Posts Tagged ‘State Department’

Hillary Clinton Continues Liberal Pattern Of Thinking They Are Above The Law As They Impose The Law On Everyone Else

March 5, 2015

Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been charged with the same crime that General David Petraeus was charged with?  Petraeus pled guilty to removing and retaining classified information.  Well, what the hell did Hillary Clinton do when she violated the Federal Records Act to use her own private email account on her own private server to a) avoid any oversight by Congress and by her own State Department; and b) remove herself from all the protections that would have and should have been available from the IT and security staff at the State Department to protect her emails from spying/eavesdropping?

Even the way, waaaaay left of center New York Times is all but branding Hillary Clinton a felon:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Aside from ignoring the “serious breach”, Hillary Clinton has done two remarkably dishonest things: 1) she has essentially labeled this criticism a “vast, right wing conspiracy” and 2) she has laughably said that she has asked the State Department to release her emails.

As for the last, we had this:

Late Wednesday night, Mrs. Clinton tweeted: “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

I mean,holy crap, what are you even talking about, you Stalinist priestess?  YOU have all the emails.  You created your own damn SERVER in your damn HOUSE and NEVER had a State Department official account:

The move followed the revelation that Clinton had installed a private server at her New York home that allowed her, and not the State Department, to store her e-mail correspondence and later decide which ones to turn over as public records.

and:

But, agency officials said, the decision over which e-mails would be deemed public record fell to Clinton and her private advisers — not to government officials or archivists.

That last sentence ought to scare the hell out of you.  This is your Joseph Stalin, your Adolf Hitler, your Chairman Mao, Your Kim Jong Un – and yes, your Barack Hussein Obama and now Hillary Clinton – declaration that they are above the law because they alone get to decide what the law is both for themselves in pursuit of their own partisan and ideological axes and for everyone else.

And that vein keeps being mined by the article:

But government transparency advocates said the use of a private e-mail account and a private server meant that for years, Clinton’s e-mails were off-limits to public records requests filed with the State Department.

The long delay in turning records over to the State Department also places enormous power in the hands of her closest aides to decide which of her e-mails should be made public and which should be shielded from view.

“There’s no legitimate way to claim that there wasn’t a requirement, certainly to keep with the spirit of the law, to make real-time copies available to the agency,” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

In Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said new subpoenas were a good step because lawmakers do not have confidence Clinton has turned over all of her relevant e-mails to the State Department.

Agency officials have said they have submitted 300 of Clinton’s e-mails to the committee investigating the Benghazi attack.

“The prime reason to set up an account like this is to skirt the law, avoid disclosure,” Chaffetz said. “The question isn’t the number of e-mails she has turned over, it’s the percentage. I want to know who decided what we could see.”

There is simply no question that an untrustworthy woman acted in a blatantly untrustworthy manner and covered it up the same way Benghazi was covered up.  Who gets to cherry-pick the record?  Hillary Clinton and her troupe of traitors, that’s who.

She doesn’t want the public to “see” anything but LIES.

The Washington Post article also points out that:

Meanwhile, government transparency advocates expressed concern over the level of control Clinton had asserted over her records. Security experts wondered if hackers could exploit weaknesses in the Clinton server to gain access to sensitive information.

Was that merely a possibility, or did something like that actual happen due to Hillary Clinton’s indifference to US security?  We find that Hillary Clinton exposed the United States of America to every threat you can imagine.  These paragraphs from MRC TV say it all:

A Romanian hacker currently imprisoned in Bucharest (alias “Guccifer”) is responsible for exposing Hillary Clinton’s secret use of a private email account to the world, and Clinton registered the domain “clintonemails.com” the day she was confirmed to be Secretary of State. Clinton used only this email address (hdr22@clintonemail.com) for her entire four-year tenure at the State Department. […]

The server that hosted Hillary Clinton’s email was run out of her New York home, according to the AP, and despite the Federal Records Act, no record was kept of her emails. Top Hillary aides also have @clintonemail.com addresses and have used them to conduct government business, Gawker reports.

Hosting email through one’s own server is typically the exclusive domain of technical experts, so Clinton’s move was highly unusual. It would give her “impressive control over limiting access to her message archives,” reported the AP, because investigators would have to go directly through her, and could not appeal to a corporate email host like Google or Microsoft.

So we have Clinton and her fellow Clinton goons having complete and total and solitary access to pretty much everything that Hillary Clinton did and no one else.  We have an intentional violation of the law from the very damn getgo of the debacle of the Hillary Clinton Secretary of State-ship.  We have an obvious callous disregard for the security of the United States in favor of Hillary Clinton’s pathological penchant for secrecy.

And for the record, this came out in the Benghazi hearings in which a criminal Obama Administration, in participation with a criminal Clinton State Department, criminally covered up a TERRORIST ATTACK during which the first U.S. ambassador since the failed CARTER YEARS was murdered as a result of shocking and disgraceful incompetence and shocking and disgraceful politicized foreign policy.

What else was happening?  What OTHER Clinton shenanigans were going on during this corrupt woman’s corrupt tenure as the corrupt Obama regime’s corrupt Secretary of a corrupt State?  This Washington Post headline says it pretty well:

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger February 25 

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

What are the chances that we will find Hillary Clinton offering quid pro quo conditions to foreign governments – including governments that have terrorist connections – in exchange for money to Hillary’s greedy foundation?  ZERO, because Hillary Clinton and her priestesses are the sole key-keepers to the Clinton secrets vault.

Hillary Clinton would be charged with federal crimes and be forced to plead guilty to avoid doing hard time in prison.  Because she did FAR WORSE than General David Petraeus did.

According to a 2009 federal law which applied during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, you have to archive any and all private emails with your government agency.  Hillary Clinton CLEARLY did not do that according to the above quotes from the above Washington Post:

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department.

Liberals are trying to raise dust clouds by saying Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the same thing.  In fifteen words, let’s take that on by the horns: “Did either of them run for president either before or after their tenures as SecState?”  NO.  That fact ALONE obviates any comparison with Powell and Rice unless Hillary does NOT run for president.  Because if you run for president, you put yourself under a completely different standard and a completely different level of scrutiny.  And secondly, did the law change AFTER both Powell and Rice served their terms?  YES:

The Times article, by Washington-based reporter Michael Schmidt, stated that Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email address at the State Department “may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.” In reports and press releases, Brock’s groups argued that Schmidt’s article neglected to mention that the relevant portions of the Federal Records Act pertaining to such requirement did not go into effect until November 2014, after Clinton’s tenure at State.

Unfortunately for these pro-Hillary groups, the regulations that are relevant to Schmidt’s report – the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements – have been in place since at least 2009, when Clinton became secretary of state.

According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which Schmidt provided in an email, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

In short, the State Department was required to ensure that Secretary Clinton’s emails, including those on personal accounts, were preserved in an agency record-keeping system. The failure to ensure such preservation would therefore likely be in violation of the federal requirements, though it’s not clear whether all of her personal emails – or just those related to official business – would be required.

Schmidt believes that all of Clinton’s emails would be required, and pointed to a 2008 definition from NARA that defines federal records as “documentary materials that agencies create and receive while conducting business that provide evidence of the agency’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and operations, or because they contain information of value.”

The law regarding emails dates back to 1995 stating that all such communications be archived.

If Hillary Clinton created a system whereby her private/personal and official emails were intermixed – which she clearly did by creating a server and an email account in her own home – then ALL of her emails become “official.”  And if ANYONE ought to decide which emails are off limits at this point, it ought to be the most rabidly partisan conservative tea party member in America.  Because she created this mess for HERSELF.

I submit that Hillary Clinton did not violate the Federal Records Act once; she violated it thousands and in fact likely tens of thousands of times.  Because every single time she sent an email from her private account and did not archive it with the State Department – EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME SHE SENT A NEW EMAIL – she broke the law anew.  And we know as a FACT that she set out to break the law from the very moment she was foolishly and wickedly confirmed by the Stalinist Democrat Party.

So where’s Eric Holder spending the next three years investigating her and preventing her from even mounting a campaign the way he did to General David Petraeus?  Nowhere to be found.  Because under the criminal Obama administration the law has become a political weapon just like the IRS became a political weapon.

As for the Hillary Clinton team charge that this is nothing but a vast, right wing conspiracy – such as the one that someone managed to secretly insinuate Bill Clinton’s semen on a very young woman’s dress – this isn’t just Republicans anymore:

  • “There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary,” said Dick Harpootlian, a former Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina who has said he hopes Vice President Biden runs. “Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails?”
  • Don Paulson, chairman of the Muscatine County Democrats in Iowa, said he was disturbed by the Clinton Foundation’s practice of accepting donations from foreign governments at a time when Mrs. Clinton was preparing a campaign for the White House. He saw that as one reason why the party should vet her and other candidates in a competitive primary, rather than allow her to coast to the nomination without a real fight. “It’s a healthier thing all around if there’s competition,” he said.
  • Kim Weaver, chairman of the O’Brien County Democrats in Iowa, which holds the nation’s first presidential contest, said: “The questions need to be answered.” She added she would like to hear whether the personal email system Mrs. Clinton used carried adequate security protections. “If it’s no big deal, why not just come out and say what it is.”

Trust this radical disciple of leftist radical Saul Alinsky to your peril.

At this point, it is safe to say that another Democrat president means another fascist in the White House.

Hillary Clinton is a dangerous woman with a dangerous past who has dangerous future plans to finish off the United States of America for good.

She needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.  In her case, extinction is a GOOD thing.

 

State Department To American Olympic Athletes: ‘Be Ashamed, Afraid To Wear Your Uniforms’

January 24, 2014

Remember Obama’s promise to restore America’s “prestige” that demagogue Obama claimed had been lost under President Bush???  I sure do.

Now, five years into Obama’s presidency, America’s restored “prestige” means that even our greatest athletes at their greatest athletic event have to be so fearful and so ashamed of their flag that they dare not display it lest the villagers treat them like the Frankenstein monster and kill them with pitchforks and torches.

Time to put those clothes that in any way, shape or form advertise that you are an American away, boys and girls.  Being an American is literally a scarlet letter now:

The State Department is telling American athletes competing in the upcoming Sochi Winter Olympics to avoid wearing team gear outside the games’ venues amid growing concerns over terrorist threats in the Russian resort town, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The memo, which details steps athletes can take to ensure their safety during the games, cautions them to avoid wearing team colors too prominently outside of the 1,500-mile so-called “Ring of Steel” security perimeter established by Russian security forces.

“The U.S. Department of State has advised that wearing conspicuous Team USA clothing in non-accredited areas may put your personal safety at greater risk,” said the memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Designer Ralph Lauren on Thursday unveiled the official uniforms that American athletes will wear to the Opening ceremony. The uniforms feature a knit patchwork cardigan emblazoned with big stars, an American flag, and the Olympic rings.

“A dynamic mix of patriotic references in a classic color palette of red, white and navy defines the Ralph Lauren 2014 Team USA Opening ceremony uniform, which is proudly Made in America,” the company said in a statement Thursday.

Greg Bretz, a member of the men’s halfpipe team, told the Wall Street Journal that U.S. Olympic officials “have told us not to wear our USA gear outside of the venues,” but added, “I have so much faith in the United States and our safety that I’m not too worried about it.”

Concerns about safety in Sochi have prompted some Olympians to tell their loved ones to stay home, however. One of them is Canadian goaltender Mike Smith, who said he doesn’t want to expose his wife and kids to any unnecessary risk.

“They’re not gonna go. It’s not worth it,” Smith told FOX Sports Arizona’s Todd Walsh. “For myself, it’s about thinking if [my wife is] OK when I’m not with her. It’s unfortunate, but it’s just the way it is.”

[…]

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

And I’m not going to be watching any of it.  Because Obama made it all about the celebration of homosexual sodomy rather than about international competition.

I’m surprised the “Team America uniforms” didn’t depict a male convict butt-raping his cellmate.  Because that’s really just where we are now.

It ought to be a joke by now that “Obama got bin Laden.”  I mean, NO OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE DARED TO GO AFTER BIN LADEN, right???  It took Osama to kill Obama.  Or maybe it’s the other way around.  But now, here we are: Obama triumphed that Al Qaeda was “decimated” and had to make up a story about some stupid video while Al Qaeda was busy murdering our Ambassador and our American heroes in Benghazi.  And now the black flag of Al Qaeda is going up all over the world.  Including the Iraqi city where 1,300 Americans died to set free until Obama came into power and gave it back to the terrorists.  And we’re afraid to even wear our “Team USA” uniforms in public lest our Islamic masters take offense.

Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up Scandal Far, FAR Worse Than Nixon’s Watergate Cover-Up EVER Was.

May 13, 2013

First of all, do you know what the Watergate cover-up was about?

You probably don’t.

Most people – misinformed as they are by a mainstream media propaganda operation that is second only to the Nazi’s Ministry of Propaganda – believe that Nixon’s infamous “Plumbers” Unit was sent into the Watergate Hotel to look for information that would help his re-election campaign.  That is simply false.

So what were Nixon’s “Plumbers” looking for?

