This is What Leftist Foreign Policy Looks Like

Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady of Arkansas, former Whitewater conspirator, for whom baking cookies was beneath her dignity, and former tackling dummy for Barack Hussein Obama, currently Secretary of State, in her last major public event before handing over the keys to fellow traveler John Kerry, testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday regarding the terrorist attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead of providing an honest, forthright explanation for this tragedy, firing the bureaucrats who left our personnel in danger and then resigning herself, Mrs. Clinton (I know she hates it when she's addressed as such) spent her day swinging with both fists, angrily dismissing accusations that she lied to the American people, covered up the truth and now leaves office with the world a more dangerous place.  A few notable moments from her testimony:

a) In her opening remarks, she attempted to lump in the Benghazi attack with previous attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities like Teheran in 1979, Beirut in 1983, the embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, and to spread responsibility for embassy security (or lack thereof) to Congress.

b) “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility.”  She then spent the remainder of her appearance dodging responsibility for the Benghazi attack and described how sitting in video conferences and sending memoranda helped save American lives – not in Benghazi, mind you – but elsewhere.

c) “The very next morning, I told the American people that ‘heavily armed militants assaulted our compound’ and vowed to bring them to justice.  And I stood with President Obama as he spoke of ‘an act of terror.’” Of course, Hillary failed to mention that the Administration sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday morning talk shows after the attack (16 September 2012) to blame the attack on a demonstration that went out of control, prompted by an earlier demonstration in Cairo the same day, over a YouTube video critical of Islam, and that the Administration repeated this talking point, such as:

• Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, 18 September 2012:

"Based on the information that we have now, it was--there was a reaction to the video--there was protests in Cairo, then followed by protests elsewhere, including Benghazi, and that that was what led to the original unrest."

• Priest-King, appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman, 18 September 2012:

Letterman: “The ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?”

Priest-King: “No. Well, here’s what happened: You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, who, an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammad and Islam—

Letterman: “--making fun of the Prophet Mohammad.”

Priest-King: “--making fun of the Prophet Mohammad. And, so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world, but what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies including the one, the consulate in Libya. And the irony is is the ambassador, Chris Stevens, he was the person who was first in Libya and helped to advise us in liberating Libya from Muammar Qaddafi, the former dictator there. So, this was a guy who was actually beloved by the vast majority of Libyans and these extremists do not represent what the Libyan people think.”

d) Hillary also failed to mention that CIA informed the White House within 24 hours that the attack was a deliberate terrorist operation, so every reference the Administration made about a protest sparked by an offensive video from that point onward was a bald-faced lie.

e) Hillary said that the reason why she did not appear on television herself to explain the events in Benghazi was “Well, I have to confess here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do.  There are other things that I prefer to do on Sunday mornings. And, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So, it just isn’t something that I normally jump to do.” It was just so much better to let Susan Rice fall on her sword, to trot her out in front of the cameras and let her do the lying and take the heat, since Hillary still harbors aspirations for the Presidency in 2016

f) Responding to Senator Ron Johnson’s question as to determining if the Benghazi attack was the result of a protest or a deliberate terrorist operation, Hillary gave the liberals a load of red meat, shouting back: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" Well, it makes a lot of difference, Mrs. Clinton, so for the safety of our diplomatic personnel, our interests overseas and our national security, let’s try to tie all this together:

·        The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was the subject of thirteen attacks between April and September 2012.  Repeated requests to the State Department for additional security were denied and security at the consulate was actually reduced, even though financial resources weren’t a concern and the Red Cross and the Italian Consulate in Benghazi had closed, citing the increasing security threat.

·         On 11 September 2012, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the target of a deliberate and sustained terrorist attack that lasted at least seven hours.  The terrorists used mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns and eventually burned the consulate.  Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the attack.

·         Although CIA confirmed that the attack in Benghazi was a deliberate terrorist operation within 24 hours, the Priest-King Administration characterized it as a protest that spiraled out of control, a protest sparked by anger over a YouTube video critical of Islam and Mohammed.  Hillary’s testimony to the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees conflicts with her previous statements, as well as Priest-King’s.  The Administration persisted with this video protest characterization for nearly three weeks, well after it became common knowledge that the Benghazi assault was a planned and coordinated terrorist attack.

·         The Benghazi attack, the recent attack on a natural gas plant in Algeria and the civil war underway in Mali all indicate that a large and determined jihadist threat is spreading across North Africa, aided and abetted by Al Qaeda and their sympathizers.  This growing terrorist threat, coupled with Islamic extremism dominating the new governments in Libya and Egypt (Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi characterizes Jews as “descendants of apes and pigs” while members of the Muslim Brotherhood persecute Christians to the point of crucifixion) directly contradicts Priest-King’s policy of disengagement and his characterization that Al Qaeda is “on the run.”  For brazen political purposes, the Americans in Benghazi were left to die and absolutely nobody will be punished for it.

For the 65,899,660 Americans who decided that Priest-King deserved a second term, this is what you’ve bought.  Priest-King will abandon your fellow citizens and leave them to die because his prestige matters more than their lives, and if you don’t care about that, then maybe you’ll care when he leaves you to die.  So you have to ask yourself a question: Exactly how much does he mean to you?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/transcript-secretary-state-hillary-clinton-testimony-before-senate-committee/

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-not-doing-sunday-shows-after-91112-there-are-other-things-i-prefer-do-sunday

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-linked-benghazi-video-3-days-after-cia-eyewitnesses-confirmed-no-protest-there    

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/house-administration-denied-repeated-requests-for-extra-security-benghazi         

Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-09/world/afghanistan.panetta_1_al-qaeda-leader-al-zawahiri-islamic-maghreb?_s=PM:WORLD

Source: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/10/17/obama-dropping-al-qaeda-run-stump-speech

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

In 1989, I attended the U.S. Army Primary Leadership Development Course at Fort Hood, Texas, a requirement for newly-promoted sergeants.  PLDC equipped new E-5’s with the knowledge and skills needed to function at the squad leader level, like drill and ceremony (handling and marching a squad formation), inspections, uniform regulations, counseling and discipline and things like that, and the course included a one-week field training exercise that complemented and reinforced the classroom training.  One of the things I remember about the FTX (as it was called) was how I was ordered to carry the squad’s M60 machine gun on the last day of the exercise because one of the females whose turn it was complained that it was too heavy.  I can’t remember her name but I remember that she was a short young woman, perhaps 5’2”, and carrying a 23 lb. machine gun and 300 rounds of ammunition in the dusty Texas heat was undoubtedly a physical challenge for her, so ordering me to carry the weapon in her stead was on its face a wise decision.  But she was neither sick nor injured and in the post-modern military, women were supposed to be equal with men; gallantry and discretion were anachronisms, even insulting.  Yet there in May 1989, reality cast the deciding vote – a short woman didn’t want to carry a heavy load, and so she didn’t.

Women in the military has always been a touchy subject.  Women are indeed loyal, intelligent, dedicated, patriotic and brave (CPT Linda Bray of the 988^th MP Company led an assault on enemy forces during Operation Just Cause, probably the first woman to lead U.S. troops in combat, and CPL Leigh Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star for her actions in Iraq in 2005, the first woman ever cited for valor in close quarters combat).  They have suffered indignity and abuse – even now, Congress is investigating a wide-ranging scandal at Lackland AFB in which dozens of Air Force instructors were sexually abusing their female trainees – yet they have also prostituted themselves, used their femininity to gain preferential treatment, joined the military to look for a husband and splintered unit morale.  Case in point: While I was a platoon sergeant in Korea, I had the unpleasant duty of escorting one of my female NCO’s to her apartment in Anjong-ni, the ville outside Camp Humphreys, to retrieve some of her belongings and to visit her son.  She had lived at the apartment with her husband and child until said husband, an NCO in another company on the base, had filed for divorce out of sheer audacity – he was engaged in a torrid affair with a female lieutenant in my own company and rather than wait to be divorced, he decided to file first, and for sole custody, to boot.  The respective company commanders, instead of busting a fellow officer for fraternizing with a married enlisted man and precipitating a divorce, ordered my female NCO to move into the barracks and to avoid the downtown apartment unless I escorted her on prearranged visits.  Unjust hardly captures this situation; a marriage was ruined and company morale disappeared because some little homewrecker couldn’t control herself.

Priest-King’s decision to allow women to serve in combat units is consistent with his goal of radically transforming America.  Having already overturned the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military in 2011, having gutted the Pentagon budget by half a trillion dollars in 2012, having nominated an anti-military Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, he now lifts the restriction on women in combat such that by the end of his Presidency, the American military will be unrecognizable.  No longer the enclave of cigar-chomping, bemedalled he-men, bristling with bombers, aircraft carriers and tanks, the American military will be smaller, weaker and poorer, a military in which homosexuality is protected and women can serve in the artillery whether or not they’re qualified.  Yes, I said it: “whether or not they’re qualified.” As an honorably discharged veteran with twenty years under my belt, as a former Master Instructor at the U.S. Army Intelligence School,  I can tell you that if push comes to shove, the fighting services will lower their standards in order to recruit enough women in the combat arms.  It won’t matter that doing so will be dangerous, even disastrous to our national security.  The only thing that will matter is upholding Priest-King’s policy, and if you think I’m crazy, then explain what happened in Benghazi, or in Fast and Furious.

There are women who can run like the wind, who can jump clear over my head and who can lift a car.  There are men who are overweight, who can’t do one push-up and who wheeze walking up the stairs.  My guess is, though, that our military is going to suffer for Priest-King’s hubris, and then our country, and then it will be too late: I’m not carrying a machine gun for anyone, anymore.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Police_Corps_(United_States)

Source: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2013/01/air-force-house-panel-sets-hearing-lackland-mti-sex-scandal-010813/

Colin Powell Loses His Mind

I used to respect Colin Powell.  I served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm and I thought his policy of overwhelming force was absolutely correct, and events bore him out.  If he had run for President, I would have voted for him, but now he’s off the cliff.  The guy who endorsed Priest-King not once but twice and who thinks GOP hater Chuck Hagel would be a “superb” Defense Secretary now calls the Republican Party “racist.” OK, here’s what he actually said on last Sunday's Meet the Press:

“There’s also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean from that? What I mean by that is that they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that?

“When I see a former governor [Sarah Palin] say that the President is ‘shucking and jiving,’ ‘that’s a racial-era slave term. When I see another former governor after the President’s first debate, when he didn’t do very well, say that the President was ‘lazy.’ He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well. He said he was ‘lazy.’

“That may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African Americans, the second word is “shiftless” and then there’s a third word that goes along with it.”

“Birther, the whole Birther Movement…why do senior republican leaders tolerate this type of discussion in the party?

“A dark vein of intolerance”? Is he serious? I know that Lefty sycophants like David Gregory eat that stuff up but come on!  The party who won a civil war to liberate the slaves has “a dark vein of intolerance”? The GOP provided critical support to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and got them both passed in the teeth of bitter Democrat opposition yet we have “a dark vein of intolerance”? (A review of the votes by party reveals that at least eighty percent of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted for passage, overcoming resistance from Democrats like Richard Russell of Georgia and Emmanuel Celler of New York.)  Ronald Reagan nominated the first woman to the Supreme Court and appointed Powell himself as the first black National Security Advisor and yet we have “a dark vein of intolerance”?  George H. W. Bush nominated Powell as the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and stood with Clarence Thomas through vicious Democrat attacks during his Senate confirmation hearings and we have “a dark vein of intolerance”? George W. Bush nominated Powell to be the first black Secretary of State, appointed Condoleeza Rice as the first black female National Security Advisor and then she succeeded Powell as SecState, Dubya nominated Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General and yet we have “a dark vein of intolerance”? Michael Steele was the first black Chairman of the Republican National Committee (the first black to head either of the two major political parties), Tim Scott has just been appointed to replace Jim DeMint as U.S. Senator from South Carolina and yet the GOP has “a dark vein of intolerance”? Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Ted Cruz and Allan West are all rising stars in the GOP but we have “a dark vein of intolerance”?

If someone’s lazy, then they’re lazy.  The color of their skin doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter if they’re President of the United States.  For example, Jimmy Carter was incompetent.  The fact that he occupied the White House was irrelevant: He was elected to a job that was too big for him and it showed.  And what does General Powell mean by “senior Republican leaders” tolerating birther discussion?  I agree that birthers are a little wacky but people have the right to be just as wacky as they want in this country – take a look at the Democrat Party, for example – and to say what they want, and nobody has the right to tell them to shut up, which is what the general meant: “You can’t say certain things because they offend me.”  Are you really serious?

Here’s what this boils down to: For Colin Powell and every other liberal, the only legitimate opinions are liberal opinions. Abortion, gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, colossal spending and public debt, a bloated and corrupt welfare state and preferential treatment for minorities are all good, and if you don’t agree, then you’re a racist/sexist/homophobe.  You simply can’t disagree with liberal policies on their merits, and if you do, then you’re a skinhead neo-Nazi KKK cross burner, and since General Powell can’t get his head out of the liberal drain, I refuse to listen to him anymore.  He’s been in the tank for the Priest-King since 2008, he’s repudiated his own Party (I have to wonder which job he’s angling for in the second Priest-King Administration) and I’m done with him.  Why in God’s Name would I want to be more like a Leftist kook?

Where was Powell when the Left was crucifying his boss for eight years?  George W. Bush was called a war criminal, a war monger, he hated women and Hispanics and Muslims and he wanted blacks to drown during Hurricane Katrina, he was a bumbling idiot and an evil genius at the same time.  The Left openly fantasized about assassinating him (remember Death of a President in 2006?) and where was Powell’s outrage then?  It was nowhere, that’s where it was, so for Colin Powell, General, U.S. Army (retired), I say go away and good riddance.  If the Left wants another RINO turncoat eager to lick Priest-King’s boots, then they can have him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/14/colin-powell-republican-party-criticism-intolerance/1832833/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/13/powell-say-hagel-uperbly-qualified-for-defense-secretary-criticizes-his/

A Window into the Soul



Repudiating the Word of the Lord is as serious as it gets, and Barack Hussein Obama, Priest-King of all he surveys, has decided to go there.  Reverend Louie Giglio, who had been selected to deliver the benediction at the inauguration ceremony, has been pressured to withdraw because he preached that homosexuality was not a lifestyle but a choice, and that homosexuality is a sin.  Them’s fightin’ words to the gay lobby and to our current Chief Executive and so Rev. Giglio was forced to back out while the Presidential Inaugural Committee replaces him with someone whose beliefs are as fashionable as theirs.  Here’s what they said: "We were not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural.  As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans." Apparently, the Lefties who run the country weren’t aware that a Christian pastor would agree with the Holy Scriptures – somewhat understandable given Priest-King’s previous experience with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (“God damn America”) and the Reverend Joseph Lowery who delivered the benediction at his first inauguration in 2009 (“…deliver us from the exploitation of the poor, of the least of these, and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these…we have sown the seeds of greed -- the wind of greed and corruption…we ask you to help us work for that day when…white will embrace what is right.”).  Yet kicking Rev. Giglio to the curb is a milestone in the history of our country and a terrible one at that, because Priest-King is officially signaling that as far as the President of the United States is concerned, Bible-based Christianity is not welcome.  Coming on the heels of his endorsement of gay marriage and his insistence (through Obamacare) that faith-based institutions must provide free birth control to their employees even if doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs, Priest-King’s sacking of the good Reverend confirms that he is openly rejecting the Word of God, casting off God’s blessings and His protection, and this is dangerous ground.  Anyone who has truly accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour will not deny Him, so for Barack Hussein Obama, I have a message that he would do well to heed: “But whosoeuer shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heauen.”

Mr. Obama: Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/10/pastor-withdraws-from-obama-inauguration-after-sermon-on-homosexuality-surfaces/

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2009/01/transcript_of_rev_lowerys_inau.html

Source: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-10-33/