By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — As we roll into the Democratic National Convention this week, I’d like to make a few simple observations.  Mind you, they are only my opinion, but here we go:

  • Hillary Clinton has no soul. The list of people who did not survive her evil machinations is legend.
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz got booed offstage in Philadelphia this morning for her part in the collusion against Bernie Sanders. Hello, Karma.
  • The DNC has built a four-mile, eight-foot fence around the convention site. Hello, Irony.
  • As expected, Donald Trump received a nice bounce in the polls after the RNC convention; you can probably expect Hillary to do the same. It happens every four years.
  • Clinton-Kaine says they won’t sling mud on Trump. What’s the over/under on how long that lasts?  Anyone?
  • How long before we start pricing Hillary’s wardrobe this week? Will she wear the $12,000 Armani jacket, or was that a one-time deal?
  • 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.


Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

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:

Pat Smith.

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.

it’s rather telling that Politifact tried their best to dispute her statement while at the same time being smart enough to refuse to call a Benghazi mother a liar and that when the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reviewed the winners and losers of the evening speeches Pat Smith’s was nowhere on the list to be found.

They don’t call his column “The Fix” for nothing.

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.

Update: Via Glenn, Ricochet gets it:

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

Olimometer 2.52

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.

Choose a Subscription level

The House finally came out with their Benghazi report and the reaction to it should surprise nobody that has been paying attention during the Obama years.

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:

Hillary Clinton Is a Corrupt Security Risk — And Half the Country Doesn’t Care

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.

But the culture war by the left, enabled by those on the right who were unwilling to fight it, has been so successful that saying Christmas vacation is unacceptable to a major university but leaving Americans to die political gain could happen without batting an eyelash.

This is what really hits the nail on the head.

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

Olimometer 2.52

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.

Choose a Subscription level

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.

Red State called out Chris Matthews:

If you want to know why Chris Matthews simply let this baldfaced lie go unchallenged, the answer is simple. Matthews is a deeply corrupt Democrat apparatchik who abandoned even a shallow pretense of being a journalist nearly two decades ago. His wife is running for Congress and she is totally dependent upon the Clinton fundraising network to finance that bid for office. In fact, Matthews is so in thrall to Clinton that even the left wing media have started to notice.

and even Politico noticed the omission albeit obliquely:

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…

…you’d think wrong as MRC notes

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.


I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar.

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

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Those Damn Pictures

Boss Tweed commenting on Thomas Nast’s cartoons

The Hollywood Reporter: ’13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’: Film Review

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

DaTechGuy: The Alamo at San Antonio De Benghazi:

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.

The Hollywood Reporter: ’13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi’: Film Review

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.

DaTechGuy: The Alamo at San Antonio De Benghazi:

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.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton appeared before congress and there was one thing that came out that really caught Bill Kristol’s eye:

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.


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000.

Given that fact and the discovery that the repairs needed for my car that failed inspection will run between $500-$1000 I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

By A.P. Dillon

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.


DM7 small LL1885A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review, and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885

See it?
See it?

By John Ruberry

“See it
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.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By A.P. Dillon

Last week I covered the The Unintended Transparency Of Obama’s DOJ and here we are a week later and it turns out the State Department has had transparency issues of their own.

Add this latest ‘filtering out’ to the pile of questions I’ve accumulated while writing about Benghazi. Via the Daily Signal’s article by Sharyl Attkisson, Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review:

“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.”

Reminder: The ARB did NOT interview Hillary Clinton because, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, the ARB decided that she did not play a role in the decision-making. Arguably one can draw the conclusion this was a plausible deniability move to protect Clinton. Similar moves were made regarding the now famous ‘talking points‘.

Reminder: Obama blasted the probe at the time and called it a “political circus,” a “side show” and said there’s “no there, there.”  Apparently, there was “no there, there” because Hillary Clinton’s State Department pulled a manual version of Lois Lerner’s hard drive.


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:


But what difference does it make?



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!

AP DillonA.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 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, 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.

Ed Morrissey waxes poetic:

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.

Actually what she is doing is putting distance between her and a position that despite the best efforts of the Daily Beast, Salon’s & Politico’s and Kevin Drum’s best efforts voters aren’t buying.

Rest assured that if the administrators defender manage to spin this successfully (ABC & NBC have avoided the IRS story like the plague) Mrs. Clinton will “evolve” again, in fact I guarantee it.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — I have no delusions about the 2016 presidential election.  We, as a nation, are in serious, serious trouble.  This trouble is the result of myriad reasons however complicit in this downward spiral we now find ourselves in is without a doubt the mainstream, legacy media.

That, and the uniformed voter.

Consider the review in the New York Times of Hillary Clinton’s book, Hard Choices.

I’m not the least bit interested in reading this book, however the review sucked me in with the comment that the book “provides a portrait of the former secretary of state and former first lady as a heavy-duty policy wonk.”

What, what?!

“A heavy-duty policy wonk”?

That never crossed my mind.  Ever.

The review goes on to laud Mrs. Clinton and to praise the book as a “statesmanlike document intended to attest Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and foreign policy.”

Oh, please.  It’s too much.

Can we talk about Benghazi?

Can we talk about Fast and Furious?


I don’t think so.  Not one bit.

Okay, so the review goes on in this vein and you can read it yourself if you must, but trust me, it’s all the same whitewash driveling sap that we got about Obama.  And we all know that the legacy media is going to continue to prop up these incompetent fools while our country spins around the bowl, but surely, surely people are smarter than that now, right?  Haven’t we learned something over the past tenure of Obama?

I am reassured to see that most of the comments attached to this article question Mrs. Clinton’s ability to lead the country and question her leadership on issues like Benghazi and Fast and Furious.

There are, of course, a few Hillary supporters who commented:

One woman says she will certainly vote for Clinton because “we are contemporaries (I am exactly the same age as Clinton)…”.  Well, that’s a good reason to vote for a president, eh?  To be fair, this woman goes on to say that she admires Mrs. Clinton’s “tenacity and ability to accept challenges”  which is a good quality however I don’t think that it actually applies to Mrs. Clinton.  How did she accept the challenge of Benghazi, again?

Have we caught those who murdered Chris Stevens yet?

What about Fast and Furious?  How did she accept that challenge?

Let’s just hit the reset button on all that, shall we?  No.  She must answer for all of that.

Clearly there will be those voters who will just vote for Hillary because she’s a woman, because she’s a contemporary, or for whatever nonsense, but by the tone of the comments maybe, just maybe, people are not going to be snowed by The New York Times this time.  Maybe people are ready for a true leader who will put the country back on the track to prosperity.

One can dream.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Today via Glenn we see Jake Tapper continue to be a member of the  journalist community rather than the “journo-list” community:

The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him — veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose “selfish act” ended up costing the lives of better men.“I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on,” said former Sergeant Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl’s platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. “Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”

This is the man that we just traded 5 Taliban leaders for, and let’s not forget his father now deleted tweet.


along with a few other still out there.

Contrast this with Benghazi where two Seals held off attackers for hours waiting for help from this administration and died waiting and fighting.

So here’s he bottom line:

If you are a soldier who apparently deserts & whose family wants Gitmo closed and emptied, this administration will trade our worst enemies to get you back.

If you are Navy Seals who choose to fight to hold off our enemies we’ll leave you to die.

That is Barack Obama and the administration that serves him, that is what we have become.

When the news of the Benghazi Select Committee first came out and Democrats immediately started talking boycott I found myself biting my tongue.

This is a small blog, its reach likely doesn’t extended to the Minority Leader’s office but I have a few leftists who read the site (and they are very welcome) and I didn’t want anybody reading me saying please Please PLEASE Nancy give in to your caucus and skip the Benghazi hearings.

I’ve also avoided mentioning it on the show. I was hoping against hope that she would be stupid enough or pressured enough in a year when Democrats need every possible member of their base to turn out strong to give into the short-term electoral considerations and leave the Benghazi committee as the Republicans own.

Alas it was not to be:

The members selected by Ms. Pelosi all served on committees that previously investigated the deadly assault: Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee; Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, a member of the Intelligence Committee; Representative Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a decorated and severely wounded combat veteran of the Iraq war; and Representative Linda T. Sanchez of California, who also serves on the oversight committee.

You can be sure that with this lineup, particularly Cummings we will see delay, dissembling and decoying. His goal will be steering the committee away from any facts that might adversely impact Democrats electorally.

I further suspect that if any new information is subpoenaed that might have that result, before the committee as a whole sees it, Cummings and perhaps others of these democrats will either be given or meet to discuss a spin with the administration before it happens.

And that doesn’t even count all the ways they can cause grief in the normal order of things.

Nancy Pelosi is many things but What she’s not is foolish when it comes to winning. She is a political vet and she made the move that has the most potential long-term benefit for her party.



Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

For a full month I ask a fixed amount $1465. With 10 days to go in may we are $970 shy.

