Tag Archives: Clinton

Hey, Hillary, It’s No Laughing Matter

During Hillary Clinton’s speech to reporters and analysts attending the Toner Prize journalism awards ceremony in Washington, DC, Mrs. Clinton employed variants of two classic Alinsky narrative manipulation tactics in targeting herself for ridicule over her use of a private email server and address during her time as Secretary of State. The use of her private server and email address allowed her to reverse the hierarchy of authority where the designation of government information is concerned. The use of the Alinsky tactics is meant to move the media on from this very damaging reality.

The UK’s Daily Mail quotes Mrs. Clinton as saying:

“I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight. You know my relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated…But I am all about new beginnings. A new grandchild, another new hairstyle, a new email account – why not a new relationship with the press? So here goes. No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy – after all, what good does that do me…”

Self-deprecating humor is a potent tool in a politician’s public relations toolbox, especially if the politician is trying to save face in an embarrassing situation. But targeting a damaging scandal with disarming ridicule is a tactic of manipulation to divert seriousness away from a point of vulnerability. Mrs. Clinton’s inclusion of the email scandal – which directly threatens her chances of becoming President of the United States – is purposeful and deliberate.

In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Rule Number 5 reads:

“‘Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.’ There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions…”

Rule Number 12 reads:

“‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

By including the subject of the email scandal in her “humorous” remarks, Mrs. Clinton effectively targeted those who identify the scandal as a serious matter; a matter that includes the ability for her to shield herself from damaging information on policy failures including the rise of the Islamic State, the assassination of a US Ambassador and his security team in Libya, and the failure of the “reset” with Russia, all of which took place on her watch. By diverting the spotlight away from herself, and shining it onto those who are rightly sounding the alarm on her conduct, Mrs. Clinton has – or at least she hopes she has – painted herself the victim, while branding her “accusers” as the bullies.

Now that she has deceptively intimated that the acts of “unfairness” exist with her detractors, she is free to implement Alinsky Rule Number 12, by targeting those who have called her on her misconduct (the vast Right-Wing conspirators), attempting to make their objections the story, and personalizing it by inferring that the “conservative media” is once again on a Clinton witch hunt, thus completing the political divide into pro- and anti-Clinton factions; factions which the Clinton’s manipulate with ease for both personal and professional gain.

It’s important to remember that Hillary Clinton’s thesis at Wellesley College, There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, was, for her, a declaration of her intimate knowledge of Saul Alinsky. To say that her understanding of the Alinsky model has served her well would be an understatement. To say that she is an Alinsky disciple would be spot on. And the disciple preaches on to this day.

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Progressives, Dems Slap the Faces of Benghazi Dead

In a move that illustrates why the overwhelming majority of American’s have grown to despise partisan politics – and come to be understandably offended by the actions of the Left, Progressives and Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee executed – under the guise of protest – one of the most insensitive and disrespectful actions in the history of the United States House of Representatives. They staged a pre-planned and organized “walkout” before the testimonies of the families of those slaughtered in Banghazi on September 11, 2012.

Those elected to office are sent to Washington to represent the whole of their constituencies, not just those with whom they agree. By staging this inarguably childish – and ultimately selfish – political theater, they have abdicated their responsibility to represent those with whom they disagree ideologically. This is an abdication of their obligation to the office; to their constituents. It is an action that even their supporters should abhor and, in fact, penalize them for.

The Capitalism Institute reports:

Earlier today, an important hearing regarding the attack on Benghazi was being held by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. The parents of the Benghazi heroes who died fighting to protect the US consulate were about to speak.

Then, in a turn of events that’s disgusting even by DC standards, most of the Democrats stood up and walked out. Apparently, they were either protesting or trying to show disrespect — either way, if there was any honor in their districts at all, this would end their careers…

Here’s the list of people who walked out:

Carolyn Maloney (P-NY)
Danny Davis (P-IL)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (P-DC)
Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
John Tierney (P-MA)
Mark Pocan (P-WI)
Matt Cartwright (P-PA)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
Peter Welch (P-VT)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Steven Horsford (P-NV)
Tammy Duckworth (P-IL)
Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
William Lacy Clay (D-MO)

Remember, last week John Kerry stopped the Benghazi survivors from being even questioned by congress.

What were these vicious ideologues trying to prove? That they could be indignant to the point of insulting parents and family who had to receive coffins in place of an embrace from their loved ones as they returned home from serving their country?

What was the statement the country was supposed to take away from their actions? That they are too good to listen to the grief that their political party’s infantile foreign policy has foisted onto these families?

Will these indignant Progressive and Liberal zealots have us believe that there was some “higher principle” to take away from their affront to the aggrieved; some “larger purpose” to their hate-filled and arrogant actions?

Progressives and Liberals would have you believe that their party – the Democrat Party – is the party of compassion and understanding; that the Democrat Party is the political party that commiserates with those affected by “social injustice” and morally transgressed in our country. The actions of these fifteen intellectual reprobates proves – in no uncertain terms – that Progressives couldn’t care less about those they disagree with, even when life has been lost…even when life has been lost in the service of our country…even when life has been lost in the service of our country at their political party’s direction (or indirection, if you will).

The mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith, in probably the most moving comment of the session, asked:

“Every time I see this on TV, I see these bloody fingerprints crawling down the wall of that Benghazi place, and I keep asking everybody…‘Do those belong to my son?!’”

How can any human being – elected to office or not, ideologue or not – care less about this woman’s torture; care less about that singularly important question? What kind of monster(s) ignores this woman’s plea for answers?

With each footstep that each of these fifteen political derelicts took leading to the doors of the committee chamber, we should all remember that those were footsteps that Amb. Chris Stevens, Diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty will never – ever – be able to take…anywhere…ever.

I think it is safe to say that the actions of these fifteen “lawmakers” exemplify the worst in American politics today.

The sad thing in all of this is that there are people who will vote for these national disgraces again in 2014, dismissing their cruel and unusual actions against the grieving families of the Benghazi dead. To those people I say, when you cast your vote for one of these fifteen, take note of the blood dripping from your hand, because it is there.

I must say, over the years I have become thoroughly disgusted with the Progressive movement for their selfish, narcissistic and ignorant nature. This action seals it.

God bless those who lost their lives in the Benghazi slaughter, for which our Commander-In-Chief offered no aid; for which our President and his Progressive minions have affected no justice. And God protect those who grieve for their loss.

Benghazi: Progressives Rewrite History in Real Time

If there was ever a moment in time when the American people could collectively glean knowledge from a “teachable moment,” the Obama Administration’s handling of the al Qaeda-related attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is surely one. From the moment the public became aware of what can only be perceived as an act of war, perpetrated at the hands of an enemy that has officially declared war on the United States and the West, the Obama Administration – Progressives one and all – have engaged in one of their favorite tactics of political opportunism: re-writing history. In this instance, they are doing it in real time; right in front of our faces.

From the moment US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice took to the airwaves to insist that the attacks that took the lives of a US Ambassador and three of his colleagues were, in fact, not a coordinated and planned terrorist assault of a US target of interest, but, rather, a “spontaneous” uprising turned violent, spurred by a third-rate video that literally no one had ever seen, the American people were being subjected to fact manipulation for political purposes. With an election coming up, a terrorist attack did not fit the Obama Campaign’s narrative that, “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is on the run.” If the al Qaeda was on the run on September 11, 2012, it was running forward, bayonets fixed, with death in their eyes.

But re-writing history is nothing new to the Progressive Movement. During the time of Woodrow Wilson, Progressives perfected the art of propaganda to such an extent that many in the fascist  movements of Europe – Hitler, the hierarchy of the Nazi Party and even Italy’s Mussolini – took notice; impressed at the effectiveness and results achieved by Wilson’s Administration.

In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg writes:

“Under President Wilson, progressives perfected the art of government propaganda. Wilson appointed the journalist and former muckraker George Creel to head the Committee on Public Information (CPI), the first modern ministry for propaganda in the Western world. Thus empowered, Creel methodically assembled an army of nearly 100,000 ‘Four Minute Men,’ each trained by the CPI to deliver, at a moment’s notice, four-minute propaganda speeches at town meetings or any other public venues where they might be heard. In 1917–18 alone, these operatives delivered some 7.55 million speeches in 5,200 communities.

“In addition, the CPI produced – with taxpayer dollars – millions of posters, buttons, and pamphlets bearing pro-Wilson, Progressive messages. The CPI’s nearly 100 pamphlets were distributed to approximately 75 million people. ‘It was a fight for the minds of men, for the “conquest of their convictions,” and the battle line ran through every home in every country,’ Creel later recalled…

“The public-relations pioneer Edward Bernays learned the science of what he termed ‘the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses’ during his time on Creel’s committee.”

To that end, it could be argued that Barack Obama’s entire life story is a product of decades of propaganda perfection. From Dreams From My Father to The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama’s entire life’s story has been very carefully crafted to present a myth rather than a man; a story rather than a life; an illusion instead of a person; an idea rather than reality. But I digress…

With UN Ambassador Rice’s advancement of the narrative that it was a protest over an inconsequential and poorly made film that served at the genesis for the murders of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues, the spin of a propaganda machine meant to protect the Obama presidency began. CIA talking points used in a briefing to Obama Administration officials by the Director of National Intelligence were revised no less than two times in less than 24-hours – from 231 words that included references to jihadists and al Qaeda to 91 words that completely expunged all reference to radical Islamist participation, planning or premeditation.

And then the propaganda machine began to hum. From Ambassador Rice to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to high-ranking officials at the Pentagon and CIA, to President Obama himself, the story – the talking points – were so succinctly crafted and choreographed that they could have been loaded into a teleprompter. Well-rehearsed and with authoritative style, each of these political operatives delivered the approved talking points text with conviction, insisting that they, too, were disgusted by the Islamophobic nature of the incendiary video. Mrs. Clinton even went so far as to look the father of slain former-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods in the eye and say, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

Of course, the light of the truth is shining on the facts of this story thanks to many in the new media, talk radio and FOX News, three information outlets routinely lambasted as “bias” and “right-wing” by the Progressive Movement’s many “useful idiots,” both in the mainstream media and the special interest community. And those facts, as they present, depict a much different reality – a much more truthful accounting – of the circumstances surrounding the slaughter in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues were abandoned; left to fend for themselves and die in a foreign land so that an election could be won.

An equally disturbing truth, albeit not as lethal, is the fact that many serving in the highest elected offices in the United States; the highest offices in the Executive Branch as well as the Legislative Branch, left these people to die because of their political aspirations; so emboldened by their total commitment to a socio-political ideology, so cripplingly devoted to attaining the power that only winning elections can afford, that they blatantly and freely deceive the American people, even about lethal attacks on our diplomats; deadly attacks against our country.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the very real fact that many, if not all, of the people who voted for Mr. Obama in 2012 were led to incorporate the “Obama Campaign Islamophobic film narrative” into their decisions at the ballot box.

The facts being what they are, it cannot be denied that the decision to deceive the American people, the decision to flagrantly lie to the American people – and, in fact, the decision to abandon four Americans as they fought for their very lives – was a decision based on a political motive. The CIA talking points on the slaughter in Benghazi were purposely and grotesquely altered in an effort to deceive the voting public into believing the deadly events of September 11, 2012, were inconsequential to the 2012 Presidential Election; that everything that could have been done to save the lives of four Americans in the service of their country was done; that the hellfire that rained down on Ambassador Christopher Stevens, US Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and former-Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods was the result of “common over-reactionary” violence associated with the hurt feelings of Islamofascists to which the Obama Administration had no recourse.

The decision to lie to the American people about the act of war that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 12, 2012, was made to mask the weak and conciliatory foreign policy of a president whose only real-life prerequisite experience for the highest office in the land was that of Chicago community organizer – not a constitutional scholar, not an exceptional legal mind, not a well-seasoned elected public servant, but a failed Chicago Progressive community organizer.

In the book, Fabian Freeway, Rose L. Martin explains the agenda mindset of the founders of the Fabian Socialist Movement, the very movement that would give birth to today’s Progressive Movement. Incidentally, among the founding members of this arrogant and totalitarian movement: George Bernard Shaw:

“From the outset, the nine young men and women who remained to found the Fabian Society had grandiose plans. Quite simply, they wanted to change the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education,’ which would lead to political action. To a rather astonishing degree they have been successful…”

“Changing the world through a species of propaganda termed ‘education’.” Given the fact that the same people who lied to the American people about the slaughter in Benghazi are the very people in control of our public education system, I would have to say I have never read more chilling words.

When the people we elect to public office are caught lying there should be consequences; a price paid for the cost of the deception. Keeping in mind that the four Americans who died in the slaughter of Benghazi – whose last moments on this earth must have been hopelessly tormenting – have already paid the ultimate price in the service of their country, it is fair to say that, so far, the only price Mr. Obama has been made to pay for his deadly political opportunism is to be re-elected to the Presidency on the wings of a lie.

I’m sure he’ll lose sleep over it.

Benghazi: It All Trickles Down to Leadership

Michelle Stansbury

In the past few weeks, our government has melted the Benghazi ordeal into a murky puddle, clouded with games of “Not It” and garbled story lines.

Many throughout the ranks such as CIA Director David Petraeus have made it clear that, “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate”. It is obvious not one person is willing to take the fall, leaving President Barack Obama the only man left standing to provide an answer; as it should be. Because it doesn’t matter who is to blame quite as much as it matters who should take the blame for lack of prevention in a tragedy that resulted in the brutal death of 4 Americans.

The CIA, Hillary Clinton, and others have all been blamed because President Obama lacks the leadership and humility to apologize to America, grieve with the families who lost their loved ones, and find a solution to be sure American blood is not unnecessarily wasted again.

The office of the President of the United States is easy when you are campaigning with celebrities, chatting it up on late night talk shows, playing golf, or receiving the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, the presidency is not a Miss America press tour. It consists of real-life, real-time decisions that require leadership, focus, and determination.

Not everyone has what it takes to be president. As we have seen with Benghazi, President Obama has not fulfilled his role as Commander in Chief. Simultaneously, he has failed to be solution-oriented, resulting in higher unemployment, gas prices, credit downgrades, six trillion dollars more in debt, and record number of Americans claiming disability. Success in a leadership position requires leadership skills, something President Obama has repeatedly promised but has proven unable to deliver.

Michelle Stansbury is a political consultant, paid speaker, and Fox Radio Political Commentator. You can follow her on Twitter: @MBStansbury and Subscribe on Facebook here.

THREE Denials for Help in Benghazi

Fox News has obtained information that confirms CIA operatives requested military backup 3 times during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

According to Fox News Special Reporter Jennifer Griffin:

“They knew that the consulate was under fire and that the ambassador needed help. They were told to stand down twice.”

She explains that the small group of CIA operatives at the annex a few blocks south of the consulate then disregarded orders and made their way from the CIA annex to the consulate building. After searching unsuccessfully for the ambassador and making some “heroic efforts to rescue those who had survived,” they made their way back to the annex.

“At that point, another request for help, for military help, some sort of air cover, was made from the CIA annex but no help was sent.”

Shortly thereafter, another CIA team flew in from the capital city of Tripoli but were denied at the airport. According to Griffin’s report, there was “infighting” among Libyan officials on the ground about whether or not the team would be granted an escort to the compound.

Griffin continues, “According to sources on the ground during the Benghazi attack, they did have laser pointers on the mortar fire team, and that if Special Operations specter gun ships had been sent in, and some were on standby… that they could have prevented those mortars that struck the compound.”

Meanwhile back in D.C., a meeting was held at the Oval Office whose attendees included the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense. That meeting was held at 5:00pm on the day of the attack, one hour AFTER the initial fire began.

There were 2 surveillance drones present during the 7 hour battle that could have been accessed by a number of US agencies.

MORE ON BENGHAZI:
Watch the Jennifer Griffin report
Hilary Clinton Assembles Legal Team
White House Knew
Bill tells Hillary to Resign

UPDATE: Clinton assembles legal defense team

ABC News reports on 9/20/12 that Clinton was unaware of al Qaeda link to attack
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hillary-clinton-info-amb-chris-stevens-al-qaeda/story?id=17282653#.UIgHn46xpVg

After weeks of administration officials blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for the attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, new documents obtained by multiple news outlets now prove beyond doubt that Secretary Hillary Clinton was aware of the situation within 2 short hours of the onset of weapons fire on the consulate.

Shortly after 4:00PM on September 11, 2012, emails from the consulate detailing the extreme nature of the attack were sent to some 200+ intelligence, State Department and White House officials, including the Situation Room. By 6:07PM, the email communications clearly indicated that Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

Email addresses indicate that without doubt that @state.gov (State Department) and @nss.EOP.gov (Executive Office of the President) received the communications. Also included in the “send to” line are the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence and a person at the Defense Department.

New reports out this morning show that Secretary of State Clinton assembled a legal team to be prepared for any fallout with the Obama administration that would attempt to place blame on the Secretary.

In the weeks following the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton and others in the administration pushed the narrative that a YouTube video prompted riots that got out of control for the cause of the attack. Clinton and President Obama stood side by side when addressing the nation condemning the video and blaming an American citizen for the deaths of the ambassador, 2 US marines and another American. The president spoke to the UN, appeared on The View and David Letterman shows and gave campaign speeches that continued to push that narrative for weeks after the attack. On September 28, 2012, Press Secretary Jay Carney finally told media that there was “no doubt that [the attack] was an act of terror.”

To read more about the latest Benghazi bombshell click here.

DNC Schedule: Day 3

9 a.m.-10 a.m.: Morning Prayer Gathering (Room 211AB/212AB).

10 a.m.-2 p.m.: Caucus Session 1. Women’s Caucus (Ballroom ABC).

2 p.m.-4 p.m.: Caucus Session 3. Rural Council (Room 203AB).

11:35 a.m.: First lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden will speak at the Women’s Caucus Meeting.

11:45 a.m.: International Leaders Forum: Madeleine Albright; Michele Flournoy; Jack Lew, White House chief of staff.

12 p.m.-2 p.m.: Caucus Session 2. LGBT Caucus (Room 203AB). Senior Council (Room 211AB/212AB).

12:10 p.m.: Dr. Jill Biden will speak at the LGBT Caucus meeting.

1 p.m.-3 p.m.: The Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network will host the nation’s prominent black clergy and civil rights leaders at NAN’s ministers’ luncheon to declare a state of emergency over voter suppression. Participants: the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of NAN and MSNBC host; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus; the Rev. Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, chairman of the Conference of National Black Churches; the Rev. Freddie Haynes, senior pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church; Roslyn Brock, chairwoman of the NAACP; John Kee, gospel singer.

2 p.m.-4 p.m.: “Electoral Dysfunction” screening — After discovering that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, political humorist CBS correspondent Mo Rocca sets out on a road trip to see how voting works — and doesn’t work — in America.

8 p.m.: Web-only convention special hosted by actor Kal Penn that will include interviews with campaign officials and guests, including Marc Anthony, Elizabeth Banks, Aisha Tyler, Olivia Wilde, Fran Drescher, Zach Braff and Alexis Bledel.

The 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina

Clinton/Gates Prep Nation for Obama’s Libya Spin Tonight: Fox left out again

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the rounds on the Sunday talk show circuit in a seemingly weak attempt to explain to the nation our unexplained involvement in the Libyan Civil War of 2011.  Let’s see here, they were on ABC’s ” This Week, ” NBC’s ” Meet the Press ,” and CBS’s ” Face the Nation. ”  Wait a minute, isn’t there a Sunday show on Fox ? Isn’t our Government supposed to be accessible to all major media networks ?  Then why would they refuse to go on Chris Wallace’s ” Fox News Sunday ” show ?

To say the least, Chris Wallace was somewhat surprised at the blatant unfairness in the Obama administration’s decision in not making Clinton/Gates available to ” Fox News Sunday, ” and its millions of viewers.  I personally caught the slight right away, and refused to give my viewership stat to the MSM Obama puppet propagandist stations, instead I was relegated to reading about it on the internet. However I did catch the following video clip from Fox News, explaining it :

This is typical of the Obama administrations pattern of picking and chosing  just who gets access to the important governmental officials of the last two years. How the entire American population can sit around criticizing other nation’s dictatorial treatment of the press, while allowing this kind of  denial of access to Fox News is beyond rationalizing. This also goes against the promise that this administration will be the most open and transparent in our history. Apparently that open government, now means open, only to those who fail to hold this administration’s feet to the fire for engaging in an illegal war in Libya without the permission of Congress. Open only to those who get all tingly when Obama speaks, while ignoring the blatant lies and misinformation coming out of the Whitehouse today.

These kinds of  pathetic manipulations of our media should not only be condemned by all Americans today, but also by the cronies that Obama is favoring here. Think about this after we take over the U.S. Senate and Whitehouse in 2012:  How about our new Republican President denying all the Obama media puppets access to anyone in our government for four straight years and only letting them go on Fox News ?  Maybe we will let  ABC, CBS, and NBC show reruns of all the Fox News  Sunday interviews during the following week, when it is already yesterday’s news. Think about that.