Tag Archives: Libya

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.

 

LGBT Pride ‘Children as Props Day’ at the White House

BMrqlxBCQAAOepc-300x450Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Just like annual Iftar* dinners for Muslims and $4-million vacations in Martha’s Vineyard for Michelle, each year, in an attempt “to reflect upon the progress [LGBTs have] made and recommit to the work that lies ahead,” Barack Obama makes it a priority to host a White House gala for the gay community.

This year, as the President gears up to tear down the institution of marriage, just as he’s also about the business of doing the same to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment, the ploy is to shamelessly pretend that he’s doing it on behalf of innocent victims like Zea and Luna Weiss-Wynne.

Zea and Luna are two adorable little girls who are the daughters of Lara Weiss and Nora Wynne, two lesbian marriage equality activists, and a sperm donor friend.  Zea and Luna of Humboldt, California are the latest additions to the Barack Obama ‘Cute Children Props’ collection because the cutie pies are the ones who introduced the President at this year’s LGBT Pride celebration at the White House on June 13th.

That’s right – while the nation is embroiled in scandals that threaten every American’s liberty and while the drums of war thump away in Syria, Barack Obama took an afternoon to fête alternative lifestyles on the taxpayers’ dime flanked by Joe Biden and surrounded by a room full of gay lesbians, gay gays, gay bisexuals and really gay transgenders.

Wait! Was Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts also on the guest roster?  Not because he’s LGBT, but because with his historical influence over the Obamacare debate, having Roberts mingle with the crowd and dip into the hors d’oeuvres would have certainly lent an air of twisted Constitutional optimism to the same-sex marriage argument.

John Roberts or no John Roberts, the president clearly thought it would be fitting to commemorate atypical sexual preferences by having two eight-year-old girls, whose parents are both women, introduce his comments.

Which White House staffer was assigned the job of explaining to the cherubs why the tall lady in the glittery pink hot pants has a huge Adam’s apple and a man’s voice was not made public.

Way back in January when Obama signed 23 executive orders on gun control, he had four guests about Zea and Luna’s age at the ceremony, all of whom were supposedly chosen based on the heartfelt letters they wrote to him about how they wanted him to implement tighter gun controls.  It was a real tearjerker.

At the time, the president’s goal was to make weakening the Second Amendment more palatable to the American public by having children in attendance while he dramatically maintained that “[o]ur first task as a society… [is to] …keep children safe.”

Now, to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage, the president decided that Zea and Luna Weiss-Wynne, as well as seven other authors of inspiring letters about gay issues, would guilt America into agreeing with the gay lobby ‘for the sake of the children.’

The hope is that America will believe the lil’ darlins’ were uncoached when they begged in writing for Obama to assist their activist mothers in their starry-eyed quest to officially become Mrs. and Mrs. Weiss-Wynne, or vice versa

In other words, if you didn’t agree with Obama on gun control, you wanted to see children shot and killed. And if you don’t agree with Obama on the same sex marriage issue, you’re a hardhearted beast who wants to deprive children like Zea and Luna the simple joy of being part of a legitimate loving family.

Nonetheless, subjecting children to an afternoon where sexual preference is the crux of the discussion is not even the most disturbing part of the Pride Month get-together at the White House.

Why? Because suddenly Barack ‘LGBT’ Obama has time to chit-chat around the buffet table with a gaggle of gays, that’s why.

Isn’t he the guy who hasn’t had time to comment on more pressing issues like where he was on the night Ambassador Christopher Stevens was being sodomized and murdered in Libya?  Shouldn’t the gay lobby be pressing him for an answer to that question?

Or why, after mocking and castigating President GW Bush for counterterrorism surveillance, is the president suddenly accelerating the process of ‘fundamentally transforming’ the United States of America into Oceania?

And what exactly were he and Doug Shulman discussing those other 149 times when they weren’t busy rolling Easter eggs?

Meanwhile, as America careens headlong into a vortex of adversity, it’s clear that the LGBT community’s ‘best man’ is Barack Obama.

