Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Audio: The Blind Sheikh, Benghazi and the Case for Impeaching Obama administration officials

On today's program, I attempted to lay out the case for the impeachment of Obama administration officials over the Benghazi attacks based on what I believe to be smoking gun evidence that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president was involved in those attacks:

The above program expounded on information contained in the report below, published one day earlier:

By Walid Shoebat, Ben Barrack and Keith Davies

A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.

After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by "law enforcement and intelligence agencies".

Based on the Obama administration's standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).

Since we're deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President - Mohammed Mursi - is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a 'smoking gun'. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point - in Arabic which we have confirmed - one approaching gunman says, "Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!". Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word "Mursi".

A Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:
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...
Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim
Libyan Intelligence Document translated by Ibrahim (EXHIBIT B)
That the attack was planned and involved foreigners corroborates what Libyan President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf told CBS News' Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, September 16th (EXHIBIT C):
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that-- is that what you are telling us?
MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned-- definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who-- who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their-- since their arrival.
Relative to Mursi's alleged involvement, El-Magariaf provided only circumstantial evidence by identifying attackers as being "foreigners" but in retrospect, the Libyan president's claims that day are corroborated by the Libyan Intelligence document and the real-time video. It is for this reason that we request he be required to testify in front of the grand jury.

Also on September 16, 2012, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and asserted the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video. Here are quotes from Rice's appearance during on ABC This Week, during which she said the following (EXHIBIT D):
“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”
At a minimum, Rice was directing attention away from Mursi's involvement with this demonstrably false statement. A short time later, she went as far as directly defending Mursi:
"President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Mursi in Egypt and as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel and our embassies dramatically increased... President Mursi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He's called off... and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear, that this has to stop."

Rice attempted to leave viewers with two impressions, one demonstrably false and the other belied by hard evidence:
  1. A video was responsible
  2. Mursi was not involved
At this point, we'd like to introduce an exchange between House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Gregory Hicks, a whistleblower and the top-ranking State Department official in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was murdered (EXHIBIT E). This entire exchange is being introduced as evidence but we ask you, the Grand Jury, to pay particularly close attention at the 1:45 mark, when Gowdy introduces the name Beth Jones and reads from an email she sent to several State Department officials on September 12th, one day after the attack. In her email, Jones wrote the following:
"I spoke to the Libyan Ambassador... When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks - Ansar al-Sharia - is affiliated with Islamic terrorists."
On September 12th, Jones corroborated the claims made in the Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) that an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell was involved in the attacks, which corroborates the real-time video (EXHIBIT A). Yet, four days later - after this reality must have been further demonstrated, Rice's statements only served to cover-up the involvement of Mursi and Ansar al-Sharia by extension.

Moreover, Hicks charged that by contradicting the Libyan president, Rice seriously chilled the willingness of the Libyan government to allow FBI Investigators access to what the Obama administration viewed as a crime scene. As such, the crime scene was contaminated and Rice's lies may constitute an obstruction of justice charge.

The first indications that the Obama administration would decide to point to the video as being responsible for the Benghazi attacks appeared to come soon after it was learned that Sean Smith had been killed. There is cause to believe that news of Smith's death may have precipitated the decision to point to the video. A Press Release (EXHIBIT F) bearing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name was released some time prior to 10:42pm EST that night. This is known because an AP article (EXHIBIT G) published at that time made reference to Clinton's statement as well as to Smith's death:


In the days after September 11th, President Mursi seemed to adopt the narrative of the Obama administration relative to the video being responsible for causing them. He did so, ironically enough, at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City on September 25th (EXHIBIT H).

EXHIBITS I and J are two video excerpts from President Obama's speech at the United Nations on September 25th, the same day that Mursi spoke at the CGI. During the speech, Obama echoes what Rice said about his defense of Mursi. Yet, Obama defended him publicly two weeks later, even after intelligence about Mursi's role had been readily available:

Obama again identifies the video as being responsible for the attack:

Ever since assuming the office of President on June 30, 2012, Mursi has been extremely clear about his strong desire to have the "Blind Sheikh" released. The Washington Post reported that Mursi "assumed office with a pledge to press the United States for Abdel Rahman's release" and that al-Qaeda's number one - Ayman al-Zawahiri - echoed the sentiment (EXHIBIT K).

Fox News reported on July 3, 2012, that Mursi "proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square... that he will gain the release of Rahman" (EXHIBIT L).

