Tag Archives: impeachment

The Benghazi Memo Points to a Crime

benghazi_coverup

The newly dislodged memo from the Obama White House is effectively the smoking gun proving that President Obama’s handlers sought to deceive the American electorate in the run-up to the 2012 General Election on the issue of Benghazi. Even the refined spin and disinformation skills of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney weren’t enough to “play in Peoria”; the White House Press Corps audibly giggling at his insistence that the issue is a Republican conspiracy theory focused on “talking points.” That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough, but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths – the murders – of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder.

The memo, dated September 14, 2012 – now being referred to as the “smoking gun” memo – shows that then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes not only notified political operatives David Plouffe and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (among others), on the email, but that all involved knowingly launched a disinformation campaign about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. In the memo Rhodes writes:

Subject: RE: Prep Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

Goals:

▪ To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

▪ To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

▪ To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

▪ To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

The rest is recent history.

Forget for a moment that points one, two and three are absolute and bald-faced lies, rooted in the slash-and-burn political tactic of “say anything to get elected” Progressive politics, and that point four is the stuff of a political campaign memo and not a national security memo meant to inform the American people about the assassination of a United States Ambassador and his security contingent; an act of war. Forget all that for a moment.

What is of note here is: the date of the memo; who was included in the memo; and the fact that the instructions of this memo were carried out over 12 hours later.

That the date of the memo preceded now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show circuit appearances proves that the effort was, in fact, a disinformation campaign. That then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney were included in the email proves that there was an illegal coordination between the political and operational offices of the Obama White House. And since the actual deception was executed, just prior to a General Election where there was no clear front-runner, proves that everyone with any weight in the Obama White house – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and President Obama himself – signed off on the execution of this disinformation campaign.

These three points clear, it would, to borrow a phrase from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to believe that the erroneous information championed by the White House in the early days after the Benghazi attacks was both as fully informed as it could have been and not politically calculated. In other words, you would need to have the I.Q. of a fig to believe what is currently being shopped by Jay Carney.

The only conclusion possible for any thinking person is that the Obama Administration got caught with its pants down on the issue of al Qaeda-related terrorism by way of the assassination of a US ambassador and his security detail in Banghazi on September 11, 2012, and that in order to support its re-election political narrative – that al Qaeda was “on the run” – they knowingly and willfully lied to the American people. Again, the President of the United States and his handlers willingly lied about the murders of a US diplomat and three security personnel for political purposes.

A side note. The word “murder,” by definition, means:

1. Noun – Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law…

5. Verb – Law. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

On August 9, 1974, facing the prospect of impeachment, President Richard M. Nixon, resigned the presidency of the United States of America. His “high crime and misdemeanor”: His knowledge and suspected complicity in a cover-up of a politically motivated crime that took place at the Watergate. The History Channel sums it up thusly:

“Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising ‘hush money’ for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he ‘committed or may have committed’ while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency.”

Of note, the burglars at the Watergate were seeking to facilitate the gathering of information that would give Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP), an advantage over Democrat nominee George McGovern.

I bring up Watergate in the context of the Benghazi attacks for several specific reasons.

What Did Mr. Obama (and His Principles) Know and When Did He Know It
Just as in Watergate, there are legitimate questions as to when Mr. Obama knew: a) that the attack even occurred; b) that the attack had taken the life of a US ambassador (an act of war); c) that an al Qaeda associated group was responsible for premeditating the attacks; d) that operatives within the CIA, State Department and Pentagon with knowledge of the attacks knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack; and e) that approval was given by senior White House staff to deceive the American electorate to shield the President’s reelection bid.

Both Events Resulted in Crimes
Aside from the fact that – both morally and ethically – the Obama State Department was guilty of ignoring critical security assessments for the Benghazi compound calling for tighter and upgraded security before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, three specific crimes have striking parallels when Watergate and Benghazi are examined honestly.

Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Justice is usually a term used when a criminal or collaborator tries to thwart the investigation of a criminal act. In Watergate, the Nixon White House sought to withhold, destroy, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of wrong-doing from the FBI. With regard to the Obama White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks there was a carefully concerted effort to not only withhold, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of a crime – the murders of four Americans – from an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives, that effort extended to the dissemination of a false narrative – a lie – about the murderous events to the American people in an effort to win an election. Both acts of obstruction of justice – in Watergate and in Benghazi – were executed strictly and exclusively for political purposes.

Accessory to Murder
An accessory charge centers on “a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.” This charge applies to a plethora of illegal actions, including murder. It is indisputable that US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were “murdered” (see the definition of murder provided above). As a point of order, the Obama Administration, by its own declarations, see the application of justice where terrorism is concerned as a “law enforcement issue,” so much so that the Holder Justice Department has sought to try 9/11 suspects in United States courts. That understood – and by their definition – they have implicated themselves via the purposeful cover-up, for political purposes, in four murders.

Perjury
Perjury is the “willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.” In the Watergate scandal, the Articles of Impeachment consist of three articles: “Obstruction of Justice,” “Abuse of Power,” and “Contempt of Congress.” All three of these articles alleged the act of perjury, whether to an empowered investigator or to congressional committees. All three of these “charges” would be applicable to the actions of some of the most senior members of the Obama Administration, including, Mr. Obama himself, regarding the Benghazi attacks.

In all of these comparisons, the parallels are legitimate. Senior members of the Obama White House – if not the President himself – are, with the advent of the Rhodes memo, implicated in obstruction of justice, accessory to murder and perjury. The only thing that separates Watergate from Benghazi is this: no one died in the total of the Watergate event. Four Americans did die in the Benghazi event; an event tantamount to an act of war; an event diminished and manipulated for political purposes.

I have always asked Mr. Obama’s detractors to “dial back” on the more intense charges against the man; charges that often served the Progressive disinformation and smear machines in maligning honest Constitution-loving Americans. Instead, I begged them, please stick to his policies and actions, because, just like his brethren Progressives of yesteryear, if we allow his actions and policies to play out, eventually he will weave enough rope with which he (or they) will eventually hang himself.

Mr. Obama’s Progressive, oligarchic, elitist, political greed has woven that rope. And no, this is not about the color of his skin. It’s all about the “color” of his politics.

“ARTICLE 1

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

“On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

“The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following…”

– Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974

The Confederate Corner with George Neat Rantastic version – October 15th

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, October 15th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: So many issues, so little time! If it’s not healthcare, it’s the government shutdown. How about Michelle Obama’s garden? Or maybe it’s Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s statement about gay marriage. Yes, George is on a roll tonight! Only question is, which items will he rant about the most?

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Confederate Corner with George Neat – Benghazi, Watergate and Guns

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, May 14th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Benghazi and Watergate, because you know… And as usual, there will be a few words about guns, or it just wouldn’t seem like a real show. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Obama Effort to strip constitutional gun rights may start American Civil War

Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ efforts for seceding from the Union.

Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.

This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.

Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.

Where does that leave Americans?

The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”

The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.

When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!

The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of  Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.

Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.

This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”

Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.

Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?

( click to let me know what you think )

Impeachment or Nullification?

Mr. Brown,

I read your item of October 4, 2011, calling for the impeachment of Barak Obama for a variety of either criminal or unethical conduct. I agree that the case you lay out calls for not only the immediate removal, but the prosecution of the whole lot of them on many charges in many categories. I just disagree with your approach. I believe it is doomed to failure. I admire your patriotism and your passion but believe it to be misdirected. I don’t want you to take this letter as criticism because it is absolutely not written as criticism. My intent is to make this country a better and safer place to live. I would like to see your talents and passion be put to work in what I believe to be a better opportunity for success in our common goal.

In the first place, the Democrats will tie up any impeachment proceedings until after the next election at least. Democrats will fight as dirty as necessary and racism will be the word of the day. I don’t believe John Boehner or Mitch McConnell will allow it to even get started. Then if/when it finally does get through the House, it dies a quick death in the Senate because McConnell certainly isn’t going to jump on your team. I agree Obama and his cartel of evil need to be removed but there is a better way to accomplish this task. Much mirth has been made about the question the “birthers” keep harping on. The truly funny, or maybe ironic, thing is that the birth certificate issue is quietly working its way through the courts and we are winning. Orly Taitz has long been a proponent of the nullification of the Obama regime through the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, The Naturalization Act of 1790, and an 1875 Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Heppersett (88 US 162) that upheld the eligibility provision.

The problem in the past few years has been that courts threw out the cases on the grounds that the filer had no personal vested interest in the issue, that they would not be directly harmed in any way by the issue so they could not bring legal action forward. Then a unique man steps forward. John Dummett is not interested in playing political games and mincing words about what he says. No more “definition of what is is” claptrap from the Oval Office. He is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. He is recognized by the Federal Election Commission, and on the ballots in all 50 states.

He is also ignored by the main stream media, including the co-called “conservative” media. John is willing to take on the true issue here, the eligibility of Barak Obama to be president. The birth certificate Obama released is a very poor fake. I can see it and I am not a computer forensics expert. Not one of the Republican Party political machine candidates will touch the issue. No one in the Republican Party will speak up and tell the truth because they are afraid of the attacks. John Dummett is a patriot not a politician. John Dummett, Orly Taitz and a few others have stepped up big time to put a stop to the most evil people to ever control our nation. I hope that you will use your forum to help this issue, and help those fighting this battle.

I am not being critical of your efforts, I applaud them. I believe you are doing your best for your nation but I also look at the practicality of the matter. If Obama is impeached and removed from office, in the next 13 months, then you will have succeeded to a point. If Obama is impeached he could be removed from office. If that succeeds what do you have? Obama gone and all of his orders, rules, everything he has signed remains on the books, left to be fought over again in order to rescind them.

On the other hand, John Dummett and Orly Taitz , on the behalf of We the People, have much more to win. John has been given “in dicta” standing as a person that could be harmed by the Obama candidacy for president. If he has to run against an incumbent who has an estimated $1 billion for re-election and the free flow of taxpayer money to facilitate his expenses, and who is not eligible to run in the first place, John will be directly harmed. That is the layman’s explanation of “in dicta”. John has been given the legal standing to bring suit in federal court against Obama. No one has ever been able to do this before. The biggest difference in impeachment vs. nullification is that nullification nullifies everything Obama did during his term. It nullifies Executive Orders, czar appointments, Obamacare, everything. All laws, bills, regulations, etc. put in by the Obama administration are voided by nullification but left in place by impeachment.

This court battle will also prove that every sitting member of Congress has violated their oath of office in their lack of vetting of Obama and   in doing nothing about this issue in the 111th and 112th Congresses as they have been aware of this Constitutional Crisis from the beginning. There are even ramifications with SCOTUS in their collusion to withhold from the people “redress of grievances” in this matter. The outcome of this court battle will have repercussions that will resound through DC. Impeachment will do nothing to curb the corruption within DC. John is serious about the matter. He is also serious about his run for the nomination of the Republican Party for President. Our nation needs patriots in Washington D. C.

We have had 100 years of Ivy League lawyer career politicians running things and they have made a mess of everything. As long as we rely on people like Romney, Perry, Gingrich, et al to counter people like Obama we will get the same results we have with Obama, though to a lesser degree of “in your face” attitudes. We the People are looking for something else. We are looking for honesty, integrity, and someone willing to stand on the Constitution not just give it lip service. Nullification based on Obama’s birth certificate is the only way to completely erase the Obama abuse of the Constitution and our laws. It won’t bring the economy and stolen money back but it will erase the edicts and abuse that impeachment won’t erase.

I am including the website for the court case and John’s candidate site. I hope you will check out both sites and get to know John. He is worth your time. Even if you won’t support him will you give him the same coverage you give others? Will you at least introduce WE the People to John? Will you help them raise money to keep this legal action going? They have attorneys who are working for free but they need court costs and other expenses covered. I hope you will see my point and throw your weight into the nullification process also. You can be a great asset to your nation. You have a widespread and influential forum. You can bring this into the sunlight and force others to acknowledge the issue. You can do with the “birther” issue what Andrew Breitbart did with the ACORN issue. You can be on the cutting edge of a real and positive change in America. I truly believe this is the only course to turn this evil back. Your help would be appreciated very much by John, Orly, and the others.

But bigger than that is the gratitude of We the People. The every day commoner like me needs people like you to fight our public battles for us. My voice is through people like you who are willing to help give the voice of the common man a public forum and stand for God, the Constitution, and We the People. I am also forwarding an e-mail statement from John under separate cover.

Please take a few minutes to check out these sites: www.recruityou.info Hold control key while click to open. www.johndummett.us

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

In God We Trust,

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

October 4, 2011

http://bobrussell.patriotactionnetwork.com/

Floyd Brown was trained as an economist and writes on investing and politics for the San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Times, InvestmentU.com, Townhall, and Human Events, among other publications. He began his political interest as a student volunteer for Ronald Reagan and has served in many Republican campaigns since then, including Bush, Forbes, and Dole. He was the Executive Director of the Young America’s Foundation from 2001-2006. He is the current President of The Western Center for Journalism, training “citizen journalists” in the use of internet tools and online video creation.