Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Rpt: High-ranking officials knew of Benghazi security fears……That Means Hillary
Feb 10, 2014 07:23 pm

Go To Full Post: Rpt: High-ranking officials knew of Benghazi security fears……That Means Hillary

Jon Allen: Clinton Team Making Excuses For Hillary’s “What Difference Does It Make” Comment




From the:
Washington Free Beacon




The Golden Egg

Column: The Hillary Papers and the Death of the Mainstream Media
Credit: The University of Arkansas Library



BY: Matthew Continetti — February 14, 2014 5:00 am
When the Free Beacon published “The Hillary Papers” last Sunday night, we knew the story would have to cross a high bar. The piece was scrupulously fact-checked. All of the documents we cited were loaded onto the Internet. Every effort was made to present as straightforwardly as possible the contents of the papers, which show Hillary Clinton as hardheaded, calculating, and, yes, ruthless. (Re-read the part where she axes a Supreme Court appointment out of spite.)
What I did not expect was that the media would undergo such a tortured and dramatic breakdown, would struggle so laboriously to acknowledge the scoop while schizophrenically downplaying its importance.

BY: Matthew Continetti
February 14, 2014 5:00 am
The school of literary criticism known as reception theory holds that a text should be studied in light of its effect on its contemporaries, that a reader should be aware of the “horizon of expectations” in which a text is produced. I was reminded of this the other day as I observed, in amusement, fascination, and occasional pity, the reaction of the so-called mainstream media to Alana Goodman’s lengthy and rock-solid report on “The Hillary Papers.” This trove of previously unexamined transcriptions of conversations between Hillary Clinton and her best friend Diane Blair had been collecting dust at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville for years. Not anymore.
As far as Bill and Hillary Clinton are concerned, the media’s horizon of expectations is stunningly narrow. It encompasses on the one hand the belief that the “secretary of explaining stuff” is a national treasure beyond reproach, and on the other hand the expectation that the former secretary of state will be our next president. Stories that fall outside of this horizon are problematized, scrutinized, ascribed to partisanship, and read with the sort of incredulity reporters are supposed to apply to public figures such as the Clintons.
When the Free Beacon published “The Hillary Papers” last Sunday night, we knew the story would have to cross a high bar. The piece was scrupulously fact-checked. All of the documents we cited were loaded onto the Internet. Every effort was made to present as straightforwardly as possible the contents of the papers, which show Hillary Clinton as hardheaded, calculating, and, yes, ruthless. (Re-read the part where she axes a Supreme Court appointment out of spite.)
What I did not expect was that the media would undergo such a tortured and dramatic breakdown, would struggle so laboriously to acknowledge the scoop while schizophrenically downplaying its importance. That a conservative online newspaper could have understood the significance of the archive, and actually examined its public contents, seemed too much an embarrassment for the staffs of the major newspapers and networks and magazines to bear. By being the first to report on the papers, the Free Beacon exposed the inanity and irrelevance of the mainstream media. We beat them. And they are sore losers.
The very fact that the story appeared on the Free Beacon prompted journalists to append elaborate, silly, and inaccurate qualifiers to their reporting on our findings. In various outlets the WFB was called “relatively obscure,” “conservative,” “ultra-conservative,” and an “anti-Clinton website,” in order to make it easier for liberals to dismiss the story altogether. The case of CNN is demonstrative. The network wrote that a “conservative website”—guilty as charged—was “claiming” to have found documents shedding new light on Hillary Clinton’s years as first lady. “Claim” was an unusual choice of words, since the documents in the story were all on FreeBeacon.com. Then CNN reduced the fascinating and novelistic details contained in our 3,408-word article to a slug-line: Clinton once called Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic loony toon.” Later CNN “authenticated” the WFB story, giving it, one assumes, a stamp of approval—which CNN is free to have back.
One of CNN’s contributors, New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, prefaced a discussion of the Hillary papers by saying of the Free Beacon, “Let’s be honest, their approach to journalism generally is sort of opposition research.” Still, he went on, “kudos to them for finding this.” Thank you, Ryan, for the kudos, but your condescension is completely unwarranted, as is your air of professional and moral superiority. All investigative journalism can be construed as “opposition research,” as any reader of Jane Mayer’s attacks on Republicans in the New Yorker, or any journalist who praised David Corn’s “47 percent” scoop in 2012, or any viewer of MSNBC’s nonstop coverage of a lane closure in New Jersey, would know.
A weird arrogance and disdain, a slapdash ascription of motive, characterized most discussions of the “Hillary Papers.” While spokesmen for the Clintons had no official comment, one could discern from the mumblings of journalists the line adopted off the record by servants of the once and future first family: The Free Beacon report was a political hash job, meant to give bad publicity by dredging up the ugly past, maybe even coordinated with the Republican National Committee and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who in recent weeks has been attacking Bill Clinton’s sexual habits. It was a report to be dismissed, downplayed, debunked. Jay Newton-Small, a writer for Time magazine, wrote, “Despite some early interpretations to the contrary, the papers represent a collection of thoughtful reflections and evolving positions on Clinton’s part, rather than a smoking gun of anything damning, or anything surprising.”
Notice that Newton-Small did not link to any of these sensationalist “early interpretations,” probably because the “conservative blog” that broke the story never made sensationalist claims. Nor did the Free Beacon say we had uncovered a “smoking gun” that would doom Clinton. “Thoughtful reflections,” moreover, is a unique way to describe some of Clinton’s words as recorded by Blair, such as her psychiatric description of Lewinsky, and her complaint that no one in the White House was tough enough or mean enough. But Newton-Small must be one tough and mean journalist herself, or else an extremely well sourced one, if she was not surprised by Hillary Clinton’s onetime support for single-payer health care, influence over Supreme Court nominations, and private lobbying against intervention in Bosnia. Of course all this assumes Newton-Small actually read our article before brushing it off. Which is an assumption I am not prepared to make.
Among Clinton’s most loyal defenders there was a panicked rush for the exits, an eagerness to switch topics, to reach the next commercial break: Nothing to see here, time to move on, no one cares about Monica, Hillary is inevitable, etc., etc. This was the tone taken by our lady of the eye-roll, Andrea Mitchell, who said on Morning Joe that she had argued against NBC even mentioning the Free Beacon story, and who like many other pro-Clinton journalists said the story lacked “context.” What she meant was that our magazine-length article, heavily researched and polished, disclosed information to the public without having Mitchell there to explain why none of it mattered.
Mitchell was not alone: There were more than a few Democratic partisans who said publishing material related to the 1990s was an exercise in futility. Former Clinton employee Paul Begala tweeted, “The personal attacks on the Clintons will fail.” Columnist Margaret Carlson wrote that if it hadn’t been for Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton’s numbers “might not have risen enough for her to run for, and win, a Senate seat in New York.” Political commentator Craig Crawford told WTOP radio, “No one has ever defeated the Clintons with these kinds of charges.”
Is this really true? I seem to remember that the shadow of the Clinton scandals—described in the “Hillary Papers” as a “pattern of sleaze”—loomed over Al Gore’s candidacy in 2000; that George W. Bush made a vow during that campaign to restore “integrity” to the White House; that when Democratic mogul David Geffen threw his allegiance to Barack Obama in 2007, he told Maureen Dowd, “I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person.” The Clintons call to mind the old Faulkner line that “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” They carry their baggage like Marley carries his chains. It weighs them down.
And yet: Even as the Victorian gentlemen of the press debated the newsworthiness and propriety of the Free Beacon scoop, even as some of the most prominent correspondents in America publicly stated that the story was beneath contempt and unworthy of notice, reporters and producers were booking flights to Fayetteville to see what else they could find inside the Diane Blair archive. Suddenly CNN, NBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABC, and others were devoting manpower and work hours and financial resources to cover a story they had neglected for years, all in the hopes that the supposed partisanship of the Free Beacon had led us to overlook some crucial element of the narrative, some nugget that would reveal Hillary Clinton as the saintly and courageous Tiger Mother of liberal dreams. And what have these crack reporters found that wasn’t covered in Goodman’s original report? “The former first lady coped with severe back pain from wearing heels,” says CNN. Stop. The. Presses.
“I sort of liken it to an Easter egg hunt when you were a child,” said Timothy Nutt, head of special collections at the library where the Blair archive is stored. As Nutt was speaking to his local paper, reporters from New York and D.C. squabbled like children over the 16 boxes of Clinton materials, which the Free Beacon had spent a week analyzing. “Someone finds the golden egg,” Nutt said, “so all the other kids run over to the same place thinking they’re going to find the golden egg when, in fact, there’s only one golden egg, and it’s been found.”
There is a moment near the close of every episode of Punk’d, Ashton Kutcher’s prank show, when a certain expression crosses the face of the mark, when he becomes aware of his credulity, his gullibility, his ignorance, his willingness to suspend disbelief in the service of fantasy. It is at this moment when the eyes of the mark open wide, his brow furrows, and his mouth, opened briefly when his jaw went slack, contorts into a frown. Then the grimace quickly becomes a tight grin—obviously forced—as the mark attempts to convey, with mixed results, the impression that he had been in on the joke all along.
I like to imagine such an expression crossing the faces of all of the sophisticated, holier than thou, “objective” reporters inside the library at Fayetteville, as it dawned on them that a small conservative news outlet had them scooped. Mainstream media, you just got punk’d.



http://freebeacon.com/


Still "what difference does it make" Hillary????

See the Hillary papers down below on this thread.

DeClassified-Dozens of Vessels Surrounded Benghazi When Clinton Ordered Stand-Down


Thursday, February 13, 2014 22:21
(Before It's News) by Guerilla Girl Ashley The Pete Santilli Show & The Guerilla Media Network
We have heard over and over from The Obama administration during Congressional hearings that there wasn’t enough time to respond with our military to try and help save American lives that were involved in a firefight during the Benghazi terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2011. Well, it turns out that wasn’t true. Judicial watch has just released in in a new report that they have obtained an unclassified navy map of all the naval ships positioned in the area around North Africa, and Guess what, this new map contradicts the Obama administrations claims of saying they didn’t have military assets in the area that would make it in time to help our ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff fight off a terrorist attack.

JW Gets Map of Military Fleet Positions During Benghazi Attack
Dozens of vessels were stationed in the region on that day, including two aircraft carriers (Dwight D. Eisenhower and Enterprise), four amphibious ships, 13 destroyers, three cruisers and more than a dozen other smaller Navy boats as well as a command ship. Carriers are warships, the powerhouse of the naval fleet with a full-length flight deck for aircraft operations. During the Benghazi attack, two carriers were based to the east in the Arabian Sea, the Navy map shows.
Two amphibious assault ships (Iwo Jima and Gunston Hill) were situated to the east in the Gulf of Oman and one (New York) was in the Gulf of Aden, the map shows. A fourth (Fort McHenry) was located on the west side of the African continent in the Atlantic Ocean. Amphibious ships resemble small aircraft carriers and have air-craft strips for vertical and short take-offs and landings. The destroyers are scattered throughout the region, but the closest appear to be four (Cole, Forrest Sherman, Jason Dunham and Aboon) in the Mediterranean Sea north of Libya. The rest of the fleet includes cruisers, minesweepers, patrols and a command ship.
The map was provided to Judicial Watch by retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Randall R. Schmidt, who is investigating how the military responded to the Benghazi attack. Schmidt flew jet fighters during his active duty and says there’s no reason the military could not have efficiently responded in Benghazi. Schmidt got the map after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Navy asking it to identify the location of all its assets in the region on September 11, 2012



Read Here:http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/02/jw-gets-map-of-military-fleet-positions-during-benghazi-attack/





http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...&utm_campaign=



About the video

Published on Feb 7, 2013
There was a fiery exchange between Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Republican Sen. John McCain on Thursday during Panetta's testimony about a deadly attack last September in Libya.

Panetta began his remarks to the Senate Armed Services Committee by saying there was not enough time to fly armed military assets to Benghazi to fend off attackers at the U.S. Consulate. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed.

Panetta said the response to the attack was "timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference."

McCain, who has constantly lambasted the Obama administration's response to the attack, forcefully challenged Panetta's assertion that the Defense Department did everything it could.

McCain asked why the Defense Department did not send forces based at Souda Bay, Crete, to Benghazi. He said the flight is an hour and a half and that it was "simply false" for Panetta to testify that all resources couldn't reach Libya in time.

"I stand by my testimony," Panetta replied.

McCain testily countered, "Perhaps you can give me some facts."

Panetta then said that a contingent was not sent because the State Department didn't request it.

"So it's the State Department's fault," McCain challenged.

Panetta was firm throughout his testimony that there were no "undue delays" in decision making and there was no denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders when the attack happened.

"Quite the contrary: The safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi 12 hours after the initial attack" and transfer to the Ramstein air base in Germany "was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination."

He said the U.S. military response helped save lives.

• Category
  
  News & Politics
  
  
  
• License
  
  Standard YouTube License
  

All I can say is these people are traitors...every last one of them!!!!

Restricted Access


Clinton Foundation keeps tight leash on papers from Bill Clinton’s tenure as governor

BY: Alana Goodman
February 17, 2014 5:00 am
An extensive collection of papers related to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s years in the Arkansas governor’s mansion remains under tight control at a public library in Little Rock, with access restricted by the Clinton Foundation.
President Bill Clinton donated his papers from his tenure as Arkansas governor to the Central Arkansas Library System (CALS) in 2003, and they are housed at the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies in Little Rock.
The documents could provide new insight into the early chapter of the Clintons’ political careers, as reporters take a second look at Hillary Clinton’s past in light of the information contained in the public materials of the Diane Blair collection.
Hillary Clinton played a key role in her husband’s health care and education initiatives during his time as governor, from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992.
The collection, dubbed the “Clinton Project” by library officials, is still being processed by archivists, but is technically available to public viewing requests.
However, access to the documents is tightly controlled by the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit charitable group founded by President Clinton in 2001, which retains legal ownership of the papers.
A CALS official told the Washington Free Beacon last month that any request to view the documents would have to be approved by Clinton Foundation board chairman Bruce Lindsey, a long-time adviser to Bill Clinton.
“Bruce [Lindsey] is going to want to know specifically what you want access to and why,” said CALS director Bobby Roberts. “Then he is going to contact us to see if we have anything. Only then will he consider giving you access.”
Roberts added, “The material is housed in hundreds of archival boxes which are closed to the public without the permission of the [Clinton] foundation.”
Lindsey did not respond to a Free Beacon archive request in January, or to a follow-up request last week.
The manager of the archive told the Washington Free Beacon that there “really isn’t anything” related to Hillary Clinton in the collection.
“[T]here really isn’t anything by or about Hillary Clinton in the Clinton collection,” said David Stricklin, in response to a request for access in January. “The files are mostly working papers from various staff members. There are no personal Clinton family files in this collection, and, because she was not a member of his staff, my colleague tells me, there are no files related to Hillary Clinton’s work.”
However, CALS director Roberts told CBS in 2007 that there were at least 34 files related to Hillary Clinton in the collection.
During Bill Clinton’s tenure as governor, Hillary Clinton spearheaded his education reform initiative and led committees on rural health care and public education.
The Butler Center houses gubernatorial papers from six other Arkansas governors. However, Clinton’s papers are the only ones that are subject to such an arrangement, according to library officials. The other collections, including ones that are still being processed, are open to the public.
A Butler Center official told the Free Beacon that “there’s been very little use of the documents” in the Clinton collection.
“It’s been really spotty,” said Glenn Whaley, assistant manager at the Butler Center and a lead archivist on the Clinton Project. “Some years it’s two or three [researchers who are granted access] within a year; some years it’s a little bit more than that.”
Stricklin acknowledged the difficulty of accessing the documents.
“I think the trick is just to get Bruce [Lindsey] to say yes,” he said.
The difficulty of accessing the papers has frustrated historians.
Professor Alan Marcus, head of the history department at Mississippi State University, said he spent four or five years trying to get access to a small collection of papers related to a retreat that Bill and Hillary Clinton attended annually in Hilton Head, S.C.
Marcus said he was told a team of lawyers from the Clinton Foundation would have to vet the documents before they would grant him access. However, the attorneys never showed up at the archive, and Marcus was forced to abandon the project after years of waiting.
“Researchers and others wanting to use the papers would have to identify the papers they wanted to see and then lawyers from the Clinton Foundation would come and comb through each page to make sure that the material should be viewed,” said Marcus.
“There are two lawyers who do that. The problem is that they don’t really do it,” Marcus said. “With Hillary running for president in 2006 and after, they were vetting her material. When she became secretary of state, they worked with her there.”
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said that while it is unclear what is in the gubernatorial archive, the tight restrictions “suggests that the Clinton forces believe problems would result from their publication.”
The Diane Blair archive, which has been combed through by national media outlets after the Free Beacon reported on its contents earlier this month, has a restricted section, which library officials say is not unusual.
Timothy Nutt, the head of Special Collections at the University of Arkansas, where the Blair archive is housed, said typically such sections are only open to the people who donated the collection and their designated agents.
Sabato said both the issues raised by the Blair papers and also the opaqueness of Clinton’s gubernatorial records “point to one of the downsides of the Clintons’ 40 year public office trek.”
“The written record is voluminous, and the public record is already full of controversies. All of this comes back in another presidential campaign,” he said.

http://freebeacon.com/restricted-access/

February 17, 2014 Hypocrisy - Hillary Clinton IS The War On Women

Hat Tip: wnd.com

"The point is what this woman is capable of doing to other women while she's running a campaign basically on women's issues. It just doesn't make any sense. She singlehandedly orchestrated every one of the investigations of all these women [who accused her husband of sexual crimes]."

"Kathleen Willey, the former volunteer aide to Bill Clinton who says she was sexually harassed by the president in the 1990s, is now sounding the alarm about the potential danger of Hillary Clinton becoming president."


video at link below
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/video...#ixzz2thtPYcMd
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Obama’s Benghazi Cover-up

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely US Army (Ret) — February 19, 2014




Let’s cut to the chase. Thirty-four Americans at the U.S. Special Mission and CIA Annex in Benghazi were attacked by Islamicterrorists in two waves,the first starting at 9:40 p.m. the evening of Sept. 11, 2012.

Murderous thugs carefully planned and executed this attack on American territory — which this space represents — on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11.

First, U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his aide, Sean Smith, were brutally killed. Then, long hours of official indecision or cowardice followed, culminating in the heroic rescue during the second attack on the annex.

But for retired Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty courageously fighting to defend the lives of those at the annex at the cost of their own, no one would have lived to tell the tale.

Woods, a CIA contractor stationed at the annex, initially led the delayed rescue effort at the mission, bringing four surviving Diplomatic Security Service officers and Smith’s lifeless body, back to the annex.
Doherty, a CIA contractor stationed in Tripoli, arrived in Benghazi with his team at 1:35 a.m., but Libya Shield Brigade jihadis detained them for some three hours, giving the “final assault team,” including a mortar squad, time to prepare for the attack on the annex.

The sobering reality now is, rather than praising the 31 survivors for their bravery, the Obama administration has muzzled them through extraordinary harassing measures, including nondisclosure agreements and repeated polygraphs vis-a-vis the Benghazi attacks.

Let’s be clear: Terrorists ejected America from Libya that day, ushering in anarchic rule that persists to this day — the same America that gave Libya $1 billion in military assistance during the so-called “Arab Spring” to liberate its people from strongman Moammar Gadhafi, who was captured and killed on Oct. 20, 2011.

Nearly a year later, just after Labor Day as President Obama was bracing himself for the presidential contest that would determine whether he would retain power, this enormous catastrophe occurred in Benghazi.

That the administration sought initially to obfuscate with the patently false video story shows it takes Americans for fools. But, then, we were fools.
Mr. Obama’s team altered the official talking points given to then-U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice (now Mr. Obama’s subpoena-proof national security adviser) for her appearances on five talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, where she spewed total nonsense.

No one dug deeper, and the president got past the election. Never mind that Michael J. Morell, CIA counterterrorism chief, admitted in hearings before Thanksgiving 2012 to altering the talking points that Mrs. Rice used on those shows altered them in concert with the White House Deputies Committee, which includes key players at the White House and the State Department. This roup took out words such as “terrorist attack” and “al Qaeda” and scrubbed all references to the CIA’s documented earlier warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi.

It took some brazen lies.

By Friday, Oct. 26, then-CIA Director Gen. David H. Petraeus was being fingered for blame, prompting his spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood to issue this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
That day, Mr. Obama twice refused to respond to Denver KUSA-TV reporter Kyle Clark’s questions regarding whether Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans killed in the attack were denied help.

He even had the temerity to suggest “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened.”

