https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxkJ...ture=autoshare
Printable View
Clintonworld Determined to Contain Latest Controversy
Roger Aronoff — March 13, 2014
No comments | Printer Friendly
http://www.aim.org/wp-content/themes...jpg&w=580&zc=1
Much of the media have been obsessed with “Bridgegate,” the local New Jersey story about traffic jams caused by the closing of some lanes on the George Washington Bridge leading into Manhattan—and other potential scandals—simply because the person who figures into it most—Chris Christie—is the governor, and was considered by many to be the Republican with the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton in a 2016 matchup.
“The fact is that we have to take these guys on directly,” Christie shot back at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference. “You know, I’m shy and retiring and I don’t like to speak my mind, especially regarding the media. But what we need to start saying is…that we’re not going to put up any longer with them defining who we are.”
Politico was quick to point out that this was the first time that Christie had given a speech “to a crowd of base Republican voters since his administration was roiled by scandal.”
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who has been among the most obsessive about Bridgegate, told a late-night talk-show host this week that the reason it is so captivating is “I think in part because it’s not over and we still don’t know what happened.” By that standard, she should really want to sink her teeth into this latest Hillary Clinton controversy, which is already bordering on being a full-fledged scandal.
A local Washington D.C. political scandal that has Mayor Vincent Gray in the hot seat has expanded to ensnare the Clinton campaign machine, with actual evidence that illegal money was used to support her 2008 presidential primary campaign to defeat Barack Obama in the Democratic primary. But the former first lady and secretary of state claims that she had no knowledge of these actions, so she is, of course, exonerated by most of the mainstream media. “A campaign adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton was involved in an off-the-books operation to help the former first lady’s 2008 presidential campaign in four states and Puerto Rico, according to federal court documents,” reports CBS News. Will this get enduring wall-to-wall coverage on par with Bridgegate? We doubt it.
“Prosecutors said that from February to May 2008, [Jeffrey] Thompson used two firms to disburse $608,750 in ‘excessive and unreported contributions to pay for campaign services in coordination with and in support of a federal political candidate for president of the United States and the federal and the candidate’s authorized committee,’” reports The Washington Times. “That candidate was Mrs. Clinton.” Thompson pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges on March 10. CBS News confirmed that the $600,000 in contributions were never reported to the Federal Election Commission.
The Clinton advisor in question is Minyon Moore. A spokeswoman for the public affairs firm where she works, Dewey Square Group (DSG), was quick to defend her, saying that “In fact she [Moore] asked Thompson to contribute and raise money directly for the campaign so the campaign could afford to execute a field program in constituent communities. Her actions were legal.”
“Furthermore, she was never aware Jeffrey Thompson paid Troy White or any other vendor outside of the campaign,” said the DSG spokeswoman to CNN.
DSG has a vested interest in proving Moore’s actions were legal; The Washington Post reported in September 2013 that “At the time [that she was a senior advisor on the Clinton’s 2008 campaign], she [Moore] was working at Dewey Square Group as state and local director. Clinton’s campaign paid the firm nearly $420,000 for strategic consulting, according to campaign finance records.”
“A federal government source would not comment on whether Moore had aided the investigation or if she could be charged in the future for the campaign with Thompson,” reports CNN, which carried DSG’s statement but ignored the financial connection.
Moore’s role in the conspiracy is somewhat suspicious. “But Thompson, in his discussions with authorities, depicted Moore as playing a far more intimate role in the off-the-books campaign than was previously indicated—securing the money and helping guide the strategy by feeding internal campaign documents and receiving messages about the media coverage,” remarks The Washington Post.
But as in the Benghazi scandal, it seems that if there is an issue, it’s not supposed to reach high enough to tarnish this infallible presidential hopeful. CBS and other news outlets are quick to point out that “Prosecutors have said they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the get-out-the-vote operation.”
Yet The Washington Post writes, “What really matters is not whether the Clinton campaign knew about the effort but whether it can be tied to or knew about the illegal aspect of it.”
The National Journal pushed back, in an article entitled “Clintonworld Goes After The Washington Post.” They quoted “Burns Strider, a longtime Clinton aide who now works with the pro-Clinton rapid-response group Correct the Record,” who “called the allegations ‘bizarre and brazenly false.’ Strider defended Moore, with whom he’s worked over the years, and called The Post’s reporting ‘irresponsible.’”
Added Strider, “I think it’s horseshit. I think The Washington Post is acting like some kind of an Internet blog or something instead of doing real reporting.” He said, “I think it’s pretty clear through everything that’s come out that [Moore] didn’t do anything wrong and has been exonerated and has been fully helpful in the case, and that’s the bottom line.”
The National Journal reported that the Post told them that “the story is based on publicly available documents,” and that they gave Moore “ample time to reply.”
Clinton’s role in the Benghazi scandal would be enough to destroy her chances to become president, if the news media were to just do their job. But they see their occupation in a different way: to protect and help elect favored Democratic candidates. Thus, CBS writes, “Any connection to the case could provide fodder for Republicans who already are mobilizing to undercut another Clinton campaign.” In other words, any detractors of Clinton are just trying to win political points. The press is trying to inoculate readers against any chance that Clinton might become ensnared in another scandal.
The proof will come in the following days and weeks. Let’s see if the press corps waits outside every place that Hillary goes, to ask her what she knew and when. And will Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews start spending segment after segment examining emails, and interviewing critics of Mrs. Clinton to try to get to the bottom of this?
I think we already know the answers. The only question is, how quickly can they sweep this under the rug, and dismiss this as sexism, or whatever the Andrea Mitchells of the world will use to ignore or bury this story.
This is not the first time that donors have proven a political liability for Clinton. In 2007, she “took the unprecedented step of returning $850,000 in contributions raised by Norman Hsu, a top campaign bundler who was wanted on criminal charges in a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme,” reports The Washington Times. Hsu also served as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative.
We documented that and other funny-money scandals that Hillary’s been involved in which, if covered by the press with the interest and intensity that they have shown towards Bridgegate, might have ended her dreams of returning to the White House in the role of president. But the media have an agenda, and are therefore content to ignore the Clinton connections and pretend that dirty money doesn’t ever touch this family.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/clinto...3d36-224224701
Happy Hillary Thinking About Presidency Not Benghazi
Posted by Joe Wurzelbacher on Mar 23, 2014
Is there a difference between Jane Fonda and Hillary Clinton?
Follow Joe For America on Facebook!Both are responsible for the death and pain of Americans and American soldiers. At one point and time they have both made excuses for their actions. Hillary her self said “what does it matter now!?”
Here is one difference: Jane went on to become queen of aerobics and Hillary wants to be KING, so she can hurt more Americans.
The former Secretary of State was answering questions at a Clinton Global Initiative University forum, chaired by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel. When asked if she was going to run for President she said “I’m obviously thinking about all kinds of decisions.” Wink Wink Nod Nod…
Her 2 BIG issues?
1) Empowering young people to vote. (because at that age a lot of young people are more interested in who is going to give them more free stuff from the government)
2) Hillary says ’I'm hoping there will be this mass movement that demands political change, that makes what public officials do on dealing with carbon emissions … a voting issue,’ (Let me break that down for you. She is saying she wants to be Al Gore and use the EPA as an Iron Fist!)
Personally I will pray and work to make sure Hillary does not have the opportunity to Hurt America or kill more troops! Will you?
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/03/hap...hHjcWUB2uzi.99
President Bill Clinton on Jimmy Kimmel Live PART 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cAxh2_l4LI
Published on Apr 3, 2014
President Clinton talks about our incredibly divided political climate, the difficulty of getting voters to come out for midterm elections, and the political movements of young people in other countries.
Jimmy Kimmel Live - The fourth part of Jimmy's interview with President Bill Clinton
#KIMMEL
Jimmy Kimmel Live's YouTube channel features clips and recaps of every episode from the late night TV show on ABC.
Subscribe for clips from the monologue, the interviews, and musical performances every day of the week. Watch your
favorites parts again, or catch-up on any episodes you may have missed.
Website: http://www.jimmykimmellive.com
Channel: http://www.youtube.com/jimmykimmellive
Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
- Category
Comedy- License
Standard YouTube License
I bet they do a lot of talking about this they must be thrilled that the populace pays no attention to what these weirdo's do!!!! You know what, they tried to run you out of town because your a pervert, and a liar, and that is for starters!!! Just what America needs back in the White House these two hillbillys once again...
April 4, 2014
Benghazi Protestors Force Hillary to Cancel San Diego Appearance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZwwMbRpUm8
Published on Apr 3, 2014
KSWB-CA: Clinton's Upcoming California Appearance Disrupted By Protestors (April 2, 2014)
“She is not welcome here in San Diego by so many of us. We don’t want her here."An organization called "The Difference Matters" created to protest Hillary Clinton's quest for presidency due to her role in Benghazi, forced her to cancel her upcoming visit to San Diego in the midst of a planned protest. Clinton will now deliver the speech by satellite instead.
http://americanthinker.com/video/201...m_medium=email
Hillary struggles to list accomplishments during tenure as Secretary of State
by Joe Schoffstall, CapitolCityProject.com | published on April 5, 2014
On April 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City and was asked what she was most proud of during her tenure as Secretary of State. Clinton could not provide any concrete examples of the accomplishments she holds in high regard.
“When you look at your time as Secretary of State, what are you most proud of? And what do you feel was unfinished, and maybe have another crack at one day?” the moderator asks.
“Well, I really see — that was good — that’s why he wins prizes. Look, I really see my role as Secretary, in fact leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race. When you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished, so when President Obama asked me to be Secretary of State I agreed,” Clinton responded.
Read the full article: http://capitolcityproject.com/hillary-struggles-list-accomplishments-secretary-state-tenure/
http://capitolcityproject.com/wp-con...am-800x390.jpg Hillary struggles to list accomplishments during tenure as Secretary of State
April 4, 2014 | Joe Schoffstall - 1,403 Comments
On April 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City and was asked what she was most proud of during her tenure as Secretary of State. Clinton could not provide any concrete examples of the accomplishments she holds in high regard.
“When you look at your time as Secretary of State, what are you most proud of? And what do you feel was unfinished, and maybe have another crack at one day?” the moderator asks.
“Well, I really see — that was good — that’s why he wins prizes. Look, I really see my role as Secretary, in fact leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race. When you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished, so when President Obama asked me to be Secretary of State I agreed,” Clinton responded.
She continued, “We had the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we had two wars. We had continuing threats from all kinds of corners around the world that we had to deal with. So it was a perilous time frankly. What he said to me was, ‘Look, I have to be dealing with the economic crisis, I want you to go out and represent us around the world.’ And it was a good division of labor because we needed to make it clear to the rest of the world, that we were going to get our house in order. We were going to stimulate, and grow, and get back to positive growth and work with our friends and partners.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMWZeLqwllY
Clinton went on to say that she’s proud of the solid leadership from the administration and that they have restored American leadership in the best sense.
“So I think we did that. I’m very proud of the stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided that I think now, leads us to be able to deal with problems like Ukraine because we’re not so worried about a massive collapse in Europe and China — trying to figure out to do with all their bond holdings and all the problems we were obsessed with. I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense. That, once again — people began to rely on us as setting the values, setting the standards. I just don’t want to lose that because we have a dysfunctional political situation in Washington. Then of course, a lot of particulars, but I am finishing my book so you’ll be able to read all about it.”
Video from America Rising.
http://capitolcityproject.com/wp-con...avatar/joe.png
Follow Me
Joe Schoffstall
Joe Schoffstall is a Reporter and Editor at Capitol City Project. Previously, he worked as a Multimedia Reporter at the Media Research Center (MRCTV, CNSNews.com).
His work has been featured on numerous outlets including the Drudge Report, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, Yahoo News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and The Huffington Post-- among many others.
You can contact Joe by emailing Joe@CapitolCityProject.com.
Read more at 1776 Coalition: http://www.1776coalition.com/rise-up...#ixzz2y1OAMzXL
Plugging her book at the end..it is always about money for the Clintons
CIA officer confirmed no protests before misleading Benghazi account given
by Guy Taylor-The Washington Times | published on April 1, 2014
video at link below
http://www.1776coalition.com/wp-cont...70-286x300.jpg
Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.
The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.
SEE ALSO: Libya station chief gives perspective on Benghazi TV talking points
That the talking points used by Mrs. Rice, who was then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, were written by a CIA that ignored the assessment by its own station chief inside Libya, has emerged as one of the major bones of contention in the more than two years of political fireworks and congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack.
What has never been made public is whether Mr. Morell and others at the CIA explicitly shared the station chief’s assessment with the White House or State Department.
Two former intelligence officials have told The Washington Times that this question likely will be answered at a Wednesday hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during which Mr. Morell is scheduled to give his public testimony.
Mr. Morell, who has since left the CIA, declined to comment on the matter Monday. He now works at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington insider strategic communications firm.
One former intelligence official close to Mr. Morell told The Times on the condition of anonymity that “the whole question of communication with the station chief will be addressed in his testimony.”
“We’re confident that it will clarify the situation in the minds of many who are asking,” the former official said.
PHOTOS: Eye-popping excuses in American political scandals
Another former intelligence official told The Times that Mr. Morell did tell the White House and the State Department that the CIA station chief in Libya had concluded that there was no protest but senior Obama administration and CIA officials in Washington ignored the assessment.