And Best Man Barack’s top priority is to promote Zea and Luna as two little girls who just want to don hair ribbons, dress up like flower girls, and walk their two mommies down the aisle into a future of LGBT legally-wedded bliss.

__________________________

*a meal eaten by Muslims to break their fast after sunset every day during Ramadan

In the Wreckage of Moore, Oklahoma, Scoundrels and Fools Exposed

Barack_Obama_at_tornado-smashed_school_in_Moore_OklahomaOriginally posted at Clash Daily

Barack Obama loves to throw around Scripture and pepper prayer breakfasts, memorials, school shootings and Democrat conventions with out-of-context Bible verses. Apparently the president, who is able to compartmentalize actions and separate them from contradictory statements, doesn’t think America notices that a man who approves of the unencumbered slaughter of the unborn, partially-born, and even the just-born perceives himself to be some sort of virtuous Biblical king.

Not only that, but when he’s not citing Scripture, depending on the venue Obama has also been known to cover up crucifixes and lie so blatantly that he puts Liar Liar Jim Carrey to shame. For starters, think Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, and the AP.

So, to see Obama in his faux preacher attire and hear him quote Scripture he doesn’t believe, let alone adhere to, certainly should qualify as blasphemy.

Six days after a devastating EF-5 tornado that killed two dozen people as it virtually leveled Moore, Oklahoma with winds in excess of 200 mph, President Obama, still avoiding questions about the four Americans who returned from Benghazi in coffins, showed up in the “Sooner State”.

Ravaged by his own whirlwind of scandals, President Obama claimed he traveled to “Monroe”…oops, that’s Moore, as a lowly representative of the American people.

Just for context, it’s doubtful that when pledging federal support for “the reddest of the red states” the thinnest of thin-skinned presidents forgot that he lost the 2012 Democrat Primary in 15 Oklahoma Counties. But he gritted his teeth and flew in anyway, and while he was at it he milked a photo op and quoted some out-of-context Scripture.

When Jesus issued the Great Commission commanding His followers to go and preach the Gospel in every corner of the earth, in summation, this is what He said: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

With the rubble of the carefully chosen elementary school where seven children drowned as a backdrop, after passing out awkward hugs and flanked on either side by Governor Mary Fallin and Moore’s mayor Glenn Lewis, Obama referred to himself as “a messenger,” sent to let “everybody know that [they] are not alone.”

Funny, that was a message Ambassador Christopher Stevens never got in Benghazi the night he was left alone to be tortured and killed after begging for help that never came.

Then, waxing pseudo-spiritual, Obama shared a story about a Bible that was found in the rubble of a tornado that tore through Oklahoma on another day. Meanwhile the real miracle, the one that pro-choice Barack Obama would never acknowledge as a message from God, involved a purposely-flushed baby boy who was fished out of drainpipe alive in China.

Nevertheless, the president painted a rhetorical word picture replete with images of a gentle breeze softly blowing open the pages to a specific verse in the Old Testament Book of Isaiah, chapter 32:2.

Obama then quoted the prophecy about a righteous king whom Isaiah said “shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest.” No one really knows whom Obama was alluding to exactly, but with the tornadic conditions swirling about and his promise to provide federal assistance, it’s easy to guess.

So the real message in Moore was this: Although the Americans in Benghazi were alone, Oklahomans are not alone. There’s a man who claims to be like a hiding place from tornadoes who just so happens to be the same man who was in hiding himself the night Christopher Stevens was being sodomized and left to die.

Somehow, considering those facts as well as others, hearing Barack Obama say that “God has a plan, but we are instruments of God’s will” seemed a smidgeon disingenuous coming from someone whose instrumentation was offline on September 11, 2012.

Nonetheless, while the president seemed to be personally identifying with Bible verses, what he should have done was continue to read, because the passages that followed accurately described his ineffectual leadership and the godlessness he condones – not only with the policies he furthers and supports, but also with his use of non-existent Biblical faith for political expediency.

If that Bible was really salvaged from the rubble the Scripture that Obama should have read but conveniently omitted include the following verses:

No longer will the fool be called noble nor the scoundrel be highly respected. For fools speak folly, their hearts are bent on evil:
They practice ungodliness and spread error concerning the Lord …Scoundrels use wicked methods, they make up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies.

So, regardless of how many cherry-picked Scriptures Barack Obama chooses to read and regardless of how deluded he is about who he really is, in the end, when the extent of Obama’s evil folly is finally exposed, “[n]o longer will the fool be called noble nor the scoundrel be highly respected” in Moore, Oklahoma, Monroe, Connecticut, or anywhere else.

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.

Community Organizing, Cairo Style

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Barack Obama prides himself on being a community organizer — stirring up the disgruntled in Chicago was the sole skill set that earned him the esteemed title of Leader of the Free World.

Using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a road map, Barack Obama not only community organized, but taught others how to follow his lead.  Young Obama instructed students that to make a statement that would inspire change, they’d have to be well-practiced in the art of street-level confrontation, picketing, demonstrating, and all-out pandemonium.

He was very good at what he did. Saul Alinsky-style organizers were taught to be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions” which, ironically, is exactly what the world is witnessing as the Middle East is ablaze with street-level hatred.

For days the world has watched in growing horror as the fires of animosity have spread.  Yet for those wondering why Barack Obama isn’t addressing more firmly the upheaval in the Islamic world, a simple answer might be that one community organizer can’t very well criticize another community organizer’s style of community organizing, now can he?

Back in Chicago, Barack Obama encouraged the underprivileged to take action on their own behalf by reminding the already resentful of past injustices.   Wherever and whenever there’s strife, there is surely what Obama called “indigenous…charismatic leadership” nearby. There’s always a ringleader in the group – an individual or a team that possesses the ability to make something happen by getting “people to understand the source of their social or political problems.”  In this case the source of the turmoil is rooted in religious zealotry.

Either way, wherever street-level organizing takes place and regardless of the extent of the mayhem, motivating people to unrest to make a point is really nothing more than a mob leader organizing a group of angry thugs and goading them toward hostile confrontation. Sometimes the resulting action takes place in American cities like Chicago, but other times it erupts in unstable pockets in the world like the ones Barack Obama commiserated with in his book “Dreams From My Father” when he said:

[t]he desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago’s South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair.

Barack Obama explained in a chapter he wrote for a 1990 book entitled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois that the work of a successful community organizer is to devise and map out solutions and strategies with the express goal of moving protesters to “action through campaigns that win concrete changes.”  In Chicago, broken streetlights were facilitators to discuss jobs, education and crime. In Cairo, poorly made videos and American infidels are the torches that ignited the flames of unrest in an already unstable situation.

Think about it — thousands of miles away from Chicago, people — angry, vicious people – under the banner of the late al Qaeda leader Osama ‘Alinsky’ Bin Laden are rallying together under the Islam black flag of “common self interest.”

In the Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, and even in Libya, the means to the end may be more violent and destructive than what went down on the Southside of Chicago, but it’s the same philosophy at work.  In Chicago, picketing opened the door to demanding stop signs be fixed and progressed from there.  In Benghazi, it started with burning American flags; an embassy was then destroyed and innocent lives were lost as ancient grievances were resurrected from the hot desert sand to make a statement against America, the Great Satan, and Isaac, Ishmael’s arch enemy, also known as the nation of Israel.

Whether residing in Chicago, Washington DC, or a remote compound in Pakistan, in their efforts to “make something happen,” community organizers have their own unique ways of applying conflict for change.

Although the gripes and tactics are more primitive, what is actually happening in the Islamic world is simply this: common people with a common agenda are coming together, in their own uniquely violent way, to address a common concern. In Obama’s Chicago, the goal was to whip up the community to a “fighting pitch” to address political and social justice. In this case, the goal is clearly to deliver “Death to America.”

Similar to Alinsky’s recommendations in his radical rules handbook, Middle Eastern protesters are merely exhibiting neighborhood empowerment in a culturally innovative way.  From a tactical point of view, any community organizer worth his salt would have to admit that the community-organizing stratagem Barack Obama so closely identifies with is what is now crudely on display in the Arab world.

