Tidbits

- During the attack on the US compound in Benghazi, our intelligence agencies picked up electronic communications coming out of there in Farsi (Persian). The suspicion was that this operation was directed by Iran’s Soleimani.

- The Diplomad suggests that the above Benghazi speculation may be true and also that Iran may have given up Soleimani to the US because he was creating too many problems for the Iran leaders ... see: The Diplomad.

- It is reported that President Trump convinced Putin NOT to supply Iran with Russia’s latest anti-ballistic missiles last year ... a major win for us and loss for Iran. (Obviously another case of Trump colluding with Russia.)

- DC scuttlebutt has it that Pelosi’s timing of sending the impeachment articles to the Senate may have been to disadvantage Senators Bernie and Warren by tying them up before the Iowa caucus ... and therefore favoring Biden.

- Mark Steyn revealed today on the Rush Limbaugh radio show that Prince Harry and Meghan Markel, while in Canada, will be staying at the house of the billionaire who had sold 20% of America’s uranium to Russia ... with the blessing of Comey and Hillary. You can’t make this stuff up!

- Mark Steyn also revealed that, during the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, he was covering it and staying at the Mayflower hotel in DC. Toward the end of the trial, Monica Lewinsky, as a potential witness, was also staying at this same hotel. One morning, Mark Steyn pushed the elevator button to go up to his room. When the elevator door opened, there was Monica who waved him off saying, “I’m going down.”

Embassy Attacks

Benghazi vs. Baghdad

Eye Opener

Suggestive Clues:

- It is reported that al-Baghdadi was released from an Iraqi prison in 2009 under the Obama administration

- Obama and his administration insisted on calling ISIS as ISIL ... suggesting that it was meant to have a wider reach

- Obama once called ISIL the “JV Team” trying to take the spotlight off of it

- Obama’s rules of engagement against ISIS meant that we could not bomb the oil trucks smuggling oil into Turkey from the Syrian oil fields ... which pelf was supporting other of its operations

- Obama’s precipitous pullout from Iraq left enormous amounts of US military equipment to be used by ISIS (remember all those pictures of our tanks in ISIS hands?)

- It took Trump two months to destroy the ISIS machine when Obama couldn’t do it in two years

- Continued rumors circulated that the Benghazi operation was the center of Hillary’s efforts to transfer Gadaffi’s arms to ISIS

OK, that is the setup ... now read the eye-opening revelation of why and how Obama, Hillary and John Kerry secretly had their thumb on the scale for ISIS. I know this is shocking ... it stunned me. But listen to Kerry and read his words on this matter HERE!

Funny how things are beginning to make some sense.

Headlines

T

 From Internet news sites. Guess which from Politico?

Trump's indecision on Afghanaistan leaves generals in lurch
 
CNN is truly gifted at making every story they report about Russia

Wash Post panic: Trump has nuclear codes!

Trump: Maybe 'fire and fury' wasn't strong enough

North Korea announces plan to fire missiles toward Guam

Police know exactly who rammed his BMW into soldiers in Paris

CVS accused of jacking up prices for insured ...

 Report: Only 1 in 20 Dem House hopefuls support Pilosi

Judge orders new searches for Clinton's Benghazi e-mails

Serious consequences are risked when solar panels are connected to the Internet

Chinese quantum satellite sends 'unbreakable' code

Michelle Obams school lunch ally charged with embezzlement

Headlines

These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites. Guess which ones came from Politico?

FCC to investigate [Stephen] Colbert. ...

Obamacare repeal votes upends 2018 House races

Trump says 'no' to a global 'cap and trade' plan

Uber under investigation for law-enforcement evading software

Emory University to pay for 100% of undocumented student's financial aid

350 Islamic State fighters returning to UK pose terrorist threat

France bans extremely thin models ...

