Benghazi: administration busted again

Explosive New Report About Benghazi: They Heard the Terrorists on the Phones While it Happened…

By Caroline Schaeffer | IJReview

A damaging new report from the Air Force pilot who transported embassy officials from Libya discloses that the terrorists who attacked the Benghazi compound and murdered four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, two Navy SEALs, and one information officer, stole State Department cell phones to call their higher-ups and declare their operation a success.

Because they were using State Department phones, U.S. spy agencies overheard their conversations in real time, he says, and knew they were talking to terrorist leaders about a planned mission.

This new information, reports Fox News, will damage the State Department and White House claim that initial intelligence suggested that the attack was over an anti-Islam video, instead of a coordinated attack. Administration officials including National Security Adviser Susan Rice maintained this “anti-Islam video” claim for weeks after the attacks.

Fox News host Bret Baier interviewed retired Air Force Major Eric Stahl, who commanded and piloted the C-17 which transported the bodies of the four victims of the Benghazi attack, as well as survivors.

In the interview, Stahl says that members of the CIA were confused by the Administration’s claims, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” And this claim was backed up by another official.

The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

Furthermore, Stahl wonders why his quick-ready team wasn’t called up sooner, if the State Department knew of the terrorist attack as it was happening.

Hillary Clinton may wonder what difference it makes whether it was a planned terrorist attack or a spontaneous riot which caused the murder of four Americans.

MORE>
 

As Hillary slithers out on the campaign trail, it’s obvious we haven’t heard the last of this. Neither has she. Once again, it counters their entire flimsy narrative. Her supporters will be screaming “but people don’t care about that”.

She didn’t like to do media appearances, so they sent Susan Rice. Now she’s on book tour doing media everywhere. She also does 200k speeches. So maybe they didn’t pay her the right price. They criticized Mitt Romney for his statements on the attack. Everyone piled on to criticize Romney at the time, when he said:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Oh, they swung on a pivot attacking him and his “campaign” for that. But Obama and Hillary were in office and aware of what was going on. Plausible denial is just not plausible. Yet it was open season to criticize Romney at the time.

Flash forward, they are all criticizing the soldiers for telling the truth about Bergdahl. It’s always amazing when they find their voice on issues. They were not happy about pictures leaked out on the border scandal either. Before that, not a word about it. They weren’t happy about the news of VA, but before that nothing. Just as Hillary has a selective voice.

RightRing | Bullright

Déjà vu on mass immigration schemes

Did Obama’s dreams from his father include the nightmare of the Mariel boat-lift?

But face it, Obama swung the door wide open and he sent out invitations when, by his executive pen, he issued his EO dream policy. He tempted anyone who could find the way to storm our gates.

Bad enough that Castro could concoct such a plan but Obama could orchestrate one right from the Oval Office. Remember Marielitos?

 

They Seized the Moment and Came to America : Immigration: Mariel boat-lift refugees live down their bad image and enter the U.S. mainstream. But 6,000 remain in custody.

May 29, 1990|MIKE CLARY

MIAMI — Ten years ago this month the waters of the Florida Straits churned in prop chop. Thunderstorms occasionally raked the seas with lightning and water spouts, but nothing shut down the 100-mile shuttle between Key West and the Cuban port of Mariel.

People who had never been to sea in their lives hung over the sides of shrimpers and yachts with names they didn’t know, sick from motion and anxiety. But still they kept coming. [/…]

Still, a decade after the most tumultuous wave of immigration ever to sweep over U.S. shores, Americans–especially Cuban-Americans–are still struggling to come to grips with the exodus. [more]

Wikipedia:
The Mariel boat-lift was a mass emigration of Cubans who departed from Cuba’s Mariel Harbor for the United States between April 15 and October 31, 1980.

The event was precipitated by a sharp downturn in the Cuban economy which led to internal tensions on the island and a bid by up to 10,000 Cubans to gain asylum in the Peruvian embassy.

The Cuban government subsequently announced that anyone who wanted to leave could do so, and an exodus by boat started shortly afterward. The exodus was organized by Cuban-Americans with the agreement of Cuban president Fidel Castro. The exodus started to have negative political implications for U.S. president Jimmy Carter when it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities. The Mariel boat-lift was ended by mutual agreement between the two governments involved in October 1980. By that point, as many as 125,000 Cubans had made the journey to Florida.

Initially, the Carter administration had an open-arms policy in regard to Cuban immigrants. Cubans were immediately granted refugee status and all the rights that went with it. Additionally, public opinion towards Cuban refugees was initially favorable.

But that soon changed. And speaking of ‘open-arms policy’? Hello.

While maybe much of the country does not remember the Marielitos, the people in the border states like Florida have it etched in their memory. Oh, the riots and crime wave, those were the times. Now we are seeing a systematic breach of the border that looks as though it has no end in sight. So what are we to expect from this?

And there will be consequences, lots of them. Starting with only the immediate expenses and logistics should be enough to choke even the most bleeding-heart liberal. But stop it? It’s too late now. We can only brace ourselves for the affects.

The times they are a changing. If Obama thinks he will escape the fallout of this, he needs to talk to Carter. But then that’s what Obama is doing now, playing politics. While this president believes in fundamentally transforming America, he may have a challenge fundamentally transforming history.

They’ll tell us to sit back, relax ….maybe have a nice Cuban cigar.

RightRing | Bullright

Political divide…. us and them

And the survey says that the political divide has increased over the years, to some record highs. According to a Pew research poll: “Political polarization in America has broken out of the voting booth“.

Political Polarization in the American Public

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan acrimony is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in recent history. And these trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life.

“How Increasing Ideological Uniformity and Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics, Compromise and Everyday Life

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades. These trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life. And a new survey of 10,000 adults nationwide finds that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process.”

Democrats and Republicans more ideologically divided than in the past

Well, the AP article points out some amusing extensions of this divide, like relationships, where people live based on political leanings, and who they associate with.

However, what grabs me outside the parameters of the article is what has happened in government. Obama and Democrats have politicized the environment, the war on energy, the EPA regulations, the IRS, the border, immigration, the Keystone Pipeline, national resources, water, military, the National Park Service, government employees, schools and home schooling, White House tours, the Dep of Justice, federal lands, the budget, terrorism, healthcare, the economy, incomes, the climate and weather, national disasters, the war, national security, people’s data and personal information, etc.

Now then, considering all that, is there any wonder why it seems people are politically divided? Is it any wonder they are more ideologically “consistent”, and more politically aware in general, than in the distant past? But leave it to them, and government I presume, to worry about us being too partisan or political divided.

Well, all that politicization makes makes our political choices pale by comparison. And it was done under a man who said he would be a uniter not a divider. Isn’t it working well? Under a president who practices the most divisive politics possible. Yet the alarmists point out a political divide? Pardon my Casablanca face, I’m shocked!

A man who practices divide and conquer tactics and class war as his trademark, and they are concerned about our divided politics? But it’s not like we need a poll to know that.

RightRing | Bullright

Hot poker or misjudging public distrust

I will make this as short as possible.

Once again, on the heels of the VA and counltess other scandals, we’re faced with the same proverbial question.

Did he either misjudge the complete reaction to the trade of Bergdahl for the Taliban five, or is it another hot poker in the eye of America?

Now I’m leaning hard on the hot poker.


“These were not good guys. I am in no way defending these men. But being, you know, mid-to-high-level officials in a regime that’s grotesque and horrific also doesn’t mean they themselves directly pose a threat to the United States,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Thursday. She accused critics of the release of having a political motive.LA Times

Oh yea, “political motives” …….

Dep Ass Secretary for Public Affairs at HUD, Brandon Friedman tweets (6/4):
“Here’s the thing about Bergdahl and the jump-to-conclusion mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?” (1of5)

Van Jones(6/4): “This is an orchestrated smear campaign.”

Jones concocts a conspiracy theory the night before:
“And then [Republicans will] say that the president of the United States is a traitor who turned in a traitor to let out our enemies. Is that the kind of Benghazi-zation of this that you think is appropriate for Republicans?”

Obama: “I’m never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, alright? That’s par for the course.” [we shouldn’t be either]

Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell agreed that the White House had likely thought there would be “some euphoria around this, the only POW that was remaining in Afghanistan, that there would be a rally around the flag. That didn’t happen.”

“They were expecting criticisms of Gitmo, criticisms of the detainees that were chosen,” Todd said. “They did not expect this criticism of the attempt to go get Bergdahl in the way that it was done.”

Misjudged reaction or make that 2 pokers — Rose-Gardening Bergdahl and Taliban detainees — in America’s eyes? And, since the left brought it up, who’s operating on “political motives?”

RightRing | Bullright

Dowd does Pot, meets white rabbit

I have now seen everything, I think. It seems Maureen Dowd went to Colorado in search of a pot story. (or she stumbled on one there is not clear) She found one.

And as it turns out, her story causes Dowd to trend on Twitter, which was nothing like the “trip” she had experimenting with edible pot candy. She might have given Timothy Leary a run for his medicine cabinet. “Dr. Dowd, I presume?”

“High in the Rockies…it’s a bird, it’s a plane…no, it’s Maureen Dowd !”

But she owes her trending to Mary Jane and a curious trip to wonderland disguised as Colorado. If none of this makes sense, not to worry, she wasn’t exactly writing a book from her fetal position on a hotel bed after devouring a pot-laced candy bar.

Well, she started out in a stoned state and ended up talking about the perils of legalized pot which, you guessed it, is going to require some regulation, safe labeling, child-proof packaging, and warnings. Buyer beware should be Colorado’s new motto. Caution: Not everything legalized is unregulated, which is the point.

She writes: “But it turns out, five months in, that some kinks need to be ironed out with the intoxicating open bar at the Mile High Club.”

“We realized there was a problem because we’re watching everything with the urgency of the first people to regulate in this area,” said Andrew Freedman, the state’s director of marijuana coordination. “There are way too many stories of people not understanding how much they’re eating. With liquor, people understand what they’re getting themselves into. But that doesn’t exist right now for edibles for new users in the market. It would behoove the industry to create a more pleasant experience for people.

Gov. John Hickenlooper and the Legislature recently created a task force to come up with packaging that clearly differentiates pot cookies and candy and gummy bears from normal sweets…/

The state plans to start testing to make sure the weed is spread evenly throughout the product. The task force is discussing having budtenders give better warnings to customers and moving toward demarcating a single-serving size of 10 milligrams. (Industry representatives objected to the expense of wrapping bites of candy individually.)

Get the drift. Can you dig that? Budtenders? Oh, and let the lawsuits begin too.

So here I am poking fun at Maureen’s bad trip. The National Enquirer will want to know if she’s planning another? It couldn’t have happened to a nicer gal. That’s what it takes to “trend”? I could go on……………….but why bother?

Anyway, they are still talking about her, her trip, pot, or “whatever”. Hey, maybe it will win her a prize for investigative journalism? How will Krugman top that?

    “And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you’re going to fall
    Tell ’em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call” – Grace Slick
Dowd: “Don’t Harsh Our Mellow, Dude
Yahoo: Social media goes crazy for NY Times’ Maureen Dowd’s ‘bad trip’ on marijuana candy bar

RightRing | Bullright

Poetry on the Rose Garden

H/T

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Come to my garden
For a photo op new

I don’t remember seeing the family of Terry, killed with a FAST & FURIOUS weapon at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Ambassador Stevens, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Smith, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Woods, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Doherty, killed in Benghazi at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Martinek, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Bowen, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Walker, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Curtiss, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Andrews, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Murphey, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Fairbairn, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of Casillas, killed searching for or because of Bergdahl at the rose garden.

I don’t remember seeing the family of any veteran murdered at the VA hospitals at the rose garden.

I DO remember seeing the family of Bowe Bergdahl, a traitor, at the rose garden.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
If you’re a hero
No garden for you

XL
as always
jj

Brought to you by “change you can believe in”.


H/T

Finally a foreign policy doctrine emerges

Well, after countless attempts by media to describe Obama’s doctrine and many questions to the White House, it finally oozes out. Like anything this administration does when attempting to drive a message, they repeat it until it becomes part of the news cycle. Apparently it finally reached the saturation level. This report comes from Politico.

‘Don’t do stupid sh–‘ (stuff)

By MIKE ALLEN | 6/1/14 | Politico

Forget The New Yorker’s “leading from behind,” and even President Barack Obama’s own “singles … doubles.” The West Wing has a preferred, authorized distillation of the president’s foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shi*t.”

The phrase has appeared in The New York Times three times in the past four days. So, if the White House’s aim was to get the phrase in circulation, mission accomplished!

The phrase – as “Don’t do stupid stuff,” with a demure disclaimer that the actual wording was saltier and spicier than “stuff” — appeared in the Los Angeles Times at the end of Obama’s Asia trip this spring, was reprised in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times.

But the West Wing hit the jackpot Sunday when it was used twice in The New York Times — once in the news columns, and once in a column by Thomas L. Friedman, who had been part of an off-the-record roundtable with Obama on Tuesday.

The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver, Washington, actually had the scoop, when it reported in February that it kept selling out of mugs that are emblazoned: “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff.” http://goo.gl/9oQ8d3

Here is a timeline of the phrase’s propagation in the press:

— Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter in the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune of April 29: “The president’s aides have scrambled to put things in simpler terms. ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is the polite-company version of a phrase they use to describe the president’s foreign policy.” http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-obama-military-20140429-story.html

— Christi Parsons and Kathleen Hennessey in the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune on May 25: “Privately, White House officials have described the working label for Obama’s doctrine as ‘Don’t do stupid stuff.’ Within the tight circle of foreign policy aides in the White House, the shorthand captured Obama’s resistance to a rigid catch-all doctrine, as well as his aversion to what he once called the ‘dumb war’ in Iraq.” http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-obama-foreign-policy-20140525-story.html

— Mark Landler, in the lead story of Thursday’s New York Times: “In private conversations, the president has used a saltier variation of the phrase, ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ — brushing aside as reckless those who say the United States should consider enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria or supplying arms to Ukrainian troops.” http://goo.gl/WG20of […]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dont-do-stupid-shit-president-obama-white-house-107293.html#ixzz33p8jeIxX

Okay, so you see the pattern and the point with the examples. So now I ask if the trade of one deserter, potentially a traitor, for 5 top Taliban does not qualify under the “Don’t do stupid stuff” banner? Why not since he did it?. So if that is one’s foreign policy doctrine, doesn’t it open you to criticism? Doesn’t it just cry out for criticism, if that is the standard? That’s my theory why they didn’t put one out before, fear of criticism.

Hey, these are young idealist speechwriters and they didn’t come up with one before? I mean they create narratives out of thin air about terrorist attacks or statements that were not received well by the public. They’re creative if anything, i.e. “change you can believe in”? Wouldn’t they have come up with one? Not for lack of inspiration, certainly, but because they did not want their words to be judged, or held to them. It might open them to attack based on a doctrine.

I wonder why they see fit to put forth one now? Why so simplistic, you could even call it dumb? As many times as they repeat it, there must be reason. I have some theories. Is it the go to excuse when asked about a failure to act, or failure to react — that they don’t want to do “stupid stuff”?(something you’ll regret) It’s a catch-all answer to “why not?” Or when you got a bunch of yahoos in your ranks, maybe they need a constant reminder.

But I’ve said before, his real doctrine is denial. To those of us who thought we heard it all, apparently we’re not even close.

Exhibit A:
When visiting a Pennsylvania diner, a reporter asked a foreign policy question and Obama said, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s pass being revoked by card-carrying Leftists

…its sort of looking that way.

NPR Admits Opposition To Obama May Not Be Due To Racism But Because He’s Terrible

By Brian Anderson on May 13, 2014

We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold. Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too.

This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise:

There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be.

And back it up with a good quote:

“If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.

Continuing with this line of thought, the writer puts in a little historical context. Obama doesn’t have a trademark on being hated:

But modern presidents have all triggered strong negative reactions. John F. Kennedy met with rhetoric from the John Birch Society that in some ways mirrors Tea Party responses to Obama. Militia movements expanded and grew during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, while George W. Bush’s presidency inspired hatred on the left and a novel fantasizing about his assassination.

“Bill Clinton was vilified and hated more, with more passion,” says David Carney, a Republican consultant. “It was much more personal and negative than anything about Obama.”

This is actually true. Clinton was impeached and Obama has not been even though he deserves it more.

More:  Downtrend.com

Now maybe they are finally catching on, after 5 and a half years. That’s something I questioned about Obama for years. First, why was he so passionate about running when he knew the consequences of being president? He wasted no time either, starting in ’06 right after getting elected Senator.

And why he expected he would be different from any of those, Democrats or Republicans? Right off the bat were his ties with Wright and a slew of other radicals, achem terrorists. That’s always an icebreaker with any crowd. Yea, the speech where he said “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America” to plead his case. Yea, a speech changes all that “history”– is that a derogatory word now? Then again in his “race speech” saying “words, just words?” Those were just words, to Obama anyway.

But no other president has been afforded the privilege of a built-in excuse he (or those around him) flaunted by playing the race card to explain any opposition to him. I predict no future president will have that same opportunity, given how Obama overused and abused it. He kept it in front of him as a shield ready to hoist against any critics. That is a shallow character who does that.

The main point was always: “Obama, have you noticed how just the last few presidents were treated?”

It wouldn’t even be as much of a contradiction or hypocrisy if Obama was not leading the charge in attacking the last president. He assumed the role in the Senate in ’05 . Then he ran against an outgoing president, not McCain, when Bush wasn’t even on the ballot. How none of this ever occurred to the minds of the Left is baffling. If he were anyone else, he would not have gotten that far. He would have been voted out of American Idol based on performance. And this guy who was granted such wide berth hasn’t even appreciated all that effort, including from the media. The media did not lock horns, it lock-stepped right down Obama’s path. Show me the precedent for that.

His disconnect with most of America is because of his own radical ideology and actions. What others think never was Obama’s real problem. No, he believed he was guaranteed the prize for being “present”, like his record in Illinois, despite any facts. Let’s not even mention the records, and zero experience at anything even in the Senate. Pitiful that only now some in the left media admit the “racism” charade. Now if they could find a way to justify what they’ve done for the last five years.

It may be just a start, as they didn’t throw “racism” completely out the window. Well, who wants to throw a perfectly good race card away? But the possibility of the race card as the sole explanation for opposition might be on life support.

RightRing | Bullright

Gitmo-gate in full swing

Under Pressure, Hagel Promises to Act on Guantánamo Transfers


By CHARLIE SAVAGE and HELENE COOPER MAY 29, 2014 | NYT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is under pressure from within the Obama administration to step up his pace in approving the transfer of low-level Guantánamo Bay detainees, has told reporters that he would decide soon whether to accept a months-old offer to resettle six prisoners in Uruguay.

But Mr. Hagel, in his most expansive public comments about detainee transfers, acknowledged that he has been in no rush to sign off on them. He cited the burden and responsibility of being the one official who, under a legal obligation imposed by Congress, must personally determine that releasing a detainee makes sense.

“My name is going on that document. That’s a big responsibility,” Mr. Hagel said, adding: “What I’m doing is, I am taking my time. I owe that to the American people, to ensure that any decision I make is, in my mind, responsible.”

Mr. Hagel made his remarks in response to questions by a reporter accompanying him on a flight to Alaska late on Wednesday.

They came less than a week after Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sent a three-page memo to Mr. Hagel requiring him to “provide an update on progress on detainee transfers every two weeks until further notice,” according to an official who read passages of the memo to a reporter.

Mr. Obama has sought to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since taking office in 2009. Congress gave the secretary of defense the final say over approving transfers. He must determine that a transfer is in the national-security interest and that steps have been taken to “substantially mitigate” the risk that a detainee could pose a future threat to the United States or its allies.

Ms. Rice’s May 24 memo includes a record of Mr. Obama’s guidance on how much risk to accept when transferring detainees, including saying that it is “not a zero-risk standard,” and that the risk must be balanced against the harm to the United States caused by the continued operation of the facility.

The memo is said to define “substantially mitigate” as meaning that “steps have been or will be taken that would materially lessen the risk that detainee, post transfer, will engage or re-engage in any terrorist or other hostile activity that specifically threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests.”

There were no transfers of low-level detainees under Mr. Hagel’s predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, who ran the Pentagon from July 2011 to February 2013. But Mr. Hagel has approved 11 transfers of low-level detainees, plus another who served out a sentence. Just one of those — an Algerian repatriated in March — came this year. Several officials said that more than a dozen detainees are the subject of proposed deals, and that there are serious talks with specific countries about taking in several dozen more.

In an interview with NPR on Thursday, Mr. Obama reiterated his desire to close Guantánamo. “We cannot in good conscience maintain a system of indefinite detention in which individuals who have not been tried and convicted are held permanently in this legal limbo outside of this country,” he said. He made a similar comment in his speech at West Point the day before.

In one respect, Mr. Obama’s negative portrayal of indefinite detention clashed with a key aspect of the approach to closing Guantánamo that he has advocated: He wants to bring several dozen detainees — who are deemed too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release — to a prison inside the United States for continued detention without trial.

Mr. Obama also said he keeps “chipping away” at the problem. /…

More: New York Times

 

The “pressure” he’s under is from Obama, let’s be clear about that. And Susan Rice is right in there. All in an attempt to pander for votes. One might even wonder if the detainees vote or something?

So he’s been hard at work on this release program, demanding reports every 2 weeks, but on the VA he was completely AWOL and ignorant about the corruption or scandal. No wonder, all his attention is on securing the release of terrorists from Gitmo. It is no surprise all his staff are involved, too. ‘All hands on deck’. But the massive VA-gate, not so much.

Concern now is that Obama intends to empty Guatanamo in months. He’s right up to speed and briefed on that. The US is what’s under pressure.

Then, right on the heels of his West Point speech, up pops the trade of one questionable prisoner of the Taliban for 5 upper echelons of the Taliban. (not 3 or 4, but 5) You guessed it, sounds like a deal US couldn’t refuse.

And right on cue, out pops Susan “the video” Rice, talking points in hand, saying Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.” I wonder what the next deal will be, since we are out of our prisoners held by the enemy to negotiate.

Weasel Zippers

He didn’t tell Congress about the Bergdahl trade beforehand, because he knew some members opposed making a deal which had been on the table for years. As we noted, the regime had previously assured everyone that no deal would go through without Congress being informed beforehand. So that was obviously another lie. At what point does Congress take back their Constitutional obligation, which Obama is eviscerating, right and left?

Part of the deal on the table had also been giving the Taliban a million dollars. Did Obama give them the money too?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama lectured on diffuse terrorist threats

To a captive, unenthusiastic audience at West Point. (the address of the decade fell flat)

Obama found his voice on terrorism, after running around on the campaign, in the second half of his first term, talking as if the threat was dwindling or beaten back badly. Now there is no denying terrorism is alive and thriving. In fact, it is about everywhere. So he tries it out at West Point.

But while he attempts to convince graduating cadets that they could be “sent on murkier missions, helping endangered nations deal with their own terrorist groups”(NYT), he calls Boko Haram an “extremist group”. If he’s afraid to use the terrorism word, after kidnapping almost 300 girls, then the thing that is murky here is Obama.

“We have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat; one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin, or stirs up local resentments,” Mr. Obama declared. “We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us.”

Sure don’t want to stir up any local resentment by fighting terrorism. If we want to help/train other countries, what do they learn or interpret from calling Boko Haram an “extremist group”. If we can’t call them terrorists, what purpose does he suggest for sending soldiers to remote places on murky missions? We’ve seen how he has the back of his own ambassador in Benghazi. One of Obama’s own missions he sent them on.

Now he is talking about murkier missions after demonstrating how he abandons efforts in places like Iraq, where we invested blood and treasure for years. What an adventure those murky missions sound like. It is Obama making missions murky.

Note that it is New York Times describing “murky missions” for deployment of troops. Still, it sets a fairly accurate tone for Obama’s mission.

Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.

To call Somalia or Yemen murky missions would be an understatement. He’s concerned about border patrol and security in Libya?

“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.”

Well, except when certain campaigns, or candidates, render terrorism a non-issue: on the ropes, pretty much defeated. It’s also great to be working with and funding Muslim Brotherhood, or having Mo-Bro operatives in high positions in the administration. Lecture us about real threats of terrorism. Sounds just as murky as those other places.

Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures – without thinking through the consequences; without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required. Tough talk draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947: “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.

Now Obama needs to show us where he sees Eisenhower’s example. Where did we “deliberately provoke” war? No, not Iraq either, that dog doesn’t hunt.

And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed fixing, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak. ….

And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader – and especially your Commander-in-Chief – to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. …

Of course, skeptics often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong.

Right, his opponents don’t want to follow international law, and see that as a sign of weakness. Stop with disingenuous straw-man arguments. But we don’t want to rely on it and we must remain a sovereign nation — a nation of laws. And this administration is challenged at following our own laws. He doubled the attack:

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

Standing on his phoney American exceptionalism platform, he attacks us for flouting international norms. In fact, it is the other way around: he flouts American norms and our rule of law, even throwing it in our faces. So lecture on Obama. He seems to think what makes him exceptional is flouting our laws and norms.

He also unleashed a critique on places around the globe:

The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.

Maybe he should look closer to home? Could he face those problems here, right in front of his nose? But short of trying to ban the word scandal, he hasn’t had much of a response. So with an epidemic of cronyism or corruption right here, it’s hard to imagine how bad it can get elsewhere. Thus, what he proposes is working with other corrupt regimes. But reflexively, he then exempts a “boots on the ground” plan in Syria. If people were not thrilled about Syria involvement, I can only imagine how they’ll feel about missions in Somalia or Yemen.

The NY Times had it right using the word “murky mission”, though what is really murky is Obama. And if he chooses missions the same way he picks winners and losers in the economy, we’re in for a real bumpy ride.

Ref:
NYT: Obama Warns U.S. Faces Diffuse Terrorism Threats
Transcript

Washington Times reported:

“Receiving tepid applause and a short standing ovation from less than one-quarter of the audience upon his introduction, Obama argued for a contradictory foreign policy that relies on NATO and the United Nations while insisting that ‘America must always lead on the world stage.”

RightRing | Bullright

Oil boom to global warming bust

Obama’s Energy Secretary: Oil boom boosted economy — but we’re focused on ‘global warming

By Valerie Richardson | The Washington Times | Saturday, May 31, 2014

GOLDEN — The booming oil industry has been one of the few bright spots in an otherwise sluggish economy, but Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz says that the days of fossil fuel are numbered as the administration focuses on climate change.

Mr. Moniz, who spoke during Democratic Sen. Mark Udall’s energy forum at the Colorado School of Mines on Friday, said the increase in oil production “has had enormous economic benefit” by boosting the economy and helping correct a lopsided trade imbalance.

“I want to emphasize: The increase in oil has been again a great boom economically, lowering our imports, but we are focused on lowering our oil dependence,” said Mr. Moniz.

Oil imports have been declining as domestic production surges and fell to below 7 million barrels of crude per day in January for only the second time in 14 years. Meanwhile, the Commerce Department reported Thursday that the economy contracted for the first time since 2011.

“Why we are committed in the first place to this reduction in greenhouse gas emissions goes to what probably many in this room understand very, very well: the mitigation of the risk that we have from global warming and climate change,” said Mr. Moniz.

The secretary appeared in Colorado two days after he toured Louisiana Gulf Coast oil and gas operations with Sen. Mary Landrieu, another Democrat locked in a tough reelection battle. The visits also come with the Obama administration poised to announce Monday strict new standards on power-plant carbon dioxide emissions.

 

They never talk about the “risk” or affects of that so-called “mitigation” effort, like on the economy. The radical “greenhouse gases” are emanating from Washington, specifically the White House. The repercussions and affects of regulation are not a risk or worry to them. What about the risk their war on energy, including the XL Pipeline, poses? Destroying the economy under the guise of “Saving the planet” is job one.

Zero Hedge

As if the official news that the US economy is just one quarter away from an official recession (and with just one month left in the second quarter that inventory restocking better be progressing at an epic pace) but don’t worry – supposedly harsh weather somehow managed to wipe out $100 billion in economic growth from the initial forecast for Q1 GDP – here is some even worse news: if one excludes the artificial stimulus to the US economy generated from the Obamacare Q1 taxpayer-subsidized scramble, which resulted in a record surge in Healthcare services spending of $40 billion in the quarter, Q1 GDP would have contracted not by 1% but by 2%!

Obama, the convenience of denial

On Wednesday, Obama travels to West Point to give his ballyhooed commencement — foreign policy address. That follows his Memorial eve visit to the troops in Afghanistan. Then he did place the wreath on Memorial Day at the tomb of the unknown soldier.

But he managed to completely ignore the traditional Armed Forces Day in speech and deed. He did, however, celebrate the international Anti-Homophobe Day. And so did the embassies. Are they starting a new tradition?

On August 31, 1949, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced the creation of an Armed Forces Day to replace separate Army, Navy and Air Force Days. The single-day celebration stemmed from the unification of the Armed Forces under one department — the Department of Defense.

In an excerpt from the Presidential Proclamation of Feb. 27, 1950, Mr. Truman stated:

“Armed Forces Day, Saturday, May 20, 1950, marks the first combined demonstration by America’s defense team of its progress, under the National Security Act, towards the goal of readiness for any eventuality. It is the first parade of preparedness by the unified forces of our land, sea, and air defense”.

Even the NY times said May 17, 1952: “This is the day on which we have the welcome opportunity to pay special tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces … to all the individuals who are in the service of their country all over the world. Armed Forces Day won’t be a matter of parades and receptions for a good many of them. They will all be in line of duty and some of them may give their lives in that duty.”

Former Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson

“The heritage of freedom must be guarded as carefully in peace as it was in war. Faith, not suspicion, must be the key to our relationships. Sacrifice, not selfishness, must be the eternal price of liberty. Vigilance, not appeasement, is the byword of living freedoms. Our Armed Forces in 1950– protecting the peace, building for security with freedom–are “Teamed for Defense …”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

“Today let us, as Americans, honor the American fighting man. For it is he–the soldier, the sailor, the Airman, the Marine– who has fought to preserve freedom. It is his valor that has given renewed hope to the free world that by working together in discipline and faith our ideals of freedom will always prevail.”

Once again, from a New York Times article May 17, 1952: “It is our most earnest hope that those who are in positions of peril, that those who have made exceptional sacrifices, yes, and those who are afflicted with plain drudgery and boredom, may somehow know that we hold them in exceptional esteem. Perhaps if we are a little more conscious of our debt of honored affection they may be a little more aware of how much we think of them.

Was the NYT speaking to Obama?
Lastly, this special note:

On the first Armed Forces Day, Soviet media Pravda denounced Armed Forces Day, calling it the militarization of the United States. “The hysterical speeches of the warmongers again show the timeliness of the appeal of the Permanent Committee of Peace Partisans that atomic weapons be forbidden.”

Alas, Pravda need not worry in 2014, no “hysterical speeches” were given by the Commander Comrade-in-Chief. But it might have taken note of the unified commemoration awarded the LGBTQ agenda.

Obama should hang his head that he let the anti-Homophobe agenda upstage the honor of Armed Forces Day. No, he has the arrogant pride instead. And that message should carry loud and clear to West Point, and echo through Eisenhower Hall.

God Bless the troops. May we always honor and remember their ultimate sacrifices.
NBC West Point
He lectured to West Point about “upholding standards that reflect our values”. Really, like the LGBTQ values? He also spoke about the need to “protect sources and methods” — after outing the station chief in Afghanistan just days before. A shout for “transparency”.

Well, the script Obama is reading from is in big conflict with its voice, his. It’s about priorities. A mention of climate change. He called Boko Haram an “extremist group”.

“Leadership”, Mr Obama? Surely you jest. But his real policy is the Denial Doctrine.
Straw Man Alert at West Point

Photo credit

RightRing | Bullright

If Obama is selling excuses, I’m not buying

In a stunning revelation about Obama’s secret Afghanistan troop visit, the administration is forced to admit they outed the top spook in the area. Ever quick to scramble, on anything scandal related, they called it an accident and revised their press blurb. Too late they already had spread the word though most outfits did not release the name after. Yea, let’s just call it an accident. But I’m not so sure. (who can be certain about the reasoning of anything in this twisted regime?)

See, if we learned one thing in the last year of scandals, it is that the administration prides itself on its talking points. The information it gave the press was a list of the supporting staff and network in Afghanistan. Always wanting to thank their subordinates and cronies, they issued the release with the name on it with various VIPs.

White House mistakenly reveals CIA official’s name

May 26th 2014 2:32PM

By Ken Dilanian

WASHINGTON (AP) – In an embarrassing flub, the Obama administration accidentally revealed the name of the CIA’s top official in Afghanistan in an email to thousands of journalists during the president’s surprise Memorial Day weekend trip to Bagram Air Field.

The officer’s name – identified as “chief of station” in Kabul – was included by U.S. embassy staff on a list of 15 senior American officials who met with President Obama during the Saturday visit. The list was sent to a Washington Post reporter who was representing the news media, who then sent it out to the White House “press pool” list, which contains as many as 6,000 recipients.

The Associated Press is withholding the officer’s name at the request of the Obama administration, who said its publication could put his life and those of his family members in danger. A Google search appears to reveal the name of the officer’s wife and other personal details.

The intentional disclosure of the name of a “covered” operative is a crime under the U.S. Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
MORE

That’s right, on first blush you notice they referred to the person as the “station chief”. This on the heels of Benghazigate, where we heard such words regularly. Knowing full well station chief refers to CIA, even most people know that. Its a no-brainer. I could see if they released the name only but listing the title “station chief” should give anyone pause. But then what does it really matter if they did it intentionally or not? Then they revised it, but only thanks to a reporter that they caught it at all.

How nice that the press are taking it on themselves to withhold it, as if that fixes the problem. I bet Al Jazeera will be as kind too. More troubling that the information was WH cleared prior to release.

Of course, we haven’t heard the last of this and a “oops” won’t make it go away. These are the same people that were so hyper sensitive about Valerie Plame, who for all intents and purposes was in Washington. Whether she was or not under cover at the time. Here you have the station chief divulged in a war zone, at a super critical time, especially as we consider a mass exodus from there. It will be interesting to hear how the media try to bury this as a non-issue. Obama is just a walking talking scandal machine.

Accidentally, no foul, no harm…yet. Oh, he was leaving anyway. I expect that’s the sort of excuses we’ll here.

But the even more interesting thing is that in his speech Obama went out of his way to thank ambassadors and their families for the sacrifices they make too, often at great personal risk or in harms way. And then they out a top operative in the area. They are they same people who went after Fox’s James Rosen, and his family, for leaking information, threatening charges. But carefree Obamanoids give away data by themselves. Well, not like it was intentional or something.

Good thing there would never be an accidental leak of secret information on Obama, and his super-secret records though. Heads would roll then.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama foreign policy insanity

Many people will remember back in the 80’s those commercials for Crazy Eddie’s electronics stores in the greater NYC area. If not, here’s a reminder.
(“Dr Jerry” Carroll was the pitch man, not Eddie.”) “His prices are insaaaane!”

“People want hope and dreams, we’ll sell them hope and dreams,” Eddie said.

Obama’s foreign policy has no better analogy than that. His policies are insane. The problem is the whole world knows it and is on to him. The deals are “insane”. So everyone wants to make one of those crazy deals that they could not get in American history before. He’s practically giving away the store, deals are that good.

Dropping the missile defense program in Europe for nothing was one such deal, who could refuse that? Then telling Medvedev to relay the message to Russia that after his “last election” he would be [even] more flexible was yet another insane gesture.

Then there’s Iran negotiations. We should have had one of those ads in 2012.

But eventually people caught on to the massive fraud going on under the Crazy Eddie name. Here’s a brief documentary on the Crazy Eddie story. Note the parallels.

We can only hope to see Obama’s fraud collapse around him. Any one of his scandals is only a microcosm of the whole — but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Benghazi gave us the indicative hint that that there was only a wall of politics going on in place of substance. And that was just the campaign season for a second term.

Can we all say “insane”? Everyone is probably looking to cash in on the Obama phenomena while he’s still around. It’s like a sign hanging out there, and every foreign leader knows this is the best time in history to get a deal of the century and take us to the cleaners. Stick it to America with no consequences. “Get us some.” Team Obama will not care; it just gave them what they wanted, as if it had no other choice. But that was the scam all along, to give away the store, except team Obama are the ones laughing.

The old “bait and switch” campaign at home.

But what we got is Obama’s SOTU speech telling us he will do end-runs around Congress, and half of Congress stood up and cheered him. “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Meanwhile, his deals to everyone else are insane. Blame a video for the Benghazi attack, don’t label Boko Haram terrorists. Don’t secure the borders, release illegals and criminals from prison. Loosen sanctions on Iran, and threaten Congress not to even “talk” about strengthening them. Kerry accuses Israel of apartheid. All in a day’s insanity.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary under fire

Victim Hillary at your service.

All available resources to the rescue.

 

Clinton allies pressured Dems on Benghazi

By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER | 5/21/14 | Politico

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.

On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

“Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton world said. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary [John] Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

As Republicans continue their high-profile probe into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Clinton is center stage. Over the next few months, Republicans on the committee will work to build a case against her, and they will attempt to haul her to Capitol Hill to testify.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-democrats-hillary-clinton-106978.html#ixzz32T5e41g7

Obfuscating they will go. Well, if Republicans are not out to make the investigation about Hillary, then Democrats are more than willing to make it all about her defense, whatever they say. So they didn’t want it to be about Hillary, but it can be about her defense.

Hillary’s testimony:

“I have to confess here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I prefer to do on Sunday mornings and, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So, it just isn’t something I normally jump to do.” — why Rice not her did the talk circuit after Benghazi.

Elijah Cummings now: “someone has to be the defender of the truth.”

Of course, it depends what you call the truth, doesn’t it? And when has he defended the truth about Benghazi? The truth is he defends politics.(and the politics that created Benghazi)

Now we can expect Democrats to make it about the defense of Hillary, whatever it takes. They are in to protect Hillary Clinton. They wouldn’t participate to discover the truth on Benghazi, but they will get involved to defend Hillary.

An elite power-hungry politician versus 4 dead Americans. Who wins? But that is what Benghazi was about.

RightRing | Bullright

President Hashtag and First-Lady Twitter

Congressman Mike Rogers told Face the Nation that “you can’t base your policy on what’s trending on Twitter”. Talk about a succinct soundbite.

Time and again this is what the White House does. Though in many cases it drums up the social media on a particular topic, then plays off the stir it creates.

Before Speaker Boehner acted on a Select Committee, there were calls for him to do just that. However, when you looked at his twitter feed, it was littered with liberals saying he needs to “act on UI”, the most important issue at the present — unemployment insurance extension. It was offset by an equal number of calls to raise “minimum wage now”.

Mark Steyn has an excellent column talking about Michelle Obama’s appeal to terrorists to let the girls go, again via the hashtag. Stein posits #Bring Back Our Balls, which says more on foreign policy in Hashtag form than anything the White House demonstrated.

The first actually morphs into the other two: (know which one is real?)

Remember, it was even NYT’ David Brooks, who said Obama has a manhood problem.

“And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely — but a manhood problem in the Middle East,” he continued. “Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough.”

“From Yalta to health care,” Mr. Brooks interjected, receiving laughs. [ha ha]

In the Ukraine and Russia debacle, you had the State Dep. say Russia, i.e. Putin, is not honoring the hashtag. So “hashtag” has become an pseudo-icon, euphemism for policy. A place where having millions of followers, and composites, in social media somehow translates to political power.

A similar strategy in Egypt during the Arab Spring movement, wherein the US using social media thought it could influence politics and policy. The Egypt thing worked rather well.

Social media is the pseudo-replacement for diplomacy and getting tough policy. Or as Steyn so eloquently puts it: #BringBackOurBalls

“It is hard not to have total contempt for a political culture that thinks the picture at right is a useful contribution to rescuing 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by jihadist savages in Nigeria. Yet some pajama boy at the White House evidently felt getting the First Lady to pose with this week’s Hashtag of Western Impotence would reflect well upon the Administration. The horrible thing is they may be right: Michelle showed she cared – on social media! – and that’s all that matters, isn’t it?

Just as the last floppo hashtag, #WeStandWithUkraine, didn’t actually involve standing with Ukraine, so #BringBackOurGirls doesn’t require bringing back our girls. There are only a half-dozen special forces around the planet capable of doing that without getting most or all of the hostages killed: the British, the French, the Americans, Israelis, Germans, Aussies, maybe a couple of others. So, unless something of that nature is being lined up, those schoolgirls are headed into slavery, and the wretched pleading passivity of Mrs Obama’s hashtag is just a form of moral preening.

But then what isn’t? The blogger Daniel Payne wrote this week that “modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing”. He was musing on a press release for some or other “Day of Action” that is, as usual, a day of inaction:

Diverse grassroots groups are organizing and participating in events such as walks, rallies and concerts and calling on government to reduce climate pollution, transition off fossil fuels and commit to a clean energy future.

It’s that easy! You go to a concert and someone “calls on government” to do something, and the world gets fixed.

Is it any wonder why they need skilled fiction writers and talking-point editors in this regime? Maybe in Africa or the Middle East they are just having a hard time reading our #Hashtags ? Just saying.

Never mind how dumb or stupid it looks and sounds. Progressives never cared about that, which goes to the next point. The prior post shows MoveOn.UG has its panties in a bunch drawing their own red lines. Do not label Boko Haram a terrorist organization, they say. No, if you don’t think kidnapping over 250 girls and the unlimited violence and killing qualifies as terrorism, not to mention their aspirations, then you sir might qualify as a liberal progressive.

As my friend Just Gene says, ‘it’s so easy to be a Democrat: they don’t have to worry about hypocrisy and can repeal reality whenever they chose.’ What does truth mean to them anyway? There is no accountability if you are a liberal. Something is whatever you want it to be. Or hashtag #Eatyourheartout , I’m a Democrat, able to solve foreign crises with #hashtag#.

I almost long for the days of Baghdad Bob, when everyone chuckled and agreed it was propaganda. Today we have Jay Carney still at the podium. Yet no hook comes from the wings to yank him off stage. On the contrary, Obama just hired better writers.

Photos: Twitter and TwitchyTeam ‏@TwitchyTeam May 10 https://twitter.com/TwitchyTeam/status/465211281239048192
#BringBackOurBalls: Mark Steyn nails ‘this week’s Hashtag of Western Impotence’ http://bit.ly/1iBTeWW
2- https://twitter.com/TEXASSHEBANDIT/status/465588634310045697

RightRing | Bullright

Dep. of Injustice issues dictate to schools

Eric Holder Just Sent This Threatening Letter To All Public Schools

by B. Christopher Agee | Western Journalism

Along with the Department of Education, Eric Holder’s Justice Department is reminding public schools in no uncertain terms that they are obligated to provide all children with an education regardless of their immigration status.

In an apparent attempt to clarify existing guidelines, the federal government sent a letter to schools indicating the agencies are “aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students.”

The letter emphasizes how loose the restrictions are regarding what type of documentation schools are required to accept, basically meaning there is no excuse for questioning why a child obviously in the country illegally is receiving taxpayer-funded schooling and/or child care.

“We want to be sure every school leader understand the legal requirements under the Constitution and federal laws,” the letter states, “and it is our hope that this update will address some of the misperceptions out there.”

One is hard pressed, however, to find any mention of the government’s responsibility to provide free education to criminal inhabitants within the structure of the U.S. Constitution. In any case, the letter goes on to spell out requirements in no uncertain terms.

“The message here is clear,” it read, “let all children who live in your district enroll in your public schools.”

Parents of children with only a foreign birth certificate are given ample leeway in providing alternative ‘documentation,’ including an entry in a family Bible, for instance.

Holder and other leftist leaders are determined to integrate illegals completely into society to the extent that actually holding them accountable for their crimes would not only be nearly impossible, but in itself an illegality.

Ensuring the next generation of criminals is indoctrinated within the public school system is one vital step in achieving that goal.

Photo Credit: Facebook/Remove the Idiot Eric Holder from Office!

 

(CBS 5)”We want to be sure every school leader understands the legal requirements under the Constitution and federal laws, and it is our hope that this update will address some of the misperceptions out there,” said Secretary Arne Duncan in a statement. “The message here is clear: let all children who live in your district enroll in your public schools.”

Attorney General Eric Holder pledged to “vigilantly enforce the law to ensure the schoolhouse door remains open to all.” Any actions to put up barriers to student enrollment, “not only harm innocent children, they also markedly weaken our nation…by leaving young people unprepared and ill-equipped to succeed,” he said.

Related: Object to book content and you could get ‘booked’

Photo Credit: Facebook/Remove the Idiot Eric Holder from Office!

Another one in the breach for the GOP House

Cantor sabotages conservatives in quest for speakership

FEE! Fie! Foe! Fum! I smell the blood of a speaker.

04/08/2014 | The Daily Caller

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is intentionally sidelining one of his own Republican committee chairmen — and the chairman’s attempts to pass conservative reforms — in order to better secure his own path to the speakership.

Informed sources in the House, Senate and outside groups tell The Daily Caller that a shift in leadership is going to come sooner than expected, and Cantor is fighting hard for the new spot.

Speaker of the House John Boehner will likely step down if the Republicans fail to take the Senate in 2014; and even if Republicans do win, the rumor is Boehner isn’t interested in sticking around in the unpopular gig for too long anyway. This leaves his top deputy, Cantor, in a strong position to succeed Boehner at the helm in the next two years, and Cantor’s aspirations for the speakership are obvious.

Cantor’s alleged target, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, poses a rare threat to Cantor’s rise: He has strong conservative bona fides, once heading the conservative Republican Study Committee and often fighting for conservative reforms. He has also been around long enough – including serving as chairman of the House Republican Conference – to earn the respect of more moderate, “establishment” Republicans.

It’s not certain Hensarling even wants to be speaker, with sources close to him playing coy, but it’s clear to conservatives that Cantor sees his colleague as a threat to his rise.

“Hensarling appeals to conservatives, with maybe a slight apprehension that he’s not fire breathing anymore, but still a principled, trustworthy conservative,” a leading conservative Republican, who worked closely with Hensarling, told TheDC. “He also appeals to moderates, and is reasonable in how he runs his committee — he reaches across the aisle.”

Cantor’s strategy to sideline Hensarling begins with killing his policy initiatives, and robbing him of political successes. When Hensarling suggested reforms to flood insurance, Republican leadership bypassed him. His attempts to abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also been ignored — despite overwhelming outside support from conservative juggernauts like Heritage Action and Club for Growth.

“This is all 100 percent coming from Cantor,” one ranking Senate source with ties to the situation told TheDC, “and this is all angling for Boehner’s job. The case Cantor’s going to make is ‘I’m next in line.’ Hensarling may [otherwise] say ‘You’re next in line, but who’s doing all the work? Who’s the one passing all the bills? Who do you want to lead you, a conservative doing reform or a guy with wishy-washy bills?’”

Cantor, sources say, can and is neutering his career threat – especially the “passing all the bills” bit.

“That’s how I see it, personally,” the Hill officer who previously worked with Hensarling told TheDC. “That’s how a lot of folks in the Hensarling office see it.”

More The Daily Caller

Almost too sickening to read the play by play. There’s an ongoing battle. Cantor would not be happy if he is not the golden anointed one — if Boehner goes. And it looks natural that Boehner is going, one way or another. Not if but how soon?

School’s Holocaust denial project

Assignment was part of their “common core” curriculum.

Rialto Assignment Asking Students to Question Holocaust to be Revised

on KTLA

The Rialto school district planned to revise an eighth-grade assignment that raised red flags by asking students to consider arguments about whether the Holocaust — the systematic killing by the Nazis of some 6 million Jews and millions of others — was not an “actual event” but instead a “propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”

In a statement released Monday, a spokeswoman for the Rialto Unified School District said an academic team was meeting to revise the assignment.

Interim Superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam was set to talk with administrators to “assure that any references to the holocaust ‘not occurring’ will be stricken on any current or future Argumentative Research assignments,” a statement from district spokeswoman Syeda Jafri read.

“The holocaust should be taught in classrooms with sensitivity and profound consideration to the victims who endured the atrocities committed,” Jafri said.

The English/Language Arts assignment, first reported Sunday by the San Bernardino Sun and provided to KTLA by the newspaper, asked students to write an argumentative essay about the Holocaust describing “whether or not you believe this was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.”

The 18-page assignment instructions included three sources that students were told to use, including one that stated gassings in concentration camps were a “hoax” and that no evidence has shown Jews died in gas chambers.

“With all this money at stake for Israel, it is easy to comprehend why this Holocaust hoax is so secretly guarded,” states the source, which is a attributed to a webpage on biblebelievers.org.au. “In whatever way you can, please help shatter this profitable myth. It is time we stop sacrificing America’s welfare for the sake of Israel and spend our hard-earned dollars on Americans.”

The other sources were from the websites history.com and about.com.

In an interview, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, noted a section in the assignment that stated Anne Frank was a fraud.

“Pedagogically, socially, morally — an F,” Cooper said of the assignment.

The Los Angeles-area chapter of the Anti-Defamation League contacted the school district last week, saying the assignment was dangerous “given the large volume of misinformation” on Holocaust-denial websites. […/]

Read more at http://ktla.com/2014/05/05/rialto-assignment-asking-to-students-to-question-holocaust-to-be-revised/#axzz30sp8CKDK

A little late to the frenzy, I guess. Naturally, it was connected to common core curriculum. This isn’t about critical thinking, it’s about critical denial.

Infidel Bloggers’ Alliance also had a good write-up on it.

Select Committee whoas and pose

With the announcement of a Select Committee formed by the House, there was a lot of strategizing going on yesterday. (as many reported)

What with the Democrats Sunday saying they are going to boycott it, they wasted no time. I guess they found something else they can turn into a “civil rights” issue.

Even Jay Carney said he did not know if the White House was going to comply with the investigation. Is this one of those “choice” things? Or is it another Holder thingy?

So thinking about it, you know what? If Dems go along it depends on what way, doesn’t it? Given their inherent radical nature, would you expect them to try to sabotage the investigation? It’s right up their alley. Being on the Select Committee, to do it from the inside. If Obama’s campaign can distort the death of 4 Americans, Dems could do anything. Leaking or supplying intel to the WH, or obstructing the process would fit their radical tactics.

Here’s “drop the radical pose” for the radical ends, Van Jones and Plouffe on Sunday

In fact, the odd thing was that Plouffe on Sunday(above) was talking about campaign strategy, and Jim Messina said early on that they needed to run as an insurgency. That’s the real mode they were in.

President Barack Obama’s supporters must “act like an insurgent campaign” if they want to ensure his 2012 re-election, campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters in a Web video Monday.

Using the charts and graphs that were then-campaign manager David Plouffe’s staple in 2008, Messina said he aims to “really reinvent this campaign” using technology. His goal is to “make 2008 look prehistoric,” Messina said, adding: “If we just run that same campaign, we stand a good chance of losing. We’ve got to run a new campaign.” — Roll Call

Here was his video presentation. Context matters. And that political context took precedence on 9/11/12.

“We ought to not act like an incumbent, we ought to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day trying to get every single vote we can…..scratch and claw for those votes.”

Any surprise then that this kind of campaign — and insurgent, scratch and claw mentality — would do anything possible to frame Obama in the best favorable light, even if it meant spinning or revising a terrorist attack on an Embassy facility in Libya killing four Americans? That… while Obama was out claiming al Qaeda was defeated and on the run. After they had promoted and extorted bin Laden’s death for all they could, politically. And after his countless victory laps for it.

Their reaction to Benghazi was scratch ‘n sniff politics, and it looked and smelled rotten. Four dead Americans and their circumstances will not go away.

RightRing | Bullright