Obama in 2013: 'There there'; Clinton in 1998: 'Is is'

When asked about Benghazi at today's press conference, Barack Obama said there is no "there there":



When asked about Lewinsky during his 1998 deposition, Bill Clinton said "is is":



h/t GWP

Video: The American Tank Man

Allegory: a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.

Perhaps there is no allegory that better illustrates the lopsidedness that exists in the fight between government tyranny and a repressed populace, than the photo of one man - known as Tank Man - standing in front of four tanks in Tiananmen Square. That man, unidentified, defeated those tanks by taking a stand.

As the gun control debate heats up here in the United States, the Tea Party may be witnessing a re-birth. Even Bill Clinton seems to think so.

Enter one of the Tank Men from Tiananmen Square. The video below is of an activist who fought Chinese government tyranny there in 1989. Today, he is an American citizen and gun owner who explains perfectly the reason for the Second Amendment.

That reason is not hunting and it's not home protection. The reason for the Second Amendment is to shorten the odds between government tyrants and its repressed victims. The reason why Democrats in the U.S. want more gun control is very simple. They prefer those odds to be as long as possible.

In the video below, the American Tank Man gives a rousing speech, though the first paragraph was not captured by the cameraman so the opening transcript is below:

The past Monday I decided to visit the Minuteman Park in Lexington and pay tribute to Captain John Parker and his fellow minutemen. A thought came to my mind, that the founding fathers of the United States and Chairman Mao had one thing in common: they all realized that guns are important political instruments. Their similarities, however, ended there:

Chairman Mao wrote: ‘Political power grows out of barrel of a gun’, and he dictated: ‘The party shall command the gun’. James Madison and his compatriots, however, believing that the power of the state is derived from the consent of the governed, ratified that ‘the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’.

Here is the video of the American Tank Man, via Blog O'Stuff (h/t Sipsey Street):

Video: Did Hillary out-do Bill's 'meaning of is, is' Gaffe over Benghazi?

The following is the definition of hypothetical:

(of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.

When it comes to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's appearances on five separate talk shows to give the demonstrably false White House talking points, it's not hypothetical; it's fact. It's also factual to say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not do those interviews. Since we're talking about two factual events of the past, asking a question about why Rice did appear on those talk shows instead of Hillary is not about engaging in a hypothetical.

It's about wanting to know why one decision was made instead of an alternate decision.

Yet, when Hillary was asked why Rice and not her, she actually avoided the question by saying she wouldn't engage in a hypothetical.

Pay attention at the :37 mark for this gem that might just make her husband Bill blush.

"I'm not going to answer any hypothetical questions about what could have happened but didn't happen." - Hillary Clinton on why Susan Rice did the talk shows instead of her.

If she was referring to a point in the future, that's one thing but she's referring to what did and did not happen in the past as 'hypothetical'.

Via CNS News:



Perhaps another reason why Hillary buttoned her lips on this subject is that the answer has to do with racism. After all, she reportedly prefers John Kerry to Susan Rice for Secretary of State.

Video: President Perjury accuses Romney of lying

While campaigning in Philadelphia, Bill Clinton, who was impeached for lying, accused Mitt Romney of being a... liar. The cherry on top?

Bubba wagged his finger as he made the charge.

Priceless.

Via Daily Caller:

Hillary Clinton, Videos, and Political Prisoners

When the father of Tyrone Woods (Charles Woods) called in to the Lars Larson show on October 23rd, what he told the host indicates that Hillary Clinton is willing to incarcerate people for political reasons. In the case Woods was referring to, he said Hillary pledged to prosecute the man behind the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims. Such a reality would indicate a willingness on the part of the Secretary of State to jail people as political prisoners in America.

This is no small matter... and it's also not unprecedented for Hillary Clinton.

In the year 2000, a Hollywood mogul named Peter Paul put on a star-studded gala for both Bill and Hillary; it consisted of Hollywood's A-list at the time. Whoopi Goldberg, Sugar Ray, Paul Anka, Cher, Toni Braxton, and others took the stage. Nicholas Cage, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, and other celebrities were in attendance; it went off without a hitch in a very short period of time (six weeks) and cost Paul over $1.2 Million. It was meant to be a farewell to Bill and a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.

What was Paul expecting in return? Well, in 1998, he formed a company with Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) called Stan Lee Media (SLM), Inc. Paul wanted Bill to work to work for SLM as a rainmaker after leaving office.

Though Paul upheld his end of the deal, the Clintons never did. Shortly after the Gala, Clinton machine apparatchiks went to work. Paul was smeared and his largest investor was wooed away from him by a man named Jim Levin, who had served as an intermediary between the president and Paul in the run-up to the gala. Soon thereafter, SLM went bankrupt and the Clintons could say they didn't renege because there was no longer a Stan Lee Media to work for.

In a last ditch effort to save the company, Paul did manipulate the stock price in hopes of preventing the destruction of his company. It didn't work and he was charged with a Securities and Exchange Commission violation - which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison - and arrested while in Brazil, tending to one of his other companies in 2001.

Before being detained, Paul gave an explosive interview to ABC's Brian Ross that was incredibly damaging to the Clintons, though some of the more explosive claims were edited out at the last minute. He named both Bill and Hillary in a lawsuit and would cause them fits for years. Paul had videos, documents, witnesses, letters from both Bill and Hillary, and a mountain of other evidence that was incredibly damaging to the president and first lady. In fact, David Rosen - Hillary's campaign finance director - was indicted, in large part because of Paul's evidence and subsequent public pressure. Though Rosen was ultimately acquitted, the extent to which powerful people had to go in order to get that acquittal stunk of corruption and cover-up.

Paul was actually jailed for two years in Brazil, spent more time in a Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, and then four years under house arrest. Paul claims that in 2009, he accepted a plea deal that would include those four years counting as time served. When he surrendered in November of 2009, Paul was informed that the deal reached between himself and the U.S. Attorney was essentially withdrawn and his credit for time served under house arrest was not awarded.

This reality falls in the lap of Attorney General Eric Holder.

In essence, Peter Paul has become a political prisoner; the U.S. Government has reneged on a plea deal; and Paul is serving more than the maximum sentence for his crime.

Holder and the Clintons have a long history together as well (think Marc Rich pardon, the release of Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, and the freeing of FALN terrorists).

There are two separate dynamics when it comes to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Mark Basseley Yousef), the man behind the anti-Muhammad video. First, by all accounts, he has an extremely checkered history and real questions about his relationship with a man named Eiad Salameh still need to be answered, as do questions about his real motivations behind producing the film. Americans deserve to know the truth about those motivations as well as his associations.

The second dynamic is Hillary's alleged willingness to jail someone for political reasons. If she told Charles Woods what he alleges she told him, it means that she is willing to imprison someone for doing something that is not against the law.

In Unsung Davids, the very first chapter is about Peter Paul's battle with Hillary Clinton. After reading about how much damage he did to the Clintons, to include a documentary that went viral in late 2007 - when Hillary was beginning her long campaign fight with Barack Obama - it should become clear why Paul is a political prisoner in America.

UNSUNG DAVIDS: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory

Here is the video that did legitimate damage to Hillary Clinton in 2007 and likely contributed to Peter Paul becoming a political prisoner. Paul is not scheduled for release until 2014, four years after the maximum sentence for the crime he was charged with.

Left-wing absurdity: Defending Obama administration in the wake of dead bodies

No one screams louder about wanting bi-partisanship than the voices from the left. However, time and time again, it is demonstrated that the left is far more entrenched in the idea of defending its party at all costs. The quintessential case-in-point would be contrasting the fates of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon left office as a direct result of bi-partisan opposition. House impeachment and Senate conviction was inevitable; he resigned.

Bill Clinton remained in office despite being impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice (lies and cover-ups). He wasn't removed from office because there was zero bi-partisanship in the Senate, except for a few Republican Senators who voted 'not guilty'. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate because there wasn't a single Democratic vote to convict on either of the two counts.

In Operation Fast and Furious, the highest officials at the Justice Department were found to be complicit in gun-walking that resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking member on the Oversight Committee, which spearheaded the investigation, fought tooth and nail to defend DOJ as well as the Obama administration. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), to which Cummings belongs, walked out during the contempt vote of Attorney General Eric Holder, who had refused to honor a Congressional subpoena for documents after having to withdraw a letter that was demonstrably false (lies and cover-ups).

The Democrats on the committee demonstrated that even dead bodies wouldn't  prompt them to seek justice when it was their party on the hook. Not one of the Oversight committees' Democrats voted to bring contempt charges against Holder to the House floor, though some Democratic congressmen did vote for contempt once it got there. Just prior to the vote, Barack Obama did what Richard Nixon did. He asserted Executive Privilege to prevent those congressionally subpoenaed documents from being released.

Fast forward to Benghazi-gate. Like Fast and Furious, Obama administration policies led directly to dead bodies. In the case of our consulate, there were four dead Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Administration officials changed their stories multiple times, first saying the attack was the result of an anti-Muhammad video and then being forced to admit the attack was coordinated and planned (lies and cover-ups).

Despite State Department officials and security officers on the ground confirming that multiple requests were made - unsuccessfully - for additional security assets, the left continues to defend the Obama administration on grounds that it didn't know and has a lot on its plate. In the case of Fast and Furious, that included DOJ. In the case of Benghazi,  it includes the State Department.

When Clinton was not removed from office in 1998, it was a major flashpoint in American history. The Democratic Party laid the foundation for its despicable behavior today. Crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice were dismissed and Clinton was defended because of what the lie was about and why he tried to cover it up. A new standard had been set; it was ok to lie and attempt to cover up said lie if the lie itself was perceived to be minor.

In 2012, it's evident the Democrats have set a new standard for acceptable lies and cover-ups. An administration that has lied and covered-up in both Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate is being defended by Democrats, in the wake of policies that have led to dead bodies.

In Clinton's case, he was protected because the lie was perceived to be insignificant. In the case of Fast and Furious and Benghazi, a different course is being chosen - since lying about murder has not devolved to acceptable behavior - at least not yet (then again, the left seems content with lying about abortion not being about murder).

As a consequence, the administration is defended because it was ignorant of the circumstances that led to murder. In Fast and Furious, we were to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder knew that guns were being put into the hands of people who would use them to kill Brian Terry along with hundreds of other innocents. In Benghazi-gate, we are to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton knew about the requests for additional security by those who would be killed, despite testimony from State Department officials to the contrary.

We are also told that when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeat over and over that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Muhammad video, they weren't lying. Again, the significance of the lie is not at issue. Denying lies were told - despite evidence to the contrary - is still the chosen course of action. That is, until lying about murder reaches the level of being considered acceptable.

In 1998, Democrats protected Bill Clinton by equating perjury with a white lie.

In 2012, Democrats are protecting the Barack Obama administration by equating dead bodies as the direct result of the administration's policies with events outside the administration's control.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi speaks at Clinton Global Initiative

Yesterday, I posted about Mitt Romney's misguided decision to speak at Clinton Global Initiative annual conference. It appears that decision was more misguided than previously thought because in addition to Romney's speech, one was given by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Mursi. Here is the relevant excerpt Via GWP:

“Demonstrations and clashes recently broke out in a large number of Arab and Islamic countries in response to an incident in response to the defamation. We must acknowledge the importance of freedom of expression. We must also recognize that such freedom comes with responsibilities especially when it has serious implications for international peace.”

Here's the video:



Again, need we be reminded that Mursi's wife and the mother of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin are colleagues in their roles as two of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood?

Audio: Newt rallies behind Todd Akin, rails against establishment

Newt Gingrich appeared on the Jamie Allman show in St. Louis on September 24th to make the case for Rep. Todd Akin against Claire McCaskill in a critical Senate race in that state. The former Speaker nailed it when he referred to six seconds of an interview Akin would like to have back compared to six years of 'destructive' votes from McCaskill sensible people wished never took place.

Akin is a conservative, tea party kinda guy. The establishment doesn't like him. Karl Rove joked about his murder at a fundraiser. Gingrich nailed him on it. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus continues to insist Akin will not get a dime of RNC support. Ditto John Cornyn, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). It would seem that as the Republican nominee for President, Romney should have a bit of influence on the RNC and the NRSC. If he does, it doesn't appear that he's using any of it to help Akin.

But you know what Romney IS doing? As Newt is in Missouri, campaigning for Akin, Romney will be speaking at Bill Clinton's Global Initiative, perhaps the former president's biggest pet project. Some would argue - myself included - that what Akin said is less distasteful that what Romney is doing by lending voice to the CGI, especially when better use of his time might be spent in Missouri, showing support for Akin.

Here is a screenshot taken from the list of CGI Speakers between September 23rd - 25th:

Once again, the establishment shows that it's not willing to do what it insists conservatives should do - hold their nose and support the Republican nominee.

Here's Newt - otherwise known as the man who should have gotten the nomination - with Jamie Allman.



h/t GWP

CBS New York: Huma following Hillary's model for Marriage reconstruction

Marcia Kramer of CBS 2 in New York recently did a story comparing the Hillary Clinton model for dealing with Bill's sex scandals to how it appears the Secretary of State's closest advisor, Huma Abedin is dealing with the sexting scandal her husband Anthony Weiner was involved in last year.

Well done news report that includes footage of Hillary defending Bill back in 1992. The strategy was entirely political. Hillary played the role of a scorned but unbelievably tolerant and forgiving wife. It worked because it garnered an enormous amount of sympathy for Hillary. According to this report from Kramer, Abedin is following the exact same playbook.

Via CBS 2 in New York:

Klein: Valerie Jarrett's meeting with Hillary Clinton

According to Edward Klein, author of "The Amateur", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had lunch with Obama's closest advisor Valerie Jarrett recently and when the subject turned to Clinton's interest in a VP slot, there wasn't any. In fact, if Klein is correct, the only reason she's not on the ticket already is because she doesn't want to be, not because Obama wouldn't do it.

Klein has benefited from increased credibility based on the contents of his book. He has demonstrated an uncanny knack for getting sources - even from opposing camps - to talk to him; his audio recorded interviews with Jeremiah Wright went a long way in this regard.

Via Daily Caller:

Pundits and talking heads have discussed in recent weeks the possibility of Vice President Joe Biden being replaced on the Democratic presidential ticket, particularly with news of his brief hiatus from the spotlight this weekend.

“Up until just a couple of weeks ago the White House was putting out feelers to see if Hillary would accept the vice-presidential nod and replace Joe Biden,” Klein said. “Bill Clinton was, I’m told, urging his wife to accept the number two slot. He saw this as a great launching pad for her for running in 2016.”

“But then Hillary had lunch in the White House a couple of weeks ago with Valerie Jarrett — Michelle [Obama]’s best friend, senior adviser to both the first lady and the president … and she told Valerie that she would not accept the vice president’s spot. The lunch was ostensibly about other matters, but it came up. … Hillary felt burned out after four years as Secretary of State. But I’m told there were more important reasons for her not accepting.”

Those reasons, Klein explained, involve the former first lady being put in positions that would make her vulnerable if she should decide to run for president four years from now.

So, Bill wants Hillary on the ticket; Obama - through Jarrett - appears to believe that teaming up with Hillary gives him the best chance in November. If Klein is right, Hillary is the reason it isn't a done deal yet. As Kudlow and Klein discuss in the exchange below, Obama only has about three weeks to change horses. Depending on how relentless the pressure on Hillary gets, coupled with how sweetened the pot gets, things could change.

If Obama continues to drop and Romney / Ryan continues to rise, look for the president's campaign to treat Hillary like every major college treats the nation's top recruit before National Signing Day.


For some reason, this clip from 2008 just came to mind:

The Republican Establishment's 'Mike McQueary' Moments

When Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary saw what appeared to be the penetration of a young boy by Jerry Sandusky in a shower in 2001, he saw evil. He punted when he told head coach Joe Paterno instead of going to police; Paterno knew evil had penetrated his program. He punted too, when he went to Athletic Director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz instead of to police. Curley and Schultz punted when Sandusky was let off the hook, a decision endorsed by president Graham Spanier, who essentially sealed the deal.

Each man had his own 'Mike McQueary' moment (MMM).

It was a moment of truth during which, individuals came face to face with evil and after which, they chose complicity with that evil over defeating it. With each passing day, those individuals implicated themselves further with their silence. They had chosen Sandusky's side in one respect; they all had a vested interest in preventing the evil truth from coming out because they were all implicated in suppressing it.

The jig was up in 2011 and Sandusky's defenders paid a price for not coming clean. It was made steeper by how much time had passed without them doing so. It was made much worse by them being found out instead of coming forward.

The heart of the U.S. Government was penetrated by evil too, beginning in at least 1992, when Abdurahman Alamoudi – a Muslim – began buying influence with both political parties. After Clinton was elected, Alamoudi landed a job with the State Department in 1997 as an Islamic affairs advisor. Based on his professed support for Hamas just a few years earlier, it was a 'Mike McQueary' moment for the political establishment.

Another MMM came in October of 2000, when Alamoudi stood on a stage outside the White House and referred to Bill Clinton by name while espousing – through a P.A. system – his support for both Hamas and Hezbollah:



It was as if the Clinton administration's inaction was a foreshadowing of McQueary's behavior. Right outside its window, the occupiers of the White House could see a man who had penetrated America's power centers via the State Department. It's important to keep in mind that establishment Republicans like Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner held seats in the Senate and the House, respectively at the time. Was it an MMM for them too?

In what is believed to be the same year that Alamoudi was cheering Hamas and Hezbollah outside the White House, he was also meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, despite the concerns of intelligence officials, that Alamoudi had ties to Osama bin Laden and the “blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdul-Rahman. This would mean that Bush agreed to meet with a man connected to individuals found to be responsible for both World Trade Center attacks, one of which had already taken place.

At that meeting, Karl Rove was handed a book entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam. It was authored by a man identified as a co-founder of two Muslim Brotherhood groups – The International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Was the book vetted? If so, it didn't stop meetings between Bush, Rove, and individuals tied to the Brotherhood, from taking place. 'Mike McQueary' moment?

In June of 2001, another individual who would eventually be convicted of charges related to funding terrorism – Sami al-Arian – met with Karl Rove at the White House as part of a 160-member delegation from the American Muslim Council, a group founded by... you guessed it, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was also present. This was after Alamoudi pledged support for Hamas and Hezbollah outside the White House one year earlier. 'Mike McQueary' moment?

The Washington Post reported about the multiple warning signs available to the Bush administration prior to AMC's visit. Vice President Dick Cheney was scheduled to speak to the AMC but backed out after a Jerusalem Post article identified AMC as a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah; this demonstrates that the administration was not nearly as ignorant about who it had chosen to associate with. 'Mike McQueary' moment?

If none of those things served as 'Mike McQueary' moments, the violent penetration of America on September 11, 2001 did. One can imagine that the look on McQueary's face when he saw Sandusky with a young boy in that locker room shower wasn't much different than this:



Had the proper course been taken at Penn State, McQueary would have gone straight to police and Sandusky would have been summarily jettisoned from the University in handcuffs in 2001. There was a problem, however. An investigation conducted by Former FBI Director, Louis Freeh determined that Curley and Schultz became aware of Sandusky's penchant for young boys as early as 1998, when the mother of an 11-year old boy reported that an assault on her son had taken place in the shower. No charges were filed. In 2011, as the scandal was reaching critical mass, Schultz denied knowledge of the 1998 incident in an email he wrote in 2011.

Did knowledge of the 1998 incident contribute to the covering up of the 2001 incident? Dealing with Sandusky properly in 2001 would have involved very uncomfortable questions about the 1998 incident. As we now know, failure to deal with the 2001 incident properly involved a great deal more than uncomortable questions; Schultz lied about his knowledge of the 1998 incident. Does he wish he would have done in 1998 what he was unable to do in 2011, when such a decision was whisked from his control?

Six days after 9/11, George W. Bush stood with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad inside a mosque and spoke of Islam in very peaceful terms. On September 26, 2001 Bush welcomed individuals with distinct Muslim Brotherhood ties into the White House. Among them was AMC president Yahya Basha, Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Muzammil Siddiqi, then president of the Brotherhood's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

When Rove was confronted after the meeting about the decision to welcome such individuals into the White House, he allegedly said, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”

That statement is as believable as Schultz's contention that he didn't know about the 1998 incident when he denied knowledge of it in 2011.

On October 12, 2001 George W. Bush did something Paterno, Schultz, Curley, and Penn State president Graham Spanier did a few months earlier; he identified a responsible party. One such party was the Rabita Trust, an entity that, even according to the United Nations, was involved in the “financing, planning, facilitating” activities of “Al-Qaida”. Like Sandusky, the man who founded Rabita – Abdullah Omar Nasseef – has essentially escaped accountability. As the one time Secretary General for the Muslim World League, Nasseef led a group that is heavily financed by the Saudi government.

In February of 2002, Anwar al-Awlaki was allowed to penetrate the Department of Defense as an honored guest at a plush luncheon. CAIR Executive Director was one of the invitees. Later that year, al-Awlaki was detained at JFK airport after landing. Despite there being a warrant for his arrest, al-Awlaki was released. He eventually traveled to Yemen, where he inspired Fort Hood Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hassan, who would go on to murder 14 at the Texas Army post.

Interestingly, none other than Abdurahman Alamoudi helped to lay the groundwork for the increased presence of Muslim chaplains in the U.S. Military when he founded the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC) in 1991.

Jerry Sandusky founded The Second Mile and was able to penetrate young boys for years. One of the reasons he was able to do so was because those charged with stopping him chose instead, to implicate themselves by covering up his crimes. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to penetrate the U.S. Government for similar reasons.

The consequences for those who chose to cover up for Sandusky will be far less than those who have chosen to cover up the truth about the penetration of America by her enemies. The bad news is that there will be far more victims.

In any case, those in the Republican establishment who choose to close their eyes, ears, and mouths can be expected to utter words similar to those uttered by Joe Paterno when he finally realized it would have been much better had he come clean in 2001 than face a day of reckoning years later:

“It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

It would seem, however, that the Republican Party establishment has had quite a few more 'Mike McQueary' moments than Penn State did.

Democrats in 1999: It's just Sex; Democrats in 2012: It's just Dead People

In 1999, not one House Democrat voted to impeach Bill Clinton; not one Senate Democrat voted to convict him. None of them, however, could deny that Clinton committed the felony of lying under oath to a grand jury. They had to create a new argument. What did they do? They shifted the argument away from perjury and over to what the lie was about - sex.

The narrative took hold among Democratic voters and a liberal media. Suddenly, holding a president accountable for lying under oath was something to be derided if the lie was about what could be portrayed as minor. Lawlessness was acceptable if you were a Democrat and if the substance of your crime could be diminished. Democrats couldn't deny Clinton committed a felony so they decided to impugn the motives of those who prosecuted it. The problem with the liberal logic applied to Clinton's situation is that there are not degrees of perjury. When you're under oath, it doesn't matter if you lie about sex or murder; the lie itself is the offense and it is a felony.

Speaking of murder, the Democrats find themselves in another battle over Democratic leaders - in this case, Attorney General Eric Holder and his underlings - committing perjury about an operation in which hundreds of Mexican nationals and one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry) were murdered. Holder perjured himself on May 3, 2011 when he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had only learned about Fast and Furious a 'few weeks' earlier; his Department lied in a February 4, 2011 letter to Congress and had to retract it; and just this week, Holder had to retract a statement he made to the Senate Judiciary last week.

These lies demand accountability.

If Bill Clinton was let off the hook for perjury because of the substance (sex) at the heart of the charge, why isn't Eric Holder being held accountable for perjury by the Democrats when the substance of his perjury involves murder? Are we to excuse Holder because his lies are just about an operation that led to hundreds of dead people?

Such a notion should send chills down your spine because it would make such Democrats nothing short of wicked.

It would seem that the technique used by the Democrats with Clinton would be dangerous territory today but that's only if the Republicans are willing to fight tooth and nail without worrying about political considerations. Lying about a murderous program cannot be as easily diminished as can lying about sex, can it? Nonetheless, Democrats appear to be lining up in much the same way that they did with Clinton. In the House Oversight Committee, the vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress passed but, like with Clinton's impeachment, not one Democrat voted for it, despite having in their possession the demonstrably false February 4th letter signed by then Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.

The contempt hearing only tangentially involved perjury; it was about the Justice Department handing over documents related to that demonstrably false letter. What led to its crafting and what led to its retraction? Democrats don't want you to know what's in them. The reason is simple. They have a good idea about what they reveal - a coverup and blood on the hands of high ranking Obama administration officials.

Those documents are also quite likely to reveal multiple instances of perjury from Holder, as well as other officials who have testified in front of Congressional Committees about Fast and Furious.

The inability of the Democrats to hold the Attorney General accountable for lying to Congress about a murderous operation indicates that the reasons given for not voting to impeach and convict Clinton are rendered invalid, using liberal logic. If lying under oath is ok as long as what you lie about is trivial, aren't they necessarily saying that what Holder is lying about is trivial by not holding him in contempt?

That would make lying about murder... trivial.

Confirmed: Obama lied in 2008 about not being Socialist Party member

Well, it appears that Rep. Allen West (R-FL) may have made a critical omission when he said that between 78-81 Democratic Congressmen are communists; he should have included President Barack Obama. The Democratic Socialists of America caucus (DSA) actually identified 70 members of Congress in 2009 who are socialists / communists. To be fair, until now, the American people had to take Obama at his word when he said in 2008 that he was NOT a member of the Socialist New Party.

National Review's Stanley Kurtz now has proven Barack Obama was a registered Socialist Party member:

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Kurtz even posted an excerpt from a copy of the minutes from that 1996 meeting. It says:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

This demonstrably proves that the Obama administration does in fact demonize and smear opponents who  make credible and truthful claims against it that are damaging. This should naturally lend more credibility to those who claim to be victims of these tactics.

As a socialist, Barack Obama necessarily sought the rise of communism, according to a standard established by Discover the Networks, which states in part:

Marxist doctrine holds that just as society evolved from feudalism to capitalism, it will inexorably progress still further to socialism and eventually communism. Communists consider socialism to be an intermediary step between capitalism (out of which socialism is said to grow) and communism. That is, communism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”) is deemed a further development, or “higher stage,” of socialism (whose motto is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds”). Communism, in other words, is viewed as the more “perfect” of two systems that both advocate public ownership of the means of production, centralized economic planning, and the widespread redistribution of wealth.

By this standard, Barack Obama is a stealth Communist. After all, as a child, he was mentored by a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Frank Marshall Davis. Then again, people who point this out are typically the target of demonization and smears.

Bill Clinton recently mocked Allen West for the congressman's outing of Communists in Congress. Again, this is evidence that there is truth to West's claims, in light of what has now been proven by Kurtz about Obama.

Clinton lied under oath so what are the odds this was a lie too?

Slam dunk.



h/t Breitbart

Allen West receives another badge of honor; called a Liar by a Liar (Bill Clinton)

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath so why wouldn't he lie when he's not under oath? He basically called Rep. Allen West (R-FL) a liar for saying that there are between "78-81" Communists in Congress. Ok, that's your first sign that Allen West was telling the truth; Bill Clinton said he wasn't.

Uh, the facts are clear.

The Communist infiltration of the Democratic Party was essentially completed when Barack Obama was elected president.

Here is video of Clinton going after West. Did I mention that Clinton is an impeached liar?

Via the Right Scoop:

Video: Newt Sets Univision Reporter straight on Comparison to Bill Clinton

Univision's Jorge Ramos attempted to do the same thing that CNN's Erin Burnett did a day after the South Carolina debate at which John King asked Gingrich about the 'open marriage' issue; he tried to paint the former Speaker as a hypocrite for attacking Clinton in the 1990's over Lewinsky while Gingrich himself was engaged in an extra-marital affair.

Like he did with Burnett, Gingrich set the interviewer straight about the difference. The issue was not about adultery; it was about lying under oath. The difference between Burnett and Ramos, however, is that Ramos appeared to be unable to understand the line of distinction. After failing to see it, Gingrich at one point referred to a misfiring 'synapse' in Ramos' brain.

Via MediaIte:

Smoking Gun to Mortgage Crisis Found?

The smoking gun in the home mortgage crisis may just be a 20-page document from 1994 and contrary to the sentiment of the OWS crowd, the banking industry's fingerprints aren't on it; the Clinton administration's are. The left, OWS, and the Democratic Party apparatchiks would have everyone believe that the banks took advantage of people who couldn't afford mortgages, leaving those people holding the proverbial bag. In reality, and this document appears to prove it, banks were mandated - as all sensible people suspected - to issue mortgages to individuals who would never pay them back.

Via Investors Business Daily:

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The piper is always paid and the Democratic Party appears to be doing all it can to make sure he doesn't come knocking on their door by placing the blame on the banking industry.

CLICK HERE for the 20-page memo, which mandated that banks grant mortgages without restrictions.

Read it all.

Shameless: Bill Clinton says Voter ID = Jim Crow

By stating that people who want voter ID laws passed are engaging in Jim Crow-style tactics, Bill Clinton actually implicates himself in the commission of the same. After blacks were given the right to vote - by Republicans - the KKK, which was the armed wing of the Democrat Party, would terrorize blacks and Republicans who attempted to vote. In attacking voter ID as being inherently racist, Clinton is simply engaging in much softer version of what his ideological predecessors did.

Via POLITICO:

In a speech to liberal youth activists Wednesday, the former president called out proposals in battleground states like Florida and Ohio that could limit the voter rolls.

“I can’t help thinking since we just celebrated the Fourth of July and we’re supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time,” Clinton said at Campus Progress’s annual conference in Washington.

“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today,” Clinton added.

Clinton mentioned Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s move in March to overturn past state precedent — including under former GOP governors — that allows convicted felons to vote once they’ve served they’ve finished probation periods.

“Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they’ve paid their price?” Clinton said. “Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics who tended to vote for Democrats. That’s why.”

Such rhetoric is beyond irresponsible. When blacks attempted to vote after the Fifteenth Amendment had been ratified, KKK members would threaten to kill them if they voted Republican. By comparing the implementation of very rational laws to the motives of the KKK, Clinton is engaging in similar, albeit, much less overt techniques; he is trying to get people to view Republicans as his party should be viewed. It's really no different from modern-day German socialists who blame the Jews for the holocaust.

h/t GWP

MSNBC: Bill Clinton Furious Weiner won't Resign

The president who was impeached for lying under oath and who refused to resign, is apparently furious that Anthony Weiner won't resign for very similar reasons (minus the under oath part). Why wouldn't Bill sit this one out? While it's true that the longer Weiner remains in his job, the more damage will be done to the Party, is there another reason for this outrage from Bill? Does he have something more at stake? If not, why would he go down this hypocritically ironic road?

Via MSNBC's First Read:

While embattled Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner seems intent about staying in his job -- and he’s been bolstered by a poll showing that a majority of his constituents say he shouldn’t resign -- we can report that Democratic leaders, including former President Bill Clinton, are frustrated and some even furious at him. The reason: He isn’t doing his party any favors by staying in his job. The VERY few folks advising him to stay are the only folks he is listening to. Monday will be intense for him ,because the House is back and the Democratic caucus may speak as a group. By the way, even Mark Foley is saying he should resign.

Is there something beyond a concern for the well-being of the Democrat Party that would cause Clinton to get in the middle of this? Possibly. Consider Weiner's wife - Huma Abedin; she is Hillary's closest adviser and has been for years. Is there something about her the Clintons don't want to come out? Huma is very much a behind-the-scenes kind of adviser but this scandal is causing people to take notice of her. The longer Weiner remains in congress, the more that curiosity is likely to rise.

h/t Fox Nation

What Bill Clinton has in Common with Judas Iscariot (It's not what you think)

Rush Limbaugh talked about the book Reckless Endangerment: How outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon on his June 10th program. If you missed it, the transcript is a must-read. He talks of his suspicions because the main author is a business writer for the New York Times but apparently it's a bombshell and not only documents the origins of the financial crisis we're in. The apparently lead to not just the Democrat Party but to Bill Clinton personally.

Via Rush Limbaugh:

...it is a credible indictment of the Democrat Party, Democrat leaders and the Democrat Party's alliance with Wall Street leaders in creating -- by virtue of policy -- the entire crisis that has led to the present state of the economy, that it can be laid at the feet of Democrats exclusively. Now, in terms of its origins -- origins, by the way, which go back to 1992 and Bill Clinton. Now, in the ensuing years, there have been Republicans that have come along and have allowed such things as subprime crisis and all to go on. There were other Republicans that tried to regulate against it and stop it. So it's not entirely laid at the feet of Democrats, but its origins are. It's a devastating book. I've now started hunting and pecking my way through it.

Then he says this:

This traces the current crisis all the way back to Bill Clinton personally, not some members of his administration (although they are included) but him personally. The first words in the book are a quote from Bill Clinton about the need for home ownership to be spread far and wide, that it would rebound the economy, that it would give a greater sense of community. But whether people can afford homes or not, they need to be in them. It details and explains the subprime crisis, how it came about, what it is and how people made money from it. It explains the derivatives. It explains the packaging (or the pooling, if you will) of mortgages. It traces the first such evidence of this in the private sector. Now, Fannie Mae is target number one along with Clinton and the Democrats. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd.

Ok, so the subprime mortgage crisis originates with Bill Clinton. Rush then asks the obvious question:

So you make a bunch of loans to people that can't pay them back, you know that going in, and how in the world do you make money? You lie to other people. You pool those subprime mortgages into what's called a security. You put 130 million mortgages together, $130 million worth of mortgages together in a pool in the security -- you pool them -- and you sell that to an investor on the basis that the income stream from all of those mortgages in one security is going to be a goldmine. The income stream being people making their monthly payments. You fudge all that. You're not truthful about who is in this pool and how unlikely they are to pay, but you sell this great future revenue stream on the come. Investors go out and buy it, and at each stage investors learn they bought a bill of goods.

This last part has a strong Biblical corollary. Check out what Rush says:

The plan, former Fannie executives say, was to commit so much money to 'low-income housing for families and communities most in need,' that no one would dare criticize the other activities Fannie Mae engages in."

So you go out of your way to make it possible for the poor to get into homes and whatever else you do is ignored because you're doing the Lord's work.

Social justice.

In light of that premise, check out John 12: 3-6:

3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
4 But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii[b] and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.

Perhaps we have another reason why Democrats don't like Christians. Bill Clinton was operating from Judas Iscariot's playbook.

Read it all.

The President Impeached for Lying wants Truth Squad to Police Internet

The palpably laughable irony just keeps rolling along. President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. No one commits the act better. Remember his definition of the word 'is?' Clinton also suggested that this government currently being led by the oh, so extremely transparent Obama administration should create such an entity. If not the U.S. government, how about the United Nations? After all, they have an excellent record when it comes to transparency.

Via POLITICO:

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

“Let’s say the U.S. did it, it would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn’t think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out,” Clinton said.

When you stop laughing at that, how about this? As an example of what he has in mind, Clinton points to liberal lapdog media entities like NPR or the BBC:

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

Gee, I wonder if this has anything with the controversy over Common reciting poetry at the White House. The cop killer Common reveres so much - Assata Shakur - was sprung from prison by none other than Susan Rosenberg, a Weather Underground member whom Bill Clinton pardoned in 2001.

I didn't learn that on NPR or BBC. I learned it courtesy of Al Gore's invention.

Read it all.