Tag Archive: White House


 

RepMikeKelly

Published on May 17, 2013

************************************************************************************************

House hearing on IRS scandal

WashingtonPost WashingtonPost

Published on May 17, 2013

**********************************************************************************************

Hmmmm,  it  is strangely  reminiscent  of  the Hilary testimony ranting ….”What Difference Does  It Make ?”

It  seems  it  makes  quite a bit  of  difference  to the  “American  People”!!!

Legality is not  “Irrelevant”  by  any   stretch  of the  imagination!!!

How  many  citizens  have  been  able  to  claim  and successfully  use  the  standard  that   legality is  irrelevant and  have it  accepted  in a  court  of law ???

Exactly !!

I  believe  it  is  time  the   government  and it’s  entities  are  held  accountable  to   the  law  just as  the  Citizens  are.  Don’t   you  ???

~Desert Rose~

***********************************************************************************************

Republicans Are Ripping The White House’s Dan Pfeiffer For Saying The Legality Of IRS Targeting Is ‘Irrelevant’

Brett LoGiurato | May 19, 2013, 11:58 AM

Dan Pfeiffer IRS scandal

Republicans are ripping White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer this morning for referring to the legality of the IRS’ inappropriate targeting of conservative groups as “irrelevant.”

But Pfeiffer said that to reinforce the White House’s assertion that the IRS’ behavior is inexcusable.

“I can’t speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant,” Pfeiffer said on ABC‘s “This Week,” in a comment that drew ire from Republicans. “The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed so we ensure it never happens again.”

“This Week” host George Stephanopoulos was struck by the “irrelevant” statement, and asked Pfeiffer if he “really believed” that was the case. Pfeiffer attempted to clarify.

About these ads

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Funny Obamas

Dave Hodges
Activist Post

Mark Twain once talked about history not necessarily repeating, but he noted that history sure does rhyme.

Richard Nixon was unable to survive one direct hit upon his administration, namely, the Watergate scandal. Conversely, Obama is facing five scandals which dwarf Watergate in terms of criminality, abuse of power, malfeasance of office and outright treason.

The damage inflicted upon the American people by the criminal syndicate occupying the White House is unparalleled in American history. Yet, Obama is going to survive and this article will describe how Obama is this century’s version of the famous escape artist, Houdini.

The Alternative Media Is Doing Its Job

In Part One of this series, I detailed how various researchers have determined that it only takes 10% of the population to passionately hold to an ideal for the ideal to reach critical mass and go viral. I also described how the knowledge that this country is being run by a criminal syndicate is taking hold and we have likely passed the 10% threshold as evidenced by the fact that America is outraged by (1) Benghazi-Gate; (2) IRS-Gate; (3) AP Spy-Gate; (4) Whistleblower-Gate; and even (5) Fast and Furious is beginning to make a second pass. The alternative media is being so effective that it is forcing the MSM to jump off Obama’s ship and claim they do not support him any longer (e.g. MSNBC Chris Mathews).

The Calm Before the Storm

Even the great fence-sitter, Glenn Beck, is beginning to throw words around like “impeachment” in reference to Obama. And this is coming from a man who cannot decide if he is in the MSM or the alternative media. Remember, according to Beck, 9/11 is exactly as the Bush administration claims it was, an al-Qaeda venture. This is the same al-Qaeda that we are allegedly fighting in Afghanistan while supporting in Syria in our effort to oust Assad.
Regardless of the pedigree of many reporters who are now hinting at the fact that we are witnessing the last days of the Obama administration, the President himself seems unbelievably calm.

Obama is calm because he knows that he is going to survive the largest onslaught of simultaneous scandal exposures in our country’s history. There has never been a time in our history in which a sitting president has been besieged with this much exposed fodder aimed at his removal. If Watergate forced Nixon to resign, Obama should have been crushed by the comparative weight of his scandals and he should have already exited the White House. Why hasn’t this happened?

Sacrificial Lambs Buy Time

It is not likely that the Mafioso inhabitant presently residing in the White House will ever leave office prematurely. In fact, I think it is likely that Obama may not leave the Oval Office in 2016 as well.

If this were 1974, I would be advising Obama to pack his bags and I would also be advising him that he should be begging Joe Biden to grant him a pardon for his criminal acts including the facilitation of the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Make no mistake about it, Obama will survive these crises. However, Holder and possibly even DHS director, Janet Napolitano, may not.

Undoubtedly, Obama will offer up the head of Eric Holder as a sacrificial lamb and he will be gone by Labor day, if not much sooner, and this will buy Obama time to enact his endgame strategies which will negate the five Watergate wolves trying to break through his door.

Holder’s departure will bring celebrations in the alternative media and their followers will be dancing in the streets. We will also smell blood and want more removals. But the head of the president will never be touched despite the fact that all of us will soon be screaming for Obama’s scalp. It will just never happen.

What Will Save This President?

There is one game-changing event which will suddenly and irreversibly negate the momentum that the alternative media has achieved in terms of exposing and removing this criminal administration from power.

In the last eight months, I have repeated the mantra that most of what drives this government today is the preservation of the Petrodollar on behalf of the Federal Reserve. I have also detailed how Iran is selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold, thus threatening the preeminence of the Petrodollar in which the other countries of the world must first purchase dollars from the Federal Reserve for the “privilege” of purchasing oil. This process provides the only backing that our dollar possesses.

Iran, China, Russia and India are destabilizing the dominance of our currency. Before you cheer the fact that the Federal Reserve is about ready to take a much-deserved bloodbath, please realize that you have a job to go to every Monday morning because of this one-sided arrangement and it is all about to end unless Iran can be toppled.

Why Syria?

Have you yet figured out why Obama will survive these crushing scandals and assume power in this country in a manner only reserved for such despots as Stalin? The road to Obama’s immediate survival runs through Damascus.

On the surface, Syria seems so very insignificant on the global chessboard. However, the key to invading Iran and seizing their oil fields is to first control Syria, because the occupation of Syria is an insurmountable checkmate against Russian ground troops’ intervention.

If the US takes over the Syrian revolution that we started through our al-Qaeda proxy forces, the US will gain a huge tactical advantage in the Middle East. The installation of short- and medium-range missile batteries in Syria will serve as a deterrent and a blocking mechanism for Russian ground troops’ ability to intervene in Iran.

If Russia allows the US to control Syria, Russia will lose any chance of preventing a US/NATO takeover of Iran. Russia and China have heavily vested themselves in gold. If Iran is stopped from selling its oil for gold, China, Russia and India will have wasted an enormous amount of the respective GNP’s in acquiring gold. And the acquisition of gold will be for naught if the US is about to re-establish the dominance of the Petrodollar as the world’s reserve currency through a successful invasion of Iran.

For awhile, it appeared as if Russia did not have the stomach for WWIII and they were going to let us topple Assad without so much as a whimper. I have been shocked as I have watched Russia apparently acquiesce to an impending takeover of Syria by US-led forces. However, recent Russian events make it clear that WWIII is on the horizon.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.marinecorpquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/usmc03.jpg

“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they’ve made a difference.  The Marines don’t have that problem.”

~ Ronald Reagan, 1985

Marine Corps Quotes- A Testament to the Marine Corps’ Sacrifice for our Freedom

***********************************************************************************************

A great many  of  us  feel that   regardless of  our  opinions  on the   Wars, Missions, Conflicts or  whatever the  moniker  of the month for those Military scenarios  taking  place  all over the  world,  our  Men and  Women  in Uniform deserve  respect.  Not  only  for  their position  , but  for their  service.  The  sacrifice  they  have  made  for their  country should  conjure  up  respect  if not  gratitude for  all they  do as  we stay  home  and  go   about  our  lives untouched  by the horrors  they  witness.

I  am  one  who believes  wholeheartedly  that  all  members of the  Armed  Forces  deserve  respect.  Regardless of the  fact  that  I  do not  agree  with the  illegal  wars  and  intervention  infringing  on the  National  Sovereignty  of other  Nations.  That  however,  does not  reflect onto the  service  each  and  everyone of  them have  dedicated  to  their  Nation with  Honor  and  Bravery.

I do not  feel  that   what  was  done  here  reflects  that respect nor  the  gratitude  that should  be shown these  Men and  Women.  However,  I  realize  that  there  are   those  who believe  that  to  be a  very  personal opinion.  As  was mentioned  to me  by  a  good  friend who happens  to  be a  former   Marine  and  who’s  daughter  happens to  be an active  duty Marine.  I  asked  how  he  felt  about  what  happened  this  day.  His  response  was  simple,  “No big deal”.  He  is of  the opinion  that  it  was   neither  disrespectful nor should anyone  feel  that  it is  an  obligation to show respect to  anyone  in  uniform  out of the  ordinary human  common  courtesy  variety….of  course.   He went  one  step  further  and  asked  his  daughter  how  she  felt  about  what  happened  and  her  response was  also, “No big  deal”.

Now  in  my  mind  it is par  for  the  course  that  many  of  the   Armed  Forces  Personnel do  not feel that  they are  owed  for  their  service.  I find  that  very  honorable that they  be  so  humble in their perception of  themselves and  their  service.  That  however, is their  prerogative  as  they are the ones  who  sacrificed  and  served.  For  those of   us  who have  not ,  I  think  if  one  were to  reflect  on the freedoms we  have  enjoyed and  the life  we  have  lived  in comparison  to those in  other countries.  We should be  grateful and the least  we  can do  is  give  them  respect. 

I  also  do  not think it  out of line  to  expect  that  the President  of  the United  States show  proper respect.  Not only  for the service   these  Men  and Women have given.

Not  only  for the role  that  Marines  have  played  and  proudly  declare  that they are  the  President’s  own.

Not only for the Corps  that  they  represent.

But  because  he is the President  of the United  States  and  his  role  is  to honor them  and  the  sacrifice they  have  given  on his  orders.

Am  I  wrong?  Perhaps  so  as  there  are  Marines  who  do not  agree  that  it   was  required.

Wrong  or  not  I  will always  stand  behind  the  premise  that  they are  deserving  of respect  and that  this task should have  been  preformed  by White  House  Staff  Personnel.  As  they  are  paid  to assist the  Administration in the  everyday nuances  of  business and  personal necessities within the  government.

******Before any of you  who believe  this  is an  agenda against  Obama go off on  tangent, I  say  this………In  my  case, as  I  can  only  speak for  myself,  I  would have felt the  same had it  been any  other President. My  immediate  thought  was how other  Presidents have  shown such  respect  and  decorum  towards Armed Forces Personnel.  Just  so you are  aware ……****

While  I  do not  agree  with  my  friend  ,  I  respect  him  for  his humility and  for his   Service.  I  defer  to  him and  so   have  decided to  make a point  of   recording  his  thoughts  here as  well.

Thank  you   A.T.   Even  if  you  neither  expect nor  require it  ,  you  have  my  respect and  my  gratitude.

~Desert Rose~

************************************************************************************************

‘It made him look like a butler’: Retired general blasts President Obama for ordering U.S. Marine to break military rules by holding an umbrella

  • The President unwittingly forced two U.S Marines to break protocol and regulations as he ordered them to use umbrellas
  • Former United States Air Force Lieutenant Thomas McInerney criticized the President for making the officers look like butlers
  • Came as he was assailed by questions over three scandals engulfing White House during Rose Garden press conference with Turkish Prime Minister
  • Answered questions on Benghazi where no marines guarded ambassador Chris Stevens despite his repeated requests for better protection

By David Martosko In Washington, James Nye and Daniel Bates

|

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

President Obama humiliated the marine who he asked to hold his umbrella by making him ‘look like a butler’, a respected military general claimed today.

Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’ by making the soldier shelter him from a shower.

He also said that the President has plenty of aides so did not understand why one of them could not have held the umbrella.

Scroll Down for Video

Hoping for a break in the storm

Hoping for a break in the storm: Obama faced a barrage of questions over three simultaneous scandals engulfing his administration

Broken Regulations

Broken Regulations: US Marines hold umbrellas during light rain for US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The President caused a stir when he summoned over two marines to keep him dry at a press conference in the Rose Garden.

The marines held an umbrella over the President and the Turkish Prime Minister individually as Obama made jokes about the weather.

However, for some the move was not a laughing matter particularly as it is a breach of protocol for marines to hold umbrellas while in uniform.

Lt Gen McInerney told MailOnline that he found it particularly insulting how the President at one point his his hand under the marine’s arm ‘like he wasn’t doing a good job or something’.

He said: ‘The President has stood in the rain before without an umbrella and a marine would generally stand there without holding an umbrella.

‘He isn’t some kind of butler or something.

‘It makes the other guy (the other marine) look like a butler too.’

‘I think it’s a lack of respect for the marine, that’s what I think.’

‘I don’t understand why one of his aides could not have held the umbrella. The marine is a warrior but the aides are not.’

Lt Gen McInerney, 76, served in Vietnam and fought with NATO and was commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska before retiring.

He said: ‘If I was his (the marine’s) commander…I’d say good job, you did what he wanted you to do but you can’t, really he has to keep his comments to himself because if you say anything you’re going to get in trouble.’

‘Any time a marine has said something…one general who spoke out, he got fired, he got canned from his job.’

Lt Gen McInerney also lashed out at the President for not doing enough to support soldiers when they return home from combat.’

He said: ‘The President talks a good line but he doesn’t follow a good line. These guys are coming home and they’re not getting what they are supposed to get.’

‘The guy’s (Obama) got to get real and he’s got to start doing stuff the right way and answering questions in the right manner, not changing subject in the middle of the interview.’

According to Marine Corps regulations, not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express permission of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

The Marine Corp Manual, which is the bible for all soldiers serving, specifically states that a soldier’s uniform dress code does not allow the carrying of an umbrella and ‘no officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.’

Indeed, male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.

Regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, rules out any use or carrying of an umbrella while a Marine is in uniform.

However, female Marines ‘may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered.’

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President's actions

Insensitive? Many have questioned the President’s actions

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Rule Breaker: President Barack Obama, center, watches a Marine remove the umbrella after it stopped raining during his joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Many commentators found the use of the marines to be particularly insensitive, given the President was answering questions on Benghazi.

The lack of marines protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens at the Libyan consulate and the failure to deploy marines to protect him amid the outbreak of violence has come under fire ever since last year’s attack on September 11.

Usually a marine guard would be in force at an overseas diplomatic compound but in Benghazi the government opted to use a private Libyan security team.

Stevens had made repeated appeals for improved security at the Libyan base but to no avail.

Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a CIA security team stationed a mile away who heard gunshots and intervened to try and help Stevens. They were also killed in an attack on their compound.

When violence broke out there were also delays sending in marines to assist.

A rapid response team were twice told to stand down amid the chaos while reports at the time said the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team was delayed because the state department ordered them to deplane and change into civilian clothing.

Answering questions on Benghazi, President Obama said the government was ‘ continuing to review our security at high-threat diplomatic posts’ in light of the attack. 

At the press conference originally intended to be a victory lap for the United States’ relationship with Turkey, Obama stood alongside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and fielded questions which quickly shifted to the trio of scandals that are engulfing his administration.

Critical: Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ¿lack of respect¿

Critical:Thomas McInerney, a former United States Air Force Lieutenant General, said that the President showed a ‘lack of respect’

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to 'learn the lessons of Benghazi' but he called it an 'incident' rather than a terror attack

Admission: Obama admitted that the U.S. needs to ‘learn the lessons of Benghazi’ but he called it an ‘incident’ rather than a terror attack

He also dodged questions about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, and said ‘I offer no apologies’ for the Department of Justice’s secret seizure of reporter’s phone records in search of a classified intelligence leak.

He has been under growing pressure over these issues and Benghazi in recent weeks.

It has emerged that his State Department political appointees intervened in the aftermath of the 2012 terror attack, in a process that resulted in a misleading set of talking points which ignored terrorism in favor of a more muted explanation, in the midst of a re-election campaign.

 

 

 

Barack Obama, Martin Dempsey
Jacquelyn Martin / AP

President Barack Obama speaks during a meeting with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, left, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and the service secretaries, service chiefs, and senior enlisted advisers to discuss sexual assault in the military in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, May 16, 2013.

(WASHINGTON) — The Air Force’s top general said Friday that sexual assaults in his branch of the military typically involve alcohol use and can be traced to a lack of respect for women.

“We have a problem with respect for women that leads to many of the situations that result in sexual assault in our Air Force,” Gen. Mark Welsh told reporters in a lengthy interview in his Pentagon offices.

He spoke one day after he and other military leaders were summoned to the White House to discuss the sexual assault problem with President Barack Obama, who has expressed impatience with the Pentagon’s failure to solve it.

Welsh said combatting the problem, which he characterized as a crisis, is his No. 1 priority as the Air Force chief of staff. He said he reviews every reported case of sexual assault; last year there were 792 in the Air Force.

Welsh addressed criticism about his comment last week, in response to questions at a congressional hearing, that the problem can be explained in part by a “hook-up mentality” in the wider society. Some said his remark implied that the blame rests mainly with victims.

“If I had this to do over again, I would take more time to answer the question and not try to compress it,” he said, adding that his point was that every person who enters the Air Force needs to be instructed in “this idea of respect, inclusion, diversity and value of every individual.”

“Now, I didn’t say it that way in the hearing, and I wish I had because I think it gave, especially victims, the opportunity for someone to interpret what I said as blaming the victims,” he said, adding that as a result, “I am sorry about that because there is nothing that is farther from the truth.”

Obama said after Thursday’s meeting with the military leaders that he is determined to eliminate the “scourge” of sexual assault in the military, while cautioning that it will take a long and sustained effort by all military members.

“There is no silver bullet to solving this problem,” Obama said.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

********************************************************************************************

 

Welsh: Open to all options to stop military sexual assault

By Jennifer Hlad

Stars and Stripes
Published: May 17, 2013
Welsh

Gen. Mark A. Welsh told reporters Friday morning that he is “open” to taking some of the UCMJ authority that exists now on sex crimes out of the chain of command.
Scott M. Ash/U.S. Air Force/File photo

WASHINGTON — As the president continues to press top military brass to stop sexual assaults and a third man in charge of sexual assault prevention is accused of misconduct, the Air Force chief of staff said he’s open to doing what advocates have been suggesting for years: Removing the authority to prosecute sex crimes from the chain of command.

Currently, commanders are responsible for initiating courts-martial against alleged attackers in their own chain of command, and for reviewing the results of courts-martial. Victims and advocates say that system discourages victims from reporting and can lead to problems when the accused has a better reputation within the unit than the victim does.

Gen. Mark Welsh told reporters Friday morning that he believes “all options should be on the table” for addressing sexual assault, and that he is “open” to taking some of the UCMJ authority that exists now on sex crimes out of the chain of command. He also said he believes it’s time to strip from commanders the ability to reverse courts-martial findings, though he said he believes commanders should retain the authority to reduce sentences.

The issue came into the spotlight earlier this year, when an Air Force lieutenant general decided to overturn the sexual assault conviction and sentence of a fighter pilot in Italy.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

*********************************************************************************************

 

US military ordered to recertify sexual assault prevention personnel

Defence secretary Chuck Hagel moves to quell outrage in order to each branch of military to address sexual assault issue

  • Associated Press in Washington
  • guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 May 2013 16.47 EDT
Hagel And Dempsey

Defence secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey at a briefing about sexual assault in the military. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Defence secretary Chuck Hagel on Friday ordered the military to recertify every person involved in programmes designed to prevent and respond to sexual assault, an acknowledgement that assaults have escalated beyond the Pentagon’s control.

He said this step is one among many that will be taken to fix the problem of sexual abuse and sexual harassment within every branch of the military.

At a news conference with General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Hagel said he believes alcohol use is “a very big factor” in many sexual assault and sexual harassment cases, but there are many pieces to the problem.

Hagel said it has become clear to him since taking office in February that holding people accountable for their actions is important, but simply firing people is not a solution.

“Who are you going to fire?” he asked.

 

Read Full Article Here

White House releases additional documents related to Benghazi response

 photo WhiteHousereleasesadditionaldocumentsrelatedtoBenghaziresponse_zpsf87a1d23.jpg

One hundred pages of emails were passed out by the White House Wednesday as the Obama administration tried to put an end to the long simmering dispute over what took place when the American compound in Benghazi was attacked. NBC’s Peter Alexander reports.

Under increasing scrutiny from congressional Republicans, the White House on Wednesday released copies of emails and other additional supporting documents related to its response to last fall’s attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.

The White House released the materials in the wake of Republicans’ clamor for more information about how the Obama administration crafted its explanation for the incident, which came at the height of last year’s campaign season, and resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The emails convey different parts of the administration — the White House, the State Department, and the CIA — trading drafts of talking points for use not just by representatives of the administration, but also by members of Congress.

Read part one of the White House emails (.pdf)

From the very first draft, the talking points included references to “Islamic extremists” who might have participated in the attack.

The most significant changes involved removing references to Ansar al-Sharia to not hinder the investigation into the attack, and changing reference to the Benghazi location to a “mission” or “diplomatic post,” rather than a consulate.

Those talking points, though, were subjected to scrutiny and a series of tweaks from different agencies to ensure the talking points did not get out in front of investigators, who did not yet appear to have a full grasp of the underpinnings of the attack at that point.

Read Full Article and Watch Video Here

****************************************************************************

Did the White House selectively leak e-mail to distort Benghazi timeline story? Update: Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails

posted at 9:21 am on May 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In order to understand just how badly the White House may have fumbled this ball, let’s go back to last week.  Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard reported from Congressional sources on a White House-State Department e-mail string that made clear that the administration wanted the talking points on Benghazi massaged to protect sources and its own political goals.  ABCs Jon Karl later reported from the e-mails themselves, showing that the White House and State Department went through 12 versions of talking points before settling on the final version, which CIA Director Davod Petraeus called “useless” and advised against using.

Yesterday, however — not too long before Jay Carney’s press briefing at the White House — Jake Tapper got a leaked version of an e-mail sent by Ben Rhodes that seemed to contradict the reporting from Hayes and Karl:

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

During the press conference, Carney seized on this report to claim that the Benghazi story was a trumped-up non-story:


Read Full Article Here

*****************************************************************************

MSNBC Panelists Agree That Benghazi Scandal Makes White House Look Terrible

AIMArchives

Published on May 14, 2013

Guests n MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner were in general agreement that the Benghazi scandal makes the White House look terrible, with one even bringing up the possibility of impeaching Obama.

*****************************************************************************

 

 

IRS official knew in 2011 of ‘Tea Party’ targeting: watchdog report

 

 

 

A man walks out of an Internal Revenue Services office after filing his taxes on Tax Day in New York, April 15, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

 

 

WASHINGTON | Sun May 12, 2013 1:34am EDT

 

(Reuters) – A senior Internal Revenue Service official knew in 2011 that IRS agents were giving extra scrutiny to conservative Tea Party groups, according to documents from a watchdog office obtained by Reuters on Saturday.

In a scandal that has already embarrassed the IRS and become a distraction for the Obama administration, a report from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General For Tax Administration (TIGTA) was expected to be issued publicly next week on the IRS practice, who knew about it and when.

As more information emerged over the weekend, the White House said President Barack Obama was concerned about the conduct of a few IRS employees.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said: “If the inspector general finds that there were any rules broken or that conduct of government officials did not meet the standards required of them, the president expects that swift and appropriate steps will be taken to address any misconduct.”

The TIGTA report finds that Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS’s tax-exempt groups unit, knew of the extra scrutiny as early as June 2011.

On Friday, in remarks that triggered a storm of controversy, Lerner publicly apologized at a legal conference in Washington for what she termed “inappropriate” targeting by the IRS of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

She said the practice was confined to an IRS office in Cincinnati and that it was “absolutely not” influenced by the Obama administration. She said none of the targeted groups was denied tax-free status.

The TIGTA report was requested last year by Republican Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of a congressional investigative panel, after he accused the IRS of targeting conservative groups.

TIGTA has found that the IRS singled out groups with the words “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their names for closer scrutiny, according to a TIGTA document.

IRS CHIEF DENIED KNOWLEDGE

In March 2012 in congressional testimony, then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said the IRS was not making it harder for conservative groups to become tax-exempt.

Shulman stepped down at the end of 2012 when his term ended. Steven Miller was named acting head of the agency.

The IRS said in a statement on Saturday that the TIGTA report was correct. The statement said officials in the IRS exempt organizations division knew of the screening and that “IRS senior leadership did not have this level of detail.”

The statement said that while “mistakes were made,” there “were not partisan reasons behind this.”

 

Read Full Article Here

 

 photo obamacarelogo_zps3de31909.jpg

He  fails to discuss the fact that the majority of the constituents  in those  Republican  governed  States agree  with their States  decision.  They  want  nothing to do  with  Obamacare…….But that  would  not  fall into the  sweet  little  package  being  used  by  both  sides of  the  aisle.  That  little topic   he  loves  to  use  at  every turn,  claiming  that  the other side  is  playing  politics.  How  convenient for  him.  The  truth is this is not   a fight  for the  good of  the  People  or  the  Nation.   But  rather  a fight  to  control  the  flow  of all those  taxpayer   and  corporate  lobbyist  dollars.  A  political  game  of Tug-of-War  if you  will.  

Partisan BS at  it’s finest!

He  also  fails to  address something  aside from  the fact that  while  those  who do not  have insurance may be  his  concern because  those who already have  insurance have  seen the  changes  and  the  added  cost that  have been  implemented  by the  healthcare  program.  There  has  been  no  adequate  discussion on the repercussions to   middle  class Americans  who are  having to make  due with smaller paychecks  and the ever rising  costs  associated  with the  financial  rot that  is  affecting  this  Nation.  Yes  those  who qualify  will be  able to receive free healthcare or State  sponsored  healthcare.  What  about  those  who make   just  enough  to  keep their  bills paid  and  food on the table?

What  about  those  barely  able  to  eek  out a living with what  little  they  make and  still be able to  put  gas in the  car  to keep  going  to that  underpaid job?

Who is  going to help them  when the  time  comes  to  get  this   insurance  exchange,  that  is  being  touted  as  the answer to all our  ills ( pun most  definitely intended),   is more than they  can  possibly  afford  and still feed their  children?

The fact is that those  who cannot  afford  insurance because  they   literally cannot afford  to , even , take  their  kids  to  a  burger  king for a  cheap meal just as a treat,  something once  taken  for  granted by  mainstream  families  everywhere in this  Nation. 

They  cannot  afford  a kid  meal’s worth  out  of  their established  budget and   yet  they  will be  expected  to pay  for insurance? 

Adding insult to injury they  will be  found   to not  qualify  for  the  financial  assistance necessary to  receive discounted  or  free  healthcare  because  they  make  more than is allowed  according to the  bean counters  that  established  the criteria, from their   cushy  offices in  Washington.  The  simple  truth is  they  will either  have  to  pay  for an  insurance  they  cannot  afford   or they  will have  to  pay  a  fine that they  still cannot  afford.  Either  way   the  middle  working  class pays out the  nose  , like it  or  not .  

After all  ,  with all the  homeless  American  families  now  eating in  soup  kitchens  and   sleeping in cars  or  in shelters,  what’s a few  more  right ? 

They  won’t lose  any  sleep  over it that  much  has  been made painfully  obvious.  As  they are  so  far  removed  from the  everyday   struggle that   Americans  have  to  simply  survive. The truth being that they  are unable to  fathom  what  it is  like going to bed  at  night hungry  because  the  only  food  in the  house  has  been  set  aside  to make  sure  the  children  have  something to  eat.

Either  way  we  don’t get  to  choose  because  this  legislation  has been  jammed   down   our throats  and  now they are  worried  about  their  2014  campaign?

Yes, well  we  already  know that the only  thing  politicians  care about  is  being  re-elected  so they  can  keep  filling  their  pockets  with their  ill gotten  gain  from  selling the  American  people  down the  river.  That  however,  does  not a proper  and  just program  make of the  Healthcare program  that  has  now  been made  law against the  will and to the  detriment of  the PEOPLE!!

~Desert Rose~

*********************************************************************************************************************

Obama defends health law as Democrats fret over 2014 elections

By Sam Baker 05/10/13 03:29 PM ET

President Obama on Friday sought to quell Democratic worries and public misconceptions about his healthcare law, months before its biggest provisions are set to take effect.

Members of Obama’s own party have relentlessly criticized the administration for not doing enough to sell the public on ObamaCare, especially as new coverage options are about to come online. Some Democrats fear a rough rollout could cost them in the 2014 midterms.

“Undoubtedly, there will be some mistakes and hiccups” as major pieces of the law fall into place later this year, Obama said Friday.

But he said the law’s supporters “have an obligation to now make sure that full implementation moves forward the way it needs to.”Most of the law’s biggest provisions will take effect between Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, 2014.

“I’m here to tell you, I am 110 percent committed to getting it done right,” Obama said.

Public polling shows the healthcare law remains unpopular — just 35 percent of those polled in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll said they have a favorable opinion of the law, while 40 percent had an unfavorable view.

That’s a major concern for Democrats ahead of a midterm election that historically goes against the president’s party. Republicans are hoping to add to their advantage in the House, and to retake the Senate.

Obama, for his part, is hoping to buck history. If Republicans gain congressional seats next year, his years as a lame-duck president are likely to begin immediately. But by gaining seats — and especially by winning back the House — Obama could give himself a chance to add to his record in the last two years of his term.

A senior administration official downplayed the bad polling Friday, saying reactions to the health law break along partisan lines and that internal polls look slightly better for the White House.

Read Full Article Here

**********************************************************************************************************************

Poll: Many Americans uninformed about health care overhaul, some don’t know it’s law

A Tea Party member reaches for a pamphlet titled “The Impact of Obamacare”, at a “Food for Free Minds Tea Party Rally” in Littleton, New Hampshire October 27, 2012. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

President Barack Obama reflects on the status of the Affordable Care Act while speaking Tuesday at the White House.

As the Obama administration girds for “glitches and bumps” along the path to full implementation of the health-care law, a new poll indicates many Americans are still unclear about the details of the new law and, in some cases, unaware it’s actually law of the land.

A whopping 42 percent of Americans do not know that the Affordable Care Act is, in fact, law. Included in that 42 percent — 12 percent believe it has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent think the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it, and 23 percent are unsure of its status, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll.

For the record, no portion of the law has been repealed; and the Supreme Court upheld it last summer in a 5-4 decision. The law continues to be viewed more negatively than positively, with just 35 percent saying they have a favorable view and 40 percent saying they have an unfavorable one. But the prolonged implementation, complexity of the law, and messaging by opponents has aided in the confusion. The administration is starting to push back, beginning with the president.

“It’s still a big undertaking,” President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday in a press conference at the White House. “And what we’re doing is making sure that every single day we are constantly trying to hit our marks so that it will be in place. … Even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps. … And that’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.”

The poll comes as the administration Tuesday took one step to streamline the application process for health insurance for the uninsured, unveiling a shorter, three-page application form rather than the earlier, 21-page version that was criticized. Enrollment begins Oct. 1 for insurance that would take effect Jan. 1.

Nearly half of all Americans – 49 percent – say they still do not have enough information about the law and how it will impact their families. There are plenty of people happy to try and fill in the gaps.

Republicans, for example, have begun mounting a messaging campaign against the law’s implementation, hoping it can help them in the 2014 midterms and potentially hand over control of the Senate to the GOP, which needs to net six seats to accomplish that goal.

They have seized, in particular, on retiring Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’ comment at a hearing earlier this month that implementation of the law will not just see “glitches and bumps,” but said it will be a “train wreck.”

“I urge my friends on the other side to join with Republicans and stop this ‘train wreck’ before things get even worse,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, up for re-election in 2014, said on the floor of the upper chamber.

Views of the law have gotten worse since the presidential election, sliding from 43 percent favorable to 35 percent. Democrats are mostly responsible for the drop, as pre-election partisanship begins to fade and details of implementation begin to come into focus.

But on Tuesday, President Obama –  in his most extensive defense of the implementation of the law so far –  said, “Despite all the hue and cry and ‘sky is falling’ predictions about this stuff, if you’ve already got health insurance, then that part of ‘Obamacare’ that affects you, it’s pretty much already in place.”

What remains, he added, is getting the 10 percent to 15 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance, and who will face a penalty next year if they choose not to purchase it, to enroll in state or federal exchanges. The federal government’s job is also made more difficult, the president said, because big states like Florida and Texas, both states with Republican governors, have opted against setting up exchanges.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

Schumer: Health Insurance Rates Likely To Spike, Obamacare Partly Responsible

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Rochester, N.Y. (CBS DC) – Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame.

Speaking with WHEC Rochester, Schumer said, “Our insurance department is empowered to protect families and we’re going to watch them like a hawk to make sure they do, because if they don’t, these rates could go through the roof.”

“It’s in part because of Obamacare, but health care costs have been going up in double digits for years and years and years. The good news is in this bill, there’s a way to stop it.”

The comments from Schumer were in response to many insurance companies’ failure to announce premium increases for next year. Some healthcare experts are warning that premiums could go up by more than 10 percent on January 1 when Obamacare kicks in across the country.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

GOP seeks $4B for ObamaCare program

By Sam Baker 04/17/13 07:52 PM ET

House Republicans are trying to pump $4 billion into an ObamaCare program.

The Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill Wednesday to beef up funding for the healthcare law’s high-risk insurance pools, which have stopped accepting new patients due to a lack of funding.

The additional money for high-risk pools would come out of another part of the healthcare law — its fund for prevention and public health, which Republicans decry as a “slush fund.”

It’s the first time Republicans have tried to fix, rather than repeal, a program in the healthcare law, and the move has angered many on the right.
Some Republicans were clearly prepared for criticism.

“A minority of our conference feels that the only vote that should be taken against ObamaCare is a repeal vote — all or nothing, to kill it dead,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said. “I’ve always felt that … if we see areas we can chip away at, that are the most egregious parts of the bill, we really should do that.”

Republicans have a lot riding on the performance of the high-risk pools.

While the program is a relatively small piece of the Affordable Care Act, high-risk pools make up the cornerstone of Republican plans to “repeal and replace” the law.

House Republicans have said high-risk pools should replace one of the healthcare law’s most popular provisions — the requirement that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions.

If the high-risk pools in the Affordable Care Act prove ineffective, Republicans could have a harder time making the argument that they could help make up a viable alternative to ObamaCare.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said it’s “ironic” that Republicans are trying to spend more money on a government-run healthcare system, while the Democrats’ healthcare law covers the uninsured through the private market.

“People ought to be able to buy insurance,” Waxman said. “And people with pre-existing conditions are higher-risk and would be charged a higher price if we didn’t spread out the population to get as many people as possible covered.”

Under a high-risk pool, the government pays to insure sick people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. The pools contain only the sickest and most expensive patients, and the government is left with the bill.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers lose the right to deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions and the cost of covering sick people is spread across the entire healthcare system. The law established temporary high-risk pools as a bridge until the ban on coverage denials takes effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

Gregory Hicks (Whistleblower) Embarrassed By Blame Placed On YouTube Video. Benghazi Hearing


Published on May 8, 2013

Trey Gowdy (R-SC) used his short time addressing former deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya, Gregory Hicks, to establish the fact that the American diplomatic staff in Libya were “embarrassed” by the White House’s effort to blame the Benghazi attack on an inflammatory YouTube video. Gowdy established that the State Department had informed the Libyan government on the day after the attack that “Islamic terrorists” were likely behind the assault.

“When Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens talked to you perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what did he say to you?” Gowdy asked.

“He said, ‘Greg, we’re under attack,” Hicks replied.

Gowdy and Hicks established that there was no demonstration outside the consulate that day. He noted that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice proceeded to blame the attack on a video. When asked what his reaction to Rice’s statements was, Hick’s replied, “I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.”

RELATED: LIVE STREAM: Witnesses Testify At House Committee Hearing On Benghazi

Gowdy read from a portion of an email form an aide to former Sec. Hilary Clinton which stated that the State Department had informed the Libyan government that the individuals who carried out the attack were linked to “Islamic terrorists.”

“Mr. Hicks, I want to know, number one, why in the world would Susan Rice go on five Sunday talk shows and perpetuate a demonstrably false narrative?” Gowdy asked. “And secondarily, what impact did it have on the ground in Benghazi the fact that she contradicted the president of Libya?”

Hicks declined to answer the first question, but said Rice’s statements helped facilitate introducing FBI investigators into Libya. Bureacuracy in Llbya hampered the investigation’s progress, however, and the crime scene was left unsecured for 18 days.

****************************************************************************

US officials blocked rescue effort while Benghazi burned, Congress told

Diplomat Gregory Hicks accuses State Department of cover-up in evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton’s White House bid

Gregory Hicks testifies to the congressional hearing

Gregory Hicks claimed he was scolded for giving critical evidence to investigators without the presence of a ‘minder’ from State. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

While US diplomats were pulling bodies from a burning Libyan consulate and frantically smashing up hard drives last 11 September, their superiors blocked rescue efforts and later attempted to cover up security failings, according to damaging new evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton‘s presidential hopes.

In vivid testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, deputy to murdered US ambassador Christopher Stevens, revealed for the first time in public a detailed account of the desperate few hours after the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.

He also said that Stevens went to Benghazi to beat a 30 September deadline to convert the mission to a permanent posting. There was additional time pressure because Clinton planned to visit Libya later in the year and to announce the opening of the post, Hicks said.

But Hicks and two other state department witnesses also singled out the government response for criticism. Until now that criticism had been largely dismissed as a partisan effort by Republican congressman to smear former Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time.

Hicks claimed Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a “minder” from the state department. “A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news,” said Hicks, who said he had since been demoted. “She was upset. She was very upset.”

The career diplomat also alleged he was actively discouraged by officials from asking awkward questions about why other top Clinton aides, including the UN ambassador Susan Rice, initially blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest that got out of control. He described that briefing he described as “jaw-dropping, embarrassing and stunning”. It is now thought the attacks, involving up to 60 heavily armed militia, were co-ordinated by Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated to al-Qaida, and timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

The allegations of a state department cover-up follow equally embarrassing claims that military leaders blocked efforts to dispatch special forces troops to the Benghazi consulate.

In testimony that first emerged on Monday, Hicks claims that four special forces soldiers with him in Tripoli were “furious” when they were told by superiors in Washington that they could not join a relief flight to Benghazi organised by the Libyan government in the hours after the initial attack.

Mark Thompson, a former marine who heads the foreign emergency support team, also alleged that the White House blocked his efforts to dispatch a specialist group from the US that is designed to respond to incidents such as the Benghazi attaack.

Hicks said he was told that US air force jets based in Italy could have reached the consulate in “two to three hours” but were blocked, out of fear of offending the Libyan government, and because a refuelling tanker could not be found.

Pentagon officials have repeatedly argued that none of the available military assets could have reached Benghazi in time to prevent the death of ambassador Stevens and three other consular staff. But Hicks insisted even if they had been too late, better attempts should have been made. “People in peril in future need to know that we will go to get them,” he said. “That night we needed to demonstrate that resolve even if we still had the same outcome.”

Hicks also rejected the defence given by Hillary Clinton when pressed on the initial delay in attributing the attack to terrorists, arguing the US undermined its Libyan allies who were rightly pointing to Ansar al-Sharia.

“President Magarief was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced. His ability to govern was [damaged]. He was angry … He was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later. I definitely believe it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi.”

Read Full Article Here

*****************************************************************************

Gregory Hicks (Whistlesblower) Benghazi Testimony Pt1

Les Grossman


Published on May 8, 2013

Hicks said that the day of the attack was a routine day until they say news of the earlier Cairo embassy-storming attempt. He informed his superior, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens of the attempt.

Later in the day he received a message the attack had started. He went to the tactical operations center, while on the phone with the ambassador. The call was cut due to poor cell performance. After reaching the center, Hicks received more information about the attack and next called the annex chief to activate their emergency response team.

He then called the operations center at the State Department to report the attack and their response. He then called senior officials in Libya to request assistance from the local government. After that was done he reported it to Washington.

According to Hicks, the night unfolded in four phases. There was an attack on the diplomatic annex. The villa was invaded were several of the casualties were. The 6 person response team from Bengazhi managed to temporarily clear the diplomatic compound. The body of Shawn Smith was pulled out during this time. There was a second wave of attackers and the teams evacuated to another location.

The second phase commenced when the team returned to the annex later in the night. They suffered several probing attacks but repelled them. The Tripoli response team begins to arrive during this phase.

Phase three is when the ambassador’s body was recovered. Reports came out that the ambassador was taken to hospital that was suspect to be controlled by Islamic militants. Hicks received conflicted reports of the location of the ambassador. He then received reports that the embassy in Tripoli was under attack and the staff prepared to evacuate. He is also keeping Washington informed

At 2:00 A.M. he receives a call from Sec. of State Clinton; They mostly talked about the search of the ambassador and the need to evacuate. Clinton agrees with evacuation. The PM of Libya called around 3:00 A.M. to inform Hicks of the ambassadors’ death. Hicks immediately telephoned Washington of the news.

The team destroyed all of the information in the annex as is standard US diplomatic procedure. They decided to evacuate at dawn and arrived at another compound. The mortar attack started when they arrived. The attack killed several.

Hicks claims that they were in them process of evacuating to a plane but the security officer who was in charge did not have authorization to go ahead.

*****************************************************************************

Reps. Chaffetz & Lynch Clash Over Intimidation Of Benghazi Witnesses On Fox News Sunday

Published on May 5, 2013

Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) paid a visit to Fox News Sunday this week to talk Benghazi. Speaking of the investigation into the review and the charge that witnesses have been blocked from testifying, the pair clashed over the arguments, with Lynch asserting that Democrats have been left out of the whole process.

“The Republicans control the House,” Lynch said. “We don’t have the ability to hold a hearing. The Democrats have been completely kept out of this whole process. This has been a one-sided investigation, if you want to call it that. … I think it’s disgraceful.”

Chaffetz said that witnesses have “absolutely” been threatened and intimidated from coming forward. They’re “scared to the death” of what the State Department is doing, he asserted. Lynch jumped in to argue that Chaffetz’s assertions were “completely false” — that the attorneys have not asked for the information yet and, in fact, the State Department would cooperate.

Not surprisingly, Chaffetz was insistent about his story, further adding that Democrats are more than welcome to participate in the process. But they simply haven’t. The congressmen refuted nearly every point they made to each other, neither agreeing on much about where the situation stands.

Chris Wallace later jumped in to pose the question about how much then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew about the security requests (which she said she never saw). Every cable that goes to the department, he told Chaffetz, has Clinton’s name on it — so that’s not necessarily a way to argue that Clinton should have seen that cable. Chaffetz by asking for the release of the unclassified document.

Clinton, he argued, “claims” to take full responsibility for what happened, but simultaneously “pleads ignorance.”

*****************************************************************************

Diplomat: State Lawyers Told Me Not to Speak to GOP Lawmaker Probing Benghazi

May 8, 2013

Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom at Benghazi hearing

Former deputy chief of mission in Libya Gregory Hicks, center, prepares to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 8, 2013. He is flanked by fellow witnesses Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, and Eric Nordstrom, formerly the department’s regional security officer in Libya. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(CNSNews.com) – A senior U.S. diplomat in Libya was instructed by State Department lawyers – for the first time in his 22-year foreign service career – not to speak to a visiting lawmaker who was investigating last September’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a congressional panel heard Wednesday.

“I was instructed not to allow the RSO [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission and myself to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,” Gregory Hicks, who was the number two official at the embassy in Libya at the time of the attack, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who chairs the committee’s subcommittee on national security, homeland defense and foreign operations, visited Libya to investigate the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

“So, the people at State told you, ‘Don’t talk to the guy who’s coming to investigate’?” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked Hicks during Wednesday’s hearing.

“Yes, sir,” Hicks replied.

“Have you ever had anyone tell you, ‘Don’t talk with the people from Congress coming to find out what took place’?”

“Never.”

“Never,” Jordan continued. “And you’ve had dozens and dozens of congressional delegations that you’ve been a part of.”

“Yes, sir.”

“First time it’s ever happened.”

“Yes, sir.”

Hicks confirmed in response to further questioning that, when Chaffetz arrived in Libya a State Department lawyer had sought to be present at every meeting with the congressman.

Read Full Article Here

******************************************************************************

Whistleblower on Amb. Rice’s 5 Talk Shows: “I Was Stunned. My Jaw Dropped. I Was Embarrassed.”

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Obama Supports Expansion of Wiretap Laws

 

Activist Post

Spying without a warrant in America is a crime, a violation of privacy rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the government is asking technology companies to commit this crime or be fined for insubordination.

The New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration is “on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people.”

According to the New York Times:

The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.

While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention.

Read Full Article Here

File:Senate in session.jpg

Image Source

If  Bill Clinton’s lying about  an indiscretion that  took place in the  White House led  to  Impeachment   proceedings.  Then how can  anyone justify not taking the  same  course of  action  on a  lie and the  cover up of  the  death  of 4 American citizens???

The  consensus thus far had been that  Obama’s  failure to follow through on  campaign promises  was not an  impeachable offense.  The  reason  being that campaign  promises  are  meant to  be  broken  as  they are  just a  means  to an end.  In other words  they  will say  whatever the people  want  to  hear to   get  elected.  The comparison made  on  many  occasions is  that one  cannot compare   what  Clinton did  to  what Obama had  done because   Clinton  lied to  the  People directly  and  under  oath.  Well one wonders what the  excuses will be  now.  Since  Obama and his   administration have  lied at  every turn to   whitewash  the part they played in the death  of  4  Americans.  They  have lied to t he  people directly and they  have lied to   Congress.  I believe under oath is a definite factor to the  latter, is it  not ,  or am  I  mistaken ?

Now going a bit  further  we can couple the cover up  with the  slow and  nefarious enroachment  of the Federal government  upon the Constitutional rights of the  American People. Not only by proxy through pressure or self interest via the  Congress. But also personally via  Executive  orders.  Obama has slapped The People  in the  face  every time he  has sidestepped Congress and or signed  an  order infringing upon  our  rights.  Being a Constitutional  Attorney  apparently has   given him  the delusion that  he can   re-write  it as he  sees fit to mold the Nation to  a  more  acceptable America  than the Founding  Fathers envisioned. 

If the manner in  which  he  has blatantly  lied, forfeited ,calculatedly  twisted the truth and  the  opportunities to utilize  them for the unfolding of a very  personal agenda.  Is not enough, If the statistics of the vanishing middle class as we  watch the growing numbers of working poor and  wealthy  divide  this  Nation.  If  the   looming class  wars and economic devastation are  not enough  .  Then   I  would like someone to tell  me exactly   what  would be  enough to  bring  this man to  heel and remove him  from power!!

~ Desert Rose ~

******************************************************************

Huckabee: Benghazi Scandal Will Cost Obama His Presidency

 

Image: Huckabee: Benghazi Scandal Will Cost Obama His Presidency

 

Tuesday, 07 May 2013 11:25 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald and Kenneth Hanner

 

 

Share:


 

  • 3
    Share

Influential Republicans are setting their sights on toppling the Obama administration as evidence of a cover-up over the assault on the Benghazi consulate gets stronger.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is now openly talking about impeachment, saying he does not believe Barack Obama will survive the remaining 3½ years of his presidency.

Urgent: ObamaCare Is About to Strike — Are You Prepared?

“When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,” Huckabee said on his radio show Monday.

“As the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3½ years.”

Huckabee isn’t alone in his belief that Obama could be toppled. The pressure is growing just as Congressional hearings on the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead are due to start on Wednesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who will chair those hearings as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said he intends to make the president “come clean.”

“The administration has made a claim that for classified reasons they changed the story,” Issa told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “We believe right now that may be the biggest lie of all, and we intend on making the president come clean as to, quote, ‘What the classified reasons are that would justify lying to the American people.’”

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina added to the onslaught against the administration’s handling of the assault.

“Political manipulation is rampant here,” said Graham in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “The dam’s about to break on Benghazi.”

And former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg on Monday that he too believes the growing scandal could lead to the “unraveling” of the Obama administration.

Read Full Article Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 739 other followers