The time is now 4:29 pm
You last visited
May 10, 2024, 4:15 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)
Beyond Unconscionable. This Is High Treason…AC-130U Gunship Was On-Scene In Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire
Posted By: RumorMail [Send E-Mail] Date: Friday, 26-Oct-2012 18:11:17
|
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghaziahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.
Appearing on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having “big fights” for “two or three weeks” about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton’s legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would “exonerate” herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn’t at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn’t want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Dave Hodges
October 21, 2012
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”
George Orwell
The conditions in the Gulf Coast region are so bad, that some are actually talking about a mass evacuation of the coastal regions in Louisiana. Others think the potential devastation is so dangerous that the entire Gulf Coast region should be evacuated. Others think that all is well in the Gulf. What exactly is the truth?
I have been investigating the events surrounding the Gulf Coast oil explosion for over two years. As I sit here mulling over the evidence which is derived from the full spectrum of research protocols ranging from anecdotal evidence to scientific evidence to government acknowledgment of a series of crises which appears to be imperiling Louisiana, I do not pretend that I have all the answers. However, after systematically reviewing the available evidence, I am extremely fearful for the potential consequences which could be catastrophic for many of the 40 million residents in the Gulf.
This topic has largely been swept under the covers by the Obama administration and the mainstream media, with a few exceptions. In this article, it is my intention to bring forth legitimate concerns for public discussion with regard to the safety and welfare of Gulf Coast residents, especially for those people living in Louisiana’s coastal areas.
All Is Well, Go Back To Sleep
The government would have us believe that all is well in the Gulf. In fact, two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) through its air monitoring system, on June 10, 2010, presumably found air quality levels which were “normal” on the Gulf coastline. Of course this is the same EPA whose former director, Todd Christy, boldly stated that the post 911 air was fit to breathe. Also, in June 2010, Obama’s personal point man on the spill, Thad Allen, stated “the well no longer posed any threat to the Gulf” and subsequent cleanup crews ceased all remaining operations with regard to cleaning up the destroyed oil well. Thad Allen’s statement followed Obama’s declaration in which the President boldly proclaimed that the Gulf is safe and “open for business”. Officials from both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EPA echoed Obama’s safety claims. And what I have discovered from the data, is that everyone of these government individuals, who are entrusted with ensuring the safety of the general public, was lying through their teeth.
There were strong and early indications that the use of Corexit, combined with the leaking oil, were producing, both long term and short term, catastrophic environmental and individual health effects. Oil and Corexit, used to “disperse” the oil spill have impacted untold numbers of Gulf residents’ health. Additionally, both the food supply and the food chain are being adversely impacted. The air and the subsequent evapotranspiration cycle has been irreversibly altered which, in turn, impacts the water table and the safety of water supplies as well as the safety of crops. The most devastating finding relates the events of the oil spill to the phenomena of the ever-widening Louisiana sinkholes and the related underground explosions as well as the very high concentration of toxic and highly flammable methane in the air and in the water.
One of the major threats to the Gulf Coast comes from an imperiled food supply which is the result from the explosion on the Deep Water Horizon oil rig.
The Tainted Food Supply
It was known very early on that the Gulf Coast food supply was severely compromised and the health of the residents was in jeopardy, despite government denials and mainstream media cover-ups. A case in point, while dining with his family at Vinnie’s Raw Bar Restaurant in the Charlotte, North Carolina area, Matthew Robertson found oil in his seafood. While covering the story, WBTV reporter Sarah Batista also acknowledged there was a black substance stuck to the inside of Robertson’s sea food. Additionally, Channel 8, Fox News, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was told by Vinnie’s Raw Bar restaurant’s manager that he did, indeed, confirm the customer’s story and says he’s had problems getting oyster shipments because of contamination resulting from the oil spill, unfortunately, this station saw fit to scrub the report from its website. However, similar warnings regarding the region’s food safety are appearing up and down the local Gulf Coast media on such stations as WLOX TV in Gulfport, MS. Yet, Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc., have not run one credible story on the dangers of food toxicity in the Gulf’s food chain. Granted, the abovementioned cases represent just a few anecdotal cases which are representative of tens of thousands of accounts. However, anecdotal evidence is not science and these cases could be discounted as the exception and not the rule. Yet, the largely ignored voices of scientists echo these anecdotal claims and they do so with hard, verifiable data.
The Quiet Voices of Science Assess Gulf Food Safety
Scientists at The University of Southern Mississippi and Tulane University have found oil in the post-larvae of blue crabs entering coastal marshes along the Gulf Coast signaling that oil may be entering estuarine food chains. Dr. Perry observed that “I have never seen anything like this.” Larvae is at the bottom of the food chain. Lesser life forms, are consumed by life forms which are higher on the food chain and the toxic effects of the Corexit will bioaccumulate throughout the food chain. This conclusion echoed the findings of lab samples taken by scientists at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab shows oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster has made its way into the Gulf food chain as well. These particular scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico which is a clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they have easily entered the food chain. These studies and other similar studies remain unchallenged by the authorities with regard to methodology and results. In short, the Obama administration is choosing to ignore these credible scientists by simply repeating the mantra that “all is well” in the Gulf of Mexico.
Potential Effects on Life Span in the Gulf
Kim Anderson’s Oregon State University (OSU) researchers, from the OSU College of Agricultural Sciences, began a test-retest comparative analysis for the carcinogenic contaminant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and its biodegradable partner, OPAHs, which appears after the application of Corexit and subsequent exposure to ultraviolet rays. Stunningly, the OSU researchers found a 40 fold increase in these carcinogenic compounds in the comparative test-retest period. The OSU findings replicate the conclusions of Mace Barron et al regarding the toxicity of Corexit and its use in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Exxon Valdez oil spill and subsequent clean-up activities provides the only case study in the history of the United States involving significant exposure to the types of toxins discussed in this article as the result of an oil spill. Interestingly, Anderson’s Oregon State University’s original data went missing forcing the research team to begin again. It is clear that somebody did not want this data to reach the public.
Findings, related to the longevity of the Exxon Valdez clean-up workers, are very disturbing as the collective lifespan statistics, for the Corexit exposed cleanup crews, revealed that the average life expectancy is a mere 51 years of age and nearly all of the Exxon Valdez clean-up workers are dead. These findings can leave little doubt that BP’s use of Corexit has seriously compromised the collective life span of Gulf Coast residents. I can draw no other conclusion than to state that the events in the Gulf, to date, constitute a slow-burn genocidal event in which, depending on the age at first exposure to the Corexit, the oil and the resulting methane concentrations, will see life spans in the impacted areas decline by as much as 25-50% with regard to longevity based upon the life-span figures from the Exxon Valdez clean-up workers. I believe that based upon the data, it is reasonable to assume that within one short generation, the life expectancy of the Gulf will rival the worst of the third world.
An Environmental Armageddon in the Making
In addition to imperiling the food supply, the Gulf disaster is overwhelming the environment and threatens to bring disaster to the southeastern portion of the United States on an unprecedented scale. The holocaust in the Gulf has grown to such proportions that the European Union Times reports that an extremely grave report was prepared for President Medvedev by Russia’s Ministry of Natural Resources in which the report warns that the BP spill will become the worst environmental catastrophe in all of human history and will bring total destruction to the Eastern half of the North American continent. The environmental damage has spread as far north as Memphis as local residents report toxic rainfall, containing Corexit, is falling on and damaging local farmers crops. This report aired over two years ago and was among the first indicators that the evapotranspiration will cycle was being impacted by the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent use of Corexit to “disperse” the spilled oil.
The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40% methane, compared with about 5% found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill. Kessler et al, in June of 2010, warned the public that methane was not going to dissipate on its own and that it would continue to increase and come ashore with unpredictable results. Merchant Marine expert, Captain Kelly Sweeney, while appearing on The Common Sense Show, on July 10, 2010, made similar predictions in which he stated that he and many of his sources feared catastrophic methane explosions near several coastal cities which could be triggered by the right atmospheric conditions combined with the high levels of highly flammable methane (click here to listen to Hour 1).
Unfortunately, nobody predicted the scenario which is unfolding across several Louisiana communities in which high concentrations of methane laden oil has made its way into the salt domes and into the water table constituting a significant threat millions of Gulf Coast residents.
John Boudreaux, director of the Assumption (LA.) Parish Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness has said there are concerns that the gas can build pressure under the clay layer that lies above their local aquifer. According to Boudreaux and geologists, once the aquifer reaches a pressure greater than 75 to 85 pounds per square inch, the clay layer might not hold back the accumulated gas and a set of major explosions could occur. Recently, something unexpectedly triggered an emergency flare 40 feet high at that Crosstex well last week. An explosion of this magnitude would be within the range of one and a half B83 thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs, according to scientists. On 9/11 of this year, Louisiana officials suddenly and without comment banned outdoor fires. Ray Charles could see these dots connecting on the wall.
In July 2010, BP found a mega pocket of highly pressurized methane gas in the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA and the President chose to ignore the publicized findings. Nobody in the mainstream media bothered to speculate as to the potential dangers. Publicly, the federal government did not answer the obvious questions, namely, where are the concentrations of the mega pocket of highly pressurized methane gas likely to migrate to and what would be the ultimate effect? It has been 27 months since this discovery, and the public is expected to believe that BP and the government had no idea of the ramifications of the discovery of this magnitude. This flies in the face of believability!
As Gulf Coast investigator, Dr. Wilma Subra stated, that the oil/Corexit is in “…the air, the water table, the sea floor sediment, the shallow surface of the beach, it is in the estuaries,… it is in the water column at 3,000-4,000 foot depth, the prevailing winds bring in the oil/Corexit to the shores and the substances are deposited inland. ..The environmental impact will last for generations.” The people of Bayou Corne, as well as at least 28 other Louisiana communities near the coast, are finding out how accurate Dr. Suber’s observations, offered in February of 2011, truly were.
The massive sinkhole and enormous amount of escaping methane gas from the Bayou Corne disaster area is particularly concerning. Local officials have made repeated references to, “powerful underground forces”, which are causing the monster sinkhole in the swampland, which subsequently bent a gas pipeline which then formed a shocking right angle in a 400-foot section next to the bubbling hole. Ultimately, this led to the evacuation of 150 homes, temporarily shutting down a four-mile stretch of nearby Highway 70, and led to a heated discussion regarding the likelihood of a methane-bubble tsunami from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico BP explosion. Government officials warned the Parish President that the Bayou Corne sinkhole has extremely high levels of methane in the nearby water wells. Subsequently, officials have warned the local leadership that these high levels of methane pose serious risks to health, fire and could even lead to large explosions. Officials have further warned that local residents needed to obey coming mandatory evacuation orders. However, the mass evacuation expected to occur last week, has unexplainably not been acted upon.
After looking at the government’s own data and examining the totality of government’s actions, I have concluded that the government is acting with extreme depraved indifference with regard to the citizen’s health near the 28 sinkholes. Let me be crystal clear about one point, methane kills and it can kill silently if exposure occurs in sufficient quantities. Even if the people in Louisiana, near the 28 reported sinkholes, were to, by the grace of God, able to somehow escape lethal exposure, methane in smaller doses can still mimic other health conditions and can fool a general medical practitioner but the conditions could still lead to a person’s demise. The latter fact related to methane exposure mimicking other health conditions works to the government’s and BP’s benefit because it temporarily provides them with plausible deniability. We have witnessed this same strategy as the BP health mobile health clinics, designed to treat local victims of the spill and exposure to Corexit, were purposely misdiagnosing clear cases of Corexit toxicity to escape the liability consequences.
There is no defense against leaking methane. No residential building is secure enough to keep the methane from penetrating homes and offices. Methane has been proven to enter structures through foundational cracks or through sewer traps if the house or office is built on or near landfills, and in the case of Louisiana, it can come through salt domes where the oil and the Corexit has been accumulating for nearly two and a half years.
Methane gas can also be ingested. Originally thought to be a remote possibility, methane gas can migrate into the natural water reservoirs. Yet, this is exactly what has happened. And these precise conditions are serving to impact the drinking water supplies as well as the safety of area crops because of the evapotranspirational cycle. This is not a predicted event in Louisiana, it is exactly what is happening right now.
The only way to determine that someone has been exposed to methane, is through extensive laboratory analysis conducted by trained medical personnel. In the event of methane exposure, the only way for the victim to escape with only minimal medical consequences, is to be rushed to a nearby hospital without delay. The victim would have to be put on an immediate supply of oxygen along with a life support mask and this would be accompanied by an intravenous drip to avoid further dehydration.
Please allow me to connect some dots with regard to the previous paragraphs. On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded. For over two years, large concentrations of carcinogenic material and highly flammable methane gas has been bio-accumulating in the estuaries, the beaches, the water table, the salt domes and this event is now part of the evapotranspirational cycle. In other words, these toxic conditions are now ingrained in the eco-weather system in the Gulf and federal officials sit idly and are doing nothing to ensure public safety.
From the work of people like Dr. Subra, researchers at Oregon State University, Tulane University and the University of South Florida, we now know that millions of people have been exposed to abnormally high rates of benzene, xylene and other cancer-causing chemicals. The public has been warned by the alternative media, and a few outspoken members of the mainstream media as well as a plethora of geologists, chemists and oil experts that large amounts of methane was making its way ashore in the Gulf Coast region. The resulting sinkholes, which are still greatly expanding as of this writing, and the large amounts of methane gas escaping into the air as well as infiltrating the water table, are placing untold numbers of Gulf Coast residents in a very dire set of circumstances.
When I first spoke out on my show and in my writings, in 2010 and in 2011, about the dangers of methane and what it could possibly mean for the Gulf, I was referred to as an alarmist in some mainstream media circles. To those critics who still hold to these allegations that I am fear mongering for whatever personal or professional benefit, please explain the meaning of following warning to me: The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DRN) has issued a Declaration of Emergency and Directive Advisory which states that the gas in the sinkhole area should be considered to be life-threatening. Does the mainstream media have a new definition of the term “life-threatening” which would cause them to all but ignore this ominous warning? I would ask the critics, the federal government, and BP to explain away the connections between the scientific facts, the warning that the conditions in Louisiana are life-threatening and the subsequent ban on fires by government officials. Then, when they are done trying to explain away the DRN warning, perhaps they would like to address the passage of mass fatality planning legislation contained in H.R. 6566 which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by requiring the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency…”to provide guidance and counseling for mass fatality planning, and for other purposes. And while the federal government is at it, perhaps they would like to explain the coincidental timing of the FEMA earthquake preparedness drills taking place along the New Madrid fault line which is precisely where some of the methane laden oil and Corexit is migrating to. Just a coincidence you say? Then maybe those people who are hell bent on staying in a state of denial, can explain why FEMA thinks that Louisiana needs massive amounts of generators to be sent to the region at taxpayers’ expense? How many coincidences can one accept until an unmistakable pattern of cover-up and criminal neglect, on the part of the government, becomes painfully obvious to even the most ardent of the Kool-Aid drinkers?
Should the coastal regions of Louisiana be evacuated? We have certainly seen the proof that government officials have actually announced plans to evacuate many areas around the sinkholes, only to change their minds without explanation. This leads one to wonder if the government is trying avoid a mass panic and they are hoping for the best without preparing for the worst. After all, the election is only a couple of weeks away and the crisis in the Gulf did happen on Obama’s watch.
Personally, I think that the canary in the mine approach to this phenomena would be best served if the President were to spend two or three days campaigning in the Bayou country in and around coastal regions, near the 28 sinkholes which are still expanding by the day. Come on Mr. President, put your money where your mouth is, and prove to the American people that the Gulf is indeed open for business. And while you are at it Mr. President, order up some crab and shrimp. And please make certain that you order and eat exactly what the locals eat with no specially prepared dishes made just for you. Mr. President, while you are in the Gulf, you should also take a deep breath and show the people of the region, that despite your lack of a legitimate birth certificate, that you are indeed one of them and you are willing to risk your life in the same manner as you are asking them to do.
Dave Hodges DCH MC NCC The Common Sense Show airing on The Republic Broadcasting Network Sunday’s 9PM-Midnight Central Live streamed at http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=listenlive
2012-10-24 05:00:29
Source: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/10/21/are-louisianas-coastal-areas-going-to-be-evacuated/
President Obama was wearing an earpiece during the last debate. He was advised on what to say using this earpiece. Is that fair America??? Did Mitt Romney wear an earpiece, no of course not! Again, this President will stop at nothing to stay in power. – N.P.Contompasis
Food Stamp Nation: What a Modern Day Bread Line Looks Like (Infographic)
October 25, 2012
Source: Demonocracy
The line at a single Walmart, if we include both adults and children receiving SNAP benefits, would be over 7 miles long!
The following info-graphic provides some additional facts and visuals.
Infographic by Demonocracy (click for higher resolution)
"Obama the Muslim:" Ploy to Cover-up Years of US-Al Qaeda Support
Posted By: DannyCahalin [Send E-Mail] Date: Thursday, 25-Oct-2012 18:31:24
|
Should Barack Obama Resign Tonight?
I won’t hear what I’d like to hear at the presidential foreign policy debate Monday.
What I’d like to hear is Barack Obama resigning over Benghazi, the most extreme public mishandling of an attack on American personnel ever, certainly in my lifetime. If I (or most people) had been president and something like that happened on my (our) watch — and then I had lied about it myself while urging others to cover up — I would be so ashamed of myself I wouldn’t be able to come out in public.
But that’s not what happened. In fact, the reverse occurred. The president acted as if it was Mitt Romney’s fault for ever bringing the subject up. And he had a willing co-conspirator in the morally stunted Candy Crowley.
Obama’s outrage during the second debate even at being questioned on his response to the terrorist killings is one of the ugliest displays of narcissism I have ever witnessed from a politician and certainly the ugliest if you consider the ramifications of his behavior.
That the mainstream media ignored this reaction is a testament to their enduring pathology. Or perhaps to a secret longing for the divine right of kings.
But it doesn’t matter. If Barack Obama does not resign on Monday, his reputation will be destroyed forever, even if he wins a second term, because Benghazi will not go away.
This is not just because of the seemingly insoluble conundrums described so thoroughly by Watergate author (among other things) James Rosen in his Wall Street Journal oped — “The Three Benghazi Timelines We Need Answers About” — but for a reason yet more disturbing.
Only a man with a leftover undergraduate ambivalence about Western civilization would have dealt with the Benghazi catastrophe in such a fashion in the first place. Barack Obama responded to the terrorism like a Columbia junior stoned on a reefer, particularly one from his era. He took another toke and moved on. And then when he was told he couldn’t do that, he got angry at the people telling him.
How that will play out in Monday night’s debate, I have no idea (beyond my wish that he would resign and spare us any more of this). But Mitt Romney would be well advised to remember his opponent is a man who has not fully grown up. He doesn’t know how to take responsibility in an adult manner, so the chances that he will lash out are strong. He also may be aided and abetted in that enterprise by Bob Schieffer who, of the three debate moderators, is the longest card-carrying member of legacy media. In fact, he is one of the most long-standing around. You can count on his bias to shine through, overtly and covertly, because this could be the last hurrah of that clique (and they know it). Given public response to the debates and the moderators, it’s hard to believe we will see the same dumb show in 2016. If we do, shame on us.
And one final thing I would like to hear in the foreign policy debate but will not: It’s time to name our enemy. And by that I don’t mean al-Qaeda. That’s just the joker in the pack, the villain with a thousand faces, able to reappear in any mask imaginable and in any location. No, the real enemy is the pack of cards itself — Islamism. But Obama’s administration never mentions it. They don’t even use the word “terrorism.” It would be really interesting if Mitt Romney asked Obama what motivated Major Hasan’s mass murder of his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood. I bet the answer wouldn’t even be worthy of an undergraduate.
White House Was Told Benghazi was a Terrorist Attack Two Hours Into the Battle
by Bryan Preston
Two hours. 120 minutes. Just one-third of the way into the six-hour battle. That’s how soon officials in the Obama White House had been told that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.
The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.
The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.
No, they did not maintain the film gambit for days. They maintained it for weeks. Two weeks.
Reuters obtained three emails. The first came from the consulate 20-30 minutes into the attack, and said that the attack was underway. The second was evidently sent during a lull in the battle because it said that the compound had been secured.
The third email is a smoking gun.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Ansar al-Sharia is al-Qaeda. Or rather, Ansar al-Sharia is the new brand name al-Qaeda is using to attach itself to and lead the larger Islamic movement promoting sharia law. But it was known as of at least August 2012 to be al-Qaeda.
To whom did this information go in Washington?
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.
The president. Barack Obama knew as the battle was progressing that rebranded al-Qaeda was involved. But he blamed a film and jailed the filmmaker here in the United States.
Piecing a few loose things together, Barack Obama had not been attending his Presidential Daily Briefings in the months leading up to the attack. He had spent his party convention selling America the story that “Osama bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is on the run.” The first part of that was true, but the second part?
Benghazi proved it wrong. He had that email from the consulate sent during the attack, and would soon learn of the intercept in which al-Qaeda said that it would proceed with the attack, using the unrest in Cairo as cover.
His convention story about al-Qaeda had fallen apart, so he tried selling us another story: That a movie led directly to the murder of four Americans.
He built one lie on top of another, and both have collapsed of their own weight.
Benghazi was a cover-up, and it probably began that night in the White House as the battle transpired and Ambassador Stevens remained missing. Americans deserve to know who was involved in making the decision to engage in the cover-up. Who knew what, and when did they know it, and how did they respond to what they knew? Were senior administration officials involved, or did the campaign drive the decision, or was it a mix of both?
It’s important that we get answers. No matter what happens on Nov. 6, many of the potential instigators will remain in political life. Anyone involved in the decision to instigate this cover-up should have that future taken away from them.
More: Gretawire has the actual emails.
More: It’s not just that the White House Situation Room received these emails. The military or the CIA deployed a drone to monitor the battle from above, and the evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself and probably the vice president and some of his top intel lieutenants were watching that feed. Eli Lake reported that the drone monitored at least the last hour of the battle.
So Obama was in the Situation Room, with those emails on his screen, and that video feed on the monitor. The ambassador was missing. This was the heaviest night of Obama’s presidency since the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, but with the added twist of the missing Americans and the huge known known — we had no military on the ground or on the way to help them.
And Obama went to bed to get some shut-eye. Then the next day, he learned that Stevens and three others had been killed. He may have seen one or more of the defenders die. But that next day he blamed a movie for what he had seen the night before.
And then he skipped his intelligence briefing, again, and went to Vegas.
More: The NY Post reported on Oct 21 that the drone that monitored the final hour of the Benghazi battle was a Predator. So it’s very likely that that drone was armed, as the US used armed Predators during the Libyan revolution and uses them to dispatch terrorists as the opportunity arises. But there is no reporting that the drone fired any of its Hellfire missiles during the battle. It was relaying video back the United States where–
“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.
The Post also reported:
Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network.
More: “The video (from the drone) is <snip>ing.”
Is Obama beginning to crack?
Forensic profiler Andrew Hodges: 'I know when a guilty person starts to break'
Published: 3 hours ago
By Andrew G. Hodges
Editor’s Note: Dr. Andrew G. Hodges is a psychiatrist and forensic profiler who decoded O.J. Simpson’s “suicide note,” deciphered the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note and worked on the Natalee Holloway murder case. He’s author of “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury,” and uses a unique psycholinguistic technique he calls “ThoughtPrint Decoding” to “read between the lines” of people’s statements – called “the cutting-edge of forensic science” by expert investigators. His work previously was profiled here.
Obama’s first two presidential debates with Romney gave us another look deep into his mind – into a continued confession which he simply cannot stop himself from making.
From my experience as a forensic profiler, I know when a guilty person starts to break. Law enforcement describes how guilty suspects show signs of cracking during an interrogation – and they push on those weaknesses. We can view Obama’s poor performance during the first presidential debate with Romney on Oct. 3 in a similar way. The debate – a symbolic interrogation – was the first time Obama had faced tough questions since 2008.
And he showed signs of cracking.
Consider the following. As a forensic profiler I listened in a neutral fashion to key Obama communications around the time of his 2008 election. I explain my method of reading between the lines – where people always confess – in my recent book, “The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury.” I demonstrated how, driven by secret guilt, Obama confessed in a powerful way to violating the Constitution, running as an illegal foreign-born president which was just the tip of the iceberg of his misguided rage directed at America. (He also provided the massive personal wounds and stark hidden terror which prompts his anger.)
Additionally, I showed how in recent communications Obama’s unconscious guilt is off the charts. Running for reelection has especially triggered his misdeeds in a fresh way. Again he is trying to pull the wool over America’s eyes with plans for more disguised fury directed at our nation.
This I believe is how we can ultimately understand his poor presidential debate – deep-seated, powerful guilt. Obama was a “no show,” he kept looking down. He could not look America in the eye. Frequently he never answered Romney, allowing him to dominate.
All in all we have a behavioral confession: “I do not belong in this office.” A non-verbal confession of his illegal presidency.
All along Obama has told us a major key to understanding him is reading his behavior (as commentator and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer has also observed). Remember, Obama stressed in his 2008 Fathers’ Day speech as a candidate how absent fathers produced sons who attacked community foundations. He talked about how sons of absent fathers repeated the destructive behavior of the father. Clearly he made plain his father was absent in his scathing criticism of absent fathers.
The day following the debate, Obama insisted in a speech that Romney “ought to tell the people the truth” and that he wasn’t during the debate. Unconsciously, Obama points to his own enormous guilt and tremendous deception of the people. This also harkens back to his hidden confession in his inaugural address with numerous images suggesting an ineligible president: taking shortcuts, back-room deals that violate trust, and clinging to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent. Obama repeatedly shows us how his brilliant unconscious – the honest super intelligence we all possess – eventually confesses in words that match his behavior.
Regarding the first debate, several key commentators including WND’s Joseph Farah theorized that some powerful integrity issue among Obama donors was greatly distracting him. But Farah suggests he intuitively picked up on the deepest integrity reason as his column showed. He observed Obama falling apart beyond belief, and noted that Obama “grew increasingly uneasy, nervous … an inability to think clearly on his feet.” He underscored an extreme deficit in Obama’s “executive capabilities” (all these are signs of cracking) and raises the key question, “Why are we seeing this now?”
Farah emphasizes that Obama was never challenged as a candidate and, most importantly, was “never screened for constitutional eligibility.” Farah recognizes that such a major offense would mean enormous guilt deep down.
Consider that Obama’s unconscious super intelligence was posing the toughest question of all by his behavior and poor performance: “Have those of you who missed my secret confession and lack of media vetting ever seriously asked if I am a legal president, if I belong in office?” In short, a hidden confession. Obama demonstrates the power of the unconscious super intelligence to have its way and how the conscious mind is no match for someone who must confess.
As many anticipated, Obama’s second debate performance on Oct. 16 was overtly much different than his first. He appeared more assertive and having regained his wits.
But the question was whether or not he would overcompensate as a sign of his deep guilt. Would we see signs of his ever-present secret anger (which even came through in flashes at the first debate)? Dick Morris believed we did, noting after the second debate, “Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his vice president’s mistakes. When a president gets into a barroom brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.”
Obama of course made his erroneous case filled with exaggerations that he had been good for the economy – new jobs, more American oil production, and friendly to the coal industry. Appropriately, Romney pointed out the truth, “… what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries.”
See this as another sign of Obama’s guilt – to blatantly attack America’s energy policies and economy and then deny it.
Disguised in accusations directed at Romney and the Republicans, unconsciously he presented America with several striking comments secretly describing himself.
He accused Romney, the businessman, of shipping jobs overseas, bankrupting companies and laying off workers which would fit precisely with Obama shipping oil-drilling jobs to foreign countries, causing layoffs and heading America toward bankruptcy with his out-of-control spending.
One shining example occurred when he belittled Romney’s economic plan.
“Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That’s been his philosophy in the private sector … that’s been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.”
Once more Obama confesses unconsciously that all along, even as a private citizen (and college student), he planned on playing by a different set of rules, which he has carried out as president. We could have predicted that he would get in yet another striking unconscious confession that he had violated the rule of law and by extension the Constitution as an illegal foreign-born president. In both his inauguration speech and his recent U.N. speech he repeatedly insisted how we must live by the Constitution as his deeper moral compass pointed to his guilt.
Go back to his Fathers’ Day speech as a candidate in 2008 when he warned America who he was: “When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.” Obama was telling us then and now that he had a one-point plan. It was and is all about him to do whatever he wanted with the United States Constitution. But deep down he insists he must be stopped.
We can be certain that Obama’s guilt and anger will show up in similar ways in the third debate .
Obama's Class Warfare: Don't Get Fooled Again
Click if you like this column!
President Barack Obama constantly resorts to this tactic because he's simply unable to defend his own record in office, as 23 million Americans are out of work or underemployed and the economy remains in distress.
Class warfare is all he has left.
But voters aren't buying Obama's polarizing rhetoric. In a Gallup survey about the 12 most important priorities this election year, the issue of "increasing taxes on wealthy Americans" came in dead last among voters. Understandably, Americans are far more concerned with issues such as "creating good jobs," "reducing corruption in the federal government" and "reducing the federal budget deficit," among other important priorities.
Nonetheless, Obama relentlessly attacks Mitt Romney's prosperity, as if being a successful businessman -- who takes financial risks and creates jobs -- were an automatic disqualifier for anyone running for the nation's highest office.
During the second presidential debate last week, Obama hammered Romney for his financial success and played the class warfare card:
--"I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours, so it doesn't take as long." (In fact, Obama has a larger pension than Romney.)
--Obama attacked Romney's "$20-million-a-year" income. (Romney actually made $13.7 million in 2011 and gave nearly 30 percent of his income to charity.)
--He also accused Romney of shielding the wealthy from paying "a little bit more" in taxes.
--He stated: "I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that's how our economy's grown."
Obama claims to support free enterprise, self-reliance and individual initiative, but his actions say otherwise. He has forced on America a federal takeover of health care, increased oppressive regulation of private business and sustained massive government spending, and he has expanded our nation's welfare rolls by 32 percent. He even attacks corporations while accepting campaign funds from the same ventures he condemns. (Ironically, Obama has accepted nearly $120,000 from Bain Capital executives, is the top recipient of funds from BP, has investments in Chinese companies and through a Cayman Islands trust, and staffed his own Cabinet with wealthy CEOs.)
In 2008, Obama famously told Joe the Plumber of his plans to confiscate money from small businesses: "It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you -- that they've got a chance at success, too. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
In 2010, he arrogantly remarked, "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money."
In July, Obama attacked business again, saying, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." (As I explained in an earlier column, that "somebody" to whom Obama referred was in fact the federal government.)
In other acts of class warfare, the president embraced the anarchist Occupy movement, pitted labor unions that heavily fund his campaign against the private sector and blatantly condemned capitalism.
Meanwhile, Obama likes to say his tax increases would affect only "millionaires" and "billionaires," but the actual hikes would hit couples with incomes of $250,000 or higher.
The president claims to want to raise taxes on the rich, but he'd be raising taxes on many of our nation's job producers. He's using his class warfare rhetoric to fool voters.
What do business-savvy employers do when burdened by crushing tax hikes? They look for options to reduce their taxable income.
Facing the increased cost burden of Obamacare, businesses are looking for ways to avoid dealing with the soaring costs associated with the president's health care takeover -- including potential layoffs and slashing employee hours.
Obamacare is the very definition of a class warfare ploy because it drains the lifeblood from America's producers to subsidize the uninsured. Though "free" insurance may sound like a good idea in theory, increasing the burden on companies will force them to cut employees and their benefits to stay in business.
When businesses shed employees, revenue collected by federal and state governments as payroll taxes declines, as well. That's a lose-lose situation for our nation. The best way to get Americans back to work is to grow our economy and reduce tax burdens on our nation's job creators.
When it comes to raising taxes and increasing regulations, there's no limit to what Washington will impose. Where does it end?
What exactly does Obama consider "fair"?
Obama wants you to believe that big government is good, that profit is evil and that "spreading the wealth" improves the lives of all Americans.
He wants you to believe he would help the middle class by promoting job creation and boosting the economy -- but he has failed to do so in the past four years. And now he's desperate.
Americans are tired of being pitted against one another by this administration. What they really want are jobs, a robust economy and a true leader who won't resort to class warfare in an effort to distract voters and divide our great nation.
Compassion and fiscal responsibility require we end all federal welfare programs
Notice the lack of a “as we know it” at the end of the words federal welfare programs above. Ending all federal welfare programs means just that, not “ending them as we know them.” In 2011, state and federal spending on means-tested federal welfare programs total more than $1.028 trillion. This does not include entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security or any veterans benefits. These are are 83 federal programs intended to be assistance to those below the poverty line.
The Obama administration, that also gutted the welfare reform provisions requiring some kind of work as a condition of receiving welfare benefits, is also doing the most it can to encourage more citizens to become dependent on welfare programs.
Many believe that President Obama is simply following the Cloward–Piven strategy and trying to get as many citizens on welfare as possible. Under this president, the federal government has spent millions running radio and television advertisements urging people to apply for “food stamps” or what is now call the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) which is intended to subsidize grocery purchases for those below the poverty line. The program is rife with waste, fraud and abuse because many game the system and trade their SNAP benefits for cash to purchase alcohol, drugs and/or cigarettes.
It just happens to be that the federal budget deficit is and has been for the last four years under this administration just over $1 trillion per year. That is about the same as what is being spent on the 83 federal welfare programs. Ending federal welfare programs and letting the state and county governments take up these functions would go a long way toward balancing the federal budget and maybe even creating some budget surpluses to begin paying down the national debt so our children and grandchildren of the future won't be so immorally saddled with so much of our debt from spending their money decades before they've earned it. Not only is this excessive debt immoral, but it's rapidly becoming far less economically viable and will become very much unsustainable.
But eliminating federal welfare programs is not only the fiscally responsible thing to do, it is also the most truly compassionate way to address these issues. State and county governments can much more efficiently and effectively create a needed safety net for those who fall below the poverty line and do a much more better job of helping citizens learn to become more self-sufficient and make it on their own. But the far left doesn't believe in individuals and families being self-sufficient, they in fact think this is a myth that must be dispelled in order to get the public to buy into their socialist agenda of unlimited depedennce on government programs. Look at the “Julia” story on Obama's campaign web site, that was all about cradle-to-the-grave dependence on government. Look at the whole “you didn't build that” argument carried on by President Obama and his supporters, Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, they believe citizens can do nothing for themselves without big government help every step of the way.
Welfare programs should be as close to the local level as possible and provide a safety net for those who temporarily need it, and should include helping those on the programs learn to become self-sufficient and make it on their own. This is consistent with the “teach a man how to fish rather than giving him fish” notion of helping someone by giving them a hand up and not a hand out. The far left doesn’t believe you can provide for yourself and would rather have dependent on government programs and relying on you to cast a straight Democrat ticket on election day too. The liberal agenda isn't about compassion, it about using you and anyone that will fall for it, by enslaving you with an addictive government check and hoping you'll vote for them on election day. It's no wonder liberals don't care that there is so much alcoholism and drug abuse among the welfare recipient community. Apparently the addition to government checks and drugs go hand-in-hand.
True freedom is being able to pursue your dreams and make it on your own and have a real future in life, not taking government welfare checks. Liberals just can't see beyond the dependency culture they have created and enabled with these 83 federal welfare programs. Newt Gingrich wasn't racist at all, race has nothing to do with this, but he was spot on right when he called President Obama the “food stamps president.” We now have almost 47 million citizens on the SNAP program and record numbers on many other programs including those providing cash assistance.
As for balancing the budget, if we end all the federal welfare program and close down the economically destructive Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the largely wasteful and ineffective Dept. of Education we'd saved billions more in federal spending. The best road map to a balance federal budget remains the budget proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) that will reduce the size and scope of the federal government while balancing the budget. It needs to be done next year under President Mitt Romney and the republicans controlling both houses of Congress.
from John Galt FLA:
The headline and story for the U.K. Guardian states the extent of the problems within the Obama administration:
Hillary Clinton takes responsibility for Libya embassy attack
Why is this possibly a precursor to a dramatic event happening on November 2, 2012?
I invite my readers to take the following facts into consideration:
- The Obama regime is starting to lose this election in a major way. The latest results as summarized by UnskewedPolls.com tells the tale of the tape: 
The indications that this could be a blow out are building and one thing that everyone can count on for certain is that Bill and Hillary do not wish to be associated with a landslide loss of this magnitude.
- Hillary took the fall for the Benghazi disaster but was it “voluntary” or a result of Chicago style blackmail?
The Obama regime plays as rough as the Clinton crowd and the one thing the regime holds over her head, especially with Attorney General Eric Holder in charge, is a large quantity of classified records regarding the Clinton’s and their activities during their reign of horror in the 1990′s. While President Bush was too much of a gentleman (and an idiot) to release the dirt, even through secondary channels, do not put it past President Obama’s crew to threaten leaks to the media which would prove quite embarrassing to the Clinton family if she dids not cooperate.
2012-10-20 15:00:10
Desperation: Team Obama Resorts to More Lies, Hypocrisy
Yesterday was a rough day for the president's re-election team, and one gets the sense that Democrats are beginning to resort to a "kitchen sink" strategy to tear down Mitt Romney. Last week was Big Bird. This week, we've had the false Paul Ryan smear job, followed by the sub-moronic "bindergate" talking point. They'll try anything at this stage, so why not fire up the flagrant hypocrisy machine, and toss in some deliberately deceitful fear-mongering for good measure? Let's begin with the hypocrisy. The clip below features Barack Obama campaigning in New Hampshire, mocking Romney for the lack of specific details in his tax plan. Those comments are immediately juxtaposed with the president talking about the timing of his fiscal commission's recommendations:
I've written previously that it would be nice for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to release a whole slew of details on the tax proposals, including which deductions they plan to eliminate or limit, and for whom. Politically, though, I understand why they're pushing those specifics past the election and emphasizing the importance of negotiations with Congress. Obama and company have already knowingly lied their asses off about Romney's plan, so why give them more ammunition? When you're dealing with bad faith actors, giving in to their demands is pure folly. But President Obama knows all about the timing of controversial, sweeping proposals, doesn't he? He spells it out in the back end of this video. What's ironic is that Romney's plan incorporates several major elements of the president's fiscal commission (closing loopholes and deductions to broaden the base, while lowering rates across the board), while the president shelved his own panel's recommendations. And while Obama's yucking it up about concealing secret plans until after an election, maybe someone should remind him of the hot-mic message he wanted transmitted to Vladimir. Moving on to the latest round of lies. Here's the Obama campaign's new abortion-related ad:
As Buzzfeed notes, this spot "edits out the context" of Romney's remarks. He followed up his "delighted" comment by adding, "but that's not where we are today. That's not where America is." Indeed, though most Americans are pro-life and support common-sense restrictions on abortion, large majorities support legal abortion in limited circumstances. Mitt Romney's position reflects that reality. He's affirmed over and over again that he will be a pro-life president, but would not oppose the option of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and if the mother's life is at risk. The Obama camp has lied about this before, and they've been called out even by the likes of left-leaning Politifact, which awarded them a "pants on fire" rating. For numerous reasons, Barack Obama is the abortion extremist in this race. He supports late term abortion on demand at taxpayer expense, and it manages to get worse from there. Make no mistake: The Obama campaign is trying to scare women by intentionally mischaracterizing Mitt Romney's abortion stance. And don't forget about those terrifying binders.
Benghazi: Obama and His Ilk Hung Chris Stevens and Others Out to Dry
This past Friday the State Department released internal docs showing that Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to hell’s corridor in Libya, begged Obama’s boys in D.C. to ramp up security in Benghazi. And, as we all know now, he got nothing from the State Department but was allowed to be tortured and murdered by “democracy seekers” from the “Religion of Peace” in the “liberated” nation of Libya.
As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obama’s golf-gloved campaign hands. Whatever do I mean, you ask? Well, according to James Rosen’s findings in the newly released <snip>ing papers, it’s crap like …
· On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”
“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”
· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.
Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”
· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”
“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”
· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”
From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.
If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is. What’s the “Religion of Peace” got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obama’s favorite golf courses?
Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these “peaceful protestors” off.
Someone please forward this over to Romney’s campaign for talking points for Monday night’s debate on “National Security.”
Ahead of Election, Obama Stops Releasing ‘Stimulus’ Reports
The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011.
One wonders how the administration would treat a private citizen who acted like such a scofflaw in response to one of Obama’s principal legislative initiatives. It certainly appears that this administration, which is so very fond of regulating Americans’ lives — witness the 13,000 pages of Obamacare regulations it has already penned — doesn’t hold itself accountable to the same set of rules that it’s so eager to compel the American people to obey