 
President Nixon authorizes the creation of a “special investigations unit,” later nicknamed the “Plumbers,” to root out and seal media leaks. The first target is Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press (see June 13, 1971); the team will burglarize the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, in hopes of securing information that the White House can use to smear Ellsberg’s character and undermine his credibility (see September 9, 1971). Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who supervises the “Plumbers,” will later say that the Ellsberg burglary is “the seminal Watergate episode.” Author Barry Werth will later write, “[L]ike all original sins, it held the complete DNA of subsequent misdeeds.” During the upcoming court battle over the documents, Nixon tells his aide Charles Colson: “We’ve got a countergovernment here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks.… I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.” Whatever damaging information the “Plumbers” can find on Ellsberg will be itself leaked to the press, Nixon says. “Don’t worry about his trial [referring to Ellsberg’s arrest on conspiracy and espionage charges (see June 28, 1971) ]. Just get everything out. Try him in the press… leak it out.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 84-87]

The Plumbers were looking for dirt to smear Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Here’s the thing: what did the Pentagon Papers reveal?  Who – or perhaps it is more appropriate to ask, which administration – did the Pentagon Papers indict?  The boldfaced type provides the answer:

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the “Pentagon Papers.” The papers comprised the U.S. military’s account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration’s preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House “Plumbers” group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

The simple fact of history – despite all the lies that the liberal ideologues have told masquerading as “journalists” – is that Richard Nixon was watching a liberal media campaign based on anonymous leaks erode and undermine U.S. foreign policy that had been approved by successive DEMOCRAT administrations (i.e., both the Kennedy and the Johnson administrations).  Barack Obama notwithstanding, American presidents have the duty to GOVERN and LEAD based on actual REALITY.  Both Republican and DEMOCRAT presidents who had sat in the Oval Office had made the tough calls based on the best intelligence ANY American will ever have access to.  And Nixon was watching the mainstream media communist fascists undermine that policy with a campaign of illegal leaks to selectively embarrass and ultimately undermine and cause the military defeat of the United States of America.

The Pentagon Papers documented that the DEMOCRAT LBJ administration had done some despicable things in their conduct of carrying out the Vietnam War.  They did NOT indict the Nixon administration:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States‘ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971

The Nixon presidency did not begin until 1969.

It’s amazing how history damns Democrats again and again and again.  The Civil War was waged against the United States by DEMOCRATS.  The Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the DEMOCRAT Party.  Prior to the Vietnam War – which had “DEMOCRAT” written all over it – Harry Truman’s incompetence and stupidity literally caused the Korean War in which nearly 60,000 Americans miserably perished.  History reveals that Harry Truman first refused to give weapons to the South Korean government, which emboldened the communist North which was armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated Soviet and Chinese weaponry:

Both Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted to unite the Korean peninsula under their respective governments, but the United States refused to give South Korea any heavy weapons in order to ensure that its military could only be used for preserving internal order and self-defense. By contrast, Pyongyang was well-equipped with Soviet aircraft and tanks.

History reveals that Harry Truman then proceeded to massively screw up by failing to list South Korea in their zone of protection which gave North Korea, the USSR and China the green light to attack the South:

But just because he did not include South Korea as part of his “defensive perimeter,” it was said later on that such omission had served to give the communists “the green light” to try to overrun Korea.

Emboldened by the exclusion of South Korea from the American defense line in the Pacific zone in the so-called Acheson Declaration, Kim Il-sung decided to launch an outright invasion of the South

Just as history also reveals that Harry Truman – in a pattern that has characterized Democrat administrations for decade after decade – disarmed and weakened America so that we were in no shape to fight anybody anywhere which further emboldened our enemies.

All that the Democrat fiasco in Vietnam was was a longstanding continuation of Democrat fiascos that ultimately included Bill Clinton disarming America and inviting the 9/11 attacks before Bush prior to Obama baring America’s throat to terrorist attacks after Bush.

As much as you want to dump your hate on Richard Nixon, his crime was that he was trying to protect a Democrat administration in order to protect American foreign policy.  And he was trying to expose a dishonest and corrupt media propaganda operation.  And he himself used corrupt and dishonest tactics to accomplish those goals.  And he got busted.  By the very liberal communist fascist rat bastard pseudo-“journalists” who were selectively illegally leaking classified government documents in order to bring about America’s defeat in the Vietnam War.

We now know that Barack Obama is the kind of Chicago thug who criminally used the IRS to target his political opponents.  The word “Nixonian” doesn’t begin to do Obama’s thug tactics justice.  You have to call it “Obamian.”  And if the crap that Obama is pulling doesn’t qualify as “enemies list” garbage, then NOTHING does.

We also know that Obama has his lapdog Kathleen Sabelius ILLEGALLY shaking down businesses to coerce them to give money for ObamaCare (see also here).  It is specifically illegal for someone in such an official capacity to strongarm businesses that you are regulating and asking them for money.  Democrats were besides themselves with frothing rage when Reagan did something like this to get around specific Congressional refusal to fund a program during Iran-Contra.  And they passed a law to criminalize it.  Just as they passed laws criminalizing the Watergate crap that Obama just pulled.  Again, this is Obamaian – because it goes beyond “Nixonian.”

This thug Obama is a demon-possessed criminal who has contaminated the White House beyond repair.  He is the epitome of what his cockroach pastor for 23 years railed when he said, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!”

But let’s get back to Benghazi.  We now know that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, incompetent failure before the 9/11 (2012) attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, cowardly failure during the attack to bring any U.S. assets to bear to help the Americans – including the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the failed Carter years – who ultimately perished during the attack.  And we most certainly know that they tried to cover-up the crystal-clear connection to terrorists and al Qaeda.

Obama claims that he called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the next day.  Bullcrap.

Obama supporters (read, “dishonest lying weasels”) claim that Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Right. And I called Obama an honest man and a good leader. Obama had just referred to the 9/11/2001 attacks – which even Obama would call “acts of terror” – immediately prior to his statement that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” There is absolutely NO reason – grammatical or logical – to believe that Obama was referring to the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi with that reference. And Obama went on to PROVE that he wasn’t referring to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” by going out and repeatedly claiming that it was NOT an act of terror, but a mob protest gone bad over a Youtube video. Which it was NOT.

Here’s the thing: the very same NIGHT that Obama gave that speech above – at an event memorializing the 9/11/2001 attacks – he gave an interview to 60 minutes.  Let’s look at a snippet from that interview:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

So CBS stated as a FACT that Obama “went out of his way to avoid the use of the word terrorism” and Obama clearly continued to avoid using the word “terrorism.”  And if “it was still too early to tell” if it was an act of terror” the night AFTER he gave the speech in which he now claims that he claimed that it WAS an act of terror, well, you see the pretzel Obama twisted the truth in.  Which pretty much proves that when Obama later said he DID call it “terrorism” was a lie.  A lie from a serial liar.  And what we have had was a cover-up by the Obama administration from the very start. 

And why did Obama attempt this cover-up?  Was it for the sake of the previous Republican administration the way Nixon tried to protect the previous Democrat administration?  Nope.  Obama has demonstrated that he is a vicious partisan ideologue who would NEVER lift a finger to ever do anything but demonize and slander the Bush administration.  Was it to protect U.S. foreign policy?  Nope.  Obama was two months from an election and the only thing he was trying to protect was his own scrawny political neck.

Republicans pointed out the TRUTH from the outset. They said the very DAY that Susan Rice went out on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly lied to the American people that “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration.”  Which was obvious to anyone who wasn’t a demon-possessed Obama ideologue.

But as a whole, we know that the Chicago thug Obama administration and the mainstream media thug propaganda were on the same damn page.

