Tag Archives: attack

Unions doing what Unions do… (video)

If you aren’t a regular visitor here and thus don’t already know my opinion of most Unions, it’s pretty simple: I don’t like ’em. Of course, even if you aren’t predisposed against the modern-day Labor movement, this year’s shenanigans up in Wisconsin should have brought you up to speed.

So, when I heard about a Union “confrontation” during a protest in Michigan and its becoming a Right-to-work state (courtesy of PJTV’s Steven Crowder), I already had a pretty good idea of just what it’d look like.

*Caution*: video has language that is definitely NSFW. It’s been ‘bleeped’ out, but, well, you know…

Continue reading

Okay, 1st: Obama lied for 2 weeks about Benghazi. Now: he’s lying …about the lying

At this point, I’m really getting sick & tired of even hearing this disingenuous, illiterate drivel.

Unless you’ve been holed up in solitary confinement for the past two months, you’ve heard about the “did-he-or-didn’t-he” Benghazi discussion. President Obama and his team are pushing this retelling of history to

(A) insist he had “informed” the American people that Benghazi was terrorism in his 9/12/12 Rose Garden speech (he didn’t), and

(B) downplay the even bigger truth, which is Obama & Co lied to our face about a stupid video for two weeks AFTER the Rose Garden speech, and is now lying…about the lying.

Honestly, this has to be the most ridiculous argument I’ve seen in my adult life. We are being told to ignore what our eyes, ears and brain are telling us; to literally ignore an observable truth. I’m past incredulous that they’re even attempting this; now I’m just plain ticked off.

It’s not an insult to our intelligence; it’s insinuating that we have no intelligence whatsoever.

Here, watch the address again. Are YOU left with the impression that Obama is telling us the attacks in Benghazi were by terrorists?

Answer: NO, you’re not.

Now, why are you not? It’s because words mean things, and context matters. From Alana Goodman in Commentary Magazine:

If Obama wanted to call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack in that speech, he had plenty of opportunities to do so. Instead, he described it as a “terrible act,” a “brutal” act, “senseless violence,” and called the attackers “killers,” …not terrorists.

—–

By the way, speaking just for the English & Grammar nerds in the room, the phrases “act of terror” & “terrorist act” are not even grammatically interchangeable: one describes an act (which could be done by anyone), the other describes an action done by a specific person.

Big. Difference.

—–

More from Alana Goodman:

Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that.

Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, …just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

By only focusing on the small, carved-out phrase “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” from the rest of the speech, it allows the media and the Obama Administration to shape the context more easily.

Less to deal with; easier to lie about.

If you skipped over the video, go watch it; it’s short. Because no matter what else Obama was trying to convey to us that day, the attacks in Benghazi being terrorism wasn’t one of them.