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting Datipjar below and help keep the bills paid.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?


When you are a partisan commentator there are times when you hear something and have to think about commenting or shutting up, such a situation came up yesterday when the suggestion that Democrats might sit out the Benghazi select committee.

Democrats should boycott a select committee that House Speaker John Boehner plans to form to investigate the 2012 attacks on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, Representative Adam Schiff said.

The California Democrat, who sits on the House intelligence committee, said today there’s no reason for Democrats to participate in another probe of the Benghazi attacks that’s aimed partly at undermining former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential bid in 2016.

I have some very definite opinions on this subject that I’m going to hold back for partisan reasons as I wish the left to make the worst possible decision for themselves but I will say that whether or not Democrats follow Representative’s Schiff suggestion (which was likely meant as a trial balloon) will tell you if today’s Democrat party belongs to Hillary or no.

Interestingly how this committee works will tell you as much about the GOP as it will about the Democrats.

Speaker Boehner had held off forming a select committee for reasons that I would likely agree with, but given his problems with the base the newly revealed e-mail, going for a select committee was an easy way to appease the base.

Expectations not withstanding this is not going to be a fast process. First there is the selecting of members of the committee, and the investigative team for the committee. Then once you have that lineup, the investigators will gather evidence classified and unclassified. Some of this has already been done through other committees and that’s going to have to be gone thorough while anything missing will have to come from the field and/or acquired from the White House and State Department which will fight requests tooth & nail.

Now if you’re not serious about actually getting answers and simply want a political issue, you will rush through these hearing and try to get at least a preliminary report out by September or October in time to make hay for the 2014 elections.

If you actually want to get to the bottom of the issue, you likely aren’t going to finish till mid or late 2016 and even these dates are dependent on the amount of co-operation the committee manages to get from the administration.

So keep an eye on what goes on, and once Democrats make a decision on joining the committee or no I’ll explain what it means and why I’m cheering or moping.

Update: Stacy Notes some basic questions haven’t been answered:

The point was, and is, that we never got the “tick-tock” version of the White House’s Benghazi story — we don’t have a timeline of where Obama was and what he was doing, during the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2012. Here we are, nearly a year later, and journalists still haven’t gotten the tick-tock.

The longer it takes for that answer the longer the hearings will go.


Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support.

The reporting, the commentary and the magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.

For a full month of all of what we provide ,we ask a fixed amount $1465, It is May 5th and we can make that goal is just two readers kick in $25 each day.

Help fund conservative speech, hit DaTipJar below.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015.

Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?


By Fausta Rodriguez Wertz

Before you read this post, keep in mind that an attack on an American embassy or consulate is an attack on American soil. The attack occurred on the 12th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack.

The Twitchy guys had a field day with The Breakfast Club-like response from former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor:

Bret Baier: According to the emails and the timeline, the CIA circulates new talking points after they remove the mention of al-Qaeda, and then, at 6:21, the White House, you,
Tommy Vietor: Me.
BB: add a line about the administration warning of September 10th, of social media reports calling for demonstrations. True?
TV: I . . . believe so.
BB: Did you also change attacks to demonstrations in the talking points?
TV: Maybe. I don’t really remember.
BB: You don’t remember?
TV: Dude, this was like two years ago.

Let’s interrupt this for a second to raise the issue of the video:
Andrew McCarthy, who convicted the Blind Sheik over the first World Trade Center attack, points out (emphasis added),

In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”

The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.

The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.

But back to the Baier-Vietor interview:

10 seconds into the video:
TV: A couple of things: One, I was in the situation room that night, ok?, and we didn’t know where the ambassador was definitively,
BB: Was the President in the situation room?
TV: No, and the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is being innacurate
BB: Let me get to the bottom of that. Where was the President?
TV: In the White House.
1 minute into the video:
BB: Where was the President?
TV: In the White House.

Watch the whole interview:

Only after a series of edits — with various State, White House, and CIA officials massaging the talking points — do the talking points themselves “spontaneously evolve” to include a direct claim that there were demonstrations in Benghazi. Vietor will have you believe “that’s what bureaucrats do all day long.”

The fact remains that

The most serious attack on a US mission since the storming of the country’s embassy in Tehran in 1979 has occurred in a nation that Washington claims to have liberated from tyranny.

A retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general who was on duty at U.S. African Command headquarters in Germany during the Benghazi attacks said today said commanders quickly concluded that the event did not evolve from a protest, but that it was “a hostile military action.” This took place in the height of the 2012 presidential campaign, with the talking points of “Obama killed Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s on the run.”

Where was Obama? Where was Hillary?

So where were they on the fateful night of September 11? Tommy Vietor–formerly Obama’s van driver, now, apparently, a foreign policy spokesman–says that Obama wasn’t in the situation room. Where was he? Resting up for his big fundraising trip to Las Vegas the next day? And how about Hillary? As Paul wrote earlier this evening, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified today that the military should have tried to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi. Why didn’t they? They were waiting, he testified, for a request from the State Department that never came.

Now there’s another Benghazi email,

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks.

Jay Carney’s now saying those emails aren’t about Benghazi.

More questions: Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi? Why were requests from an ambassador for additional security denied?

One more question: How did the attackers know the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli?

But, hey, nothing to see here. “It’s all a partisan issue,” a phony scandal.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

We talked a little about Jay Carney and the implausible explanations concerning the latest Benghazi revelation. Morning Joe tacked the issue and as usual Donnie Deutsch tried to spin this as a loser for Republicans and Joe Scarborough just exploded:

“You see the White House spokesperson lying on national television. You see an ABC Newsperson shocked that he’s lying and treating the press corps like they’re stupid. He says it’s not about Benghazi. Republicans and conservatives have been called fools for a year now for saying this happened. They don’t release it with the original the documents. They finally, reluctantly are forced to release it. Then you have the White House lying about it, saying it’s not about Benghazi, and you’re only reaction is, ‘Hey, Republicans better not overreact to the cover-up?’


Some might argue this is a part of the pattern of the “more conservative” Joe Scarborough in prep for a new political run, others might say that it’s all moot since without a TARDIS the media can’t change the fact that they were harder on Mitt Romney than Barack Obama on Benghazi when it mattered. Still others might note it’s a real welcome change from the normal reaction the media has if anyone questions the administrations veracity:

Given that undeniable truth what the media is doing in even raising the issue, particularly on MSNBC?   They are doing what the media is always doing, creating a battlefield meme for the Democrats, just not for Hillary:

Consider, since the Sept 11th 2012 attacks the media has alternated from ignoring the Benghazi attacks to attacking Mitt Romney over this.  The question becomes why didn’t they ignore this?  One might argue this is a “bombshell” or a smoking gun, but there have been plenty of bombshells and smoking guns on all kinds of issue that the media has happily left to Fox news.  There is  no reason why they could not have continued to ignore this subject.

Also consider that while the left has continued to push the Hillary 2016 meme for months we’ve also heard people in the media say  Hillary Clinton is going to have to address the Benghazi issue while at the same time these same media people haven’t been able to name any actual accomplishment on her part.

So what is going on here?

A clue comes from a post a wrote back in January reminding you that there are plenty of Democrats from Andrew Cuomo to Elizabeth Warren who would like to be president and each of those folks have their own party & media entourages who would follow them into White House.  Add that to the long memories of the Clintons on every slight and you get

… people who have a clear incentive to make sure that the Clintons and their loyalists with long memories do not get a chance to use those memories to “bridgegate” them.

These democrats can’t attack Hillary directly but they can decide to allow an issue the Clintons thought buried comes to the forefront and as I’ve said before:

unlike any GOP candidate these people have relationships with members of the MSM who will be happy to do a favor for a friend and get something like this before the general public and then use it as proof of their lack of bias vs the GOP.

Given that context  while one might look at Donny Deutsch’s words that set Scarborough off:

I want to put up a warning for the Republicans because obviously the Republicans are seizing on this and jumping in. I think this is fools gold for 2016.

and, at first think he is trying to create the talking point for Hillary.

Think again.  I submit and suggest what he was doing was building a strawman that  Joe & Mika were happy to knock down.

Conservatives might think they are finally getting the left to pay attention, but what I suspect what’s happening has more to do with Democrat  presidential ambitions then the media finally deciding to become responsible.

Update: And right on cue…


Don’t Run for President, Hillary. Become a ‘Post-President’ Instead
The political world and her most fervent fans may be exercised about a presidential bid. But she should forget it. If she wins, it’s too much stress for too little return.


And not only does Tina Brown put out this piece the day after the great debate on Morning Joe, but she appears on the show the very next day to pitch it.

I’m shocked SHOCKED.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s May and we are coming off the three worst months we have seen around here.

This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support. The reporting, the commentary and the nine magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.

There are 31 days in May, our goal is $1465 to pay the writers & provide a paycheck a Mere $47.25 a day.

