

Enrollment in the food stamp program, known as SNAP, has skyrocketed by 70 percent since The World’s Most Dangerous Community Organizer starting putting his feet on the Resolute Desk and every other piece of furniture in the Oval Office.  The number of people on food stamps increased to 16.5 million—going from 28.2 million to 44.7 million—an increase of 59 percent in just 3 years.

One of those food stamp recipients is a California “beach bum” who surfs and drinks.  He wakes up in the afternoon and eats lobster or gourmet sushi every day.  He has no intention of looking for a job.

TWMDCO gave notice recently that he will circumvent limitations on His Excellency by using his pen and his phone.

We learned today that fewer Americans think TWMDCO is respected on the world stage.

Also in today’s news, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel proposed shrinking the Army to its smallest size in 74 years, closing military bases and making other military-wide savings as part of a broad reshaping after more than a decade of war making it the smallest military force since just before the United States entered World War II.

“We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable and in some instances more threatening to the United States,” he said.

Ronald Reagan would be incredulous.  It was he who fervently believed in peace through strength.

"We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington's words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. ‘To be prepared for war,’ he said, ‘is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.’"

The hue and cry of many of my friends and many of the readers of this blog is deafening.  We wring our hands, rend our clothing and tear our hair out because of this administration’s incuriousness and epic incompetence.  We ask, “What have you done to America?”

It is not too late to save her.  What will you do to prevent America from following in the footsteps of other great civilizations that now sit on the ash heap of history?

Planet Hillary Puts Universe On Notice

Amy Chozick, writing for The New York Times Magazine opened with this absurd question about Hillary Clinton:

“The gravitational pull of a possible 2016 campaign is bringing all the old Clinton characters into her orbit. Can she make the stars align, or will chaos prevail?”

The image on the cover of the magazine presented ‘ol Cankles Clinton with her face digitally altered into an extraterrestrial orb.  Thankfully, her cankles were not integrated into the photoshoppery.

What ensued was a blogosphere ablaze with alterations to the mag’s cover.  Poor Hillary.  All manner of “take me to your planet” memes emerged.  What these ‘chops missed was the shameful way in which Hillary “Rotten” Clinton allowed four innocent Americans to be murdered by savages in Benghazi.  SooperMexican got it right.  So did the Earl of Taint.

Ms. Chozick sickened me with her words:

“[Clinton] spent four years at the State Department displaying great political and diplomatic and managerial skill, and in that process shed much of the baggage generally associated with the Clintons.”

The money quote from the piece is this:  “How can Clinton, who is 66, make American voters think about something other than her fraught personal and political past?”

That’s simple—form an initiative called Correct The Record to defend her against media attacks.

If she’s so GD great politically, diplomatically and managerially why would there be a prerequisite to defend her?  One word:  BENGHAZI.

Mainstream media poodles have already endorsed her and a gaggle of lefty pundits have anointed her with the oils of inevitability.

The families of the four dead Americans have never gotten so much as an apology for her cowardice.  The New York Times may create a sterilized biography of this Bitch-of-Benghazi with her bloated head floating in outer space putting the universe on notice, but the blood of innocents will not be forgotten by the American people.

So my ‘chop depicts an astronaut marooned to die a slow death in the universe Planet Hillary inhabits just like Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods did in that Benghazi pesthole infested with godless savages.