The Bengazi hearings...some food for thoughts....

I have started to finally see the Bengazi scandal finally start to move.  Why it wasn't investigated earlier, the mainstream media is to blame, they had to cover for "The One".  This helped his reelection chances that they were able to bury the facts and push the Obama agenda that it was some video that got the Muslims pissed off and not al-queda.

 The mainstream media has shamelessly carried his water for 6 years and maybe there will be some integrity with the media.....But I doubt it.

   This is from the American Thinker

Though they may publicly deny that there is any scandal in the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012, there must be doubts emerging, if only because we now know with certainty that a critical email was withheld in violation of a subpoena from the Issa Committee. Though most Democrats loathe Darrel Issa (and the entire Republican Party, for that matter), the expression “cover-up” is now in play, and the senior Congressional leadership of the party is old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, and the articles of impeachment that emerged from that process, authored in part by a young committee staffer named Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Article 1 cited as part of the justification for impeachment:

withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

In Watergate, keep in mind, the underlying crime was a “third-rate burglary,” while in Benghazi, it is a terror attack, the murder of an ambassador and three guards, the desecration of their flag-draped caskets with a lie from the sitting Secretary of State as to the perpetrators, and the continuing failure of the federal government to bring to justice their killers because the Pentagon’s hands have been tied by the failure of the administration to name the perpetrators as members of Al Qaeda. These matters are far more consequential than a misbegotten intelligence-gathering operation.

The mainstream media has been acting as a cofferdam around the story, limiting its impact to the Fox News and conservative blogosphere ghetto. But with a Select Committee about to be created, professional prosecutorial staff to be hired and deployed, depositions of officials, including Mrs. Clinton, to be taken for however many hours or days are required, and more emails and other documents known to exist and eventually to be released, more news will be created.

At this point, the competitive instincts of the journalism pack may be released, at least among some who have not completely signed on to the proposition that The First Black President must be protected at all costs. Last week saw an Alphabet Network White House Correspondent, Jonathan Karl of ABC News, pursue Jay Carney with a zeal that would do Fox News, The Washington Times, or The American Thinker proud. Always lurking in the back of the minds of many professional journalists is the fear of getting scooped on The Big One, even if they wish the story didn’t exist.

Sharyl Attkisson may have left CBS News, which has its own dilemma to deal with on the Benghazi story, but she is far from silenced, with a book in process and a keen sense of righteous concern.

That media cofferdam may be springing more leaks, which in turn means that this story could build in an accelerating crescendo toward an election that is half a year away. Quietly, in many cases subconsciously, Congressional Democrats have got to be wondering if the SS Obama is a sinking ship, and if so, whether they want to be on it.

The immediate question is: do they follow the suggestion of California Democrat Adam Schiff and boycott the Select Committee, hoping that they can thus tar it as a completely partisan operation. There is considerable danger for such a hardline approach. First of all, the committee will go on with them or without them, so whatever evidence is produced through its investigation will be aired. With even Speaker Boehner, an accommodationist of the first order, on board, Democrats can be certain that Republicans are not about to abandon ship.

The greater risk is that boycotting the hearings, Democrats could be seen as implicating themselves in the cover-up. As much as they publicly affirm their love and support for President Obama, many Congressional Democrats are highly cognizant of two facts:

1. His signature legislation has put many of them at risk in the 2014 election. Without ObamaCare, incumbents like Mary Landrieu could have sailed to re-election. But now their base is disheartened and the opposition energized
2. President Obama is no longer trusted by the electorate to tell the truth. As the laureate of the Politifact Lie of Year award, skepticism over his forthcoming defenses for whatever the Select Committee will be legitimate. “Trust me” is an inadequate argument.

For the moment, these doubts, suspicions, and worries will remain silent, operating privately and often subconsciously. The first sign we will get will be the reaction to Schiff’s boycott call.

But it is time for self-preservation instincts to come to the fore. Almost nobody who doesn’t call Delaware home wants to see a President Biden, and impeachment of The First Black President remains virtually unthinkable. But cautious distancing may be in order for Democrats.

Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren will be watching Hillary Clinton, so deeply implicated in the Benghazi lead-up and aftermath, to see if she follows the advice of her friend Tina Brown, an opinion leader of sorts among the fashionable progressives, and decides that politics may not be worth the trouble. Benghazi could be the end of more than one political career.