In an interview between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Mursi from January 7th of this year, Mursi doubled down on his support for the release of Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") while making an appeal for sympathy for the mass murderer (EXHIBIT M):

While admitting his desire for the release of the "Blind Sheikh", Mursi said that if release is not possible, increased visitation and freedom should be granted to Rahman. A letter attributed to Rahman appeared in an al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine (EXHIBIT N). In an article published by The Hill, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) pointed to this letter in which the convicted terrorist is credited with ordering a bombing in western Egypt in 1997 that killed dozens of people. This demonstrated that the "Blind Sheikh" still has deadly tentacles.

Four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) who on November 14, 2012, appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs (EXHIBIT O). During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the "Blind Sheikh":

Consider the itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, who arrived in Benghazi on 9/10/12 and was scheduled to depart on 9/14/12 (EXHIBIT P). That the State Department's top official in Libya would be sent to Benghazi one day before the anniversary of 9/11 is indeed vexing but that he would be sent to a location that was woefully unprotected and had been attacked with an I.E.D. that blew a large hole in the perimeter wall is beyond troubling. There had been several terrorist attacks on western installations as well prior to September 11th as chronicled in a letter (EXHIBIT Q) from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa to President Barack Obama.

Amazingly, on September 28, 2012, after evidence implicating Mursi in the attacks in Benghazi had become available, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Mursi's government with $450 Million, despite protestations from Congress. A New York Times article (EXHIBIT R) outlined the details of the aid package:
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.
An act of war, which probable cause suggests, Mursi was involved in perpetrating against the United States in Benghazi, is not usually met with a multi-million dollar aid package.

However, if there were a deal between Obama administration officials and Mursi administration officials, to stage a kidnapping operation in which Stevens was captured and subsequently exchanged for the "Blind Sheikh", which side would stand to lose more if the truth were to come out?

While still president-elect, Mursi attempted to satiate his base by pledging to have the "Blind Sheikh" freed; it was practically part of his platform. If there had been a deal that were made public, Mursi's stock would most assuredly rise among his base. Conversely, if such a truth were to be made known, Obama would be finished.

This would grant Mursi significant leverage. Again, we take the opportunity to underscore that the Obama administration had to have known about the high probability of Mursi's involvement in the attacks as it was cutting a check for $450 Million on September 28th, barely more than two weeks later.

Fast forward a couple of months later when the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. This was done, in part, to honor a foreign aid package that had been drafted in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak was still president. This deal required the U.S. to send more than a dozen F-16's and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt over the course of 2013. As a Fox News article (EXHIBIT S) points out, critics in Congress expressed opposition to honoring the agreement because Mursi was in power, though these objections did not include evidence implicating Mursi in the Benghazi attacks.

In March of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 Million in aid from the Obama administration. This rankled more members of Congress, particularly Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who had served as the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was quoted in another Fox News article (EXHIBIT T) as saying:
"With sequestration forcing our nation to face billions of dollars in cuts across the government, it is unfathomable that the administration would send funds unconditionally to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government."
We must emphasize that Ros-Lehtinen's objections, though forceful, were not made on the basis of strong evidence implicating Mursi's involvement in the Benghazi attacks.

Now, as the situation in Egypt has become increasingly more violent and tenuous, the Obama administration is sending 400 troops from the site of the 2009 Jihad attack at Fort Hood, TX that left 14 dead and 32 wounded, to Egypt on a "peacekeeping mission" according to a Fort Hood press release (EXHIBIT U).

The behavior of the Obama administration relative to its assistance to Mursi warrants further investigation into whether the Obama administration may be the victim of blackmail.

This leads to our next witness, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus (EXHIBIT V). Evidence suggests that Petraeus may have punished by the Obama administration when he did not sign on to the talking points that would ultimately be used by Ambassador Rice on September 16th. As references to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were being scrubbed from the talking points, Petraeus sent an email at 2:27 PM one day earlier in which he wrote, "Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this, then..." (EXHIBIT W):


On November 7, 2012, one day after Barack Obama's re-election, Petraeus' boss - James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence - advises the White House that Petraeus may resign over an extra-marital affair being made public. It is subsequently learned that the FBI had known about the affair for months and that Attorney General Eric Holder had known about it for weeks. During an appearance on the Fox News Channel on November 13th, Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer seemed convinced that Petraeus had been punished for not endorsing the talking points about Benghazi (EXHIBIT X):

Whereas it is demonstrable that the Obama administration was likely punitive in its treatment of David Petraeus when the C.I.A. Director didn't sign off on the talking points, it is therefore alleged, based on factual and circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration may also be a victim of blackmail from the nation-state of Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.

Pursuant to the premise that acts of terror must be treated as criminal acts, it is our view that this evidence is more than sufficient to convene a grand jury to indict Mursi and to draw up articles of impeachment for Obama administration officials.

Since the Clinton administration, a common refrain that has been heard - especially from the political left - is that terrorists must be treated as criminals and terrorist attacks should be treated as prosecutable crimes. A perfect example can be found in the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh") who was successfully prosecuted and given a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

If the Benghazi attacks were prosecutable crimes, we suggest that a grand jury is long overdue.

In politics, that's equivalent to articles of impeachment.

Friday, June 28, 2013

Oversight Committee Concludes IRS' Lois Lerner Waived her Fifth Amendment Rights

Today, the House Oversight Committee passed a resolution affirming that when IRS Tax-Exempt official Lois Lerner made nine assertions of fact back on May 22nd, she necessarily waived her fifth amendment rights, which she subsequently attempted to invoke. Here is a copy of the resolution that was ultimately passed along party lines.

Via Oversight Committee:
On a vote of 22-17, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today approved a resolution determining that IRS official Lois Lerner waived her 5th amendment rights when at a May 22, 2013 hearing she offered testimony and answered questions.

“Today’s vote brings us closer to hearing Ms. Lerner’s important testimony about the targeting of conservatives,” said Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif. “The Committee remains focused on hearing Ms. Lerner’s full and truthful testimony.”
Now that we are a step closer to Lerner having to come back to testify in front of the Oversight Committee, perhaps she can be asked about her decision to sign off on the 501(c)(3) application of Barack Obama's half-brother, Malik. Not only did Lerner approve the application in record time but she also illegally back-dated it 38 months, which is a crime.

That's not all. Evidence suggests that in so doing, Lerner became an accessory to terror funding. 

Here is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) today, making the case for passage of the aforementioned resolution. As usual, Gowdy shows the adolescents how it's done:

Here is the excerpt from Lerner's testimony on May 22nd, during which Gowdy first called her out for "telling her side of the story" and then invoking her fifth amendment rights. If not for Gowdy's alertness on May 22nd, the resolution that was passed today may never have been drafted:

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Another IRS Official Pleads the Fifth

Earlier this month, IRS Official Lois Lerner invoked her fifth amendment right in front of the House Oversight Committee. Today, at another Oversight Committee hearing, the second IRS Official did so. His name is Gregory Roseman and he is the Deputy Director, Enterprise Networks and Tier Systems Support.

Roseman appears to have had a 'cozy' relationship with the president of a company called Strong Castle, which allegedly received preferential treatment from the IRS, via Roseman. Here is Chairman Darrell Issa's exchange with Roseman, during with the latter initially started to say he chose to 'waive' his fifth amendment right before his counsel caught him.

Via Oversight:

Now let's go to  Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who never fails to disappoint. In this video, he starts out by pressing Beth Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, about why Roseman was not fired after texting allegedly despicable 'homophobic slurs' in his official capacity with the IRS. Tucker had more than just a little trouble answering Gowdy's questions.

The congressman from South Carolina then turned his attention to Strong Castle President and CEO, Braulio Castillo.

Trey Gowdy is in the wrong job; he should be Attorney General.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

O'Reilly denies 'Colluding' with Gang of 8 Republicans on Immigration then behaves as if he did

The charge was first alleged earlier this week in an article by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker. In essence, Lizza claims that gang of 8 Republicans in the Immigration debate (he names Rubio and McCain specifically) have lobbied Fox News hosts to garner support for the Immigration Reform (Amnesty) bill.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the New Yorker piece:
McCain said that he, Graham, Rubio, and others also have talked privately to top hosts at Fox, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto, who are now relatively sympathetic to the Gang's proposed bill. Hannity voiced support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, which he previously dismissed as "amnesty," on the day after the 2012 election.
On his June 20th program, O'Reilly came out in his Talking Points Memo, right out of the gate, claiming that such a charge was ridiculous. He mocked the notion that he has 'colluded' with anyone, referring to his show as a 'no collusion zone' while also making reference to an off-air call he had with... wait for it... Marco Rubio. He then came out in full support of the Gang of 8's bill before going to a soft-shoe interview with another 'Gang of 8' Republican - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Click here to see the TPM / Flake interview.

When someone is busted doing something untoward or wrong, the response of an unrepentant suspect is almost universally similar; he or she smears either the accuser, the charge, or both as ludicrous. While this is not proof of wrongdoing, it is a trait of wrongdoers. People who are wrongfully charged, rightfully have similar reactions; this is what makes the response so effective.

Right after O'Reilly's powder puff interview with Flake, he had talk show host Laura Ingraham on to debate the issue further. O'Reilly had not one sound argument in response to Ingraham and came across as incoherent before ending the interview by telling Ingraham he disagrees with her "100 percent".

Interestingly, one of the biggest talking points to come out of the Gang of 8 and by extension - the Republican Party establishment - has been that immigration reform must be passed or the Party will destroy itself with Hispanics. You know who else has been making this argument?

Far left Democrats like Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is also in the Gang of 8:

In an article by Michael D. Shear at the New York Times, he reports that the Obama administration itself is the driving force behind the Gang of 8. Again, the same fatally flawed argument was put forth:
Passage of immigration legislation is critical to Mr. Obama’s legacy but could also help Republicans repair their image with Hispanics — a rare confluence of political interests that has stoked optimism among supporters that it will pass the Senate in the next several weeks.
So, a primary reason why the Republicans need to pass the bill is to prevent the destruction of its own Party and this is the same argument put forth by the opposing Party?!

To recap, in response to reports that O'Reilly talked privately with Republican Gang of 8 members who allegedly lobbied him hard / colluded with him to support the immigration bill, the Fox News host does the following:
  1. Admits to having at least one private phone conversation with Marco Rubio but attempts to dismiss it.
  2. Follows that up by giving another Republican Gang of 8 member a platform on which both men publicly align with each other on the Gang of 8 bill.
  3. Interviews Laura Ingraham shortly thereafter and defends another Republican Gang of 8 member - John McCain - without offering one coherent response to Ingraham's problems with the bill.
O'Reilly appears to be looking out more for the Gang of 8 than for the folks.

There is definitely more to this.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Videos: Bald-Headed John McCain outs himself as Bald-Faced LIAR

Today, lying Senator John McCain played the race card in defense of granting amnesty to illegal aliens currently in the U.S. (h/t GWP):

In 2008, he said 'Build the dang fence' when trying to get elected:

NSA Whistleblower comes forward; presents more evidence of Petraeus Effect

Last week, I began a post with the following:
In the film, "The DeadZone" an aspiring, yet wicked politician named Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) is running for a seat in the US Senate when he learns of an editorial that is going to appear in the local paper and will do great damage to his chances of winning. Stillson's goons enlist the help of a harlot to seduce the married writer, which she does successfully when photographs are taken of their encounter and shown to the editorial's author. After Stillson tells the writer to "stay out of the campaign business" in return for him staying "out of the publishing business", the writer wrestles with his conscience and asks, "What if I don't make a deal, Stillson?" As Sheen's character prepares to leave the writer's office, he says, "Oh, you'll make a deal. Otherwise, I'll have Sonny here take your (expletive) head off." - The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 390
In that film, the writer chose to pull his editorial in the interest of self-preservation. Had he done the right thing - after doing the wrong thing - Stillson would not have been able to take his heinous plan for the world (nuclear war) all the way to the Oval Office. The writer chose to commit two wrongs to make things right - for himself. Any inkling he may have had to do what he knew should have been done was extinguished with a threat of bodily harm.

An NSA whistleblower named Russ Tice has come forward with explosive charges that the NSA has been targeting top officials in the U.S. Government and Military with warrantless wiretapping. While talking with Peter B. Collins, Tice spoke adamantly about how he held the paperwork that ordered such tapping of then Senator Barack Obama in 2004 and "One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court..."

Perhaps one of the most compelling moments in the exchange between Tice and Collins at the 2:20 mark:

Collins: This creates the basis, and the potential for massive blackmail.

Tice: Absolutely!

Here is the audio of Tice revealing what he knows to Collins, via WashingtonsBlog:

Conspiracy theories about blackmail get much closer to becoming conspiracy realities when you have corroborating evidence that demonstrates blackmail being done in the past. In this case, we don't just have a whistleblower. We also have the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was forced to resign over an extra-marital affair that the Department of Justice had known about for months prior to the election, and General John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who was implicated in the scandal as well but was neither disgraced or forced out. Both men had previously made public statements decrying desecration of the Qur'an.

Indications are that Petraeus was punished for not playing ball on the Benghazi talking points. We now know that he said the following about the revised talking points in an email one day before Susan Rice lied to Americans five times on the Sunday shows:
"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this."
On his birthday - November 7th -  one day after the 2012 election, Petraeus was summoned to the White House by his boss - James Clapper - and forced to resign. Two days later - on Friday, November 9th, he publicly did so and the reason for that resignation was made public; it was his extra-marital affair.

It's easy to forget how blatantly obvious the blackmail was in the case of Petraeus. Here is Charles Krauthammer on 9/13/12. The only thing Krauthammer may have gotten wrong here is the part about Petraeus' September 13th testimony. In hindsight, it's more likely that the aforementioned email from Petraeus in which he wanted out of the talking points sandbox, served as the impetus for the affair being revealed:

Such rock solid evidence that the CIA Director was blackmailed by the Obama administration cannot and should not be dismissed. It is stronger than anecdotal evidence. It is proof of criminal behavior that is being reported by a whistleblower.

Immigration Reform
Many - including Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol and others - are not just comparing the 'Gang of 8' Immigration bill to Obamacare but some are comparing the actual sausage-making as being similar. Remember Obamacare? Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) accepted the 'Cornhusker kickback' for his vote; Mary Landrieu took the 'Louisiana Purchase'; and Rep. Bart Stupak - the final hurdle - accepted a worthless Executive Order in exchange for selling out on abortion.

Were those congressmen blackmailed? Hard to say and there's no direct evidence. Besides, they're Democrats and Democrats always unite in the end. In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats had the votes to overcome a filibuster - until Ted Kennedy died. They got around the subsequent lack of a filibuster-proof majority by using reconciliation and had a Democratic majority in the House; the administration didn't need to target Republicans; the arm-twisting was all internecine.

In 2013, Obama wants Immigration Reform just as badly - if not more so. The problem for him is that Republicans hold the House and the filibuster-proof majority is long gone in the Senate (only 54 Senators caucus with the Democrats). What the administration did to the aforementioned Democrats during the 2010 Obamacare votes must somehow be done to Republicans in the 2013 Immigration debate.

Arm-twisting to get behind the Party of the President is anathema to the opposition Party. For Obama to get done with immigration now, what he got done with Obamacare then, would almost necessarily require blackmail.

When you couple what happened to Petraeus with what NSA whistleblower Tice is alleging, can you think of a better explanation for why Republicans are so aggressively pushing a suicidal agenda for their own Party?

Can you think of a better explanation for why they're doing it for a scandal-ridden administration?

Shouldn't Republicans in both the House and the Senate be focusing on something like, gee, I don't know... The IRS Scandal, perhaps?

The IRS was attempting to do what immigration reform will do - create one-Party rule in America.

Why on earth would leaders of the opposing Party go along with that?

Petraeus Effect?

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Fast and Furious: Of Ignoring Subpoenas and Ignoring the need for them

In the wake of the IRS scandal, the AP Reporter scandal, and the James Rosen scandal, we now have a new one, involving CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was practically the only mainstream media reporter to doggedly pursue the gun-walking operation known as Fast and Furious. In addition to CBS confirming that Attkisson's computers have been breached, she says that it started during the time she was investigating Fast and Furious.

Here is an excerpt from an exchange with Bill O'Reilly:
O’REILLY: Which was what? What big stories were you working on?

ATTKISSON: Well, at the time I was doing Fast and Furious of course, some green energy debacle sort of stimulus spending stories, and then later on the Benghazi story.
Here is the exchange between O'Reilly and Attkisson, via NewsBusters:

In June of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not turning over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious demanded by a Congressional subpoena. As the contempt votes were taking place, President Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent them from being turned over.

In that case, the Obama administration thumbed its nose at the notion of honoring a subpoena.

Even after being held in contempt, the arrogance of Holder was on full display during a statement he made to the press:

If it comes to light that the Obama administration had anything to do with the breach of Attkisson's computer, we can logically conclude that it was done so without a warrant or subpoena.

Conversely, Barack Obama himself asserted Executive Privilege to prevent Eric Holder from having to honor one. As for suspicions that Obama and Company were involved in breaching Attkisson's computers, they certainly would have had a motive. Otherwise, why go to such great lengths to ignore a Congressional subpoena?

There's a fine line between ignoring a subpoena and ignoring the need for one. That line is made even finer when subpoenas and the absence of subpoenas both appear to involve Fast and Furious.

NSA Leaker reveals himself as an angry Leftist mad at Obama for not closing Gitmo

First of all, regardless of your feelings about the actions of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, he's not very bright; he believed Obama's campaign promises in 2008. Anyone who couldn't see that Obama was wrong for America even back then, with all of the associations he had (Frank Marshall Davis, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Valerie Jarrett, George Soros, etc.), was simply denying reality and wasn't being truthful with himself.

Snowden seems to be someone looking for quite a bit of attention. He revealed his identity when most would prefer to remain anonymous and now he's conducting Q and A sessions via chat rooms to further explain his motives.

That's where we learn that Snowden appears to be an angry, disenfranchised leftist, embittered by Obama's empty promises.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden on Monday criticized President Barack Obama for empty promises in a wide-ranging online interview, saying that the president’s alleged failings influenced his decision to release the secret information on government surveillance.

“Obama’s campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge,” Snowden said in a response to a question from a commenter on The Guardian’s website.
Ever since this NSA leak was made public, I've seen two very separate - and perhaps equally significant - issues. One is - based on all of the other Obama scandals (particularly IRS-gate, AP Reporter-gate, James Rosen-gate, and now Sharyl Atkisson-gate) - the issue of what the federal government is doing relative to information / data on law-abiding citizens. The credibility gap in this regard is cavernous with this administration; White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is reduced to lying his face off at practically every daily briefing.

The other issue has to do with the legality of Snowden's behavior. Many have seen fit to conflate the other Obama scandals with what Snowden has revealed and deemed him a patriot. I must admit, I'm coming around to Cliff Kincaid's position relative to Snowden's behavior being treasonous, not patriotic. That Snowden has such a bleeding heart for Islamic jihadists in Cuba says quite a bit.

Kincaid looks at both Snowden and the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, the writer who published Snowden's leaks. Greenwald is a far leftist who, like Snowden, doesn't have a clue about the Islamic threat to America.

Via USA Survival:
The fingerprints of America’s enemies and adversaries are all over the disclosures about the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program. It is significant that NSA contract employee Edward Snowden would flee to Hong Kong—controlled by China—and that he would select Glenn Greenwald, a far-left columnist, as his mouthpiece.

Greenwald, an open homosexual now living with his “husband” in Brazil, came to our attention in 2009 when he proudly received an award named after I.F. Stone, a leftist journalist exposed as a Soviet agent.

After first giving Greenwald and his then-secret source tons of favorable publicity and softball coverage, the media seem to be having second thoughts, with CNN asking about Snowden, “Is this guy a hero or a traitor?” Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told the channel that Snowden is “a defector” from the U.S.

Former CIA officer Robert Baer told CNN that Edward Snowden may be a Chinese agent under the control of the Chinese regime. Referring to the fact that Snowden has fled to Hong Kong, Baer said the region is “controlled by Chinese intelligence” and that “I’ve talked to a bunch of people in Washington today in official positions and they are looking at this as a potential Chinese espionage case.”

Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian columnist who used Snowden as his source, is no fan of the United States. He specializes in articles protesting tough treatment of terrorists bent on destroying the U.S. and Israel. In an exchange with Bill Maher, a fellow left-winger, Greenwald even disputed the view that Islam is uniquely violent and threatening.
One thing is clear; Snowden broke the law. There are ways for "whistleblowers" to be protected if they follow the proper channels. Snowden did not do this; that is a fact. Indications are that the NSA leaker did what he did out of anger from Obama's left-wing, not out of patriotism.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's program...

Last year, Rep. Michele Bachmann helped put Huma Abedin in the news. This year, Senator Charles Grassley seems to be doing it.

Also, why are Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Reps. John Carter (R-TX), Paul Ryan (R-WI), John Boehner, et. al. pushing the immigration agenda of a scandal-ridden presidency?? Shouldn't they be uniting to demand answers to these scandals?

It's time to start demanding answers.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Video: Rep. Jim Jordan Eviscerates FBI Director over lack of knowledge on IRS Scandal

The IRS Scandal broke one month ago. The FBI allegedly launched an investigation immediately. Yet, today, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Director Robert Mueller knew nothing about the investigation; he couldn't even name the lead case agent.


Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The NSA Scandal and The Petraeus Effect

In the film, "The DeadZone" an aspiring, yet wicked politician named Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) is running for a seat in the US Senate when he learns of an editorial that is going to appear in the local paper and will do great damage to his chances of winning. Stillson's goons enlist the help of a harlot to seduce the married writer, which she does successfully when photographs are taken of their encounter and shown to the editorial's author. After Stillson tells the writer to "stay out of the campaign business" in return for him staying "out of the publishing business", the writer wrestles with his conscience and asks, "What if I don't make a deal, Stillson?" As Sheen's character prepares to leave the writer's office, he says, "Oh, you'll make a deal. Otherwise, I'll have Sonny here take you (expletive) head off." - The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 390
That the Obama administration had the goods on CIA Director David Petraeus and used what it knew to destroy him when he didn't play ball is as close to a self-evident truth as you can get. Perhaps that wasn't just about meting out punishment to a disloyal subordinate. It may have also served as a shot across the bow to others who desperately want to keep their skeletons locked up, regardless of what they are.

As the details about the NSA surveillance program started coming out, Attorney General Eric Holder was asked by Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) if Holder could assure that "no phones inside the Capitol were monitored, of members of Congress".

Holder would not answer the question. As a result, every member of Congress who had Petraeus-like secrets began taking inventory of what the administration might know. This is a perfectly logical conclusion, not simple speculation:

Do you think the majority of Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have secrets they want kept secret? Do you think that Holder's answer indicated that the administration has information about those secrets? Do you think Congressmen and Senators were able to infer that possibility, based on Holder's answer, Petraeus' treatment, and the scope of the NSA surveillance program?

You betcha.

Consider Barack Obama's operation manual - Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. It is a book he long ago grokked. There are two rules that would seem to apply here:
Rule #4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule #8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
To illustrate usage of Rule #4, we have the virtually empirical evidence that Petraeus was destroyed ("killed") by being made to live by his own book of rules. A four-star General / CIA Director having extra-marital affairs is something he would likely do anything to prevent from coming out. In the case of Petraeus, it appears he either wasn't willing to stretch the lie about Benghazi any further, consequences be damned OR he called the administration's bluff and guessed wrong. This reality is not lost on members of Congress, especially in light of Holder's response to Kirk.

As for Rule #8, if Edward Snowden intended to harm the administration, he may have strengthened it. First, if there was a scandal that was really beginning to do damage, it was the IRS scandal. Attention has been re-directed to the NSA surveillance programs. It may just be that these revelations are not only not harming Obama but giving him the leverage to covertly coerce a majority of individuals in the branch of government that is supposed to keep him in check.

How else can we explain that while the administration is seemingly drowning in a sea of scandals, Obama's immigration agenda is sailing through Congress? Why would Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) totally and completely abandon the constituency without which he never would have gotten elected? Why would Rubio stand with the likes of Schumer, Durbin, and Menenedez... on anything, let alone on such a divisive wedge issue? As I've said before, photo-ops are forever:

Now it's learned that after the NSA surveillance program was leaked, Rubio twists the knife in the backs of conservatives just days later by going on Univision and telling the audience - in Spanish - that legalization comes first, then border security. This is anathema to the radio ads featuring Rubio's voice that have been played during Rush Limbaugh's commercial breaks. Saying one thing in English and another in Arabic Spanish is what Al-Jazeera does; it shouldn't be what a conservative U.S. Senator should do.

What is utterly amazing is that scandal-ridden administrations are supposed to see their agendas dry up, not sped up.

Consider the 'gang of 8' on the House side. A normally conservative congressman - Rep. John Carter (R-TX) decided it was good optics to tour the country with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), a congressman so liberal that he made the list of 70 who are actually registered with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus. We had his spokesman on the radio show and the rationale goes that if you get the far left (Gutierrez) and the far right (Carter) to work together, you'll find a happy medium. That's insane. It's like arguing that putting dirt in your water will make it taste better.

Again, though, why is a scandal-ridden administration seeing "conservatives" pushing its agenda?

While we're on the subject of the House of Representatives, how about its Speaker? Within just a few short days of the NSA surveillance scandal being brought to light, John Boehner has announced that he expects to have a House Bill on immigration.

From POLITICO, via Hot Air (check the comments to see how conservatives feel about Boehner's position):
After months of coy talk from Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), any sign of planning for legislation is a positive development for reform proponents.
Why would the "coy talk" all of a sudden stop as soon as Holder indicates he may have the goods on any member of Congress who hasn't been able to "live up to his own book of rules"? Again, why is a scandal-ridden administration seeing a Congress continue to push the administration's agenda?

Check out the Senate vote for cloture. At 82-15, it wasn't even close. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) voted to end debate, waving the need for a 60-vote majority before voting on the bill.

Despite the outrage of Tea Party conservatives who have been targeted by the IRS, a majority of Senate Republicans have decided to operate on a now demonstrably false premise which says that Obama was fairly re-elected and that consequently, his agenda should be followed. At the heart of the IRS scandal is strong evidence that voters were disenfranchised. Yet, despite this burgeoning reality, these Republicans are choosing to spend their time and energy doing what their constituents desperately don't want them to do - push forward comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) at a time when we have every reason to believe that the IRS suppressed these votes.

Why are Republican Senators and Congressmen doing these things?

Here is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) heaping praise on McConnell and Boehner for helping him with immigration reform, via RCP:

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

New developments in the IRS Scandal. Lois Lerner's name is not the only name of an IRS employee on the document that awarded the Barack H. Obama Foundation tax-exempt status. Who's the other name?

Also, is it true that President Obama's brother works for an organization that was founded by an individual who was closely connected to the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing as well as to Osama bin Laden?

The short answer is, yes.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's Program...

The American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord and National Review's Mark Steyn has found our work on Malik Obama and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir. The best part? Steyn is guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh the next two days!

Plus, how does the Malik Obama scandal involve George Clooney????

Listen and find out!

Paging George Clooney... Brother of President you love is in bed with the Sudanese Government you hate

If there is one cause Hollywood actor George Clooney supports, it's ending the genocide in Sudan and putting a stop to President Omar al-Bashir. If there's one president Clooney supports, it's Barack Obama. In May of 2012, Clooney held a Hollywood fundraiser for the Obama campaign and raised $15 Million.

Approximately two months before that fundraiser, on March 16th, Clooney was arrested while protesting outside the Sudanese embassy. Prior to his arrest, he gave this short speech. Note what he says about the government of Sudan (Omar al-Bashir):

Here's where Mr. Clooney should be having a bout of cognitive dissonance. President Obama's half-brother Malik Obama is the Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da'wa Organization (IDO), which is an extension of the Sudanese government. Essentially, Malik works for the Sudanese government, led by Omar al-Bashir, to spread Wahhabist Islam in Africa. This is the same Sudanese government that Clooney has been very outspoken against.

Malik and Barack are very close, and have been for years. Malik was the best man at Barack's wedding in 1992:


Malik has also made several visits to the White House:


In a news report entitled, George Clooney's Sudan focus should be ours too, posted by CNN which covered Clooney's protest / arrest at the time, the Hollywood actor called for:
"get(ing) aid to them (Sudanese people)"
...and for...
"...the government in Khartoum to stop randomly killing its own innocent men, women and children. Stop raping them and stop starving them."
Here is the corresponding video:

Clooney isn't the only leftist who stood against Bashir and the government of Sudan that day.

Again, via CNN:
Those arrested included United to End Genocide President Tom Andrews; Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern, Al Green, Jim Moran and John Olver; Martin Luther King III; and NAACP President Ben Jealous.
Jealous directed a message to the Sudanese president: "This is what beginning of the end looks like."

"We are protesting to make sure the Sudanese government knows that the world is watching," McGovern said. "The United States Congress is watching. And we will be back again and again until they stop using food as a weapon; stop slaughtering innocent men, women and children; and stop spitting in the face of the world community."

This pits far-left wing congressmen, the head of the NAACP, and the son of Martin Luther King, Jr. squarely against Malik Obama, who is collaborating with a man who is both the head of a U.S. State Department-designated State Sponsor of Terror and wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity.

The Clooney clan understood this, via CNN:
The group stood calmly as they waited for the police to apply plastic handcuffs as the crowd of protesters chanted "al-Bashir to the ICC," referring to the International Criminal Court, where Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has been indicted.
Of al-Bashir and the Sudanese government, Clooney testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said the following, again, via CNN:
"They are proving themselves to be the greatest war criminals of this century by far."
A little more than a week earlier, a group known as Invisible Children released a video entitled Kony 2012 that went insanely viral, thanks to the Hollywood Celebrities' social network. The Invisible Children producer - Jason Russell - who narrated the video, can be heard saying that, Kony "is supported by no one".

This is a demonstrably false statement. Considering that the Obama administration expressed public support for this video as well as support for the effort to have Kony arrested by the ICC, it is curious that Russell would make this claim in a video endorsed en-masse by the Obama-adoring, Hollywood celebrity culture.

Kony is supported by Omar al-Bashir.

A day prior to Clooney's arrest on March 16, 2012, he met with President Obama to discuss Sudan on March 15th. Clooney seemed interested in capitalizing on the success of Kony 2012 to call more attention to Sudan. Based on Clooney's understanding of Bashir's atrocities, this likely had to be managed very carefully by the Obama administration. The administration had already demonstrated little interest in focusing on more than Kony, who is also wanted by the ICC but is a smaller cog in the al-Bashir genocidal machine.

Malik's involvement with al-Bashir is not something the administration would want out. Clooney's involvement in the matter raised the possibility of that reality. Soon after Clooney's arrest, Kony 2012 seemed to die down, as did concerns over Sudan.

Incidentally, on the same day that Clooney visited with Obama on March 15th, Russell had a meltdown and ran naked in the streets of San Diego in broad daylight. This is apparently what can happen when you crash after a meteoric rise:

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Chilling: Does IRS Scandal give new meaning to these two videos?

We now have empirical evidence that Christian, Jewish, and Conservative groups were targeted (profiled) by the Barack Obama administration's IRS. We also know that the IRS is a civilian law enforcement agency. The head of that agency - Douglas Shulman - visited the Obama White House 157 times during the Obama administration, 118 times after the IRS began profiling conservative groups.

As guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show this week, Douglas Urbanski informed listeners that his IRS sources have confided in him that they expect the agency to begin targeting individuals.

In light of these realities, take a look at these two videos again. Barack Obama in July of 2008:

Weather Underground infiltrator Larry Grathwohl in 1982. Listen to him explain the goals of Bill Ayers, friend of President Obama:

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive