Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Video: Senator Ted Cruz Rips Defense Secretary Nominee Chuck Hagel

This is a must-see. Cruz lays in to Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense pretty darned good - and even throws a few clips from interviews Hagel did with Al Jazeera.

Two observations.

1.) It would have been nice to see Senators this tough with Hillary Clinton last week.
2.) It'd be nice to see Democrats this critical of their own (Hagel is a Republican)

Optics and Lies: The problem with Rubio's meeting with Democrats

The first problem with what Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) did when standing with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), on immigration was that he stood with them on anything at all; it's the optics. They cannot be trusted and should not be dealt with. It's much easier to say neither side is working with the other when neither side agrees to do so in the first place. When negotiations breakdown, it's much easier for the Democrats to blame their Republican counterparts.

And they always do because they always lie if it helps their cause.

Case in point - John Boehner's approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations, which he later regretted, even saying he shouldn't have met with Obama, via the Hill:
Boehner now believes that effort was a mistake, and he has vowed to Republicans in the House that he will not negotiate one-on-one with Obama going forward. He is instead recommitting to a “regular order” process, whereby the House and Senate pass legislation independently that can then be reconciled with amendments or with conference committees.
Democrats know they'll have Lindsey Graham and John McCain come over to their side on immigration. Those two are old hat. Rubio represents new meat. All the Schumers and the Durbins want is to get Rubio to take that first step, to be seen publicly with them on an issue - any issue. They relish such moments. To Democrats, they're victories in themselves.

While appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show on January 29th, Rubio insisted that this was all preliminary and that he would not support any legislation that didn't have border security at the top of the list. That's good to know but do you know why the Democrats Rubio reached out to agreed to put that in their initial proposal?

Because the optics of having him stand with them were more important than being honest; everything is more important to Democrats than being honest, unless honesty is the more expedient thing to do. The Democrats have become the party of Saul Alinsky, where the ends justify almost any means. Now, when it comes to the optics vs. actually securing the border, the Democrats prefer not doing the latter over the former.

But they know they can have their cake and eat it too. They know that when conservatives see Rubio standing with them, it causes friction and doesn't lend itself to a united party. Conservatives want to defeat Democrats; they don't want to work with them. Too few elected Republicans seem to get that. When conservatives see Republican officials meet with Democrats, they instinctively know that nothing good can come out of it. Whether Rubio's motives may be pure, it's irrelevant. Those with whom he seeks compromise have impure and dishonest motives. Cunning and deceit always beats naivete.

Just look at how Limbaugh opened his show the day after his interview with Rubio:
So what do you think the big immigration news is today?  Take a wild guess what the big immigration news today is.  That's exactly right.  In fact, the only news on the immigration front in the Drive-By State-Controlled Media seems to be my interview with Florida Senator Marco Rubio yesterday.  And you know why?  You know why that's the only immigration news out there?  It's because the Drive-Bys seem to think that my praise of Rubio means that I have suddenly decided to support amnesty. I've got the sound bites to prove it.  I don't know what they heard, maybe they heard potential, but, you know, I'll tell you what did it.

At the end of the interview yesterday, I thanked the senator for joining us on the program and I praised him, and I praised him because he's got the guts to speak and articulate conservative principles.  He had the guts to take on President Obama.  Time will tell whether he'll follow through on that, but I simply believe in encouraging people that exhibit courage.  Now, he said yesterday during the interview that if there isn't any border security first, he's not gonna vote for this.  Time will tell.  But I simply was trying to encourage him, thank him for being here.

It wasn't a puffball interview.  "Why are we doing this?  Why do we let the Democrats set the agenda on this stuff all the time?  How come we're always reactionary and defensive?
Like the Democrats, the mainstream media lies when it furthers their agenda more than does telling the truth. Again, when Republicans meet with Democrats in the name of compromise, it's the Republicans who become compromised. The aforementioned reality enunciated by Limbaugh is perhaps an unintended consequence of Rubio's actions but it's a consequence nonetheless. The narrative that Limbaugh is giving in on amnesty plays in the homes of liberals who only watch the mainstream media and it's like fuel to the fire, whether it's true or not.

There was another telling moment during Rubio's interview with Limbaugh. Take note of what Rubio said here on the 29th:
You know, our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program.  It always has been.  I mean, it's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to somebody, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government.  Yeah, it's a lot easier for a politician to sell people on how a big government program is gonna make their life better, but I think ours, once we sell it, is more enduring and more permanent and better for the country.  It is a challenge.
That sums up the problem with the Republican perspective. Far too often, the attempt is made to compete with the Democrats' ideas instead of shining a spotlight on why they're bad. It's easier to sell a newly christened teenage driver on the appeal and thrill of speeding and recklessness than to convince him to wear his seatbelt and obey the speed limit. An adult will rarely win that argument with a fearless sixteen year-old.

Unless... the teenager is shown film of accident scenes and what can happen when urges are satiated instead of held in check.

Abortion has an appeal to many young women who don't want the responsibility. It's difficult to convince them that responsibility is nobler than murder. The pro-abortionist Democrats convince young teenage women that it's not really murder and Pro-life conservatives are at a disadvantage.

Unless... these young women are made to watch an abortion or even be required to view a sonogram before killing their unborn children.

Rubio may be a well-intentioned freshman Senator but his performance in front of Hillary Clinton last week, coupled with his very ill-advised decision to meet with Democrats who will use cunning to undermine him should demonstrate he's not presidential timber yet.

If he has an awakening between now and 2016, that may change but right now he's behaving like new meat for the Democrats.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Video: Greta interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East / Benghazi

Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren sat down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss - among other things - Egypt and Benghazi. Those expecting Greta to be a bit tougher on Clinton than was the stable of gelded Republican Senators and Congressmen last week were disappointed but there were some revealing moments.

Commentary after the video:

After exchanging niceties, Clinton refers to the post-Arab Spring in general - Egypt in particular - as a "period of adjustment" and that it's important "not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists". What she didn't say was that countries like Egypt are adjusting to Sharia law and that the hijacking of those revolutions is a foregone conclusion and was predictable to so many with much less information than Clinton had at her disposal during the early stages of the Arab Spring.

Shortly thereafter, Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.

Hillary's response?

At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.

What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.

At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:
"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".
Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

Shortly after the 4:00 mark, while mildly defending Morsi, said:
"It's not what somebody says. It's what they do."
You mean like saying Al-Qaeda has been decimated while actually fueling the group's resurgence by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood all over the Middle East?

At the 4:40 mark, the conversation shift's to Morsi's welcoming of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for mass genocide in his country. Clinton doesn't just excuse Morsi for doing so by saying such meetings take place all over the Middle East but check out this quote, delivered by her at about the 5:20 mark:
"He (Bashir) does need to be held accountable for what happened on his watch as President."
Interesting to hear such language coming from Clinton, which makes a nice segue to the question about Benghazi, which is asked shortly after the 12:00 mark. It was a two-part question and just as open-ended as many of the questions asked by Republican Senators and Congressmen at last week's hearings.

1.) Can Americans feel confident that security at embassies and consulates will be sufficient, moving forward?

2.) Should we go back to Benghazi?

Clinton's answer ultimately led to a sales pitch for more money to help keep these installations more secure. Again, like what happened at the Senate and House Committee hearings, that pitch went unanswered by Greta, despite earlier testimony from Charlene Lamb, a State Department bureaucrat, who testified that a lack of funds was not the reason for a lack of security in Benghazi.

In that hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Lamb if lack of security due to budget concerns. Her answer (at about the 1:45 mark) was "no sir":

Breitbart was not too happy with Van Susteren's failure to ask any follow-up questions of Hillary about Benghazi.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Two Woefully absent arguments in Gun Control debates

"I've been sitting here, getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not about duck hunting and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this but it's about our right, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there." - Suzanna Gracia-Hupp in 1993 Congressional testimony about banning assault weapons.
It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse but remember, doing so is warranted when the truth lies in that horse's bones. Like Gracia-Hupp in that 1993 hearing, I too am getting "fed up" with the gun control debate, not because I don't think it's legitimate but because practically everyone who is engaging in it is arguing the wrong points while playing defense instead of going on offense.

There are two arguments that second amendment proponents never seem willing to address. First, the reason for the second amendment is to protect against tyranny and second, it's the government that should be the subject of a gun control debate relative to Operation Fast and Furious.

To his credit, CNN's Piers Morgan is giving plenty of gun rights advocates their say on his show but few of them seem all that interested in deviating from the terms of Morgan's debate, which is that no one needs an AR-15 for home defense. When guests argue the point that they do, it sounds a bit loopy. Most of the arguments have to deal with fending off multiple intruders. When that's the argument, people like Morgan are more successful than they should be.

It's like pro-lifers allowing leftists to make the argument about whether abortions should be permitted in the cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's health. Those cases are so rare as a percentage of the overall number of abortions that they're outside the bounds of the central issue, which is whether abortion is murder. Conservatives constantly allow the debate to shift away from the real issue.

The same thing continues to happen with the gun control debate. Here are two examples. First, staunch conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch does battle with Piers Morgan. Notice what the debate is about - the nuances of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. While Loesch is correct and makes some good points, Morgan is far more successful with viewers because Loesch doesn't shift the debate to what the second amendment is really about (see Gracia-Hupp quote above).

Pay attention at the 3:00 mark. Morgan's question to Loesch is:
"What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do, to curb gun violence in America?"
Her answer:
"Stop disarming law-abiding citizens."
She's right but doesn't go on offense. She also has a problem coming up with another example when prompted by Morgan to do so but does ultimately add that there should be...
"...tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained firearms."
Once again, this would have been a perfect opportunity to inject the government's role in Fast and Furious into the debate. Consider Morgan's response if Loesch would have said something like:
"Well, Piers, perhaps we could start with more transparency in Operation Fast and Furious. How about you demanding that President Obama lift Executive Privilege on subpoenaed documents by the House Oversight Committee that Eric Holder doesn't want you to see? How about we dig a little deeper into how the ATF - with the approval of the Justice Department - was allowed to put assault weapons, to include .50 Caliber rifles, which are much more powerful than AR-15's, into the hands of drug cartels? It seems to me, Piers, that you're being a little biased in this debate."
Until conservatives engage in the real debate, the progressives will continue to make gains. It's really a shame because Loesch is very conservative and never afraid to debate the hard issues.

The AR-15 lighter was a nice touch, though.

Via GWP:

Here is another example. Two young conservative women in an interview with Piers Morgan do the same thing Loesch did; they allow Morgan to make the debate about whether an AR-15 is necessary for home defense (See Suzanna Gratia-Hupp quote again). This is not the reason the second amendment was put in the Constitution. While one of these women accurately cited a news story about how an AR-15 came in handy relative to home defense, the pro-second amendment crowd has got to start going on offense instead of simply playing adequate defense.

Via WND:

Monday, January 28, 2013

1993 Video: Killeen, TX woman testifies in front of Congress after losing her parents because of Gun Control

In 1991, Susan Gratia-Hupp went to a Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX (not far from where Nidal Malik Hasan killed 14 and injured 32 in a gun-free zone eighteen years later) with her parents. Hupp left her gun in the car because Texas law prohibited her from taking it inside. Watch her tell the story of what happened next.

A couple of years ago, Hupp spoke at a Tea Party rally I attended and she has just as much fire and passion today as she expressed in that 1993 hearing.

While you're at it, watch Chuck Schumer's face and then ask yourself if his motives for gun control today are pure.

They are not.

Via Breitbart, which is calling for Piers Morgan to have Hupp on his show.

When Communists chide their Opponents for being Intransigent

There are no better projection artists than communists and leftists. Why? Lying is a part of their fabric. It's like breathing. As such, they understand intimately everything they keep hidden; they understand motives; they understand intent; and they understand how badly it will go over if it is revealed. That is why it's so effective when they project those motives onto their opponents, who don't understand them and don't know how to refute them.

Those who do understand are rarely, if ever, ensnared.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just received a major badge of honor, courtesy of Barack Obama. Conversely, the likes of Republican establishment leaders - to include John Boehner - should feel driven into the arms of conservatives, in part, because of what Barack Obama told Franklin Foer in an interview.

Here are the words of Obama, via the New Republic:
“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”
To illustrate the point further, check out this quote from Obama in the article:
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.
This perfectly demonstrates the projection dynamic of Communists. Republicans are in sharply gerrymandered districts? The implication here is that Democrats are not. The exact opposite is true. Republican Party leadership actually bought into this argument, which is why good, conservative Tea Party congressmen like Allen West and Joe Walsh were... wait for it... re-districted out by their own party. Did this assuage the Democrats? Not in the least. It provided them with more fuel for their communist fire.

In reality, it's the Democrats that are very comfortably entrenched in gerrymandered districts. How else does one explain Jesse Jackson, Jr. getting re-elected with well more than 60% of the vote AFTER he claimed he was a re-incarnated chariot driver?

The intellectually-vacant vote was gerrymandered into a Democrat's district but we're to believe that Republicans are gerrymandered?

Until Republican leaders like Boehner admit to themselves - and then publicly to others - what we're up against, Obama's strategy of 'divide and conquer' when it comes to the Republican Party will continue to be effective. To this point, establishment voices not only refuse to rebut socialists' lies but think appeasement will cause them to stop.

Boehner is certainly not too old to understand what communism is. He was 35 at the height of the cold war in 1984. This necessarily means that he understands the threat of the ideology. He should also know that it cannot be negotiated with. The second you compromise with a communist is the second you've lost a battle. The only problem he has at this point is admitting that communism is back and it's taken root in the government he serves in as Speaker. It's a difficult reality for him - or anyone - to face but it is reality nonetheless.

Instead of Boehner seeing Obama's comments as incentive to go back to the conservative base and try to bring them to the middle, it's time for him and other establishment guys to come to grips with the fact that while the base may not be as politically polished or savvy as the seasoned politicians, it has been right all along.

The fence cannot be ridden any longer. Compromising with Obama or moving to the center is what Obama wants, not because the base is too radical. It's what he wants because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party. Obama learned a great deal by watching the Republican base stay home in 2012. He's attempting to replicate that in 2014.

When then-Rep. Allen West said there were dozens of Communist Party members in Congress, he was scorned and mocked by... communist sympathizers - the left. He was berated by a media that's in the tank for the president, who spent years of his childhood learning from a member of the Communist Party USA and later sought out Marxists in college (his own words).

Establishment Republicans didn't come to West's defense, even though he was right. The Gateway Pundit website proved the communist / Democrat nexus when the names of 70 Congressmen were found to be registered members of the Democratic Socialists Caucus of America (DSA) in 2009. These are individuals who aspire to the Communist ideology. Their membership in such a caucus should not be dismissed, massaged, or interpreted differently. They cannot and should not be compromised with. When Obama or any other Democrat accuses conservatives of being extremists, it's projection. Communists know they themselves are extreme and they know how to enunciate that extremism when they're honest (usually, only among themselves).

There was only one member listed on the DSA Caucus who wasn't a Democrat - Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a registered socialist (at least he's one of 70 who were honest about something) and he caucuses with Democrats.

By the way, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was one of the 70 members listed with the DSA Caucus.

Communists know they can't enunciate the truth about themselves, even though they're exhausted from hiding it for so many years. They're like pressure cookers. The best way for them to let it out is to enunciate it perfectly... while applying its agenda to their opponents.

The debate du'juor is Gun Control. Obama wants it and the conservative base says no way. You know who else wants it?

The Communist Party USA.

By compromising with the Democrats on gun control, Boehner would be giving communists some of what they want, which is always a battle lost.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

Today's show focuses on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony in front of Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees over the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Save for Rand Paul, no Senator or Congressman came close to addressing the central issue leading up to the attack. Marco Rubio was perhaps the biggest disappointment based on expectations for him as the next conservative leader.

He failed a major test in front of Clinton.

Listen and find out what that central issue is.

Friday, January 25, 2013

John Kerry hearing: Rand gets the better of Rubio... again

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are both early frontrunners for the Republican nominee in 2016. Each had two cracks at challenging two Democrat heavyweights this week. On January 23rd, Hillary Clinton was in front of the committee over the Benghazi attacks and a day later came the confirmation hearing for Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of State, John Kerry.

Not only did Paul do much better than Rubio in front of Clinton but he out-performed every other member of the Senate and House committees that questioned the outgoing Secretary of State.

So how'd each Senator do with Kerry? Once again, Paul clearly out-did Rubio and someone should really coach Rubio on how to question a witness; it's not his strong suit. One thing to watch for in both exchanges is how quickly Kerry is expected to answer. Remember, each committee member gets ten minutes to use as he or she chooses and the longer each member speaks, the more comfortable the nominee is because it means less time playing with the rope of your own words and positions. Paul seems to grasp this concept much better than Rubio does. Note how Paul wraps up his first question and expects Kerry to respond to it thirty seconds in.

Conversely, though Rubio demonstrates that he has a comprehensive understanding of international events, that's not why he's there. He's there to ask the very liberal Senator from Massachusetts some tough questions. Rubio takes up nearly half of his ten minutes showing cameras that he knows what's going on while Kerry does little more than root for the clock to keep running before he has to speak. In fact, such pontificating can be counterproductive in another way.

For example, during his opening four and a half minute speech, Rubio actually asserted that it's debatable to argue that the Honduran government's removal of Manuel Zelaya in 2009 was a coup. No it isn't. It absolutely was not a coup. Zelaya was a stooge of Hugo Chavez who attempted to seize power by usurping the Constitution. As such, he was constitutionally removed. That is not debatable.

Kerry inexplicably supported Zelaya in that circumstance and was irrefutably proven to be on the wrong side, on the side of a would-be communist dictator. Rubio would have been better off asking Kerry to explain why he supported Zelaya. Instead, he came across as willing to listen to an argument that says Zelaya was wrongfully removed. Kerry never addressed the issue in his seven-plus minute response.

Congressional hearings are most effective when the questions are like those found in a cross-examination. To cross-examine means to examine closely or minutely, the record of a nominee or witness. When you have a time limit, this is best done with short, direct questions. As you'll see, Paul does this very well. Rubio does not. In fact, Rubio never spoke after his opening remarks and when Kerry is done, you won't know what questions Rubio asked or if Kerry answered them.

Rubio is a smart guy but he needs some serious coaching in this area.

Here is Paul's exchange with Kerry:

Here is Rubio's exchange with Kerry:

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Did Hillary Commit Perjury... Twice in the same day?

In two otherwise pathetic performances by Republican congressmen - save for a few exceptions - who laid down like subjects in front of Queen Hillary, there were two exchanges - one during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and the other during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing - where the Secretary of State may have committed perjury.

First up, perhaps the best performance from any of the members of either committee. Rand Paul (R-KY) didn't just tell Clinton she should have been fired, and would have been had Paul been president during the Benghazi attacks. He also asked her a question she denied knowing the answer to. Her claim of ignorance strains credulity.

Moreover, when someone says she doesn't know something when she does, it's still a lie.

This entire exchange is worth watching, to include Hillary's body language when Paul says he would have fired her, but pay attention beginning at the 2:17 mark. Here is the portion of that excerpt transcribed:
Paul: …Is the United States involved with an procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.
Did you catch her ultimate response? Her answer to the 'yes' or 'no' question about whether the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for weapons trafficking was, 'I don't know'. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) that Clinton herself commissioned to investigate the failures of Benghazi found the State Department most responsible, right?

Shouldn't the question about whether the Annex was being used to traffic weapons have been answered by the ARB? Wasn't it the group's job to investigate the attacks? Wouldn't it only demonstrate further incompetence for the ARB not to make that determination, one way or the other?

That aside, is the American public supposed to believe that more than four months after the attacks, Clinton had no interest in ascertaining the answer to such a question, despite news reports that made the claim? At no point, did she or one of her subordinates seek to find out if there was any validity to those reports? If she did not seek out that information, why didn't she do so?

Another possibility is that Clinton knows full well, the answer to the question. If the answer was 'no', what harm would there be in her answering it that way? If the answer was 'yes' and she knew that, one can conclude that the reason to portray ignorance would be to cover up wrongdoing. Otherwise, why commit perjury?

There is something else to take note of here and it's a common reaction by people who are confronted with uncomfortable truths. An attempt is made to diminish the credibility of the messenger. Hillary's initial reaction to Paul's question is to repeat the word 'Turkey' as if it was a question completely out of left field and foreign to her. By appearing surprised, Paul can be painted as a lone voice with an obscure theory.

Nonetheless, her ultimate answer means we are to believe that she has no idea whether the CIA Annex was involved in weapons trafficking.

If she does know, she committed perjury by saying she didn't.

Later in the day, Clinton appeared in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify on the same subject - the Benghazi attacks. Take note beginning at the 5:10 mark. Here is the relevant portion of her response to a series of questions from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL):
Clinton: With respect to the video, I did not say that it was about the video for Libya. It certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.
Check out the statement about the Benghazi attacks - from Hillary herself - on 9/11 (h/t Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News). It said, in part:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any international effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
Here is a screenshot of the statement (note it says 'Statement on the Attack in Benghazi' at the top):

Have a look at the exchange with Kinzinger. Again, pay attention beginning at the 5:10 mark:

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Video: Ron Johnson provides one of few bright spots during Senate Committee hearing on Benghazi

In an otherwise sycophantic exercise between the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and Hillary Clinton, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was one of the few Senators who challenged the Secretary of State.

Unfortunately, short of Rand Paul, this kind of questioning was the exception, not the rule, today. Conversely, there was plenty of praise for Clinton.

Rubio v. Paul in 2016? Rand wins Round 1 BIG

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are both considered to be frontrunners for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2016. They are also both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As such, both men had the opportunity to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton some tough questions today about the State Department's handling of the attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12.

Contrasting these two exchanges becomes even more important if Hillary is the Democratic nominee in 2016. Assuming that reality comes to fruition, either Rubio or Paul could be the face of the Republican Party debating Clinton in four years. How did each Senator do while having the upper hand in today's Senate hearing?

Though Rubio asked relevant questions, he came across as rather dispassionate and gave Hillary plenty of room to give long, meandering answers. He did not stop her when she got off track. Rubio looked rather weak today. No presidential timber shown today.

How about Rand Paul? Arguably the best exchange of the day, though an argument could be made that Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) deserves that distinction. Two things stand out in Paul's exchange with Hillary.

  1. Paul stated clearly that if he were president during the Benghazi attack, he would have fired his Secretary of State.
  2. When Paul asked the Senator if the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for shipping weapons to Turkey "or any other country", Hillary told him to check with the CIA. Are we to believe that she didn't know the answer? Hardly. If the answer was no, there wouldn't be any harm in answering it. Not answering it at all only raises the legitimacy of the question.

If all of this was round 1 between Paul and Rubio, Paul won going away.

Video: the Barack Obama Messiah complex

This video Pretty much nails it. One very basic truth in all of this is that any and all who subscribe to this Obama worship must either necessarily be atheists or are consciously choosing to violate the very first Commandment (innocent children excluded).

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

No, it's really that bad.

From Liberty News (h/t GWP):

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Problem with Republican Leadership: Lack of Self-Respect

There is a fine line between taking the high road and losing your self-respect by not fighting back. If the 2012 elections taught us anything, it's that the Republican establishment doesn't know where that line is.

The leadership vacuum on the Republican side of the aisle keeps getting larger, louder, and even more obvious. If there is one common message from conservatives when it comes to the establishment, that message is to fight. The unwillingness to fight is why Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama in the election; the base didn't turn out.

The Obama administration knows this and is banking on its Republican opposition doing the same thing in the 2014 midterms so the Democrats can take back the House.

There comes a point when refusing to fight only garners more contempt from your opposition and even less respect from your own side. Planting their flag on what they perceive to be the moral high ground didn't work in the last election and it won't work in the next one. It's becoming increasingly obvious that while Republican leaders in Congress think they are better positioned by not lowering themselves to the left's level, they are also losing self-respect by not standing up for themselves. It's antithetical to leadership and when you don't lead, you lose followers.

Two incidents took place at Obama's second inauguration that illustrate this anecdotally.

First, Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee was booed and it was allegedly initiated by a Department of Justice Attorney named Dan Freeman. By the way, that charge was alleged by Freeman himself:

Second, House Speaker John Boehner got the Michelle Obama eye-roll. Watch the body language. At the :02 mark, Boehner taps Michelle on the left arm to jokingly get her attention about something. She then proceeds to put that left arm on the table, as if to say, 'don't touch me'. Boehner then says something else at which the first lady rolls her eyes.

h/t WZ:

The Democratic Party views the Republican Party leaders with contempt, sheer and utter contempt. The Obama agenda, as enunciated by David Plouffe is to so divide the Republican Party that the Democrats take the House in 2014.

Via the Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.

“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”

“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.
Granted, the two inauguration day incidents involving Ryan and Boehner mean nothing in and of themselves but they speak volumes when it comes to an unwillingness to fight on the part of Republican leadership. The administration is clearly banking on being able to continue bullying the leaders of their opposition.

This will serve two purposes. It will cause Republican leadership to continue rolling over, giving Obama what he wants and it will cause the conservative / Tea Party wing to sour on their Party's leadership. A consequence of that disenfranchisement will be staying home on election day in 2014. This will de-energize, de-motivate, and depress the conservative base in 2014. Why wouldn't Team Obama go that route? It worked for them in 2012.

Conservative voters carried all the water in 2010 and Republican victories were sweeping but Republican leaders prevented the Party from doing what it was put in power to do. That is why the base didn't turn out.

Team Obama knows that and will attempt to replicate it.

Consider the case of Ashley Judd running against Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Last month, she trailed him by four points. Yes, four points! If she wins, it will be because McConnell will have chosen not to fight. It won't be because he wasn't moderate enough.

The Republican Party leadership continues to let the schoolyard bully take its lunch money.

If it is going to actually lead, it will have to stand up to the bully sometime between now and November, 2014:

Monday, January 21, 2013

Chuck Schumer in 2013 Echoes Eric Holder in 1995

Only liberal logic can conclude that guns and cigarettes are synonymous. The latest case in point involves Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is comparing gun ownership to cigarette smoking. Believe it or not, this is nothing new. Eric Holder made this very same comparison back in 1995 during the same speech where he asserted that 'we need to brainwash people' about guns.

First up, Schumer...

Via CNS News:
:Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday that not talking about “guns when it comes to gun violence” is like not talking about “smoking when it comes to lung cancer.”

“The president has talked about generally dealing with violence in our society. I agree with that, but to take guns off the table, you know to not talk about guns when it comes to gun violence is to not talk about smoking when it comes to lung cancer. It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s part of the problem, and we have to deal with it,” Schumer said.
Compare that to then U.S. Attorney Eric Holder who attempted a very similar comparison in 1995. This video has made the rounds but again, take note of the comparison he makes. Liberals see the stigma attached to cigarettes as an opportunity to exploit with guns (in the liberal mind, fire can be found at one end of each).

The strategy is very simple. The Democrats want to make guns taboo. They way they're going to attempt to do that is by demonizing gun owners in general and the NRA in particular - though the NRA is not the least bit extreme. In fact, it's an organization that is at times a little too politically correct.

When you take the words of Schumer today and compare them to the words of Holder in 1995 (at the :30 mark), it's very simple to see what the agenda is here.

Video: The American Tank Man

Allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
Perhaps there is no allegory that better illustrates the lopsidedness that exists in the fight between government tyranny and a repressed populace, than the photo of one man - known as Tank Man - standing in front of four tanks in Tiananmen Square. That man, unidentified, defeated those tanks by taking a stand.

As the gun control debate heats up here in the United States, the Tea Party may be witnessing a re-birth. Even Bill Clinton seems to think so.

Enter one of the Tank Men from Tiananmen Square. The video below is of an activist who fought Chinese government tyranny there in 1989. Today, he is an American citizen and gun owner who explains perfectly the reason for the Second Amendment.

That reason is not hunting and it's not home protection. The reason for the Second Amendment is to shorten the odds between government tyrants and its repressed victims. The reason why Democrats in the U.S. want more gun control is very simple. They prefer those odds to be as long as possible.

In the video below, the American Tank Man gives a rousing speech, though the first paragraph was not captured by the cameraman so the opening transcript is below:
The past Monday I decided to visit the Minuteman Park in Lexington and pay tribute to Captain John Parker and his fellow minutemen. A thought came to my mind, that the founding fathers of the United States and Chairman Mao had one thing in common: they all realized that guns are important political instruments. Their similarities, however, ended there:

Chairman Mao wrote: ‘Political power grows out of barrel of a gun’, and he dictated: ‘The party shall command the gun’. James Madison and his compatriots, however, believing that the power of the state is derived from the consent of the governed, ratified that ‘the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’.
Here is the video of the American Tank Man, via Blog O'Stuff (h/t Sipsey Street):

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

  • The over-the-top exploitation of the Sandy Hook shootings by this administration - Eric Holder in particular - has now become even more outrageous thanks to the Attorney General's comments.
  • What does the Lance Armstrong saga reveal about a characteristic that is unfortunately far too common in the world of politics today?
  • How is Rupert Murdoch connected to an Al-Qaeda financier and what are the consequences of such a connection?

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Eric Holder's gun control audacity vs. John Boehner's political cowardice

The comments by Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors were intended to help push Barack Obama's gun control agenda. What they did was further expose what Fast and Furious was all about:
"...the administration has called upon Congress to... consider a series of new federal laws imposing tough penalties on gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals." - Eric Holder on 1/18/13
Aside from the fact that such penalties should apply to high ranking Obama administration officials - to include Holder himself - for what happened in Fast and Furious, this is quite the exercise in contrasting audacity with cowardice.
Audacity: boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions. 
Cowardice: lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.
First up, the truth regarding what Operation Fast and Furious was all about. It is a truth that Speaker John Boehner has proven he'd rather ignore than confront. That operation was conceived and carried out at the highest levels of the Justice Department and ATF with the irrefutable proof that Attorney General Eric Holder's immediate subordinates knew about it.

Fast and Furious was about ATF Supervisors in Arizona requiring Gun Store owners to sell assault weapons illegally to straw purchasers who would then 'walk' those weapons into Mexico and give them to drug cartels. These thousands of assault weapons were then used to murder hundreds of innocents. Those murders will continue for years to come. As Joe Biden said about Sandy Hook's shooting victims, children murdered at the hands of the thousands of guns our government gave to Mexican drug cartels have been and are being 'riddled with bullets'.

Biden has never referred to the countless victims of Fast and Furious - which include children as well - in such fashion.

This makes the U.S. Government (DOJ / ATF at minimum) complicit in mass murder with... assault weapons.

All along, the plan was to draw attention to these murders as well as to the fact that they were sold by U.S. gun dealers in order to re-enact the 1994 assault weapons ban as well as to enact tighter gun control restrictions. The administration - as well as the usual cast of Democratic politicians like Dianne Feinstein - was even caught lying about the percentage of guns found at Mexican crime scenes.

Once you come to grips with that reality, it's easy to see what's going on with the latest gun control push. The Obama administration is clearly banking on Sandy Hook doing what Fast and Furious failed at doing. This is not conjecture. It is demonstrable.

Here is Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, piggy-backing on the newly christened Sandy Hook exploitation exercise to enforce gun control.

To underscore the point, check out this video of Holder's immediate subordinate, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden in 2009, announcing what the goals of 'Project Gunrunner' (the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious) were. Take note what he says at the very beginning as well:
"The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration's comprehensive plan."
It's rather eye-opening to watch this after watching Holder above:

That Eric Holder still has a job is not only brazen on the administration's part but it exposes Obama's complicity in Fast and Furious. We already know he's complicit in the coverup.

Just look at Obama's ultimate actions in Fast and Furious and Sandy Hook to this point. The former involved Executive Privilege and the latter involves Executive Orders. The primary difference between the two is that Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face.

Sandy Hook is Plan B.

Only because it continues to be relevant... Eric Holder in 1995, when he was a U.S. Attorney. Note his comparison between gun owners and smokers. He refers to smokers as people who 'cower outside of buildings'. Nearly twenty years ago, Holder wanted a world where gun owners would 'cower' when it came to owning guns.

What's happening today?

The Obama administration is attempting to get gun owners to 'cower' by somehow blaming them for Sandy Hook. This administration is attempting to shame gun owners and the NRA. It's even brought back its 2012 election campaign team to help do it.

What the Republican establishment still refuses to either learn or admit is that the reason why the Obama campaign was so effective before the election was because the Romney campaign didn't fight. It will only be effective in the gun control push if Republicans repeat their failing formula.

The third presidential debate is where Romney lost the election. Why? Because he didn't hit Obama where the President was weakest - Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

On the same day that Holder was speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Boehner's office was asked to respond to Obama's unconstitutional gun control push via twenty-three Executive Order slaps in the face of Congress.

The response from the most powerful Republican in the United States?

Speaker Boehner will "review the recommendations". One could make the argument that this is strategic on Boehner's part but his history doesn't indicate that in the slightest.

In 2009, Eric Holder called his political opponents 'cowards'. Boehner continues to prove him right.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Holder fighting off FOIA request for Fast & Furious documents by refusing to respond to it

After Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents required by a lawfully issued subpoena by Congress, the U.S. Attorney responsible for prosecuting his boss on criminal grounds predictably decided not to do so for obvious reasons. That left the civil contempt charge, which served as the impetus for a lawsuit filed by the House Oversight Committee against Holder that is still pending.

These subpoenaed documents are the same ones over which Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent from being released.

Concurrent with the civil lawsuit is an effort by a very effective Watchdog group to have the same documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and it's causing Holder to react on a second front.

Via Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a brief on January 15, 2013, in response to an Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to indefinitely delay consideration of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)).

Rather than respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the DOJ argued in court that the lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is “ancillary” to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DOJ. The Court “should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DOJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time,” the DOJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA. The Obama DOJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.
To Judicial Watch's argument, consider an exchange between Issa - in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Holder on December 8, 2011. In the exchange (audio only), Issa was pressing Holder to admit that if the documents relative to Fast & Furious after March of 2011 are not released, the Attorney General will be found in contempt.

There are two very key points (the second is particularly important) expressed by Issa relative to these documents.
  1. Issa explains that Holder must cite a Constitutional exemption for refusing to produce the documents.
  2. Even if Holder magically cites an exemption, he is still required to produce a log of the documents.
To this point, Holder has done neither, which leaves Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege the lone justification for the American people not knowing the truth about Fast and Furious.

Of all the exchanges between Issa and Holder, this one may just be the best.

h/t Breitbart

Chris Christie's hypocrisy is bigger than he is

Does anyone remember the refreshingly bombastic Chris Christie who took on teachers unions and seemed to be a conservative hero during the height of the Tea Party? Yeah, it's not taxing on your short-term memory, is it? Those days almost can't be seen in the rearview mirror anymore.

The new Christie may be just as bombastic but he's become quite the Barack Obama sycophant. First, it was Hurricane Sandy and now it's the gun control debate in the wake of Sandy Hook. In the first video below, Christie responds to a question about an NRA ad. The ad highlights the fact that Obama's children are protected with armed security at their school while your children are left defenseless in theirs.

If the hypocrisy the New Jersey Governor demonstrated could be transformed into a tangible mass, it would dwarf him.

At the essence of each one of his points is an undercurrent view that the children of public officials are more important than the children of everyday Americans. In trying to rip the NRA, Christie ends up even further proving the point made in the ad.

First, he says the children of public officials don't have a "choice" when it comes to what their parents decided to do for a living. Uh, hey Governor, the parents of American children don't have a "choice" when it comes to sending their children to 'gun-free zones', which are inherently more dangerous because such things are as enticing to criminals as picnic baskets are to bears. The truth is that Obama's children are safer at school than any child in any school that is a 'gun-free zone'.

Christie then says, "the effects on their (children of public officals) lives is significant" while diminishing the "effects" on his own children's lives compared to Obama's children. By extension, we are to conclude that the "effects" on the children of parents who are not public officials is much less significant than the effects on Christie's children. Uh, hey Governor, do you have any idea what the effects of high unemployment are? At least you don't have to worry about that personally, nor do the children of most public officials.

Then, Christie says:
"The President doesn't have a choice and his children don't have a choice of whether they're going to be protected or not. The reality of our lives in American society don't lead to that... it's awful to bring public figures' children into the political debate. They don't deserve to be there."
Again, the Governor actually makes the point of the ad by missing it. PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE LEFT DEFENSELESS DON'T HAVE A CHOICE EITHER, MR. CHRISTIE.

Perhaps the cherry icing on top of Christie's hypocrisy cake is this quote:
"They've got real issues to debate on this topic. Get to the real issues. Don't be dragging people's children into this. It's wrong."
Either Governor hypocrite missed the egregiously bald-faced political theater when Barack Obama signed 23 Executive Orders with young children standing behind him OR Christie believes that it's ok to exploit children in the gun control debate as long as their parents are not public officials.

Over. The. Top.

Via MediaIte:

Here is the ad that Christie finds 'reprehensible':

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Just sent this Fax to Governor Rick Perry's office

It was nice to see this statement from my Governor, Rick Perry in which he said, in part, the following:
...the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president."
While I applaud Mr. Perry for speaking out, his response is reactionary in nature. As we well know, after four years of Obama, reactions are what he thrives on because it means he can get a rise out of his opponents while remaining on offense.

It's time for his opponents to go on offense, which is what prompted me to fax this one page letter to Governor Perry's office after reading his statement:
January 17, 2013

From: Ben Barrack
To: Governor Rick Perry


Governor Perry, it was nice to see your public statement that the President's exploitation of the Sandy Hook shootings 'disgusts' you. Thank you for making it.

It's now time to go on offense by contrasting this administration's urgency on gun control after SANDY HOOK with its stonewalling in OPERATION FAST & FURIOUS. We now know what that was about and the exploitation of the Sandy Hook shootings only further demonstrates it.

FAST & FURIOUS was about putting ASSAULT WEAPONS into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that those guns could be used to murder people – including children – whose deaths could then be exploited for the same reason the Sandy Hook murders are being exploited. That purpose was and is to create the political climate for more gun control.

The problem was that FAST & FURIOUS blew up in the administration's face when whistleblowers came forward after the death of Brian Terry.

The Obama administration went to work exploiting Sandy Hook within minutes. On the day of the shootings, Rep. Jerrold Nadler said the president should 'exploit' them. Two years after F&F was exposed, Obama is still asserting Executive Privilege to prevent the truth from coming out.

The reason there was no urgency in FAST & FURIOUS was because it was the Obama administration's fault.

The Obama administration (DOJ / ATF) intentionally put THOUSANDS of assault weapons into the hands of bad guys whom they knew would use them to murder far more people than were murdered at Sandy Hook.

Shining a spotlight on FAST & FURIOUS as this administration exploits SANDY HOOK would put Obama on defense.

After all, his hero – Saul Alinsky – did say that “the ends justify almost any means”. He also dedicated his book to Lucifer.

There is a true leadership vacuum on the Republican side of the aisle in this country. All someone has to do is fill it without concern for the mainstream media's reaction. The first step is going on offense with the truth.

Ben Barrack
Talk show host / 1400 KTEM
Here is Perry's contact page. You can fax his office at 512-463-1849. There are also other fax numbers listed for members of his administration that might need to hear from you.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Jay Carney reveals truth about Fast and Furious

Once you finally accept the truth about Operation Fast and Furious, it is easy to see what White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney is really saying here. Fast and Furious, a program run by the ATF, with the approval of senior officials in Eric Holder's Justice Department, involved ATF agents instructing gun store owners to sell assault weapons to straw purchasers.

Despite these sales being illegal, the ATF required gun owners to make them under the pretense that the guns would be tracked. They intentionally weren't tracked; they were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico and right into the hands of people the ATF / DOJ knew would use them to murder innocent people.

Thousands of them went across the border, on purpose and for one purpose. That purpose was to use the subsequent murder victims - to include children - to create the political climate for gun control generally and assault weapons in particular.

Here is a direct quote from Carney's January 15th press conference, via RCP [my translated comments of what Carney likely meant are in bold brackets]:
"If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already [If Fast and Furious whistleblower John Dodson hadn't come forward, we could have blamed gun store owners for the deaths of Border Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican nationals]. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already [Fast and Furious was very carefully planned and, as you can see, circumstances beyond our control caused it to blow up in our face. You'll also notice we had to stonewall for two years and rely on the President to assert Executive Privilege. You think an assault weapons ban is easy? Think again.]. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals [The president has been committed to this issue since he was elected. Fast and Furious began in 2009. How much proof do you need?]. He is not naive about the challenges that exist [The president only pretended to be naive about Fast and Furious for the last two years but he's really not], but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions. [Uh, Fast and Furious is responsible for the deaths of far more children than was the Sandy Hook but we can't exploit Fast and Furious because it was our fault]."
To watch the video of Carney making the aforementioned comments, click HERE.

Here is Carney reading part of a related statement.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The Truth about the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman on Joe Biden Gun Control task force

In 1978, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was a legal aid to Rep. Leo Ryan (D-CA), the only U.S. Congressman to be murdered in the line of duty. In 2011, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) almost became the second. Speier barely survived the trip to Jonestown, where an insane preacher had moved his insane Temple, but not before she herself had been shot five times.

Incredibly, not only is she still a Democrat but the Joe Biden gun control squad appears to be enlisting her help in developing a plan of action, as she is one of twelve Democratic congressmen who make up the House Democrat Task Force on Gun Violence. The group met with Biden yesterday.

Make no mistake. Speier's presence on that Task Force has to do with her very real and personal history when it comes to being on the wrong end of a gun. After the meeting, CNN interviewed Speier and asked her about her experience at Jonestown in 1978 (beginning at the 2:00 mark). Conspicuously absent from the exchange is any mention of Jones' ideology and who he was in bed with - the Democratic Party. Jones was a Marxist. More on his relationship with very prominent Democrats after the video.

Via Daily Caller:

Jim Jones was a professed Marxist and moved up through the ranks of political power in San Francisco with the aid and assistance of several Democrats. He helped Democratic Mayor George Moscone get elected. In fact, through the use of Community Organizing, Jones and his Temple were very much responsible for Moscone's victory. As a result, Moscone rewarded Jones with a seat on the San Francisco Housing Authority, which oversaw more than $14 million, and later enlisted the help of then California State Assemblyman Willie Brown (D) to introduce legislation that would ensure Jones would become chairman.

Ralph Nader has a little known legacy of disgrace when it comes to Jim Jones as well. An extremely terrified couple who had defected from Jones' cult reached out to Nader for help, in confidence. He betrayed them. Their plea for assistance found its way from Nader to Jones.

Jones also ingratiated himself with other Democrats like then Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who once said of Jones:
"I am really pleased and inspired by what I have seen. Here is truly a man - Pastor Jim Jones - who is touched by God."
How about then Democratic Governor Jerry Brown (yes, the one who is in office today)? Brown made several visits to Jones' Temple and clearly turned a blind eye to what was going on. Jones also rubbed elbows with Rosalyn Carter and Walter Mondale (see video below). Speaking of that video, note how Jones boasts about the fact that he was a Marxist (Obama has a history that very much involves studying Marxism and associating with Marxists). Also keep in mind how more than 900 people died in Jonestown; Jones was responsible but it wasn't done with guns:

In a book entitled, Six Years With God, written by Jeannie Mills (a pseudonym), the woman who was betrayed by Nader and ultimately lost her life, wrote:
"Just a few doors down the street from the San Francisco temple the Black Muslims had their temple. Jim made strong overtures of friendship to this strong group, even sending large contingencies of our membership to attend their services, to which they responded by sending their members to our services."
Two more ironic realities about Jim Jones that should raise bold red flags with Speier...

Jones attempted to buy favorable California media coverage - to some degree, successfully - with payoffs labeled as "commendation" awards to show support for the first amendment. Laughable, isn't it? Not surprisingly, the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle received the largest amounts. Eerily salient today, isn't it?

The other reality the mainstream media will not touch is the fact that just prior to the mass murder / suicide in Jonestown, the group bequeathed all of its assets to the Soviet Union.

I cover all of this (and more) in much greater detail in Chapter five of Unsung Davids: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory. The Unsung David in that chapter is a man named David Conn.

Instead of playing defense, the Republican leadership should be exposing the truth behind the groups and individuals responsible for Speier's shooting. In fact, it was the Democratic Party that enabled Jim Jones to acquire the power he did.

That Speier is still a Democrat defies any and all logic, unless one believes that Stockholm Syndrome is a real condition.

Parting thought: In an interview Speier gave last year, she talked about how many people approached her delegation in 1978 to SECRETLY ask for escape from Jonestown. If Speier were honest, would she ask for escape from the Democratic Party?

Monday, January 14, 2013

Video: Colin Powell attacks Republicans for racism; ignores in-your-face Democratic racism

It is quite clear that Colin Powell views the world most through a racial lens. On Meet the Press, he defended his two votes for Barack Obama and claimed that there is a 'dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the (Republican) Party', saying it has lurched too far to the right. He then shockingly said that the Party's move to the right is why the Republicans lost the election.

Lost on him is the fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing president in U.S. history and the Republican Party's nominee for president in 2012 was a moderate. Yet, Powell says he is still a Republican and that he's a 'moderate'.

Apparently, Powell is willing to overlook Obama's countless affiliations with some very intolerant people.

Moreover, following Powell's logic, the Tea Party is more intolerant than Occupy Wall Street, which has a website devoted to glorifying its high number of arrests.

He's either lying or so blinded by race that he's afflicted with an extreme case of denial.

h/t GWP:

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's program...

Isn't it amazing when one considers the urgency with which the Obama administration is acting relative to Sandy Hook and the complete LACK of urgency when it came to Fast and Furious? Compare Joe Biden's call for urgent action with two years of stonewalling by Barack Obama, Eric Holder, et. al. when it came to the ATF placing thousands of assault weapons into the hands of drug cartels who continue to kill people with them.

Also, Quentin Tarantino channels his inner, petulant child.

What will Obama's Civilian National Security Force be armed with?

If the Obama administration wants to take assault weapons away from civilians, what will the Civilian National Security Force be armed with?


Remember this from July of 2008?

Friday, January 11, 2013

Video: Larry Pratt dismantles Piers Morgan... Again

Piers Morgan is apparently a glutton for punishment because after being thoroughly and roundly defeated in a debate with Larry Pratt last month, he had Pratt on again. The result was the same. This time, Pratt even brought up Fast and Furious. Morgan's reaction was predictable.

Via Gun Owners of America:
Pratt also brought up Operation Fast & Furious and tagged Morgan for refusing to discuss the Obama Administration’s “culpability to commit mass murder” while supervising an operation that flooded our southern border with illegal firearms.
Fast and Furious should be brought up by gun rights activists in EVERY. SINGLE. GUN. CONTROL. DEBATE.

It's the magic bullet (metaphorically speaking) in this entire saga.

For posterity, here is Round One again:

Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious: The tale of two Bidens

On January 9th, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters that 'it's critically important that we act (on gun control)' and that 'the president is going to act with Executive Orders'. Seated immediately to Biden's right was Attorney General Eric 'gunwalker' Holder. That would be the same Eric Holder who was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not honoring a lawfully issued subpoena for documents that would help get to the bottom of an operation led by the Department of Justice and the ATF.

The gall of Holder to willingly become one of the faces of gun control today is incredible. This may be the Obama administration at its most audacious - and it thrives on audacity.

For two years, the DOJ stonewalled Congress, culminating in the President asserting Executive Privilege to prevent the subpoenaed documents from being released.

With that as a backdrop, ask yourself if it would have been more appropriate for the likes of Biden to turn to his right in this video and address Mr. Holder instead of reporters:

Whenever gun rights advocates rightfully claim that Operation Fast and Furious was about the DOJ and the ATF intentionally putting thousands of assault weapons into the hands of bad guys so they could murder innocent people, the left claims it's a conspiracy theory. Yet, the facts are in. The ATF ran an operation that did put assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to kill hundreds of innocent people.

All that's left to ascertain is motive but for two years, the administration stonewalled. Why is the urgency with which Biden is advocating gun control now, nowhere to be found for two years relative to the DOJ and the ATF? Why wasn't Obama demanding action be taken when the ATF was caught engaging in egregiously criminal behavior? Instead, he deferred to an Inspector General, who took well over a year to issue its final report.

Again, why didn't Obama demand action on gun control when it was learned that the ATF had placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?

Remember this interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos more than three months after the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? Compare Obama's stance then to Biden's stance less than one month after the Sandy Hook shootings:

A silver lining to the administration's stance today - enunciated by Biden on January 9th - is that the truth about the motivation behind Fast and Furious becomes even more clear. The actions of this administration today are 180 degrees from its actions in the wake of Fast and Furious being exposed that it is even easier to see why the ATF armed the cartels.

It was an effort to create the climate that would facilitate gun control, just like the Sandy Hook shootings are being exploited for the EXACT. SAME. PURPOSE.

Operation Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face. Had it gone according to plan, I have no doubt that Biden or someone else from the administration (perhaps Holder) would have been sitting in front of reporters just like Biden did on January 9th and demanded action on assault rifles because of all the deaths in Mexico.

In this excerpt from Biden's comments to reporters, notice how he accentuates the fact that the children of Sandy Hook were 'riddled' with bullets. Yeah, Joe, hundreds of innocent Mexicans have been - and continue to be - riddled with bullets from assault weapons your administration intentionally gave to hardened criminals.

In the video below, Biden says:
"Every once in a while, there's something that awakens the conscience of the country."
Mr. Vice President, the only reason Fast and Furious didn't do that to a greater extent was that the administration for which you work covered it up and stonewalled attempts to uncover it.

Utterly. Shameless.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Does Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers bolster Hitler / Stalin comparisons?

Comparisons of Barack Obama to Hitler and Stalin appear to be going somewhat mainstream in one respect, thanks to Vice President Joe Biden's announcement that 'the president is going to act' on gun control. The implication was clear - the road to confiscation includes Executive Orders, which are unconstitutional, especially when they do not enforce existing laws enacted by Congress. Such orders are beyond unconstitutional when they target the second amendment itself.

After Biden's comments, it wasn't difficult to make the connection to Hitler and Stalin in this regard - both confiscated guns before committing mass murder by the millions.

Fast forward to the 2008 election campaign. One figure from Obama's past whom he attempted to distance himself from was Bill Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground. Despite the successful attempts by Obama to dismiss his relationship with Ayers - coupled with media complicity in suppressing it - the fact remains that these two men had a rather lengthy and cozy relationship. That's not only relevant based on Ayers' terrorist background but it's also relevant based on his plans, conveyed in 1969.

Ayers remains unrepentant, which means that Obama worked closely (yes, closely) with someone who had no regrets about his actions or his intentions.

Consider the only man to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground for the FBI. His name is Larry Grathwohl and video of him from 1982 surfaced just before Barack Obama was elected in 2008. In that video, Grathwohl said the plans of Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground included the elimination of 25 million people who 'could not be re-educated into the new way of thinking'.

Sound familiar? Here's the relevant excerpt of Grathwohl's interview from 1982:

The typical argument from the left is that Ayers and Obama were nowhere close to being friends; they just coincidentally served on boards together and handled hundreds of thousands of dollars between them.

As I've written in the past and go into detail in my book, Unsung Davids, which includes a chapter on Grathwohl, perhaps the most damning evidence that connects Obama with Ayers was a find by the Verum Serum blog in 2008. Through a series of screen shots and tax records, it was unequivocally proven that Ayers and Obama shared a business address for at minimum, three years (1995-1998).

That address was 115 South Sangamon Street, third floor, Chicago, IL. Here is a screen shot of that building. Note how the word H-O-P-E is spelled out in four windows... on the third floor.

People may be inclined to compare Obama's desire to confiscate guns to that of Hitler and Stalin but they should also be willing to compare Ayers' desire to commit mass murder to the desire of Hitler and Stalin to do the same thing.

Then, for good measure, consider how close the relationship between Obama and Ayers must have been if they shared an office for at least three years.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Hillary on 9/11/12: 'Some' have blamed the anti-Muhammad video

Susan Rice has got to have steam shooting out of her ears... We now know that Hillary Clinton issued a statement on 9/11/12 that pointed to the anti-Muhammad video as being involved in the Benghazi attack:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet." - Hillary Clinton, 9/11/12
Question: What individuals made up the "some" to which Hillary was referring?

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is not getting Hillary Clinton's job for one primary reason. She appeared on five Sunday talk shows five days after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi and lied; she said the attack on our consulate was in response to the anti-Muhammad video. Despite not having any responsibility over the State Department, Rice is the one who was punished politically.

Secretary of State Clinton said she was ultimately responsible for the security of State Department personnel and commissioned the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate. The ARB found no one accountable.

Now we have a great find, courtesy of Terrence Jeffrey at CNS News, who has pointed out that five days prior to Susan Rice blaming the video, Hillary did the same thing... on the day of the attacks and before the death of the two former Navy SEALs.

According to Jeffrey's research, this statement released by Hillary Clinton was published at 10:58pm EST on September 11th. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar fire sometime between 11:16pm EST - 11:26pm EST.

Here is a screenshot of the statement posted to the State Department website before the deaths of Doherty and Woods (click on image to enlarge):

What has been Susan Rice's defense in the face of warranted criticism about her lies on September 16th? She said the following in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that aired on December 13th:
When I went on the Sunday shows on September 16th, I was doing just as I have always done, providing the best information available to me and available to our government at the time. I was very careful to explain that the information was preliminary, and it could change. And yet I think it was misconstrued and contorted into something much more nefarious, it was never indeed the case nor my intention.
This begs a very important question: If Susan Rice conceded to Brian Williams on December 13th that the information she provided on September 16th was wrong, though based on "the best information available", what does Hillary have to say about her statement, released before two of the four dead Americans were murdered?

This means that Hillary went public with a lie five days before Rice told the same one and became persona non-grata as a result.

Clinton's comments in that September 11th statement are also relevant based on what she said in the days before Rice echoed them.

Here is Clinton on September 13th. Note how close she comes to blaming the video directly. Though she doesn't, the implication is absolutely there. When you couple that implication with what she said in the aforementioned 9/11/12 statement, it means Clinton was clearly on the same page Rice was on 9/16/12. Take note at the :37, the 3:09, and the 3:42 marks as Hillary's comments about the video are like three puzzle pieces that beg for the one found by Jeffrey to complete a four-piece jigsaw patch:

One day later, Clinton was on-hand at Andrews Air Force Base when the caskets holding four dead Americans arrived home. During her speech, she said the following:
This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.
Here is the video of Clinton at Andrews on 9/14/12 (13:15 mark):

It's also worth remembering that the father of one of those Navy SEALs told radio talk show host Lars Larson that upon meeting Hillary at the Andrews Air Force ceremony, was told by the Secretary of State that the maker of the anti-Muhammad film would be arrested and prosecuted.

Let's take a look at that one sentence from Hillary's 9/11/12 statement in particular:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.
Based on the fact that she made that statement before Doherty and Woods had been killed, are we not left to conclude that Hillary is part of the "some" to which she refers?

Perhaps she might be available to testify "some" day.

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive