TIME MAGAZINE: Sanitized For Your Protection

You learn something every day.

Hey, you know Time puts out four covers for four different areas of the word?

I didn't know that.

But they do. They have a US cover, a Europe/Middle East/Africa cover, an Asia cover, and a South Pacific cover.

Yeah I don't get how they divided the world up myself.

But anyway.

So they have four covers.

Based on the covers, one person is dominating the world's interest... but not in the whole world.

Here's a suggestion for Time: how about different covers for red states and blue states? You could have Obama or Michelle's guns on every cover in the blues and the latest diversion (e.g., Miley Cyrus) in the reds.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Hey, Old Media Clowns: If We're Really In a "Recovery", Why Is One-Sixth of the U.S. on Food Stamps?

You can't browse a vintage media newspaper or website without seeing the assertion that the U.S. is in "a recovery".

Really? How so?

The Labor Force Participation Rate just hit a 34-year low.

And food stamp usage continues to explode, the product of rampant fraud, Obamacare's destruction of full-time employment, and the fact that welfare pays better than work.

Food-stamp use grew 2.3% in June from a year earlier, with nearly one-sixth of the U.S. population receiving benefits.

Illinois showed the largest enrollment increase from last year with a 14.7% gain, according to Agriculture Department data released Friday. Wyoming was in second place, with rolls up 11.1% since the same time last year. Utah experienced the largest annual decline in food-stamp use, dropping 11.2%, among a dozen states to post a decrease. (Enrollment also decreased in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington.)

One of the largest social safety net programs in the United States, food stamps – formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – expanded substantially during and after the recession, with enrollment rising about 70% from 2007 to 2011. At the same time, the government also temporarily increased benefits and allowed users in the hardest-hit areas to receive aid for longer-than-usual periods of time. The average monthly benefit was $133 last year.

Critics clamor against what they see as a disturbing rise in government dependency. But new economic research suggests the program’s expansion isn’t alarming and can, in fact, be explained by business cycles.

Yo, antique media clowns: it's called The Cloward-Piven Strategy. Look it up. That is, if you want to stop retyping press releases from the White House and doing actual reporting for a change.

I know, I'm a dreamer.


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

'This Week' Transcript: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks

On ABC's This Week earlier today, former Clinton apparatchik-turned-journalist George Stephanopoulos interviewed Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks -- the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya -- as the anniversary of the deadly attack nears.

And we still can't find out what the President what was doing for nine hours as Americans fought, bled and died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We're talking about people being killed by gas and you want to go talk about Benghazi.

REPRESENTATIVE JEFF DAVIS: Absolutely want to talk about Benghazi. Four Americans lost their lives.

SECRETARY KERRY: We don't deserve to drag this into yet another Benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up for international norms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later as you can see, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is still a political football. But for the Americans there on the ground it was a story of heartbreak and the struggle to survive. Greg Hicks was the Diplomat in Charge that night. The only officer who has spoken out about that harrowing night. This dramatic account is an ABC News exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY HICKS, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN LIBYA: I've been perplexed and frustrated with the way this has all played out. Because to me this is a simple story. Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi to do his job. To what he knew Secretary Clinton wanted him to do. And he was attacked while he was there.

And the American staff in Benghazi and in Tripoli responded as we've been trained to do, in an amazing way, to save the lives of our people who were in Benghazi. Unfortunately we lost four people in the line of duty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's take a look back at the events of that night. You're home in Tripoli--

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That evening at around what, 9:45?

HICKS: It's at 9:45 Tripoli time, right, 3:45 Washington time. Our regional security officer comes running into the house where I was and yells, Greg! Greg! The consulate's under attack! And I immediately look at my telephone and I see a missed call. I call back on that number, I get the Ambassador.

And the Ambassador says Greg we're under attack.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Chris Stevens.

HICKS: Chris Stevens. And I say, OK and the line is cut.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's it.

HICKS: And that's all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We are under attack.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You knew there were a lot of bad, a lot of bad guys in country.

HICKS: We knew that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were also worried about the overall security situation and the amount of protection both the Embassy and the Consulate had.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the Ambassador had been concerned about that?

HICKS: He had been concerned. He had sent in a cable in July requesting that our security personnel situation not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had a special security team in place.

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then it was reassigned.

HICKS: Exactly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: On the night of the attack, there were five diplomatic security agents with Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. There are at least 20 hostile attackers in the compound.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Months earlier the State Department had forged an agreement that in the event of an attack on the vulnerable Benghazi Mission, Security personnel would response from a nearby facility called The Annex, run by the CIA.

I know that you can't say so, but we know it was a CIA facility, and we know that the CIA facility was getting protection and more security than the diplomatic facility.

HICKS: The numbers are clear about twice as many in terms of trained security providers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did you tell Washington?

HICKS: I called Washington right after I talked to the Annex Chief and I told them that the consulate was under attack. That the--

STEPHANOPOULOS: You used the word attack?

HICKS: I did use the word attack. That there were at least 20 armed intruders in the compound and that help was on the way from the Annex.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Had you heard anything earlier in the day about any kind of protest or were you worried at all because of these reports of this video?

HICKS: No it was a non-event, the video, in Libya. And we had heard nothing about protests. The building had been set on fire by the attackers and our Diplomatic Security Agents there were heavily outnumbered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: About an hour after the attack began, the heavily armed CIA Team arrives at the mission.

HICKS: They began trying to find the Ambassador and Sean Smith who were unable to get out of the burning building. After tremendous efforts and exposing themselves to serious harm, they did find Sean and pulled him out. Unfortunately he was already dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So while all this is happening, what are you saying to Washington?

HICKS: I'm reporting it back to Washington every 15 or 20 minutes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department?

HICKS: State Department Operations Center. Exactly. By this time there's a second wave of attackers and looters coming to the Compound. Many, many poor people than--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Dozens?

HICKS: Yeah dozens. Perhaps hundreds. There's no way that 10 or 11 guys who were there can hold that off. So the decision is made to evacuate. They have to ram their way out of the compound. They are immediately brought under fire including heavy machine gun fire.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The entire group now heads back to the Annex but they have not found Ambassador Stevens.

HICKS: When they get back to the Annex they come under attack there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So at this point, this is ongoing battle. Did you ask for reinforcements?

HICKS: I had already spoken to the defense attache. I asked what help is coming? And he said there's some fighters in Aviano but it's going to be 2 or 3 hours before they could make an appearance. It was clear it was going to be a long time before any help came. So I made sure that people knew that they were going to have to hold out for as long as they could.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As the battle aged at the CIA Annex, a crowd overruns the now abandoned Mission. Some Libyans locate Ambassador Stevens, clinging to life, and rush him to a local hospital.

Meantime a team of reinforcements from Tripoli, military and CIA security has arrived at the Benghazi airport.

HICKS: About 3am, 9pm Washington, they get the call from the Prime Minister than Ambassador Stevens is dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did he tell you?

HICKS: He just says, I'm very sorry Greg to tell you this, but our friend Chris has passed on. I think those were his words. There was deep remorse in his voice when he said it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you?

HICKS: For me it, I think it's the saddest moment in my career honestly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With the news of Stevens' death, the security team from Tripoli heads to the Annex.

HICKS: And soon after they get there the attack on the Annex is renewed. And then the mortars come in. Those are the rounds that killed Ty and Glen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since this has all happened we've seen all of the top Pentagon officials at the time, all the top Military officials said there was just no way to respond in time. Military assets could not get there.

HICKS: I don't know exactly what was available. I still don't quite understand why they couldn't fly aircraft over to Benghazi. When I was a kid I grew up watching Western movies. And you know the Calvary always came. I just thought that they would come.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've had, you know, quite a journey yourself in this last year. Deciding to speak to Congress.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in May. Since then it appears you've been in something of career limbo inside the State Department.

HICKS: That's correct. That's true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department this was an assignment you requested, you're getting the same pay as before. But do you feel you're being punished for speaking out?

HICKS: Yes I feel that I have been punished. I don't know why I was punished. I don't know why I was shunted aside. Put in a closet if you will.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the State Department know you're speaking out now?

HICKS: No. They don't know I'm here with you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then why talk?

HICKS: Because the American people need to have the story. And Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Dohery's names are names that should be remembered by every American for the sacrifice that they made.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Could those four American heroes have been saved?

HICKS: Sadly, I think that Ambassador Stephens and Sean Smith maybe not. Ty and Glen of course were killed in the mortar attack that took place eight hours after the initial attack. It's possible they could have been saved, I think.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what's the best way we can honor the memory of the four diplomats and security professionals who lost their lives that night?

HICKS: We can't forget them. And we need to make sure that those people who are going out into the world on our behalf have the tools that they need and the resources they need to do the job that they've been asked to do for the people of the United States.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Greg Hicks right there. In response to his contention that he's been punished, the State Department has sent us this statement which reads in part, "The State Department has not punished Mr. Hicks in any way. We appreciate his exemplary service on the evening of September 11th. His departure from Libya was entirely unrelated to any statements he may have made relating to the attack in Benghazi, and we are working with him on his next permanent assignment."


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

PATIENTLY AWAITING THE APOLOGY FROM THE MEDIA: Syria's WMDs Came From Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


War On Terror: As the regime of Bashar Assad disintegrates, the security of his chemical arsenal is in jeopardy. The No. 2 general in Saddam Hussein's air force says they were the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq.

King Abdullah of neighboring Jordan warned that a disintegrating Syria on the verge of civil war puts Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons at risk of falling into the hands of al-Qaida.

"One of the worst-case scenarios as we are obviously trying to look for a political solution would be if some of those chemical stockpiles were to fall into unfriendly hands," he said.

The irony here is that the chemical weapons stockpile of Syrian thug Assad may in large part be the legacy of weapons moved from Hussein's Iraq into Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

If so, this may be the reason not much was found in the way of WMD by victorious U.S. forces in 2003.

In 2006, former Iraqi general Georges Sada, second in command of the Iraqi Air Force who served under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book, "Saddam's Secrets."

It details how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's WMD threat.

As Sada told the New York Sun, two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, and special Republican Guard units loaded the planes with chemical weapons materials.

There were 56 flights disguised as a relief effort after a 2002 Syrian dam collapse.

There were also truck convoys into Syria. Sada's comments came more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts held in Arlington, Va., in 2006.

According to Shaw, ex-Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, went to Iraq in December 2002 and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Anticipating the invasion, his job was to supervise the removal of such weapons and erase as much evidence of Russian involvement as possible.

The Russian-assisted "cleanup" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achalov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achalov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmad in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003. Apparently they did their job well.

An article in the fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on Dec. 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated: "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." According to the article, about three weeks later, Israel's foreign minister repeated the accusation.

Syria has long had its own chemical weapons program, but the extent it may have been aided by weapons and materials transferred by Iraq before the war has only been the source of conjecture.

We may soon find out what happened to much of Saddam's WMD.


Visit Investors Business Daily

Anti-War Leftist Michael Tomasky Makes Startling and Courageous Transformation to Pro-War Chickenhawk

Ed Driscoll calls this "speaking truth to Journolist", referring to a single comment that fillets the ludicrous excuse for a journalist named "Michael Tomasky" (if that is his real name):

Do you think the vast majority of American’s that do not want to get involved with Syria. Do you think it can be a lack of confidence in this Administration?

It is not like this administration has not lied before. Look at the job report today. We have been lied to and spind around on the economy for 5 years. (yes I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Fast & furious (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Benghazi (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about the IRS (I know it was Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Obamacare (I know it is Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about the NSA (I know Bush’s fault). We have been lied to about Immigration (I know Bush’s fault). We have seen the level of incompetence on the Gulf Oil Spill, Boston (terror)…Bush’s fault. We have seen the level of incompetence when it comes to Egypt ( Muslim Brotherhood) Lybia (Extremists / Anarchy), hell the whole middle east….not to mention Iran is that much closer to being nuclear.

I know it is all Bush’s fault.

But with this track record, why should we trust them this time? Obviously Bush will screw this one up also, no?

Fail-clown Ezra Klein hardest hit.

Roll Call Embarrassment Taegan Goddard Still Shilling for Obamacare While Unions, Congress and Special Interests Freak Out

There are at least two people in America who still believe Obamacare is a sound idea. One is the intellectually bankrupt, former Enron adviser named Paul Krugman. The other is Roll Call's Taegan Goddard, the leftist sycophant, who continues to market Obamacare as successful when facts, logic, and reason all say otherwise.

Consider his utterly bizarre story entitled "Obamacare Fixed the Health Care Market". In a sense, that may be true, but only if the word "fixed" is used as it is in the sentence "we had the dog fixed".

Paul Krugman explains why it is no surprise that President Obama’s health care reform law is pushing down health insurance premiums.

“Until now there has been sort of a market — but one that…is riddled with problems. It was very hard for individuals to figure out what they were buying… Price and quality comparisons were near-impossible. Under these conditions the magic of the marketplace couldn’t work — there really wasn’t a proper market.”

“With the ACA, however, insurers operate under clear ground rules, with clearly defined grades of plan and discrimination banned. The result, suddenly, is that we have real market competition.”

Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to completely debunk Krugman's corrupt nonsense. In fact, even a trained chimpanzee can be taught to use a search engine and arrive at some conclusions concerning the impact of Obamacare on health insurance, premiums and employment. But, then again, a trained chimpanzee isn't a propagandist and Taegan Goddard is; therefore he must ignore the tidal wave of news stories that decimate his DNC-approved detritus.

9/5: List of 258 Firms Cutting Workers and Hours Due to Obamacare (Investors)

9/5: Obama rewrites health care law to exempt employers from mandate (Reuters)

9/5: New Mexico will see 130 percent premium hikes due to Obamacare: (Manhattan Institute)

9/4: AFL-CIO President Trumka Slams Obamacare's Restructuring of Workforces (Al Jazeera)

9/4: Obama Grants Congress an Exemption From His Health Care Overhaul (WSJ)

9/4: In 13 States Plus D.C., Obamacare Will Increase Health Premiums By 24% (Forbes)

9/4: ObamaCare Is Turning Us Into A Part-Time Nation (Forbes)

9/4: Low-cost 'bronze' plans under health law could leave some consumers with big medical bills (Minneapolis)

9/3: Health insurance in Madison area will up to 125 percent higher (WXOW-19)

9/3: Kroger Cuts Health Benefits For Spouses (BizJournals)

9/3: Union dumps AFL-CIO for its positions on ObamaCare, immigration reform (Fox)

9/3: Obamacare Could Cost Hawaii Millions for 'Cadillac' Healthcare Plans (Honolulu)

These are just a few of the choice headlines related to Obamacare's unfolding devastation. Worse still, the tens of thousands of pages of laws, regulations and diktats have yet to be finalized; in truth, the law really hasn't even kicked in yet.

Medicare is going bankrupt. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Social Security is going bankrupt. The Trustees of these systems, along with the GAO and the OMB keep sounding the alarms in increasingly dire terms.

And as these programs run dry, as interest rates spike, as Obamacare collapses, as the federal leviathan -- which borrows 40 cents of every dollar to operate -- implodes, cheerleaders for collectivism like Taegan Goddard are this era's useful idiots.

We are headed rapidly for an economic whirlpool, a hydraulic that will -- like chaotic events that have occurred throughout history -- catch most off-guard and send the country rapidly into desperately dangerous, uncharted waters.

And which segments of the population will be hardest hit by such an economic catastrophe? Will it be the super-rich, the Beltway elites, or former Presidents of the U.S.? Or will it be the poor, seniors living on fixed incomes, and young people trying to get their careers started?

Taegan Goddard is a disgrace. He is a marketer of central planning, of Soviet-style industrial policy that can't work, won't work and has never worked in all of human history. And yet he brays on as the system disintegrates, leaving future generations on the hook for his egregious failures.

History will not look kindly on this disgraceful excuse for a journalist. He should hang his head in shame.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

KRAUTHAMMER: Left Mocked Bush For Going Into Iraq With 50 Allies But "Obama Can't Even Get One And A Half"

Consistency? From progressives? Surely you jest, Charles.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer blasts the liberal establishment for mocking the Bush administration at the time that the United States intervened in Iraq. He compared actions in that conflict to the Obama administration's inability to unite America's allies in the present Syria situation:

"I don't think it is a sudden embrace of the separation of powers or a renewed interest in constitutional action in which he brings in the Congress.

On domestic issues, he hasn't shown any interest in that, and all of a sudden he develops religion on the eve of the supposed strike. The reason is, he was alone and naked in the world.

He didn't have Russia, he didn't have the U.N., didn't have the Security Council, he didn't have the Arabs who, yes, very much oppose but won't lift a finger and didn't even approve in the resolution of the Arab League support for unilateral or any kind of action against them, military action against Syria, and he lost our closest ally in Britain.

He had nobody. Here are Obama and the Democrats who mocked the Bush administration for unilateral intervention In Iraq where we had a coalition of almost 50 countries and he can't get one and a half. So he had to have the Congress, that's the reason he did that switch in the end. He knew how alone he was and how he needed cover."

Anti-war progressives Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Harry Reid -- to name but a few -- all now support war in Syria. This gang of chickenhawks (always a favorite term during the Bush era) are banging the drums of war even though we have no idea whether anyone actually used chemical weapons and, if they were used, who used them; or who we're fighting for; or what the goal is; or whether a regional or global conflict will result; or how blowing up some camels helps U.S. national security interests.

All of those factors don't matter. This is about saving face for Barack Obama and keeping the attention off the litany of scandals -- Benghazi, IRS, NSA, James Rosen and AP wiretaps, Fast and Furious, and dozens more -- engulfing the administration.

These Democrat hacks are the worst of the worst. In fact, if the field of politics didn't exist, I find it difficult to imagine how they would earn honest livings.

Which reminds me of Mark Twain's famous missive: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

In a single paragraph, a commenter destroys the National Journal's Matthew Cooper and his 'no voting fraud' fantasies

Writing at the hard left National Journal, someone named "Matthew Cooper" (if that is his real name), proffers the insane notion that vote fraud really isn't a concern in the U.S.

...voter-ID laws generally represent an answer in search of a problem. There just isn't much evidence of voter fraud...

...Civil-rights groups have been apoplectic about these laws, saying that they are discriminatory. And they would seem to have a pretty good case, as there's no fraud epidemic and those who would have the hardest time complying with the law are poor and minorities. That's because minorities and the poor are much less likely to have the kind of government-issued photo IDs that some states require...

Commenter Raphael Semmes shreds Cooper's nonsense:

This article makes me lose respect for your publication. Most democracies in the world require a photo voter ID, and it is part and parcel of democracy. I have personally been an accredited international election observers in six foreign elections where the country had long required photo ID to vote. There was no suggestion at any time from ANY side that this produced any ''vote suppression'' whatsoever. What it produced was an honest vote. Republicans are quite right to protect our election process, and Democrats are scoundrels to demagogue this issue. I have also worked in an election campaign, in the 4th district of North Carolina in 1972, where the election was stolen by voter fraud, so I get the fact that this is a problem that needs to be corrected.

It would seem Cooper missed the story about the "Mississippi NAACP leader sent to prison for 10 counts of voter fraud."

And the fact that more than 50 people employed by or linked with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud.

During the 2008 election cycle alone, ACORN was linked to as many as 600,000 bogus voter registrations. Combined with their tactics of encouraging early voting and use of absentee ballots, it is an indisputable fact that ACORN was and is responsible for widespread election fraud.

17 seconds using Google would have allowed an honest journalist to investigate vote fraud (the elections of JFK and LBJ being archetypes of Democrat vote fraud).

But because this is National Journal -- and some hack named "Matthew Cooper" -- we're talking about, any connection to the truth is purely coincidental.


Related: If you read the list of things you need an ID to do, you would -- if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty -- admit that the entire bogus voter ID controversy is about one thing: the Democrats' insatiable desire to destroy the integrity of the ballot box.

You know how Alaskans have dozens of words for "snow"? We conservatives need a similar variety for "hypocrite"

I've heard that Alaskans have dozens of words that mean snow, from light frost to full-bore blizzard.

We need a similar level of variety for the word hypocrite, ranging from Holden Caulfield to Nancy Pelosi:

Isn't it funny..."peace-loving" liberals supporting war. #hypocrites #ccot #tcot pic.twitter.com/BPwXNI6Nax

— Mandy (@m_mgrant) September 3, 2013

In tabular form:

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds reports that at Buzzfeed, memes were running 10-to-1 against Obama's rush to war. And notes one meme that Buzzfeed missed.

These Democrat and Republican establishment types are the lowest of the low.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Politico and Colin Powell: A Match Made in Intellectual Dishonesty Heaven

The outplacement service for The Washington Post is a website called Politico. It is, in short, the official newsletter of the Democrat National Committee and for certain leakers inside the RINO establishment.

Nothing illustrates the feckless nature of Politico and its Statist agenda better than a story this week headlined "Colin Powell slams North Carolina voting law."

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell bashed North Carolina’s recent voting law at a forum in the state Thursday, with the governor that signed the bill in the audience... Powell said the law harms the Republican Party...

The bill requires voters to show government-issued ID, shortens early voting and ends early pre-registration for teens, among other changes. Civil rights groups have already challenged the law in federal courts.

Thursday, Powell said the bill sends a bad message to minorities.

“What it really says to the minority voters is … ‘We really are sort-of punishing you,’” Powell said.

Powell also took aim at defenders of the law, including McCrory, who say such restrictions are necessary to stop voter fraud, which is hard to detect.

“You can say what you like, but there is no voter fraud,” Powell said. “How can it be widespread and undetected?”

I will not denigrate Colin Powell's service to this country, for which I offer my sincere thanks, but when it comes to matters of law and politics, he is a buffoon.

And, for someone who is so fixated on skin pigmentation rather than character, it's difficult to believe Powell missed the story about the "Mississippi NAACP leader sent to prison for 10 counts of voter fraud."

And the fact that more than 50 people employed by or linked with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud.

During the 2008 election cycle alone, ACORN was linked to as many as 600,000 bogus voter registrations. Combined with their tactics of encouraging early voting and use of absentee ballots, ACORN is responsible for widespread election fraud.

17 seconds using Google would have allowed an honest journalist to quickly debunk Powell's nonsense. But since this is Politico -- and some hack named "Tal Kopan" (if that is his real name) -- we're talking about, any connection to the truth is purely coincidental.


Related: If you read the list of things you need an ID to do, you would -- if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty -- admit that the entire bogus voter ID controversy is about one thing: the Democrats' insatiable desire to destroy the integrity of the ballot box.

The Shameless Hypocrisy of the Left on Syria, in Tweets

This:

RT @DraftRyan2016 .@AceofSpadesHQ We need to start this war to find out what's in it.

— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 29, 2013

Read Jack Goldsmith on the soon-to-expand unilateral authority of the POTUS over military action abroad: http://t.co/fgbXdMxX9s

— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) August 28, 2013

Unreal. RT @Heminator: Helluva NYT headline: “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal” http://t.co/2pweVLZmi8

— RB (@RBPundit) August 29, 2013

The U.S. Has No Legal Basis to Intervene in Syria: http://t.co/k3quIKb07a

— Slate (@Slate) August 28, 2013

60% oppose Syrian intervention; about same % oppose Obamacare. Obama could invade Syria and export Obamacare from us to them #Compromise

— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) August 29, 2013

We care about people of the mideast so we're taking a moment from Syria bomb plans to sell cluster bombs 2 the Saudis http://t.co/TkwZD7pvNS

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) August 29, 2013

Aides say "Obama will not address the American people about the mission in Syria before hostilities commence" http://t.co/qMP04FORm9

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 29, 2013

Intelligence committees say they're not properly consulted... http://t.co/QH4eVCIwLt

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) August 29, 2013

Anyone in the press care to notice that Obama said in 2007 his current strategy with Syria wouldn’t work? http://t.co/v5PCOinkbX

— John Ekdahl, Jr. (@JohnEkdahl) August 28, 2013

Does your member of Congress believe Obama needs authorization before attacking Syria? View the list: http://t.co/41MbOrQGef via @MEPFuller

— Roll Call (@rollcall) August 28, 2013

Obama backs away from speedy Syria strike, after UK turnaround http://t.co/iFjHCPufQX

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) August 28, 2013

This is the first war ever organized through eVite. #Syria

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 28, 2013

Hey, remember when @JoeBiden vowed to impeach Bush if he struck Iran without Congressional approval? Good times. http://t.co/hft2JOiUgo

— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 28, 2013

JUST PEACHY: Facebook shared personal data of users a mere 26 thousand times in the first six months of 2013

Guest post by Eric Boehm

On Facebook, you can share posts and pictures with friends.

But at Facebook, they can (and do) share your posts and pictures and personal information with government agents all around the world.

Facebook released a report Tuesday detailing their level of involvement with government requests for data. Since users willingly share so much about themselves on Facebook and other social media tools, it seems government agencies are looking to take advantage of the information – and Facebook is more than happy to comply.

“As we have said many times, we believe that while governments have an important responsibility to keep people safe, it is possible to do so while also being transparent,” said Colin Stretch, an attorney for the social networking mega-site. “Government transparency and public safety are not mutually exclusive ideals.”

Stretch assured users that Facebook scrutinizes each request and maintains a “very high legal bar” that governments must clear before users’ private information is passed along.

Even so, the numbers are startling.

In total, Facebook received more than 26,000 separate requests for information about nearly 39,000 different accounts from 72 different national governments during the first six months of 2013.

And guess which country’s government made the most requests for information from Facebook – so many, in fact, that it is more than all other requests from all other national governments in the entire world, combined.

Go ahead, guess.

Here’s the chart of the top 10:

It does raise some questions – like, if government surveillance is meant to stop terrorist attacks, are terrorists really posting “about to build a bomb” on their status updates?

Or, perhaps the government is collecting Facebook information for other reasons – particularly since we already know the Drug Enforcement Agency frequently gets “tips” from the National Security Agency and others (then lies about where those tips come from).

And Facebook’s willingness to share personal data with the governments of the world seems even stranger one week after Joe Sullivan, the company’s chief security officer, said “it is never acceptable to compromise the security or privacy of other people.”

Of course in that instance he was talking about one user compromising another user’s privacy. If Facebook is going to compromise everyone’s privacy at once, that must be better – somehow.

Now we really need that “dislike” button.

 

Boehm is a reporter for Watchdog.org and can be reached at Eric@PAIndependent.com. Follow him on Twitter at @EricBoehm87. Please visit Watchdog.org for more information.

Failed GOP "Strategist" and Professional Shrew Nicolle Wallace Calls Brilliant Constitutionalist Ted Cruz a Liar

I've got a question for you: when do you see Democrat apparatchiks attack their own?

I can't think of a single instance since Joe Lieberman. Say what you will about the radical Left, but they do stay in lockstep.

Not so for the Rockefeller-Scranton-Nixon-Bush Wing of the Republican Party. The Beltway Elite are more interested in attacking the Reaganites -- the conservative, Tea Party, Constitutionalists -- than they are in beating Democrats.

Exhibit #4,035: Someone named "Nicolle Wallace", if that is her real name, who asserts that one of the smartest and most accomplished men in Congress is a liar.

Former John McCain campaign aide Nicolle Wallace told Morning Joe guest host Donny Deutsch that Ted Cruz was being “intellectually dishonest” in his mission to shut down the government in order to defund Obamacare, a strategy she felt was tantamount to lying to his supporters at the cost of the GOP’s national ambitions.

“I watch Ted Cruz up there and I say, ‘Is he not getting the memo from Christie as far as what’s getting you elected going forward?’” Deutsch said. “This ‘party of no,’ this anger, ‘I’m strong, you’re a chicken, I’m strong, you’re a chicken’—who is that talking to? It’s so tone deaf. Party of no, let’s kill Obamacare—versus, you watch what [Chris] Christie’s doing: time after time, decision after decision, moderate, moderate, moderate. Nicolle, am I missing something?”

“The problem with what Cruz is doing is it’s intellectually dishonest,” Wallace said. “[Cruz] was also asked at that event, ‘Why don’t we impeach President Obama?’ And he said, ‘Because we don’t have the votes.’ The true answer, the intellectually honest answer: ‘Because he’s not committed an impeachable offense.’ Ted Cruz is doing a whole lot of fearmongering and lying to the voters. He’s presenting an untruthful case.”

“The reason we’re going to lose this debate about defunding Obamacare is because we don’t occupy the White House,” Wallace said. “We don’t have the ability to pass laws and then sign them. The best way to win this fight is to elect a Republican president.”

Obama "hasn't committed an impeachable offense"? Really, Nicolle? Tell you what, yenta: peruse the Complete List of Barack Obama's Historic Firsts and tell me which items wouldn't make it into the articles of impeachment.

As for de-funding Obamacare, genius: if the House passed a bill that funded all of the government except for O'BoehnerCare and sent it to the Senate, who would be on the hook for a government shutdown? Would there be a tidal wave of support for the Unaffordable Care Act? Some kind of groundswell for more part-time jobs and economic misery?

Nicolle Wallace: your track record of failure makes you suitable only for comic relief. You dare to tell us who to listen to and who to believe? You, who can't get a gig appearing on anything but a failed network like MSNBC, that has lower Nielsens than airport radar and sonograms?

We're supposed to believe you over Ted Cruz, a cum laude graduate of Princeton, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law, and a man who has argued and won multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court?

You're a tool of the left and an utter disgrace.

Ted Cruz is the real deal. And that's why the Beltway Elites are running scared.

I'm telling you folks for real: I ain't takin' this crap any more. I'm calling out every single one of these "Ruling Class Elites" who suckle on the teat of government and media -- but I repeat myself -- while attacking patriots who believe in the nation's highest law.

They're the freaks, the miscreants, and the extremists. They're the useful idiots.

For we stand on the shoulders of the Framers. And they stand on the shoulders of Marx and Lenin.

And we know who will win that battle when the chips are all on the table.


Hat tip: Mark Levin and BadBlue News.

Al Jazeera, "voice of the Muslim Brotherhood", now setting its sights on the United States

Guest post by Cliff Kincaid

Anti-Al Jazeera posters have recently appeared in Egypt saying, “A bullet kills a man, a lying camera kills a nation.” This attitude led to the new government closing the channel, after 22 staffers quit in disgust over its pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias.

Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group now laying siege to Egypt and burning Christian churches there.

On Sunday, CNN’s media criticism show “Reliable Sources” featured a discussion of the launch of Al Jazeera America. While Egyptian Christian churches burn because of what the channel has done there, Al Jazeera America was given a warm welcome not only by the American media, but also by the Congress of the United States. This show was no exception.

A good guest would have been Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). He told AIM, “One thing I can tell: concerning events in Egypt, Al Jazeera has willfully been manipulating truth to the favor of the Brotherhood—even sometimes portraying the very large masses of anti-Morsi protesters as pro-Morsi protesters, and lots of other distortions that violate any code of journalistic [ethics].”

Instead, CNN’s “Reliable Sources” guest host Joanne Lipman invited Michael Calderone of The Huffington Post and Edward Felsenthal of Time.com to discuss the channel. They never once mentioned the words “Muslim Brotherhood.”

Another taboo topic: Al Jazeera’s lobbyists have worked their will on Capitol Hill, pressuring Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, not to open hearings into the channel. The emir of Qatar is throwing millions of oil dollars around on Capitol Hill and in the Washington, D.C. area on behalf of his new toy. This is a non-story for most of the U.S. media.

We have come to expect politicians selling out, but the media should tell the truth about the payoffs that have greased the skids for Al Jazeera America.

John Siegenthaler, David Shuster, Soledad O’Brien, Antonio Mora, Joie Chen, Michael Viqueira and Ali Velshi are among the media personalities accepting money from the channel once known as the voice of Osama bin Laden. They are being touted by publications such as Politico as media trailblazers bringing much-needed news and information to a hungry American audience.

One of the most blatant examples of media manipulation, in order to mask the channel’s terrorist roots, is adding “America” to its name in order to confuse viewers. It is still funded by the Jihadist-supporting dictatorial regime of Qatar, which sheltered bin Laden lieutenant and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before he went to Pakistan and cut journalist Daniel Pearl’s head off.

The Sunday show was an opportunity for “Reliable Sources” to provide much-needed scrutiny of the new channel. Instead, it offered a superficial and uninformed analysis that was almost laughable.

The show was bad enough with Howard Kurtz as moderator, but this new program demonstrated that, if possible, it’s even worse without him. Lipman, the guest host, is a former deputy managing editor of The Wall Street Journal.

One guest, Michael Calderone, represents The Huffington Post, which reprints material from Al Jazeera, such as the notorious “The Gentle Face of al Qaeda” piece about the terrorists in Mali. The publication even hired a former Al Jazeera employee, Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, who says it is his job to “humanize” the Palestinians.

Calderone commented, “…even though the Qatar government says they don’t own Al Jazeera, a lot of people see Al Jazeera Arabic or Al Jazeera—even Al Jazeera English, probably more the Arabic network or the 24-hour network in Egypt as, you know, following along the point of view of the government in Qatar.”

No kidding. The State Department itself says Qatar runs the channel, in addition to financing it. So the idea that the regime “says they don’t own Al Jazeera” is simply a lie. It would be nice if he had pointed that out.

Lipman skirted close to one of the taboo topics, wondering “…is there any example of Al Jazeera somewhere else in the world where they are producing this kind of unbiased news? I know many other places in the world they have been accused of bias. And, in fact, in Egypt, they were just shut down by security forces because they were perceived as being too close to the Morsi regime.”

This was a perfect opening to discuss Al Jazeera’s domination by the Muslim Brotherhood, but nobody went into it.

Felsenthal wondered if the emir of Qatar, the big boss of the channel, “will eventually get tired of supporting a thousand employees if the ratings don’t support it.” He went on to say that he thought “they seem to be aiming big and broad—in a sense almost disowning their roots.”

So what are their roots? The Muslim Brotherhood.

The attempt to “disown” their roots was also tried in the case of Al Jazeera English. Dave Marash had assured me the new channel would be independent of the regime paying the bills. He later quit in disgust over its bias.

Marash was one of the Western faces picked to make that version of the channel appear to be something it is not. The same process is underway with Al Jazeera America. Americans, not Arabs or Muslims, will be delivering most of the news on the new channel.

Since the Marash fiasco, the English version of the channel was widely condemned for ignoring the sexual assault on CBS News correspondent Lara Logan during the revolution that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

The cover-up demonstrated that the channel never changes in its substance and core; it reflects the views of the Muslim Brotherhood and its sponsoring regime in Qatar.

The coverage suggests that many in the American media want to be fooled; perhaps they are auditioning for more high-paying jobs at the channel.

Whatever the case, it is a new low point for American journalism.

 

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

MARK LEVIN TRANSCRIPT: Just How Desperate is the New Obamacare Sales Pitch?

Via Hannity


JOINING ME NOW, THE AUTHOR OF, NUMBER ONE ON AMAZON FOR OVER A WEEK, "THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS," MARK LEVIN FROM HIS BUNKER.

SIR, HOW ARE YOU?

>> I'M GOOD, HOW ARE YOU, SEAN?

>> I GUESS NEXT THEY'LL BE SINGING SONGS TO CASTRO AFTER THIS, MARK.

>> YEAH, WHY NOT? I MEAN, WE'RE ADOPTING THE CASTRO AGENDA, AREN'T WE? OBAMA CARE IS A -- NOT ONLY IS IT A COMPLETE DISASTER, BUT I'M AFRAID, SEAN, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET RID OF IT.

BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.

AND INSTEAD OF TAKING ON OBAMA AND TAKING ON THE LEFT, THEY'RE TAKING ON THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS AND ATTACKING THEM, TELLING US TO WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY.

THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERING.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALEAST ATTACK THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING OR USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT FUNDS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT'S LEFT? ONCE THIS THING IS INSTITUTED, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPLODE.

I HEAR THIS, OH, THE LAW IS GOING TO IMPLODE.

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN IMPLODING LAW?

>> NO, NEVER.

>> YOU HAVE TO REPEAL A LAW.

YOU HAVE TO DEFUND A LAW.

LAWS DON'T IMPLODE.

>> FOR ME --

>> THEY SAY --

>> YEAH.

>> THIS IS A LINE IN THE SAND.

EVERY ONE OF THESE GUYS RAN ON REPEALING OBAMA CARE AND REPLACING, EVERY ONE OF THEM.

I KNOW THE HOUSE, THEY HAD ALL THESE, I GUESS SYMBOLIC VOTES TO REPEAL IT, BUT NEVER OF THEM HAD TEETH IN IT.

NOW IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY'RE NOT ANY BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN FIGHTING.

THEY DON'T REPRESENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

>> AND THEY WON'T EVEN FIGHT.

I MEAN, YOU GOT TO GIVE THIS TO THE LEFT.

THEY NEVER GIVE UP.

THEY FOUGHT FOR 100 YEARS FOR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.

THESE GUYS CAN'T EVEN FIGHT FOR TWO WEEKS.

ALL THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT SHUT DOWN, WE'LL GET BLAMED FOR IT.

SEE THIS LIST HERE -- SORRY, I LEFT MY THIRD GRADE WHITE BOARD AT HOME.

I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL AND I USED WHAT IS CALLED PAPER.

SEE THIS LIST HERE? THESE ARE ALL THE TIMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS, REPUBLICAN HOUSES AND SENATE, DEMOCRAT HOUSES AND SENATE.

THEY TALK ABOUT A POLITICAL CATASTROPHE IF WE SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE WE DID IN '95 AND '96 FOR THREE WEEKS.

SEAN, WE GAINED TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, LOST NINE IN THE HOUSE AFTER A BIG HOUSE WIN.

THESE WERE SOFT HOUSE SEATS.

WE KEPT A HUGE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, PICKED UP TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, MOVED TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET, GOT WORK FAIR IN THE WELFARE PROGRAM AND THE REPUBLICANS TODAY ARE CLAIMING THAT THAT'S THE POLITICAL DISASTER IF WE STAND STRONG.

>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER.

LET'S WALK THROUGH.

ALL RIGHT, SO, THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR AUGUST RECESS AND VACATION, AND LET'S SAY THEY FUND THE MILITARY, THEY FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, EVERY ASPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT, OUR DEBT, OUR OBLIGATIONS, THEY FUND IT ALL.

EXCEPT FOR OBAMA CARE.

THEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO THE SENATE.

THE MAJORITY, THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE.

LET'S WALK THROUGH THIS.

SO, THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY FUNDED BUT FOR OBAMA CARE.

THEN IT GOES THE SENATE.

SAY THEY DON'T PICK IT UP.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

>> WELL, THEY'RE AFRAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE, THE CONFIDENCE, THE KNOWLEDGE, OR THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHO IS ACTUALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

NOW, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HARDLY.

BUT DO YOU REALIZE EVERY WEEKEND, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? DO YOU REALIZE EVERY HOLIDAY, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? I LIKE THE WEEKENDS, I LIKE MY HOLIDAYS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN.

>> ME, TOO.

>> AND THESE ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, THEY NEVER GO HOME.

WHETHER IT'S THE EPA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS IN PLACE FOR SO-CALLED ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL.

SO, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

DO YOU EVER PLAY POKER AND SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND?

>> NEVER.

>> YOU SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND, THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND, SAYING, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

SO, WHAT DOES OBAMA SAY? THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH INCOMPETENT POLITICS.

>> IT'S COWARDLY.

>> WELL --

>> THERE WAS A REPORT BACK THAT YOU AND GOVERNOR PALIN TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A THIRD PARTY.

REAGAN ADDRESSED THIS.

YOU WORKED IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.

AND HE SAID, NO, WE NEED A REVITALIZED SECOND PARTY.

IF THIS ISN'T THE ISSUE TO REVITALIZE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THEN THEY ARE LETTING THIS OPPORTUNITY GO.

AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT CONSERVATIVES LIKE MYSELF AND LIKE YOURSELF, I'M DONE WITH THE REPUBLICANS, IF THEY DON'T FIGHT HERE.

I DON'T -- I WILL NOT SUPPORT, I WILL NOT ENDORSE, I WILL NOT -- ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP ON THIS ISSUE.

BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO THE COUNTRY, WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN IT.

DO YOU THINK THAT MOVEMENT WILL BE BIG?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

HERE'S THE THING.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T EVEN LIKE THIS LAW.

THE MORE THEY LEARN ABOUT IT, MORE OF IT THAT'S IMPLEMENTED AND OBAMA IS TRYING TO HIDE PARTS OF IT UNTIL AFTER THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.

CAN YOU IMAGINE, THE REPUBLICANS ARE BEING HANDED AN ISSUE OF A GENERATION.

THE -- OBAMA IS DESTROYING HEALTH CARE.

HE'S DRIVING UP COSTS.

HE'S CREATING DISLOCATION.

THEY CAN LAY THAT ALL AT HIS FEET.

IT'S BEEN HANDED TO THEM.

AND THERE'S SUCH MUSH HEADS AND MARBLE MOUTH, THEY CAN'T ARTICULATE THE CASE AGAINST IT.

>> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF OBAMA CARE.

YOU ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.

BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS, YOUR BOOK HAS BEEN NUMBER ONE FOR OVER A WEEK ON AMAZON.

COM.

OBAMA'S MISSED NOW HALF THE DEADLINES FOR IMPLEMENTING OBAMA CARE.

NOW, THIS WAS NOT EVEN PASSED, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IN A LEGAL FASHION.

FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IF THAT'S THE LAW, AND THE DEADLINES ARE NOT MET, DOES THE PRESIDENT UNILATERALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY HE'S NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMPLOYER MANDATE OR THE OTHER AREAS THEY PUT IN DELAYS? >> IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW REPEATEDLY, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION REREPEATEDLY, INCLUDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

>> WHY?

>> WHY, WELL, LOOK AT JOHN BOEHNER AND MITCH McCONNELL.

THE SUPREME COURT REWROTE THE CONSTITUTION AND REWROTE THE LAW TO PUT IT IN PLACE.

THIS IS THE POINT.

IF WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LIBERTY REFORMATION OR REVITALIZATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION WITH A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS CREATED ITS OWN DESIGN WITH DEMOCRATS THAT KEEP DRAGGING US OVER THE CLIFF AND REPUBLICANS WHO KEEP STANDING THERE WATCHING, WE'RE NOT.

WHICH IS THE REASON I WROTE THE BOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CHALLENGES NOW THAT EXIST FOR INCUMBENT SENATORS LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND LAMAR ALEXANDER, THESE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES NOW STEPPING UP AND THEY'RE CHALLENGING THEM.

DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THESE GUYS MAY PAY A PRICE FOR NOT FIGHTING? >> I DON'T KNOW EVERY CANDIDATE IN EVERY CASE, BUT I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM.

WE NEED AS MANY CAPABLE, ARTICULATE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN GET THEM WELL FUNDED CANDIDATES, TO CHALLENGE THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS AS POSSIBLE.

LINDSEY GRAHAM IS A DISASTER.

I MEAN -- I CAN PICK ALMOST ANY ISSUE IN WHICH HE'S A DISASTER.

LAMAR ALEXANDER IS ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS GUY STANDS FOR.

>> LET ME PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT SAY, THOSE MODERATES, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN GET ELECTED.

REPUBLICANS NEED TO BE MORE MODERATE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

YOU HEAR IT SAID ON THIS NETWORK.

>> YOU MEAN --

>> WHAT?

>> RIGHT.

WE CAN ONLY ELECT MODERATES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY? I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE AT ALL.

WE CAN ELECT SOLID CONSERVATIVES FROM THOSE STATES AND IN THE PAST, WE HAVE.

WHAT HAPPENS IS, THESE GUYS, THEY GET TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IMMEDIATELY, BOOM.

RATHER THAN THEM REPRESENTING US IN WASHINGTON, THEY REPRESENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO US AND THEY TRY TO CONVINCE US TO GO ALONG.

I'VE HAD IT.

YOU'VE HAD IT.

MILLIONS OF US HAVE HAD IT.

>> GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.

MORE WITH THE GREAT ONE, MARK LEVIN.

HIS NEW BOOK IS IN BOOKSTORES EVERYWHERE.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Who is the vile, left wing, anti-Ted Cruz smear merchant named "Patricia Murphy"?

If that is her real name, of course.

Senator Ted Cruz, one of the most popular Constitutional conservatives to appear on the scene in recent years, is the latest target of the government-media complex. The ruling class is decidedly unhappy that one of their own is -- like Reagan and Coolidge -- talking about restoring the fabric of American society and reinvigorating interest in limited government.

And therefore, just like clockwork, the enormously talented and accomplished litigator from Texas is now the target of a smear campaign not based upon facts, history or resume, but instead upon a character assassination by a single college acquaintance from his freshman year.

Leading the campaign is the usual state-run propaganda outlet -- the failed periodical once known as Newsweek and -- now operating under the alias Daily Beast. Its author, Patricia Murphy, relies upon a single character assassin (freshman roommate Craig Mazin) and a variety of anonymous sources to descend to "a new low for the genre and for modern political journalism."

And just who is the author, Patricia Murphy?

She's a denizen of the Beltway establishment, a product of the incestuous Democrat-media-federal government complex that exists to amass power and to perpetuate itself.

Patricia Murphy's resume is a disaster, befitting a failed career that leaves someone working at Newsweek. Put next to the C.V. of a man like Ted Cruz, Murphy's background is a pathetic joke.

Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States and he devised legal strategy against Al Gore's failed attacks on George Bush's 2000 election win. He served as solicitor general of Texas until 2008, and won seminal cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court including the landmark Heller decision on the Second Amendment.

Murphy, on the other hand, works for Newsweek. She is also the founder of the esteemed Citizen Jane Politics -- a self-described "non-partisan website for women" -- that is so successful it hasn't been updated in more than eight months.

Prior to working in "journalism", she was a staffer for Sen. Max Cleland. Cleland was the very forgettable, left wing enviro-kook who in 2002 -- thankfully -- was the last Democrat Senator from Georgia after getting obliterated by Saxby Chambliss.

In other words, Murphy is one of the political cockroaches who flits from left-wing government to left-wing media.

Her latest secretion, a thinly veiled political attack on Ted Cruz, appears designed solely to secure her next position as a staffer for another far left Democrat hack.

Feel free to retweet the message: we're on to you, Patty. We know this article is just another audition for a gig back in the cushy confines of the massive, bloated federal government.

Who is the vile, left wing, anti-Ted Cruz smear merchant named "Patricia Murphy"? http://t.co/wgXXotmFau @1PatriciaMurphy @tedcruz #tcot

— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 21, 2013

I've had it with these people. Let this be a warning to you left wing hacks: I'm going on offense. When you attack patriots like Ted Cruz, I'm coming after you, rhetorically speaking. I've had it. I'm exposing you as the failed apologists for Statism that you really are.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Combating the Left’s Information Warfare Campaign

Guest post by Abernathy Crum


This article describes an Information Warfare Operation being orchestrated by the Left.  It is characterized by well-designed themes and memes, effective delivery, and advanced with MSM propagation. 

Not too confrontational, it uses fundamental American emotional buttons: family, kindness, and compassionate justice. It worms its way into the national psyche, one snippet at a time. The operation is funded, organized, and supported by the usual suspects; it’s coordinated with press organizations to carry the themes forward and propagate the message for as long as possible.

It starts with a question like this: “What are you going to do to stop the separation of families, for those of us that live in fear everyday due to unjust deportations?”

It’s a well-crafted question – a clever riposte for which we have not an effective parry. 

We are at war. Our efforts just do not match the opposition. We should have had a response packet put together before the meetings took place. To know what the Left is going to do, just visit their sites and blogs. They tell us their plans, and we’re still unprepared.  We need to plan for their campaigns, collect intelligence, and anticipate the obvious.   

Planning would enable this sort of exchange:

Valeria Ruiz, 17, of Racine, Wisconsin, prodded her congressman on deportations that divide families. According to the Facebook page of Voces de la Frontera, a Wisconsin anti-deportation group, she asked Paul Ryan, “What are you going to do to stop the separation of families for those of us that live in fear everyday due to unjust deportations.”

Ryan responded: “Welcome Valeria, I was looking forward to you coming this evening.  Did Voces de la Fontera or La Raza drive you? I hope your folks are well. I have one question for you.  Your parents are citizens. Your father Miguel was naturalized in 2004 and you mom has always been a citizen.  Who are you specifically referring to?  Can you define what an ‘unjust deportation’ is?”

The rank-and-file Left does not understand Operational Security.  Their leaders do, but their leaks and chest thumping on Facebook and blogs give us enormous insight. There we can learn what they plan to do before they do it.  That is called Predictive Battle-Space Awareness.  We should have been using it for a long time.

If the socialists win the next presidential election, this will no longer be a war of words.  It will be a war of survival, a war in all its manifestations. Why do you think they are building a domestic army? In a few years it will be formidable.

Robert Louis Stevenson said, "Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences." The debacle of the city of Detroit is the glaring reality of Leftist polices and the emerging consequences are writ large for the nation.
We fight or we perish, becoming a Detroit nation; lawless, corrupt and hopeless. We become helpless before tyrants who once were smiling politicians full of good will and earnest concern.  We are already a good distance down the troubled road to that outcome.  

Within the Leftists’ ridicule and posturing, and behind their histrionic stage dramas and concocted causes, can be heard the rattle of chains.


Abernathy Crum is, by decades of training, experience and teaching, an expert in the strategy and tactics of information warfare deployed by tyrannical regimes throughout history.   Special thanks to Lee.

David Gregory, Organ of the State

And I do mean "organ":

NBC's David Gregory dreams of a third Obama term on Meet the Press

NBC's leftist hack David Gregory, who hosts Meet the Press over the weekend, asked his ‘panel’ with a big smile on his face ‘do American voters want to see a third Obama term or would they like to see the restoration of the Bill Clinton era?’ Gregory was smiling from ear to ear that it makes it obvious what he wants. Another term of Obama, even though Obama isn’t eligible for the third term.

"Do Americans, specifically Democratic voters, do they want to see a third Obama term or would they like to see the restoration of the Bill Clinton era?"

Gee, last time I checked, putz, Obama can't run for a third term.

What is it with this Democrat-Media Complex? Whether it's Tom Friedman pining for Red China's government, or Barack Obama's serial abrogation of the Constitution, they have a hankering for dictators.

And David Gregory -- the same jerk who should have been prosecuted for waving around an illegal 30-round magazine in the District of Columbia -- is the very worst of a very bad lot.


Hat tip: BadBlue.

OUTRAGE: Guess who wore an Obama mask on national TV?

Yeah. Him.

Obama on SNL.

Remember, it's only controversial when the Left wants it to be controversial.


Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.

Imagining an America with truthful headlines

I know, it's difficult.

Mark Levin's comments from Tuesday certainly apply.