Maybe that explains why the perpetually fundraising Barack Obama is hesitant to criticize the chaos; he recognizes that what’s going on thousands of miles from Chicago is an impressive show of “collective power,” where a community vision has moved our Muslim brothers and sisters to action.  It could be that our Community Organizer-in-Chief, who once praised people for “reshap[ing] their mutual values and expectations and rediscover[ing] the possibilities of acting collaboratively,” actually believes that throwing stones, ambushing diplomats, and burning American flags is just another kind of neighborhood effort to foster lasting change.

Hillary Clinton, Defender of Infidelity and the Killers of Infidels

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Last year, Mrs. Clinton was inspired by the revolution in Libya and praised the rebels for “taking back their country.” This year, when US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens’ murdered corpse was desecrated in a manner reminiscent of how rebels treated the body of “we came, we saw, he died” Muammar Gaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed shocked and confused.

Hillary Clinton, who must have been asking herself a similar “How can this happen” question when Bill was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office, responded to the crisis by asking “How can this happen in a country we help liberate, in a city (Benghazi) we helped save from destruction?”  One would think that Mrs. Clinton would have learned by now that in certain situations, trust is not prudent and appreciation for loyalty, especially from those who’ve proved untrustworthy, is often not expressed with good behavior.

Much like her complicated and confounding pseudo-marriage, Clinton said that her question about Libya “reflects just how complicated, and at times, how confounding the world can be.”

Wasn’t it just last year that in a triumphant statement in response to the “liberation” of Libya, Clinton called the revolution that the US proudly assisted in “the work of ordinary, brave Libyans who demanded their freedoms and dignity.”  Clinton said, “The United States is proud to have supported them in those efforts, and we are committed to their future.” Now we see that supporting those efforts have resulted in the murdering of benevolent ambassadors, the burning down of US embassies, and the threatening of American citizens?

Maybe Hillary refuses to censure the guilt-ridden out of concern for her own culpability. Reacting to the attacks at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton explained that “This was an attack by a small and savage group. Not the people or government of Libya.”  In other words, what went on in Libya was not the fault of the larger Islamist community who did nothing to stop it, but rather a small “right wing conspiracy”-type group of religious zealots who savaged, defiled and snapped pictures of a murdered American diplomat.

After his murder, Hillary commended the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, saying “Everywhere that Chris and his team went in Libya — in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners.”  What Hillary Clinton and most liberals have yet to grasp is a lesson learned long ago by “Lebanese American journalist, author, and activist” Brigitte Gabriel:  that tolerance and multicultural acceptance of Islam oftentimes leads to fair-minded Christians and Jews being shot at traffic lights by Muslims merely for being a Christian or a Jew.

Yet, much as she defended Bill when he was caught in blatant adultery, Hillary insists on only seeing what she wants to see and refuses to be wooed by verifiable facts.  Even though Ambassador Stevens’ disheveled body was missing for five hours, dragged through the streets of Benghazi by a man with a cell phone in his mouth and photographed while crowds of smiling rebels tossed his body around like a rag doll, Hillary the Defender of the Guilty insisted that “[w]hen the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety.” More like dragged.

Hillary believing that the crowd was reverently transporting the Ambassador’s body to the hospital is on par with believing Bill Clinton when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.”

In a written statement on Wednesday, Clinton noted that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens “was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi.”  A lot of good that did him. Mrs. Clinton commended the Berkeley-educated Peace Corps volunteer and humanitarian because he “risked his life” to help the Libyan people build a better future — a self-sacrificial endeavor that ultimately, at 52 years of age, cost the man his life.

Despite the brutality of what is now believed to be a coordinated 9-11 anniversary attack, Mrs. Clinton said at the State Department that she believes that “The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack.”  Because much like staying married to a serial womanizer and recognizing the political necessity of putting his victims last, Hillary Clinton believes that “A free and stable Libya is still in America’s interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice.” Yeah, right.

