Who Wrote The Benghazi Cover-up Story of The Anti-Islamic YouTube Video for Rice, Clinton, and Obama? Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication–Propagandist Speech Writer? — Videos

Posted on May 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Diasters, Economics, Education, European History, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion | Tags: Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes, Cover Story, Cover Up, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, Glenn Beck, Hillary Clinton, Photos, Propagandist, Speech Writer, The Blaze |

President Barack Obama jokes with Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, aboard Air Force One

Cover-up

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.

The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.

While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up

Glenn Beck – Benghazi: Truth coming out

Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama

Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists

Benghazi–Stand Down – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program

Who wrote the video Benghazi coverup story or lie for Rice, Clinton and Obama? Ben Rhodes?

Benghazi – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.05.06

Glenn Beck – Benghazi: How did we get here?

Glenn Beck – The Benghazi Hearings

Lt Gen Mclnemey Is Ashamed Our Military Responded Benghazi Libya & Blames Obama Admin – Lou Dobbs

FOX News Confirms US Was Holding Prisoners at Benghazi Annex

From Rice to the White House: An Alumnus’ Journey

The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film

Innocence of Muslims Full Movie HD 1080P Trailer

Press Briefing with Jay Carney and Ben Rhodes

Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 1

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 2

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 3

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 4

From the Rhodes — The President in Mexico

President Obama gets ready to leave Israel

President Obama Speech to Muslim World in Cairo

White House denies changing story on Benghazi

Benghazi-Gate: Ex-CIA Michael Scheuer “Obama’s Benghazi Cover-up Worse than Watergate”

Rice University, and New York University. He has been described as a realist by The Washington Post,^[2] and was mentioned by Time on the “40 Under 40″ list of powerful and prominent young professionals in 2011.^[3] His brother, David, is president of CBS News.

Rhodes wrote Pres. Barack Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech A New Beginning.^[4]

Rhodes was the one who advised Pres. Barack Obama to withdraw support from Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, becoming a key adviser during the Arab Spring.^[5]

Rhodes euphemistically described the United States’ military involvement in Libya as “kinetic military action.”^[6] In a March 16, 2013 feature story appearing in The New York Times, Rhodes declined to comment on his role in Obama administration policy decisions, saying, “My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues.”^[5]

During the Benghazi Hearings in Washington, D.C. May 8, 2013, an article was published in an online magazine The Patriot Newswire suggesting that Ben Rhodes may be responsible for a Benghazi cover up. Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up? http://patriot-newswire.com/2013/05/is-this-man-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-cover-up/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rhodes_%28speechwriter%29

White House denies changing story on Benghazi

The White House continued to fend off suggestions it misled the public about the attack on the US mission in Libya in September, a day after ex-CIA chief David Petraeus told Congress that mentions of al-Qaeda were edited out of public talking points.

The White House insisted on Saturday that it did not make significant changes to its talking points about the September attack on a US diplomatic building in the Libyan city of Benghazi, as it continued to fend off accusations by Republicans that the Obama administration had misled the American public about the terrorist nature of the attack.

“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday.

“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made,” Rhodes said about notes that were used by UN Ambassador Susan Rice to speak to the press about the attack that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

On Friday, former CIA chief David Petraeus revealed that the original taking points about the attack had mentioned groups linked to al-Qaeda, but those mentions were removed from the texts used by Rice, according to US lawmakers who heard Petraeus’ testimony to Congress.

Petraeus –who is caught up in a career-ending sex scandal– appeared before House and Senate intelligence panels that were closed off to reporters. The respected ex-spy chief also said the changes to talking points were not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, as some Republicans have suggested.

After his testimony to Congress, Petraeus was escorted through a back exit to avoid contact with journalists. His testimony to Congress was later relayed by Republican and Democratic lawmakers who attended the closed-door hearings.

‘Changes made to protect classified information’

On Saturday, Rhodes deflected responsibility for removing the Al Qaeda references onto the CIA and other members of the US intelligence community. “If there were adjustments made to them [the talking points] within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves,” the deputy national security advisor told reporters.

Democratic lawmakers said that Petraeus was adamant that there had been no White House interference. The recently resigned four-star general explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public statement by Rice and others so as not to tip off those groups that US intelligence was on their trail.

“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California said. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.”

Republicans remain skeptical

However, Republicans remained skeptical over the White House and Petraeus’ explanation, maintaining that the Obama administration may have watered down information to cover up for poor intelligence or inadequate security of US personnel in Libya.

Ambassador Rice has been floated as a possible successor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is stepping down early next year, but some Republicans are threatening to block Rice’s nomination.

Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, said Petraeus’ testimony showed that security measures were inadequate “despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of September 11.”

Peter King, a Congressman from New York and the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Friday he saw a contradiction between the account Petraeus had given to an earlier House hearing and the one given during his most recent appearence.

“His testimony was he told us that from the start it was a terrorist attack. I told him that was not my direct recollection. The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and [not] that it was a terrorist attack.”

On Saturday King told Fox News television that it remained unclear who had made the edits concerning al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi, and did not rule out the White House.

“That’s why it’s important to find out why it was done. It could be anywhere in the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, the White House,” King told the right-wing news channel. “[We need] to find out why it was done, what the purpose of it was.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121118-usa-white-house-obama-no-edited-talking-points-benghazi-mission-al-qaeda-rice-king-rubio

The Benghazi Talking Points

And how they were changed to obscure the truth

May 13, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 33 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.

The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3 above).

If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.

Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.

On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”

“Innocence of Muslims” FULL MOVIE HD Anti-Muslim Anti-Islam Prophet Muhammad

Is Ben Rhodes the Mastermind Behind the Benghazi Cover Up?

wrote yesterday about how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives. We know the Obama White House put out the story for nearly a week that it was just Muslims upset over a benign YouTube video. In spite of knowing what was going on and having the ability to intervene, the Obama administration did nothing to stop or assist Americans who they knew were being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Instead, they chose to cover it up and intimidate witnesses. Stephen F. Hayes has an excellent piece at the Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, in which he fingers the man he believes is the main person behind the Benghazi cover up, Ben Rhodes.

Of course, one would immediately have to wonder about those who would be around a man who has vowed to stand with the Muslims instead of America. If you recall, Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt to an audience which included the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he distorted the Qur’an to put it in a good light and then attempted to make out like Islam had made great contributions to both America and the world. That speech was written by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now a part of a his National Security Council.

Hayes writes in his article about the talking points that were first put out to officials. He writes:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

Ed Lasky writes concerning Rhodes, “Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.”

“I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House,” writes Lasky. “It is shameful that this ‘kid’ (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government. In ‘Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?’ I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing. He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love’ about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance. ”

Lasky concludes that Ben Rhodes is the man that attempted to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration, not only in the Cairo speech, but in the talking points promoted by the Obama White House in the days following the attack on Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

I guess we’ll wait and see if he is even called as a witness this by the House in this week’s hearings.

Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.

Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

Meet Dozens of LOCAL Patriotic Americans Today. Join The Patriot Team Forums. It’s Time to Organize!!!

Other Articles You May Enjoy

http://www.dcclothesline.com

Source: http://dcclothesline.com/2013/05/08/is-ben-rhodes-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-

Ben Rhodes

Rhodes grew up in New York City and moved to Washington in 2002, eventually taking a job writing speeches for Barack Obama, then a freshman Senator. Now, as Obama’s principal communications aide on national security, he reads the top-secret President’s Daily Brief, advises the President on key decisions and runs meetings with advisers much older than he is. “It was awkward for the first few weeks,” says Rhodes, 32, “but you get used to it.”

Who is your political hero/inspiration?
Robert F. Kennedy.

What’s your go-to political blog?
andrewsullivan.com

If you weren’t working in politics, what would you be doing?
I’d probably be living in New York trying to write novels but making a living off of non-fiction.

What’s the most overlooked issue facing America these days?
We need a broad and sustainable consensus about the politics of national security and America’s role in the world, which we have not had in the 21st century

Where do you see yourself professionally in five years?
Transitioning out of the second Obama Administration to live in California (per my wife), trying to write novels but making a living off of non-fiction.

Background Articles and Videos

Oversight Hearing Part 1 – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”

Breaking News-Benghazi Investigation’s Over. Judge Jeanine:Obama&Hillary Blame the Victim !!!???

Jeanine Pirro and Pat Caddell discuss Hillary Clinton’s roll in the Benghazi cover-up

Below is a letter from a group of about 700 retired U.S. military special operations veterans to the House of Representatives, urging Congress to establish a committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Colonel Dick Brauer, founder of the group Special Operations Speaks explained the effort on Fox and Friends this morning.

To: Members of The U.S. House of Representatives

Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012

The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers

preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.

It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:

1. Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

a. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?

b. If so, were they alerted?

c. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

d. Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?

e. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

f. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?

2. What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

3. How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

4. Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

5. Where are the survivors?

6. Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

7. Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

8. Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

9. Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?

10. Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

11. Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?

12. What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?

13. Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?

14. What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

15. What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

16. Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?

This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far, it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.

The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.

We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.

CBS Devotes Two Straight Days of Coverage to ‘Possible Cover-Up’ on Benghazi; ABC, NBC Out to Lunch

By Matthew Balan

CBS used its Sunday evening and Monday morning newscasts to keep the spotlight on the question of a “possible cover-up” surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Jeff Glor led CBS Evening News with the scoop from earlier in the day on Face the Nation – that a “career U.S. diplomat is raising new questions” about the Obama administration’s claim that the attack spontaneously erupted in response to an early protest in Egypt.

Monday’s CBS This Morning also aired a report on this latest development on the September 11, 2012 attack. Meanwhile, ABC and NBC have yet to pick up on the veteran diplomat’s allegations, despite the fact that he is set to testify publicly to Congress on the issue on Wednesday.

Glor teased a report from correspondent David Martin by trumpeting that “a new witness emerges – a senior U.S. diplomat contradicts the White House and seems to support Republican claims of a cover-up over the attack in Benghazi.” Martin first outlined what Rep. Darrell Issa had revealed earlier in the day on Face the Nation:

DAVID MARTIN: Greg Hicks – at the time, the number-two diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…directly contradicts administration claims that at first, the attack was thought to be nothing more than a demonstration growing out of a similar protest that day in Cairo. ‘I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.’

The CBS journalist continued with a clip of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now-discredited assertion about the terror attack, which she made on several Sunday morning talk shows on September 16, 2012. He also noted that Rep. Issa “pointed out Rice’s statement directly contradicted the president of Libya, who had appeared just before her on ‘Face the Nation’.”

Near the end of the segment, Martin underlined a key assertion from Hicks – that the diplomat “told committee investigators Rice’s words were an insult to the president of Libya, and may have hobbled efforts to capture those responsible for the attack. ‘I firmly believe that the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows.’”

Hours later, on Monday’s CBS This Morning, correspondent Margaret Brennan rehashed much of what her colleague had reported the previous evening. Brennan also highlighted another statement from Hicks on Rice’s apparent slight to the Libyan president:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Hicks said that the public contradiction was a personal insult to the Libyan president, because Ambassador Rice – quote, ‘basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.’ He believes that’s why the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI access to the crime scene for several weeks.

Brennan had also singled out the FBI’s pursuit of three persons of interest who could provide information on the attack in Benghazi during a report on Thursday’s CBS This Morning, and touted how “what happened that night is still the topic of debate in Washington“. ABC devoted a news brief to the FBI investigation on Wednesday’s World News, while NBC punted on covering it.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/05/06/cbs-devotes-two-straight-days-coverage-possible-cover-benghazi-abc-nb#ixzz2SeOcSj3V

The Benghazi talking points: What’s known and unknown

Posted by Glenn Kessler

“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”

— Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jan. 23, 2013

New information is raising questions about the development of the administration’s talking points on the deadly attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans, including the ambassador, dead.

Readers may recall that The Fact Checker concluded that there was something rather odd about U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice’s comments on the Sunday news shows shortly after the attack. Rice said the attack “began spontaneously” because of a reaction to a protest in Cairo sparked by a “hateful video,” and there was no indication it was “premeditated or preplanned.”

We awarded her Two Pinocchios the morning after she appeared on the shows, concluding that “the publicly available evidence stands in stark contrast to Rice’s talking points.”

The White House at the time sharply disputed that conclusion, but over time that column has held up rather well. (In an interview with congressional investigators that was released over the weekend, deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks said “my jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”) Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.

The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism.

We also have awarded Pinocchios to Republicans for claims about Benghazi. In this column, as a reader service, we outline below some of the new disclosures, contained in a report by House Republicans and an article in the Weekly Standard, and contrast the new information with previous statements made by administration officials.

The House report contains references to specific e-mails between administration officials; the Weekly Standard then identifies who wrote the e-mails as well as various drafts of the talking points. As far as we know, the administration has not publicly denied the information about the talking points contained in the GOP report or the article.

The key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points. Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence officials.

Here is White House spokesman Jay Carney speaking to reporters on Nov. 28, 2012:

“Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch. And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.”

“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. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.”

Note how Carney stressed that this was “developed by the intelligence community” and the “talking points originated from the intelligence community.”

In a narrow sense, this is correct. Both the House report and the Weekly Standard say the CIA created — or “originated” — the first draft of the talking points. The version as of Friday morning, Sept. 14, 2012, was rather detailed, saying that “Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the militant group Ansar al-Sharia. It also referred to previous attacks against foreign interests and the possibility there had been surveillance of the U.S. facility.

But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — objected to this draft after being asked to clear the talking points for release. The CIA made some changes, but apparently that was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail disclosed by the House report that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”

(Update: Reading between the lines, part of State’s concern appears to be inconsistency in messaging. Nuland, as State Department spokesman, had been constrained from saying much about the attack at the podium, and now the CIA was proposing to give lawmakers much more information than the administration had released. Moreover, from State’s perspective, the original draft contained references to CIA’s warnings about the security environment, which appeared designed to deflect attention from the agency’s substantial role in Benghazi.)

Minutes later, a White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications), who was part of the email group receiving Nuland’s message, e-mailed to say that the State Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.

The result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike Morell.

Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been mentioned.

Morell may have had his hand on the pen, but the available evidence suggests that White House and State Department had much more involvement than the “single adjustment” of changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” as Carney asserted.

The biggest unknown is whether the “building leadership” in the State Department that objected to the initial talking points included anyone on Clinton’s immediate staff. (One presumes that nit-picking over wording would not have risen to Clinton’s level.) There is no indication that Nuland had any role in crafting or even discussing the talking points after her email on Friday evening, nor is it clear from the email portions that have been released whether she had actually consulted with other officials before objecting to the draft.

Nuland is expected to be nominated for assistant secretary for European affairs. Lawmakers are likely to question her closely on this point during her confirmation hearings.

Clinton, during her testimony before the Senate and the House in January, made the following comments about the development of the talking points. She also stressed it was an “intelligence product” and said she was not involved in the “talking points process” and she “personally” was not focused on them — odd locutions that leave open the possibility that she was aware of the internal debate at the time.

“I would say that I personally was not focused on talking points. I was focused on keeping our people safe.”

“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”

“I was not involved in the so-called talking points process. My understanding is it was a typical process, trying to get to the best information available. It was an intelligence product.”

“The evidence was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points. And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”

As more information emerges, we will continue to track how the administration’s statements hold up over time and whether more Pinocchio ratings are appropriate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-benghazi-talking-points-whats-known-and-unknown/2013/05/06/f689ee08-b693-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

Lankford: Either Obama State Dept Ignored Libya Threats, Or Ignored Diplomats’ Please for Protection

US Security Chief in Libya: “State Department Told Us Don’t Continue To Ask For Help”

ISSA OPENING STATEMENT – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”

President Obama’s Complete UN Address (2012)

Background Articles and Videos

Who was Frank Marshall Davis? (This is a 32-page analysis of the FBI file by Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein.) PDF
The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii (Andrew Walden examines the remnants of the Davis network in Hawaii). PDF
Pages from the FBI File (This 40-page report includes selected pages from the FBI file which document Davis’s Communist history and pro-Soviet and anti-white views). PDF
FBI File #1 (PDF)
FBI File #2 (PDF)
FBI File #3 (PDF)
FBI File #4 (PDF)
FBI File #5 (PDF)
FBI File #6 (PDF)
The Communist Party of Frank Marshall Davis (PDF)

Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 1/3)

Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 2/3)

Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 3/3)

Obama’s Real Father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis?

Michael Savage on Obama’s REAL Father; Dreams From My Real Father DVD; Savage Nation

Glenn Beck – Presidential Lies “Do You Know Anybody Like Barack Obama?”

Barack Obama 1995 Interview on Dreams From My Father Part 1

Barack Obama 1995 Interview on Dreams of My Father Part 2

Background Articles and Videos

Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi deportation order records altered

Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi was originally named as a ‘person of interest’ after the Boston bombings. The Saudi National was cleared of any involvement in the bombing, but there have been a lot of strange things going on with Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi and the Obama regime. According to Breitbart, the Saudi National Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi had his deportation order records altered. This rescinded his deportation order. Michelle Obama decided to pay Al-Harbi a visit while he was in the hospital recovering from wounds in the attack. Michelle Obama never paid a visit to any of the other injured people, including those who lost limbs in the attack. Also, Obama himself met with the Saudi foreign minister two days after the attack. This was not listed on Obama’s public schedule and as usual the media didn’t report on this. Something very fishy is going on here. I wonder if this was supposed to be Glenn Beck’s big ‘bombshell’ for tomorrow? If so, Breitbart scooped him.

Now that it’s been revelaed that Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi deportation order records altered, it probably explains why Janet Napolitano got so testy when asked about Al-Harbi last week. Why would Obama or his regime alter the deportation order? Are they hiding something? Of course they are. Without a media in this country, we’ll never know what they are hiding.

The alteration occurred the night before Secretary Napolitano vehemently denied the existence of any deportation order in testimony before the House of Representatives. Sources with knowledge of these matters says the change occurred subsequent to Secretary John Kerry’s closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Minister and around the time of the meeting between the Saudi Minister and Obama later on Wednesday evening. The Saudi National has been identified as Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi. There is no evidence that Al-Harbi is connected to the Boston Marathon Bombings. Steven Emerson announced on Wednesday night’s episode of Hannity that the Saudi National who was a person of interest and later cleared, was set to be deported.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/04/21/abdulrahman-ali-al-harbi-deportation-order-records-altered/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=abdulrahman-ali-al-harbi-deportation-order-records-altered

Boston MANHUNT is OVER: the Second BOMBER is CAUGHT (FBI FALSE FLAG says the mother)

A retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army weighs in on Boston.

The John Birch Society

John Birch Society documentary from the 1960′s

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

G. Edward Griffin The Dangerous Servant A Discourse on Government

G. Edward Griffin in Toronto (November 16th 2012)

The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)

G. Edward Griffin on Glenn Beck

“The Federal Reserve Is a Cartel” – G. Edward Griffin

Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda.flv

JBS (John Birch Society) Overview of America Part 1 (HQ)

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 1/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 2/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 3/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 4/5

Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 5/5

Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full (Order it at Infowars.com)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’–Videos

Posted on February 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Drinking With Bob, Economics, Federal Reserve, Financial Advice, Glenn Beck, investment, Investors, Jim Rogers, Obama, Politics, Progressives, Savers, Wealth |

Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’

America is a FREAKING MESS…

Barack Obama is AMERICA’S DAD….

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Here Comes The Judge–Here Comes The Judge–Napolitano–and The Tea Party–Videos

Posted on February 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: Books, Classical Liberal, Economics, freedom, Glenn Beck, Independents, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Libertarian Party, liberty, Politics, Tea Party, The Freedom Answer book, Theodore and Woodrow |

Here comes the Judge!

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano discusses the Libertarian Party w/ Glenn Beck & The Fr

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Dereliction of Duty By President and Commander-In-Chief Obama–Sleeping While Americans Died–The Big Coverup and Scandal–The President Lied–Videos

Posted on February 7, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Diasters, Federal Government, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Raves, Resources, Rifles, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: Benghazi, Benghazi Attack, Bret Baier, Bud McFarlane, Cover Up, Death and Deceit in Benghazi, Derelection of Duty, Glenn Beck, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, Libya, Mark Levin, Panetta's Benghazi Testimony, President Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Senator Chambliss, Senator Graham, special oversight committee, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens |

Former National Security Adiviser Bud McFarlane: For Obama to Do Nothing is Dereliction of Duty

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

Obama Confronted on Benghazi – Stutters Through Response!

Mark Levin – Obama’s “Dereliction of Duty”

Rush military caller says that Obama ordered no response to Benghazi attack

BREAKING OBAMA MAY GO TO PRISON AND BE IMPEACHED KILLING OUR OWN

Father Of Murdered Navy Seal in Benghazi, Recounts Days After Attack – Judge Jeanine

Graham Questions Military Leaders on Response to Benghazi Attack

Part II: Graham Questions Military Leaders on Benghazi

Sen. Chambliss at Benghazi SASC Hearing

Panetta: Benghazi was a ‘problem of distance and time’.

No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton

Panetta Defends Pentagon’s Benghazi Response

Senator Blunt Questions Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey About Benghazi Attacks

Rand Paul’s Reaction To Defense Secretary Panetta’s Benghazi Testimony – Fox News

Obama vs Panetta on Attacks in Benghazi – Obama Could have saved American Lives

Senators challenge military leaders on Benghazi attack response

“…The top two Defense Department officials were sharply challenged by lawmakers Thursday on their insistent claims that nothing more could have been done to save the four Americans who were killed in the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi.

Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey were peppered with questions from Republican senators during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The officials claimed military aircraft and other assets were too far away to get to the scene in time, and suggested armed aircraft like F16s could have done more harm than good in a chaotic situation. The senators, though, pressed the officials for a fuller explanation on why military assets were not deployed to rescue Americans under attack that night – in what will likely be their last chance to question the outgoing Defense secretary.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., disputed testimony that the difficulty in dispatching assets to the scene was “a problem of distance and time.” He suggested the “light footprint” in the region and a failure to respond to threats left the military ill-prepared.

“For you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response — our posture was not there because we didn’t take into account the threats to that consulate, and that’s why four Americans died,” he said. “We could have placed forces there. We could have had aircraft and other capacity a short distance away.”

He continued: “No forces arrived there until well after these murders took place.”

Dempsey acknowledged having gotten word of a warning from the U.S. consulate about being unable to withstand a sustained attack, but said the military never got a request for support from the State Department.

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?” McCain asked, curtly.

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey said.

McCain responded: “Who would you blame?”

Dempsey went on to claim that several U.S. posts were facing significant threats, though McCain said none so much as Benghazi.

Shortly afterward, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressed Panetta again on why no forces were deployed until after the attack was over. Dempsey and Panetta said they talked to President Obama one time that night, but Graham questioned why there weren’t subsequent follow-up conversations.

“It lasted almost eight hours … did the president show any curiosity?” Graham asked.

Panetta said there was “no question” Obama “was concerned about American lives.”

“With all due respect,” Graham responded, “I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, ‘are we helping these people?’”

The secretary’s testimony on Benghazi was long-sought by Republican lawmakers. After then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified last month, Graham had demanded that Panetta be brought before the Senate — threatening to hold up the nomination of his prospective replacement Chuck Hagel over the issue.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced last week that Panetta would testify.

Responding to long-running questions about whether more military assets could have been dispatched to protect those under fire in Libya on Sept. 11, Panetta in his opening statement claimed there simply wasn’t enough time to do more.

“There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. … Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

Still, he said the Pentagon “spared no effort … to save American lives.”

Panetta was testifying in what may be his final public appearance on Capitol Hill as he prepares to leave the department.

Panetta, in his testimony, detailed the military response on the day and night of the attack.

As Fox News has previously reported, he said an unarmed, unmanned drone was positioned overhead the Benghazi compound.

But he said armed aircraft like AC-130 gunships would have taken too long to get there — “at least nine to 12 hours if not more to deploy.”

“This was, pure and simple … a problem of distance and time,” he said.

Panetta said he also directed that a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team stationed in Spain prepare to deploy in addition to a second FAST platoon; a special operations force in Central Europe prepare to deploy to a staging base in Southern Europe; and a special ops force in the U.S. similarly prepare to deploy to Southern Europe.

As for what was happening in Libya, he claimed the “quickest response” was the Tripoli-based team of six people which was sent to Benghazi.

“Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi,” he said.

Since the September assault, some have questioned whether enough was done to protect those at the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed that night.

There have been questions about the perceived delays CIA officials – stationed in Benghazi — encountered that night and their frustration that air support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support would be above when they landed in Benghazi, but it wasn’t. …”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Richard Duncan–The New Depression–Videos

Posted on December 9, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Austrian School of Economics, Big Government, Books, Central Banking, Creditism, debt, depression, Economist, fiat money, Glenn Beck, Globalism, Gold Standary, Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, Paper Money, Peter Schiff, Progressives, Richard Duncan, The New Depression, Videos |

The U.S. does not have a capitalist economy

A new depression: Out of credit

Interview With Richard Duncan, Author of The New Depression

Richard Duncan on Riding out this Depression on a Deflationary Debt Raft!

“The New Depression” Book w/ Glenn Beck & Richard Duncan

The New Depression: Richard Duncan | McAlvany Commentary

Pt 1/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Pt 2/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Pt 3/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Pt 4/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Pt 5/5: Can governments end the crisis cycle?

Jim Rogers New Recession/Depression Coming

Peter Schiff interviews Marc Faber on Schiffradio Oct 2012

Why the global recession is in danger of becoming another Great Depression, and how we can stop it

When the United States stopped backing dollars with gold in 1968, the nature of money changed. All previous constraints on money and credit creation were removed and a new economic paradigm took shape. Economic growth ceased to be driven by capital accumulation and investment as it had been since before the Industrial Revolution. Instead, credit creation and consumption began to drive the economic dynamic. In The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy, Richard Duncan introduces an analytical framework, The Quantity Theory of Credit, that explains all aspects of the calamity now unfolding: its causes, the rationale for the government’s policy response to the crisis, what is likely to happen next, and how those developments will affect asset prices and investment portfolios.

In his previous book, The Dollar Crisis (2003), Duncan explained why a severe global economic crisis was inevitable given the flaws in the post-Bretton Woods international monetary system, and now he’s back to explain what’s next. The economic system that emerged following the abandonment of sound money requires credit growth to survive. Yet the private sector can bear no additional debt and the government’s creditworthiness is deteriorating rapidly. Should total credit begin to contract significantly, this New Depression will become a New Great Depression, with disastrous economic and geopolitical consequences. That outcome is not inevitable, and this book describes what must be done to prevent it.

Presents a fascinating look inside the financial crisis and how the New Depression is poised to become a New Great Depression
Introduces a new theoretical construct, The Quantity Theory of Credit, that is the key to understanding not only the developments that led to the crisis, but also to understanding how events will play out in the years ahead
Offers unique insights from the man who predicted the global economic breakdown

Alarming but essential reading, The New Depression explains why the global economy is teetering on the brink of falling into a deep and protracted depression, and how we can restore stability.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118157796.html

The New Depression: Richard Duncan’s prognosis of our economic ills and the answer to them

“… In a nutshell, his case is half-Austrian. Or indeed half-Keynesian. That is because whilst Duncan’s diagnosis of the current economic ills is very much in the Austrian school of economics, with its emphasis on the role of credit, his prescription for fixing the economy is large-scale borrowing to fund infrastructure work, all of which sounds rather Keynesian.

It is a more fiscally responsible version of Keynesianism than some, for Duncan argues that, “The U.S. government can now borrow money for ten years at a cost of 2 percent interest a year. If it borrows at that rate and invests in projects that yield even 3 percent … on a grand scale in grand projects … [our economy] could be transformed”. In other words, borrow massively to boost economic growth, but spend those funds on projects that will generate future returns which make the borrowing affordable.

Duncan has a particular set of target for his investment plans for the American economy – developing new industries to reduce the trade deficit and generate new tax revenues. In particular, he talks about renewable energy, arguing that massive investment will cut energy bills whilst also providing the sort of financial return that makes the massive spending of money on it a prudent rather than profligate move.

All that means there are three main bones of contention in the book: is Richard Duncan right in blaming the crash on credit conditions; is he right that massive infrastructure investment on projects which pay returns the answer; and if money is to be invested in infrastructure that pays returns, does renewable energy fit the bill? Although a book principally about the US economy and the policy choices faced by Americans, those three questions are very applicable to other countries too, even if his evidence tends to be centred on the USA.

As he mulls over these three questions, most readers will find at least one eye-catching piece of evidence to savour, such as when he describes how heavily the financial system became dependent on credit not going sour:

In 1945 [American] commercial banks held reserves and vault cash of … the equivalent of 12 percent of their total assets … By 2007, the banks’ reserves and vault cash [was] 0.6 percent.

He goes on to argue that

Economic progress was no longer achieved the old-fashioned way through savings and investments, but, rather, by borrowing and consumption … The new reality is that credit has displaced money as the key economic variable.

Hence the book’s subtitle, “The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy”.

Each of the three main questions in themselves could sustain not merely one whole book but a mini-book publishing flurry of titles. To condense credible arguments over all three into one relatively slim and easy to follow volume is tribute to the Duncan, even if some readers may choose to agree with less than all three of the main points of his case. …”

http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-new-depression-richard-duncans-prognosis-of-our-economic-ills-and-the-answer-to-them-28981.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Penn Jillette Interviewed By Glenn Beck–Left–Right Political Spectrum–Every Day Is An Atheist Holiday–Videos

Posted on December 9, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Religion, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Chriistians, conservatives, Deist, Every Day is An Atheist Holiday, Glenn Beck, I don not know, Knowledge, Left Right Spectrum, libertarian, Penn Jillette, Politics, Progressives, Religion, Science |

Glenn Beck talks to Penn Jillette, author of “Every Day is an Atheist Holiday! More Magical Tales”

Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist

Bible, real facts? 1

Bible, real facts? 2

Bible, real facts? 3

Penn Jillette on Capitalism, Magic and Morality

Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian

Penn Jillette book signing Barnes & Noble Tribeca NYC 11-14-2012

Penn Jillette: Glenn Beck Is a Nut—But I Like Him

Penn Jillette: Mistrust of Government Is a Beautiful Thing

Penn Jillette: Reconciling Atheism with Libertarianism

Penn Jillette: An Atheist’s Guide to the 2012 Election

Mitt’s Magical Mormon Undies: Penn Jillette’s Rant Redux

Penn’s Sunday School “November 18th, 2012″

Penn Jillette on His New Book

Penn Jillette: Don’t Leave Atheists Out on Christmas

Penn Jillette: How to Raise an Atheist Family

Penn Says: Santa & My Kids

Penn Jillette: Penn and Teller Are Not Lovers

IAMA – Penn and Teller Answer reddit.com’s Top 10 Questions

Penn & Teller Tell A Lie – Teller Speaks!

penn and teller tell a lie

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ray Kurzweil–How To Create A Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed–Videos

Posted on November 21, 2012. Filed under: Babies, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, College, Communications, Computers, Culture, Economics, Education, Energy, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Raves, Science, Security, Strategy, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: Glenn Beck, How to Create A Mind, Progress, Ray Kurzweil, Science, Singularity, Technology, Video |

Ray Kurzweil “How to Create a Mind”, Authors at Google

Exclusive Interview with Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 1

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 2

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 3

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 4

Learning Technologies 2012 – Ray Kurzweil – The Web Within Us: When Minds and Machines Become One

Glenn Beck - Ray Kurzweil Part 1

Glenn Beck - Ray Kurzweil Part 2

Glenn Beck - Ray Kurzweil Part 3

Ray Kurzweil & Daughter Amy Kurzweil in a Fireside Chat at NASA

Ray Kurzweil: You Are What You Think

Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity

Ray Kurzweil – Exponential Learning & Entrepreneurship

Ray Kurzweil on “From Eliza to Watson to Passing the Turing Test” at Singularity Summit 2011

Ray Kurzweil – Futurist

Background Articles and Videos

Glenn Beck The Blaze TV 9-24-12 (part1)

Glenn Beck The Blaze TV 9-24-12 (part2)

Glenn Beck The Blaze TV 9-24-12 (part3)

Admin. rejects new claim about Libya attack

By KIMBERLY DOZIER AP Intelligence Writer

“…Obama administration officials defended their response to the September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, amid new claims that the White House failed to send help quickly enough as militants overran the mission. The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died in the hourslong battle.

Fox News reported that security officers working for the CIA in Benghazi heard the attack on the consulate but were twice told to wait before rushing to the compound. Fox also reported that U.S. officials refused when the security team asked for U.S. warplanes to bomb their attackers, which would have meant violating Libyan airspace.

In response to the report, CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said the CIA “reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.”

She added: “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

President Barack Obama said repeatedly Friday that his administration would “find out what happened” and punish those responsible, but he twice ducked questions about whether U.S. officials denied requests for help.

“We’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again, but we’re also going to make sure we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks,” Obama said in an interview with Denver television station KUSA.

In the run-up to the presidential election, Republicans have accused the Obama administration of distorting the account of the attack on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Officials first blamed the attack on a mob set into motion by an anti-Islamic film, saying the mob had been infiltrated and overtaken by extremists. Officials later revised their account, describing the attack as a military-style operation that took place without a demonstration beforehand.

The new claims come as Republican senators demanded that the Obama administration make public the surveillance video taken during and just after the attacks.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire wrote to the defense secretary, CIA director and attorney general demanding that the video from Sept. 11 and 12 be declassified. Pentagon and CIA officials declined to comment on the senators’ request. Justice Department officials did not respond to requests for comment. …”

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA_SURVEILLANCE_VIDEO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-26-23-07-56

Bombshell: Obama Admin. Was Likely Running Arms To Islamic Jihadists Through Benghazi

“…It doesn’t get more serious than a sitting president funneling arms to Al Qaeda terrorists!Mysterious Libyan ship linked to deadly terror attack?

View at Fox News

New e-mails released today show that both the White House and State Department knew within 2 hours that an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group was behind the attack in Benghazi…but they lied about it anyway, blaming it on a stupid video for TWO WEEKS!

Why?

Frighteningly, it may be because Obama didn’t want anyone to know that he was using the Benghazi station to funnel arms to jihadists:

During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.

Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2012.

[...] The New York Times reported in July, 2012 that CIA officers were operating out of southern Turkey to help channel weapons to fighters supposedly not allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. In a October 14 piece, though, the Times asserted flatly that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups…” And while U.S. officials continue to stick to claims that they are not providing arms directly to the Syrian rebels, but only channeling weapons that come from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, reports that those rebels now have surface-to-air missiles call to mind the thousands of such weapons looted from Muammar Qaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the revolt that ousted him in October 2011.

Read more at Family Security Matters

The evidence suggests that part of Ambassador Stevens’ mission was to recruit jihadists to fight in Syria:

Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador murdered in Libya, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials speaking to WND.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials. …”

http://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/2012/10/bombshell-obama-admin-was-likely-running-arms-to-islamic-jihadists-through-benghazi-2430222.html

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

By Mark Hosenball

“… 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.” …”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

Background Articles and Videos

Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Overview

http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 2: ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 3: Influence Operations Against Conservatives & the GOP

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 4: Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 5: The Organizations Islamists Are Using to Subvert the Right

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 6: Electing Islamist Republicans

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 7: Advancing the Islamists’ Agendas

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 8: Team Obama & the Islamists

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 9: Team Obama & the Islamist Agenda

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 10: What’s To Be Done?

Background Articles and Videos

Give Us Liberty? Q&A with Dick Armey & Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works

Matt Kibbe on GBTV:The Tea Party and The 2012 Elections – Part 1

Matt Kibbe on GBTV:The Tea Party and The 2012 Elections – Part 2

Kibbe Previews “Hostile Takeover” Tea Party Book

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eat The Rich–Obama’s Big Distraction And Big Lie: The Buffett Rule Tax and The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share–Class Warfare Progressive Propaganda–Videos

Posted on April 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Barack Obama, Buffet Rule, Buffet Tax, Capital gains tax, CATO Institute, Class Warfare, Consumption Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dan Mitchell, Dividend Tax, Dividends, FairTax, Federal Income Tax, flat tax, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Personal Income Tax, Peter Schiff, Radical Progressive Socialist, Steve Hayers, Tax Code, warren Buffett |

Buffett Rule Rebuffed

EAT THE RICH!

Weekly Address: Passing the Buffett Rule So That Everyone Pays Their Fair Share

Priebus: Buffett Tax A Shiny Object That Would Raise Just 11 Hours Of Revenue

Steve Hayes – Buffet Tax meaningless

Gene Sperling on the Buffett Rule

Interview – The Buffett Tax: Anything But “Fair”

Real News: Buffett Rule Tax Reform

GBR: Lies from Warren Buffett

Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy

Mark Levin – The Warren Buffett-Bill Gates “Tax Us More!”

The Buffett Rule is BS pt1

The Buffett Rule is BS pt2

Debunking Warren Buffett and other tax myths

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Tax Year 2009

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$343,927	36.73
Top 5%	$154,643	58.66
Top 10%	$112,124	70.47
Top 25%	$66,193	87.30
Top 50%	$32,396	97.75
Bottom 50%	<$32,396	2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)

Year	Total	Top 0.1%	Top 1%	Top 5%	Between 5% & 10%	Top 10%	Between 10% & 25%	Top 25%	Between 25% & 50%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1980	100%		19.05%	36.84%	12.44%	49.28%	23.74%	73.02%	19.93%	92.95%	7.05%
1981	100%		17.58%	35.06%	12.90%	47.96%	24.33%	72.29%	20.26%	92.55%	7.45%
1982	100%		19.03%	36.13%	12.45%	48.59%	23.91%	72.50%	20.15%	92.65%	7.35%
1983	100%		20.32%	37.26%	12.44%	49.71%	23.39%	73.10%	19.73%	92.83%	7.17%
1984	100%		21.12%	37.98%	12.58%	50.56%	22.92%	73.49%	19.16%	92.65%	7.35%
1985	100%		21.81%	38.78%	12.67%	51.46%	22.60%	74.06%	18.77%	92.83%	7.17%
1986	100%		25.75%	42.57%	12.12%	54.69%	21.33%	76.02%	17.52%	93.54%	6.46%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987	100%		24.81%	43.26%	12.35%	55.61%	21.31%	76.92%	17.02%	93.93%	6.07%
1988	100%		27.58%	45.62%	11.66%	57.28%	20.57%	77.84%	16.44%	94.28%	5.72%
1989	100%		25.24%	43.94%	11.85%	55.78%	21.44%	77.22%	16.94%	94.17%	5.83%
1990	100%		25.13%	43.64%	11.73%	55.36%	21.66%	77.02%	17.16%	94.19%	5.81%
1991	100%		24.82%	43.38%	12.45%	55.82%	21.46%	77.29%	17.23%	94.52%	5.48%
1992	100%		27.54%	45.88%	12.12%	58.01%	20.47%	78.48%	16.46%	94.94%	5.06%
1993	100%		29.01%	47.36%	11.88%	59.24%	20.03%	79.27%	15.92%	95.19%	4.81%
1994	100%		28.86%	47.52%	11.93%	59.45%	20.10%	79.55%	15.68%	95.23%	4.77%
1995	100%		30.26%	48.91%	11.84%	60.75%	19.62%	80.36%	15.03%	95.39%	4.61%
1996	100%		32.31%	50.97%	11.54%	62.51%	18.80%	81.32%	14.36%	95.68%	4.32%
1997	100%		33.17%	51.87%	11.33%	63.20%	18.47%	81.67%	14.05%	95.72%	4.28%
1998	100%		34.75%	53.84%	11.20%	65.04%	17.65%	82.69%	13.10%	95.79%	4.21%
1999	100%		36.18%	55.45%	11.00%	66.45%	17.09%	83.54%	12.46%	96.00%	4.00%
2000	100%		37.42%	56.47%	10.86%	67.33%	16.68%	84.01%	12.08%	96.09%	3.91%
2001	100%	16.06%	33.89%	53.25%	11.64%	64.89%	18.01%	82.90%	13.13%	96.03%	3.97%
2002	100%	15.43%	33.71%	53.80%	11.94%	65.73%	18.16%	83.90%	12.60%	96.50%	3.50%
2003	100%	15.68%	34.27%	54.36%	11.48%	65.84%	18.04%	83.88%	12.65%	96.54%	3.46%
2004	100%	17.44%	36.89%	57.13%	11.07%	68.19%	16.67%	84.86%	11.85%	96.70%	3.30%
2005	100%	19.26%	39.38%	59.67%	10.63%	70.30%	15.69%	85.99%	10.94%	96.93%	3.07%
2006	100%	19.56%	39.89%	60.14%	10.65%	70.79%	15.47%	86.27%	10.75%	97.01%	2.99%
2007	100%	20.19%	40.41%	60.61%	10.59%	71.20%	15.37%	86.57%	10.54%	97.11%	2.89%
2008	100%	18.47%	38.02%	58.72%	11.22%	69.94%	16.40%	86.34%	10.96%	97.30%	2.70%
2009	100%	17.11%	36.73%	58.66%	11.81%	70.47%	16.83%	87.30%	10.45%	97.75%	2.25%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2009 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)

Year	Total	Top 0.1%	Top 1%	Top 5%	Between 5% & 10%	Top 10%	Between 10% & 25%	Top 25%	Between 25% & 50%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1980	15.31%		34.47%	26.85%	17.13%	23.49%	14.80%	19.72%	11.91%	17.29%	6.10%
1981	15.76%		33.37%	26.59%	18.16%	23.64%	15.53%	20.11%	12.48%	17.73%	6.62%
1982	14.72%		31.43%	25.05%	16.61%	22.17%	14.35%	18.79%	11.63%	16.57%	6.10%
1983	13.79%		30.18%	23.64%	15.54%	20.91%	13.20%	17.62%	10.76%	15.52%	5.66%
1984	13.68%		29.92%	23.42%	15.57%	20.81%	12.90%	17.47%	10.48%	15.35%	5.77%
1985	13.73%		29.86%	23.50%	15.69%	20.93%	12.83%	17.55%	10.41%	15.41%	5.70%
1986	14.54%		33.13%	25.68%	15.99%	22.64%	12.97%	18.72%	10.48%	16.32%	5.63%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987	13.12%		26.41%	22.10%	14.43%	19.77%	11.71%	16.61%	9.45%	14.60%	5.09%
1988	13.21%		24.04%	21.14%	14.07%	19.18%	11.82%	16.47%	9.60%	14.64%	5.06%
1989	13.12%		23.34%	20.71%	13.93%	18.77%	12.08%	16.27%	9.77%	14.53%	5.11%
1990	12.95%		23.25%	20.46%	13.63%	18.50%	12.01%	16.06%	9.73%	14.36%	5.01%
1991	12.75%		24.37%	20.62%	13.96%	18.63%	11.57%	15.93%	9.55%	14.20%	4.62%
1992	12.94%		25.05%	21.19%	13.99%	19.13%	11.39%	16.25%	9.42%	14.44%	4.39%
1993	13.32%		28.01%	22.71%	14.01%	20.20%	11.40%	16.90%	9.37%	14.90%	4.29%
1994	13.50%		28.23%	23.04%	14.20%	20.48%	11.57%	17.15%	9.42%	15.11%	4.32%
1995	13.86%		28.73%	23.53%	14.46%	20.97%	11.71%	17.58%	9.43%	15.47%	4.39%
1996	14.34%		28.87%	24.07%	14.74%	21.55%	11.86%	18.12%	9.53%	15.96%	4.40%
1997	14.48%		27.64%	23.62%	14.87%	21.36%	12.04%	18.18%	9.63%	16.09%	4.48%
1998	14.42%		27.12%	23.63%	14.79%	21.42%	11.63%	18.16%	9.12%	16.00%	4.44%
1999	14.85%		27.53%	24.18%	15.06%	21.98%	11.76%	18.66%	9.12%	16.43%	4.48%
2000	15.26%		27.45%	24.42%	15.48%	22.34%	12.04%	19.09%	9.28%	16.86%	4.60%
2001	14.23%	28.20%	27.50%	23.68%	14.89%	21.41%	11.58%	18.08%	8.91%	15.85%	4.09%
2002	13.03%	28.49%	27.25%	22.95%	13.87%	20.51%	10.47%	16.99%	7.67%	14.66%	3.21%
2003	11.90%	24.64%	24.31%	20.74%	12.22%	18.49%	9.54%	15.38%	7.12%	13.35%	2.95%
2004	12.10%	23.09%	23.49%	20.67%	12.28%	18.60%	9.26%	15.53%	7.01%	13.51%	2.97%
2005	12.45%	22.52%	23.13%	20.78%	12.37%	18.84%	9.27%	15.86%	6.93%	13.84%	2.98%
2006	12.60%	21.98%	22.79%	20.68%	12.60%	18.86%	9.36%	15.95%	7.01%	13.98%	3.01%
2007	12.68%	21.46%	22.45%	20.53%	12.66%	18.79%	9.43%	15.98%	7.01%	14.03%	2.99%
2008	12.24%	22.70%	23.27%	20.70%	12.44%	18.71%	9.29%	15.68%	6.75%	13.65%	2.59%
2009	11.06%	24.28%	24.01%	20.46%	11.36%	18.05%	8.25%	14.68%	5.56%	12.50%	1.85%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

Obama Pushes ‘Buffett Rule’ in Florida

Obama’s Capital Gains Tax “Fairness”

Obama Presses ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax Pitch

RED ALERT: Buffett Rule Is Criminal Scam!

Obama Pushes “Buffett Rule” and Calls for More Romney Tax Returns

Dan Mitchell Debating the Buffett Rule on CNBC

Obama is yet again pushing the “Buffett Rule” while lying about taxes

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Indexing the Capital Gains Tax to Protect Taxpayers from Inflation

End Capital Gains and Dividends Tax

Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich

Warren Buffett’s Reported Plans to Avoid Taxes and the Buffett Rule

Obama: ‘Buffett Rule’ Would Raise Taxes for Rich

Warren Buffett’s Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary’s

Warren Buffett, Secretary Debbie Bosanek Discuss Tax Rate Inequality in

Opinion: The Buffett Tax Folly

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

Ron Paul_ End the IRS & Abolish the Income Tax forever

Buffett Rule Fails in Senate, 51-45

By Josh Barro,

“…the so-called Buffett Rule (imposing a minimum 30 percent federal income tax rate on those making at least $2 million per year) came up for a vote in the Senate and was defeated. There were 51 votes in favor and 45 opposed, but 60 votes were required for cloture and so the proposal could not proceed.

The vote was nearly along party lines, with Susan Collins (Maine) the only Republican to vote yes and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) the only Democrat to vote no. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also broke with his party and opposed the proposal, though he wasn’t in Washington D.C. today and so didn’t actually cast a vote. Lieberman said “I am opposed to the Buffett Rule because it would double to 30 percent the capital gains tax on one group of investors”—a statement that reflects the fact that the Buffett Rule debate is fundamentally a debate about whether we should have a preferential tax rate for capital gains. …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/buffett-rule-fails-in-senate-51-45/

Dems Lay Trap for GOP with Buffett Rule

By KIM DIXON and PATRICK TEMPLE-WEST, Reuters

“….President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are laying a political trap for Republicans to be sprung on Monday when the U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the proposed “Buffett Rule,” which would slap a minimum tax on the highest-income Americans. With polls showing strong public support for the rule, Democrats plan to bring it up for a procedural vote in the Senate. Republicans are solidly against it and the proposal is not expected to garner enough votes to move forward.

Even if it does advance in the Senate, it is not expected to be taken up in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. Democrats control the Senate, but just barely. Despite the proposal’s poor outlook, Democrats hope that the Senate vote and the debate around it will help them politically ahead of the November 6 elections by casting the Republicans and their presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney, himself a multi-millionaire, as the party of the wealthy.

Republicans have attacked the Buffett Rule as a diversion from the weak economy. They also argue that raising taxes on the rich would hit small businesses and discourage their growth. Here is a Q+A on the legislation and the issues behind it.

What Is the Buffett Rule?
Named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who backs it, the rule would require individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million, or $500,000 for married individuals filing separately, to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. Democrats have been careful to stress that the tax would not apply to people with $1 million or more in assets, who comprise a much larger slice of the U.S. population than those with annual incomes of $1 million or more. About 433,000 U.S. households earn more than $1 million a year. That is only about 0.3 percent of all taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group. The bill being voted on in the Senate, sponsored by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, would impose the 30-percent tax on adjusted gross income after a modified deduction for charitable giving and certain other tax credits. …”

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/16/Dems-Lay-Trap-for-GOP-with-Buffett-Rule.aspx#page1

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rise of the Caliphate–Videos

Posted on March 30, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Mobile Phones, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: Glenn Beck, Holy War, Islam, Islamic State, Khilafah, Oil, Rise of the Caliphate |

Glenn Beck expresses fear of new caliphate

THE UMMAH THE ISLAMIC SUPER STATE IS COMING

Rise of the Caliphate 1 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 2 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 3 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 4 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 5 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 6 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 7 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 8 of 9

Rise of the Caliphate 9 of 9

Background Articles and Videos

The Islamic Super-state, the Caliphate, is coming

2011 Protests – Khilafah IS IN SIGHT!!!

How the Islamic state was destroyed: Documentary

Background Articles and Videos

PART 1 Glenn Beck – Soros puts “hit” on Beck – 10-20-2010

PART 2 Glenn Beck – Soros puts “hit” on Beck – 10-20-2010

‘youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5yaINo2-xw&feature=related]

PART 1: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-8-2010 DAY 1

PART 2: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-8-2010 DAY 1

PART 3: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-8-2010 DAY 1

PART 1: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-9-2010 DAY 2

PART 2: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-9-2010 DAY 2

PART 3: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-9-2010 DAY 2

PART 1: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-10-2010 DAY 3

PART 2: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-10-2010 DAY 3

PART 3: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-10-2010 DAY 3

PART 1: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-11-2010 DAY 4

PART 2: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-11-2010 DAY 4

PART 3: Glenn Beck: George Soros’ New World Order Exposed, 11-11-2010 DAY 4

Background Articles and Videos

Newt Gingrich is a Progressive Rockefeller Republican

The REAL Newt Gingrich

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Radical Progressive Socialist Barack Obama–Spreading Big Lies About Fairness and Failure–Renewing National Socialism–Videos

Posted on December 8, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Collectivitism, Fainess, Falure, Glenn Beck, New National Socialism, President Barack Obama |

2-06-11 2 – Echoing Occupy, with Robert Reich – Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Obama’s Speech On Fairness, Fair Share, Income Inequality Vs Milton Friedman

Glenn Beck Talks About Barack Obama Marxism Capitalism and the Depression

Teddy Roosevelt Is A Bad Role Model | THE PLAIN TRUTH by Judge Napolitano 12/07/11

President Obama calls for renewal of New Nationalism (1 of 2)

President Obama calls for renewal of New Nationalism (2 of 2)

Glenn Beck- Teddy Roosevelt Republicans are Progressives

Teddy Roosevelt speech

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 1

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 2

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 3

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 4

Background Articles and Videos

Tom Coburn Calls Newt Gingrich’s Leadership ‘Lacking’

Newt Gingrich: Serial Adulterer, Liar and Cheat

Newt Gingrich Openly Calls For War On Iran and North Korea

Our own “Phoney War” – Newt Gingrich

Newt Answers In-depth Questions Concerning Freddie Mac

Newt’s In-depth Interview with Sean Hannity

Newt Gingrich on working for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Newt Gingrich Received $1.6 Million Freddie Mac Compensation

Gingrich: We should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans

Q: Who was the last person to actually cut government? A: Newt.

Ron Paul: I’m Reluctantly Doing the Media’s Job in Exposing Newt Gingrich

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 1

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 2

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 3

The Real Newt Gingrich Part 4

Background Articles and Videos

Is Ron Paul an Antisemite? No

by Walter Block

http://lewrockwell.com/block/block183.html

The ‘Israel Lobby’ Controversy

Elite Factionalism or Elite Conspiracy Theory?

by Will Banyan

“…Speaking in Washington DC in August 2006 as guests of CAIR, Walt made the point that they never said “the Israel lobby was all powerful.” It was “not some secret cabal that controls [U.S.] foreign policy”; rather, there were “countervailing forces out there, though they are much weaker, and the lobby doesn’t get its way on every single issue.” Walt’s important caveats highlight something missing from both the leftist analysis, exemplified by Zunes, and the more traditional conspiratorial analysis, both of which seem to contend that the ruling elites are monolithic and unfractured.

Among conspiracists, particularly those concerned with the New World Order, the dominant assumption is that all groups are so interconnected that the same objective—world government—must predominate. Any evidence to the contrary is usually dismissed as a contrivance designed to deceive the public, or as a grubby squabble for control of the same project. David Icke, for instance, assures us that most world leaders (Illuminati) “only appear to be in conflict for the purposes of deluding the people into a false reality” (Icke 477).

Yet indisputable evidence of elite factionalism—of the upper echelons of the food-chain chasing different agendas than world government —has long been apparent. In his magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope (1966), for example, Carroll Quigley had observed how, since the 1950s, Wall Street had been challenged by the “new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in the Southwest and Far West.” As early as 1964, the representatives of this “new wealth,” based in oil, aviation or armaments, had engaged in a financial struggle with the “old wealth” of the East for control of the political process—and ultimately of the White House—to ensure that high government spending on military and space continued (Quigley 1245-1246). This split between the so-called East Coast “Yankees” and the “Cowboys” of the Southwest was subsequently explored at length by Kirkpatrick Sale (1975) and Carl Oglesby (1977).

Seen through the prism of elite factionalism, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a valuable addition to this neglected field. It highlights in some detail the workings and influence of yet another private grouping that subverts democratic processes in service of a narrow agenda. Of course, some caution is necessary as the outcry over its activities is driven by elite, rather than popular, angst at losing the initiative. But to disregard it, either out of fears of being labeled as anti-Semitic or because it conflicts with other pet theories, would be shortsighted.

Whether the invasion of Iraq was for oil, Israel, or even world government (a contention doggedly advocated by the John Birch Society) will no doubt occupy the minds of various researchers for decades to come. But what should be clear is that in taking issue with the workings of various elite groups, we should not privilege one over the other as targets of our disdain, but recognize that the assault on democracy takes many forms and comes from many quarters and is always at the expense of the powerless.

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Cover-up

Glenn Beck – Benghazi: Truth coming out

Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama

Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists

Benghazi–Stand Down – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program

Benghazi – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.05.06

Glenn Beck – Benghazi: How did we get here?

Glenn Beck – The Benghazi Hearings

Lt Gen Mclnemey Is Ashamed Our Military Responded Benghazi Libya & Blames Obama Admin – Lou Dobbs

FOX News Confirms US Was Holding Prisoners at Benghazi Annex

From Rice to the White House: An Alumnus’ Journey

The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film

Innocence of Muslims Full Movie HD 1080P Trailer

Press Briefing with Jay Carney and Ben Rhodes

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 1

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 2

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 3

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 4

From the Rhodes — The President in Mexico

President Obama gets ready to leave Israel

President Obama Speech to Muslim World in Cairo

White House denies changing story on Benghazi

Benghazi-Gate: Ex-CIA Michael Scheuer “Obama’s Benghazi Cover-up Worse than Watergate”

White House denies changing story on Benghazi

The Benghazi Talking Points

And how they were changed to obscure the truth

“Innocence of Muslims” FULL MOVIE HD Anti-Muslim Anti-Islam Prophet Muhammad

Is Ben Rhodes the Mastermind Behind the Benghazi Cover Up?

Ben Rhodes

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

UPDATED May 8, 2013

Includes Videos From

House Oversight Committee Investigation of Benghazi Terrorist Attack

The Band – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down

Cover-up

Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama

Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists

Gen. Jerry Boykin: “Get accountability and get the truth out” on Benghazi

Lt Gen Mclnemey Is Ashamed Our Military Responded Benghazi Libya & Blames Obama Admin – Lou Dobbs

Adm. Ace Lyons: On Benghazi, Obama Needs to Come Clean

CNBC: Benghazi is not about Libya! “It’s An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria”

Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help

The Real Reason Petraeus Resigned

Mother of Benghazi victim: I blame Hillary

ISSA: This Benghazi hearing is over, but the investigation is not

ISSA: Our Goal in this Benghazi Investigation is to Get Answers

(Benghazi Witness) THOMPSON: “We needed to act now and not wait”

(Benghazi Witness) HICKS: Until Benghazi I Loved Everyday of My Job

Gregory Hicks’ 30 Minute Recount of Benghazi Attack

(Benghazi Witness) NORDSTROM: Labors to Uncover What Happened Matters

Benghazi Witness Says State Dept. Told Him Not To Meet With Congressional Investigators

During Call With Clinton On Night Of Benghazi Attacks, No Mention Of A Demonstration

Rep. Jordan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. McHenry Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Chaffetz Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Turner Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Mica Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Gowdy Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Gosar Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Hastings Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Meehan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Walberg Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Duncan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. DesJarlais Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Lankford Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

Rep. Amash Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage

NORDSTROM: It’s not what the ARB report says, it’s what it doesn’t

Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings Tears Into GOP Rep. Issa For ‘Politicizing’ Benghazi

Rep. Gerry Connolly Speaks at Benghazi Hearing (5/8/13)

Benghazi ‘By Definition A Cover-Up’

Conflicting Reports on Benghazi Attack Leave Many Asking Who Changed the CIA Talking Points and Why

The Five Hosts Hammer Obama, Media For ‘Blatant CoverUp’ On Benghazi

Issa and Chaffetz Update Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the Benghazi Investigation, Part 1

Benghazi Whistleblower Claims Clinton Tried To Cut Out Counterterror Dept – Lou Dobbs

Issa and Chaffetz Update Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the Benghazi Investigation, Part 2

Chairman Issa Reveals Startling Information on Benghazi Terrorist Attack

Rep. Chaffetz Discusses the Benghazi Investigation on Fox News Sunday

Benghazi Gate – New Explosive Info On Attack In Libya – Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama Admin