Benghazi Update

Some things are inexorable. I hope that the truth of what happened in Benghazi is one of those things. That little by little—or preferably all at once after so much little by little—the truth will be full, and open, and clear.

A couple of additional details came out recently—to almost no fanfare, even though they are damning to both the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who should be therefore disqualified from running for president.

A couple of weeks ago, Judicial Watch received about 100 pages of previously classified documents. These result from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed a year earlier, May 2014, and forced by a US District Court order September 9, 2014[i], requesting all communications between the Department of Defense and the State Department and congressional leaders, “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.”

The documents[ii] show several things:

·        The administration knew almost immediately that it was a terrorist attack (and never thought it was related to an anti-Islam video).

·        The administration was aware of (if not involved in) arms being transported from the port of Benghazi to Syria, and was in a position to stop the transfers but didn’t. (Information on who was involved is redacted in the documents.)

·        The administration was aware of the rise of ISIS and the establishment of a caliphate a full year and a half before Obama described them as not a threat (the “JV team”).

·        The administration has been actively covering up what happened in Benghazi.

I didn’t hear about this on any regular news. It was reported on Fox News May 18, 2015, in a report by Martha MacCallum, talking with chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge. I was apprised of it two days later on Glenn Beck radio, and then I sought it out.

Just for the record, I’ve included most of the transcript below:

Martha: Documents are now revealing that US intelligence agencies were fully aware that weapons were moving from the terrorist stronghold in Libya to Syria before the attack that killed the four Americans that you see at the center of our screen. The paper trail also contradicts President Obama’s assertion that the rise of ISIS came as somewhat of a surprise to the administration….Catherine, what are we learning here about this?

Catherine: Martha, newly released documents show a serious disconnect between what the administration said and what the Defense Intelligence Agency, also known as the DIA. This September 16, 2012, memo copied to the National Security Council, the State Department, CIA, and others, concluded the Benghazi terrorist attack was planned at least ten or more days in advance. The DIA memo also reports the attack was also tied to 9/11 and was retaliation for a June 2012 drone strike that killed an al-Qaeda strategist. There is no discussion of a demonstration or an anti-Islam video. Quote:

“The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the [US] killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”

Judicial Watch obtained these new records by suing in federal court….

And another DIA memo from 2012 predicts the rise of ISIS and the establishment of a caliphate 17 months before the president called the terror group the JV team….

Martha: There’s been a lot of discussion about what our operatives were doing there at the time when this attack happened, and that there was discussion about moving weapons out of that very volatile area in Libya. What do we learn about that in here, Catherine?

Catherine: Well, Martha, another DIA memo dated October 5th, 2012, leaves no doubt that US intelligence agencies were clearly aware that lethal weapons were being shipped to Syria via the port of Benghazi. In a recent interview with Brett Baer, the former acting CIA Director skirted the topic.

[video: Bret Baier asks acting CIA director about the movement of weapons; the director claims we did not play a role, but cannot speak about what we watched others do.]

Catherine: The DIA memo also reported that military stockpiles were moving from Benghazi to the Syrian ports of Banias and Borj IsLam. And the shipments included rifles, RPGs, and missiles.

This DIA document may also be problematic for Mrs. Clinton, who also skirted the weapons issue during her only Congressional testimony on Benghazi of January 2013. 

We knew clearly by October 2012 that blaming a video was a lie inserted by the administration. It didn’t come from intelligence. It wasn’t a matter of not knowing what had happened; it was a matter of someone purposely adding that stray claim for purposes that the media has not been curious about.

But this past week, in the ongoing effort to disclose emails that have been withheld—and made more difficult to obtain because of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for State Department emails—we learned the source of the video story: Sidney Blumenthal, long-time Clinton confidante. Clinton received the suggestion from Blumenthal by email and passed it along to Jake Sullivan, her foreign policy advisor, without indicating where it had originated. Blumenthal had sent at least a couple of dozen emails on Libya, including several specifically on Benghazi, which Clinton passed along without sourcing.

We know she knew it was a planned terrorist attack. And she also knew that Blumenthal wasn’t privy to better intelligence than she had. So she had some reason other than sharing truth for passing along his email.

This revelation was reported by the New York Times. There is a September 12, 2012, memo describing events in Benghazi as stemming from the internet video. The following day there is an additional memo from Blumenthal adding more accuracy. According to the Times article, by Michael Schmidt,

The next day, Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton a more thorough account of what had occurred. Citing “sensitive sources” in Libya, the memo provided extensive detail about the episode, saying that the siege had been set off by members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan terrorist group. Those militants had ties to Al Qaeda, had planned the attacks for a month and had used a nearby protest as cover for the siege, the memo said. “We should get this around asap” Mrs. Clinton said in an email to Mr. Sullivan.