Why they ignored it remains a topic of heated debate within the wider intelligence community.
A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.
“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”
One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.
“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.
U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.
While the testimony is expected to focus on Benghazi, the hearing arrives at a time of growing tensions between Congress and the CIA over such matters as the Bush administration’s interrogation rules and mutual charges of spying and illegality between the Senate intelligence committee and the agency.
Lawmakers are likely to press Mr. Morell for a reaction to reports this week that a classified Senate intelligence report has concluded that harsh interrogation methods used in the years after Sept. 11 provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and that the CIA misled Congress on the matter.
The CIA disputes that conclusion. The Senate panel is expected to vote Thursday on sending the Obama administration a 400-page executive summary of the “enhanced interrogation” report to start a monthslong declassification process.
One of the key issues likely to come up during the House hearing involves what was said during a series of secure teleconferences between CIA officials in Washington and Libya from the time of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, to the completion of Mrs. Rice’s talking points for dissemination on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16.
Multiple sources confirmed to The Times on Monday that the station chief’s email to Mr. Morell was written after one of the teleconferences during which senior CIA officials in Washington — Mr. Morell among them — made clear to the Tripoli station chief that they were examining alternative information that suggested there was a protest before the attack.
After the exchange, Mr. Morell signed off on the CIA talking points given to Mrs. Rice promoting what turned out to be the false narrative of a protest. The development ultimately triggered an angry reaction from Republicans, who have long claimed that the Obama administration, with an eye on the November elections, was downplaying the role of terrorists in order to protect the president’s record on counterterrorism.
Documents since released by the White House show that administration officials boasted in internal emails at the time about Mr. Morell’s personal role in editing and rewriting the talking points.
“Morell noted that these points were not good and he had taken a heavy editing hand to them,” an Obama administration official wrote Mrs. Rice on the morning of Sept. 15.
What is not clear is whether the email was in any way referring to the conflicting intelligence streams about a protest in Benghazi.
Alternatively, the email notes that Mr. Morell was uncomfortable with an initial draft of the talking points batted back and forth between White House and CIA officials “because they seemed to encourage the reader to infer incorrectly that the CIA had warned about a specific attack” in Benghazi.
During interviews with The Times, several former senior intelligence officials have lamented the whole “talking points” issue, saying the CIA was caught in the middle of the White House, Congress and the reality on the ground in Benghazi while crafting the points.
The reason the CIA ended up taking the lead on the talking points was because, as news of the attack was breaking around the world, lawmakers on the House intelligence committee were seeking guidance from the agency on how to respond to media questions without revealing classified information.
Specifically, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and the committee chairman, and ranking Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland asked for the guidance.
One former senior intelligence official told The Times that as word circulated through the inner circles of the intelligence community that the CIA was working on the talking points, officials within the Obama administration steered the mission toward crafting something Mrs. Rice could say on national talk shows.
“In essence, the talking points got repurposed,” the former official said. “What it turned into — and I don’t think Michael ever knew this, it’s something to watch for in his testimony this week — was, ‘Let’s hand this thing to the U.N. ambassador and make it what she should say.’”
“That’s a big deal,” the former official said. “It’s one thing to prepare something for lawmakers so they don’t make a mistake or say something inaccurate. It’s quite another matter to have that feed the administration’s then-current, definitive account of what had actually happened in Benghazi.”
“There are a lot of twists and turns in this,” added another former intelligence official. “A lot of it hangs on the fact that the agency thought they were crafting these talking points for Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers, not the White House.”
Hillary Betrays Her Country
BY: Andrew Stiles // April 4, 2014 2:30 pm
http://s1.freebeacon.com/up/2014/04/HRC1-540x634.jpgWhy does she hate America? (AP)
Why does Hillary Clinton hate America? That is the question that should be on everyone’s mind as she embarks on a worldwide tour to plug her forthcoming memoir. Check out this THE POLITICO article [emphasis mine]:
Hillary Clinton discussed her work at the State Department, called for young women not to take criticisms personally and rapped the media for treating powerful women with a double standard at the kickoff of “Women in the World” in New York City Thursday night.High-fiving a French? That’s not very American. But it gets even worse:
Clinton’s appearance on a panel with International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, moderated by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, ran the gamut from their opinion on the situation in Ukraine to a high-five between the two women when Friedman suggested toward the end that both women could end up in presidencies — Lagarde of the European Commission, and Clinton of the United States. …
But Clinton, who seemed at-ease during the nearly 45-minute conversation at the David H. Koch Theater at Lincoln Center, joked that people can “read all about [her record]” in her book.Wait, what?
http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2014/04/....44.08-PM1.png
There must be some mistake. What does the theater’s website have to say about this? [Emphasis mine.]
In July 2008, philanthropist David H. Koch pledged to provide $100 million over the next 10 years for the purpose of renovating the theater and providing for an operating and maintenance endowment. It was renamed the David H. Koch Theater at the New York City Ballet Winter gala, Tuesday, November 25, of that year.What a jerk. Next thing you know David Koch will be donating millions of dollars to hospitals. It’s important to remember that this is a man the Senate majority leader of United States has denounced as “un-American.” And Harry Reid does not have a reputation for making reckless accusations. He said this on the Senate floor, so there must be something to it. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, etc., etc. Tom Steyer, a concerned citizen who happens to be rich, thinks David Koch will go down in history as “just an evil – just a famously evil – person!”
Why is Hillary Clinton abetting David Koch’s un-American campaign to buy our democracy? That’s the $100 million question. One anonymous source who was alive during the Bill Clinton administration told the Washington Free Beacon that in light of these revelations, she was “definitely not ready for Hillary.”
http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2014/04/444.jpgWhat else is she hiding? (AP)
http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-betrays-her-country/
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...Header-pic.png
- Benghazi
- My Obama Eligibility Case
- My Post & Email Interview
- UnSlave America Forum
- Call Your Rep
- Usurper Obama
- The Illuminati
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...azi-banner.jpg
I compiled this research over a year ago from the White House logs for the evening of September 11, 2012 (the night of the Benghazi attack), but I was extremely worried about putting the truth out for fear of being targeted by the Obama Regime, even though it is public information that anyone can access. However, after watching the recent Benghazi hearings and after seeing scores of people (on Fox News mainly) ask, “What was Obama doing the night of Benghazi?”, “Where was he?”, “Why was he so disengaged?”, I decided to release the information for everyone to see in hopes that we can figure out what all of these people were doing in the West Wing that night.
What was going on that evening that was SO IMPORTANT that Obama would not remove himself for the situation room? What could he be doing that was more important then the lives of our ambassador and the three others that were being attacked? Was he having a fundraiser? Was it a 9/11 Victory Party? Was the White House celebrating Obamacare?
According to White House logs, Medical Person– Christina Kopitopulos was logged in at 3:18 PM with the description stating– “shots”. What I would like to know is, who was “getting shots”, just 45 minutes before the first Benghazi email came in. I find this very strange and telling!
Most importantly, be sure to read the White House logs paragraphs at 8:00 PM regarding the ten Deloitte attendees. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited is one of the “Big Four” professional services firms along with Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), Ernst & Young, and KPMG that offers audit, tax, consulting, enterprise risk and financial advisory services.
Deloitte had just settled out of court for $10 million for “cooking the books” for Standard Chartered Bank of New York in order to cover Iranian money laundering practice. Standard Chartered Bank, an International British Bank,settled out of court for $340 Million in August 2012 for the same thing–Iranian money laundering. Why on earth would these people be in the White House and more questionably, just one month after settling out of court? Was this related to Iranian born Valerie Jarrett?
With everyone’s help, perhaps we can question these attendees, and perhaps get someone to admit what was going on that evening and why Obama was not able to make it to the Situation Room–in some attempt to save the lives of the men under attack.
I personally would like to start with:
Senator Chuck Schumer who arrived at 5:30pm and was logged out at 23:59 can be contacted here. Please drop him an email asking what was going on in the West Wing on 9/11/12, since he was there.
After reviewing the research below of Obama’s whereabouts on 9/11/12, please check out my research regarding Obama’s eligibility which proves beyond doubt that Obama is not eligible to be Commander in Chief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4EwUk3mJKs
Published on Apr 3, 2014
CLICK HERE FOR EVIDENCE OF OBAMA'S WHEREABOUTS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2012: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/benghazi
Published on Apr 3, 2014
CLICK HERE FOR EVIDENCE OF OBAMA'S WHEREABOUTS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2012: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/benghazi
more information at link below that was too long to bring over
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...ated-black.jpg
BENGHAZI: THE COMPLETE OBAMA TIMELINE
AND HIS WHEREABOUTS ON THE DAY OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2012WHITE HOUSE SCHEDULE TIMELINE:Below is the timeline for 9/11/12 that was posted on the White House website. Link to: White House Timeline
Below this timeline is the timeline that I came up with by researching the White House logs.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
8:45 am The President & First Lady observe a moment of silence to mark the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
South Lawn
Pooled Press
Pre-set 8:00AM–Gather Time 8:30AM–North Doors of Palm Room9:10 am The President and the First Lady depart from the White House to the Pentagon Memorial
Press Information In-Town Travel Pool Coverage (In-Town Travel Pool Gather Time 9:00AM – North Doors of the Palm Room)9:30 am The President & First Lady attend September 11th Observance Ceremony at The Pentagon Memorial
Press Information In-Town Travel Pool Coverage11:30 am The President and the First Lady return to the White House
Press Information In-Town Travel Pool Coverage1:55 pm The President arrives Bethesda, Maryland
Press Information
In-Town Travel Pool Coverage Gather 12:10 PM – North Doors of the Palm Room)2:15 pm The President visits the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Bethesda, Maryland – Closed Press 4:40 pm President departs Bethesda, Maryland en route the White House
Press Information
In-Town Travel Pool Coverage4:50 pm The President arrives at the White House South Lawn
Open Press
(Final Gather 4:30PM – North Doors of the Palm Room)5:00 pm The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of Defense Oval Office Closed Press
In-Town Pool Call Time: 7:30 AM; Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg7am: John Brennan (CIA Director) met with 1 person, Jillian L. Winkler on the West Wing Grounds. She left at 11:27am.
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP; TV Corr & Crew: NBC; Radio: VOA
Print: Washington Post
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Below is the timeline I came up with after researching the White House logs
PLEASE NOTE: Some visitors arrived early & stayed late, so I decided to document meetings throughout the whole day, thereby giving a complete picture of what went on that day at the White House.
In my opinion, this was a 9/11 Victory Party that consisted of Obama’s Chicago Cronies, Union Thugs, Money Launderers, Chuck Schumer and several unidentified “Mohammads”. So, if you really want to know what was going on that night, ask the people listed below!
All BLUE and PURPLE links are clickable. Links shown as “White House Log“ contain a list of all people who attended that particular meeting. Names in RED have yet to be identified.
* * * * *
White House Log
CLICK PICTURE BELOW FOR A LARGER IMAGE THEN HIT THE BACK BUTTON TO COME BACK
CLICK HERE FOR EVIDENCE
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...Header-pic.png
- Benghazi
- My Obama Eligibility Case
- My Post & Email Interview
- UnSlave America Forum
- Call Your Rep
- Usurper Obama
- The Illuminati
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/wp-con...son-117347.jpg
As you can see from the debt counter to the right, Obama is completely ruining our country and the tragic thing about it is he’s not even eligible to be President. Obama is not eligible because he is not a Natural born US Citizen as is required by the Constitution. The good thing about this is that any legislation with his name on it, including his court appointments areall NULL & VOID. The bad thing is that the media and Congress are ignoring the facts and we need to make them listen.
Before you call me crazy, I suggest you go through my evidence. You will see that it proves beyond doubt that my claims are completely legitimate. Below you will find all the facts and evidence needed to prove that Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah is not a Natural Born citizen and is a FRAUD!
Below this evidence you will find dozens of images from mews outlets around the world that refer to Obama as “Kenyan-Born”, they can’t ALL be wrong, can they!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zFxKinLVIg
Published on Jul 25, 2012
Obama is nothing but a compulsive LIAR!
REMOVE THE USURPER NOW!
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/usurper-obama/
More information at link below to long to bring all over
http://www.unslaveamerica.com/
And remember this, Hillary was just as bad she let it go on she is a traitor to her Country .... Worse still is that all our politicians are in bed together against us!! Wake UP!!
Hillary Clinton Laughs at Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria and Libya
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY7m1UzC5c
Published on Apr 10, 2014
In this video Luke Rudkowski asks Hillary Clinton why she supported Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria. During her tenure as Secretary of State the United States was providing financial and military support to Al Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria & Libya. When WeAreChange asks for an explanation Hillary Clinton laughs as if supporting Al Qaeda is funny.
