Saturday, May 18, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
It’s enough to make a reporter yearn for Monica Beach.
Which one of these facts doesn’t belong among the others?
• U.S. Marines are on alert to evacuate remaining Americans from Libya.
• On the night of September 11, 2012, Gregory Hicks, a State Department official stationed in Tripoli, had a telephone conversation at 8 pm Washington time — that’s 2 am Tripoli time — with Hillary Clinton.
• The Obama administration had a private meeting with their press allies on Friday and CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson is reportedly under fire for taking a skeptical approach to the administration’s spin on Benghazi.
• Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) hearing last week left far too many questions unanswered.
Okay, you got me: it’s a trick question. None of those things doesn’t belong among the others, and all add up to the conclusion Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) reached in January. The House needs to pass Wolf’s H. Res. 36 and create a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack on Benghazi that took four American lives.
Wolf’s point is simply that the conflicting priorities of congressional committees make the Select Committee the only practicable way to get at the truth. As he pointed out in his letter last Friday to Speaker Boehner, Wolf’s bill is now supported by nearly two-thirds of the Republicans in the House, 139 co-sponsors.
Will Boehner have the guts to pass Wolf’s bill? He should, for a host of reasons both substantive and political. In a Friday editorial the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Across this country’s history, the murder of an American ambassador, the nation’s representative, has been taken as not merely a tragedy but an attack on U.S. interests that demands an official accounting to the American people.” With the Journal providing cover for him, Boehner has no excuse to not pass it.
That the Marines are on alert to evacuate the remaining Americans in Libya should be the last stake in the heart of Obama’s “Arab Spring” policy. From Libya to Syria (and Yemen and Iraq and Mali and in so many other places), Obama has worked hard to create a political fiction: that democracy is blooming where it cannot — wherever Islamic law prevails — and al Qaeda is dying among its flowers. Instead, we see terrorist groups fighting among themselves for dominance in too many places. Too many places in which we have lost our ability to influence events.
Which leaves us with the other facts at hand. We know a lot of the questions that still need to be answered, thanks to Wolf’s letter and Andy McCarthy’s usual great work. For example, McCarthy points out here that the Hicks-Clinton telephone call was probably recorded. If that recording (still) exists, it should be turned over to the House and Hillary’s involvement in dealing with the terrorist attack — or not doing so — should be fully investigated.
As should be so many other aspects of this scandal. Another example is the CIA talking points that White House flack Jay Carney claimed were the basis for Amb. Susan Rice’s falsehoods on the September 16, 2012 Sunday talk shows. Carney said, on November 28, 2012, that “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Which was absolutely false. Moreover, it’s pretty clear that the CIA’s talking points were mangled beyond recognition — at least twelve versions exist according to ABC News — yet the CIA and the intelligence community were blamed for what they and Susan Rice said. The talking points were changed for a reason, and that reason had to be political.
Political as in re-electing Obama. Everything points to the president. His involvement and the involvement of his cabinet and personal staff have to be investigated.
The most interesting part of this is that the White House is feeling sufficient heat on Benghazi to call in the Obamamedia’s most faithful, including CBS News President David Rhodes. (Rhodes’s brother — Ben — is the White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and reportedly played a major role in changing the CIA talking points.) If, as it appears, the White House is trying to censor Sharyl Attkisson, the alarm bells are ringing all around. Not in the media: they’re Obama’s captives. The desperation alarms are ringing in the White House. They have to bury the Benghazi story before it buries Obama’s presidency.
And they might succeed. Issa’s hearings won’t go on forever and the Benghazi story may only survive in the conservative media. But not if Boehner passes Frank Wolf’s bill and creates the select committee.
What the White House obviously understands is that if Boehner has the courage to do that, there won’t be any way for Obama to escape the Benghazi story between now and the 2014 election. No matter what he does, no matter what he says, as a matter of reflex the media’s attention will return to the select committee’s dealings.
The select committee would, under Wolf’s bill, have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. So who’s getting subpoenaed this week? Is Obama resisting the document subpoenas? Has he claimed executive privilege yet? What did Hillary’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, say in her deposition? It’s easy to see that creating a select committee could have one overriding effect: the White House should be as tied up with it as Congress was with Obamacare. Our politicians spent about eighteen months on that without a break.
Some of us remember the good old days on Monica Beach. That’s when reporters staked out Ken Starr’s grand jury proceedings in the broad concrete courtyard in front of the U.S. District Court, which became known by that name. There will be enough “process crimes” — lies to congressional investigators that breed lies to grand juries — in any Select Committee’s investigation to keep the Obama administration reeling through 2016.
One of the big reasons that the White House will be tied up is that their friends in the liberal media — especially the crazies on MSNBC and their ilk — are so scared of the Benghazi story that they can’t resist covering it. It may go so far — as one radio talk show host predicted last week — that they would try to cover the Benghazi select committee, even if only to lampoon it, sooner than the rest out of fear of the damage it could cause Obama.
And that’s all politics, the fun side of what we do. The substance of politics is policy, and Obama’s needs to be laid bare to the public.
It would not be beyond the purview of the Benghazi Select Committee to investigate just what Amb. Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi the night he was killed. What policy purpose was there in exposing him to terrorist attack? Was there some goal that Obama or Hillary was trying to reach?
What was the purpose of the separate mission being conducted by the two former SEALs who were killed the same night? There are so many rumors floating around about what they were doing that a new category of intelligence info had to be created just for it by a friend of mine. He calls it “rumint.” We’ve heard about “MANPADs” — man portable air defense missiles they may have been trying to round up lest they fall into the hands of terrorists. Were they successful? How did their actions further our policy in Libya?
There is every reason for us to be skeptical of Obama’s goals, motivations, and policy. And, given the attention span of the Congress and its committees, there is no prospect that the truth about Benghazi will ever be determined unless Boehner creates the Benghazi Select Committee. The truth still matters. Let’s get this done.http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/13/next-the-benghazi-select-commi
• U.S. Marines are on alert to evacuate remaining Americans from Libya.
• On the night of September 11, 2012, Gregory Hicks, a State Department official stationed in Tripoli, had a telephone conversation at 8 pm Washington time — that’s 2 am Tripoli time — with Hillary Clinton.
• The Obama administration had a private meeting with their press allies on Friday and CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson is reportedly under fire for taking a skeptical approach to the administration’s spin on Benghazi.
• Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) hearing last week left far too many questions unanswered.
Okay, you got me: it’s a trick question. None of those things doesn’t belong among the others, and all add up to the conclusion Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) reached in January. The House needs to pass Wolf’s H. Res. 36 and create a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack on Benghazi that took four American lives.
Wolf’s point is simply that the conflicting priorities of congressional committees make the Select Committee the only practicable way to get at the truth. As he pointed out in his letter last Friday to Speaker Boehner, Wolf’s bill is now supported by nearly two-thirds of the Republicans in the House, 139 co-sponsors.
Will Boehner have the guts to pass Wolf’s bill? He should, for a host of reasons both substantive and political. In a Friday editorial the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Across this country’s history, the murder of an American ambassador, the nation’s representative, has been taken as not merely a tragedy but an attack on U.S. interests that demands an official accounting to the American people.” With the Journal providing cover for him, Boehner has no excuse to not pass it.
That the Marines are on alert to evacuate the remaining Americans in Libya should be the last stake in the heart of Obama’s “Arab Spring” policy. From Libya to Syria (and Yemen and Iraq and Mali and in so many other places), Obama has worked hard to create a political fiction: that democracy is blooming where it cannot — wherever Islamic law prevails — and al Qaeda is dying among its flowers. Instead, we see terrorist groups fighting among themselves for dominance in too many places. Too many places in which we have lost our ability to influence events.
Which leaves us with the other facts at hand. We know a lot of the questions that still need to be answered, thanks to Wolf’s letter and Andy McCarthy’s usual great work. For example, McCarthy points out here that the Hicks-Clinton telephone call was probably recorded. If that recording (still) exists, it should be turned over to the House and Hillary’s involvement in dealing with the terrorist attack — or not doing so — should be fully investigated.
As should be so many other aspects of this scandal. Another example is the CIA talking points that White House flack Jay Carney claimed were the basis for Amb. Susan Rice’s falsehoods on the September 16, 2012 Sunday talk shows. Carney said, on November 28, 2012, that “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened. The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”
Which was absolutely false. Moreover, it’s pretty clear that the CIA’s talking points were mangled beyond recognition — at least twelve versions exist according to ABC News — yet the CIA and the intelligence community were blamed for what they and Susan Rice said. The talking points were changed for a reason, and that reason had to be political.
Political as in re-electing Obama. Everything points to the president. His involvement and the involvement of his cabinet and personal staff have to be investigated.
The most interesting part of this is that the White House is feeling sufficient heat on Benghazi to call in the Obamamedia’s most faithful, including CBS News President David Rhodes. (Rhodes’s brother — Ben — is the White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and reportedly played a major role in changing the CIA talking points.) If, as it appears, the White House is trying to censor Sharyl Attkisson, the alarm bells are ringing all around. Not in the media: they’re Obama’s captives. The desperation alarms are ringing in the White House. They have to bury the Benghazi story before it buries Obama’s presidency.
And they might succeed. Issa’s hearings won’t go on forever and the Benghazi story may only survive in the conservative media. But not if Boehner passes Frank Wolf’s bill and creates the select committee.
What the White House obviously understands is that if Boehner has the courage to do that, there won’t be any way for Obama to escape the Benghazi story between now and the 2014 election. No matter what he does, no matter what he says, as a matter of reflex the media’s attention will return to the select committee’s dealings.
The select committee would, under Wolf’s bill, have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. So who’s getting subpoenaed this week? Is Obama resisting the document subpoenas? Has he claimed executive privilege yet? What did Hillary’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, say in her deposition? It’s easy to see that creating a select committee could have one overriding effect: the White House should be as tied up with it as Congress was with Obamacare. Our politicians spent about eighteen months on that without a break.
Some of us remember the good old days on Monica Beach. That’s when reporters staked out Ken Starr’s grand jury proceedings in the broad concrete courtyard in front of the U.S. District Court, which became known by that name. There will be enough “process crimes” — lies to congressional investigators that breed lies to grand juries — in any Select Committee’s investigation to keep the Obama administration reeling through 2016.
One of the big reasons that the White House will be tied up is that their friends in the liberal media — especially the crazies on MSNBC and their ilk — are so scared of the Benghazi story that they can’t resist covering it. It may go so far — as one radio talk show host predicted last week — that they would try to cover the Benghazi select committee, even if only to lampoon it, sooner than the rest out of fear of the damage it could cause Obama.
And that’s all politics, the fun side of what we do. The substance of politics is policy, and Obama’s needs to be laid bare to the public.
It would not be beyond the purview of the Benghazi Select Committee to investigate just what Amb. Chris Stevens was doing in Benghazi the night he was killed. What policy purpose was there in exposing him to terrorist attack? Was there some goal that Obama or Hillary was trying to reach?
What was the purpose of the separate mission being conducted by the two former SEALs who were killed the same night? There are so many rumors floating around about what they were doing that a new category of intelligence info had to be created just for it by a friend of mine. He calls it “rumint.” We’ve heard about “MANPADs” — man portable air defense missiles they may have been trying to round up lest they fall into the hands of terrorists. Were they successful? How did their actions further our policy in Libya?
There is every reason for us to be skeptical of Obama’s goals, motivations, and policy. And, given the attention span of the Congress and its committees, there is no prospect that the truth about Benghazi will ever be determined unless Boehner creates the Benghazi Select Committee. The truth still matters. Let’s get this done.http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/13/next-the-benghazi-select-commi
Obama Holds Secret Benghazi Press Conference, Invites Only Liberals
When Barack Obama came to office he promised to have “the most transparent administration in history.” Apparently that isn’t working out so well, at least not with Benghazi. Last week the administration held secret, off-the-record meetings with the press likely to strong arm them into aiding in the Benghazi cover-up.After last week’s dramatic testimony on Obama’s failures in Benghazi the off-record nature of the meetings raised a lot of eyebrows, certainly. One has to wonder what Obama is hiding? He keeps claiming that there is nothing to worry about with his conduct during the attacks on our embassy personnel in Libya that horrible day. So, if he isn’t worried, why the secretive meetings with his lapdogs in the press?htthttp://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/15224-obama-holds-secret-benghazi-press-conference/p://youtu.be/9oHjiSCJAm8 Could the edited talking points be one thing the
Obama admin doesn’t want well known?
After the briefing was reported as off-record, some in the Obama administration even wanted to spin that and mischaracterize it as “on deep background,” instead of off the record. What is the difference between the two? According to Politico that means reporters can use the info they heard but cannot attribute the quote to anyone.
In other words, nothing from the meeting will be reported because good journalistic practice means identifying key sources. Just saying “some say,” or “sources confide” is not optimal, though it is done.
Who can blame Obama for trying to staunch the flow of his administration’s political blood, though. With one group already filing lawsuits against him for his failed leadership in Benghazi and Congress calling this the worst cover-up since anyone can remember, Obama is beginning to panic. But, he’ll likely be able to rely on the Old Media establishment to come to his aide as always… hence the secret meetinghttp://www.mrconservative.com/2013/05/15224-obama-holds-secret-benghazi-press-conference/http://youtu.be/9oHjiSCJAm8
Monday, April 8, 2013
INTERESTING FACTS CONCERNING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law , St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some INTERESTING FACTS CONCERNING THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 Million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler ' s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation ' s population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, BY ALL MEANS, DON'T SHARE.
IF YOU ARE NOT then SHARE IT to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Can a Muslim be a good American"
I wish I wrote this one
Here is something interesting to consider.
Garnered the following answer, which means there can be no "good" Muslim soldiers either:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256.)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam. and the Quran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca. to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders,) who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34.)
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran, do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
So - we must be suspicious of each and every Muslim. At. ALL. Times.
Just callin' it like it is!!
Here is something interesting to consider.
Garnered the following answer, which means there can be no "good" Muslim soldiers either:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256.)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam. and the Quran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca. to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders,) who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34.)
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran, do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
So - we must be suspicious of each and every Muslim. At. ALL. Times.
Just callin' it like it is!!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
PONZI SCHEME
Who died before they could draw their Social Security?
KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT... THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!! WHERE DID THATMONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security, but your employer did, too. It totals 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again!
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an ENTITLEMENT when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. If you have a deceased spouses who died in their 50's -- their S.S. money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives over the past 30 years!
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare!!! And they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?!?
We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless.
Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey. And now Pakistan......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS... if not TRILLIONS of DOLLARS are unaccounted for!!!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERY ONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT... THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!! WHERE DID THATMONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security, but your employer did, too. It totals 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again!
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an ENTITLEMENT when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. If you have a deceased spouses who died in their 50's -- their S.S. money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into S.S. all their lives over the past 30 years!
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
Remember Congressional benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare!!! And they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?!?
We're "broke" and we can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or Homeless.
Yet in the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile and Turkey. And now Pakistan......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS... if not TRILLIONS of DOLLARS are unaccounted for!!!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)