You will Be Lynched

The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Yeah, the violence that killed 14 people is politically correct violence so don’t you dare react negatively to it, you Islamophobe!

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates’ 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,” she said.

“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action,” said Lynch.

After touting the numbers of “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

Assuring the pro-Muslim group that “we stand with you,” Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from “violence” and discrimination.

“My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,'” said Lynch.

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that “edges toward violence”? What exactly are “actions predicated on violent talk”? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.

UPDATE: Loretta Lynch, at a press conference yesterday, termed the San Bernardino shootings a “wonderful opportunity” to change the nature of police work:

    We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change. (Daily Wire)

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE!!

The NYDN (New York Daily News) struck again on Thursday, blaring that the NRA was enabling domestic terrorism. Never let a crisis go to waste, right? What better way to garner wall to wall media coverage than to implicate the left’s favorite punching bag. Katie has already detailed the NYDN’s attempt to lump in the NRA with terrorists. To those who make these despicable claims, your right to defend yourself is really just a masked effort to arm radical Islamists.

This kind of reaction is standard procedure now. President Obama’s response to the Paris terrorist attacks was to point his finger across the political aisle and declare that Republicans, his fellow citizens, were actually helping ISIS recruit more fighters. No change in strategy. No call to unite the country. And while the American people strongly reject his refugee plan, the President directs his party and his liberal allies in the media to ignore the real enemy of the American people. Our President took the moment to accuse fellow law-abiding citizens of aiding the murderous caliphate that has prospered under his leadership, or lack thereof.

Oh, and don’t even think about mentioning the radical Islamist ideology that just fueled a terrorist attack on our soil. That would be Islamophobic

Disagree with the left, and you’re picking the side of the terrorists. This is really what they’re boiling it down to. But if that’s all they’ve got, at least they’re consistent.

THEIR AGENDA UBER ALLES!

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Everything’s Offensive

<hum “everything’s Awesome” from The LEGO movie, just change it to “offensive” while reading this wallop of crybabiness.

University of Minnesota

Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns that Muslim students would be offended.

Theo Menon, a Minnesota Student Association representative realized that the university wasn’t doing anything to memorialize 9/11.

So, on October 6, he introduced an MSA proposal to asking the university to institute a “moment of recognition” during the mornings of all future September 11ths.

The resolution in no way referred to Islam or to whether Islam itself is to blame for global terrorism. It did not require anyone to contemplate the fact that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Muslims. “It merely stated that 9/11 has had a lasting effect on many students, and ought to be reflected upon for a single moment, once a year.” (Star Tribune)

Islamophobia and racism … are alive and well. I just don’t think that we can act like something like a moment of silence for 9/11 would exist in a vacuum when worldwide, Muslim and Middle Eastern folks undergo intense acts of terrorism around the 11th of September each year, and have since 2001.

Should some tell these mindless idiots that Muslims are not a race? That Arabs are not a race?

This has had a serious impact on the mental health of many Muslim Americans. A 2009 study of New York Muslims found that the vast majority of participants said they felt extremely safe prior to September 11. After the attacks, however, 82 percent reported that they felt “extremely unsafe. A study two years later. In 2011, a study of Muslim Americans led by psychologist Mona M. Amer, found that many of the subjects suffered from anxiety, depression, and even Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from being doubly traumatized, first by the attacks themselves and then by the blame they received afterwards. (muftah.org)

THEY ARE THE VICTIMS!  how Liberal is that…

But according to the Minnesota Republic, the resolution proved oddly controversial. MSA Director of Diversity and Inclusion, David Algadi, voiced “severe criticism” of the resolution.

At-large MSA representative and Director of Diversity and Inclusion David Algadi voiced severe criticism of the resolution. He also made sure to emphasize 9/11’s status as a national tragedy in his response.

“The passing of this resolution might make a space that is unsafe for students on campus even more unsafe,” said Algadi, “Islamophobia and racism fueled through that are alive and well.”

“The passing of this resolution might make a space that is unsafe for students on campus even more unsafe,” he said. Algadi expressed concerns- in an email to the Washington Post – that efforts to recognize 9/11 are sometimes “thinly-veiled expressions of Islamophobia.”

Algadi was not the only one with this opinion. A majority of student government representatives sided with him, voting down the resolution in a 36-23 vote this month. If students had their way, there would be no moment of silence at UMN on Sept. 11, 2016.

But after the university became “inundated” with demands for a rebuke of the vote, UMN President Eric Kaler announced that he would formalize the moment of silence anyway. Kaler told the local press that he “wanted to make sure folks were aware that the U is committed to honoring the victims.”

As the writer for the Daily Beast noted: “…there are people who blame all Muslims for the actions of a radical few…we should argue against these sentiments, and we should work to end the terrible acts of revenge-violence against innocent Muslim Americans.” But he also added that Americans should still be allowed to take a “single moment out of our days to mourn the thousands of victims—Muslims among them—of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

According to the Daily Beast, “the everything-is-offensive brand of campus activism has struck a new low.” (Leo Affairs)

Then  we have Paris. 🙂

The response, on the student association’s Facebook site, was swift.

“Are we allowed to publicly, on campus, mourn for Paris or would that be too offensive to some?” wrote one commenter.

“Absolutely despicable,” wrote another. “You should be ashamed of yourselves.”

On Friday, the association released a statement, saying: “Much of the coverage of this resolution has revolved around the discussion of the potential perpetuation of Islamophobia. While this was certainly a valid and unanswered concern of the body, much of the discussion … on this resolution also revolved around logistics of how a moment of recognition could be implemented.”

It went on to say that many members “voiced support for holding a moment of recognition for the victims of 9/11,” but faulted the resolution for not spelling out how “this could be done.” It said the group had “reached out to the author” to work on redrafting the resolution for a future vote.

Let the The Blame Game  begin. Along with denial…

 

Surprised by opposition

Menon, a 17-year-old freshman from Rogers, Minn., who sponsored the resolution, said the opposition took him by surprise. “I did not believe that this would be at all a point of contention,” he said.

Of course not, your tiny, mindless Orwellian brain could conceive of it. After all, your reality says you are “sensitive”. 🙂

He said there was no mention at the meeting of bringing the issue up for another vote. “They did not table it; they voted it down,” he said. “Only after this … backlash from the public did they release this statement saying it was going to be reconsidered.”

Leaders of the student association declined a request for an interview.

But the U, which said it supported the resolution, released a statement responding to what was described as “a great deal of confusion” about the vote.

The only confusion is in your tiny Liberal minds that couldn’t conceive or handle the criticism.

“Following the vote, the students decided to take a step back and ensure that any 9/11 resolution that is passed includes the detail necessary to successfully implement a worthy form of recognition on campus,” said the statement from Vice Provost Danita Brown Young. “The maturity to want a more comprehensive resolution should be applauded.”

The immaturity of having to “show maturity” after the fact is the problem, buttheads!

Menon said that he’s rewriting the resolution and that he plans to submit it for a vote at the next meeting, on Nov. 24. This time, he said, he believes it will pass. (Star Tribune).

It did, apparently from the Executive Board but the MSA still has it “on it’s calendar”.

So Islamophobia is alive and well… 🙂

But I am Your King!

Now, 25 Republican governors – and one Democrat too – have said they don’t want Syrian refugees in their states, as President Obama recommitted the U.S. to take a portion of this population fleeing from ISIS.

Military age males…unable to vet properly (according to FBI and Intelligence agencies) from the country is the #1 sponsor and producer of terrorists in the world and one of the Paris Terrorists was a “refugee”. I don’t understand the reason for them to be cautious. 🙂

‘It is very important,’ Obama said. ‘That we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.’ 

Yeah, don’t equate my Agenda with fighting terrorism. 🙂

my little trojan pony

Oh, and the Leftist yesterday were also going all “Supremacy Clause” on me so you know it’s about the Agenda and The Narrative and not about national security. It’s pure partisan politics.

You will do as your King commands or else!

The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. (Think Progress)

So you KNOW it’s just partisan politics. You might remember this one. It;s where the State of Arizona decided that since the Feds were not enforcing Federal Law, that they would and Obama and Holder slap them down basically saying if the they want to ignore the border they can.

Mind you, the Left also says the refugees and illegal immigration are two different issues, but they combine them anyways when it’s about their politics and their Agenda.

So you know it’s all politics.

‘If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation,’ Cruz said, who criticized the Obama administration for ‘pretend[ing] as if there is no religious aspect to this.’

Could be because he’s partial to Muslims over Christians. 🙂

But i’m just being “Islamophobic”, “heartless” and “aprtisan” right? It’s because Barack is black right? 🙂

Above, states where governors have voiced opposition to Syrian refugees are in dark red, with states voicing support for the resettlement in pink. Gray states have not made a statement, suggested a review of the policy or have said that they do not expect and refugees would be sent to them. Kentucky's outgoing Democratic governor has indicated that he will follow the federal government's lead on the issue, though the governor-elect, a Republican, has said that he would not
And you know the Left is in full manipulation mode when they start quoting The Devil Himself, The Great Satan, George W. Bush…

The Democratic president said he had a lot of disagreement with Bush on policy. 

‘But I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam,’ Obama said. ‘And the notion that some of those who’ve taken on leadership in his party would ignore all of that – that’s not who we are.’ 

The president called on Americans to follow Bush’s example.  (UK guardian)

So you know it’s an Agenda policy item and nothing else.
You are being manipulated.

European parliamentarians were warned of the “real and genuine threat” of the Islamic State putting 500,000 Islamic extremists in April this year. The British politician, Nigel Farage MEP, warned the EU its immigration policy placed a “direct threat to our civilisation”.

Mr Farage told a meeting of the European Parliament in French city of Strasbourg: “There is a real and genuine threat. When Isis say they want to flood our continent with half a million Islamic extremists, they mean it.

“There is nothing in this document that will stop those people from coming. Indeed I fear we face a direct threat to our civilisation if we allow large numbers of people from that war-torn region into Europe.

“It is ironic that nine days before a British General Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are not engaged in this debate, and in fact the UK can do nothing. We are impotent, we have surrendered our ability to get involved (with stopping the immigrants).”

Despite Farage’s warning the EU continued to push ahead with its plan to force each EU country to take a percentage of the refugees. This left countries unable to secure their borders, and the Schengen Agreement meant most EU countries have dropped their passport controls. Only the UK and Ireland have a permanent exception from Schengen and are therefore allowed to keep passport controls.

Following news the French would treble their military presence against the Islamic State the UK admitted it had foiled seven major attacks recently. Islamic affairs expert, Alan Mendoza, said: “It is essential that Western nations now rethink their military strategy towards Islamic State. We have fought ?a phoney war to date and it has led to real casualties on European soil.

“We now need to redouble our efforts to expunge this scourge from the territory it holds. In Britain’s case, this will mean committing to military action in Syria, or risk becoming an international also-ran in terms of our influence.”

At tonight’s Mansion House speech in the City of London the Prime Minister, David Cameron, once again justified the British approach to dealing with the Jihadis. He said: “The more we learn about what happened in Paris the more it justifies the approach that we are taking in Britain.

“When you are dealing with radicalized European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, you need an approach that covers the full spectrum – military power, counter-terrorism expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil.”

His speech did not make any pledge to protect the UK from mass immigration, despite the public anger about it. However he had already pledged a ‘shoot to kill’ policy for terrorists in Britain, something that was immediately condemned by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

A petition demanding to shut the UK border to Syrian refugees has now reached 410,000. It is unlikely to be acted upon. (Townhall)

So do you want to be next? Is the risk of being “islamophobic” higher than the risk of MORE terrorists getting into the country?

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE

YOUR KING HAS SPOKEN

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

The Hello Kitty Liberals

Here’s a question I’d like to put to the doe-eyed, Co-Exist, “poor Syrian/Muslim refugee” French folks and other easily deceived dupes who slurped down that politically correct bouillabaisse of one-hundred-percent, uncut, irrational, will/has never turned out well bullshit: How’d that kum-ba-yah, multi-culti mindset work out for you?

Not so well, eh?

Oui?

Oui.

Garsh, who’d a thunk that evil ISIS operatives, with mass murderous wet-dreams, would try to scam their way into France under the guise of being persecuted, California-Dreamin’, nanny-goat-bearded good guys?

I’ll tell you who would’ve “thunk” it: pretty much everyone with a lick of common sense, that’s who.

Helen Keller could’ve have seen that one coming.

Dear God, some of you are slow on the uptick. Please forgive them, Lord.

Now, for those of you who bought the altruistic bovine scatology regarding the Hello-Kitty refugees, please go find a sledge-hammer and hit yourself in the face with it for aiding and abetting this atrocity.

AMEN!

In addition, after crashing your mug, go down to the nearest cafe … order a triple espresso … down it after it cools and then … please … wake the hashtag up because your We-Are-The-World acid trip is getting people needlessly slaughtered.

But the Truth is too much for them, you know. Not to mention their Thought Police Political Correctness Filters are on overload trying to deal with the contradictions.

They are in full PB boat motor mode…But…But….But…But…But…But…But….But…But…

“These attackers do not follow the beliefs of any religion. The ideology of terrorists is hate.”

Funny, you don’t say that about Christians and Gays… 🙂

“Whoever kills an innocent person, it is as though he has killed all of mankind,” tweeted London-based journalist Shehnaz Khan on Friday, quoting the Quran. Khan also included two hashtag with that messages: #TerrorismHasNoReligion and #NotInMyName. (HP)

Ah, isn’t that cute. Funny, the Islamic Terrorists have a different interpretation of The Quran.

Wake the #hashtag up, you social media obsessed twonks!

Funny, how this ONLY comes up when discussing Muslim Terrorists and Muslim Terrorist attacks.

It’s “islamophobia” you know.

Dear Muslims, you don’t have to apologize – we know, that terror has no religion and we still love you. #ParisAttacks #MuslimApologies

Yes, I said it. Your political correctness opened the door, and thereby helped cause, this Parisian catastrophe with your oh-so-trendy, big-hearted and empty-headed belief that: “if we embrace Islam then they’ll chill out and play parcheesi with us.”

And Obama and Hillary are still at it. But that’s what you get with hardline Ideologues. They are incapable of thinking outside of their ideology and there agenda.

Well, you were dead wrong … again. Operative word: dead.

Much like those You Tubers from Benghazi.

This is what political correctness has yielded up, namely: nations full of retards led by leaders that think they’re morally superior by embracing their own death.

Here’s reality, folks: Islam makes things suck everywhere it goes.

Just like Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. 🙂

For instance: They hate our freedoms, our Constitution, our customs, our flag, our various religions, our atheists, our women, the gays; they’d stone Bruce Jenner, they despise our music, they don’t like bacon or bikinis and, truth be told, they’d love nothing more than to take over Western Civilization and make it bow in submission to the dictates of a 7th century pedophile who heard voices. That’s Islam in a nutshell. They radically and fundamentally hate us. So … if what I just described sounds peachy with you, and for your posterity, then inject some Muslims into your national mix and give it about 30-40 years to simmer.

They don’t want to assimilate. And the #blacklivesmatter and University Idiocy crowd are perfectly happen with that. So when they start demanding Sharia Law are you going to cave in faster than that Latte with triple mocha?

Oh, and for those still playing Ring-Around-The-Rosie and blathering about how the “moderate Muslims” are mondo-jovial peeps, please note… we’re not hearing too much from them condemning the massacre in Paris;

No the idiot on Facebook yesterday that said the 80-100,000 radicals is nothing compared to the 1.6 million (or was it billion) Muslim so lay off the “islamophobia”.

Then there’s this moron:

muslims
So stop with the “hate”. 🙂

Are you that much of a Moron!?

An army with 80,000 people in it will crush your little idiot brain in a second!

or their calling for European or American leaders to lock down our respective borders because there are tens-of-thousands of crazy SOBs amongst the “poor refugees.”

Remember that Border Security thing you still call “racist”??

I think Europe and the USA should follow Japan’s lead and make our countries insanely hard to get into.

🙂

Lastly, here’s my prediction regarding the French: I bet they, starting with Hollande, curl back up into the fetal position. I bet they go back into PC mode with Muslims. And I bet our leaders, especially on the Left, do so as well.

Yep. They don’t call them cheese eating surrender monkeys for nothing. This will not toughen them up in the long run.

They will soon blind themselves to their security in the name of liberal ideology.

Now, just two days after ISIS carried out the worst terror attack in France since World War II, the Obama administration has transferred five more detainees to the United Arab Emirates.

Translation: released to kill more Westerners.

Yep, I bet we blind ourselves all over again to Islam being an implacable enemy inside our borders; and that we will not truly wake up until… God forbid… Islam smacks the West so hard, killing way more than they did on 9/11, that finally our fairy tale about Islam being yummy will simply not cotton with reality.

But I don’t think even that will do it. The Force of Unreal PC Thought Control is strong with these morons.

The Left avoid The Truth, and truth, with a vigor not seen in centuries. Admitting that there “enlightened” vision of the work is a naive load of old crap is impossible for them to comprehend.

Liberal/Progressives are to be judged only by their INTENTIONS, not by their RESULTS!

Anything else is just “hate”, “political”, or “racist”.

Hopefully, when that happens, we’ll have leaders with a steel will who will plow through the residual cruel remains of political correctness and give Islam the apocalypse it says it wants.

And needs…

But I fear millions could die first, in the name “tolerance” and “diversity”.

But no liberal will take responsibility for it either because it’s so far outside of their mental capacity to do so.

nuclear_blast

By Candelight

To the delight of the crowd, all of the candidates in Saturday night’s debate positioned themselves as aggressively pro-immigrant and drew a sharp contrast between their outlook and that of the Republicans.

“The fact of the matter is — and let’s say it in our debate because you will never hear it from that immigrant-bashing carnival barker Donald Trump — the truth of the matter is net immigration from Mexico last year was zero,” former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said in response to weighing immigration reform against the need for border security.

He’s never going to be the nominee, but he has the same sentiment as Hillary and Bernie.

Clinton added that she has reviewed Obama’s executive action and is convinced “that the president has the authority that he attempted to exercise with respect to Dreamers and their parents.”

Net Zero Gain: The number of families illegally crossing the southern U.S. border has more than doubled over the same period last fall, prompting concern about a new surge of migrants from Central America.

Many more unaccompanied children are also crossing, with 4,476 apprehended in September — an 85% increase over that month in 2014, according to new Border Patrol data.

“If that trend even continues a little bit, if things start to go up in February as they usually do, we could be looking at things getting really high, and by spring, you’re seeing an emergency,” said Adam Isacson, a senior associate at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights advocacy group.

history2

As I write, Paris is under curfew for the first time since the German occupation, and the death toll from the multiple attacks stands at 158, the vast majority of them slaughtered during a concert at the Bataclan theatre, a delightful bit of 19th century Chinoiserie on the boulevard Voltaire. The last time I was there, if memory serves, was to see Julie Pietri. I’m so bloody sick of these savages shooting and bombing and killing and blowing up everything I like – whether it’s the small Quebec town where my little girl’s favorite fondue restaurant is or my favorite hotel in Amman or the brave freespeecher who hosted me in Copenhagen …or a music hall where I liked to go to hear a little jazz and pop and get away from the cares of the world for a couple of hours. But look at the photographs from Paris: there’s nowhere to get away from it; the barbarians who yell “Allahu Akbar!” are there waiting for you …when you go to a soccer match, you go to a concert, you go for a drink on a Friday night. They’re there on the train… at the magazine office… in the Kosher supermarket… at the museum in Brussels… outside the barracks in Woolwich…

Twenty-four hours ago, I said on the radio apropos the latest campus “safe space” nonsense:

This is what we’re going to be talking about when the mullahs nuke us.

nuclear_blast

Almost. When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world’s leaders will fly in to “solve” a “problem” that doesn’t exist rather than to address the one that does. But don’t worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there’ll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?

With his usual killer comedy timing, the “leader of the free world” told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning, America” this very morning that he’d “contained” ISIS and that they’re not “gaining strength”. A few hours later, a cell whose members claim to have been recruited by ISIS slaughtered over 150 people in the heart of Paris and succeeded in getting two suicide bombers and a third bomb to within a few yards of the French president.

Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that “nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable”: We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.

Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away.

Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight’s events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share”.

But that’s not true, is it? He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.

And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.

And all Chancellor Merkel and the EU want to do is make that large comfort zone even larger by letting millions more “Syrian” “refugees” walk into the Continent and settle wherever they want. As I wrote after the Copenhagen attacks in February:

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what’s their happy ending here? What’s their roadmap for fewer “acts of violence” in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish “Troubles” “an acceptable level of violence”? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it’s all entirely “random”, as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it’s tough if it’s your kid, but that’s just the way it is. If we’re being honest here, isn’t that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to contain it – and you can help mitigate it by not going to “controversial” art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or…

…or soccer matches, or concerts, or restaurants…

To repeat what I said a few days ago, I’m Islamed out. I’m tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.

So I say again: What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

So screw the candlelight vigil. (Mark Steyn)

We are but candles in a Liberal wind(bag)…

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

We’ll always have Paris

Stephanopoulos asked Obama if ISIS was gaining in strength, to which Obama denied they were.

“I don’t think they’re gaining strength,” Obama responded. “What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave, but you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”

“What we have not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures,” he admitted. “We’ve made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters and part our goal has to be to recruit more effective Sunni partners in Iraq to really go on offense rather than simply engage in defense.”

climate

This is the shocking moment terrified concert-goers dragged their dying friends along a street and desperately clung to window ledges while fleeing the Paris massacre which has left at least 127 people dead and France in a nationwide state of emergency.

They were among dozens fleeing through a back exit of the Bataclan theatre where Islamic State gunmen mercilessly slaughtered up to 100 fans before blowing themselves up in a series of co-ordinated attacks across the French capital.

France was placed in lockdown after at least eight militants, all wearing suicide vests, brought unprecedented violence to the streets of the French capital in the bloodiest attack in Europe since the Madrid train bombings in 2004. 

It’s also being reported that the gunmen were shouting ‘Allah Akbar,’ with one man reportedly having been “beheaded” inside the concert hall where hostages were being held before they were slaughtered “one by one”.

And if that wasn’t enough to identify the culprits, two suicide bombers were involved.

Sounds like radical Islamic terrorism to me.

Obama: “I don’t want to speculate.”

Need anymore proof of clinical Orwellian Thought Control?

If it’s not on The Agenda, it doesn’t exist.

Obama made clear his reasons for his more careful word choices at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like [ISIS] somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative,” he said.

“We are not at war with Islam,” Obama added. “We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

It Islam but it’s not Islam, Doublethink at it’s finest. They are Terrorists who are Muslims but they aren’t Muslim Terrorists… 🙂

The left’s defense (hilariously from ThinkProgress): George W. Bush, The Great Satan and Destroyer of the World (to them) didn’t say it, so Obama doesn’t have to either. So there!

Wow. The depths of the pathology of Leftists is mind-numbing. Literally.

158 people are dead from a terrorist attack by Muslims, but yet it’s not Islamic Terrorism!!

We don’t want to be ISLAMOPHOBIC, now do we… Allah Ackbar! BOOM! 🙂

Hey, lets give terrorists 150 Billion Dollars and a the capacity to make Nuclear Weapons!!!

nuclear_blast

But at least we’re not Islamophobic! 🙂

This month’s suicide bombings in Beirut and the bombing of a Russian commercial jetliner by the Islamic State, which killed 40 and 244, respectively.

Now 158 (and maybe more) in Paris.

In fact, it is now an existential threat to the American homeland. Within days of the IS-inspired stabbing of four on a California college campus, the FBI Thursday arrested an IS agent in Akron, Ohio, who solicited the murder of more than 100 U.S. service members.

Black Muslim convert Terrence J. McNeil, 25, allegedly distributed their names and addresses to IS websites along with the IS command: “Kill them in their own lands, behead them in their own homes, stab them to death as they walk their streets thinking that they are safe.”

The federal complaint says that McNeil, who pressured the hospital he worked for to let him wear his beard out of respect for his religion, last year posted an Internet message: “I can’t wait for another 9/11, Boston bombing or Sandy Hook.”

In another, he said, “I’m an African-American and native American so this country has made my people suffer (for) years . … I would gladly take part in an attack on this murderous regime and the people.”

Added McNeil: “I’ll be proud when I sled(sic) American blood,” later suggesting the bombing of “a church, school or mall.”

The case is just one of 900 active investigations of IS operatives inside the U.S., as FBI Director James Comey revealed earlier this month.

But at least they are “contained”. After all, Obama is always right.

Nothing to worry about!

King Obama has everything under control…. 🙂

Fast & Furious 2015

On May 4, 2015 Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson drove from Phoenix to Garland, Texas to carry out a terror attack against conservatives hosting a Mohammed cartoon contest. When they arrived on scene, they were immediately shot and killed by police after opening fire outside the building.

Remember, they weren’t radical Islam believers (there is in fact no such thing as radical islam and certainly not any terrorists), guns kill people, and the border is “more secure” than ever.

It turns out Soofi purchased his gun under the Holder Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious back in 2010. As a reminder, Operation Fast and Furious was a program that ran from 2009-2010 in which federal agents purposely allowed the sale of thousands of weapons, including handguns, AK-47s and .50-caliber rifles, to known drug cartels. Agents deliberately allowed weapons to be trafficked and lost in Mexico. Now, Barack Obama’s bloodiest scandal has hit home once again. Richard Serrano at the LA Times has the incredible details:

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers. What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

In other words, ATF and the FBI pushed through a shady gun sale that ultimately was used in a terror attack against Americans on U.S. soil.

The Liberal media will ignore that, once they’ve finished burying the Planned Parenthood story until 20,000 feet of bullshit.

Not surprisingly the FBI has been stonewalling information about Soofi’s firearm and the guns used during the Garland attack for months. They did the same when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by Mexican drug bandits in Arizona on December 15, 2010. The guns used in his murder were also sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. More from Serrano:

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an “urgent firearms disposition request” to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.
Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed “to assist in a criminal investigation,” according to Johnson’s letter, also reviewed by The Times.
The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Keep in mind not a single person involved in Operation Fast and Furious has been fired. In fact, many Department of Justice officials and ATF supervisors have been promoted. ATF agents who exposed the scandal, however, have faced extreme retaliation in addition to career and personal sabotage. 

Exposing the Agenda to criticism is not permitted. You shall not embarrass, or be seen to embarrass, The King, Barack Hussein Obama I.

More “inconvenient truth” to hide.

And it’s Bush’s fault anyways… 🙂

Smokin’

Judicial Watch announced today that on February 11, 2015, it uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents were produced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511). The documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton…

Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” (DC)

Her whole “3 a.m.” shtick in the 2008 campaign was that she was ready for responsibilities that Obama wasn’t prepared for, yet when a crisis finally landed in her lap here, she couldn’t move fast enough to pass the buck to some random American whose big sin was free speech that was “unhelpful” to the administration’s goals.

And she’s already the un-corronated Queen of All She surveys by the Left and Leftist Media who are on a Media Re-Make Tour right now!.

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists. Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously.

At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.” The e-mail explained that approximately 20 armed people had fired shots at the diplomatic mission, that explosions had been heard as well, and that Ambassador Stevens was believed to be in the compound with at least four other State Department officials.

About a half-hour later, another e-mail — this one from Scott Bultrowicz, then director of diplomatic security (DSCC) — related: 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is.

At approximately 1600 [4 p.m.] DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 [4:14 p.m.] RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.

At 6:06 p.m., another e-mail that went to top State Department officials explained that the local al-Qaeda affiliate had claimed responsibility for the attack: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli” Despite this evidence that her top staffers were informed from the start that a terrorist attack was underway and that an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group had claimed credit for it, Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” This was a reference to an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer for a film called Innocence of Muslims. Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that “the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” — further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack.

I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m. — minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony.

As I’ve also previously detailed, Gregory Hicks, Ambassador Stevens’ deputy who was in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi attacks, was the main State Department official in Libya briefing his superiors that night. He testified before Congress that he briefed Secretary Clinton and her top aides at 8 p.m. He further testified that the video was a “non-event” in Benghazi. Hicks added that he was clear in his briefing and other communications with his superiors that the Benghazi operation was a terrorist attack. Indeed, at the time he briefed Clinton, the pressing concern was that Ambassador Stevens might then be being held at a hospital that was under the control of terrorists.

An hour later, at 9 p.m., Hicks learned from the Libyan prime minister that Stevens had been killed. At 12:11 a.m., about two hours after the issuance of Secretary Clinton’s statement suggesting that the video had prompted the violence, Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff, e-mailed State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to ask, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one is hanging out there.” This appears to be a suggestion that the State Department allow Secretary Clinton’s statement stand alone as the department’s narrative for the media.

At the time, the attack was still ongoing and there were still press inquiries about Ambassador Stevens’s whereabouts and well-being. The revelations in the newly released e-mails were unveiled by Judicial Watch this afternoon at a press conference in Washington. In a press statement, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asserted that the e-mails left “no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened.” Mr. Fitton further opined that “it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.’ The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.” (NR)

And it’s 2015 before we got them!

What Difference does it make? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Pinnochio

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Carney tried to explain why he and the president still insist on conditionally condemning the IRS’ actions, depending on “if” something inappropriate occurred.  Reporters from the AP and CNN both pushed back, noting that the IRS has already acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized.  Alas, it seems admissions of guilt still aren’t sufficiently dispositive for our fact-finder in chief

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day — and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  The September 11th murders of 4 Americans in Libya wasn’t about some You Tube video and the Obama administration did apparently leave those people out there to die.  They did apparently conceal the truth and they did think we’d be stupid enough to believe them.

And anybody who thought things would be different is, quite frankly, an idiot.

Especially right before the Re-coronation of the King of All Media and your sovereign Lord of all Things, Barack Hussein Obama!

Nothing could be allowed to get in the way. Nothing.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Message is The Message.

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.

After all, we are talking about the King of the Orwellian Parse.

Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?

 

The Facts

Immediately after the attack, the president three times used the phrase “act of terror” in public statements:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

“I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Golden, Colo., Sept. 13

Here’s how we assessed those words back in October:

    Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”

    Some readers may think we are dancing on the head of pin here. The Fact Checker spent nine years as diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, and such nuances of phrasing are often very important. A president does not simply utter virtually the same phrase three times in two days about a major international incident without careful thought about the implications of each word.

The Fact Checker noted last week that this was an attack on what essentially was a secret CIA operation, which included rounding up weapons from the very people who may have attacked the facility.

Perhaps Obama, in his mind, thought this then was really “an act of war,” not a traditional terrorist attack, but he had not wanted to say that publicly. Or perhaps, as Republicans suggest, he did not want to spoil his campaign theme that terror groups such as al-Qaeda were on the run by conceding a terrorist attack had occurred on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Whatever the reason, when given repeated opportunities to forthrightly declare this was an “act of terrorism,” the president ducked the question.

For instance, on Sept. 12, immediately after the Rose Garden statement the day after the attack, Obama sat down with Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and acknowledged he purposely avoided the using the word “terrorism:”

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”

OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.”

Eight days later, on Sept. 20, Obama was asked at a Univision town hall whether Benghazi was a terrorist attack related to al-Qaeda, after White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that “it is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

(It is unclear whether Obama is ducking the “terrorism” question or answering one about al-Qaeda.)

Finally, during an interview on ABC’s “The View” on Sept. 25, Obama appeared to refuse to say it was a terrorist attack:

QUESTION: “It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie — or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So, given three opportunities to affirmatively agree that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, the president obfuscated or ducked the question.

In fact, as far as we can tell from combing through databases, Monday was the first time the president himself referred to Benghazi as an “act of terrorism.”

Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House national security council, said in the case of “The View,” “the point of the question what about what happened, not what to call it.”

She also noted that President George W. Bush used the phrase “act of terror” while visiting victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the hospital, and critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) have used that phrasing as well in speaking about terrorist attacks. (She provided citations.) “I don’t really accept the argument that we are somehow unique in that formulation,” she said.

Administration officials repeatedly have insisted that this is a distinction without much difference. “There was an issue about the definition of terrorism,” Carney said on October 10. “This is by definition an act of terror, as the President made clear.”

The Pinocchio Test

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.

Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time–and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Four Pinocchios (WP)

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Gloom, Despair & Agony on Me

Lincoln Comp 590 cdn

The number of Americans not in the labor force grew by 169,000 in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report.

BLS labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work. There were 89 million of them last month.

The number of people not in the labor force had declined in December to 88.8 million from 88.9 million in November.

The nation’s unemployment rate increased a tenth of a point in January, rising to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent, a level the Labor Department described as “essentially unchanged.”

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.3 million, was little changed in January and has been at this level since Sept. 2012.

So disband the Jobs Council. “Mission Accomplished”, The New “normal” has been achieved.

**************************

Sixty-one percent of U.S. small business owners said they were “worried about the potential cost of healthcare” and 56 percent said they were “worried about new government regulations,” according to the Wells Fargo/Gallup small business index released on Jan. 31, which also showed that 30 percent of small business owners are not hiring and fear going out of business within a year.

“At the bottom of the list, but still at a surprisingly high level, 30% of owners say they are not hiring because they are worried they may no longer be in business in 12 months,” according to Gallup’s index summary. “This is up from 24% who had the same worry in January 2012.”

Well, they are just too greedy and want too much profit (might say the left). Psah, you’re overstating the problems. Besides, if we can just get rid of the Republicans Utopia would reign. 🙂

***************

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is leaving office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press that critics of the administration’s handling of the attack don’t live in an “evidence-based world” and their refusal to “accept the facts” is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system.

Translation: F*ck you! F*ck you at the Drive-Thru!

The facts are what I say they are and if you won’t accept them then that’s your problem now go f* yourself!

Now that’s leadership, integrity and “transparency” 🙂

Yet another “vast right wing conspiracy”

Oh, and a Film lie cover story  that no one wants to even acknowledge was a bold faced lie or massive incompetence OR BOTH .

Mistakes were made, get over it.

Now Just imagine anyone but a Liberal (and Liberal Media) in charge?

“What difference does it make”? 🙂

8 Embassies attacked in 4 years. 1 Ambassador Dead.

Now that’s record to be proud of!

So, Now it’s John “f-ing” Kerry’s turn. The man who voted for the 87 Million before he voted against it!

We’ve all been Swift Boated…

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

 

 

 

Progress

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Fruits of Obama’s “better relations” and “destruction” of Al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law. (france24)

Despite real-time video, emails to the White House and desperate cries for help, our defense secretary says we didn’t send rescue forces to our Benghazi consulate because we didn’t know what was going on.

In a statement bordering on the Kafkaesque, Leon Panetta told a news conference Thursday that four Americans, including our Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens, were left to die without a rescue attempt by nearby U.S. military forces because there’s “a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

That would seem to sum up the Obama administration’s assessment of and story line about the Middle East — it has no real-time clue about what’s going on. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Islamofascism is very much alive, and to send an ambassador and his diplomatic mission into harm’s way without so much as a Marine security detachment with bayonets is unconscionable.

Excuse us, Mr. Secretary, but your administration had a drone over the consulate on Sept. 11, and you and President Obama had a meeting that included Vice President Joe “Nobody Told Us” Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. Washington time, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack. There were at least 50 minutes of real-time video of the attack as the battle was sent streaming directly to the Situation Room in the White House.

Real-time emails were also pouring into the Situation Room detailing that 20 armed terrorists were attacking our Benghazi consulate, that Ambassador Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack. Most claims of responsibility for a terrorist attack come days after the event. This was, as they say, in “real-time.”

If indeed you had insufficient knowledge concerning the attack itself, you certainly had knowledge of the threat. Ambassador Stevens had been begging for even the most basic security, and all his requests for additional security were denied. And how about this little factoid: the Benghazi consulate was and is sovereign U.S. territory that you and President Obama had a responsibility and duty to defend. (IBD)

But the only thing they want to defend is Barack’s political ass.

A Famous  Quote from our Dear Leader:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

An Even Better one for all of us:

“The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” — Plato

So If you want better, VOTE. If you want Obama out, VOTE. If you want Democrats defeated, VOTE.

It’s that simple. If you don’t vote, don’t Bitch.

I vote. I really bitch! 🙂

His ALL-IN (the shit) Energy Policy:

It’s not that Obama necessarily hates profits. What he’s really concerned about is where they end up.

“Greater profits,” he said in February 2011, “have to be shared by American workers.” So rather than letting profits accrue to those who earned them, the president wants them to be “shared” in a way that he approves.

Profit-loathing isn’t limited to the White House. It’s partywide. Democrats from top to bottom are agitated when corporations profit, especially oil companies.

This couldn’t have been more clear than when earlier this year, six House Democrats — Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) — proposed a Reasonable Profits Board that would levy a 50% to 100% tax on oil company earnings that exceeded a “reasonable profit” limit.

Former House speaker and current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was not among those who put together the totalitarian-sounding Reasonable Profits Board. But she’s been known to spit out phrases such as “record profits,” “profiteering,” “highly profitable,” when describing oil companies’ earnings.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Harry Reid, who still runs the Senate for the Democrats, has similar ill feelings toward health insurance companies.

In Reid’s mind, the “profit motive” of insurers has “almost destroyed our economy.” He’s complained — incorrectly — “they make more money than any other business in America today,” implying that there is something wrong with making more than everyone else and forgetting that some industry has to come out on top.

Unless, of course, we live in a nation in which the government uses its force to even all outcomes. Could it be that’s what the Democrats are really trying to achieve?

The Democrats’ war on profits is just as shameful at the grass-roots level. Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, discovered just how intense the animosity is when he spoke to Democrats at their convention this year in Charlotte, N.C. He was told that Washington should mandate “corporate losses,” ban corporate profits, “limit” corporate profits and put a “cap” on them.

Predictable. And so, unfortunately, was the response of a woman who initially said she didn’t know enough about banning corporate profits to offer an opinion, only to later say she would favor a ban if Obama approved of one. Why? Because, she gushed, “I will support anything my president wants to do.”

There is an ugly jealousy and spitefulness that runs deep and wide through today’s Democratic Party.

It shows in the desperation of the Obama re-election campaign. It’s supposed to be the party of peace and unity. But it’s become a party of division and disunity. (IBD)

I would add Disrespect, distraction, disgust, and Disharmony.

Ignorance is the Best Strategy

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The emails documented that within two hours of the attack, the State Department had told the Obama administration that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for this terrorist attack.

This is news because White House press secretary Jay Carney said on September 14: “We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack.” The emails show they did, in fact, have information suggesting a planned terrorist attack, yet President Obama and his spokesmen for days lied to the American people, falsely claiming it was a “spontaneous” attack spurred by a “video.”

ABC NEWS gave it 20 seconds.
25 seconds on “Good Morning America” and 20 seconds on “World News” Wednesday night.  “Good Morning America” skipped the story entirely on Thursday morning, but did commit nearly 2 minutes to the capture of a monkey in Florida. “World News” did not mention the emails on Thursday night.

The Ministry of Truth in action to suppress anything bad for their guy. And then they go digging for silly stories about the opposition. But don’t worry, they still they aren’t propagandists rather than “journalists”

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.” 

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. 

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. 

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down. 

“We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.” 

The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. (FOX)

Either way, it still proves this wasn’t about a video, but it was about the Obama Administration “I got Bin Laden” Bad ass “improving” relations in the area perception filters.

Then the CIA didn’t want to be thrown under the bus.

The CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” 

So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

We should want to know. He doesn’t want anyone to care because he wants to be re-elected first, then he can appoint his “independent” commission (if re-elected) to study it for the next 4 years so that it’s utterly meaningless.

After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.”

President Obama told KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke large that “we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”

Potential OCTOBER Surprise anyone? 🙂 (Bring the ones who did to drone justice so they can’t tell anyone it wasn’t “spontaneous” or related to a film). Coldly cynical. Coldly political. If he can manage it.

Clark pressed again.

“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.”

Earlier today, Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported that CIA agents in the second U.S. compound in Benghazi were denied requests for help.

In response, CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.” (Jake Tapper)

Gee, I thought it was the fault of a film. He said so at the UN. And his flunkies said it for weeks afterwards. So that’s he’s idea of “finding out what happened?”

Fascinating.

But don’t worry, it’s political because Romney and Ryan keep bringing it up! 🙂

AND IN ECONOMIC NEWS:

the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. “If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.”  

This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. “If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350. (WS)

And yet poverty is going UP. Amazing how that works. 50 years of the War on Poverty and they still can’t get fixed by throwing money at it.

And we end with another Bidenism. Ah, Joe, you’re so funny…

“But you can’t erase what you’ve already done, they’ve voted to extend tax cuts for the very wealthy, giving a $500 trillion dollar tax-cut to 120,000 families.”

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

More Fun Stuff

Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state, whether in Western Europe or on this side of the Atlantic.

Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama’s claims about “creating jobs” with one plain and inescapable fact — “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.

How are children supposed to learn to act like adults, when so much of what they see on television shows adults acting like children?  (Thomas Sowell)

A new chart from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee details the fact that, since January 2009, for every person added to the labor force, 10 have been added to those not in the labor force. Here’s a chart showing the dwindling labor force:

The labor force consists of all people aged 16 and over either employed or actively seeking work. It does not include discouraged workers, people who have retired, or those on welfare or disability who are no longer looking for work. The ‘not in the labor force’ group is defined as the total civilian non-institutional population minus the labor force.”

Since January 2009, the labor force has grown by 0.54 percent, or 827,000 people (from 154,236,000 to 155,063,000). Those not in the labor force grew by 10.2 percent during the same period (8,208,000 people), from 80,502,000 to 88,710,000. In other words, for every one person added to the labor force of the United States since January 2009, the size of the U.S. population not in the labor force grew by 10 people.
Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, comments: “The essential point of this chart is not simply how many people are employed or unemployed, but to illustrate that more and more people are simply not part of the U.S. labor force. This confirms that we are on the wrong track. It is unsustainable to have such a large and growing number of people who are not part of the productive economy. This is not a political argument, but a description of the underlying instability in our economy that has so many Americans worried about the future. The question is what can we do to reverse these trends and start moving in the right direction.”(Weekly Standard)
************

If you truly believe in the brotherhood of man, then you must believe that blacks are just as capable of being racists as whites are.

One of the most foolish, and most dangerous, things one can do is to take love for granted, instead of nurturing it and safeguarding it as the prize jewel of one’s life.

Whenever you hear people talking about “a living Constitution,” almost invariably they are people who are in the process of slowly killing it by “interpreting” its restrictions on government out of existence.

Do either Barack Obama or his followers have any idea how many countries during the 20th century set out to “spread the wealth” — and ended up spreading poverty instead? At some point, you have to turn from rhetoric, theories and ideologies to facts.

I am so old that I can remember when liberals were liberal — instead of being intolerant of anything and anybody that is not politically correct. (Thomas Sowell)

“Mr. President, you’ve got to realize you’re fighting for your presidential life,” the leader of the Nation of Islam told an estimated gathering of 6,000 at Bojangles’ Coliseum. “You’re fighting for your vision of the Democratic Party and the country.”

Then Farrakhan spent two hours hammering at racial – some critics will call them racist – themes.

To begin, the highly controversial Farrakhan accused Republicans of having “overt” racist motives in their opposition to Obama, the country’s first black president. He attacked a political process that he says is controlled by monied interests and wants “to keep America white.”

“You aren’t going to win any more white votes by being kind and gracious,” he said. “Be a little black.”

…accusing the Republicans of using a strategy to defeat Obama “so overtly hateful and racist in nature that it has polarized America on the basis of race.”He also addressed an audience largely absent from the event: white America.

“What have I done that you could hate me so?” he said.

He then answered his own question with harsh words that had the arena on its feet: “You can’t buy me, and you can’t make me into your n—–.” (Mcclatchy)

Tolerance and Love from the Far Left. 🙂

********

THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH
The question to be asked of people in the media, and that they should ask themselves, should be: “Is your first loyalty to your audience or to your ideology?” The same question should be asked of educators, especially those who see themselves as “agents of social change,” even though that is not the job description under which they have been hired and paid. (Thomas Sowell)
***********
LIBYA
After a month of Obfuscation, Hillary has decided to throw herself on the sacrificial pyre (whether she was pushed or not is a question)
“I take responsibility,” Clinton said during a visit to Peru. “I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 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.”
The good little soldier who tries to commit sepuku for her boss.
But then what are all those Security and Threat assessment meeting that Obama was supposedly getting about then? Hmmm…

Her remarks drew a quick response from three Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including ranking member John McCain.

Clinton’s statement of responsibility was “a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever,” the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, “The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there.” (CNN)

* Top Pentagon officials declared the assault a terrorist attack on “Day One.” Doing so enabled them to expedite any response to the attack (Yahoo! News).

* U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials understood right away that the attacks were planned for the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 (THE WEEKLY STANDARD).

* Within 24 hours of the attack, “U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda-affiliated operatives were behind the attack and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers” (Daily Beast).

* In telephone intercepts of phone calls involving members of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked group in Libya, members “bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador” (Daily Beast).

* U.S. counterterrorism officials had repeatedly warned about the growth of al Qaeda affiliate groups in Libya and noted in particular their relationship to al Qaeda’s central leadership in Pakistan (THE WEEKLY STANDARD).

The attack was, in fact, planned. It did involve al Qaeda-linked terrorists. It was not a copycat of the protests in Cairo, Egypt. Indeed, there was no protest outside the consulate in Benghazi at all. The U.S. compound was not well secured. The two ex-Navy SEALs killed in the attack were not there to protect the ambassador, and they were not, obviously, joined by several colleagues also providing security. The date of the attack was not coincidental. And the anti-Islam YouTube video at the center of the administration’s public relations effort had nothing to do with the assault that took the lives of four Americans.

This, more than anything, is the problem with the administration’s response. It wasn’t that they failed to provide enough information to the public, but that they provided incorrect information and did so long after it was clear to many in the intelligence community that the political narrative was false.

There are two possible explanations. Either the information widely available to intelligence professionals was not shared with those speaking on behalf of the president. Or those Obama administration officials had the accurate information and chose not to provide it.

If intelligence professionals had immediately concluded that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the YouTube video, why did top administration figures point to it as the trigger? 

If the Pentagon knew on “Day One” that the attacks were planned, why was U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice still denying this four days later?

If counterterrorism officials had determined that the killings were the result of a terrorist attack, why did State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuse to acknowledge that during her briefing on September 17?

If intelligence officials knew on September 11 that the attack took place that day for a reason, why did White House press secretary Jay Carney still pretend otherwise eight days later?

Some of the misleading information provided to the public could not possibly have been a result of incomplete or evolving intelligence. The information about security for the ambassador and the compound, for instance, would have been readily available to administration officials from the beginning. And yet when Susan Rice appeared on five political talk shows on September 16, she erroneously claimed that the two ex-Navy SEALs killed in the attack were, along with several colleagues, providing security. They were not. Why did she say this?

These questions, and many others, deserve answers. And soon. (weekly standard)

But there’s an election in less than a month and then a lame duck session so nothing is going to be done. By design?

And above all, it’s Hillary’s fault!
The Commander-In-Chief and His Vice President  have the Sargent Schultz defense, “I know nothing!”

And that’s why you should re-elect them.
Hey, he killed Bin-Laden… 🙂
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

War of Words

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Vice President Joe Biden accused Rep. Paul Ryan of putting two wars on the “credit card,” and then suggested he voted against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”

“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”

Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.

So did Sen. Hillary Clinton, by the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

Cut it anyway you want to Joe, YOU LIED. 🙂

But don’t expect anyone from The Ministry of Truth or the Left to care. They are too busy trying to cover up The Libyan debacle.

Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.

But pressed on the administration reaction throughout this past MONTH and whether they were wrong“I think that’s an editorial judgment that you’re making.”Jay Carney White House Mouthpiece.

So they threw the State Department and the Intelligence community under the bus and back up over them repeatedly.

Now that’s accountability, responsibility and above all, transparency!! 🙂

US deficit tops $1 trillion for fourth year
But don’t worry, that’s Bush’s Fault and the solution is to tax the rich! 🙂
And Biden and Company are still lying about ObamaCare and Medicare:
Double-counting ObamaCare’s $716 billion Medicare cut to make it seem to be Medicare savings.
Biden claimed “no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise … has to either refer contraception” or “pay for contraception” or “be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.”As the Catholic bishops noted, “This is not a fact. The (HHS mandate) contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employers,'” but it does not include Catholic hospitals like the ones Biden mentioned, or other religious charities that serve all.Catholic and non-Catholic institutions “will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage” that includes “sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients,” which they will have to pay for.It’s nearly a century since that young kid pleaded “Say it ain’t so, Joe” to Shoeless Joe Jackson during the Black Sox scandal. Our clownish vice president, Joe Biden, can’t ever seem to say anything that’s so.(IBD)Back to Libya…

Mark Steyn: ‘The entire reason that this has become the political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.” — Stephanie Cutter, White House Deputy Campaign MouthpieceThus, Stephanie Cutter (She also of the It’s a Romney $5 Trillion tax cut-no it’s not-yes it is), President Obama’s deputy campaign manager, speaking on CNN about an armed attack on the 9/11 anniversary that left a U.S. consulate a smoking ruin and killed four diplomatic staff, including the first American ambassador to be murdered in a third of a century. To discuss this event is apparently to “politicize” it and to distract from the real issues the American people are concerned about. For example, Obama spokesperson Jen Psaki, speaking on board Air Force One on Thursday: “There’s only one candidate in this race who is going to continue to fight for Big Bird and Elmo, and he is riding on this plane.”She’s right! The United States is the first nation in history whose democracy has evolved to the point where its leader is provided with a wide-body transatlantic jet in order to campaign on the vital issue of public funding for sock puppets. Sure, Caligula put his horse in the senate, but it was a real horse. At Ohio State University, the rapper will.i.am introduced the president by playing the Sesame Street theme tune, which oddly enough seems more apt presidential-walk-on music for the Obama era than “Hail to the Chief.” Obviously, Miss Cutter is right: A healthy mature democracy should spend its quadrennial election on critical issues like the Republican party’s war on puppets rather than attempting to “politicize” the debate by dragging in stuff like foreign policy, national security, the economy, and other obscure peripheral subjects. But, alas, it was her boss who chose to “politicize” a security fiasco and national humiliation in Benghazi. At 8:30 p.m., when Ambassador Stevens strolled outside the gate and bid his Turkish guest good night, the streets were calm and quiet. At 9:40 p.m., an armed assault on the compound began, well planned and executed by men not only armed with mortars but capable of firing them to lethal purpose — a rare combination among the excitable mobs of the Middle East. There was no demonstration against an Islamophobic movie that just got a little out of hand. Indeed, there was no movie protest at all. Instead, a U.S. consulate was destroyed and four of its personnel were murdered in one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.This was confirmed by testimony to Congress a few days ago, although you could have read as much in my column of four weeks ago. Nevertheless, for most of those four weeks, the president of the United States, the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and others have persistently attributed the Benghazi debacle to an obscure YouTube video — even though they knew that the two events had nothing to do with each other by no later than the crack of dawn Eastern time on September 12, by which point the consulate’s survivors had landed safely in Tripoli.

To “politicize” means “to give a political character to.” It is a reductive term, capturing the peculiarly shrunken horizons of politics: “Gee, they nuked Israel. D’you think that will hurt us in Florida?” So media outlets fret that Benghazi could be “bad” for Obama — by which they mean he might be hitting the six-figure lecture circuit four years ahead of schedule. But for Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods, it’s real bad. They’re dead, over, gonesville. Given that Obama and Secretary Clinton refer to Stevens pneumatically as “Chris,” as if they’ve known him since third grade, why would they dishonor the sacrifice of their close personal friend by peddling an utterly false narrative as to why he died? You want “politicization”? Secretary Clinton linked the YouTube video to the murder of her colleagues even as the four caskets lay alongside her at Andrews Air Force Base — even though she had known for days that it had nothing to do with it. It’s weird enough that politicians now give campaign speeches to returning coffins. But to conscript your “friend”’s corpse as a straight man for some third-rate electoral opportunism is surely as shriveled and worthless as “politicization” gets.

In the vice-presidential debate, asked why the White House spent weeks falsely blaming it on the video, Joe Biden took time off between big toothy smirks to reply: “Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community.” That too is false. He also denied that the government of which he is nominally second-in-command had ever received a request for additional security. At the risk of “politicizing” things, this statement would appear also to be untrue.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Liberals…. 🙂

NOVEMBER IS COMING!