Two tip jar hitters each day at $25 would do it.

If you think the work we do here for the conservative movement is worth it, please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015. Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week. If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?


faustaBook review by Fausta Rodríguez Wertz

Eyes On Target: Inside Stories from the Brotherhood of the U.S. Navy SEALs by Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter, is a gripping read in many ways:
It tells the story of a group of men who will give their all to protect our country, from the point of view of several of the men themselves.
It is the history of the most-feared anti-terrorist force in the world.
And, as the book jacket aptly describes, it

is an inside account of some of the most harrowing missions in American history-including the mission to kill Osama bin Laden and the mission that wasn’t, the deadly attack on the US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi where a retired SEAL sniper with a small team held off one hundred terrorists while his repeated radio calls for help went unheeded.

The book could be divided in three sections: The history of the SEALs, and how they evolved ‘from pirates to professionals’; the missions in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Benghazi (which actually was not a mission); and the Appendix and notes, which includes The US House Republican Conference Interim Progress Report on the events surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi.

Not to be missed is chapter eleven, “Why the Unique Culture of the SEALs matters,” where McEwen and Miniter make the case for why

We must, as a society, keep a group of warriors free of politics and bureaucracy, free of the distractions that keep them from doing their vital work.

While the Obama administration and its apologists continue to refer to the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi as a fake, phony scandal (a Google search yields 553,000 results on benghazi fake scandal), the details of the attack, as itemized on chapter ten, belie this “fake, phony scandal” narrative.

Authors Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter thoroughly researched the official timelines of the Defense Department, the State Department, congressional reports, Arabic-language newspapers and American media to construct the most detailed timeline of the 9/11 attack in Benghazi. They go back to April 5, 2011 and start with Ambassador Chris Stevens’s arrival in Benghazi, ending with the September 12 arrival of the Marine FAST platoon in Tripoli at 8:56PM, a full twenty-four hours after the attack began.

Eyes On Target is a gripping, well-researched, moving account of a group of heroic men, a book both for history lovers and especially for the general reader who wants to know the facts on Benghazi.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on US and Latin America politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.


Olimometer 2.52

Wednesday is here and and we remain $831 away from a paid mortgage with only six days to get it.

$139 a day six tip jar hitters a day at $23 will get us there. Unfortunately this business is as reliable as Justices Kennedy & Roberts you never know day to day what will come.

But you can make it happen if you hit DatipJar below


If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year and things will be a lot more like Alito and Kagan around here than Kennedy & Roberts reliable..

Beanie : $2.00USD – weeklyCap : $10.00USD – monthlyHat : $20.00USD – monthlyFedora : $25.00USD – monthlyGrand Fedora : $100.00USD – monthly


By  Pat Austin

Hillary Clinton is still being coy about a 2016 presidential run.  When asked at a student conference in Tempe, AZ this week, Clinton said she is “obviously thinking about all kinds of decisions.”

I think it is inevitable that she will run; I think the inevitability of it is too much for her to resist. Assuming that, it seems more important than ever that we remember Benghazi 2011 and continue the fight to determine what really happened there.  It is certainly an issue that will come up should a Clinton 2016 campaign actually happen.

There are still far too many questions about what really happened in Benghazi.  What we know for certain is that four Americans were killed in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

We know that in the aftermath, then U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice made the Sunday talk show rounds for the purpose of reiterating the administrations talking points that the Benghazi attack was the result of an obscure YouTube video.

Recently, Donald Rumsfeld spoke to Breitbart TV and placed the blame for Benghazi right where it should have been all along:  on Hillary Clinton:

In this instance, there was widespread knowledge, as was pointed out by Congressman Issa, the British knew that there were al-Qaeda threats, and they pulled their people out because they knew they couldn’t protect them.”

“Our people knew there were al-Qaeda threats, and they not only did not protect them, but they didn’t pull them out. That, in my view, is a neglect of important responsibilities. The idea that it falls to someone down the line, I think, is a misunderstanding. Clearly, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the person responsible.”

 It is unconscionable to think that she is somehow not responsible for the death of those four men in Benghazi.  How is it possible that she was unaware of the lack of security at the consulate?  At best, if in fact she had no idea, it is a dereliction of duty on her part and should certainly preclude her from consideration as our Commander in Chief.

The entire Benghazi fiasco was a shameful enterprise from beginning to end; why was that consulate in place at all?  Why not in Tripoli?  Why were we using unarmed Libyans to guard the consulate?  How were they supposed to ward off an attack with bats?  Why were requests for increased security ignored?

For her part, during Congressional testimony Secretary of State Clinton denied knowledge of any cables requesting assistance.  Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX) posed the question:

McCaul:  …Similar to September the 11th, 2001, there were warning signs prior to Benghazi September 11th. There was an April 6th, 2012 crude IED thrown over the wall of the U.S. facility in Benghazi. On May 22nd, 2012, Red Cross building in Benghazi hit by two RPGs. The brigades of the imprisoned Blind Sheikh took responsibility for that attack. On June 6th, 2012, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was targeted by an IED (inaudible) a big hole in the perimeter wall. Again, the Blind Sheikh brigade taking credit.

And then on August 16th, we have this cable that’s been widely reported — a classified State Department cable warning that the Benghazi consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack. And the regional security officer believed our consulate could not be protected at an emergency meeting less than one month before the attack on 9/11.

A contingency plan was supposedly drafted to move the operations to the CIA annex about a mile away from the compound. This cable is presumed to have been shared by senior staff. It was sent to your office. It was sent to the NSC. And even on September 11th, the day Ambassador Stevens was killed, he personally warned about, quote, “a growing problem with security in Benghazi and growing frustration with security forces and the Libyan police.”

Were you aware of this cable — this August 16th cable?

CLINTON: Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention. I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB placed responsibility. Where, as I think Ambassador Pickering said, “the rubber hit the road.”

How is that possible?

Taken in conjunction with Clinton’s infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make,” it’s easy to understand why she never saw a cable, never followed up on it, and to this day passes the buck to others.

In recently unclassified documents, it is clear that the Benghazi attack was not about a video at all. General Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, made it clear that his command considered it “a terrorist attack,” information he shared with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Yet Susan Rice went out and told the American people this was about a video.  Why was Susan Rice even out on the talk circuit at all?  Shouldn’t that have fallen to Secretary of State Clinton?  Could it be that Clinton just didn’t want those video clips used in Republican ads in 2016?  When asked, Rice said that Clinton had had a bad week, been under stress, and therefore she willingly picked up the slack.

Just the kind of woman we need for president, eh?  Lies to Congress, ignores cables from diplomatic outposts, passes the buck to underlings, and collapses under stress.

I doubt very seriously that Clinton was asked about Benghazi in Tempe this week.  While one young student asked, “If you don’t represent women in politics in America as a future president, who will?” I really wish she had asked “If you don’t tell us the truth about Benghazi, who will?”

Pat Austin also blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

The single most popular and linked post of the week for me was Chip Jones’ piece on Valerie Jarrett and Benghazi. It has gone rather viral for him.

So naturally he was THE perfect choice for a guest today.

We’ll talk about Benghazi, the Obama administration and the GOP both nationally & in Massachusetts and some advice for the party.

Have some ideas?  You can join the conversation at 888-9-fedora

But if you don’t want to call in just listen Noon till 2 EST

You can listen in live on FTR Radio

or via our Tune-in Stream for the Money Matters Radio Network

And of course there are the terrestrial stations

WBNW Concord Ma 1120 AM FLAGSHIP

WPLM 1390 AM Plymouth MA

WESO 970 AM Southbridge MA

Our Terrestrial stations are currently replaying the first hour Saturday at 11 PM and the full show Sunday at 10 AM till noon.

No matter where or when, we’ll be happy to have you.


Olimometer 2.52

August has been a rather pathetic month for the monthly mortgage and the weekly paycheck remains shy by nearly $200 dollars.

Care to help close that gap? Hit DatipJar below



For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Luke 12:34

Headline at the Hill:

Dems prepare game plan for Benghazi

It would have been nice if this headline was from May 26th 2012 instead of May 26th 2013, perhaps they might have been ready on September 11th 2012.


Olimometer 2.52

Just a few days left for May and the Mortgage and this weeks paycheck remains empty.

15 reader at $20 this week can fill it.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: It’s not hypothetical to Dr. Pavel, he wrote it

Michael Grazier: So he says.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: So he says under oath

Class Action 1991

PM James Hacker: (On Phone): No, no, leave me out of it. A routine visit. (Listening) All right – a routine surprise visit. (Listening) Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they’re not needed, they’re going anyway. (Listening) All right. Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t delivered under oath.

Yes Prime Minister A victor for Democracy 1986

Yesterday the White House apparently learning nothing from the precedent of sending Susan Rice on every cable network decided to send Dan Pfeiffer to every single Sunday Show State of the Union on CNN, Face the Nation on CBS, This week on NBC, Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press on NBC.