The funny thing is that the Chicago thug Obama administration, the Democrat Party propaganda machine and the mainstream media cockroaches are all frantically claiming that there’s nothing to see in any Benghazi investigation because the Republicans are trying to politicize it.  Here’s the thing: these Democrat roaches have just been caught RED-HANDED “politicizing” Benghazi from the very first moments:

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a “stylistic” change to the intelligence agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland’s email said such revelations “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

Which is to say that the Obama State Department falsified the truth and engaged in the very FIRST act of “politicizing.”  They literally admit here to altering the facts so their opponents won’t be able to point out that they were incompetent fools.  Which the facts now prove that they very clearly were.

Obama had a completely bogus narrative that, because he had been the president when we got Osama bin Laden, that somehow he had decimated al Qaeda and the War on Terror was over.  Obama stated that as a fact again and again and again prior to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi planned and carried out to correspond with the anniversary of the 9/11 attack against America in 2001.

The official liar of the Obama Administration, Press Secretary Jay Carney, had told the American people this:

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” Mr. Carney said on Nov. 28.

We now know that like everything ELSE the most dishonest administration in American history has claimed, that this was a pure lie.  We now know that the talking points went through a DOZEN revisions in order to falsely scrub any connection to al Qaeda or terrorism in order to “support” the Obama lie that the attack was a protest over a video gone bad.  We now know that CIA director (and war hero) David Petraeus was “frustrated” and “surprised” by Obama’s whitewash and distortion of the Benghazi talking points.  Just as the number two man in Libya who clearly KNEW what had actually happened said “my jaw hit the floor” when he heard Susan Rice repeatedly report the Obama lie again and again and again and again and again five days after the attack.

We now know that – contrary to the Barack Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department official lies – that the intelligence IMMEDIATELY claimed that the Benghazi attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group.  And we now know that Obama and Clinton deliberately falsified the intelligence and lied to the American people to cover their own incompetence and their own political aspirations.

Obama lied, Americans died.  Clinton lied, Americans died.  Unlike anything that happened during Watergate. Pat Smith, whose son Sean was murdered, is furious because Hillary Clinton looked her right in the eye and lied to her.  She now says, “She has her child.  I don’t have mine because of her.”  Americans died for Obama’s and Clinton’s sins.

But let’s forget all about Pat Smith’s pain.  After all, as Jay Carney claimed, “It happened a long time ago” (after eight months of delay and cover-ups).  And of course Hillary Clinton exlaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?” 

Susan Rice and Jay Carney need to go to prison – along with these IRS thugs – for their official lies and participation in an obvious cover-up.  Barack Obama needs to be impeached for his high crimes.  And Hillary Clinton needs to never show her face in public again.

An Ambassador And Three Americans Died, Obama Lied

October 24, 2012

There is simply no longer any question that Barack Obama personally and the entire Obama administration are DOCUMENTED LIARS over their cover-up attempt to hide their debacle at Benghazi.

The first three sentences alone prove that Barack Hussein Obama is a liar.  Two weeks AFTER the attack he was trying to claim that we didn’t know what happened and we’re investigating.  YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, YOU LIAR:

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda’s faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials “carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time.”

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

“Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely,” the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

It is now official testimony from the State Department: THERE WAS NO VIDEO PROTEST OUTSIDE THE CONSULATE PRIOR TO THE ATTACK.  And yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney and Susan Rice lied lied lied lied lied like the weasels they are for days and even for weeks.

You’ve got to understand: Republicans like Senator John McCain – and of course like MITT ROMNEY – were saying that this was a giant lie from about hour one of day one.

We also know that Obama was notified when he still very possibly had time to act to to save Ambassador Stevens’ and the other three Americans’ lives AND REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING.

Meanwhile the entire Obama administration foreign policy that was based on the utter foolish dumbass lie that killing one man (bin Laden) somehow won the war on terror is melting down all over the world.

It’s time to get a new president.  And then put the last one along with most of his entire damn administration in prison the way he tried to put the CIA heroes who successfully interrogated the al Qaeda terrorists.

Mutual Back-Scratching: State Department Buys More Than $70,000 Of Obama’s Books

October 26, 2011

Now we know who’s buying that crap.

Barack Obama has written three worthless books.  Worthless to everyone but the people he appointed as ambassadors, that is.

State Dept. spends $70K on Obama books
By Jim McElhatton – The Washington Times
Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams From My Father” more than a decade after its release.

The U.S. Embassy in Egypt, for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s best-selling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order for the same book for more than $9,000, federal purchasing records show.

About the same time, halfway around the world, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea had the same idea and spent more than $6,000 for copies of “Dreams From My Father.”

One month later, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, spent more than $3,800 for hardcover copies of the Indonesian version of Mr. Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

A review of the expenditures in a federal database did not reveal any examples of State Department purchases of books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. The purchases of Mr. Obama’s literary work mostly, but not always, took place in the months after Mr. Obama captured the White House.

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, said if the federal government is looking to cut costs, eliminating purchases of Mr. Obama’s books is a good place to start.

“It’s inappropriate for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent on this,” she said. “This sounds like propaganda.”

But State Department spokesman Noel Clay said the book purchases followed regular government procurement rules. He said diplomats have long used books as a way to help broker talks on important foreign-policy matters.

“The structure and the presidency of the United States is an integral component of representing the United States overseas,” Mr. Clay said. “We often use books to engage key audiences in discussions of foreign policy.”

He also said books are purchased to stock the State Department’s “information resource centers,” which he said are located around the world and provide books about U.S. coverage of issues such as culture, history and values.

“We also provide key library collections with books about the United States,” he said.

Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayers Union, said there could be value in distributing books about American politics and the people who make up political institutions.

“Compared to big-ticket items like embassy construction, buying books may not show up as a huge warning on taxpayers’ radar screens, but there is always room for improvement and making sure programs like this are serving a good, intended purpose,” he said.

There’s no indication the White House knew about the purchases, which overall represent just a fraction of the nearly quarter-million dollars Mr. Obama donated to charities last year and his more than $1.7 million in overall income. Mr. Clay said book orders are normally made directly by embassies based on “their experience and knowledge on the ground of the intended audience.”

A White House spokesman did not respond to email messages.

The records show a mix of English and foreign language purchases of Mr. Obama’s books.

The U.S. Embassy in Indonesia spent more than $4,800 in September 2009 for copies of “Dreams From My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope,” though the title of the latter book is spelled “Authority of Hope” in the federal spending database. The embassy spent $3,885 for additional Indonesian copies of “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

The U.S. Embassy in Turkey spent more than $3,700 in December 2009 for what purchasing records describe as “Copies of Barack Obama’s book in Turkish.”

In March, the U.S. Embassy in Paris spent more than $8,300 for French language copies of “Dreams From My Father.” The embassy also spent more than $11,600 for French language copies of Mr. Obama’s children’s book, “Of Thee I Sing,” though any royalties he receives for purchases of that children’s book will be donated to charity, according to Mr. Obama’s financial disclosure forms.

