Author Archives: Rebecca Diserio

Bill Clinton told Hillary To Resign, US Arming ‘Syrian Rebels’ With Ties To Al Queda

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, came forward to “take responsibility overall” for the attacks  at Benghazi, but per Ed Klein we now know behind the scenes Bill Clinton advised his wife  to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre.  Today we learn from sources  that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack.  Why?  Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and  why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel?  Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle?  I’d say YES.  Could this be a criminal act, negligence,  dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder?  I’d  say YES.  And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel”.   Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi, and those requests were denied—but by who?

To fully understand what happened in Benghazi, we need to step back.  Ambassador Stevens was located in a CIA safehouse (otherwise known as the building burned down during attack)–that  location is where on the night of the attack he dined with the Turkish General Counsel.  Why?  Why was Stevens meeting with this Turkish official? Apparently, in reports the US was gun running weapons through Turkey to aid the Syrian Rebels, but the real kicker here is that we handed over 400 tons in one shipment, to Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the leaders of these so called “Syrian Rebels”.  We can speculate what the Turkish General Counsel talked with Ambassador Stevens about that  night—but what is clear is that the Al Queda backed forces were on scene whilst the two men dined.

The ‘Libyan forces’ called the Feb. 17th Brigade, were the extra security which manned that CIA safe house.  On the night of the attack, Sean Smith, sent this message via a gaming app

”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

What is interesting to note here, is the quotations around the word police.  Here, he is referring to the Feb. 17th Brigade, and what it tells me is he is questioning just who these ‘police’ are with, why  are they casing the safe house taking pictures?  We now know that this “Brigade” is an affiliate of Al Queda and they fought under the “Black Flag” of  Al Queda.  Diana West, an expert in Middle East affairs has this to offer:

The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”

Let’s cut to the chase.  Benghazi is shaping up to be the worst cover-up ever in the history of the US.  The 12 reports that were filed within the first 24 hours, outlining to the White House exactly what had transpired, never once mention a “protest” or any “video”.  They do mention Al Queda linked group called Ansar al-Sharia, claiming the attacks.  We know that the drone was feeding live video back to the White house “situation room” and that Obama was in a meeting with Panetta and Biden at the White House—we know they were informed via those emails of the attack in progress.  Is there any doubt they also were watching this live in real time?

And with that info, Obama strolled out to the Rose Garden, and alluded to this “video”.  In later appearances Obama does talk about the “vile” video, slamming Romney for calling it a “terrorist” attack.  The DOJ indicts and arrests a man, albeit with a shady past—but does his family deserve having a price on their head—do they deserve to never return to their home, due to danger?  Does he deserve to be in protective custody due to death threats from Muslim extremists?  Do the 4 dead Americans, and their families, deserve any of what has gone on?

America stands at the crossroads in history.  The Main Stream Media is protecting Obama, so many Americans do not know these details.  They are hoping to slide through the next 2 weeks and pull out a victory, putting back in power the President who watched our fellow Americans die….and then, went to bed.

On Benghazi “They Stood and Watched and Our People Died” says Retired CIA Officer

On the eve of the final Presidential debate, CBS reported the US had drones overhead watching the attack at Benghazi.  “Watched” is the key word here, “watched” for seven hours.   This attack was not over in minutes.  So what if anything, did the “powers that be” do during these seven hours?  The answer seems to be “what they didn’t do”.  According to Retired CIA officer Gary Berntsen, who commanded CIA counter-terrorism missions targeting Osama bin Laden:

“You find a way to make this happen,” Berntsen says. “There isn’t a plan for every single engagement. Sometimes you have to be able to make adjustments. They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died.”

The “new & improved” spin coming out of the Obama Administration, (yes they are changing the “story again”), goes something like this: “we are gonna stand by this narrative– this attack is somewhere between a spontaneous event where well armed and well trained “individuals” (don’t call them terrorists!) capitalized on heightened protests in the region whereas these individuals took to the streets with military grade weapons and  stormed our Consulate, whereas four Americans were killed.”   Basically, that is what is now being said.  Obama Campaign  spinmaster Stephanie Cutter, on NBC yesterday said

“its important we don’t politicize this, every step of the way as intelligence is learned, as the intelligence “improves” about what happened that night, the President makes it available to Congress and to the American people, its been a very transparent process…”  (emphasis mine)

The CBS report also says that at the beginning of the attack: 

“…an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.

