Showing posts with label World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World. Show all posts

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Are you ready for food prices to double over the next 5 years?

By Michael Snyder

Do you think that the price of food is high now? Just wait. If current trends continue, many of the most common food items that Americans buy will cost more than twice as much by the end of this decade. Global demand for food continues to rise steadily as crippling droughts ravage key agricultural regions all over the planet. You see, it isn't just the multi-year California drought that is affecting food prices. Down in Brazil (one of the leading exporters of food in the world), the drought has gotten so bad that 142 cities were rationing water at one point earlier this year. And outbreaks of disease are also having a significant impact on our food supply. A devastating pig virus that has never been seen in the U.S. before has already killed up to 6 million pigs. Even if nothing else bad happens (and that is a very questionable assumption to make), our food prices are going to be moving aggressively upward for the foreseeable future. But what if something does happen? In recent years, global food reserves have dipped to extremely low levels, and a single major global event (war, pandemic, terror attack, planetary natural disaster, etc.) could create an unprecedented global food crisis very rapidly.

A professor at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University named Timothy Richards has calculated what the drought in California is going to do to produce prices at our supermarkets in the near future. His projections are quite sobering...

Saturday, May 17, 2014

2008 GM document warned engineers to avoid "widow-maker", "deathtrap", "decapitate", "Hindenburg" and other inflammatory words

You may recall that GM has suffered from a series of embarrassing product defects and recalls including one that the company "didn't fix until 13 people had died."

Patrick George at Jalopnik discovered a GM Powerpoint that illustrates how the automobile manufacturer went so far off the rails related to a whole host of catastrophic product defects.

George calls the presentation a "smoking gun" intended to dissuade employees from candidly discussing safety issues. In fact, one panel goes so far as to request that engineers avoid the use of the words "defect" or "safety" and instead focus on "issue, condition or matter."


One panel offers a laundry list of words to avoid including "disemboweling", "impaling", "maiming", and "mangling" even if, presumably, victims were in fact disemboweled, impaled, maimed and mangled by said vehicles.

Friday, May 16, 2014

POLL: Pretty Much Everyone in America Wants an Investigation into Benghazi Except... the Media

Noah Rothman deserves our thanks. He is doing yeoman's work at Mediaite as but one of a handful of reporters willing to speak truth to power.

The journalistic establishment is convinced that the investigation into the attacks on Benghazi is a partisan sideshow that is unlikely to unearth any new information, the fact that new information was unearthed just weeks ago as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request notwithstanding. 

Nevertheless, reporters are quite sure that any investigation into the preparation for and response to the Benghazi attack is purely political. CNN’s Erin Burnett summed it up best when she declared on Wednesday night that even the word Benghazi has “become like abortion.” Meaning, the issue has grown so polarizing that there are few people left who can be persuaded to change their already settled opinion on the matter. 

Outside of the newsroom, however, opinions about Benghazi seem to be far less set in stone. On Thursday, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace revealed that, according to the crosstabs on the latest Fox News poll, Democrats are just as eager for a definitive investigation into Benghazi as are Republicans in Congress

...That comes as a surprise only to those who refuse to acknowledge that there are outstanding questions relating to that attack. Writing in National Review, Jim Geraghty critiques MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, who recently insisted that “all the questions” relating to Benghazi “have been answered.” In a thorough post, Geraghty outlines just how many questions relating to the attack and its aftermath have not been answered and why the slow drip of information coming out of the White House begs for a stronger response from congressional investigators.

But while the country clearly believes there is more to the Benghazi story, and it is perfectly appropriate to investigate the White House’s handling of that attack, the latest Fox poll has its share of red flags for the GOP, too. ... When asked if Republicans in Congress are investigating the Benghazi attacks out of a desire to get to the truth or to secure “political gain” for themselves, 63 percent said that the GOP’s motives were not entirely pure... For now, however, this survey indicates that voters want to see a full accounting of events of what happened before and after the Benghazi attacks. The GOP has a mandate to pursue those answers, but voters have little patience left for the GOP and that mandate could quickly evaporate.
I must also mention that Rothman was one of 2013's Fabulous 50 Blog Award Winners, which recognizes a select group of elites in the world of online media.


THE SCAM IS SETTLED: Climate Extremists Threaten, Intimidate Scientists Who Expose Global Warming Scam

By Investor's Business Daily

Global Warming: A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story.

First the climate change zealots tried to manipulate the data. Now they are trying to control the debate they claim is over.

It's not over, though, and the science is not settled as true science never is. But those, such as Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson, who dare to challenge the climate change orthodoxy are being silenced in an organized campaign.

In an echo of the infamous Climategate scandal at Britain's University of East Anglia, one of the world's top academic journals has rejected the work of five experts, including Bengtsson. One peer reviewer said the paper "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side."

The Climategate scandal was a direct result of scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit and others, such as Michael Mann, conspiring to manipulate "unhelpful" data and to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.

The Climategate emails leaked in 2009 made it abundantly clear that the suppression of skeptical papers in learned journals and conflicting data from the alarmist establishment has long been widespread and organized within the field of climate science.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

HALL OF SHAME: GOP House Chairmen Actively Fought Select Committee for Fear of Getting Shown Up

Eli Lake at The Daily Beast is one of the true superstars of modern investigative reporting. Legacy media, namely the likes of 60 Minutes, long ago abandoned their charter of speaking truth to power and instead feature gauzy interviews with FLOTUS in the White House vegetable garden.

Lake has broken a series of fascinating stories on the scandals engulfing the Obama administration, most recently deconstructing the Benghazi cover-up that implicates both Obama and ostensible 2016 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.


But yesterday's scoop also reveals something about the feckless House Republican leadership. Namely that various House committee chairmen fought tooth-and-nail against a Select Investigative Committee for reasons, well, you be the judge.

There is deep unease within the Republican leadership that the select committee, which has yet to announce a schedule of hearings, could backfire, and badly. Investigate and find nothing new, and the committee looks like a bunch of tin-hatted obsessives. Investigate and uncover previously-hidden secrets, and it makes all of the other Republican led panels that dug into Benghazi seem like Keystone Kops.

Based upon the performance of Judicial Watch, which routinely out-investigated the Keystone Kops House, the latter fear is well-founded.

Three Republican sources tell The Daily Beast that the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Reform committees—Reps. Rogers, Buck McKeon, and Darrell Issa, respectively—all opposed the formation of a select committee on Benghazi. All three men have led their own investigations into the matter.

Well, not to toot my own horn or anything, but I certainly called that one last year. Here's what I published then:

BUT THEY'RE DOING IT FOR LOVE: 350,000 Illegal Aliens Incarcerated in U.S. at Cost of $11 Billion Annually

You may be suffering from scandal fatigue with the most lawless administration in modern American history (given the President's impressive official list of historic "firsts"), but the recent news about illegal aliens is truly stunning.

In 2013 alone, President Obama released 40,000 illegal aliens slated for deportation for serious crimes into the United States.

They include nearly 500 rapists and 200 murderers.

I wonder what the female victims of sexual assault and rape think of this development.

Hashtag WarOnWomen.

But this report made me wonder how many illegal aliens are incarcerated in the U.S.


A little research led me to a fairly startling number. In 2012 alone, it was estimated that 350,000 illegal aliens are imprisoned in the United States, having been convicted of major crimes.

I repeat: 350,000 illegal aliens are residing in our prisons.

And how much does each illegal cost the taxpayer? The New York Times states that "the annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate."

The total cost to the American taxpayer? $11 billion.

The American citizen is the victim of this open borders madness. Our health, welfare, and prison systems -- to name but a few -- are melting down.

But they're doing it for love, right, Jeb Bush?


Wednesday, May 14, 2014

STUNNING: White House Hashtag Strike Against Islamist Terror Group Boko Haram Proves Curiously Ineffective

By Investor's Business Daily

War On Terror: The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee reminds us of why our friends no longer trust us, our enemies no longer fear us and that un-friending terrorists on social media is not a foreign policy.

We've all seen the photo of first lady Michelle Obama holding up a sign with the hashtag slogan "Bring Back Our Girls." It underscores a totally unserious foreign policy that relies on gimmicks and reset buttons as Russia and radical Islamists go on the march.

"You can't base your policy on what's trending on Twitter," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, a day after the first lady made her Mother's Day Twitter hash-tag appeal to put social media pressure on the Islamist terrorists of Nigeria's Boko Haram. The group abducted 276 Nigerian schoolgirls and has reportedly converted some who were Christians to Islam.

Delivering the Saturday radio address, Mrs. Obama seemingly framed the incident as part of some sort of sexist war on women, as one of "grown men attempting to snuff out the aspirations of young girls."

She did not mention that the schoolgirls are Christian and their abductors are Islamist, or that while Boko Haram abducts girls from schools to be sold as wives or slaves, it kills the boys outright.

This White House sees social media as substitutes for action and as excuses for its foreign policy failures, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's in Benghazi.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

GOOD NEWS: Obama has only released 40,000 illegal aliens with serious criminal records inside the U.S.!

It's another historic first!

Besides implementing a flagrant amnesty plan that defies Congress and the rule of law, the Obama administration freed tens of thousands of illegal immigrants convicted of violent and serious crimes last year, according to the government’s own records.

The crimes committed by illegal aliens released from federal custody include homicide, sexual assault, theft, kidnapping and alcohol-related driving convictions. In all, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) freed 36,007 aliens convicted of 88,000 crimes from detention centers throughout the United States, according the breathtaking agency records, which were obtained this month by a nonpartisan research center dedicated to studying immigration issues.

...In some instances the releases were actually contrary to law and local illegal immigrant sanctuary policies did not play a role in the vast majority. This indicates that it’s part of the Obama administration’s broader amnesty policy, which has favored letting illegal aliens live outside detention centers while their cases get resolved.

Let’s take a look at the breakdown of crimes committed by this latest batch of freed illegal aliens. The records show that more than 16,000 were convicted of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Over 9,000 had dangerous drug convictions, 1,075 were convicted of aggravated assault, 426 of sexual assault and 193 of homicide. Additionally, the records show that 1,160 of the freed illegal immigrants had stolen vehicle convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions and 303 flight escape convictions.

...This is hardly the first time that the government rewards illegal immigrants with serious criminal records. Last summer Judicial Watch reported that legislation crafted by the bipartisan Gang of Eight in the U.S. Senate would grant amnesty to illegal aliens with drunk-driving, domestic violence, aggravated assault and child abuse convictions. In its report JW noted that groups that would normally be vocal on these sorts of issues remained silent. As an example we offered the nation’s largest organization working to stop drunk driving and support victims of the violent crime—Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—which refused to criticize the proposed law even though it will essentially reward those convicted of driving dunk. Through a spokeswoman, MADD said it “doesn’t get involved in immigration matters.”


I'll say it again: if any of these scandals had occurred under a Republican president, the usual cadre of brain-dead liberals would be calling for impeachment.

But, as it stands, you'll read the following tragic numbers here and precious few other places.

The document reveals that the 36,007 convicted criminal aliens freed from ICE custody in many instances had multiple convictions. Among them, the 36,007 had nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

  • 193 homicide convictions (including one willful killing of a public official with gun)

  • 426 sexual assault convictions

  • 303 kidnapping convictions

  • 1,075 aggravated assault convictions

  • 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions

  • 9,187 dangerous drug convictions

  • 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions

  • 303 flight escape convictions

Remember that old progressive saw that Obama and the other charlatans on the Left rolled out after Sandy Hook?

"If we can only save one child"?

Thousands of men, women, and children are killed and maimed by illegal aliens each year, whether on the roads or during the commission of crimes.

Not by guns. By illegal aliens.

In 2012 alone, it was estimated that 7.5 million illegal aliens are imprisoned in the United States, having been convicted of major crimes.

7.5 million illegal aliens in prison.

But if we can only save one child, right?

But, transgender rights, y'all!

These liberals are the lowest of the low.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

The Simple Attack That Could Leave 300 Million Americans Dead

By Investor's Business Daily

Vulnerability: Expert testimony before Congress on Thursday warned that an electromagnetic pulse attack on our power grid and electronic infrastructure could leave most Americans dead and the U.S. in another century.

That dire warning came from Peter Vincent Pry, a member of the Congressional EMP Commission and executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security.

He testified in front of the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) event could wipe out 90% of America's population.

Most people's eyes might glaze over upon mention of the committee name, the title of the hearing — "Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Threat to Critical Infrastructure" — and the general subject of EMP. But it is a real threat and not the stuff of science fiction.

Some attention has been paid to the potential cataclysmic effects of a natural phenomenon such as a massive solar storm, an event that has occurred in America's horse-and-buggy era when it did not matter.

Today an electromagnetic pulse event would be devastating. It wouldn't need a solar storm, just a solitary nuke detonated in the atmosphere above the American heartland. We would envy the horse-and-buggy era.

"Natural EMP from a geomagnetic superstorm, like the 1859 Carrington Event or 1921 Railroad Storm, and nuclear EMP attack from terrorists or rogue states, as practiced by North Korea during the nuclear crisis of 2013, are both existential threats that could kill 9-of-10 Americans through starvation, disease and societal collapse," the Washington Free Beacon quoted Pry as saying.

Monday, May 12, 2014

DEPRAVED: Washington Post Glowingly Reprints Gun Control Screed Published by Modern-Day Nazi Regime

By NRA-ILA

Well, it's nothing especially new in the realm of anti-gun propaganda, but the Washington Post “Morning Mix” section on Thursday reprinted yet another screed by a big city newspaper against U.S. gun culture. The reprinted article followed a template familiar to anyone who is engaged in the gun debate in America.

It reminded readers of past highly-publicized gun crimes.

It depicted President Obama shouting himself "hoarse" over the need for action on gun control.

It made the expected public health analogies, calling gun-related crimes an intractable "malignant tumor."

It indicated that no place in the U.S. is free of firearms, be it "campuses of universities and high schools, department stores and even churches."

Picking up a thread heavily promoted by Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action franchise, it warned parents that "even children brandish guns," and cited two incidents in which a young child accidentally shot a sibling.

And, with typical disregard of declining rates of violent crime and firearm accidents, it claimed that "social uneasiness is growing day by day among Americans" because of gun-related crime. Indeed, the paper warned, no American can escape the "uneasiness and horror" caused by guns.

Yes, we've seen it all before, and it didn’t paint a pretty picture of America or the American people. You'd almost think the author believes Americans are too savage and unruly for self-government and certainly for any sort of liberty that demands discretion and good judgment. As with all these sorts of articles, it implicitly pointed the way to a brighter future: civilian disarmament and a tighter reign over the American people by their betters in government.

The Post, of course, was inclined to agree. Its introduction to the reprint cited, with apparent admiration, the low firearm ownership rate amongst civilians in the jurisdiction where the editorial was written: .06 guns per 100 people. Meanwhile, the nationwide U.S. rate, the Post reported, is closer to 100 firearms per 100 people. The Post also noted recent attempts by the locale where the editorial was written to tighten its own firearm laws, including laws governing their registration, storage, use, and prohibition.

Like we said, we've seen it all before, and so has anyone who's read gun-bashing editorials in any big-city American newspaper.

Only this time, the editorial wasn't originally published in a U.S. city.

THE BENGHAZI COVER-UP UNRAVELS: Analysis Points to Hillary Clinton as Source of the Video Lie

By Investor's Business Daily

Benghazi: The language in an email from Obama aide Ben Rhodes used to prep Susan Rice is virtually identical to one issued by the former secretary of state 36 hours before — the first public official to mention the video.

One of the first questions we hope the Select Committee on Benghazi asks is who gave Ben Rhodes the authority and the content for the Sept. 14, 2012, email from him, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, on how to prep Susan Rice for her talk show tour on Sept. 16 blaming a video for the terrorist attack.

Either Rhodes is the most powerful communications assistant in American history or he was instructed by superiors in the administration to launch the video lie.

A clue may be found in a State Department press release that night and in a comparison of emails sent 36 hours apart by Clinton and Rhodes.

At 10 p.m. Washington, D.C., time on Sept. 11, 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received a call from the man she wants to replace, President Obama, while terrorists were in the midst of massacring Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

TREY GOWDY: Hillary Clinton's got a lot of explainin' to do

Megyn Kelly's recent interview with Trey Gowdy gives me great hope that this investigation will be thorough and competent.

KELLY: ...Let's talk about Hillary Clinton. She comes out tonight and suggests that people like you, I assume, are not choosing to be satisfied, that that's your choice, and the rest of us have to live with that. Your thoughts on that?

GOWDY: Well, you can add to that the family members of the four murdered Americans, because they still have unanswered questions. And I would just ask Secretary Clinton, with all due respect, can you explain why we were still in Benghazi after everyone else had pulled out and after the British ambassador was almost assassinated and our compound was attacked twice?

There are three separate categories of questions, each with subunits within them that have not been answered. I realize it's been 20 months, but time is no barometer of thoroughness. My daughter took Latin for three years; she still can't speak it.

So, time doesn't mean something is thorough. When we get through with this select committee, those questions will be answered for the family members and Ms. Clinton will have another chance to come and talk to us.

KELLY: I know that you have said you intend to subpoena her, that you want her to appear before your committee. However, and I say this respectfully, the last time she appeared before Congress, what we had was a series of speeches from the lawmakers without that many probing questions. And I hear that from my viewers often when we look back on the hearings. What would be different this time?

Friday, May 09, 2014

You know that totally insane Benghazi conspiracy theory? Yep. It keeps getting less insane each and every day

Was the Benghazi debacle, as "The Citizen's Committee on Benghazi" asserts, really a failed kidnapping attempt? Was it part of a broader plot to trade a U.S. Ambassador for the release of the “Blind Sheikh”, Omar Abdul Rahman?

It sounds insane, yet each and every day more evidence emerges to support it.

In October of 2013 (via the outstanding PJMedia), Arabic language media offered compelling evidence that tied the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Multiple Arabic media sources have reported that the purpose of the Libyan intelligence chief’s recent trip to Cairo was to share information about Mursi’s involvement.

Other Arabic sources (1, 2, 3), including Masress, have reported on the details of the charges being filed against Mursi. They involve his release of [terrorist Mohammed Jamal] Al-Kashif... If Mursi was involved, what were his possible motives? Indisputably, the two most prominent voices as of late demanding the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdul Rahman were Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Muhammad Mursi. Interestingly, Mursi made such a demand before and days after the attacks in Benghazi.
Word of Egypt's involvement in the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens had circulated in intelligence circles since September. Raymond Ibrahim reported then on a troubling Libyan intelligence document. It asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood, including Egyptian President Morsi, were involved in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
On Wednesday, June 26, several Arabic websites ... quoted the intelligence report, which apparently was first leaked to the Kuwaiti paper, Al Ra’i... It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.

According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi; preacher Safwat Hegazi; Saudi businessman Mansour Kadasa, owner of the satellite station, Al-Nas; Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Hassan; former presidential candidate, Hazim Salih Abu Isma’il..."

This jibes with original reporting from September 2013 by Walid Shoebat. A cellphone video taken during the attacks depicts gunmen running toward the camera. At one point an approaching gunman cries, "Don't shoot us! We were sent by Morsi!"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
But where did this theory originate?

In October of 2012, a comment by "Kozy" posited that the Benghazi attack was an "October Surprise". Easily dismissed at the time as some sort of conspiracy nonsense, with each passing day the scenario appears to become more plausible:

Starting in late March, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz begs the State Department for more security assets. These requests are flatly refused.

Also early in the year (February, March and April), White House visitor records show several lightly documented -- and possibly confidential -- visits by Hillary Clinton to the White House.

In May, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz is swapped for Chris Stevens.

In June, Egyptian President Morsi publicly pledges to secure the release of 'The Blind Sheikh', the extremist cleric responsible for the first World Trade Center attack.

Also starting in June, Ambassador Stevens' security teams are systematically removed from Libya, despite increasingly urgent requests and dire predictions. As the State Department itself confirmed in testimony before Congress, there were no budget cuts involved: the removal of security occurred at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State. By the time of the 9/11 attack, Stevens has not a single personal bodyguard. These stunning actions effectively remove any barriers to the capture of the Ambassador for use as a hostage.

Did back-channel communications between the White House and the Blind Shiekh's legal representatives confirm that a swap could be achieved with a high-level hostage exchange? Were the Sheikh's cronies informed that Ambassador Stevens had no security in Benghazi? This would enable the Sheikh to be secured through a trade after capturing Stevens; after all, the ambassador has had his security teams completely stripped away.

Someone -- it is not clear who -- arranges a meeting between Stevens and Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akinin in Benghazi, not Tripoli, late in the evening of 9/11. It is during this meeting that terrorist checkpoints are established around the compound. The terrorists know precisely where Stevens is and are prepared logistically to capture him.

The initial attack involves only small arms fire. In fact, no one appears to have been killed at the consulate by gunfire. Smoke inhalation was reportedly the cause of the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and attache Sean Smith after a fire was ignited by terrorists. In other words, the lack of RPG and mortar rounds during the initial attack means it is possible that the operation was a "smash and grab" designed to capture the Ambassador, not assassinate him. RPGs were only used later at the annex, hours later, after Stevens was known KIA.

And, as stated above, during the initial attack, a video shot via camera phone records men yelling "Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Morsi!"

Hostage swap

Under this operating theory, had all gone according to plan, the Obama administration would have secretly facilitated the capture of Ambassador Stevens. This would have permitted Obama to safely trade the Ambassador through the release of the Blind Sheikh.

The trade of the Sheikh for Stevens would have occurred, of course, just before the election. Obama would take very public credit for Stevens' safe return as well as a newly strengthened relationship with Egypt's Morsi.

Photo ops featuring Obama and Stevens would be splashed along the campaign trail, ostensibly solidifying the president's foreign policy qualifications.

Sound too far-fetched? Consider the following unanswered unanswered questions:

Why did State repeatedly deny requests for more security in Benghazi, despite increasingly dire predictions? Instead, State completely stripped security from Stevens. No credible explanation has been offered for the removal of security by the White House or the State Department. It has been confirmed that the budget excuse proffered by State was completely false.

Who arranged Stevens' meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akinin in Benghazi, not Tripoli, so late in the evening on 9/11?

Why on 9/11 -- of all dates -- was there no special security posture ordered in diplomatic installations around the Middle East?

Why did so many people in the administration publicly lie about the nature of the attack when it was clear from the onset that it was an organized attack by terrorists?

Why is President Obama lobbying so hard for the release of Muslim Brotherhood terrorists including Mursi?

Why did the president disappear after getting word of the attack and never even visit the Situation Room during the 10-hour running gun battle (according to spokesman Tommy Vietor)?

Why did he reportedly refuse security briefings in the aftermath of the attack, instead simply departing for a fundraiser in Las Vegas?

The operating theory being: the President didn't need to stay informed after hearing of the attack. He didn't need any briefings. He knew exactly what had happened.

A review of the Complete Benghazi Timeline makes some of these anomalies apparent. It's time for the Select Committee on Benghazi to uncover the truth.

Four dead Americans and their families deserve the truth, not lies and cover-ups, about what happened and why.


Fast forward to May 2014 and this "crazy conspiracy theory" is still as viable an explanation as any we have. There must be a damned good reason for all the obstruction and obfuscation by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Never -- never -- in our nation's history have our people been left behind, allowed to be slaughtered without lifting a finger to help. I keep thinking of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, as they drew their last breaths, realizing that the country they had dedicated themselves to had let them down.


Hat tips: Wanda and MOTUS.

Thursday, May 08, 2014

CBS: State Run Media

Guest post by Andrea Lafferty

Recently revealed White House emails show that the Obama Administration knew the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a planned terror attack – and they lied to the American public anyway, blaming the loss of American lives on a video that no one had ever seen.

On September 12, 2012, the day after the attack, CBS News president David Rhodes spoke to the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce and spoke about how he thought the attack would be covered by the news:

David Rhodes
“Now we don’t think that [story’s] going to last, as far as it being about the people we lost and the unfolding situation which is pretty remarkable in our life time. Our government thinks that, you know, there’s a really good chance this was not just a spontaneous mob reaction to what some thought was an offensive film but actually a coordinated effort timed to the 9/11 anniversary.”

On September 14th, a full three days after the incident and in the face of CIA intelligence showing a terror link to the attack, David Rhodes’s brother and then White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes instructed Ambassador Susan Rice“to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” All in an effort to make Obama look like a statesman with mere months to go before the November election.

This direction is one that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney would repeat time and time again on September 14th, telling reporters “we do not at this moment have information… that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned… The cause of the unrest was a video… ”

From this point on, CBS News repeated these talking points, going so far as to remove a portion of a 60 Minutes interview with President Obama recorded on September 12th where the president acknowledged that the attack was not tied to an offensive video, instead “that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start. ”

HILLARY BLASTED FOR "GROSS HYPOCRISY": Despite Pleas, Refused to Name Boko Haram as Terrorist Group

Guest post by Investor's Business Daily

Dereliction: For two years on Hillary Clinton's watch, the State Department refused to designate a Nigerian Islamist group as a terrorist organization. This group has murdered thousands as it wages a real war on women.

Sometimes Hollywood celebrities get it right, as Jay Leno, Ellen DeGeneres and others did in a protest outside the Beverly Hills Hotel. That property is one of the Dorchester Collection of hotels owned by the Sultan of Brunei, Hassanal Bolkiah, who has announced his country's embrace of Shariah law.

The protesters recognize that Shariah law is a brutal criminal code employed by Islamists that prescribes amputations and floggings, plus the stoning to death of those who violate its rules or simply for the crime of being too Western.

Case in point: the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram, which means "Western education is a sin."

When the Global Terrorism Database of the University of Maryland's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism compiled its list of terrorist organizations and ranked them by the number of their terror acts in 2012, Afghanistan's Taliban came in first. Boko Haram was not far behind.

The world's attention is now focused on the kidnapping of some 300 girls from the Chibok Government Girls Secondary School in Lagos, Nigeria.

"I abducted your girls," a man claiming to be Abubakar Shekau, the group's leader, said in a video seen by the Guardian newspaper. "I will sell them in the market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry them off. There is a market for selling humans."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined the campaign to free the girls, expressing her concern in a May 4 tweet with the hashtag "BringBackOurGirls." On Wednesday, she called the abduction "abominable" and "criminal."

"It's an act of terrorism," she said, "and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria."

Yet for two years, the State Department refused to acknowledge the growing threat and barbarism of Boko Haram. As Josh Rogin at The Daily Beast reports, the Clinton State Department "refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011" after the group bombed the United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria.

Veteran Rep. Tom Cotton Destroys Democrats and Their Fake Outrage Over the Politics of Benghazi

As The Right Scoop observes, Cotton should have dropped the mic when he finished decimating the disgusting tactics of the Left.

Mr. Speaker, couple lessons I learned in the Army were you moved to the sound of gunfire and the most important step in the troop leading procedures is to supervise the execution of you orders.

When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack Obama did neither. He sent no quick reaction force and didn’t even stay in the situation room to supervise the execution of his orders. We expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night.

For two years he’s covered up this failure of leadership by stonewalling. Not anymore. We will now get to the truth.

But what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say to this? They express great outrage at politicizing this matter.

When I was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised endlessly off the Iraq war?

Where was the outrage as they viciously attacked our commanders?

Where was the outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals?

Where was the outrage when they said the war was lost?

Where was the outrage when they said only high school dropouts join the Army?

Forgive me if I don’t join my democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They deserve justice and the American people deserve the truth.

One other lesson I learned in the Army is that we leave no man behind. And we will not leave these four men behind.

That's what these disgusting losers on the Left don't seem to understand.

Men were fighting for their lives, fighting for hours against hundreds of Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, screaming into comm systems for help because they knew -- they knew -- a Commander-In-Chief would never leave anyone behind.

But they were wrong.

The President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were AWOL. It was 3AM in Benghazi... and no one answered their calls for help.

Where the hell were they?


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

Guest post by David M. Taylor

The Obama administration today released its third National Climate Assessment (NCA) predicting a series of calamities and urging action on the president’s climate agenda.

It stands in contrast to the conclusions of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which released its latest scientific reports in September and March.

A third report in the Climate Change Reconsidered series is due this summer to coincide with the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change from July 7–9 in Las Vegas.

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

SUH-PRIZE, SUH-PRIZE: Hillary Clinton Wants the Benghazi Scandal to Just Disappear

Of course, one would expect this kind of response from miscreants who left American heroes to die on the battlefield awaiting help that would never come.

...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday there’s “no reason” to continue making inquiries into the 2012 terrorist attack.

“Of course there are a lot of reasons why, despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided, some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward,” Clinton said. “That’s their choice. And I do not believe there is any reason for it to continue in this way, but they get to call the shots in the Congress.”

A select committee has been formed in Congress with seven Republicans and five Democrats, led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) to try to get to the bottom of the assault and any White House cover-up to shield President Obama and Clinton herself, who was Secretary of State when the attack happened.

Hillary Clinton is trying to position herself as a moderate, but she is anything but.

She is the Grandmother of Obamacare and her past involves in so much skulduggery that her closet contains a whole damn mausoleum.

She is a radical Leftist whose policies would be every bit as corrupt and destructive as those of Barack Hussein Milhaus Obama.


Hat tip: Weasel Zippers

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

TED CRUZ: Dude, The Truth Isn't Partisan

Guest post by Rob Bluey

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is frustrated by the Obama administration’s “stonewalling” on the Benghazi investigation – and he wants answers about the 2012 terrorist attack.

Speaking to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto yesterday, Cruz said: “We have four dead Americans. We have the first dead U.S. Ambassador killed in service since 1979. In the 19 months that have followed, we don’t have a single dead terrorist or a single terrorist apprehended, and what we have seen from the president and Senate Democrats has been stonewalling.”

Here are the four questions Cruz wants the Obama administration to answer:

  1. Why did the State Department repeatedly refuse to provide additional security as was requested by personnel on the ground?
  2. Why did the United States not have military assets in place to protect American men and women on Sept. 11, 2012, when there was increased terrorist activity in the region?
  3. During the Benghazi attack, why didn’t the United States send in forces to protect the four men who lost their lives?
  4. In the 19 months that have followed, why has no one been apprehended, and no one been brought to justice?

Last year, Cruz introduced a Senate resolution calling for a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks. The House of Representatives is moving forward with its own select committee, which will be led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

“The truth shouldn’t be partisan,” Cruz said. “Finding out what happened, finding out how we could have prevented it, and acting to actually apprehend these guys, should not be partisan.”


Related: Q&A: Does a Benghazi Select Committee Matter?

Attkisson: Former Obama Officials and the Media--But I Repeat Myself--Trying to ‘Controversialize’ Benghazi

Guest post by Havilah Steinman

Former CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson suggested today that those in the White House orbit were involved in a “well-orchestrated strategy to controversialize” the recent coverage about the Obama administration’s e-mails regarding the Benghazi talking points in the immediate aftermath.

Two former Obama administration officials, Tommy Vietor and David Plouffe, have appeared on Fox News and ABC News in recent days to downplay the attention surrounding the Benghazi-related e-mails.

After watching a clip that included Plouffe, Attkisson told Fox News today, “The key words they use, such as ‘conspiracy’ and ‘delusional,’ are in my opinion clearly designed to try to controversialize a story — a legitimate news story and a legitimate area of journalistic inquiry.”

“I see that as a well-orchestrated strategy,” she added, “to controversialize a story they really don’t want to hear about.”



Hat tip: BadBlue News