The New York Times published an article penned by David D Kirkpatrick about the circumstances surrounding the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. And, of course, they put Hilary Clinton in the best possible light, even going so far as to bring up the old "it was because of a video" claim which has long since been retired as nonsense and a lie. The New York Times, defending charges that they were clearing the way for a Hillary Clinton presidential run for 2016, denied it had anything to do with that.

Don't believe the denial for a minute. The main stream press, along with the New York Times, has already elected Hillary "What Difference Does it Make" Clinton as the Democratic nominee and are already preparing her inaugural. Also, the New York Times rebuttal (written Andrew Rosenthal) implied that it was just the GOP who complained which lays the ground work for the idea the dispute is just politics. The issue, however, is not a Republican versus Democrat thing it's a "FOUR people died thing" and we are holding Obama to task with his Sept 12, 2011 televised promise when he said "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act." Within about a year Obama began referring to it as a "false" conspiracy. Perhaps what he meant to say was "If you want your Benghazi justice; you can keep it." We all know what that kind of promise means.

 Jesse Jackson showed up out of the blue this week to add his two cents on the Duck Dynasty controversy. It is over now, for the most part, as A&E unsuspended Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty will continue on the air with a new season. Reverend Jackson, his Rainbow PUSH Coalition and GLAAD were demanding to meet with network execs, along with Cracker Barrel's CEO, to discuss the future of all "Duck Dynasty" memorabilia or content. Cracker Barrel had pulled Duck Dynasty merchandise, but then put it back rather quickly as their customer complaints and Duck Dynasty supporters were overwhelming. Jackson said "These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago.....At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was 'white privilege.'" Ummmm, actually, Robertson's comments were and are protected by a little thing we like to call the US Constitution and, in particular, the First Amendment, which protects both speech AND religion. Now this is just my theory, but I suspect the reason GLAAD would  join forces with Jackson and his Rainbow PUSH Coalition is so GLAAD could learn the ways Jackson used to extort businesses for many many years. Jackson would go to a business where a "racial" issue had occurred, and would come away from each meeting, saying that the company was truly repentant and should be forgiven. Of course, the business always seemed to conveniently "donate" a large sum of money to Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Jackson had to fund his organization somehow. So fanning the flames of racism always kept money flowing into his organization. A tactic which people like Al Sharpton still try to use as they continue to fan the flames of racism. Where we see flames, they see money.  GLAAD, who had immediately attempted to use this situation as an opportunity to  raise funds  by sending out fund raising letters, probably hoped to pocket a little bit of extortion money from A&E, Cracker Barrel, or any other Duck Dynasty sponsor that they could. The good news is that the issues was resolved and  A&E, Cracker Barrel or any of the sponsors met with Jackson or GLAAD. For that, I am glad.