Thursday, May 9, 2013

Maybe Lamestream Media Should Pretend Obama's a Republican, Then They'll Care to Cover Benghazi! ^ | May 9, 2013 | Ken Shepherd

The revelations made during the May 8 Benghazi hearings "open up a new can of worms with even more serious questions," NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell argued today.
"Five major bombshell revelations emerged that have, so far, only been given lip service by the three broadcast networks," the Media Research Center (MRC) founder noted. They are:
1. According to the deputy chief of mission in Libya, a four-man commando team in Tripoli was denied permission to go to Benghazi and help those under siege. The administration’s response that there wasn’t enough time is ludicrous given no one knew how long the attacks would last.
2. Mark Thompson testified that the FEST anti-terrorist team wasn’t sent in because conditions on the ground were too dangerous. Yet this is exactly what FEST is designed for, and the FEST team wanted to go in.
3. It is now established beyond any doubt that instantly the State Department knew this was a terrorist attack. Why did the administration lie, calling this a video issue, and who gave that order?
4. Gregory Hicks, the number two diplomat in Libya, says he was demoted after complaining about the false story being put out by Washington. This is denied by the State Department, which says no one was punished.
5. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated months ago that she was taking full responsibility. She announced an Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate this. We now know she was never interviewed. Why?
Our analysts have found that while ABC, CBS, and NBC each reported on the Benghazi hearings during their evening and morning programs last night and this morning, they have not delivered complete, in-depth coverage of these bombshells.
“If ABC, CBS, and NBC don’t thoroughly investigate and report on each and every one of these bombshell developments, and provide the American public with a true and honest account of the administration’s deadly mistakes and outright lies, they will also be guilty of deliberately censoring the news," Bozell charged.
"If the media are having trouble finding the motivation to do their jobs, they should pretend Obama is a Republican," the veteran media watcher quipped.

Benghazi: Will Hillary be charged with obstruction of justice?

Canada Free Press ^ | Monday, May 6, 2013 | Marinka Peschmann

“This singular event,” Benghazi, the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who worked under contract with the CIA, and Sean Smith, on September 11, 2012, “will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world.” So says the 46-page Republican interim Benghazi report that was made public on April 23. In it, as is arguably always the case with the Clintons, we learn that the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently has obstructed justice—again.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Blow-by-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans to Die!

frontpage ^ | 5/9/13 | A. Ahlert

Wednesday on Capitol Hill, three impeccable witnesses offered the clearest evidence to date that the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi before, during and after the terrorist attack that claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods, was a deadly combination of ineptitude, political calculations, and outright lying. Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, offered unshakeable testimony, despite efforts by several Democratic lawmakers to protect both the current administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, their party’s most viable presidential candidate for 2016. What the witnesses averred reveals a grim web of deceit likely orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to cover up the order to ground U.S. rescue teams that could have easily saved our besieged countrymen in Benghazi.
Some of the most compelling and emotional testimony was provided by Hicks, who offered the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a damning blow-by-blow account of the September 11, 2012 attack: In Tripoli at the time, Hicks recounted how he had spoken with Stevens early in the evening, and there was no sign of unusual activity. After relaxing for a while, he got an alert that Benghazi was under attack. When he checked his cell phone he saw two numbers, one of which he didn’t recognize. He called that number first and got Stevens on the phone. “Greg! We’re under attack!” said Stevens, according to Mr. Hicks.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Only Skin Deep

