Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Obama's Top 7 Lawless Actions

By Amy Payne

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has released a list of “lawless” actions by the Obama administration. Heritage legal experts Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster have also been following this closely and issued a report earlier this year. Here are seven of the most egregious examples of the administration’s overreach.

1. Delaying Obamacare’s employer mandate

The administration announced that Obamacare won’t be implemented as it was passed, so employers with 50 or more employees don’t have to provide the mandated health coverage for at least another year (and longer if they play their cards right). Slattery and Kloster observe that “The law does not authorize the president to push back the employer mandate’s effective date.”

2. Giving Congress and their staffs special taxpayer-funded subsidies for Obamacare

It was uncomfortable for members of Congress when they realized that, through Obamacare, they had kicked themselves and their staffs out of the taxpayer-funded subsidies they were enjoying for health coverage. But the administration said no problem and gave them new subsidies. In this case, “the administration opted to stretch the law to save Obamacare—at the taxpayers’ expense.”

3. Trying to fulfill the “If you like your plan, you can keep it” promise—after it was broken

Friday, May 09, 2014

GOP will start Benghazi probe alone after Pelosi aborts Dem participation

When it comes to double standards and intellectual dishonesty, the modern Democrat Party takes the cake.

Recall that Republicans participated in Democrat-initiated Select Committees -- most notably those related to Watergate and Iran-Contra -- but Nancy Pelosi and her sycophants in the House have never been big fans of integrity or patriotism.

Writing at Washington Examiner, Susan Ferrechio describes their latest pathetic maneuver.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has rejected the terms of a GOP-created select committee on Benghazi, but Republicans are moving ahead without them...

...Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected the panel's terms in letter to Boehner that was in response to GOP proposal about the select panel would operate.

Democrats say they are concerned it will not allow their party to participate fairly in the investigation, which will involve subpoenas and viewing of classified materials related to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

According to a Democratic leadership aide, Pelosi rejects a rule that will not prevent chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., from issuing unilateral subpoenas without consulting with Democrats. The rules would also allow Republicans to prevent Democrats from interviewing witnesses.

Sounds like Republicans are giving Democrats all the deference they are due after the GOP was shut completely out of giving input into the health care abortion that became Obamacare.

Benghazi is a big deal. It is a scandal. American heroes 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 any man behind.

But they were wrong.

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


Hat tip: BadBlue News

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. ”

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

FED CHAIR YELLEN: Yes, Under Democrat Policies, the Country Is Indeed Headed for Economic Collapse

Obama appointee and Federal Reserve Chairman Chairwoman Chairperson Janet Yellen had some truly ominous -- but not unexpected -- tidings for Congress.

Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen, referencing the Congressional Budget Office's long-term budget projections, told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress today that under current policies the federal government’s deficits “will rise to unsustainable levels.”


...Yellen made her statement about unsustainable deficits when she was questioned by Sen. Dan Coats (R.-Ind.). Coats remarked that businessmen in Indiana told him that their businesses were underperforming at this time because of the uncertainty they felt as result of federal taxation and regulatory policies.

"...I agree with you,” said Yellen. “My own discussions with businesses, I hear exactly the same things that you are citing: concerns with regulations, about taxation, about uncertainty about fiscal policy... [the] combination of demographics, the structure of entitlement programs, and historic trends in health-care costs, we can see that over the long-term deficits will rise to unsustainable levels relative to the economy.

When -- not if, when -- the economy does collapse, who do you Democrats think will be hardest hit?

Will it be the oligarchs like Clinton, Obama, Reid and Pelosi? Will it be the elites in the ruling class?

No, of course not, drones. It will be the elderly, the poor, and the infirm.

Most importantly, it will be our daughters and sons, our grandchildren, and generations yet unborn, who will face the results of this bizarre form of national suicide.

The alarm klaxons have sounded, over and over again, warning us, blinking red, flashing every possible signal that the insane policies of endless borrowing and printing and spending must end.

And still Democrats and the media ignore those indicators, gleefully following Duck Dynasty, NFL team names, Amanda Knox, and some racist kook billionaire, instead of what is truly important.

The fuse has been lit and time grows short.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

PIC: Michigan Militia?

Hmmmmmmmmm.........?



Related: Obama's "Civilian National Security Force" resurfaces (3/12/2009).

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?"

PIC: Reaction of insurers when asked whether premiums would go down by $2,500 as Obama promised

I think the word is dumbfounded.


In August of 2013, Obama had accumulated more than 250 documented lies -- almost as many as rounds of golf -- so what's another hundred or so among friends?


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

IT'S ANOTHER HISTORIC FIRST: Obama Creates Secret Police Unit Inside EPA to Block Investigations

Guest post by Bankrupting America

This week, the inspector general’s office from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused a small unit within the agency of operating illegally as a “rogue law enforcement agency” that has been blocking independent investigations of the EPA for years. Here are the top five things you should know about the unit and the investigation.

  1. What Is The Office Of Homeland Security Within The EPA? As explained by the Associated Press, the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) is a small unit, only about ten employees, that is run by the administration’s political staff.
  1. Why Is OHS Being Accused Of Acting As A “Rogue Law Enforcement Agency”? Patrick Sullivan, the assistant inspector general at the EPA, wrote in prepared testimony for a congressional hearing that “the Office of Homeland Security has repeatedly rebuffed and refused to cooperate with the OIG’s ongoing requests for information or cooperation.” By being uncooperative the OHS has impeded Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigations. The inspector general’s office is a nonpartisan, watchdog group within a government agency to conduct audits and make sure that the agency is not being fraudulent or wasteful. However, according to the Washington Post, the OHS “has been the primary contact [with the FBI] on all investigations with a connection to national security.”

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

Monday, May 05, 2014

A BOYCOTT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI? For Democrats, Party Always Comes Before Country

Guest post by Investor's Business Daily

Scandal: A Democratic member of the House intelligence committee called Sunday for his party to boycott the newly announced select committee that will probe the Benghazi terrorist attacks, calling it "a colossal waste of time."

Almost as soon as "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" had fallen from the lips of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — a reprise of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "What difference at this point does it make?" — Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that he thinks the planned select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack is a "colossal waste of time" and suggested that Democrats not participate in it.

The congressman responded to Speaker John Boehner's announcement that a special committee to investigate Benghazi, and the cover-up that followed, by dismissing claims that new emails were "smoking gun" evidence that the inflammatory video excuse was concocted to safeguard President Obama's re-election and Hillary's future candidacy.

Calling the yet-to-be-approved committee a "tremendous red herring," Schiff said: "I don't think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate." After all, we got the maker of the video, as Hillary Clinton promised the parents of the dead while their son's casket arrived at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, D.C.

Former White House adviser David Plouffe, speaking on ABC's "This Week," called the committee "bogus." He was one of the recipients of a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, discussing the prepping of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before her whirlwind tour of five Sunday talk shows to specifically and emphatically blame an Internet video for the attack.

YET ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: White House Suggests It Will Ignore Select Committee on Benghazi

I've lost count. How many Constitutional Crises does this make?

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today indicated the White House will refuse to cooperate with a new House committee tasked with investigating Benghazi.

“We have always cooperated with legitimate oversight,” Carney said this afternoon during the daily White House briefing. Asked whether the panel qualified as “legitimate,” he said: “I think if you look at what even some Republicans have said, it certainly casts doubt on the legitimacy of an effort that is so partisan in nature.”

“You know, at some point, you just have to assume that Republicans will continue this because it feeds a political objective of some sort,” he added. “At the same time you have to ask, ‘What about the American people who want to see Congress work for them?’”

What about the American people who wanted to see the Commander-in-Chief attempt to rescue them from a half-day long terror attack? You know, all of the dead and grievously wounded at Benghazi waiting for military back-up that would never come?

Simple question for the Democrats:

Has a president ever gone AWOL for 10 hours (that's 100 My Pet Goats, fat boy) after a U.S. Ambassador was reported missing and dozens of American diplomats were facing imminent death during a terror attack?

That's a rhetorical question for you drones: the answer is no.

If Obama does indeed refuse to cooperate with Congressional oversight, it will be more than past time to initiate impeachment proceedings. More conservatives in the House and Republican control of the Senate will go along way towards making that a reality.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Sunday, May 04, 2014

The Ruling Class has Borrowed and Printed and Spent $3.2 Trillion... and Hasn't Put a Dent in Unemployment

Guest post by Phoenix Capital Research

The great attempt to prop up the US economy through spending and printing money is at an end. The world takes a long time to catch on to these changes, but the shift has already begun. It’s now...

The financial media are gaga over the alleged great jobs numbers from last week.

We’ve been over this saga many times. The methodology for calculating jobs gains is not even close to accurate. The unemployment rate is now a marketing gimmick rather than an accurate economic metric.

Indeed, here are some staggering statistics that indicate just how messed up the US economy is right now.

·      • The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1978.

·      • There are over 90 million Americans without a job right now.

·      • An incredible 20% of all American families do not have a single member who is employed.

·      • There are over 47 million Americans on food stamps.

There is simply no way to spin these numbers. The US Federal Reserve has spent over $3.2 trillion and generated virtually no real job growth (accounting for population growth).

See for yourself:

When you account for how the potential labor pool has grown, the number of employed Americans has gone almost nowhere but down since the 2008 recession “ended.”

A TRUTHFUL VERSION OF THE OBAMA 2012 SLOGAN: "Chris Stevens is Dead and Al Qaeda is Alive"

Stephen F. Hayes offers an incisive summary of the fraud perpetrated against the victims' families and the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.

At the same time the White House was putting the video at the center of the Benghazi story, intelligence professionals and U.S. officials on the ground in Libya were describing a precise attack carried out by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. The Weekly Standard has learned that an analysis from the Defense Intelligence Agency produced a day before Rhodes sent his email assigned blame for the attacks to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al Sharia Libya. The DIA analysis did not mention a video. It adds to the still-growing body of memos and warnings from top U.S. officials. The top U.S. intelligence official on the ground in Libya repeatedly told officials in Washington that the Benghazi attacks were part of a planned assault by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. The top diplomat in the country said the same thing. Last week, a top intelligence official for AFRICOM told Congress that he shared that view.

We are left with this reality: Top diplomats and intelligence officers in Libya offered assessments of the Benghazi attacks that were true when they made them and remain true today. But top Obama administration officials ignored those assessments. Six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, those officials—at the direction of White House communications and political strategists desperate to maintain the fiction that al Qaeda was “on the run”—lied to the public about how four Americans were killed in a sophisticated attack carried out, on the anniversary of 9/11, by terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda.

Andrew C. McCarthy rolls back the fraud even further, painting a compelling case that the unknown filmmaker's video was not the cause of any of the 9/11/12 violence, including that which occurred in Cairo.

POLL: What was Barack Obama doing for 10 hours after learning of the Benghazi attacks?

A new poll courtesy of @BiffSpackle:



Remember all of the liberal criticism of George W. Bush reading My Pet Goat (I'm talking to you, fat boy) after being alerted by aides that the World Trade Center was under attack? Never mentioned by the liberal loons: Bush was asked by the Secret Service to give them some time to secure an evacuation route to Air Force One. So he read the book to the schoolkids for a total of six whole minutes.

The criticism from the Left was deafening.

Yet, in Benghazi, we can't even find out what the President was doing for 10 hours after learning of the attacks, leaving Americans to die awaiting a rescue that would never come.

10 hours, or 100 My Pet Goats.

Talk amongst yourselves.


Saturday, May 03, 2014

LIMBAUGH: Watergate is Benghazi. Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.

Rush Limbaugh:

What we’re watching here today is the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate. The mainstream media is Woodward and Bernstein. Watergate is Benghazi. Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.

The media are not interested in this at all. They don't really think there is anything, and those of them who do know that there's something here want to cover it up. Now, the media are made up of a lot of stupid people. And the media are made up of a lot of uninformed people and the media are made up of a lot of people with a lot of prejudice. And there are a lot of reporters who will discount Benghazi simply because of who is interested in it. For example, Fox is interested in it and it automatically is nothing. If I'm interested in it it doesn't rate any interest, because Fox and me, all we want is to get Obama.

That's how prejudiced they are and short minded. You have some of the media who know full well what they're doing and they're working with the regime to cover it up. Then you have real activists in the media who know exactly what happened and who fear the truth coming out and are going to do everything they can to protect Obama, including trying to lay the blame off on Republicans somehow or the military, or the video that nobody ever saw...

The memo shows that the White House knew exactly what happened and was trying to protect Obama from it, with Susan Rice being briefed. And Dr. Krauthammer says that's the equivalent of the Nixon tapes being discovered.

The Nixon tapes were big. The 18-minute gap, Rose Mary Wood, the secretary, Nixon taping all the people, Haldeman and Ehrlichman. It's what enabled Woodward and Bernstein to go. I still like my comparison that the Drive-Bys of today are the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping to cover it up. When Dr. Krauthammer says the other media are somewhat embarrassed because they allowed themselves to be stoned spun and rolled for a year and a half. Now the memo appears, it's obvious they missed the story....

The media and the administration official in the White House were both ragging on Fox. They were watching Fox. They were watching the O'Reilly Factor and they were e-mailing each other back and forth. O'Reilly was going back and forth how Benghazi was a big thing and the media was missing it and clearly the video had nothing to do with it. And these two people, one a Drive-By reporter, the other an administration official, were both writing back and forth about what B.S. Fox was talking about...

AP reporter Matt Lee and Regime official Victoria Nuland, State Department, were writing back and forth. E-mails to each other about what a bunch of B.S. is on Fox as O'Reilly is discounting the Regime theory on the video explaining why there were protests in Benghazi and that's why the Ambassador is dead. So the point is you have a State Department official writing back and forth with a news media person, Matt Lee. If you read it, it's clear that Matt Lee from the Associated Press is offering his assistance to the regime.

My only point in bringing this up is the media didn't have to be spun. The media didn't have to be rolled. I'm not criticizing Krauthammer, please don't misunderstand. I'm disagreeing with the role of the media here. They're totally already in the Obama camp. They are Obamaites first and journalists second. They're liberal Democrats first and journalists second. They're not even journalists anymore. So you have Victoria Nuland at the State Department and this Matt Lee guy and they're watching O'Reilly and O'Reilly is making all the sense in the world about the video not being responsible for anything here, and these two people are writing back and forth about what a bunch of B.S. is on Fox.

Now, the AP reporter, he doesn't know from anything. He's not asking the State Department babe, "Hey, is what I'm hearing on Fox right?" He's not asking the government official, "Hey, could O'Reilly have a point here? Maybe the video doesn't have anything --" No, the AP reporter was already in bed with the State Department official, and they were already conspiring with each other on how to make sure nobody believed the Fox report or the Fox version of things. They wanted to make sure that the Fox version of things remained marginalized and isolated. I don't think the media has to be spun, and I don't think they're embarrassed now. I don't think there's any regret that they missed this story.

The regret is they weren't able to successfully cover it up. If anything, the Drive-By media is gnashing its teeth over the fact that the original Fox and anti-standard media version of this, my version, is the one that's real, that the regime has been lying. They're mad that that has been learned. So now they've gotta cover it up. So we're into the cover up of a cover-up now. The media is not interested in the truth of this story. They never have been. This has been a circle the wagons event from the get-go. From the night of the Benghazi attack, this has been a circle the wagons moment. Now they've gotta do it again.


Hat tip: BadBlue News

Friday, May 02, 2014

BEN RHODES HITS THE QUADFECTA: Email Breakdown

Thanks to JudicialWatch (PDF), we have the original email from White House propagandist Ben Rhodes regarding the Benghazi cover-up.

Check out the four talking points, annotated by @BiffSpackle:


Oh, my.


Related: May 10, 2013: Ted Cruz has 12 Questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.