God's Own Crunk

What?

In a must-read piece at NRO, Andrew McCarthy posits that were he investigating the Benghazi affair, he’d begin by zeroing in on the 10 pm phone call between Hillary Clinton and POTUS Obama the night of 9/11/12.

Again – what?

This is one story I’ve followed closely and remain strong in my feeling that this is the nastiest of all scandals plaguing the White House. I admit ignorance – I had no idea there was such a call. One of the enduring mysteries of Benghazi is, at least optically, the curious absence of POTUS Obama for eight hours as the siege took place. McCarthy, with what now appears to be, er, obvious sourcing, demolishes the idea that the POTUS was out of the loop, asleep, etc. To be clear on this, El Rushbo himself repeatedly went to the idea of ‘where was the President’ all last week during his show – no one on the Conservative side of things (and duh, the Liberal side) has focused on this.

It keeps getting worse – I cut a chunk, but click and read the whole piece:

I had the good fortune to be trained in Rudy Giuliani’s U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. Rudy famously made his mark by making law enforcement reflect what common sense knew: Enterprises take their cues from the top. Criminal enterprises are no different: The capos do not carry out the policy of the button-men — it’s the other way around.

So if I were investigating Benghazi, I’d be homing in on that 10 p.m. phone call. That’s the one between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the one that’s gotten close to zero attention.

via The 10 P.M. Phone Call | National Review Online.

Three quick comments to precede this prescient column by Mark Steyn, his best work in ages.

1) Benghazi remains the real story – so much of a clusterfuck is it that a planted question last Friday led to this story getting out. As ugly as it is, it’s still meant as cover for the Benghazi shenanigans. The GOP would be wise to keep their eye on the far-more combustible story that involved four Americans getting killed and the political cover-up that was meant to save the faces of, respectively, POTUS and SecState. I keep hearing how GOPers shouldn’t make this political, and my response is simple: why not, since the Administration made it political from the get-go, never concerned with the facts on the ground or how they might affect the actual people on the ground?

2) Standing alone, away from the other myriad of “scandals” (a better term would be “civic atrocities”), the IRS story will continue to grow legs because of how patently evil the IRS people come off, and not because their chosen route in life was enforcement of the tax code. Steven Miller, who testified before the House Ways & Means Committee today, came off as arguably the most unsympathetic figure to testify before a Congressional Committee in televised American history. In a nobler day, he’d have been garrisoned before appearing in front of a firing squad at sunrise for his utter contempt for the body questioning him – a body that represents us, mind you.

3) The naked ugliness of Benghazi and the IRS stories remains that both were meant to ensure the re-election of the tin-pot, banana-republic figurehead at the top of the ticket. I don’t doubt POTUS knew more than a few of the details of this business – I’ve always questioned his intelligence, but I’m starting to wonder if he’s the most intellectually incurious figure to ever darken the door of the Oval Office. Sold as this kind of hyper-intellectual-intellectual’s-intellectual, I’d be mighty curious to know when the last time this halfwit actually read a book from cover-to-cover. Maybe Katie Couric can score and interview with him and find out what new publications he reads? A boy can dream, no?

Miss Strassel wrote that on April 26, 2012. Five weeks later, one of the named individuals, Frank VanderSloot, was informed by the IRS that he and his wife were being audited. In July, he was told by the Department of Labor of an additional audit over the guest workers on his cattle ranch in Idaho. In September, he was notified that one of his other businesses was to be audited. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never previously been audited, attracted three in the four months after being publicly named by el Presidente. More to the point he attracted that triple audit even though Miss Strassel explicitly predicted in America’s biggest-selling newspaper that this was exactly what the Obama enforcers were going to do. The “separate, sinister entity” of the government of the United States went ahead anyway. What do they care? If some lippy broad in the papers won’t quit her yapping about it, they can always audit her, too — as they did to Miss Strassel’s sometime colleague Anne Hendershott, a sociology professor who got rather too interested in Obamacare and wrote about it in the Journal and various small Catholic publications. The IRS summoned Professor Hendershott to account for herself, and forbade her husband from accompanying her, even though they filed jointly. She ceased her political writing.

via The Autocrat Accountants | National Review Online.

After I posted the rant below, this came to my attention – I’ll bold to prove a point, yes – this excerpt is the bottom half of one of three pages:

The Republicans see Benghazi as a political opportunity, a way to swift-boat Clinton and lacerate her up as much as possible before 2016.

On Jan. 23, Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party darling, wanted to talk about the talking points.

“We were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that,” Johnson said, “and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.”

Clinton, a former senator and now a former secretary of state, knows how to put up with guff. But she figured the American people had put up with enough guff when it came to Benghazi.

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she replied. “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.”

via Hillary Clinton will take only so much guff – Roger Simon – POLITICO.com.

First, to “Swift-Boat:” The act of telling the truth about a Democrat. Don’t ever forget it.

I guess this is the difference between me and those like me, and so many female peers of mine who “admire” Hillary Clinton. To me, she remains the absent-substance coattail-rider who’s wrecked all she’s touched. To my overwhelmingly bitch-friends who admire her, she’s … HillaryClinton.com. They can’t see beyond the notion she’s a Woman, has a Vagina, A Daughter and “overcame” the stigma of the husband whose coattails she rode while he fucked everything that moved.

Reminder: Hillary Clinton has wrecked every single thing she’s been associated with AND, fwiw, been put in charge of. Putting the touchy details of her marriage aside, she has Whitewater, Healthcare, and Benghazi to her name, and that’s just the big ones. She is, was and remains a failure of human ability and the punchline is that her failures come at our expense. She continues her Quixotic attempts to re-imagine light-bulbs and mouse-traps at public expense. To the sober observer, she is of below-average intelligence, stocky build, fiery temper, and would best be suited in a position that demands much authority and little responsibility – she’d make a fine high school guidance counselor, at least at firs blush.

Heh – first blush, whatever.

To wit, this: the burden of being Hillary.

I’ve never met her, but I assume with 90 percent accuracy she’s an awful human being, and with 40 percent accuracy I assume her daughter hates her. What I’m sure of is that, for 20 years of my adult life, she’s been fucking up every single public initiative she touches.

Oh, and she sreeches when riled. Crows do this too, and they’re among the smartest animals on Earth. I consider it both heresy and complimentary to put Hillary among those screeching black birds – she’s about as welcome, and about as smart.

Cawwwwww….

A recurrent theme talking to my Conservative friends, politically astute to various national currents: “Can you seriously believe how much they are lying?”

“They” refers to the Obama Administration, and since as early as 2007, we’ve assumed they massage the truth. “They” ain’t “us.” They are the people “we” have been warning about. The tectonic shock among “us” – middle-aged Conservatives who haven’t trusted the self-described “ones we’ve been waiting for” since, er, forever – is how flagrantly they’re flat-out lying.

Read the rest of this entry »

Although Mr. McCain and I have a great many views in common, our intensity regarding the Cold War and hatred of Communism and all its current protos, neos etc  is what keeps me reading his work.

The piece I link is somewhat long and meticulous regarding what amounts to a Twitter feud, but I came away from it seeing the same patterns I see re-reading the referenced M. Stanton Evans and his, er, crucial  work, Blacklisted By History, a biography of Joe McCarthy. Coupled with W. Cleon Sklousen’s The Naked Communist, you have a good deal of what you need to know about what was at stake back in the day, and how it remains relevant. Bud, it remains relevant whether you want to admit it or not. That said, Mr. McCain’s piece, centered on his Twitter interaction with an idiot college student, sums up the arc nicely:

You really have to study the history of that era to understand the significance of the fact (to cite just one example) that Zinn served as a delegate from a Communist-infiltrated group (American Veterans Committee) to the national convention of a group blacklisted by the Attorney General in 1947 (Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee). Let anyone ask some of the surviving anti-Communists of the 1950s and ’60s — especially M. Stanton Evans — how conclusive that evidence was, in terms of Zinn’s standing with the CPUSA. And when you fast-forward two decades from there to the late 1960s to find Zinn teaching a seminar entitled “Marxism and Contemporary Problems,” sponsored by an organization founded by Herb Aptheker . . .

via What Part of ‘Fuck You, Commie Scum’ Is So Hard for @BurkelyH to Understand? : The Other McCain.

Let it be said again and again: this country needs more men like Joe McCarthy.

Via AOSHQ. Powerful stuff.

I’ll say this, something I was telling my dad the other day: Conservatives may feel like we’re in the wilderness at the moment – and yeah, we are – but our crop of political talent is a bounty. Cruz and Rand Paul are my favorites, but we have many more solid Conservative pols on the bench. Cruz’s knack, thus far, has been his ability to recognize lightning-rod issues and skew heavily Conservative on them. The rumor is he’s already plotting a run for POTUS, and say hellya. If nothing else, he’ll skew the crop of candidates to the right, because they all know that, currently, the two Big Issues are Gunz and Immigration. This may change, but Cruz is saying all the right things in all the right venues. I don’t know a lot about this guy, but I really like this guy.

It doesn’t hurt that he talks like a preacher.

In a duopoly of Tweets, Sarah Palin noted that the folks living large at the White House Correspondents Dinner were pathetic, and then she called them “assclowns.”

The Outrage.com effect was quick – why, Sarah Palin would be at that same dinner had she won! So went the battle cry, the better class of people forgetting that a) Palin was the undercard of the ticket in 08 and b) John McCain, the top of the ticket, appeared in a jokey opening number that spun off the TV show “House of Cards.” Depending on your view of Palin, she was either a good soldier or a dupe for campaigning for McCain in the last cycle, ensuring he’d get another six years in the Senate to reach across the aisle to find the proper dildo with which to fuck us in the ass. Say what you will of Sarah Palin, at least she’s playing her game with her own money, not yours and not mine.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the guise of a book review, Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator unleashes the Drakken, at least Conservatively speaking – it’s long, but do read it:

Berkowitz’s thinking — which Rubin shares — is a pluperfect example of what led a couple generations of American leaders to believe the Soviet Union was here to stay. Those were the folks rolling their eyes in their supposed sophistication when President Reagan insisted the Soviets were headed to the “ash heap of history.” Only to watch astonished as the Berlin Wall came down followed shortly thereafter by the Soviet flag over the Kremlin. Precisely as Reagan predicted.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but the New Deal is crashing down around the heads of Americans in a fashion that is the political equivalent of those iconic images of the collapsing World Trade Center on 9/11.

via The American Spectator : The Reactionary Republicans.

Excellent piece. I’ll go a step farther than the author and add that some American Liberals may be deluded enough to think that their idiotic, proved-unworkable policies may help the needy, but those in power know they don’t work but are a handy way to continue consolidating power while shrinking its opposition ie the more people who rely on the State, the fewer available to oppose the freedom- and soul-killing policies of the American Left:

The Greek collapse is a direct consequence of the unbridled welfare state. The country was brought down by nationalized healthcare, exorbitant pensions, early retirements, a massive public sector, and all the other mathematical impossibilities that progressives mistake for virtue. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher’s famous line, the Greeks ran out of other people’s money. The danger of the welfare state isn’t theoretical, and there’s a new generation of hungry Greek children to prove it.

Does that mean that those Americans who’ve been calling for the United States to follow the European social model don’t care about hungry children? No, they’re not monsters. Rather, they don’t see the connection between what they advocate and what’s unfolding—between what they think of as “welfare” and what’s actually its opposite. It would be unseemly and offensive, therefore, for leading conservatives to denounce big-spending liberals as shamefully indifferent to child suffering.

Liberals, on the other hand, must shame their conservative opponents because emotion is nine-tenths of the liberal law, as post-Sandy Hook discussion shows. On the left, intentions dominate. Failed liberal policy could never be justified by a sober consideration of facts.

via The Age of Hope and Shame « Commentary Magazine.

Jacob Sullum, over at Reason, writes of the failed gun control efforts and Gabby Giffords’ efforts regarding said … efforts:

“Speaking is physically difficult for me,” Giffords writes, alluding to the disability caused by the gunshot wound she suffered at the hands of Jared Loughner in Tucson two years ago. “But my feelings are clear: I’m furious.” Obama thinks such feelings should carry special weight in the gun control debate, and evidently so does Giffords, although they might change their minds when confronted by a victim of gun violence who does not support their agenda. Assuming that parents of murdered children are not all of one mind regarding the merits of new gun controls (and they’re not), how do we decide whose feelings should prevail? Take a vote of the victims?

Enough already. If you have an argument to make, make it. But do not assume that the only possible explanation for your failure to persuade people is their bad faith or lack of compassion.

via Why Is Defying Majority Support for Gun Control ‘Cowardice’? – Hit & Run : Reason.com.

I think I’ve written before about how when I was 7, I watched my best friend accidentally shoot a 9-year-old boy in the head. With a gun!! There is great, not-obvious irony to be mined from this incident in the early 1980s, but I’ll stop, because as strange of a story it is…

Read the rest of this entry »