Check Back Later…

Well our new Female Eric Holder didn’t take very long 🙂 getting up to speed on the Progressive Agenda of stall and delay things that you don’t to talk about.

The State Department is proposing a deadline of January 2016 to complete its review and public release of 55,000 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged on a private server and turned over to her former agency last December.

The proposal came Monday night in a document related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Vice News filed in January seeking all of Clinton’s emails

“The Department’s plan … would result in its review being completed by the end of the year. To factor in the holidays, however, the Department would ask the Court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016,” State’s acting director of Information Programs and Services John Hackett said in a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

The State Department’s proposal, however, could mean a delay of almost 13 months between the time Clinton turned over some of her records and the bulk of those emails being made public.

And they won’t “find anything” anyhow or they’ll conveniently lose them like Mrs. Clinton did already. It’s not like they are a serious investigation. This Dog & Pony aren’t hunting.

State Department officials have reaffirmed in recent weeks that they plan an earlier disclosure of a batch of the emails provided to a House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. However, the department’s spokespeople have said only that the initial release will come “soon,” declining to be more specific about the timing of that first release.

Asked by POLITICO Friday when that Libya-related batch of records should emerge, State spokesman Jeff Rathke was vague. “I don’t have an update to share. But yes, we’re aware that there’s interest out there, certainly,” he said at a daily briefing for reporters.

Benghazi was over 3 years ago!!!

State Department lawyers have complained in court of a “crushing burden” of FOIA requests as well as at least 79 FOIA lawsuits pending against the department. They have also cited the need to prioritize the Clinton email project as a reason for delays in other FOIA cases.
Could that be because of their political corruptness?

Naw… 🙂

The Geller Apocolypse

Everything you need to know about the leftist bias in the media:

Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths” (AP)

It was HER fault that two jihadists were killed by police after they drove a 1000 miles to kill her and anyone in her general vicinity.

The Fatwa was HER Fault.

The dead jihadists are the victims!!

OMG! How F*cked up is that!

So let’s trash her!

A master of rhetoric and clearly comfortable in the spotlight, the 56-year-old former media executive shifts easily from charming to combative. Her critics have called the cartoon contest needlessly provocative, practically an invitation for violence. But Geller argued that any blame should be focused on extremists who can’t be criticized or lampooned without resorting to violence.

“Cartoons are political critique. It’s a cartoon,” she said. “Is that what we want to outlaw? We want to outlaw humor? We want to outlaw comedy? If you want to know who rules over you, find out who you cannot criticize.”

Her activities have prompted the Southern Poverty Law Center to add her to its extremist files, calling her “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”

In an editorial Thursday, The New York Times said Geller “has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims” and called the Garland event “an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom. … To pretend it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Wow, no bias there!!

As head of an organization called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, she took in $960,000 in donations in 2013, paying herself a salary of $192,500, according to tax filings.

Donations pour in from the PayPal button on her website, Geller said, adding that she has “no idea” how much money she has raised.

Oh, and her main donor is a <<<evil music sting>> A CONSERVATIVE Foundation! OMG! THE Apocolypse is upon us all. She’s another Anti-Christ!

Yet, no one at the Liberal Media is even remotely worried about The Clinton Foundation and all that money. $500,000 per speech for Bill “gotta pay the bills”. Ha! Ha! That’s funny Bill.

Pam Geller makes money, that’s suspicious and evil.

The Clinton Foundation rakes in Millions to Billions, no one on the Left cares. They think it’s a good thing!

Hillary takes in money from dubious sources. No one cares. They let Bill have the pithy comebacks like “I just work here” and they laugh it off and  go on there merry way.

But Freedom Speech, naw, who gives a crap about that.

Hillary wants to buy the election with $2 BILLION  (3 times what Obama raised) and that’s a good thing.

The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family’s charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.

“The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” Rathke told reporters. (Reuters)

Muslim jihadist try to kill Americans on American soil, not only is it her fault but SHE’s THE BAD GUY for ‘upsetting’ them.

America, What a Country!

The daily threat is the Sharia-flavored assault on our liberties, the kind of pressure exerted by reasonable-sounding Islamists in communities across America, under the guise of fighting “Islamophobia.”

It was just such an event that attracted attention in January in the same convention center attacked by Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi on May 3. Dubbed “Stand With the Prophet,” it featured elements of earnest concern about Islam’s image in America. But it also featured moments of scurrilous slander against anyone who would speak boldly against the terrorist wing of the Islamic faith.

Employing the first rule of political correctness, the “Stand With the Prophet” event brimmed with the fascist sentiment that assertive words against radical Islam must be branded as hate speech.

Sadly, this is the same noxious logic the Southern Poverty Law Center uses in its reckless designation of Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative as an anti-Muslim hate group.

It is neither a hate group nor anti-Muslim. It is anti-free speech repression. Muslims willing to tolerate America’s heritage of free expression will taste no quarrel with Geller’s AFDI.

Her group mounted the cartoon contest not from a general distaste for Muslims, but as a ballsy response to Jihadist habits of suppressing expression that rattles their fragile sensibilities. The most extreme example of this thin skin is the recent tendency of some hard-liners to take up arms against those who have drawn images of the prophet Muhammad. The Charlie Hebdo attacks in January and the widespread riots protesting Danish cartoons a decade ago reveal a facet of Islam’s advance that poses a dire threat to all societies cherishing freedom of expression.

So, seeking to put a stick in the eye of such an affront, the Geller event sought to make a point that we will not be told what we can and cannot draw— or say, or write, for that matter.

By the time the day was over, another lesson had been delivered. Unlike the sitting ducks in the Paris office, in Texas, we shoot back. One hopes the growing ISIS fan base will be somewhat dampened each time its adherents are killed before they take out one infidel.

 

That lesson has been so popular that it has drawn many to approve of the whole cartoon-contest idea, fancying it as a method to smoke out the next wave of twisted souls seeking to spread the caliphate by challenging Americans engaged in free speech.

But here is where a line is drawn, between standing up for groups like AFDI as they hold such events, and actually advocating them.

That line is beyond the grasp of many. Soon after the January event in Garland had attempted to bully and berate anti-jihad speech, I heard of the plan for the Muhammad cartoon contest. I may have audibly groaned.

I am as ready as anyone to take the battle to the terrorists, whether by bombing them into oblivion in the Middle East, or defending America against violence or ancient repressions here in America.

But the cartoon contest was problematic at several levels. It was clumsily broad and needlessly hurtful to countless people who are guilty of nothing.

Remember, the cartoon-fest was not just a show of defiance to the rioters and murderers who react violently to Muhammad on paper; it was a massive back of the hand to the entire Muslim world and its article of faith that says not to draw its prophet.

Some folks cared not one bit about collateral offense. “These people killed our countrymen on 9/11,” one radio caller told me. “I can’t get real worked up about getting them steamed about a stupid cartoon.”

Not an unprincipled view. But as we hopefully move toward a new era of rejoining the war our enemy has never stopped fighting, it is time to note the need to fight hard, but fight smart.

Our war effort should do two things: obliterate the enemy militarily, and make clear that we have no dispute with Muslims willing to peacefully coexist in free societies.

The Islamic rules against depicting Muhammad are no skin off anyone’s nose, and that belief deserved better than to be savaged by some righteously offended Americans looking to score points against radical views recommending violence to prevent such depictions.

Let us focus our energies not on flipping giant birds in the general direction of all Muslims, but rather a concerted effort to vanquish the portion of Islamic culture that gave birth to murderous overreactions to art.

There have been multiple lessons in recent days, groupable in a folder one might call Free Speech 101 in the Age of Islamic Repression. Its highlights:

— Strict Quranic interpretations are incompatible with American law in many ways. Few examples are more valuable than Sharia’s call to shut down offending speech by the sword.

— In America, some folks believe that free speech is supported only if the words are embraced and praised. I cannot be more clear: Ms. Geller has the right to hold a daily Muhammad cartoon contest if she wishes. But if that tactic is not my cup of tea, no one should suggest that my defense of her rights is somehow timid.

— Vast cross- sections of America need a refresher course on free expression. The First Amendment exists to protect precisely those types of speech that rankle some sensibilities. Safe, sanguine speech requires no protection. There are exceptions for fighting words and incitements to violence, but the Garland event exemplified neither. It was a private event that forced no unwitting souls to gaze upon the Prophet. As for incitements, they are actual invitations to do specific harm. The mere crafting of words or images that are infuriating to some are the problem of the offended party, not the artist.

