Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Benghazi Simplified for The Media

I hear my friends in the media strain over questions about Benghazi and I wonder why. There are simple answers here.

Of course, what should be mentioned first is that most of the Activist Old Media have stopped covering the story. It's just too personally painful for them to report on Dear Leader clearly lying to the American people, and they don't want Chris Matthews to think they're racist, so it's best they just ignore. If they say it didn't happen through their non-reporting, then I guess it just didn't happen and those 4 families who lost husbands, sons, fathers and brothers can just figure it out on their own. Way to look out for the "little guys," there, media. I guess "truth to power" only counts when a Republican is in power.

This is actually pretty easy to figure out. I knew the day after the terrorist attack in Benghazi what had happened and how the administration and its media were spinning the facts. I wrote about it on my blog. September 12, The Day After. I had no inside sources, no secret sauce, no deep throat. I just figured it out on my own. If I knew what happened in Benghazi while sitting in my pajamas in Las Vegas, then they knew in Washington DC. Don't angst over what Obama knew and when he knew it, he knew right away. His embassy in Egypt said so (he appointed everybody there) and it sounded good to him, so he applied it to Libya. A week later, things were even more clear and I explained it again. This was my column September 19, a week before Susan Rice went on TV. My stories were accurate then, and they have stood the test of time. Still, we have media members, and the administration saying they don't know what happened. To this day they are feigning foolishness. They're trying to cook up a new story that their Activist Old Media will suck on. And they will.

Barack Obama lied to the American people about Benghazi and he knew he was lying. All Rice did was give the same story that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Jay Carney had given before her. Sure, the focus is now on Rice to take the heat off of Dear Leader, but we know where this talking point first game from. Barack Hussein Obama. This should not be hard for anybody to figure out. It was his talking point that the administration and its media have parroted.

So, why did Obama lie and blame a video for an obviously planned terrorist attack? That answer is just as easy to come up with. He lied because he does not want to believe there are terrorists in the world, not in the middle east, and not in the middle of an election. He has said this many times. Obama believes what Reverend Wright said when he told us, "America's chickens have come home to roost." You don't need a dog ears to figure this whistle out.

We have a President of the United States of America who refuses to accept the fact that 30 years ago Muslim extremists declared jihad on the free world. His idea of "change" and "forward" is for us all to believe that we caused terrorism to exist through our Imperialism, The Crusades, our oppression of people a world away, and McDonald's. Make no doubt, he believes that.

Obama also talks often about bringing the "killers to justice." Who cares about that? You bring car thieves and bank robbers to justice. Terrorists must be stopped before they act, but that requires you acknowledge they exist. Security should've been upgraded at the Consulate in Libya before the attack. Chris Stevens asked for it. Often. But you must first believe there are terrorists and they are evil before you upgrade security. That is the danger that should scare us all. Obama didn't/doesn't see that.

Obama also declared al Qaeda "dead," before Benghazi so he was worried about the inconsistency of his statements not jiving with reality during the presidential campaign.  If you blame the video that was spawned from Evil America and its clearly misguided First Amendment, how could you blame al Qaeda? I would also ask, why would Obama worry? Who was going to ask him about the inconsistency? Candy Crowley?

There will be Congressional Hearings about Benghazi, media angst, questions about who approved the talking points, straining over gnats and swallowing camels (apologies to my Muslim friends for the Biblical reference--I assure you, I was not around during The Crusades.) There is nothing about Benghazi that is tough to figure out. I've done it. Did it long ago. In my pajamas.

Follow Ron Futrell on Twitter @RonFutrell

Monday, November 26, 2012

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Lincoln: Movie Review, via Today's Politics

One of the greatest stories in American history comes to life on the big screen courtesy director Steven Spielberg.

Spielberg captures the politics and the personalities of the moments surrounding the passing of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution. To most Americans, this was probably a moment not thought of much, but without the 13th and 14th amendments, our nation, and the world, would be much different.

This was a political battle the likes of which we have rarely seen. The bloodiest war in American history was drawing to a close. The nation had long since grown weary of the brutality. Abraham Lincoln had just been elected to his second term, and he knew that if the loss of 700,000 lives was to mean anything, the issue of slavery would have to be dealt with. Time was running out.

Spielberg makes two political points very clear with this movie. First, Republicans were united behind Lincoln to put an end to the horror of slavery once and for all. Democrats were racist and pro-slavery and they fought the amendment every step of the way. This point was not made in the movie, but it should be noted, the Republican Party was founded to fight slavery.

Second, politics is messy business.  If the President wants something to happen, he uses his power to make it happen by working with members of both parties, and if he has to, he will knock some heads around. Lincoln also had no problem buying votes from Democrats to get what he wanted. This issue was that big to him, and to a nation severely divided.

Some may try to compare what Lincoln did with the 13th amendment to what Barack Obama has done with ObamaCare. They would be foolish to make that comparison. Like Lincoln, Obama wanted badly to get the legislation passed, but other than that...

Democrats should've tried to make ObamaCare constitutional by passing it as the 28th amendment. They did not because they knew it had no chance of passing. Like Lincoln, Obama and Harry Reid bought votes, but they had to buy the votes of fellow Democrats. Then knew no Republicans would vote for this monstrosity of a bill, so they played total partisan politics and used our tax dollars to bribe fellow Democrats to vote for ObamaCare.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the 13th amendment and ObamaCare is that one increases Liberty, the other decreases it, other than that...

Few who watch this movie will not learn something they did not know about history. The timing of Congress ratifying the 13th amendment, the end of the Civil War, and the death of Lincoln speaks to the divine nature of what Lincoln was doing. Or, call it fate if you wish---Lincoln felt his cause was divine and that he had to get the amendment passed quickly.

Another point that makes this movie relevant to politics in our day; Democrats are still working to enslave minorities. Black scholars have argued that the government entitlements have decimated the black family. Only the most leftist among us would argue otherwise. In modern history it began with Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson's so-called "war on poverty." 150 years ago Democrats enslaved blacks because they were racist, today they do it because they want the power minority votes will bring. Government handouts given to this degree can only enslave.

Lincoln is a must see because of its deft display of history---and for what we can learn today.

Follow Ron Futrell on twitter @RonFutrell