The RNC has released a new ad today about Hillary’s heavy baggage. This is a point I find interesting; I recently had a conversation with a twenty-something voter whom I know to have pretty good sense as a rule, but who is planning to vote for Hillary. This voter had no clue about Whitewater or who Vince Foster was, and admitted to not really following the Benghazi tragedy. There are a lot of people like that; you might call them single-issue voters. In this case, the person likes Hillary because he believes in gay rights and he thinks Trump is going to load all the illegals onto buses and ship them back to wherever they came from. So, he likes Hillary. It’s voters like this that concern me – they need to do more research and they need it presented to them in case they won’t do it themselves. Benghazi is a big deal to me and I’m going to do all I can to be sure these younger voters and uninformed voters know about it.
The next week is going to be interesting; I don’t think I’ll be able to watch Hillary’s shrill nomination acceptance or her speech later. Her voice makes my skin crawl. I’ll read it, or read about it. The convention will be filled with Hollywood star power and typical speeches about how wonderful the candidate is. You know all this.
As for the Republicans and Trump, well, he wasn’t my first choice but he’s my candidate now. He’s got faults and issues, but I do have confidence that he’s the right person now. I’ve talked to a lot of people who say that they just aren’t going to vote – they can’t make themselves vote for either Trump or Hillary because they hate them both. It’s the “I’ll sit this one out” folks that will hand this election to Hillary.
If you’re one of them, shame on you.
If you’re not one of them, you know people who are. Talk to them. It’s important.
And with that, let’s get this convention behind us so we can concentrate on November.
There was a lot of talk this morning on the left side of the MSM about plagiarism concerning Melania Trump and her speech yesterday.
Now I only heard a little bit of her speech before I went on my shift and have not had a chance to hear the rest so I have no idea if and how much of her speech echoed Michelle Obama circa 08, but if you want to understand why the MSM wanted the subject of today to be her, there are two words to explain it:
Now if are a person who gets their news from the MSM you likely never heard of Pat Smith the mother of Sean Smith who died at Benghazi until yesterday when she spoke at the GOP convention saying this
You might wonder, if your primary news source is the MSM why she is only saying this now but the fact is she has been doing so for four years but during that time the MSM have treated Pat Smith Unlike Cindy Sheehan who was made a celebrity to harm George W Bush, as an unperson and unless you watch Fox News you have not likely seen or heard a word Mrs. Smith has said on Benghazi since it happened. In fact the only MSM journalist who gave her the tie of day was as you might guess has a name that “Lake Mapper”.
Her speech directly contradicts the MSM narrative and carries credibility to the audience that the Trump convention has drawn because she is not a pol. It was so devastating that Chris Matthews managed to go over the top even for him claiming she “Ruined the evening”, which if you are Hillary Clinton fan trying to change the subject from her mendacity, and a GQ reporter declared on twitter: I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death and spent last night defending said tweet until it was finally deleted and apology issued today claiming “satire”
but for my money the most telling moment came when CNN switched to Wolf Blitzer after her speech who attempted to spin it, unfortunately for Mr. Blitzer he was pared with Jake Tapper who being Jake Tapper didn’t play along even to the point where he stated one couldn’t dispute some of her points.
As I tweeted at the time You never saw an anchor so desperate to switch to a panel in your life.
Wolf Blitzer: "Anderson over to you" Translated: "Anderson save me, @jaketapper refuses to help me spin Pat smith away!" #RNCinCLE
So I can confidently predict that the MSM will bury Pat Smith’s speech as minutia and when the post convention stories are written the single most devastating speech of day 1 (Rudy Giuliani not withstanding) to the cause of Hillary Clinton’s election to the White House will, as far as the MSM is concerned, be an afterthought that barely existed.
Closing Thought, if I was Donald Trump and his surrogates I would be talking about Pat Smith’s speech at every chance I get both during and after the convention and I’d certainly turn her speech into an ad that I’d be running every night during the Democrat Convention and beyond.
Remember how Maureen Dowd talked about Patricia Smith’s ‘absolute moral authority?’
No, I don’t remember that either.
Because it didn’t happen.
