Benghazi and Boko Haram: the common delineator is Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton at senate hearingBenghazi proved to be a terrible tragedy involving the deaths of four good Americans, as is the current Boko Haram kidnapping of the 270+ girls in Nigeria.

Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in politics, got both of those issues wrong.  She is the common delineator between these two disastrous events.  She had choices to make and she chose poorly; people died as a result of her decisions.

First, Islamists and al Qaeda were responsible for Benghazi but the Obama Administration could not admit their failure because they had just touted that Mr Obama had al Qaeda “on the run,” “decimated” and “on the path to defeat.”

[Another reason I love events immured in YouTube.  You can’t fudge the facts.]

Then came Benghazi and four Americans were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and Demorat coverups.  Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador, said:

A bald-faced lie by the duplicitous to the addled and soft-brained amongst us.

Next: the lie by Mr Obama whilst speaking at the United Nations:

I’m sure that, at the time, al Qaeda was wondering: “just what the hell are you talking about?”  It determined: thanks; you’re playing right into our hands.  We salute you.

Hillary Rodham Clinton continued to enable the duplicitous Benghazi Meme:

Whilst Demorats did their best to minimize the importance of the Benghazi deaths, Conservatives continued to insist that those four deaths had importance and that we as a nation and government needed to understand and recognize our mistakes in order that those mistake not reoccur and that the four deaths were not meaningless or in vain.

My posts:

And some base questions: just who told Hillary Rodham Clinton to blame the video?  Where was she at the time of the attack?  Where was Barack Hussein Obama?  Why the so very long response time for our citizens?

Perhaps now — with this Select Committee — there might be a slight opportunity for the truth to unveil itself?  Because, after all, the more people try to stonewall, the more there must be to know.

Now that Boko Haram has revealed its true Islamist and Sharia Law bent, people in the United States are starting to become “upset.”

But let’s go back, shall we, to the nexus of Boko Haram and Hillary Rodham Clinton, in terms of her refusing — as Secretary of State — to quantify Boko Haram as an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization).

Josh Rogin at TheDailyBeast.com wrote:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.

But whose inaction spurred on the attackers?  Her own in 2012.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”

In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Who actually placed Boko Haram on the FTO list?  Of all people, John Kerry, after a series of Christian church bombings in Nigeria.

Let me unequivocally state that the kidnapping occurred roughly one month ago, on April 14th.  One month.  Yet the dainty sensibilities of Leftists weren’t upset until last week.

When Leftists do something, they are being good.  When Conservatives do something they are being “partisan.”

Further (you’ll love this): here’s a long forgotten point from MoveOn.org: their poll to urge then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not to declare Boko Haram a terrorist group:

MoveOn.org Petition Boko HaramThis is an amazing bit of defeatist pussified crap from people who are predominantly cowards.  They advocate “dialogue.”  There is no “dialogue” with terrorists or Islamists or criminals or psychopaths.  They want what they want when they want it and couldn’t care less about “dialogue.”  They only care about two things: 1) their strength and 2) your weakness.

Cowardly Leftist EmosA “hashtag” #BringBackOurGirls won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls — including Christian girls — at all.  It merely serves to dupe and assuage the senseless Emos amongst us.

Michelle Obama -- Bring Back Our GirlsMichelle Obama holding up a sign won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

A nice discussion between John Kerry and Boko Haram leaders around a nice ebon table and some soothing cups of tea won’t bring back anyone, much less the girls, at all.

How can the Leftists decry Boko Haram and yet refuse to let Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak at Brandeis University — a woman who is a clear critic of Boko Haram, al Qaeda and Islamists?  Muslims who in turn believe in female genital mutilation and honor killings?  By Muslims who think that women are nothing more than chattel?  How hypocritical can that be?  How insane can that be?  Boko Haram is only worth criticism when young girls are threatened?

On that note: apparently the killing of fifty-nine little boys by Boko Haram in February of this year doesn’t count at all.  I don’t see Michelle Obama holding up a sign saying #bringbackourboys.  Nor do I see celebrities all a-twitter on Twitter even mentioning that horrible incident.

Why?  I submit because it’s about little boys, not little girls.  Little girls kidnapped = Huge Deal.  Little boys killed and burned to the bone = no deal at all.

Thank you Leftists.

Thank you Hillary Clinton.

BZ

P.S.

Everything You Need To Know About The Schoolgirl Kidnapping In Nigeria is here.

 

The insane Left and Mexican food:

1. Not liking Mexican food is racist.

A new video by media analyst Mark Dice shows Obama supporters in San Diego expressing their view that it’s racist to not like Mexican food.

But wait; it gets better.

2. Eating Mexican food is racist.

Northwestern University continued to stumble over diversity issues this week as Mexican students voiced disagreement with a campuswide letter that advised students not to celebrate Cinco de Mayo by engaging in racially-offensive activities, such as eating tacos and drinking tequila.

This is absolutely insane.  Leftists in this country are clinically insane, plain and simple.
Face it; you’re all racists, whether you like Mexican food or not.

Swear to God, you can’t make this stuff up.

BZ

 

Further: talking like a woman

For MenBuilding on my Thursday post, I provide this now from BreakPoint.org:

Talking Like a Woman

by Kim Moreland

Blurring of lines between the sexes is having an effect on some men. Scientists from the University of California have found that some men are talking like women.

I wonder if this problem is creeping up because so many boys are being raised by a single parent–namely, a mother.

And the very first comment?

Comments:

Whatever the research says, I’m very annoyed by people who make every declarative sentence sound like a question? And right or wrong, I do subtract some credibility from people who do that? For example, I’ve heard so-called experts being interviewed on radio and TV and talking like that, and I find myself being dismissive? They might be the best experts in their fields, but to me, they undercut all of that by talking that way? People who do that should be made to look at a transcript of the things they say, including proper punctuation when they sound like they are asking a question? That might show them how absurd their speech is and how aggravating it is to have to listen to them? Just saying?

A final observation:

These are the same men who, later, will be second-guessed by women as to why they won’t make decisions, why they won’t open doors, and why they don’t seem to act like men at all.

Real women want real men.  Not women camouflaged as men.

Simple as that.

BZ

 

 

Liberals want to stop men from checking out women

Women Checking Out WomenFrom DailyCaller.com:

In the progressive future, men will not be able to look at women’s bodies because that is a terrible thing to do — and science says so.

Researchers have offered a definitive report into the science of the male “objectifying gaze” in the December 2013 volume of “Sex Roles: A Journal of Research” (Volume 69, Issue 11-12, pp 557-570).

“Although objectification theory suggests that women frequently experience the objectifying gaze with many adverse consequences, there is scant research examining the nature and causes of the objectifying gaze for perceivers. The main purpose of this work was to examine the objectifying gaze toward women via eye tracking technology,” according to the abstract of “My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women” by Sarah J. Gervais, Arianne M. Holland, and Michael D. Dodd.

In other words, attractive women get “looked at” more than unattractive women.  Boo-frakking-hoo.  The same is true for men.

Now: men “checking out” women should be illegal, Leftists believe.

  • First: the Speech Police
  • Second: the Thought Police
  • Next: the Eye Police

Sad thing: these Leftists are actually serious.

That men “objectify” women in some cases is true.  It is also true that women objectify themselves as frequently — or more.

From a UKDailyMailOnline article:

Women spend more time checking out OTHER WOMEN than they do men (and it’s their clothes, figures and hair we’re most interested in)

Ever get the feeling your boyfriend is looking at other women as you walk down the street?

Well, perhaps he’s picking up the habit from you.

Women spend more time checking out other women than they do checking out men, keen to see what ‘the opposition’ is wearing, how much cellulite they have, what their hair looks like and how thin they are, according to a new study.

Let’s also get into some stats that your local police and sheriff departments will absolutely refuse to reveal:

1. Close to half of the reported rapes to LE agencies are false;
2. Women strike men only slightly less than men strike women.  The difference exists regarding the disparity in physical size between men and women, and the fact that men predominantly refuse to report physical abuse due to such reporting perceived as being “unmasculine.”  Finally: women verbally abuse men with much greater frequency and efficacy than the reverse.

Both men and women know this.

Ask women who they’d rather their supervisor be.  And ask women if they’d like to work in an all-female environment.

I used to say when I worked Patrol that I became very tired of my utilization as the Womens’ Gestapo.  That sexist paradigm continues to exist today.

Leftists: get over yourselves.  This crap is laughable.

Another reason so few of you live in Reality.

BZ

P.S.
One salient comment from the article that bespeaks a massive amount of Leftist Truth:

This ONLY applies to straight (conservatives). Rump wranglers and fur traders can do as they always do……………..

Check the comments; there exists some funny and poignant stuff.