Not One Of Us

The Obama campaign recently released an attack ad that ended with the words, “Mitt Romney, Not One Of Us”. People pointed out that if Romney had an ad saying Obama was not one of us, he would have been criticized for making a racial attack. But, let’s look at the ad another way. Let’s assume that Obama is saying that, from Obama’s own political perspective, Romney is entirely alien to Obama’s political values. The “us” is Obama and his political allies. Let’s fact check the ad from that perspective.

Let’s look at some of Obama’s political associates to see what Obama means by “one of us”.

• Obama’s earliest political mentor, during his formative teen years, was a man named Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a card-carrying communist who wrote a column for the communist weekly newspaper in Hawaii. His biographer, Paul Kengor, said the Davis columns “flawlessly parroted official soviet propaganda”. Davis was a big fan of Joseph Stalin. According to Kengor, Obama devoted 2,500 words to Davis in “Dreams From My Father”. When Obama left Hawaii for college, Davis warned him not to start “believing in equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit”.

• John Drew was introduced to Barack Obama at Occidental College by Drew’s girlfriend, Caroline Boss. Boss and Drew were committed, activist Marxists and Drew remembers Boss introducing Obama by saying “he is on our side” (He is one of us, so to speak). Drew says, “Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met him”. Drew has written that Obama “made it clear that he was looking forward to an imminent social revolution, literally a movement where the working classes would overthrow the ruling class and institute a socialist utopia in the United States”. Drew went on to get a PhD at Cornell and rejected Marxism.

• At Columbia, Obama was introduced to the ideas of Francis Fox Piven when he attended the “Socialist Scholars Conference” where she was the keynote speaker in 1983. Her ideas of organizing from the bottom and creating revolutionary change through community organizing were key elements in Obama’s future pursuits. The Cloward- Piven Strategy involves “overwhelming the system” to create an economic collapse. The economic system is to be destroyed by a combination of building anger and resentment in the lower classes and expanding welfare spending to the point of economic collapse. After the destruction, a beautiful socialist world will arise from the ashes. It’s the socialist utopian delusion. Piven spoke at Occupy rally’s and said, “We desperately need a popular uprising in the U.S.” To Piven, and those like her, our burgeoning welfare rolls and crushing debt are good things.

• When Obama went to Chicago to become a community organizer, he was trained by disciples of Saul Alinsky, father of community organizing, and author of “Rules For Radicals”. Obama became such a shining advocate for Alinsky that he was honored in 1998 at the premier of the Chicago play, “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky”. Obama was chosen to be on a panel of extreme leftists who discussed their love for Alinsky after the play. Alinsky sought a socialist revolution where “the means of production will be owned by all of the people”. He sought an overthrow of the government, but his method was slow and patient. Rather than calling for a violent revolution, he suggested infiltrating institutions of power. He called it “boring from within”; the Trojan Horse approach. Along with infiltration, he taught that organizers should foment discontent and “rub raw the resentments of the people… fan the latent hostilities”. In this way, the people would be ready for destruction of the system. Eventually, he wished, an Alinsky disciple would have enough power to boldly say something like, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”.

• For obvious reasons, Obama lied about the depth of his relationship with Bill Ayers, saying Ayers was “just some guy in my neighborhood”. The relationship was actually long and deep. Obama’s political career began with a fundraiser in Bill Ayers living room. Ayers and Obama worked together in many capacities over many years. Ayers has spent his life as a communist revolutionary. In his younger days, he was the leader of the Weather Underground, which he called “America’s Red Army”. His mission statement included, “Kill the rich people… bring the revolution home …kill your parents”. They bombed several targets, including the Pentagon and a police station where an officer was killed. Ayers’ methods have changed, but not his ideology. On the day after 9-11 he was pictured on a magazine cover standing on the American Flag. He says, “This country makes me sick”. Speaking at an Occupy rally in March, Ayers said, “I get up every morning and think …today I’m going to end capitalism. Today I’m going to make a revolution”. In July 2005, Obama was at his buddy Bill Ayers’ house for a 4th of July barbecue. What do you do at Ayers home on the 4th of July? Spit on the flag? Have Reverend Wright over to sing, “God Damn America”? Ayers takes politics seriously. He chose Obama as “one of us”.

• Wade Rathke is another extreme leftist radical from the sixties who decided to bore from within. Rathke started ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It is a corrupt, criminal organization that was caught in enough nefarious activities that Obama sought to distance himself from the group in 2008. As with many other associations, the media helped him hide from his past. In fact, Obama had a close relationship with the group. He worked with them to force banks into sub-prime lending, he worked on their voter registration projects, he trained ACORN leaders starting in 1992 and when he was in a position to direct money to Acorn, he did so in a big way. In a 2007 speech to ACORN leaders, Obama said, “I’ve always been a partner with ACORN…I’ve been fighting with ACORN…my entire career”. He is one of them.

• Another relationship that Obama successfully lied about before the election was his relationship with the socialist New Party. Francis Fox Piven and ACORN were both involved in founding the New Party. The goals of this political party included standard socialist demands like a guaranteed income for all, free health care and day care and a tax system based on ability to pay. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. After the 2008 election, substantial documentation was found proving that Obama was a member of the New Party. He was one of them.

• On the Sunday after the 9-11 tragedy, when most Americans felt a real bond of solidarity and sadness, Reverend Jeremiah celebrated the event in his church. He spoke jubilantly of America’s chickens coming home to roost. The congregation was jubilant, too. This was Obama’s congregation for 20 years. It’s a congregation where the church bulletin said that AIDS was created by white men to kill black people. It’s where Wright preached that “white man’s greed runs a world in need”. Is Rev. Wright Obama’s kind of person? Obama spoke lovingly of the man.

• You could make a long list of Obama’s radical appointments as President. Czars were [illegally] created so that the people who run the executive branch of government could avoid the normal rigors of the appointment process for cabinet members. Office space near the White House was rented so that the interest group lobbyists who Obama caters to could peddle their influence more secretly, outside of normal reporting requirements. It is clear to any honest observer that radical leftists have been given substantial power in this administration. People who were openly Communists, Maoists and rabid enemies of the free market are on the inside now. His people.

Obama swims in an ocean of radical left politics. It is his world, it always has been, and these are his people. Obama says Romney is “not one of us”. Thankfully, that claim is 100% correct.

Why This Independent Chose Romney

I have a friend, Bill Bregar, who is an independent thinker and a very smart guy. Like many of us, he is concerned about the future for his children and grandchildren. Bill took the time to write down the key reasons why this election is important and why Romney is the sensible choice.  I think he wrote it for interested members of his family.  It deserves a wider audience.  Take it away, Bill:

 

I think this election represents a decision point for this country, and that the decision we make will have a far greater effect on our long-term future than any other election in the past 40-50 years. My greatest concerns are the future of the economy and the state of the nation’s finances.  This is because I believe that progress on any of the other big issues may happen, but will either take place far slower or not at all, unless we have a robust economy to allow for the development of and payment for solutions to those issues. The economy depends on the business climate and the fiscal situation.  I do not believe that the President has put forth any viable strategy for solving these issues, and failing to solve them leaves all other issues by the wayside.  Instead, from all I can see, he plans to continue the same strategies that have, thus far, led to a tepid recovery, at best.

The two candidates have significantly different views of how the country works and the role that government should play.  The President holds to the idea that a strong and large central government can best solve our economic problems (as well as all other problems).  He relies on experts to determine the shape of the economy, and he relies on government’s power to spend money to drive economic sectors that he and his experts want to succeed. He would use the tax code to provide incentives to those companies and industries he wishes to support and to deter those he wishes to suppress.  He believes that it’s government’s job to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness” or “social justice”.   Obama aims at cultural issues (race, class, gender), which appeal to a lot of people, but, I believe he has used these issues to divide the electorate, rather than bring us together.

The Governor sees individuals and businesses as better positioned to determine how to invest their capital. He takes the view that individuals, while acting independently, tend to apply and confirm the principles that have been formulated through the years and use their collective wisdom to determine how to grow their own financial concerns.  It’s the difference between a big bet on a few key industries and companies within them versus spreading your bets to cover the widest possible range.  In investment terms it’s the difference between a balanced portfolio and one that is dependent on one or two large investments.

Supporting free enterprise does not preclude paying attention to some of the excesses of private enterprise.  However, when pressed, free enterprise comes up with better, more efficient solutions to problems.  One, in particular, is the problem of funding the government so it can do the things it must be doing. My contention is that growing the economy is a better solution than simply raising taxes, and it provides both more revenue to the government, as well as jobs for people.  Raising taxes alone is a known deterrent to economic growth.  If it weren’t, why would everyone be so fearful of the potential financial cliff that will take place at the beginning of the year, unless congress takes some action on the deficit problem?  In addition to spending cuts, there will also be tax increases across the board, which most economists predict will send us into another recession or worse. Continue reading

Aside

Just for Fun….

Two Reminders – 1. Turn back the clock today. 2. Get a new President on Tuesday.

Hugh Atkin took 60 years of campaign ads and made this 4 minute video of short clips.  It is an interesting look at how things change and how things remain the same.

 

Senator Hiram Revels Would Be Ashamed Of President Barack Obama

The front page of cnn.com has been running a story by John Blake entitled, “Parallels to country’s racist past haunt age of Obama“.   From start to finish the article is a blatant attempt to paint the entire Republican agenda as a plan to restore racial segregation and institutionalized discrimination in the United States.  Mr. Blake uses anecdotal stories of the N-word in twitter accounts (though presumably not referring to the twitter responses to Stacy Dash’s tweet) and complaints about “black flash mobs” alongside citing any opposition to Obama’s legislative agenda as examples of Republicans trying to undo years of racial progress made by the courageous Democratic party through the years.  Mr. Blake uses the example of Senator Revels and failure of the Reconstruction movement to draw an analogy to today’s President Obama and the failure of his “post-racial” legislative agenda.  The analogy is very appropriate, but not for the reason that Mr. Blake presented.

It is important to understand historical facts before addressing how shockingly false and malicious Mr. Blake’s article really is.  When one moves beyond the rhetoric and looks at the historical achievements of the Republican party, it is shocking that any African-American votes Democrat:

  • 1865 – Republican Abraham Lincoln won the civil war and abolished slavery.  Good start for the party.
  • 1870 – Republican Hiram Revels is elected to the US Senate.  The first black man to be elected to the US Senate got some support from Democrats because they thought that his election would break the Republican party.
  • 1870 – 1948 Not much happened for the Black population of the US despite powerful presidencies of Democratic heroes like FDR and Truman.
  • 1948 – Republican Dwight Eisenhower forces desegregation of the armed forces against strong opposition.  After Brown vs Board of Education, Eisenhower famously deploys the 101st Airborne Division to forcibly desegregate schools in Little Rock, AR.  He declares racial segregation a national security issue and establishes the Civil Rights Commission and puts a permanent civil rights office in the Justice Department.  The first civil rights legislation since the 1870′s, the Civil rights act of 1957 was passed despite strong Democratic opposition. Senate Democrats did manage to water down the bill so that a second voter rights bill was necessary.  Partially at the request of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. President Eisenhower passes a follow-up voter protection civil rights act of 1960, again against strong Democratic opposition.
  • 1964 – Democratic President LBJ passes the landmark Civil Rights Act against Democratic opposition in congress.
  • 1970 – Republican President Richard Nixon signs the Philadelphia Plan and Affirmative action is born (yes, Richard Nixon is responsible for Affirmative Action).  Though not pertinent to racial issues, it is also interesting to point out that Nixon is responsible for the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteeing equal rights for Women under the law.
  • 1983 – Republican President Ronald Reagan makes Martin Luther King, Jr day an official federal holiday.  In 1988, he would expand and strengthen the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
  • 1991 – President George H. W Bush appoints the second African-American Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.

The road to equal rights under the law was largely paved by Republicans. However, most Republicans (sans Nixon), view legal equality as the just end goal fo legislative activity.  Until the time of the Civil Rights act, Democrats largely sought to deny civil rights to the African-American population.  Since then, the Democratic party started a new, though equally devastating, policy towards the African-American population.  The plan was to create an entitled dependent class that would get “special” protections and privileges under the law.  Such special privileges would be justified by stoking racial tension and convincing the African-American population that anything short of special treatment under the law is oppression.  Quotas, affirmative action, and over-reaching anti-discrimination laws that make it very easy to sue employers were passed ensuring that people would always doubt the accomplishments of minorities and make employers think twice about employing people that they would not be able to fire. The measures ensured that African-American unemployment would always remain high. In addition to destructive “special” privileges under the law, entitlement programs were geared towards the African-American population and created a dependent class that required government handouts to survive.

This narrative of this policy is clearly illustrated in Mr. Blake’s CNN article.  Anyone who denies that narrative and points out the devastating consequences of those policies is deemed a racist.  The Democratic party has been using narrative of racial strife, special rights, and government handouts to manipulate the African-American electorate into voting for them.  Any African-American who votes against the Democratic party is viciously attacked as a sell-out or “uncle Tom”.

Manipulating the black vote for personal benefit by keeping old conflicts and hatred alive is by no means a characteristic unique to the modern Democratic party.  The same immoral and powerful narrative was used by the Republican party for a short time in the 1870′s.  One courageous man stood up to his own party and publicly denounced the strategy:

Since reconstruction, the masses of my people have been, as it were, enslaved in mind by unprincipled adventurers, who, caring nothing for country, were willing to stoop to anything no matter how infamous, to secure power to themselves, and perpetuate it….. My people have been told by these schemers, when men have been placed on the ticket who were notoriously corrupt and dishonest, that they must vote for them; that the salvation of the party depended upon it; that the man who scratched a ticket was not a Republican. This is only one of the many means these unprincipled demagogues have devised to perpetuate the intellectual bondage of my people…. The bitterness and hate created by the late civil strife has, in my opinion, been obliterated in this state, except perhaps in some localities, and would have long since been entirely obliterated, were it not for some unprincipled men who would keep alive the bitterness of the past, and inculcate a hatred between the races, in order that they may aggrandize themselves by office, and its emoluments, to control my people, the effect of which is to degrade them.

The man behind this courageous quote was ex-senator Hiram Revels, in 1875.  The Republican party had been using slavery and the crimes of the civil war to secure the black vote.  Senator Revels knew that the only way to move on to a post-racial society is to come together and stop stoking up racial and cultural hate of years past.  He even voted to give confederates citizenship if they swore an oath of loyalty to the US.  He knew that the hate narrative continued by President Grant to secure political points would ruin the Reconstruction efforts and negate the powerful symbolism of his own election into the US senate.  How ironic that an article designed to fabricate stories of white oppression and stoke the fires of racial strife would highlight the most courageous figure in US history to rage against such tactics.

The article concludes by asking how Senator Revels might feel if he could see Obama and America in 2012.  That one is easy to answer:  Senator Revel would have seen a familiar historic election of an African-American to an office that had never been available to his race.  He would have celebrated the promise that election held to launch America into a post-racial era.  Now imagine if after the promise and hope that election gave, the party that achieved it falsely used racial hate and divisiveness to secure political gain.  For once we don’t have to speculate what his reaction would be, because the story is the exact same as what Senator Revel experienced 140 years ago.  We can safely assume that he would hang his head in shame.

Odds ‘n Ends

Bill Clinton yesterday at a poorly attended rally in Palm Beach:  “I may be the only person in America, but I’m more excited about Obama this time.”

Biden today in a campaign speech:  “There’s never been a day in the last four years that I’ve been proud to be his Vice President.  There hasn’t.”

Harry Reid’s response to Romneys speeches about cooperation: “Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable.”

 

 

Published in a Prague paper last year:  “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president… The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince… The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of Idiots such as those who made him president.”

———————————

Breitbart reports – How desperate is hurricane-ravaged New Jersey? Not desperate enough to suspend a union monopoly that keeps the state in the bottom ten states for economic competitiveness (and #48 for business friendliness). Relief crews from Alabama who were specifically called to New Jersey found themselves diverted to Long Island, NY after they arrived because they use non-union labor.

————————-

Fox News Channel’s Catherine Herridge last night reported on a newly discovered cable indicating that in August, less than a month before the attack, the diplomatic post in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” concerned about local Al Qaeda training camps.

Also, the State Department was warned that radical Islamists were “gathering weapons and gathering steam” three hours before attack.  They even named the Al Quada related groups as the ones gathering weapons  …the very groups that attacked a few hours later.  And they reported that “security” people were caught taking pictures inside the consulate that day.  Hillary’s office did nothing.

Hillary’s story about a video demonstration gone bad is beyond absurd.

 —————————-

 For some fun,  watch Steven Crowder “re-distribute ” Halloween candy….

About That Investigation…

The President has said that he has ordered a “very thorough” investigation of our Benghazi response.  He said that no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than he does.

Yesterday, the President’s press secretary, Jay Carney, was asked if the President was involved at all in the investigation.

 

 

Carney said:

“He has not participated in the investigation. He is anticipating results that show us exactly what happened and who is responsible and what lessons we can learn from it and ensure it never happens again. He expects the investigation to be rigorous.”

What did the President do on the night of September 11?  In the evening meeting in the situation room, what orders did he give?  What requests for help did he deny? Were heroes Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty still fighting for their lives when he went to bed?  Who invented the “demonstration that got out of hand” story?  Who asked Susan Rice, Jay Carney and others to repeat that absurd lie?  Who is managing the cover-up at this point?  Who is orchestrating the lies and deception?

Be honest, Jay.  The President does not need an investigation to know what he did.  He already knows “exactly what happened and who is responsible”.   And despite all the attempts by you and the other media lackeys to hide the truth, many Americans have a pretty good idea of who is responsible for this disaster.

It’s just one more thing that will motivate us to get to the polls on Tuesday. Just wait and see.

———————————–

Greta talks to an angry ex-Marine -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gXb_QL-I1kw

————————

Karin McQuillan has a good summary of some of the more blatant Benghazi lies.  The following excerpt begins with a damning quote from Obama:

… the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. … I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.

This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar.  The president says here that immediately, “the minute I found out what was happening,” he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do “whatever we need to.”

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done.  We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room.  Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down.  He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.

Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too “risky” to send in reinforcements or air cover.  It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done.  The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily.  All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi.  And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn’t happen.  No one believes that; the president is lying.  He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to “secure our personnel” and “do whatever we need to do.”

—————————–

Note:  The image at the top was created by a military special ops group.  They posted it to Facebook and Facebook took it down.  They posted it again, and Facebook took it down again.  After a huge number of complaints, Facebook reversed their censorship.

Twitter also intervened to censor political speech.  Several hashtags about Benghazi and the cover-up were blocked.  It is very disturbing to see information managers like Facebook and Twitter intervening to censor political opinions.

The Next Thud You Hear

Our theme here at realitybatslast is that there is an objective reality that exists independent from human wishes.  People can have socialist utopian delusions; but reality always has the last vote on whether that delusion can succeed.  It can’t and it won’t.  Ever.

C. Edmund Wright has an article at American Thinker today that supports our theme very well. It’s definitely worth reading.  Here’s an excerpt:

…truth does not require validation from those who refuse to acknowledge it. Truth is…period. The next thud you hear will be the unhappy realization of this fact from many on the left. Their philosophy works only in theory and never passes the reality of human nature.

Obama has been like Wile E. Coyote in animation — sort of running in place, with no foundation underneath him since his ’08 campaign.  Only the David Axelrod cartoon world of astroturfed events and issues, supported by a fawning media, has kept him suspended this long.  The crash will happen because it has to happen.

Hurricane Sandy: Obama’s Blessing in Disguise

Until the past 48h., things were not looking too good for the President’s reelection hopes. The swing-state momentum was firmly behind Romney, who saw polls putting him even with Obama in Democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania and Michigan.  Not only was Romney riding off of strong debate performances, but a few incredibly negative news stories were starting to develop…

On the domestic front, a story about Chrysler, one of Obama’s marquee bailout achievements, was starting to develop about Fiat’s new decision to move manufacturing of the Jeep to Italy from the US.  One could not ask for a more stark and convincing example of poor government management of private industry resulting in the off-shoring of American jobs.

Obama’s bigger worries, however, were coming from a story that cast doubt on his leadership in foreign affairs.  The story of what happened in Benghazi gets worse by the day, and revelations over the weekend depict a White House that willfully hung our SEALs and Libya ambassador out to dry when action meant tough political decisions.  The story makes Bush’s 11th hour DUI revelation look like a formal letter of recommendation from the UN, but all media outlets not owned by Newscorp refuse to cover it.  Just when the Benghazi story took a turn for the worse, Hurricane Sandy came to the rescue.

Rather than watching President Obama struggle to answer this:

The press got to show Obama act Presidential:

I’ll let Mr. Krauthammer take it from here…

Inverted Morality

Dinesh D’Souza recently debated Michael Shermer at Oregon State University.  The debate topic was, “Is Christianity Good for American Politics”.  D’Souza is an author, educator and, most recently, the creator of the movie, “2016: Obama’s America”.  Shermer is the founder and publisher of Skeptic Magazine.

This short clip conveys two very important points about morality and political philosophy.  Dinesh has the same ability that Milton Friedman had to clearly explain complex ideas.

Compulsion removes the virtue from human interactions.  Free choice is a pre-requisite of moral action.

Dinesh make good use of the wagon analogy.  There are people pulling the wagon in this country and there are people sitting in the wagon. Our current wagonmaster is doing 3 things that are making our situation worse. He is whipping the horses that are pulling the wagon, rather than thanking them. He is filling the wagon with many more riders. And he is relentlessly teaching the people riding in the wagon to be angry and envious rather than grateful.

We should not be surprised.  After all, generating anger and a sense of entitlement is what a community organizer does.  That is the job description.

(Thanks to reader Rick Moulton for the video link.)

A Fundamental Threat

Pat Caddell is one Democrat who has had all the lies he can stomach.  He is angry at his party for all the right reasons, including that group of Democrat activists we call the mainstream media.

Discussing Benghazi, Pat Caddell says the press has “been in the tank on this in a way I’ve never seen… I am appalled right now. This White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, all of them, are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected…willing to cover up and lie. The worst thing is the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth – the leading mainstream media…they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people… these people have no honor… coverup is too nice of a word…”

Britt Hume points out that the mainstream media are strangely underplaying the Benghazi debacle.  He says,  ”The mainstream organs of the media … would be after this like a pack of  hounds if this were a Republican president.”  Read the story at the Daily Caller.

Hume pretends to be surprised, but he is not,really.  He knows the unwritten rules that the mainstream media live by.  The media are very predictable once you understand that:

The media act as defense attorneys for liberals
and prosecuting attorneys against conservatives.

Each bit of new information about Benghazi makes the Administration look more inept and cowardly.  It appears that we had  two AC-130U gunships in Libya.  That is a mean machine, perfect for the battle at hand.  There were also two drones in the air over the battle.  It is highly likely that they were armed.  The former Navy Seal who was “painting” the target with a laser knew perfectly well that that you do not expose yourself by shining the laser unless you believe that the capacity to fire is overhead.

I know of no information that would counter the judgement that for at least 6 hours, Americans were desperately calling for help, but a decision was made not to help them.  Bing West, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, adds to the story here.  An excerpt:

The Secretary of Defense and the President have issued contradictory explanations. Either Mr. Obama ordered the Secretary of Defense to “do whatever we need to do,” or he didn’t. And either the secretary obeyed that order, or he didn’t. And he didn’t.