PK'S NOTE: Because that is the lie that her department and this administration have been telling the American people.
Clinton Shouts: 'What Difference Would It Make?'
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about ascertaining whether the Benghazi terror attack was the result of a protest by Senator Ron Johnson. "What difference would it make?" Clinton shouted, seemingly losing her cool."With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/clinton-shouts-what-difference-would-it-make_697536.html
PK'S NOTE: At last someone speaks the truth to her face!
Rand Paul to Hillary Clinton: If I were president, ‘I would have relieved you of your post’
Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been negligent in conducting her job, and said that if he were president, he would have relieved her of her post.Paul said that the fact that she was not aware of the requests of more security for the U.S. Embassy in Libya constituted “a failure of leadership” and said it was “inexcusable.”
“I think ultimately…yo
“Had I been president at the time and I had found that you had not read the cables from Benghazi, you had not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens,” he went on, “I would have relieved you of your post.”
Paul accused Clinton of being directly responsible for the loss of lives in the September 11, 2012 attacks.
“Not to know of the requests for security really, I think, cost these people their lives,” he said.
“I don’t suspect you of bad motives,” he said, but added that “it’s a failure of leadership not to be involved. It’s a failure of leadership not to know these things.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-to-hillary-clinton-if-i-were-president-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post-video/
The New Lie: Clinton, Dems Blame Congress for Benghazi
During Senate testimony this today, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton implied that lack of funding for the State Department was a
contributor to the deadliness of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Sept.
2012.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) provided her an opportunity to do this by asking her whether it was resonable to expect anything but trouble if Congress did not fund the State Department's security needs.
Clinton ran with Durbin's premise and pointed out "deficiencies" and "inadequacies" within the department. She said she has spent the last four years "doing what [she] could" to encourage State Dept. officials "to do as much as they could with what they had."
She said the State Department knew it was never going to reach "parity with the Defense Department," and the implication was obvious--Benghazi was at least partially due to a lack of funding.
The argument was made even more strongly by Democratic members of the House of Representatives in their questioning of Clinton, who implied that Republicans bore responsibility for the lack of security in Benghazi.
That claim, however, contradicts comments in October 2012 from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb, who told a Congressional hearing that funding was not an issue.
Lamb was asked whether there was "any budget consideration and lack of budget" which played into the number of people assigned for security at the Benghazi consulate. Lamb's answer: "No."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/23/Clinton-Breaks-With-Other-State-Dept-Officials-Blames-Benghazi-On-Lack-Of-Funding
“What was happening here was the cleansing of Mrs. Clinton’s record in advance of her presidential run in 2016,” Limbaugh said. “Folks, this was banana republic kind of stuff. It was the kind of — You talk about two different worlds and isolation — the ruling class, the political class existing within its own borders, its world and its own set of rules and taking care of each other and making sure that everything’s fine.”
Limbaugh also had a theory tying these hearings to Clinton’s campaign debt, which had just reportedly been paid off.
“Do you realize just this week her campaign debt was paid off?” Limbaugh said. “Do you think there’s any coincidence in the fact her campaign debt was paid off and her appearance before the joint committee today to talk about the guy in Benghazi? I don’t. I don’t think there’s any coincidence at all — got the campaign debt paid off and she’s free and clear, ready to go for 2016. And they’ve just tried to make amends because they gave her the shaft. It was hers in 2008, folks. And in came Obama and we all know what happened.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/limbaugh-hearings-cleansing-of-mrs-clintons-record-2008-campaign-debt-tied-to-testimony/
PK'S NOTE: At least SOMEBODY is doing something about this.
“Last week I promised to thwart Obama’s unlawful orders, first by seeking to block, overturn and defund any action that violates the Constitution,” said Texas Republican Rep. Stockman. “Promise made, promise kept. No matter his intentions, the Constitution flatly prohibits the President from just making up his own laws.”
Stockman’s “Restore the Constitution Act” is intended to serve as companion legislation to Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s “Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act.”
If law, Stockman’s bill would declare any executive action that infringes on Congress’ duties under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or the Second Amendment or that requires federal funds that have not been appropriated by Congress to not have the force of law. The executive action would instead serve to advise.
“The Orders issued by President Obama are not intended to execute laws passed by the Congress.
President Obama is abusing his authority to write his own unaccountable laws,” Stockman said. “Regardless of your position on gun rights, Congress has an obligation to assert its constitutional authority as the only lawful rulemaking body.”
Stockman recently said he would consider filing articles of impeachment against Obama if efforts such as legislation or lawsuits fail to stop Obama’s gun control measures.
Obama issued 23 executive actions last week aimed at preventing gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) provided her an opportunity to do this by asking her whether it was resonable to expect anything but trouble if Congress did not fund the State Department's security needs.
Clinton ran with Durbin's premise and pointed out "deficiencies" and "inadequacies" within the department. She said she has spent the last four years "doing what [she] could" to encourage State Dept. officials "to do as much as they could with what they had."
She said the State Department knew it was never going to reach "parity with the Defense Department," and the implication was obvious--Benghazi was at least partially due to a lack of funding.
The argument was made even more strongly by Democratic members of the House of Representatives in their questioning of Clinton, who implied that Republicans bore responsibility for the lack of security in Benghazi.
That claim, however, contradicts comments in October 2012 from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb, who told a Congressional hearing that funding was not an issue.
Lamb was asked whether there was "any budget consideration and lack of budget" which played into the number of people assigned for security at the Benghazi consulate. Lamb's answer: "No."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/23/Clinton-Breaks-With-Other-State-Dept-Officials-Blames-Benghazi-On-Lack-Of-Funding
Limbaugh: Hearings ‘cleansing of Mrs. Clinton’s record,’ 2008 campaign debt tied to testimony
On his Wednesday radio program, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Wednesday testimony about last year’s terrorist attacks in Benghazi were designed to help her politically.“What was happening here was the cleansing of Mrs. Clinton’s record in advance of her presidential run in 2016,” Limbaugh said. “Folks, this was banana republic kind of stuff. It was the kind of — You talk about two different worlds and isolation — the ruling class, the political class existing within its own borders, its world and its own set of rules and taking care of each other and making sure that everything’s fine.”
Limbaugh also had a theory tying these hearings to Clinton’s campaign debt, which had just reportedly been paid off.
“Do you realize just this week her campaign debt was paid off?” Limbaugh said. “Do you think there’s any coincidence in the fact her campaign debt was paid off and her appearance before the joint committee today to talk about the guy in Benghazi? I don’t. I don’t think there’s any coincidence at all — got the campaign debt paid off and she’s free and clear, ready to go for 2016. And they’ve just tried to make amends because they gave her the shaft. It was hers in 2008, folks. And in came Obama and we all know what happened.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/limbaugh-hearings-cleansing-of-mrs-clintons-record-2008-campaign-debt-tied-to-testimony/
PK'S NOTE: At least SOMEBODY is doing something about this.
Congressman who threatened impeachment introduces legislation to stop executive actions
The Texas congressman who floated the possibility of impeachment over President Barack Obama’s recent gun control executive actions introduced legislation Wednesday that would stop them entirely.“Last week I promised to thwart Obama’s unlawful orders, first by seeking to block, overturn and defund any action that violates the Constitution,” said Texas Republican Rep. Stockman. “Promise made, promise kept. No matter his intentions, the Constitution flatly prohibits the President from just making up his own laws.”
Stockman’s “Restore the Constitution Act” is intended to serve as companion legislation to Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s “Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act.”
If law, Stockman’s bill would declare any executive action that infringes on Congress’ duties under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or the Second Amendment or that requires federal funds that have not been appropriated by Congress to not have the force of law. The executive action would instead serve to advise.
“The Orders issued by President Obama are not intended to execute laws passed by the Congress.
President Obama is abusing his authority to write his own unaccountable laws,” Stockman said. “Regardless of your position on gun rights, Congress has an obligation to assert its constitutional authority as the only lawful rulemaking body.”
Stockman recently said he would consider filing articles of impeachment against Obama if efforts such as legislation or lawsuits fail to stop Obama’s gun control measures.
Obama issued 23 executive actions last week aimed at preventing gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/congressman-who-threatened-impeachment-introduces-legislation-to-stop-executive-actions/
PK'S NOTE: And this is insane. What business is it of the school's what I own? I understand the stupidity behind it but what the hell?
Missouri lawmaker introduces bill criminalizing failure to report gun ownership to child’s school
A Missouri lawmaker has proposed legislation that would require parents to notify their children’s school if they own a firearm.
The bill, introduced by Missouri Democratic State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, would make it a crime to fail to report gun ownership to a school and to store a firearm in a place where a child could possibly access it. The legislation also criminalizes failure to prevent illegal possession of a firearm by a child under the age of 18.
“This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a firearm within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a firearm,” the bill reads in part. “The written notification only needs to include the names of the parent and any child attending the school and the fact that the parent owns a firearm.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/missouri-lawmaker-introduces-bill-criminalizing-failure-to-report-gun-ownership-to-childs-school/
The bill, introduced by Missouri Democratic State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, would make it a crime to fail to report gun ownership to a school and to store a firearm in a place where a child could possibly access it. The legislation also criminalizes failure to prevent illegal possession of a firearm by a child under the age of 18.
“This act requires a parent or guardian to notify a school district, or the governing body of a private or charter school, that he or she owns a firearm within 30 days of enrolling the child in school or becoming the owner of a firearm,” the bill reads in part. “The written notification only needs to include the names of the parent and any child attending the school and the fact that the parent owns a firearm.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/missouri-lawmaker-introduces-bill-criminalizing-failure-to-report-gun-ownership-to-childs-school/
Thin Skin, Strong Stomach
As
I talk to more and more to folks who have bought into Obama's
fabrication about "assault weapons," I contemplate the centrality of
secular progressive labeling to their overall scheme.
Progressivism has survived -- thrived -- even in spite of its patent
failure. And it has done so through the selective use of language which
rots and subverts the actual ideas its signifiers designate. Once
popular ideas are rotten, the soul of the people follows. All this is
now in our past, not our future, sadly. It is a fait accompli.
How this? Is not what's right obvious? Success? Happiness? Can we not discern these things through our natural reason? Similarly, can we not tell the bad? In other words, how do the nasty, brutish ideas of statists and sec progs like Obama endure so perennially? Doesn't truth out?
Not when progressive masterminds subvert the intelligible good with such furtive and upside-down labels: the slaughter of one's own child -- "women's health" (irrespective of the correlation between abortion and subsequent female cancer); an illegal alien -- "an undocumented worker" (irrespective of the paucity of evidence that such an alien has done any work at all); the defense of one's home or family -- "gun violence" (irrespective of the idea of offensivity or defensivity); and now, a long-barreled defense weapon with a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, and a black-colored stock -- an "assault weapon."
Irrespective of the fact that these attributes of long guns are used most often for defenses, not assaults.
Just this past week, I already have entertained too many failure-doomed conversations attempting to rectify the misunderstanding: "an assault weapon is anything with certain home-defense features -- it's not a kind of gun." Such per capita rectification, person by person -- against the voluble collective voice of the 24/7 popular media -- is like gathering leaves with tweezers...during a windstorm.
It's not a winnable war, in a word. The sec-progs are masters of linguistic deception. It's their only weapon, but it has proven to be a trump card of determinative worth. Even if we could hypothetically beat them out in this arena, none on the right wing should want to engage such a fight, which involves inversion of the natural order. "The truth shall set ye free," as the New Testament admonishes -- but it is high time that American conservatives recall Kierkegaard's famous caveat: "...but first, it shall make ye miserable." There's nothing for it: the masses will fall for progressive lies time and again, especially with an efficient, technological mass media -- a politbureau, beyond any doubt now -- ever at work.
In short, the secular progressives have created for themselves a "straw audience," a volksen who will assuredly give pre-ordained responses -- to TV shows, to political argumentation, to social phenomena like Tim Tebow -- based on the sec-progs' tendentious labels, traps sprung long before.
The members of that "straw audience," the American people, have shown that they came to possess what I call thin skin and a strong stomach. This is to say, they'll ardently advocate for eggshell-skull-standards of scrutiny applied to talk of ethnicity or sexual orientation, and thereafter for "sensitivity training" dainty and fragile as a flower in bloom; yet all the while, they brazenly introduce the nation's youth to sexual and moral perversity which ought to reverse the metabolization of any healthy adult. For instance, the Washington Redskins and Atlanta Braves must rethink the "insensitive" unintended cultural minutiae of their mascots -- which are held out as odiously egregious offenses against tact -- all while progressive morning shows like Sesame Street regularly invite on the show guest-performers who sing about gang-bangs over absurdly banal, pop-bubblegum, kindergarten melodies. (I'll let the reader figure out which performer this is; the answer is several.)
I'm not sure which came first: the Bill Maher-styled thin skin, or the Bill Maher-styled strong stomach. (I'll never forget the day I realized how perverse is this combination of binary sympathies within the average progressive mind like Maher's: they'll correct you for saying "third-world" -- it's developing country -- as they pepper their correction with a head-spinning cadre of 4-letter anatomical-biological allusions in obscenity which would redden Red Fox's cheeks.) The world is weird these days.
But both the thin skin and the strong stomach are sine qua nons to 21st-century postmodernism, make no mistake. Neither is effective without the other. Bereft of the former -- thin skin -- the "straw audience" wouldn't be sufficiently touchy as to render them willing to jettison the old-fashioned values like self-reliance, self-defense, self-respect, and aggressive tyranny-hunting. In short, the "liberty regime" which we right-wingers still hold onto (with our fingernails) requires toughness and ruggedness altogether foreign to the average millennial. And without reference to the latter -- a strong stomach -- the American people would be unprepared to embrace the left's horrific new surrogate for the recently abandoned vision of liberty: a godless, goodless, naturalistic cosmos whose single proffered pseudo-virtue is pleasure. In short, pleasure is the watchword of the new "equality regime" with which the sec-progs want to replace the "liberty regime." (As one can guess, I'd readily characterize the liberty regime -- the colonial way of 18th-century America -- as thick skin, weak stomach: more toughness, fewer f-words.)
Indeed, pleasure remains the only item of holy worth to the sec-progs. To that end, they have even commandeered the popular intuition as to which "happiness" the Declaration of Independence language ("pursuit of happiness") refers: sensory pleasure. This is yet another example of sec-prog linguistic dress-up, with far-reaching consequences: the "happiness" of Jefferson, Madison, et al. has proven (by those who have inspected it) to be something much closer to the classical Eudaimonian sense, which designates happiness as ethical goodness. But the libertine left has cast pleasure as the ultimate end of our lives, the single, temporary shelter from suffering, sickness, and death.
And the sec-prog leaders like Obama are hailed as those with quasi-messianic value, since they have safeguarded pleasure like recreational sex and unearned goods in the place of those values that the language of the original Constitution truly safeguards: freedom of conscience, gun rights, states' rights, the individual right to live free and propertied.
As a Man of the Right, of all that which has gone awry in a once-great nation, I am most disenchanted with my fellow travelers' lack of insistence on language -- from the marketplace to the courtroom. Indeed, the classical liberal sidesteps tyranny with the anthem "government by laws, not men," yet most conservatives have been disappointingly quick to forget what government by law requires: rigorous textual fidelity. Next time you hear a sec-prog use a backwards term, point it out to him, or at least remark how insufferably sickly and veinous his epidermis is.
You insensitive bastard.
How this? Is not what's right obvious? Success? Happiness? Can we not discern these things through our natural reason? Similarly, can we not tell the bad? In other words, how do the nasty, brutish ideas of statists and sec progs like Obama endure so perennially? Doesn't truth out?
Not when progressive masterminds subvert the intelligible good with such furtive and upside-down labels: the slaughter of one's own child -- "women's health" (irrespective of the correlation between abortion and subsequent female cancer); an illegal alien -- "an undocumented worker" (irrespective of the paucity of evidence that such an alien has done any work at all); the defense of one's home or family -- "gun violence" (irrespective of the idea of offensivity or defensivity); and now, a long-barreled defense weapon with a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, and a black-colored stock -- an "assault weapon."
Irrespective of the fact that these attributes of long guns are used most often for defenses, not assaults.
Just this past week, I already have entertained too many failure-doomed conversations attempting to rectify the misunderstanding: "an assault weapon is anything with certain home-defense features -- it's not a kind of gun." Such per capita rectification, person by person -- against the voluble collective voice of the 24/7 popular media -- is like gathering leaves with tweezers...during a windstorm.
It's not a winnable war, in a word. The sec-progs are masters of linguistic deception. It's their only weapon, but it has proven to be a trump card of determinative worth. Even if we could hypothetically beat them out in this arena, none on the right wing should want to engage such a fight, which involves inversion of the natural order. "The truth shall set ye free," as the New Testament admonishes -- but it is high time that American conservatives recall Kierkegaard's famous caveat: "...but first, it shall make ye miserable." There's nothing for it: the masses will fall for progressive lies time and again, especially with an efficient, technological mass media -- a politbureau, beyond any doubt now -- ever at work.
In short, the secular progressives have created for themselves a "straw audience," a volksen who will assuredly give pre-ordained responses -- to TV shows, to political argumentation, to social phenomena like Tim Tebow -- based on the sec-progs' tendentious labels, traps sprung long before.
The members of that "straw audience," the American people, have shown that they came to possess what I call thin skin and a strong stomach. This is to say, they'll ardently advocate for eggshell-skull-standards of scrutiny applied to talk of ethnicity or sexual orientation, and thereafter for "sensitivity training" dainty and fragile as a flower in bloom; yet all the while, they brazenly introduce the nation's youth to sexual and moral perversity which ought to reverse the metabolization of any healthy adult. For instance, the Washington Redskins and Atlanta Braves must rethink the "insensitive" unintended cultural minutiae of their mascots -- which are held out as odiously egregious offenses against tact -- all while progressive morning shows like Sesame Street regularly invite on the show guest-performers who sing about gang-bangs over absurdly banal, pop-bubblegum, kindergarten melodies. (I'll let the reader figure out which performer this is; the answer is several.)
I'm not sure which came first: the Bill Maher-styled thin skin, or the Bill Maher-styled strong stomach. (I'll never forget the day I realized how perverse is this combination of binary sympathies within the average progressive mind like Maher's: they'll correct you for saying "third-world" -- it's developing country -- as they pepper their correction with a head-spinning cadre of 4-letter anatomical-biological allusions in obscenity which would redden Red Fox's cheeks.) The world is weird these days.
But both the thin skin and the strong stomach are sine qua nons to 21st-century postmodernism, make no mistake. Neither is effective without the other. Bereft of the former -- thin skin -- the "straw audience" wouldn't be sufficiently touchy as to render them willing to jettison the old-fashioned values like self-reliance, self-defense, self-respect, and aggressive tyranny-hunting. In short, the "liberty regime" which we right-wingers still hold onto (with our fingernails) requires toughness and ruggedness altogether foreign to the average millennial. And without reference to the latter -- a strong stomach -- the American people would be unprepared to embrace the left's horrific new surrogate for the recently abandoned vision of liberty: a godless, goodless, naturalistic cosmos whose single proffered pseudo-virtue is pleasure. In short, pleasure is the watchword of the new "equality regime" with which the sec-progs want to replace the "liberty regime." (As one can guess, I'd readily characterize the liberty regime -- the colonial way of 18th-century America -- as thick skin, weak stomach: more toughness, fewer f-words.)
Indeed, pleasure remains the only item of holy worth to the sec-progs. To that end, they have even commandeered the popular intuition as to which "happiness" the Declaration of Independence language ("pursuit of happiness") refers: sensory pleasure. This is yet another example of sec-prog linguistic dress-up, with far-reaching consequences: the "happiness" of Jefferson, Madison, et al. has proven (by those who have inspected it) to be something much closer to the classical Eudaimonian sense, which designates happiness as ethical goodness. But the libertine left has cast pleasure as the ultimate end of our lives, the single, temporary shelter from suffering, sickness, and death.
And the sec-prog leaders like Obama are hailed as those with quasi-messianic value, since they have safeguarded pleasure like recreational sex and unearned goods in the place of those values that the language of the original Constitution truly safeguards: freedom of conscience, gun rights, states' rights, the individual right to live free and propertied.
As a Man of the Right, of all that which has gone awry in a once-great nation, I am most disenchanted with my fellow travelers' lack of insistence on language -- from the marketplace to the courtroom. Indeed, the classical liberal sidesteps tyranny with the anthem "government by laws, not men," yet most conservatives have been disappointingly quick to forget what government by law requires: rigorous textual fidelity. Next time you hear a sec-prog use a backwards term, point it out to him, or at least remark how insufferably sickly and veinous his epidermis is.
You insensitive bastard.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/thin_skin_strong_stomach.html
No comments:
Post a Comment