After all, it was Hillary Clinton who said: “We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society!”  Clearly, based on her response to the Libya attack, that kind of twisted philosophy applies as much to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed Middle East strategy as it did to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s strategy to feign marital bliss for the high-minded goal of bettering America with their self-perceived political greatness.

In the midst of all the upheaval, a Scripture in the Gospel of Luke comes to mind where Jesus said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.”  If, for political gain, Hillary Clinton continues to be dishonest about the reality of her own sham of a marriage, it’s highly unlikely, if political reputations and careers were jeopardized, that she or Barack Obama would admit that their handling of the Libya situation is yet another example of abysmal failure.

Selective Humanitarianism

President Barack Obama wants America to believe our nation is involved in a Libyan “kinetic military action” because he is now in the business of advocating for human freedom and “basic human rights.”  Disguised as crusader for the vulnerable, Barack is now “acting on behalf of what’s right,” and supposedly has taken America to war in an effort to prevent a “looming humanitarian” crisis and to protect citizens from genocide.

In an effort to justify military action, the President is presently going about the business of refashioning his image from community organizer/President into compassionate global humanitarian.  When not out lobbying for the enactment of radical abortion policy, a newfangled Barack is promoting himself as a man who prides himself on being unable “To brush aside America’s responsibility … to our fellow human beings.” So much so, the President contends that allowing Qaddafi to slaughter innocents would be “a betrayal of who we are.”

To help persuade Americans to embrace “Obama’s two-year campaign to promote human rights,” the White House dispatched anti-genocide advocate and spouse of Cass Sunstein, possible future Secretary of State, Samantha Power. Ms. Power even suggested that “words” spoken by Obama might have been the impetus that “nudged” the people of Libya toward rising up against Moammar Qaddafi.

In a speech…at Columbia University, Ms. Power, director of multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, defended her support for the military operation against Libyan government forces and said the president’s efforts, through speeches in various foreign capitals, made it easier for other nations to stand with the United States against tyrants.

Pulitzer Prize winner Power explained to her audience that an American president, committed to values that “cannot be separated” from interests, standing with those that “risk their lives on the street,” has infused the Middle East with the courage to rebel against savagery, genocide and dictatorial regimes.

Truth is, humanitarianism is “marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare…respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species.” Yet despite trying, what Ms. Powers failed to accomplish in her pro-Obama speech at Columbia University was to impart credibility to a President who supports genocide against unborn children and does so with the passion of Moammar Qaddafi carpet-bombing his own people.

Ms. Power shared that in Libya the international coalition acted to save the rebel stronghold city of Benghazi because of Qaddafi’s attacks.  Samantha lamented that “On a single day, he killed 1,200 people on suspicion” of being anti-government rebels. Moral outrage coming from a representative of an administration that supports and seeks to fund the massacre of 3,700 human beings a day based on the premise that they’re non-viable life forms, and whose husband urges the government to “focus on life-years rather than lives,” is the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

It seems that when it comes to justifying genocide – the only difference is whether Qaddafi or Obama and his crony czars are doing the rationalization.

Following up Samantha, faithful defender of “choice,” Barack Obama, also took time to explain his decision to involve America in a civil war:

The United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day… we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we …waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

If policy initiatives were viewed as a whole rather than as disconnected sound bites, it would be hard to deny that a pro-choice liberal of Barack Obama’s ilk taking a position on Libyan genocide, in response to being “faced…[with] the prospect of violence on a horrific scale,” is like Michael Vick suddenly showing up on a poster for PETA.

To defend military action in Libya, Barack brought up “fellow human beings” and “betrayal of who we are” if we “turn a blind eye” to atrocity. Statements such as these are the personification of disingenuous hypocrisy, because the same man who pledged to never yield in a “culture war” that ensures the right to exterminate 1.2 million unborn American children a year justifies saving lives by saying he “refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves [in Libya] before taking action.”

Conveniently, the President chooses to disregard conscience when it comes to abortion, as well as genocide in Darfur and Iran, the slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and loss of life on the border of the United States and Mexico. On the issue of arbitrary defense of life, Obama is not alone.  A feminist pro-military-Libyan-action contingency, made up of Ms. Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice – known for “dramatic action” against genocide – and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are the ones who “helped overrule reluctant defense and military leaders in persuading Mr. Obama to launch military operations against Colonel Qaddafi’s forces…under the guise of protecting civilians from those forces.”