Check out our 2nd channel http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Support WeAreChange by Subscribing HERE http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
Like Us on Facebook: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
Follow Us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange
Stalk Luke on Instagram: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange
Rep WeAreChange Merch Proudly: http://wearechange.org/store
OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out http://wearechange.org/donate
We take BITCOIN too
12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP
- Category
News & Politics
- License
Standard YouTube License
TheWanderingWizard
Read the Article @
http://trove.com/me/content/acu4M?ch...campaign=gplus
Shoe thrown at Hillary Clinton during speech
https://d2pe20ur0h0p8p.cloudfront.ne...RS/5000188.png KEN RITTER, The Associated Press
9 hours ago
https://res.cloudinary.com/trove/ima...024x760_to.jpg Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ducks as an object is thrown on stage during an address to members of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries during their annual convention at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center, Thursday, April 10, 2014, in Las Vegas. Clinton, a possible presidential contender in 2016, ducked but did not appear to be hit by the object, and then joked about the incident. Security ushered out a woman who said she threw a shoe but didn't identify herself to reporters or explain the action. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Sun, Steve Marcus) LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL OUT
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A woman was taken into federal custody Thursday after throwing a shoe at Hillary Rodham Clinton as the former secretary of state began a Las Vegas convention keynote speech.
The incident happened moments after Clinton took the stage before an Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries meeting at the Mandalay Bay resort.
Clinton ducked, and she did not appear to be hit by the object. She then joked about it.
"Is that somebody throwing something at me? Is that part of Cirque de Soleil?" Clinton quipped.
Many in the audience of more than 1,000 people in a large ballroom laughed and applauded as Clinton resumed her speech.
"My goodness, I didn't know that solid waste management was so controversial," Clinton said. "Thank goodness she didn't play softball like I did."
Brian Spellacy, U.S. Secret Service supervisory special agent in Las Vegas, said the woman was being questioned and would face criminal charges. Spellacy declined to identify the woman, and he said it wasn't immediately clear what the charges would be.
A black and orange shoe was recovered from the stage, Spellacy said.
Ilene Rosen, the wife of a conventioneer from Denver who was seated in the second row, said she saw an orange object fly toward the stage from a side aisle and papers fluttering in the air.
Rosen said the woman had walked down the aisle to within six rows of the front of the seating area, threw the items, turned around, put her hands in the air and walked toward the back of the room. Security officers quickly caught up with her.
In the hotel hallway, the middle-aged blonde woman sat calmly on a sofa, wearing a blue dress and thong sandals. She said she threw a shoe and dropped some papers, but didn't identify herself to reporters or explain the action. Security officials then ushered reporters and photographers away.
Spellacy and Mark Carpenter, spokesman for the recycling institute, said the woman wasn't a credentialed convention member and wasn't supposed to have been in the ballroom.
After her speech, Clinton answered questions posed by Jerry Simms, the outgoing chairman of the organization. Simms first offered what he called a "deepest apology for that crude interruption."
Clinton answered questions broadly, saying she felt politics today leads people to "do what they think will be rewarded."
An attendee later handed a reporter a piece of paper that was apparently thrown by the woman. It appeared to be a copy of a Department of Defense document labeled confidential and dated August 1967; it referred to an operation "Cynthia" in Bolivia.
The incident reminded some of former President George W. Bush dodging two shoes thrown by an Iraqi journalist during a news conference in Baghdad in December 2008. Shoe-throwing is considered an insult in Arab cultures.
Clinton, the former first lady and Democratic senator from New York, has been traveling the country giving paid speeches to industry organizations and appearing before key Democratic Party constituents.
During a speech in San Francisco on Tuesday, Clinton said she was seriously considering a presidential bid and all it would entail.
_____
Find Ken Ritter on Twitter: http://twitter.com/krttr
More images from this article
https://res.cloudinary.com/trove/ima...024x664_to.jpg
Members of the audience give a standing ovation as former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton continues with her speech after an object was thrown on stage during her address to members of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries during their annual convention at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center, Thursday, April 10, 2014, in Las Vegas. Clinton, a possible presidential contender in 2016, ducked but did not appear to be hit by the object, and then joked about the incident. Security ushered out a woman who said she threw a shoe but didn't identify herself to reporters or explain the action. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Sun, Steve Marcus) LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL OUT
https://res.cloudinary.com/trove/ima...024x681_to.jpg
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton looks into the audience after an object was thrown on stage during her address to members of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries during their annual convention at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center, Thursday, April 10, 2014, in Las Vegas. Clinton, a possible presidential contender in 2016, ducked but did not appear to be hit by the object, and then joked about the incident. Security ushered out a woman who said she threw a shoe but didn't identify herself to reporters or explain the action. (AP Photo/Las Vegas Sun, Steve Marcus) LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL OUT
https://res.cloudinary.com/trove/ima...024x735_to.jpg
FILE - In this April 8, 2014 file photo, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers the keynote address at Marketo’s 2014 Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco. Clinton, the former Democratic senator from New York is due to speak Thursday, April 10, before the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc. meeting at the Mandalay Bay resort in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Ben Margot, File)
http://trove.com/me/content/acu4M?ch...campaign=gplus
Well really "What difference does it make"...Maybe the people that were killed in Benghazi should have had shoes thrown at them instead of bullets. I guess we are supposed to care that a shoe was thrown at her..
TheWanderingWizard
Shared publicly - 5:45 AM
#HillaryClinton
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7...%2BKillary.jpg
TheWanderingWizard's photos
THE BIGGER THEY ARE
Column: Hillary Falls to Earth
http://s4.freebeacon.com/thm/wfb/images/print-red.png http://s3.freebeacon.com/thm/wfb/images/email-red.png
http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2014/04/Hillary.jpgHillary Clinton / AP
BY: Matthew Continetti
April 18, 2014 4:59 am
Hillary Clinton may end up deciding she wants to spend the 935 days until election 2016 making corporate speeches and spoiling her grandchild. Recent events have exposed weaknesses in Clinton’s supposedly impregnable armor, gaps through which a Democratic or Republican challenger could damage, perhaps even defeat her. The bad headlines to which she has been subjected are enough to make anyone—anyone who isn’t a Clinton—think twice about running for president.
Look at the polls. This week’s Fox News poll has Clinton’s favorable rating at its lowest point in six years. She is at 49 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable—similar to her 47 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable rating when she ended her last presidential campaign.
More important than the individual results, however, is the trend. Since leaving office as secretary of state, Clinton’s favorable rating has been on a downward trajectory. And this is before the rigors of a campaign, before a Biden or a Warren or an O’Malley or a Cuomo or a Schweitzer or a Sanders throws a punch or two, before Christie, Bush, Rubio, Walker, Jindal, Paul, Kasich, Ryan, Perry, and Pence go for the Cobra Clutch Bulldog. A shoo-in? So was The Undertaker.
Already Clinton is finding it difficult to articulate a rationale for her presidency, to pronounce a record of achievement on which to base a campaign. In an appearance this month at the Women in the World Summit she had trouble naming her proudest accomplishment as secretary of state. It is a question that her strongest supporters, in her party and in the media, cannot answer. “Hillary Clinton Struggles to Define a Legacy in Progress,” read the headline in the Thursday New York Times. “Mrs. Clinton is striking a delicate balance,” the paper reports, “when discussing a job that would be a critical credential in a presidential race.” The last secretary of State to become president was James Buchanan. He gave us the Civil War.
Clinton, the Times goes on, wants “credit for the parts of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy that have worked,” while “subtly distancing herself from the things that have not worked out.” Imagine that. “The things that have not worked out” compose quite a list. What Hillary Clinton wants is to have it all, to enjoy the fading residual glow of President Obama’s halo without having to answer for all of the messes he will leave behind. Her friends tell the Times that her upcoming memoir, for which she was reportedly paid $14 million, will provide an opportunity to “provide her view of WikiLeaks, Benghazi, and smaller missteps like the Russia reset button.” It will provide an opportunity, in other words, to offer a generous helping of self-serving and exculpatory spin.
I doubt it will succeed. Far too many reporters, in both the mainstream and the conservative media, have a professional incentive in fact-checking Clinton. Last December, when the Times published a lengthy whitewash of Clinton’s involvement in the lead-up and aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, it did not take long before the apologia was deconstructed by experts and Senate investigators. Clinton’s book will be examined not only by supporters eager for ready-made defenses of her time as secretary of state, but also by opposition researchers and investigative reporters, and by her former antagonists within government, who will want their version of events to be reflected in the news.
If she runs for president Clinton will have to name what she was most proud of as secretary of state, and she will have to name, in public, the issues on which she and the president disagreed. Back-channel quotes to the Times from members of her circle will not be enough. Even Obama, who enjoyed an overwhelmingly favorable press in 2008, had to issue detailed proposals on foreign affairs, had to make a stand on withdrawals from Iraq and meetings with foreign dictators.
He made the wrong stands, true. But he made them. It is absurd to think that Clinton will be able to coast to the Oval Office without saying, at length, how she would handle Russia, Iran, Syria, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the defense budget, without describing how her administration would differ from the one that over the last six years has overseen an incredible amount of global disorder, without promising to accomplish more as president than serving as a “global ambassador for women.” We still have debates. We still have elections. We do not have coronations. Yet.
One reason Clinton may be reluctant to share her views on diplomacy and foreign intervention is that her views are not quite those of her party. It is well known that Clinton advocated for arming the Syrian rebels—a policy rejected by her boss. The foreign-policy thinkers with whom she is aligned call for stronger military assistance to beleaguered democracies such as Ukraine—assistance President Obama denies. The Times reports that Clinton “privately had qualms” with the president’s strategy of demanding an Israeli settlement freeze as a precondition for peace talks with the Palestinians. She followed her orders—but we are led to believe, on the basis of the Times’ reporting, that a President Hillary Clinton would not impose such ridiculous burdens on Israel. How would that fly among the Democrats? This is the party that at its last convention booed God and Jerusalem.
On foreign policy it is Obama, not Clinton, who is at the center of his party. America, we are reminded daily, is in one of her periodic modes of retrenchment. It will take a public argument, made by a prominent figure, to persuade America otherwise. So far Clinton seems unwilling to make that argument, to be that figure.
A similar disconnect characterizes Clinton’s domestic policy—to the extent that she has one. She wants to fix Obamacare. She is for equal pay for women, for voting rights for minorities, for same-sex marriage. But she has yet to find a heroic cause, an issue around which to rally the youthful and diverse Democratic base. There is no war for her to run against. She is not about to go the full Snowden and argue, like Rand Paul, for the abolition of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. On marijuana legalization, another issue dear to the coalition of the ascendant, she is circumspect. The banks? She’s taken $200,000 paydays from Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle Group. The One Percent? Her net worth is estimated at $21.5 million.
About the only constituency truly excited for a Clinton run is the class of wealthy donors to the Democratic Party and its pet causes, the power players and lobbyists and CEOs and film executives and trial lawyers and liberal bankers and green entrepreneurs who know that a Hillary Clinton White House would be a field day for special access, a celebration of cronyism, a flagrant and grotesque division of spoils. They see the way the Clintons have managed their foundation, they are aware of the consulting company, Teneo, to which the Clintons have been tied. They see the favoritism and glad-handing with which Clinton’s State Department dealt with Boeing, they remember the selling of nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, they ignore the fact that Clinton donors have a habit of winding up in jail.
Undistinguished, hawkish, corporate, opulent, for sale—Hillary Clinton is like a caricature of a Republican. As long as she can obscure that fact from the Democratic masses, from the anti-corporate doves whose social progressivism is far more strident than her own, she will be able to maintain the illusion of the impregnable frontrunner. But nothing lasts forever. Either Clinton will realize this soon, and spend out her days relaxing and cooing over her grandchild. Or she will realize it later, the hard way, sometime in 2016.
I’m not saying it’s going to happen. I’m just saying there’s a chance.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-bigger-they-are/
The Clinton Curse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHAN9nF66xY&feature=youtube_gdata&utm_sour ce=rss&utm_medium=sendible&utm_campaign=RSS
https://yt3.ggpht.com/-iLMjslfQ5iE/A...k-no/photo.jpg NextNewsNetwork·2,621 videos
Published on Apr 21, 2014
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can't seem to shake the corruption charges that have been following her for years—even decades.
But in Washington, Hillary's checkered past is rarely mentioned anymore, although her past transgressions should have been enough to prevent her from becoming Secretary of State in the first place.
Yet, since Washington is only unforgiving to truth-tellers, she headed the State Department until recently.
Amid all the talk about Obamacare, the nation sometimes forgets that as First Lady, Hillary simply gave herself political authority and met behind closed doors to devise Hillarycare.
Hillarycare was an earlier attempt at socializing the American medical system.
And in order to become a U.S. Senator, Hillary carpet-bagged from Arkansas to New York State and took up residence there. She did so just in the nick of time—in order to hang on to power after her husband, President Bill Clinton, finished his two terms as president.
He gave America the beloved North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA has continued to ravage the economy long after the Clintons left the White House.
Fast forward to today. Internal government documents now show that Hillary waived restrictions on U.S. financial aid to Afghanistan. The problem is that Hillary's fingerprints are all over the fact that the waivers allowed millions of tax dollars to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan organizations.
According to today's Washington Times: "[T]op officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development repeatedly cited former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for setting into motion a policy to waive restrictions on who could receive U.S. financial aid in Afghanistan, resulting in millions of dollars in U.S. funds going directly into the coffers of Afghan ministries known to be rife with corruption."
The U.S. Agency for International Development, or U.S.-AID for short, is the government's key foreign-aid conduit.
The Times adds that references to Hillary's role in this matter first appeared in a November 2012 U.S.-AID action memo. That memo showed that U.S. officials made a strategic foreign-aid decision two years before that to provide at least 50 percent of U.S. financial aid directly to the Afghan government.
And according to the documentation, in July of 2010 Secretary of State Clinton reaffirmed the arrangement.
Her waiver served to justify why the organization U.S.-AID cast aside rules that otherwise would have required the agency to first assess the risks of providing such aid. The funds were vulnerable to waste, fraud or outright theft.
Furthermore, then-Secretary of State Clinton knew about but apparently covered up the clear dangers at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. That was before the September 2012 attack on the consulate, which resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens.
However, in Washington, constitutional rules are the first thing to be ignored, regardless of whether U.S.-AID guidelines or other agency rules are broken. Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the authority to financially prop up other nations.
With America's roads, bridges, key waterways and other infrastructure gravely in need of repairs, the U.S.-AID agency is requesting just over $20 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 2015.
Given all that has happened on Hillary's watch, critics are bound to question why, of all things, she evidently intends to run for president in 2016. But what's equally or more troubling is how loose the U.S. government is with taxpayer dollars when our domestic economy cries out for a government devoted to America—not nation-building overseas for an obscure global agenda.
Download your free Next News "Heroes & Villains" Poster here: http://nextnewsnetwork.com/the-2013-h...
Donate USD: http://nnn.is/donate-dollars
Donate BTC: http://nnn.is/donate-bitcoin
LIVE: http://NextNewsNetwork.com
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
Sub: http://NNN.is/the_new_media
Meet the Next News Team: http://youtu.be/2QnNKwQ2WkY
Hashtag: #N3
About:
Next News Network's WHDT World News program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at http://NNN.is/on-WHDT
WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.
WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.
More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT
#DC
- Category
News & Politics
- License
Standard YouTube License
White House Knowingly Allowed Al Qaeda Arms Deal That Facilitated Benghazi Attack
By Steve Straub On April 23, 2014
http://thefederalistpapers.integrate...zi-Hearing.jpg
This is a pretty shocking revelation, wonder how many main stream media outlets will report on this?
Via The Daily Mail:
The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
On September 11, 2012 armed terror-linked militias attacked U.S. diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans and driving the United States out of that part of the country
’The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
Watch the video report:
video at link below
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/u...ce=getresponse
THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY
https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/pr...n-benghazi.jpgWith Hillary Clinton possibly running for President in 2016, it's worth strolling down memory lane and remembering the last time the Clintons, both Bill and Hill, were in the White House. And what do we find? The Clintons' enemies list . . . which now resides in Bill's Presidential Library in Arkansas. It's a twisted tale of conservative thinks tanks, publications and personalities who were all bent on Bill and Hillary's destruction. We are fond of this item from the report:
"The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information."
Now you know why the Clintons weren't too thrilled with Al "I invented the Internet" Gore.
Response Action Network Newsletter
Here is your weekly update on the politics and policies affecting our liberties.
When you click on the heading and the list it will bring up a pdf file for each
http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets...007-0080-F.pdf
http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets...007-0080-F.pdf
OH, PLEASE: Hillary Turns to Jesus to Sell Her Socialism
By Clash Daily / 27 April 2014
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...AM-630x334.png
Speaking before a convention of Methodist woman, Hillary Clinton explained that her definition of Christianity essentially means caring for others.
Clinton appeared before the United Methodist Women’s Assembly on Saturday, April 26, and told those gathered what her religious faith means to her.
She claimed that growing up she struggled to reconcile her Navy veteran father’s stern view of self-reliance with her mother’s more compassionate views. She felt that the story of how Jesus fed 5,000 worshippers with only five loaves of bread and two fish was her guiding Biblical theme.
“The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, ‘No. You feed them.’ He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share,” Clinton told the crowd.
Read more: Breitbart
Hillary Clinton: Religious Faith Means Caring for Others
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...ce_reuters.jpg
Speaking before a convention of Methodist woman, Hillary Clinton explained that her definition of Christianity essentially means caring for others.
Clinton appeared before the United Methodist Women's Assembly on Saturday, April 26, and told those gathered what her religious faith means to her.
She claimed that growing up she struggled to reconcile her Navy veteran father's stern view of self-reliance with her mother's more compassionate views. She felt that the story of how Jesus fed 5,000 worshippers with only five loaves of bread and two fish was her guiding Biblical theme.
"The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, 'No. You feed them.' He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share," Clinton told the crowd.
The "author" of the 1996 book "It Takes a Village," former Obama Secretary of State, and possible Democrat candidate for President in 2016 also used the forum to push for a hike in the minimum wage. She raised the theme of "equal pay" for women, as well.
Warming to her theme of the "inequality" of women in our society, Clinton lamented that women don't just face a "ceiling" in their careers but it is " as if the floor is collapsing beneath them" because of the unfairness they face. "These are our sisters, our daughters, granddaughters. Some are hungry, not just for nutritious food but for opportunity, for chance to thrive, for their own piece of the American dream," Clinton said at the religious gathering.
The one-time First Lady also told the crowd that she "loved" the church she attended as a young girl.
"I love that church. I love how it made me feel about myself," Clinton told the crowd. "I love the doors that it opened in my understanding of the world, I loved the way it helped to deepen my faith and ground it."
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ing-for-Others
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/oh-ple...75IyeKLGjZX.99
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-z.../Benghazi+.jpg
Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report
- Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
- Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
- The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
- The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
- US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot
By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
Published: 15:09 EST, 22 April 2014 | Updated: 09:53 EST, 23 April 2014
The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn't been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
'The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,' Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
'Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
'The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.'
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
Scroll down for video
he weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.Scroll down for video
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...25_634x419.jpg
+7
The Citizens Committee on Benghazi released its interim findings on April 22, 2014 in Washington. Pictured are (L-R) Clare Lopez, Admiral (Ret.) Chuck Kubic, Admiral (Ret.) James 'Ace' Lyons, former CIA officer Wayne Simmons and civil rights attorney John Clarke
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...31_634x419.jpg
+7
On September 11, 2012 armed terror-linked militias attacked U.S. diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans and driving the United States out of that part of the country
'The White House and senior Congressional members,' the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, 'deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.'
'Some look at it as treason,' said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission's research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now 'all in Syria.'
'Gaddafi wasn't a good guy, but he was being marginalized,' Kubic recalled. 'Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate' shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
'But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,' the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
'We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,' Kubic said, 'but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.'
In March 2011, Kubic said, U.S. Army Africa Commander General Carter told NBC News that the U.S. military was not actively targeting Muammar Gaddafi. That, Kubic revealed, was a signal to the Libyan dictator that there was a chance for a deal.
Gaddafi responded by 'verifiably ... pull[ing] his forces back from key rebel-held cities such as Benghazi and Misrata.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...35_634x444.jpg
+7
Christopher Stevens served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 11, 2012 when he was killed in the attack
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...73_634x442.jpg
+7
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 23 that it mattered little why the Benghazi diplomatic compound was attacked: 'What difference, at this point, does it make?'
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration's unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, 'led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)' when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,' the commission told reporters.
The White House and the National Security Staff did not immediately respond to questions about the group's findings.
'We don't claim to have all the answers here,' said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.
'We hope you will, please, pursue this,' he told reporters. 'Check it out. Challenge us.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...33_306x423.jpg
+7
Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: 'We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours'
The commission and AIM filed 85 document requests under the Freedom Of Information Act, hitting the Department of Defense, State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency with demand after demand.
But most of its information has come from insiders with deep knowledge of the flow of weapons in Libya and elsewhere in the African Maghreb.
Admiral James 'Ace' Lyons told the group that he believes the raid on the Benghazi compound was intended as a kidnapping exercise, aimed at snatching U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and demanding a prisoner swap for the 'blind sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman.
Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence in federal prison for planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center garage in New York City. He also masterminded a plan, later foiled, to blow up the United Nations, both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building where the FBI had a base of operations.
A senior FBI source, Lyons said Tuesday, 'told me that was the plan.'
The attack, history shows, grew in intensity and resulted in the deaths of Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.
Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.
'I'm going to tell you that's not true,' he said. 'We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.'
'The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.'
'The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...86_634x470.jpg
+7
Killed: An image captured by a cellular phone camera shows the arrest of strongman Muammar Gaddafi in Sirte, Libya on October 20, 2011
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...74_634x450.jpg
+7
Former CIA officer Clare Lopez accused the U.S. government of allowing arms to flow to al-Qaeda militants who opposed Gaddafi in 2011, 'switching sides in the war on terror'
Some of the group's claims strain credibility, including the assertion that the Obama administration's early effort to blame the Benghazi attack on a protest against a crude anti-Muslim YouTube video 'appears to have been well-coordinated with U.S.Muslim Brotherhood organizations as well as Islamic state members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).'
Those groups, the commission noted, 'all joined in condemnation of the video, and, even more troubling, issued calls for restrictions on Americans’ free speech rights.'
But Simmons, the former CIA officer, criticized the Obama administration on the familiar refrain of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exclaiming in a Senate hearing that it mattered little why the Benghazi facilities were struck.
'They believed they were going to be saved, that they were going to be rescued, but they weren't,' Simmons said of the four Americans who died.
'I know who made the decision, in my heart of hearts, to leave our war fighters there and be blown up. And then to have one of the most powerful politicians in our country sit there and say, "What difference does it make?" – should be an alarm bell for all Americans.
'It haunts me,' Simmons said. 'I play that line over, and over, and over, and over in my mind.'
The group has called for a Select Congressional Committee to investigate the Benghazi episode. A total of 189 House members have signed on to a bill that would create the committee, which would be bipartisan and have sweeping powers to subpoena the executive branch.
House Speaker John Boehner, Lopez said Tuesday, 'he blocked it. One has to wonder if he and Congress have had some sort of briefing on what happened.'
Kubic insisted that Congress is unable to break logjams in the Obama administration and find out what happened in the days leading up to and following the Benghazi attack without a new committee.
'If they don't have strong subpoena power, if they don't have the ability to do long-term cross examination, it won't work,' he said.
video at link below
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3073EW6f5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Bill Clinton to Fundraise for Center for American Progress
http://s3.freebeacon.com/up/2013/08/...Clinton-AP.jpg
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 28, 2014 9:24 am
Former President Bill Clinton will be headlining the Center for American Progress’ annual fundraiser next month, according to Politico.
The event will be an opportunity for Clinton to speak in front of progressive leaders, elected officials, and the progressive movement’s largest political donors.
Clinton is speaking on May 14, just months after his wife, Hillary Clinton, addressed an event honoring the group’s tenth year in existence.
“We’re very honored to have him,” said CAP President Neera Tandem, who worked in the Clinton White House before joining Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2000 and her presidential effort in 2008. The group has been host at past events to speakers such as President Barack Obama, and has held events with Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The May event typically is made up of progressive leaders, elected officials and donors.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-...ican-progress/
The Secret Donors Behind the Center for American Progress and Other Think Tanks [Updated on 5/24]
Washington institutions esteemed for their independent scholarship don’t disclose donations from corporations and foreign governments.
Ken Silverstein
May 21, 2013 | This article appeared in the June 10-17, 2013 edition of The Nation.
Editor’s Note: We received a letter from the Center for American Progress on May 24, 2013 objecting to aspects of Ken Silverstein’s article. In the interest of debate, we publish that letter at the end of this article, along with Silverstein’s response.
http://www.thenation.com/sites/defau...rs_rtr_img.jpg
Reuters Pictures
The Center for American Progress, Washington’s leading liberal think tank, has been a big backer of the Energy Department’s $25 billion loan guarantee program for renewable energy projects. CAP has specifically praised First Solar, a firm that received $3.73 billion under the program, and its Antelope Valley project in California.
Last year, when First Solar was taking a beating from congressional Republicans and in the press over job layoffs and alleged political cronyism, CAP’s Richard Caperton praised Antelope Valley in his testimony to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, saying it headed up his list of “innovative projects” receiving loan guarantees. Earlier, Caperton and Steve Spinner— a top Obama fundraiser who left his job at the Energy Department monitoring the issuance of loan guarantees and became a CAP senior fellow—had written an article cross-posted on CAP’s website and its Think Progress blog, stating that Antelope Valley represented “the cutting edge of the clean energy economy.”
Though the think tank didn’t disclose it, First Solar belonged to CAP’s Business Alliance, a secret group of corporate donors, according to internal lists obtained by The Nation. Meanwhile, José Villarreal—a consultant at the power- house law and lobbying firm Akin Gump, who “provides strategic counseling on a range of legal and policy issues” for corporations—was on First Solar’s board until April 2012 while also sitting on the board of CAP, where he remains a member, according to the group’s latest tax filing.
CAP is a strong proponent of alternative energy, so there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of its advocacy. But the fact that CAP has received financial support from First Solar while touting its virtues to Washington policy-makers points to a conflict of interest that, critics argue, ought to be disclosed to the public. CAP’s promotion of the company’s interests has supplemented First Solar’s aggressive Washington lobbying efforts, on which it spent more than $800,000 during 2011 and 2012.
“The only thing more damaging than disclosing your donors and having questions raised about the independence of your work is not disclosing them and have the information come to light and undermine your work,” says Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “The best practice, whether required by the IRS or not, is to disclose contributions.”
Nowadays, many Washington think tanks effectively serve as unregistered lobbyists for corporate donors, and companies strategically contribute to them just as they hire a <acronym title="Google Page Ranking">PR</acronym> or lobby shop or make campaign donations. And unlike lobbyists and elected officials, think tanks are not subject to financial disclosure requirements, so they reveal their donors only if they choose to. That makes it impossible for the public and lawmakers to know if a think tank is putting out an impartial study or one that’s been shaped by a donor’s political agenda. “If you’re a lobbyist, whatever you say is heavily discounted,” says Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert on political ethics. “If a think tank is saying it, it obviously sounds a lot better. Maybe think tanks aren’t aware of how useful that makes them to private interests. On the other hand, maybe it’s part of their revenue model.”
* * *When Newt Gingrich was running for president, The Washington Post ran a story about the Center for Health Transformation, which it described as his “hybrid” single-issue think tank. The center, which subsequently went bankrupt and was bought by WellStar, published reports and advocated on behalf of donors—including lobbyists and industry groups that donated millions to support its work—in addition to offering perks like “direct Newt interaction.” While the center did disclose some of its donors, it didn’t reveal how much money they had contributed.
It was an interesting story, but it obscured a key point: Newt’s “hybrid” was a particularly straightforward form of pay-to-play, but its basic features are common at Washington think tanks. Like Newt’s Center for Health Transformation, many lure big donors with a package of benefits, including personalized policy briefings, the right to directly underwrite and shape research projects, and general support for the donor’s political needs.
Most think tanks are nonprofit organizations, so a donor can even get a nice tax break for contributing. But it’s their reputation for impartiality and their web of contacts that makes them especially useful as policy advocates. “Think tanks can always draw a big audience to your event, including government folks,” a Washington lobbyist who has worked with several told me. “And people generally don’t think they would twist anything, or wonder about where they get their money.”
While think tanks portray themselves as altruistic scholarly institutions, they emphasize their political influence when courting donors. “If you have a particular area of policy interest, you can support a specific research effort under way,” the Brookings Institution says in one pitch for cash. Those interested in ”a deeper engagement”—read: ready to fork over especially large sums of money—get personal briefings from resident experts and can work directly with senior Brookings officials to draw up a research agenda that will “maximize impact on policymaking.”
The Center for Strategic and International Studies advertises itself as being “in the unique position to bring together leaders of both the public and private sectors in small, often off-the-record meetings to build consensus around important policy issues.” It allows top-tier donors to directly sponsor reports, events and speaker series.
Because most think tanks don’t fully disclose their donors, it’s not always easy to see what sort of benefits money can buy. But during Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearings, the Atlantic Council, where he’d been chairman before moving to the Pentagon, released a list of its foreign donors. One of them turned out to be the oil-rich government of Kazakhstan, headed by dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev. Last year, the council hosted a conference on Kazakhstan that was paid for by the Nazarbayev regime and Chevron, which has vast oil interests in the country and is also a major donor to the council. Keynote speakers included Kazakhstan’s former ambassador to the United States and Kenneth Derr, a former Chevron CEO and now Kazakhstan’s honorary consul in San Francisco.
* * *John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and the head of Obama’s first transition team, founded the Center for American Progress in 2003. Last year, Podesta stepped down as CAP’s president—he remains its chair and counselor—and was replaced by Neera Tanden, who served in both the Obama and Clinton administrations. Former Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello heads the CAP Action Fund, an advocacy unit, which operates out of the same offices and shares personnel.
CAP has emerged as perhaps the most influential of all think tanks during the Obama era, and there’s been a rapidly revolving door between it and the administration. CAP is also among the most secretive of all think tanks concerning its donors. Most major think tanks prepare an annual report containing at least some financial and donor information and make it available on their websites. According to CAP spokeswoman Andrea Purse, the center doesn’t even publish one.
Purse told me that CAP “follows all financial disclosure requirements with regard to donors…. We don’t use corporate funds to pay for research or reports.” But she flatly refused to discuss specific donors or to provide an on-the-record explanation for why CAP won’t disclose them.
After growing rapidly in its first few years, tax records show, CAP’s total assets fell in 2006 for the first time, from $23.6 million to $20.4 million. Assets started growing again in 2007 when CAP founded the Business Alliance, a membership rewards program for corporate contributors, and then exploded when Obama was elected in 2008. According to its most recent nonprofit tax filing, CAP’s total assets now top $44 million, and its Action Fund treasury holds $6 million more.
A confidential CAP donor pitch I obtained describes the Business Alliance as “a channel for engagement with the corporate community” that provides “the opportunity to…collaborate on common interests.” It offers three membership levels, with the perks to top donors ($100,000 and up) including private meetings with CAP experts and executives, round-table discussions with “Hill and national leaders,” and briefings on CAP reports “relevant to your unique interests.”
http://www.thenation.com/sites/defau...iness_img2.jpg
click to enlarge
CAP doesn’t publicly disclose the members of its Business Alliance, but I obtained multiple internal lists from 2011 showing that dozens of major corporations had joined. The lists were prepared by Chris Belisle, who at the time served as the alliance’s senior manager after having been recruited from his prior position as manager of corporate relations at the US Chamber of Commerce. According to these lists, CAP’s donors included Comcast, Walmart, General Motors, Pacific Gas and Electric, General Electric, Boeing and Lockheed. Though it doesn’t appear on the lists, the University of Phoenix was also a donor.
Incidentally, Scott Lilly, a Hill veteran who joined CAP in 2004 as a senior fellow covering national security, simultaneously served as a registered lobbyist for Lockheed between 2005 and 2011. Rudy deLeon, CAP’s senior vice president for national security and international policy, was a Boeing executive and directed the company’s lobbying operations between 2001 and 2006, before joining the think tank the following year.
Of the CAP donors mentioned in this story, I contacted Lockheed, which refused to confirm or deny its membership in the Business Alliance, and First Solar and Boeing, both of which confirmed that they had been members but wouldn’t say how much they gave or when. “Our work with think tanks is not political, but is more educational in nature,” Tim Neale of Boeing told me. “We want to learn from and share ideas with scholars across the political spectrum, and we like to get a wide range of viewpoints and ideas rather than focus solely on a particular political bent.”
Several CAP insiders, who asked to speak off the record, told me that when Podesta left, there was a fear that contributions would dry up. Raising money had always been important, they said, but Tanden ratcheted up the efforts to openly court donors, which has impacted CAP’s work. Staffers were very clearly instructed to check with the think tank’s development team before writing anything that might upset contributors, I was told.
I obtained a March 2012 e-mail from Belisle to Podesta and CAP’s communications and legal teams, which was also copied to Tanden. The e-mail noted a Think Progress item featuring a New York Times op-ed by former Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith, who called the company’s environment “toxic and destructive.” At the time, the firm was under heavy fire for deceiving investors and for its larger role in driving the speculation in toxic securities that unwound the economy. Belisle said he was “flagging” the item for Tanden since she had recently met with Michael Paese, director of Goldman’s Washington lobbying office. Two sources told me that Goldman Sachs subsequently became a donor. Purse and Paese declined comment.
* * *Foreign governments and business entities can also join the Business Alliance, whose membership list includes the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office—which functions as Taiwan’s embassy in Washington and retains many lobbyists, including former Oklahoma Republican Senator Don Nickles and former Missouri Democratic Representative Richard Gephardt—and the Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists of Turkey (TUSKON).
In 2010, CAP issued a report, “Ties That Bind: U.S.-Taiwan Relations and Peace and Prosperity in East Asia,” which warned that the partnership between the two countries had stagnated and suggested that the United States maintain arms sales to Taiwan, increase economic and diplomatic cooperation, and otherwise “seek ways to deepen their relationship.” That same year, CAP’s Scott Lilly gave an address at the American Institute in Taiwan, in which he hailed the ties between the two nations as “one of the more important bilateral relationships in the world” before calling for additional arms sales to Taiwan. Lockheed, whom Lilly lobbied for at the time, is a leading arms merchant to Taiwan.
With help from TUSKON, CAP also makes an annual fact-finding trip to Turkey, the most recent being in February of this year. The CAP delegation met with US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone and senior Turkish government officials. A former CAP staffer told me that TUSKON had “amazing access” and “could call anyone in the government and get us a meeting or interview.” As a result of the Turkish group’s support, CAP was “totally in the tank for them,” this source said.
CAP also presses for closer ties between the US and Turkish governments, just as Ankara’s lobbyists do. Last year, CAP hosted an event featuring Commerce Secretary John Bryson, who spoke on his “vision for deepening even further the US-Turkish commercial relationship.” Two years earlier, Podesta gave the keynote address at a TUSKON conference in Istanbul. In his speech—titled “The Unique Importance of the Turkish-American Relationship”—he praised CAP senior fellow Michael Werz for his work on “strengthening the US-Turkey relationship.” He also pointedly noted that Werz’s predecessor as CAP’s Turkey expert, Spencer Boyer, had left the think tank to become the Obama administration’s deputy assistant secretary for European affairs.
“Our policy work is independent and driven by solutions that we believe will create a more equitable and just country,” Purse told me. It would be easier to believe that statement, let alone evaluate it, if CAP was more transparent about its funding. The same holds true for think tanks in general—which, unlike other powerful Washington institutions, have the luxury of telling the public and policy-makers only what they choose about their funders.
* * *Editor’s Note: We received a letter from the Center for American Progress on May 24, 2013, objecting to aspects of Ken Silverstein’s article. In the interest of debate, we publish that letter below, along with Silverstein’s response.
From the Center for American Progress
Core to liberal thought is the idea that evidence should come first and conclusions should follow. Ken Silverstein’s recent article, The Secret Donors Behind the Center for American Progress and Other Think Tanks, insinuates a lot but the facts tell a different story.
The inference at the heart of the author’s story is that corporate donations shape or drive the content of CAP and CAP Action. That assertion is baseless and completely false.
The most central case to the author’s argument relies on a junior staffer “flagging” a hard-hitting piece we did on Goldman Sachs. The author then fails to cite the fact that the leadership of the organization raised no concerns—indeed the leadership of the organization pushed for additional coverage—and the original draft appeared verbatim and remains publicly available; along with more than two dozen other pieces of our reporting that are highly critical of Goldman Sachs. All that was required was a simple search on ThinkProgress.
The author also argues that CAP takes funds from Turkish interests, including a quote from an anonymous source that “As a result of the Turkish group’s support, CAP was “totally in the tank for them.” Again, the author’s insinuation is refuted by CAP’s body of work. In fact, just days before the Turkish Prime Minister recently visited Washington, CAP published a piece critical of the Turkish government, Freedom of the Press and Expression in Turkey.
The author goes even further insinuating that CAP’s growth over the year is attributable to our creation of our Business Alliance in 2007 and corporate donations. As Huffington Post wrote in March, philanthropic giving is what is responsible for our growth. The fact of the matter is only 6 percent of our funding in 2012 came from corporate donors, and it has never reached double digits.
These are the facts. Facts that undermine the preconceived conclusion drawn by the author. We are fiercely and proudly independent in our work and strongly refute any inference to the contrary.
We expect more from The Nation, and we eagerly encourage any reader to look directly at the substance of our work on corporate accountability and financial sector reform, clean energy, campaign finance reform, defense cuts, and progressive tax reform to judge for themselves.
Andrea Purse, Vice President for Communications, Center for American ProgressSilverstein Replies
CAP was given plenty of time to reply before the story was published and chose not to. Now it has sent a letter that misrepresents what I wrote and hence shoots down arguments I didn’t make.
There is evidence that CAP’s agenda has been influenced by its decision to take corporate money, but that is not the central “inference at the heart of the story.” The main point of the story is that CAP takes money from corporate donors without disclosing it, which is not an inference but a fact.
Another fact is that in doing so, CAP sometimes acts as an undisclosed lobbyist for its donors. As described in the story, First Solar gave money to CAP and CAP’s staff advocated for First Solar before Congress and in articles on CAP’s website without disclosing that pertinent piece of information.
Maybe the 6 percent figure for corporate contributions is true and maybe it’s not, we have only CAP’s word to take for it. It should publish and make available an annual report or otherwise disclose at least some basic financial information, like most major think tanks do. Furthermore if CAP is only receiving 6 percent of its budget from corporations, it’s purely a function of its failure to close the deal, not a lack of trying. (See the wonderful perks it offers to big corporate donors, as described in my story.)
It’s nice that CAP sometimes criticizes its donors, but I found numerous instances where it praised them as well. But really, that is not the point. Wall Street companies gave a lot of money to President Obama not because they expected to get his support all the time, but to get it more than they would if they didn’t give him money at all. (And I’d say they got a pretty good return on their investment.) I expect that’s the same impulse that prompts companies to give CAP money, unless you believe Boeing’s explanation to me, that its contributions to the think tank are purely “educational in nature.”
People should read my story and decide for themselves who is telling the truth.
Ken Silverstein
Ken Silverstein
May 21, 2013 | This article appeared in the June 10-17, 2013 edition of The Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/174...s-updated-524#
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-B...19982781_n.jpg
Breaking: White House Benghazi Cover-up
Posted by Joe For America on Apr 29, 2014
http://joeforamerica.wpengine.netdna...4/benghazi.jpgBombshell from Washington Free Beacon:
Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”This is a huge deal. This is basically stealing the election. Obama couldn’t have won the election if he was held accountable for what happened in Benghazi. If he didn’t have Candy Crowley saving him in the debate, and if didn’t have a YouTube video as a scapegoat, it’s very easy to imagine 2012 going a different way.
Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.
Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.
The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Rice came under fierce criticism following her appearances on television after she adhered to these talking points and blamed the attack on a little-watched Internet video.
The newly released internal White House e-mails show that Rice’s orders came from top Obama administration communications officials.
“[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it,” Rhodes wrote in the email, which was released on Tuesday by the advocacy group Judicial Watch.Continue reading…
“We reject its message and its contents,” he wrote. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.”
Rhodes also suggested that Rice tout Obama’s reputation as “steady and statesmanlike.”
“I think that people have come to trust that President Obama provides leadership that is steady and statesmanlike,” he wrote. “There are always going to be challenges that emerge around the world, and time and again, he has shown that we can meet them.”
Also contained in the 41 pages of documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a Sep. 12, 2012 email from Payton Knopf, the former deputy spokesman at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
In this communication, Knopf informs Rice that senior officials had already dubbed the Benghazi attack as “complex” and planned in advance. Despite this information, Rice still insisted that attacks were “spontaneous.”
The newly released cache of emails also appear to confirm that the CIA altered its original talking points on the attacks in the following days.
Then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell is identified as the person who heavily edited the critical fact sheet.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/04/bre...ao3kJY0scIV.99
Hillary Claims Jesus Was A Socialist Whose Lessons Were Meant To Teach Liberal Politics
Posted on 29 April, 2014 by clyde
http://gopthedailydose.com/wp-conten...y1-300x210.jpg
If Hillary Clinton says it, I can be pretty certain it’s a lie.
The level of integrity the woman has for the truth is simply not there, and it doesn’t appear she’s itching to disclose the truth about any situation—especially about religion.
Heaven forbid she offend her blustering liberal loyalists.
So when Hillary tells you that the Jesus’ wisdom about caring for others was really his method of teaching liberal politics, you should ignore her.
Last week, the typically religion-quiet politician met with women from the United Methodist Church. Hillary told them that she loved church as a child and that Jesus taught her about compassion.
And so why doesn’t she attend church anymore? Hmm, interesting.
“The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, ‘No. You feed them,’” Clinton said. “He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share.”
Clinton’s spin of the Bible is insulting. The fact that she would misrepresent Biblical passages to further her career as a liberal politician should be an affront to all Christians.
Hillary loves power. She does not love Jesus.
Do you think Hillary is a hypocrite? Share your thoughts below.
http://americanoverlook.com/hillary-claims-jesus-was-a-socialist-whose-lessons-were-meant-to-teach-liberal-politics/15996?utm_source=gopthedailydose
April 29, 2014
Four Dead in Benghazi Video
Lloyd Marcus
I made this music video because I want low-info voters to get it – to understand that four Americans unnecessarily died at the hands of al-Qaeda terrorists who overtook our U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Please do not be offended by my use of the term “low-info." I am merely referring to Americans like my brother. He works hard, coaches youth football, and gets his news from the mainstream media. He does not listen to talk radio, watch Fox News, or surf the internet. Thus, he is a low-info voter.
The MSM has refused to seriously investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack. Why did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama refuse to answer the cries for help of those trapped in our consulate? U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was brutally humiliated, tortured, and murdered.
Before being killed, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the consulate attackers. Diplomat Sean Smith was also killed during the attack.
The attack was before the 2012 presidential election. Obama was on the campaign trail, pounding his chest like Tarzan, proclaiming that Osama bin Laden was dead, that al-Qaeda was on the run, and that terrorism was no longer a threat.
With the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, Ambassador Stevens requested more security at our consulate. Strengthening security at our consulate would imply that terrorism was alive and well. So the Obama administration (Hillary Clinton) denied Stevens's request.
In essence, Obama and Clinton decided that the lives of Americans at our consulate in Benghazi were acceptable collateral damage to protect Obama's narrative. The Obama administration’s decision was unprecedented because we never leave Americans behind.
Special thanks to the true patriots at Kurt Howland Enterprises for donating their time producing this video.
My fellow Americans, please watch this brief music video, “Four Dead in Benghazi.”
http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/a...&autoplay=true
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...m_medium=email
Sine Larva (Without Mask) originally shared to At Wit's End (Lies / Cover-ups / Scandals):
New documents prove the WH lied about Benghazi. Quite certain this story won't get the same coverage as Sterling. Media won't give up one of their own http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/new-be...te-house-lies/
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-d...68475375_n.jpg
New Benghazi documents prove tangled web of White House lies
Written by Allen West on April 30, 2014
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/new-be...zTqghceuOoj.99
When I was growing up I remember a little saying that went like this: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
Well, it seems the chickens – or perhaps I should say the spiders — are coming home to roost for the Obama administration regarding Benghazi. The question is, does the American public care more about four dead Americans than they do about disgusting private comments from an NBA owner?
Let’s play connect the dots on this tangled web.
David Rhodes is the President at CBS News. Ben Rhodes is the White House Deputy National Security advisor. David and Ben are brothers. Sharyl Attkisson worked at CBS. As a highly respected and acclaimed investigative reporter, Sharyl wanted to report the truth about Benghazi. Sharyl does not work at CBS News anymore.
However, she has a website, and there she reports that sharylattkisson.com, “Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.
As if we had any doubt.
According to Attkisson, one of the key documents, which the government had withheld from Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, 2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor.
In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the desire of the White House “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” The email is entitled, “RE:PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television network political talk shows. The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Ben Rhodes is hardly the “mastermind” behind this episode, but the email he sent out to a who’s who list of recipients is damning. Attkisson says, “White House officials copied on the Rhodes “goal” email include Press Secretary Jay Carney, then-Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri and Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
Therefore, we definitively know it was the Obama White House that developed the scheme of blaming an anti-Islam video. Funny, the only person who has been punished in this whole charade was the video producer.
The most transparent administration is US history? Hardly. Attkisson says “Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told her the government apparently tried to keep the Rhodes email out of Congress and the public’s hands by changing its classification it after-the-fact. In the past month, the government has supplied 3,200 new Benghazi-related documents under Congressional subpoena. In some instances, Congressional members and their staff are only permitted to see the documents during certain time periods in a review room, and cannot remove them or make copies. Chaffetz says that the State Department redacted more material on the copies provided to Congress than on those that it was forced to provide to JudicialWatch.”
What a tangled web of lies, deceit, and obfuscation hangs around the neck of this Administration — and the presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton. Attkisson is free to pursue this travesty, and combined with Catherine Herridge at Fox News and Tom Fitton’s Judicial Watch, they form a formidable phalanx for the truth. The days of information suppression and manipulation by fellas like David Rhodes ad David Brock are waning, as their complicit actions entangle them as well.
I can’t wait to hear White House mouthpiece Jay Carney — who just happens to be married to ABC reporter Claire Shipman — ramble and attempt further obfuscation about these new Benghazi documents.
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/04/new-be...zTqghceuOoj.99
Conflict of Interest Inherent Between CBS News President, White House Adviser Involved in Benghazi Talking Points
BY: Larry O'Connor // May 1, 2014 11:41 am
http://s2.freebeacon.com/up/2013/06/...nsulate-AP.jpgBenghazi consulate / AP
CBS News President David Rhodes never proactively addressed the conflict of interest inherent in the connection between he and his brother, Ben Rhodes, the Senior White House adviser who finds himself in the center of the controversy over the White House talking points issued to emphasize the false narrative over the origins of the Benghazi terror attacks in 2012. Furthermore, people in management positions within CBS News argued that it was not necessary to disclose the relationship to viewers or readers “because it wasn’t relevant.”
These revelations were disclosed by former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson, one of the most knowledgeable journalists covering the Benghazi terror attack story over the past year, who appeared Thursday morning on “Mornings on the Mall” on Washington D.C.’s WMAL.
Co-host Brian Wilson asked Attkisson if David Rhodes was responsible for spiking her Benghazi stories:
I don’t deal directly with David Rhodes on stories so, what happens with me when I’m working in Washington is I, or the Washington bureau, will push a story to New York or offer a story and the New York broadcast for Evening News is the broadcast that decides not to take it for example, Scott Pelley is the Managing Editor, Pat Shevlin is Executive Producer. All I know is, we all come to learn in Washington on a particular story of mine for example is that they don’t want them. I can’t really say what happens or what the reasoning is.I probed the issue further and asked if David Rhodes was proactive in directing the staff, reporters, anchors, and producers to not let his relationship with his brother in the White House infringe on any of their efforts in pursuing any story that might involve Ben Rhodes.
That did not happen, to my knowledge. But, in a couple of stories when Ben Rhodes’ name appeared or began to surface a long time ago, I argued that we needed to disclose the relationship because that’s what we should to do. Not because there’s any guilt or guilt by association or that we had done anything wrong, but disclosure is your friend. It protects you. And as journalists, if we disclose that off the top of a story then people won’t look back later and say that we hid it. So I did argue the case and was told by a manager it was not necessary because it wasn’t relevant. Which I disagreed with. In another case I wrote a story on the web and I did make the disclosure and Rhodes had no problem with it as far as I know, I didn’t hear from him.Attkisson also pointed out that lost in the discussion over Ben Rhodes and the White House’s involvement in the re-writing of history in September 2012 is the fact that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t need to wait for marching orders from the White House to spin the narrative of the terror attacks. She pushed the bogus “YouTube video” narrative on Sept. 12, the day after the murderous attacks.
September 12th, Secretary (Hillary) Clinton used the video story at the ceremonial return of the bodies, Stevens and the three other victims, and personally did not call it a terrorist attack and allegedly told the family members ‘we’re going to find who made that awful video’ so by September 12th, someone had already decided as Obama Administration officials used the video … prior to the September 14th email to Susan Rice, I believe there seems to have been discussions and a decision already.Listen to the full interview here: (Exchange regarding CBS News begins at 6:00 mark.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC7JFnqM5OU
http://freebeacon.com/blog/conflict-...alking-points/
video at link below
SCANDALOUS: O’Reilly Slams ‘Dishonest’ Press Kissing Obama’s Butt On Benghazi
By Clash Daily / 1 May 2014
https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/pr...ly-190x114.jpg
In Wednesday’s Talking Points memo, Bill O’Reilly criticized a majority of the national media for failing to cover recent breaking news about the Benghazi terror attacks, centered around an email sent by Obama adviser Benjamin Rhodes.
Read more: Fox Nation
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/scandalous-oreilly-slams-dishonest-press-kissing-obamas-butt-benghazi/#zPOePUjbA5bPcD9v.99
Awake out there yet?? The media is in there pocket deep, very deep. They just let it go on and on and on!!!! Sorry but it has nothing to do about "failure to comminicate" as Bill O'Reilly says, No, it is down right distortion of facts or lying which ever you prefer to call it.
See something say something, I'm just say'in!!!!
video at link below
LIE TO ME: Carney Spews Crap On Bombshell Email That The WH Steered Benghazi Attack To Anti-Islam Video
By Clash Daily / 1 May 2014
http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cd...ey-630x320.jpg
Daily Mail – White House Press Secretary Jay Carney endured a sustained grilling from reporters on Wednesday as he struggled to explain an email showing the White House’s involvement in spinning a false account of why four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya less than two months before the 2012 presidential election.
The email, written by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, described a ‘prep call’ with then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice which took place four days after the September 11, 2012 terror attack, and less than a day before she was to be a guest on five different Sunday morning political talk shows.
Read more: Daily Mail
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/lie-ca...fMSmTjQPkBa.99
Jay Carney fumbles on bombshell email showing how the White House steered Benghazi terror-attack narrative toward an anti-Islam video
- Ben Rhodes, the president's deputy national security adviser, wrote three days after the terror attack about coaching then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for upcoming TV appearances
- Rice falsely told five different Sunday talk-show audiences that the devastation in Benghazi was the result of anti-America protests that spiraled out of control
- Demonstrations in other Middle East cities that week were reportedly sparked by a crude anti-Islam video, which Rice, Obama and Hillary Clinton all blamed for Benghazi
- Rhodes' email said that a prep session with Rice would prepare her 'to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy'
- Jay Carney insisted that Rhodes was writing generally about protests in the Muslim world, and that his email 'was explicitly not about Benghazi'
- But the State Department included the same document in a batch of materials it released to a congressional committee on April 17, writing that it was 'responsive' to its subpoena for Benghazi-related files
By David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor and Jessica Jerreat
Published: 01:00 EST, 30 April 2014 | Updated: 08:48 EST, 1 May 2014
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney endured a sustained grilling from reporters on Wednesday as he struggled to explain an email showing the White House's involvement in spinning a false account of why four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya less than two months before the 2012 presidential election.
The email, written by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, described a 'prep call' with then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice which took place four days after the September 11, 2012 terror attack, and less than a day before she was to be a guest on five different Sunday morning political talk shows.
During the initial weeks after the attack, the White House and congressional Democrats told the public that Muslim protesters, upset over a crude American-produced YouTube video mocking Islam, demonstrated outside U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi before channeling their anger toward arson and artillery.
Rhodes informed the West Wing communications team – including Carney – that one 'goal' of the Sept. 15, 2012 call would be to prepare Rice 'to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.'
Scroll down for video
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...17_634x350.jpg
+7
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney put on a defensive sparring clinic Wednesday, trying in vain to protect the Obama administration from revelations contained in a newly released internal email dating from the first days after the Benghazi terror attack
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...45_634x436.jpg
+7
Palace intrigue: Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes (R) set up a pre-TV-show 'prep call' for then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice (L), outlining a communications strategy that now suggests the White House purposely misled the nation into thinking a crude YouTube video incited the deadly Benghazi terror attack
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...75_634x422.jpg
+7
Scene of the crime: U.S. consular facilities inside the Benghazi compound were torched the night of September 11, 2012, and four U.S. personnel including Ambassador Chris Stevens lost their lives
Carney insisted Wednesday during a White House press briefing that Rhodes' email 'was explicitly not about Benghazi. It was about the overall situation in the region, the Muslim world, where you saw protests outside of embassy facilities across the region, including in Cairo, Sana’a, Khartoum and Tunis.'
But Wednesday night the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent MailOnline a cover letter showing that on April 17, the U.S. Department of State provided committee staff with copies of a batch of documents in response to a subpoena for Benghazi-related materials.
The Rhodes email was among them, although committee staff told MailOnline that most of it was redacted, or blacked-out.
'As part of the Department’s ongoing document production we are providing an additional set of documents in connection with the Committee’s investigation into the attacks on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi,' State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield wrote.
'This production consists of documents responsive to the Committee’s subpoena of August 1, 2013.'
The Rhodes email, declared 'classified' by the White House prior to the release of related materials in May 2013, would likely have remained out of public view but for a Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit filed against the State Department by Judicial Watch, a center-right watchdog group.
Its later pages also specifically refer to Benghazi.
More...
- Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report
- Poll suggests Benghazi won't deliver the blow Republicans hoped it would to a Hillary Clinton 2016 candidacy
- Former deputy CIA director denies being part of politically driven Benghazi cover-up as his ties to Hillary Clinton are revealed
- Susan Rice admits Benghazi information was not '100 per cent correct' but has no regrets
Rhodes wrote that Rice needed to be prepared to answer the question: 'What's your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored?'
A scripted answer provided for the 'prep call' read: 'We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.'
Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz told former CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson that the White House seems to have tried to keep the Rhodes email out of public view by declaring it 'classified' out of convenience.
'They retroactively changed the classification,' Chaffetz said. 'That was an unclassified document and they changed it to classified.'
Judicial Watch communications director mocked the White House press secretary on Wednesday evening for downplaying the significance of the documents her group surfaced.
'The Benghazi documents we released were produced by a LAWSUIT,' she emphasized in a statement to MailOnline. 'That Carney would imply that the State Department gave us some random document doesn't pass the giggle test.'
Jay Carney fumbles as ABC reporter grills him on Benghazi
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...84_636x358.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...93_634x449.jpg
+7
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens perished in the terror attack, which included militants from the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Shariah
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...38_634x415.jpg
+7
Rhodes, who often briefs reporters on conference calls and it typically referred to vaguely as a 'senior White House official,' wrote an email days after the Benghazi attack that Republicans now see as a smoking gun
'Now we know the Obama White House's chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good,' Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said Wednesday.
'And these documents undermine the Obama administration’s narrative that it thought the Benghazi attack had something to do with protests or an Internet video. Given the explosive material in these documents, it is no surprise that we had to go to federal court to pry them loose from the Obama State Department.'
Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus mocked the Obama administration for what now appears a ham-fisted attempt to keep sensational details about its response to a deadly terror attack out of public view.
'If the White House felt this talking points memo was classified, what else don't we know about Benghazi and is all of this stonewalling just to protect Hillary?' he jabbed.
President Obama stood for re-election eight weeks to the day after the Benghazi attack, and ultimately shifted gears to emphasize that the attack was premeditated, highly organized, ruthless and coordinated by al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist militants.
The question of who inserted the video, titled 'Innocence of Muslims,' into his administration's official narrative about the murderous chaos that ensued has been a political football since Rice told those five TV audiences that it was the lit match that set off a deadly powder keg.
'Based on the best information we have to date,' she told CBS's 'Face the Nation' in one example, 'what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy – sparked by this hateful video.'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...28_634x420.jpg
+7
History, Obama-style: To this day news bureaus encounter captions on photos like this one, showing the Benghazi diplomatic station in mid-conflagration, referring to the event as the outgrowth of a protest that never happened
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...61_634x382.jpg
+7
Not true: Susan Rice told CBS viewers five days after the terror attack that 'our assessment is' that the Benghazi attack 'began spontaneously' after a 'violent protest [was] sparked by this hateful video' elsewhere in the Muslim world
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters Wednesday that the emails Judicial Watch released 'show that Benghazi, in the eyes of the White House, was a political problem for re-election and they approached it from that point of view.'
The email setting Rice's talk-show agenda, he added, 'clearly shows that Ben Rhodes was trying to be a political operative rather than a national security spokesman.'
On TV that Sunday, Rice was working from a series of talking points that Democrats in Congress had requested for their own use in media interviews. That document's initial draft, prepared by the CIA, declared that 'we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack.'
By the time the talking points filtered down to Rice, however, that notice was gone – along with other declarations about terror threats in Benghazi during the previous months, including some from an al-Qaeda-affiliated group called Ansar al-Shariah.
Many of those edits, it emerged later, were made at the State Department, with then-spokeswoman Victoria Nuland objecting just days after the attacks in an email that the administration shouldn't name specific terror groups because 'we don't want to prejudice the investigation.'
Carney assured reporters in November 2012 that '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.'
Sen. Graham told Attkisson that 'the political shop at the White House took over early on. They understood it was a terrorist attack, that they had a political problem, and were going to handle it politically.'
'They weren't going to entertain anything other than what they wanted the public to hear.'
Graham co-signed a letter Monday with fellow Republicans Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and John McCain of Arizona, asking the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees to force Obama administration figures to explain whether State Department or White House personnel were involved in briefing Rice.
They referred former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, who testified this year that Rice linked the YouTube video to the attacks despite the CIA never making that connection in its analysis.
'How could former Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, during the five Sunday talk shows on September 16, 2012, claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video,' the senators wrote, 'when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor?'
Read more:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz30VBMs5Gc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l?ito=embedded
Obama and Rice lied and Hillary swore to it!! Then said said "What difference does it make"???!!
The Benghazi Scandal Is Finally Blowing Up Big-Time
By Donald Joy / 2 May 2014
Suddenly, the investigation into the 9/11/2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has taken an astonishing turn toward exposing the Obama administration’s cynical fraud and dereliction of duty in the weeks just before the last presidential election.
Yesterday, in a rare occurrence of mainstream journalistic integrity, ABC’s Jon Karl discovered his inner reporter and opened up a can of bitch-slap on Obama’s press prostitute, Jay Carney, over the damning revelations contained in emails which have finally been released. Carney’s lies got no traction as Karl delivered withering fire without letting up. Watch the glorious smackdown here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VSkdj5IsI
There’s more. Just this morning, former military commanders testified before congress that based on the totality of their intelligence, they knew immediately on the night in question that the incident was an organized, planned, Al-Qaeda related terrorist attack. They also testified that they knew the ensuing White House story about a protest over a video was completely bogus, and that the imperative that night should have been to try to get help to Stevens and the others at once, instead of standing down as they were ordered by the administration.
The bottom line is that the presidential election was less than two months away, and the democrats could not afford to have Obama’s claim that “GM is alive, and Al-Qaeda is vanquished!” be exposed to be the lie that it was. Nor could the administration afford to have the incident escalate even further, into a full-blown military combat operation, by sending help to the SEALS–that would draw unwanted attention to the still-looming problem of Obama’s and Clinton’s total bungling of the entire situation across the Muslim world–not good for Obama’s re-election prospects.
So Obama, Clinton, Rice, Jarrett, and the entire administration and democrat party all lied, and our men died. The video in question, which they insisted over and over was “reprehensible” and “heinous” and “extremely offensive” is actually none of these, as far as I can tell. I tried to watch it, but found it so boring and inconsequential that I couldn’t stay with it long enough to discover what alleged offenses it contains (but then, I consider any material which is anti-Islamic and anti-Mohammed to be good and true and right).
Hillary Clinton got in the Benghazi victims’ families’ faces and declared, with disgustingly feigned outrage, that the administration would “get” the maker of the video and “bring him to justice”, as if that was the heart of the matter–not the fact that our men were murdered by Muslim terrorists! She lied right to the families, with the bodies of their loved ones lying in caskets only feet away. The hapless “Innocence of Muslims” movie-maker sits rotting in his U.S. jail cell over a technicality, and not a single one of the Benghazi terrorist attackers has been captured and brought to justice, despite ample opportunity to nail them.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
In Hillary Clinton’s now-famous tirade before the senate, I’d like you to notice something that nobody seems to have pointed out. She screams her implied position that it really doesn’t make any difference as to the cause of the fatal incident in Benghazi. But in the very same breath (her immediate next words, in fact), she pounds the table and screeches, “It is our job to figure out what happened…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM
Well, which is it, Hillary? If it doesn’t really matter what happened, then why does she simultaneously exclaim that they are there to find out what happened?
I say it makes all the difference in the world, considering that another pathological liar might possibly become the next president of the United States.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/05/bengha...DHdf33AtsWb.99
Globalists Fear Benghazi Whistleblower Could Ruin Hillary's 2016 Run
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YSXeSM7jo
Published on May 2, 2014
Alex and Robert Tosh Plumlee continue on the topic of drug and gun running by the CIA in locations across the world including Benghazi.https://www.facebook.com/robert.pluml...
[Smoking Gun? White House Email Instructs Officials to Blame Benghazi on Video] http://www.infowars.com/smoking-gun-w...
:Connect:
Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones
Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/
Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEme...
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-z...75055427_n.jpg
The Shocking FACTS About Benghazi No One is Talking About
Susanne Posel 14 hours ago
Recent emails from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Judicial Watch which indicates that Ben Rhodes, speech writer for President Obama, "conducted meetings with" former UN Ambassador Susan Rice to collaborate on her now infamous "Benghazi comments."
Journalist Jennifer Rubin asserts: "The Rhodes memo certainly seems to confirm the allegations Republicans have been making for more than a year: the White House was intentionally spinning after the attack so as not to damage their reelection prospects. The White House denied this, and now there is evidence the critics were right. Isn't the mainstream media the least bit curious about what happened? You'd think their new-found independence and critical analysis of Obama foreign policy would provoke some rumination about Benghazi. Or perhaps, they are simply unwilling to recognize that they missed the boat all along and concede that conservative media scooped them again and again."
In defense of the FOIA emails released, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council (NSC) said: "In the email Ben Rhodes makes clear that our primary goals included making sure our people in the field were protected and bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "The content reflects what the administration was saying at the time and what we understood to be the facts at the time."
Meehan continued: "Unlike those who insist on politicizing the events in Benghazi, our focus remains on ensuring that a tragedy like this isn't repeated in Libya or anywhere else in the world. In our view, these documents only serve to reinforce what we have long been saying: that in the days after September 11, 2012, we were concerned by unrest occurring across the region and that we provided our best assessment of what was happening at the time."
Last December, the The New York Times (NYT) reported that al-Qaeda was not involved in the attack in Benghazi.
This information was attributed to "extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context."
This past January, the US State Department (SD) stated that Ansar al-Shari'a were the group responsible for the attacks in Benghazi.
The SD explained: "Ansar al-Shari'a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari'a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya."
This information was obtained by Guantanamo Bay detainees Sufian bin Qumu and Ahmed Abu Khattalah who are alleged the heads of the Darnah and Benghazi branches of Ansar al-Shari'a.
In 2012, David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was planning on informing the House and Senate committees that Ansar al-Shari'a was identified as "a prime suspect" at Benghazi from the beginning.
However, facts surrounding the attack have been ignored by the majority of media outlets because they do not fit into the "official" narrative that has become the Benghazi scandal.
Mohammad al-Bishari, landlord of the gated-villa rented out by the SD and the actual "compound" where the attack occurred confirmed that the men who attacked the villa, threw grenades over the walls, shoot and killed the US Marines who tried to defend Stevens; then looted and stole sensitive documents containing the names of Libyans working with the US and the Saudi Arabian government in terroristic operations, as well as oil contracts tying the US and Saudi Arabia, and burned it to the ground after murdering US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
The assailants were armed with American assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and carried the black flag of the Ansar al-Sharia.
Petraeus' testimony may have been publically censored because of a little known fact that has been kept from the general public about US Ambassador Stevens "other mission" in Benghazi.
Stevens was conducting surveillance missions for the CIA on the National Transitional Council (NTC), the defacto-government installed by the US after the assassination of Gaddafi, and their Salafi extremist ties which lead to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In truth, Stevens was conducting arms deals with the NTC while simultaneously spying on the NTC for the CIA. This was a true nature of Stevens' diplomatic missions which were sanctioned by the SD.
Some of Stevens' deals for arms can be realized in the artillery and weapons being funneled to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria who are fighting the proxy war for the US.
Stevens became the "liaison" between US-sponsored terrorist factions and the movement of arms to Syria to assist the FSA. And this is the reason Stevens was murdered.
Shipments to the FSA have come from Saudi Arabia where the Salafi terrorists originated and the Ansar al-Shari'a is used to further subversive interests.
Thanks to the US, the Saudi government and Stevens, the FSA are the most heavily armed state-sponsored jihadist group in the Middle East.
This leads into Hillary Clinton's involvement as then Secretary of State.
Clinton, was responsible for diplomatic security, and denied Stevens' request.
And in response, there was an order from the US government to disarm the US Marine Security by refusing them live ammo while allowing them to keep their guns.
Clinton, not wanting the Saudi connection to become common knowledge, and knowing that Stevens was directly involved in arms trade deals between the NTC and the Saudi government to arm the FSA in Syria paved the way for Stevens to be murdered.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/sh...LbbZe5AqEoy.99
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T...40493143_n.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-F...37169337_n.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...uKCi=w426-h240
Lies ,Lies ,Lies
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-q...92341380_n.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-J...13667630_n.jpg
michael powers's photos
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5...52350147_n.jpg
ISSA SUBPOENAS KERRY
Posted by Joe For America on May 2, 2014
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is issuing a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before the committee May 21 about Benghazi, Issa announced Friday.
http://joeforamerica.wpengine.netdna...mscott_328.jpg
The move comes in the wake of new, “smoking gun” emails that show top White House officials working to craft a narrative that the attack was the result of a YouTube video and “not a broader failure of policy.”
Republicans have expressed outrage that the documents were not provided earlier under subpoenas for them, but instead came out via a Freedom Of Information Request lawsuit by the conservative non-profit group Judicial Watch.
On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner called on Kerry to testify before the House to explain why the documents weren’t provided earlier.
“The House used its subpoena power to obtain documents, including emails, last year, but these emails didn’t show up until now, after a court ordered their release to an outside watchdog group,” Boehner said.
“This defiance of the House’s subpoena power is the most flagrant example yet of the administration’s contempt for the American people’s right to know the truth about what happened when four Americans died in a fiery terrorist attack. If the White House won’t explain it, Secretary Kerry should come to the Capitol to explain why he defied an official congressional subpoena. And the White House needs to understand that this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served,” Boehner added.
“The email from Ben Rhodes demonstrates the Obama administration from the beginning misled Congress, the media and most importantly, the American people,” Cantor said on Wednesday. “It is increasingly clear that this administration orchestrated an effort to deflect attention away from their failed Libya policy and the resurgence of Al Qaeda and other terrorists.”
Continue reading…
Issa Subpoenas Kerry To Testify On Benghazi
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...n-kerry-ap.jpg
Email Article Print article Send a Tip
by Matthew Boyle 2 May 2014, 7:35 AM PDT 1342 post a comment
video at link below
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is issuing a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify before the committee May 21 about Benghazi, Issa announced Friday.
The move comes in the wake of new, "smoking gun" emails that show top White House officials working to craft a narrative that the attack was the result of a YouTube video and "not a broader failure of policy."
Republicans have expressed outrage that the documents were not provided earlier under subpoenas for them, but were instead revealed via a Freedom Of Information Request lawsuit by the conservative non-profit group Judicial Watch.
“Compliance with a subpoena for documents is not a game. Because your Department is failing to meet its legal obligations, I am issuing a new subpoena to compel you to appear before the Committee to answer questions about your agency’s response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack," Issa said in a May 2 letter to Kerry.
Regarding the Obama administration's failure to provide the documents before now, Issa warns Kerry, "such contempt of Congress may constitute a criminal offense."
On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner called on Kerry to testify before the House to explain why the documents weren't provided earlier.
“The House used its subpoena power to obtain documents, including emails, last year, but these emails didn’t show up until now, after a court ordered their release to an outside watchdog group,” Boehner said.
“This defiance of the House’s subpoena power is the most flagrant example yet of the administration's contempt for the American people’s right to know the truth about what happened when four Americans died in a fiery terrorist attack. If the White House won’t explain it, Secretary Kerry should come to the Capitol to explain why he defied an official congressional subpoena. And the White House needs to understand that this investigation will not end until the entire truth is revealed and justice and accountability are served,” Boehner added.
“The email from Ben Rhodes demonstrates the Obama administration from the beginning misled Congress, the media and most importantly, the American people,” Majority Leader Eric Cantor said on Wednesday. “It is increasingly clear that this administration orchestrated an effort to deflect attention away from their failed Libya policy and the resurgence of Al Qaeda and other terrorists.”
The key email in question from then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes, included an overview of suggestions for Susan Rice for her appearance on the Sunday news shows two days later.
One suggestion was: "To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy."
White House press secretary Jay Carney has said the Sept. 14, 2012 email was "explicitly not about Benghazi," and noted that a series of protests over the video had occurred in Cairo, Egypt and other locations.
Republicans have noted the Benghazi attacks were the dominant news topic two days after four Americans had been killed there, that the other talking points in the email are about Americans "harmed" overseas and no Americans were harmed in the protests -- only at Benghazi -- and that the email was provided in response to a FOIA inquiry about Benghazi.
Full release:
Secretary Kerry Subpoenaed to Appear Before Oversight Committee
WASHINGTON – Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., announced the issuance of a subpoena for testimony to Secretary of State John Kerry. The subpoena requires Secretary Kerry to appear before the Committee to answer questions at a public hearing on May 21, 2014.
“The State Department’s response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack has shown a disturbing disregard for the Department’s legal obligations to Congress,” Chairman Issa writes in a letter to Secretary Kerry accompanying the subpoena. “Compliance with a subpoena for documents is not a game. Because your Department is failing to meet its legal obligations, I am issuing a new subpoena to compel you to appear before the Committee to answer questions about your agency’s response to the congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack.”
On April 17, 2014, the State Department sent a letter informing the Committee that it was producing previously unreleased e-mails subject to prior requests and subpoenas. These e-mails show that White House official Ben Rhodes coordinated talking points for then-Ambassador Susan Rice which encouraged an emphasis that the attack was “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”
“The fact that these documents were withheld from Congress for more than 19 months is alarming,” wrote Chairman Issa. “The Department is not entitled to delay responsive materials because it is embarrassing or implicates the roles and actions of senior officials.”
Yesterday, retired USAF Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, who was in the operations control room in Germany on the night of the attacks, testified that the State Department never asked military forces to go save Americans in Benghazi during the attack.
Click here for a copy of Issa’s letter to Kerry.
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/05/iss...UxXfgjHuH8s.99
Benghazi Bombshell: Boehner Finally Calls for Select Committee on Benghazi Cover-up
Pamela Geller 39 mins ago
Editor's Note: The irony, that in an election year, John Boehner finally comes forward and is pushing for a select committee to investigate the Benghazi cover-up after the recent bombshell email releases. Boehner stood opposed to a select committee last year, despite support for Congressman Frank Wolf's (R-VA) resolution that was introduced back in January 2013, which had more than 117 supporters in the House of Representatives, along with the support of the mother of slain information management officer Sean Smith, Patricia Smith. At that time, Boehner said it was too costly, and this was after he oversaw the passing of the fiscal cliff deal and the debt ceiling compromise with Obama. While I'm glad to see a reversal, one has to wonder if Boehner doesn't have "electile dysfunction."
So now we have proof of what we, the much maligned truth tellers, have been saying since day one. The video had nothing to do with the jihad attack at Benghazi, and even if it did, the coward in the White House copped out to sharia instead of standing for freedom. The White House knew from the very first that it was Islamic terror. The White House directed the cover-up.
The release of Benghazi emails tied a top White House aide to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's mendacious Sunday show statements after the Benghazi terror attack.
Knowing that the cold-blooded murder of our Ambassador and three other brave Americans was Islamic terror, knowing this, the President of the United States stood up before the world a week later and said, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." That is what the President said after we were brutally attacked on September 11, 2012. That Romney never pounded this is one of many reasons he was a hopeless loser.
What I want to know is, where was Obama on the night of the Islamic terror attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012?
And why didn't he give the order to help our people? America always saves our people. No matter the odds. Only he could have given the order.
Where are Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein? *Headslap* Accountability, that's only for Republican presidents.
The Republicans better get their act together and grow a pair. The investigation of Benghazi has been pathetic — half-assed, half in, half out. If Obama has been steamrolling over our freedoms, it is because the right laid down for him and the corrupt, complicit media. The Whigs were thrown over when they, too, became ineffectual.
Boehner should have done this years ago. Makes you wonder what they have on him.
As for the media, they ought to be on this like white on rice. The White House went after FOX news reporters who pursued this story. James Rosen was targeted for prosecution. FOX was banned from State Department briefings, etc. Don't they know that big oppressive government will eventually come after them?
Weekly Standard:UPDATE: Other news organizations confirm the report below that House speaker John Boehner will announce the formation of a select committee on Benghazi, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy.
House Speaker John Boehner is "seriously considering" appointing a select committee to investigate the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The move comes after the revelation of an email from a top Obama national security official, Ben Rhodes, instructing Susan Rice to focus on an anti-Muslim internet video to explain the attacks.
"The new emails this week were the straw that broke the camel's back," says the aide. "The Speaker was furious to learn that the administration withheld relevant documents from a congressional subpoena. He's sick and tired of this evasion and obstruction from the administration, and wants a solution to finally force accountability, get to the truth, and provide justice."
Boehner, who has paid careful attention to the Benghazi developments since the attacks, has resisted calls to appoint a select committee, preferring to allow the various committees of jurisdiction to pursue investigations of their slices of the attacks on their own. Aides say Boehner continues to believe that the work of those committees has been valuable. "The current committees investigating the attack have done good work, using their authority, including subpoena authority, to gather facts, interview hundreds of witnesses, and conduct dozens of hearings. But this week's events demonstrate a new level of stonewalling and obfuscation by the administration that requires a new level of investigation."
Source
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/benghazi-bombshell-boehner-finally-calls-select-committee-benghazi-cover/#KLZuPklMJ0HTFEvF.99
Quote:
House Speaker John Boehner is "seriously considering"
So it means he will spin his wheels and think we all should hang on, with bated breath!!John Boehner is a serious waste!!!
Harry Reid Calls Benghazi Probe a ‘Political Circus,’ Accuses GOP of Defending the Koch Brothers
BY: Andrew Stiles // May 2, 2014 2:39 pm
http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2014/05/...37-540x362.jpgAP
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) responded in typical fashion to House Speaker John Boehner’s (R., Ohio) decision to establish a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack of September 11, 2012:
Below is Reid’s full statement, in which he attacks the Koch brothers in the second sentence, never mentions the word “Benghazi,” and accuses Republicans of:
- “Trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories”
- Wasting the American people’s time
- “Staging a partisan political circus”
- Ginning up “yet another political food fight”
http://s4.freebeacon.com/up/2014/03/Harry-Reid.jpgAP
“Republicans are showing yet against that they have nothing to offer the middle class. Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work.
“There have already been multiple investigations into this issue and an independent Accountability Review Board is mandated under current law. For Republicans to waste the American people’s time and money staging a partisan political circus instead of focusing on the middle class is simply a bad decision. While Republicans try to gin up yet another political food fight, Senate Democrats will remain focused on fostering economic growth for all hard-working Americans.”
http://freebeacon.com/blog/harry-rei...koch-brothers/
OH Gee Harry!!! "What difference does it make"!!!!!!
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-n...58932628_n.jpg
Trey Gowdy Claims to Have Evidence Of ‘A Systematic, Intentional Decision To Withhold Documents From Congress’ on Benghazi
Brendan Bordelon 18 hours ago
South Carolina Republican congressman Trey Gowdy claimed he has evidence of “a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress” about the Benghazi attacks and alleged White House cover-up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE_rWecL6Lk
Gowdy spoke with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren about Speaker of the House John Boehner’s Friday decision to form a select committee on Benghazi. The congressman explained that the committee will allow a more complete investigation into the issue, unburdened by the jurisdictional restraints that often plague other committees.
“If you want to have Greg Hicks and the station chief from Tripoli and Hillary Clinton all sitting at the same table, you need to have a committee that has the power to do that,” Gowdy said. “And a select committee would have that power.”
Gowdy — widely viewed as a frontrunner to chair the new committee — later told Susteren he supports Congress’ subpoena of Secretary of State John Kerry in order to get documents they have long awaited from the State Department.
He then added he has proof that documents relating to Benghazi and the alleged Obama administration cover-up have been deliberately withheld from Congress.
“Well, I have evidence that not only are they hiding it, there is an intent to hide it,” he claimed. “I can’t disclose that evidence yet, but I have evidence that there was a systematic, intentional decision to withhold certain documents from Congress.”
“And we’re just sick of it,” he added. “So we’re gonna have him come explain why we’re getting documents 20 months late.”
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/tr...yC67gAwE8EV.99
http://gopthedailydose.com/wp-conten...ll-300x190.jpg
Doing A Little Blow? : Where was Obama the night of Benghazi?? -
gopthedailydose.com
By Amy Elizabeth There have been many different theories about where B . Hussein Obama was on Sept 11, 2012? President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress. “During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen.… Continue Reading
http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/05/0...ight-benghazi/
What difference does it make?????
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8...85328589_n.jpg
Benghazi Attack Was Unprecedented & So Was its Coverup : Freedom Outpost http://ow.ly/wsF2J
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pr...d4=w426-h255-p
Benghazi Attack Was Unprecedented & So Was its Coverup - Freedom Outpost
ow.ly
Liberals are asking us not to care so much about Benghazi. I've read many articles over the last few months telling us that the attack was nothing new and asking what difference does it make now. One such posting was by Ben Cesca of the Daily Banter. In it, he writes of the "republican persecution" …
AirborneSapper7
http://www.alipac.us/images/alipac_s...er-offline.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPJgIM2zayg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-z...comments+3.gif
Operation American Spring
http://www.oas2014.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9dBKy0TtU#t=34