Mr. Obama has earned far more writing books than he has earned holding government office. He reported from $1 million to $5 million in royalties in 2010 for “Dreams From My Father,” and between $100,001 and $1 million in royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”

If he earned 10 percent royalties on roughly $60,000 in purchases of his books by the State Department, excluding the children’s book, he could expect to pocket $6,000. It’s a tiny slice of Mr. Obama’s overall earnings, though still a sizable chunk to most Americans, whose median household income in 2009 was just over $50,000.

According to financial-disclosure forms, Mr. Obama earns royalties of 15 percent of the U.S. price for hardcover sales for “The Audacity of Hope” and 7.5 percent for trade paperback book sales. He reported between $100,001 and $1 million in royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”

Mr. Obama’s and first lady Michelle Obama’s joint 2010 tax return showed overall income of just under $1.8 million, with more than $240,000 donated to charity. The Obamas reported about $1.5 million from book-related income. Overall, they donated about 14 percent of their income to charity.

Royalties for Mr. Obama’s children’s book, “Of Thee I Sing” are being donated to the Fisher House Foundation for a scholarship fund for children of fallen and disabled soldiers, disclosure forms show.

Mr. Obama also has a deal to write another book after his presidency.

The worst thing about these books is that Obama hadn’t accomplished a dang-blasted thing when he wrote them.  If he wasn’t a dishonest slimeball, the least he could have done was wait until his presidency was over – and people NOT beholden to him could select his book – and he could embellish upon all the things he really didn’t do after the fact.

As it is, this is just one more example of a dishonest crony capitalist mutual back-scratching session, with the people who personally benefitted from Obama returning the favor.

Taken In By Gay Girl Amina: And How Media Fooled By Every Leftwing Lie That Reinforces Their Bias

June 16, 2011

Do you know why the release of tens of thousands of pages of Sarah Palin’s emails resulted in a media feeding frenzy – along with numerous “respected” newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post actually calling upon their readers to help them dig up any possible dirt – was a huge story, and the one about giant public pension (read as “liberal union”) outfit CalPERS has simultaneously been deleting all their old emails to destroy evidence barely raises eyebrows?

I mean, yes, California’s public pension is only a $500 billion – yes, you read that correctly: $500 BILLION – black hole of corrupt unfunded liability that will necessarily ultimately bankrupt the state as soon as all the gimmicks are exposed and Californians finally get a chance to stare into their open graves.  But so what?  That exposes the absolute corruption of liberalism, and that isn’t a project the mainstream media is particularly interested in.  Much better to target Sarah Palin in a three-year-and-counting unrelenting campaign of frothing, rabid media hatred.  Who CARES about CalPERS’ emails when we can look through Sarah Palin’s trash cans???

This, of course, the same corrupt media that crucified Sarah Palin because she couldn’t produce a “long form” of newspapers and magazines she’d read to Katie Couric – with the asinine but media-generated narrative that she was somehow too ignorant to read.  It’s the same media that is simply appalled at the ignorance of Sarah Palin’s alleged misunderstanding of the role of Paul Revere in his midnight ride, combined with their correspondingly indignant defense of Barack Obama believing that he’d visited 57 states with one more left to go.

The mainstream media has become a fascist propaganda arm of the fascist Democrat Party.  They aren’t fair; they aren’t capable of being fair.  They wouldn’t be fair if they could.

We see over and over again examples of the fact that the mainstream media swallows hook, line and sinker every single load of crap that is fed to them – as long as that load of crap reinforces their liberal biases and presuppositions.

Taken in by ‘Gay Girl’
The ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ hoax is worse than a lie. It’s propaganda.
By Jonah Goldberg
June 14, 2011

I’d barely followed “A Gay Girl In Damascus” until last week, when Daily Beast columnist Peter Beinart posted something to Twitter: “This is really important — this woman is a hero,” with a link to a story about Amina Abdallah Arraf, a Syrian American woman and the author of the blog “A Gay Girl In Damascus.” According to the story, Amina had been seized by Syrian security forces for her dissident writing.

Quickly, Amina’s arrest became a new Internet cause. Even the U.S. State Department joined the effort.

And soon thereafter, the whole thing fell apart. Amina never existed. The author of “A Gay Girl In Damascus” was in fact a 40-year-old straight dude from Georgia living in Scotland. Rather than the sexy young lesbian in the photos (stolen from the Facebook page of a Croatian expat living in London), the photo of him in the Washington Post shows a man who looks like the bearded comic-actor Zach Galifianakis — in a Che Guevara T-shirt, naturally.

Tom MacMaster was raised to be a peace activist. When he was a kid, the family trekked to the Pentagon to hand out origami doves to commemorate the bombing of Nagasaki. He’s the co-director of Atlanta Palestine Solidarity and claims to have visited Baghdad on a “student peace mission” to deter the Iraq war.

In an “Apology to Readers” posted on June 12 from his vacation in Istanbul, MacMaster writes, “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground.”

He explains that as a white guy with an Anglo name, people wouldn’t take him seriously in online discussion groups. So he made up Amina and her countless fictional experiences in Syria and America.

At first it sounds a bit like the old jokes swirling around the publishing industry: Lincoln sells. Medicine sells. Dogs sell. So let’s put out a book about Lincoln’s doctor’s dog! It’ll be a bestseller!

Except McMaster’s ploy really worked. People desperately wanted to believe in this “hero”: a saucy, sage, left-wing member of the LGBT community who likes to wear the hijab, can’t stand Israel or George W. Bush and who parrots every cliche about the romantic authenticity of the Arab people and their poetic yearning for democracy, peace and love. Whereas no one cared about McMaster’s “Anglo” arguments, Amina’s assertions succeeded with little effort. For instance, “she” writes of the Palestinians’ need to return to their homes in Israel: “It’s simple but, maybe, you have to be a Levantine Arab to get this. It makes perfect sense to me.” Of course it does!

CNN interviewed “her” — by email — for a story about gay rights and the Arab Spring. “She” said things were going great for gays. The feedback, even from Muslims, for her blog was “almost entirely positive.”

But the CNN story troubled her. The outlet encouraged the sin of “pink washing” — a term used by some anti-Israel critics to decry any attempt to compare Israel’s treatment of gays with that of Arab states. Israel is tolerant, even celebratory, of gay rights (Israel recently launched a gay tourism campaign with the slogan “Tel Aviv Gay Vibe — Free; Fun; Fabulous”). Syria punishes homosexual activity with three years in prison (In Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran, the punishment is death).

Who cares, Amina angrily responds. In fact, how dare “advocates of war, occupation, dispossession and apartheid” use Arab and Muslim hostility to gays as “‘evidence that the primitive sand-people don’t deserve anything other than killing by the enlightened children of the West.”

Besides, “she” has never been harassed by Arabs for being gay. But in America, “she” has been “struck by strangers for being an Arab” and “had dung thrown at me” for wearing the hijab.

Except that is a lie.

Worse, it’s propaganda. McMaster’s fake-but-accurate lesbian was perfectly pitched to Western liberals desperate to alleviate the pain of cognitive dissonance. No longer must you think too hard or make tough choices if you’re, say, anti-Israel and pro-democracy or pro-gay rights and in favor of the self-determination of Muslim fanatics. Heck, you can even stop worrying and love a lesbian feminist who sees no big deal in wearing a religiously required sack over her head.

Of course she was a hero. Of course she didn’t exist.

If this “Amina” was writing as a fundamentalist Christian instead of a leftwing lesbian ideologue, this story never would have gotten off the ground.  Because unrelentingly skeptical “journalists” would have exposed “her” as a fraud even if she was actually for real.

Let me assure you, the Daily Beast is über liberal.  I can state that from personal experience: in an article entitled, “Hunting the Obama Haters,” (somehow I missed their “fair and balanced” piece on “Hunting the Bush Haters”), the Daily Beast referred to yours truly as “one particularly unhinged culture warrior.”

Ironically, some wingnuts on the right are blaming Democrats’ techniques on their newfound commitment to tear down the next President of the United States. Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden of TheAmericanSentinel.com, who writes: “Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle…don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave Bush… It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.”

I actually liked that “one particularly unhinged culture warrior” part; not only did they spell my name correctly, but that was a rather catchy phrase they followed it with.  But there is no question that the “wingnuts on the left” who were completely comfortable with eight years’ of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” were self-righteously outraged and appalled that someone would actually dare suggest that the right treat Obama the same way the left treated Bush.

I got a chance to mock back in a piece I wrote here.  Now, of course, I get another one.

And of course “CNN” is a synonym for “Communist News Network.”  There are repeated examples (why, here’s one!  And see the ultimate conclusion of the anchor involved in that bogus and demagogic story here) of CNN suffering from “confirmation bias,” in which they believe exactly what they want to believe, while refusing to believe what they don’t want to believe.  CNN would believe a lie from the devil himself if it hurt a conservative; they will likewise believe a lie from the devil himself if it reinforces their liberal biases.

Both the Daily Beast and CNN (along with numerous other lefty sources, I’m sure) were fooled because they are fools who want to be fooled so they can in turn fool the American people.

These are profoundly stupid people, no matter how smart they think they are or now many college degrees and elitist positions they’ve given to one another.  They aren’t stupid because they have low IQs; no, they are stupid because they have willed themselves to be stupid by sheer brute force of will by rigidly committing themselves to a completely false and depraved view of the world.  They despise God, refuse to accept the God’s-eye view of the world as revealed in His Word and His Son, and therefore believe a hodgepodge of disproven leftwing theories which they constantly try to impose and reimpose on a world which they will never comprehend.  Even as they make that world worse and worse and worse with each new iteration.  Thanks to these people and their “theories,” our culture has become a gigantic reciprocating engine that makes us more and more morally stupid with every downward stroke.

I have nothing but naked contempt for these sneering self-congratulatory “wingnuts.”  And frankly I’m glad that they know it.

Limousine Liberals: Elite Bureaucrats Skyrocket Under Führer Obama’s Regime

June 1, 2011

The number of limousines has increased by 73 Percent during the first two years of Obama.  Stuff that in your pipes and smoke it, you hypocrite liberals who constantly tell us how much you care about the little people.

Limousine Liberals? Number of Government-Owned Limos Has Soared Under Obama

Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News.

Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Obama administration officials said most of the increase reflects an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world. But a watchdog group says the abundance of limos sends the wrong message in the midst of a budget crisis. The increase in limos comes to light on the heels of an executive order from President Obama last week that charges agencies to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets.

According to General Services Administration data, the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 412 in 2010. Much of the 73 percent increase–111 of the 174 additional limos–took place in fiscal 2009, more than eight months of which corresponded with Obama’s first year in office. However, some of those purchases could reflect requests made by the Bush administration during an appropriations process that would have begun in the spring of 2008.

The GSA said its limousine numbers are not reliable, even though the federal fleet numbers are officially recorded every year. In a statement, GSA spokeswoman Sara Merriam said, “The categories in the Fleet Report are overly broad, and the term ‘limousine’ is not defined,” adding that “vehicles represented as limousines can range from protective duty vehicles to sedans.” Asked whether the GSA actually knows how many limos it has in its fleet, Merriam responded that GSA “cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines.”

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, was outraged that the GSA’s numbers may not be accurate. “They can’t figure out a way to define a limo? How hard can it be? If the government can’t track limos, I’m not sure we should trust the numbers they put out there on anything,” she said.

Although the overall limo numbers in the fleet report were up in 2010, federal agencies and departments did not benefit equally. The State Department, with 259, had more limos than any other agency in 2010 and has gained 194 limos just since fiscal 2008. Of those new limos, 98 were defined as “law enforcement,” which the GSA said means they are equipped with sirens or lights, high-performance drivetrains, or are used for surveillance or undercover operations.

The State Department in a statement said its limos are deployed by overseas diplomats and in the United States by Secretary of State Clinton and “distinguished foreign visitors.” Many of the limos in its fleet are armored to protect against attack. The department said its Obama-era increase in armored limos is “both in proportion to the increased threat to diplomats serving overseas and is in proportion to the increase number of diplomats we have serving in high threat environments.” Appropriations documents indicate the State Department was engaged in a longer-term effort to increase the number of armored vehicles that would have stretched back to at least 2007.

The department said it defines a limo as a vehicle that carries a VIP or “other protectee,” rather than by the type of car, but said most of its limos are Cadillac DTSs, which cost the taxpayer more than $60,000 for a 2011 base model and support the additional weight of armoring. The department said it also purchased a limited number of 7-Series BMWs for ambassadors in countries where vehicles are right-hand drive.

The Department of Homeland Security, which in 2010 had the second largest number of limos at 118, dropped four limos from 2008 to 2010. A spokesman for DHS said the majority of its limos are used by the Secret Service, which is part of the department, but declined to elaborate on exact numbers, citing security concerns.

Paige, of CAGW, called the new federal limos “one more reason why there is so much cynicism in the public about what goes on in Washington.” She said terrorism and security has become the catchall justification for increased federal spending.

The increase in limos comes at a time when the Obama administration is increasingly working to burnish its green energy credentials by targeting the federal fleet. On Tuesday, Obama released a presidential memorandum requiring agencies to purchase only alternative fuel vehicles by 2015. The memorandum limits executive fleets to mid-sized and smaller cars “except where larger sedans are essential to the agency mission.” It also exempts law enforcement and security vehicles, which could make up the majority of the federal limo fleet.

According to a March report by the GAO, the federal government spent $1.9 billion on new vehicles in fiscal 2009, and burned through 963,000 gallons of fuel a day with its fleet of 600,00 vehicles.

The number of limousines in the federal fleet has varied over the years. In 2007, the number dropped to 217 from 318 a year before. But due to the fuzzy GSA accounting, it’s unclear exactly how many federal limos have been on the road.

According to the GSA report, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which had zero limos in 2008, added six limos to its fleet in 2009. But agency spokesman Lars Anderson said that’s because six standard overseas sedans, including a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria in Bangladesh, and a 2009 Mercury Grand Marquis in El Salvador, were incorrectly recorded as limos.

If the data is correct, some federal employees who once rode in style now face more proletarian transportation options. The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, ran a fleet of 21 limousines in 2008 under George W. Bush, according to the fleet report. It now makes do with only one. The Government Printing Office also lost all of its six limos between 2009 and 2010. The VA and the Government Printing Office did not respond to calls for comment.

The money following the Obama regime’s incredibly lame excuse – “the count may not be right because we’re really not competent to count limos” – was this one.  It’s just GOT to be repeated:

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, was outraged that the GSA’s numbers may not be accurate. “They can’t figure out a way to define a limo? How hard can it be? If the government can’t track limos, I’m not sure we should trust the numbers they put out there on anything,” she said.

God bless common sense.

We can’t trust ANYTHING these people are saying.  To the extent that they aren’t just brazenly lying or covering either their own or their fool-in-chief’s ass, they are stunningly incompetent.  Not to mention the fact that THEY’RE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE RIDING AROUND IN ALL THE DAMNED LIMOUSINES!!!

By the way, take Obama’s argument that the massive increase in limousines is the result of an “enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world.”  To the extent that Obama needs an “enhanced” limousine fleet to protect government officials, how about actually having a little more “enhanced interrogation” so they wouldn’t need to buy all the limos?  On the other side of that same coin, the Obama regime is essentially saying, “The world isn’t safe like it was when George W. Bush was president.”  When Obama’s signature argument was that Bush had made the world more dangerous, and Obama was going to make everyone love us with that magic unicorn fairy dust glitz of his.

The bottom line is this: Obama has massively increased the bureaucracy in Washington.  And what do all these limousine liberals need if not new limousines???

I think of the days of the good old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and all the commissars who preached that nobody owned anything because everybody actually owned everything.  And then they took their limousines to their dachas and ate fine caviar while the rest of the people had nothing because that’s just what liberals do when they’re lording it over the proletariat they “serve.”

A picture is worth a thousand words.  How about this recent one of Obama’s motorcade to sum it up?

Meanwhile, the country continues to slowly implode under Obama.  And there are more and more poor people to match the giant increase in limousine liberals.

Because there’s what these liberals say to anyone fool enough to believe them, and then there’s what they’re riding in when they’re through lying.

Obama Ambassador Cynthia Stroum A Self-Aggrandizing Tyrant (In Other Words The Perfect Liberal)

February 8, 2011

One might argue that every president plays political games.  But Barack Obama ran with such a dogmatic self-righteousness that he would be “The One” to transcend this crap that his total pathetic failure to do so amounts to a major scandal.

Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism
Posted: Feb 04, 2011 1:10 AM PST
Updated: Feb 05, 2011 1:10 AM PST
By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America’s ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum’s management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum’s case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy “has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador’s tenure,” said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. “At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities.”

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department’s inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. “The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business,” she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. “We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors,” he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

“The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style,” the report said. “She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction.”

“Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador’s actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal,” it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. “It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors.”

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum’s major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama’s campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama’s campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign’s money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them “the importance she attaches to the perquisites of” being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador’s residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador’s requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss “professional school” whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as “management meetings.” Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed “to use excess year-end funds” to buy items unless they are used in that year.

Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she “preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided.” The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher “reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds.” The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Liberalism = Abuse of Other People’s Money.

Cynthia Stroum ought to be held up as a quintessential liberal, as she is a total hypocrite who talks about how much she cares for the little people while running roughshod over them.  And her selection for an ambassadorship ought to be held up as a quintessential Obama appointment.  It is the paradigm of liberal hypocrisy.

John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and every single Democrat in Bell, California are other recent examples of the complete disgustingness of liberalism.  And let’s not forget the pork emperor Barack Obama AND his empress wife Michelle, either.  These and many other Democrats personify the type of people who claim that private citizens aren’t entitled to keep their own money.

Liberals endlessly lecture Republicans as being “hypocrites” when they preach good moral values and then fail to live up to those good values with immoral personal conduct.  And, of course, that IS hypocrisy, no question about it.

But Democrats don’t just preach garbage that they themseleves don’t bother to live up to; they seize other people’s money and routinely hypocritically betray their own stated values using other people’s money to do it.

Just keep in mind that Republicans can’t steal your morality and spend it on their mistresses the way Democrats routinely do in their hypocrisy.

She shouldn’t resign; Obama should look for MORE self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing tyrants JUST LIKE HER so we can better see what Democrat rule is really like.

Why Aren’t The Ground Zero Mosque ‘Religious Freedom’ Liberals Celebrating The Koran Burning?

September 9, 2010

Better put your mats down.

Not your Muslim prayer mat, but your roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Mocking liberals for their massive hypocrisy can be a dangerous sport; you don’t want to hurt yourself laughing at them by falling on the hard ground.  Take precautions.

We’ve been told by the American left – including Obama – over and over and over again that the Ground Zero mosque issue was a “religious rights” issue.  You may or may not like what the Cordoba Initiative is doing building a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero, but they have the right to do it, and if you don’t celebrate their “religious freedom,” you’re a bigot.

Conservatives have been saying over and over again that it isn’t and never was about “religious rights” or “religious freedom.”  We’ve said that we recognize that they’ve got the right to build; but that just because you’ve got the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

I wrote this the last time I dealt with this issue:

This isn’t about freedom of religion, and it isn’t about the Constitution.  It’s about right and wrong.

Let me give you an example of what I’m saying.  In this country, I have every right to go into a black establishment and repeatedly shout the N-word at the top of my lungs.  I have the right to go into a black church wearing a white robe and a white pointy hat.  But I shouldn’t do it.  And all rights aside, I’m profoundly wrong if I do do it.

On the Democrats’ morally idiotic defense of the mosque, the fact that the Muslims have a right to build it means therefore ergo sum that they should build it, and that anyone who disagrees is “intolerant” or is violating the Constitutional rights of the Muslims.

But that is every bit as stupid as my walking down the street pointing out every single black person and shouting the N-word, and then telling anyone who criticizes me for doing it that they are enemies of the Constitution.

And, of course, the only reason I’m wearing that white robe and that pointy hat is for “community outreach.”  You see, I want to create a “racial dialogue.”

So how DARE you criticize me.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll put my pointy hood back on and be on my way.  I have some black people to go shout at.

But the left were too fundamentally morally stupid to understand that.  Teaching liberals good ethics is like teaching cockroaches differential equations; they’re just not very good pupils.

An all-too-typical liberal moral moron wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The core American ideal of religious freedom has been put at risk…  These protests, diatribes, and campaigns against Park51 violate the ideals of religious freedom to which our country has long aspired.”

And then he proceeds to lecture us on the First Amendment.

Which is exactly what the Ground Zero mosque protest isn’t about, of course.

I will be looking forward to reading this guy’s column angrily demanding that we all support Pastor Terry Jones’ Koran burning day and lecture the left that if they don’t support it, they are all a bunch of religious bigots and freedom-hating anti-Constitutionalists.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Because I’d pass out.  And probably miss my roll-on-the ground-laughing-at-liberals mat.

Sarah Palin Twittered her view that the Ground Zero mosque should be moved because it represented an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts,” and that it should be rejected by Muslims “in the interest of healing.”  And the despicable, vile left demonized her for it, and made her “the face of intolerance” for taking a very legitimate moral stand.

Now we’ve got Pastor Terry Jones and his in-your-face Koran burning day.  And what are the left saying but that it is an “unnecessary provocation” that “stabs hearts” and should be rejected by Christians “in the interest of healing.”

Because hypocrisy defines the left; it is what they are to the core of their shriveled souls.

Where’s Obama to endorse the controversial plan to burn Korans? Where is that little weasel now to tell us “that a nation built on religious freedom must allow it”?  I want our moral coward in chief to be consistent for just once in his life.

And where’s the ACLU flocking to Florida and making sure nobody interferes with Pastor Terry Jones and his team of Koran burners?  I mean, my Lord, these people celebrated the rights of Nazis to march through a town filled with Nazi Holocaust death camp survivors.  With that kind of company, can’t they give a Koran-burner just a little love?

This nutjob Pastor Terry Jones has a tiny little congregation of just 50 lunatics.  And yet the way the Obama administration is going after them, you’d think they were the ones who were way ahead of schedule developing the nuclear bomb, rather than Iran.

Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the Koran burning “idiotic and dangerous.”  But this same slimeball was out with the rest of the left celebrating the Muslims’ right to build that Ground Zero mosque which was the VERY DAMN THING that provoked this pastor to start showing that Korans burn at Fahrenheit 451.

Why does the left only care about the feelings and fear the provoking of Muslims?  Maybe if they had a functioning brain cell they’d think twice about that idiocy.

Hillary Clinton and her State Department went even farther, calling American citizens “un-American” for their participation in this exercise of the same religious freedoms and First Amendment rights they were celebrating when Muslims were sticking their thumbs in Americans’ eyes.

General Petraeus found it necessary to tell us that this act could provoke a response against our soldiers.  But where was either he or anyone anywhere on the left worrying that the Muslim Ground Zero mosque could provoke a response by Americans, and that it therefore it shouldn’t be built there?

And just who is more depraved and intolerant: the guy who burns a Koran, or the guy who commits an act or mass acts of murder because someone burned a book?

I don’t doubt that Petraeus is right, that the Koran burning would incite terrorists.  But on the other hand, you kind of have to laugh at this line of reasoning, too.  I can just see Al Qaeda saying, “We only kind of hated Americans when we flew passenger planes into their biggest buildings and murdered 3,000 of them.  But now we REALLY hate them!”

In all actuality, the fact that we’re worried about what Muslims will likely do just goes to demonstrate that the actual intolerant people are the very Muslims that the left has so ardently supported.  And if they’re as violent and evil as the left are now warning us about due to this Koran burning, then maybe we shouldn’t be encouraging these people to come to our country and burn mosques as close as possible to a Muslim act of mass murder just 10 years ago.

For the record, I think this Pastor and his “flock” are profoundly wrong for burning Korans.  Because – unlike the liberals, I am actually consistent.  I think it is wrong for Muslims to build a mosque right next to Ground Zero because it was nothing more than a provocation that resolves nothing, and I think this Koran burning would be a provocation that resolves nothing.

I don’t mind being labeled as “anti-Islam,” because I don’t believe for a second that “Islam is a religion of peace.”  It is, rather, a religion that boasts, “We will win, because we love death more  than you love life.”  But I am most definitely NOT anti-Muslim.  I’ve talked with quite a few Muslims, and generally found them engaging and polite.  If I saw a Muslim being assaulted I would come to his or her aid and help.  And if I saw a Muslim’s property being vandalized I would call the police.

I think Islam is evil, and I believe that we should document its evil teachings and its evil deeds.  But I don’t think that we should just insult Muslims with meaningless symbolic gestures merely for the sake of provoking them.  Which is why I earlier called Terry Jones a “nutjob” and his congregation “lunatics.”

On the other hand, the one thing Terry Jones and his band are accomplishing is demonstrating how vile liberals and most Democrats are.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York Maybor Bloomberg, and many other liberals have endorsed and supported the Ground Zero mosque.  And now they have now provoked at least one man (and probably others) to commit outrageous acts.  Americans overwhelmingly oppose this provocation.

Liberals are hypocrites to argue that the provocative Ground Zero mosque is a legitimate exercise of religious freedom and First Amendment rights, but that the provocative Koran Burning day is not.  And they are moral cowards for cheering the mosque which deliberately provokes Americans, but crying over the provocation of Muslims via the Koran burning.

If you support the Ground Zero mosque, I hope you support the Koran burning with every bit as much zeal.  But personally, I think you’re a moral idiot.

P.S. Speaking of true moral idiocy in the most blatantly morally idiotic sense of the word, Hillary Clinton’s State Department just came out with the following statemen comparing Pastor Terry Jones with the 9/11 terrorists:

“We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot – with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11.”

Only a liberal could be so profoundly stupid and fundamentally depraved to compare burning some books to murdering 3,000 innocent human beings.

Gulf Disaster: Clearly No Big Deal To Obama

June 24, 2010

Question: if your house were on fire, and your family was trapped inside, how many days would it take for you to decide if you wanted to accept someone else’s help to put it out?

If you’re Barry Hussein, the answer is at least two months.  And more like three.

Which is another way of saying that Barry Hussein doesn’t give a damn about America unless there’s something (like a Marxist cap-and-trade agenda) in it for him.

Breaking: Obama Administration Only Accepted Help From 5 Countries Out of 28 That Offered Assistance
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, June 19, 2010, 3:30 PM

Just last weekend Barack Obama announced that the BP oil spill was like 9-11.
This weekend as President Obama went golfing and to the ballgame, the Obama State Department was STILL in the review process on deciding which countries the US would accept help from… 60 days after the disaster!

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

The State Department posted this on their website.
28 countries have offered to help assist the United States with the worst environmental disaster in American history. Only 5 offers have been accepted the rest are under review.
Page 1-

Page 2-

Page 3-

Page 4-

Hat Tip Stacy

After 60 days the Obama State Department is still “considering” which countries to accept help from.
Unbelievable.

What on earth excuse does Obama have for refusing to accept all these offers of help?

Oh, well.  What’s a few billion tarballs on a few hundred beaches?  What are a few million dead pelicans, dolphins, and myriad other creatures?  What are a few hundred thousand jobs?

It’s not really a big deal.

So chill out and don’t worry.  Be like your president.  Maybe play a lot of golf.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 582 other followers