The Obama administration continues to suppress documents that could finally explain why U.S. officials lied to the world that the September 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya occurred as a protest over an American-made anti-Muslim video. And the families and friends of the four brave Americans murdered there continue to suffer without answers, reasons, or justice. Is there not a shred of heart left in Washington?
USA Today explained this past week how the watchdog group Judicial Watch blew the whistle on the White House’s withholding of documents and obtained a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act. In it, the Justice Department tries to justify its withholding of further Benghazi documents.
The 35 pages’ worth of withheld documents was described by Justice trial attorney Robert Prince as including “internal strategy discussions relating to the drafting of an official response letter” from then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to answer a variety of congressional questions about the Benghazi attack.
Just for the record, those documents include, but are not exclusive to, the following, according to USA Today:
–”A seven-page e-mail exchange consisting of 16 messages between State and other administration officials … on Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, 2012, with an original subject line ‘FOX News: US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm.’
–”Originally designated ‘sensitive but unclassified,’ the document was withheld to protect the formulation of a media strategy with respect to an ongoing sensitive matter under a FOIA exemption that protects the deliberative process, Prince wrote.
–”A one-page e-mail exchange, consisting of three messages, dated Sept. 11, 2012, with the subject line ‘UPDATE: Clashes at U.S. consulate in eastern Libyan city (Reuters).’
–”A three-page e-mail exchange between State and other U.S. officials, dated Sept. 28, 2012 and originally designated ‘unclassified.’ The subject line of the first five messages is ‘Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for National Intelligence Shawn Turner on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.’”
This withholding of documents comes on the backside of another discovery by Judicial Watch: several emails that exposed Obama aide Ben Rhodes’ tutoring Rice on how to play the blame game with the anti-Muslim video on television appearances only five days after the attack.
Moreover, Fox News revealed this past week that documents “show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to … Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks. The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.”
As far as why the White House continues its suppression of documents, Alec Gerlach, a State Department spokesman, explained that “additional documents are being processed for response to congressional inquiries.” The key term there is “processed.” Never mind the fact that the “process” has been going on for 20 months.
Even more evasive is State spokeswoman Marie Harf, who explained that documents will be forthcoming “on a rolling basis.” That is code for “as they fit the Obama administration’s political and selfish agenda.”
Spy Satellites and Communication Intercepts Used to Recover Kidnapped Nigerian Schoolgirls
Military sources have stated that a combined team of security agents in the field and back up communications and satellite imagery specialists have located the missing girls inside the dreaded Sambisa forest.
The United States marines were also said to have used communications equipment to intercept a mobile phone call from a Boko Haram informant to insurgents giving them information on the movement of the marines and Nigerian security forces. The informant is said to have been arrested in Maiduguri and handed over to security officials.
This new information about the girls is said to be proof of a conspiracy to mislead the Nigerian public into believing that some of the girls had been sold into neighbouring countries.
The United States marines are expected to lead rescue efforts in conjunction with other special forces from France, the United Kingdom and of course local troops to retrieve the girls and return them to their families.
Maybe Karl Rove is crazy like a fox. When it comes to Hillary Clinton’s concussion and possible brain damage, Rove seems to be like a cat toying with a spider.
Two possible scenarios are at play over Clinton’s alleged injury: She
lied to get out of testifying in Congress, or she was so injured that
she could have lasting damage.
But here is the trap, I believe, that devious Rove has laid: He isn’t
interested in whether Clinton has a medical problem. He is targeting
her lie, believing that she made up the injury to get out of testifying.
By questioning her fitness to run for president, he is forcing her
supporters and the news media to emphasize how slight her injuries were.
Then, Republicans will be able to put two and two together for voters.
On Dec. 13, 2012, Clinton ducked out of testifying before the House
and Senate foreign affairs committees. She was called to explain her
disastrous failures and outright lies before, during and after the
terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other Americans.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines said Clinton was
suffering from a stomach virus, fainted and hit her head, which caused a
concussion. Reines was vague on when the fall took place.