Instead, Patricia Smith is being relentlessly ‘fact-checked’ this morning. By PolitiFact. By The Washington Post. And probably many more.
The crux of Patricia Smith’s argument is that Hillary is a liar who told her, more-or-less over the body of her dead son, that the ‘video’ was responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Mrs Smith believes that Hillary knew, at the time, that the Benghazi attacks were organized terrorism. And there is strong evidence to indicate that she did know that. Including an inconveniently discovered email to her own daughter, sent on the night of the attack.
Just as there is strong evidence to indicate that, for days afterwards, Hillary, along with the rest of the Obama administration, was telling lots of people, and even foreign governments, that the video was responsible for the attack.
So, why is it so hard to believe that she would have told Patricia Smith the same thing?
I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar
Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.
Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
Facts notwithstanding the media and the left reflexly defended Hillary Clinton just as they immediately blamed Mitt Romney’s rhetoric (as comically noted here) as soon as the attack took place. The questions from the press to Trey Gowdy are not about the contents of the report but all about “having the goods” or not. Rush Limbaugh put it very well in this headline:
That half of the country or more doesn’t care about abandonment of these men is self evident but the relevant question, the most important question is this: How is it that half the country doesn’t care?
And this is what the Culture war has been all about.
All that we’ve seen from the left from the Feminism that Stacy McCain has written so eloquently to the rejection of Judeo christianity and finally the no responsibility and no winners mentality that has been nurtured through our school systems and our media has been all about one thing. Taking the most the richest, most powerful, most self assured and most morally centered nation in the history of history. A nation so moral and so steeped in the Christian Ideal that it could sit on top of the an entire world in ruins with the strongest military in the history of history and choose to rebuild it rather than rule it and bringing it down.
And the only way to to do such a thing is to assault the culture as Andrew Breitbart understood:
When I was in my youth in fact even as late as my 20’s at a time when the aptly greatest generation was just starting to die the idea that the American people would allow something like Benghazi to pass was unthinkable.
Many years ago after the initial invasion of Iraq George Bush flew to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and gave a speech behind a banner on the ship that proved to be so consequential to the MSM that a decade after it happened it was worth a story at US News and world report:
If there’s one day in particular Bush could choose to rewrite, it might be May 1, 2003.
It was a sunny day off the coast of San Diego. Congress had authorized what would become the Iraq war a few months earlier, in October 2002. The invasion had begun in March 2003. On May 1, President Bush had landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the co-pilot’s seat of a Navy fighter jet.
After landing, Bush changed out of his combat suit and stepped up to the podium, surrounded by a crowd as receptive as the one in Dallas last week.
Having marched U.S. troops through Iraq and deposed of Saddam Hussein’s regime (and his statue), Bush called Operation Iraqi Freedom “a job well done.”
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said, the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner hovering over him. “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Now at the time of that statement it was very true, we had successfully invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam and even managed to hold democratic elections that had the potential to change the middle east forever.
Alas as time went by things got complicated
Instead, the speech and the banner became a symbol of the unpopular war, which would last another eight brutal years. The image came to encapsulate not just the war, but the mistakes of the Bush administration as a whole,
In fact the MSM used that speech to pummel Bush for a decade (oddly enough that same MSM hasn’t touched Obama & Biden for declaring Iraq a success when pulling out and letting it crumble to pieces but I digress). Google “Mission Accomplished” speech and you’ll see a cornucopia of Bush critique that continues to this day.
Compare that to Hillary Clinton this week, who said this to Chris Matthews on MSNBC:
“We didn’t lose a single man” is quite a statement considering what happened in Benghazi, fox called it a gaffe but Thomas Lifton disagrees:
Sorry, Fox, it’s not a gaffe, it’s a tell. To Hillary Clinton, the four male officials and warriors don’t matter at all. They are at best an inconvenience. If they were alive, they would have to be dealt with, but because they are dead, they can be forgotten, rendered unworthy of memory.
Clinton may have been referring strictly to the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which indeed saw no loss of American lives and cost just around $1 billion. But her comments ignore the 2012 attacks at the U.S. mission and CIA outpost in Benghazi, which killed four people including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
I mean cripes there was a movie made about it:
In many ways this is much worse than President Bush’s speech, after all she is saying this not directly after the fall of Libya before all that followed took place but years AFTER not only Benghazi but all the other grief as Ed Morrissey notes at hotair:
Yes, they certainly do ignore the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. But these remarks ignore a lot more than that. Qaddafi’s Libya was a brutal dictatorship, but one that had been cooperating in some part against radical Islamist terrorist groups, and had a functioning military that kept them on the run. Decapitating the regime without any way to influence developments on the ground did not result in “a functioning state.” It resulted in a failed state. The government that held two elections cannot even claim all of Tripoli as under its control, and its writ runs nowhere else in the country.
Most stunning of all, Clinton seems unaware that ISIS is taking up blocs of territory in Libya now, too. So have al-Qaeda affiliates like Ansar al-Sharia — the group that sacked our Benghazi consulate nearly four years ago, thanks in large part to security decisions made by State under Hillary’s leadership. We didn’t give Libya a chance — we destroyed Libya, and left nothing but a viper pit of terror networks to replace it. And Hillary thinks this is a success story.
Now given that this was said on camera, in the middle of a presidential campaign during a cable network town hall you would think that her statement would be all over television…
Tuesday’s NBC Today didn’t deem it newsworthy. Instead, the only mention of the town hall events was correspondent Kristen Welker touting how both Democratic contenders used the opportunity to hurl their “sharpest attacks” at Donald Trump…
…On ABC’s Good Morning America, correspondent Cecila Vega followed the same pattern…
…On CBS This Morning, co-host Gayle King used the town hall to illustrate how “Hillary Clinton says she feels good about her campaign and the votes that she has received.” A soundbite followed of Clinton proclaiming: “I’ve gotten 5 million votes, 600,000 more than Trump, 1.6 million more than Bernie Sanders, so I feel really good about where I am in this campaign and, of course, the number of delegates that I have won is also considerably higher than Senator Sanders.”
Why are we seeing this, because we’ve reached the point were the Hillary Nomination is now inevitable and the media, despite their fears have gone all in.
Closing thought, a year ago I thought the Dems would dump Hillary as her legal situation would be untenable (silly me thinking the Obama Chicago team would enforce the law) but I ended my post with this caveat:
The moment they can get a viable candidate in they will throw Hillary under the bus so fast it will make your head swim.
But if they can’t, If worst comes to worst they’ll fight for Hillary in what will be a campaign so dirty even people as jaded as me will be surprised.
That is coming, the only comfort is that Donald Trump will likely fight back just as dirty.
Although it was never presented as such in news accounts, the siege on the diplomatic enclave and the secret CIA facility a mile away resembles in its dramatization nothing so much as the battle of the Alamo, albeit with a better ending as far as the Americans were concerned. As with so many accounts of Western involvement in the Middle East and other regions — Black Hawk Down, for starters — this is the story of a fiasco, one made less so by the fierce and selfless commitment of a few good men
Like the Alamo these two men were fighting for time against a foe that outnumber them on the order of 50 to one. They understood that by going into that building their odds were very slim to come out alive but their honor and duty demanded that they act, that they do SOMETHING for their fellow Americans in danger and perhaps, just perhaps they would hold out long enough for help to arrive to rout their enemies.
Although terrible damage has been done, the invaders are eventually repulsed by the small band of Americans doing some very expert shooting. Fighting continues on the streets in scenes that carry a violent video-game feel, a new wave of marauders is turned back and, as at the Alamo, a period of low-simmering anxiety permeates the night as a follow-up bombardment is awaited.
Remember at the Alamo they beat back the first wave before sheer number overwhelmed the Texans who defended it.
Picture that night for a moment, In the end attackers lost 30-60% of their force but for the sake of argument let’s say only 25% of that was in the first wave. You’re attacking the compound, you’ve been attacking for hours and seen people fall all around you. You’ve been beaten back once and don’t actually know how many men are inside, what do you think would have happened if they heard the sound of a single helicopter gunship? A single plane? a single drone dropping a bomb on the force already bloodied at a rate that would cause most Western countries to declare the mission a disaster?
They would have run.
This movie is going to be hated by the left particularly when it makes a fortune.
