Okay, seems now that Hillary Clinton has decided to jump under the bus to protect her buddy obama. Or has she? Bet Bill and her have something more nefarious in mind.
LIMA, Peru – (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is taking responsibility for security at the U.S. consulate in Libya where an attack by extremists last month killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Pushing back against Republican criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of the situation, Clinton said Monday in Lima, Peru, that security at all of America’s diplomatic missions abroad is her job, not that of the White House.
With only weeks before the presidential election, the outrage has crystallized around Vice President Joe Biden for claiming in last week’s debate with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan that “we weren’t told” about requests for extra security at the consulate where assailants killed the Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Congressional hearings revealed that the State Department was aware of, and rejected, several requests for increased security in Benghazi. Spokesmen for both the State Department and the White House took pains Friday to make clear that Biden’s “we” referred to the White House, where such requests would not go.
There are three separate investigations into the attack going on now: an FBI probe into the deaths of the four Americans, an independent inquiry by a panel appointed by Clinton and the congressional hearings. Ambassador Chris Stevens was among the four killed in the attack, which came on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.
In television interviews, Clinton said she is responsible for State Department security. She told Fox News that “the decisions about security are made by security professionals.”
“I take responsibility,” she told CNN. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world (at) 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”
Hey, if you see this product in your local grocery store? Don’t freaking buy it!
The hour-long documentary [tomorrow] is being advertised as a “provocative conversation about race and politics,” from “both sides of the political aisle,” but it is being grossly mis-marketed. I know this because I was interviewed for and have already seen the film.
The program really deals very little with the 2012 election. It starts off pretending to be about the presidential campaign, but really isn’t at all – at least not directly. Instead it quickly devolves into a short history of how inherently racist the United States of America is, how aggrieved racial minorities still are, and how horrible white people, especially conservative white people, can be.
The brief section which deals with President Obama is a complete joke. Literally none of the “experts/commentators” whose interviews were used during that portion of the film are white. It is almost as if the film’s producers think a white person commenting on Obama is as fundamentally illegitimate as most liberals seem to think of a man’s opinion on abortion.
This is not just idle conjecture on my part. I gave the producers two separate interviews (both of which the producers went out of their way to lavishly praise), each of which was at least an hour long. Of that time, at least a full half hour was spent talking about the Barack Obama, about whose election I made a rather higher profile documentary of my own called “Media Malpractice.”
And yet, despite having – among many other things – declared Obama’s election to be “the most racist event I have ever witnessed,” not even one word from my statements about the president made it into the film. Instead, in the opening montage, they show me saying, “People are afraid to talk about race because they will be accused of being a racist, I am just too stupid to abide by that” …
Take a quiz HERE.
I received a phone call from an old friend that has been in Washington D.C. for years and is fairly well-connected politically. What she told me was ugly and sinister, yet very compelling. She said she had received information from someone high up in White House circles, and wanted my thoughts. No, there is no leaked email, no concrete proof, and this article is based on “hearsay.” I’m not one that usually engages in or repeats hearsay, but if this is true, it could be the biggest story in 50 years.
According to her, Barack Obama, wanting an “October Surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador. Then sometime in October before the election Obama was to orchestrate some great military action to rescue Ambassador Stevens, causing all of America to cheer Obama’s strong foreign policy and bravery and making him look like a hero. After all, his supposed killing of Osama Bin Laden bounce had long since faded. Thus, sweeping him to victory in November. Imagine the headlines and talking points. The election would be a lock. The Muslim Brotherhood has every reason to want Obama re-elected in November and have an American President sympathetic to their causes. Not to mention an administration filled with Muslim appeasers. Therefore, they agreed to aid in these theatrics. Unfortunately for Ambassador Stevens and three others, the Brotherhood could not control the hired thugs that were to perform the kidnapping and things escalated and four American lives were lost. Panic set in at the White House and with little time to place blame as far away from Obama as they could, they settled on a ridiculous fairy tale about an irrelevant video posted four months prior on YouTube and ran with it. Barack Obama even ran with it after evidence showed he knew better and ran with it all the way to his speech at the U.N.
So now, they are admitting it was a terrorist attack. They are admitting that the State Department had denied requests for more security from Washington, but nobody told them. Blame anyone but Barack Obama. I’m betting the White House is smirking and perfectly happy to be accused of having a breakdown in communication as opposed to the alternative. This scenario, if true, more than satisfies my common sense gland.
When Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley last year began teaching a class to fellow officers on the dangers of radical Islam, he seemed to have landed in a perfect spot.
A highly rated armor officer who saw combat in Iraq, Col. Dooley planned to instruct for several years at the Joint Forces Staff College within the National Defense University, then seek command of a combat battalion — a ticket to better postings and higher rank.
Today, Col. Dooley finds himself at a dead end while being targeted for criticism by American Islamic groups, at least two of which are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates universal Islamic law.
More important, Col. Dooley’s critics include Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In a news conference with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta in May, Gen. Dempsey, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, publicly excoriated Col. Dooley’s training materials as being unfair to Islam and “academically irresponsible.” [...]
Richard Thompson, president of the nonprofit Thomas More Law Center, is representing Col. Dooley in an appeal against the negative report. He said the Pentagon is trying to appease the Muslim Brotherhood.
“What happened here was this whole idea of political correctness deterred the ability of our military to speak frankly about the identity of the enemy,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview. “Once you allow political correctness to overwhelm our military, then we are really going to have an impact on our national security.”
CNN’s Candy Crowley will be moderating tomorrow night’s second presidential debate. It will be a 90-minute town hall forum at Hofstra University on Long Island, east of New York City. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns signed a “memorandum of understanding” about how the debate will be run. But Crowley is already making noises that she plans to circumvent the agreed-upon rules and take control:
In a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of this Tuesday’s town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.
While an early-October memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns suggests that CNN’s Candy Crowley would play a limited role in the Tuesday-night session, Crowley, who is not a party to that agreement, has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested that she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”
Do you remember what happened the last time CNN was in charge of a high-stakes “town hall” style campaign debate?
I do. Flashback: CNN/YouTube/plant debacle.
Back when, in the mid 60′s, I learned how to program and run and fix IBM computers like this. Hey, remember the days of the cards? Do not fold, mutilate or spindle? I learned how to program the machines that punched these cards out. The collators that took all the cards and spit out whatever it was the cards wanted for information, and so much more. Ah, the good old days of actually hard wiring boards!
There is a reason that Obama’s ideological policy efforts have failed America. It is because they, like his ideology, are not American.
No, I am not suggesting that he wasn’t born here or that he’s not an American citizen. I am stating with absolute certainty that his core ideology is predicated upon anything but liberty. And since liberty is at the very core of American ideology, he is thoroughly un-American.
Obama’s vision for America is based upon equality, not liberty. And despite the apparent confusion that many Americans seem to have, these two principles do not represent the same thing. But don’t take my word for it. Milton Friedman, the brilliant economist and advisor to Ronald Reagan, has clarified the distinction between equality and liberty in the clearest of terms, and it doesn’t take a political mind to grasp it. It just takes a mind willing to accept reality.
While fielding questions before an audience at Stanford University on February 9th, 1978, Friedman was challenged by a young man in the audience about America’s responsibility to the poor.
The young man began:
Another way of putting this is to say that he believes that income inequality is a serious problem that is only getting worse because of systemic flaws that cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, which is precisely how Obama frames the issue. So Friedman’s response to this suggestion applies equally:
Oh, if only we didn’t have to argue on the basis of false premises, we could be free of this myth once and for all. The plain and simple fact is that the vast majority of Americans generally do not remain in either the “poor” income class or the “rich.” As Friedman’s contemporary Thomas Sowell points out, “Comparing the top income bracket to the bottom income bracket for a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh and blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.”
Fluidity between income classes is not only possible but distinctly likely for most Americans, who at one time or another file taxes as singles while making minimum wage, and are therefore considered “poor.” Later in life, of course, those same Americans increase their skill set and marketability to the point that they can earn more money, and thus, they are no longer “poor.”
This is an interesting prospect, isn’t it? At one point in your life, you were probably a number that contributed to a statistic that a leftist social engineer pointed to as evidence of “economic inequality.” Many Americans have moved beyond their role as evidence of “poverty,” but other young, unskilled earners have taken their place, and thus, poverty is still the epidemic that it was when you shared the burden of this systematically applied “poverty.”
Data, ascertained and interpreted in this manner, becomes political fodder, not a reflection of facts, and not reflective of American society.
Nonetheless, the young man was unmoved by Friedman’s explanation, and suggested:
This exposes a magnificent fallacy. There is a wide chasm between incredible success and incredible failure. We Americans call it the “middle class,” to which most of us belong. It seems silly, but it’s necessary to note that moderate success and moderate failure exist in that broad area between. Here, this young man is arguing for the state’s responsibility to create “ladders of opportunity” out of poverty. Again, this is a position that our president has taken on many occasions.
The young man went on, and surprisingly, with a very substantial question:
After a disclosure that his response was a simple matter of “thought” and “reason,” Friedman offered the profound response: