► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Writer’s block

by Speranza ( 36 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Conservatism, Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Media, Ronald Reagan, Tea Parties at April 7th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Do not think that for one second that the same media which trashed Hillary Clinton for daring to seek the nomination in 2008 instead of passively making way for the Young Messiah will not  protect her in 2016.

by John Podhoretz

When it comes to Obama-era scandals, the American Right’s predominant emotion is frustration — a frustration that causes hypertension levels usually seen only in Cubs fans and the unfortunates hired to do PR for Lindsay Lohan and Shia LeBoeuf.

Liberals dubbed Ronald Reagan the “Teflon president” because they felt nothing ever stuck to him. President Obama is the Scotchguard president; the would-be scandals that ought to be dogging his administration simply seem to bead up into little droplets before they are briskly wiped away.

Conservatives will tell you, and rightly so, that this is happening because the mainstream media — the prestige press and the network television commentariat — are committing sins both of commission and omission. At times, they act as the president’s blocking tackles in some respects, speaking with contempt and dismissal when the scandals are even mentioned.

When they are not actively working in his defense, the media’s managers are downplaying the scandal stories as a general rule — and the failure to pursue them aggressively has the effect of quieting them down.

Why is this happening? Ironically, the mainstream media heavyweights may feel liberated from the responsibility of covering Obama administration malfeasances because of the existence of the alternative conservative media that have arisen over the past 20 years — talk radio, Fox News, and multiple websites.

Mainstream media types loathe the conservative media as much as the conservative media loathe them. The mainstream thinks conservative media are hysterical, ideologically driven by bad or stupid or evil ideas, and are simply after liberal scalps. They do not want to join those they consider jackals.

But the conservative media serve a second purpose, not only for their audiences but for the mainstream. The existence of the Right media means that the stories are being covered by someone, which relieves them of some of the responsibility they might otherwise feel to do the job themselves.

Even better, from their point of view, they also believe the stories are being covered in such a way that the mainstream media can dismiss them and attack them.

[......]

Well, did you know that the Attorney General of the United States was held in contempt back in June 2012 by the House of Representatives for refusing to provide documents to oversight committees regarding the demented Justice Department program that peddled guns to drug dealers later used to kill a federal agent?

That was no small thing — in fact, never before has such a sanction against a sitting cabinet member been declared by Congress. An unprecedented event is the very definition of news, and yet it went all but unacknowledged when it happened — dismissed as an election year stunt to harm the presidential candidacy of a man 90% of those who work in the media voted for.

[......]

Amazing to think it was only 11 months ago that the Internal Revenue Service admitted — on its own! — that it had outright targeted conservative groups for special (i.e., hostile) scrutiny in considering their applications for tax-exempt status. The matter seemed so serious that the president himself said he was outraged by it: “It’s inexcusable and Americans have a right to be angry about it and I am angry about it.”

Though he promised to hold the guilty parties accountable, and though several people resigned and/or retired, what has gone on since looks very much like stonewalling.

The IRS’s general counsel answered “I don’t recall” 80 times — 80 times! — when members of Congress asked him about what went on.

The now-retired person specifically in charge of the matter has repeatedly resorted to Fifth Amendment silence rather than answer Congressional questions.

[......]

And the once-angry president? He isn’t so angry any longer. There was “not even a smidgen of corruption” at work there, he told Bill O’Reilly.

Obama’s attitude is the mainstream attitude. Move along, nothing to see here.

This week, the former deputy director of the CIA acknowledged that he had disobeyed his then-boss, David Petraeus, and edited the administration’s talking points about the attack on an American consulate in Benghazi in September 2012 to remove reference to a terrorist attack.

You may not have heard about it. Why? Because the media long ago decided it was not interested in Benghazi. More that that: the one star reporter who was, Sheryl Atkisson of CBS News, found it necessary to quit her job earlier this year amid reports she couldn’t get airtime because her boss disapproved of the story.

The person serving as Obama’s secretary of state when the attacks happened actually demanded to know what difference the details made about the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi. That person is now the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

She, too, will get 90% of the media vote.

Obama is Scotchguarded because the people who are supposed to be holding him to account are the ones holding the spray can.

Read the rest -  Conservative media is unintentionally protecting Obama

Hillary Clinton; Queen of the NSA…

by Guest Post ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Hillary Clinton, Marxism, Progressives at March 12th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey


In Breaking News that will come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to Hillary Clinton over the decades, Hillary has created her own personal NSA to spy on her opponents. (Remember all those FBI files she had while Bill was president?)

Hillary’s Private NSA
Privacy of CPAC attendees, GOP delegates targeted.

Hillary Clinton has her own private NSA.

American Bridge PAC spent last week spying on the private conversations of attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The group also plans to spy on the private lives of GOP delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention wherever the convention is located, but Politico reports ABPAC has issued the following threat if the GOP selects Las Vegas as its host city. American Bridge has set up this website at “SinCityGOP” and announces (bold print supplied):

While the Republican Party debates where to hold the Republican National Convention in 2016, American Bridge is preparing our team of researchers and trackers to capture the action no matter what city they choose.

In making their selection, Republicans would do well to remember that Las Vegas is already the city with the most cameras per capita of anywhere on the planet. What’s another two or three dozen American Bridge trackers added to the mix?

And if the RNC does choose Las Vegas, this is the site for all the action. What happens in Vegas… will go right here.

American Bridge was founded by Clinton ally David Brock and is funded by longtime Clinton supporter and billionaire George Soros. American Bridge PAC president Brad Woodhouse boasted that the group’s “trackers” at CPAC had been “in the hallways capturing conversations and that kind of thing.” Meaning? Meaning Hillary’s American Bridge is about invading privacy. CPAC’s today, someone else’s tomorrow. Yours.

The news of “capturing” private conversations at CPAC follows on the heels of multiple congressional investigations into the Obama-run IRS, which has been using the government to ask Tea Party groups about the contents of their members’ prayers, what books they read, and the contents of private phone calls and media interviews. A second controversy has erupted over the NSA collection of “metadata”—including the phone numbers of all Americans.

The news of Clinton’s high tech spies peering into private conversations at CPAC and set to peer into the private lives of GOP delegates comes as the privacy of American citizens has erupted as a major political issue in both the 2014 and 2016 campaigns.

Recently Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky announced the filing of a class-action suit over NSA surveillance. Last week Paul, one of the nation’s most passionate defenders of the Fourth Amendment, told the attendees of CPAC that “what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.” Paul was greeted with a roar of approval from the youthful audience, later winning the CPAC presidential straw poll. Ironically, even as Paul was speaking at CPAC, Clinton literally had spies in CPAC’s midst eavesdropping on private conversations.

Reports Politico of Brock, Soros, Hillary and company, with bold print supplied:

EXCLUSIVE: Las Vegas is one of the RNC’s finalists for the 2016 convention, and plenty of Republicans are calling it the favorite, based on the hope that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson would contribute generously, obviating the financial worries that plague most host committees. But Playbook has learned that American Bridge, the Democratic tracking and opposition research outfit founded by David Brock and run by Brad Woodhouse, plans to devote up to three dozen trackers with video cameras to Sin City if the GOP picks it. American Bridge has committed to deploy what a source called a “tracking operation on steroids” to cover the plethora of venues sure to attract Republican politicians and operatives.

Per a Democratic source: “American Bridge’s plans would scatter trackers with video cameras from one end of the Strip to the other and would include a rapid response war room in the city to turn the footage into instant products — even potentially television ads — exposing whatever activities and hypocricies (sic) they catch on film. … American Bridge’s efforts … would be looking to capture everything from the late night carousing of politicians to simply filming candidates who claim to be the bastion of family values entering and exiting bars and casinos.”

Catch that? Any “late night carousing” of those “entering and exiting bars and casinos” will have their privacy targeted by Clinton’s group.

Clinton’s American Bridge PAC, operated by ally David Brock, has been funded by Soros, as reported here:

American Bridge received $1 million from the Soros Fund Management firm during the 2012 election cycle and funding from individual donors and labor unions.

The group has been transformed from an ordinary political action committee into the political version of the NSA, its staffers working out of a room littered with computer monitors that will flash the latest privacy invasion for dissemination.

All of this in the name of electing Hillary Clinton president—where Clinton would be in charge of the IRS, the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA.

Match this intention of Hillary’s allies spying on GOP delegates at a presumed Las Vegas GOP convention with the revelations of NSA spying on foreign leaders while she was secretary of state, as discussed here by ex-Clinton aide Dick Morris, bold print supplied:

We … know this about Clinton: the record shows that she’s been interested in personal information about foreign leaders in the past.

The 2010 WikiLeaks included a cable sent to our embassy in Buenos Aires seeking highly personal details about Argentine President Christina Fernández, including questions about her medications, her daily time with her husband, her method of dealing with stress and, specifically, “how do [her] emotions affect her decision-making and how does she calm down when distressed?” …

This kind of intrusive tactic is nothing new for Clinton. Remember that during the 1992 presidential campaign, she approved hiring private detectives (paid with campaign funds) to amass compromising information on women who claimed to have been sexually involved with her husband.

Suddenly, reports surfaced of abortions, bankruptcies, messy divorces and high school and college misconduct in the lives of women who got in her husband’s way. The detectives she hired — who we’ve called the “secret police” — were doing their work. And the women went away.

In view of Clinton’s historical affinity for personal surveillance and the evidence that it continues, we’re entitled to answers about how this possible future president of the United States was involved in the decision to compromise our relations with some of our most important allies.

Perhaps carelessly, ABC News was invited into American Bridge headquarters where Hillary’s spies openly bragged about what they were doing. The headline?

Scenes From a War Room: Spying on GOP With Top Oppo Hitmen

It is no coincidence that David Brock is involved in this high-tech KGB-style operation. And speaking of the KGB, the Economist reports that Ukrainian “officers (have been) blackmailed with threats” if they don’t cooperate with Vladimir Putin.

Note that in this same KGB style, it was reported awhile back in the Daily Caller that an internal memo from Brock’s Media Matters called for the hiring of private investigators to “look into the personal lives of Fox employees.” The memo from one Karl Frisch read in part:

We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff.

This is, of course, the 21st-century high-tech version of the Clinton strategy that was followed back in 1992. As described by former Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff in his 1999 book on the Clinton scandals, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story, the Clinton campaign used private investigator Jack Palladino, whose task in spying on various Bill Clinton paramours was “gathering information that would raise questions about their credibility or mental stability.” Precisely the self-promoted task of American Bridge.

Wrote Isikoff of the Clinton investigations of women:

The payments to Palladino came from campaign funds, which were federally subsidized. Equally important, they were being laundered: the initial payments, totaling $28,000, were made to a Denver law firm, which in turn passed the money to Palladino’s agency in San Francisco….The total Clinton campaign funds disbursed to Palladino had exceeded $100,000.

Now? This newest high-tech group of Hillary’s spies has been funded by George Soros.

There has been an attempt to dismiss the old stories swirling around the Clintons as irrelevant to Mrs. Clinton’s presumed 2016 presidential campaign. Not long ago, after Senator Paul raised the issue of Bill Clinton’s conduct, former governor Mitt Romney was on television saying that Bill’s past behavior was not all that important. Others joined the chorus. In reply, The American Spectator’s own R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. wrote the following:

My answer to Mr. Romney’s advice offered on “Meet the Press” Sunday is that everyone running for high office has a past that is relevant to the present. Hillary’s past is, if the press does its job, inescapable.

Bob Tyrrell, whose experience with the shadowy machinations of the Clintons is legendary, has gotten this right.

On top of Hillary’s past, there is something distinctly new on the political scene. That would be the advent of spying on private citizens—using the IRS and the NSA—as a serious political issue. Whatever one thinks of Edward Snowden, it is indisputable that Snowden’s actions in revealing the actions of the NSA launched a firestorm over the issue of privacy.

And one of the main groups affected by all this politically is Millennials, or Generation Y.

Which is why Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech a few days back that specifically targeted Generation Y. Said Clinton, in part, as headlined and written in National Journal:

Hillary Clinton’s Love Letter to Millennials

We need you. We need your energy. We need your talents. We need your commitment to participation,” Clinton continued. “We cannot let the millennial generation become a lost generation.”

The former first lady will need young people, too, if she runs for president in 2016. The demographic helped Barack Obama upset Clinton in 2008, and then propel him to the White House twice. In Iowa, young caucus-goers liked Obama over the next-closest competitor by a margin of more than 4-to-1, according to one survey. The margin was smaller in other states, but still significant.

The Queen of Filegate has learn her lessons well, dig up the dirt to destroy your opponents, and then destroy them. David N. Bossie wrote a book that should not be ignored by anyone opposing Hillary Clinton, it documents what she has done, what her methods of operation are, and what she is willing to do to remain in power.

Hillary: The Politics of Personal Destruction

It’s not a stretch to say that more has been written about Hillary, pro and con, than probably any other living American politician. So in the build-up to the 2008 presidential election, what is not needed is just another book about Candidate Hillary. Fortunately, this expose is much more-a hybrid product that includes not only cutting-edge reporting, revealing facts and fictions about the junior senator from New York, but does it in a dual book-and-movie format. David N. Bossie, former chief investigator for the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, reveals all the must-know details about Hillary’s life and career, exposing the truth about her conflicts in the past and her liberal plot for the future. Bossie has previously produced such acclaimed documentaries as Border War(www.borderwarmovie.com).

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

American Juche: Great Mother in the Sky

by Rodan ( 147 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Marxism, Progressives at January 24th, 2014 - 5:00 pm

Progressives tend to be militant Secular atheists, yet they deify politicians they love. Barack Obama was turned from a 1 term Senator from Illinois, to a messianic figure who would redeem America and the world. Now the ugly washed up Marxist named Hillary Clinton is being turned into some semi-divine “Great Mother” figure.  In the Left’s narrative about Hillary, she will be  motherly figure who watches over this nation as her children.

The New York Times Magazine takes a page out of the Korean Juche myth. They make Hillary out to be some heavenly figure watching over us.

Planet Hillary

Do not dismiss this type of propaganda. After 14 years of stagnant wage growth and non existence economic mobility, many Americans have lost faith in the system. As steady stream of Juche like propaganda of pushing Hillary as a nurturing figure who cares for Americans will be very effective. The Progressives have the best Presidential electoral machine assembled ever assembled in American history. Anyone who thinks 2016 will be a cakewalk against Hillary Clinton is in for a huge let down.

Ready for Hillary

by Rodan ( 57 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Marxism, Progressives at January 18th, 2014 - 8:00 pm

HillaryClintonVampire

This says it all about Hillary.

Ready for Hillary

Suspecting Hillary’s sexual preference, she may like being eaten by a weasel!

(Hat Tip: Lobo91)

 

 

The Clinton Hit List

by coldwarrior ( 181 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Politics at January 14th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Cross them at you’re peril!

Hillary and Bill Clinton compiled disloyalty ‘hit list’, new book claims

Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia's governor in Richmond, Virginia in January.Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia’s governor in Richmond, Virginia in January. Photo: Reuters

Washington: Hillary and Bill Clinton keep a detailed “hit list” of everyone who has crossed them during more than 20 years at the apex of American politics, a new book has claimed.

The list of so-called “sinners and saints” – including John Kerry, now secretary of state, and the late Ted Kennedy – was compiled on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the dying days of Mrs Clinton’s failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

The alleged “cheat sheet” of betrayals – and there were many that year – ranked offenders on a scale from one to seven and was compiled by aides to give the Clintons an instant database of those who deserved political favour, and those who did not.

John KerryJohn Kerry: on the Clintons’ list. Photo: AFP. He SERVED in Vietnam.

“Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favours that had been done for them then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons as if it all had happened just a few hours before,” wrote the authors of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.

Advertisement

The Clintons have a reputation in Washington for long memories but the existence of a digital “favour book” raises questions about how Mrs Clinton, now 66, might conduct another run at the presidency in 2016. The book paints a picture of how wounding and dispiriting the 2008 campaign was for the Clintons as leading Democrats deserted them for Barack Obama, whose instant celebrity trumped years of hard networking and their own established pre-eminence as the most powerful double act in Democrat politics.

“The injuries and insults were endless, and each blow hurt more than the last, the cumulative effect of months and months of defections,” wrote the authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

Among those rated as a “7″ for most disloyal were Mr Kerry, who endorsed Mr Obama as a man who could “help restore our moral authority” and – even more devastating – Kennedy, who designated Mr Obama as the heir-apparent to his brother John F Kennedy.

Another huge betrayal for Mrs Clinton, as she ran to become the first female US president, was the decision of Claire McCaskill, a senior Missouri senator, to become the first significant female figure to endorse Mr Obama. Senator MacCaskill, who has endorsed Mrs Clinton for 2016, gave a television interview crediting Mr Clinton as a “great leader” before adding “I don’t want my daughter near him”, a remark that inspired rage among the Clintons and their aides.

Political strategists were divided over whether the portrayal of Mrs Clinton and her entourage as vindictive would damage her 2016 chances.

A Republican strategist who asked not to be named said the image was an obvious attack motif for Republicans in 2016.

“There’s a pretty solid understanding that you don’t mess with the Clintons because they are retributive, take a lot of stuff personally and will basically break your legs when you’re not looking,” he said.

Democrats were more sanguine, arguing that such political gossip was of interest to a only tiny class of political insiders and would have little impact on the campaign trail. “It may be titillating but it is not important,” a former staffer in the Clinton White House told London’s The Daily Telegraph. “But it is also typical of the way the Clinton operation has functioned in the post-presidency period. They have been vindictive and difficult.

“It’s the thing about the Clinton world that is the most dispiriting. It has always been baffling and troubling that they have operated with such a level of animus toward people that they should remain friends with.”

Clinton insiders told the authors it was wrong to paint Mrs Clinton as “Nixon in a pantsuit”, while another long-time adviser said it was “absurd” to suggest the Clintons’ decisions were ruled by a hit list, but did not deny its existence.

The New York Times unintentionally destroys Obama’s Middle East policy

by Speranza ( 70 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Islamists, Libya at January 10th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

By exposing the false premises that Obama’s foreign and defense policy was based on, The Times has committed unintentional fratricide. The premise that as long as  a jihadist groups  would not officially call themselves “al-Qaeda” and therefore were not hostile towards us, was always wishful thinking.

by Caroline Glick

The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy. Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper realizes what it has done.

Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000-word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.

Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009, speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counterterror strategy and US Middle East policy.

Obama’s first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).

Obama’s second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al-Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.

The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al-Qaida “core al-Qaida.” And anyone who operates in the name of al-Qaida, or any other group that does not have courtroom-certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al-Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.

These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the rationale for the US’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are the basis for Obama’s allegiance to Turkey’s Islamist government, and his early support for the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition.

They are the basis for the administration’s kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.

Obama’s insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its nuclear weapons program. is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So, too, the US’s current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the administration’s conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.

From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was composed of jihadists aligned if not affiliated with al-Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documents seized by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al-Qaida recruitment.

[.....]

In other words, the two core foundations of Obama’s understanding of terrorism and of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

With Kirkpatrick’s report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.

Kirkpatrick showed the mindset of the US-supported rebels and through it, the ridiculousness of the administration’s belief that you can’t be a terrorist if you aren’t directly subordinate to Zawahiri.

One US-supported Islamist militia commander recalled to him that at the outset of the anti-Gaddafi rebellion, “Teenagers came running around… [asking] ‘Sheikh, sheikh, did you know al-Qaida? Did you know Osama bin Laden? How do we fight?”

[.......]

According to the administration’s version of events, these guileless, otherwise friendly demonstrators, who killed the US ambassador and three other Americans, were simply angered by a YouTube video of a movie trailer which jihadist clerics in Egypt had proclaimed was blasphemous.

In an attempt to appease the mob after the fact, Obama and then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton shot commercials run on Pakistani television apologizing for the video and siding with the mob against the movie-maker, who is the only person the US has imprisoned following the attack. Then-ambassador to the UN and current National Security Adviser Susan Rice gave multiple television interviews placing the blame for the attacks on the video.

According to Kirkpatrick’s account of the assault against the US installations in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, the administration’s description of the assaults was a fabrication. Far from spontaneous political protests spurred by rage at a YouTube video, the attack was premeditated.

US officials spotted Libyans conducting surveillance of the consulate nearly 15 hours before the attack began.

Libyan militia warned US officials “of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi,” two days before the attack.

[.......]

During the initial assault, the attackers shot down the lights around the compound, stormed the gates, and swarmed around the security personnel who ran to get their weapons, making it impossible for them to defend the ambassador and other personnel trapped inside.

According to Kirkpatrick, after the initial attack, the organizers spurred popular rage and incited a mob assault on the consulate by spreading the rumor that the Americans had killed a local. Others members of the secondary mob, Kirkpatrick claimed, were motivated by reports of the video.

This mob assault, which followed the initial attack and apparent takeover of the consulate, was part of the predetermined plan. The organizers wanted to produce chaos.

As Kirkpatrick explained, “The attackers had posted sentries at Venezia Road, adjacent to the [consulate] compound, to guard their rear flank, but they let pass anyone trying to join the mayhem.”

According to Kirkpatrick, the attack was perpetrated by local terrorist groups that were part of the US-backed anti-Gaddafi coalition. The people who were conducting the surveillance of the consulate 15 hours before the attack were uniformed security forces who escaped in an official car. Members of the militia tasked with defending the compound participated in the attack.

Ambassador Stevens, who had served as the administration’s emissary to the rebels during the insurrection against Gaddafi, knew personally many of the terrorists who orchestrated the attack. And until the very end, he was taken in by the administration’s core belief that it was possible to appease al-Qaida-sympathizing Islamic jihadists who were not directly affiliated with Zawahiri.

[.......]

The entire US view that local militias, regardless of their anti-American, jihadist ideologies, could become US allies was predicated not merely on the belief that they could be appeased, but that they weren’t terrorists because they weren’t al-Qaida proper.

As Kirkpatrick notes, “American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to al-Qaida. The fixation on al-Qaida might have distracted experts from more imminent threats.”

But again, the only reason that the intelligence failed to notice the threats emanating from local US-supported terrorists is because the US counterterrorist strategy, like its overall Middle East strategy, is to seek to appease all US enemies other than the parts of al-Qaida directly commanded by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Distressingly, most of the discussion spurred by Kirkpatrick’s article has ignored the devastating blow he visited on the intellectual foundations of Obama’s foreign policy. Instead, the discussion has focused on his claim that there is “no evidence that al-Qaida or other international terrorist group had any role in the assault,” and on his assertion that the YouTube video did spur to action some of the participants in the assault.

Kirkpatrick’s claim that al-Qaida played no role in the attack was refuted by the Times’ own reporting six weeks after the attack. It has also been refuted by congressional and State Department investigations, by the UN and by a raft of other reporting.

His claim that the YouTube video did spur some of the attackers to action was categorically rejected last spring in sworn congressional testimony by then-deputy chief of the US mission to Libya Gregory Hicks.

Last May Hicks stated, “The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya. The video was not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya. We saw no demonstrators related to the video anywhere in Libya.”

Kirkpatrick’s larger message – that the reasoning behind Obama’s entire counterterrorist strategy and his overall Middle East policy is totally wrong, and deeply destructive – has been missed because his article was written and published to whitewash the administration’s deliberate mischaracterization of the events in Benghazi, not to discredit the rationale behind its Middle East policy and counterterrorism strategy. This is why he claimed that al-Qaida wasn’t involved in the attack. And this is why he claimed that the YouTube video was a cause for the attack.

This much was made clear in a blog post by editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, who alleged that the entire discourse on Benghazi is promoted by the Republicans to harm the Democrats, and Kirkpatrick’s story served to weaken the Republican arguments. In Rosenthal’s words, “The Republicans hope to tarnish Democratic candidates by making it seem as though Mr. Obama doesn’t take al-Qaida seriously.”

[......]

By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups – even if they have participated in attacks against the US – and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al-Qaida to defeating the US.

Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.

Read the rest – The New York Times destroys Obama

Browbeating acquiesence

by Speranza Comments Off
Filed under Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton at December 28th, 2013 - 11:13 am

The father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods  said that  Secretary Clinton assured him that they were going to “arrest and prosecute” the man that made the scapegoated youtube video critical of Allah… which as we all know and certainly Clinton knew, had nothing to do with the 9-11 terror attack in Benghazi.

by Andrew McCarthy

In “protecting the rights of all people to worship the way they choose,” then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton vowed “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Mrs. Clinton required translation into the language of truth, as she generally does when her lips are moving. By the “rights” of “all people” to “worship” as “they choose,” she meant the sharia-based desire of Muslim supremacists to foreclose critical examination of Islam. Madame Secretary, you see, was speechifying before her friends at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinian territories.

At that very moment in July 2011, Christians were under siege in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran — being gradually purged from those Islamic countries just as they’d been purged from Turkey, which hosted Mrs. Clinton’s speech. As Christians from the Middle East to West Monroe, La., can tell you, the Left and its Obama vanguard are not remotely interested in their “rights . . . to worship the way they choose.”

What they choose, after all, is to honor Christian tenets about sexuality, freedom of conscience, and the sanctity of life. Those tenets, just like honest criticism of Islam, are consigned to the category Clinton calls “what we abhor.” And if progressives abhor something, it somehow always becomes everyone’s duty to make certain that those who embrace that something “don’t feel that they have . . . support.”

[......]

That brings us to the most compelling of all the points Mark Steyn made this week in his trenchantdefense of free expression: When it comes to stifling speech, and thus suppressing thought, it is increasingly frivolous to distinguish between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion.”

Yes, it is textbook true that the First Amendment applies only against the government — indeed, only against the federal government as originally understood. The constitutional free-speech guarantee is literally irrelevant against private actors, including bullies like GLAAD, the gay-rights agitators who intimidated A&E into suspending Phil Robertson from a show about his family — which, I suppose, is the absurd reality when you’re producing a “reality” program (Duck Dynasty) about a family business.

But as long as we’re talking about reality, what if the “private” actors are really the deadly point of a coercive government’s spear? Mrs. Clinton proclaimed that the Obama administration would unleash “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to squelch speech it disapproved of.  [.......]

A corrupt government has some direct ways of undermining our rights. It can bring vexatious lawsuits, knowingly enact unconstitutional laws, or sign international agreements transparently intended to erode constitutional liberties. Theoretically, we can fight these tactics in the courts and by lobbying our lethargic lawmakers; as a practical matter, though, it takes years of anxiety at prohibitive expense. Few will be up to the task.

Secretary Clinton’s collaboration with the OIC is a good example: They jointly came up with a resolution that would make it unlawful to engage in speech that incites “discrimination” and “hostility” toward “religion.” More translation: “Religion” here does not mean religion; it means Islam. The Obama administration, itselfno stranger to incitements against traditional Christianity, is not worried about that kind of hostility.

But put aside the hypocrisy of bashing Christians for merely holding beliefs while turning a blind eye to Muslims who kill over theirs. The point here is: It is pluperfectly palpable that the resolution negotiated by the Obama State Department and the OIC violates the First Amendment.

[.......]

When it instead leads the pack in assaulting the Constitution — when, to take another example, the government repeatedly, publicly, and mendaciously blames a jihadist mass murder in Benghazi on an obscure movie; when, under the guise of a “supervised release” violation, it then trumps up a prosecution against the filmmaker precisely to sell the “Muslim world” on its commitment to imposing anti-constitutional sharia blasphemy standards — it is implicitly endorsing and obviously encouraging mob suppression of speech.

That is how this government indirectly assaults the First Amendment, in tandem with its “private”-actor allies. The GLAADs and CAIRs of the world are the government’s partners in “peer pressure and shaming,” the cultural coercion that is every bit as insidious as the administration’s official lawlessness. A government that creates the climate for bullying is one of the bullies — the most culpable one.

The radical shock troops seeking to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as their pied piper puts it, make up a distinct minority of the country. To advance their transformative program, they need the mob — and a president who knows how to use the mob’s “peer pressure,” who knows that telling a room full of jittery bankers that “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks” is akin to Don Corleone making them an offer they can’t refuse.

Consequently, we are not in ordinary times — times when speech competes with speech in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s “marketplace of ideas,” and when we are simply trying to arrive at the best policies within an agreed-upon constitutional framework. We are in an us-versus-them time when the radicals are out to annihilate traditional culture and constitutional principles.

There are no Marquess of Queensbury Rules for confronting such a threat, since a fair fight is not what the mob has in mind. The threat and the aggressors making it need to be exposed, debated, mocked, and otherwise discredited whenever the opportunities present themselves. Nothing else will do, for the mob is immune to peer pressure and it has no shame.

Read the rest – Coercing conformity

The inevitable Hillary Clinton

by Speranza ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politics at December 11th, 2013 - 7:00 am

As one reads the Knish, one realizes that Hillary Cinton is nearly as vapid as Barack Obama. had she not married Bill she would have been an unspectacular but steadily employed lawyer and nobody would ever have herd of her. She owes every thing to her husband. Someone recently said that the best thing that happened to Hillary was that HillaryCare never went through otherwise there would be no talk about President Hillary Clinton.

by Daniel Greenfield

Hardly a week goes by without Hillary Clinton receiving another award.

Last month she was named a “Global Champion” by the International Medical Corps at a gala Beverly Hills event crowded with celebrities, received the American Patriot Award at the National Defense University Foundation in the Ronald Reagan Building and the Hermandad Award from the Mexican American Leadership Initiative.

Considering that Hillary Clinton is as much of an American patriot as is she is a Mexican-American leader… both awards seem equally deserved.

Hillary was honored by Malaria No More for taking the controversial position of being against malaria and by the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice for supporting internet freedom. Because nothing says a deep commitment to internet freedom like sending a man to jail for a year over a YouTube video that offended Muslims.

The President of Georgia (the one in the Caucasus) honored her with the Order of the Golden Fleece. That’s considered a high honor in Georgia, but back in the United States it just reminds everyone of Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm.

[.....]

The American Bar Association had already given Hillary its highest honor for “her immense accomplishments as a lawyer”. The National Constitution Center awarded her the Liberty Medal (an honor she shares with such Constitutional scholars as Bono, Hamid Karzai and her husband) and Elton John gave her an award for fighting AIDS declaring himself “honoured to honour her”.

(If you’re keeping track, Hillary has come out against malaria, epilepsy and AIDS. No word on her position on shingles—but reportedly she’s against it.)

At this rate, if a bunch of elderly left-wing Norwegians toss her the Nobel Peace Prize early on, the way they did to Obama, it will barely rate mention among all the other glittering trophies that have been bestowed on a woman whose only actual accomplishment was being married to a crooked governor with good political instincts and sharp elbows.

Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as a lawyer, like her accomplishments as a senator and a secretary of state, don’t actually exist. The more awards Hillary gets, the fewer people will wonder about her qualifications. Like the fake doctor with 200 equally fake diplomas on the wall; the award blitz is a pathetic case of overcompensation.  [.......]

It’s been a while since there was an inevitable candidate in American politics four years before an actual presidential election. It’s been even longer since there was a candidate so barren of actual accomplishments and so devoid of anything resembling content.

Hillary traipses around the country and the world picking up awards and delivering speeches for six figures a pop; but the only words that come out of her mouth are boring cliches.

Receiving an AIDS award from Elton John’s foundation, she announced insightfully, “We still have a long way to go.” Strangely enough this is what people who have never had AIDS or treated AIDS have been saying while receiving AIDS awards since the disease first became a celebrity cause.

At Oceana, Hillary declared, “More and more people appreciate what oceans mean to them.” At the University of Buffalo, she expressed the hope that we could “move away from the slash and burn politics, the name calling, the excessive partisanship” and at the Women of the World summit declared that the United States had “come so far, but there is still work to be done.”

[......]

The more you listen to Hillary, the more you realize that she doesn’t have ideas, she has cliches. String together a bunch of cliches and you have a Hillary speech. String together a bunch of Hillary speeches and you have a candidacy that is as empty as it is inevitable. Hillary isn’t even Chauncey Gardiner. Her cliches lack even accidental poetry. Instead they’re as empty as she is.

What does Hillary stand for? A casual observer would be forgiven for assuming that she stands for nothing. After eight years in the senate, the only thing about her time there that anyone bothers to mention is her vote on the Iraq War. That’s because there isn’t anything to mention.

If Hillary had not accidentally taken what would become a controversial position, while trying to cast a safe vote, all that anyone would remember about her time in the Senate is that she was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame for “opening new pathways for women in leadership”.

That was quite an accomplishment considering that she was the 32nd female senator.

[.......]

But Hillary is always being honored as a revolutionary leader for just showing up. If she has something positive to say about the oceans, teaching little girls or fighting AIDS; there’s an award in it for her. If Hillary daringly says that reading is good today; tomorrow she wins a Pulitzer. That’s how low the Hillary bar has been set.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled a lot. The National Constitution Center honored her because, in their words, “she traveled to more countries than any other Secretary of State”. Also because she “used social media to engage citizens”. It certainly sounds better than honoring her for abusing the State Department to prep for a presidential run with a non-stop world tour while neglecting desperate pleas for help from the Benghazi mission which had been under siege for months.

And that’s the best that can be said about a term that wrapped up with that election shakedown that had been her endgame all along, the murder of four Americans and Hillary pounding the table and demanding to know what difference it made. As every foundation, think-tank, university, charity and non-profit that has rushed to cover her in golden medals, orders and awards will tell you… none at all.

But despite the awards, there is very little enthusiasm even among Democrats for President Hillary. Jeffrey Katzenberg, Hollywood’s leading liberal, came out for her saying, “I think she’s the best candidate currently available for either party.” Considering that Hillary is really the only Democrat semi-officially running now, not counting Joe Biden, that’s damning with faint praise.

There’s a reason that liberals are fantasizing about an Elizabeth Warren run. Warren is even less charismatic, more off-putting and more cliche-prone than Hillary, but you do know what she stands for. “Socialism today, Socialism tomorrow, Socialism forever.” Hillary Clinton stands for the same thing; but she has spent decades trying to be discreet about it.

Instead of letting her “You didn’t build that” freak flag fly in a safe blue state like Warren did, Hillary Clinton has carefully crafted a completely safe image. That was what undid her candidacy in 2008. Given a choice between a candidate who stood for a whole range of things and one who stood for being president; they chose Obama. Eight years later; no one still has any idea what she stands for.

Hillary’s calculated vacuousness smacks of paranoia. At a time when Democrats want some red meat, she tries to be less partisan than Obama. At all her award ceremonies, she speaks in cliches and stays away from anything that anyone could find controversial or memorable. There’s no way that she can offend anyone if she spends all her time emitting contentless cliches.

Beneath the bland rhetoric is a paranoid control freak obsessed with controlling and shaping every aspect of her image. Her partner in this endeavor is Media Matters’ David Brock; a man whose legendary paranoia rivals her own, who had been hospitalized for a mental breakdown after believing that people were trying to kill him and who allegedly used an illegally armed security team to protect him from “right-wing assassins”.

Together Brock and Clinton have already shut down a number of friendly film and television projects about Hillary while Brock peddles “The Benghazi Hoax”; a book that smacks of Hillary Clinton’s old obsession with a vast right-wing conspiracy. A Hillary biopic in which the former first lady is played by an actress capable of conveying actual human emotion would do her image a lot more good than Brock’s paranoid rantings. But it would appear that Brock’s paranoid mindset mirrors her own.

Hillary Clinton has played the long game, moving slowly from one position to another, with her eyes on the White House. But in her calculating chess game, she has neglected the details of the present. Hillary lost in 2008 because she was too busy building an inevitable candidacy to give people an actual reason to vote for her. And now she’s making the same mistake all over again.

It’s easy to be the inevitable candidate when no one is actually running against you. The hypothetical inevitable candidate is rarely someone that people actually want to vote for. Like Mitt Romney, they seem like the sort of man or woman who is probably going to win because everyone says so. When the race heats up, the inevitable candidate collapses and is left behind.

America hasn’t had inevitable presidents in a while. The men who have actually managed to score two terms were absurdly unlikely candidates with obvious flaws whose very prospects were met with ridicule. There was nothing inevitable about Ronald Reagan, a former actor, Bill Clinton, a sleazy draft dodger with infidelity issues, George W. Bush, the son of a one-term president prone to mispronounce important words, and Barack Obama, a political amateur and left-wing radical who defended his racist pastor after the latter was caught screaming “God Damn America” after 9/11.

Hillary Clinton’s inevitable status is her weakness. Inevitable candidates don’t win elections. Just ask John McCain, an American hero and liberal Republican, and Mitt Romney, a man who was born to play the president on television. Or ask Michael Dukakis, the architect of the Massachusetts Miracle, or John Kerry, a man who was not only born to play the president, but who could run on his Vietnam service during wartime.

There will come a time when the awards will stop, when the empty quotes about how she is running because she cares about girls will run out and when she will actually have to give real answers to difficult questions. And that isn’t Hillary’s strong suit. [.......]

As a debater, Hillary is rigidly unimaginative. As a politician, she’s vacant. And her charisma doesn’t exist. The only way that she can get through her own party’s primaries and a national election is by scaring away every potential rival by being the inevitable candidate. And that is what the endless Hillary award season is really about.

Hillary Clinton’s awards parade isn’t meant to impress the voters; but to scare away any opponents who might think that they can do to her in 2016 what Obama did to her in 2008. At galas and dinners, she dons an armor made out of awards, prizes and trophies to manufacture the consensus that she is an accomplished everything and that this will be her election because her victory is inevitable.

But Hillary doesn’t really believe that she is the inevitable candidate. If she believed that, she would be less paranoid and controlling… and more capable of relaxing and being herself; whoever that might be. A Hillary with self-confidence wouldn’t need David Brock whispering in her ear and would be able to cut loose problematic figures like Huma Abedin and Sidney Blumenthal whose presence is already harming her premature campaign.

Hillary is obsessed with winning and certain that she will lose. Everything she has done throughout the years was calculated to make defeat as unlikely as possible… including taking the position of Secretary of State while doing as little as possible in that role. Instead of inspiring people, she has built up a bulletproof resume while taking as few risks as possible. And that insecurity may be her undoing.

For 13 years, Hillary has done little except abuse public office to map out her future presidential run. By the time the election actually takes place, she will have spent nearly two decades or a third of her adult life focused on running for president.

At the Benghazi hearings, Hillary famously demanded to know what difference it made. The same can be said of her life.

Read the rest – The Inevitable Hillary

 

 

The Great Guns & Ammo Panic of 2013

by huckfunn ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, DOJ, Economy, Eric Holder, Free Speech, government, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Second Amendment, Special Report, Weapons at December 7th, 2013 - 9:55 am

While lurking on The Blogmacracy  this morning, I saw that Mike C. suggested that we have a gun thread about the “Great Guns & Ammo Panic of 2013”. So here it is.

This past summer I was sitting in the waiting room of the Grease Monkey lube shop in Clovis, NM while my oil was being changed. I picked up the current issue of Guns & Ammo magazine and the cover story was “G&A Perspective: Panic Purchases and the Volatile Ammo Market”. The article explored the various theories on the empty ammo shelves at gun shops and the resulting spike in prices of the most common calibers as well as the shortage of AR-style rifles. The conclusion was that gun ownership has now gone mainstream due to the gun control efforts of Obama and his democrat cohorts. People who have never considered owning a firearm have now armed themselves and are taking to the ranges. Many people are hoarding ammo. All ammo manufacturers are currently running at maximum output having added more capacity and round-the-clock shifts.

Read the entire article here.

ObamaCare has shown that the Prince of Chicago is mortal and that like all politicians, he will go down sooner or later

by Speranza ( 208 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Progressives at December 5th, 2013 - 1:00 pm

The Knish points out that the Democrats are likely to turn the ObamaCare fiasco into a revival of HillaryCare as the “perfect” antidote.

by Daniel Greenfield

When Obama decided to turn his campaign into a permanent Super PAC; he was stabbing the Democratic Party in the back. But he was doing it to them, before they did it to him.

Organizing for America gave him an independent source of power and influence at the expense of the Democratic Party. Obama was carelessly draining money and energy out of his own party because whatever common interests he had with a political party, that for all its leftward swing was still too conservative for his taste, were about to be fractured during his second term.

The Democratic Party might have been satisfied if he had retained his 2008 halo in 2015. But that was never going to happen. No matter how much the media slobbers over a politician, the voting public, at least those parts of it that don’t have Hope posters and Obama holograms hanging on their walls, eventually needs a break and someone to blame.

Even vice presidents tend to turn on their own presidents once they begin running for office. George H.W. Bush did it to Reagan and Gore did it to Clinton. It may be hard to remember now in this wave of nostalgia for the 90s when there was actually an economy instead of a shrunken shell of one, but the Democratic Party and the American people had grown sick of Clinton and his scandals.

[......]

Al Gore was just a less successful and even more hypocritical version of Bill Clinton; but the Democratic Party tried to build him an image as a stiff and serious fellow who spent a lot of time deep in thought and might be awkward at parties; but wouldn’t cheat on the entire country. That’s what the Macarena jokes and the grotesque public kiss were about.

With Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party already has an Anti-Obama in waiting

With Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party already has an Anti-Obama in waiting. Hillary claims to be experienced where Obama was inexperienced. Savvier about the practical details of getting things done in Washington D.C. and capable of going the long distance in governance instead of making abrupt leaps of inspiration.

The “Ready for Hillary” image is as phony as Gore’s serious ethical look; but it’s also a shot across Obama’s bow telling him that the Dems were going to throw him under the bus before the next election. With Organizing for America, Obama, whose allegiance has always been to the left, not to anything as reactionary as an American political party, threw them under the bus first.

It’s not a full-fledged civil war. Yet.

Obama’s biggest asset is still the media whose younger and more energetic members lean as leftward as he does. Its older members are more skeptical, but still willing to toe the party line. At the end of his term that will change with the media suddenly hurling unexpectedly bitter criticism his way. That happened to Bill Clinton. It’s likely to happen to Barack Obama.

The media won’t step forward to destroy Obama

The media won’t step forward to destroy Obama. But they will pile on him once it helps Hillary. And he knows it.

There’s a reason that Obama never trusted his biggest fans, locked them up in closets, avoided conferences, carefully selected loyalist lefty pundits for private meeting and even set up his own photographers.

He knew that the time would come when the media would turn on him. When the halo photos would make way for pictures that make him look old and tired. When the same columnists who were talking him up as the great hope of the nation would turn to writing pieces about how he failed and why Hillary is the right woman to take his place.

His media loyalists have worked hard to stem any defections. The vicious attacks on Bob Woodward and Lara Logan are nasty reminders to keep the rest in line. The media lefties who lead them care less about the Democratic Party than they do about the agenda of the left. That is what they have in common with Barack. But the Democratic Party hacks care less about the left than they do about staying in power.

Obama has been politically weakened now and there’s blood in the water

The ObamaCare crisis killed any hope of an enduring truce. Obama has been politically weakened now and there’s blood in the water.

The media hasn’t turned on him. It’s still repeating much of his propaganda about substandard plans and insurance companies, but the polls show that the public isn’t buying it. And the media has not done everything that it could have to shield him from it. There have been too many negative stories that got past the gatekeepers and too many cracks and leaks in the political wall.

ObamaCare has shown that the Prince of Chicago is mortal and that like all politicians, he will go down sooner or later. There will be no revered transition. He will not remain an undying JFK stepping forward into the pages of history. Instead he will be shoved aside to make way for a successor while the men and women who once lionized him shake their heads. In time he will emerge again, the way that Carter and Clinton have, as an elder statesman. But not in 2016.

The split between the Democratic Party and its leftist hijackers was always bound to happen. The interests that aligned them were nakedly political. The left wanted to push its agenda through and the Democrats would have adopted any tactic at all to win. The Democratic Party is ready to cover its tracks and move on. But the left isn’t done pushing through its agenda.

[.......]

There’s not much else that Hillary Clinton can run on in 2016 except health care. Foreign policy interest is at an all time low which takes her time as Secretary of State off the table. That just leaves the economy; an unpredictable topic to build an election campaign around for a race years into the future.

The rebirth of HillaryCare demands the destruction of ObamaCare

The rebirth of HillaryCare demands the destruction of ObamaCare. For Hillary to be able to return to her core issue in 2016, she has to take away Obama’s biggest legislative achievement. And so the problems with ObamaCare may be a nuclear bomb for the Democrats in 2014, but a gift-wrapped package for Hillary in 2016.

If Obama were a team player, he might grit his teeth and take one for the team. But he isn’t. OFA was just the latest demonstration that he owes no allegiance to the Democratic Party and that the awkward marriage of Chicago community organizers, liberal billionaires and the turgid ranks of the jackass party swollen with living fossils like Harry Reid was bound to end sometime.

The big dream of Republican campaign professionals is to force the Democrats into the same circular firing squad that its own people keep collapsing into. That hasn’t happened yet, but there are signs that a stampede may be building.

[.....]

Obama knows all this and doesn’t care. He’s counting on the left to have his back while sacrificing the political fortunes of the Democratic Party for the sake of the progressive agenda. The Democrats might have held on to Congress, but Obama traded their political successes for his own success; weakening the Democratic Party while building his own image and power.

Now the Democratic Party is beginning to bite back. If it’s going to get into shape for 2014 and 2016, it has to claw back donors from his OFA and undermine his political infrastructure. And then it has to turn ObamaCare’s problems into a HillaryCare opportunity. All this is going to mean an ugly political civil war with the left turning on the Democratic Party and the media caught in the middle.

Obama carved up the Democratic Party for political spare parts. Now the Democratic Party is about to return the favor.

Read the rest - The Democratic Party v. Barack Obama