Except that there wasn’t a nearby protest. So this is nothing more than pasting partial truth over the overt lie for some as-yet unknown purpose. The purpose of the lie may be simply trying to support the Obama claim that the war on terrorism had been won, which was a line meant to make him re-electable.

But the whole thing stinks.

Glenn Beck, connecting the dots on Benghazi
October 24, 2012
Image from TheBlaze.com

Back in October 2012 Glenn Beck had brought together a number of strategists to try to figure out the most likely scenario to explain why the ambassador was in the more dangerous Benghazi area, instead of at the embassy in Tripoli, why the administration repeatedly put out the lie about the videotape when they knew (and by then we all knew) it was a terrorist attack, why the president was uninformed of the continued situation throughout the night, why the investigation team didn’t show up until a couple of weeks later after evidence had disappeared. Why was the administration willing to appear inept and out of touch, rather than specify what was really going on? It had to be really bad.

Beck linked that episode on Facebook the other day, to give people a reminder. To reconnect the dots. It’s worth reviewing. He thought, 2 ½ years ago, the most likely answer was that the administration was illegally gun running—arming Syrians by way of Libya. That’s why they had to “disavow any knowledge of the actions” of the ambassador and CIA agents there, and to make sure the place was ransacked of all evidence before the investigation could begin.

We know now that gun running was taking place; we don’t know who did it. But we have so little trust in this lying administration that we can almost take it for granted they would do such a thing. There were no good actors in Syria, but the mass of weapons went to ISIS. If it can be proven—and without exaggeration—arming the enemies of the US is treason.

I’m no expert on Benghazi; I’m just a regular citizen. But I’ve tried to remember and record, so that history can’t be rewritten. Here are a few previous posts:

·         Blog post 9-12-2012  Another Bad 9/11

·         Blog post 10-19-2012  Benghazi Boondoggle

·         Blog post 5-13-2013  Lies and Videotape

·         Blog post 5-15-2013  You Might Be Living Under Tyranny If…

---

[i] http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JW-v-Defense-State-00812-court-order.pdf

[ii] DOD documents: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-dod-release-2015-04-10/, and Department of State documents: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-state-release-2015-04-10-2/

 

We Still Remember

It’s always good to wake up on a 9/11 anniversary and find the world continues. That is a blessing. Two years ago it was a blessing we didn’t get; that was the Benghazi attack, along with the administration’s lying about it not being perpetrated by Muslim extremists, for reasons still not clear.

There is plenty of unrest today, in the Middle East and elsewhere. But, so far today, no attack on America has hit the news.

So I’ll take the day to share some images of remembrance.

My favorite continues to be “Out of the Ashes,” painted by Ken Turner.



"Out of the Ashes" by Ken Turner

And next to that is the photo of responders posting a flag among the rubble.

photo by 2001 The Record/Getty Images

Today I’m adding a few favorites I found posted on Facebook. My apologies if I can’t find original sources; my intent is simply to pass along the honor intended by those who posted.

from my friend Janet's Instagram, posted on Facebook

posted by Gov. Rick Perry on Facebook

posted by Sen. Ted Cruz on Facebook

posted by Bryan Preston of PJ Media on Facebook
with the comment "still angry"

logo for the day for Not on This Watch Facebook page

another image from Not on This Watch on Facebook
 

from my friend LaDonna's Facebook
I love the simplicity of this one

One young friend posted this less familiar verse of our national anthem, which is worth repeating:  

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

 Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!

 Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land

 Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

 Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

 And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

 And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

 O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
 

 

I flew the flag today. This is not a holiday, but it has become a holy day—because we make it so. It is a day we remember who we are as Americans, as civilized people, standing up against tyranny and savagery. Giving up, giving in—is not an option. We will not rest from fighting that war until the Savior returns to reign personally upon the earth.

Lying Liars That Lie

Some additional information came out this week about Benghazi. What we thought we knew, there is now evidence to show, with some more who and why questions still unanswered.

The new piece of information was a memo, received through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch. The memo shows talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice for five days after the Benghazi attack. And we now know the White House was the source for the suggestion that she emphasize that the attack was in response to a specific anti-Muslim video.

This is from the memo (emphasis mine):

Goals:

To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad.

To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader policy failure.

To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice and standing steadfast through these protests.

To reinforce the Presidents and Administration’s strength and steadfastness in dealing with difficult challenges.

We’ve talked about that piece of information, about the video, since right after the event—how puzzling it was, because everyone knew it wasn’t true. It was clearly known in real time, during the attack, that it was a terrorist attack, probably from Al-Qaeda-related sources. Military and Intelligence sources knew it was a terrorist attack, and said so. Nothing in any of their correspondence brought up the possibility of this obscure video being involved at all.

There was no spontaneous uprising to begin with. That had to be made up. And somebody who thought it was necessary to make that up also saw the need for an impetus for such a fictional spontaneous uprising—which was the service this video served.

We know the White House mentioned the video the first time the day before the September 11 attack, when there was a demonstration in Egypt, which had been announced ahead of time, declared as an attempt to get the release of the Blind Sheik. Up to that point, this video had been viewed only 17 times; actors in the video hadn’t all bothered to see it. That video would still be obscure without the White House’s advertisement. Had anyone at that Egyptian protest seen the video? With so few views online up to that point, certainly not enough to cause an uprising.

An additional detail in the timeline to come out this week is that, sometime after a 10:00 PM phonecall between Secretary of State Clinton and the president, Clinton began mentioning the video as a cause—even though the State Department had, again, real time information to the contrary. We don’t know where Hillary was the rest of that night. And we don’t know where the president was the rest of that night—although we do now know for certain he was not in the situation room carefully following events as they unfolded.

The president mentioned the video in his first speech after the attack, the Rose Garden speech. Susan Rice mentioned it the following Sunday, September 16, in no less than five talk shows. Hillary Clinton referred to the video as the reason for the Benghazi protest uprising on September 13 and 14, 2012. Jay Carney made the claim in a press briefing September 14. Some two weeks later, at a memorial service for the Marines who were killed in Benghazi, separately the president, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice “consoled” the parents by saying they were sorry about that video that caused all the trouble, and they were seeing to it that the perpetrator was put to justice.

One might think that, during the 24 hours surrounding the attack, there might be some wild speculation about other possible causes. But by 48 hours after, it stretches credulity to believe anyone involved had any reason to believe the attack was other than the terrorist attack that it was. To repeat the video lie can only be purposeful. But to what purpose?

We know placement of the idea of the video as cause was a lie invented by someone. We now know, as a result of the memo, the source of that someone was a White House source. We don’t know yet the individual—but we do know that one of the White House employees involved in the constructing of the talking points for Susan Rice was Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser. He also happens to be the brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS News, which news source has been notably silent on this rather large piece of news. Coincidence?

Anyway, we don’t know whether Ben Rhodes was the original source of the video lie, but we do know that he knew it was purposely emphasized in the talking points to Susan Rice, and that emphasis came from nowhere but the White House.

Additional questions continue to swirl around the reasons for 1) failure to respond ahead to requests for additional security, 2) failure during the attack to provide rescue, and 3) failure afterward to state clearly what was known—that it was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda-related sources.

Jay Carney is an interesting piece of work. It’s hard to wrap my head around someone wishing to take on the job of being the official liar for the White House. Carney simply lies in the face of all evidence to the contrary—and he does it with condescension, just like the president would if he were doing it himself. There was an eight-minute exchange the other day, with Carney trying to claim that the reason the memo wasn’t released a year ago, with 140 other pages, was that it didn’t seem relevant, since it was about—not Benghazi—but about general unrest in the Middle East.

White House Press Spokesperson Jay Carney
image from here

Guy Benson of Townhall takes relish in dissecting the slimy lies Carney was forced to tell in his briefing, under questioning by ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. The memo, which came out of a FOIA request specifically for Benghazi related talking points, wasn’t handed over last year, according to Carney, because the memo wasn’t related to Benghazi. It was talking points for Susan Rice to use in response to questions she would be asked five days after the Benghazi attacks, and a portion of the memo was subheaded Benghazi, in bold type. Carney clearly has his job because lying is his preferred form of communication.

We still don’t know who, specifically, invented the video lie. As for the reasons for that lie and others, and the failures to respond, the best source this week was from The Blaze TV news program For the Record, 4-30-2014. It requires subscription, but you can use your free two-week trial to see it. I hope more details come out in the future, but there is evidence (as was speculated that first month in 2012) that it was about arming Al-Qaeda-related rebels, and Ambassador Stevens was used in those negotiations. There’s a name, now, for the operation: “Zero Footprint.”

One more question: what would our country, and the world, look like today if truth had been known prior to the November 2012 election?

We Remember



There are a number of images from 9/11 that I find moving. I wrote about one of my favorites, a painting called “Out of the Ashes,” for my 9-11-2011 post. Another is the one of the planting of the US flag.

image source

 

Because of last year’s 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya, we probably need to add some images from 9-11-2012. I like this one:

 

image source

This 9/11 the president purposely brought to our attention the threat of Islamic extremists by scheduling a vote on a Syria strike for this date, and as a prelude to that vote scheduling a speech to persuade the American people to go along with him.

The delay of a week, to consult Congress, was puzzling. I’m guessing (with not a lot of ability to read this sort of mind) that the president thought time would allow him to build up more public support for a strike—on account of the sheer force of his personality or something. But the more people looked at the situation, the more opposition there was to a strike. Certainty that Assad was behind the attack was shaken. More suspicion was raised about this administration’s surreptitious help of the rebels—which include the anti-freedom Muslim Brotherhood (whom this administration calls “moderate”) and al Qaeda, the very source of the 9/11/2001 attack on American soil.

There’s an odd form of brinksmanship going on lately. The president was going to attack swiftly, without going to Congress, as announced by his Secretary of State way back in the first days after the gas attack in Syria. But later that same day he contradicted Kerry by announcing that he was going to Congress. He didn’t ask for an immediate vote to respond to the recent action in Syria; he decided to let legislators finish their summer break of townhall meetings in their home districts, and come back on the historic and portentous 9/11 date. (Technically, he could only suggest the date; it was up to Harry Reid and John Boehner to schedule the votes.) And then, in the speech, he ended up requesting that Congress not vote to strike.

Before we get to the talk, I thought it might be helpful, on this day of remembering, to go through some of what we still recall. Dots, not necessarily connected, but maybe: 

·        Saddam Hussein used biological weapons against the Kurds—citizens in his own country—in 1988, well before the Gulf War. At the time of the ceasefire of the war to free Kuwait from Iraqi invasion, Saddam admitted to having these weapons, as well as a list of other weapons he was required to destroy (including efforts to develop nuclear capabilities). The ceasefire was not an end to the war, but simply a temporary ceasing of attack on a dictator who was severely overpowered militarily, allowing the surrender of weapons. This was to be verified by UN inspectors. Saddam Hussein refused to produce the weapons or supply evidence of their destruction; nor did he allow inspections of specified facilities, and eventually he ousted the UN inspectors entirely. He suffered numerous UN sanctions, essentially saying, “Hey, you’re not supposed to do that.” But without the resumption of force, he simply thumbed his nose at the authorities.

·        After 9/11/2001, the immediate need was to retaliate against the Al-Qaeda-sponsoring Taliban in Afghanistan. Secondary was the looming, continuing threat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We still had a list, from the ceasefire of the Gulf War, of the weapons he admitted to having. And he’d had an additional decade to build up more weapons, without the scrutiny of inspectors. There were at those times photos online (and therefore I can’t be certain of their veracity) of satellite photos from earlier in the 2001 of an Al-Qaeda training location (Salman Pak, I believe) in Iraq that included a 707 fuselage. Along with intel from our own sources and a number of trusted allies, who have yet to deny the veracity of their intel, there was evidence that Iraq was intending and attempting to increase WMDs, both biological and materials for a nuclear program. It’s possible, and many believe, the existence of WMDs was a ruse by Hussein to boost his image of power. But was it safe to assume all the intel was wrong? Along with the history, was the evidence enough to qualify as a “grave and gathering threat”? [That was the phrase used in Collin Powell’s address to Congress, not “imminent threat,” which seems to have become part of the collective memory. Bush, in his 2003 SOTU address specifically said Iraq was not an imminent threat and must not be allowed to become one.] I believed so then, and I still do. Majorities of the public above 60%, and large majorities in Congress and the Senate also agreed, as well as some 40 other nations who joined with us in the world-protecting action.

·        In the months during which preparations were made for invading Iraq, there were reports of mobile biological weapons facilities (possibly in trailers, some of which were eventually found, empty) as well as missiles, being moved toward the Syrian border. When the known WMDs did not turn up after the invasion, that transport to Syria seems a much more believable explanation than that all of the world’s intelligence agencies and Saddam Hussein’s own inventory were wrong.

·        Following the 9/11/2012 attack on the Benghazi embassy, the president lied to the American people, blaming an obscure anti-Islam video—clinging to that line weeks after we all knew it was a terrorist attack. A year later, there is still very little truth forthcoming from the administration (which asks, “What difference does it make?”) We don’t know why requests for added security were not heeded. We don’t know why Ambassador Stevens was asked by SOS Hillary Clinton to meet with some mysterious actors, possibly related to the attackers, in the dangerous Benghazi area on the dangerous anniversary of 9/11. We don’t know why rescue efforts were ordered to stand down. Shortly after the event, and continuing since, are rumors that the deal was to facilitate under-the-table arming of Al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.

·        On the anniversary of the Benghazi attack, the president had wanted the Congress to red-light his attack on Syria’s regime, harming Assad and helping the Al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels.

If this were a novel, the clues would add up to the president betraying his own people, with some nefarious scheme—a scheme that, if all the details were to become known, would very likely be prosecutable as treason. That would make exciting reading. But in our real, beloved America, such a president still seems unthinkable.

I do not like suffering through this president’s speeches. The condescending tone and twisting of truth are like fingernails on a chalkboard. But I was curious about what he could say under these circumstances, so I gave in and both listened and read the transcript Tuesday evening.

That speech was, if nothing else, proof positive that “the great orator” is a misnomer, even with a teleprompter. But it does reveal some things we should know—whether they are what the president wanted us to learn or not.

So in the next post we’ll go over what he said, and possibly also what the words mean—because what he says and what he means are not necessarily equivalent.

You Might Be Living Under Tyranny If... Part II

In Wednesday’s post we covered three scandals in the news right now revealing the tyrants running our federal government. I hadn’t planned on a part II, but there is some follow-up information on these scandals, as well as a couple of additional issues exemplifying the tyrannist attitude.

Romeike Family Update

You might be living under tyranny if the administration makes arbitrary decisions about who can be allowed to enter the country, regardless of the law or natural rights.

We talked about the Romeike family from Germany (recently on March 22 and earlier in October 2011), here in the US legally since 2008, based on seeking asylum when their native Germany severely fined and threatened the parents with jail time and loss of custody of their children. In 2010 a US circuit judge granted their asylum, along with a strong statement about parents having a right to make decisions like education and religion for their own children. Out of the blue (no apparent request from Germany), the DOJ insists on overturning the ruling and kicking this law-abiding family out of the country. Why? To declare to the American people and the world that there is no inherent right to parent your own children; government reserves the “right” to impose its decisions on parents and their children.

This should be an easy win for the family, as it had been the first time. But this week the ruling came out against the Romeikes; they lose their right to be in the US, because the judicial system has decided the threat of losing their right to parent and maintain custody of their children is not sufficient to gain asylum. To paraphrase, "We can’t go willy-nilly granting asylum to people just because they could lose their family and their freedom from imprisonment; bad stuff happens all over. We don’t want to encourage people to come here for freedom, or we’d get some kind of unmanageable influx."

Meanwhile, if someone comes here illegally, because economic conditions are inferior where they come from (or not), even if they commit a crime, the DOJ feels so strongly that they should be allowed to stay that it sues states (Arizona, for example) for any effort to protect its own borders.

The road hasn’t ended quite yet for the Romeikes. There are still a couple of levels of appeal. And then, if all continues to go against them, I hope they will be allowed to find another less tyrannical country that will accept them, rather than be turned over to the oppression facing them in Germany. 

Sibelius Obamacare Overreach

You might be living under tyranny if the government tries to control your health care decisions. The IRS, already proven untrustworthy, is put in charge of health care financing. (Note: a single judge decided the government had the right to force Americans to buy health insurance if you called it a tax, even though the monstrous bill passed by the slimmest of margins, following various shenanigans, only because of the insistence it was not a tax.) If things weren’t bad enough, the IRS happened to seize some 60 million personal health records.

Further, you’ve got the head of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, pressuring health care industry providers, over which she has oversight, to do her bidding to recruit participation in Obamacare. This does not convince anyone of the intention to provide more and better health care at lower, fairer prices. Prices might actually be 100%-400% higher than predicted.  

Targeting for Political Reasons

You already know you’re living under tyranny when you’re a target for being a patriot. Targeting of organizations because of their pro-Constitution (and therefore presumably anti-regime) beliefs, is bigger than the IRS policy of tagging organizations applying for 501(c)4 status. Individuals have been targeted for IRS audit as well. And corporations have also been targeted—being forced to publicly announce any of their political or issue-related donations. The purpose here is the chilling of First Amendment freedom to express ideas.

I wanted to point out that 501(c)4 status implies that there will be political and issue advocacy purposes, including lobbying related to the organization’s mission. Donations to such an organization are not tax deductible. The advantage is only to the organization; it has a cultural, social, or educational benefit and purpose rather than making a profit, and therefore it does not have to pay taxes on money going through the organization. This is the kind of organization Obama spent his career years creating. So he knows what they can accomplish—and that is why he wants to ensure that those he considers ideological enemies are prevented from succeeding in their missions.

screen shot from Glenn Beck's 5-15-2013 show

Glenn Beck sought input to name the combination of scandals. His news people will start saying “Intimigate,” but for his purposes, he is changing the spelling to “IntimOgate,” with the O being the Obama logo. 

Implausible Deniability

You might be living under tyranny if your tyrant combines a claim of leadership skill with a claim of unawareness of the behaviors of rogue underlings. Why would the underlings so frequently behave in tyrannical ways, if the tyrant’s leadership didn’t create the spoken or unspoken understanding that oppression against the enemy is acceptable, even expected—as long as you don’t get caught?

Thursday the president held a brief and pointless press conference, repeating that he knew nothing about the IRS problem. Actually, what he specifically said was, “I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report.” He didn’t say he didn’t know about the policy or practice of targeting political enemies. He specifically denies knowing only the findings in the report. And his swift action to hold people accountable? Accept the resignation of the acting IRS Commissioner, who was stepping down in June anyway. Take that, IRS! That is what the wrath of an outraged president feels like, when he’s out to protect our freedoms.

Oh, and in case you didn’t know, that division that targeted Tea Party groups the last couple of years? Their leader was promoted to run the Obamacare office of the IRS—because Obama was so outraged. Yeah, that’s it.

He didn’t know what happened in Benghazi. And his Secretary of State was out of touch as well, both of them unaware it wasn’t a spontaneous response to an internet video, even though all the rest of us knew it was a terrorist attack.

His DOJ head didn’t know about the AP phone record overreach either. (And of course can’t be blamed for the collection of data related to phonecalls from the AP that just happened to connect to the legislative branch.) He knew it was in response to one of the most crucial leaks of classified information in our lifetimes, a clear danger to the American people, and therefore worth getting the legal permissions for the invasive move. But it wasn’t important enough to mention such a threat to the president, who remained unaware entirely until he heard about it on the news. Nor did Attorney General Eric Holder remember any details, because he recused himself from the case early on, for reasons that he couldn’t recall.

Did we mention that this administration, in five years, has prosecuted more whistleblowers (for leaking classified information that endangers the country?) than all of the previous presidencies combined? It’s an everyday event for the DOJ, but the AG wouldn’t know about that.

If any more scandals pop up in the coming days, be assured the president will hear about it on the news, just like the rest of us. Comedian/commentator Jon Stewart put together a collection of the president’s new favorite buck-stops-somewhere-else explanation about knowing nothing before the news reports. It’s a 5-minute clip; the part about the president getting his briefings by the news starts at about 2:40 in:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

This much scandal is upsetting. But it also could be a good thing. We’re hearing about the news. In such a flood that it’s hard to take in, but at least these things are being reported. And, because of the AP scandal, some news sources might actually begin to make assumptions other than, “those are just right-wing conspiracies,” and think, “maybe the president hasn’t been entirely truthful up till now.”

All along it has been my hope we could have clarity. Let truth prevail, and not deception. I still believe people who know the truth choose freedom and civilization, rather than tyranny and savagery.

You Might Be Living Under Tyranny If...

Comedian Jeff Foxworthy makes lists, mostly about being a redneck, but sometimes also about the culture and inside jokes about various locations. I thought we’d do a similar list (less funny) today, about living under tyranny. Because this has been quite a week for news.

We’ll take them individually.

Benghazi

You might be living under tyranny if your government scours the internet to find an American citizen to serve as scapegoat, to cover up its relationship with Islamist terrorists. We covered this in more detail Monday, specifically about that search for a scapegoat and the continued lying about it—with the hint that the purpose must be to cover up something much worse, which we don’t know about yet. I did link speculation by Glenn Beck from last October. Here’s a second, shorter clip (5th one down in this collection) from that same week in October 2012. In addition, Geraldo Rivera let slip that his sources currently corroborate what Beck has been saying (to the sound of crickets) for half a year.

I don’t know what Benghazi was really about. I do know that the tyrannists we are currently subject to went to great lengths to lie about what they were doing, about what happened, and why. They use obfuscation, repeated lies, and eventually claim, “That happened so long ago; what difference does it make now?”—a pattern we can count on. And there’s not much from these tyrants that one can count on. 

IRS Thuggery

You might be living under tyranny if the most powerful collection agency in the world creates an enemies list—and if you love your country, you’re on it.

I’ve been aware of the IRS enemies list for some time. I couldn’t locate the date in my notes, but it seems like within the last year that King Street Patriots let us know, at one of the Monday meetings, what was happening to them, which sounds very much like other stories this week. (King Street Patriots was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh’s Tuesday show; they’re definitely on this list of targets.) The amount of information required by the IRS was impossible to obtain, and ridiculously short-time-limited. They were getting the help of lawyers to help with the effort, in addition to the various other lawsuits they suffer pretty continually.

King Street and other groups were given impossible requirements, including having to provide copies of every email, text, tweet, or post given out or received, since inception of the organization; list of speakers, detailed subjects (including transcripts of what was spoken  in some cases, as if anyone hoping to become qualified for tax exempt status already has transcribing technology at the ready), and lists of participants, and in some cases the affiliations of family members of participants. It was horrendously intrusive, impossible to provide, and intended (I believe, as do many others) to intimidate and extinguish voices at odds with this administration.

What we know is that high level officials in the IRS, which is the collection arm of the executive branch (the Obama administration), sent the directive to flag for extra scrutiny any organization applying for tax exempt status if they had certain characteristics: the words tea party, patriot, or had as a purpose educating about the Constitution, or showing disagreement with the current government. Hmmm.

And that is not all. Oh, no, that is not all. Besides harassment based on patriotism and good citizenship, the IRS also provided the application materials—private documents—to enemy organizations.

The president is shocked, SHOCKED! After leadership in his executive branch has come out and apologized (claiming it was rogue underlings, which they’ve since had to walk back), so the actual deed is known and admitted to, the president says, if the allegations turn out to be true, that would be outrageous. But let’s be cautious and not assume they’re true just because the executive branch has already come out and said so (possibly to do damage control for what would be worse revelations if they waited?)

And Jim Carney, his spokesperson, also claimed the president was unaware and therefore guilt-free. But he was certain, if it turns out to be true, the president will be appropriately outraged. So the president, while cautiously not outraged yet, is preparing to be so if the need arises. And then appropriate action will be taken. Rest assured. (For some reason, I’m not resting well on that assurance.)

If you think targeting political enemies is unconscionable, if might not be comforting to learn your political enemies have a totally different moral take on it: Former NAACP chair, for example.

Media Control

You might be living under tyranny if the government has an unusual number of incestuous relationships with members of the media, but feels the need to place secret wiretaps on wide swaths of major media organizations, in case something is said they don’t like.

These relationships were pointed out as reasons the mediahas hesitated to cover Benghazi:

·         CNN president is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretary.

·         CBS president is the brother of Obama adviser on Benghazi.

·         ABC president is the brother of a top Obama adviser/speech writer.

·         Senior ABC correspondent Claire Shipman is married to WH Press Secretary Jay Carney. (She also happens to substitute anchor on Good Morning America and World News Tonight, and shows up on ABC News’ This Week with Christiane Amanpour, and previous worked as a White House correspondent for NBC News.)

But the administration didn’t think it had enough control, so it claimed, supposedly, that in order to find a leak of some possibly classified information (you know, like the New York Times used to print regularly to endanger our troops during the Bush administration), they needed all correspondence for two months of some 20 AP reporters and editors, not just anyone related to actually leaked material, and not just office phones, but private cell phones, emails, texts—you know, just in case.

Carl Bernstein, who helped take down Nixon, wasn’t moved by Benghazi, or the IRS scandal. But this! This is outrageous!

National Journal’s Ron Fournier, once the AP Washington bureau chief, finally sees the situation with clarity, not that it has hit home:

One common thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal, is were being misled every day. We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi, for months. We were lied to by the IRS for months. And now they’re sending a clear message to our sources: Don’t embarrass the administration, or we’re coming after you. 

The president’s response is, “Don’t ask me; that’s up to the Department of Justice” (which is particularly ill-named right now).  

The list isn’t complete. Scandals are coming fast and furious (yes, pun intended). The question is, now that we know we’re living under tyranny, is recognition the first step toward changing course? Will the tyrants be held accountable? We’ll see. 

I came across this list of 100 reasons the president could be impeached. I haven’t been through them all, but you might want to take a look for yourself anyway. Personally, I don’t see impeachment as a likely outcome.  

I’m thinking of The Princess Bride, near the end, where Westley decides to leave Prince Humperdinck intact but alone his cowardice (instead of wallowing in freakish misery as previously threatened). Self-disgust with no more power over the people—that would be a just end to the long list of injustices perpetrated against a Constitutionally free people.

Lies and Videotape

I was hopeful that the Benghazi hearings last Wednesday would yield so much enlightenment that the media would say, “Oh, now I see what you’ve been saying; this is really wrong.” I am overly optimistic that way. The media who filled the Pravda role all along checked for marching orders this time as well. And the new line seems to be, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Or, in plain English, “Sure, it shows some mistakes were made, maybe some incompetence, but there’s no real scandal here.”

I don’t know what could rise to the level of scandal in their parallel world. For me a few new details have brought up enough new questions for further investigation.

I want to back up first, to Egypt and the protest there.

On September 10, 2012, there was a report in Egyptian media that there would be a protest about the imprisonment of the Blind Sheik, who had perpetrated the first World Trade Center bombing. It was organized and planned, and unrelated to any obscure video.

Promptly following the planned protest in Cairo on September 11, the administration came out with an apology for a specific video that, between its online posting on July 2^nd and September 10^th (time to build up enough indignation to bring about a protest) had only received 17 views. [The link I used for this detail in October 2012 no longer exists.]

Even though the protest wasn’t related to this video, the administration was aware of it and ready with an apology, and a promise to prosecute the perpetrator (who sits in jail still, technically on unrelated “parole violation” charges). And then the administration used this video again as the explanation for the terrorist attack on the Benghazi embassy.

This isn’t an error. We now know that the description of events was scrubbed of any mention of terrorism or Al-Qaeda connection. Also deleted was any mention of prior requests for increased security over several months, even predating Ambassador Stevens’ replacing the previous ambassador to Libya, including specific requests in the couple of days leading up to the attack.

There was live real-time contact and surveillance informing the state department of what was happening in Benghazi. It was known immediately that it was a planned, heavily armed, terrorist attack. Never did anyone at the scene, or observing it, or aware of it, suppose it was a spontaneous protest that suddenly arose from people on the street for any reason.

Yet, out of thin air the administration decries this anti-Muslim video, with promises to prosecute the perpetrator, who, by inciting the protest, is culpable for the mayhem, including the deaths of four Americans.

During the attack, nearby military was ready to take off to mount a rescue. The battle continued for 6-8 hours; help arriving any time during that span could have saved lives, even though it is likely Ambassador Stevens was beyond rescue. Twice the rescuers were told to stand down. This order came from someone, but we haven’t been able to follow the line of authority to a decision-maker yet.

How did the administration become aware of this obscure video, when so few viewers had seen it online that apparently even most of the actors in it hadn’t bothered to view it? And why did the administration claim a protest planned and carried out for a previously known purpose was a spontaneous reaction to this video? And then why did they claim that a terrorist attack on our embassy was a spontaneous reaction to an unseen video?

Compared to the siege, the heroes who were killed, and so many details of the Benghazi story, the video seems a small peripheral detail. But if we understood the use of this video, we would understand this administration and its nefarious purposes.

Someone was assigned the task of finding an anti-Muslim video that could be used as a scapegoat at an opportune moment. At some point, well ahead of time, there must have been a planning session, an assignment made, and an employee (or more) set to the task of searching out such a thing to be used if/when the need should arise. (How many of the 17 views were administration minions carrying out their search?)

One would assume that situation room planners, holding the information that security needed beefing up in Libya, and was particularly dangerous in Benghazi, with specific information about a possible attack 2-3 days in advance, with the significant date of the anniversary of the 9/11 attack coming up, that someone would plan for various scenarios—including an attack on various embassy locations. I have no satisfactory explanation for why security was not beefed up, per repeated requests.

Since danger was known, one would assume that situation room planners would include protocol for reacting to an embassy attack, and on such a date have forces ready to react. But no such response protocols seem to have been in place; if they were, they were not followed.

Why is it acceptable with the administration to appear so incompetent that they hadn’t even considered the possibility that there would be an attack on or near 9/11 in a place that was requesting more security and giving warnings of a possible attack?  One could assume that the truth is worse than looking incompetent.

We don’t have a clear answer as to why the ambassador went into the extra dangerous Benghazi location on the vulnerable date. What was he attempting to accomplish that was worth such a risk? (Speculation here, from late October 2012 by Glenn Beck.)  I don’t know if we’ll get these questions answered, and more.

But the questions about the administration’s use of the videotape relate to just how deep into tyranny we already are. Spending war room planning time coming up with ways to blame American citizens—in ways that implicate the natural rights guaranteed us by God, and spelled out in the basic law of our land—is not the behavior of a freedom government. Only a tyranny would act this way. Getting the truth about the finding and using of this videotape would uncover the tyrannical power usurpation being carried out in darkness.