The State Department, White House and Pentagon declined to say what military options were available. A White House official told CBS News that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies.”

Ok, so here we have Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, being well aware and involved in decision making on Benghazi from the very beginning, actually “looking for available options”.  This kind of raises many questions, one being,  why did Dempsey and Panetta decide to “do nothing” and “just watch”?

This is just getting more and more ridiculous.  Expect tonight more of this same “transparency” from the President.  I suspect the President will go on the offensive on Benghazi.   Seems his surrogates out in full force in the last 24 hours re- spinning the story, making it appear as if its Republicans who “jumped the shark”, who wouldn’t allow the White House to get their “intelligence” straight, trying to make us believe it takes weeks and weeks to ascertain what happened during an attack they were watching in real time.   Yes, expect Obama to say “we are doing an extensive investigation, which we must let take its course”.  I’m sure those investigations will “roll in” on or about November 7th, 2012.  We are in obvious re-spin mode, stall stall stall, and act angry and incensed about anyone who questions Benghazi.  Expect some more of that mock anger and indignation from Obama tonight.

UPDATED! Obama Administration Says Iran Ready to Negotiate

Two developments have come across the News wires.   First, according to the New York Times, the United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the NY Times goes on to say:

“Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.”

Of course they do.  No doubt the Iranians follow the Presidential elections closely.  The Russians are also following the elections. Russian President Putin said last month in an interview:

As far as the U.S. is concerned, Putin has made clear that he supports Obama. In an interview with the state controlled television network Russia Today before the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vladivostok in September, Putin described Obama as “a very honest man.” He said that they had talked on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos. “And though we talked mostly about Syria, I could still take stock of my counterpart. My feeling is that… he sincerely wants to make many good changes. But can he do it? Will they let him do it?”

Putin demonstrates a far less friendly attitude toward Romney who he accused of using inflammatory rhetoric for political advantage. He compared Romney’s statements describing Russia as the U.S.’s number one geopolitical foe to inciting racial tension domestically. “It has the same effect on the international area,” Putin said, “when a politician, a person who aspires to led a nation… proclaims someone to be an enemy.”

So let’s parse this out for a moment.  Iran decides 2 1/2 weeks before the election to “say” they are ready to negotiate, but they won’t do so until after the election.  If they are not ready to sit down until after the election, why is this in the News now?  Could it be a partial “October surprise” hoping to get Americans to back Obama, since the Iranians prefer Obama, as the Russians prefer Obama?   Is it to take the “news” off of Benghazi, especially right before the debate on Foreign policy?  The Times article, also includes these comments on Romney and this development:

“It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.”

And just where is Israel in all this?  Of course they must be included, right?  The Times goes on to say:

“Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

This writer is unimpressed with this “development”.  Let me be clear: no one wants “thermo-nuclear war”,and any chance at avoiding such a scenario is always preferred.  And this comes so close to a much needed “homerun” by Obama in Monday’s debate, one could surmise this is one way to “add” a “positive” talking point to a lacking record on Foreign policy.  In the very least, this sure is a “timely” development in US Foreign policy news, don’t you agree?

Second item making headlines, “in unrelated events” the White House has “changed” the Benghazi narrative again!  See article here.

UPDATE 10/20/12 9:43pmET:   Associated Press and other News agencies are reporting the National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor is stating

“The White House says it is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iran to find a diplomatic settlement to the impasse over Tehran’s reported pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there’s no agreement now to meet.”

UPDATE 10/21/2012 10:35amET   Reuters posts this article stating Iran also is “denying that the two countries had scheduled direct bilateral negotiations on Iran’s controversial nuclear programme.”

We will continue to update this post as the story progresses.