Pfeiffer’s line was pretty much the same all over, Fox & CBS gave him the hardest time, Not surprisingly David Gregory on NBC gave him the easiest time but hard or easy the story was essentially the same. Nothing to see here, of course the IRS stuff was wrong, Republicans lying on Benghazi blah blah blah …

There is a lot of talk online about what was said as Jazz Shaw put it:


I disagree, in this economy plenty of people would love to get Pfeiffer or Jay Carney’s paycheck to say what they’ve been told to say for Obama but what they say means nothing for one simple reason.

Not a word of it was under oath.

Susan Rice, Jay Carney, Dan Pfeiffer et/al can say all they want to the press to the media and to the American people but it’s all about propaganda and frankly not worth the time to bother to make fun of it.

But if administration in general & Dan Pfeiffer in particular want me to take him seriously there is a simple way to do it:

There is a huge difference between risking the scorn of reporters, republicans and advocates on twitter and risking jail time for perjury by testifying falsely before congress.

I suspect there are going to be many weeks of hearing on this scandal with people from the Cincinnati office, the White House and many more people going before the house under oath. I’m sure the congress would be happy to save a spot for Mr. Pfeiffer if he is willing to make the time.

What will it be?

Update: I should have also mentioned the Test for the media that I blogged before. Bob Schieffer passed it:

Bob Schieffer was born in 1937, he was working for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram the day JFK was shot, and he’s not likely to be impressed by a 37-year-old “senior advisor.” And when it came to Benghazi, Schieffer didn’t let Pfeiffer bulldoze him:

The bottom line is what [Susan Rice] told the American people [Sept. 16] bore no resemblance to what had happened on the ground in an incident where four Americans were killed. . . .
[T]hat was just PR, that was just a PR plan to send out somebody who didn’t know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn’t the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew and if you knew nothing say we don’t know yet? Why didn’t White House Chief of Staff come out? I mean I would, and I mean this is no disrespect to you, why are you here today? Why isn’t the White House Chief of Staff here to tell us what happened?

At his age Pfeiffer might not mind selling his credibility for his higher-ups, it might even be a good career move long-term but Schieffer is 76 years old and his credibility is the most valuable asset he has.


Olimometer 2.52

I know I’m not saying this under oath, but when you kick into DaTipJar as one of the 15 people weekly who by paying $20 to help me achieve my paycheck it is makes my life easier and creates a model for conservative bloggers everywhere.

In reading the transcript from Chris Wallace’s interview with Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer, it becomes evident that the White House doesn’t understand one basic concept – they report to American citizens. They are accountable to us. Unfortunately for all individuals, Obama was hired by the American people and as such, it is not outlandish for him to be accountable for his whereabouts on the night of 9/11/12 during the Benghazi attacks. This interview reminds me of the shiftiness during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Here’s the transcript:

WALLACE: let’s turn to benghazi. he had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. the next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended. question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  the president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end. this is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are in risk, people who work for him. i recognize that there’s a series of conspiracy theories the republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there’s been an independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages of — 250,000 pages of documents up there. there’s been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings. everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. the question is not what happened that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn’t happen again? congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability review board. when we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there’s inherent risk. we need to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: with all due respect, you didn’t answer my question. what did the president do that night?

PFEIFFER:  kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: he didn’t talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first attack was over. he didn’t talk to the secretary of defense, he didn’t talk to chiefs. the chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  his national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  he was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  i don’t know what room he was in that night. that’s a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: well —

PFEIFFER:  the premise of your question, somehow there was something that could have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. the accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. it’s a horrible tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

WALLCE: here’s the point, though, the ambassador goes missing, the first ambassador in more than 30 years is killed. four americans, including the ambassador, are killed. dozens of americans are in jeopardy. the president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. no forces are deployed. where is he while all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  this has been tested to by —

WALLACE: well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the —

PFEIFFER:  the suggestion of your question that somehow the president —

WALLACE: i just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER:  the assertions from republicans that the president didn’t take action is offensive. there’s no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: i’m simply asking a question. where was he? what did he do? how did he respond in who told him you can’t deploy forces and what was his president?

PFEIFFER:  the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.


– Rebecca @


What a week this has been in the MSM! Between Benghazi hearings, the enormous Department of Justice power grab, and the IRS targeting conservative groups, one thing has become clearly apparent: Obama is not a leader. The government is falling apart under his command. While many may argue this could be a good thing, I think what we are seeing is a lack of accountability and multiple ethical violations piling up. One after another, we are obtaining evidence that when Obama said transparency, he really meant cloaked scandal. When he talked of helping the American public, he was speaking of his donors. And when we were promised that Obamacare was the answer, it gives us a pretty good idea of what the question was (hint: what’s the next poorly run federal governmental entity?)

As many of you, I was heartbroken when Mitt Romney lost his bid for presidency. What a different world this would be! One of the statements my father made was that Obama would have to live with the consequences of his poor leadership. He has blamed Bush for 5 years. At some point, that song and dance has an end. Now, the scandals are piling up. With the recent AP debacle, hopefully, even the media can be mad enough to get on board and report what is happening in the White House instead of burying stories.

What’s unfortunate, is that in all the scandal, real lives have been impacted. Real lives in Benghazi. Real people targeted and impacted by the IRS. Real sources compromised. Lives are affected by each of Obama’s blunders.

Rebecca @

The 11th Doctor: Using a console without a proper shell. Whew. It’s not going to be safe.

Idris: This body has about eighteen minutes left to live. The universe we’re in will reach absolute zero in three hours. Safe is relative.

Doctor Who  The Doctor’s Wife 2012

Yesterday we talked about how the IRS scandal is much more dangerous to the Administration, a scandal so easy to understand that even a low information Obama voter can get it.

Now that the scandal is getting worse and worse something has to be done, not only to keep the MSM from digging but to keep conservative blogs for digging.

Remember conservative bloggers likely know local tea party members who have dealt with the IRS.  Each one of them is in a position to put actual faces to these people and these individual organizations.

While that stuff is unlikely to produce additional national stories directly,  they have the potential to create local stories that would become more significant as the scandal grows.

If I’m in charge of the political operation of the White House, I need to change the subject and it doesn’t matter what I change the subject to.

And that’s where Benghazi can suddenly go from a liability, to an asset.

If I was the political man at the White House, I’d set up a faux whistle-blower and every time the Tax Story started to move I’d leak something on Benghazi, or Syria.  I’d make sure it got itself to Breitbart and the right blogs to make sure the lower level bloggers pounced.

While the dam has broken on Benghazi, the right has been so hungry for this kind of hing any kind of new story, even if it is just spin on how people inside the White House feel, would create a feeding frenzy.

In fact leaks on “feelings” & “worries” would be the best thing.  Such things are huge political stories so bloggers etc would really want to go all in, but they wouldn’t constitution anything that would hurt legally.

That’s why the President’s statement about Benghazi being a “Sideshow” and his emotion on it is important.  The idea is to keep the story off the of the IRS side of the show.  If they fail at this task, this administration is in danger.

Never let a crisis go to waste, even if it is one involving you.

Update:  Cleaned up some grammar

Update 2:  Two practical examples.  Yesterday I got a call from the Lowell Sun asking for my input on the scandal.  I’ve been on the air for 3 years and it’s the first time the paper called because of my knowledge of the tea party in Massachusetts.

And Robert Stacy McCain has this at Viral read:

The Internal Revenue Service’s admission that it deliberately targeted the non-profit applications of Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny was no surprise to Diane Belsom, whose small South Carolina organization has waited nearly three years for approval of its federal 501(c)4 status. The homeschooling mom says the unexplained delays and intrusive requests for additional information — apparently aimed at discouraging activists opposed to the Obama administration’s policies by wasting their time and money — were a common experience for those dealing with the IRS.

Here is the money quote:

“The crazy thing is, we’re a really small group,” Belsom told ViralRead in a telephone interview Tuesday, estimating average attendance at the Laurens County Tea Party’s monthly meetings at between 40 and 50 people.

“We don’t have a lot of money,” she said, describing what she called “insane” hassles from the IRS. “It’s just harassment. It’s not like they’re going to get a lot of money out of us.”

It’s only crazy if the goal was money.

I submit and suggest you can find this story repeated in every state of the union on the same scale.

That’s why the subject has to be changed at once.

Update: Even more

By the way, does anyone remember what the Obama administration thinks about the effort to fight voter fraud? And now we have evidence that the IRS targeted groups that want to pursue more stringent processes to prevent voter fraud. What a coincidence this must be. How … convenient.

It’s only going to get worse.


Olimometer 2.52

After a strong Sunday Monday was a quiet time for DaTipJar but we start Tuesday more than half way toward this week’s paycheck.