This tweet reveals Mr. Kristol is still living in a Judeo Christian culture. There are two reasons why this revelation, serious by the standards of truth vs falsehood, will not matter here.
1. The Mainstream media like any good totalitarian organization is all about wiping the past. The same MSM that attacked Romney rather than the administration after Cairo & Benghazi will judge Hillary not on anything she says but on her deportment. She will be made the “victim” of Benghazi because unless Michelle Obama suddenly jumps into the race she is, in their mind, the presumptive Democrat nominee & must be protected at all costs.
2. The Democrat Party has abandoned judeo christian standards of truth & ethical standards as a prerequisite for nomination. If actual dead americans and successful attacks on an US mission did not stop democrats from voting for Barack Obama a simple thing like lying to the American people to help facilitate that election isn’t going to bother them.
So a much as Bill Kristol considers this revelation is a “Wow” it won’t stop the media from protecting her, surrogates from defending and democrats from voting for her.
There are few statements that disgust me more than this, but that disgust is because it’s true.
Judicial Watch has been instrumental in following the paper trail with regards to the Benghazi scandal. According to Judicial Watch this week, “The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative.”
Judicial Watch issued a statement this week with an update on the response to Benghazi originally given by former Secretary of State and current Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton:
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. 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)).
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.”
Judicial Watch has pointed to Ben Rhodes as being the White House epicenter of the Benghazi talking point that blamed a YouTube video for the attack. The emails turned over by Blumenthal show that the talking point came from him and that Clinton ran with it.
Remember, Rhodes’s brother is President of CBS news. CBS ran a story on Benghazi starring Lara Logan instead of Sharyl Attkisson who had been leading reporting on the attack. The report that aired starring Logan was which was “flawed” seemingly because the information differed from ‘official sources’ like the White House and State Department. CBS let Logan go not long after. Hard to see that turn of events as a coincidence.
Also this month, it became apparent that Hillary Clinton did not turn over all the Benghazi emails to the State Department. This information came to light as 15 emails from Clinton’s friend and adviser, Sydney Blumenthal, were not in the batch of emails given to the State Department by Clinton. Remember — Clinton ‘wiped’ her own private server.
Politico reports Blumenthal is all over Clinton’s emails on a wide range of topics and allegedly edited one of her speeches. Politico also has copies of the emails. The State Department is also retroactively classifying some of the emails. What a circus.
Becky Gerritson of the Wetumpka Tea Party noted that the person in charge of picking through and turning over the Benghazi emails is the same individual who was involved in and was in charge of turning over emails to Congress in the IRS Tea party targeting scandal. That woman is Catherine Duval.
As of this June, it has been determined that over 24,000 emails are still missing from Lois Lerner in the IRS Tea Party targeting scandal. Given Clinton’s server wiping and Catherine Duval being in charge, the fate of the Benghazi emails might be the same.
A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of LadyLiberty1885.com.
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review, StopCommonCoreNC.org and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885
For the same reason no one ever
Pointed a telescope at the sun”
The Clash, Red Angel Dragnet.
The last 100 years can safely be placed into the following eras. World War I (1914-1918), Interwar (1918-1939), World War II (1939-1945), the Cold War (1945-1991), and the present epoch, the Age of Islamic Terror (1991-present). Certainly there were Muslim-inspired terror acts before 1991, such as the assassination of Anwar Sadat ten years earlier by an Islamist. But the Cold War was the driving international political force then.
Now Islamic terror and the rest of the world’s response to it is the global impetus of change, for good or for ill.
And what has happened since 1991? Some of the atrocities include the first World Trade Center attack, Osama bin Laden’s two jihad fatwas, al Qaeda’s African embassy bombings and its bombing of the USS Cole, 9/11, the 2002 Bali bombings, the 3/11 bombings in Madrid, Hamas’ takeover of Gaza, Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, the 7/7 bombings in London, Hezbollah’s war with Israel, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Fort Hood, thousands of sectarian murders in Iraq and Pakistan, the Boston Marathon bombings, the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria, Benghazi, the ascent of the Islamic State in Syria and northern Iraq, and this month’s Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris. This rundown reads like a listing of the theaters of conflict during the Second World War.
Sometimes radical Islamists attacks other Muslims, such as last week’s removal from office of the president of Yemen by Iranian-backed Shi’ites.
For the most part world leaders ignore or obfuscate the reality that they are living in the Age of Islamic Terror. President Obama regularly refers to Islamic terror as “violent extremism,” a term that is broad enough to include gang-bang murders on Chicago’s South Side. Great Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, says his nation is not at war with radical Islam, countering it’s “just a huge challenge our society faces.” But the war is there. Just as the sun is there as well–even if we don’t point a telescope at it.
“As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.”
Just yesterday at the first meeting of the Benghazi Select Committee, a former Obama DHS Official, Todd Keil, faulted the State Department for not prioritizing Benghazi security requests (September 17, 2014). Gee, were these requests also ‘filtered out’? Testimony also hit on the ARB and being ‘fiercely independent’…or not.
Sharyl Attkisson tweeted quite a bit yesterday during that Select Committee hearing, this was one of her first:
The #1 “most important” post-Benghazi security recommendation has not been implemented.
If you enjoyed this article, you should really check out other pieces written by Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent Seven writers and maybe hit that tip jar!
A.P. Dillon (Lady Liberty 1885), is a Conservative minded wife and mother living in the Triangle area of North Carolina. A.P. Dillon founded the blog LadyLiberty1885.com in 2009. After the 2012 election, she added an Instapundit style blog called The ConMom Blog. Mrs. Dillon recently participated in Glenn Beck’sWe Will Not Conform. Mrs. Dillon’s writing, in addition to Da Tech Guy’s Magnificent 7, can also be found at StopCommonCoreNC.org, WatchdogWireNC and WizBang. Non-political writing projects include science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished. Her current writing project is a children’s book series.
Graciela: You… you expect me to marry you, with my father and my four brothers newly buried in Potosi — and my husband ? Emil Sand : I expect it, because it is the logical course. Graciela : To married you, logical ? Emil Sand :Of course ! I am acceptable to Santa Anna. And if he should be defeated, I would manage to become acceptable to his successors. Graciela : Oh… Emil Sand : That’s the trick : to be acceptable to the powers that be.
The Alamo 1960
They never evolved again; they should never have survived.
The fact that they did is some kind of tribute to the thick-willed slug-brained stubbornness of these creatures. Evolution? they said to themselves, Who needs it?, and what nature refused to do for them they simply did without
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy 1979
Last week we saw a series of stories on Hillary Clinton’s issues with the Democrat party and their media enablers over her “evolution” on “gay marriage”.
The “Evolution” was pretty simple, when her “Christian” credentials needed to be validated she was willing validate the definition of marriage as it had been defined throughout the history of the Christian church, but once key Democrat party’s fundraising, dependent on donors diametrically opposed to these values decided their dollars were dependent on redefining marriage Mrs. Clinton along with many other democrats amazingly “evolved” to positions consistent with those providing fundraising dollars.
However as the Eric Cantor election amply demonstrated funds alone are not enough to secure an election and as her previous position on the Benghazi scandal & the IRS scandal have, at least for now, become untenable in this news cycle, lo and behold the forces of Darwinian evolution have stuck again on Mrs. Clinton, first on Benghazi:
There are still too many unanswered questions about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday, even as she welcomed the capture of a suspected mastermind of the assaults.
“There are answers, not all of them, not enough, frankly,” she said of the September 2012 attacks on a diplomatic and CIA compound that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others.
That’s the Washington Post on Hillary’s in kind contribution Town Hall held by CNN to bring her numbers up get her positions on issues.
Who knew the former Secretary of State was such a fan of getting answers? When Congress tried to get answers about the failures that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton infamously erupted in anger, asking “What difference at this point does it make?” Now that she’s preparing a run for the presidency, it apparently makes more difference now than it did then:
and this isn’t the only bit of “evolution” that Mr. Morrissey notes as Mrs. Clinton has decided that the IRS investigation “needs to continue”
This is nothing more than Hillary putting distance between herself and Obama … and on Benghazi, between Hillary 2012 and Hillary 2016.