“I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and
having the blood clot,” Clinton said on “60 Minutes” in January 2013.
“But, you know, the doctors tell me that that will all recede.”
Volunteering such information on national TV suggests there’s a
possibility that the “lingering effects” might not recede. So if Clinton
wants to be president, Rove’s questions are reasonable.
Also, let us not forget that the secretary of state is in the line of
succession for the presidency under the U.S. Constitution. So Clinton’s
health is no small matter.
Although Clinton did testify later in January 2013, the issue was
drawn out. But more importantly, the delay seemed tactical, giving
Clinton more time to manufacture excuses and distractive narratives.
Earlier this week, Rove questioned Clinton’s health at a political conference in Los Angeles, Calif., according to the New York Post.
Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com and on Twitter @charleshurt.
It has forever been perfectly fair game in prudent political
discourse to demand that politicians seeking higher office reveal
information about their physical fitness.
Everyone remembers when Democrats and the press tried making an issue out of Ronald Reagan’s advanced age and health in 1984.
“I will not make age an issue of this campaign,” Reagan responded
with charming indignation during the presidential debate. “I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and
inexperience.”
Walter Mondale, who would go on to lose 49 states to Reagan, had no
option but to laugh along with the rest of the world at the instant
immolation of his campaign.
Three decades on and billions of dollars spent drawing mental health
issues out of the shadows and into the daylight of polite public
discourse, it seems only just and fitting that American voters be
equally informed about the mental fitness of our politicians seeking
higher office.
And what head doctor worth his weight in cigarettes and Zoloft
wouldn’t just love to get former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on
the couch?
To be sure, she would be one tough nut to crack. This is a woman who
makes Lady Macbeth seem weak and unimaginative. By comparison, Blanche
DeBois is laid back and easygoing.
Think of all the issues you could explore!
Hillary Clinton’s husband and the father of her child — a man who is
also the most powerful man in the world — sodomizes a lowly intern who
is just a few years older than their daughter. So, according to intimate
friend Diane Blair, Mrs. Clinton accuses the intern of being a
“narcissistic loony toon.”
That is what professionals call “transference.”
And then there’s this: “She thinks she was not smart enough, not
sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to
realize the price he was paying,” Blair wrote of Mrs. Clinton. This is
called being an “enabler.” More specifically, an “enabler” of a dirty,
lying horndog husband who cut a disgraceful figure both for the young,
passionate intern working for him and for his own daughter.
Even Tammy Wynette with her mouth full of home-baked cookies could tell you that.
Now, knowing the extent of mental torture Mrs. Clinton was suffering
while in the White House explains some of her erratic behavior and
chronic public dissembling ever since.
She shows clear signs of paranoia, dating back to her frantic
wheezings over the “vast right-wing conspiracy” she said was haunting
the White House. She didn’t say this specifically, but her being on
familiar terms with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt would make it
interesting to ask her whether these apparitions included ghosts of
Ronald Reagan or maybe Theodore Roosevelt.
This paranoia and imagined correspondence with the paranormal reached
a fevered pitch during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination
for president when she recalled how she perilously came under sniper
fire landing in Bosnia during her husband’s second term. Her handlers
begrudgingly acknowledged Mrs. Clinton’s psycho-wackery only when
confronted with pictures showing her actually accepting flowers from a
little girl on the tarmac.
This condition easily bleeds into delusions of grandeur, such as when
she aired a television ad during that same campaign announcing that she
alone was qualified to answer the White House “red phone” at 3 a.m.
bringing news of a pressing national security disaster.
Of course, it is still debatable which one of the two candidates left
in the race at that time is more of an international laughingstock, but
the terrorist attack in Benghazi proved that Mrs. Clinton certainly
wasn’t up to the task.
After months of dodging, evasions, and doctors’ visits, Mrs. Clinton
finally lashed out in public about the attack. “What difference at this
point does it make!” she bellowed at her interlocutors.
