U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, famed as the chief purveyor of the Obama Administration’s false talking points on the Benghazi attack, will become Barack Obama’s new National Security Adviser following the resignation of Tom Donilon. Obama previously tried to promote her to Secretary of State, but that required confirmation, so the effort collapsed.
I’d say that a more brazen insult to the American people from this President could not be imagined, but, hey, IRS.
This means the President who claims he learns about his Administration’s activities by watching the news will be advised on national security by a woman famous for lying to the media. That seems like a closed information loop. Rice’s defenders claimed she had nothing to do with preparing the phony talking points – she was just mindlessly reciting them. Is that really the sort of thing America wants on a national security adviser’s resume?
They put reporters under surveillance, data mine innocent citizens’ phone records and e-mails, grope little old ladies at the airport, sic the IRS on conservative groups, and call it “security.”
Meanwhile, REAL terrorist threats are coddled, protected, and allowed to slip through the cracks. Some, like the terrorists that “went missing,” are actually given the fake identities they need to get through security by our own government!
Why anyone would want to give incompetent bureaucrats with seriously screwed up priorities even MORE power to “protect” innocent citizens is beyond me!
The federal government gave witness protection to known and suspected terrorists and the U.S. Marshals Service even lost track of two of those people, according to a report Thursday from the Justice Department’s auditor that exposes the previously hidden side of the witness program.
“We found that the department did not definitively know how many known or suspected terrorists were admitted into the [witness protection] program,” the Justice inspector general said.
The auditor said that until it raised concerns, those terrorists were able to board airplanes and were able to “evade one of the government’s primary means of identifying and tracking terrorists’ movements and actions” through the new identities the government provided them.
It also said that of the two known or suspected terrorists that the federal government lost track of, one was later discovered to be living outside of the U.S. and the other is also likely outside of the country.
Eyewitnesses to September’s deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya told a congressional committee Wednesday that State Department officials had blocked efforts to aid Americans under fire and later tried to conceal al Qaeda’s involvement.
Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department, told the politically charged hearing that on the night of the attack he was stopped from mobilizing a foreign emergency support team that was specially equipped and trained to deal with emergencies like the one in Benghazi.
At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”
House Republicans have concluded that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies bear no blame for failing to halt the terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year, releasing a report Tuesday that said President Obama and the State Department set up the military for failure.
The report also found that plenty of intelligence presaged the attack, but the White House and State Department — including the secretary at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton — failed to heed the warnings.
In the most damning conclusion, House Republicans said Mr. Obama’s team lied about the attacks afterward, first by blaming mob violence spawned by an anti-Muslim video, and then wrongly saying it had misled the public because it was trying to protect an FBI investigation.
They don’t tell me much. They want me to shut up…. I was told, and I really would rather not say by who, [though] I can if you need it, but I was told that I’m causing a lot of problems and to shut up…. I told them ‘I will not! I will not shut up until I find out what really happened!’
Terrorists attack an American compound (which is technically American soil) on the anniversary of 9/11. Four Americans are killed. There are over 30 survivors, but we don’t even know their names, much less their stories. Not a single media interview. Barely an acknowledgement that they even exist. The State Department refuses to answer letters from lawmakers demanding to know the truth.
You’d think the media would be beating down their doors in the search for that “exclusive” first-hand account – even if they needed a shadow screen and voice changing technology to protect their identities. But no. The media doesn’t seem even the least bit interested in their stories. Could it be because the tale they have to tell proves that Obama botched it big time, and lied to cover it up?
More than six months since the deadly attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, Republican lawmakers say they are still looking for answers and are frustrated that the White House is blocking access to an unknown number of survivors.
The Washington Times learned Friday that the State Department has failed to respond to a letter written nearly three weeks ago by two House Republicans seeking answers about the survivors, as many as seven of whom are believed to still be at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center recovering from injuries sustained in Benghazi.
As news trickled out this month that newly confirmed Secretary of State John F. Kerry had made a secret visit to one of the injured survivors at the hospital in Bethesda, frustration mounted in the office of Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, who co-wrote the March 1 letter to Mr. Kerry with Rep. Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania.
“If somebody’s still being treated six months after the attack, I think the American people need to have the truth,” said Mr. Wolf, who voiced his frustration Friday that Mr. Kerry could have made such a trip to Walter Reed while ignoring a letter from Congress seeking answers about the survivors.
[…] “We need to talk to anybody that was involved that wants to come forward and tell what happened,” said Mr. Wolf, who has for months called for Congress to create an independent, bipartisan and multijurisdictional committee to probe more deeply into what transpired in Benghazi.
“I’m not satisfied,” he said. “I don’t think the American people are satisfied.”
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an extensive interview with Fox News, alleged that the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel they can’t come forward to tell their stories — as he urged the House to subpoena the administration for details if necessary.
The South Carolina senator said he’s “had contact” with some of the survivors, calling their story “chilling.” He told Fox News that “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”
The White House is denying any attempt to exert pressure on the surviving victims.
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.
The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.
Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.
Veterans are being declared incompetent not because they have a serious mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves or others, but because they have a physical disability resulting from their service in the armed forces or because they simply let their spouses pay the family bills.
If veterans have minor issues with PTSD, have expressed that they are depressed sometimes, or even in the case of Vietnam veterans admit that they are getting older and sometimes forget to pay their bills on time, the bureaucrats at the VA will seek to declare them incompetent. (I am a 65 year old veteran and often forget where I put my car keys, does that make me incompetent to handle my own financial affairs and even worse mean that I can’t own a firearm?) According to the VA it apparently does.
All of this has resulted in America’s heroes being declared incompetent by a process that blatantly violates their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Then, for reasons that have not been explained these same veterans are also being denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Many of the veterans I have heard from were initially both scared because of what was happening to them, and hurt because it is their own government that is causing this fear. After all, when they joined the military they signed a blank check to their country to defend it and its Constitution even if it cost them their lives. Yet, now their own government is turning on them and taking from them the very Constitutional rights they fought to preserve.
However, now something else is happening; the fear and betrayal that these veterans felt is turning to anger. Their training and instincts as warriors is coming forth and they are once again prepared to fight for their rights and the rights of other Americans. I think that the Obama administration has picked a fight with the wrong dog. Veterans are fighting back.
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on a 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
On Feb 8th, Obama issued yet another waiver for Palestinian Authority aid, claiming that sending money to the corrupt undemocratic terrorist kleptocracy that refuses to negotiate a peaceful solution was “important to the national security interests of the United States.”
Unlike those 20,000 Marines who aren’t important to the national security of the United States.
Obama treats our men and women in uniform shamefully, as mere pawns that can be used, exploited, and tossed away. The Bin Laden raid has always been about the Narcissist-in-Chief ever since he sauntered up to the microphone and took personal credit for the operation that killed America’s most wanted terrorist. The man who actually pulled the trigger is disposable, in Obama’s view. Since he can’t be used as a photo-op or campaign prop, his usefulness is done.
Obama wants to provide billions in hand-outs to life-long welfare recipients whose votes he can buy with Obamaphones. To those who risk their lives and sacrifice for freedom, however – those who truly earned and deserve their benefits – he is not so generous.
The Navy SEAL who says he put three bullets in the head of Usama bin Laden is out of work and bitter that he was never told he is still eligible for health care coverage, according to a new report, which the military and Veteran’s Administration are disputing.
The hero frogman is bitter as he waits for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to an exclusive story for Esquire by the Center for Investigative Reporting. After quitting just three years short of retirement, he has no health care or pension, he said.
“I left SEALs on Friday,” the unnamed SEAL told author Phil Bronstein last September. “My health care for me and my family stopped at midnight Friday night.
“I asked if there was some transition from my Tricare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. They said no,” the SEAL told Bronstein, executive chairman of the Center for Investigative Reporting. “You’re out of the service, your coverage is over. Thanks for your sixteen years. Go f— yourself.”
[…] But six months after leaving the military, because “I wanted to see my children graduate and get married,” he is physically and psychologically wrecked. He left the military a few years short of retirement eligibility and now has no job and is not qualified for a pension. He is awaiting a VA disability ruling for neck, back and eye injuries.
Because it’s too dangerous to identify himself, making money from book deals, speaking engagements and interviews is not an option.
Maybe he quit early due to PTSD. Maybe it was because he was pressured to retire early, so the military wouldn’t have to pay his pension and health benefits. Either way, he deserves far better than simply being tossed aside.
Nothing. That is what President Barack Obama did on the night of September 11, 2012, as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killed four Americans, among them Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama’s inaction was revealed in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday by outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey.
Under direct questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Panetta admitted that he had no communication with President Obama after their “pre-scheduled” meeting at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The attack on the consulate had already been under way for 90 minutes at that time. Neither the president nor anyone else from the White House called afterwards to check what was happening; the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.
Panetta’s testimony directly contradicts President Obama’s own claim to have issued “three directives” as soon as he learned “what was going on” in Benghazi.
[…] Panetta was also forced to admit, in the face of vigorous questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that no military action at all had been taken to intervene in Benghazi after the attack had begun, promising only that a similar lapse would not happen again.
[…] In sum: President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth. Because there was an election to be won.
While giving Senate testimony regarding Benghazi on Feb. 7, Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta said Obama was not present nor did he communicate with the Sec. of Defense during the Benghazi attack.
Whether or not Obama was present, the fact remains that he neglected as Commander-in-Chief to act when American lives were at stake. He knowingly abandoned them in harm’s way. In the morning, four Americans were dead, and Obama was on a plane to his next fundraiser.
After endless stonewalling, the woman at the heart of Whitewater and the White House Travel Office firings today testified before Congress about Benghazi.
The woman whom the late New York Times columnist William Safire referred to as a “congenital liar” finally came forward without being forthcoming.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress about the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and a pair of Navy SEALs. She uttered words so stunning in their heartlessness that even some liberals may have trouble white(water)washing them.
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson noted the falsehood of the “film-maker as instigator” narrative. After four months, nobody will answer “who pushed the video?” Regarding the motive for the murders, Clinton went into full righteous-indignation mode and bellowed “What difference at this point does it make?”
Only an ice queen with total indifference to the truth could ask why the truth matters. Only a woman who spent her entire life sacrificing others around her as chess pawns could ask why the motives for terrorism matter.
What difference does it make, Hillary? To the families of four dead Americans, and those who were duped by your lies, it makes a LOT of difference!
It’s embarrassing that a sitting Secretary of State lost her cool over a simple question she had to know in advance was coming, because let’s face it – she LIED. Condoleeza Rice faced far harsher criticism over Iraq, and always firmly stuck to her guns, but always spoke respectfully and professionally. Liberals resent that they have to be accountable to ANYBODY for their words and actions. They think they are above it all.
And sadly, the mostly weak line of questioning from Republicans at this hearing is part of the reason why Democrats have grown accustomed to getting away with murder – literally – and expecting not to get called on it! If Republicans were smart, they’d nail Hillary’s hide to the wall and destroy any chance of a 2016 presidential run. Unfortunately, they’re too worried about looking “fair” so that propagandist media won’t crucify them. It won’t work. The media is determined to make Republicans look bad no matter what, so they should make sure it’s for something that they can be proud of, and actually do their jobs!
Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization’s longstanding terrorist support.
During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administration’s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of “political, economic and social forces,” said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced “Al-Quds” instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as “not that bad” when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.
During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as “a holy struggle” and “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”
[A] known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennan’s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.
Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.
Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.
The official Chinese government news agency, Xinhua, has demanded the US immediately adopt stricter gun control measures to reduce the number of firearms the US populace is permitted to possess.
The Chinese state-controlled media’s statement, titled “Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for US Gun Control,” is primarily focused on the Newtown tragedy in which 26 Americans were killed by a mad gunman. Twenty of the victims were young children.
The Chinese government stated, “Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.”
[…] The current Chinese government, the communist People’s Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.
The Chinese interest in eliminating American guns is obvious. Even though they are trading partners, China’s communist government still harbors ambitions of taking over the United States, economically or militarily. Getting rid of our guns would make the latter option a lot more feasible.