Benghazi “Intell” Excuse Unravels; CIA Reported Immediately to White House “Militants Responsible for Attack”

Voice of America (CC)

Did you hear that sound? Yea, it was the other shoe dropping on the White Houses’ “excuse” for Benghazi.  In a stunning development, the AP reports today

 Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

Let’s review.  On September 11th, 2012 our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked.  Ambassador Stevens, along with 3 “Security Personnel” are murdered.   In the days that follow, we are told by Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney that the “cause” of said attack is a YouTube video, which denigrates the Prophet Mohammed.   The man responsible for the video, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is summarily arrested, with SWAT teams and LA County Sheriff Deputies out in full riot gear.  Many question this video “excuse”, but it isn’t until around October 2nd, 2012, we learn per State Department officials that “no one in the State Department” communicated such an excuse.  During Congressional hearings, these officials testify under oath, to the following:

  • State Department official Susan Lamb denied requests for added security for Benghazi.  She also watched “in real time” the whole attack from a drone overhead. This 50 min tape exists.  Who has this tape is unclear as of this writing.  (note: Sean Hannity mentions he has confirmed it exists per his sources on October 17, 2012.)
  • Col. Wood and Eric Nordstrom in Benghazi, report they requested the added security, but were told, “the need to keep the security forces “numbers” artificially low.  They add, along with Lamb this was due to “political implications”
  • Lamb and Ambassador Kennedy, testify that as State Department officials, they never related the idea that this was due to a protest, or a video.  They do, however, imply that the “intell” side (CIA) may have been the agency to report this scenario to the White House.

What we hear from Rice, Obama, Carney and Hillary Clinton, is what they were reporting—the whole YouTube video excuse, was the best “intell” (meaning CIA) they had at the time.  We now know this too, is untrue.   This is a stunning development.  CIA sent their report on September 13th.  What remains unclear is who, who at the White House read these reports?  It is highly unlikely that it was ignored, being that 4 Americans were dead.   Former CIA Station Chief Fred Rustmann Jr., says the White House would have been aware of it:

“When things go down like that, there is no analysis in between,” said Rustmann, who has separately accused the Obama administration of sharing too many details about the raid that killed bin Laden. “You report this raw information as you receive it in Sitrep (situation report) format, from the CIA station to concerned worldwide (CIA) stations and bases and to the White House, Pentagon and State Department.”

Best timelines of the Benghazi-gate “excuses” have September 14th, as the day the White House goes “all in” with the “video” fairy tale.  It is clear to this writer, that the White House, (A)-worried about the Election, (B)- worried about the failed Foreign policy of this Administration,  (C)-wanting to tie into the UN Resolution of December 2011 that Rice signed, and lastly (D)-defending the whole overthrow of Libya, concocted this lie about this YouTube video.   Carney states, on September 14th, per   the McClatchy Report from October 18th 2012,

Carney then launched into remarks that read like talking points in defense of the U.S. decision to intervene in last year’s uprising against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: that post-Gadhafi Libya, he said, is “one of the more pro-American countries in the region,” that it’s led by a new government “that has just come out of a revolution,” and that the lack of security capabilities there “is not necessarily reflective of anything except for the remarkable transformation that’s been going on in the region.”

This story is not going away.  And it should not.  Americans deserve the truth.  This Monday, the debate will center on Foreign policy, and we will wait to hear from our Commander and Chief, we will expect the truth, once and for all.    One thing is clear, the “intell” was not confusing, or lacking, and to imply anything else is pure hogwash.  Mr. President, there is nothing to be “waiting” for as you have stated.  You know the truth, have always known the truth, so come clean.  This isn’t about your legacy, this isn’t about protecting your “Foreign Policy”, this isn’t working to help you win the Election.  This whole lie is out, and its time to man-up.

 UPDATE:  Jake Tapper just released this article.  Issa (R-CA) releases the Stevens documents to back up the claims of the requests and the need for added security.   Cummings (D-MD) accused Issa of politicizing the Benghazi events by releasing the documents, saying “this has turned into a witch hunt“.  I’m sure that is what the Republicans were saying about a little thing called “Watergate” too, Rep. Cummings.