Mr. Clark wasn’t satisfied, asking, “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?”

The president wouldn’t answer the question — the same question Tyrone Woods’ father, Charles, has repeatedly asked Mr. Obama since shortly after the attack that took his son’s life.

Why won’t he answer this question? More than 17 months later, it’s clear he’s hiding something.

This is America, where we have a system of checks and balances. When the cover-up is big enough, an industrial strength congressional response is needed; namely, a select committee such as the one employed to get answers to the Watergate scandal.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, called for a House select committee in January 2013, although it would only convene for 90 days. He has 186 co-sponsors to date.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, called for a joint select committee last September. He has 24 co-sponsors.

Of course, this raises the question: Why is Congress full of such cowards? Both bills should have had the requisite sponsors within days.
It’s time to pull the veil off what I would posit is the biggest cover-up in American history. Adm. James Lyons has a plausible theory, suggesting a staged, botched kidnapping. There are also others.

It’s time to show the courage of Woods and Doherty and convene the select committee.

This column was originally published in The Washington Times.

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, retired from the U.S. Army, is chairman of Stand Up America and a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/obam...450b-224224701

Massachusetts is Terrifying


If you think that's terrifying, Hillary said that it takes a village to raise a child. Looks like Boston took her literally.

Hillary and Her Pig
Will the woman who watched while her reckless pig Bill
Used women like toys moving in for the kill,
Who coerced his sweet intern to once again please,
Abide him, unzip him, and drop to her knees,
Will the woman who sought her political gain
Pretend not to know and proceed now to feign,
That her man respects women and honors their rights
While he plans and he schemes to turn out the lights?
And what of the dozens who claimed as they should,
That Bill did them wrong while he did himself good
That he used them abused them and even did bite,
That poor girl on the lip who he forced that pale night,
Her confirmed testimony recorded on tape,
Everywhere else we call his crime rape,
Blind to Bill's crimes, how can they ignore,
The pillory of shame all these women abhor,
Where he binds women fast in the place they should be
To attend to his pig-hood in slick willy glee.
Will she still front her man as pro-feminine rights,
While pursuing the Oval’s penultimate heights?
She cannot be a champion of women you see,
Not honoring each woman's right to be free.
Will this election then prove to be her next gig,
To get back in the White House along with her pig?
I’m warning you now if we let this thing fly,
We will all be living in Hillary’s sty.
Our liberties squashed in messy pig mire
Freedom and justice a forgotten desire.
Benghazi and scandals and IRS schemes
Are only a taste of what she now dreams
Power, again, to extort and to take
And really, now, "what difference does it make?"
We've suffered already this "hope and change" lie
Perhaps we should welcome this Hillary's sty
A new social welfare, a victimized nation
Equality's game for pig Bill's pure elation.

And to play out the sick Orwellian theme
Feed slop to the masses, a corn-cob dream,
No, we cannot buy into Ms Hillary’s lies
Feeding in troughs and living in sties
Subjected to Bill and his slick willy glees
Making her interns drop to their knees.
So keep the truth moving and shout the alarm
Vote NO in the polls to the Animal Farm.
by: DE Navarro
©2014 DE Navarro. You have my permission to use this poem and repost it anywhere you like as long as you include the by line -- "by: DE Navarro", and this copyright/permission statement.

Newly released: Dare to Soar, 2013
http://www.thecurio.ecrater.co...



http://eaglerising.com/4776/massachusetts-terrifying/

Susan Rice: No regrets about Benghazi remarks





Posted on February 24, 2014 by Cowboy Byte
Highly paid liar.
Check it out:
U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice said on Sunday she has no regrets about initially characterizing the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, as a “spontaneous response” to an anti-Islam video.

“What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice told NBC’s David Gregory in her first appearance on “Meet the Press” since making her initial remarks about the attack on the show. “The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and indeed to Congress by the intelligence community, and that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”

Rice and other administration officials later came under fire after the attack was determined to be an act of terror.
“That information turned out in some respects not to be 100 percent correct,” Rice continued. “But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration is patently false, and that’s been amply demonstrated.”

Continue Reading on news.yahoo.com

Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/28511/susan-rice-regrets-benghazi-remarks/#Ykqz6q4AVzWzRTXb.99



Hmmm What difference does it make!!!!

In South Carolina, Clinton forces try to tap Obama magic

By Peter Hamby, CNN National Political Reporter

February 25, 2014 -- Updated 0033 GMT (0833 HKT)



video at link below


Columbia, South Carolina (CNN) -- To hear some tell it, the 2008 South Carolina primary clash between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was a few steps away from a full-blown race riot.

"It was unbelievable down here in 2007 and 2008," said Bridget Tripp, a Democratic organizer from Lexington who supported Obama in that year's primary. "Bill Clinton was going through downtown Columbia calling Barack Obama a racist."
It never got that bad, of course. But in the runup to the contest and in its aftermath, the Clinton campaign scrambled to explain away comments that rankled the black community: Hillary Clinton seeming to downplay Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in passing the Civil Rights Act, Bill Clinton's biting characterization of Obama's campaign as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen" and a range of remarks from Clinton allies that seemed to belittle Obama's achievements.
Bill Clinton's remarks in particular went over so poorly that South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, then the state's highest-ranking African-American in Congress, went on national television and told the former president to "chill." The morning after Obama's crushing 28-point victory, Bill Clinton waved it off in glib terms, comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, just another black candidate with black support.
The loss was a stinging defeat for the Clintons, a Southern power couple who viewed their longstanding friendships in the African-American community as crucial bulwark against any Democratic foe.

also videos of these at link below


Hillary, Jeb and a nasty GOP primary
Who would win if election was tomorrow?
Sen. Graham slammed for praising Hillary
Hillary attack a GOP façade?

McCain: If election were today, Hillary Clinton would be president
But African-American voters were suddenly flocking to Obama in the wake of his Iowa caucus victory, a win that made the prospect of electing the nation's first black president suddenly seem real. Black voters made up more than half of the South Carolina primary electorate, and Obama won almost 80% of them.
The Democratic primary fight went on for months, but Obama banked a decisive delegate lead, and Clinton never recovered from the loss.
Clinton supporters have fresh bounce in their step
Six years on, as Clinton considers a second presidential bid, the battle scars here have largely healed over.
"I love Hillary Clinton," said Clyburn. "She has made a tremendous contribution to the political order in this country. I have three daughters, and two of my three grandchildren are girls. So I am very partial to women who run for office."
Clinton supporters in South Carolina who were slump-shouldered in the wake of her loss now have a fresh bounce in their steps.
"I have to be a little careful, but at this point, if she announces, it's going to be her nomination," said Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton White House years.
Leading African-American legislators who backed Obama are all but endorsing Clinton, even though she has not even said whether she plans to run. And several of Obama's well-regarded field marshals from 2008 have been toiling in the state since last fall on behalf of "Ready For Hillary," an independent group that is trying to build steam for a potential Clinton bid.
Hillary Clinton surfaces as issue in GOP Senate race
"Without a doubt, there is definitely a warming to her," said Anton Gunn, a hulking former college football lineman who was Obama's political director in 2008 and later served in his administration.
"When she made the decision to be secretary of state and did an admirable job, being completely loyal to the goals and objectives that the president laid out, she made a lot of supporters. She was soldier and a part of the team just like we were."

video of these at link below

The many faces of Hillary Clinton
Clinton: 'Thick skin' needed for politics
Inside Politics: Hillary's strategy

Like all of the early caucus primary states that will help determine the Democratic nominee in 2016, South Carolina is no sure bet for Clinton if she decides to run. Polls show her with a wide lead over hypothetical opponents, but surveys also suggest the base of her party is drifting leftward, away from the centrism that defines Clintonian politics. A fresh set of issues or another dynamic candidate might emerge before the primary votes of early 2016.
But every Democrat here agrees: South Carolina is once again Clinton's to lose.
Other than Vice President Joe Biden, the scarcity of heavyweight opponents on the horizon is striking, especially compared to 2006, when a passel of big name Democrats were making regular trips here to campaign for midterm candidates and consult with potential supporters.
Friend's papers give insight into the Clintons' early years
Emergence of another African-American candidate could hurt Clinton
"She just dominates the whole Democratic Party presidential process," Fowler said.
What might damage Clinton, a range of South Carolina Democrats said, would be the sudden emergence of another African-American candidate in a primary where the percentage of black voters could be as high as 60%.
"Unless there is another Barack Obama out there, I don't see the same thing happening again," said Darrell Jackson, a pastor and longtime state senator who was one of Clinton's leading surrogates in the state in 2008.
For Tripp, now working Ready for Hillary, the prospect of making history by helping elect the country's first woman president has a unique appeal. "There will never be another first black president," she said.
Former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges, a chairman of Obama's campaign in 2008, pointed to "a clear hunger among Democrats here for a women to be the nominee."

videos at link below

The evolution of Hillary Clinton
Documents reveal Clinton distrusts media
Maher: People loved Hillary after Monica
"She is well-positioned," Hodges said of Clinton. "There is no obvious alternative in the Democratic Party. I just don't see anyone emerging right now who would cause her problems if she runs."
Inside Politics: Hillary's interpretation of the 'Roosevelt Rule'
Hodges mused that a challenger on her progressive flank could give Clinton a headache, even in South Carolina. The Democratic ranks have become more liberal over the years, he said, with Southern conservatives leaving the party and a continuing influx of out-of-staters, known locally as "come-heres," who aren't beholden to Southern orthodoxy.
If the political terrain here has shifted since 2008, it should not come as a surprise to Clinton: Both Jackson and Hodges said they've had recent conversations with Bill Clinton, though neither would divulge the content of their discussions. "The former president and I stay in contact," is all Jackson would say.
Ready for Hillary rally fundraiser felt like Obama campaign reunion
The budding alliance between Obama and Clinton forces here -- at least the one Clinton supporters wanted to project -- was on display last week inside a converted loft space in Columbia, a few blocks from the Congaree River. After similar efforts in Iowa and New Hampshire, Ready For Hillary was hosting its debut fundraiser in South Carolina, collecting small donations (price of entry: $20.16) and e-mail addresses from the 80 or so Democrats who showed up on a balmy Thursday evening.
A bold blue "I'm Ready For Hillary" banner adorned the wall, and organizers handed out pro-Hillary buttons, but the session had the distinct feel of an Obama campaign reunion. State legislators, field operatives, and steering committee members from Obama's campaign showed up and said nice things about Clinton. Free food, and free media attention, seemed to be part of the attraction.
Senate candidate Rick Wade, a senior Obama adviser in the state, worked the room in a crisp blue suit, greeting friends like state Rep. Bakari Sellers, a young Obama backer in 2008 and today a lieutenant governor candidate who was booked as the fundraiser's headline speaker.
Hillary Clinton on criticism: 'Don't get dragged down'
"It's hard to say you would endorse somebody who isn't running yet," Sellers said when asked whether he would back Clinton in 2016. "I support the former first lady. It's early. But I do support these efforts."

videos at link below

Clinton: 'Thick skin' needed for politics
Will Biden make a bid for 2016?
How ready is Joe Biden for a 2016 run?
Across the way, former Obama aide Jonathan Metcalf, one of Ready for Hillary's lead organizers, shared an embrace with Kay Koonce, a state Democratic party official and vocal Clinton backer. They were surrounded by Democrats of all races, nibbling on chicken tenders and cheese balls.
"We were at war," Metcalf said. "But here we are together. That's pretty powerful."
Obama strategists used the Palmetto State in 2008 as an incubator for their now-legendary voter-registration-and-turnout machinery, an operation masterminded by Jeremy Bird, then the campaign's young South Carolina field director.
After twice helping elect Obama to the White House, Bird is now a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary. One of Bird's former deputies, Greenville native Quentin James, is also on the Ready for Hillary payroll as the group's Black Americans Director; he put together the pro-Clinton fundraiser.
Thorny issues confront Ready for Hillary
Metcalf boasted that Ready for Hillary staffers are applying Obama's vaunted outreach tactics to generate grassroots enthusiasm for Clinton.
"We have been organizing since October," Metcalf said. "Top activists in the state are already sewn up. That's the story. This isn't even a fraction of the army we've already built. It's been a lot of persuasion, a lot of travel, trying to connect with people on what's important to them and relating that back to supporting Hillary Clinton. ... I've only got one person who worked for Barack that would not help me with Hillary."
The gushing enthusiasm masked some of the thornier issues that have confronted Ready for Hillary on its quest to lay groundwork for a Clinton presidential bid and co-opt some of the Obama magic.
Hillary Clinton as a kindergarten teacher?
Though the group has the de facto support of Clinton-world as it tries to build the framework for a national campaign, it is barred under federal election law from coordinating with the former secretary of state because she is not a declared candidate for federal office.

video at link below

Diary: Hillary kept records for 'revenge'
Ann Coulter on women and politicians
Clinton's tenure at State 'a mixed bag'
Photos: Clinton's political career



"We don't have a candidate and we don't have a campaign, so we can't answer all your questions," Metcalf informed the audience. "But we would like Secretary Clinton to know in uncertain terms that she has grass-roots support in South Carolina."
'Putting the cart before the horse'
The task of channeling Obama's unique grassroots excitement into support for Clinton, a completely different politician who does not stir Democratic passions in the same way Obama does, is a complicated enterprise. At the conclusion of Ready for Hillary's Columbia fundraiser, a chant of "Fired up! Ready to go!" -- the famous Obama incantation from 2008 -- petered out after just two rounds.
In an interview, Clyburn was critical of Ready for Hillary, saying that any effort to gin up excitement for 2016 before the 2014 midterm elections is "putting the cart before the horse." He said Democratic energies in South Carolina should be focused squarely on helping their gubernatorial candidate, Vincent Sheheen, unseat Gov. Nikki Haley in November.
"The overemphasis and the time and energy spent on presidential politics at this juncture are misplaced," Clyburn said. "You don't deal with a structure from the top down in politics. In building any structure you have to build from the bottom up. I just wish that all of these people who spend all their time on presidential politics in 2016 would spend half that time on the governor's race in 2014, and putting structure in place. I just think this is misplaced priorities."
Confidant's diary: Clinton wanted to keep records 'for revenge'
Other Democrats were even more disparaging.
"Is Hillary ready for Hillary? That's the question," said former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian, who said he plans to support Biden if he runs. "Is it a political organization or a fan club for a boy band? I just don't understand the idea that somehow you've got to encourage her to run. Either people want to run and have a coherent message about why they should be president, or not. She has been around the block. She knows that if she wants to run, she can get in and get the money."
'I think it's a cult'
"I think it's a cult, not a political movement," Harpootlian added. "Ready for Hillary compared to who? The field still has to develop."
Ready for Hillary supporters were at pains to say pleasant things about Clinton's potential opponents -- and to note that they were planning to use their organizational muscle to assist midterm candidates.
"We want to use energy and excitement here to remind people, especially young people, that we have some important campaigns in 2014," said Koonce. "This is great training. We want to work hard for Democrats in 2014 and use that for Hillary in 2016."
Biden's name also mentioned in 2016 discussions
Despite her overwhelming advantages, Clinton's name is hardly the only one that surfaces in early discussions about the 2016 primary. Biden is the most common one.
"I'm more of a 'Ready for Biden' kinda guy," said Tyler Jones, a Democratic operative in Charleston, when asked whether he was attending the pro-Clinton fundraiser last week.
Unlike Obama, who has not set foot in the state since the night of his primary victory here six years ago, the vice president has returned to South Carolina over and over again: for official White House business, political spadework and personal time.
Biden, who would be making his third presidential bid if he runs in 2016, impressed party activists here last year as the headline speaker at the Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. He later attended a fish fry hosted by Clyburn.
Why Hillary forgave Bill about Monica
Supporters of Biden are not shy about pointing out his deep ties to the state: His yearly vacations on Kiawah Island, his impressive 2003 eulogy for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, and his friendships with brand-name Democrats including former Sen. Fritz Hollings and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley. Biden has also kept in close touch with a handful of key state legislators, welcoming them with open arms during trips to Washington.
"Biden's had a long history in the state of South Carolina," said Trip King, a longtime Biden confidant who lives in Columbia. "He is fond of the state, has spent a lot of time down here over the years and has developed a lot of lifelong friendships. If Biden were to run, he would be extremely well-received in South Carolina."
Another Democrat who has tried to make inroads here is Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who addressed a Democratic policy conference last spring in Charleston, where his daughter attends college. During his visit, O'Malley convened getting-to-know-you meetings with party power brokers and activists, some of whom received O'Malley family Christmas cards in December.
Contested primary wouldn't be a bad thing for the party
"I'd be surprised if he didn't run and didn't announce earlier than others," Hodges said of O'Malley. "He is clearly interested, and he needs to test his messages and appeal beyond Maryland."
In interviews, Democratic activists and elected officials in the state also expressed curiosity about New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Two organizers at the Ready for Hillary event said they wanted to learn more about New York Gov. "Mario" Cuomo, mixing up Andrew's name for that of his famous father.
Even as they try to project an air of invincibility and lure Clinton into the race, some of her supporters admit that a contested primary would be a good thing for the party -- and for the candidate.
"If she walks into the nomination without being challenged, without having the opportunity to exercise her campaign techniques and expertise, it might be tough in a general election," Fowler said. "Every major league team goes through spring training. A little spring training wouldn't be bad."
Harpootlian was characteristically more blunt.
"It's insanity to think that a primary is a bad thing," he said. "It would make her better. If she can't get through a primary, how will she get through a general election when the Koch brothers are spending $8 billion?"
Post Continues on www.cnn.com



http://patriotupdate.com/2014/02/dem...-hillary-cult/


Get ready folks this women is planning on running!! Remember Benghazi and what difference does it make!!!

Yes, We Should Discuss the Clintons’ Past

Monday, February 24, 2014

Yes, We Should Discuss the Clintons’ Past

Star Parker | Feb 24, 2014









When Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential aspirant Rand Paul re-surfaced the Monica Lewinsky scandal as relevant to Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, fellow Republican Karl Rove immediately took him to task on national television.

“Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,” said Rove.

Actually, it was Paul’s wife Kelley who first brought it up in a Vogue Magazine interview. Why should Republicans be accused of a “war on women” when Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former president Bill, chartered new territory in “predatory” sexual behavior, argued Mrs. Paul.

When Senator Paul was asked about this on Meet the Press, he made the same point.

According to the latest realclearpolitics.com average of national polls, Rand Paul is a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

So what’s up with one of the Republican Party’s pundit-in-chiefs, Karl Rove, attacking one of his own party’s presidential contenders? Isn’t it the other party’s candidates you are supposed to attack?

This, of course, is about the ongoing battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, which is the preliminary to the main event – the battle for the heart and soul of the nation.

If understood correctly, Bill Clinton’s mistakes, and how his wife Hillary related to them, are indeed a “big agenda for the future of the country.” But it’s not where Karl Rove wants to go, nor does the wing of the party that wants to bury social conservatives. So he is already shooting intra-party friendly fire.

Some feel that collapse of “traditional values” is irrelevant to the nation’s future and getting back on track to fiscal soundness, growth, and prosperity.

But can anyone really believe that if a few hundred years ago almost half of American babies were born to unwed mothers, if getting an abortion was like taking an aspirin for a headache, if marriage and family was considered one of many possible lifestyles, if marriage itself was open to redefinition based on whim, we would be where we are today?

A free society, a society where politicians are not in your face and running your life, requires personal virtue and responsibility.

It is not accident that as values collapsed, as family disintegrated, the welfare state, big government, has grown and taken its place.

In a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent between 18 and 34 years old said having a child out of wedlock is morally acceptable, 49 percent said pornography is morally acceptable, and 48 percent said teenage sex is morally acceptable.

Can anyone really believe that a society with these kinds of values can and will have limited government?

We cannot underestimate the influence Bill Clinton, America’s first 60’s generation president, played in creating this kind of popular culture. Once it was okay that the President of the United States could betray his nation and his wife and fornicate with a young intern in the Oval Office, the door was open to almost anything.

We also cannot underestimate the impact on our popular culture and values that the wife of this man – a woman who now aspires to be our next president - was willing to tolerate this behavior and rationalize it away.

This is not the behavior of a strong, courageous woman but that of a weak, unprincipled woman.

Latest data from the Census Bureau shows that 77.5 percent of families in the top fifth of income earners are headed by married couples. Eight-three percent of families in the lowest fifth are singles or single parent households.

Marriage and traditional values are the bulwark of a free and prosperous society.

The Clintons helped break it all down. Karl Rove is dead wrong. This is a very “big agenda for the future of the country.”

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/02/yes...9jtRBAzHDgt.99

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2014/02/24/yes-we-should-discuss-the-clintons-past-n1798564