Want to know why the Right is losing one argument after another, even though time-and-time-again their facts and logic are irrefutable? Consider this…

Breitbart.com Headline: “Clinton Blames Bush For Lack of Funds to Secure Benghazi”

During a Fox-Greta Van Susteren interview, the article’s first line stated “..outgoing Secretary of State Clinton continued the theme that, during the Bush Administration, requests for monies from Congress to secure…consulates were rejected.”

Falling for the bait, the Breitbart journalist goes on the defensive in the article, citing a Deputy Assistant Secretary’s testimony in October stating money wasn’t the issue, and that Republican lawmakers had pointed out the State Department had spent millions on non-security issues over the past few years.

But the Breitbart journalist (Dr. Susan Berry) misses a HUGE point…

During the Bush Administration’s last 2 years, the Congress which ‘rejected requests for monies’ from the State Department…was DEMOCRAT-controlled!

Think that might be an important point? Why doesn’t Breitbart think so?

We’ve written earlier BCP blogs discussing the critical issue of challenging the premise of arguments put out by the opposition party, yet even an admirable organization like the Breitbart news group commits a major sin of omission.

Clinton’s clever positioning of ‘the Bush Administration’ before mentioning ‘Congress’ implies a GOP-controlled funding mechanism, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Congress controls the money; Democrats controlled Congress. Yet, goes unmentioned.

Citing a low-level flunky’s testimony and poor Department spending priorities is weak stuff, compared to a pivotal fact that the Congress controlling State Department funding was being run by Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate.

When strong arguments can be made, seizing the narrative is critical!

(We never thought it would be necessary to remind Breitbart of that fact.)

Charlie C. rightly points out that America’s immigration system wasn’t broken until our “politicians screwed things up”, but please note it’s only part of this story…

As with gun control, girls at the front line in combat, gay marriage, etc, the real danger lies in the 1 crucial factor that dominates EVERY Democrat platform issue…

…when the PROBLEM is more exploitable than the solution.

We know the problems this country faces, we know most of the solutions are nothing more than common sense…and if we know it…the politicians know it as well.

Why, then, you may ask, do these problems never get solved?

Because it serves a better purpose for Democrats to keep them alive as problems…

If Liberal minorities, women, gays, youth, and illegal immigrants ever learn their issues are purposely exploited by Democrats rather than solved, the blowback will be huge.

(Unfortunately, that reality is carefully hidden by a duplicitous media.)

So, start your own grassroot campaign – the next time your Liberal friend brings up an issue, ask if they really believe college-educated politicians can’t solve that problem.

Then ask them which party benefits when a problem is solved…

…and which party benefits when it’s exploited.

Why now? Why push gun control, women in combat, amnesty for illegals?

Record numbers of Americans are out of work. The economy’s in the toilet. Food stamp enrollment has mushroomed. The national debt has grown $5 trillion+ in 4 years…

…but Democrats and media flunkies shed croc tears over a green card for Gilberto?

Why are they screaming for Kathy to be put on the front lines in Kandahar…all the while wailing that Charlene shouldn’t have a gun to protect her and the kids in Chicago?

Why? Because the Democrats and their media water-carriers have a new motto…

“Never let an opportunity to create a crisis go to waste…”

So, don’t let those crocodile tears fool you…they’re only meant to hide what’s really going on…

…and who’s really causing each crisis…

94 Senators just voted to confirm John Kerry as the next Secretary of State.

John Kerry submitted false testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971, charging Vietnam vets with heinous acts of war crimes during that conflict.

Massachusetts voters have demonstrated ethics aren’t essential – in the past they’ve re-elected a homosexual whose lover ran a prostitution ring out of his home, and a sex-abusing drunkard responsible for the death of a young lady who had the terrible misfortune of being in the vehicle he was driving one late July night in 1969.

So it’s no surprise they’d go for someone with Kerry’s credentials. You might almost say, compared to Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, choosing a liar was underachieving.

But a Secretary of State represents the entire United States. One would hope that fact would suggest the choices for such position should be held to a higher ethical standard.

Obviously that’s not the case. And now 94 Senators, by their vote for John Kerry, have flipped off every Vietnam veteran in particular, and all military members in general.

With this latest addition to Obama’s administration, the Liar’s Club at 1600 is growing.

Hurricane Sandy victims still living in subnormal conditions and facing another cold front will be comforted to know Obama just announced $155 million in humanitarian aid…

…for Syria.

(No word if Sandy victims of Syrian descent are included…)

When a politician’s re-election and party supremacy are top priorities, how can there be any desire or drive for ‘compromise’ with the opposition political party?

Rush Limbaugh asks a good question; when Democrats claim Republicans – to be successful – should be willing to compromise their positions, do they really expect Republicans should believe Democrats WANT them to succeed? Highly unlikely.

The answer, of course, is that Democrats don’t wish Republicans well…they merely want a general PERCEPTION to be that they wish Republicans well.

Furthermore, persuasive language like ‘compromise’ conveniently hides the fact that its composition is unlikely to help an opposition party, often alienating their base as well.

Other than Rush, very few question the validity of the ‘compromise’ itself.

‘Compromise’? Don’t believe it for a minute!

Not addressing a faulty premise can be costly, even more so when the one making the faulty premise happens to be the polarizer-in-chief of these United States.

Obama’s interview with the New Republic is making news ahead of its February publish date. He blames Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for scaring Republican lawmakers into following conservative ideology, rather than ‘compromising’ with the ‘moderate’ Left.

But his view of the ‘moderates’ happen to be himself, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, the most extreme liberals in the Democrat leadership roles today.

Basing an argument on a lie makes the argument itself a lie.

The GOP and Fox News would do well to understand they can’t allow this faulty premise, and the inevitable future false premises, to go unchallenged.

And remember what any amateur or professional boxer knows…1) fighting starts when the bell sounds, and 2) jabs, feints, and footwork are part of the fight as well.

Lost in PGA’s Phil Mickelson kerfuffle is the story that another ‘tax dodger’, LeBron James, visited his favorite ‘low-ball’player-in-chief at the White House Monday with other NBA champion Miami Heat players.

(Pat Riley, president of the Heat, didn’t attend…giving ‘flu’ as the reason.)

Much was made of James’s decision to go to Miami after several years with the Cleveland Cavaliers, and many top analysts were more than convinced Florida’s no-income-tax status played a major role in that decision. Yet, no big-media vilification!

Evidently LeBron James has been a big Obama campaign donor. What price, image?

Phil Mickelson take note…if you want the media off your back, we understand Obama is still looking for some big money for future ‘projects’.

Looks like now’s the time to make that high-profile donation investment.

The media will love you for it…

If gun laws were successful, Chicago and Detroit would be Gardens of Eden…

But gun laws aren’t successful, and those gun-violent cities are the daily proof.

Yet gun-control efforts go on, oblivious to such concrete realities. Obama’s at it again, trying to build on a theme that suggests gun-ownership rights are all about hunting.

Gun ownership is about security, protection, and the ability to stand as a free man. “An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject.” (source unknown)

Attacking followers of Fox News and conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is merely Obama’s effort to work up his base. He laments the ability of Republicans to compromise on gun rights, but Obama’s idea of compromise would destroy that right.

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is foundational to gun ownership; any  law that infringes on that right is an abdication, not a ‘compromise’.

Of course, this won’t stop Obama from building straw issues (hunting), and straw men (hunters), in the hopes that reducing an essential right of gun ownership to a single factor such as hunting will make it that much easier to frame his debate.

The media will help him do it…but will the public…?

The family of a former professional football player filed suit Wednesday against the NFL, alleging ‘acts or omissions’ that hid the dangers of repetitive blows to the head.

Sadly, that player committed suicide in May, 2012. Predictably, nanny-state elitists stepped up their continuing tirade against the violent nature of professional football, alleging (among other things) that suicidal tendencies were one result of the game.

In this day and age, does anyone really not have the intelligence to understand the violent and potentially serious consequences of playing professional football? And, as for the consequences of repetitive blows to the head…ever heard of Muhammad Ali?

Everyone has, and we all saw first hand the results of repetitive blows to the head as his situation deteriorated over the years. So please, try not to insult our intelligence by implying that a college-student-turned-pro football player doesn’t see the danger.

As much as we admire professional athletes on the field, and feel badly when their post-career strain catches up to them, we need to make sure the data being spoon-fed to us by agenda-driven media and elitists are legitimate.

Remember personal accountability? No one forces a player into the NFL.

And cause-and-result analysis? Suicidal tendencies, for instance. Does playing football result in a disproportionate number of suicidal personalities, or are a disproportionate amount of suicidal personalities drawn to playing football?

‘Cuz it’s all a matter of perspective…