VP Joe Biden Caught Embellishing His Role, Again

Here’s another story that should be on the “front lines” in the “Main Stream News”.  Unfortunately, many Americans will never learn of this story, which has been buried by ABC.  Jake Tapper, one of the few “real” journalists left attempting to dig into stories that have teeth, filed this story a few hours ago.  Apparently, VP Joe Biden has been caught embellishing his role in the 1983 Social Security reforms.  According to Biden, he was one of 8 key players who hunkered down in a room, coming to a bipartisan agreement which lead to the reform in 1983.  During the VP debate, Biden stated:

“Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security in 1983.  I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O’Neill negotiating with President Reagan.  We all got together and everybody said, as long as everybody’s in the deal, everybody’s in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way.”

Then, on Meet the Press on April 29,2007, then Senator Biden stated he was:

 “one of five people — I was the junior guy — in the meeting with Bob Dole and George Mitchell when we put Social Security on the right path for 60 years.”

Problematic, is the historical record.  Jovial Joe, simply was not one of the “key players” , nor was he is any “room” for any meeting about this reform.   In fact, in Biden’s own memoir “Promises to Keep”, makes no reference to Biden being a part of any such Social Security reform.  Something that so blatantly demonstrates the Vice Presidents misleading quotes in front of 60 million Americans during the VP Debate,  should be at least put ahead of what the “Main Stream Media” is leading with, “women in binders“.    Read the full article here on VP Joe Biden’s “misstatements”.

Obama Lies, Michelle Cheers, Crowley Retreats & that Videotape Smears

Candy Crowley missed her true calling.  Unbiased, professional debate “moderator” remains to be seen, as Crowley’s passion to “save” Obama morphed on stage during Tuesday night’s debate.   The townhall style debate turned into a virtual slug fest, as Romney and Obama punched and counter punched their way through a debate that may go down in history as the “umpire debate”.  No doubt, much will be written and the talking heads will be talking about “who won,”  but will anyone address who “really” lost?  I believe the American people lost.  Lost a chance at truth, as Crowley dug her heels in, and Michelle Obama broke the decorum rule, clapping mighty hard as Crowley “shut down” Romney during a question on Benghazi.  So much for “fair and balanced”.

The key point in this past debate, surrounded a question by a gentleman in the audience.  Let me state here, that Crowley and her “team” decided which questions would be allowed.  Ergo, the “Benghazi” question was “soft” asking Obama who was responsible for the dialed down security in Benghazi?   We already know this, in a Congressional hearing on October 9th, State Department officials, and one in particular, Susan Lamb stated she denied the requests for added security.  Obama responded with the typical faux anger at Romney, stating how could anyone say he or anyone in his Administration would intentionally “politicize” such an event?  Romney stood, and countered recalling the day after the event. September 12th, pointing out Obama’s Rose garden “address” wondering how Obama could spin such an event, not mentioning Benghazi for what it really was—“an act of terror”.  And here is where it gets dicey, Crowley butts in, playing “umpire” and fact checks Romney on the spot, stating basically “No you’re wrong Governor Romney,  the President did call it “an act of terror” in the Rose Garden.”   Michelle Obama erupts with loud applause, and President Obama says “Candy, can you say that a little louder!”  It was a travesty.

Post debate, Crowley makes a statement that “Romney was right, Obama was wrong, and that “Romney just didn’t pick the “right word”.  No Candy, you were wrong”, Romney was robbed,  Obama lied and Michelle acted like areality TV star.    Let me be clear.  Obama lied.  And digging his lie even deeper, he then had his moment of faux anger at “anyone saying he would politicize’ such an event”.  Let us recall, the flag draped coffins of the fallen four dead Americans, straight off the plane from Benghazi.  Obama standing over those flag draped coffins, recounts that “video” that spurred all the violence on in Benghazi.  Obama related this story to the View and on David Letterman.  That “story” was a lie, a lie concocted by someone in the White House to politicize the attacks! 

My one hope, is the next debate.  Its all foreign policy, and chances that Romney will be astutely ready are good.  We now have Obama caught in a lie, and all you have to do is watch the video of his Rose Garden address.  Yes, he does say “act of terror” however, listen to the context of this address, he cites “the United States as a place which respects all faiths” and never cites this attack as “an act of terror,” he mentions it in passing at the end of the address.  Crowley recounts this herself, post debate, saying she watched the video again, and in fact Obama was….wrong.  No, Obama was adamant, calling for the transcript at the debate, hollering  “Candy, can you say that a little louder” thinking he “got one over” on the American people, just like Bill Clinton thought, saying “what’s your definition of sex?”.  I’m tired of the semantics game.  Clinton had sex with Lewinsky, and Obama lied about Benghazi.  And President Obama, the truth is not a game.  Americans are tired Sir, we are tired of the game playing and all the lies.   Luckily we got you on video on this one.

Benghazi Biggest Political Scandal in Modern History; Main Stream Media Continues to Set False Narratives

Watergate was a “cover-up” of a group of over zealous Nixon administration officials hiring 5 men to burglarize  the “Watergate” building where the DNC offices were located. Wiretaps and burglarizing the Democratic National Headquarters were the crimes.  This to date, is the biggest scandal and “cover-up” of modern politics.  It pales in comparison to the “Benghazi-gate” cover-up.   Four fellow Americans are dead, and the White House’s “official” statements following the attacks were lies .  Veteran Political “Operative”, for the Obama Administration, David Axelrod took to the airwaves Sunday October 14, and Fox’s Chris Wallace attempted to hold his feet to the fire.  Yet, we are left with the same questions.  From that interview we  learn just what Veep Joe Biden was talking about in regards to his explanation on Benghazi:

WALLACE: But, David, just the day before, several State Department officials testified under oath that there were repeated requests for more security that were rejected. What is the vice president talking about?

AXELROD: I think the vice president was talking about what the White House knew. There are embassies all over the world and installations all over the world, and these requests go into the security professionals at the State Department. And there is no doubt, some of these matters went into the security department at the state security agency at the State Department. But it didn’t come to the White House and that what is the vice president was responding to.

WALLACE: So, we’re now getting into a definition of what the word “we” means. When the vice president says “we” he’s not talking about the Obama administration, because, the question was not about what you knew, it is that there were requests for more security. Biden is not talking about the Obama administration. He’s not talking about the State Department.

He’s just talking about himself and the president?

AXELROD: No, I think, Chris. Again, he was talking about was what he, the president knew because these matters were being handled at the State Department.

What?  Axelrod answers “NO” and then in fact answers the question with a definitive “YES”.    And what he is admitting to is this–that the President didn’t know there were “requests” for more security in Benghazi.  How would he know?  Obama has not been attending these “Security briefings”, in fact the day after the attack, instead of cancelling his campaign trip to Nevada, the President again, skips the briefings.  Axelrod admits to this in the Fox interview.

WALLACE: The reason I ask this is because you say, well, the president made a statement. Yes. The president made a statement, and then he went off to a fundraiser or to a campaign stop in Nevada.

Question, before he went to the fundraiser in Nevada, did he meet with his National Security Council to try to sort out the shifting stories, because State said they never said it was a spontaneous demonstration and intel did, you are quite right — did he meet with the national security council before he went to campaigning in Nevada?

AXELROD: Chris, I assure you that the president was in contact with all those who had information and responsibility in the national security chain about this incident.

As the “spin” intensifies, enter the Main Stream Media.  Watergate had “Woodward and Bernstein”.  We have lost any real journalist on that level who will risk everything in pursuit of truth.  The NY Times editorial on Sunday October 14th entitled “No Shame” cites the Republicans and Darryl Issa as the hypocrites, who cut the budget for security personnel.  That’s interesting, since Susan Lamb testified under oath that “budget” matters had no bearing on the denial of the requests for added security.  In an article by “Time Magazine” entitled “After Benghazi, Is Al-Queda back?” addresses the “Arab Spring” and the Democratically elected new leaders in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia as examples of pillars of “Islamist” who denounce Al-Queda.  This is just plain spin, and the facts are anything but what this article in Time Magazine is implying!  Morsi in Egypt is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He has asked for the release of the “Blind Sheik” and here is footage from the rally held the night Morsi was elected.    That video is a Muslim Brotherhood Cleric speaking at the same podium Morsi took to just a few minutes later.

Yet, these Muslim Brotherhood backed Candidates, who are sweeping elections in all these Middle eastern countries, according to Time magazine, are the good guys?  This is what happened as a result of this so called Arab Spring.   Just as in Iran in 1979, we have radical Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood who backs and is in fact the Party in which President Morsi is leader of, taking power and bolstering this radical agenda, which has ties to Al-Queda.  Make no mistake, what is going on in the Middle East is anything but the Democratic process,  as Lara Logan knows too well.

As the spin continues to add up, the headlines on Benghazi are no where to be found in any major “Main Stream” source.  The questions that remain unanswered, are these:

Why did the Obama Administration roll out Susan Rice with a false narrative about a YouTube video?  I myself, link this back to the UN Blasphemy Laws Rice signed onto back in December 2011, and spoke to this in my last article here.    Who within the Obama Administration came up with this false narrative about this YouTube video?  This question goes to the heart of the cover-up, and remains unanswered. 

It is “malarkey” Joe Biden, to think that NO ONE at the State Department , after witnessing in real time that barbaric coordinated attack, that no one called over to the White House?  Yet, that is what you are trying to sell us, right Joe?  You and Barack, just didn’t know a thing!    You didn’t know about any of what was going on in the Security Briefings, you didn’t know about any “requests”,  you didn’t know your own State Department was watching a massacre in real time, you didn’t know 10 days after it had nothing to do with a YouTube video, and you didn’t know what the  White House approved of Rice to say, was not the truth.  May I ask, do you Joe, or Barack know anything about running this Country?

This is and should be the lead story on every paper and website in the US.  There should be journalist outside the White House lining up demanding answers to these blatant lies, and false narratives.  Nixon resigned instead of face impeachment.  Many say we lost all faith in the office of President at that time.  Benghazi is the place we lost all faith in our “Fourth Estate”.   And we must realize its dead and gone.  Carry on my fellow Americans, we will continue to seek the truth, I know we will.

The YouTube video & Susan Rice; UN Blasphemy Laws fit the “Narrative”

Maybe I should start this off with “Warning: what you about to read could be dangerous to your health, side effects outrage, hypertension, and tequilla shots “needed” have been reported by 99% of readers to this post.” So you have been “warned”.

Anyone remotely following the Benghazi attacks and murder of four Americans, all remember the whole YouTube video “excuse” and the fallout from said “excuse”.   We were told by Jay Carney, Press Secretary, and President Obama on September 12th, that this was a “spontaneous” protest (over the YouTube video) that erupted into a deadly attack.   We heard “official” condemnations of this disgusting video. We all saw the Cerritos, Calfornia “movie maker” hauled away at 1:30am for interrogations.   We heard Susan Rice on September 16th, as she made the rounds to the “Sunday” shows, citing the video. And we heard all of them–Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice state “there was no intelligence that could have prevented such an attack” and that this was “no act of terror”.   So much for story time.

We now know, the following, from an official Congressional hearing held today, October 10, 2012 that,  in the last 13 months there has been 230 attacks in and around Benghazi.   One on June 6, 2012, was an IED that blasted a hole in the Benghazi consulate wall that “40 men could walk through.”   Around this time our officials on the ground begin to “sound the alarm” back to the State Department. Eric Nordstrom, who is the former security officer in Tripoli, asked twice for more security to be sent.   Charlene Lamb, a State Department official’s response was they “wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi “artificially low.”

On September 18th, CNN went to Benghazi, and found Ambassador Steven’s diary, which entries state he felt “threatened and unsafe”.   The facts, the “real” facts started to come out and the “fairy tale” we were told began to unravel. There were NO protests in Benghazi.   In the diary, Stevens relates to being outside at 8:30pm saying goodbye to a Turkish official, the street was quiet, yet a hour later at 9:40pm, Steven’s would be in a fight for his life.   A fight that included being sodomized and tortured.

September 21st, Hillary Clinton finally says “its a terror attack”, although on the same day the 21st, Obama is still on story line #1, its a mob act of protest turned into murder.   September 26th, the YouTube movie maker is hauled away, for check fraud, and I have “intell” from the Sheriff’s Department’s substation in Cerritos, California, about this arrest.   The “word” came from the FBI, that they wanted an “arrest” made of this man, who was “highly dangerous” and that SWAT was needed.   Insider from the LA County Sheriff’s Department, who requested to remain “anonymous” said he took part in the raid, and that the Captain and higher ups were not impressed with arresting this man for “check fraud” and then having to hand him over to the FBI.   “Something just didn’t smell right” he said, “this man had a shady background in check fraud but to arrest him on the fraud charges when we all knew it was due to his involvement in this YouTube video, well, something seemed wrong“.     He went on “Then the FBI “rambo” in, say he is “highly dangerous”, I mean c’mon, the guy pissed his pants when he saw SWAT and a small army outside his house”.

So they had their “Patsy“.   Except, that didn’t fly. On October 2, Nordstrom comes forward, and it all falls apart.   The questions not answered are these, “why the YouTube video excuse?” Who decided that would be the “story” and what did they have to gain from this story?   Why did they, as Susan Lamb says, want to keep the “numbers artificially low” and what does “artificially mean?”

Many wondered “why did they send out Rice?”   I think my friend, and notable blogger Lisa Graas may have the answer.   From her September 17th post :

In December, 2011, Ambassador Rice signed on with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to adopt a U.N. Resolution on “religious intolerance” that had been receiving dwindling support in previous attempts to pass it.   It is the intention of this administration to side with the Muslim world that “blasphemy” against Islam should be actively discouraged by our government even to the point of considering American citizens who exercise freedom of speech as criminals.


We know, the State Department is not behind the “YouTube video” story, so that leaves the Obama Administration, someone in that brain trust, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, David Axelrod— someone decided to “go with this”,  never leaving a good crisis to waste!    And, this plays perfectly into Rice’s actions back in December 2011, to in essence create a “blasphemy” law, that YouTube story really plays quite nicely into the whole “fiction” we have been told!   Bravo Obama et al, but, you had me at “YouTube”, and I wasn’t buying that, no three year old would buy that line.

Let me be clear.   This is no Watergate.   This is murder.   This is an Institutional “cover-up” with accessory to murder.   I wonder, I wonder what Ambassador Steven’s thoughts were while he was being dragged out to be sodomized and tortured?   I highly doubt, as Democratic Congressmen have insinuated during the hearing, that he was excited about the “Revolution” and the “Arab Spring“.

And that brings me to Mr. Jay Carney. Today he stated

“its just a fact, that the President has fought for, and put forward funding for our diplomatic personnel and Embassy’s around the world, and “others” have had their budget priorities, to reduce that funding by way of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires…that’s just a fact.”

Really Carney?   Did you really say that malarkey?   You, who say Romney was “politicizing” the Benghazi attacks?   Carney you Sir, are a liar, plain and simple, and by the way, you are not a very good one.   There are four dead Americans, and we deserve so much more,  they deserve so much more than this travesty of bumblers and liars.   This was murder.   And the FBI spent a whole 3 hours on the ground in Benghazi, a whole 3 hours of “investigating” just last week, as Obama’s commitment to “finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice“.

I think we have a good idea of who is ultimately responsible for these murders of our American Ambassador and Navy Seals, and you don’t need to go to Benghazi to find them.

Corrupt Conservatives on Twitter #CCOT

I am sick. Sick of the Extreme Left who have taken over the Democratic Party. Its common place to “meet” with these individuals in cyberspace via Twitter. Its almost a “given” if you identify as a Conservative, especially if you are championing the Social Issues, to end Abortion, defending the Catholic Church’s “Conscience”, or being “pro-Traditional” marriage. Stances and “tweets” that fit into those categories will be responded to with all the Extreme Left “talking points” and at times the “tweets” will denigrate into personal attacks. This is not “breaking news” by any means, when you engage in the realm of “Twitterdome” and are tweeting about the Moral decline and the End of Christendom. There is no need to blather on about attacks from the Extreme Left, those of us on the front lines so to speak, know it, have accepted it, and fight on. What is troublesome is something I discovered in the last few months.

I had to decide if I cared more about being a “Politico” or if I cared more about being a “Catholic”. There are those who identify themselves as “Social Conservatives”, and I am talking about those who are in fact in places of elected public office, there are a number of these individuals who sicken me, and disgust me beyond anything the “Extreme Lefties” have to offer. Why? Those who identify as the “Extreme Left” (which again, is today’s Democratic Party) are expected to champion murder of innocents, they are expected to trample on the Catholic Church’s Conscience, they are expected to paint Christianity as some oppressive system that is so “offensive” they make it their life’s quest to banish all Easter Egg hunts and Nativity scene’s equating them with “weapons of mass destruction”. What is not expected is what I uncovered when something didn’t seem “kosher” with a few identified “Conservative Christians” who have a trail of anything but Conservative or Christian records and behavior.

These individuals happened upon my radar by chance, one in particular happened upon me by actual direct contact. These people hold elected offices, representing “we the people”, yet by their actions and words they engage in petty behavior, that if you connect the dots, they are nothing more than self promote artists, who have no “real” convictions about Conservatism or Christianity, at all. One elected individual, and their spouse (who also holds an elected position) are a case in point. They seem at first blush, to be who they “say” they are, Conservative Christians with Tea Party type ties.

Start uncovering the layers, and you find horrendous facts. Shady business practices which garnered the BBB (Better Business Bureau) to rate them a grade “F”, avoiding to take responsibility for several thousands of dollars of employee “with holding” federal tax liens, and then being disingenuous, making misleading comments to the press to appear as “it was all a mistake made by the government”. When in fact the government was queried and in an official statement said that there was “no mistake” and the only way it was resolved was by the paying of the with holding back taxes. Even at this writing, not all of the employee taxes have been paid back. I am no “fan” of the IRS, my grandfather worked for Al Capone, but one thing my Italian father always told me was you CANNOT and morally shouldn’t EVER “fool around” with the employee with holding. This isn’t personal “income” taxes, this isn’t property taxes, these are employee with holding taxes! Insult to injury are the thousands of dollars of “donations” from the now defunct “business” to their own campaign whilst  these taxes were owed and went unpaid!

And the defunct business? Still going, just under a different name!! Same old consumer complaints, not one or two, I am talking “more than 15″, talking about the same old unethical practices. These elected officials seem to think by changing the name of the business to avoid detection in our “google” prone world, would give them a “clean slate”. Too bad they learned nothing from all the shenanigans which landed them in hot water prior. Now, the situation I found out recently– they seem to to think they can also “borrow” another Network’s logo and set up shop!

It came to my attention, that the dynamic corrupt “conservative christian” duo have “copied” an existing well known Conservative Networks logo (color, fonts, artwork so similar its not by accident) including the whole machinations of that Network, and throwing it up on the internet, and promoting it. What must be said, is that competition in business is a good thing, what is deplorable is the intent to manufacture a copycat logo and create a Network that is almost identical in structure and method (down to what they offer, except for an initial fee to join!), especially since the original Network is a Non-Profit helping Conservative Candidates (and you can get the training for free!)

This fake, copycat entity, is purely “for profit”, its allowing the duped “minority” group it targets to believe it is something it is not—and this is where the rubber meets the road. This “copycat” “for profit only” Network is an attempt to pass themselves off as the very Network they have copied “down to its bones”. And this type of thing in the name of Conservatism today, sickens me. It actually gets my blood pressure a rising. Folks, I have just scratched the surface of this situation. Do not mistake good old fashioned, American initiative at starting a business with carbon copying a Non-Profit Network, down to the visuals, and passing it off as some unique idea! If the “non-profit” Network wanted to “franchise” itself that is ONE thing, this is completely unethical, and this coming from elected officials in the REPUBLICAN PARTY, who claim to be CONSERVATIVES, who claim to be CHRISTIANS, and who say they have TEA PARTY ties!

How can we win back this Country to the “founding father’s” principles, how can we say “In God We Trust”, how can we promote “We built that” when there are those in our midst who are tearing us down, how can we look ourselves, our kids and our grandchildren in the eyes, if we are allowing those who identify as “Conservative Christians” to stay as elected “leaders” who are deceptive, immoral and unethical?

Recent Entries »