Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Must-See Video: Ted Cruz rips RINOs over Gun Control

There are many reasons to like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). First and foremost, the Sarah Palin effect, which is that the more a political figure is ridiculed by the mainstream media and the left, the more that political figure should be supported by conservatives. The second indicator is when RINOs like John McCain calls you a 'wackobird'.

There is another reason that comes across in this video from Freedom Works and it has to do with the ability to inspire and encourage.

Right out of the gate, Cruz doesn't just tell the audience what he knows they want to hear - that they are 'winning' - but he does it in such a way that it's believable. He then proceeds to make the case by citing what happened in the recent gun control debate. The story he relays from a Senatorial luncheon is classic and has John 'wacko bird' McCain written all over it.

Via NRO:

Look, the Tea Party in particular and the conservatives in general started becoming demoralized and a bit more crestfallen each day it became more apparent that Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Rock bottom was hit on election night. Establishment Republicans in office began caving to the Obama agenda almost immediately. Conservatives were so de-energized that they did little more than watch in disgust.

If there has been a consistent theme among conservatives since the election - perhaps even since the 2010 mid-terms - it's been disgust over the Republican Party's willingness to admit the truth and fight the Obama agenda.

Ironically, Cruz said establishment guys who wanted to cave in to the gun control push, yelled at him for not going along with the program. It's a self-evident truth that such political hacks are more comfortable yelling at a principled member of their own caucus than they are at our "Muslim socialist" president.

By the way, those aren't my words; they're Obama's:

Monday, April 29, 2013

Videos: The Banality of Abortion Clinics

It is not an exaggeration to compare what went on in the abortion clinic of Kermit Gosnell to what took place in Nazi Germany. We were told over and over again by the pro-abortion crowd that Gosnell's Philadelphia clinic was an 'outlier.' Now, thanks to Live Action, we have evidence of two more 'outliers' - one in New York City (Video #1) and the other in Washington, D.C. (Video #2). In fact, the people working at these 'clinics' seem to match perfectly the profile of many of the Nazis put on trial at Nuremberg.

Via Doug Linder:
Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed.  What is shocking about Nuremberg is the ordinariness of the defendants: men who may be good fathers, kind to animals, even unassuming--yet who committed unspeakable crimes.  Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil."  Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains.  Rather, they over-identified with an ideological cause and suffered from a lack of imagination or empathy: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions.
Another characteristic of the Nazis was that the longer they engaged in the heinous behaviors, the less it affected them. The demeanor of this clinic employee says it all. She boasts that she's seen a lot over the eleven years that she has worked there. When you watch how calmly this clinic worker tells her would-be patient to flush her baby down the toilet if she gives birth after being given a treatment but before she can return the clinic, you will know exactly what is meant by the term, 'banality of evil'.

As for Gosnell's clinic being an 'outlier'... Do you honestly think that people who endorse / commit this kind of evil wouldn't lie about it?

Via Live Action:

In this clinic, the male worker essentially admits that if a baby survives a botched abortion in his clinic, they 'will not help it'. This is a violation of federal law, which he seems quite banal about breaking:

Of course, add to these 'outliers' in Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, D.C. this exchange between the Florida state legislature and a Planned Parenthood lobbyist, who clearly has an agenda that includes not helping babies born alive after surviving an abortion.

Why would the largest abortion provider - Planned Parenthood - take such a position in an entire state? Just how many 'outliers' are there in Florida?

Or is that a banal question?

Oh, and then there's this so perhaps we can add Delaware to the 'outlier' list, not to mention all of the other despicable revelations about what Planned Parenthood does.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

* The latest on the Boston bombers and Vladimir Putin's reaction
* The transformation of Chris Matthews
* Newscorp. and Rotana
* Congressman promises 'explosive' Benghazi hearings

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Video: Rep. Trey Gowdy promises 'explosive' hearings on Benghazi

During an appearance on Fox News, House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) promised that there will be 'explosive' hearings into the Benghazi attacks and that they will be coming quickly. Unfortunately for the American people, the House of Representatives is led by people like John Boehner and not by people like Gowdy.

Perhaps the best line during this interview:
"...there's a reason we don't let kids grade their own papers in school and there's a reason we don't let defendants sentence themselves in court and the State Department should not be the ones investigating whether or not the State Department did a good job; it should be Congress, and it's going to be Congress very shortly."
Giddy up.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Consider the Nerve Struck: Democratic Congressman, registered socialist, and Congressional Black Caucus member Elijah Cummings wants Benghazi report rescinded

On Tuesday, April 23rd, a House Republican conference released a report that was quite damning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not only did it seem to have the goods on Hillary relative to a decision to withdraw security in Benghazi in the form of her signature but it also seemed to imply that she committed perjury back in January.

Now we know that at least one Democratic congressman - Elijah Cummings - who happens to be someone who registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus and is currently a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), just couldn't remain silent. This is almost always a sign that a nerve has been struck.

Via the AP:
A senior House Democrat called on House Speaker John Boehner Thursday to retract a report blaming former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for security deficiencies at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya before last September's deadly attack.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said in a letter to Boehner that the report, written by the Republican chairmen of five committees, misrepresents an important document and suggests that Clinton lied to Congress. In addition to pulling the report, Cummings said, Boehner also should apologize to Clinton on behalf of the report's authors.
Here is what is alleged in the report:
April 19, 2012, the response cable from the Department of State to Embassy Tripoli, bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature, acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request for additional security but instead articulates a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including the Benghazi Mission.
Now, let's go back to the AP story:
...Cummings said his staff reviewed the cable, and it does not bear Clinton's signature. The cable includes only her typed name at the bottom of the page next to the word "signature," just as thousands of other cables sent each year from the State Department do.
This question that needs to be asked of Mr. Cummings is as follows:
Do you, sir, have any intellectual curiosity at all when it comes to who is specifically responsible for withdrawing security?
It would seem that if Hillary's name is next to the word "signature" and that the document does not bear her signature, someone treated a typed version of her name as authorization to act on something OTHER THAN her signature. Instead of going after the conference, shouldn't Cummings be going after whomever made that decision?

Better yet, why didn't Hillary?

Then again...

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

House Republicans on Benghazi Attacks: Hillary's signature on document calling for reduced Security, conflicts with her testimony

Folks, this may just be bigger than previously thought. Yesterday, the news was that a conference of House Republicans found Hillary Clinton accountable for the lack of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks on 9/11/12 but the evidence presented in its report backs up the charge because it includes a document with her signature; that document conflicts with her January testimony.

The report released by a House Republican Conference, made up of five separate Chairmen from five separate Committees is definitely a positive step in that direction.

Those five are:
  • Buck McKeon - Armed Services
  • Ed Royce - Foreign Affairs
  • Bob Goodlatte - Judiciary
  • Darrell Issa - Oversight
  • Mike Rogers - Intelligence
The conference has just released its report on Benghazi and rests accountability right at the feet of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The report is available through Speaker Boehner's office.

One doesn't have to read past the second paragraph in the Executive Summary to find where the conference has found culpability:
Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
On the same day that Clinton testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she also testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During that testimony, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said that if he'd have been president when the Benghazi attacks happened, he would have fired Hillary. It would seem that the report backs up that position.

There are two more bullet points in the Executive Summary, one having to do with the administration altering the talking points in order to blame the anti-Muhammad video for the attacks, the other regarding claims that this one done to protect classified information.

On page two (referenced again on page seven), the conference points to a document with Clinton's signature on it:
Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.
It was also good to see the report include reference to a 'quick reaction force' that was relied upon to help defend the Consulate (Special Mission Compound) actually had sympathies with terrorists:
...the Benghazi Mission used local, unarmed guards, who were responsible for activating the alarm in the event of an attack, as well as four armed members of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, who were to serve as a quick reaction force. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade was one of the militias that fought for Gadhafi’s overthrow. Numerous reports have indicated that the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.
Let's take a look at what very well could be perjury on the part of Clinton during her testimony this past January. On page 10 of the report, the conference cites the April 19, 2012 document that Clinton signed, which discusses pulling back on security despite acknowledgment that a request for more security had been made, and juxtaposes it with her January 23, 2013 testimony:
“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 [Accountability Review Board] placed responsibility. Where, as I think Ambassador Pickering said, ‘the rubber hit the road.’”
"...I was not aware of that going on, it was not brought to my attention…"
When it comes to the issue of perjury, the closest Hillary seemed to come was during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), in which she claimed she had no idea - one way or the other - if there was any arms shipments to Turkey from American outposts in Benghazi. It would seem she should have at least known the answer to the question - yes or no.

These new revelations courtesy of the House Republican conference seem to not only point to perjury with respect to Clinton not knowing about the requests for additional security but also a smoking gun in the form of a document bearing her signature that put the lives of the four Americans who were murdered on 9/11/12 in more danger.

For some reason, this :35 second exchange Hillary had with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is taking on increasingly added significance, very much in the spirit of 'thou doth protest too much':

There is a reason the Conference felt confident in resting accountability at Hillary's feet. That reason is far more newsworthy than the report that they did so.

Please read.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Audio: Rand Paul asked about Hillary committing Perjury at January Benghazi hearing

Back on January 24th, after then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I wrote about her response to Senator Rand Paul's question about arm shipments from Libya to Turkey. That response struck me as being the most noteworthy because it was a question she should have known the answer to. Instead, she said she didn't know.

If she did know - one way or the other - it seems her response would constitute perjury.

Fast forward to this week. On his radio show, Aaaron Klein asked Senator Paul if he thought Clinton may have committed perjury when she said she didn't know the answer to that question.

Via WND:

Sunday, April 21, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

What's up with that biased CNN contributor in the wake of the Boston marathon bombings?

Also, author of Terror at Beslan and Chechnya expert, John Giduck, who leads an anti-terror group.

Friday, April 19, 2013

CNN Contributor involved in 'Trentadue Mission'?

Today, Juliette Kayyem is a CNN contributor who has been taking some bizarre positions relative to the bombings in Boston, almost going out of her way to avoid the truth that the two primary suspects are Muslim and that their religion may have contributed. Kayyem is also a former DHS Assistant Secretary.

In 1997, Kayyem was more than just a little familiar with the bizarre circumstances surrounding the death of Kenneth Michael Trentadue, who died in a federal prison in 1995. For years, the Medical Examiner refused to rule the death a suicide. On October 1, 1997, Kayyem sent an email and referred to the 'Trentadue mission' as being "like coordinating the invasion of Normandy'. She also made reference to 'Eric's schedule', presumably a reference to then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.

In 1995, Kenneth Michael Trentadue was taken into custody, presumably because his tattoo, vehicle, height, build, etc. led authorities to believe he might be the infamous John Doe #2 in the Oklahoma City bombing. He was then flown to the Federal Transport Center (FTC) in Oklahoma. He did not live through the night. His death wreaked of cover-up.

The Feds tried to rule it a suicide.

Here is a video of Senator Orrin Hatch at about the time of the aforementioned email. At the time, Hatch, was the Senate Judiciary Chairman:

Fred Jordan, the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner was the Feds' main obstacle to ruling the death a suicide and closing the case. For years, Jordan insisted that Trentadue's death should be ruled a homicide; the Feds wanted him to rule the death a suicide. The Feds and Oklahoma's ME were at an impasse. Someone would blink first.

J.D. Cash - a reporter for the McCurtain Daily Gazette at the time - relayed the circumstances leading up to that moment:
"...Jordan would not budge as long as the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) attempted to pressure him. That all changed after the Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy intervened. Shortly after Macy took over, Jordan ruled the death a suicide." - Unsung Davids, pp. 249-150
Here is a news report from a local Oklahoma Fox affiliate on July 3, 1997  in which Jordan was interviewed. This was nearly three months before Kayyem's email was sent regarding 'the Trentadue mission' (video starts at about the :25 mark):

Now, fast forward to this week. Kayyem is being touted by CNN as an expert relative to the Boston marathon bombings.

Via AIM:
“The knots in my stomach tightened with preliminary reports from the New York Post that Boston Police had seized a ‘Saudi National,’” wrote Khaled A Beydoun, a UCLA professor on the Al Jazeera website. His piece was titled, “Boston explosions: ‘Please don’t be Arabs or Muslims.’”

CNN seems ready to promote this narrative, as the channel has turned increasingly for comment and analysis to Juliette Kayyem, a CNN contributor, former U.S. assistant secretary for Homeland Security, and lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. She “cautioned against putting too much stock in the early reports of Arab involvement,” as one CNN story put it.

Demonstrating her own blindness to the nature of the threat, Kayyem had written a 2011 article for the Boston Globe, “Let US see Al Jazeera,” praising the terror television channel linked to al Qaeda and considered a voice of the Muslim Brotherhood as “a news heavyweight in most of the world.”

Writing at the American Thinker, Ed Lasky noted, “…what is of interest is the background of Juliette Kayyem: President Obama appointed her to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. One would think that a key official at the Department of Homeland Security would see the danger of Al Jazeera being broadcast all over America.”
It never ceases to amaze how the left overlooks the egregious transgressions of its own.

Here is a recent video of Kenneth Trentadue's brother Jesse, who has been fighting for the truth and justice with respect to what happened to his brother:

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Report: McConnell's alleged 'bugger' visited the White House days earlier

It would appear that Watergate 2.0 may be more aptly named for the bugging of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters than was previously thought. The leader of the accused group met with White House officials days before the bugging.

Via Buzzfeed:
The head of a group accused of illegally taping private meetings of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign visited the White House days before the group's Twitter account began actively attacking the Kentucky Republican, according to White House visitors logs.

White House logs and the Twitter feed of Shawn Reilly, one of two men at the heart of the McConnell wiretapping scandal, show he met with White House officials on Dec. 5, just days before his organization Progress Kentucky began a messaging blitzkrieg against the Republican leader.

Reilly and Curtis Morrison are currently under investigation by the FBI for illicitly taping a campaign conversation between McConnell and a handful of his advisors. During the conversation McConnell and his aides discussed the potential candidacy of actress Ashley Judd — including using her mental health problems against her.
Unlike Watergate, the potential for complicit actors to incriminate themselves is greater in today's social media age. Such appears to be the case with Reilly, who appears to have tweeted all about his meetings at the White House and with none other than George Soros' Center for American Progress (CAP) as well as a photo of what he claimed was the White House meeting.

This too is interesting, in light of the fact that the mainstream media has attempted to focus on McConnell's guys laughing at Ashley Judd's mental problems instead of on the act that isn't the least bit dissimilar from what happened in Watergate - save for confirmation of who ultimately was behind it or supported it.
On Dec. 13, eight days after Reilly's meeting with the White House, Progress Kentucky tweeted: "The single most important thing we want to achieve: Electing a new US Senator to represent Kentucky," which started a daily barrage of often more than a dozen tweets and retweets directly aimed at McConnell.

Over the next several months the pace of their Twitter attacks, and the vitriol, escalated. The organization hammered McConnell over his positions on fiscal issues, questioned his personal wealth before moving into more personal territory — at one point, Progress Kentucky sent a series of tweets accusing him of favoring China because of her ethnicity and claiming McConnell is a closeted gay man.
Yes, we are talking about public figures here but that would be called libel and slander, something that McConnell's people did not do to Judd. They didn't publicly mock her, nor did they accuse her of something libelous or slanderous publicly.

Moreover, the visitor log signed by Reilly was also signed by a Valerie Jarrett assistant named Victoria McCullough. Don't worry, though. The White House has an explanation:
Although the White House declined to comment, a source familiar with the situation said Reilly was one of 83 other people from Kentucky and Tennessee who attended the event. An administration official addressed the attendees, discussing the then-looming fiscal cliff fight and other items on the White House's upcoming agenda.

Neither Reilly nor any of the other people in attendance had "intimate" one on one meetings with Jarrett or other senior White House officials, according to this source.

Still, Republicans pointed to the evidence of the visitors logs to argue that Reilly is far more connected to the Democratic establishment than leaders would have the public believe.
The differences between Watergate and Watergate 2.0 appear to be increasingly fewer. To this point though, there are at least two. First, the mainstream media opposed the criminals Watergate while they are running interference for the alleged criminals in Watergate 2.0. Another difference is that Republicans don't seem to be raising their game on this issue. They will have to in order to overcome the media bias.

h/t WZ

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Video: CNN's John King identifies arrested suspect as 'dark-skinned male individual'

John King trips all over himself while identifying an arrested suspect in the Boston marathon bombings as 'dark-skinned'.

Via Daily Caller:

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Video: Axelrod channels Bloomberg

During an interview on MSNBC, Barack Obama senior adviser David Axelrod toll Chuck Todd that when the Boston marathon bombings went off, Obama thought they may have selected April 15th because it was 'tax day'. Axelrod then started to suggest it was someone with a "pro..." agenda. He caught himself and didn't finish the word but in light if the Kermit Gosnell trial, odds are that 'pro-life' or 'pro-gun' were the options rolling around beneath the combover.

Remember Michael Bloomberg telling Katie Couric that the Times Square bomber could have been someone unhappy with Obamacare?

Monday, April 15, 2013

Planned Parenthood's Delaware Clinic another in a long line of examples that show Gosnell no outlier

As the morbid and gory details of the Kermit Gosnell trial were being brought to light, Planned Parenthood realized it couldn't rely on people remaining uninformed. It needed a new strategy. It chose to denounce Gosnell's clinic and identify it as an outlier. Hot Air puts it this way:
Proof positive that we’ve reached a new phase of Gosnell damage control. Plan A: Ignore, ignore, ignore. Plan B: If Plan A becomes impossible, use Gosnell as some sort of exception that proves the rule about why, counterintuitively, America needs easier access to abortion.
So that's PP's plan?

PP would have you believe that its "clinics" are safer and cleaner than Gosnell's was. Gosnell's "clinic" hadn't been inspected since 1993. Perhaps PP will argue that it is inspected with much greater regularity. Aside from that, perhaps we can also assume that none of the PP clinics saved babies' feet in jars, like Gosnell did. Once again, that's likely a distinction with not much of a difference if babies are murdered in similar ways.

As for inspections of PP "clinics", well as you'll see in the news report below, PP is essentially responsible for inspecting itself.

Take note at the end of the report when the anchor clarifies with the reporter that PP prides itself on having the most sanitary conditions in its "clinics," compared to those of non-PP "clinics".

Via ABC 6 in Philadelphia (h/t GWP) about a PP "clinic" in Delaware:

allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" src="">

Any charges of he said / she said in a disgruntled employee / employer relationship between the two former employees and the clinic ring hollow in light of the multiple 911 calls to the local hospital because women were overly medicated or otherwise in danger. We also have the case of other employees suddenly leaving. The conditions described by these employees are eerily reminiscent of what witnesses described took place at Gosnell's abortuary - unsanitary conditions, blood all over the place, etc. What's truly amazing is how at least one of the employees bemoans the state of the "clinic" and its safety while almost immune to the murders.

Now, as for conditions inside PP "clinics" compared to non-PP "clinics"...

If PP is going to argue that it doesn't perform the late-term abortions Gosnell was performing, all one has to look at is PP lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow in front of the Florida legislature last month. She essentially admitted that babies born alive in botched abortions should be legally murdered.

Let us also not forget that after PP President Cecile Richards was caught lying on a massive scale when she claimed that her organization doesn't just perform abortions but also things like mammograms.

Remember this?

Or how about this? PP "clinic" in New York City helps a pimp pose as a "guardian" for one of his prostitutes.

Then, of course, how about those instances of requesting abortions inside PP "clinics" because the sex of the unborn baby was not right?

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Audio: Today's Show Podcast

On today's show...

Is there really a Nuremberg trial taking place in Philadelphia?

Yes, and Nazi comparisons are more than warranted.

**WARNING** Graphic depictions.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

21st Century Nuremberg Trial in Philadelphia

At the bottom of this post is an extremely important documentary entitled 3801 Lancaster. It is solely about the horror story that took place inside Kermit Gosnell's "clinic". Like many of the Nazis before him, Gosnell is essentially on trial for his crimes against humanity.

Godwin's Law states that the longer a debate goes on, the greater the possibility that comparisons involving Hitler or Nazis will be made and that the person who makes those charges actually ends / loses the argument. In the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his Philadelphia aborturary, those comparisons are valid right out of the gate. Those who don't make said comparisons risk losing the debate.

The Limbaugh theorem states that no matter how much damage Barack Obama is directly responsible for, he always escapes culpability because he is so successful at keeping his fingerprints off the levers that cause such damage when they're pulled. Obama essentially pulls those levers while wearing latex gloves and then is seen as someone who is trying to fix the problem. That's not the case when one looks at his votes on abortion while a State Senator in Illinois.

Check out this excerpt from a 2008 Wall Street Journal article by Daniel Allott:
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions... Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
This brings us both to the trial of a 21st Century Nazi named Gosnell, who personally murdered countless babies that either survived abortions or were simply born alive before they could be aborted. Save for the conditions in Gosnell's Philadelphia abortuary and the death of at least one adult who was over-medicated, Obama cannot argue against what Gosnell did to those babies; the president opposed legislation that would make such things illegal in his state.

When one correctly accepts the premise that the mainstream media is little more than a series of little ventriloquist dummies for the Obama administration's ventriloquist apparatchiks, the aforementioned points of agreement between Obama and Gosnell provide all one needs in order to understand why the mainstream media has been so reluctant to cover Gosnell's trial.

Fortunately, at least one liberal - Kirsten Powers - has not abandoned intellectual honesty. In a recent op-ed that appeared in USA Today, Powers wrote:
Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?

It's not your fault. Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page. The revolting revelations of Gosnell's former staff, who have been testifying to what they witnessed and did during late-term abortions, should shock anyone with a heart.

NBC-10 Philadelphia reported that, Stephen Massof, a former Gosnell worker, "described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body." One former worker, Adrienne Moton, testified that Gosnell taught her his "snipping" technique to use on infants born alive.
How can one find any difference between that and what Obama supported as an Illinois State Senator? Any attempts to do so would reveal distinctions without differences.

Remember this during the 2008 campaign?

Here is Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in 1999 on the Senate floor, telling then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) that a baby is not a person until it's taken home (poor audio):

Like Obama, Boxer may - for political reasons - take issue with the conditions in Gosnell's abortuary and the death of an adult there but based on her position, she can't really take issue with his murdering these babies before they go home.

When Generals Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton visited the Ohrdrup concentration camp after liberating it from the Nazis, the former sent a cable to George Marshall that relayed his eye witness account from the pit of hell. To illustrate how heinous was the carnage that Eisenhower saw, even Patton's war-hardened, cast iron stomach wasn't enough to allow him to look at it all.

Here is part of Eisenhower's account, via Ptak Science Books:
"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'."
In the Philadelphia abortuary run by Gosnell, an evil very much on par with what Patton and Eisenhower discovered in Nazi concentration camps is coming to light in a courtroom not all that dissimilar from one during the Nuremberg trials... if people are willing to admit it.

During the first of those trials, prosecutor Robert Jackson said the following in his opening statement:
"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated."
How is this dissimilar from what happened on Gosnell's watch, in his office?

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Joseph Slobodzian, who has been covering the trial daily, reported the following:
Testifying under a plea agreement with prosecutors, Williams, 44, had told the Common Pleas Court jury of a time when she followed Gosnell's practice of "snipping" the spines of late-term fetuses born alive during abortions.

One of her duties, Williams said, was to clean up and dispose of fetuses some women spontaneously aborted in the waiting room after getting large doses of drugs to dilate the cervix.

One day, Williams testified, a woman expelled a fetus into the toilet and she saw its arm moving. Williams said she took a pair of scissors and snipped the spine as Gosnell showed her.

"I did it once and I didn't do it again because it gave me the creeps," Williams said.
Consider the testimony of Marie Claude Vallant-Courturier at Nuremberg. She was a holocaust survivor from France.
Vallant-Couturier described how a Nazi orchestra played happy tunes as soldiers separated those destined for slave labor from those that would be gassed.  She told of a night she was "awakened  by horrible cries.  The next day we learned that the Nazis had run out of gas and the children had been hurled into the furnaces alive."
Babies / children being hurled into furnaces or toilets is, as mentioned earlier, a distinction without a difference.

Via CNN:
It was a scene the Philadelphia District Attorney called "a house of horrors." A warning to readers, some of the details in this story are gruesome.

West Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell is on trial for running an abortion clinic in which he allegedly killed babies who had survived illegal, late-term abortions, and where a woman allegedly died of a botched painkiller injection.
Charges were brought against Gosnell a little over two years ago. Here is Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams in an interview with CNN at the time. Note how the detail provided by Williams actually causes the anchor to stop him, saying none of it has been proven. Williams, who appears a bit taken aback, ultimately asserts that he's merely relaying grand jury testimony.

Think it's a stretch to compare Gosnell to a Nazi? Well, didn't the Nazis seek to murder Jewish children?

Via Lindenwirths Sammlung:
Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, was determined to exterminate all Jewish children. His policy was set out in the secret speech he gave at Poznan, Poland on October 6, 1943.

“I do not consider it justifiable to exterminate the men, meaning to kill them or get them to be killed, while allowing the revengers, in the form of children, to grow up and face our sons and grandsons,” said Himmler.

The Nazis deliberately killed children: the toll of minors in the Holocaust is estimated at as much as 1.5 million.
Here is a documentary about Gosnell's abortuary.


There is something else this story allows us to conclude.

Barack Obama's fingerprints can be found on his opposition to legislation that would make this despicable evil illegal.

Finally! Someone throws Fast and Furious into gun control debate (Ted Nugent vs. Erin Burnett)

Regular visitors to this blog know that I've been calling for gun rights advocates to go on a counter-offensive with the gun grabbers, instead of playing defense all the time. The best way to do that is to contrast the exploitation of Sandy Hook by the Obama administration with how it handled Operation Fast and Furious.

Practically every point, argument, and position taken by Obama's media ventriloquist dummies can be responded to with a Fast and Furious reference.

Selling guns to bad guys: You want to talk selling guns to bad guys? In Fast and Furious, Obama's ATF didn't allow gun store owners to sell to bad guys; they ORDERED them to.

Background checks: You want to talk background checks? How about the gun store owners who didn't want to sell to straw purchasers they knew were going to walk guns into Mexico? It was Obama's ATF that insisted those gun store owners make the sales despite background checks that told them not to.

Murder: You want to talk about guns being used to murder people? How about the straw purchasers mentioned above, giving those guns to Mexican drug cartels who have used those guns to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border patrol agent? All with the approval and mandate of the ATF.

Banning assault weapons: You want to talk about banning assault weapons? Why did the ATF allow thousands of assault weapons (AK-47s and .50 Cal.) to be placed into the hands of the most violent cartels on earth?

Shutting down gun stores: You want to talk about shutting down operations? How about leaving the responsible gun store owners, who didn't want to sell weapons to bad guys, alone and shutting down the ATF, which mandated those gun store owners sell those weapons to bad guys?

Gun Trafficking: You want to talk about gun trafficking? How about the ATF - after mandating that gun store owners sell to bad guys - looking the other way as those bad guys not only trafficked weapons out of the country but gave them to hardened criminals whom they knew would murder innocent people with them.

In this clip below (fast forward to the 6:18 mark), Nugent hits Burnett with a question about stopping gun traffickers. Burnett, predictably agrees right before Nugent asks her if she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be arrested for... gun trafficking.

Burnett's reaction tells the whole story. She was rendered speechless.

If the gun rights crowd wants to win this debate, it must make these arguments. Hopefully, this is the first instance of many.

h/t GWP

Friday, April 12, 2013

Will John Boehner Betray his nation on Second Amendment and Immigration?

It looks like House Speaker John Boehner may be paving the way for two of his biggest caves - on gun control and on immigration. If he does, it will mean that he will essentially be throwing in with the Democrats at the expense of a majority of his own caucus. It will be a colossal betrayal. We're talking Benedict Arnold type betrayal.

It would also make him a bald-faced busted... liar.

The 'Hastert Rule', named after Boehner's Republican predecessor Dennis Hastert, says that no bill will get a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the caucus. The Toomey-Manchin gun control legislation would not garner a majority of the caucus, which should make it DOA because Boehner has supported the Hastert Rule, though only when it seems to suit him, which doesn't seem to apply with the Toomey-Manchin bill.

Via the Washington Post (h/t Hot Air):
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference.

Boehner has flouted the so-called “Hastert Rule” — named for former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) — on a few pieces of key legislation so far this year, which hasn’t sat well with some conservatives.

He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.

“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

Boehner in early March sought to reassure his conference that the rule would continue to be regular practice, but he broke it again earlier this week.
A common theme - demonstrated by Toomey - is that Republicans are incapable of presenting a united front on important matters. There always seems to be just the right number of votes from their caucus to give the Democrats what they want. In this case, if Boehner breaks the Hastert Rule on gun control, it will mean he knows the legislation will pass with a Democratic minority, coupled with a few Republican peel-aways. It will make Boehner a traitor to his party but more important, a traitor to the Constitution in general and its second amendment in particular.

On another huge issue to conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) more than just slightly rankled the right wing of his party when he became one of the 'gang of eight' and joined with the likes of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on immigration reform (amnesty). The left will display photos of Rubio standing with them at a podium for years to come.

What Rubio didn't seem to understand or care about was that nothing - absolutely nothing - good could come out of his joining with those Senators.

Now, Boehner is hinting that he will betray conservatives on another promise. That promise is that he would honor regular order, which in the case of the monstrosity that is the immigration bill, is all that more important. Like the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2010 Obamacare bill, page numbers end with four digits.

Via Breitbart:
According to a recent Politico report, Boehner is seriously considering abandoning regular order to rush through immigration reform. Regular orders is the process by which a bill is supposed to come up through the respective committees of jurisdiction and allow members of those committees to offer amendments, an open and transparent process that then is supposed to continue on the House floor.

“The GOP is also mulling skipping the committee process and instead having lengthy discussions among Republicans to work out the legislation’s kinks,” Politico’s Jake Sherman wrote in the report. “This would allow leading conservatives who are crafting the deal with Democrats to explain the policy. That seems to be the preferred path, according to conversations with several GOP aides.”
Ain't that something. With that as a potential reality, it would mean that Boehner only feigned outrage when he slammed down the 1100 page Stimulus bill in 2009 because, for one thing, it was being rammed through without consideration for... wait for it... regular order:

Ah, the tale of two Boehners. First, the tough-talking Boehner can adequately express outrage when he has no power. Since becoming Speaker, he's rarely expressed even a modicum of that kind of indignation. Now that Boehner is in the majority and holding the gavel, he's just might be willing to do with a 1500 page immigration bill what he was so adamantly against being done with an 1100 page stimulus bill.

This would make him a liar in addition to being a weak leader. Apparently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees.

Democratic politicians should be recognized for one thing; they hardly ever break ranks. United fronts abound. Perhaps one of the best examples is the Senate vote on Bill Clinton's impeachment. Not one Democrat voted to remove him from office. It worked for them then and it's a strategy they've replicated many times over since.

Republicans, on the other hand, are behaving as if they want to lose the 2014 mid-terms because - as a group - they're incapable of standing on principle and are walking all over themselves to hand the Democrats victory after victory.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Pat Toomey and Bart Stupak now share something in common

In 2010, the Obamacare debacle was crammed down the throats of the American people but not before an alleged 'pro-life' Democratic congressman named Bart Stupack (D-MI) sold out. If you remember, the House version of the bill had a provisions in it that prohibited funding for abortion. That provision did not pass in the Senate's version.

The final vote was extremely contentious and arm-twisting was in no short supply. Even then, the Stupak dozen was the only thing that stood in the way of passage. Then, Stupak caved and settled for a meaningless Executive Order from Barack Obama that guaranteed no funding for abortion in the bill. In short, Stupak sold out to Obama.

Pro-life Democrats had been "Stupaked" and Obamacare became law.

In 2010, Stupak resigned; he did not seek reelection; The Tea Party helped get a Republican to replace him. Something else happened in 2010. The Tea Party got behind Pat Toomey to replace RINO Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. By all accounts, Toomey was a true conservative and had an "A" rating from the NRA. The Tea Party wave swept Toomey into office after Specter was so far behind in the polls that he switched over to the Democratic Party, where he thought he had a better chance of winning.

In 2012, Stupak expressed regret for what honest people would say was a betrayal.

Toomey apparently didn't learn the right lesson from Stupak because he has betrayed the gun rights crowd. Period.

Here in 2013, less than six months after the Sandy Hook shootings, several conservative Republican Senators had threatened to filibuster any bill that came to the floor. It would be Rand Paul times ten. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and others pledged to join in. For once, it appeared that Republicans were going to stand united and go to the mat with the Democrats on something important.

All they had to do was stick to their principles and stand united. In fact, during such a filibuster, one of the Senators would likely stumble upon the contrast between how the Obama administration handled operation Fast and Furious and how it is exploiting Sandy Hook. It would be a tremendous opportunity to expose the administration. Perhaps that is why a filibuster would be so undesired by the Obama.

This is where Toomey appears to have channeled Bart Stupak. He came to a deal with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a supposed pro-second amendment Democrat, on expanding background checks. A consequence of this deal is that the filibuster may be prevented. That Manchin caved to pressure is not surprising. That Toomey did very much is. He's not only a Republican. He was supposed to be a conservative Tea Party Republican who took a lot of money from the NRA in 2010 to get elected, in much the same way that Stupak accepted the support of pro-life Democrats

How do we know Toomey caved? Very simple.

Obama congratulated him and so did Michael Bloomberg.

The NRA is also not satisfied with the Toomey / Manchin bill.

Larry Pratt, the Executive Director at Gun Owners of America (GOA) says Toomey has "betrayed" (Stupaked) his constituents. Pratt is now calling for Toomey to be primaried:

By the way, for those who don't see expanded background checks as a big step toward confiscation, check out this firsthand account about what happened in Canada:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Did Senator Pat Toomey just have his 'Rick Santorum endorses Arlen Specter' moment?

In 2004, then Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) endorsed incumbent Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. It was a contributing factor to Santorum's loss to Bob Casey in 2006. In 2010, the showdown between Toomey and Specter began anew. With Tea Party support, Toomey won.

Last month, during Rand Paul's now famous filibuster, Toomey was one of several Republican Senators who dined with Barack Obama as Paul ate candy bars.

Now, in what appears to be an effort to prevent a filibuster on gun control, Toomey and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) have come together on a compromise bill. As news begins to trickle out, what initially seemed like an inexplicably bone-headed decision by Toomey to reach across the aisle is now no less boneheaded but a little less inexplicable.

Via the Daily Caller:
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group announced Wednesday that it will stop running a negative television ad targeting Sen. Pat Toomey now that the Pennsylvania Republican has signed on to a proposal to expand background checks to gun show and online firearms purchases.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns had been hammering Toomey, a junior senator with an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, with negative ads in Keystone State. But his latest proposal, which he is co-sponsoring with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, has Bloomberg and company singing a different tune.

The coalition’s initial negative ad featured an urgent-voiced narrator who said, “Tell Senator Toomey, don’t protect criminals…Demand action now,” and displayed Toomey’s office phone number. Now the coalition is running a positive ad praising Toomey.
At first blush, it would seem that Toomey could be selling out the second amendment in the interest of getting re-elected.

Republicans blowing another huge opportunity (Mitch McConnell scandal)

Republicans are blowing a huge opportunity relative to what far left-wing wacko bird David Corn of Mother Jones did when he bugged Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters. No, this scandal isn't nearly as big as Benghazi or Fast and Furious. It's not even as big as Solyndra, which have all been said to be bigger than Watergate.

McConnell-gate ain't bigger than Watergate and it ain't smaller than Watergate.

It's exactly the same. Yet, there is no outrage from the left. In fact, they're pointing to what was said on the recordings as being the big infraction.

Meanwhile, Republicans are playing defense on Immigration and gun control, instead of showing a united front on this issue.

The words coming out of McConnell's mouth here are not the problem; his lack of passion is. In fact, he comes across as being so dispassionate that he doesn't even come across as having been violated.

Lack of fire on the Republican side of the aisle is their biggest problem.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Video: John McCain sidles up to Chuck Schumer on Gun Control

There is so much wrong with John McCain and much of it is on full display in this clip of his appearance on CBS's Face the Nation with Chuck Schumer. For starters, McCain obviously didn't learn anything from the backlash he received after calling Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, et. al. 'wacko birds' for Paul's filibuster.

Now, with several Republican Senators pledging to filibuster any gun control bill, McCain is apoplectic and does not 'understand' why they would filibuster. It also says something about McCain that he is more comfortable around someone like Schumer than he is around someone like Cruz.

At another point during this clip, McCain says something about everyone wanting to achieve the same objective. That is a completely incorrect statement. The Democrats want gun confiscation and conservatives want their second amendment rights protected.

McCain is clueless and should just become a Democrat. Period.

Also noteworthy - and instructive as to why McCain is such a sycophant with socialists - comes at the end of this clip. Host Bob Schieffer heaps praise on both Schumer and McCain for their civil discourse, which only serves to reinforce McCain's paradigm that he's "above the fray" and better than those 'wacko birds'.

As for McCain being wrong, this clip from October of 2008 says it all:

h/t Hot Air

Audio: Mother of Benghazi victim says she is being told to 'shut up'

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith - one of the four killed at the Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 - said that she is being told to 'shut up'. However, when asked, she said she wasn't being told that by government employees.

Some might remember that Pat Smith spoke out in the weeks after the attack that killed her son.

This is a compelling interview.

Via MediaIte:

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

Another look at the shooting death of Tom Clements - Executive Director of Colorado's Dept of Corrections (DOC) - on March 19th. On March 21st, interest in Saudi prisoner Homaidan Al-Turki dried up after Evan Ebel became the primary suspect. The mainstream media had its marching orders; Chris Matthews is pushing the narrative that "White Supremacists" are to blame.

Well, it's time to start asking some more questions.

Also, an interview with Unsung David, Larry Grathwohl - the only man to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground for the FBI. Grathwohl's 1976 book "Bringing Down America" has just been re-released with additional content.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

Why the 'White Supremacist' talk by Chris Matthews may just backfire on him

If you have time - though not necessary - check out this related post before continuing.

Race-baiting, Alinsky-acolyte Chris Matthews has practically been hyperventilating at the prospect of the white supremacist group - Aryan Brotherhood of Texas - being responsible for the murders of two District Attorneys in Kaufman County, Texas (Mark Hasse on January 31st and Mike McLelland on Easter weekend) and the Executive Director of the Colorado state prison system, Tom Clements.

As Breitbart's Brandon Darby points out, the mainstream media in general has been eager to push this narrative as well.

Once established, the premise is easy to understand. The likes of Chris Matthews and the rest of the Obama media are attempting to compare these white supremacists to conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans. As is so often the case with these leftists, any time they attempt to make these connections, they usually implicate themselves.

This is where, once again, the left runs into huge problems.

First, take the case of Clements' murder. The primary suspect is the now deceased Evan Ebel, whose father - a Democrat - is close friends with Colorado's Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper. In an interview with Denver's NBC affiliate, Hickenlooper admitted that Jack Ebel - Evan's father - contributed to his campaign.

Via the AP:
Hickenlooper confirmed his relationship with Jack Ebel to The Denver Post and KUSA-TV Friday evening and then in a written statement Friday night. State records show Ebel donated $1,050 to the governor's 2010 campaign. But there's no indication that Hickenlooper's relationship with the Ebels played a role in the shooting.

Hickenlooper denied having any role in Evan Ebel's parole.

"Although Jack loved his son, he never asked me to intervene on his behalf and I never asked for any special treatment for his son," Hickenlooper's written statement said.
Though Hickenlooper may be telling the truth, he's a Democrat and if there's one thing we know about Democrats, it's that they lie with impunity.

Here is a video from March 22nd, one day after Evan Ebel's death. In it, an NBC 9 reporter attempts to get some answers from Hickenlooper about his relationship with Jack Ebel and whether the contributions to Hickenlooper's campaign prompted the Colorado Governor to talk to Clements about the son of his friend.

It's already been reported that Evan Ebel was released four years earlier than he should have been. We have also been told that solitary confinement got to Evan and may be responsible for making him become more violent / crazy.

Again, via the AP:
Attorney Jack Ebel testified before the Colorado Legislature two years ago that solitary confinement in a Colorado prison was destroying the psyche of his son, Evan.

When Jack Ebel's longtime friend, Gov. John Hickenlooper, was interviewing a Missouri corrections official for the top prisons job in Colorado, he mentioned the case as an example of why the prison system needed reform. And once Tom Clements came to Colorado, he eased the use of solitary confinement and tried to make it easier for people housed there to re-enter society.
If there is an aspect to the charge that Evan Ebel murdered Clements that doesn't make any sense, it's that Ebel was released four years early while Clements was in charge of decisions relative to parole and had already begun to ease up on solitary confinement. In that respect, Clements was not someone that Ebel should have targeted.

At about the 3:25 mark, the reporter asks a question that sets Hickenlooper off (a must-watch).


Now, consider the case of D.A. Mike McLelland. While MSNBC's Chris Matthews was visibly wishing that "white supremacists" were involved in McLelland's murder, he overlooked two things.
  1. McLelland and his wife were both white (for that matter, so were Clements and Hasse).
  2. McLelland was a Republican.
Via CNN:
McLelland won a three-way race in the 2010 Republican primary and ran unopposed in the general election. Burns said he and McLelland kept in touch "here and there" until January, when McLelland's assistant district attorney, Mark Hasse, was shot to death in a still-unsolved case.
Chris Matthews, et. al. are so desperate that they are willing to play up the narrative that 'white supremacists' (who are apparently tied to Democrats and who murdered whites and Republicans) are responsible for murdering... whites and Republicans.

More evidence that Matthews, et. al. are insane.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Same ATF that gave guns to Mexican Drug Cartels closes gun shop that LEGALLY sold gun to Newtown Shooter's mother

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was found to be responsible for telling gun store owners in Arizona to sell high capacity, semi-automatic weapons (AK-47's and .50 Cal) to straw purchasers, whom they knew would 'walk' those guns into Mexico. Those thousands of guns were placed into the hands of drug cartels who proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry).

Now, that same ATF is has shut down a gun store that sold weapons to the mother of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.

Via Reuters:
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.

"We did revoke their federal firearms license," she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza's mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.
This may just be one of the most boldly audacious and outrageous moves by the Feds in some time. In operation Fast and Furious, the ATF has the blood of hundreds of Mexicans on its hands for telling gun store owners to sell weapons to buyers it knew would give them to drug cartels. Yet, no one at ATF has paid any real price. Now, the same ATF is shutting down a gun store that did nothing illegal?!?!

I sent the following email to Rep. Darrell Issa's press secretary, Becca Watkins:
Becca, where are you guys on this????

Without explanation, the ATF shuts down gun shop that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mother. Yet, the ATF FREAKIN' TOLD GUN STORES to sell to straw purchasers who put thousands of guns into the hands of cartels, who then proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexcians!!!

Where is Chairman Issa??????

Is he still there????
Issa is head of the House Oversight Committee and knows as much as anyone about what went on in Fast and Furious.

h/t WZ

Video: Interview with Jim DeMint (Best candidate for POTUS in 2016?)

When Jim DeMint, by far the most principled Senator in the U.S. Senate, announced that he was stepping down to lead the Heritage Foundation, most viewed it as a step down for conservatism - because DeMint was that good. As the dust has settled since that announcement, the seat held by DeMint has been filled by the very capable conservative Tim Scott (R-SC) and DeMint is prepared to impact the political landscape as a marketing tactician in a world rife with technological marketing tools.

The seat once held by DeMint is in good hands and effective April 4th, so is Heritage. On his first day as president of Heritage, DeMint sent out an open letter that explains what he's done during the transition and what he'd like to accomplish during his tenure. In many ways, he may just be more effective than if he'd stayed in the Senate.

In fact, if he does this right, DeMint may just become the obvious choice for president in 2016; he is certainly up to the task.

This morning, Ed Morrissey interviewed DeMint about his new role.

Via Hot Air:

Thursday, April 4, 2013

The Increasingly Bizarre case of Evan Ebel and the murders of State officials

On March 21st, two days after Tom Clements - the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections - was murdered at his home in Monument, Colorado, a high speed car chase in Decatur, TX ended with the death of Evan Ebel, a parolee whom many view as the prime suspect in Clements' murder. Decatur is almost 700 miles from Monument.

Before Ebel's run-in with Texas law enforcement, the description of a car that sat outside Clements' home was relayed by at least one witness (possibly two), to authorities.

Via the Daily Mail:
Colorado authorities are looking for a dark-colored ‘boxy,’ dark-colored, two-door 1990s-model car with green dashboard light seen idling for 15 minutes near Clements' house around the time of the shooting. The vehicle's engine was running and a witness reported seeing one person driving away in the car.
Here is Lt. Jeff Kramer on or about March 19th, giving a description of the vehicle of interest. Take note of how matter-of-factly Kramer states that the vehicle is a "two-door" vehicle.

Fast forward to March 21st, the day that Ebel met his end in Decatur, TX. The car he was driving can be described as "dark-colored" and "boxy" but it was definitely not a "two-door" vehicle. It was absolutely a four-door vehicle (see photo).

On a March 20th news report from NBC News 9 in Denver, the description again, is a two-door vehicle, witnessed by a female speed-walker (take note at the 2:30 mark):

**UPDATE** The description of the car being a two-door vehicle was made prior to this speed-walker being identified (as the NBC 9 report indicates). There are also no news stories I can find that identify the "speed-walker" as having been contacted prior to Ebel's death. In fact, in this March 21st report posted after Ebel's death, the "speed-walker" doesn't appear to have been identified at all. The question becomes: How many witnesses had identified the vehicle outside Clements' home as being "two-door"?

Clements' murder (and Ebel's death) took place after the murder of Kaufman County Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse and before the murder of Kaufman County D.A. Mike McLelland, who - like Clements - was murdered in his own home, along with his wife Cynthia. Hasse was gunned down on Kaufman County courthouse steps in broad daylight on January 31st. Though Clements and the McLellands were murdered in similar fashion, Ebel met his end nine days before the McLellands were murdered, despite being roughly 100 miles away in Decatur, TX.

Conversely, this distance from where Clements was shot and Decatur, TX is nearly 800 miles.

As for Ebel's "dark-colored", "boxy" four-door vehicle, is it possible that he switched cars and that the two-door car was ditched? Based on his actions prior to meeting his own demise - coupled with what he didn't ditch, the answer to that question is: not likely.

Consider the evidence allegedly found in Ebel's vehicle. On Sunday, March 17th, two days prior to Clements' murder, a Domino's Pizza delivery man named Nathan Leon was murdered near Denver. Based on what was found in Ebel's trunk, evidence implicated him in Leon's murder as well.

Via ABC 7 in Denver:
...Bradford (Texas Ranger) wrote that the Cadillac also contained evidence that could be linked to the Denver police investigation of the Sunday slaying of Nathan Leon, a Denver Domino’s Pizza delivery man.

In the Cadillac’s open trunk, investigators saw an insulated Domino’s Pizza carrier and a Domino’s shirt or jacket, the affidavit said.
Think about this for a minute. If Ebel murdered Leon two days prior to murdering the top guy for Colorado's Department of Corrections at his home, why would Ebel leave evidence of the first murder in the car he was driving when he murdered Clements? We are talking about an experienced criminal here. It doesn't make sense.

That wasn't the only evidence found in the vehicle that seemed to implicate Ebel.

Via CBS News:
The El Paso County sheriff's office said that "unique and often microscopic markings" found on shell casings in Texas and Colorado leads investigators to conclude that the gun Evan Ebel used to shoot at authorities in Texas was the same gun used to kill Tom Clements at his home on Tuesday.

It had been known that the casings found at both scenes were of the same caliber and brand but Monday's announcement was the first time Colorado investigators made a direct link between Ebel and Clements' death.
It would seem we're dealing with an incredibly stupid criminal here. Think about this possible chain of events:
  1. On Sunday, March 17th, Ebel murders a pizza delivery guy and puts the delivery box carrier and a shirt belonging to that guy, in his trunk.
  2. Two days later, on March 19th, with murder evidence still in his trunk, Ebel drives to the home of Tom Clements and murders him, while keeping the murder weapon.
  3. Two days after that, on March 21st, Ebel is in a high speed chase with police in Decatur, during which he shoots at them with the same gun he used to murder Clements, while also having evidence in his trunk that implicates him in the murder of a pizza delivery guy four days earlier.
This is the behavior of a murderer who had no interest in covering his tracks.

Let's take a look at some of the circumstances that allowed Ebel to be in a position to commit these murders in the first place.
  1. Ebel was released from prison four years too early, on January 28th (incidentally, three days prior to Hasse's murder in Kaufman, TX) as a result of a clerical error.
  2. On March 14th, three days before the murder of Leon, Ebel removed his ankle bracelet. Despite his being on "intensive supervised parole", authorities didn't take much interest in Ebel until the day of Clements' murder. In fact, a warrant wasn't issued for Ebel's arrest until the day after Clements was murdered.
Again, Ebel had to have known he was living on borrowed time when he allegedly murdered both Leon and Clements. Why would he seemingly want to implicate himself in those murders? It's as if he wanted to be caught and charged for committing them.

Who does that?

Ok, let's consider a narrative that would be incredibly beneficial to the Obama administration vs. one that would not. It's no secret that this administration has been waging class and race warfare ever since 2009; it thrives on such things. Identifying these murders as the actions of a white supremacist group like the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas would certainly be more preferable than pushing the notion that the killings were the work of say, Mexican drug cartels.

With so much evidence implicating Ebel, such a narrative is easier to push, is it not? While he's still the "alleged" murderer of Clements and Leon, the evidence that does exist appears to be so overwhelming that it's not far from being as obvious that Nidal Malik Hasan is the Fort Hood shooter.

The Obama administration would absolutely not want a narrative to take hold or evidence to come forth that Mexican drug cartels are behind these murders, primarily for two reasons:
  1. The Immigration debate / border security - In 2011, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano insisted that the border with Mexico is "safer than it's ever been" while the Democratic Party and the administration she works for has stonewalled every attempt to enhance border security. If it turns out that Mexican drug cartels are murdering U.S. prosecutors, Obama, et. al. might finally have a lot of 'splaining to do.
  2. Operation Fast and Furious - This operation was specifically designed to place high powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Two of those weapons were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry in 2010 in Peck Canyon, AZ. Hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered at the hands of those weapons as well. It'd be bad enough for the administration if Americans learned of cartel savagery firsthand; the former could start connecting real dots relative to what the ATF did when it gave these weapons to cartels. It'd be far more disastrous for Obama if any of the weapons used in the murder of Americans on American soil turn out to be Fast and Furious guns.
Brandon Darby over at Breitbart has a very interesting find relative to the Aryan Brotherhood and its willingness to work with the Mexican cartels. In his piece, Darby quotes from declassified FBI documents, which indicate that the AB is more interested in drug trafficking than it is in race and that it seems to act in concert with cartels:
The purpose of the AB is now power and is not a racial organization as it has been deemed in the past. The AB’s continue to be aligned with members of the Mexican Mafia (EME) and certain motorcycle type inmates.
Let's revisit a bit of news that was making the rounds after Clements was murdered and before Ebel's death. It had been reported that one week prior to Clements was killed, he vetoed a request from a Saudi prisoner convicted in 2006 for the enslavement and repeated sexual assault of an Indonesian woman. Homaidan Al-Turki's request was that he finish serving his sentence in Saudi Arabia. In layman's terms, he wanted to be released.

In a letter to Al-Turki dated March 11th, three days before Ebel ditched his ankle bracelet, Clements informed the Saudi prisoner that his request for release to Saudi Arabia had been denied.

It should be lost on no one that some extremely powerful Saudis want to see Al-Turki freed.

Ebel becoming the most obvious suspect in the murder of Clements did two things. One, it prevented speculation about a major international showdown / scandal between the U.S and Saudi Arabia. Authorities began "de-prioritizing" an Al-Turki connection when the evidence against Ebel became so strong. Two, it enabled a narrative to take hold that a white supremacist group was likely behind the murder of a high-ranking Colorado prison official.

Extrapolating Ebel's alleged actions as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood to the murders in Kaufman, TX of District Attorneys (the McLellans were murdered after Ebel's death) helps to further the narrative that a racist group was behind all of the murders.

Certainly, we can all agree that if given the option of a Saudi hit man, Mexican drug cartels, or a white supremacist movement being implicated in the murders of state officials in Texas and Colorado, the Obama administration would certainly prefer the third option.

Go figure. That's the one being pushed by the mainstream Obama media.

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive