Tag Archives: wallace

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

20100503_axelrod_146x97

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.

Justice Scalia: Guns Can Be “Regulated”

Scalia-Fox-News-Sunday-300x210

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and “assault” weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!