Football Legend Publicly Rejects His Alma Mater Because They Canceled ‘American Sniper’ Movie


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Boomer Esiason


Hat/Tip to Joel Himelfarb at Newsmax.

Former Quarterback and now talk show host, Boomer Esiason is “deeply saddened and insulted” by his Alma Mater, the University of Maryland for bowing to pressure by some Muslim students and canceling an airing of the movie, American Sniper.

Current talk-show host and former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason says he is cutting off the University of Maryland, his alma mater, after it decided to cancel a screening of the movie “American Sniper.”

Esiason tweeted that he is “never donating another dime to the U of MD” after learning about the cancellation of the film, which profiles the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

“I’m deeply saddened and insulted,” Esiason added. Chris Kyle, he emphasized, “is a HERO!”

Esiason tweeted out an op-ed by Todd Starnes of Fox News explaining why the film was canceled at the University of Maryland.

Starnes wrote that the school said it would postpone indefinitely an upcoming screening of the film after some Muslim students denounced it as “Islamophobic, racist, and nationalistic.”

He quoted a petition launched by the Muslim Students Association denouncing “American Sniper.” It declared that the film “only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The movie “dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes,” according to the MSA’s petition.

“American Sniper” was scheduled to be seen May 6 and 7. On Wednesday, the university’s Student Entertainment Events panel said the film would be “postponed.”

Although it did not mention the MSA’s petition, the panel mentioned that it had a meeting about the film with “concerned student organizations.”

Breyer Hillegas, president of the school’s College Republicans, told Fox News’ Starnes that he was furious about the cancellation.

“Universities are always trying to satisfy the political correctness police and worry about who they might offend — rather than standing up for principle and the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Hillegas said.

But this isn’t the only school where Muslim students tried to censor free speech.

The University of Michigan canceled a screening there earlier this month, only to reverse itself after a firestorm of criticism from across the United States. One prominent critic was the school’s new football coach, Jim Harbaugh, who said he was “proud” of Chris Kyle and planned to show “American Sniper” to his team.





Watcher’s Council Nominations – April Fool’s Edition


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

So many Liberal “fools” out there to write about. My mother has been in the hospital with recurrent pneumonia, so I’ve missed much of the fun (and amazement) — especially Senator Harry Reid acknowledging that his lie about Mitt Romney, (from the Senate floor) not paying taxes for ten years, resulted in Romney losing the last presidential election. Fox News reporter, James Rosen asked White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, about Reid’s “unbecoming” behavior for “our highest elected officials,” and was told “that’s three years old.” Doesn’t that remind you of the Benghazi incident, when former National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor, dismissed the deaths of four Americans, by saying to Brett Baier, “Dude, that was like two years ago.”  Aside from the foolishness, there is nothing foolish about the Watcher’s of Weasels Council nominations, and my article on the eight soldiers who died searching for deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, received anHonorable Mention. Many thanks to the Council members for their diligence in searching the web, and bringing us all a reading list of important and varied news. The Council members give up a lot of their time to honor this mission. Many thanks to them.



Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

This week, The People’s Cube, Seraphic Secret, Maggie’s Notebook and The Independent’s Howard Jacobson earned honorable mention status with some great articles…

So, let’s see what we have for you this week….

Council Submissions













Honorable Mentions





Non-Council Submissions














Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!




Mark Levin Blasts Fox News For Attacking Ted Cruz: Do They Want Jeb Bush For President?


mark levin of landmark legal foundation


Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal and Michael Van Der Galien at The PJ Tatler.

The Great One, as usual, knocks this one out of the park!

On his radio show yesterday, Mark Levin criticized his “friends from Fox News” for secretly supporting Jeb Bush and attacking real conservative candidates like Ted Cruz:

As you all know I’m a huge fan of the Fox News channel. Particularly certain hosts. But I have to wonder: if Ronald Reagan was running in 1976 starting in ’75 against Gerald Ford, how most of the people at Fox would treat him. Because to my great dismay – as I was preparing for the program, I had my favorite cable network on – and a number of the people were trashing Ted Cruz. Not enough experience, he’s too young, too conservative, needs a bigger tent, he’s down in the polls… These people are neophytes. Neophytes. They’ve never fought in Republican primaries for conservative candidates. They don’t even take the time to learn the history of this country or the Republican Party. And I am convinced that if Reagan were alive today and Gerald Ford were live today, and we were doing a rerun of 1975-1976, Reagan would be trashed all over our favorite cable channel.

He continued:

The question isn’t whether Reagan would be supported by conservatives today – he most assuredly would – the question is whether he’d be supported by several people on our favorite cable channel. And the answer is no.

Levin added that those people probably support Jeb Bush.

Krauthammer, who voted for Carter and Mondale over Reagan, tells conservatives what’s wrong with Cruz

Krauthammer is a solid skeptic on the Ted Cruz to the White House campaign, and he offers his reasoning for Ted’s biggest obstacle. No, it’s not his birth certificate:…


Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 16.41.07

So, yes, every single thing Levin said yesterday is correct. Fox News does indeed oppose Cruz — and any other real conservative candidate like him. The reason is that Fox isn’t conservative, but corporatist. They support candidates who are pro-amnesty (because it supposedly means cheap labor for businesses) and pro-corporate welfare. Cruz isn’t, Jeb is, so it’s a no-brainer for them.





Class Act: David Axelrod Goes On Fox News To Sell His Book, Then Goes On ABC To Bash Fox News


david the red axelrod


Hat/Tip to Newsmax and Politico.

Ah the impeccable scruples of the left…

Sure! I’d be glad to go onto YOUR network so that I could sell some of MY books!! Then, after you’ve treated me fairly, I’ll go on a “friendly” network and trash YOUR network so I don’t look so bad to all the other “scrupulous” lefties out there that are just like me.

Class act all the way, Axe.

/sarcasm off

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly called Democratic political adviser David Axelrod “two-faced” for using O’Reilly’s show to sell his new book, then insulting Fox News Channel soon afterward.

In O’Reilly’s opening segment on Monday’s “O’Reilly Factor,”  he took on politicians, pundits and left-of-center media who trash Fox News. He said the motivation is simple: Fox News is a threat because it has become the top-rated source of cable news and sets the political agenda.

Knowing that Fox will bring in the most viewers, Axelrod, who has worked for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, asked O’Reilly to give him the first cable interview about his new book, “Believer: My Forty Years in Politics,” O’Reilly said.

“I told him, sure. We would have a lively, respectful discussion, which we did on February 9th,” O’Reilly said. “Then, to show his gratitude, Axelrod begins trashing Fox News, saying we are not a real news organization.  That was a mistake.”

Seems good old Axe couldn’t help himself when he left Fox News’ HQ and went over to ABC’s Sunday morning talk show, “This Week.” He just HAD to bash Fox, I mean he’d went to the “enemy camp;” he’d crossed over to the other side; he had literally given credence to the enemy by his very presence on their Network, and he HAD to fix that.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”

“I’m not concerned,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” when George Stephanopoulos asked about the back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News.

“Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money. The only argument [White House communications director] Anita [Dunn] was making is that they’re not really a news station if you watch even — it’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming.

“It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view.” 

So “they” will appear on Fox News, on their shows; “they” are going to participate, and then run across town to the safe haven of a CNN or ABC or MSNBC and tell people how “bad” Fox News is.

I will be the first to say that Fox doesn’t always represent us out here in “fly-over” country, but they do, at least give a stage to opposing points of view and they don’t try and pretend that their evening shows are news, unlike MSNBC or CNN do.





Must See Video: Fox News Makes Huge Confession To President Obama


obama vs fox


Hat/Tip to the Conservative Tribune.

President Obama has spent pretty much all of his time in office so far – 6 years and counting – blaming anyone and everyone else for his problems, screw-ups, inadequacies and well, you get the picture.

Chief among his targets is Fox News. Well Neil Cavuto finally came clean and let the cat out of the bag.

Early on in President Barack Obama’s term in office, everything wrong with America and the world was blamed solely on former President George W. Bush.

However, by now it is quite a stretch to blame Bush for anything, so the Obama administration has shifted their focus to the Fox News Channel as the source of all of their woes.

But everything is Fox’s fault, at least according to Fox News Channel host Neil Cavuto, who went on a sarcasm-dripping rant the other day, accepting the blame for everything that has ever gone wrong throughout history.

Cavuto’s “confession” came after a series of clips showing Obama and members of his administration putting the blame on Fox for things like Obamacare, radical Islam and the IRS scandal.

Cavuto readily accepted the blame for those scandals, then admitted to being responsible for even more.

“Pick a crisis, any crisis, you name it, Fox News is behind it. Worse yet, Fox News created it,” Cavuto snidely remarked.


Read the full story here.





Since Dispute With Fox, Dish Network Has Lost 90,000 Subscribers


 photo FoxNewsLogo_zps597c24a5.jpg

Hat/Tip to

File this one under, “Underestimating Your Customers’ Wishes”.

Dish Network is bleeding customers right and left since deciding to stop carrying the Fox News Channel.

Thousands of TV viewers have proven they’re more loyal to Fox News than to the Dish network, following a dispute between the TV provider and political news channel. Since Dish removed Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network on Dec. 20, the provider has lost about 90,000 subscribers.

What began as a contract dispute, is turning out to be quite harmful to Dish Network.

Dish CEO Charlie Ergen in a Christmas Eve video on said the parties were nearing a deal, even though Fox News was looking for an increase doubling its rate – a hike he said was somewhat justified given its leadership status in the space. He said the talks, broke down when Fox introduced a third network into the conversation, for which it was eyeing a “surcharge” that would have trebled the cost for a service that was not scheduled to expire “for some time.” Ergen didn’t identify the service.

Besides the nearly 100,000 Dish subscribers who left, there are a whopping 350,000 that have told Dish how unhappy they are and are looking for other sources for Fox News.

One thing is for sure, though. In the long run this will help Fox and hurt Dish. Of course the massive lost revenue hurts Dish, but having so many Fox News viewers being forced to watch CNN or MSNBC is a real eye opener. The Far Left slant on those two networks is being hammered into the consciousness of TV news viewers, which will naturally make them seek ways to find Fox.

So, what is life like without Fox News? Greg Scandlen at The Federalist says being forced to find other news outlets has opened his eyes to just how biased the competition really is:

Both MSNBC and CNN are far more one-sided than I ever realized. Other than “Morning Joe,” they simply do not allow dissenting voices on their daytime programming. Anytime there is a story that needs a political comment, CNN will have a single has-been Democrat member of Congress. When MSNBC wants a variety of viewpoints, they will range from the Huffington Post on the Right to Mother Jones on the Left. Nobody ever disagrees with one another on these shows. It is really extraordinary.

Read the full story here.





Well MSNBC We’ve Got Good News And Bad News…


msnbc 002


Hat/Tip to Conservative Tribune.

The Good News?

Megyn Kelly and Fox News will be having a very happy Christmas.

The Bad News?

MSNBC has now been viewed by fewer people than airport radar and sonograms. – Source

Even CNN is doing better than MSNBC.

It was just revealed that the liberal MSNBC network is facing dismal ratings, and not even the recent midterm election coverage could give it a necessary boost.

According to Accuracy in Media, viewership of the leftist channel is down 13% from last year to November 2014.

The low numbers mean that MSNBC is now trailing behind CNN, which has struggled with ratings problems itself.

This is really just more proof that the age of Obama-Mania is over.

After the 2012 Presidential election, MSNBC’s ratings were looking hopeful, and network President Phil Griffin even predicted that 2014 would be the year that his channel beat Fox News.

Instead, the troubled network has only fallen more behind.

The overall numbers show a dramatic difference between Fox and the rest of the field. An industry report by Mediaiteshowed that Fox News had over 2.3 million total prime-time viewers during November.

In comparison, MSNBC only had 662 million total viewers. That’s less than one-third of Fox News’ audience.

Despite its countless critics, Fox News is the undisputed leader in the news ratings. That domination was improved by the very strong Republican takeover during the 2014 midterm election. Conservative viewers typically prefer Fox, while liberals associate with MSNBC.

And Megyn Kelly is really coming into her own as the titular head of Fox News, and is beginning to eclipse Bill O’Reilly.

The feisty Fox anchor was ranked in first place for her demographic. That makes November the first time that Kelly beat her friendly rival Bill O’Reilly, who also appears on Fox.

Read the full story here.






Lt. Col. Peters: Military Appalled at The Obama Administration’s ‘Willful Incompetence’


 photo LtColRalphPeters_zps89eafc28.jpg

Hat/Tip to Wanda Carruthers at Newsmax.

“We’ve a president so arrogant, an administration so arrogant, they think they know how to run military tactical affairs; not just strategic, but tactical affairs, better than military professionals.

It looks as if President Obama’s disdain for the military is being reciprocated, in other words, he is reaping what he has sown.

Military officials are appalled at the “willful incompetence” of President Barack Obama’s administration and its interference in the campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS), said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

“We’ve a president so arrogant, an administration so arrogant, they think they know how to run military tactical affairs; not just strategic, but tactical affairs, better than military professionals.

“Everyone is appalled at the incompetence, the willful incompetence of this White House,” Peters, a retired Army Lt. Colonel, told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” on Monday.

Lt. Col. Peters isn’t alone in his assessment of the strained relationship between Obama and the military, either.

Peters said recent statements by Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, both former secretaries of defense and directors of the CIA, showed they were “angry” about the micromanagement of the White House in military affairs.

Speaking at the Reagan Library over the weekend, Gates claimed the White House was making military decisions based on politics.

“When a president wants highly centralized control in the White House at the degree of micromanagement that I’m describing, that’s not bureaucratic, that’s political,” Gates said Saturday.

Panetta, in his recent memoir,Worthy Fights“, wrote that he thought the White House was “eager to rid itself of Iraq,” and predicted the U.S. could be embroiled in a 30-year war in the Middle East because of Obama’s decisions.

It’s the ages old story of civilian authorities meddling into military tactics and strategies, which is sure to be a recipe for disaster. One only has to look back at Viet Nam to see the damage civilian micromanagement does to a military operation.

The problem went beyond the Obama administration, and included “lawyers approving targets, lawyers deployed with battalions,” Peters explained, adding that to win the war against the Islamic State, Obama must give the “strategic direction,” and then “let the people who know how to do it, do it.”

“I’ll tell you how you win it. You get the lawyers out of it. You get the politicians out of it. You tell our military, ‘Destroy Islamic State. And what happens in Iraq and Syria, stays in Iraq and Syria,'” he said. 

Read the full story here.




Where Was The Media When Jonathan Gruber Was Bragging About ObamaCare?


Liberal MediaI have watched the ongoing revelations about Jonathan Gruber and his role in lying to the American people about ObamaCare with no small amount of interest. The reality of the situation is simple for me. We have known all along the liberals who shoved that monstrous piece of legislation down our throats were lying. Many of us tried to warn the country what was going down, what the legislation was intended to do, but we were shouted down. It wasn’t just the liberal politicians and policy wonks who raised their voices against our protests. The media establishment has done everything they could to make sure ObamaCare was passed and its failures hidden from sight.

In the interview Jonathan Gruber granted to PBS’ Frontline, he continually pointed out how he was just a “numbers guy”. This was the case when he helped Mitt Romney’s team set up their new health care plan in Massachusetts. He continued that mantra when he talked about his time with President Obama, before and after he became President. He is an economist and a liberal and with his proven proclivity to lie about what he is doing to the American people, just to make sure the desired result is achieved, it makes me trust economists and liberals even less than I already do.

My fellow Americans, we have been lied to from the beginning. The liberals in charge of creating ObamaCare and ramming it through Congress knew what their plans were all along. They manipulated the numbers, even bragging about it among themselves. With hardly any effort on my part, I can find several videos of Jonathan Gruber doing just that. While I can not argue with him that many American voters are less than astute in their knowledge of what goes on in their country, especially outside of their own tunnel vision, it doesn’t excuse his role in the lie that has been perpetrated.

Going back to Gruber’s interview with Frontline, let me point out the obvious. That interview was taped on June 13, 2012. By my calculations, that is 146 days before the presidential election took place on November 6, 2012. Plenty of time for the interview to be dissected by the media and the American public, but nary a word until 2014. This is just the latest evidence that shows just how culpable the media is, when it comes to Barack Obama. They said nothing about his failures, when it would have profited the American people to know of those failures. They said nothing about Jonathan Gruber’s manipulation of the legislation to make sure the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored it the way the Obama team wanted it scored.

This is not the only time the media played coverup for the Obama administration and ObamaCare.America’s Watchtower has a post about how CNBC helped lay a wet blanket over the criticism of ObamaCare. Melissa Francis, currently of Fox Business, had this to say about her time at CNBC.

“When I was at CNBC, I pointed out to my viewers that the math of Obamacare simply didn’t work. Not the politics by the way, just the basic math. And when I did that, I was silenced. I said on the air, that you couldn’t add millions of people to the system and force insurance companies to cover their preexisting conditions without raising the price on everyone else. I pointed out that it couldn’t possibly be true that if you like your plan you can keep it. That was a lie, and in fact, millions of people had their insurance canceled. As a result of what I said at CNBC, I was called into management where I was told, that I was quote, ‘disrespecting the office of the president’ by telling, what turned out to be the absolute truth” she stated.

When you look at the dates of Ms. Francis’ employment at CNBC, one thing stands out. She joined Fox Business in the second week of January 2012. That means her former employer was actively involved in covering up the truth about ObamaCare, well before the presidential election of 2012. That is another nail in the coffin holding the last vestiges of a responsible media establishment.

Even now, the mainstream media refuses to cover the video evidence of how Jonathan Gruber and the rest of the liberals involved in creating ObamaCare lied to the American people. As it was with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS, and other scandals perpetrated by the Obama administration, they act as if not even a smidgin of corruption exists. They pretend it isn’t really a legitimate news story, just dreamed up by conservatives to make their pet President look bad. Remember what I said about not trusting another liberal economist? The same applies to the liberal media. They have proven one thing, once and for all. They can not be trusted to do the right thing.





Fox News Co-Host Refuses To Apologize For Saying ISIS Members Need “A Bullet In The Head”


 photo andreatantaros_zpsd05e3e26.jpg

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Let me start out by saying that this is NOT about the religion of Islam, (though some would call it a cult) it is about ISIS and their cowardly acts of terror, beheadings and assorted war crimes.

Andrea Tantaros was absolutely right in saying that the only thing the ISIS Jihadists understand is strength. She just happened to describe that strength as a bullet to the head, but that doesn’t make her any less correct.

If Islamic Terrorists could be negotiated with, then Obama would known as the President who brought peace to the middle east. But even the Messiah of the Left cannot cut through the vile hatred that is the Islamic Jihadist.

The people that want her to apologize are the ones who truly need to apologize.

Via Biz Pac Review:

Harsh remarks concerning traditional Muslim brutality have led the Asian American Journalists Association to call for an apology from the the Fox News Network.

The organization was upset at comments made by “The Five” co-host Andrea Tantaros during a discussion of the bestial behavior of ISIS militants. Following previous comments that Muslim zealots had historically engaged in beheadings, and that James Foley’s murder was nothing uncommon, she said, “You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. It’s the only thing these people understand.”

Video of her remarks about Islamic Terrorists:



Here is how Ms. Tantaros responded to the Political Correctness Nazis in this country:

Read the full story here.



Jim Inhofe on Earmarks: Important Conversations – No Earmark Means the Money Goes to Obama, No Exceptions


Senator Jim Inhofe is up for re-election this year, and he has a Democrat challenger. I don’t know if the “challenger” is talking about “earmarks,” but I suspect he is, and so in a column in the Tulsa World, Inhofe writes about his position on earmarks — something I have followed closely. He believes in earmarks, I believe he is right. Earmarks are not always what you think they are.

jim inhofe

INHOFE: What I warned America in late 2010 is proving true today: Eliminating earmarks has not saved taxpayers one dime. Instead our debt has increased by $4 trillion, and Congress is giving specified amounts of taxpayer dollars to the president so that he can spend it as he and his unelected bureaucrats so please.

Republicans’ decision to cede power to the president through the earmark moratorium has made Congress less accountable, less transparent, and less responsible to its constituents… Source: Tulsa World, May 17, 2014

In March 2010, blogger Jim Hoft, at Gateway Pundit spoke to Senator Inhofe by phone. Here’s a snippet:

If you stop an earmark it doesn’t save one penney. All it does is take that money and gives it to the President of the United States. That’s the way the system works. It goes to the executive branch.

So to be clear about that, when an earmark does not become an earmark (sent back to a state), the money is still spent — it goes to the Executive Branch and the president doles it out to unelected bureaucrats at his discretion. Killing an earmark is not saving money, it is simply GIVING taxpayer dollars to unelected department heads or agencies. It’s a win-win for bureaucrats and a 100 percent loss to We The People, unless you are concerned about pollinization habits of female cactus buds or testing shrimp on a treadmill.

In November 2010 The Hill wrote about Inhofe’s stance on earmarks:

He also introduced a bill to limit earmarks that are sent to congressional campaign donors, prohibit legislative staffers from participating in fundraising, create a database of congressional earmarks, require random earmark audits by the Government Accountability Office and require earmark recipients to be certified as qualified for the corresponding project.

“It would be nothing short of criminal to go through the trouble of electing great new anti-establishment conservatives, only to have them cede to President Obama their constitutional power of the purse — which is exactly what would happen with a moratorium on earmarks,” Inhofe said.

In the second video  viewed here, Senator Inhofe speaks with Fox News’ Rick Folbaum in November 2010 (1:09 mins-in and other snippets):

INHOFE: So many people are all wrapped up in this thing about earmarks. You gotta keep in mind, and here I am, I was rated last week as the most conservative member of the United States Senate, and I’m here to tell you that earmarks don’t save a penny. All you do if you kill an earmark or appropriation, is send that money to the White House…

In the video, Folbaum quotes John McCain:

FOLBAUM: One of your colleagues in the Senate, John McCain, said “you’ve got to define earmarks, and that is an unauthorized appropriation. He says if you authorize it, even if you disagree with it, that’s the right process, but what earmarks have done is totally circumvent what we should be doing and that is authorizing and then appropriating.”

INHOFE: I heard that because that’s my definition, not Senator McCain’s and I’m glad he has finally caught on. They are always talking about authorizing and appropriating.

Those are two processes. I’m on an authorization committee. If you authorize it first, that means it has gone through the vetting process, things like platforms for our military, and all that, and then you appropriate it, but if you go down to the floor and they are appropriating something that has not been authorized, that’s where they’re swapping out the deal…

It’s very important to understand that when you eliminate an earmark, it doesn’t save a penny, it just sends that to the executive — that’s the president of the United States. That’s why so many Democrats are now wanting to jump on this thing, eliminating earmarks. That will do nothing but send that money to the president…

We went through this in 2007 when we only passed two out of 12 appropriation bills. That caused it to go into — all that money went in to the president — that was George Bush at that time — 100 percent of that money, that year went to the five largest cities in America, so if you eliminate an earmark, it doesn’t save a cent, it merely send that to the president.

It’s likely that one of those five cities was not your city. It certainly wasn’t mine…

INHOFE: Our Constitutional responsibility under Article I, Section 9 is Congress, the Senate and the House, are supposed to be doing the authorizing and appropriating. Now if you say you want to eliminate earmarks, that means that we cede that authority to the president…

I’m for a lot of the EDA programs, we need to do something about infrastructure — I’m the one who put the amendment on the Stimulus Bill, the first one that came along — to try to do something about using that money to build roads and bridges and highways — put people to work. This president used it for social engineering…that doesn’t stimulate anything.

I’m sure you caught the fact that members of Congress are allowed to take an earmark to the floor and get it appropriated without being authorized. That shouldn’t happen, and that when there are no earmarks by Congress, the MONEY IS SPENT ANYWAY by the Executive Branch.

In November 2010 I posted twice on Senator Inhofe and earmarks:

On November 16, 2010 I spoke to one of Inhofe’s aides:

I asked:  

Inhofe says if the Senate gives up earmarks, they essentially cede their “constitutional power of the purse” directly to the the President. How does this happen?

He answered:

There are different “buckets” of funds, for example: The Department of Defense, The Department of Health and Human Services, and many others. Because Congress approves very large bills with earmarks attached, they write what amounts to a blank check, which “unelected bureaucrats” then spend at their discretion.

In 2011, Inhofe introduce the HELP Act (Honest Expendiutre Limitation Program) to restrict how earmarks are authorized, and to restrict such things as the Bridge to Nowhere, and keep earmarks actually helping communities receiving benefits from its own tax money. What is not to like about that? The bill had 19 co-sponsors in the Democrat-held Senate and died in the Budget Committee.

Here is what the HELP Act would have done (source):

Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to make it out of order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would exceed specified non-security discretionary spending limits for FY2011-FY2020.

Defines “non-security discretionary spending” as discretionary spending other than spending for the Department of Defense (DOD), homeland security activities, intelligence-related activities within the Department of State, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and national security related activities in the Department of Energy (DOE).

Requires the President to issue a sequestration order, effective on issuance, if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its Final Discretionary Sequestration Report estimates that any sequestration is required….

In the first video viewed here (November 2010):

INHOFE: …so I’d say that earmarks are hardly a gateway drug, a symptom of federal spending run amuck or even underlying cause to our fiscal problems, but why? Because we have shed light on earmarks. Let us add why shining light can be the first stop.

In 2009 the Senate performed the rare action of considering many appropriations bills individually rather than irresponsibly lumping them all into one large bill to consider at the end of the year.

The value of considering these bills individually is that it gives senators the opportunity to exercise some oversight of government programs and to monitor how federal departments spend money.

Senators could offer amendments to both cut spending and strike particular earmarks if they desired. From July to November that year, there were about 18 votes specifically targeting earmarks. All the amendments failed. But had they succeeded, they would not have reduced the overall amount of money being spent by the federal government.

Instead of putting the money back into the pockets of the American people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these efforts to eliminate earmarks would have put more money into the hand of President Obama by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit.

…senators offered amendments to strike funding for C-17 airplanes or other specific military spending and return the money to the Department of Defense’s operation-and-maintenance account.

In another case, members offered amendments to strike funding out of a program called “Save America’s Treasures” for specific art centers throughout the United States, but the money was simply shifted to allow bureaucrats at the National Park Service to spend it.

In another case, a member offered an amendment to strike a variety of transportation projects in many states, only to redirect the spending to bureaucrats in the Federal Aviation Administration. I could go on and on. ~ Senator Jim Inhofe

At 18:35 minutes into the video linked above (or here):

INHOFE: We go one step further. It demands, now listen to this, Mr. President, this demands the same transparency to Obama bureaucratic earmarks as it does to Senatorial earmarks…if we do that, I’ll read in Section 5, not later than July 1st, 2011, the head of each department agency of the federal government shall post on a public website, of each department of government or agency, a link to a searchable database, that lists each contract, grant, co-operative agreement and other expenditure made [by that department or agency], the amount, purpose, term and office making such expenditure.

Well now, why is that necessary? Sean Hannity, about six months ago, came out with a series one night where he talked about the 102 most egregious earmarks that were brought up…I was so excited when I saw these, read them all, came down, stood right here on the Senate floor and I read all, and described all…[he puts up a list of the earmarks]

$3.4M to construct an eco-passage for turtles, $450,000 to build 22 concrete toilets in the Mark Twain National Forest, $300,000 for a helicopter equipment to detect radioactive rabbit droppings, $500,000 for a grant to a researcher named in the climate-gate scandal, $325,000 to study the mating decisions of female cactus buds.

I said after reading all 102, here’s just five of them, I asked what do all of these have in common? What they have in common is that not one of them is a congressional earmark. They were all, all earmarks that were put in there by the Obama administration.

Here’s the problem, if you ban congressional earmarks, you’re going to have more of this [the list from Sean Hannity] because as you restrict what Congress, that same amount of money goes back into the administration, whether it’s the Department of Interior, the Corps of Engineers, the EPA or any of the rest of them…

So yes, I repeated the same facts over and over because we MUST understand that Barack Obama buys the Obama phones with money that could be coming home to you the taxpayer.

In the Tulsa World article I started with, he explains the earmarks he has brought home to my city of Tulsa and I can vouch for the worthiness of how this money went to work for the people, including people traveling through the Great State of Oklahoma.

I was proud to put my name next to two earmark measures that brought Oklahomans’ taxpayer dollars back to the state in order to improve our highways and give more opportunity for our roads and bridges to remain major players in our nation’s commerce.

Prior to 2005, Interstate 40 Crosstown was being routed through Oklahoma City via a functionally obsolete bridge that was fracture-critical, meaning it was at critical risk of collapsing. There were several places that I could physically see through cracks in the asphalt to the ground below.

Through the earmark process, Congress authorized nearly half of the money needed to get the reconstruction projects started. During the same year, Congress also authorized half of the needed funding to support modernizations to Interstate 44, which crossed Tulsa with a highway design that pre-dated the interstate system.

As Oklahoma Transportation Secretary Gary Ridley has said, both interstates were massively deficient from a capacity, safety, and conditional perspective. The state had the ability to meet roughly half of the funding needs, but federal earmarks allowed these critical projects to begin decades earlier and be completed more quickly than would have been possible through local government effort alone.

Inhofe ended with this:

Our Founding Fathers foresaw taxpayer dollars being used to build a strong national security and support the nation’s commerce. They also believed these spending measures were to be prioritized by Congress, which is why James Madison outlined in the Federalist Papers that Congress was to hold the power of the purse in order to keep the power closer to the people.

We The People must find a way to pressure Congress to do it right, to authorize spending and then appropriate spending. Senator Inhofe’s HELP Act got nowhere under Democrats. We can change that in November 2014 by going to the polls and voting our conservative principles.



Hillary’s Glasses the Clue to the Extent of Her Head Injury?


I have to admit, I didn’t believe the story of Hillary’s fall. Didn’t read much about it, I just thought she didn’t want to talk about Benghazi.

hillary clinton glasses

A New York ophthalmologist told that special glasses former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was seen wearing last year are used to treat double vision, which is sometimes caused by severe head trauma.

Dr. Marc Werner explained the purpose of the Fresnel prism eyeglasses, like the ones Clinton wore, amid questions about the potential presidential candidate’s health. The subject was raised after Karl Rove commented on her time in and out of the hospital in December 2012.

“In order to see one object, your eyes need to be pointed in the same direction. If your eyes are misaligned, one way to optically align them is to put a prism … on your glasses,” Werner said.

In late 2012, Clinton was suffering from a stomach virus when she fell at her home, struck her head and endured a concussion, according to her representatives. Doctors later discovered a blood clot behind her right ear. Werner says severe head trauma could have caused double vision and Clinton’s need for Fresnel prism glasses.

Read more at FoxNews.

A look through Google images for Hillary shows only a few photos with glasses, always the same glasses, with the exception of one with sunglasses. The photos with the glasses are in the months of January, February and August 2013.

Hat/Tip WeaselZippers.


Trey Gowdy: No Pursuit of Truth if Democrats Can Veto Subpoenas – Benghazi Survivors Taking Polygraphs Monthly?


This post is a mash-up of an interview yesterday on Fox News Sunday, and portions of previous statements made about Benghazi by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC). Below are snippets of two video transcripts along with the videos. The Democrat talking points from Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) would be funny if Democrats had not tried so baldly to keep evidence from the public. He even used the words “reckless and irresponsible” about the coming House Select Committee. More: “we participated in seven investigations,” “nothing new,” “want fair and balanced process,” “witch hunt,” “open and balanced process,” (and that, after Democrats shut Republicans out of every House ObamaCare committee that led to the actual legislation). Not only was ObamaCare secret, they bought votes and Becerra talks about “open, fair, balanced,” and had the audacity to intimate that only Democrats would respect “four dead Americans.”

gowdy obama fiction prize

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Chris Wallace be dogged about pressing Democrats on their hypocrisy, as he did in this interview. In fact, I’ve never seen him lean even slightly toward a conservative side, but there was one issue Wallace was having none of, and that’s the Democrat argument that the Dan Rhodes email contained nothing new or different from what has been known for 20 months. In the first video, watch Becerra’s face: patronizing, holding up his pitiful stack of papers from previous hearings, smug, impolite, making faces.

Wallace put up these demands to be met, issued from Nancy Pelosi, if Democrats are to participate on the House Select Committee:

• Democrats must sign off on subpoenas

• Democrats must be allowed to participate in witness interviews

• Republicans must not selectively release testimony

xavier becerraWALLACE: Congressman Becerra, I have a simple question. Are you saying that if you get satisfactory answers to those, the Democrats will participate, and if you don’t, that you won’t?

BECERRA: We’ve participated in all the other seven

investigations. If it’s a fair, open and balanced process, absolutely, but we don’t want to see reckless, irresponsible handling of an affair that took the lives of four brave Americans.

WALLACE: You’re saying that if you’re satisfied with the ground rules, you’re declaring that the Democrats will appoint members to this Committee?

BECERRA: I believe so. We’ve always said that we are ready to participate. We have an oversight responsibility in Congress. What we don’t want to see is reckless and irresponsibile use of taxpayer money to do these witch hunts.

WALLACE: Congressman Gowdy, is it reasonable for Democrats to demand some say in how the Committee is run?

GOWDY: No sir, and if you talk to the ranking members of the two sub-committees that have presided, Zoe Lofgren and Eleanor Holmes Norton, they will tell you, I don’t run my committees the way that Democrats are fearful of. I want a process Chris, that at the end of it, you are welcome to draw different conclusions from the from facts, but I want everyone to say, it was fair, it was exhaustive, and we know more than we did when it started, so on two of those three parts, I think reasonable minds can agree, but on the first point, Chris [Becerra continually trying to interrupt], imagine you and I starting an investigation, and the first thing you ask for is the ability to deny or veto subpoenas going to witnesses. How can it be a pursuit of the truth?

BECERRA: We’ve never asked for that Trey [but Nancy Pelosi clearly did]. What we are simply saying is, make it a process where we can’t be excluded from the interview of witnesses; where we can’t be excluded when a decision is made to subpoena a witness. Make it so that we are all in the room when we are reviewing the documents that are supposed to be evidence. What we don’t want to be is excluded. We don’t want the American public to be shut-out. Fair, balanced and open…

GOWDY: How does it benefit me, Xavier, when I have said from Day 1 that I want this to transcend politics and I want it to inspire trust in you and our fellow citizens. How does it benefit me to do any of the things you just listed?

Wallace asks how Gowdy answers those who say the Select Committee has the sole purpose to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances for a 2016 presidential race?

GOWDY: I have no friends to reward and no foes to punish and we’re going to go wherever the facts take us. Facts are neither Republican nor Democrat. They are facts, and if we overplay our hand, and engage in a process that is not fair, according to the American people, we will be punished, as we should be for that.

WALLACE: Tell me the biggest single question you want to ask Secretary Clinton.

GOWDY: Why were we still in Benghazi? The British Ambassador was almost assassinated. Our facility was attacked twice. There were multiple episodes of violence. We were the last flag flying in Benghazi, and I would like to know why.

WALLACE: The Pew Research Center did a poll recently and I want to put its results up on the screen, because when asked what single thing they have the most negative view of in Hillary Clinton’s career, they cited Benghazi more than the Monica Lewinsky scandal [15% Benghazi more negative to 9% Monica Lewinsky negative]. People still have a lot questions about Hillary Clinton’s role.

BECERRA: Chris, so the year-and-a-half that was spent by seven different committees, didn’t answer — of course it did.

WALLACE: Wait, wait. You keep pointing to that. We didn’t fine out — and they had been subpoenaed — all the State Department documents [Becerra tries to break-in] — excuse me Sir, they had subpoenaed all the State Department documents and it took until last week for the Administration to finally to release the Ben Rhodes email, in which two days before Susan Rice appeared on this show, he was suggesting that she say that it was the video, not because of a policy failure.

BECERRA: You got yours. You know that that email shows nothing new. It simply…

WALLACE: I don’t agree with that. I think it shows something dramatically new, despite what the White House has been saying for the last year and a half, is shows that inside the White House they were telling Susan Rice what to say.

BECERRA: Chris, every time you get a witness or someone to come talk to you here, they are always going to try to prepare for that conversation with you.

WALLACE: That not what Jay Carney said for 20 months.

BECERRA: That email has nothing that is inconsistent with what the CIA and our security personnel were telling us at the time. It’s exactly the same, but if I can make one quick point, I love what Trey just said. I hope that Trey is going to stay true to what he just said. The rules, however, will determine if this is a fair process, not what Trey says. It’s whether the rules for the conduct of the hearing will provide for a fair, open and balanced process.

WALLACE: You brought up earlier, that I want to finish with Congressman Gowdy. You are saying that this is not political, this is just about fact finding, but as Congressman Becerra brought up, just this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee [NRCC], which is the Committee that supports GOP House candidates, sent out this fundraiser:

House Republicans will make sure that no one will get away from Gowdy and the Select Committee. Will you automatically add your name today to join us and become a Benghazi Watchdog?

This is a fundraiser coming down from the NRCC. Congressman Gowdy, isn’t this exactly the danger, the risk that you overstep your bounds, the GOP, not you personally, you overreach and you make this political and as Congressman Becerra mentioned, you end up, like, going on a political hunt, instead of dealing with issues that people deal with their daily lives, like ObamaCare and jobs?

GOWDY: Yes. Which is exactly why I said, I will never, and have never, sent out any fundraising literature, trying to raise money in the grief and the tragedy of four dead Americans, and I have asked my colleagues to follow suit, but my friend and colleague, Tommy Cotton, from Arkansas, did a magnificent job on the House floor of pointing out the duplicity and hypocrisy of Democrats all of a sudden, deciding that certain things are above politics. They raised money on Sandy Hook. They raised money on Katrina. They raised money on Iraq and Afghanistan, and so for me, I will not raise money on Benghazi, just like I never raised money using crime victims when I was a prosecutor; and I’ve asked my colleagues to follow suit but it would be helpful if our colleagues on the other side  of the aisle did not have selective amnesia when it comes to what’s appropriate to raise money off of and what is not.

The second video below is Gowdy with a montage of his past comments on Benghazi. Here are a few snippets:

There is nothing “phony” about four murdered Americans in Benghazi and he thinks there is, I encourage him to look at the autopsy photos.

• They stood their post. The most that we can do is stand this meager post that we’ve been assigned and demand that this administration speak the truth to the people it is supposed to serve. This was never about a video. It was never spontaneous. It was terror, and I want to know why we were lied to.

• So, if anyone wants to know what difference does it makes — anyone want to ask what difference does it make, it always matters, whether you can trust your government. And to the families, we’re going to find out what happened in Benghazi and I don’t give a damn who’s career is impacted. We’re going to find out what happened.

• I was a prosecutor for 16 years. This is not my first death threat. I’m always happy when it doesn’t come from my wife, and this one did not. I’m going to be fine. It’s not going to keep me from doing my job.

• I need all the evidence, all the documents, unredacted, and I need access to all the witnesses.

• You can draw all the conclusions you want, but you can’t draw any conclusion if you don’t have the evidence. You can say whatever else you want: he’s not smart, his suit doesn’t match, bad hair cut, but no one will tell you I’m not fair.

Remember Gowdy walking up a podium and immediately asking the media questions?

I’m going to ask you some questions and if you can’t answer these questions, then I’ll leave you to draw whatever conclusion you want to draw, about whether or not the media has provided sufficient oversight [on Benghazi].

1. Can you tell me why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night that he was killed? [silence] Do you know? [silence] Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?

2. Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed? [silence]

3. Do you know why additional requests for security were denied? [silence] Do you why an Ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?

4. Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? I’ve heard the explanations, which defy logic, frankly, that we couldn’t have gotten there in time, but you know, they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possible cite that as an excuse?

5. Do you know whether the President called any of our allies and said, can you help? We have men under attack. Can you answer that? [silence]

6. Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked? The Secretary of State did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she doesn’t like, if it’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows? [silence]

7. Do know the origin of this mythology that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started? Do you know how we got from no evidence of that, to that being the official position of the administration?

john leboutillierNo video for this, but Fox News’ Harris Faulkner had a panel on Benghazi last night that revealed an astonishing fact, if indeed it is a fact. On the panel were John Leboutillier, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen. Leboutillier said he hoped the House Select Committee on Benghazi would subpoena all those on the ground in Benghazi that night, who have been told they cannot testify and who must endure a polygraph MONTHLY (paraphrased but the words “polygraph” and “monthly” were his words). I did know they were not allowed to come forward and I had heard that they were polygraphed, but — monthly!

What do you think? Are all Benghazi survivors subjected to monthly polygraphs?

H/T The Right Scoop

See my entire Benghazi database here.






Trey Gowdy Benghazi: Witnesses Had Courage to Come Forward – Systemic Effort to Intentionally Hide Records


Trey Gowdy talked with Greta tonight about his plans for the House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi. Video below and snippets of the transcript.

gowdy obama fiction prize

GRETA: All right, you mentioned the classified documents. I’ve had a beef with Washington for however long I’ve been here. Seems like anytime anyone wants to hide anything, in any administration, Republican, Democrat, the trick is to classify it. Are you willing to go through the documents? Do you have the power to declassify any documents you think shouldn’t be kept from the american people.

GOWDY: Speaker Boehner is going to give us any power we need to get to the bottom of it. Jason Chaffetz was on another show today showing the discrepancy between two documents that were produced, ostensibly the same document, but this had redactions that that one did not have in it and that’s inexcusable when you live in a free and open society where you are supposed to have access to the truth and the facts…

GRETA: You told me right here that you have evidence that not only are they, meaning the Obama administration, hiding it, but there is an intent to hide it. I can’t disclose that evidence yet but there is a systemic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress. Will we see those documents?

GOWDY: Well, I can’t prove to you what I don’t know. I don’t know whether the documents have been destroyed. I know this, there are witnesses that have had the courage to come forth and share with us what was a systemic effort to take certain documents — take the ARB [Accountability Review Board], for instance — does anybody believe the ARB had access to all the documents and all of the witnesses? I don’t know anyone who believes that, so that necessarily undercuts any thing they may have found.

I’m tell you this, if a document exists, regardless of classification, we need to have access to it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be public, but as you know, there is an over-classification to protect people’s reputations and people’s careers and that is not a legitimate classified document just because you are worried that it may hurt people’s feelings or ruin your career.

Greta asked if Gowdy will have access to the military’s “after action” report, as the ARB had only a summary report. Gowdy yes, he will see it and he says there is a very good reason you “can’t summarize evidence in front of a jury. The jury has the right to hear the question and judge the credibility of the witness. Their credibility can be impeached. I’m not interested in summaries, not interested in synopses. I’m interested in the document, the witness, and I’ll decide if the appropriate questions were asked in the past. With respect to the ARB — the Secretary of State was never interviewed by the ARB, so how can I tell your viewers whether or not she was aware that our facility had been attacked before in Benghazi, or that the British Ambassador had been attacked? How can I answer that question if the ARB never saw fit to even interview the Secretary of State?

Greta asked if he will “seek” to see the daily intel briefings from the CIA for the president on the 11th, 12th and 13th. Will you urge a disclosure of those?

GOWDY: I want to see every single, solitary, relevant material document. In fact, I want to see everything for which there can be any argument that it is relevant and then we can judge whether or not it is material. For all I know, the Intel Committee has already seen the documents you referenced, which is another reason the Speaker did what he did, because we’ve been fragmented, and what Intel knows, and Oversight, and Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security would not know.

Greta asked if he has “an end point” and has a date he thinks the investigation might be finished — before mid-terms, after mid-terms? Gowdy said he thinks the House Resolution will have an end date in it, but said that date has not been shared with him.

Gowdy said the State Department has not provided all that it should have provided to comply with the document request for 20 months “There is no judge in America that would allow you 20 months to comply with a subpoena.” He believes much depends on how willing the administration is to provide materials, witnesses and documents.

GOWDY: With respect to politics, Greta, I would just say, there are certain things that have to transcend politics. I don’t mean to sound naive, but the murder of four fellow Americans and an attack on a facility that is emblematic of our country, should transcend politics, and I know that our fellow citizens can handle the truth, but only if they get access to it. They can draw their own conclusions about politics, who’s at fault, who’s not at fault, but they can’t do it if they have all the documents and all the witnesses.

For background on the ARB (Accountability Review Board) see here and here. For my full Benghazi database, go here. If the video does not play or disappears visit Fox News.


More of Obama’s Thug Tactics


Greta Van Susteren, a cable television personality since 1991, has spent her 14 year TV career building her reputation as a hard hitting, unbiased arbiter of the truth. She started working for CNN in 1991 as a legal analyst. She came into prominence during the OJ Simpson trial and after 11 years at CNN, she went to FOX News.

Greta is known for asking hard questions, but being respectful in the process. She garners respect from not only her colleagues, but also the folks that she has interviewed.

That is why it’s no surprise that Van Susteren is pulling no punches and reporting the latest attempt by the Obama administration to exert influence over and control the news. She says that someone within the Obama administration, someone that she knows personally, told her to tell Fox reporter, Jennifer Griffin to back off and stop investigating and reporting on the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on 9/11/2012.

I remembered a disturbing phone call from a good friend in the Obama Administration. I have known this friend for years. The call was a short time after 9/11 (maybe Oct. 2012?) In the call, my friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first. Here is what I know: Jennifer is a class act…experienced…and a very responsible journalist. One of the absolute best in the business – no axe to grind, she just wants the facts.

I told my friend before I go to Jennifer telling her she is wrong, I need proof she is wrong, strong proof and you need to be specific – what are you saying she is getting wrong? We went around and around — including the statement again that this was just a call as a favor to Jennifer and me to save Jennifer’s career from reporting incorrect information. I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

On her website, Gretawire, she posted that in the days following the attack, Fox was left out of the conference call hosted by the State Department press. Fox received no invitation to that call, while all other major news outlets were included. But it got worse, for a later briefing by the CIA followed the same MO by excluding Fox News.

“Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was [an] accident and not intentional,” Van Susteren writes.

And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

It turns out Fox News wasn’t alone in being the subject of the Obama administration’s bullying tactics. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson scared the administration so bad that not only was her very own network taking a dim view of her reporting, but she began to get stonewalled, having trouble getting her Benghazi stories on the air. But the veteran reporter persisted, even after her computer got hacked. CBS confirmed this, but stopped short of placing blame. Atkisson said:

I find [that] improper,” she said. “You could say suspicious.” Suspicious? “We don’t know what we don’t know,” she says. “There could be political reasons or valid national security reasons [for not replying]. I just don’t know. I know they haven’t made a good argument” for why public disclosure of the material would harm national security.

Breitbart would later report that the survivors, which were debriefed by the State Department immediately following the attacks have been kept out of the public eye, and that they in all likelihood they were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements.

It was reported that Nixon had an enemies’ list and he used similar thug tactics to control the message. The only difference being that the MSM was outraged by it and publicly took him to task. Today’s MSM and some of the cable news outlets may be just as outraged, but you’d never know it by listening to the evening news.


Steven Cook, Michigan Education Association Head, Supports Convicted Child Molester Neal Erickson


If you recall, we covered the story of Neal Erickson, as teacher who was convicted of sexually abusing a male student.  That, in and of itself was a story.  But, when other teachers came form with cries for leniency, the story got a bit more complicated.  Then, when the family’s garage was burnt down, it got more complicated still.  And now, it appears that even his Union is supporting him,  by attempting to obtain funds for him!   Steven Cook, the head of the Michigan Education Organization, has been the focal point of that effort.  FOX News attempted to interview.

Now, when you listen to the interview with the victim, you see what the supporters of Neal Erickson are behind, so to speak…

1.  Use of alcohol to gain the “cooperation” of a young teen.

2.  The use of threats to control the young victim, and gain his silence.

3. Manipulation of a sexual abuse victim.

4.  The classic pedophile/abuser claim that, “it was consensual!”

This, according to an increasing number of Americans, is OK.  From the supporters of Kaitlyn Hunt in Florida, to the supporters of Neal Erickson, these people think that adults have the right to prey upon children, and there is something wrong with the rest of us.

Welcome to the Brave New World; with some 1984 mixed in for good measure.



Cancer Patient Discusses How He Lost His Health Care Plan to FOX News, Is Audited by the IRS


Imagine, if you will, that you have cancer, and are undergoing expensive treatment for your disease.  Then, imagine that the Obama administration, via their landmark legislation, get’s your insurance canceled.  After that, imagine that you get to go on FOX News and tell the world how ObamaCare has messed up your life.  And what happens after that?  You just so happen to get audited by the IRS!

A cancer patient, who publicly discussed the cancellation of his insurance under ObamaCare, now says he has been informed by the Internal Revenue Service that he is going to be audited.

Bill Elliot appeared on Fox News on November 7th to discuss the cancellation of his insurance. He claims he was told that his cancer was considered “beyond the catastrophic previous condition” and his plan was being canceled because of ObamaCare regulations.

Elliot, who has Stage 4 cancer, informed viewers he wasn’t going to pay the $1,500 a month for the new plan being offered, preferring not to burden his family and to “let nature take it’s course.”

After his story attracted media attention, Elliot says his insurance company decided to let him keep his coverage:

“Well, the update on my health is: I went to the doctor last week and he told me that I was in full remission. So, that’s good news; I’m getting better. Thanks to Steve, I wouldn’t have found none of this out, ’cause I wouldn’t have had health insurance to go back. So, I found out that I’m in full remission and that I’ve got four months to go – not four months to go, but be checked every four months.

“So, Monday I got a certified letter. I didn’t get my mail until late, so this past Tuesday I went and picked it up. Lo and behold, it’s from the IRS saying, “You’re going to be audited for the tax year of 2009.”

We know that the IRS has intentionally targeted Conservative groups or individuals for “special treatment,” but it takes a soul that belongs to a level slightly lower than the ninth circle of hell to order a “political audit” of a cancer patient.  Apparently, there are people in the Obama administration that have no problem with that.


Blame ObamaCare Fail Day: Ezekiel Emanuel Lies, Blames FOX News for Failure


Ezekiel Emanuel went on FOX again.  He smugly lied, stating that insurance companies cancelled policies at their our accorded, not because of the legislation.

After all, the companies should have BROKE the law by continuing to offer polices that were in VIOLATION of the law!

Once again, this is the blame game.  When liberal policies fail, and they ALWAYS do, it is ALWAYS someone else’s fault.   For example, the Soviet Union’s beautiful and efficient collective farms were ruined by the CIA, who dropped bugs on them to eat the crops (Yes, they really said this).  Now, ObamaCare is the latest.  Now, it’s the fault of FOX news, who reported what was going on, and had talking heads that predicted this.  All their fault, don’t ya see?