Well, the families of the four Americans, including the U.S.
ambassador to Libya, would like clear answers and closure. They would
like to know why Mrs. Clinton and the White House were far more
interested in immediately covering up their handling of the attack than
protecting American property and personnel in the first place.
This inability to relate to the pain felt by those around her is a frequent sign of varying degrees of psychosis.
In any event, it was an awkward MRI moment that should have gotten
the former first lady checked into a rubber room for further evaluation.
And, if she really wants to be president, the American people have a right to know what the results of that MRI showed.
The EPA will launch the most dramatic anti-pollution regulation in a
generation early next month, a sweeping crackdown on carbon that offers
President Barack Obama his last real shot at a legacy on climate change —
while causing significant political peril for red-state Democrats.
The
move could produce a dramatic makeover of the power industry, shifting
it away from coal-burning plants toward natural gas, solar and wind.
While this is the big move environmentalists have been yearning for, it
also has major political implications in November for a president
already under fire for what the GOP is branding a job-killing “War on
Coal,” and promises to be an election issue in energy-producing states
such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
The EPA’s proposed rule is aimed at scaling back carbon emissions from
existing power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases.
It’s scheduled for a public rollout June 2, after months of efforts by
the administration to publicize the mounting scientific evidence that
rising seas, melting glaciers and worsening storms pose a danger to
human society.
President Barack Obama has increased
the Department of Veterans Affairs’ budget each year since he took
office, claiming the funds would give veterans the health care they
deserve. However, an analysis of records show the agency has spent close
to $500 million on office furniture under the Obama administration.
This upcoming fiscal year Obama requested a 3
percent increase for the Veterans Affairs budget. Obama’s FY 2015
budget request points out he has increased the VA discretionary budget by 35.2 percent since 2009 so veterans continue to access necessary services.
“VA’s 2015 budget provides the necessary
resources to allow us to serve our veterans who selflessly served our
nation,” stated the president’s FY 2015 budget.
As the embattled agency faces charges of record tampering and neglect of veterans, records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show the VA has not neglected upgrading and decorating its offices throughout the country.
The VA has spent a
total of $489 million to upgrade conference rooms, buy draperies, and
purchase new office furniture during the past four-and-a-half years.
A total of 15,010 contracts were awarded for office furniture by the VA for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014.
“This is just one of many misplaced
priorities at the VA, and unfortunately, I think we’ve only begun to
scratch the surface,” Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) said in an emailed
statement. “I will not stop until the VA is investigated top to bottom,
and new leadership is brought in to clean up this dysfunctional agency.”
One contract awarded $6.8 million for
construction of a conference room and facilities at its Carol Stream,
Ill., office. That renovation is ongoing and is expected to be completed
next April.
The VA’s San Juan, Puerto Rico office spent $1.8
million on new office furniture, and one of its Virginia offices spent
$1.9 million on “systems office furniture.” That project is expected to
be completed at the end of this month.
Another $1.4 million is currently being spent
on a yearlong third floor renovation project for the “design,
purchase/installation of furniture” in Saint Petersburg, Fla. That is
expected to be completed on Sep. 17. The Free Beacon found a second contract for the same office signed earlier this year in which $267,131, for “non-upholstered wood household furniture manufacturing.”
The VA also spent $1.8 million for “systems furniture” in Philadelphia; $1.8 million for
“multi-functional, mobile, enhance learning space” in Tampa; $1.8
million for “showcases, partitions, shelving” for its Los Angeles
office.
To make the office makeovers complete, draperies, roller shades, and cornice boxes were also purchased. The VA spent $10.7 million in the past five fiscal years on curtains and draperies.
Some of those contracts include $454,085 for “cubical curtains and draperies” for its Brecksville, Ohio, office. The Pittsburg, Pa., VA office spent $382,879 on window shades which were just installed in January.
Instead of draperies, the VA’s Los Alamitos office preferred cornice boxes and roller shades. The contract shows they spent $106,615 on its window treatments.
The Free Beacon also found pricey filing system expenditures. For example, $1.7 million was
spent on a filing system for the California office. The reason the VA
is spending high amounts on filing systems is unclear, since Obama’s FY
2015 budget included $138.7 million in Veteran Claims Intake Program for
the conversion of paper documents into eFolders.
IRS HEADQUARTERS IN D.C., NOT CINCINNATI, CONTROLLED THE TEA PARTY TARGETING
Democrat Elijah Cummings was proven to have been in collusion with
the IRS in the scandal of the agency targeting, harassing, and
intimidating the Tea Party and other conservative groups. According to
new emails obtained by Judicial Watch, Democrat involvement in the IRS
scandal runs even deeper than once thought. The new emails also prove
that the claim made by Barack Obama that the IRS scandal was a ‘phony’
scandal and just the work of a few ‘rogue agents’ in Cincinnati is a
flat out lie.
Democrat Senator Carl Levin (Michigan) applied unusual pressure to
the IRS to target any Tea Party and conservative groups in order to shut
them down. After the Republican wave of 2010 in which the GOP regained
control of the House, it looks like Levin wanted to make sure the
Democrats didn’t experience even worse defeat in the 2012 election.
After all, the Democrats were not only trying to maintain control of the
House, but Barack Obama’s second term as president was at stake.
Several emails document “an intense effort by Levin and IRS officials
to determine what, if any, existing IRS policies could be used to
revoke the nonprofit exemptions of active conservative groups and deny
exemptions to new applicants. In a July 30, 2012, letter, Levin singles
out 12 groups he wants investigated for “political activity.” Of the
groups – which include the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform,
the 60 Plus Association, and the Susan B. Anthony List – only one,
Priorities USA, is notably left-leaning.” Perhaps Priorities USA was
used as a handy decoy and included in the mix to allow Democrats to spin
the scandal with the talking point that ‘not just conservative groups
were targeted.’
Senator Levin, who is the chair of the Subcommittee on
Investigations, sent a series of emails beginning in early 2012 and
continuing throughout the year, to IRS officials to “discuss how to
target conservative groups the senator claimed were engaged in political
activity.” Rather than shut down such attempted targeting, then IRS
Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller willfully participated in the
collusion assuring Senator Levin that the IRS had ‘flexibility to
prepare individualized questions and requests for select 501c4 groups.”
As reported by Judicial Watch, the intensity of the emails increased as the 2012 presidential election got closer.
•September 27, 2012: Levin asks for copies of the answers to IRS
exemption application question 15 – a question about planned political
expenditures – from four specific groups: Crossroads Grassroots Policy
Strategies, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot
Majority USA.
CHICAGO — The daughter of President
Barack Obama's former pastor was convicted on Friday of laundering
thousands of dollars from a state grant for a Chicago-area job-training
program, federal prosecutors said.
A federal jury took less
than two hours to find Jeri Wright, 48, the daughter of Jeremiah
Wright, guilty on all counts for her part in a fraud scheme led by a
former suburban police chief and the chief's husband, according to the
U.S. Attorney's office for the Central District of Illinois in
Springfield.
The $1.25 million state
grant was for a not-for-profit work and education program called We Are
Our Brother's Keeper, owned by Regina Evans, former police chief of
Country Club Hills, and her husband, Ronald Evans Jr.
Wright, a close friend
of the couple, took as much as $11,000 from checks worth more than
$30,000 that were supposed to be for work related to the grant,
prosecutors said. About $20,000 was deposited back into accounts
controlled by Regina and Ronald Evans.
The couple has pleaded guilty to the fraud scheme.
The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a
self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and
think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review
of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have
been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda
militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we
did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known
al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission
and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1
billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked
militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to
enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air
and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew
these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the
Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the
top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership,
and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew
about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
'The White House and senior Congressional
members,' the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday,
'deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material
support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar
Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress
al-Qaeda.'
'Some look at it as treason,' said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission's research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now 'all in Syria.'
News flash to the world: Obama’s a liar.
Yeah, all politicians are. I get that part.
But not all politicians get pilloried for it in books by their top aides.
Tim Geithner appears to be the last of a plethora of administration insiders who say that Obama fibs.
A lot.
Geithner claims that Obama, through Jack Lew, asked him to blow a “dog
whistle” to the Left by claiming that social security wouldn’t
contribute to future deficits.
Geithner explains that the “dog whistle” was secret code telling the
Left that social security wouldn’t be touched according to an account by
FoxNews.
Having put the story in print, Geithner is now claiming that he’s
being misquoted in his own memoirs, which until now, was the only thing
distinguishing Terrell Owens' autobiography.
Move over 81, you got company.
(For personal appearances by Number 81, you need only dial 1-855-Owens81.)
Former defense secretary Robert Gates turned coat on Obama earlier
this year, saying that despite Obama’s push for surge strategy in
Afghanistan, Obama never believed his own strategy.
More Americans died during Obama’s guidance in Afghanistan than during the whole Bush presidency.
“In fact, according to the CNSNews.com database of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan,” writes Dennis Crowley of CNS, “73 percent of all U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred since Jan. 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.”
Writes the Washington Post:
“Obama, after months of contentious discussion with Gates and other
top advisers, deployed 30,000 more troops in a final push to stabilize
Afghanistan before a phased withdrawal beginning in mid-2011. ‘I never
doubted Obama’s support for the troops, only his support for their
mission,’” Gates writes.
Pretty much the same thing.
You can’t ask people to die over remaining steady in polling and still say you support the troops.
“The White House seemed to see an actual benefit in not doing too much,” says former administration official Vali Nasr
who worked on Pakistan/Afghan issues for the administration according
to the Washington Times. “The goal was to spare the president the risks
that necessarily come with playing the leadership role that America
claims to play in this region,” saying that Obama was more interested in
the domestic political effects of foreign policy, and using foreign
policy as a tool to hit Hillary Clinton.
While not necessarily a lie, certainly running foreign policy for
parochial domestic interests was and is counterproductive to American
interests.
While not penned by an insider, Edward Klein’s book The Amateur,
is full of accusations by administration insiders who claim that Obama
has lied to Americans about what his real agenda is, about the
competency of Obama’s administration, and his inability to get along
politically with even his one-time most ardent supporters like Caroline
Kennedy and Oprah Winfrey.
Insiders have at least been decidedly prescient and consistent in their degradation of Obama.
According to financial disclosure reports, President Obama has an estimated net worth of $7 million dollars.
Since he was worth $1.3 million in 2007, that makes the millionaire 438% more wealthy than when he first ran for office.
As reported by the International Business Times:
President Barack Obama and first lady
Michelle Obama listed assets worth between $2 million and $7 million for
2013, of which $1 million to $5 million were in Treasury notes,
according to financial disclosure forms released Thursday.
Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with being a millionaire. The United States is home to the most millionaires because of the kind of opportunity it offers to hard-working entrepreneurs.
While the average US citizen has a median income of roughly $51,000,
Obama rakes in the cash with an annual presidential salary of $400,000.
In addition, he receives money from book royalties and other
investments.
Hypocrisy isn’t a stranger to the liberal elite. Michael Moore’s fifty million dollar fortune came from creating documentaries that makes free enterprise look like the same as corporatism.
The activist left said Mitt Romney was too rich to be president, but had no problem supporting John “I’m Wealthier Than Romney” Kerry when he ran for the same post in 2004.
Under President Obama, income inequality has increased dramatically. As reported
here earlier, of the last three presidents, “the income gap didn’t
change overall during the Bush years, increased second most during
Clinton’s time, and has increased the most with only 5 years under
Obama’s belt.”
-
Chuck Norris May 15, 2014 
No comments:
Post a Comment
THE VOCR
Comments and opinions are always welcome.Email VOCR2012@Gmail.com with your input - Opinion - or news link - Intel
We look forward to the Interaction.