Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

THE NON-ISSUES:
• Energy prices
• Food prices
• Less than 1.5% growth of GNP
• Participation of labor force continues to decline
• Steady, continuing decline of middle class per capita income
• Record numbers on welfare
• Unemployment continues at 7+%
• Obamacare driving health care costs higher and higher
• Four Americans murdered in Benghazi due to inept leadership
• Benghazi talking points now recognized as indisputably being lies
• Fort Hood Muslim jihadist murder of 13 classified as “work place violence”
• The IRS persecution of Obama political opponents
• NSA snooping on ALL Americans
• The Justice Department pursuing racist based charges against George Zimmerman , never mind the FBI had already said there were none
• Etc., etc., etc.

I could go on and on about the issues that will be discussed in November of 2016 (and obviously there will be others that are not yet apparent) but for God’s sake folks, as Hillary will say: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??? How can any reasonable person not expect Hillary to be the next President of the United States of America? Doesn’t that really make you proud to be an American!! WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Is that the new mantra of the progressives!!

http://joeforamerica.com/2013/08/wil...ext-president/

Image Blitz added a new photo.

• SORT

Image Blitz shared a photo.









Now again "what difference does it make"

---

Options
Image Blitz shared Stop Hillary In 2016's photo.

← Bumper Sticker Of The Day…
…the Most High rules in the kingdom of men…. →

“Journalists” Fear Being Alinsky’d – The 4th Estate Scandal Behind The Benghazi Scandal….

Posted on August 6, 2013 by sundance


(Via Mediaite) As the one year anniversary of the deadly attack on an American consulate in Benghazi approaches, journalists have begun to take another look into the scandal surrounding the government’s response to that terrorist event. Last week, CNN aired two striking reports revealing that the Central Intelligence Agency had a large number of agents on the ground on the night of the attack and that a suspect in the attack has never been interviewed by investigators. Following these revelatory reports, which some in President Barack Obama’s administration believe represent a political threat, some CNN reporters now fear for their access to the White House. They are not alone. On July 31, CNN’s The Situation Room broadcast a portion of an interview conducted by reporter Arwa Damon with a suspect in the Benghazi attacks. The suspect revealed to Damon that no investigator has attempted to contact him regarding his involvement in that deadly assault. The following day, CNN’s Drew Griffin broke the news that more than 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Libya on the day of the attack and they are being pressured by the spy agency to not reveal to reporters or congressional investigators what they know of the events of that night. Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated. (continue reading)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...al/#more-67405

also this



The Other Benghazi Scandal: Journalists Worry Covering The Attack Threatens White House Access

by Noah Rothman | 1:26 pm, August 5th, 2013 column » 197 comments






As the one year anniversary of the deadly attack on an American consulate in Benghazi approaches, journalists have begun to take another look into the scandal surrounding the government’s response to that terrorist event. Last week, CNN aired two striking reports revealing that the Central Intelligence Agency had a large number of agents on the ground on the night of the attack and that a suspect in the attack has never been interviewed by investigators. Following these revelatory reports, which some in President Barack Obama’s administration believe represent a political threat, some CNN reporters now fear for their access to the White House. They are not alone.

On July 31, CNN’s The Situation Room broadcast a portion of an interview conducted by reporter Arwa Damon with a suspect in the Benghazi attacks. The suspect revealed to Damon that no investigator has attempted to contact him regarding his involvement in that deadly assault. The following day, CNN’s Drew Griffin broke the news that more than 30 CIA agents were on the ground in Libya on the day of the attack and they are being pressured by the spy agency to not reveal to reporters or congressional investigators what they know of the events of that night. Some CNN reporters are reportedly fearful now that their access to the White House will be hampered following their probing into a story that members of the Obama administration would prefer remain uninvestigated.
“Access is a very serious consideration when it comes to stories that could adversely impact a show, correspondent, or network’s relationship with the administration, a campaign, or any political leader,” one source with insider information told Mediaite.
“I would suggest it’s not an accident that those who have been given a lot of access to the president have generally been AWOL when it comes to stories that might reflect poorly on him,” the source, who did not wish to be identified, continued. “It’s the name of the game. And it’s bad for everyone trying to do this job the right way.” Those reporters have reason to fear for their access to America’s executive branch. Some suspect that reporters who soft-pedal or underreport stories uncomfortable to the administration receive preferential access to White House officials.
On September 12, 2012, less than 24-hours after the attack on the American consulate, President Obama sat down with CBS News reporter Steve Kroft for an in-depth interview on 60 Minutes. A critical portion of that interview, however, was omitted from broadcast only to be released online the Friday before the election. In that unaired portion of the interview, the president appeared to hedge about whether to declare that attack an act of terrorism.
CBS’s decision to hold this portion of the interview became a focus of speculation because, during an explosive presidential debate against Mitt Romney, Obama declared with much more force that he had always regarded the Benghazi attack as a terrorist event.
Some believe it was no coincidence that the president chose 60 Minutes to sit down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an exit interview in January – one of several that she gave to every network news operation.
Unlike in the exit interviews on the other networks, the 60 Minutes interview’s focus on Benghazi – coming just days after Clinton testified before Congress about her department’s actions leading up to and following the attack – was decidedly limited.
“I want to talk about the hearings this week,” Kroft began.
“You had a very long day. Also, how is your health?” He digressed.
“As the New York Times put it, you accepted responsibility, but not blame,” Kroft asked in a follow up to the above grilling. “Do you feel guilty in any way, in– at a personal level? Do you blame yourself that you didn’t know or that you should have known?”
Both Clinton’s and the president’s response to this question was clinical, lawyerly, and retrospective. Of course, they were able to take this tone because the nature of the question implied that the Benghazi story was a closed book. Today, though, the persistent uncovering of new details relating to the federal response to that attack shows definitively that the Benghazi story is not yet fully understood.

CBS’ 60 Minutes is not the only venue which is protective of their access to the administration. Reporting by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent

Jonathan Karl in May surrounding how the administration formed the talking points relating to the terrorist event in Benghazi prompted a flurry of reporting and commentary which suggested that the White House was fending off unwarranted attacks from their political opponents.

Just days prior to Karl’s revelations, NBC News was granted a rare tour of the White House Situation Room as part of a retrospective report reflecting on the two year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.
In the days that followed Karl’s revelations, NBC News’ most visible personalities were far more hands-off than they had been in the days that initially followed that deadly attack.
“The whole issue of talking point, frankly, throughout this process, has been a sideshow,” Obama pointedly said of Karl’s story unveiling how the talking points were formed. “We dishonor [the fallen] when we, you know, we turn things like this into a political circus.”
Appearing on Nightly News, the NBC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd reacted to Obama’s prickly statement by twice calling the president’s response to those revelations a “defiant” showing. NBC News’ Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, observed that there is no doubt a “political undercurrent” to Republicans questioning Clinton’s culpability in those attacks. “After all, those Republicans are taking direct aim at Clinton, the country’s most popular Democrat and a potential presidential candidate,” she said of the revelations surrounding the talking points on NBC’s Today.
“If you worry about access, you’re in the wrong business,” another insider with detailed information about how journalists and news networks react to reporting about Benghazi told Mediaite. “This shouldn’t be a consideration at all, but it is.”
This source, who also declined to be identified, said that the institution of journalism would be better served if reporters were less protective of their sources within powerful institutions. “If we all raised proper objections, they couldn’t do it to anybody,” the source said of the White House’s efforts to block access to reporters who pursue stories they regard as inconvenient. “We’re really playing the government’s game.”
> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-other-benghazi-scandal-journalists-worry-covering-the-attack-threatens-white-house-access/



One year anniversary coming up...hmmmm according to our media controlled country it seems as though it is " What difference does it make", for them but not for us!!!!

DoJ Files Sealed Charges Against Benghazi Attackers


Posted by Michael Becker on Aug 6, 2013

Or something.
The jackassery of the Obama administration never ceases to amaze me. But then, I rack that up to the fact that I’m old and my short term memory is zip.
Let’s drift back in time to October 26, 2012 when President Obama uttered the following, which I’m sure made the Benghazi attackers quake in their boots:

“What happened in Benghazi is a tragedy. We’re investigating exactly what happened.I take full responsibility for that fact. I send these folks in harm’s way, I want to make sure they’re always safe and when that doesn’t happen, that we figure out what happened and make sure that doesn’t happen again. But my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I’ll always keep.”

As Guy Benson notes in the article this statement was made seven weeks after the attack. It’s also noteworthy that the only tangible evidence of “investigation” and “justice” at that time – and still true today – is that the maker of the famous film that caused the “demonstration” that got out of hand was arrested and rotting in jail when the President made that statement.
The attack on the compound in Benghazi happened on September 11, 2012 so let’s see where we’re at today.
In terms of investigation, one of those other alphabet organizations, CNN, beat the FBI to the punch.

In May, CNN reporter Arwa Damon managed to locate [Ahmed Abdu] Khattala in Libya and secured an interview with him. Khattala confirmed that he was not in hiding and had not been contacted by either Libyan or American investigators.

That would be roughly two and half months ago.
Well, today we’re making progress. First of all, President Obama will be on Jay Leno’s show tonight to try to resurrect his polling numbers. Since he’ll need something to talk about, the FBI has filed a sealed indictment of Khattala in advance of the President’s appearance.

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department has filed sealed criminal charges against a number of suspects in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others, according to people familiar with the matter.
The exact nature of the charges wasn’t clear, nor was the number of suspects named in the case. A Justice Department spokesman, Andrew Ames, said the investigation is ongoing.

Ongoing. And going and going and going.
So I guess maybe Khattala got indicted. We don’t know since the indictment is sealed. Hmmm. Obviously, maybe, Obama is keeping his commitment. Whatever that is. But we do know what we’ll be reading about in the DNC Times tomorrow. “al Qaeda is reeling” blah blah blah.
Now, for me at least, the plot thickens. Here’s why I don’t have a White House press card.

SANAA | Tue Aug 6, 2013 6:48am EDT
(Reuters) – At least four suspected al Qaeda members were killed in a drone strike in central Yemen, local tribal leaders said on Tuesday, following a U.S. warning of a possible major militant attack in the region. …
The Yemeni tribal leaders said five missiles struck a vehicle travelling in Maarib Province in Tuesday’s strike, killing all of its occupants.
State news agency Saba also said initial reports indicated that four suspected al Qaeda militants were killed in the air strike in Maarib, but gave no further details.

We take out four suspected al Qaeda dudes with Hellfires earlier today. These guys are suspected of maybe being part of the “plot” that the administration uncovered that resulted in the US shutting down all of our Middle East embassies. Suspected. Plotters. The turnaround on those guys was about a week. Maybe two.
On the other hand, we have a guy who’s bragging about being part of Benghazi where four Americans were killed while the President had dinner and reviewed his notes for the fund raiser he attended the following day in Las Vegas, and the best we can do, over two months after CNN films an interview with him, is issue a sealed indictment?
This is just sick.

http://joeforamerica.com/2013/08/doj...azi-attackers/

Chuck Todd: Hillary Clinton Miniseries a “Total Nightmare” for NBC News

Don Irvine — August 8, 2013

NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today and called the planned NBC miniseries on Hillary Clinton a “total nightmare” for the news division.
Todd explained that while there is a wall between the entertainment and news divisions, even well informed people don’t understand that they operate independently and actually don’t like each other:

The two entities are sometimes at war with each other. I can’t tell you how many fights we’ve had internally about whether to cover … some live news event and those, you know, guys on the West Coast, they want to, you know, run some rerun of ‘Parks and Recreation’ or whatever because they’ll make money.

Todd then went on to describe the “nightmare” scenario:

This is why this miniseries is a total nightmare for NBC News. We know there’s this giant firewall, we know we have nothing to do with it, we know that we’d love probably to be as critical or whatever … if it comes out, but there’s nothing we can do about it and we’re going to only own the negative. People are going to see the peacock, and they see NBC, and they see NBC News, and they think, ‘Well, they can’t be that separate.

NBC and CNN have come under fire from both the right—which is concerned about a pro-Hillary bias before the 2016 election, and the left—which is worried that the films will provide fodder for the GOP and derail a potential Clinton presidential run in 2016.
Todd is right, to an extent. Each network has a news and an entertainment division that operate separately, at least on paper. But once viewers see a network logo, they don’t differentiate between the two, nor should they, as the networks have blurred the lines for years.
Besides, the real issue to conservatives is the political bias, not the matter of competing for the dollars to be earned or amount of air-time each division has. Anyone who watches primetime shows, like “30 Rock” or “Smash,” and even late-night shows, such as Jimmy Fallon or Saturday Night Live, knows that they are just as biased as their NBC News brethren. Harsh ridicule and criticism are reserved for conservatives, while liberal Democrats and their views on the issues are treated with kid gloves. Does anyone expect, for example, that the NBC mini-series on Hillary will accurately portray Hillary’s role in the Whitewater scandals of the Bill Clinton administration, or in the current Benghazi scandal?
If NBC actually does that, I’ll be the first to give them credit.



http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/c...987a-224224701


You own you keep it, If you play your political propaganda piece for the Clinton's it's on you!!!!!!

Stop Hillary In 2016
Community · 6,439 likes

The Celluloid Hillary


Written on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 by Norma Brown



Written on Tuesday, August 13, 2013 by Norma Brown

Well, pardon me while I fall off my chair. The GOP has threatened NBC and CNN with a boycott of those stations during all 2016 debates if they go ahead with their planned tv movies about Hillary Clinton. Congrats to Reince Priebus for doing what should have been done many elections back, demanding neutrality in political moderators. Now we’ll see if the RNC sticks to its guns or if, like Obama, its threats are all blow and no go.
I’m curious how the Hollywood propagandists will re-define the smarmy Ms. Rodham’s life. How will they portray the world’s most grasping and ambitious woman, someone who rivals the scheming Lucretia Borgia? Will they highlight her lack of morality in public life, the tendency to lie, cheat and probably steal to get what she wants? I’m pretty sure that if they just faithfully presented the facts, they would speak volumes about her character. So I guess Hollywood won’t do that.
I remember when Ben Stein declared that Hillary wore that ubiquitous headband she used to sport to prevent her brains exploding from self-righteousness. That is Hillary in a nutshell, a first-class harridan who lets nothing get in her way when she wants something. Her ruthlessness and scheming have left a trail like a slug through her ascent to power and I hope that the masters of unreality in sunny CA will follow it wherever it leads. If they don’t, I’m sure somebody will.
I suppose the fantasy epic will open at Yale in the 60’s, where the geeky Hillary, glasses on her fat little nose, is passionately defending the rights of certain Black Panthers who murdered policemen with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction. Let’s see her unvarnished state, arrogance oozing out as she tells the public why it is okay to murder cops if you happen to be a poor black guy with a grudge.
They might show all those angry teary nights when she sits at home in Arkansas plotting revenge on her philandering husband or pan out for a shot of her throwing lamps at him as he creeps in at three in the morning, but will they allude to the rumors of Bill Clinton’s involvement in drug-running out of Latin America through Mena Airport? Will they show us the day she takes the Rose Law firm records being subpoenaed by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and hides them in a closet at the White House? And since the infotainment world doesn’t need facts to make claims about anything, perhaps they will give us that evening when, with door locked, she combs through the records for incriminating evidence and then starts a little bonfire with it.
I’ve often wondered what she set a match to besides the Whitewater-related evidence of corruption. Soon after Clinton was nominated for president, I was informed separately by two highly informed Panamanian sources that Mrs. Clinton and “others from some law firm” were investors in a private resort that was laundering drug-money. The establishment does exist but isn’t listed on any stock exchange, and it sits in the jungle on the border of Panama and Colombia. I wonder if the return on Clinton’s claimed investment was more eye-popping than the $100,000 she got from a $10,000 investment in record time (and will Hollywood remind us about that windfall?). Maybe she invested the $100,000 and got a million. Maybe that first wildly luck investment was the same sort of investment as her alleged Panamanian venture. I wonder if she paid income tax on that windfall from Panama. Surely our nosy IRS could take a quick look and tell us, since we know the nation’s accountants have no trouble sharing politically-useful information with the Democrats. Turn-about is fair play, Mr. Werfel! On the other hand, I wouldn’t believe a thing Werfel said.
How about showing a close-up of Mrs. Clinton’s face as she tells the world how she landed under enemy fire in Bosnia. Don’t you think there is something mentally off-kilter about people who tell lies to your face knowing you can figure out it’s a lie with no trouble at all? Did she consider that people who really did die going in under fire might be the tiniest bit angered by her lies?
And I hope Hollywood goes into detail about both Benghazi and Libya in general. Show Generalissimo Clinton leading the pack baying for war against Qaddafi so the US could install in government its own bunch of incompetents (The Resistance!). Libya was supposed to showcase Clinton’s brilliant foreign policy skills and demonstrate that she had guts. She could turn despots into corpses and tyrannies into enlightened democracies. Hillary’s Libya policy was supposed to demonstrate that she was smarter about other people’s countries than even the leaders of those countries were. Instead, the disastrous US foray into nation- building demonstrated a total lack of qualities that either a Secretary of State or a President needs. She showed that she could destroy, but not build. Show us that, Hollywood.
Show us Hillary euphoric with glee and squealing in delight at the news that Moammar Qaddafi had been on his knees begging for his life when one of America’s proxy heroes shot him in the head like a rabid dog. In the days when old Hil’ and Bill were protesting the Vietnam War I bet she didn’t get quite the same kick out of photos of a North Vietnamese prisoner being shot in the head in a summary execution. But she wasn’t in charge then.
Show Hillary Clinton approving a “diplomatic” outpost in one of earth’s most dangerous spots because she eagerly supported the illicit arming of the Syrian “resistance.” Arms-running out of Benghazi with the Turks as intermediaries gave her a chance to bring down another government, adding yet more shine to her star. Inexplicably, after opening Arms Deals Central in Ground Zero Benghazi, she also approved a “no guns” security policy at the outpost. I hope Hollywood gets to the bottom of that insanity, because Hillary isn’t saying. I don’t know what they’ll do about the bizarre business of Mrs. Clinton vanishing from sight for weeks after taking responsibility for Benghazi (but only for anything that happened in the State Department, don’t forget that qualification). Of course we were told the poor dear had a stroke or some such thing, but I’d like to know the real story. It doesn’t pass the smell test, despite the ugly glasses. It was in any case a huge and lucky coincidence of timing that kept the chief architect of everything that happened in Libya out of the public eye and away from the frenzy over the blunders and misjudgments and cold political calculation that led to the deaths of Americans in that Libyan hell-hole.
I’m hoping to see a close-up of the face of Ambassador Thomas Pickering as sweat breaks out all over his forehead, the phone pressed to his ear. He hangs up and turns to a close aide and almost bursts into tears. “I’m the head of the Benghazi investigation. I might have to question Hillary Clinton. It will be the end of my career!” Perhaps Mr. Pickering’s dreams of being Secretary of State were salvaged. We know that he never interviewed or as much as shared a “good morning” with Mrs. Clinton on the subject of Benghazi and nevertheless presented an investigative report that absolved everybody of guilt except the usual low-level expendables. Now there’s a man who ought to be Secretary of State, right?
And finally, I hope they include that “fun” shot shown around the world of Secretary of State Clinton tripping on the top step of an aircraft as she jetted off to save the world. That huge round expensively clad bottom rising into the air was like “Moon Over Miami” and just begged to be kicked. One of my favorite pictures of Hillary, it is like a metaphor for who she is.


http://patriotupdate.com/articles/th...uloid-hillary/

I imagine it all depends on what the definition of "is" is...