I suppose it could be just a coincidence that as Benghazigate explodes, bigtime Hillary Clinton supporter Tina Brown publishes a Daily Beast article imploring her not to run for president.

The political world and her most fervent fans may be exercised about a presidential bid. But she should forget it. If she wins, it's too much stress for too little return.

I know as much as anyone, how much her most fervent supporters want Hillary Clinton to run for president. On the opening night of the Women in the World Summit the mere mention of the possibility had the audience on their feet. The fan base is there, and constituencies beyond it. (snip)

The first black president was a hotter plot line than the first woman president. Bad luck for Hillary. Obama stole her exceptionalism, leaving the press only with the hair, the alleged cackling laugh, and the over-familiar back-story, which meant dogging Bill around, hoping he'd lose it once in a while. (He obliged.)  

    That phrase “alleged cackling laugh” is a hoot. Is it a warning shot? An attempt to seem fair and balanced? A tease from a friend?

If Hillary doesn’t run, she is going to need a cover story, explaining why it isn’t because of Benghazigate. She’s already got a grandchild bun in the oven. Now comes Tina B with another reason.

7 antigun myths...Be aware and debunk.

I ran across this from the JPFO and borrowed it since I believe that knowledge is power and if we know, we can destroy the anti-gunners and their credibility.  Knowledge defeats hysteria and propaganda.  I also am using the delayed schedule thingie on my blog to see if it post when it is supposed to.

7 Anti-Gun Myths That Need to Be Debunked ASAP

7 Anti-Gun Myths That Need to Be Debunked ASAP

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, America has been embroiled in a renewed gun control debate. In the Information Age there can be a lot of misinformation, and gun control is unfortunately no exception. Here are some of the ways you are being misled.

1. "Assault Weapons"

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term. AR-15's are not military rifles; so unscrupulous politicians refer to them as "military-style assault weapons." 'Style' – as in cosmetic appearance – is the only true word in that description. The Military uses the M4A1 carbine rifle, which looks outwardly very much like an AR-15, but they do not have the same functionality; AR-15s are not machine guns, though the terminology used is meant to imply they are. Senator Diane Feinstein (R-Calif.) says AR-15's are designed for killing as many people in close quarters combat as possible, when in fact the AR-15 is an intermediate to distance rifle with a range of 400-600m. Feinstein and others claim AR-15's are not used for hunting; but in fact there are dozens of varieties of AR-15 used for hunting everything from varmint/small game to deer, elk, and dangerous game. The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters according to James Alan Fox, a highly respected criminologist from Northeastern University in Boston; handguns are. In fact, rifle homicides comprise a very small amount of homicides, accounting for less than 3% of homicides (323 out of 12,664 in 2011) mass shootings or otherwise.


2. "High Capacity Magazines"

Some politicians would have us believe that so-called "high capacity" magazines are responsible for a wave of death sweeping the nation. Academic, scholarly research shows the vast majority of homicides average four shots with less than 10 shots fired. While the Aurora shooter infamously used a 100-round magazine drum, these are novelty items that are prone to jam. In fact, it did jam probably saving lives. But mass shooters don't need 100-round magazines to commit atrocity – the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine used 10-round magazines, they just brought a lot of them (17 and 13 respectively). James Alan Fox states mass shooters often meticulously plan their attacks in advance; a high capacity magazine ban will not deter them as Virginia Tech and Columbine illustrate.


3. Gun Show "Loophole"

Several people, including President Obama have stated that 40% of guns were bought via "gun show loopholes." This is not true. For one, the term "gun show loophole" implies that people are deviously getting around something when in actuality; it is just selling personal private property and is not illegal or nefarious. Additionally, private sales may not actually occur at a gun show at all. More important than loose terminology is that this claim is based on a study from 1994 of 251 people. The Washington Post evaluated this claim with the study's original authors and says the president distorted the truth. The actual range is 14%-22% with a plus or minus error margin of 6%. This means the final accurate range of this study is as low as 8%, but no more than 28%; neither figure is 40%. Further, it's implied that closing private sales would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. It fails to address illegal trafficking and straw man purchases. A Department of Justice study indicates that 78.8% of criminals get guns from friends or family (39.6%) or from the street/illegally (39.2%). To this point, the FBI states there are 1.2 million gang members in U.S. and that gangs illegally traffic guns as addition to narcotics.


4. Mass Shootings Are Not Increasing:

Former President Bill Clinton, Mother Jones and others have claimed that mass shootings are increasing. Once again not true. James Alan Fox's analysis of the Mother Jones' study indicates they left out mass murders which made it seem there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired (they've updated their story since). Some mass murders receive more media attention than others, however the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year (Fox's chart is shown above). In 2012, it was less than 100. Though tragic, this represents a fraction of 1% of homicides. In recent years, homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900 (see below).


5. Anti-Gun Organizations Lump in Suicide & Injuries With Crime Data:

After a mass murder shooting anti-gun organizations like the Brady campaign inevitably call for gun restrictions; these organizations also cite gun violence data other than crime data to include suicides and injuries. This is misleading. Although accidents and suicide are public health concerns, it is disingenuous to include them with homicide in response to a horrific crime. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide rates have crept up slightly 2000-2009, but are still lower than the rate per 100,000 from 1950-1990. It's not accurate to say guns contribute to suicide causal factors since the rate is lower now. And ultimately, legislation aimed to prevent crime by banning weapons and limiting magazine capacity has no reasonable connection to either suicide or accidents. We ought to compare apples to apples: suicide with suicide prevention, accidents with safety programs, and homicide with policy that would realistically reduce homicide.


6. Too Many Are Being Killed:

This statement is political gaming and wordplay. How many dead would be okay? Who wouldn't want less murder? Ideally, zero would be the goal, but that begs the question of how to prevent any tendency of violence in humans. This phrase is not only meaningless in terms of contributing to policy that achieves a positive end result, but also dangerous in that the appeal to emotion runs the risk of circumventing genuine solution in favor of sound byte. It makes sense to try to achieve goals with policies other than those proven to be ineffective, as the previous Federal assault weapons ban was. Lastly, homicides are at an all time low.


7. False Zero-Sum Dichotomy - "Either/Or":

Famous anti-gun rights advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "I want the Congress to have to stand up and say 'I'm with the NRA and support killing our children', or 'No'" (Time magazine, January 28, 2013, p.30). On CNN's Piers Morgan, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, "the NRA is enablers of mass murder." This overly simplistic incendiary rhetoric does nothing to further our national discussion, and falsely frames the debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all, 'either/or' proposition – either you hug a gun or hug a kid, but you couldn't possibly be for both gun rights and your child's safety. That is preposterous. The NRA is not "the gun industry," and preservation of the Second Amendment is not of interest only to gun manufacturers. Nearly half of NRA funding comes from individual donors. The NRA is comprised of average people who want safe neighborhoods, schools, and streets. Rather than offer ridiculous false dichotomy and grandstanding, we should be looking for genuine solutions.


BONUS: We Need More Laws:

This is the granddaddy lie. We already have a lot of laws. It's illegal to kill your mom, steal a gun, take that gun onto school property, forcibly break and enter, and murder kids. We already have laws preventing mentally ill & felons from obtaining guns, and we have a background check system (NICS). The Sandy Hook shooter was denied to legally purchase a gun because of the NICS system. We tried a federal assault weapons ban (AWB) before. What we do need is better enforcement of existing laws. Congress has not fully funded NICS. Many states do not fully report felony and mental health data to NICS. The Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of those who criminally falsify background check forms. We desperately need to engage in genuine discussion about real solutions to the violence problem. These solutions are not likely to yield instantaneous results, or win the next election cycle; yet it is what we would do if we were serious about addressing the issue. The underlying causes include: gang activity, which accounts for 48-90% of violent crime depending on jurisdiction; drug abuse, the single biggest predictor of violence with-or-without mental illness; concentrated urban population and poverty; and mental illness, including de-institutionalization, treatment and intervention, and other facets of mental health.

Gas Production

Some information to argue with the kool-aid drinking Obungler supporters.

    Gotta hammer them with the truth, don't give them a chance to breath and take another swallow of kool-aid.

BUT HERE IS THE REAL DEAL

EXCERPT:  Last fall the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration reported a 40 percent decline in oil and natural gas production on federal lands compared to 10 years ago. The White House and a prominent liberal in Congress protested. They said EIA, a trusted source for reliable energy information, was wrong. They complained that EIA hadn’t accounted for all data from the Department of Interior. EIA released an updated analysis last week. And while the number isn’t as drastic as originally reported, EIA confirmed the Obama administration is overseeing a sharp decline in fossil fuel production (coal, oil, and natural gas) on federal lands, which recently hit its lowest point in nine years. The updated EIA report revealed a 12 percent decline in production for coal, oil, and natural gas on federal and Indian lands from fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2011."

Time to stop being afraid of the left.

The GOP is afraid to debate the left, so the left jumps on the moral high ground and we are forced to debate at a disadvantage.  We need to do like Breit Bart, use their rules against them.

Time to Stop Being Intimidated by the Left

By Steve McCann

Over the past twenty years, the American left has been largely successful in intimidating much of the conservative movement and creating the impression that leftists are much smarter and thus able to stay one step ahead.  Things have evolved to the point where every utterance or action by the current titular leader of the left, Barack Obama, is analyzed and dissected by many conservatives as if they were part and parcel of some grand strategy. 

In fact, those on the left, including Barack Obama, are not as intelligent as they perceive themselves to be (and often are perceived to be by others), and oftentimes their actions and words are not part of a master plan, but rather symptomatic of either their personal failings or being mind-numbed robots promoting the left-wing agenda.
Recently Barack Obama made some intemperate and absurdly false statements about the Supreme Court and the pending decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  Obviously he, as a graduate of Harvard Law School, knows that the Supreme Court has the duty and right to decide the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress.  As a matter of fact, anyone who has studied American history and government to any degree would be aware of that fact.  Were his remarks part of some grand strategy, or those of a spoiled child lashing out at the possibility that his favorite toy could be taken away by an evil stepmother?
This is not the first time Barack Obama has thrown a temper tantrum.  His recent dealings with the Republican House of Representatives on various budget issues and raising the debt ceiling revealed a similar mindset and evoked a torrent of lies, obfuscations, and foot-stomping over not getting his way. 
Obama has lamented in public how hard his job is and how even Mother Nature has plotted against him (the tsunami and earthquake in Japan).  Not a day goes by without his blaming someone or something else, be it George W. Bush, the Republicans, ATMs, technology, or whatever or whoever is in the headlines for his failures and tribulations.  He can, without any qualms, tell deliberate falsehoods about what may be contained in a budget or bill sponsored by the Republicans or about any subject or issue at hand, as his ideologically based objectives are the only thing that matters, along with an inability to accept being questioned or challenged.  Further, he appears to be incapable of admitting a mistake or apologizing for his errors.
Any parent or grandparent who has encountered a spoiled child determined to get his way has experienced and seen these traits firsthand.
In an adult, these traits are symptomatic of people who not only have a high opinion of themselves, but have been told throughout their lives that they are special.  Having experienced this excessive fawning, such people expect everything in life to go their way and never to be confronted by others with opposing views.  In Obama's case, because of his demeanor, speaking ability, and skin color, many doors to the upper levels of society and the power structure were magically opened for him with little or no effort on his part.  It can readily be presumed that in his three years of case discussion classes at Harvard Law School, he was never corrected for inaccurate use of basic concepts like "unprecedented" when he spoke up.
As is the case with a spoiled child whose parents consistently explain away and cover for their creation, so too with Barack Obama, as the mainstream media, the entertainment complex, the unions, the Democratic Party hierarchy, and the hardcore left are quick to protect their creation regardless of how much of a fool he makes of himself.
However, Barack Obama is not alone in self-aggrandizement; virtually all those who espouse the tenets of American leftism have an extraordinarily high opinion of themselves.  Yet how much intelligence does it take to publically espouse a philosophy designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of mankind: a free lunch for the masses and the acquisition of unbridled power for the self-appointed chosen?  None of those who publicly declare themselves "progressives" or "liberals" can explain why socialism has failed wherever it has been tried, except to say that they can do it better and to denigrate those who would dare ask the question.
The leaders of the left sitting in think-tanks, government offices, newsrooms, and faculty lounges, regaling each other demonstrating who may be the smartest in the room, are essentially incapable of initiating an original political thought or having any independence of mind.  In the realm of political theory, the only accepted and promulgated ideology is of an all-powerful central government controlling the day-to-day lives of all Americans -- no opposing views, historical facts, or reality are allowed to intrude on these bastions of conformity.
Much of the success the left has enjoyed in recent years has come about through leftists' domination of the so-called mainstream media, whose primary utility has been to execute the tactic of vilifying and destroying those identified as the opposition, all the while promoting the concept that those on the left are so much brighter and caring than the Neanderthals on the right. 
What has this selling out accomplished for the media?  In a recent poll, 63% of respondents said the media were "politically biased in their reporting"; 66% believe that news stories are often inaccurate; 42% say the press is immoral; and 72% believe that "they [the media] try to cover up their mistakes."  Recent events such as the coverage of the Trayvon Martin case will further exacerbate these results and cause the mainstream media to become even more irrelevant, as the alternative media is now poised to dominate the dissemination of news in the United States.
Why, then, do many in the conservative movement accept the notion that those on the left are so much more intelligent and are always in the midst of executing some grand strategy?  There is only one grand strategy: seize the reins of power by promising the people anything, and destroy through lies and demagoguery the enemy -- who are whomever the left identifies as such.  Which at times can include the judiciary.  All else is merely an adjunct or spin-off of that foundational core.
With the 2012 election, it is time conservatives and Republicans stop cowering in the corner and accepting the notion that the left and Barack Obama are so much brighter and well-organized, with a bottomless pit of successful strategies.  The current occupant of the White House is not a grand strategist or the smartest man on the face of the earth; in fact, he may be the most dishonest and least qualified president in the nation's history.  And the left has but one theme to play, and they do so over and over again.
This theme can be countered through a constant and steady drumbeat of a few major premises.  1) Government cannot create wealth or jobs; 2) only one's neighbor down the street willing to risk all to start up a business can create wealth and jobs as well as income for the government; and 3) the more government taxes and spends, the less money is available for wealth and job-creation.
The American left is in no way different from the Wizard of Oz, who was exposed as a fraud and a fake relying solely on image and reputation.  The time has come to draw back the curtain and see them for who they are; they are not invincible

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/time_to_stop_being_intimidated_by_the_left.html#ixzz1rnY9Ben2

NBC probe on investigation of shooting tape editing error.

Wow NBC investigating the selective editing of the 911 tape?   Ya know it sucks when your credibility takes another hit when you get caught cooking the evidence.   The conservative bloggers bust another establishment media giant.   I remember back in the day when the big 3 can say whatever they wanted and nobody had the means to prove them wrong.   Makes me wish that bloggers were around during Vietnam when we could have had fun busting all the leftist crap that was on the boobtube and half truths that the mainstream media dumped on the trusting American public.

• A woman holds an image of black …

(Reuters) - An internal NBC News probe has determined a "seasoned" producer was to blame for a misleading clip of a 911 call that the network broadcast during its coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to two sources at the network.

NBC News brass interviewed more than half a dozen staffers during its investigation of the misleadingly edited 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he shot the unarmed Florida teenager, said the sources, one of whom is an executive at the network.

The clip aired on the network's flagship "Today" morning show last week.

The edit made it appear that Zimmerman immediately told police that Martin was black, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.

There was no clear indication on Thursday of what, if any, disciplinary actions would be taken against the producer or other staff involved in the incident.

The sources at the network, who declined to identify the producer, said NBC News executives did not know the 911 call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on right-leaning blogs including Newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com.
"IN SHOCK"
The sources described the producer's actions as a very bad mistake, but not deliberate.

NBC News declined to comment on Thursday. The network said on Tuesday it would not release names of the employees involved. It has apologized for the incident.

One of the sources said that NBC News President Steve Capus would not lose his job over the incident.

The Today show's editorial control policies - which include a script editor, senior producer oversight, and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast - missed the selective editing of the call, said the NBC executive.

Executives have vowed to take rigorous steps to formalize editorial safeguards in the news division following the incident, one of the sources said.

NBC News staffers who have been working on the Trayvon Martin story for several weeks in Florida were at first "in shock" over the incident, and later furious, another source, who is an NBC producer, told Reuters.

Public pressure has been building on the network to fully explain the incident - which critics charge has inflamed racial tensions in an already volatile situation.

On Thursday, a New York Post editorial characterized the edited 911 call as "pretty damning evidence of willful misconduct by NBC News" and suggested that racial violence could ensue over irresponsible news coverage.

Television news veterans in New York said they were baffled over how the error came to be broadcast given the intense vetting such a sensitive story would normally get at a major network such as NBC.

Executives from parent company Comcast Corp, including Chief Executive Brian Roberts and Chief Operating Officer Steve Burke, who doubles as the CEO of NBC Universal, are not involved in the investigation, two sources inside the network said.

NBC's Today - which has dominated the U.S. morning landscape for more than a decade - is currently in a ratings war with ABC's Good Morning America, which has been picking up viewers.

(Reporting By Christopher Francescani and Peter Lauria; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Martin Howell; Desking by Jackie Frank)