The Tolerance That Is Only Skin Deep
Country singer George Jones, who to my ears had the greatest voice ever recorded, died on Friday. A genius of phrasing and nuance, Jones had a stratospheric voice that captured human heartbreak with bottomless poignancy. I once read that when he was a kid, Jones’s father would wake him up in the middle of the night and threaten to beat him if he didn’t sing for him. Whether or not that’s true, his voice conveyed a tortured soul that was unmistakably human.
Standing outside an Atlanta club on Friday night where I’d performed an amped-up version of “White Lightning” in honor of Jones’s passing, a self-proclaimed fan of mine told me he’d mentioned Ol’ Possum’s death on Facebook, only to receive a verbal feces-smearing by someone who called Jones a “racist” and a “redneck” who deserves to “rot in hell.”
As far as this guy could tell, his Facebook buddy felt Jones’s main transgression was that he was a white man who sang country music and was therefore automatically less than human.
“Don’t you dare think differently than they do. Their tolerance does not extend to what’s in your brain.”
Apparently, progressives only believe in hell when their perceived ideological enemies have died, hence the joyous “death parties” when Margaret Thatcher gave up the ghost and the cowardly gloating over Andrew Breitbart’s still-warm corpse by sneering, bucktoothed hacks who weren’t fit to sniff his underwear.
Without ever feeling a need to apologize, I’ve done a great deal of hating in my life, but I’ve never seen a group of twisted, self-satisfied losers so unabashedly hate-filled as modern prog-bots. This is unforgivably and punchably ironic mainly because their entire platform is erected upon shaky Popsicle sticks of “compassion,” “tolerance,” and respect for the “cultural other.” Since their default defense mechanism is to accuse their enemies of being motivated primarily by hatred, it reinforces my belief that the primary impetus of modern leftist psychology is blind, stupid, hypocritical projection.
Just as normal cells mutate into cancer cells and metastasize, the word “liberal” has strayed far from its original moorings and now tends to indicate someone who despises liberty and freedom and is a pathological control freak that wants to obliterate the mere suggestion of any thought that would undermine their bloated and unwarranted sense of self-worth.
More and more, the modern leftist resembles an 80-year-old film actress who never quite made it in the business and lives huddled somewhere in a dusty Hollywood apartment with 20 cats and five pounds of makeup on her face. Peel away the thick mask she’s painted on her crinkled mug, and you have Medusa in curlers.
More and more, it strikes me that leftist compassion is truly skin-deep and goes no further than the epidermis. Oh, sure, they will tolerate a multitude of skin colors (except for the paler manifestations), a sickening array of reconstructive genital mutilations, a Boschian tableau of divergent sex organs crammed into improbable orifices, and any yapping, screaming vagina no matter how hateful or insane the she-beast obviously is.
They will tolerate racial violence as long as the targets are correct. They will applaud homicidal sexism so long as the victims are male. They won’t blink if you demean others’ sexual orientation so long you’re shitting upon the straights. Obviously, their tolerance is massive and ever expanding.
But don’t you dare think differently than they do. Their tolerance does not extend to what’s in your brain.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email to buy additional rights.

Is Homosexuality as Harmless and Healthy as Political Correctness Dictates?

Enza Ferreri Blog ^ | 9 May 2013 | Enza Ferreri

In psychology and psychiatry, a condition is considered pathological when it results in behaviours or states of mind which are harmful to oneself and/or others.
Sometimes it is a question of degree. All of us, for example, have little insignificant rituals, or irrational beliefs, or acts of superstition that serve no purpose but are harmless enough. When these come to dominate somebody's life and seriously interfere with normal everyday functioning, they are deemed a disorder, specifically Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
We all generally keep objects that only occupy space without any use or function, but it is only when the house becomes a suffocating repository of towering piles of junk and old newspapers that this behaviour is called "hoarding" and treated as a disease.
So, it is the consequences that signal pathology.
Paedophilia is considered an illness because it is believed that children and young people under the age of consent will be harmed by sexual relationships, especially with adults.
Incidentally, the very fact that the age of consent, even in the Western world alone, varies considerably and can be as low as 13 in Spain and as high as 18 in the USA shows how unclear and uncertain many of our notions about sex ethics are.
Therefore, so the current consensus goes, paedophilia is an abnormality and homosexuality, for example, is not purely because of the consequences, harmful in the former and innocuous in the latter.
This is the received wisdom, the present-day orthodoxy and dogma which, interestingly enough, is very different from that of not just 100, or 50, but even a few years ago, when same-sex marriage, for instance, was still generally regarded as, well, queer.
So, if we think that our ideas were so terribly wrong then, they might as well be wrong now, and maybe in a decade or two from today they will have changed all over again, in the same or in the opposite direction.
"Homosexuality" can refer to two things: homosexual tendency and homosexual behaviour. As in many other cases in psychology and psychiatry, it is the acting on the tendency, namely the behaviour, that can more appropriately be considered pathological or not.
If we look at homosexual behaviour in men, we see persons who are prepared to take extraordinary, lethal health risks in order to satisfy their tendency.
Male homosexuals are at very high risk of contracting the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases, disproportionately high in comparison to the heterosexual population:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published in 2010 a study conducted in 21 American cities, showing that one in five MSM (men who have sex with men) had HIV... A coincidence, you say? No, the way HIV, the AIDS virus, spreads has a lot to do with homosexual behaviour.
Before looking into the evidence of brain, genes or hormones we need to recognise that the male body is not designed to be penetrated during sexual intercourse. The lining of the anus is much thinner than the vagina and tears very easily. The lining of the anus, compared to the lining of the vagina, is also designed for nutrients to pass through it - where a healthy vagina will stop sperm entering any part of the body except the reproductive system the anus will allow semen (and any disease it carries) into the blood stream. Also the anal sphincter muscle is designed to expel not accept objects which can lead to problems in later life... So biologically the male and female bodies are compatible with each other not bodies of the same gender.
This is from the website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal government agency:
The Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General 1982-1989) has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice". Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.
Even if the condom doesn't break, anal intercourse is very risky because it can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed. These tears allow disease germs to pass more easily from one partner to the other.
The often-repeated wishful thinking "panacea" of the use of condom is just that, a wishful thinking myth. Male homosexual behaviour may reduce life expectancy up to 3 times more than smoking. This is what "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men", a peer-reviewed study published in the Oxford Journal of Epidemiology, says:
In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men [for smokers is 7 years less]. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
Are men engaging in sex with other men only harming themselves, although that in itself would be sufficient to recognize this behaviour as psychologically pathological? Actually no, the risk spreads to society at large. Tuberculosis is increasing in the world, "and 'the worldwide number of new cases (more than 9 million) is higher than at any other time in history' largely, as the authoritative medical journal The Lancet explains, thanks to the spread of HIV: 'Due to the devastating effect of HIV on susceptibility to tuberculosis'."
All this shows that male homosexual behaviour has consequences that, if political correctness and fears of being ostracized as a "homophobe" - things that have nothing to do with medical or psychological considerations - did not stand in the way, would rightly make it classified as pathological.

"You old people in your gas-guzzlers need to die."

By Bernie Reeves

Driving along at 35 MPH on a 2-lane avenue around 10 PM, a single headlight appeared in my car's path. I swerved onto a side street, shaken and uncomprehending. Leering down at me, astride a high tech bike, I could see in the light of the street lamp the person responsible for the near-miss. I rolled down the window and said -- remaining surprisingly noncombative -- "Hey man, I barely missed hitting you. You could have been killed."
Expecting a thank you or an apology, instead I was the victim of an insane tirade, to the effect: "Hey buddy, you couldn't kill me. You don't know my strength." Taken aback, I realized he had been "playing chicken" by pointing his bike at my car in my lane on purpose. My dander was up. "Are you crazy?" I asked.
He replied: "You old people in your gas-guzzlers need to die."
A week later, I narrowly missed a jogger, once again in my lane, heading right into me on a curve. I swerved and looked back. The runner had stopped 30 yards behind me, hands on hips, defiantly gesticulating, as if to say I was at fault for the near-miss. I opened the car door and asked, just what did he think he was doing running right into me? "I could have killed you," I explained.
(Get ready:) He said," You old people need to die." He pulled on his bright green T-shirt. "Can't you see this?", as if he had done all he should do by donning a loud item of clothing. So it was my fault he said, although he was running into me. I fired back an expletive. He began walking my way, screaming: "You want some of me, buddy?" I said yes and opened the back door of my car, looking for a walking stick I thought was lying on the seat.
It wasn't there, but he must have thought I was reaching for a gun. I looked up and he was gone.

Contemplating my penchant for attracting nut cases, immediately after the incident I heard on the radio that a bicyclist in his 50s was killed zooming down a hill on a busy thoroughfare training for an upcoming race. I walked into a room where a television report displayed a mug shot of the poor guy who hit the cyclist, as if he was a murder suspect. He is a respected retired surgeon who is now burdened with the emotions of killing a person when fault in the accident is unclear: can a driver of an automobile be responsible for hitting a cyclist zooming down a steep hill at full speed? The doctor has been charged with misdemeanor death by motor vehicle. The cyclist leaves behind his wife, two daughters, a son and four grandchildren.
This tragedy should not have happened. But it did because a zealous percentage of bicyclists believe they own the roads built for motor vehicles. This cadre of extreme cyclists appears to be increasing in numbers, some imbued with righteous dedication that makes them think they have the moral right-of-way, as well as blamelessness when they place themselves in harm's way against motorized vehicles.
It's the rule of the sea that motor-powered watercraft must yield to sail boats, but there is no comparable protocol for bicyclists and motor vehicles. In most states, the regulations are clear that cyclists must obey the rules of the road for automobiles. A look at laws in Illinois, Minnesota, and California for example, echo the universal protocol that bikes must follow the rules required of motor vehicles. But in New York City, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg issues edicts and implements policies in a manner reminiscent of Mussolini, new laws are emerging specifically for bicyclists applicable to Gotham's newly installed bike paths.
One letter writer summed up the new trend in Big Apple biker rights: "Mayor Bloomberg's bicycle crusade has snarled traffic, made signage more confusing, crosswalks more perilous, parking more scarce and sidewalks more congested -- all for a tiny demographic using a vehicle whose practicality wanes in the winter months and on rainy days.
Adding insult to injury, most cyclists treat the lanes and traffic lights as mere suggestions -- blowing through reds, snaking in between traffic and even taking to the curb when they wish... It's a recipe for disaster. In the end, bicycles have the same right to the streets as cars -- but have no more right to segregated lanes than scooters or motorcycles. If bikers to want ride in traffic, they should be licensed, insured and made to wear helmets."
The more juiced-up bike riders in New York and other cities are helping force rule changes in their hometowns, or, more commonly, making up rules of their own to suit their superior attitude, fueled by combination of automobile-loathing environmentalism and the popular trend of extreme sports now in vogue.
The battle between bicyclists and autos is being played out every hour across America. In some northeastern states such as New Jersey, statute encourages bikers to "command the road" by blocking lanes until motor-vehicle drivers can safely pass. In San Francisco last year, where bikers crowd busy intersections in protest against cars and trucks, a grand jury report found mutual distrust among motorists and cyclists, leading to the inevitable conclusion that "motorists and bike users need to understand each other better." Motorists saw cyclists, among other things, as "arrogant" and "irresponsible." Cyclists described motorists as "selfish" and "an impediment."
This biker arrogance can be partly attributed to cities and towns that empower cyclists by trumpeting bike-riding as green and healthful. The trend in planning is to accommodate biking, spending funds on signs and special lanes. Although encouraging the sport is politically correct, the subtle endorsement of biking by cities and towns communicates they are on the biker side when they break the rules of the road. The cocktail of official sympathy, endorphins, green righteousness and empowerment is a dangerous brew.
The disturbed cyclist who played chicken with me for what appear to be political motivations -- ageism, deep environmentalism, and special rights that elevate him in his own mind to Lord of the Universe -- is an exception to the normal bicycle culture. I assume that the majority of bike riders are careful. But like moderate Muslims, sensible bikers are stained by this bizarre jihad perpetrated by the extreme cycling lunatic fringe.
The solution should be mandatory licensing of bicycle owners, for several reasons. Had the guy who played chicken with me displayed a sticker on his bike, he could have been reported and prevented from repeating his dangerous antics. If licenses are granted only after passing a test -- as we do for autos -- cyclists and motorists would be forced to read the regulations and, it is hoped, act accordingly. If cyclists desire to change the laws, they can apply to the political entity that issues bicycle licenses rather than arbitrarily inflict their interpretation of the rules of the road on the rest of us.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Cruz on Obama TX visit: 'Perhaps he will learn how to create' jobs 'from the folks who know how' !

Daily Caller ^ | May 9, 2013 | Caroline May

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz welcomed President Obama to the Texas Thursday, where Obama is scheduled to begin his "Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour," by highlighting Texas' job record in comparison with the administration's.
"America is stuck with high unemployment and low GDP growth, so it's encouraging to see the President coming to Austin to talk about jobs - perhaps he will learn how to create some from the folks who know how," Cruz said in a statement.
"Texas is leading the nation in economic growth and job creation because of principled, conservative leaders who understand the keys to economic success are lower, flatter taxes, limited government and restrained spending,' he added. "Texas has shown the country how it's done, and we hope the President will take some of these lessons back to Washington to bring true economic recovery to our nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


School Awards

Posted Image

The Liberal God

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Join the ranks

Posted Image

Amazing Liberals

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Government Protection

Posted Image


Posted Image

Record Highs

Posted Image

Kiddie Cartoons

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Much about Nothing!

Posted Image

The Difference

Posted Image


Posted Image

Feeding them BS

Posted Image

"Just weather, not climate!"

Posted Image

Ugly Truth of Benghazi Testimony!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 09 May 2013 | Reaganite Republican

All hail the truth tellers...
  • The US Consulate was attacked by 60+ armed men and hit by mortars aimed with military precision- everybody and his dog on the ground in Benghazi that night knew it was an organized terrorist attack.
  • Former deputy chief of mission in Libya Greg Hicks said there was no protest whatsoever in Benghazi, and in his opinion absolutely no Libyan public awareness the YouTube clip existed- a 'non-event'.
  • He went on to say that the Obama regime's BS fairy-tale not only harmed relations with/'embarrassed' the new Libyan government -who said immediately it was a 'terrorist attack'- but also contributed to an inexcusable 3-week delay in getting FBI agents to the (picked-clean-of-evidence) crime scene.
  • The body of our dead ambassador went missing for hours, yet eventually surfaced at a hospital run by the Islamists suspected of orchestrating the attack in the first place. Hicks called the phone call re. Stevens' death the 'saddest' he's ever received.
  • When Hicks called Hillary at 2AM to tell her of the siege and death of Ambassador Stevens, she never even bothered to call him back that night... nor the entire next day. Hey, who needs his version of events when she and Barack were busy cooking-up The Truth (stat, before Susan Rice hit the talkies)?
  • Later, once Mr Hicks made clear he was unhappy with the government's fictional version of events, he was promptly appointed -like a child, and by the Obama Administration itself- a 'chaperone' who's presence was mandatory whenever he dared try to talk to visiting members of Congress, etc. Once he did otherwise -because his 'babysitter' lacked the necessary security clearance to be in-on the conversation- Hicks was called and chewed-out by Hillary's 'angry' chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills, who demanded a full reporting on what was told to
    Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) that day.
  • Soon afterward, the previously valued and professionally praised Hicks was being criticized, blamed, slandered... and effectively demoted.
  • Neither US installations at Tripoli or Benghazi met the State Dept's own guidelines- a failure that lies right at the feet of Hillary Clinton.
    • A fourth witness could not testify- strategically blocked from doing so by State Dept red tape that has prevented their attorney from getting sufficient security clearance.

    Meanwhile from the craven left we get:
    • Servile Obammunist lackeys in Congress attempted to blame the Benghazi debacle on Sequestration.
    • Outside of Fox and Cheryl Atkins of CBS, televised MSM media all but ignored yesterday's SIX HOUR Benghazigate hearing while some milked details of the Cleveland sex-dungeon story as a handy-dandy smokescreen.
    • As thanks for her principled journalism, Atkins is already being treated like an unprofessional pariah
      by her own network.
    • Predictably, goofy lib bloggers are flailing-away with puerile 'arguments' and attempts at mockery of the hearings, and will continue to do so until those wackadoodle Republicans drop all this unpleasantness and join them in a chorus of
      'What Difference Does It Make'.

    So is that it?

    Hardly- there's now a rising call that a Select Committee on Benghazi be convened- but like most things we need to get done these days, that's going to require some prodding of Speaker John Boehner:

    I encourage all to do just that today.