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/

 

Conserving

Conserve: to keep from being damaged, lost, or wasted; save.[i]

Conservative is one of those words I use fairly frequently, even in reference to myself. I’m talking about conserving the Constitution and it’s principles of freedom. I’m talking about living the principles that build wealth and spread prosperity, rather than waste or profligacy that lead to poverty. I’m talking about the principles that lead to civilization, away from savagery.

But I’m finding it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.

I started thinking about this after I happened to hear a discussion on Glenn Beck radio last week. He and crew, Pat and Stu, were talking about the Republican candidates (including those not yet officially in the race) and what factions of the party those individuals could satisfy.

Beck is libertarian (which I am not quite), so I shouldn’t expect the same point of view I have, but we agree on so many things, I forget there are differences. But he described the “conservatives” in the party as something other than I would understand.

The discussion followed an interview with Gov. Rick Perry, prior to his announcing a campaign a week or so from now. It was in that interview that Perry recalled a meeting with the president in which he mentioned that National Guard being kept 50 miles from the border wasn’t close enough—and the president turned to Valarie Jarrett and asked if that was the case, because he didn’t know where he had stationed troops. Anyway, that was May 20^th, if you have the ability to go hear it.[ii]

After the interview, Glenn and team started discussing the various candidates, and how they attract the various segments of the Republican party. Glenn asserts that there are four boxes:

GB: So, what it is, in one box, you have to have the GOP. That is the one with the most number in it. Establishment. People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is. So there are four boxes: one is GOP; one is conservative; one is religious; one is Tea Party/libertarian.

And then Stu asks for a better definition, which gets to the part that I’ve been thinking about:

Stu: Can you explain the distinction, in this particular scenario, what conservative is? Would you say it’s more like a hawkish...?

GB: Fiscal conservative, yeah, hawk. You know, somebody who is…

Stu: What differentiates it from Tea Party?

GB: Um..

Stu: Hawkishness?

GB: No. I would say Tea Party is more small government.

At this point they have some discussion about Reagan, that he was conservative, but he wasn’t small government. I took issue with it. Their examples were the border—which was supposed to be the one-time amnesty combined with closing the border, so that the issue would be gone forever. But, since the border wasn’t closed, that amnesty was the example to prevent us from ever giving in again. A learning opportunity. Knowing what we know now, would Reagan today offer amnesty? I don’t think so.

And the other example was that Reagan didn’t get rid of the Department of Education, and the Tea Party/libertarians want to. But they forget—Reagan wanted to; he tried. But he was working with a Democrat Senate and House the whole time he was in office. The measure of whether he was conservative would be, did he do the most conservative things he could get done (like lower taxes, which boosted the economy big time)? And what would he have tried to do with a willing Congress?

And I don’t really relate to the term “hawkish.” Reagan was able to end the Cold War without conventional warfare—because he was willing to fight if needed, and he stood firm. What a concept!

In the end of their discussion of candidates, they decided that two candidates—who are leading in Glenn Beck’s monthly online poll (so, not scientific, but gives you a sense of what his listeners believe)—each fill three of the four boxes. Gov. Scott Walker has the GOP establishment box, the conservative box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box. And Ted Cruz has the conservative box, the religious box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box—but he’s missing the biggest box, the GOP establishment. Which, if you define the bigness of the GOP as “People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is,” is irrelevant, because whoever gets the nomination will get those people. What’s really at stake is the fundraising and support of establishment politicians and their supporters. By the way, here in Texas, the GOP loves Ted Cruz; he ran away with the straw poll at the state GOP convention last June.

I understand that it’s a game to measure candidates with these four boxes. But it’s imperfect. I’m a Republican precinct chair, as several members of our local Tea Party are, and I’ve tried to do my civic duty all along. Many Tea Partiers awoke in 2010, when Obamacare got pushed through. I was already awake. Tea Partiers at that point began educating themselves—with more training on the Constitution among regular non-student adults than I’ve ever seen. Maybe more than have studied it on their own since the founding. So Tea Partiers are for small government—because the Constitution is about limited government. So I’m a conservative, religious, Tea Party, GOP-er. Hmm. And I don't think I'm all that rare.

What is a conservative if not for small government, as enumerated in the Constitution? It’s hard for me to picture conservatism without all four boxes—with the possible exception of GOP establishment, although conservatives are totally willing to reform an imperfect party that at least has potential.

The Political Sphere
of the Spherical Model

This is where the Spherical Model helps. We don’t need to separate out into local or big government Republicans; the questions that get us to the freedom zone are about the proper role of government and about the proper level (lowest, most local level possible) for any particular issue.

And the economic question is not whether we are pro-business or not; you can’t be a fiscal conservative unless you’re in favor of freeing up the free market. That’s beats crony capitalism or centrally controlled socialist economies every time. A conservative conserves the principles of the free market—which might at times require radical change from the status quo of regulatory tyranny.

People who claim to be fiscally but not socially conservative are not deep thinkers; they cannot get prosperity without civilized people making it possible. Sure, we’ll welcome their vote, but they’re not the leaders toward the world we want.

So then, the social question is, simply: Do you favor civilization or savagery? We know what gets to civilization. A religious people are required, because no one else will self-rule. We self-rule because we live God’s laws, which are higher than our own personal, changeable sense of ethics. God grants us our rights, so without God, the tyrannical leaders grant or take away “rights” at their whim. And our laws reflect our own willingness to live the Ten Commandments: honor and protect family, respect private property, be honest, don’t murder. Without these basics, it really doesn’t matter what you think about race, gender, climate, or some other pet virtue.

You can’t know what good is, if you don’t know who God is; He defines good.

It would be nice to have a better word than “conservative.” I looked up synonyms in a thesaurus, and that was disheartening: cautious, conventional, die-hard, establishmentarian, guarded, hidebound, middle-of-the-road, moderate, quiet, reactionary, right-wing, sober, Tory, traditional, unexaggerated, unprogressive, verkrampte.

I did a Google Translate on that last one; it means cramped. I tried translating “conservative” into German, and it gave me a much kinder cognate: konsesrvativ. Plus some other adjectives that mean essentially, cautious, careful, wary, or prudent, which are at least better than cramped.

So, the thesaurus thinks conservative means something very uncool. I can live with uncool; I pretty much always have. But I don’t like inaccurate.

I could use the Spherical Model shorthand of north on the sphere—and I do. But until the world catches on to this new vocabulary, I will probably keep saying I’m a Constitutional, fiscal, and religious conservative.

I very much prefer the Webster’s definition for conserve, which I used at the top of this piece. I want to conserve our Constitution and the way of life it offers. I want to keep it from being damaged, lost, or wasted. I want to preserve—conserve—the highest freedom, prosperity, and civilization that we have obtained, or return to that pinnacle by repairing the decay we’ve experienced.

I don’t trust that a single elected official, even a president, can undo all the damage. But having someone who loves those things worth preserving is a start. And such a person could inspire many more to work on the challenging restoration. So I won’t be looking for a person who fits enough boxes to win an election; I’ll be looking for a person who understands what’s at stake and loves freedom, prosperity, and civilization as much as I do.

---

[i] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition © 1982.

[ii] Glenn Beck Radio, May 20, 2015, from 1:44:30 to about 1:58:00, available by subscription.

Memorials

Last fall we took a trip to Washington, DC, which I reported here in September, in four parts. I’m repeated parts of them today, in the reverent spirit of Memorial Day, plus maybe some additional things.

 

Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

 

We got to witness the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This was one of the most reverent moments of our trip. We all stood, in silence, throughout. The ceremony takes place whether people are there or not. They revere those sacred dead; we are invited to join them in that honor. We felt privileged to witness it.

Changing of the Guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

 

 

Retiring the Flag at Arlington Cemetery

After the ceremony, we were waiting for our tour bus, and I ran off to take a few more photos. And I noticed this additional ceremony, the retiring of the flag in early evening. There was no crowd around. The soldiers were doing the honorable ceremony, because that’s what they do. I took the photo from a distance; I was glad I got to see this sacred moment.

 

Among the Acres of Graves at Arlington Cemetery

I know it doesn’t sound like a thrilling vacation to go to a cemetery, but Arlington Cemetery is worth experiencing. It’s vast, and beautiful, and sacred.

Iwo Jima Monument

The Iwo Jima Monument relates to World War II. It is located just outside the Arlington Cemetery. We saw it just before sunset, which made photography a challenge, but the sky toward the sun was stunning. This photo is taken with back to the sun.



World War II Memorial

One of my favorite memorials was the World War II Memorial, located between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Memorial. We were there on a day when busses were bringing WWII veterans, many in wheelchairs and in their 90s, to honor those they served with most of a lifetime ago.



Each star represent 100 lost lives in WWII

There’s a wall of stars at the memorial; each star represents 100 who lost their lives. There are 4048 gold stars, representing the 405,399 American dead or missing.  

Vietnam Memorial Wall

The Vietnam Memorial Wall is most impressive maybe because of its length, full of names of those lost in service in that war.

Korean War Memorial

On the opposite side of the Lincoln Memorial is this Korean War Memorial. It also has a reflective wall, this one with faces looking out. The wall is alongside a garden of statues, soldiers walking through undergrowth, as you might have seen them in action. I hadn’t been aware of this memorial before the trip. But I saw it in a scene of a TV show after returning home. This was another place I really felt the reverence. Maybe it relates to having had a son stationed in Korea.

 

 I want to add this photo, honoring four fallen Americans in Benghazi, September 11, 2012. We’re still trying to find out what happened, and why the administration lied about what happened, and continues to obstruct the investigation. The honor is for today; we’ll save the troubling discussion for another time.

Voice of the People

Long ago, in a faraway kingdom, there lived a good and wise king[i], who loved his people. He led them in righteousness, and served them well, as his father had before him.

Often during his reign there was peace. But as the kingdom grew, a new generation arose that did not believe the long-held social practices, and disregarded the righteous laws to give themselves pleasure. Among the young rebels were the sons of the king himself, four of them. And their best friend, the son of the high priest of the church. The parents were heartbroken.

But a miracle happened, and the sons saw the error of their ways, and sought to repair the damage they had done within the kingdom. And many regarded their sorrow and repented with them.

The sons of the king asked if they could go on a quest, to the north, to teach the ideas of love and peace that they had discovered unto the barbaric people who had waged war on them from time to time through the centuries. If they could bring them the peace within, they could bring peace between the nations.

The king was anxious about his beloved sons going so far, among such a bloodthirsty people. But the word of God came to him, and assured him good would come of the quest, and the sons’ lives would be kept safe. So they parted.

The king waxed old. He would need to pass the crown to a successor. He and trusted advisors searched the kingdom for a suitable successor, but the king was agitated. Whoever they chose, he feared contentions would arise, leading to anger, separations, even war. It could destroy the souls of many of his beloved people.

He brought his concerns before the people. He said, “Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.” He said, “If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments—even as my father did for this people—then it would be expedient that you should always have kings to rule over you.” He reminded them that he, himself, as king, had labored to serve them, had judged them according to the laws of God—that there should be no stealing, plundering, murdering, nor any manner of iniquity, or else they would be punished according to their crimes.

But a wicked king, he warned them, can cause great iniquity to be committed among his people, to their destruction. Such people fall into bondage. “And ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For he has his friends in iniquity, and keeps his guards about him. And he tears up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him. And he enacts laws according to his own wickedness, and he destroys anyone who disobeys his laws. He will send his armies against any rebels, to destroy them.”  Such a king destroys civilization among his people.

So he proposed a brand new way. He said, “Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them from God.”

And he gave them his reasoning. “Now it is not common that the majority voice of the people desires anything contrary to what is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire what is not right. Therefore, this shall be your law—to be governed by the voice of the people.”

Their thriving would depend on the righteousness of the people, instead of the righteousness of their king. He warned them, “If the time comes that the voice of the people choose iniquity, then the judgments of God will come upon you with destruction, as has happened with other ancient peoples in this land.”

He set up a system for the judges: “Now if you have judges that do not judge you according to the law, you can cause those judges to be judged of a higher judge.  And if your higher judges do not judge righteously, you shall cause a small number of your lower judges to gather together, to judge your higher judges.”

He declared, “I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.”

His declarations went out to the people, and they gave up their desire for a king to rule over them. They assembled themselves together in bodies through the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law. And they rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.

The people lived in peace for some time. But not as long as hoped.

It happened that corruption came within not many years. Lawyers found that they could make more money if they stirred people up to go against one another before the law[ii]. And some of the judges could be bought to rule against the rightness of the law.

Always there continued to be strife between the righteous church members and the nonbelievers. The corruption was mainly among the nonbelievers. Laws needed to be declared to protect the believers from persecution for their beliefs. That helped for a time. But pride and corruption spread even among the churchgoers, which was a stumblingblock for sincere seekers of truth and goodness[iii].

The system of government by the voice of the people—democracy, in the form of elected judges and written law—lasted for about a century, which is the common length of time for self-government experiments to last.

About a quarter century into the reign of the judges, a group arose to alter the law. They didn’t want to change just a few tiny points in the law; they wanted to throw out the government by judges, ignore the voice of the people, and reinstate a king[iv]. It was those of “high birth” who wanted a monarchy, so they could institute privileges for themselves, and power and authority over the people. They didn’t like equality before the law.

For a time the voice of the people settled the matter, because the people voted to maintain their liberty. But war from outside came to the land, and the dissenters, the kingmen, refused to fight. They were put in prison to be dealt with according to the law. The swiftness of the justice did away with the kingmen faction entirely.

But the war continued for many years. The military leader was a strong and righteous man. He put up a flag to remind them of what they fought for: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”[v]

The good and righteous people succeeded in fighting off the invaders. But there was corruption within the land, secret societies that conspired together in secret theft and murder, for the purpose of gaining wealth and power. The spread of this plague of corruption led to the eventual end of the reign of the judges[vi]. The people separated into tribes, each according to their family relations. Some tribes worked among themselves in righteousness, but many more did not, and they fought one with another, vying for power over one another. And there was war and chaos throughout the land, which only a return to righteousness could resolve.

What do we learn from this kingdom’s story?

·         It is better to be ruled by the voice of the people than by a monarch.

·         Liberty is the blessing of a righteous people who self-rule according to longstanding laws of righteousness.

·         Corruption from within is a greater danger than invaders from without

·         Judges and government leaders ignoring the written law cannot be tolerated, if liberty is to be maintained.

·         Most of the time, the majority will choose right, but a minority will be choosing wrong.

·         When the majority chooses unrighteousness, destruction follows.

This story of the voice of the people is different from our nation. But it could be a cautionary tale for us, or for any people who love liberty. I think the principles apply:

·         It is better to have self-rule, rather than monarchy or other forms of tyranny.

·         Usually the majority chooses right, especially when written long-standing laws are in place to protect our liberties.

·         It could happen that leaders go astray, and that judges go wrong, but those can be corrected—if the people are diligent in holding them accountable. But if corruption is allowed to spread, eventually a majority chooses to disregard the law and make new laws that support tyranny and savagery.

·         If the corruption isn’t rooted out—if a majority of the people are not righteous, if they do not insist on maintaining their freedom to live in righteous liberty—then the government of the people will decay into chaos and tyranny, which is the common lot of mankind.

We have had too much of the decay. It’s time to reject the pressure of the libertine and return to the laws of liberty.

---

[i] This is my retelling of a story from The Book of Mormon. The kingdom is called Zarahemla, and the king is Mosiah, son of King Benjamin. The story of beginning the reign of the judges is found in Mosiah 29, which is estimated to have taken place about 92 BC. The location is unknown, but somewhere in the Americas, probably within Central America. Some quotes in the story are paraphrased; see the scriptures for actual quotes.

[ii] Alma 11:20

[iii] Alma 4:10

[iv] Alma 51

[v] Alma 46:12

[vi] 3 Nephi 7:2, around AD 30.