Report: Obama sought NSA intel on thousands of Americans, including Trump campaign

Court says new Benghazi emails must be released

Trump suggests that financing for historically black colleges may be unconstitional

House Oversight Panel to investigate Iran [nuclear] deal

20 year-old stabbed to death in 20th London stabbing in two weeks

Fake News

Conservative news organizations are being castigated by many traditional media organizations for promoting "fake news" stories for political advantage ... one such example being the recent pizza parlor child-trafficking conspiracy theory ... see: New York Times Story ... which caused a mentally-ill man to fire an AR-15 rifle into the ceiling there in protest. However such fake news stories pale in comparison to some whoppers that the main stream media have propagated over the years. Here is a story on this twisted meme ... see: The Hill Story.

Besides these The Hill references to the Iran nuclear deal and Obamacare fake news stories, there are literally hundreds more memes that those mainstream news outlets, which we used to rely on, spoon fed us over the years ... all of which turned out to be phony. Here are just a sampling: Al Sharpton/Tawanda Brawley, vanishing polar bears,  Benghazi attack based on an Internet video, the Religion of Peace, Rathergate, no WMDs in Iraq, "hands up don't shoot", Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration amnesty "fix", carbon dioxide as a pollutant, etc., etc., etc.

Do I make my point?

Bag Job

I just listened to (not watched) the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hellary Clinton and I think I will try to capture my thoughts before I am barraged by the spin from both sides. First let me compare this debate to a tennis match. Trump was playing singles and Hellary and the moderator, Lester Holt, were playing doubles. So naturally the twosome had the advantage. I guess that this was what Trump anticipated and he thought he could handle it. He almost did. But he was on defense pretty much the entire debate ... on the trumped-up birther issue, on his taxes, on his bankruptcies, on his NATO comments, on his supposed misogyny, on his thoughts about Japan and South Korea getting nuclear weapons, on his cozying up to Putin, on Hellary's lack of a presidential "look", etc. He did a pretty good job in returning these drop shots but they kept coming ... served up by the moderator or Clinton as a result of her softball (set-up?) questions.

Hellary Clinton was never once put on the spot by the moderator ... not on her private e-mail server, not on her Clinton Foundation's pay for play, not on Benghazi massacre, not on her health issues, not on her Middle East and Russia screw-ups, really not on anything. The only time she was ever challenged was when Trump himself brought up things ... like the fact that, given all our current problems in the world, how come she never did anything to fix them? Even at that Trump didn't point out her hypocrisy in saying that we needed to get the guns out of the hands of inner-city criminals but wouldn't support "stop and frisk."

Also Holt never tried to fact-check Clinton ... whereas he did to Trump multiple times ... usually unsuccessfully. Add to this the fact that the student audience was, not surprisingly, clearly on Hellary's side ... and Trump had a slight case of the sniffles ... while Hellary never coughed once ... makes me believe that although she didn't score a KO, but will tomorrow be declared the slight winner on points. Whether this will slow down Trump's surge in the polls, I can't predict. This depends on how perceptive the viewing public is to how one-sided this tennis match really was.

One Small Step

Credit for the following idea goes to Howie Carr on talk radio in Boston. There is lots of ringing of hands about localized Islamic terrorists who have been inspired and/or learned their trade over the Internet ... using social media sites and chat rooms. Yes, the United States should encourage these social-media plutocrats to pay some attention to these terrorist threats instead of pushing their liberal agendas. And there have been some preliminary developments taken in this direction ... but surely not enough.

However, the much bigger issue is, in fact, the access to the Internet itself. If we have intelligence agencies worth the billions we spend on them, we should be able to identify the loci ... be they radio stations or ISPs or cell towers or whatever ... of where the ISIS and other radical Islamists are accessing the net ... be it in Raqqa or Benghazi or Kirkuk or whereever. Then use some precision ordinances to destroy these internet transmission points ... over and over again if necessary

I think this simple one-step strategy is called nipping the problem in the bud. Can there be any reason why this has not been done already? (Just like, why did it take us over two years even to begin to attack the oil infrastructure that was funding ISIS?)  If there is a rationale for sitting on our hands here, I shudder to contemplate it.

A Big Deal

It's a big deal ... a really big deal!

Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-President Bill Clinton recently schmoozed in private for at least a half an hour in an "impromptu" but highly suspicious meeting on Lynch's airplane on the Phoenix airport tarmac ... clearly not an easy thing to pull off ... see: EarthLink News Item. It has been even suggested that this meeting was requested by Clinton. Lynch has averred that their conversation consisted of personal reflections about travel, family, golf, etc. and did not deal with Hellery Clinton's e-mail server investigation or her Benghazi problems. But she didn't include the Clinton Foundation in this denial. I wonder why?

AG Lynch talks a really good game ... but her recent actions are looking a lot more like President Nixon's AG, John Mitchell, as the political days pass. (Mitchell later spent some time in the slammer.)  In this case the appearance of Lynch's impropriety seems overwhelming.

And in a related development, the Department of Justice has just indicated that it won't release Hellery's e-mails that deal with the Clinton Foundation for 27 months ... well after the coming election ... see: Daily Caller Article. Coincidental?

Carl Bernstein, of that Watergate team of Woodward and Bernstein, yesterday said that AG Lynch should recuse herself from these Hellery investigations and defer to her career prosecutor ... see: Breitbart Article.

And former AG Mukasey under George W. Bush agrees that she should recuse herself from all of these Hellery matters ... see: Breitbart Article. Notice what he suggests in these comments about this meeting being requested by Clinton.

This morning AG Lynch indicated that she may not override any recommendations about these matters made to her by the FBI and her deputy prosecutor ... a very small step ... if we can believe her. (It was reported this morning by the New York Times, an apparent arm of the Democrat National Committee, that Lynch would not override such recommendations ... a huge difference.)

But it is clear that this contretemps is still growing more scandalous as the hours pass ... a gigantic deal.

Afterthoughts: 1) If AG Lynch appoints a Special Prosecutor in this matter, you'll know she intends to push things out beyond the election; and 2) I almost innocently titled this blog posting "Lynch Party" but then thought better of it.

Afterward: A reader writes that if Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are such close friends that they can converse about family, etc. for a half an hour, that this should have been enough to cause her to recuse herself in the first place.

Annoying vs. Dangerous

Now that Hellery Clinton is the presumptive Democrat candidate, it seems an appropriate time to draw another comparison between her and The Donald:

Donald Trump, when he shoots from the lip, is annoying ... sometimes very annoying. And, if he really means some of the things he says, yes he could be dangerous. However, those of us who will hold our noses and vote for him, do expect that a lot of what he says is mere bluster.

Hellery Clinton, on the other hand, often says, with a few bizarre exceptions, only focus-group tested phrases that appeal to the widest audience. However, anyone who knows anything about her modus operandi knows that she is an extremely dangerous, self-serving woman. She absolutely always has and always will place her own priorities ahead of those of her country's ... us in the U.S.

How is it that the political system in this sophisticated  United States offers up such a puny choice of candidates for president?

Something else is bothering me ... a number of prominent principled Republicans have understandably condemned, even castigated Trump over his out-of-bounds comments about the judge in his Trump U. case. Yet I have not heard a single Democrat even deign to criticize Hellery for her dangerous me-first roles in the Clinton Foundation payoffs, her private e-mail server or her Benghazi failures. Why is this? Are most Democrats willing to elect this evil woman just because they are all Democrats? And actually, this dichotomy more than bothers me, it half frightens me. There seems to be no morally outraged Democrats anymore.

As Trump is currently pointing out, the system most certainly seems rigged.

Teflon Hillary

How has Hillary Clinton gotten away unscathed from so many damning scandals ... White Water, missing Rose Law firm billing records, Travelgate, FBI Filegate, cattle future profits, bimbo eruption unit, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi security lapses, missing e-mails, her private e-mail server, and more? Simple ... deny, delay, obfuscate and rely on the American media to cover her spoor with kitty litter.

