Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Video: Chris Christie's Rousing Speech-->But Will It Help?

If this speech was given in 2012, my reaction would have been what a cool speech, Chris Christie is going to blow into the lead. It was a great speech. He re-introduced himself to the United States, told everyone he will say what he thinks, that he is willing to make the tough choices, it was pure Christie.
“I am now ready to fight for the people of the United States of America,” Christie said at the gym of his former high school in Livingston, New Jersey. “I mean what I say, and I say what I mean, and that’s what America needs right now.”
On the other hand talk is great, but I just cant see how he can get around the fact that the NJ economy is in the crapper. How its Standard & Poor ratings have been downgraded 3x since he became governor.  Maybe there is a good explanation for that. His approval rating as a governor has fallen to 30% driven by Dems (17%) and Independents (23%). His approval rating was 77% after his reelection. Granted some of that loss was because he was unfairly blamed for "bridgegate." But his approval was in the 60% range most of last year after the scandal broke.

In other words the governor is a great retail candidate, but it will be very hard to get beyond his numbers in his own state.


Newsbusted: Hillary Clinton Has Most Fake Twitter Followers in Campaign

Although her favorability and trust ratings are declining there is one quantitative evaluation where Hillary Clinton is very successful. According to an exclusive report by Newsbusted Anchor Jodie Miller (see video below) we learn that Ms Clinton has more fake twitter followers than any of the candidates int the 2016 race. That makes Hillary the "fakest" presidential candidate out there.

Other news items covered in the latest installment of Newsbusted the weekly faux news feature from Newsbusters.org (embedded below) include;the supreme court rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare; Rosie O' Donnell adoption controversy; rumors of a Michelle Obama affair; and much, much more.

Please make sure you watch the video below because something bad always happens to the people who don't. Last week Hillary Clinton forgot to press play and since then more of her Benghazi emails have exposed her as covering up the truth about Benghazi. So If you don't want it to be discovered that you are involved in a cover up you better press play.

And if you can't see the video player below please click here

Monday, June 29, 2015

New Judicial Watch Find Shows White House Approved 'Video Caused Benghazi Attack' Fraud


Judicial Watch released a new set of State Department documents indicating that the instructions to fraudulently blame the attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi on a lousy YouTube Mohammed video came from Hillary but was approved by the White House The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

The first email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack. 

Referencing pending press statements by Barack Obama and Clinton, Nuland wrote: “We are holding for Rhodes clearance. BMM, pls advise asap.” Meehan responded three minutes later, at 6:24 p.m.: “Ben is good with these and is on with Jake now too.”

Ben Rhodes sent an email at 9:48 p.m. to senior White House and State officials on the issue: “We should let the State Department statement be our comment for the night.” An email from Meehan, sent at 10:15 p.m. on September 11 to Rhodes, Nuland, Sullivan, Kennedy and Clinton aide Philippe Reines, further confirms the White House approval of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to an Internet video: “All, the Department of State just released the following statement. Per Ben [Rhodes’] email below, this should be the USG comment for the night.”

The “USG comment” turned out to be Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Rhodes emailed Meehan, Sullivan and Reines at 11:45 p.m. on September 11, writing, “Fyi – we are considering releasing this tonight.” The next line is redacted. The email also included a “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” the contents of which are also completely redacted.

On September 12, the day after the attack, Meehan sent an email to Obama administration officials announcing that “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15AM ET today.”

The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative. The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack. The email has the subject line: “Urgent: Anti-Islamic Film and Violence” and reads in part:
I am sure you are considering putting a statement on the film and the related violence. In addition to the condemnation of the disgusting depictions, it will be important to emphasize the need to respond in a way that is consistent with Islamic principles, i.e. not engaging in violence and taking innocent life …
The resulting OIC statement, sent to Hussain by the OIC’s Uraz, linked the film, as requested by the Obama administration, to the Benghazi attack and suggested that the United States restrict free speech in response. The official OIC statement called the film “incitement” and stated that the attack in Benghazi and a demonstration in Cairo “emanated from emotions aroused by a production of a film had hurt [sic] the religious sentiments of Muslims. The two incidents demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression.” The OIC’s statement referenced its own efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam. Hussain sent the OIC statement immediately to other Obama administration officials, including then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who thanks Hussain for the email.

As it turned out the Cairo attack was not about the video either, it was an al Qaeda demonstration about releasing the "Blind Sheik.:" Andrew McCarthy recounted:
As I’ve previously recounted, “blame it on the video” was a fraud as to Egypt as well – a calculated fraud set in motion by State Department officials in Cairo who began tweeting about their outrage over the video before the rioting started. At the time they did so, our government well knew both that there would be demonstrations at the embassy and that those demonstrations were being spearheaded by al Qaeda. In addition to the general animus against the United States that is its raison d’etre, the terror network and its Egyptian confederates were animated by their long-running campaign demanding that the U.S. release the Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman, the master jihadist I prosecuted in the nineties and who Osama bin Laden later credited with issuing the fatwa that approved the 9/11 suicide hijackings).
But the Mohammed video was the chosen story, after all this was an election year and it was important for Obama to say al Qaeda was on the run so State went to work to sell the fake narrative.
During the attack, there were communications between between Hillary Clinton’s senior aide Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain about an article passed by him about how “American Muslim leaders” were tying the video to the Benghazi attack. At the time of the Benghazi attack, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 “special government employee” compensation.

Another newly released State Dept. document dated September 13, 2012, was entitled “USG Outreach and Engagement Post Benghazi Attack.” This record details how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack. The document “captures USG efforts to engage outside voices to encourage public statements that denounce the attack make it clear that the anti-Muslim film does not reflect American [sic].” The document highlights the use of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the terrorist attack to an Internet video. The “outreach” document also highlights “Special Envoy’s engagement” with the OIC and the “Saudi Ambassador.”

The documents show that the Internet video was raised in a September 15 discussion between Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. The “eyes only” “secret” document was partially declassified. Davutoglu “called the controversial anti-Islam video a ‘clear provocation,’ but added that wise people should not be provoked by it.” The next line is blacked out and the markings show that it will not be declassified until 2027, more than twelve years from now.

Another email, evidently from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sent to Meehan and other top White House and administration officials, shows that the administration took no action to deploy military assets almost five hours after the attack begun:
OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt]. Have responded “not to our knowledge.”
The State Department produced other new documents containing Hillary Clinton emails. In one such email (September 11, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.) from Clinton to Nuland, Sullivan and top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, with the subject line “Chris Smith,” Clinton writes: “Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?

Nuland responds: “We need to ck family’s druthers. If they are OK, we should put something out from you tonight.” Mills then replies to Nuland, “Taking S [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] off.” (Sean Smith, not “Chris Smith” was one of four Americans killed at Benghazi.)

On September 13, 2012, Politico’s Mike Allen sent then-National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor an Independent.co.uk news article entitled “America was warned of embassy attack but did nothing.” The story reported that “senior officials are increasingly convinced” the Benghazi attack was “not the result of spontaneous anger.” Vietor forwarded the story to other top White House and State Department officials, but Vietor’s accompanying comments and the comments of other top Obama appointees are completely redacted. The administration also redacted several emails of top State officials discussing a statement by Romney campaign spokesman criticizing the “security situation in Libya.”

In April 2014, Judicial Watch first obtained smoking gun documents showing that it was the Obama White House’s public relations effort that falsely portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

Understand that while all this rush to blame the video was going on, other documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.
“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech. It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people. All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie.”
Hillary once famously asked "What difference does it now make?" The answer is becoming clearer and clearer.  Hillary Clinton came up with a lie to help the president's reelection campaign with the involvement and approval of the White House.  The American people were lied to, and there seems to have been a massive coverup of the real Benghazi story.

Must Listen: Cruz Vs. Hewitt "Would You Abolish The Filibuster If Necessary To Kill Obamacare"

One of the reasons I am a regular listener of the Hugh Hewitt Show is that the host is by far the best interviewer on radio. And Hewitt's interview with Ted Cruz on Monday night was one of his best.  Hugh a legal professor asked Cruz who has a 4-0 record in his argument's before the Supreme Court "If it came down to breaking the Senate filibuster in order to uproot, root and branch, Obamacare, would Ted Cruz support breaking the filibuster to do that?"  What followed was an incredible game of "cat and mouse," constitutional law, political strategy and a slam against Scott Walker which I get the feeling will be repeated when Hewitt is one of the questioners in the second GOP debate:
Hewitt: And that brings me to the second issue of Obamacare. I have asked Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and Rick Santorum, though Rick was not on the record. He was off the record in a green room. If it came down to breaking the Senate filibuster in order to uproot, root and branch, Obamacare, would Ted Cruz support breaking the filibuster to do that?

Cruz: I believe ending the legislative filibuster would ultimately undermine conservative principles, because if you look historically, there have been three major periods where you have had Democratic supermajorities. The first produced the New Deal. The second produced The Great Society. And the third produced Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. I think the legislative filibuster, the supermajority requirement in the Senate, more often than not slows bad liberal, radical ideas that I think as the framers described it, the Senate serves as a saucer to cool the heat of the House. And so I think we would regret it if we got rid of the supermajority requirement in the Senate for legislation. So what does that mean for Obamacare? As I’ve said in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the consequence of this decision is it makes 2016 a referendum on repealing Obamacare. And any Republican candidate who’s not prepared to lead that fight to repeal every word should step aside. I intend to make it a referendum. And let me note something, Hugh.

Hewitt: But Senator Cruz, let me interrupt. You understand that sometimes justices come in at your weakest point in the argument. Scott Walker on Saturday night declared to me in front of 4,000 people he would urge the ending of the legislative filibuster if that was necessary. So I’m saying to you if you’ve got 56,57, 58 Republican Senators, and they’re voting for repeal and replacement, and 42 Democrats are stopping that, will you go then to the leader, Mitch McConnell, and say we need to invoke the Reid Rule and break this, because Obamacare is that bad for our country, we have to do away with this extraconstitutional protection in order to get rid of Obamacare?

Cruz: I believe we can repeal Obamacare without doing that. For one thing, the Democrats…

Hewitt: But that’s not, but that’s, if you can’t, Senator, if you can’t, this matters, because Scott Walker was unequivocal. He said absolutely, he would advocate that. And I’m hearing you say…

Cruz: But you know what’s interesting, Hugh, it’s easy. Talk is cheap. I mean, I would note that when Mike Lee and I were fighting tooth and nail to stop Obamacare, that a number of politicians, including Governor Walker, were publicly criticizing us for doing that. So when you’re campaigning for president, it’s easy to talk about what you’d do against Obamacare. But I think every one of the candidates should be asked not what would you do but what have you done.

Hewitt: But I’m asking, because the filibuster, I know you’re attached to it. I know the good reasons that you’re attached to it. I just want to know the priority of Ted Cruz, and I think this is going to matter a lot. Would you throw it overboard if that’s what it took to get rid of Obamacare?

Cruz: There is nobody in this race who has fought harder, who has fought longer, who has invested more blood, sweat and tears, who has endured more vilification, standing up to Obamacare, than I have. And there is nobody who is campaigning harder every single day. Let me encourage you to do something, Hugh. Go back and listen to the announcement speeches of the other 2016 candidates. A whole bunch of them don’t even mention the word Obamacare. Now we don’t need to override the filibuster to defeat Obamacare. Reid didn’t do that to pass Obamacare. He used reconciliation. What you can pass with reconciliation, you can repeal with reconciliation. The key to get it done is it’s got to be a grassroots movement. It’s got to be a mandate from November, 2016, like the Reagan revolution. And I will say this. In the three months since we launched our campaign, we’ve seen over 100,000 people come online to www.tedcruz.org, www.tedcruz.org, make financial contributions, sign up to volunteer. And I want to mention to your listeners, tomorrow at Midnight, June 30th at Midnight is the end of our fundraising quarter. I would ask every listener if you support courageous conservatives across this country getting back to the Constitution and free market principles, please, please, please come to www.tedcruz.org. Make a contribution online, and stand up to turn the country around.

Hewitt: Okay, Senator, I encourage them to do that, because I think you, I want you in this race, and I want you making these arguments. But I’m going to try a third time. If it came down to you’ve got to break the legislative filibuster to repeal root and branch, I understand what you and Rick Santorum say, reconciliation passed it. But there are parts of it that will not be gotten rid of in reconciliation. Will you break the filibuster? Or will you let those parts of Obamacare stay in place?

Cruz: There is no one in this race who has fought harder to repeal…

Hewitt: That’s not…(laughing)

Cruz: You know, the nice thing is, listen, when you’re in a court of law, you’re told not to fight the hypo.

Hewitt: Yeah.

Cruz: In politics, you can fight the hypo. And I’m not accepting the hypo.

Hewitt: Okay, I’m going to come back at you in front of 900 million people, or whoever, how many are asking the presidential debate, because this matters to me, because I think the answer is absolutely yes, you’ve got to break the filibuster to get rid of this cancer. I really do.

Cruz: And if we had followed your advice, we would have cap and trade, we would have some of the most egregious left wing legislation. Under majority leader Elizabeth Warren, Hugh Hewitt would be looking back going why on Earth did I remove our ability to stop radical socialist policies that are destroying this country?



Sorry Jesse Jackson But The POTUS Prefers Root Canal To Greeting You

This little tidbit comes from the great Andrew Malcolm from Investors Business Daily. Apparently the Rev. Jesse Jackson isn't as popular as he used to be. As Andrew explains:
On Friday Jackson was clearly seeking face-time with the POTUS before Obama and his sizable entourage left. But just as Jackson nears his target from the rear, secret service agents cut him off, as you can see in the brief c-span video clip below.

The men were no doubt polite. But very firm. Perhaps they even recognized Jackson. Through their earpieces, they were likely tipped to his approach by other agents.

But one-time VIP or not, if that day's approved lapel pin signifying POTUS clearance does not adorn your lapel, you're not getting through.

Everyone at the service had to submit to metal detectors and the church was searched and locked down for hours before. So, agents are not too worried about a weapon.

Watch Jesse get turned away in the video below and then go over to Andrew's column at IBD (which if you don't read regularly you are doing yourself a great disservice).
Perhaps Obama is still sore about the 2008 campaign, when Jackson threatened the future president:
Jackson was speaking at the time about Obama’s speeches in black churches and his support for faith-based charities. Jackson added, “I want to cut his nuts off.”
Whatever the reason it is evident the former "big shot" is now persona non grata.