A band of Democrat women, together with a vehemently pro-choice President, all deny that taking the life of a living being in utero is a “crime against humanity.” Then the same group extends maternal protection for defenseless civilians worldwide based on “Responsibility to Protect,” which is an international community norm that “focuses on efforts to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.”

That same liberal power base is presently attempting to convince the world that they support the cause of humankind, human rights, and freedom, echoed in the “voice… of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.” The only problem is that these five individuals simultaneously support abortion policy that has waged a similar reign of terror against two generations of unborn children for the entirety of Qaddafi’s 40-year rule.

Nevertheless, the present situation in Libya presents Barack Obama with a perfect opportunity to prove his new found humanitarian mettle. The President could initiate the process by publicly rejecting the unrelenting genocide abortion has imposed upon 60 million defenseless human beings with “no means to defend themselves against assault” and who continue to be denied the same right to life that Obama wants the world to believe he’s defending on behalf of the Libyan people.

Hillary Clinton ‘fed up’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Whether hungry for power, or for purposes of career advancement, Hillary Clinton has willingly endured a philandering husband, a blue Gap dress, and her husband’s impeachment.  Years later, candidate Hillary lost the Democrat nomination to an unproven neophyte and then, after the election, accepted the position of Secretary of State in service to a political kindergartener.

Recently, while Barack concentrated on March Madness, Hillary Clinton dutifully went about the lonely mission of trying to “bolster the Libyan opposition, which … suffered days of losses to Madman Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.” Hillary hung in while the President, void of resolve, filled in NCAA basketball brackets and vacillated over whether or not to assist the Libyan resistance.

Hillary Clinton has been out there working the ropes for a President busy working the links and, according to a Clinton insider, even though the Secretary of State “doesn’t have any power,” she’s tried “to keep things from imploding.” The effort has left her “exhausted.”

Feeling like the only adult in the room, insiders claim Clinton is unhappy “dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up.”

Apparently, the situation has pushed Hillary to the point where she’s “done with Obama after 2012 – even if he wins again.” Rumor has it, waiting while genocide looms has brought the Secretary to a point she’s never gotten to with her two-timing spouse – “Fed up.” It seems “irreconcilable differences” are the grounds for dissolution of an already shaky political union.

According to the Clinton inner circle, “there’s more going on now at this particular moment,” and the Secretary of State feels as if she’s “playing sports with a bunch of amateurs.”  Except the Obama Amateur Hour lacks the hook and Chuck Barris is too old to bang the gong. Therefore, on her own behalf, Hillary has decided to exit stage left.

In the past few weeks, “Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular [Obama’s] refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.”

Because of Barack’s inability to lead, “tension…spilled over into [Hillary’s] dealings with European diplomats.”  French president Nicolas Sarkozy pressured Hillary to bear down on Obama to take action in Libya. Unable to relay a definitive answer, Clinton was placed in the awkward position of repeatedly telling Sarkozy: “There are difficulties.”

True – the “difficulty” was goofing around on ESPN and playing putt-putt.

A worn out Hillary attempted to stem the tide of impending genocide in Libya and maintain a demeanor of American concern over the dire situation.  Despite the effort, diplomats were saying, “Frankly we are just completely puzzled.  We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

At the annual Gridiron Club Dinner, Obama made Clinton the butt of a joke. The President evoked laughter when he said: “These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window” – a scenario even serial sleep-away husband Bill never worried about in 35 years.

Barack’s inability to lead has accomplished the impossible:  Hillary Clinton has finally “grown weary.” However, in this case, Mrs. Clinton’s fatigue comes from “fighting an uphill battle” with an indecisive Obama administration. After serving a grueling two years as Secretary of State, Hillary has decided to “throw in the towel” and go back to spending her time just wondering why Bill never makes it home for dinner.

%d bloggers like this: