Tag Archives: Benghazi

Obama’s ‘Empty Chair’

5067315_GOriginally posted at American Thinker

At the 2012 Republican Convention, Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood addressed Barack Obama by speaking to an empty chair. The left was peeved, and the Obama campaign was greatly offended.

Four years later, for the 2016 State of the Union address, Obama, the Teleprompter Thespian, plans to emulate Eastwood’s stunt.  The difference is that instead of the sort of exploitation of the living the president typically indulges in, this time, as a prop, Obama will exploit the dead by leaving an empty chair in the First Lady’s skybox to represent those killed by gun violence.

Based on what he had to say to 20,000 participants during a recent Organizing for Action conference call, the empty chair is necessary because the president feels, although deceased, victims of gun violence need to be “seen and understood.”

Americans already know that, as part of his 8-year repertoire, this president never hesitates to employ manipulation to further policy initiatives. That’s why, in his last State of the Union address, Obama will stress that if one loses a life because of a gun it “means something to this country.”

So, although the vacant seat next to FLOTUS could be a safe spot to place one of her $5,000 designer handbags — it’s not.  Instead, the empty chair will “tell [victim’s] stories and honor their memory… [and] remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something.”

Speaking of representatives, during this joint session, Obama probably won’t be taking any opportunities to thank the armed security for protecting and preserving the lives of every politician occupying a filled seat in the House chamber.

And while Obama’s fake show will undoubtedly be about as heartrending as his recent display of crocodile tears, one thing’s for certain, the people the president won’t refer to in his memorial are those who have died as a result of progressive ideals and goals being advanced.

Take, for instance, Border Patrol agent Brian Terry — it’s unlikely that Obama will venerate Brian’s death at the State of the Union. Brian was shot and killed in 2010 with a gun provided to Mexican drug cartels by the Obama administration’s failed Fast and Furious ATF gun-walking effort.

Is it important to Barack Obama that the death of Brian Terry be “seen and understood?”  According to the president, does Brian’s premature death “mean something to this country?”

Barack Obama will be clear about how he feels about empty chairs, but where’s his memorial to the empty boots that belonged to Navy SEAL “American Sniper” Chris Kyle and Chris’s friend Chad Littlefield, both of whom were shot in cold blood by a former Marine at a shooting range?

Despite Chris Kyle’s service to this nation, Obama never acknowledged his death, nor did he find the time to put his golf clubs down long enough to attend Kyle’s funeral.

So does the death of military heroes like Chris Kyle, SEAL Team 6, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died in Benghazi, and every soldier whose blood has been poured out in vain, thanks to Obama’s failed policies, ‘mean something’ to this Commander-in-Chief or not?

How about Obama including in his memorial empty chair show every victim of an illegal alien who currently is not sitting in a chair, but because of open borders and lax immigration policy, lies in a grave?

Why not mention victims like Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who, while strolling on Pier 14 in San Francisco with her father Jim, was shot in the back with a stolen .40 caliber handgun, by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal felon who had been deported five times and was still wandering around loose in a sanctuary city?

Then again, based on his immigration stance, and his constant excuse-making for radical Islam, during the SOTU, it might be in the president’s best interest to avoid mentioning the violent extremists skulking around in the U.S. killing cops in the name of Allah, mowing down unarmed military, and blowing away defenseless citizens.

Moreover, in advance, it might be best for Obama not to concede to the empty chairs that will be needed to accommodate the deaths resulting from his dogged effort to impose an influx of ISIS-infiltrated refugees upon the Americans people.

In the meantime, when honoring and lamenting the losses caused by guns in Charleston, Sandy Hook, Oak Creek, Tucson, and Aurora, to avoid looking like a complete fraud, Obama best disremember the gun violence perpetrated on the victims of Nidal Hasan in the Fort Hood massacre, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez in Chattanooga, and the fatalities visited upon the 14 people in San Bernardino by the K-1 Visa, and “Jihadi Bride,” Tashfeen Malik.

And amid the man’s constant speechifying, why hasn’t Barack Obama ever pointed to all the empty cribs?

Because this president doesn’t want the 4,000 victims a day killed in abortion clinics, with his approval, to be “seen and understood.” Nor does Planned Parenthood’s biggest defender want any of us to understand the tremendous impact the absence of 60 million human beings “means… to this country.”

That’s why, when a tearful Obama dramatically points to the empty chair in the Special People Sky Box at the State of the Union address, it’s important for Americans to remember that the uninhabited seat represents a small, select minority consisting of dead Americans whose demise has value only because their death advances the president’s agenda.

Either way, a stadium full of empty chairs is not big enough to accommodate all of Barack Obama’s empty rhetoric.

That’s why, at this year’s SOTU, murdered border patrol agents and victims killed in the name of Islam will not be esteemed. Neither will the cops shot in the head by a black man named Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, nor the innocent citizens slain by illegals currently walking the streets of America with Barack Obama’s approval.

Hillary’s latest iteration preaches ‘love and kindness’

Originally posted at American Thinker

It was during the 2008 election that Hillary Clinton portrayed herself as the hard-hitting person America needed in the White House to answer the phone at 3:00 am.  This time around, in response to Republican Donald Trump’s hard-hitting talk, Hillary has modified that image.

Recently, while speaking to a crowd in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton replied to a question about how to confront hate and fear by saying: “We’ve got to do everything we can to weed out hate and plant love and kindness.”

Judging from that reply, it appears that the former secretary of state, who notoriously answered a question about an American ambassador being sodomized and murdered in a terrorist attack with “what difference at this point does it make,” has added a hearty dose of Oprah Winfrey to her more recentimage upgrades.

And here senior adviser for strategic communications to U.S. secretary of state Marie Harf had America convinced that a jobs program was all it would take to turn even the most violent terrorist into a mild-mannered citizen of the world.

Meanwhile, wasn’t it Hillary who blamed the uncovering of her husband’s infidelity on a “vast right-wing conspiracy”?  And isn’t it a testy Hillary who doesn’t take kindly to being pressed by reporters with questions she doesn’t want to answer?

Yet while campaigning in Salem, New Hampshire recently, it was Hillary who remarked, “It may be unusual for a presidential candidate to say we need more love and kindness in this country, but I think that’s exactly what we need.”

This is coming from the woman who has been accused of being “extremely abusive and condescending” toward the Secret Service.

Then again, while Ms. Hillary does fancy herself the doyenne of empathetic social policy, according to the long list of women her husband groped and attempted to sexually molest, the former first lady was the one who “terrorized” every one of his victims for accusing Bill of sexual abuse.

Now, behaving like none of those well-documented affronts ever happened, Hillary is making it a habit of ending her public spiels with a challenge to her audience to add “love and kindness” to their daily lives.

And, rest assured, Hillary probably lives up to her own solicitation.

That is, as long as no one brings up things like her evolution on gay marriage, her husband’s influence on her policy stands, how those confidential emails disappeared, Benghazi, or her defense of a man who raped a 12-year-old girl.

For now, Hillary is toning down her tough girl persona by attempting to draw a stark contrast between herself and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.  Trump is the guy who dared to suggest that there are some illegal Mexicans who are rapists and pedophiles, and that ISIS-infiltrated Syrian refugees are a threat to national security – all of which is true.

That’s why, if transforming her image is the goal, Mrs. Clinton needs to try harder.  After all, Hillary did ignore Bill hitching a ride on pal Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” and was heard giggling on tape over her decision to defend a child rapist she knew was guilty.

As for Syrian refugees, similar to how Christopher Stevens was forging relationships in Libya, the former secretary of state believes that welcoming in refugees benefits America’s fight against radical extremism by forging ties with the Muslim communities where ISIS refugees will be building IEDs and storing munitions.

In the interim, the presidential hopeful’s new Rodney King-like “can’t we all just get along” warm and fuzzy approach is effectively winning over women, who, as a gender, are renowned for responding positively to New Age rhetoric.

Democratic pollster Margie Omero says that Hillary talking about love and kindness “very much tracks with … a lot of women voters.”  Margie claims that women tell her they want to “go back to a time in which we’re being nicer to each other.  Politics has become too coarse.”

It’s likely that the “love and kindness” message appeals to the womenfolk because, every chance she gets, Hillary pledges unwavering support for abortion provider Planned Parenthood, an organization that kills and then carves up babies and sells their body parts in a loving and kind way.

Terry Matre, a female therapist from West Des Moines, thanks to Hillary’s group cuddle language, recently had an epiphany and agrees:

I had hesitation about what I thought was a kind of hardness in her but she doesn’t have that in person. When you think about what Donald Trump is saying and then you think about her, you’re like, my God what took me so long.

Let’s just say there’s a pretty good chance that Terry wouldn’t be feeling the love if she had a run-in with Bill brandishing his Grand Reserve Gurkha and then, like Juanita Broaddrick, was threatened by Hillary to keep her mouth shut.

So, there it is!  Hillary Clinton is refashioning her public image by peddling her own unique brand of loving kindness.

Yet the truth is that in her decades-long unstoppable pursuit of power, in addition to leaving dozens of women abused by her husband in her wake, Hillary Clinton has told unspeakable lies, spearheaded much corruption, and stepped over numerous rotting corpses.

 

DOUBLE STANDARD: Why Was Carson Put On Blast Instead of Hillary?

ben cars jeannieOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Most people seem to agree that the CNBC-moderated GOP debate proved to be less about Republican presidential hopefuls’ policy proposals and more of a glaring exhibition of brazen media bias. The partisan-driven indignation present in the way every question was posed transformed a political discussion into something just shy of hot bright-light police interrogation. The whole affair was so left-leaning, the only person missing from the moderator panel was MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry bedecked in a pair of dangling tampon earrings berating the panelists on women’s issues.

In the end, the accusatory tone and pugnacious stance of the moderators became a failed attempt to put Republican candidates on the defensive and to goad adversaries into impugning each other’s moral authority. The problem is that, as witnessed by Hillary Clinton’s recent testimony concerning Benghazi, unlike the Republican candidates participating in the CNBC debate the secretary of state did not face as aggressive a panel of denigrators.

A perfect example of this double standard was when CNBC “Squawk on the Street” anchor Carl Quintanilla followed up on an answer given by esteemed former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

Immediately after failing to trip up Dr. Carson with a question about the hypocrisy of associating with homosexual groups while disapproving of same-sex marriage, Quintanilla segued into a query about the doctor’s purported link to Mannatech, a nutritional supplement company accused of making false curative claims regarding one of its products.

The unflappable Dr. Carson responded, “That’s easy to answer,” he said. “I didn’t have involvement with them. That is total propaganda.” Carson explained that his connection to Mannatech is not a business relationship and only involved his delivering a few speeches.

In predictable “gotcha” fashion, Quintanilla asked Carson why, if that was true, was his image with Mannatech’s logo used to market the questionable supplement on the company’s website? “If somebody put me on their homepage,” Carson said, “they did so without my knowledge.”

Unable to discredit Carson’s judgment for involving himself with Mannatech, Quintanilla quickly changed gears and used the “without my knowledge” statement as a springboard to question the presidential hopeful’s ability to manage those he’s responsible for overseeing.

Referring to someone placing Carson’s image alongside Mannatech’s logo on the company’s homepage without the doctor’s knowledge, Quintanilla probed, “Does that not speak to your vetting process or judgment in any way?”

The CNBC’s anchor’s absurd question/insult was met with boos from the crowd, to which Carson responded by pointing out that the audience recognized the bias and saying, “See? They know.”

Just a week prior to the GOP debate America sat through nine grueling hours of listening to Hillary Clinton implicitly absolve herself from guilt by passing blame to her security team for not responding to the cry for added security from Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi.

If Clinton had defended the men in Benghazi with a fraction of the effort she displayed while defending herself at the Benghazi hearing, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty would probably be alive today. Nonetheless, Hillary testified to the committee that she was not responsible for what happened that fateful night because fall-guy security professionals in the department handled the State Department security requests.

Based on her contradictory answers, the imperious Mrs. Clinton, who claims she was well aware of the very risks she sometimes implies she was unaware existed, proved she wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked her upside the head. She said of Stevens’ requests for added security, “I did not see them. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.”

Now that is a perfect example of the type of statement crying out to be challenged by the likes of Quintanilla at the next Democrat debate. After all, Hillary’s lack of hands-on involvement in securing adequate security for a frightened ambassador does speak directly to her faulty managerial skills and lack of judgment.

Quintanilla, who represents the mindset of the majority of the mainstream media, questioned Carson about his failure to check up on an anonymous graphic artist over a Photoshopped image on a website. Meanwhile, Hillary’s vetting ability goes unchallenged after she admits that the team for which she was ultimately responsible didn’t sense Americans were in danger in Libya. The result of Hillary’s vetting/judgment = four dead Americans.

Hillary did admit that Stevens did not have her personal email address and acknowledged that some of Stevens’ 600+ requests for additional security were approved while others were not. Clinton claimed that, based on her evaluation of the threat level, even though four people returned home in flag-draped coffins, “There is no doubt in [her] mind that [they] did the best [they] could with the information [they] had at the time.”

Again, someone should take note for the next Democrat debate that Hillary’s “best we could do” statement presents an opportunity for a question/assertion similar to the one Quintanilla made to Carson. How about something like this: “With all due respect Madam, seeing as your best wasn’t good enough, does that not speak to your lack of judgment and inability to fulfill the demanding role of Secretary of State? And if so, do you deserve a promotion?”

At the CNBC-hosted debate, a presidential candidate who dedicated his life to saving lives was grilled and demeaned because he accepted a speaking engagement from a company that falsely claimed without his knowledge that their “glyconutrient” heals autism and cancer.

Instead of Dr. Carson, who operates on brains, America has a smooth operator with no brains at all running for president named Hillary Rodham Clinton. Meanwhile Hillary’s gross incompetence and flagrant falsehoods go unchallenged by the same left-wing media types who ignore her deadly ineptitude while claiming to be journalists.

MR. PRESIDENT, HOW ABOUT GIVING SOME BACK? America’s #GimmeFive Questions for Obama

Originally posted at CLASH Dailybo-2-300x180

America has endured over five years of pure mayhem that has resulted in a national health crisis that has systematically caused politically-induced high blood pressure and heart failure.

Despite suffering from a cancerous condition that is currently eating away at the very fabric of our great nation, we have a first lady who ignores the obvious illnesses her husband has both literally and figuratively inflicted on otherwise strong Americans. Instead, Michelle Obama chooses to focus on superficial hashtag campaigns that are supposed to encourage a level of health in a nation being slowly poisoned by her liberal husband’s progressive policies.

Not to be disrespectful, but Michelle’s #GimmeFive hashtag effort has about as much influence on the Obama-inflicted poor health of America as a Band-Aid would have on Dana Carvey’s SNL character Massive Head Wound Harry.

Think of it! Here you have a president standing beside his wife in a PSA where she asks tapped-out Americans to #GimmeFive. This from a man who refuses to acknowledge the religious affiliation of Islamic terrorists who remove, at a minimum, five heads a day!

If Barack Obama were looking for five of something, surely ISIS would love to participate in the first lady’s campaign. But the five contributions ISIS would ‘gimme’ to Obama would have nothing to do with planting gardens, dance class, or fruits and vegetables. Instead, on behalf of #GimmeFive, ISIS would deliver five heads an hour to an ever-growing pile of bodiless corpses.

For the rest of us poor schmucks who for the time being still have our heads, #GimmeFive has the potential to take on a whole different meaning.

In fact, if Americans were on the receiving end instead of the #GimmeFive end of the campaign, Barack Obama giving us five of something we need to benefit our health would probably do more for corporate vigor than Michelle Obama demanding that we all Drink Up! five bottled waters a day.

After all, for five-plus years, Barack Obama has been saying #gimme #gimme #gimme to us, and what he hasn’t been able to Constitutionally #gimme, he’s seized anyway.

That’s why, perhaps it’s time America demands Obama extend some of the #GimmeFive he’s selling in our direction.

For starters, how about we demand Obama #GimmeFive fewer tax dollars taken for every $50 in all of our paychecks, or maybe it’s time we ask why #GimmeFive Obama tweeted that 11.4 million people were enrolled in Obamacare when the millions, give-or-take, were more like five.

Then, after the #GimmeFive advocate gets done explaining some of that stuff to us, maybe he can help us improve our national health and mental wellbeing by giving us five good reasons why, despite negotiating with Iran, two Americans – one a pastor and the other a US Marine – whose total years incarcerated add up to more than five, are still rotting in an Iranian jail.

How about Obama explaining to America why, after five years of empty promises, our border remains open, and millions upon millions of dangerous illegals, sick unaccompanied illegal minors, and terrorist types of every stripe continue to sneak in and threaten the safety and wellbeing of our citizens?

And about the unemployment rate, why say that it’s down to 5.6% knowing full well that it’s more like double that?

Can Obama #GimmeFive valid reasons for any of that?

How about five justifications as to why, for the last five years, he’s turned his back on Israel, or here at home increased the national debt by 53%? How about answering the question as to why his #gimme wife goes on approximately five $5 million #gimme taxpayer-funded vacations a year, or why five dangerous Taliban fighters were swapped for one pusillanimous Army deserter?

What about the five specific times your #GimmeFive administration attempted and failed to circumvent the law?

As for the #GimmeFive proposal, here’s another question that needs to be answered: why do Obama and Michelle lunch at Five Guys while government-funded school lunches consist of five grapes, five pieces of dried-out melba toast and five ounces of warm skim milk?

So if Michelle Obama and her husband Barack want to focus on health, maybe they can begin the process by offering a few #GimmeFive answers to some of America’s most gut-wrenching, health-eroding questions.

 

Could Benghazi have been a Bergdahl Gambit that Went South?

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker

President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo for years, which means finding a way – any way – to free the terrorists from that prison.  Regrettably for Obama, try as he might, he has been unable to obtain Congressional approval to release Gitmo detainees back onto the battlefield to recommence the murder, mayhem, and destruction.

Thus far, the United States Congress thinks it is in the best interest of the American people to keep highly dangerous Taliban fighters locked up for as long as possible.  Barack “I won” Obama thinks otherwise.

That’s why founding member of the Taliban Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, who had close ties with Osama bin Laden, and Mohammad Nabi Omari, member of a joint al-Qaeda/Taliban cell and called “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained,” along with deputy chief of Taliban intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq are now roaming free on the streets of Qatar.

Joining that trio are Mohammad Fazi, thought to be the Taliban’s “army chief of staff,” and senior military commander Mullah Norullah Noori, both of whom were present when CIA paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed during the 2001 Mazar-e Sharif prison riot.

All five are classified as a “high risk” to the United States. That’s why, based on those credentials, it’s easy to see why Congress had been reluctant to make a deal with the devil that is the Taliban.

But at this juncture none of that matters, because thanks to Barack Obama’s majestic magnanimity, five jihadists are now free to wage war again on Americans worldwide.

In the past, Barack Obama has repeatedly proven that he believes he is above the law, which is why he took the Gitmo matter into his own hands and circumvented the rule requiring him to notify Congress 30 days prior for approval before releasing prisoners.  By ignoring the National Defense Authorization Act that he himself signed into law, the “rogue” president belittled Congress and again showed total disrespect for the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

What’s distressing is that in this case the commander-in-chief found a man who may possibly be a traitor to assist in his clandestine endeavor to accomplish what Congressional obstacles had thus far prevented.  That assistant was Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was allegedly fed up with being identified as an American and defending America’s interests in Afghanistan.

From the looks of things, Bergdahl may have been attracted to the Taliban even before he walked off his base.  Yet Barack Obama was willing to portray a deserter and possible traitor as an honorable POW and use that as cover to spring five mass-murdering Taliban operatives from Gitmo.

This Bergdahl “rescue” is such a tangle of provable lies it must inspire a certain amount of conjecture, such as: Could the president’s desire to free Gitmo prisoners explain what went down 20 months ago in Benghazi?

Sorry to have to say it, but with such a conniving, deceitful administration, if a Taliban sympathizer/Army deserter was used as the bargaining chip to free five high-level Taliban fighters, is it that farfetched to imagine that the kidnapping of an American ambassador presented the president with the perfect opportunity to swap either the Gitmo Five or some other equally dangerous individual(s)?

Moreover, after observing the president’s dishonesty in the Bergdahl affair, it’s not that much of a stretch to believe that if Obama couldn’t get Congress to agree to swap Bergdahl in early 2012, he might have manipulated the volatile Benghazi situation in hopes that a kidnapped American diplomat would eliminate Congressional objections to a high-level prisoner swap.

If the theory is accurate and Obama calculated to delay trying to save Stevens with the goal of a hostage swap, how could things have gone so terribly wrong?

Granted, dealing with terrorists is a risky endeavor to undertake, regardless of the circumstances. However, the president has proven repeatedly that forethought is not one of his strong suits.  Thus, it probably never occurred to Obama that when working with jihadists the effort could backfire with catastrophic results.

Guesswork aside, what is certain is that according to former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom, after repeated requests for additional security were denied, he was so frustrated in his efforts to protect the American ambassador he said that dealing with the State Department felt like “The Taliban [was] on the inside of the building.” If the hesitation to respond was purposeful when the inevitable finally did happen, it certainly could explain why an American ambassador had been left so poorly defended.

It could also shed light on the initial “stand down” order that was given during the attack; the bizarre rationale behind the White House’s decision to concoct the lie about the video; and why the president’s whereabouts on the night of September 11th, 2012 are still among the Obama administration’s best-kept secrets.

A calculated effort to thwart a speedy rescue in order to orchestrate a potential hostage exchange might also explain why Hillary and Obama were still perpetrating the video lie as the flag-covered coffins carrying the remains of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were rolled off the cargo plane at Andrews Air Force Base.

Even for a man anxious to empty out Gitmo, four dead Americans would certainly put the kibosh on trying a prisoner swap a second time; so maybe it was shell shock that caused Obama to wait almost two years to give Bergdahl a go without Congressional approval.

Either way, if any of this speculation is even remotely close to true, it certainly would make more understandable all the obfuscation and mystery in the aftermath of that fateful night.

But more importantly, after a frustrating two-year-long probe that has accomplished nothing but Obama administration stonewalling, if the unscrupulous tactics behind the Bergdahl/Gitmo charade are ever fully disclosed, maybe America will get outraged enough to demand to know what really happened in Benghazi.

Were U.S. Veterans Benghazied?

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker

In an article published online at FinancialTimes.com, Geoff Dyer says that the indignity swirling around the Obama administration concerning the unnecessary deaths of “dozens” of U.S. veterans in a VA hospital in Arizona threatens to “engulf” the president.

Dyer writes that the outrage surrounding Benghazi is contrived and that health care reform “fortunes … are improving,” then suggests that the shoddy medical treatment of military veterans, some of whom Obama prevented from entering the WWII Memorial in Washington, D.C. last year, “has the potential to attract broad political condemnation” of the Obama administration’s competence.

Before commenting on the VA scandal, maybe the overly protective Mr. Dyer should first exercise a little journalistic curiosity and take the time to observe how the commander-in-chief treats those who endeavor to protect him.

Moreover, with all due respect to the author, isn’t the VA hospital just another example of the sort of bungling that’s been going on for six years?  And doesn’t this more recent scandal reflect the same ineptness that negatively impacted Benghazi and stands to severely impact what Dyer calls the “improving fortunes” of health care reform in the future?

So let’s begin by looking at the similarities between Benghazi and the VA scandal.

Thanks to the pervasive incompetence of an administration that cares more about distributing free contraceptives, reducing carbon emissions, freeing convicted illegal-alien murderers and rapists, and congratulating gay athletes than its members cared about the lives of an American ambassador, a diplomat, and two former Navy SEALs, another 40 or more American veterans have also died unnecessarily.

The Benghazi four perished in Libya at the hands of terrorists.  Here at home, our military veterans suffered for months while waiting for a doctor’s appointment that would never happen and perished at the hands of our nation’s bureaucratic terrorists. 

The similarities are striking: Americans who are or have been in service of our country are in distress and cry out for help and are put on hold.  And then, after people die, a whitewash ensues, and Barack Obama pretends he found out about it at the same time everyone else did. 

In short, the veterans who died were Benghazied.

If one had to predict what’s next, Secretary of Veterans Affairs/retired four-star general Eric Shinseki will reluctantly step down, and behind the scenes, Obama administration heavies will quietly shut down whistleblowers and assign scapegoats.  To shore up those efforts, Obama’s media lapdogs will be recruited to call justified outrage “contrived.”

After all, in the words of our esteemed former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, if the body bags are zipped up and dirt has covered the flag-draped coffins, at that point, “what difference does it make?”

From Benghazi, let’s move along to the no-brainer of how the VA scandal reflects on the supposed “improving fortunes” of health care reform.

For all intents and purposes, prior to implementing ObamaCare, the persistent problems surrounding VA medical care should have forewarned America that despite the president’s grandiose promises, bureaucracy and health care do not mix. 

Think about it – those who are now coordinating the medical treatment of 300 million people are from the same government who mismanaged the medical needs of the U.S. veterans – promised health care that they never received and died waiting for.

That’s why it’s likely that, from Obama’s point of view, shredding machines and two sets of books were necessary for the common good.  Because if Americans were aware that nine million eligible U.S. veterans don’t actually have adequate, accessible health care, it wouldn’t bode very well for the other 291 million Americans now forced to depend on ACA largesse.  Thus, cover-ups are a necessary evil, required to protect and support the larger, more scandalous ruse.

Geoff Dyer, who writes about the fantastical “improving fortunes” of health care reform, also writes about the VA system’s problems, but he seems blind to the connection between the two when he states:

The result has been a constant struggle to meet new demands, despite big spending increases. The budget for the VA has risen from $73.1bn in 2006 to $153.8bn this year. However, the number of outpatient visits at its facilities has increased from 46.5m in 2002 to 83.6m in 2012.

According to Dyer, “[t]he VA, which runs 152 hospitals and 817 outpatient clinics, has long suffered from delays and a dysfunctional bureaucracy.”  That places health care reform in the same dysfunctional category as the Veteran’s Administration health system, only on a greater scale, no?

In 2010, right about the time that ObamaCare was being touted as the answer to all of America’s health care woes, the struggling VA claimed they would be implementing a “new appointments system, which promised a 14-day wait for an appointment with a primary care doctor or a specialist,” but never delivered.

Recently retired physician Sam Foote, after working for 24 years for VA hospitals in Phoenix, Arizona, blew the whistle on the situation.  He revealed on CNN that as many as “40 patients had died after being placed on a hidden waiting list that could last for up to a year, while officials at the hospital shredded documents and faked evidence to make it seem as if waiting times were under control.”

So there you have it.  Despite the fawning journalists who view the atrocities within the VA system as a challenge to Obama’s improving status, the scandal that’s about to blow wide open is just more of the same Obama-influenced government ineptitude that will likely be proven endemic to the whole system.

Nonetheless, it’s unlikely that the man who is a master at slithering his way out of multiple controversies will be held accountable for a travesty that may wind its way back to the White House.

Still, at this late date, if the wish for true American justice were to be fulfilled, how fitting would it be for the deaths of 40 or more American heroes – not in battle, but in government-run VA hospitals – to deliver the final blow that frees America from the scourge that is Barack Obama?

Obama Is Going to Train More Americans?

1891164_10152022627472336_451581248_nOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

Barack Obama the Train Wreck said that the United States (also known as “we”) “need to train more Americans.”

Obama prefaced his training shocker with an advisory to the Central Connecticut State University audience in New Britain, Connecticut: they needed to “bend [their] knees” so they don’t swoon (as people tend to do) while he’s speaking.

What kind of training does the president think Americans need?

The seemingly potty-trained backdrop audience who clapped like trained seals seemed very well trained. One thing he’s right about, though: training is definitely necessary if Obama wants people to cheer when he talks about job creation in a state with 7.9% unemployment.

Other than those sorts of things, Americans probably could be better ‘trained’ to be more obedient and less questioning.  How about government-funded tutoring programs that “train” Americans to ignore the truth and simply swallow lies?

Even better, how about some sort of presidential commission to brainwash, er…train Americans to ignore what happened in Benghazi, forget about the IRS scandal, and praise Obamacare, even if they’re among the unfortunate six million who lost their health insurance?

How about ‘training’ Americans to embrace the prospect of all-encompassing NSA spying, applaud drone strikes on American citizens, enthusiastically relinquish our sovereignty, and give up our Second Amendment rights while arming drug cartels?

There needs to be an indoctrination program that can train Americans to think it’s a great idea to leave the borders open, use tax dollars to finance the first lady’s vacations, and fund the slaughter of the unborn.

Yes – more training for stuff like that.

Barack Obama has made it quite clear that, from where he sits, he and his cohort of trainers “need to train more Americans.”

The problem is, Obama wants to train “We the People” to be LESS American and be MORE Socialist, and a problematic document called the Constitution may get in the way.

 

Not Joking: Hillary ‘Benghazi’ Clinton Accepts the Liberty Medal

medalOriginally posted at CLASH DAILY

For the last 20-plus years, Hillary Clinton has been champing at the bit to assume the position of first female president of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Let’s face it – Ms. Rodham has more than proven that she thinks very highly of herself and is of the opinion that she’s smarter and more qualified than any man, including her philandering husband, to run the United States of America.

Every breath she’s taken and every move she’s made has been with her eye on the prize. It’s likely that: while other women dream of commonplace things, Hillary fantasizes about putting her hand on the Bible on a cold windy day in January 2017 and swearing to uphold the Constitution, knowing that she won’t.

As she inches closer and closer to her lifelong dream, Mrs. Clinton probably thinks that having her as president is so appealing to most people that any mistakes she’s made, from the decades-old Whitewater scandal to her culpability in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, are mere incidentals when compared to the prospect of having her in charge.

In Hillary’s mind, her pluses far outweigh the ‘What difference does it make’ controversies that have her guilty ‘Madame Secretary’ fingerprints all over them.

It is precisely that attitude that endows Hillary Clinton with the brazen effrontery, on the anniversary of 9/11 and the sodomizing and murder of an American ambassador in Libya, to accept the 2013 Liberty Medal.

Before handing out awards to a woman who promised to investigate and then bring to justice the parties responsible for what happened in Benghazi, shouldn’t someone broach the subject of why the investigation into the death of four Americans seems to have been kicked to the curb?

The reason is that Hillary’s got more important things on her mind. She’s got big, highfalutin things to do and places to go. That’s why the late Christopher Stevens and the other three Americans who died that tragic night, Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and diplomat Sean Smith, are just bumps on the road to the presidency.

That’s also how, in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center, Mrs. Clinton could shamelessly accept an award as hundreds of trained seals applauded her greatness. Clinton, an ambitious, self-promoting manipulator and prevaricator, was honored and recognized for her sterling career in public service, as well as her advocacy for women’s rights. The problem is that Hillary’s impressive contributions are more about a self-serving agenda than self-sacrificial service.

Up at the podium, never once mentioning Benghazi, “overwhelmed by the tribute,” and speaking like the great sage of wisdom and experience she perceives herself to be, Hillary reminded the acolytes that she knows better than anyone that the U.S. needs to work toward balancing national security with human rights issues in Syria.

Then the partisan Piranha called for bipartisan unity in Washington DC, something she’s never contributed to and likely has no plans to do so in the future.

Said Hillary, “When we fail to make progress on the challenges facing our people at home, our standing in the world suffers.” America is now getting improving-our-world-standing advice from a woman whose husband, when he was president, was canoodling in the Oval Office with a Cuban cigar and a chunky intern.

Moreover, someone should ask Hillary: What happens to our standing in the world when four Americans are killed in a terrorist attack and the Obama administration falsely blames an absurd, anti-Muslim film, gets found out, and goes on to silence witnesses and act as if nothing happened?

But all is not lost! Speaking out from the midst of the crowd came a sole voice, crying out in the wilderness, demanding answers from a Liberty Medal winner trying desperately to forget, screaming: “Benghazi!

Benghazi! Benghazi!” And so, as she goes flailing about trying to remediate her sullied reputation in time for 2016, it should be our patriotic duty to make sure that every time the self-aggrandizing Hillary shows her guilty face, she’s reminded of her betrayal of those four Americans in Benghazi.

Obama the Clown is Off Limits

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s a sad state of affairs when America stands by while 3,000 babies are aborted daily, twiddle their thumbs while the Benghazi 4 lay in cold, dark graves, go about their business while the IRS targets American citizens, and keep right on talking while the NSA monitors their phone calls.  Then, after being lackadaisical about serious things, people are up in arms about a rodeo clown showing up at the Missouri state fair in an Obama mask.

 

Talk about misplaced indignation!  If America wants to get upset about something, how about the president assigning a taxpayer-financed security detail to his dog and then flying the pooch from Washington DC to Martha’s Vineyard?

 

Not only that, but while government stands poised to grant amnesty to illegals, release drug offenders from prison, and allow people to vote without identification, the rodeo clown with the Obama mask has been banned from ever performing at the state fair again.   As if that’s not enough, fair officials are contemplating whether to take further action against the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association for doing the unthinkable and allowing a clown to dress up like Obama.

 

Never mind that during the bull-riding segment, most of the spectators found the Obama clown with an upside down broomstick attached to his backside hilarious. When the audience was asked if they wanted to see Obama, whom most people think is full of bull, “run down by a bull,” the high-spirited crowd responded enthusiastically in the affirmative.

Majority opinion doesn’t matter, because sadly there was a liberal do-gooder at the rodeo with his wife and a Taiwanese boy who was their charge for the day.  Leave it to a liberal to mention that they were playing mom and dad to a Taiwanese boy.

Perry Beam and wife Lily, both of whom probably yucked it up when David Letterman relentlessly razzed G.W. Bush and Tina Fey attempted to make Sarah Palin look like a moron, were outraged because even though there were no burning crosses, white hoods, or lynch mobs, they felt like they were at a Ku Klux Klan rally.

Remember when the HBO series Game of Thrones had George W. Bush’s head on a stake during a beheading scene, and nary a liberal said a word?

Nevertheless, the touchy Mr. Beam maintains that the announcer, Mark Ficken, “whipped the audience into a lather” by suggesting that “Obama [be] run down by a bull.” Mr. Ficken is also the superintendent of schools, or at least he used to be.

Beam alleged that the clown was “bobbling the lips on the mask and the people went crazy,” which Perry the Presidential Protector also identified as a racist act.

After the huffy Mr. Beam stirred up trouble by posting the unsuspecting clown’s picture on Facebook and informing a few liberal blog sites, rather than defend the all-in-good-fun clown the fair officials, in a written statement, acquiesced to political correctness.

Although “This ain’t [their] first rodeo,” fair officials banned the clown and publicly stated that the prankster had engaged in an “unconscionable stunt” and that a clown dressed up as the country’s biggest buffoon acting clownish was “inappropriate and not in keeping with the Fair’s standards.”

“It’s not unheard of for a rodeo clown, depending on how he reads his audience, to play politics a little bit,” said Jim Bainbridge, the senior public relations coordinator at the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association. “But this crossed a line.”

A Barack Obama clown playing politics with an amused audience is now prohibited in a country that allows a whole host of things that are truly reprehensible, most of which occur with the Clown-in-Chief’s hearty approval.

Bainbridge said, “when you’re suggesting that the president” — who is injuring everyone from unborn babies to senior citizens — “should be injured, it kind of gets to a level of hostility that is inappropriate.”

Besides, Obama’s level of injury and hostility is real; the rodeo performer was just clowning around.

In other words, instead of telling little whiney boy Perry Beam to go stuff it, the Missouri State Fair Commission, rodeo announcer Mark Ficken, and the rest of the easily guilted-into-submission individuals associated with the incident quickly buckled under the pressure, lawyered up, and banned the poor schlub in the Obama mask from ever working at the state fair again.

No doubt Perry Beam, Racist Hunter, is proud of himself.  As for the cowards who run scared whenever a histrionic liberal yells “Racism!” — shame on you!

Flying Bo to Martha’s Vineyard but No Help in Benghazi

Originally posted at The Blacksphereobama-bo_2641195b-300x187

It’s vacation time, and Bo, the Obama family dog was afforded a luxury, which was not offered to Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Had Obama rendered Stevens such assistance on the night he was sodomized and murdered in Benghazi, the Ambassador and the other three men who were part of the Benghazi four would be alive today.

Bo was airlifted 500 miles from Washington DC to Martha’s Vineyard.

Yet, last September 11th the administration claimed there wasn’t enough time to get help to the Libyan embassy that was under attack.

An anonymous special operations member begged to differ:

I know for a fact that C110 was doing a training exercise not in the region of northern Africa but in Europe and they have the ability to react and respond.

The C110 is a 40-man special operations commanders and extremists force. They are capable of rapid response and deployment and are specifically trained for Benghazi attack-like incidents. The night of the attack, according to the special op, they were training 3 & 1/2 hours away in Croatia.

We have the ability to load out, get on birds, at a minimum stage. C110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in 4 to 6 hours from their European theater to react. They would have been there before the second attack.

Well they didn’t make it there in time and because they didn’t arrive before the second attack, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were flown home in coffins on a military cargo plane.

Yet less than a year later, Bo, the president’s Portuguese water dog, went on vacation and “arrived separately on one of two MV-22 Ospreys, a hybrid aircraft which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane.”

Maybe next time around – if he can find Obama, who tends to go missing at crucial times – Bo can bark the following question at him:

“Ruff, ruff, Dad, if you can fly me to Martha’s Vineyard, why can’t you fly in special ops to save Americans from terrorists?”

%d bloggers like this: