Brutally Honest

Yet another Benghazi victim may turn out to be CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson

The news is wide and seriously damaging to the Obama administration and particularly Hillary Clinton.

There was this from The Guardian about Obama's recent treatment of whistleblowers.

Not really surprising to those who've been paying attention.

Then there's this must see video of Trey Gowdy's promise to the American people.

Mr. Gowdy's gained a new fan.

I doubt seriously I'm the only newbie.

Then there's this testimony from Greg Hicks describing how he was ordered not to talk to Congressional investigators.

In Watergate, when Nixon obfuscated and lied, nobody died.

Then there's the news that a request for Special Ops to come to Benghazi was denied.

It's clear that a travesty has occurred, one that cannot, must not be covered up.

And for those not paying attention, there's this lie that is arguably the first of many told since 9/11/12.

I finish with what I started with in the title of this catch-all post on a very news heavy day.

This from Politico is par for the course:

The Washington Post's Paul Farhi has written a glowing profile of Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy award-winning CBS correspondent who has been the mainstream media's most persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Farhi's piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath: "Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi," Farhi writes.

But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.

The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April.

This cannot be covered up.

This will not be covered up.

People died.

For their sake, and the sake of their loved ones, we need to get to the bottom of it.

Carry on.

Why support gay marriage? Because even a 5 year old can be force fed to do so.

This is so cute we're supposed to say.  It's so cool we're supposed to say.  It's so hip and wonderful we're supposed to say.

I'm unable to conjur up any of those emotions however which I'm sure will find many to consider me a a bigot.

My sin?

I'd rather think through this issue than be led to emote like the 5 year old daughter of an MSNBC host:

“We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something”

The Speaker of the House said a naughty word:

A salty Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday told members of the Senate to “get off their ass” and pass a bill to replace the $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts that will kick in on March 1.

“We have moved a bill in the House twice. We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something,” Boehner told reporters in a press conference, repeating a message he had just delivered in a closed-door meeting of the House Republican conference.

The House in 2012 approved measures twice to replace the cuts known as sequestration, but because a new Congress began in January, those bills are now inoperative. Still, Boehner has been adamant that the Senate move first in 2013 if Democrats want to stave off the cuts to military and domestic programs.

“It’s time for the Senate to act,” Boehner said. “It’s not about the House. We’ve acted.”

How do you think this'll be played in Peoria?  Is Boehner playing into Obama's hands?  What would you do if you were Boehner?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In the meantime, the President is doing what the President is skilled at doing.  Lying to the American people while the press covers for him:

President Obama will visit a Virginia shipyard Tuesday to warn of the negative consequences from automatic spending cuts set to take effect later this week, in a bid to pressure congressional Republicans to accept a deal to replace the sequester that includes a mix of revenues and reductions.

The visit to Newport News Shipbuilding, the largest manufacturing employer in Virginia, is the latest in a series of public calls by the Obama administration to rally support behind what it has framed as a "balanced" approach to averting the $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts.

Balanced?

Seriously?

The last time the President negotiated a “balanced” package was January’s fiscal cliff deal. He said that only “the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans” would pay higher taxes. Yet, mid-January, with the arrival of the first paychecks of the year, we learned what “wealthy” really means: everyone. The payroll tax increase hit every worker, and the average American earning $41,000 received $32 less in his biweekly paycheck, which will add up to almost $1,000 a year.

The fiscal cliff deal showed that President Obama’s idea of “balance” is tax increases ($618 billion plus the increase in the payroll tax) and NO spending cuts. In fact, the fiscal cliff deal had a net increase in spending.

Now the President is talking “balance” again. He wants tax increases (only on “the rich,” of course) to replace spending cuts in sequestration.

Watch out, America! We have seen that “deal” before.

Yes, we have.  And I'm thinking we're about to see it again.  

But hey, at least now, Boehner's cussing about it.

While the nation burns, the First Lady does the dougie...

... and the low information voters whoop and lap it up;

I find it all rather disgusting... the exploitation of the ignorant... the leveraging of those ensconced in and distracted by popular culture, all while their freedoms are eroded. It's all pathetic. But hey, let's all soak in another episode of The Bachelor... or see what Nicki Minaj is saying on American Idol...

Obama photo opportunity at local shipyard

President Obama will visit Newport News Shipbuilding next week, a local shipyard known for being the sole designer, builder and refueler of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and one of only two of the nation's nuclear power submarine builders.

President Barack Obama will visit Newport News Shipbuilding on Tuesday as part of his public campaign to sway Congress to block automatic spending cuts in defense and domestic programs that are scheduled to begin on March 1, a White House official said Thursday.

The Hampton Roads visit - Obama's first since his re-election in November - comes at a time when he and Republican congressional leaders have been sparring over who is to blame for proposing the cuts and the inability to stop them.

Although details of the presidential trip were not released Thursday, the White House official said Obama will focus his remarks on the negative effects on jobs and middle-class families.

Pentagon officials say the cuts will lead to significant reductions in military operations and unpaid furloughs for hundreds of thousands of civilian defense workers. Hampton Roads' economy, which derives almost half its income from defense-related businesses and government operations, is particularly vulnerable to federal spending reductions.

"If Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness; it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research," Obama said in a speech earlier this week.

However, several Republican members of Congress, including at least one Hampton Roads legislator, say the president is to blame for the cuts and has been unwilling to consider GOP proposals.

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes is one of a minority of Virginia's federal lawmakers who opposed the sequester legislation, which will force $85 billion in cuts starting in March, and pointed out in a statement Thursday that Obama endorsed the measure.

"I knew over 17 months ago how devastating sequestration would be to our nation and our region," Forbes said. "Now that our nation is days away from these devastating cuts, I'm pleased he is visiting our region. I hope it is the first step towards working with the president to overturn the bill that he signed into law."

Forbes is stating there the dirty little secret the media is helping to hide.  President Obama signed the sequestration bill into law.

The whole sequestration idea was one the White House dreamed up in an attempt to force Republicans to the bargaining table back in July 2011 during that time frame's debt-ceiling negotiations yet with a compliant and lap dog press and a low information voter more interested in seeing who The Bachelor is boinking or what Nicki Minaj is saying on American Idol, the President has been able to effectively blame all of this on the Republicans, most of whom have been inept and weak and gonadless in the debate.

In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people are looking in the coming weeks to lose their jobs while the political elite play chicken.

In the end, this visit will be nothing more than yet another photo op... allowing the President to hang out with some soon to be unemployed steelworkers, blame Republicans, then walk away while the Press plays the hand the President deals them.

It's all rather disgusting.

Whatever happened to integrity in this country?

"Are you [bleeping] kidding me? Are you [bleeping] kidding me?"

That's the reaction from Mollie Hemingway at GetReligion to The New York Times coverage of this past weekend's March for Life in DC:

The story that has outraged so many folks is the primary story on the march that ran in a more prominent position than the straight story. In fact, it ran above the fold of the national news section, headlined “In Fight Over Life, a New Call by Catholics.”

The lede:

The March for Life in Washington on Friday renewed the annual impassioned call to end legalized abortion, 40 years after the Roe v. Wade decision. But this year, some Roman Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why so many of those who call themselves “pro-life” have been silent, or even opposed, when it comes to controlling the guns that have been used to kill and injure millions of Americans.

More than 60 Catholic priests, nuns, scholars and two former ambassadors to theVatican sent a letter this week saying that if marchers and politicians truly want to defend life they should support “common-sense reforms to address the epidemic of gun violence in our nation.”

A caption for the piece read:

Anti-abortion protesters flooded the National Mall in Washington on Friday for the annual March for Life. Many Catholic leaders and theologians are asking why many of those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ have been silent when it comes to gun control.

You’ll notice that marchers are only called “pro-life” in a scare-quotey sense to cast skepticism on their claims. You might also wonder if the Times broke precedent to cover the massive march so as to be able to criticize it with this more prominent story, but we can’t really know the answer to that question.

We’re a family site here so I’m going to be careful here:

Are you [bleeping] kidding me? Are you [bleeping] kidding me?

What? This is the religion angle for the massive, hundreds-thousands-strong March for Life that marks the murder of 55 million unborn children over the last 40 years? We’re going to turn it into something nebulous (no specific gun controls are even discussed) related to the media’s current political cause du jour?

And it gets worse.

Believe it or not, this is basically just a press release from the same savvy, highly funded PR firm that has been rolling reporters for the last year. One is beginning to think they enjoy the ride.

The group that put out the letter is … drum roll please …

… Faith in Public Life. Yes, that Faith in Public Life! They’re the ones who came up with the highly successful “Nuns on the Bus” tour that got embarrassingly uncritical coverage for an anti-Paul Ryan campaign featuring not one, not two, but as many asthree to four nuns. We’re talking front-page coverage in major media outlets, gushy broadcasts, the works.

You couldn’t pay for coverage this nice. Except, I guess, that George Soros and his fellow donors do pay for this coverage. But you know what I mean.

Well yes, thinking people know what you mean Mollie.

It means that the media continues to be in our faces as to being in the tank for progressives and their agenda but particularly so when that agenda entails issues of faith.

Mollie actually has an additional story that's more of the same.

And so the culture wars continue, waiting for those on the sidelines to choose a side.

Have you chosen?

Not letting a crisis go to waste

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

Chronicling the never ending, ad nauseam ability of those of a certain political persuasion to exploit a situation for political gain...

First, let’s juxtapose the emails of Romney and Obama on the eve of the Storm Sandy -

Via American Thinker 

After all Barack has done in office, and after all you have done to build this campaign, we can't afford to watch everything slip away on Election Night.

But the other side has out-raised us-our opponents have $45 million more than we do for the Final Stretch.... And none of us has ever seen what a barrage of money like that will do.
That's why we need to do everything we can in the last days, and why we still need your support.

And, until, tomorrow night, any donation you make will automatically enter you to meet Barack on Election Night!

We can either give it our all in these final days, or wake up on November 7th wishing we'd done a little more.
Don't wait!

Supporting this campaign once more will move us closer to victory, and enter you to win a trip to join Barack on Election Night.

Thanks, Michelle

Now from Romney -

Tonight, Ann and I are keeping the people in Hurricane Sandy's path in our thoughts and prayers.

I hope that if you can, you will reach out to your neighbors who may need help getting ready for the storm-especially your elderly neighbors.

And if you can give of your resources or time, please consider supporting your local Red Cross organization - visit www.redcross.org to get involved.

For safety's sake, as you and your family prepare for the storm, please be sure to bring any yard signs inside. In high winds, they can be dangerous and cause damage to homes and property.

Stay safe and God bless,

Mitt Romney

One wants your money, the other wants you to be safe and give to the Red Cross. Yeah, tough choice on election day.

Now here’s (my) Governor of NY State, Andrew Cuomo, making a ridiculous statement that either hints at global warming and or is political cover to use for even more delays on allowing fracking in NY. (Full Video, NBC News) 

“We have to come to the realization that we are dealing with extreme weather patterns that we haven’t seen...probably ever.”

Over to Bubba who just can’t help himself and tries to slam Romney by suggesting Pres. Obama would be better at combating (the fallacy of) climate change.

Via Hot Air 

To Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC who actually questioned the sincerity of a “storm relief” event by Romney.

Via The Blaze

To finally back to Pres. Obama who seems to be using his campaign slogan of “Forward” while giving a press conference on the hurricane.

Go to The Blaze for the video.

By the way, Mr. President, when is the press conference on Benghazi?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a liar. But I repeat myself…

Guest posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

From Michelle Malkin's site -

“What I was surprised about Greta, during the entire section of the debate on the Middle East, Mitt Romney didn’t bring up Israel once and I think it just shows he isn’t committed to Israel as he says he is and has really only used the issue as a political opportunity.”

Problem is, for little Debbie, Romney mentioned Israel @ a dozen times in the debate.

For more, including video Debbie wouldn‘t want you to see, go here.

Obama's pension is larger than Romney's

Remember when the President said this during the debate:

"I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long. I don't check it that often."

Here's the truth:

As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month's election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

The federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension planfor former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama's pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

But what about Romney?

It's extensively documented that Romney is, well, a rich guy. He earned untold millions —though  famously circumspect about releasing tax returns — while leading private equity giant Bain Capital and has a substantial retirement plan.

His Individual Retirement Account could be worth in the neighborhood of $87 million, as documented in an extensive report from the Washington Post.

But as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

Yet more evidence for Obama's character problems... character problems that manifest themselves most obviously with his penchant for lying.

He is an extraordinary liar.

How dishonest is Obama's Romney on 60 Minutes ad?

Most. Dishonest.

The dishonesty now is no longer subtle, no longer obfuscated or hidden... it's in your face.

I couldn't trust Barack Hussein Obama or the people he surrounds himself with for nothing.

Nothing.

I don't know how in hell anyone with sense can.

If a person can be this deceptive and manipulative, he'll go to any length, any length, to achieve his goals and fulfill his purposes.

That smacks of wickedness and evil.