Fascinating

ISIS and a Ideological Hard Place

Militants for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have traveled to Mexico and are just miles from the United States. They plan to cross over the porous border and will “imminently” launch car bomb attacks. And the threat is so real that federal law enforcement officers have been placed at a heightened state of alert, and an American military base near the border has increased its security.

But isn’t that racist? After all “securing the border” is a Liberal buzz phrase signalling that the speaker is a massive, hate-filled, vile,racist? 🙂

If I were ISIS this is where I would attack because it IS the weakest point. And whats even better is that Mr. I-wanna-look-tough can’t do anything about it without completely pissing off the millions of new Democrats he’s recruited and his left wing base.

He’s stuck between and ISIS and a Ideological Hard Place.

And guess who’s going to get killed for it?

We are.

Happy?  Hope and Change everybody…

“There is no credible intelligence to suggest that there is an active plot by ISIL to attempt to cross the southern border,” Homeland Security officials said in a written statement, using an alternative acronym for the group.

Democrats say opponents of President Obama are simply playing on concerns about terrorism as part of their attempt to portray Mr. Obama as having failed to secure the border against illegal immigration.

“There’s a longstanding history in this country of projecting whatever fears we have onto the border,” said Representative Beto O’Rourke, Democrat of Texas, who represents El Paso and other areas near the border. “In the absence of understanding the border, they insert their fears. Before it was Iran and Al Qaeda. Now it’s ISIS. They just reach the conclusion that invasion is imminent, and it never is.”

And the Democrats blame someone else AFTERWARDS anyhow, or will it just be another You Tube Video?

Even after the car bomb, or worse, goes off the Left will be Ideologically hog-tied into trying to discount it as “terrorism” until hell freezes over because they are they committed to their own arrogance and pride. They can’t be wrong. They can’t be “weak”. They must be right at all costs.

So how many attacks will it take for them to admit they were wrong?

Too Many.

But since they haven’t haven’t happened YET (much like 9/11) then it’s all fear.

Just like Pelosi’s “It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate,” Pelosi told Maher. “Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate.”  is NOT fear-mongering BECAUSE THEY said it. Even if it is.

It’s Orwell personified, and many could be killed catastrophically and needlessly. To the Democrats THAT’s fear-mongering.

The Vandals and The Goths are Coming…

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said the Obama administration had a history of looking the other way on national security threats, particularly ones involving the border.

“President Obama or his administration should acknowledge this dire threat on the border, whatever its political ramifications are for the debate on immigration,” Mr. Fitton said.

“High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued,” the report said. “Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.” (NYT)

But it’s the threat to The Democrat Senate and all those new Amnesty-starved New Democrats that worry the President and his party.

You are not important enough to violate the sanctity of THE AGENDA!

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!

But what do i know, I’m just a fear-mongering racist, after all… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Crafting D.C. Style

Oh they hear you, they just don’t care what you think. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.

That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the more than two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.

What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.

Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.

Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.

One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”

“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.

Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.

Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.

A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.

“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”

One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.

“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

While the testimony is expected to focus on Benghazi, the hearing arrives at a time of growing tensions between Congress and the CIA over such matters as the Bush administration’s interrogation rules and mutual charges of spying and illegality between the Senate intelligence committee and the agency.

Lawmakers are likely to press Mr. Morell for a reaction to reports this week that a classified Senate intelligence report has concluded that harsh interrogation methods used in the years after Sept. 11 provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and that the CIA misled Congress on the matter.

The CIA disputes that conclusion. The Senate panel is expected to vote Thursday on sending the Obama administration a 400-page executive summary of the “enhanced interrogation” report to start a monthslong declassification process.

One of the key issues likely to come up during the House hearing involves what was said during a series of secure teleconferences between CIA officials in Washington and Libya from the time of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, to the completion of Mrs. Rice’s talking points for dissemination on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16.

Multiple sources confirmed to The Times on Monday that the station chief’s email to Mr. Morell was written after one of the teleconferences during which senior CIA officials in Washington — Mr. Morell among them — made clear to the Tripoli station chief that they were examining alternative information that suggested there was a protest before the attack.

After the exchange, Mr. Morell signed off on the CIA talking points given to Mrs. Rice promoting what turned out to be the false narrative of a protest. The development ultimately triggered an angry reaction from Republicans, who have long claimed that the Obama administration, with an eye on the November elections, was downplaying the role of terrorists in order to protect the president’s record on counterterrorism.

Documents since released by the White House show that administration officials boasted in internal emails at the time about Mr. Morell’s personal role in editing and rewriting the talking points.

“Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” an Obama administration official wrote Mrs. Rice on the morning of Sept. 15.

What is not clear is whether the email was in any way referring to the conflicting intelligence streams about a protest in Benghazi.

Alternatively, the email notes that Mr. Morell was uncomfortable with an initial draft of the talking points batted back and forth between White House and CIA officials “because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack” in Benghazi.

During interviews with The Times, several former senior intelligence officials have lamented the whole “talking points” issue, saying the CIA was caught in the middle of the White House, Congress and the reality on the ground in Benghazi while crafting the points.

The reason the CIA ended up taking the lead on the talking points was because, as news of the attack was breaking around the world, lawmakers on the House intelligence committee were seeking guidance from the agency on how to respond to media questions without revealing classified information.

Specifically, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and the committee chairman, and ranking Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland asked for the guidance.

One former senior intelligence official told The Times that as word circulated through the inner circles of the intelligence community that the CIA was working on the talking points, officials within the Obama administration steered the mission toward crafting something Mrs. Rice could say on national talk shows.

“In essence, the talking points got repurposed,” the former official said. “What it turned into — and I don’t think Michael ever knew this, it’s something to watch for in his testimony this week — was, ‘Let’s hand this thing to the U.N. ambassador and make it what she should say.’”

“That’s a big deal,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to prepare something for lawmakers so they don’t make a mistake or say something inaccurate. It’s quite another matter to have that feed the administration’s then-current, definitive account of what had actually happened in Benghazi.”

“There are a lot of twists and turns in this,” added another former intelligence official. “A lot of it hangs on the fact that the agency thought they were crafting these talking points for Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers, not the White House.” (WT)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Drunk Driving

Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Yeah, that whole Freedom of the Press thing is non-existent, they are just puppets for the Master to pull and have no brains of their own and no rights. 🙂

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

Yeah, banning it , making it against the law, putting people in jail, fining them has really stop them and of course, there are never any “victims”.

What an Orwellian clod.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

Well, there sure was no harm in Benghazi! Or The NSA spying on you… None at all.

Don’t be a “victim”, unless you’re a liberal under attack for their own crap.

Then you’re just a racist. 🙂

Michelle Malkin: At the end of 2013, Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had some nasty words for yours truly. Irked that I used my Twitter feed to criticize her Obamacare propaganda efforts, Wasserman Schultz snarked back at me:

“Thanks for spreading the word! You’ll be eating them next year. #GetCovered.”

Classy as always. And completely wrong-headed as usual. Less than three months into 2014, how’s dutiful Debbie and her Dear Leader’s pet government takeover program doing? The most recent retreat measures — call it the Obamacare Endangered 2014 Midterm Democrats’ Rescue Plan — include:

–Allowing insurers for two extra years to continue selling plans that otherwise would have been banned by Obamacare. Last fall, Americans across the country and from all parts of the political spectrum raised an uproar in the wake of millions of Obamacare-induced cancellation notices on their individual market health plans. President Obama trotted out a “keep your plan” Band-Aid effective through this year. Now, the “transitional period” will extend through October 2016 and cover policyholders until the following September, after Obama is safely out of office.

–Extending the open enrollment period for 2015 from November 2014 to February 2015, a month longer than originally scheduled. (It will no doubt be extended again as the midterm elections get closer.)

–Relaxing eligibility requirements for insurers to qualify for financial help under a three-year program intended to cushion insurers’ costs of complying with Obamacare mandates.

–Exempting labor unions, universities and other self-insured employers from paying a fee that creates the above-noted fund.

In addition, the White House last month allowed medium-sized employers an extra year to comply with the Obamacare mandate to offer insurance to all full-time workers and reduced the percentage of workers that large companies are required to cover. These latest regulatory walk-backs by administrative fiat all come on the heels of dozens of administrative delays and rollbacks.

While Democrats complain about Republican Obamacare repeal efforts, we may be nearing a special inflection point at which the White House will have reneged on more Obamacare regulations than it’s actually enforcing!

And all by Executive Fiat, mind you.

Nope, nothing to see here… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Coronation Part 2: Be a BEPPER Too!

In honor of the Coronation of  His Most Narcissistic Majesty, King Obama I:

(from the old Dr Pepper Jingle)

“I’m a BEPper he’s a BEPper
She’s a BEPper we’re a BEPper
Wouldn’t you like to be a BEPper too?
Be a BEPper Drink The Kool-Aid Too.”

BEPper = Bush Excuse Psychosis. Definition: A mindless drone who believes everything that is wrong is due to George W. Bush (and by extension any non-liberal like Republicans and Tea Party Members). The universe is black and white. They are Black (because being white is politically incorrect and fits their backward thought processes)  and they and only they are the Great Black Hope of America and only they are upright, moral, fair, compassionate and perfect.

Everyone who isn’t them are evil, greedy, narcissistic (project much do they? :)) morons who are beneath their contempt and certainly not due any respect whatsoever.

My way or the highway.

Psychosis (from the Ancient Greek ψυχή “psyche”, for mind/soul, and -ωσις “-osis”, for abnormal condition or derangement) refers to an abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality”. People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. Psychosis is given to the more severe forms of psychiatric disorder, during which hallucinations and delusions and impaired insight may occur.

People experiencing psychosis may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder. Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out daily life activities.

Sound like the Left to you? 🙂

To use a Star Trek analogy, You have to be of the Body, or else you are foreign disease which must be “corrected”.

Also see my blog at Drone Warfare

So the national Debt: $16,453,521,000,000

And the attendant $5 Billion dollars a day in borrowing and the $1.4 Trillion in debt payments (think credit card minimum payments) are the exclusive fault of (in order) George W Bush, “Congress” (aka Republicans), and Ronald Reagan.

Any mention of a Democrat of any kind having anything to do with this is automatically disqualified from having any mental capacity for  “intelligence” and is totally devoid of “the facts” and as such will be treated generally to a shotgun blast of hate-filled ad hominems because they are obviously, without question, a moron and in need of reminding of this fact of nature and their place in it for believing such trash.

And if the subject of Spending comes up you’ll general get 1 of 2 responses that will likely contain other tangents and insults in the response.

1) Bush’s Illegal Wars caused the crash. And we are still paying for them even now, so it’s his fault. End of discussion.

One of the more curious corollaries to this one is: Medicare Part D . It was an unfunded Mandate passed during Bush’s turn that the Democrats were all for. But because it involves spending some of the more psychotic will use this as derisive thing but when you come back with, “well, why don’t you get rid of it then?” they immediately switch to another line of attack because their mindlessly programmed drone attack can’t handle counter attacks, especially from “stupid” people who don’t understand “the facts” and of course it’s Bush’s fault!

2) Well, Reagan Doubled the Debt and Bush Tripled it is the battle cry or something very similar.

Reality: Debt (fiscal year ending)

09/30/1980  907,701,000,000.00  Reagan In

09/28/1990  3,233,313,451,777.25  Reagan Out

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86   GWB in

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 GWB out

Today: $16,453,521,000,000  Obama

What a BEPper Sees:

09/30/1980  907,701,000,000.00  Reagan In

09/28/1990  3,233,313,451,777.25  Reagan Out (so it’s his fault He started it!!)

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86   GWB IN

Today: $16,453,521,000,000  Bush’s Fault (from 5 to 16- that’s “tripled”)

That’s it. It’s that simple. 🙂

Anything else is heresy. It’s thought that must be suppressed and destroyed.

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

He’s all credit for the Good and no fault for the bad.

And frequently the “good” isn’t actually good.  But it must be projected as such because they are the superior beings and they cannot be seen to be wrong, EVER. No matter what. No matter how silly or psychotic they get they are always “right” and they always have all the “facts” and you don’t.

YOU are a Mindless drone of FOX News, if you disagree with them. It’s YOU who are programmed.

It’s All YOU!!

The U3 unemployment rate is the same now as it was 4 years ago at his first inaugural. Most people who are rational would think this is a bad thing.

But not the left. Oh no.

“well at least we stop shedding 700-800,000 jobs like we did under BUSH.” or some variant on this Talking point that has been programmed into them.

Because it should be obvious to all that the reason the jobs are not growing fast enough (Obama has created over 5 million jobs you know– that’s why the unemployment is unchanged! :)) is because of George W. Bush – The Evil Satan! Destroyer of the World!

Unemployment Rate by Month

The fact that it was higher than 7.8% (which was Jan 2009) until Sept 2012 and hasn’t actually budged since is not Obama’s economics fault it is The Republicans fighting Obama and Bush’s Fault.

That’s it. End of story.

The Fact that the Senate hasn’t passed a Budget since 2009 (which by law it has to pass one) is the Republican’s fault, don’t you know.

They send the Senate, “silly”, “outrageous” Budgets so the Democrats feel they must ignore them. It’s the Republicans fault for “playing games” and “obstructing” the process.

If they’d only send up a Budget that they approve of then everything would be fine! 🙂

Do it my way, or else it’s your fault that nothing gets done!! 🙂

The alternative to this is the “BUT MOM! he did it too!” response. We all know what this is in reality, and excuse to get out being in trouble by saying that a sibling did it too or first or timmy’s mom/dad let him/her do it!

So if the Republican ever did ANYTHING that you are complaining about ANYWHERE in history or ANYTHING even remotely like it, then it’s ok for them do it because you did it first so stop complaining about it.

In real life you’d get the MOM look and you’re busted because she ain’t buying it for a second.

But not the Democrats, especially when they have the Ministry of Truth to back them up.

And if that doesn’t work, fall back to the ultimate line of defense: YOU’RE A RACIST! or You’re Nazi-esque and of course no sane person wants to be that so they must be right and you MUST be wrong after all. 🙂

So our King will give a flowery speech about “coming together” and “unity” and “love” and “reaching across the isle” and “bi-partisanship” for the sake of the children and the country… AND NOT MEAN ONE DAMN WORD OF IT!

NOT ONE WORD!

But his drones and his sycophants will cheer and smile and wonder how the universe ever got a long without someone who is so perfect in every way.

And then they’ll have their 2-minute BEPper Hate (designed to increase the hatred for the current enemy of the Party, as much as possible) and go on about their day secure in the knowledge that not only are they always right, but that you- the heretic- are in fact a Moron to be pitied for your lack of intelligence.

From Wikipedia entry: The left-wing media watchdog site Media Matters for America, set up to counteract what was perceived as a domination of the public square by right-wing intolerance and misinformation, particularly on FOX News and conservative talk radio, has used the theme by uploading regular “Two Minutes Hate” segments to the Internet composed of inflammatory or extremist language used by right-wing pundits.

And Wikipedia is the fountain of all knowledge as we know so it must be true! 🙂

So are you a BEPper There a BEPper
They are a BEPper They  expect you to be a BEPper
Wouldn’t you like to be a BEPper too?
Be a BEPper Drink The Kool-Aid  and “feel” better.

Your King and his army of drones command it.Bask in the glow of his greatness and be “enlightened”.

After all, you’re not a racist, bigoted, savage in need of enlightenment are you? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

 

3 Months Later

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Three months ago today, President Obama woke up to the news that US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been murdered during a terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi.  The president had been informed that an active attack was underway the night before — but how actively he followed the developing raid, and what (if any) orders he issued, remains a mystery.  On September 12, the president skipped his daily intelligence briefing and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign rally.  This much we know.  The Obama campaign eventually accused Republicans of “politicizing” the massacre by asking questions about it, asserting that the “entire reason” it was a major national story was due to rank exploitation of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.  Even with the president’s re-election safely tucked away, the White House has continued to defend its UN Ambassador (and possible Secretary of State in waiting) against charges that she dissemminated false information to mislead the public about the true nature of the deadly attack.  The president and his top lieutenants have repeatedly dodged difficult questions, changed their stories, and hidden behind the dubious fig leaf of “ongoing investigations.”  Obama has vowed to track down those responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice.  He has also stated his desire to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi that night.  The federal investigation into the attacks got off to a stupefyingly dreadful start, and three months later, justice and accountability remain in short supply:

Three months after Ambassador Christopher Stevens, a diplomat and two CIA contractors were murdered in Benghazi, there is no sign of the killers being brought to justice by the United States. The investigation into the attacks has been hampered by the reluctance of the Libyan authorities to move against the Islamist terrorists identified by the FBI as responsible for the killing, according to American officials briefing the ‘New York Times’. None of the suspects has been arrested or killed and some have fled Libya. Last month, the FBI issued a global appeal asking anyone with information about the killers to send information in an e-mail, text message or via Facebook. Stevens, the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979, diplomat Sean Smith and CIA contractors and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were killed in an attack on the U.S. consultate in Benghazi on September 11. The following day, President Barack Obama vowed: ‘Make no mistake, justice will be done.’ But that promise may remain unfulfilled if there is not more cooperation from the Libyan authorities.
The White House and its allies now insist that most questions on Benghazi have already been asked and answered — a claim that even some members of the mainstream media are finding hard to swallow.  Here’s a question: Is this report accurate?

A source with personal knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi told Breitbart News that Senators who listened to closed door testimony about the Benghazi attack were shocked to learn State Department security personnel agents were not immediately armed. Additionally, agents separated from Ambassador Chris Stevens left to retrieve their M4 weapons in a separate building. Only one returned to protect the Ambassador, while the other two hunkered down in the barracks, the source relayed. “From the accounts I read, those guys were not ready. When the attack came that night, they had to go back to the other room and grab their weapons. Then the worse part about it was they never even returned to be with the Ambassador. One returned to be with the Ambassador with his rifle … There were no shots fired in return. On the embassy property, just the embassy property, none of those security agents blasted a single bullet from a single pistol or rifle at all in defense of the Ambassador—nothing.”  
We already knew that the security situation at the consulate was woefully inadequate, but this is the first we’ve heard about zero shots being fired in the ambassador’s defense (which is not to be confused with the subsequent, prolonged firefight at the CIA safehouse).  Jay Carney may not be able to think of a single question on Benghazi that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed, but I certainly can.  Here are a dozen relevant and important inquiries, just off the top of my head:

(1) Who, specifically, denied repeated requests for increased security resources and personnel from American officials on the ground in Libya?  Why were these requests shot down?

(2) A senior State Department official testified that the US had the “correct” number of security assets in Benghazi. Amb. Susan Rice stated that our security presence at the Benghazi mission was “substantial.”  Does the president stand by those assessments?  If not, why were they made in the first place?

(3)  Why were US security personnel pulled out of Libya, even as Amb. Stevens warned of heightened risks?  

(4) Why was the Benghazi consulate operating below the bare minimum standards for a US diplomatic compound, especially after our government learned that at least ten known Islamist militias were operating in the city?  

(5) Why wasn’t security beefed up after a series of attacks on western targets in Benghazi, including previous attempted bombings at the American consulate itself?

(6) Where was the president during the raid itself?  How closely did he follow what was happening, and for how long?

(7) Was the president made aware of the numerous desperate pleas for help from two former SEALs, who battled the terrorists for seven hours before being killed?  If not, why not?  If so, what was his response?

(8) Which government officials, specifically, watched the attack unfold in real time — hour after excruciating hour — via footage from an American drone?  Was that drone armed?

(9) Why were American forces and resources not deployed to help defeat the enemy, particularly while several Americans were alive and urgently seeking reinforcements?  Why was a key counterterrorism task force not convened during the attack?

(10) Who, specifically, changed Susan Rice’s public talking points by excising references to Al Qaeda, and why?  If there was a national security concern, what was it?  Where did the inaccurate “spontaneous protest” narrative originate?  Why was that story deemed more fit for publication than the accurate terrorism evidence?  And if Rice had little direct knowledge of the facts on the ground in Benghazi, why was she selected as the administration’s spokesperson on the subject?

(11) Why was the president still publicly hedging on the terrorism question several weeks after the attack, especially if a terrorist link had been established “almost immediately.”

(12) Why did it take the FBI weeks to arrive at the unsecured, bombed-out consulate after the attack?  Why were sensitive documents left in the rubble, even after they’d left?  Without jeopardizing any leads, what — if any — progress has been made in identifying, capturing, or killing those responsible for the assault?

Three months later, the American people and the families of the fallen still deserve answers. (Guy Benson)

And they categorically will not get them.

Worse than Watergate this may be, but because it’s a Liberal and the Ministry of the Truth in control nothing will be done.

Benghazi, what’s that? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Cattle Drive

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Excellent Program

And now the Stupid, uneducated, clueless morons vote:

Liberals do breed their cattle stupid don’t they??

And just think these morons were High school graduates!

I bet they couldn’t find Ohio on a marked map!

This is the kind of cattle the Obama team likes to herd because you just feed them their cud and the moo and shit for more.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The liberal cattle would without batting an eye. They are far too uneducated to care.

To ignorant to know they are stupid. But above all, too arrogant and sure of their own vast superiority to care that they are morons being led down the primrose path.

Lawrence Kudlow: (he was thinking along the same line I was. That Obama is just going to reply on the stupid,the uneducated, the illegal, and government dependent to win- everyone else can go screw themselves).

With the unprecedented budget explosion of means-tested, welfare-related entitlements, does Team Obama think it can buy the election?

It’s a cynical question. But I wouldn’t put it past that cynical bunch.

Remember Harry Hopkins, Franklin Roosevelt’s close aid? It was Hopkins who argued tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. Sound familiar?

And if I’m not mistaken, the high-tax, anti-rich, big-spending, redistributionist FDR is one of Barack Obama’s idols.

So let’s take a look at some of the recent budget-explosion data points:

According to Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, means-tested welfare programs soared to over $1 trillion last year.

The federal government accounted for $750 billion of that, while $250 billion came from the states, which leveraged federal payments into even larger expenses.

Between 2008 and 2011, federal welfare payments have jumped 32%. Food stamps have surged, with 71% more spending on the program in 2011 compared with 2008.

Health payments, principally Medicaid, have climbed 37%.

By the way, it’s not just the deep recession and weak recovery that’s driving up these programs. It’s a substantial eligibility expansion, which started under George W. Bush, but has gone much further under President Obama.

In a larger budget context, reporter Jeffrey H. Anderson uses a Treasury Department study to chronicle the 7-Eleven presidency.

In fiscal year 2012, ending Sept. 30, the government spent nearly $11 for every $7 of revenues taken in. The exact figures are $2.5 trillion in tax revenues and $3.5 trillion in spending. In other words, it spent 44% more than it had coming in.

Previous fiscal years look even worse: The government spent 56% more than revenues in fiscal year 2011 and 60% more in fiscal year 2010.

All in all, according to Anderson, the government under the Obama administration received $6.8 trillion in taxes and spent $10.7 trillion — 56% more than it had available.

What’s going on here is fiscal profligacy on the grandest scale in American history. And there are consequences.

Massive amounts of capital are being drained from the private sector and transferred to the government. This is one reason why American businesses have gone on a virtual capital-investment strike.

Small businesses, in particular, can’t get the capital being drained by Uncle Sam.

After four years of trillion-dollar deficits, both businesses and individuals have held back investment because they fear massive tax increases are on the way.

If I were a business I would think Obama is definitively after me.

That’s a big reason why the so-called recovery has been so weak.

In addition, in our new entitlement nation, growing government dependency is ruining the very moral fiber and backbone of America’s traditional work ethic. Increasingly, the feds are paying more to not work, rather than providing after-tax incentives to go back to work.

Mitt Romney has taken a lot of flak for raising the issue of growing government dependency.

But however inartfully he may have expressed his view, his basic story is correct. The sheer volume of spending going on in this country is bringing us ever closer to bankruptcy.

And consider this: The spending explosion for means-tested welfare programs is outpacing spending on Social Security and Medicare, which are themselves veering toward bankruptcy.

I may be too cynical about Obama trying to buy the election with this entitlement explosion. Perhaps. But Obama wants to raise taxes in order to spend more on government unions and entitlement programs. It is redistribution, but it could be vote-buying, too.

And what better than a herd of morons and dependents who will do whatever you say and are too dumb to understand they are being reamed?
Talk about a liberal bloodsuckers utopia.
Fat, dumb and “happy” cattle. All you have to do is feed them class warfare and give them some government cud and they’ll do whatever you want and believe whatever you tell them.
Drug addicts getting a fix. As long as you supply them with their fix they are only to happy to vote for more.
Like lambs to the slaughter.
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley