Remember Hillary Clinton’s Anti-Obama ‘3 AM Phone Call’ Ad? OBAMA WASN’T In Situation Room on 9/11 When Ambassador Was Murdered

Remember how Hillary Clinton ran against Obama, pointing out that he was a national security flea weight who wouldn’t be there when we needed him?

Do you know what’s funny about that ad?  When Obama never bothers to pick up the damn phone, IT WAS HILLARY CLINTON ON THE OTHER END.

And we now know what a disgrace Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.  Because she’s sewer in this every bit as much as Obama.  Do you know who was the VERY FIRST person to falsely claim that the terrorist attack on Benghazi was a “spontaneous uprising” as the result of an “Internet video”?  Hillary Clinton was that shameless liar.

It is easily provable that one of the questions we have asked over and over and over again for going on two years now AND NEVER RECEIVED AN ANSWER ON was the question where was Obama on the night of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound???

There’s one reason we’ve never received an answer: because the answer makes Obama look really, really bad, really, really weak and really, really incompetent.  Oh, and really, really disgraceful.

Last night on Fox News Special Report, Bret Bair got it on the factual record.  For the FIRST TIME since the TERRORIST ATTACK on American soil in Benghazi in which a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered, we finally know for a fact that BARACK OBAMA WAS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN THE SITUATION ROOM AS THE DISASTER UNFOLDED.

We got this news from Barack Obama’s own NSC “Dude” boy, who not only admitted altering the CIA talking points – which the White House had for two years SWORN it had not done – but who admitted that he was in the situation room and Barack Obama never showed up:

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House.

BAIER: He wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: At what point in the evening?

BAIER: Any point in the evening.

VIETOR: It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.

BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he’s where?

VIETOR: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.

BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.

VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.

BAIER: And the president wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: Not in the room I was in. Let’s just be clear. You don’t have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an intelligence situation. The PDB is in the Oval Office.

For the record, “the Situation Room” is ONE ROOM.  It is not a suite.  There is no way Obama was in the Situation Room and Tommy Vietor – who was in the room throughout the evening on his testimony – would not have seen the president.

It is true that a president doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be in the Situation Room during a crisis.  He could be briefed from elsewhere.  But it is EQUALLY TRUE that it is in the Situation Room and NOWHERE ELSE that a president could receive live feeds immediately as they were coming in.

And it is the height of irresponsibility that we had a United States ambassador under fire and missing and a president of the United States AWOL while he was being murdered over a period of several hours.

I tell you what: I watched that interview with Bret Bair and Obama’s former NSC “dude” boy.  And one of the things that shocked me without the little turd saying a word was the fact that under Obama we’ve had Doogie Howser running our national security for us.

That explains a lot about the disaster and disgrace that is our Obama foreign policy and national security.  You can’t get a real man to work for Obama because no real man would ever work for Obama.

What we now know and know for a FACT is that the White House invented the Youtube video in order to fabricate a false national security scenario so that Obama wouldn’t have to answer for his outright LIE that he had al Qaeda on the run.  The email says it perfectly: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

We know that on the night of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi on 2011, the White House was in fact scrambling.  NOT to rescue the Americans who were under fire, but ONLY to cover-up and save Obama’s political weasel ass after his “al Qaeda is on the run” garbage.

Because it WAS a “broader failure of policy” and Obama had to lie and cover-up his cover-up to protect his lies and his cover-up.

Today Obama had a press conference with Angela Merkel and he said something about Ukraine that is frankly amazing in light of what we know happened in Benghazi:

He said the Russian account of events in eastern Ukraine that there was a spontaneous uprising by pro-Russian activists was belied by the use on Friday of surface-to-air missiles that brought down two of Ukraine’s military helicopters.

“It is obvious to the world that these Russian-backed groups are not peaceful protesters. They are heavily armed militants,” Obama said.

You know, much the way any decent human being would immediately understand that Benghazi was not a “spontaneous uprising” because of the use of incredibly well-trained mortar crews who precisely attacked the compound.  Five rounds were fired in less than one minute in the dark, with three accurately hitting their target – which all by itself was enough to immediately demonstrate that a well-trained crew was operating with pre-calculated coordinates.

Obama is a liar by his own rhetoric as he demonizes Putin for being the same sort of liar without shame that Obama proved himself to be YEARS ago.

According To Mike Morell Testimony In Obama Admin, Professionals On Ground Useless While Analysts 1000s Of Miles Away Make Up ‘Facts’ In Vacuum

Why should professionals risk their lives out in the field to gather accurate information when analysts in offices thousands of miles away are going to completely ignore them anyway?

If you’re going to believe the testimony of the Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack, the answer is they shouldn’t bother.

You need to understand this: at this point, it is obvious to EVERYONE that when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and a host of other Obama types came out and said that the Benghazi attack that murdered the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter debacle in 1979 along with three other Americans was the result of a protest over a video rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, that they were NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Everyone on the ground, along with the CIA station chief’s report from the region (Tripoli), proclaims that the attack had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any video or any protest, and in fact explicitly denies that any protest was going on at the time of the attack.

So why the bogus talking points?

The House asked the man who prepared them.

It should be noted that this man who prepared them, former Deputy Director of CIA Mike Morell, has played a game of revolving chairs.  While Obama put one of his own damned LAWYERS into the job that Morell left, Morell suddenly joined Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  Oh, and took a cushy job with the mainstream media that has pathologically refused to ever once be fair or objective.  He was rewarded well for misleading and in fact betraying America, I assure you.

IF you believe that Morell was telling the truth and he did NOT cook the books in the form of the talking points that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney et al cited when they said over and over again that the Benghazi attack resulted from a protest over a video (even though it wasn’t), this is what you HAVE to now believe about the way Obama makes decisions about foreign policy: he makes them ENTIRELY based on what analysts sitting at desks thousands of miles away from what is happening write about.  He does NOT pay any attention to what the people on the ground say.  If the people on the ground at the scene say the opposite of what the analysts say, well, who cares?

Let me wrap this in a bow for you: as Deputy Director of the CIA, Morell had ALL the intelligence available to him.  That is why his office is charged with preparing the White House talking points memo to begin with.  Mike Morell KNEW what the CIA and military people on the ground watching the attack unfold were saying.

Again, that’s what you HAVE to conclude if Morell didn’t alter the talking points for political reasons.  He acknowledged that the professionals on the ground were screaming that the attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with any stupid video.  But he pointed out that none of that mattered because what mattered was what the analysts said and the analysts said that it was a video protest and so that’s what the Deputy Director of Obama’s CIA went with.  And it was nothing beyond a random coincidence that the bogus output of the analysts was exactly what the political aspirations of Obama needed.

Obama had been saying he’d decimated and wiped out al Qaeda.  He had been saying the war on terror was over and he’d won it.  He did NOT want to have to explain a terrorist attack against the United States and one of its ambassadors.

And so he didn’t.

Sadly, for Obama not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of making his personal politics trump national security, what we are instead being told is that Obama blatantly ignores the facts on the ground and instead trusts to the spin of theorists in Washington.

If that makes you liberals feel good about Obama, fine.  It makes me sick to my stomach either way.

What do I believe Morell did?  I believe he deliberately chose to ignore the facts being screamed from the ground and influenced his analysts to cook the books the way Obama wanted instead.

With Obama having gutted our military we are truly week.  With Obama ignoring the experts on the ground who are seeing the events unfold, we are truly blind.  And under Obama, the CIA is no more “independent” than his thug IRS.  Both agencies and numerous others are merely political wings of the Obama political machine rewarding Obama’s friends and punishing Obama’s enemies.

Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up Scandal Far, FAR Worse Than Nixon’s Watergate Cover-Up EVER Was.

First of all, do you know what the Watergate cover-up was about?

You probably don’t.

Most people – misinformed as they are by a mainstream media propaganda operation that is second only to the Nazi’s Ministry of Propaganda – believe that Nixon’s infamous “Plumbers” Unit was sent into the Watergate Hotel to look for information that would help his re-election campaign.  That is simply false.

So what were Nixon’s “Plumbers” looking for?

Late June-July 1971: Nixon Authorizes ‘Plumbers,’ Orders Media Leaks to Smear Ellsberg

 

President Nixon authorizes the creation of a “special investigations unit,” later nicknamed the “Plumbers,” to root out and seal media leaks. The first target is Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press (see June 13, 1971); the team will burglarize the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, in hopes of securing information that the White House can use to smear Ellsberg’s character and undermine his credibility (see September 9, 1971). Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who supervises the “Plumbers,” will later say that the Ellsberg burglary is “the seminal Watergate episode.” Author Barry Werth will later write, “[L]ike all original sins, it held the complete DNA of subsequent misdeeds.” During the upcoming court battle over the documents, Nixon tells his aide Charles Colson: “We’ve got a countergovernment here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks.… I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.” Whatever damaging information the “Plumbers” can find on Ellsberg will be itself leaked to the press, Nixon says. “Don’t worry about his trial [referring to Ellsberg’s arrest on conspiracy and espionage charges (see June 28, 1971) ]. Just get everything out. Try him in the press… leak it out.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 84-87]

The Plumbers were looking for dirt to smear Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Here’s the thing: what did the Pentagon Papers reveal?  Who – or perhaps it is more appropriate to ask, which administration – did the Pentagon Papers indict?  The boldfaced type provides the answer:

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the “Pentagon Papers.” The papers comprised the U.S. military’s account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration’s preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House “Plumbers” group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

The simple fact of history – despite all the lies that the liberal ideologues have told masquerading as “journalists” – is that Richard Nixon was watching a liberal media campaign based on anonymous leaks erode and undermine U.S. foreign policy that had been approved by successive DEMOCRAT administrations (i.e., both the Kennedy and the Johnson administrations).  Barack Obama notwithstanding, American presidents have the duty to GOVERN and LEAD based on actual REALITY.  Both Republican and DEMOCRAT presidents who had sat in the Oval Office had made the tough calls based on the best intelligence ANY American will ever have access to.  And Nixon was watching the mainstream media communist fascists undermine that policy with a campaign of illegal leaks to selectively embarrass and ultimately undermine and cause the military defeat of the United States of America.

The Pentagon Papers documented that the DEMOCRAT LBJ administration had done some despicable things in their conduct of carrying out the Vietnam War.  They did NOT indict the Nixon administration:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States‘ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971

The Nixon presidency did not begin until 1969.

It’s amazing how history damns Democrats again and again and again.  The Civil War was waged against the United States by DEMOCRATS.  The Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the DEMOCRAT Party.  Prior to the Vietnam War – which had “DEMOCRAT” written all over it – Harry Truman’s incompetence and stupidity literally caused the Korean War in which nearly 60,000 Americans miserably perished.  History reveals that Harry Truman first refused to give weapons to the South Korean government, which emboldened the communist North which was armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated Soviet and Chinese weaponry:

Both Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted to unite the Korean peninsula under their respective governments, but the United States refused to give South Korea any heavy weapons in order to ensure that its military could only be used for preserving internal order and self-defense. By contrast, Pyongyang was well-equipped with Soviet aircraft and tanks.

History reveals that Harry Truman then proceeded to massively screw up by failing to list South Korea in their zone of protection which gave North Korea, the USSR and China the green light to attack the South:

But just because he did not include South Korea as part of his “defensive perimeter,” it was said later on that such omission had served to give the communists “the green light” to try to overrun Korea.

Emboldened by the exclusion of South Korea from the American defense line in the Pacific zone in the so-called Acheson Declaration, Kim Il-sung decided to launch an outright invasion of the South

Just as history also reveals that Harry Truman – in a pattern that has characterized Democrat administrations for decade after decade – disarmed and weakened America so that we were in no shape to fight anybody anywhere which further emboldened our enemies.

All that the Democrat fiasco in Vietnam was was a longstanding continuation of Democrat fiascos that ultimately included Bill Clinton disarming America and inviting the 9/11 attacks before Bush prior to Obama baring America’s throat to terrorist attacks after Bush.

As much as you want to dump your hate on Richard Nixon, his crime was that he was trying to protect a Democrat administration in order to protect American foreign policy.  And he was trying to expose a dishonest and corrupt media propaganda operation.  And he himself used corrupt and dishonest tactics to accomplish those goals.  And he got busted.  By the very liberal communist fascist rat bastard pseudo-“journalists” who were selectively illegally leaking classified government documents in order to bring about America’s defeat in the Vietnam War.

We now know that Barack Obama is the kind of Chicago thug who criminally used the IRS to target his political opponents.  The word “Nixonian” doesn’t begin to do Obama’s thug tactics justice.  You have to call it “Obamian.”  And if the crap that Obama is pulling doesn’t qualify as “enemies list” garbage, then NOTHING does.

We also know that Obama has his lapdog Kathleen Sabelius ILLEGALLY shaking down businesses to coerce them to give money for ObamaCare (see also here).  It is specifically illegal for someone in such an official capacity to strongarm businesses that you are regulating and asking them for money.  Democrats were besides themselves with frothing rage when Reagan did something like this to get around specific Congressional refusal to fund a program during Iran-Contra.  And they passed a law to criminalize it.  Just as they passed laws criminalizing the Watergate crap that Obama just pulled.  Again, this is Obamaian – because it goes beyond “Nixonian.”

This thug Obama is a demon-possessed criminal who has contaminated the White House beyond repair.  He is the epitome of what his cockroach pastor for 23 years railed when he said, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!”

But let’s get back to Benghazi.  We now know that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, incompetent failure before the 9/11 (2012) attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, cowardly failure during the attack to bring any U.S. assets to bear to help the Americans – including the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the failed Carter years – who ultimately perished during the attack.  And we most certainly know that they tried to cover-up the crystal-clear connection to terrorists and al Qaeda.

Obama claims that he called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the next day.  Bullcrap.

Obama supporters (read, “dishonest lying weasels”) claim that Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Right. And I called Obama an honest man and a good leader. Obama had just referred to the 9/11/2001 attacks – which even Obama would call “acts of terror” – immediately prior to his statement that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” There is absolutely NO reason – grammatical or logical – to believe that Obama was referring to the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi with that reference. And Obama went on to PROVE that he wasn’t referring to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” by going out and repeatedly claiming that it was NOT an act of terror, but a mob protest gone bad over a Youtube video. Which it was NOT.

Here’s the thing: the very same NIGHT that Obama gave that speech above – at an event memorializing the 9/11/2001 attacks – he gave an interview to 60 minutes.  Let’s look at a snippet from that interview:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

So CBS stated as a FACT that Obama “went out of his way to avoid the use of the word terrorism” and Obama clearly continued to avoid using the word “terrorism.”  And if “it was still too early to tell” if it was an act of terror” the night AFTER he gave the speech in which he now claims that he claimed that it WAS an act of terror, well, you see the pretzel Obama twisted the truth in.  Which pretty much proves that when Obama later said he DID call it “terrorism” was a lie.  A lie from a serial liar.  And what we have had was a cover-up by the Obama administration from the very start. 

And why did Obama attempt this cover-up?  Was it for the sake of the previous Republican administration the way Nixon tried to protect the previous Democrat administration?  Nope.  Obama has demonstrated that he is a vicious partisan ideologue who would NEVER lift a finger to ever do anything but demonize and slander the Bush administration.  Was it to protect U.S. foreign policy?  Nope.  Obama was two months from an election and the only thing he was trying to protect was his own scrawny political neck.

Republicans pointed out the TRUTH from the outset. They said the very DAY that Susan Rice went out on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly lied to the American people that “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration.”  Which was obvious to anyone who wasn’t a demon-possessed Obama ideologue.

But as a whole, we know that the Chicago thug Obama administration and the mainstream media thug propaganda were on the same damn page.

The funny thing is that the Chicago thug Obama administration, the Democrat Party propaganda machine and the mainstream media cockroaches are all frantically claiming that there’s nothing to see in any Benghazi investigation because the Republicans are trying to politicize it.  Here’s the thing: these Democrat roaches have just been caught RED-HANDED “politicizing” Benghazi from the very first moments:

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a “stylistic” change to the intelligence agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland’s email said such revelations “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

Which is to say that the Obama State Department falsified the truth and engaged in the very FIRST act of “politicizing.”  They literally admit here to altering the facts so their opponents won’t be able to point out that they were incompetent fools.  Which the facts now prove that they very clearly were.

Obama had a completely bogus narrative that, because he had been the president when we got Osama bin Laden, that somehow he had decimated al Qaeda and the War on Terror was over.  Obama stated that as a fact again and again and again prior to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi planned and carried out to correspond with the anniversary of the 9/11 attack against America in 2001.

The official liar of the Obama Administration, Press Secretary Jay Carney, had told the American people this:

“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” Mr. Carney said on Nov. 28.

We now know that like everything ELSE the most dishonest administration in American history has claimed, that this was a pure lie.  We now know that the talking points went through a DOZEN revisions in order to falsely scrub any connection to al Qaeda or terrorism in order to “support” the Obama lie that the attack was a protest over a video gone bad.  We now know that CIA director (and war hero) David Petraeus was “frustrated” and “surprised” by Obama’s whitewash and distortion of the Benghazi talking points.  Just as the number two man in Libya who clearly KNEW what had actually happened said “my jaw hit the floor” when he heard Susan Rice repeatedly report the Obama lie again and again and again and again and again five days after the attack.

We now know that – contrary to the Barack Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department official lies – that the intelligence IMMEDIATELY claimed that the Benghazi attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group.  And we now know that Obama and Clinton deliberately falsified the intelligence and lied to the American people to cover their own incompetence and their own political aspirations.

Obama lied, Americans died.  Clinton lied, Americans died.  Unlike anything that happened during Watergate. Pat Smith, whose son Sean was murdered, is furious because Hillary Clinton looked her right in the eye and lied to her.  She now says, “She has her child.  I don’t have mine because of her.”  Americans died for Obama’s and Clinton’s sins.

But let’s forget all about Pat Smith’s pain.  After all, as Jay Carney claimed, “It happened a long time ago” (after eight months of delay and cover-ups).  And of course Hillary Clinton exlaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?” 

Susan Rice and Jay Carney need to go to prison – along with these IRS thugs – for their official lies and participation in an obvious cover-up.  Barack Obama needs to be impeached for his high crimes.  And Hillary Clinton needs to never show her face in public again.

Vile Leftwing Professor Pours Hypocritical Hate On Congressman Paul Ryan For Drinking Glass Of Wine

It was just last week that I was able to look at Democrats’ personal behavior toward others and show that they as a species were really quite indistinguishable from cockroaches.

And here we are again, with cockroaches I mean Democrats being cockroaches I mean Democrats.

Rep. Ryan was at a restaurant with a dinner party when out of the blue this vile professor comes over and goes ballistic at his table, creating a giant scene until she was thrown out on her ear for being so rude and hateful.

It would probably be better if the management simply asked people at the door what party they belonged to and blocked Democrats as haters BEFORE they barged in and started scenes, in my view.

The following article asks some pretty wonderful questions of this leftwing self-righteous hypocrite.  I then have more piling on to do when Byron York gets done with this liberal turd:

Paul Ryan accuser won’t talk
By:Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ByronYork | 07/11/11 8:47 AM.

Susan Feinberg, an associate professor of management and global business at  Rutgers University, caused a stir in the left-wing blogosphere over the weekend  with her account of witnessing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan  drinking a glass of $350-a-bottle wine at an upscale restaurant near the  Capitol.  (Feinberg, who was at the restaurant, Bistro Bis, with her  husband to celebrate her birthday, knew the wine was pricey because she could  make out the name on the label and checked it on the wine list.)  Feinberg  confronted Ryan, accusing him of hypocrisy for drinking an expensive wine while  advocating reduced spending for Medicare and Medicaid.  But she didn’t stop  there.  Feinberg also suggested Ryan might be guilty of ethics violations,  secretly snapped a photo of him and two dinner companions, and then took the  “story” to Talking Points Memo, the lefty site which ran a high-profile  piece suggesting Ryan might be guilty of some sort of wrongdoing.

Ryan told TPM that his two dinner-mates had ordered the wine, and that he,  Ryan, didn’t know what it cost and drank only one glass.  Ryan’s  explanation was supported by TPM’s account, presumably based on Feinberg’s  recollection, which said that when Feinberg confronted Ryan about the cost of  his wine, “Ryan said only: ‘Is that how much it was?'”

Nevertheless, Feinberg and TPM hinted that Ryan might have violated House  ethics rules by accepting an expensive meal from lobbyists.  But it turned  out that the two men with whom Ryan was dining were, as he said, economists and  not lobbyists.  Feinberg and TPM also suggested that Ryan might have  violated House rules against accepting gifts in general.  But it turned out  that Ryan had paid for his meal and wine — Ryan even showed TPM his copy of the  receipt, which TPM then posted on the web.

Having failed to catch Ryan in an act of wrongdoing, Feinberg and TPM accused  him of hypocrisy. Ryan’s dining companions, one of whom was a wealthy hedge-fund  manager, ordered two bottles of the $350 wine.  Ryan, by his own account,  drank one glass but nevertheless paid for one of the bottles.  But the $700  wine bill outraged Feinberg and her husband, who were at the restaurant to  celebrate her birthday.  “We were just stunned,” she told TPM. “I was an  economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out  that those two bottles of wine was more [sic] than two-income working family  making minimum wage earned in a week.” When she had finished her own meal,  Feinberg confronted Ryan and angrily asked him “how he could live with himself”  for drinking expensive wine while advocating cuts in Medicare and  Medicaid.  Feinberg left the restaurant after management intervened.

In one brief and unpleasant moment, Ryan got a taste of 2012-style political  combat in which everyone, everywhere is a potential opposition campaign tracker  and there are plenty of press outlets ready to publish a tracker’s  accusations.

On Saturday, I sent Feinberg an email asking a few questions about the  incident and about her unhappiness with Ryan.  First, the photo she snapped  of Ryan and two men sitting a few tables away appeared to be taken from her own  table, and on that table was a bottle of wine.  (Feinberg told TPM that she  and her husband had shared a “bottle of great wine.”)  A check of the  Bistro Bis wine list — in much the way that Feinberg did at the restaurant —  shows that the wine was a Thierry et Pascale Matrot 2005 Meursault, which is $80  per bottle at Bistro Bis. Was that, in fact, Feinberg’s bottle of wine?

I asked Feinberg, an economist, what price constituted outrageous in her  mind.  Would she have been as upset if Ryan’s wine were $150 a  bottle?  Or $100 a bottle?  Or perhaps $80 a bottle, like her own —  which is, after all, more than a day’s labor for a worker making the minimum  wage.

If the problem was not just the wine’s cost, then what other factors were  involved in Feinberg’s anger? Was it because she thought Rep. Ryan was a  hypocrite for drinking expensive wine while recommending reduced spending on  Medicare and Medicaid?  Was it because she believed Rep. Ryan was corrupt  for drinking with two men she suspected were lobbyists?  And finally, did  Feinberg believe she behaved appropriately in the matter?  Would it be  appropriate for a conservative who felt strongly about, say, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,  or Rep. Barney Frank, to do something similar to them under similar  circumstances?

Feinberg’s response was brief: “I’m sorry.  I have no comment on  this.”

After the TPM story was published, a number of left-leaning websites picked  up the tale.  New York magazine wrote that Ryan has “$350, fiscally  imprudent, fancypants” taste in wine.  The Atlantic wrote that Ryan “is in  the habit of drinking $350-a-bottle wine,” although the publication presented no  evidence to support that contention. The Atlantic also expressed hope that the  wine story would become as much of a political burden on Ryan as the $400  haircut was on former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Ryan himself is downplaying, but not avoiding, the matter.  He answered  questions from TPM, producing the receipt, but has said little else.  When  asked whether incidents like this might happen again in the future, with  Democrats and Republicans engaged in mortal combat over federal spending, a  person close to Ryan said only: “I would hope that it was just one woman who had  a little too much to drink and had a little too much fire in her belly and just  decided to cross a line.  Paul is more than happy to have a debate and  understands that people disagree with him, but there’s a right way and a wrong  way to do that.”

It turns out that this Professor Susan Feinberg worked on John Kerry’s campaign.  The relevant facts about Senator John Kerry and his rich liberal activist wife occur near the end of this very recently written piece (again, Democrats are just hypocrites ALL the time; there’s literally ALWAYS something to prove it constantly going on):

 Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

You think these people don’t know their way around $350 bottles of wine the way you know the way to the bathroom in your own home?

Let’s get back to Susan Feinberg and the guy she thought deserved to be president.  John Kerry’s wife is a filthy rich heiress who inhereited the Heinz fortune.  But guess how much taxes she pays?  She’s structured it so she actually pays less than the median American family.  Did she HAVE to do that?  Oh, no.  She just wanted to screw you, the typical taxpayer, by using every possible gimmick to lessen her tax burden even while she self-righteously lectures everybody else about their “duty to pay more.”  SHE could pay more, but she is a liberal, and ergo sum a hypocrite.

How about John Kerry himself?  Well, John Kerry splurged on himself to buy a $7 million yacht.  Not feeling any need to give American workers jobs, Kerry opted to buy his yacht in New Zealand.  And then, not feeling any need to pay taxes, Kerry opted to moor his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his own state of Massachusetts, so he could save $1/2 a million in tax.  But that doesn’t stop him from lecturing everybody else.

And, according to garden variety self-righteous liberal hypocrite Susan Feinberg, THIS behavior is just fine.  It’s that Ryan guy who was actually himself rather surprised at how much it costs to have dinner with rich friends (I’ve experienced that myself when I looked at a tab from a restaurant a date or a friend have suggested in the past) who is evil.

A small government free market guy who believes people should be free to keep and spend their own money having a $350 bottle of wine is not hypocritical; a liberal who says the rich should pay more in taxes while welching on his or her own taxes is, by contrast, a quintessential hypocrite.

I’d say I was amazed at the chutzpah of a liberal who goes to dine at a high-end restaurant and then is appalled that a Republican would actually go to the same restautant.  But I have long come to understand that the essential ingredient to liberalism is blatant abject hypocrisy.  To put it in the context of her own story, “When she had finished her own pricey meal, she got up and rudely gave Paul Ryan a facefull of the hell her husband tragically has to live with every night of his life for daring to have a pricey meal.”

White House Ignores War In Afghanistan To Pursue New War On Fox News

Up until the exaltation of The One – may socialist Scandinavians place golden medallions around his neck forever – the Democrats’ spiel on Afghanistan was that it was the right war, the top priority war, the just war, the necessary war, but that the devil Bush ignored Afghanistan while he focused on Iraq.

Iraq, of course, was the unwinnable war (even after Bush won it), and the surge strategy was bound to be a costly failure (even after it worked).

Well, now that Obama – in the words of a leftist “journalist” – “stands above the country” and “above the world” as “sort of God,” well, the “change” the left kept blathering about resulted in a change of focus:

Afghanistan is no longer the “war of necessity,” or the “top priority,” or the “cause that could not be more just.”  Nope.  That war morphed into the war that the White House has declared on Fox News.

White House communications director, Anita Dunn:

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director.

And:

“The reality of it is that Fox often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.”

And:

“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Mind you, every major totalitarian dictator in the world is more “legitimate” than Fox News, as far as the White House is concerned:

White House communications director Anita Dunn also said this:

“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

Yes, that’s right.  Dunn is referring to CNN — the same CNN that demonstrated that it is so completely in the tank for the Obama agenda that it actually “FACT-CHECKED” a Saturday Night Live skit.

That’s the criteria for “a news network”: complete ideological loyalty.

Obama pretty much pointed that out himself when he addressed White House correspondents:

“Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.  Apologies to the Fox table.”

Unlike all the other media, Fox correspondents didn’t vote for Obama.  And that’s enough to declare war.  For all must love The One.  No dissension can be tolerated.

Mind you, while the White House asserts that Fox News is evil because it – alone by itself – is not in the tank with Obama, it’s interesting to see that Obama himself is in the tank for SEIU and the hard-core union agenda as he vows to “paint the nation purple.”

We’ve seen this reaction to media criticism by a president before – from the darkest and most evil days of Richard Nixon.  It wasn’t pretty, and it didn’t end well.

Is Fox the media arm of the Republican Party?  Viewers who are flocking to Fox News in droves don’t seem to think so:

Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009’s first quarter was FNC’s 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network’s history — just behind Q4 ’08 and Q3 ’05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

The hardly right-wing UCLA seems to find plenty of bias from all of those journalists that Obama boasted voted for him, rather than Fox:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

To the extent that Fox News is biased to the right, every single other news outlet is biased toward the left.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs’ study concluded that Fox News was in fact the most fair and balanced network, concluding:

Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly — 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates — 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

Sacred Heart University’s media study discovered that Fox News was the most trusted in the nation:

Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.

Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).

In fact, it didn’t come all that far from being TWICE as trusted as the runner-up, CNN (the network that fact-checks SNL sketches that are negative to Obama).

So this war – that again seems to be replacing the “just war of necessity” that Afghanistan was SUPPOSED to be is just ridiculous.

It merely shows just how dramatically ideological this administration truly is.

It also explains why former longtime ABC correspondent Chris Wallace said of the Obama administration:

“They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

Let’s just take a second to consider what Obama seems to think about the media, as evidenced by his selection of Mark Lloyd to be his FCC Diversity Czar.  Remember that cartoon of dictators that Obama has met with?  Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd admiringly said this of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Just as Obama is now taking Fox News seriously in this country.

But how did Hugo Chavez “take very seriously the media”?

Newsbusters answers that by simply pointing to the facts in Venezuela:

NGOs Warn of Restrictions in Pending Venezuela Law

Associated Press – May 7, 2009

Prominent Venezuelan nongovernmental organizations warned Thursday that a bill being drafted by lawmakers loyal to President Hugo Chavez could be used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government.

Chavez clamps down on broadcast media

Irish Examiner – Friday, July 10, 2009

President Hugo Chavez’s government is imposing tough new regulations on Venezuela’s cable television while revoking the licenses of more than 200 radio stations.

Report: Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez aggressively seizing control of media

Miami Herald – August 14, 2009

An unclassified report lists examples of Venezuelan government efforts to crack down on or seize control of media outlets to stifle criticism.

How’s that for a chronology of authoritarian censorship?

And Obama’s choice for FCC Diversity Czar also had this to say:

[From a 2005 Conference on Media Reform: Racial Justice]: “Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions.  And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We’re in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.”

It’s nice of Mark Lloyd to acknowledge that there are “good white people” around – just before he announces the need to have a purge of white people from the media.  But Mark Lloyd is a racist who has also said:

“There are few things I think more frightening in the American mind than dark skinned black men. Here I am.”

And Barack Obama also showed what he thought about free speech rights when his selection for FCC Diversity Czar said:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

So we pretty much know where the Obama White House is coming from: the media should be the exclusive tool of leftist propaganda to advance the Obama agenda.  Only Obama voters need apply to be considered as “journalists.”  Free speech is a terribly overrated thing, which needs to be “reinterpreted” to exclude ANYONE who has ANYTHING but a far-leftist revolutionary agenda.  And Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has provided the American left with the model as to how to proceed in that direction.

Obama is dithering around in Afghanistan while our soldiers languish and die for lack of support.  But he seems all to willing to pursue his war on Fox News with a gusto.

In both the war in Afghanistan and the war on Fox News, the threat is to freedom itself.