Seven readers kicking in $20 each will mean that for two weeks in a row the paycheck is made early meaning days without needing to shake DaTipJar.

4th Doctor:  Why did you run?

Leela:  Well, he ran first!

4th Doctor:  Well that’s no answer.

Leela:  Why did you run?

4th Doctor:  I don’t know, Odd isn’t it?

Leela:  Perhaps everyone runs from the tax man.

Doctor Who The Sunmakers 1977

A lot of people around the net are cheering Benghazi finally making it to the MSM, in fact in yesterday’s post I noted that it was the persistent efforts of many on the net that helped us get to this point.

The media is doing it’s best to counter that argument to the point of near idiocy but the more I think about it the more I believe the MSM doesn’t mind, because as much as they dislike the conversation being on Benghazi, they simply CAN’T have the conversation be on the IRS.

Why?  Consider: Benghazi, for all of the justified outrage doesn’t touch most of the country.  How many people actually understand the situation in Libya?  You have Military families, less that 1% of the population maybe people in the diplomatic corps or those interested in the subject.  Not many folks at all.  Seventy years ago it would be different but it’s 2013 not 1943 and the people just aren’t the same.

Even for those who has sympathy for the dead there is little or nothing for them to identify with.  It may upset people in the abstract, but they simply can’t relate.

The IRS scandal, that’s totally different.

In song, in pop culture, on TV in movies fear of the tax man is a meme that has been pushed for decades.  You could never watch a newscast in your life and you can understand it.

There are very few thing the entire country has in common anymore fear of the tax man, is one of them.

And this fear crosses all boundaries of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, class or region.

Every single person who owns a business, every person who works and all the people they know are familiar with the worry the tax man brings.  Even if they have never had tax problems themselves they know people who have.

Nothing is more dangerous than a scandal that is both easy to understand and touches a basic fear most people have.  That type of thing motivates voters and brings down governments.

If you are the administration, this has to be stopped at all costs.



Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday. Last week we hit my $300 paycheck in record time making it by Tuesday. Is there any chance we can beat that record. That’s your call.

Lyndon Johnson’s loss had been due to a political fluke. He had been beaten not by his opponent’s friends but by his opponent’s foes. O’Daniel had won the Senate seat not because these men wanted hi to be Senator, but because they didn’t want him to be Governor.

The Years of Lyndon Johnson, the Path of Power Robert A. Caro 1982 pp 740

It’s not personal, it’s strictly Business

The Godfather 1972

There is one dynamic in the advance/non-advance Benghazi story that hasn’t gotten much play.

Yesterday Chuck Todd spent most of the daily rundown trying to undo the damage Morning Joe did by covering Benghazi as it actually is rather by painting it as one twenty years of attacks on Hillary Clinton.

On Twitter I was talking with Mike Hummell (who I really have to have on my show again sometime soon) and he tweeted the following


Forgetting the whole “not being prepared for an attack on the 9/11 anniversary or trying to save the Americans in danger” business That is an interesting point, but what Mike misses in his argument is who it actually applies to.

No doubt there are people who will take advantage of the situation politically but who is that political advantage of most value to?

What if you were, say a Democrat governor of a deep blue state who has presidential ambitions. You’ve backed the president time & time again making TV appearances, going to and hosting fundraisers and defended him and his administration even to the point of pushing his gun control agenda in your state despite a bit of a backlash.

And you realize that your reward is going for this loyalty is to be expected to stand aside for maybe 8 more years of Hillary Clinton or perhaps even Michelle Obama or both.

Now suddenly comes this Benghazi scandal. You looked the other way and supported the leftist chorus in attacking Mitt Romney before the election but now that it’s over there is no downside to you if this breaks wide open. You have no connection to the administration, as the Governor of a state you had no responsibility for any of these decisions. If the full truth comes out it won’t lay a glove on you.

So perhaps with the dramatic hearings fresh in memory you encourage friends in the media to cover the story rather than ignoring it and when it comes to a head maybe you go on one of those Sunday shows, deride the politics but insist that we owe it to the American People to let the truth come out.

It will sound so bipartisian.

I can see a certain Maryland Governor doing this, I can see a California Governor doing it too, or perhaps even one from New York whose family still feels robbed that some lascivious upstart from Arkansas was president instead of their patriarch.

It will be quiet it will be subtle but the moment will come and if those ambitions democrats see that moment coming and can quietly nudge it forward they will, particularly if they can do it without leaving fingerprints.

Count on it.

Pseudolus: (to Hysterium) Calm yourself down! I’ll tell you when it’s time to panic!

Miles Gloriosus: (noticing the hourglass) I smell mischief here!

Pseudolus: It’s time.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum 1966

The Doctor:  They are questioning president Obama, they are asking him tough questions on the Bombings!

Rory:  So what’s wrong with, that isn’t that normal?

The Doctor:  Is it Rory, IS it?

DaTechGuy Blog: The Doctor, Obama & the Press Corps Sept 14th 2012

A few days ago I talked about how Morning Joe was in danger of losing me, today they gave a big reason for me to stay.

During the first segment which gets repeated in the 8:00 EST they covered Benghazi and the look at the table was somber.

There was simply no way to spin this as something other than what it was although to his (dis)credit Richard Wolffe was giving it his best shot and Scarborough was shooting him down. When Lisa Myers said Hicks critics like Cheryl Mill said he “not remembering accurately” Joe immediately bluntly said he was being called a liar.

In the 7 AM hour after a very brief diversion to soda and health they went STRONG on Benghazi and Hicks’ testimony. You could hear a pin drop on that set. David Gregory tried to spin and Walter Isaacson made a speech about wonderful it was that our system allows the truth to come out.

Meanwhile Deutsch & Gregory then ran to if this is “sticky” for 2016 but Joe brought up 2012 pointed out it was all about keeping the narrative before the election and Candy Crowley in the debate. Even Mika said there was no disputing the backdrop but she suggested it was no conspiracy.

Why does this matter? Two things:

1. Morning Joe is usually where you go for the left’s talking points for the day, that isn’t the case today.

2. The MSNBC viewer base has simply not seen this argument. As far as they are knew before today the Biggest villains on Benghazi were the makers of the worst film EVAH & Mitt Romney and anyone who suggested otherwise was part of a GOP conspiracy to bring down our beloved president before the election and their beloved Hillary after.

This is a story they never heard! As Stacy McCain put it

the only TV reporter not employed by Fox News who has treated the Benghazi cover-up as a legitimate story — Sharyl Attkisson of CBS — is being treated like an unprofessional pariah by her own network, while Chuck Todd of NBC News quite literally laughs off criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks.

Really, they out-did themselves on this one. Check out the “Don’t Bother to Read This Dull Story” headline from the New York Times:

Official Offers Account From Libya of Benghazi Attack

Here’s another way you might headline the story, if you actually wanted to get readers to, y’know, read the story:

VIDEO: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks Describes
‘Saddest Phone Call’ That Ambassador Stevens Died

Unless you saw that testimony — which was just one highlight of a six-hour hearing that the major networks did their best to ignore or dismiss as mere politics —  you would have no reason to suspect how riveting it was, if all you saw was that bland New York Times headline.

For the professional left, this story on Morning Joe is a double disaster.

In the short term it forces the MSMBC audience to confront the possibility that their heroes President Obama & Hillary Clinton left Americans to die in Benghazi & lied about it for political reasons. It gives a story they have been able to dismiss MSM credibility, that’s bad.

In the long term it raises the possibility that there is another story beyond the wall of silence. That there is a whole world of news they might be missing.

What happens if those viewers decide they want to see more. What happens if they visit Viral reads live blog of the testimony or Bryan Preston’s at PJ Media?? Or even worse what if they visit those sites the next day for news?

That’s worse!

The gatekeepers of the MSM can survive the former, it can’t survive the latter.

Update: The real tell on today’s Morning Joe

Update 2:Et-Tu CBS?

CBS’s (Sharyl) Attkisson’s minute-long report about the House Oversight Committee’s latest hearing on the attack on Wednesday’s CBS This Morning was actually the first time since November 23, 2012 that the journalist reported about the story on air, according a search on Nexis.

Update 3: When Al Shaprton & Donny Deutsch agree with John Poderhertz live on MSNBC you know the story has finally broken through.

Update 4: Chuck Todd playing the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Card painting this as a series of 20 years of the GOP going after the Clintons before adding a disclaimers at the end.

Morning Joe must have been more damaging that I thought.

I wonder how long it took the professional left to decide this was the best line to play?

“Never forget that it is to Captains Bainbridge and Stewart that you really owe these victories”

Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton December 28th 1812 on USS United states vs HMS Macedonian

There are huge developments on the Benghazi front. Over the weekend CBS Bob Schieffer actually did a full segment on it

Here is the story:

Sunday on Face the Nation, Schieffer used this stature to raise the stakes on the unfolding scandal surrounding the State Department and the Obama White House. Schieffer used the “C-word”: Cover-up. (Video below)

“Today, there is new information raising questions about whether there was a cover-up by the State Department to deflect criticism that it had ignored requests for more security for its people in Libya.”

And while Think Progress pretends there is nothing to see here CBS keep reporting developments

like this:

“Everybody in the mission” in Benghazi, Libya, thought the attack on a U.S. consulate there last Sept. 11 was an act of terror “from the get-go,” according to excerpts of an interview investigators conducted with the No. 2 official in Libya at the time, obtained by CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

“I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens – then the U.S. ambassador to Libya – and three other Americans.

And it gets worse:

he deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

That has produced this statement from Congressman Stephen Lynch (D_Mass)

The Obama administration’s talking points about the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were faulty, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said Sunday.

“It was scrubbed, it was totally inaccurate, there’s no excuse for that,” Lynch said of the talking points on “Fox News Sunday.”

Which is in Stark Contrast to what the man who defeated him in the Democrat Primary said before the election:


If things continue down this road it’s not going to be a pretty sight for the Obama Administration but I want to leave you with this thought:

Yesterday in my piece on Kelly Ayotte I noted how invisible her work and speeches on the subject of Benghazi has been to people like Morning Joe. I’d like to remind everyone of these two minutes back on November 14th 2012

The Money Quote:

“We owe it to the American people to make sure that we understand: Exactly what happened, What went wrong, Why couldn’t the greatest military in the world respond when an attack occurred almost over a seven hour period, and why were there at the minimum, misstatements made and certainly misimpressions given to the American people about the nature of this attack in the immediate explanations provided by the administration in two weeks following the attack.” Sen Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) 11-14-12

When Benghazi finally breaks through as it will is I suspect to the disappointment to many on the left in NH voters in 2016 will remember those words long after their astroturf on Manchen/Toomey is forgotten as the miserable failure it is.

Update: Morning Joe led with Benghazi & the Kidnapping today. For some reason that speech by Ayotte above wasn’t included.

Update 2: Reader Sauer ThirtyEight doesn’t get the relevance of the top quote. Long story short Captains Charles Stewart & William Bainbridge persuaded the Navy Sec & President to allow the Navy one cruse to fight the British rather than laying up the fleet in 1812. The full story is here


Olimometer 2.52

Morning Joe forgot to Mention Ayotte today and I left out the $300 paycheck pitch.

About a 1/3 of the way there, can you get me the rest of the way before Saturday?

Has anyone noticed how obsessed Morning Joe has been with Senator Kelly Ayotte lately? It seems day doesn’t go by when she isn’t mentioned in connection to her vote on Manchin/Toomey.

It’s kind of funny because I seem to remember a short time ago when Morning Joe didn’t know Kelly Ayotte existed.

Morning Joe ignored her at the Susan Rice/Benghazi Press Conference in November

You would think it’s kind of hard to ignore Kelly Ayotte at that event, She is tall (she towered over both Senators McCain & Graham) but she is a younger, photogenic woman who had a strong interest in this matter. I’d think that would be something to play up instead of just “two old white guys”.

At the time Willie Geist refereed to Senator Ayotte as “others“. It took liberal Kristin Powers to actually mention the senator by name:

Obama also left out the inconvenient detail that there is another senator who has Rice in the crosshairs: Sen. Kelly Ayotte. But perhaps a female Senator holding Rice accountable didn’t sound menacing enough in the era of the “War on Women.”

And as Benghazi continued to advance and Senator Ayotte as she did before the election continued to push it others noticed the omission:

And they ignored her questioning of Leon Panetta and on her statements at the Hagel hearing on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards

I don’t think that the people who rose up in 2009 in the green movement who were persecuted and shot at by the Iranian government would call that government a legitimately elected government. Nor would, at the time that he voted against designating the Islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization at the time they were assisting those in Iraq who were murdering our troops.

That is simply devastating. Yet it got absolutely no airtime in the MSM. Why, because it can’t be refuted, there is no way to describe that vote in a positive way and there was nothing in either Senator Ayotte’s demeanor nor her delivery that can be used to attack her on style or substance.

And when she spoke at CPAC talking about jobs, Obamacare the Tax code and Benghazi it was as if it never happened

As far as Morning Joe was concerned until her vote on Manchin Toomey Senator Kelly Ayotte didn’t exist.

Why? I gave the answer back in February:

On Kelly Ayotte, the plan is to keep her out of the news as much as possible so when she runs for re-election they can paint whatever picture of her they wish.

Her leadership on Benghazi and Susan Rice and Chuch Hagel not newsworthy. Her comments today fighting the internet Sales tax non existent but now they have their anti-gun Newtown meme and now Morning Joe and the left has discovered Kelly Ayotte.

The left has wanted to bring down the only national pol to the right of Chris Christie in the NH and now they’ve finally found a picture of Kelly Ayotte they think they can sell to the General public & New Hampshire voters.

The question is, will New Hampshire voters who know Ayotte fall for it?


Olimometer 2.52

Unlike Morning Joe DaTechGuy Blog knew who Kelly Ayotte was long before the Toomey Manchin vote. If you think we’ve done a better job then they have consider being on of the 15 people this week I need to raise that $300 paycheck by Hitting DaTipJar below.

A few hours after the Margaret Thatcher died in England of a stroke at the age of 87 I participated in a conference call put together by the group Special Ops Speaks;

They had submitted a letter to the congress supporting HR 36 looking to create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist attack in Benghazi  saying in part:

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America  failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and

that every effort will be made to respond when  US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.

This letter was signed by hundreds of special ops vets including 20 Generals, over 60 colonels, over 60 Lt Colonels and two who have been awarded the Medal of Honor winners.

During my conference call Captain Larry Bailey, a Navy SEAL with 27 years of service noted that Watergate involved a break-in and the theft of papers but lead to years of dedicated investigation from the congress culminating in the resignation of a president in the United States

That being the case you would think an event that lead to the death of an American Ambassador, an attack that took place on the anniversary of 9/11 just two months before an election might have gotten a little bit of traction in the press.

Alas the press that was so anxious to bring down a Republican president had no interest in dead Americans if it could hamper the re-election of a Democrat one.

With the president re-elected the thought was some attention might take place, Senators Kelly Ayotte, John McCain & Lindsey Graham  managed to use it to achieve hearings but the meat and the potatoes of what happened and why we didn’t act to stop it remains unclear.

What is clear is that with a Democrat majority in the senate and the media solidly behind them such hearing are of little danger to Obama.  Even if the midterm elections flip the senate, the Obama administration with two years to go is unlikely to face an awful lot of trouble from such a hearing.

So why such opposition to such a committee, why the knee jerk attempt to protect Barack Obama when he doesn’t need protecting?

Ah but it is NOT Barack Obama the mainstream media is protecting, nor is it the Obama administration that is being shielded, it is not even any type of covert operation that is being protected from public disclosure.

They are protecting Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has been for a lot of year the poster child feminism.  This is an odd thing Mrs. Clinton owes her fame and notoriety entirely to the actions of her husband.  It was the embarrassment of his impropriety that advanced her in NY and the liberal lock that assured her of the Senate Seat she held.

But when forced to run in a contested primary that was considered hers by almost divine right she ran smack into the Obama Campaign’s take no prisoners campaign that brought down John McCain 2008’s  general election and Mitt Romney  four years later.

And while Mrs. Clinton was wise enough to eschew the Vice Presidency giving her plausible deniability for the economic wasteland that has marked the Obama years as Secretary of State she can’t dodge the repeated failures from Egypt,  Syria, Iran, North Korea  Afghanistan and the biggest of them all Libya.

Think about it what actual achievements does she have?  Meeting with foreign leaders, Betty Ford did that, Michael Jackson did that.  Margaret Thatcher’s death put the question in stark contrast:

Think for one second if Bill Clinton didn’t exist nobody would know who Hillary Clinton is, but how many people actually know Margaret Thatcher’s husband’s name? ((Dennis) I’d have to look it up.

Hillary Clinton is a shadow, a wraith, the person behind the curtain in Oz.  The last thing the media wants is that curtain to be drawn back and revealed for all to see.

And as long as we have a culture where only a few families serve,  whose heroes are movie starts and singers and moan the death of movie critics louder than those who died fighting, the media just might just manage to keep this hidden.

And that is almost as big of a disgrace as the act itself.

Update: A commentator notes it should be Navy SEAL all caps and the Medal of Honor is awarded not won, both corrected.


Olimometer 2.52


This morning I’m only $90 away from my first full paycheck in three weeks.

Only 4 Tip jar hitters of $24.50 are needed to assure me of a full paycheck and guarantee you at least two days of not seeing DaTipJar at the start of the day.

It’s all up to you

Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire gave an incredible Speech at CPAC 2013

As a sitting senator and the only conservative in the senate north of NJ you would think this speech would have gotten some attention.

up cpac day 2 024

However it can’t be allowed, they are unable to ridicule or attack her without acknowledging her and they will not acknowledge her if it can be avoided. She is too smart, too capable and too attractive for the left to dare give the country any such clue that the GOP has such a woman in its caucus

Chip Jones has asked the $64,000 question concerning Benghazi:

Therefore, the question that is simply asked and objectively answered, without placing any of the SF or CIA operatives at mortal risk is a simple one. You see, the Kalashnikov rifle chambers a 7.62 mm round. The US M-4 rifle chambers a 5.56 mm round. What is widely reported and accepted is that at least two of the TDY Green Berets who were assigned by the CIA as ARSO’s (assistant regional safety officers) were badly wounded and were treated for multiple gunshot wounds after they rescued over 20 civilian CIA workers from the compound.

The single question that needs to be asked is: “Were the rounds taken out of the wounded ARSO’s 7.62 mm or 5.56 mm?” And when the answer comes back “5.56 mm”, it opens the door to the proof that the cover up was meant to hide the fact that the Obama administration had been caught once again arming offshore groups that did not have the interests of our country at heart. It would open the door to proof that Benghazi was “Fast and Furious on Steroids.”

Rest assured if it turns out that Benghazi was “fast and furious on steroids” we can be sure that the MSM be all over it sometime around the end of the 2nd Biden Term.

Via Unedited politics we have video of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) impromptu press availability after talking to Susan Rice today on Benghazi.

Senator Graham makes a good point about John Bolton and I think Senator Ayotte hits it out of the park with this statement:

Just to be clear, when you have a position when you’re Ambassador to the United Nations, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. And that’s troubling to me as well why she wouldn’t have asked.: ‘I’m the person that doesn’t know anything about this I’m going on every single show’ but in addition the fact that it’s not just the talking points that were unclassified but clearly as part of her responsibility as an Ambassador to the United Nations she reviewed much more than that.

That’s a point that nobody seems to be making, it’s as if all of this happened in a vacuum but while the words were strong and mean trouble for the administration there are two things about this video I find most interesting.

1. At 3:09 as soon as Senator Graham finishes but before Senator Ayotte begins to speak a reporter tries to question Graham. When Senator Ayotte is done speaking questions are directed to Senator Graham but none to Senator Ayotte.

2. This video was uploaded to a Youtube Chanel called: Buzz Source. The Chanel has over 1.2 Million combined views of its videos. As of 2:10 pm the title of this video is: ” McCain And Graham Still ‘Significantly Troubled’ By Rice’s Statements On Benghazi After Meeting With Her”

Maybe it’s just me but I saw three Senators there and Senator Ayotte seems to be just as troubled as her colleagues yet for some reason she doesn’t rate mention in the title or description or worthy of a question from the assembled press.

Now if these were Democrats complaining about say Condoleezza Rice we would be told how sexist it is to be excluding the one women in this event from questions or even mention, but as these are Republicans complaining about Susan Rice Senator Ayotte will be safely ignored and excluded as her presence doesn’t serve the “old white men” meme. As Dana Loesch noticed in an exchange with MSNBC host Torue:

Obviously? Apparently Torre missed the initial press conference where Senator Ayotte was present and frankly towered over Senator’s McCain & Graham. saying this:

Let’s also not forget that, I think you all appreciate you don’t end up on every single major Sunday show without affirmatively putting yourself out there of wanting to carry forward a message on behalf of the administration.

Here is the full video in case he missed it:

Dana Loesch continues to notice her even if Torre doesn’t

But this is the left, if the truth and the reality is not favorable we shall simply ignore it, deny it or pretend it was never there.

On the bright side they can still play the race card if they include her.

Update: Jennifer Rubin appreciates Ayotte, but she is not the left.

Today’s entry on the common theme of the left and their problem with truth comes from Morning Joe

Item: On Morning Joe yesterday I saw the sudden post-election discovery of Benghazi (but not Senator Kelly Ayotte who Willie Geist refers to as “others”) in the context of the following arguments:

1. It is OK to send out a member of the administration to say something they know is false or as a dupe who doesn’t know they are sending out false information. (Unlike Iraq for example where the administration and every intelligence agency in the world believed what they were saying was true)

2. Questioning a black woman like Susan Rice is bad optics and racism (unlike questioning a black woman like Condi Rice which is simply asking questions to power plus she doesn’t count as black because she is republican).

3. It is foolish to demand accountability because such a demand is based on facts and accountability rather than deferring to a mandate of racial or sexual politics.

Note that the death of three four Americans is not the issue, the administration sending out a person before the election to deceive is not the issue, no it is the idea that two of the three Senators who have critiqued said person are white men (we’ll ignore female Senator in the group) and she is a black woman and because she is a black woman the standards of truth and honesty do not apply here.

In other words the offense here is against Truth, but well discuss more on that tomorrow.

Update: Should have said four dead Americans, corrected, thanks.

Kristin Powers one of of the resident liberals on Fox has managed to noticed the missing Senator in the president’s attacks on Benghazi.

It’s absurd and chauvinistic for Obama to talk about the woman he thinks should be Secretary of State of the United States as if she needs the big strong man to come to her defense because a couple of Senators are criticizing her.

Believe it or not, Rice isn’t the first potential Cabinet nominee to be opposed by members of Congress up on the Hill. Obama also left out the inconvenient detail that there is another senator who has Rice in the crosshairs: Sen. Kelly Ayotte. But perhaps a female Senator holding Rice accountable didn’t sound menacing enough in the era of the “War on Women.”

But Powers also noticed something else the president said:

Feast on those words for a second: The U.N. Ambassador had “nothing to do with Benghazi.” At this point, the White House press corps should have flown into a frenzy, demanding to know why a person who had nothing to do with Benghazi was put on five Sunday talk shows as…the face of Benghazi!

A frenzy? You expect a White House press corps that spent two days after a successful attack on US soil killing an ambassador hitting Mitt Romney to go into a frenzy over the president’s Butterfly McQueen admission on Susan Rice?

I’m sorry Kristin, you may have noticed the Sen Ayotte business but if you haven’t figured out yet that the media has absolutely no interest in any story that shows this administration in a bad light you are in denial. Stacy McCain put it best:

Extreme naïveté is necessary to believe anything the Obama administration says and extreme cynicism is necessary to pretend that the Obama administration is telling the truth. So, are the pro-Obama media naive fools or cynical hacks? We report. You decide.

That’s closer to reality.

“We owe it to the American people to make sure that we understand: Exactly what happened, What went wrong, Why couldn’t the greatest military in the world respond when an attack occurred almost over a seven hour period, and why were there at the minimum, misstatements made and certainly misimpressions given to the American people about the nature of this attack in the immediate explanations provided by the administration in two weeks following the attack.” Sen Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) 11-14-12

There is a lot of talk today about Benghazi after the press conference yesterday concerning Susan Rice, and the administration’s actions of September 11th of this year.

On Morning Joe, on CSPAN they highlighted Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain and the questions concerning Benghazi. During their segment with Angus King the senator elect from Maine they asked about Senator McCain and Graham.

There were however three senators at that press conference.

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was also there and spoke to this issue, (as she had during the campaign). She gave a strong statement on the situation and answered questions as well.

You would think it’s kind of hard to ignore Kelly Ayotte at that event, She is tall (she towered over both Senators McCain & Graham) but she is a younger, photogenic woman who had a strong interest in this matter. I’d think that would be something to play up instead of just “two old white guys”.

I suggest that is exactly WHY she is left out.

It’s all a question of negative marketing. You can’t ignore John McCain, he is a former Presidential candidate and a war hero, but you can dismiss him, Lindsey Graham has been considered a protege of Sen McCain for a long time, if you want to pooh pooh McCain it’s fairly easy to do the same to Graham. He was a member of the impeachment crew vs Bill Clinton and is just another southern white guy.

But Kelly Ayotte is a relatively young senator, she is an up and coming member of the GOP and in fact the highest ranking member of the GOP in office out of New Hampshire. I mean how many photogenic northeast Republican women, backed by Sarah Palin, who are fearless conservatives in the Senate?

I submit and suggest that a conservative woman who is a rising star is exactly who the left and the media doesn’t want highlighted and a real effort is going to made to continue to downplay her and keep her unnoticed.

And of course if she is left out, then it is two old white guys beating up on Susan Rice a woman of color, but if Kelly Ayotte is making points like this:

“Let’s also not forget that, I think you all appreciate you don’t end up on every single major Sunday show without affirmatively putting yourself out there of wanting to carry forward a message on behalf of the administration.

…that narrative simply doesn’t work.

Kelly Ayotte is going to be in the senate till at least 2016, I suspect you are going to be seeing a lot more of her on this issues and others. The MSM may want to play her down because she doesn’t fit their template.

I have no intention of playing along.

Update: To see what I’m talking about look at this story from Politico

Obama specifically rebutted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who earlier Wednesday called for a “Watergate-style” investigation into the attacks and said they don’t trust Rice because of her statements on Benghazi. Rice is seen as a top contender to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Kelly who? They quote the president:

“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,”

Others? Others? There were only three people there. Sen Ayotte is “others”? Why not say “Senator Ayotte”? Because that doesn’t fit the narrative

Sen Fred Thompson was minority counsel during the Watergate Hearings, who asked the famous question concerning the recording system in the White House so he knows from cover ups:

BLUE ASH, Ohio – Former Sen. Fred Thompson today said he was “totally disgusted” by the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terrorist attack, saying that U.S. officials failed to act “while our people were being systematically slaughtered” at the Benghazi consulate.

Speaking at an event sponsored by the free-market group Americans for Prosperity, the former Republican senator from Tennessee invoked his experience nearly 40 years ago as a Watergate investigator, saying that Congress must “get to the bottom of” the administration’s failures in the Sept. 11 incident that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead in Libya.

Blue Ash Ohio? You would have bet no member of the Mainstream media would bother to be at Blue Ash Ohio to hear Fred talk to a 40 person crowd, and you would have been right…if you didn’t know a fellow named Robert Stacy McCain:

My mind wasn’t on Benghazi much, and when we got there, the sleep shortage started catching up with me. Quite literally, I was nodding off at one point during Fred Thompson’s speech. And then Fred started talking about Benghazi.

He never raised his voice, but he was clearly angry and, when it was over, it was obvious that Fred had definitely made news:

When a member of the crew that investigated Watergate tells you something is being covered up, you had better believe it.

But just as significant is this tweet:

Ali and I were the only media in the room.
The MSM didn’t find this event interesting enough to bother with.

If you ever question the usefulness of actual shoe leather reporting, wonder no further.

And as more of this information comes out the Democrats might find themselves fortunate that Barack Obama will not be in office after Jan 20th:

Though they do not realize or choose to ignore it now, the Democrats will be lucky if Obama loses on November 6.

If he wins, not even the mainstream media will save him. Although a few will try, the walls are already crumbling, first, tentatively, from David Ignatius in the Washington Post, now more strongly and courageously from ABC’s Jake Tapper. More will follow. They will be forced to as the revelations pile up and the justifiably angry whistleblowers, which are sure to come, emerge. And we in the new media will be here to make sure attention is paid. We have the power to do that now

And don’t doubt for one moment that a GOP house will be investigating this.

President Obama has already cost plenty of democrats their political future, God help the party if they find themselves forced to choose between defending the him on Benghazi or no.

It is really no choice at all, the Activist Black Community who are the party’s foot soldiers and the pastors after choosing their skin color over their God, will not tolerate any other choice.

Benghazi is a national disgrace, but for the Democrats it’s a disaster of their own making. It remains to be seen if this disaster will effect the entire party or just this administration.

When you have reached the point where the Anchoress, one of the most sober and reasonable people on the net are asking question like this concerning Benghazi:

1) If no one gave an order to “stand down” who gave the order to “go save”?

2) If no one gave an order to “go save” just what exactly did the President, the Sec State and the Sec Defense do while they watched Benghazi burn over seven hours. There must be some paper trail, somewhere, that shows us that responsible action was taken, yes?

3) Did they all just vote “present?”

4) Why would you go to the UN, and lie about what happened in Benghazi to the whole world, even as your own spokespeople were admitting that the situation there had nothing to do with a damn video?

5) Was this a gun-running operation? Or some kind of October political theatrical gone bad?

5) People in your administration lied to the public. Should not a few resignations be on the president’s desk? Why isn’t the president asking for them?

6) Does lying not matter any more?

you know thing have more than crossed the line, and I don’t mean in an Alamo way.

What’s rather amazing is I had the same: “A few Good Men” thought that she had concerning any written order. If they had such an order it would have been produced almost at once.

and the Valerie Plame vs Benghazi comparison with the MSM says a lot, none of it good.

I think these folks will be damn lucky to lose next week and have then end before it begins.

I shall never surrender or retreat.  Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receieving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country

William Barret Travis February 24th 1836 the Alamo

To the German commander


The American Commander

General Anthony McAuliffe Dec 22nd 1944 Bastonge Belgium

During my recent road trip I had little time to consider news unrelated to where I was and what I was doing, so when Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY) answered the first question at the Clay Town Hall event during her Town Hall Candidate Forum on Benghazi, she told me something I had not heard before:

In fact the two men who were subsequently killed went in against orders because they were told to stand down and they felt that the ambassador was in/at risk and they needed to go in and help him.

I was immediately brought to tears and thought of the Texans at the Alamo.

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.

It also brings to mind Flight 93. Flight 93 was the point where Sept 11th 2001 turned from an act of terror to the first battle in the war against Radical Islam. Like the men in Benghazi the people on that plane understood American lives we in danger and acted, perhaps they rationalized they would be able to somehow control the plane and survive but they knew the score and fought anyway. It was then when Americans stopped being victims and fought back and it was then when tears first came to my eyes that day too.

But there is one HUGE difference. These men likely understood the protocols, there was an actual chance they might get relief, there was a real possibility, however slight, that reinforcements would make it.

So like the Alamo they fought and like the Alamo they died and also like the Alamo they took a lot of their enemies with them:

Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two SEALs set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead. However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction. emphasis mine

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.

Instead there was no Helicopter gunship, there was no relieving force, there wasn’t even a single remote control bomb in those seven hours after all there is a fundraiser in Vegas to worry about.

All of us die in the end, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty died fighting, they died like men, like warriors and in the American Tradition that we once embraced and celebrated.

As for the Administration it tries to spin away its disgrace for electoral reasons. Why? It is my opinion their feelings mirrors the answer Congresswoman Buerkle’s opponent gave to that same question at that same forum:

…it’s also an opportunity to rethink US foreign policy and think about can we represent and build an empire and have a policy that really threatens people in other countries

I submit and suggest that the reason why these men were ordered to left the Ambassador die, and the reason why this administration did not come to the aid of these men was because they saw them the way the left has always saw our forces, at best dupes of an imperialist power or at worst part of an evil empire.

But this has always been the way of the left, it is the same left that opposed Reagan in the cold war, the same left that fought tooth and nail against our own military at every turn, the same left that cheered the Occupods as they clashed with police, the same left that portrays the US soldier as a suicidal brain injured time bomb just waiting to explode and has done so in culture for decades. That’s also why the left will never remember the words of Travis, to them the men at the Alamo were just a bunch of imperialist stooges who got what they deserved.

This is the left, this is what they believe, this is what they have always believed and these are the people who we foolishly put in charge of our military.

That is why an American president can fly to Vegas after our embassy is attacked and our ambassador is killed. It’s why the surviving attackers in Benghazi are still alive and boasting of their “victory” (although I suspect they have enlarged the numbers of their slain foes) and It’s why a dupe of a filmmaker sits in jail till after the election.

Why on earth would we expect them to do anything else?

BTW here is the question and answer from that event:

Update: Instalanche & ChicagoBoyz notes a parallel I didn’t mention:

One last addition. When the murdered US contractors’ bodies were returned to the US, VP Joe Biden madean incredibly insensitive and crude remark to the father of one slain SEAL.

Joe Biden to Father of Former Navy SEAL Killed in Benghazi: ‘Did Your Son Always Have Balls the Size of Cue Balls?’

Aside from its crude and offensive nature, this comment suggests that Biden knows more about the firefight than the administration is admitting. They all watched these men die while they blocked aid from going to their assistance. It must have been inconvenient to have these men fight for seven hours before they were finally killed. No doubt Obama wanted a quick end to the battle and the story.

The Alamo and Benghazi. Those who would stay were asked to step across the line. “And across the line stepped 179.” This time was only two but they took 60 enemies with them.

Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves. But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction. emphasis mine

The names of these men should live in our history. If Romney is elected, they may. Emphasis mine

I think the modern parallel is the scene from Clear and Present Danger when they leave the strike force in Columbia to die “Variable this is Knife where the hell are you?”

The Diplomad 2.0 reminds us we are to blame in one sense:

Does anybody believe that we would have had a “F&F” or a Benghazi scandal under a McCain administration? Does anybody believe that had something occurred under a McCain administration of that magnitude, or even something considerably more mundane, that we would not have all the media outlets, 24/7, relentlessly probing, investigating and demanding answers? That calls for impeachment would not have gone out? That it would be without doubt a one-term proposition? That the President would be losing in the polls by 20 points?

Elections have consequences.

And of course Bastonge should have said 1944

Update 2: There have been question in comments on the 60 figure above. The source is this post at Instapundit which linked to the post I referred to. As some have raised questions in comments to the figure I’ll do a bit more digging as time permits.