Those knocked off-kilter by the free expression of others have the responsibility to learn a skill set: First, let it go like big boys and girls, realizing that freedom means occasionally running across things that can anger, provoke, even infuriate; Or second, engage in more free speech in return. Explain why you are offended, call for self-restraint in the creation of incendiary images, and then just walk away. Such entreaties may prevail, they may not. Such is life in a free society.

Every Muslim in America should know that a free society is what they have chosen to enter. Our incredibly tolerant and resilient nation mounted no national wave of retribution even after Islamic terrorists ripped our hearts out on 9/11.

But clear-eyed assessments of our war against radicals are not hate speech. And the occasional edgy stunt designed to highlight the jihadists’ hostility to American law and culture does not warrant an armed attack.

In today’s America, we cannot even know the name of a heroic police officer who mowed down the two Garland terrorists before they could kill a single Texan. The reason: too many concerns about his safety.

We will know we have rejoined the battle when ISIS is more worried about its safety than the brave Americans who occasionally mow down an ISIS operative.

Meanwhile, let us marshal any passion for more cartoon contests and channel it toward something genuinely constructive: the election of a President who is serious at all levels about fighting radical Islam, fending off both its terror tactics and repressive instincts. (Mark Davis)

What Difference Does it Make?

Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented

But it was all the fault of the video, not incompetence in government all the way to the top, especially not Soon-to-Be Crowned in 2016 Queen Hillary The First.

So what if they were preventable and we didn’t prevent them, that’s hardly grounds for holding anyone accountable!!

A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.

But a year and half later, does anyone care anymore? And isn’t that the point now?

The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.

Gee, wasn’t that also in the 9/11 report? 🙂

So I guess it’s the CIA’s fault, no it’s the Video…But it certainly isn’t Queen-to-Be Hillary, even though the buck shouldn’t stop at the top of the bureauctic food chain…. especially for the Once and Future Queen! 🙂

The committee determined that the U.S. military command in Africa didn’t know about the CIA annex and that the Pentagon didn’t have the resources in place to defend the State Department compound in an emergency.

“The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement.

The report also noted, chillingly, that the FBI’s investigation of the attacks has been hampered in Libya and that 15 people “supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States” have since been killed in Benghazi. The report said it was unclear whether those killings were related to the inquiry.

<<snicker>> Yah, think… 🙂

And now the fun part…

The report found no evidence of the kind of political coverup that Republicans have long alleged. Much of it recounted now-familiar facts about deteriorating security conditions in Benghazi in 2012, a year after the fall of longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi. It filled in new details about the relationship between the State Department compound and the CIA annex about a mile away, and described the concern among many intelligence specialists about the growing potency of Islamist militants in the city.

“In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the panel.

FOX: Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Can you say “re-election”. Just Lie long enough to get Obama Re-elected.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue. 

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

NOT A VIDEO!! (released 4 months before hand)

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?” 

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

But what difference does it make, the Liberal Queen Hillary Media will not touch her sacredness.

Media Matters (Ultra-Leftists funded by a Billionaire Socialist and deep into the Liberal Media): On January 15, 2014, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan review of its findings in an investigation of the September 11, 2012, attacks on an American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Much of the report dispels myths perpetuated by Fox News over the last sixteen months.

It did no such thing. But hey, what’s another lie now, after all, What does it matter? 🙂

It’s not like the Liberal Media is going to be suddenly outraged and demand action like they did at Watergate 40 years ago. Oh hell no!

…You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’ But the plans were on display…’ on display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’ `That’s the display department.’ `With a torch.’ `Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’ `So had the stairs.’ `But look you found the notice didn’t you?’ `Yes,’ said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.’ — Douglas Adams.

BEWARE THE WRATH OF THE ONCE AND FUTURE QUEEN OF AMERIKA!! And her Ministry of Truth.

In response to the report, the State Department issued an update of its efforts to improve security at overseas posts and make other changes recommended by an independent oversight panel — the Accountability Review Board — shortly after the attacks.

Gee, they said that after 9/11.

Ohh, goody, a Review Board! They should have a uselessly outdated report ready by…oh Spring of 2016 after the Coronation of Queen Hillary…

“While risk can never be completely eliminated from our diplomatic and development duties,” the State Department statement said, “we must always work to minimize it.”

Minimize the political risk you mean.

The agency said it is refining procedures for assessing risk and evaluating security measures in highly volatile areas, including when to depart from the usual reliance on locally hired security guards. “Hard decisions must be made when it comes to whether the United States should operate in dangerous overseas locations,” the statement said.

Gee, didn’t they say that after 9/11??

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Senate report adds little new information and does not do much to expand the government’s understanding of the attacks. “We should have been better then, and we need to get better going forward,” she said.

Of course it adds little new information because every knew you were lying then, and this just proved it, but you’ll continue to go with the lies and the committees becauseb the truth ultimately doesn’t matter enough, but the politics does. So until you’ve buried it under that “Leopard” sign on your door, does it really matter? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Benghazi: One Year Later

So what have we learned in the last year?

That Obama Lies. Hillary Lies. Susan Rice Lies. The State Department Lies.

Everyone in the Administration lies about it.

Then the Ministry of Truth buries it.

And you get scorn and ridicule if you even bring it up to The Left.

“What Difference Does it Make?”

It’s deliberate. It’s Calculated. And it’s 1000% political.

That’s what we’ve learned in the last year.

The list of mea culpas by Obama administration officials involved in the Benghazi response and aftermath include: standing down the counterterrorism Foreign Emergency Support Team, failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, failing to release the disputed Benghazi “talking points” when Congress asked for them, and using the word “spontaneous” while avoiding the word “terrorism.”

And blaming a You Tube video that had been out there 3 months prior and had had no effect in the region. But the Administration arrested it’s maker. It’s the only arrest they’ve made to date.

And that  arrest wasn’t for making the video, which is a legal, constitutionally-protected exercise of free speech. It was for violating his probation in an earlier bank fraud case dating back to 2010.

Twelve months ago, the Christopher Stevens became the first US ambassador assassinated in the line of duty in more than three decades.  He was murdered along with three other Americans during a chaotic, hours-long terrorist raid on two US compounds in Benghazi, Libya.  Since that day, none of the terrorists responsible have been captured or killed, even though our intelligence services know where they are.  Not a single government official has been fired over the historic security failures.  And more than a dozen US diplomatic missions in “high risk” zones remain under-protected to this day.  Nine months ago, I posed twelve unanswered questions about the Benghazi massacre; as of this writing, ten of them have yet to be adequately answered.  The responses to the others reveal US incompetence and a politically-motivated cover up.  Chris Stephen, the left-wing UK Guardian’s Libya-based correspondent, has meticulously reviewed the record of what really happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12, and contrasted it with the Obama administration’s “official” story.  Here is the introduction from Stephen’s lengthy report:

The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was striking for a number of reasons: the date, 11 September, the toll – four diplomats killed, including an ambassador – and the knock-on effects on the careers of senior American politicians. But what is perhaps most striking is the inconsistencies: the US version of events compared with those of witnesses and the facts on the ground. The two do not tally. And so, a year later, there remain pressing questions about what happened that night – and what the Americans say happened

Read the whole thing ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge).  It’s a harrowing account of terror and confusion, an indictment of the administration’s reckless ineptitude in the weeks leading up to the bloodshed, and an expose of the government’s numerous attempts at revisionism.  Meanwhile, why haven’t any of the perpetrators been brought to justice?  Part of the equation is the Obama administration’s dangerous obsession with treating these terrorists as common criminals.  They want to build legal cases against the attackers, then try them in civilian court.  Madness. But another element of the delay is the Libyan government’s ongoing efforts at obstruction, and the White House’s lack of urgency (via the New York Times):

A year after the attacks in Benghazi that killed the United States ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, the Justice Department has indicted suspects. Intelligence officials have a general idea of where they are hiding. And the military has a contingency plan to snatch them if that becomes necessary.  But the fledgling Libyan government, which has little to no control over significant parts of the country, like Benghazi and eastern Libya, has rebuffed the Obama administration’s efforts to arrest the suspects…Some military and law enforcement officials have grown frustrated with what they believe is the White House’s unwillingness to pressure the Libyan government to make the arrests or allow American forces to do so, according to current and former senior government officials. Mr. Obama acknowledged last month at a news conference that the suspects had been charged but were still on the loose.  “Whether he likes it or not, he is going to have to deal with this issue,” said a former senior American official, referring to Mr. Comey. “There’s a huge frustration on the issue among the agents about why nothing has happened to these guys who have killed Americans.”

In fairness to the Libyan government, they can barely keep themselves safe, and wield virtually no sovereign control over much of their nation.  They live in constant fear of Islamist reprisals.  It’s also possible that the Libyans may still harbor a grudge over the public humiliation they suffered at the hands of the Obama administration in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.  You may recall that Susan Rice’s false talking points directly contradicted the assessment of Libya’s president, prompting the Libyans to delay the arrival of US investigative teams at the attack site.  Most gallingly, American officials on the ground are venting frustration over their assessment that regardless of the Libyans’ posture, The White House isn’t applying much pressure or leadership to resolve the situation.  365 days have passed since four Americans were murdered by a gang of radical Islamists, and that outrage has gone unanswered.  No arrests, no military strikes, few (if any) lessons learned, no accountability — even of the token variety — and no justice.  Appalling.  I’ll leave you with two video clips.  The first features Hillary Clinton standing next to the Benghazi victims’ flag-draped coffins and blaming the attacks on an “awful internet video,” followed by President Obama vowing justice for the fallen.  The second clip is of Amb. Susan Rice disseminating information that the administration knew to be false, days after the raid.  She has since been promoted.  Both spectacles speak for themselves: (townhall)

And it took almost a year to get Susan Rice her payback for her bold faced lies.

She the National Security Advisor.

Finally, someone who is nearly as good an example of the Peter Principle as Janet Napolitano.

The State Department, under the direction of Secretary of State John Kerry, is still refusing to provide requested Benghazi eyewitnesses to the House Oversight Committee for interviews about what happened one year ago today.

Yesterday, Chairman Darrell Issa sent a letter to Kerry stressing the only people who can provide a full picture of the 9/11 terror attack are witnesses who survived.

“The survivors of the attacks are the only people who can give testimony to the Committee about what happened on the ground in Benghazi,” Issa wrote in the letter. “Details provided by the survivors will not only help the Committee determine what took place during the attack, but will also help the Committee and other interested parties determine ways to prevent future tragedies.”

A request was made by the Oversight Committee on August 14, 2013 for transcribed interviews with Benghazi survivors. The State Department responded on August 23 by saying it was “not prepared to provide witnesses for those interviews.” The Accountability Review Board [ARB] has interviewed Benghazi witnesses Issa is requesting. 

“The ARB considered the surviving eyewitnesses to the attack to be part of a ‘core group’ of witnesses,” Issa said. “Furthermore, the ARB recommended that the Department establish a panel of outside independent experts to identify best practices and evaluate security issues at diplomatic posts around the world. That panel, chaired by former U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, enjoyed the Department’s full support, with unfettered access to documents and personnel. The panel met with over 200 people, including at least one individual whom the Department is now refusing to make available to the Committee.”

It is suspected the State Department has allowed witnesses to speak to the media for interviews. Issa’s letter cites a recent article in Vanity Fair in which great details are described regarding the Benghazi attack, including “details that only persons who survived the attack could possibly know.” Fox News has also been able to get in contact with some of the witnesses.

“The State Department has further restricted the Committee’s access to these witnesses, claiming that they must be insulated from congressional investigators as they ‘would very likely be witnesses in any criminal proceedings relating to the Benghazi attacks,'” Issa said. “The Department’s claims that it needs to ‘insulate’ witnesses ‘from any perception of political accountability in fulfilling their responsibilities’ actually creates the impression that the Department is exerting its own political influence to prevent survivors from speaking to Congress.”

President Obama pledged to cooperate with Congress after the attack as did Secretary Kerry.

“The State Department has not lived up to these unequivocal commitments to ‘provide answers.’ Instead, the Department has attempted to limit the Committee’s access to important documents and information, including witnesses such as the Benghazi survivors.”

Issa is demanding Kerry provide interviews with witnesses by September 24 or be issued subpoenas. (Katie Pavlich)

“We made mistakes, but without malice”–One Administration official was said to have decried.

The Justice Department says it’s “using every tool and resource available…to ensure that anyone who played any part in that attack will face justice, no matter how long it takes and no matter how far we must go to find them.” (Meanwhile, he’s suing Texas over Voter ID laws).

Well, that’s ok then, no problem…After all, “What Difference does it make?”

So the lesson to be learned here is , that if lie to cover up your bosses mistakes you will get a promotion and you get to ridicule and stonewall anyone who dares to challenge your lies.

Now, that’s Government you can trust. 🙂

 

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

The Prism of Big Brother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5dmf5xZJu0

The scale of America’s surveillance state was laid bare on Thursday as senior politicians revealed that the US counter-terrorism effort had swept up swaths of personal data from the phone calls of millions of citizens for years.

After the revelation by the Guardian of a sweeping secret court order that authorised the FBI to seize all call records from a subsidiary of Verizon, the Obama administration sought to defuse mounting anger over what critics described as the broadest surveillance ruling ever issued.

A White House spokesman said that laws governing such orders “are something that have been in place for a number of years now” and were vital for protecting national security. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the Verizon court order had been in place for seven years. “People want the homeland kept safe,” Feinstein said.

BUT Obama himself prior to  his re-coronation declared the War on Terror won.

“The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that “It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists.”

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

So who’s he keeping it “safe” from then? 🙂

The White House sought to defend what it called “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats”. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Fisa orders were used to “support important and highly sensitive intelligence collection operations” on which members of Congress were fully briefed.

“The intelligence community is conducting court-authorized intelligence activities pursuant to a public statute with the knowledge and oversight of Congress and the intelligence community in both houses of Congress,” Earnest said.

Or are we talking about Janet Napolitano’s “domestic Terrorists”, aka The Tea Party. 🙂

History: http://governmentagainstthepeople.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/senator-barack-obama-on-illegal-domestic-surveillance/

“This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises …”

Barack Obama, May 23

Nice thought. But much as Obama would like to close his eyes, click his heels three times and declare the war on terror over, war is a two-way street.

That’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam) or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

Obama says enough is enough. He doesn’t want us on “a perpetual wartime footing.” Well, the Cold War lasted 45 years. The war on terror, 12 so far. By Obama’s calculus, we should have declared the Cold War over in 1958 and left Western Europe, our Pacific allies, the entire free world to fend for itself – and consigned Eastern Europe to endless darkness. (Charles Krauthammer)

With Al Qaeda’s core now “on the path to defeat,” he argued, the nation must adapt.

But “adapt” to what?

Top secret PRISM program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Facebook and Apple.

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

PRISM was launched from the ashes of President George W. Bush’s secret program of warrantless domestic surveillance in 2007, after news media disclosures, lawsuits and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forced the president to look for new authority.

Which, of course, make all of this George Bush’s fault! He;s the one responsible for invading your every waking moment technologically! Not Big Brother Obama and his cronies! 🙂

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”

Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. “If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge,” one said.

An Apple spokesman said it had “never heard” of PRISM.

It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.

Government officials and the document itself made clear that the NSA regarded the identities of its private partners as PRISM’s most sensitive secret, fearing that the companies would withdraw from the program if exposed. “98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft; we need to make sure we don’t harm these sources,” the briefing’s author wrote in his speaker’s notes. (WP)

The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

Which according to the left makes all of this spying Bush’s fault! 🙂

The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.

It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.

Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.

The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.

Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.

It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks. (UK Guardian)

In a statement issue late Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

But the War on Terror was won, so who are you afraid of? 🙂

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

So, a Note to the NSA computer that is reading my blog and listening to my phone: I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON IT M*F*!

Thank you.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Cover-up Zombies

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid!

In an appearance on Face the Nation this morning, Rep. Darrell Issa revealed several new pieces of information about the Obama administration’s controversial description of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, casting doubt that the White House mischaracterized its cause by mere accident.

“The talking points were right and then the talking points were wrong,” Issa explained in response to a question about reporting at the Weekly Standard. The CIA and Greg Hicks, who took over as Charge d’Affairs in Libya after the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, both knew immediately that it was an attack, not a protest.

Hicks, who did not appear on the show but whose reactions were featured based on transcripts of interviews with Issa’s committee, said he was stunned by what UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed on five different news shows on Sep. 16. When she appeared on Face the Nation, she followed an interview with the President of Libya who claimed he had “no doubt” it was a terror attack. Moments later, Amb. Rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was more likely.

Acting Ambassador Hicks watched the Sunday shows and said he found this contradiction shocking. “The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” he accused. Hicks added, “My jaw hit the floor as I watched this…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day.”

Hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the Sunday news shows explains why it took the FBI three weeks to gain access to the Benghazi site. The U.S. had effectively humiliated the Libyan President on national TV. That decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to investigate and track down those responsible.

According to Hicks, no one from the State Department contacted him about what Amb. Rice would be saying in advance. The next morning he called Beth Jones, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near East Affaris, and asked her why Amb. Rice had made the statements she had. Jones responded, “I don’t know.”

A report published Friday by the Weekly Standard suggests that State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland took issue with the initial talking points and, with backing from the White House, removed any evidence of al Qaeda involvement and of prior attacks on western targets in the region. According to emails reviewed by the Weekly Standard, Nuland said her superiors (unnamed) were concerned about criticism from Congress. (Breitbart)

If this had been their Devil Incarnate GWB they’d be screaming for Impeachment hearing like a bunch of flesh crazed harpies.
Instead they are cover-up Zombies.
Amazing what partisan ship does to “justice” isn’t it?
But, take heart, Ambassador Stevens and 3 others are still DEAD. And the Left doesn’t care who did it because it’s not apart of their Agenda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146226n

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146226n

Can you hear the collective yawn for the Ministry of Truth?

Keystone Cops

Imagine Democrats with confused looks on their faces! The journey to clearing the path for the Keystone Pipeline has been a bitter fought battle, but it looks like now the White House and its administration can’t fight any more.

Oh but they will. They’ll fight to the bitter, partisan end. The Agenda is the Agenda and Oil is Devil’s Brew and they are Prohibitionists!

In a new report done by the State Department it has been confirmed, “the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route”.

Like Liberals care about Truth or facts.

As ABC reports (yes even the mainstream media is picking up on this),

“The approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S.,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

The State Department, which conducted the study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, also suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.

The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed. It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”

Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.

So it’s down to rancorous, petty, petulant politics. And no one is more petulant than a Modern Democrat.

Now, we all know the fight that has been going on between environmental activists and those who support the Keystone Pipeline. But now it seems that there is no real argument for the environmentalists. What can they possibly complain about now?

Everything and Anything. After all, Oil Companies are right up their in top of Hell’s Pantheon along with “Rich” people, Corporations, and George W Bush.

Oh wait, here it is, apparently the government and the State Department don’t really know what they’re talking about, according to the president of Friends of the Earth. He says, “The draft SEIS reads like an on-ramp to justify the Keystone XL pipeline project. We cannot solve the climate crisis when the State Department fails to understand the basic climate, environmental and economic impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Was this Hilary’s State Depart or John “F*ing” Kerry’s?

So basically it seems that no matter what supporters of the pipeline do, it is not good enough. We now have the Obama administration on our side, and it is still not enough for these “green” people. They used to try the excuse that the people of the states affected didn’t like it, but now Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota have all signed-off on the pipeline plan and their governors and congressional delegations have been calling on Obama to follow suit. It is time everyone wakes up and realizes this pipeline is the best choice to create thousands of new jobs and provide gas to thousands of people across the country.

Bill McKibben, the founder and spiritual leader of 350.org, is in high dudgeon. 350.org has organized several protests in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere around the country. McKibben and others have managed to get themselves arrested at the White House in what he thinks of as the great tradition of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In fact, in an email sent shortly after the release of the SEIS, McKibben proclaimed that Keystone is “the Stonewall and the Selma of the climate movement.” In the same email he describes Keystone as an “800,000 barrel-a-day fuse to one of the planet’s biggest carbon bombs” and describes the State Department’s findings as “nonsense.”

It’s HERESY!!!!

McKibben calls for volunteers to staff “a team of rapid responders coast-to-coast who can turn around with 24 hours notice and raise a ruckus” whenever and wherever Secretary Kerry or President Obama appears in public. 350.org plans for a massive day of action and training in May to “stick it to the pipeline.” So the president and secretary of state will be under plenty of pressure to nix the project.

Fear and Intimidation! 🙂

They don’t want it anyways. The Chevy Volt  and Solar Panels awaits…
But then again, he does like playing golf with those big-money guys.  🙂
But then He declared he wasn’t a “Dictator” recently.

A dictator doesn’t listen to his subjects. He rules by fiat. He can’t abide criticism and dissent, and uses his power to stifle it. He’s the center of a cult of personality, reveling in the adoration of his devoted minions.

Does that sound like President Barack Obama to you? (DC)

🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino