Benghazi: Proof of what we knew, that @HillaryClinton is a lying suckweasel

October 23, 2015
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Those of us who’ve followed the story of the attack by al Qaeda affiliates on our post in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador, have known all along that Hillary Clinton was lying about what she did and knew that night, and in her public statements afterwards. Whether about the causes of the attack, or her concern for security in Benghazi, or about what she did that night, Hillary Clinton has stonewalled Congress and dissembled –lied– to the American people, all to protect, first, Barack Obama’s reelection and then her own chances at the presidency.

One of the big questions concerns her efforts from the night of the attack, itself, and for another 10-11 days to blame the catastrophe on an obscure YouTube video made by an Islam-hating Coptic Egyptian and minor crook living in the US. The man was rousted by Orange County, CA, Sheriff’s Department on a ticky-tack parole violation and he spent about a year in jail, in fear of his life from Muslim retaliation, his First Amendment rights curb-stomped by this administration, including Hillary Clinton.

Even more appalling, just a few days after the attack and when the bodies were being returned to the US, Clinton stood before the families of the dead and promised the US would “get” the guy who made that video. She said this to their faces, in personal conversation.

Few paying attention gave the video explanation any credence, but, we now know, thanks to her appearance before the Benghazi committee yesterday, that she knew that night that it was a terrorist attack, yet she chose to lie:

Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.

That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.

The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.

She could tell her daughter the truth, but not the American people, not even the parents of the dead. She not only withheld the truth, she absolutely lied to them.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, nor is it a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or progressive “talking point.” This isn’t a case where reasonable people can disagree over policy and call it a draw.

No, this is an issue of character. Of personality. Of ethics and morals. Of not just one person’s qualifications to hold public office, but their fundamental worthiness to do so.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has shown she has no sense of duty or honor, nor even any personal decency. Nothing beyond the raw need to protect herself and her dream. It is as plain as the noses on all our faces that she would act the same way, should she become president. She would be Dick Nixon in a pants suit, but without the competence. No one, but no one who cares about the United States and, indeed, the world, should ever vote to put this loathsome creature in the Oval Office.

I’ve often referred to Hillary as “Lady Macbeth” in the past for her obvious, ruthless lust for power. Somewhere in the afterlife, Shakespeare smiles grimly: he knew her type all too well.

RELATED: The Benghazi committee bombshell.

UPDATE: Michael Haz on Twitter asks an excellent question I wish the committee had asked:


(Video) The Top Five Liberal Lies of the Year

December 19, 2014

A bit of morning entertainment from Media Research Center:

I’m sure there were other competitors, but most of those I can think of are from earlier years. (“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” etc.)

What would be your choices for the biggest progressive whoppers of 2014?

California: Governor Brown thinks we’re stupid

January 6, 2012

Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget was released yesterday (1) and it’s… Well, this is a family show, so let’s just say it’s “interesting.”

Governor Jerry Brown proposed $92.6 billion in spending for the year starting in July, an increase of about 7 percent, which will count on voters approving $7 billion of higher taxes in November.

The spending plan foresees a deficit of $9.2 billion through the next 18 months. Almost half of that is in the current fiscal year, he said. He called for $4.2 billion in cuts, mostly to welfare and programs for the poor. If the tax increase isn’t passed, Brown’s plan would cut another $4.8 billion in support for public schools and community colleges.

In other words, the government of a state that’s already suffering from too much government spending and suicidally high levels of taxation wants to increase spending and ask the voters to tax themselves more. Makes sense? It does if you’re a California liberal Democrat. I mean, we just couldn’t cut some of the myriad of needless and redundant state boards we maintain (and whose members draw six-figure salaries). We couldn’t cut the subsidized car leases and hefty per diems our elected representatives oligarchs get (2). We couldn’t find ways to increase revenue by intelligently exploiting our vast natural resources and making California once again an attractive place to do business, now could we?

Heaven forfend! Are you mad?

No, the only way to feed Sacramento’s crack habit spending needs is to raise revenue by increasing sales and income taxes, the latter especially on those filthy, evil, rich people. (That is, small business owners who create the few jobs that still are created here.) That means We The People have to agree to those taxes.

And that means Jerry has to lie to us:

The proposed 2012 budget would slash $5.2 billion in public school funding if voters reject the tax increases Brown is trying to put on the November ballot. This would include about $200 million in cuts each to the University of California and the Cal State University systems and $4.8 billion to K-12 education and community colleges. (3)

In other words, “if you don’t agree to tax yourselves more, you must hate children! My God, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” It’s the typical prediction of apocalyptic doom they hit us with every single time they ask for higher taxes. And it is absolute baloney.

A little background: under Proposition 98, passed in 1988, funds for K-12 education in California must increase every year (4); it’s required by the state constitution. As you’ll see in the summary charts for the budget (PDF, via Moe Lane), Brown’s budget includes a $4.8 billion increase in K-12 funding. Look familiar? It should; that’s the same amount cited as a “slash” in funding in the above quote. In other words, the “cut in education funding” is really the elimination of a proposed increase, not a genuine cut at all.

And that’s the lie: the “cut” the Democrats are shrieking about would really be just holding education spending at it’s already-generous level. That’s why I say they think we’re stupid. They think we’ll fall for it. But they forget they’ve tried this trick before, and it hasn’t worked. Ballot proposals for tax increases have a history here of going down to defeat. I predict this one will, too.

Because we’re not as stupid as our masters think.

via The Flash Report

UPDATE: At Cal Watchdog, Katy Grimes says the Governor is holding schoolchildren hostage.

(1) Not released by Jerry, though. That was supposed to be next week. Some staffer screwed up. Ooops.
(2) In fact, all three branches of government get an increase. How… nice.
(3) With an annoyed comment from me at the bottom.
(4) The law can be suspended for a year by a 2/3rds vote of the legislature. I suspect this is what will have to happen if the voters reject the tax increase.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Seriously, Debbie?

December 12, 2011

According to Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (1), unemployment has not gone up under President Obama.


Remember, she was handpicked by President Obama to be the public face of the Democratic Party. Must’ve been for her chutzpah when it comes to telling the Big Lie.

She can’t be that dumb. It must be because she thinks we’re that dumb.

(1) Also a nauseating race-baiter.

The kind of lies an immature, narcissistic president tells

October 23, 2011

"Tell me you love me!"

Oh, please. Don’t insult my intelligence:

Every night before he goes to sleep, the president of the United States reads 10 letters from the pile of 20,000 sent to him by Americans every day. Sometimes, he writes back. He’s even, on occasion, included a check.

“It’s not something I should advertise, but it has happened,” President Barack Obama told reporter Eli Saslow, author of the new book, “Ten Letters: The Stories Americans Tell Their President.”

I’m not sure what the bigger whopper is here: that Obama plays “secret Santa” to some of the poor, downtrodden folks in danger of losing their homes or with medical bills they can’t pay, or that a guy with an ego the size of the Grand Canyon is reluctant to talk about it.

Consider the first choice. Are you really going to tell me these people have received personal checks from the President of the United States and have stayed quiet about it? They didn’t tell their relatives? They and their relatives didn’t tell the local news? No one at the bank who cashed the check told anyone “Hey, I just cashed a check from Obama?” Word never got to the national news networks, who’d love to carry a feel-good story about their God-King?

Everyone stayed mum?

Sure. Uh-huh. I buy that. How much for the bridge, too? 

Or how about the next one, that he’s reluctant to talk about it? Barack Obama, humble? Reluctant to take credit? The man who shunned the Democratic convention hall so he could make his acceptance speech in an outdoor arena before Grecian columns, like some demigod? The man who couldn’t be bothered to appear in person at ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall, but sent  a video message that focused on him? Who’s famously thin-skinned about criticism and makes almost every speech on himself? Who’s sure he’s made all the right choices? Who had to have a star-studded White House birthday party –including a conga line— while the economy is still in a tank??

This Barack Obama, who probably has narcissistic personality disorder?

Yeah, you bet. And unicorns are real, too.

Look, if this turns out to be true –that Obama sent checks, not just wrote back– I’ll admit my error and apologize.

But I just don’t believe it; I think the man is lying and that his childish need for ego-stroking made him do it.

via Clarice Feldman

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Gunwalker: Holder lied, over 200 died

October 4, 2011

Is it too soon to begin the Eric holder career death-watch? After the revelation that the worst Attorney General since A. Mitchell Palmer lied to Congress, I expect we’ll be hearing Obama make the traditional “He has my complete confidence” statement — just before he throws Holder under the bus:

New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.

On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

Yet internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious.

The documents came from the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

Links to the memos are available at the original CBS article.

According to Philip  Klein at the Washington Examiner, the Department of Justice is now trying to… nuance Holder’s testimony before Congress, saying he knew of the operation, just not its details.

Yeah. Right.

Go read the first of the linked memos and emails, from the NDIC on  July 5th, 2010 (PDF): it specifically mentions 1,500 firearms bought by straw buyers and supplied to the Mexican drug cartels. The memo from Lanny Breuer is from the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, one of the highest-ranking, most important officials in the DoJ.

There are only two possibilities here: either Eric Holder lied in his testimony before Congress, or he is so derelict that he doesn’t bother to read memos from key staff on important law-enforcement operations (1), rendering him incompetent. Either way, he is unfit to be Attorney General of the United States and must be removed from office, whether by impeachment or being thrown under the presidential bus fired.

And, while were at it, how about a special prosecutor?

RELATED: Prior posts on Operation Fast and Furious.

(1) At least, I’d call helping to arm criminal organizations in another country “important.” Call me crazy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Let’s see, whom should I take seriously?

August 18, 2010

The mendacious video below from the liberal pro-abortion* group Emily’s List attacking Sarah Palin has been making the rounds of the blogosphere the last few days. I haven’t much to say about it that already hasn’t been said by Ace, Ed Morrissey, and William Jacobson. So, instead, I’ll leave you with a question. But first, watch the video:

Okay, now that you’re done laughing in disbelief, watch this video from the woman they attacked:

So, here’s the question: On matters of national politics and policy, whom do you take more seriously? A Sarah Palin talking with gravity about empowering women to deal responsibly with the problems facing the nation, or a bunch of women dressed like … a dating service for furries?

Tough choice, I know.

LINKS: Former liberal feminist Tammy Bruce calls Emily’s List a bunch of reactionaries.

*(You know, as in favoring the killing of human beings before they’re born.)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,517 other followers