Here is another supposed smoking gun that implicates Hillary directly in the death of Chris Stevens and the other three Americans at Benghazi, Libya. Small problem ... it is so delayed and so infused with "in the weeds" detail that the American people, like Bernie Sanders, just won't care. But read it anyway if you want to understand how this evil woman continually escapes ever having to account for her many sins ... see: The Daily Caller Story.

And if she and Donald Trump are their parties' nominees next year, DuPont will have to keep its Teflon factory going round the clock  ...

U.S.--S.R.

I understand that ridicule is the way that the left gets away with suppressing criticism, but I am old enough not really to care about such tripe. So when I see that Judicial Watch has uncovered close ties between Valarie Jarrett's family and the Communist Party in the United States, I feel I must pass on this information.

Valarie Jarrett has been called the "Shadow President" for the impressive influence she wields at the White House. In fact there are some who think that she issued the "stand down" order during the attack on the Benghazi consulate ... when President Obama was somehow otherwise indisposed.

This woman was born of ultra-lefty parents in Iran and is a big proponent of the Muslim Brotherhood ... despite all the Middle-East mayhem this fanatical Islamic group has caused. She is also claimed to be the connection to that convicted Chicago felon, Tony Rezko, and the Obama's (read the sleazy details here: WND Story) and may well have been the real power behind Obama's meteoric political rise.

I think we still have yet to learn all the sordid details behind this modern-day Hedda Gabler ... but here are a few new juicy tidbits ... see: Judicial Watch Revelations.

Missing Megabytes

President Nixon's personal secretary, Rosemary Woods, had nothing on Hillary Clinton. According to Hillary's lawyers, all the e-mails that had once resided on Hillary's  personal Chappaqua e-mail server have been "disappeared" ... only this time it was not an "accidental" erasure of the 18 1/2 minute gap of Nixon's Oval Office tapes like in Ms. Wood's case. This critical evidence in the Benghazi investigation has been purposely destroyed so that however dirty Queen Hillary's hands may have been, they now are squeaky clean ... see: New York Times Article.

I have no way of knowing how many of Hillary's critical missive had been destroyed, but I strongly suspect that the actual information content was hundreds, if not thousands of times larger than that which occurred in the Watergate cover-up ... certainly megabytes of digital data rather than a few kilobytes of equivalent analog data in the Nixon case. This evidence destruction has taken place despite the fact that it had been long ago subpoenaed by a duly-empaneled Congressional committee. If this is not a criminal action on Hillary's and her posse's part, I have no notion of jurisprudence.

Where's the equivalent outrage?

Subtle Messages

I already know that many of  his acolytes will accuse me of exaggerating things, but I am convinced that our president (I think his name is Barack Hussein Obama) relishes sending subtle messages to his devotees ... communications that often run counter to his rhetoric. These messages can be visual (like forcing Bibi Netanyahu to exit the White House past the garbage cans) ... to word-smithing things (the continual use of the term "folks" to show he is one of us) ... to the juxtaposition of events (like the flying to a fundraiser in Las Vegas the day after the Benghazi massacre). Here are just a few of my top-of-mind incidents that our fearless leader has graced us with over the last seven years:

- chewing gum during the international 70th anniversary memorial services for the Normandy invasion ... and during his recent visit to India while watching their Republic Day parade.
- starting a round of golf on Martha's Vineyard only minutes after announcing the beheading of the American James Foley by ISIS.
- insisting that everyone in his administration call the revolution in Iraq and Syria "ISIL" when the   "L" stands for "Levant," an area that includes Israel ... and also denying that this is an Islamic state when this is what the first letter of its name in fact means.
- scratching his cheek with his middle finger to show his contempt for his election opponents ... bringing cheers from his hip audiences.
- filming a sophomoric and egotistical promo video for Obamacare only hours after it was revealed that the American woman, Kayla Mueller, had been killed by ISIS ... in which video he uttered YOLO (you only live once).
- particularly early on in his administration, his continual bowing to Asian and Middle-eastern heads of state.
- insulting of American entrepreneurs by his saying "you didn't build that."
- his comparing, at the National Prayer breakfast, of ISIS's brutal murdering ways to the Christean's medieval crusades and the Inquisition.
- removing the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office as one of his first acts after entering the White House.

I could go on and on (I have mentioned none of his racist innuendos) ... but one thing that does strike me ... is that these subtle messages seem to be getting more numerous during the latter days of his reign. Could these be his base-line feelings that he has been hiding all along?

Crow

Liberals are crowing (see: AP Story and Washington Post Story for their slant) and conservatives (including myself) are asked to eat crow as a result of the Friday's surprising House of Representatives Intelligence Committee's report on the Benghazi attack on 9/11/12. This report seems to dismiss that there were any intelligence failings leading up to this attack, deny that there were any "stand down" orders during this attack, and partially justify Susan Rice's claims about an Internet video being the motivation for these attacks (when she went on five Sunday talk shows shortly after the attack.)

However, there is obviously some push back from conservative commentators (see: Powerline Story and the more powerful Breitbart Story) who point out many of the issues and contradictions that were not answered in this Friday report. I myself am willing to eat some of that cornfield blackbird depending on a few outstanding questions. 1) Why would conservatives on this committee like Michele Bachmann and Peter King sign on to this report without any exceptions voiced? Are there intelligence issues that would be uncovered if all the facts were to be finally aired? And 2) Will Representative Trey Gowdy's Special Committee investigating Benghazi now fold its tent as a result of this other House committee's findings (see: Western Journalism Story) or will it soldier on?

My knife and fork are poised ...

Old News

There must be a half life to scandals … and so, the Clinton's just released, this past Friday night, a dump of many documents from the Clinton Library relating to their numerous sordid scandals … Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the pardoning of Mark Rich, Vince Foster, etc. … see: UK Telegraph Story and News10 Story. (The bigger the scandal, the longer must be the half-life ...) Many of these documents were heavily redacted and some were held back altogether. To use a tired old chestnut, this document dump was clearly and cynically meant to inoculate the Clinton's against further use of this information. In any future discussions they can, with a dismissive wave of the hand, offer the pusillanimous slight, “That’s old news!”

I find it very curious that good (or I might say evil) politicians seem to sense the exact timing of the aging process of scandalous stories in which they are involved. Thus, Hillary Clinton can put off any testimony about Benghazi until the American people (and the media) will dismiss any damaging revelations as “old news.” (Somehow Nixon never found the exact timing of this half-life process … although he surely tried.) I, on the other hand, react entirely the opposite way. Seeing politicians play this game of rope-a-dope just incites my outrage even more ... at this politician … and at the American people for allowing themselves to be so easily manipulated.

I guess I am forever cursed with my out-of-step mind.

And even more curious, after a sufficiently long delay (using some mysterious formula), the public may again have an appetite for the details of a particular scandal … the Sally Hemings, Thomas Jefferson affair comes to mind. How do I respond to such ancient revelations? My normal reaction is, “That’s old news!”

October Surprise

Bob Beckel said last night on "The Five" that he believed that the Democrats had an October surprise up their sleeves to help them hold onto the Senate ... see: Breitbart Video. He suggested that it had to do with national security. Obviously this would not be the first time that the Democrats have cynically toyed with the safety of the American people in order to win elections ... remember Benghazi? How can this administration hold back on a national security issue and then cause it to surface on cue? I just hope that this possible bit of subterfuge does not misfire and cost the lives of any more Americans.

Will we be able to identify such an October surprise when it occurs? Now I know I will.

Chaff

I am suffering from indignation fatigue due to a overabundance of national outrages … gender pay inequality, the Benghazi scandal, the Koch brothers’ political donations, the IRS’s Tea Party targeting scandal, climate change, the Fast and Furious government gun-running, the release of illegal-immigrant criminals, our botched foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia, the looming federal carbon tax, Obamacare disruptions to our health-care system, the return of school segregation, NSA eavesdropping, President Obama’s selective enforcement of our laws, Iran’s rush to atomic weaponry, the need to increase the minimum wage, Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons, extending unemployment benefits, continued lethargic national employment and economic growth, our refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline … and so on ad infinitum.

Perspicacious readers might have noticed that the above list contains numerous serious scandals of both commission and omission on the part of our current “government.” But every other outrage listed  is, in my opinion, chaff. Just like fighter planes release metallic chaff to confuse the tracking of enemy radar, the Obama administration and their henchmen are working overtime to manufacture news stories of little real consequence in order to crowd out their numerous serious failings. As a result, the public finds it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff … and Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. are doing their level best to skate through the governmental carnage they have created.

Now, dear reader, you might take some notice of the placement of such chaff on the evening TV news and in our biased print media … and ignore it. We have many too many serious scandals that are being conveniently buried by all this mostly-manufactured filler.

Fish Head

Former Obama National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor was quizzed by Bret Baier last night on Fox News. When asked about whether he changed Susan Rice’s talking points for her five Benghazi TV appearances on Sept. 16, 2012’s Sunday talk shows … from using the word “attack” to “demonstration?” His reply was “Dude, that was two years ago” … see: Breitbart Story.

It seems to me that such disrespectful talking-down is endemic in the current administration.  Remember, Attorney General, Eric Holder’s response to a Congressman’s question about whether he was upset about being held in contempt of Congress? “You don’t want to go there, buddy!” … see: Buddy.  I would humbly opine that the Obama administration (including that common streetwalker, Jay Carney) is in serious need of an attitude adjustment.

And, as is well known, a fish rots from the head down …

Media Nazis

The Soup Nazi

I realize that the use of the term “Nazi” is a sure loser … unless of course you are Jerry Seinfeld. But I do believe that it is quite appropriate in this case. The Obama administration's FCC now wants to monitor news outlets (I assume this includes the Internet) to insure that they are following what Big Brother considers important media stories ,,, its term for these priorities is  Critical Information Needs (CINs) … see: PJ Media Story. Our Gestapo in Washington wants to make sure that its eight topics are getting adequate on-air coverage. 

So far these CIN topics are somewhat nebulous but one can assume that they will include: climate change, income inequality, women’s reproductive rights, voter suppression, homophobia, and food deserts … and won’t include the Benghazi killings, NSA’s snooping, IRS targeting of the Tea Party, true unemployment rates, Fast and Furious, the al-Qaeda resurgence, and excessive Presidential golfing.  Here are the questions that will be asked during these proposed First Amendment violations:

Station Owners, Managers or HR
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• Who is your target audience?
• How do you define critical information that the community needs?
• How do you ensure the community gets this critical information?
• How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
• What are the demographics of the news management staff (HR)?
• What are the demographics of the on air staff (HR)?
• What are the demographics of the news production staff (HR)?

Corporate, General Managers, News Directors, Editors, etc
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• Who else in your market provides news?
• Who are your main competitors?
• How much news does your station (stations) air every day?
• Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?
• Do you employ news people?
• How many reporters and editors do you employ?
• Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic “beats”? If so how many and what are the beats?
• Who decides which stories are covered?
• How much influence do reporters and anchors have in deciding which stories to cover?
• How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
• How do you define critical information that the community needs?
• How do you ensure the community gets this critical information? 

On-Air Staff (Reporters, Anchors)
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• How much news does your station air every day?
• Who decides which stories are covered?
• How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover?
• Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?
o If so, can you give an example?
o What was the reason given for the decision?
o Why do you disagree?

So far my upstairs spare bedroom (where I write these blogs) has not been invaded by these jack-boots … but I do have an upturned wastepaper basket upon which they can sit and watch me compose my pap … if they are willing to show up at 3 AM ... and are not offended by flatus.

Afterward: Adweek Magazine reports that the FCC may be backing off this intrusion into our First Amendment rights ... see: Adweek Story.  Was this just a canard to piss us off and get our attention off of Obamacare, the Ukraine, etc.

After Afterward: The Wall Street Journal, through a FCC commissioner, has some interesting points to make about this cause celebre ... see: WSJ Story.