Hillary Clinton Honors Margaret Sanger at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Ho...

Stunningly arrogant’: Trey Gowdy furious over Susan Rice’s lack of regret over Benghazi comments.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy lambasted National Security Adviser Susan Rice for her lack of regret over her incorrect statements on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, calling it “stunningly arrogant” and accusing her of continuing to peddle a “false narrative.”

Gowdy spoke Monday with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren about Rice’s comments on “Meet the Press” Sunday, when she claimed she had “no regrets” for blaming the attacks on a disorganized mob upset about a video — not on well-trained Islamic terrorists.

Rice blamed the misstatement on faulty intelligence. But Gowdy wasn’t buying it. “There is no evidence to support that false narrative of a video,” he began. “Not a scintilla of evidence. All of the evidence pointed exactly to what she claimed it wasn’t: a preplanned, coordinated attack.”

So she was fabulously wrong when she said it the first time,” he declared, “and stunningly arrogant in her refusal to express any regret for lying to our fellow citizens.”

Given Rice’s insistence, Susteren asked the congressman what could be done to hold her and the administration accountable.

“I would love the chance to ask follow-up questions of Susan Rice, because David Gregory apparently did not avail himself of that opportunity,” he said, referencing Sunday’s interview. “Greta, I just listened to the the clip. I get tougher questions in the Bojangles drive-thru than he asked her.”

“There’s no regret about lying to your fellow citizens?” Gowdy continued. “No regret about the fact that in 18 months, not a single solitary person has been brought to justice? No regret for misleading the families and the loved ones of those four murdered Americans? I can certainly help her if she is struggling to come up with an area of regret.”

Susteren also asked the congressman why, given the absurd nature of the White House’s video story, Rice and the administration still tried to cover up the attack.

Gowdy noted that “we were in the midst of a [presidential] campaign,” with President Obama touting the effective defeat of al-Qaida. “Al-Qaida was not on the run,” he said, “they were at the front door of our facility in Benghazi, getting ready to kill our ambassador and burn it down.”

“So she can either tell the truth, or she can blame it on a video for which there is no evidence whatsoever,” he continued. “And she opted to protect her career and parrot the talking points that were provided to her by the White House.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/24/gowdy-furious-over-susan-rices-lack-of-regret-over-benghazi-comments-video/#ixzz2uMtpWBGo

Beck Reveals Hillary's Misinformation About Margaret Sanger (Eugenics) &...

Hillary’s Sugar Daddy Socialism Is Fair Game

It’s now officially sexist to hold someone accountable for her legacy of failure – as long as she is a liberal. Nonsense. Rand Paul was absolutely right to declare open season on Hillary’s track record of actively enabling Bubba’s grotesque satyrism.

Naturally, her mainstream media cover-up crew swung into action, decreeing that examining her record is verboten. It’s adorable how, in the age of the internet, these has-beens still think they get to decide what we can and can’t discuss. Give it another year or so until these dinosaur hacks are at the bottom of off-ramps with signs reading, “Will gatekeep for food.”

Hillary proves the old adage that a liberal feminist needs a man like a fish needs water. We just aren’t supposed to say that either.

Ah, the wonders of liberal feminism. What can’t it do – besides actually improve the lives of women who don’t manage to hook up with a powerful man who will hand them a career? Here’s the cold, hard truth: If Hillary hadn’t kept her part of the bargain with Bill Clinton by putting up with his serial abuse, she’d be just another grim liberal matron scowling at the thought that somewhere, out there, a man isn’t apologizing.

Liberal feminism was always about the liberalism, never about the female. Like every liberal pose, it is based upon a lie. Women, to liberal feminists like Hillary, are simply a means to an end. Hillary’s end was personal power, and all she had to do was destroy the occasional Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey if they protested being her hubby’s glorified sex toys.

We aren’t supposed to talk about how liberal feminism messed up our culture for women who aren’t married to a rich former president, and we aren’t supposed to mention that Hillary embodies liberal feminism better than almost anything except Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.

Real feminism should be concerned with women having the same opportunities as men. But liberal feminism is only concerned with turning women into a perpetual left wing voting block. The left doesn’t woo them by promising to build a society without arbitrary discrimination where, with hard work, they can realize their ambitions. Instead, liberals promise to hook them up with Uncle Sam – he’s older and not so hot, but he’s got a lot of dough and will take care of all you helplessJulias!

That’s Hillary in a nutshell, the poster gal for Sugar Daddy Socialism.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2014/02/24/hillarys-sugar-daddy-socialism-is-fair-game-n1798682

Shock Poll: Plurality of Democrats Want Congress to Continue Investigating Benghazi.

A new FOX News Poll indicates that 66% of registered voters want Congress to continue investigating the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack which led to the death of four Americans. 

Not surprisingly, 83% of Republicans want the investigations to continue, while 68% of Independents also are in favor of further investigations. However, what is surprising, in that it destroys the narrative from the Obama Regime that claims the inquiries into the Benghazi attacks are a “partison witch hunt,” is that a plurality of the president’s own party, the Democrats, believe that investigations should continue. Exactly half, 50% of Democrats want more investigations, 46% don’t, and 4% are unsure, according to the poll. 

Last month, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, led by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, stated that the Benghazi terrorist attacks were “preventable.” 

Additionally, 68% of women and 58% of black voters, two key groups Democrats pander to for votes, believe the Obama administration should continue to be investigated. - See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/02/24/shock-poll-plurality-of-democrats-want-congress-to-continue-investigating-benghazi/#sthash.IiOYs9hh.dpuf
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/02/21/66-say-congress-should-continue-to-investigate-benghazi/

Susan Rice: No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People

National Security Advisor Susan Rice said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that she has no regrets for conducting a series of controversial interviews immediately following the Benghazi terror attacks and insisted that she never misled the American people.

“What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice said told host David Gregory.

“The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment,” Rice continued. “It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and indeed to Congress by the intelligence community and that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”

The National Security Advisor did, however, concede that some information she relayed turned out to be false, but said she never misled the public.

“…the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false…”

Share:

“That information turned out in some respects not to be 100 percent correct. But, the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false and I think that has been amply demonstrated.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/23/susan-rice-no-regrets-over-initial-benghazi-interviews-patently-false-that-i-misled-american-people/

Hillary, Your Radical Marxist Roots are Showing

Hillary is more of an outright Marxist than Obama. Where his socialistic tendencies towards America stem from his hatred of this country’s supposed “colonialism.” We defeated Japan, but never occupied it. We defeated Germany, but never occupied it. The list goes on, but none-the-less America is a colonial power. But I digress, back to Hillary.

In 1971, twenty three year old Yale law student, Hillary Diane Rodham served a stint as a clerk for what was at the time, the nation’s most Communistic law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. This law firm made no bones about it’s connection to the Communist Party. Partner Doris Walker was a CP member at the time and another partner, Robert Treuhaft had left the CP in 1958 after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. They labeled him one of America’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. His firm made their name defending clients too radical for other lawyers. They defended Communists, draft-dodgers and even members of the militant group, The Black Panthers.

Some of Hillary’s most ardent political supporters are dismayed about her time at the law firm. Of course those opposed to her White House ambitions state that it shows her radical Marxist ideology that she keeps hidden from the public.

I think the biggest item of interest from Clinton’s time at the Communist law firm is her work on a plea negotioan on behalf of armed Black Panthers who stormed into the California legislature in 1967.

In an interview for her book, “Hillary’s Choice,” biographer and author, Gail Sheehy asked Treuhaft about Hillary’s tenure there. He said, “She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm,” Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.

In a 2007 policy speech on the subject of “Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity”, then Senator Hillary Clinton said, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an “on your own” society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a “we’re all in it together” society.

Now I ask you, is America ready for Hillary’s “Progressive Vision”?

And let’s not forget her radical Islamic-Jihadist ties.

Walid Shoebat is one of the founders of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which begat one of the worst terror organizations in our world today, Hamas. After coming to America, he converted to Christianity and now reports on Jihadi activities. He reported a list of 63 names in the US Government that have ties to radical Islam. He said that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin maintains close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Also on that list, was Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of ousted and disgraced Egyptian President Morsi, and his ties to the MB are not speculative. On the contrary, those ties are what prompted the Egyptian Military to take him out of office.

Hillary’s Wellesley College thesis was a 92 page dissertation on, and defense of the radical community organizer, Saul Alinsky. She idolized him, even bringing him to speak at her college in conjunction with interviewing him for her thesis.
She is in agreement with Alinsky on most things, save one.
“I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” she explained in her 2003 biography, “particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.”

In this, she is just like Obama in that she understands that much like the famous Cloward and Piven strategy, you cannot effect national change and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America from anywhere except inside the system.

So in summary, I actually fear a Hillary Clinton presidency much more than the Obama tenure. His incessant narcissism and refusal to work with leaders in EITHER party have rendered him much less effective and dangerous than he might otherwise have been. Hillary does not suffer from that problem. She will forge alliances, work with both sides and mow down political enemies to get what she wants, and what she wants is a Marxist America.

http://conservativehideout.com/2014/02/19/hillary-radical-roots-showing/