Archive / October, 2012

The ‘Original Intent’ of Benghazi

Originally posted on American Thinker blog

Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, one of the two former Navy SEALs who lost their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, is demanding answers as to why, if the White House Situation Room was watching Americans die in real time, did they decide to do nothing to stop it? The grieving father’s question: “Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?”

According to Mr. Woods, “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their cries for help,” Woods said, “my son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen [Doherty] risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation.”

In other words, two Navy SEALs were killed doing what they were trained to do. They ignored the command to stand down and chose instead to rush to the aid of those in distress and did so while the State Department and the White House stood by, watching the horror unfold in real time and choosing to do nothing to stop it.

Charles Woods claims that military officials told him that they could have saved those under attack. But Mr. Woods is convinced that someone higher up gave the order not to send backup. Now, the father of the former Navy SEAL is angry, saying, “We need to find out who it was that gave that command — do not rescue them.”

According to Fox News, “Security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound.” In addition, “U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace.” Remember that old Obama adage: better to sodomize, torture, and murder an American Ambassador than dare to violate Libyan airspace.

Nonetheless, in the “fog of war” and in response to prior reports, a CIA spokesperson, under the direction of CIA director and retired General David Petraeus, put out the following statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The Obama administration has spent six full weeks blatantly lying, obfuscating, and blaming a low-budget anti-Islamic video for the attack on the U.S. consulate. Now, after dodging questions about whether requests for help were denied by U.S. officials, the Obama administration — more specifically President Barack Obama — is adamantly vowing that his administration will “find out what happened” and discipline those responsible.

Of course he has to say that. However, even if the president didn’t personally instruct security personnel in Benghazi to “stand down,” it’s not at all difficult to imagine an unruffled Obama watching the attack in real time, yawning, executing a sleepy stretch, and saying, “It’s getting late guys, I think I’ll turn in.”

Furthermore, it’s pretty obvious that the sanctity of life isn’t exactly a top priority for pro-choice Barack Obama, whose claim to fame is his belief that some human lives are disposable. Lest we forget, the president is an avid proponent of born-alive babies being left to die, or as he so aptly put it, “looked after” by the doctor that failed to kill them on the first try.

With that in mind, if a disposable human being were being purposely asphyxiated in a burning American consulate in Benghazi by a band of terrorists, perhaps Barack Obama felt that responding to desperate cries for assistance could “burden the original decision” of some other, more significant political goal. After all, the president did once say that a doctor attending to a suffering infant does “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Therefore, along with Mr. Woods, one can’t help but wonder if some “original decision” might have been undermined if military reinforcements were given the go-ahead to save the lives of the Benghazi four.

But not to worry, though — while consistently evading questions about the tragedy prior to Election Day, Barack Obama is about the business of assuring the American public that “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 we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.”

Wow! Coincidentally, that is exactly what a concerned American public is planning to do too, Mr. President. At all costs, the facts will be gathered as to what really happened that ill-fated night in Benghazi, as well as what actions occurred in the White House Situation Room during the seven-hour attack. And rest assured, Mr. President, those who carried out those attacks and anyone who aided and abetted the enemy in the senseless murder of four Americans will be found and brought to justice.

Are Somali Pirates Voting in Ohio?

Originally posted on American Thinker blog

Finally, the billy club-toting New Black Panther Party may have some backup in ensuring that Barack Obama wins a second term.  Why? Because it looks like a few Somali pirates may have managed to sneak past Janet Napolitano and are now in Ohio to assist the Democrats in moving America “Forward.”

Allegedly, volunteer poll workers in the Buckeye state reported seeing “van loads of Ohio residents born in Somalia” being ferried in to vote early.  Once at the polls, in lieu of Republican translators and UN poll watchers, the Democrats themselves were providing Somali/Arabic translation.  Seems the Obama campaign is getting out the vote by teaching Somali immigrants the ins and outs of the voting process.

Witnesses at the Columbus, Ohio Morse Road polling center reported Somalis arriving in buses, being handed a slate card, and being told by helpful Democrats to vote “brown,” for Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), all the way down the card.

On Ohio’s website, the Somali Community Association lists the following facts: 45,000 Somalis live in Ohio; 99.9 percent are Muslim; 40 percent have become U.S. citizens; and 57 percent are eligible to become U.S. citizens, emphasis on the “eligible” part.

Ohio law does require voters to provide proof of citizenship by presenting a utility bill or writing down a Social Security or driver’s license number and then checking a box. However, other than those three items, there is no other way to verify that the person doing the voting is a bona fide citizen of the United States.  Moreover, most poll workers tend to just take voters at their word.

Matt McClellan, press secretary for Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, explained, “There is a process to challenge a voter’s eligibility.” One problem – “the point in time for a challenge to be brought ended mid October” – too late!   According to Mr. McClellan, up until mid October “a poll worker could challenge a voter if they had questions as to whether or not they were registered or eligible to vote.”  However, if Democrats choose to forego raising the eligibility issue with, let’s say, busloads of Somali voters, then any illegal Somali votes will still be counted on Election Day.

Nonetheless, being a global citizen and all, regardless of the ensuing crisis Barack Obama has consistently attempted to maintain a spirit of camaraderie with the Muslim world, and that world includes Somalia.

For example, just a few months after Barack Obama’s momentous inauguration, Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden commandeered the American merchant ship Maersk Alabama, taking Captain Richard Phillips hostage at gunpoint.  Yet, during that crisis, President Obama acted sort of like a blasé Democrat poll worker.

In the midst of the crisis, while meeting with beleaguered homeowners at the White House seeking help from Obama to refinance their mortgages, a reporter asked the President if he was concerned about the ongoing piracy situation.  Declining to comment publicly, Obama admonished reporters when he said, “Guys, we’re talking about housing right now.”

Ultimately, Phillips was rescued when U.S. Navy SEALs peeled off two shots from 75 feet away, killing two AK-47-toting thugs.

Then, a couple of years after the 2009 Somali pirate incident, four American Christian missionaries, peacefully sailing the world distributing Bibles, were hijacked and held hostage off the coast of Somalia and were later killed by their pirate captors.  That tragedy incited a firefight with U.S. Navy warships, which was one of many that followed.

Speaking of the U.S. Navy, in 1993 Navy SEALs were in Somalia for the Battle of Mogadishu. Seventy-three members of the U.S. military were wounded and 18 died.  That was when “Masked gunmen dragged slain soldiers through the streets of Somalia’s capital … then set the bodies on fire as jeering crowds threw rocks and kicked the dead after a fierce battle in a neighborhood loyal to Islamic insurgents.”

Who would have thought that almost 20 years later some of the Somalis who may have jeered as the American soldiers’ burnt and desecrated bodies were being dragged naked through the streets of Mogadishu could be among those voting in the swing state of Ohio?

And so it seems that with nary a whisper of apprehension concerning potential election fraud from the Obama White House, Ohio Democrats have decided to emulate Somali pirates and attempt to hijack the election.

Lacking only motorboats, loaded AK-47’s and colorful headscarves, Democrat poll pirates right there in Columbus, Ohio attempted to seize and take hostage a Mitt Romney campaign bus carrying Republicans arriving to vote. That’s right, at the same polling site where busloads of Somalis voted Brown all the way to the bottom of the card, when a Mitt Romney bus pulled up “30 Democrats who were outside handing out the slate cards rushed over to the bus… yelled … and swarmed around its door when anyone attempted to exit the bus.”

Just wait – in the end, if the race in Ohio remains this close and voter piracy is exposed, when asked to comment about droves of Somali immigrants being bussed in to vote, Barack Obama will likely say something very similar to what he said during another Somali crisis: “Guys, we’re talking about Big Bird right now.”

Voting for Obama is like First-Time Sex in the City

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Cyberspace is all atwitter about a new Obama campaign-paid ad starring HBO series Girls star Lena Dunham entitled “My first time was with Obama.”  The ad uses a sexual double-entendre that equates Dunham voting for the first time with losing her virginity to the very married Barack Obama.

Dunham has been nicknamed the “voice of a generation” for her show’s funny portrayal of life as a middle- to upper-class romantic woman living in New York City.  Therefore, it’s not too far-fetched to call this ad “Voting for Obama is like First Time Sex in the City.”

The twenty-something HBO star says, “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody.  You want to do it with a great guy.”

Lena does not expound upon how she knows that Barack Obama is a “great guy,” or whether her actual “first time” really was with a “great guy.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6G3nwhPuR4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Nonetheless, Dunham instructs virginal females both in and outside the voting booth by telling them that “your first time” should be with “someone who really cares about and understands women — a guy who cares whether you get health insurance and specifically whether you get birth control.”

It’s true — before losing your virginity to a “great guy,” it’s always good to first find out how he feels about whether or not you have health insurance and whether or not you brought along your free birth control.  In other words, whether it’s losing your virginity or voting, “your lady parts” depend on picking the right guy.

Lena also doesn’t explain how she knows that Barack Obama “really cares about and understands women.”  Is it his smooth line, his engaging smile, his willingness to pay for the campaign ad, or his major line of bull?  Because if those are the criteria the virtuous Ms. Dunham uses to measure whether a potential lover cares about her or not, then she’s the type of easy-sleazy that men joke about when women aren’t around.

However, what Lena does know is that when pulling the lever, “[t]he consequences are huge.”  Huge consequences are certainly applicable, whether choosing a man for sex or voting for the first time.

While the “first time” ad is shocking to some, it’s really quite telling.  Barack Obama was actually willing to pay for an ad that admits what he’s truly good at: majorly screwing America.  Better yet, majorly screwing the American women who think he has their best interests at heart.

Obama’s screwing started four years ago with the help of semi-virginal voters like Lena Dunham, and he is hoping to keep up the screwing for another four years.  Unfortunately, while it might have been good for Obama, Ms. Lena is too inexperienced and naïve to realize that her first time wasn’t as good she thought it was.

And if it’s a happy ending with Barack Obama that Lena Dunham and the twenty-somethings she’s appealing to are looking for, she and the “Girls” are setting themselves up to be very disappointed.

Obama Sleeps While Americans Die

 Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Despite the poor economy, high unemployment, and the overall state of national malaise, Barack Obama has been hinging his prospects for reelection solely on the fact that the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, is dead. Rather than giving most of the credit to Seal Team Six, who actually risked their lives by entering the global terrorist’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, President Obama has spent months extolling his own steely determination.

Few would argue that after September 11th 2001, George W. Bush’s handling of the terrorist attack on American soil is what likely won him a second term. Be it Timothy McVeigh or al-Qaeda, American presidents staring down extremists on behalf of Americans usually gains them more supporters than critics.

Therefore, listening to Barack Obama talk about his positive impact on the war on terror, one would think that the 44th president finally found a winning formula to ensure a second term and a terror-free future for Americans around the world.

Yet, what Obama never mentions are the 30 Americans, 22 of whom were DEVGRU Seal Team Six elite Navy SEALS who, in the aftermath of bin Laden’s body being dumped in the North Arabian Sea, were shot down by insurgents while flying in Chinook helicopters in Afghanistan. In addition, what Barack Obama also never addresses is the astounding increase in military deaths by hostile Taliban forces since he took office in 2009.

Now, Barack Obama finds himself up to his nostrils in the muck and mire of controversy over a terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. On the anniversary of killing 3,000 innocent Americans 11 years prior, in a pre-planned, coordinated attack on the American consulate in Benghazi the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for slaying US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

America is now learning that despite the Obama administration’s indignant reaction to a low-budget anti-Islam video which for two weeks was blamed for the loss of life in Benghazi, the White House was fully aware that what was happening was indeed a terrorist attack. In the same Situation Room where Beyonce and Jay-Z had visited months earlier, the White House watched in real time, via unmanned Predator drone, for five of the seven hours that the four Americans struggled to stay alive. In the end, President Obama chose to do nothing to stop it.

Worse yet, it is being alleged that while Christopher Stevens was being tortured, raped, and killed, the president, who had plans to go to Las Vegas for a fundraiser the next day, went to bed. Meanwhile, as the president slept, life-saving troops were but an hour away in Italy.

That brings us to the 2012 election. Despite his desperate attempts to convince Americans that he singlehandedly rid the planet of the world’s most notorious terrorist, unlike George W. Bush in 2004, it appears that the bin Laden slayer is still losing credibility with American voters.

One can’t help but think that if on September 11, 2012 Barack Obama had at least attempted to rescue those four Americans, his prospects for reelection would be quite different today. If the commander-in-chief had demanded that every effort be made to save the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods, and Doherty, even if the effort failed he would have been viewed as a tough leader. The drama, the bravery, and the dedication of a US president vowing to “leave no man behind,” whatever the cost, would have eradicated any chance Mitt Romney might have had to replace Barack Obama behind the Resolute Desk come January.

Instead, on the anniversary of September 11th Barack Obama chose to turn his back on four Americans whose lives were lost at the hands of Ansar al-Sharia, and the question is why? Didn’t the President realize that by saving their lives, in the process he could have also secured a second term?

So yes, Osama bin Laden is dead, but as the American body count continues to climb, the question that remains is: What possible reason could Barack Obama offer America for sending SEAL Team Six into Pakistan to kill one terrorist, but then refuse to send help to Libya to rescue four Americans under siege by a band of murderous militants?

This time, Barack Obama’s foolhardy decision to put himself first cost four Americans their lives and should also cost him the election.

Obama’s Vanishing Lead with Women Voters

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Democratic party likes to portray itself as seeing women as equal to men.  Yet it’s the Democrats who think they can woo female voters by dangling free contraceptives in front of them like a carrot luring a donkey.

For months America has been hearing how it’s President Barack Obama who has the estrogen vote sewn up. Now, according to a recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, America comes to find out that Mitt Romney is currently leading Barry the Birth Control President in the top battleground states, and the women he thought were willing to sell the country down the river for an IUD are driving that lead.

In 2008, a large contribution to Barack Obama’s 13-point margin of victory came from women swept up in the euphoria of a wave of Oprah Winfrey flag-waving hysteria.  In 2012 it appears that Winfrey and her tear-soaked eyelashes are sitting this one out, and so are all the women who followed her lead.

According to a recent article in USA TODAY entitled Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead, Susan Page writes

“As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney.”

Much to the chagrin of the mainstream media, feminist activist Sandra Fluke, and Obama shills like ingénue Scarlett Johansson and Eva ‘Border Security Expert’ Longoria, “the Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48% while he leads by 12 points among men.”

According to USA TODAY/Gallup Romney now leads among likely voters in the swing states Obama thought he had in the can a few weeks ago. If this keeps up, it looks like Barack Obama is going to have to give away free weed whackers to the fellas just to stay in the running.

These more recent polls are consistent with a national Pew Poll taken after the first presidential debate that showed Barack Obama’s 18-point lead among women had dissolved; leaving him tied 47%-47% with Romney among likely female voters. In addition, married women, who tend to vote Republican, are more enthusiastic this election cycle than unmarried women, who tend to vote Democratic.

Whatever the reason, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake admitted that since his strong performance in the first debate, “In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney.”  According to Ms. Lake, “Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney… came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.” Presidential prospects for Mitt Romney have only continued to improve after the second and third debates.

Why? Because as a rule, the fairer sex is generally more discerning and Mitt Romney just doesn’t display the demeanor of guy who would leave a woman “dying on the floor” as Nancy Pelosi predicted he would if he’s elected – quite the contrary.  On the other hand, without those Styrofoam Greek columns, during the first debate in Denver Barack Obama looked too weak and disinterested to aid a woman even if she was “dying on the floor.”

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse also maintains that “The first debate had a significant impact on these voters as they watched it and Governor Romney appeared nothing like the candidate that was essentially a caricature in the advertising by the Obama campaign. It’s these voters who began to realize that the picture being painted of him was not reality.” In the 2012 campaign season, misconceptions about the two candidates are being revealed, especially the hyped-up impression of Barack Obama, who’s turning out to be the world’s emptiest suit.

Suffice it to also say that working women are not impressed by a man who touts signing an equal pay bill while paying his own female staff roughly 18% less than his male staff. Moreover, despite the fact that our “abortion extremist” President is convinced that the way to a girl’s heart is promising free contraceptives and abortion on demand, the truth is that what impresses most women is a confident air of leadership that displays the character traits of strength, stability and security.

Hence, when compared to President Obama’s three debate performances, Mitt Romney’s poised but assertive, polite, take-charge steadiness makes him look like a knight in shining armor to female voters who are clearly paying attention.

In the end, as shocking as it may seem to Barack Obama, it’s the competence and ability to turn the economy around, create jobs, and reestablish national security that mean much more to American women than being outfitted by the White House for a lifetime of sex without consequence.

The Sandra Fluke Traveling War on Women Show

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Sandra Fluke was a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) when, on behalf of women with ovarian cysts, she showed up at an unofficial hearing before House Democrats.  Fluke appeared before America to demand that the Jesuit-run university offer health insurance to students that covered contraception and abortion. As a result, Ms. Fluke is now a general in a contrived war on women – a battle that started when Democrats attempted to invade the Catholic Church with liberal policy.

Ms. Fluke became infamous when radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh satirically called her a “slut,” which instantly thrust her into the role of spokeswoman for consequence-free sex.  In the course of the hysterical backlash, President Barack Obama called her to soothe her hurt feelings and congratulate her parents for having such a heroic daughter. Eventually, Rush did apologize to Sandra for suggesting that a single woman begging the entire country for free birth control was a bit slutty.

But it didn’t end there. Sandra’s meteoric rise to fame continued when she shared her wisdom at the DNC Convention. Now, on behalf of Barack Obama, just weeks prior to the 2012 election, Fluke is taking her reproductive justice spiel to cities all across America.

Sandra Fluke’s Traveling War on Women Show is one part of an effort by Democrats to drive voters to the polls to vote early.  Recently, at a “Sak ‘N Save” in Reno, Nevada, Sandra spoke to a group of 10 who were either eager to hear what she had to say, thought she might be handing out free samples, or quite possibly were looking for an opportunity to pack Ms. Fluke’s groceries.

Seemingly overwhelmed by her own celebrity, Sandra told the crowd hanging on her every word that 2012 has turned out to be not quite what she expected.

The newly-minted law school grad probably thought the Catholic Church would roll over and provide the insurance and that she and her free contraceptives could fade into obscurity, but so far the poor girl has been subjected to just the opposite. Instead, sort of how Halle Berry became the face of Revlon, the Georgetown Law graduate has become the fresh face of free contraceptives.

Addressing those 10 people in Reno, Fluke said “A lot of women come to me and tell me stories individually about their lives about what access to healthcare has meant to them; what the Affordable Care Act is going to mean to them.”

Sandra inspired the rapt Reno ten when she claimed “A lot of young people tell me how important it was to stay on their parents’ plan until they were 26.”  For those eager to realize the American Dream, there’s nothing like being 26, living in Mom and Dad’s musty basement, and having open access to all the birth control one could ever desire.

And if those contraceptives should fail, not to worry, Sandra shared that “Folks tell [her] what a difference it made to be able to rely on Planned Parenthood when they needed it and what it would mean if Mr. Romney gets his way to defund Planned Parenthood.”

What Sandra failed to warn her audience about was that most Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide the mammograms Barack Obama claims is the reason for funding the abortion provider.  Moreover, Sandra also forgot to mention that, just like Sesame Street, Planned Parenthood would do just fine without federal funding, which means liberals have created yet another straw man for their endless parade of female dupes to drag around.

Nonetheless, as Ms. Fluke takes her show on the road, she’s gathering quite a fan base. In Reno, a gentleman named Leo Horishny was among those who battled the multitudes to get a chance to see Fluke. Horishny said he wanted to see the person whom members of the media had used “intimidating rhetoric against as a political tactic.”

Horishny believes that “intimidating rhetoric” is “a scary trend today?” No Leo, what’s really frightening is Sandra Fluke taking her free contraceptive pitch so seriously that she’s willing to compete with the weekly sales circular for the attention of 10 people at a place called “Sak ‘N Save.”

Binder Bimbos or Benghazi?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

A newly-formed band of Binder Bimbos is working diligently to convince America that Mitt Romney demeaned women during the second debate when he described how he, as governor of Massachusetts, went about balancing his male-dominated Cabinet with women.  Responding to a question on pay equity, Romney said, “I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Like salivating wolves waiting to pounce on prey, liberal women have spent lots of time lying in wait for Mitt Romney to utter anything at all that could be misconstrued to prove he’s a woman-hating troglodyte. Thus far, the best they’ve come up with is “binders.”

Erica Payne, progressive public policy expert, commentator, author, and founder of the Agenda Project, appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show where she stretched the Binder Bimbo idiocy so far that she likened Romney’s debate comment to an Arab sheikh flipping the pages of a binder looking for women to stock his harem. After she said it, even Erica looked a bit embarrassed for proposing such a ridiculous analogy.

Meanwhile, the Binder Bimbos are in full attack mode.  Yet oddly enough, they have not condemned the women’s groups who delivered the “binders full of women” to the Massachusetts governor. Worse yet, while out trawling for GOP offensive words and actions, these same women seem to have zero problems with Barack Obama calling the brutal slaughter of four Americans “not optimal.” But then again, these are the same soulless individuals who protest “binders full of women” and applaud bio-hazard bins full of aborted babies.

Barack Obama’s now infamous “not optimal” comment was made recently during a Jon Stewart interview.  Stewart posed a question that began, “I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response,” about the Obama administration’s muddled communication after the deadly attack in Benghazi, to which the president coldly retorted with what he no doubt thought was a clever twist on Jon’s use of the word “optimal” by saying, “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

Anyway, to Barack Obama’s detriment, his emotionless response has now married the carelessly thought-out words “not optimal” with dead Americans in much the same way Romney-hating women are now associating themselves with three-ring binders.

Yet, amid all the binder blather is a broken-hearted woman named Pat Smith who lost her son.  Pat is the mother of Sean Smith, one of four diplomats that included former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, all of whom were killed during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi.

Mrs. Smith welcomed her son home in a coffin at Dover Air Force Base and continues to maintain that the truth about what really happened to her child is painfully slow in coming.

Speaking from her home in California, Mrs. Smith, 72, who actually has something more serious than binders to be upset about, described herself as being in “pure hell” since she lost Sean. Expounding upon Obama’s “not optimal” comment, Pat said “It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right. How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.”

Pat Smith may be too respectful to admit it, but Barack Obama lacks the right idea about a lot more than the English language. However, what Mrs. Smith did do was take the President to task by saying, “It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.” Then the distraught mother admitted that “I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.”

Sean Smith’s mother concluded her comments by offering a candid assessment of Barack Obama’s Comedy Central interview when she said “There’s a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.”

In light of Obama’s callousness, a question needs to be posed to indignant Binder Bimbos everywhere: In the scheme of poorly chosen words, which is worse, “binders full of women,” or the Commander-in-Chief describing the death of four men in service to America as “not optimal?”

The answer to the question is clear. Instead of pointing out the ongoing insensitivity being shown toward a San Diego mother mourning her dead son, on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC “Morning Joe” talk show Binder Bimbo Mika Brzezinski chose to blast Mitt Romney for the “binders full of women” statement. Brzezinski, who is likely planning to vote “like [her] lady parts depend on it,” fumed at Romney about his attempts to recruit female cabinet members in Massachusetts. Mika told a disagreeing Joe that “It just happens to be a little bit insulting that he had to make up a story about trying to help women because he couldn’t find one on his own,” she said. “That’s kind of a problem.”

No – Mika, if you and the rest of the Binder Bimbos are so desperate to find a problem, how about focusing on a dishonest president who, for political expediency, told a made-up story to cover up a terrorist attack in Libya on 9/11?  Now, as a result of that deceitfulness, Barack Obama’s once optimal prospects for reelection have been downgraded to “not optimal.”

The Obama-Crowley Transcript Charade

Many people are asking the question:  Did something seem rotten in Hempstead? In preparation for the second debate, moderator par excellence Candy Crowley was the one who picked the debate questions, including the hot-button query on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya.

That Libya question was presented to Barack Obama by Kerry Ladka in the following way:

 LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Predictably, President Obama gave a non-answer:

 PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

In his reply Obama focused on goading Romney by accusing him of “trying to make political points” by attempting to “turn national security into a political issue.”  Obama went on to say that the next day in the Rose Garden he called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror,” which he knew would get Romney’s attention.

When Mitt Romney challenged the President’s claim to have admitted that it was an “act of terror” the next day, a relaxed Obama smiled haughtily, balanced himself on his stool and said, “Please proceed…please proceed Governor” as if to say “Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.”

Obama then signaled to Crowley to “Get the transcript.”  Wonder of wonders, Candy just happened to have Obama’s Rose Garden comments right in her hand. Crowley, who obviously didn’t read the transcript, proceeded to agree with Obama by informing Romney that the President did indeed say that it was an “act of terrorism.”   A smirking Obama then delighted the audience when he smarmily yelled out, “Could you say that a little louder” honey, I mean Candy?

Was Mitt set up?  It appears that Obama purposely instigated the Benghazi controversy.  If not, then why would tag team Obama/Crowley just so happen to have the Rose Garden transcript handy?  Obama called for a reading from the record and was supported by the supposedly neutral debate moderator with an interpretational stretch that endeavored to make Mitt Romney look clueless and as if he was trying to score political points.

By the next day, besides admitting she was wrong on the facts, Candy Crowley also revealed that she was wearing a Peter Popoff-style earpiece, which she claimed “played no part in the Benghazi/terror exchange.”

The question is, did Candy Crowley have any other transcripts in her debate brush-up pile?  And if not, why not?

There is no way to know for sure whether the Obama/Crowley crew attempted, albeit poorly, to purposely ensnare Mitt Romney, but based on what happened at Hofstra University, an orchestrated liberal assault is certainly something that doesn’t seem out of the question.

 

‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the run-up to the second debate, feminists have been moaning about how Candy Crowley, unlike Jim Lehrer, was reduced to a “Vanna White … holding a microphone.”  Advocating for equal debate clout, Crowley has been speaking out on her own behalf and told Mark Halperin of TIME magazine that during the debate, “[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”

In other words, Candy made it known prior to the event that she had no intention of keeping to the rules and that she in no way would she remain a “voiceless moderator,” fielding questions from the undecided audience and keeping close watch on the clock.  Going rogue, Ms. Crowley succeeded in her objective and in the process managed to weaken the credibility of women as debate moderators.

The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:

The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.

Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.

So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way.  The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked.  Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.

The reason why?  Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney 28 times, including when he was making a point about Barack Obama’s gunrunning debacle, “Fast and Furious.”  According to CNN’s own count, Candy allowed Obama to speak for a total of 44 minutes and 4 seconds and ordered Romney back to his stool by cutting him off and bringing his time down to 40 minutes and 50 seconds.

The CNN anchor showed obvious deference to the president.  Every time he spoke, her eyes widened in admiration and she exhibited an odd mix of what looked like coaxing and agreeing.  While claiming to be an unbiased moderator, Candy Crowley adjudicated on the president’s behalf when he stretched the truth on the subject of Libya.

Most would agree that Candy’s foot-in-mouth moment came when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror for two weeks and flying to Las Vegas and Colorado for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died. Crowley, like a mother hen protecting her chick, interrupted Romney and said: “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir.  So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

In response, lily-livered Obama smirked, hid behind mama’s apron strings, and then asked her to restate the falsehood on his behalf, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”  Candy gladly complied.  Stuttering, stammering, and tripping over herself to rush to Junior’s defense, Candy added: “He — he did call it an act of terror.  It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that.”

If hard-hitting girl power representative Candy Crowley was really looking to bolster female credibility, she should have gone according to the original script and asked Obama, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”  If Crowley were really mixing it up with the boys, she could have demanded an answer from Barack Obama as to why it took fourteen days to acknowledge an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in the streets of Benghazi.

After the fact, Candy Crowley is now being forced to admit that Romney, who insisted that Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack for weeks, was right — “in the main” — on Benghazi.

Rather than conceding that Obama picked the wrong way to go about handling the murder of an American ambassador, Ms. Crowley instead chooses to say that Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.”  Attempting to explain her unmitigated favoritism, Candy underscored that her second “two week” point favored Romney and generated applause much like her first point, which generated applause from one half of the audience led by an unrestrained Michelle Obama.

Prior to the Hofstra debate, America was forced to endure listening to Crowley whine about a woman’s rightful role as a debate moderator.  Then, during the actual debate, the nation witnessed the hot mess Candy made while shilling for Obama.

Suffice it to say that Candy proved that the “memorandum of understanding” was correct in its attempt to limit her role, because by the end of the debate, every headline should have read: “Eye Candy” Lies, and Candy Swears to It.

So, after all the fuss, Candy Crowley’s behavior and inappropriate intrusion did nothing to advance the feminist cause.  But wait, there’s still time!  How about if Crowley’s cheerleaders — NOW, The New Agenda, and former news anchor Carol Simpson — recommend that for the upcoming foreign policy debate, Lara Logan replace Robert Schieffer?

Obama’s Campaign Bus Parks on Top of Hillary

Originally posted at American Thinker

Americans are supposed to believe that it took one full month for the “smartest woman in the world,” Hillary Clinton, to figure out that the “buck stops” with her?  What was she doing from September 11 to October 15?  Trying to figure out whether to go to Peru, trim her overgrown locks, or visit her daughter Chelsea for an extended fall weekend?

During the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, Hillary Clinton had quite a different opinion about where it was the “buck” stopped.  Referring to herself at a rally in Missouri, Clinton said, “I believe we need a president who believed what Harry Truman believed.  That buck stopped in the Oval Office.”

As we all know, Hillary never made it to the Oval Office.  Instead, for four years, Mrs. Clinton has circumnavigated the globe on Barack Obama’s behalf looking like a bedraggled grandmother in need of a nap.  Finally, when the red phone did ring at 3:00 am at the White House, Hillary was in a different time zone, and Obama was probably at a Hollywood fundraiser.  Now, weeks prior to an election in which Barack Obama appears to be quickly losing his grip, Hillary crawls out from under the bus where Obama tossed her and addresses the deadly assault in Benghazi:

I take responsibility [for the four deaths in Benghazi]. 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.”

I take this very personally. So we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and then we’re going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we’re going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice.

Why would Hillary shoulder the entire blame?  Didn’t the Obama administration initially blame the September 11 murders on a band of armed rabble-rousers who spontaneously stormed the consulate and then tortured and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, computer expert Sean Smith, and security contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods to avenge the Prophet Mohammed over a low-budget video mocking Islam made by an American?

That explanation made about as much sense as saying that 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001 as a result of the attackers being offended that they were denied peanuts on flights out of Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C.

After swearing for a couple of weeks that a California videographer was to blame and after testimony by State Department employees that indicated that requests for more security had been rejected, the Obama administration finally conceded that the attack on the consulate was a coordinated terrorist attack.

All this apparently tickled the hell out of Joe Biden’s funny bone during the vice-presidential debate.  The vice president said that the White House was unaware of the requests to enhance security at Benghazi.  From the looks of things, it appears that Vice President Joe Biden’s loose lips were the catalyst that finally motivated the White House to find another fall guy (or gal) to cover for their glaring ineptitude.

The White House responded to Joe’s latest gaffe by saying that the jocular vice president did not know of the requests because requests for security are traditionally handled by the State Department.

So nearly seven days after Biden revealed that those in charge haven’t a clue, Hillary Clinton comes to the rescue by explaining that “[i]n the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion.”  Someone should tell Miss Hillary that there would be no fog of war if a powerful nation like the United States had strong leaders that fight a war to win.

Nevertheless, Hillary has decided to take the fall by saying, “And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence.  Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had.  As time has gone on, that information has changed.  We’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising.  That always happens.”

Umm, Mrs. Clinton, wouldn’t you agree that in this situation, it depends on what the definition of “intelligence” is?  A humbled Clinton then said that “[w]hat I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game.”  So by taking the blame, Hillary shielded Barry.

At this late date, Hillary’s mea culpa sounds more orchestrated than the attack in Benghazi. Did the secretary of state also speak with Christopher Stevens’ father, who refused say who he would be voting for come November 6th, but who did say he doesn’t want his son’s death politicized?

“I know that we’re very close to an election,” Hillary explained, saying “I want to just take a step back here and say from my own experience, we are at our best as Americans when we pull together. I’ve done that with Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.” The question is whether Hillary is “stepping back” or stepping forward over a cliff.

Let’s face it: despite the controversy, Hillary and Bill Clinton still do have their sights set on a presidential run in 2016 and would never do anything to jeopardize that dream.  Hillary Clinton is not about to endanger 40 years of toiling for a position where she’d finally be the one answering the phone in the White House at 3:00 am, especially just to save Barack Obama’s bungling neck before an election.

Therefore, it appears that Hillary and Bill Clinton have decided that it would be politically expedient to “pull together” with a pusillanimous Democratic president running for re-election whose “war on women” now includes running over his secretary of state with his campaign convoy.

The only explanation is that Hillary Clinton is hoping that by volunteering to be a buck-stopper, she’ll be perceived by the American people as an honest, trustworthy, responsible leader.  In turn, Barack’s butt may be covered for another couple of weeks and, with any luck, those tire marks from the bus that’s rolling over her will fade before 2016.

%d bloggers like this: