Posts Tagged ‘Benghazi’

Donald Trump has upended the Republican party — some say destroyed it, though that’s over-stating the case — by running an anti-establishment campaign in the primaries. By winning so many primary contests (in so many states), he has proven that his messages resonate with a large population of the American people.

Many fail to notice how many primaries allow open voting (i.e., Democrats and vote in the Republican primary, and vice versa), and also fail to notice how many Democrats support Trump.

This is why Trump can win it all (whether you like him or hate him): he transcends both parties.

Here is a comment from last night’s West Virginia voting in the Democrat primary, which Bernie Sanders won big (emphasis added):

Given a choice between Trump and Clinton, one third of West Virginia Democrats said they would vote Trump, and another 20 percent said they wouldn’t vote at all. <ABC News, link>

One third of Democrats would vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton…

On top of this, Trump is no Mitt Romney. As we recall, painfully, Mitt Romney was afraid to sling the political mud against Barack Obama, even as Obama was ripping him to pieces in every way possible.

As for Trump, we already have been shown a taste of what Hillary is going to face:

Hillary has bad judgment!

A post shared by President Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on



Read Full Post »

I have written a few times that the United States does not deserve the strength of its currency or its ability to borrow more money to fund more reckless deficit spending if looked at in pure economic terms:

  • Our balance sheet is a disaster, thanks to Barack Obama, with now more than $18.3 trillion in debt in an economy that is about $17.4 trillion in size.
  • The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates near zero for over SIX YEARS, fueling a stock market bubble and robbing itself of any power to influence the economy if it slips back into recession (the Fed cannot drive interest rates below zero).
  • Meanwhile, the current and future costs of entitlements, which now include the monstrosity known as Obamacare, are skyrocketing, leaving over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for the nation to default on as we all grow older.

And yet our massive federal deficits each year continue to be financed in large part by foreign nations….their willingness to hold dollars defies the fundamentals of our situation.

And at the same time the Federal Reserve can print dollars 24/7 without fear of trashing the currency in world foreign currency markets, as would happen to any other nation that flooded its economy with so much paper currency.

And So not only can the USA print its own money, even wildly, with no consequences, it can also borrow itself blind, with no apparent consequences.

How can this be?

There is only one reason, and it is not a reason that you’ll see in economics text books: The United States can get away with this reckless conduct because it is the dominant global superpower, possessing large military forces enabled by the most advanced military technology.

Yes, The American fighting man is the reason that politicians can continue to throw orgies of runaway spending and flood the economy with dollars without consequences.

Marines raising the stars and stripes on the battlefield

Now, do we like to borrow money and then thumb our nose at the lenders of that money, because we are a superpower?

Stephen Colbert apparently does.

He said this to Donald Trump last night:

At a certain point, does it even matter how much we owe, because it’s like trillion, quadrillion what does it matter? Come and get us, we’ve got the armies, right? What are they going to do?

Yes, he actually said the phrase “what does it matter” about the serious issue of our national debt, and touted the great American military as the ultimate backstop against accountability.

Let’s recall who else used a similar phrase, “what difference does it make”:

Hillary what difference does it make on Benghazi

Here’s the thing, Stephen: our federal debt, now heading towards $20 trillion and bigger than our entire annual economic output since the early years of Obama’s first term, DOES matter, and to say it doesn’t undermines the notion that you are somehow a savvy commentator.

Or maybe no one believes you are a savvy commentator, I don’t really know.

But you have a voice being heard in the media, and need to own when you take a shameful Hillary Clinton “what does it matter” stance on things that do matter.

So if you are a Liberal, and you are proud of Obama’s latest infamy — accepting thousands of Syrian refugees — just know that (a) we cannot afford to take them, we are bankrupt, and (b) the only reason there is the illusion of wealth in this country is because of that thing you probably hate: the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

But you owe it all to them, and never forget that.

Read Full Post »

I have a news flash for everyone: Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State under president Barack Obama.


Obama’s Benghazi-stained blue dress

And yet her potentially criminal conduct relating to her email usage while Secretary and the subsequent destruction of evidence from servers (among other potential crimes) seems to stick only to her, and not to her boss, Barack Obama.

How can this be?

We all use email and know how it works, with messages being sent and received across many accounts. So where is the investigation into the rest of the email accounts in the Obama administration?

…there can be little doubt that Eric Holder and other high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials themselves wrote Ms. Clinton at Clintonemail.com—not to mention countless communications with the President and “All His Muses”—Counter-terrrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and then White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler (not to mention Valerie Jarrett)—about Benghazi and all other top secret and classified issues. The DOJ hasn’t subpoenaed the emails from any of the recipients—or the internet service providers? Or looked for them on the backup government servers of the accounts of all the recipients? And the State Department still today is making statements defending her? <The Observer, link>

Some may say that he had nothing to do with her email server and subsequent file destruction, but this would be a shameful free pass for mr. Obama. The whole thing has been and continues to be part of HIS administration, whether he had full knowledge of it or or only partial knowledge of it.  Furthermore, many emails pertain to the Benghazi slaughter of four American diplomats who were not protected by the State Department, the Department of Defense, or the president, and whose names were dishonored when mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton, and Susan Rice all spun the now-notorious lie about the Benghazi attack (in which they tried to claim it was not terrorism inspired by hatred of America).

In any event, Sidney Powell of the Observer just wrote a powerful piece on the Clinton situation entitled: The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now

It is a tour de force, let me tell you, and you will enjoy it.

And by the way, you may recall that I recently wrote a piece (link) about our nation’s needs for a resurrection of the Office of the Independent Counsel to investigate potential crimes in the Benghazi infamy, the Fast and Furious gun-running operation, and the IRS scandal, which is also gathering a lot of steam. Suffice it to say that I agree with Mr. Powell’s call for a special prosecutor in the Clinton matter.

Here are some excerpts from his piece, strap on your seat belts (emphasis added):

After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct.


It’s high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton’s likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws. 


And how about the double-standard employed by the Obama administration regarding who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t?

While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and prosecute former CIA Director and national hero, General Petraeus. He was just tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance. Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.” 

Right, prosecute a military General who fought valiantly in wars while allowing Hillary Clinton to share top secret / classified e-mails from a personal email server that she then had wiped clean.

Hillary of course continues to act out here political playbook of fake victimization and “Who me?” countenance, but we all know enough about the woman’s style to see the wisdom in Powell’s next line:

Ms. Clinton…established her entire system to avoid the law and in violation of the Espionage Act—as she and her co-conspirators removed all records from the State Department from its inception. Compounding her crimes, she knowingly and willfully destroyed whatever she wanted to destroy—despite or more likely because of—the incriminating information it contained and in the face of the Benghazi investigation.

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi — how much truth has yet to be revealed, and when it is revealed, what will become of the Obama legacy?

And now the powerful finish by Powell (emphasis added):

The countless false statements are crimes under 18 United States Code Section 1001—both by Ms. Clinton to Congress (“no classified information”) and in writing by Cheryl Mills to the State Department and just filed with Judge Sullivan—in which she states: “On matters pertaining to the conduct of government business, it was her practice to use the officials’ government email accounts.” We already know that Ms. Clinton used her personal server exclusively. 

Title 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a crime for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” falsify, conceal, or cover up “a material fact,” or make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation,” etc. Countless people are convicted felons under this statute—some for offenses that would never occur to anyone even to be a crime.

And these are just a few of the possible statutes that it would appear to any federal prosecutor that she and her corrupt cabal violated.

As Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had the guts to say last night on FoxNews, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal.” Military heroes who have risked their lives for this country have gone to prison for less

…it’s time for a national outcry for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and indict Ms. Clinton’s flagrant violations of some of our most important laws. Anyone else would have been arrested by now. 

Oh, and Hillary, one more thing:

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens

Information management officer Sean Smith

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods

Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty

Hillary fingers

Read Full Post »

Back when Richard Nixon’s presidency began to shake, rattle, and roll under scrutiny for the Watergate break-in, the question of whether the Executive Branch of government was capable of investigating itself (via the Justice Department, an Executive Branch entity controlled by the president himself) once again came to the fore.

I found this synopsis of the events on PBS.org (link), and it neatly describes the cat-and-mouse game that presidents play when they are supposed to investigate their own administration:

As the investigation of the 1972 break-in of the Democratic Nationalrichard nixonCommittee’s Watergate offices began to reveal a deeper level of corruption — including political sabotage, obstruction of justice, and campaign finance irregularities — many in Congress pushed for the appointment of a special prosecutor. After his top aides and Attorney General either resigned or were dismissed in April 1973, President Richard Nixon himself suggested he might allow a new Attorney General to name a special prosecutor to investigate the scandal. The Senate held the administration’s feet to the fire by threatening to delay Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson’s confirmation unless he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor. Richardson responded by naming Harvard University law professor Archibald Cox to the position, and publicly guaranteeing him the Justice Department would not interfere in his case.

This promise was put to the test in October 1973 during the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre,” when Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Cox, who had continued to press for full release of the President’s secret Oval Office tapes. Neither Richardson nor Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus acceded to the President’s demand to fire the special prosecutor, and instead resigned. Finally, the next in command, Solicitor General Robert Bork, removed Cox on October 20. Galvanized by Cox’s firing and the subsequent public outcry, Congress initiated impeachment proceedings and began searching for ways to appoint a new prosecutor with greater independence. Trying to calm the storm he had unleashed, Nixon appointed Leon Jaworski to Cox’s position, with the proviso that Jaworski could not be fired without the consent of a majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

By the time Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, Archibald Cox and his successor Leon Jaworski had carved out a new space in the public mind for the special prosecutor’s role in reining in official corruption. Moreover, many in Washington — including prominent Watergate investigator Sam Dash, members of Congress and important public interest groups — continued to push for some kind of institution which would insure a prosecutor’s independence in the future.

As this episode shows, once a prosecutor digs in on an issue, and the president who possibly committed crimes realizes he may be exposed, that president gets rid of that prosecutor. So much for the “independence” of the prosecutor.

So in the wake of the Nixon downfall came a powerful curb on executive power, signed into law by Jimmy Carter as part of a broad series of government reforms known as the Ethics in Government Act: The Office of the Special Prosecutor

The Act aimed to clean up American politics by creating a new ethics watchdog organization and by instituting new controls on high-ranking government officials, including financial disclosure requirements and lobbying restrictions. Prominent among these reforms were provisions for the appointment of an independent special prosecutor. Covering a wide range of executive branch officials, the law obliged the Attorney General to recommend the appointment of a special prosecutor whenever he or she received specific charges of misconduct, unless the charges were “so unsubstantiated” as to not warrant further investigation. Actually appointing the special prosecutor was a new three-judge panel, based at the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia.

This “office” evolved over the succeeding decades and survived a Supreme Court challenge and several 5-year expirations requiring new Congressional approval and presidential signature.

Of interest is the fact that Ronald Reagan himself signed a renewal of the law in 1983 and then again in 1987 even though his administration had been the target of special prosecutors seven times. Also of interest is that Bill Clinton signed a renewal of the law early in his first administration (emphasis added):

On July 1, 1994, Clinton signed the reauthorization bill, and called the law “a foundation stone for the trust between the Government and our citizens.” He dismissed charges that it had been a “tool of partisan attack…and a waste of taxpayer funds.” Instead, he said, the statute “has been in the past and is today a force for Government integrity and public confidence.”

Poor Bill ended up on the wrong end the of the law when he suffered the consequences of his bad testimony under oath in the Paula Jones lawsuit (a federal judge stripped him of his law license for five years and held him in contempt of court).

However it was the public perception of a runaway-independent counsel (Ken Starr’s discovery of the Monica Lewinsky evidence regarding Bill Clinton in the work place, which turned out to be central to the Paula Jones lawsuit — if you think it was only about blowjobs, you are wrong and should read this <link>) that led to the law’s failure to get renewed again after expiring in 1999.

Enter Barack Obama’s administration

So where are we now?

This is where we are now:

Judicial Watch today released new Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents that include an official “DOJ Recap” report detailing an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, DOJ officials and the FBI to plan for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity.

The newly obtained records also reveal that the Obama DOJ wanted IRS employees who were going to testify to Congress to turn over documents to the DOJ before giving them to Congress. Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.” <judicialwatch.org, link>

That’s right, folks, Barack Obama’s IRS, and Barack Obama’s Justice Department, and Barack Obama’s FBI, engaged in a conspiracy to target Tea-Party groups not only for denial of tax-exempt status, but for possible criminal prosecution.

How badly do you think mr. Obama wanted to win re-election in 2012?

Badly enough to use the Executive Branch of government to suppress political opponents up to and including throwing them in jail?

Bring back the Office of the Independent Counsel

Now, who thinks that the Obama Justice Department is going to hold the IRS, and the FBI, and ITSELF accountable for any of this?

And why did this politician run the State Department on her own personal email server, which she now refuses to turn over to the government, and why does the Obama administration defend these actions? And did this same politician sell her influence as Secretary of State to the highest bidder? And did the same politician (and her boss) coverup wrong-doings in the Benghazi tragedy in which four Americans were left to be killed by Muslim extremists?

Hillary Clinton

Which brings us back to the point of this essay: the Office of the Independent Counsel is needed today more than ever in our history.


Read Full Post »

So George Stephanopoulis, a supposedly unbiased news host for ABC news, has given $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

ABC News’s chief anchor, George Stephanopoulos, acknowledged Thursday that he had made donations to the Clinton Foundation in recent years without disclosing those contributions to his employer — even as he reported on the Clintons and their foundation. link>

Can you imagine being interviewed about your book about the Clinton cash machine — selling American power to the highest bidders around the world — by a man who is a major Clinton crony?

On April 26 on “This Week,” Mr. Stephanopoulos interviewed Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” a book highly critical of the foundation and the donations it received from foreign entities, and took issue with the book’s contention that Hillary Rodham Clinton may have committed a crime because of the links it tried to connect between donations to the foundation and her work as secretary of state.

This is obviously outrageous and lacking in any credibility for ABC News.

Double Fraud

But what I find interesting is not that Stephanopoulis has been outed for the bankrupt fake-journalist that he is, but that ABC news is choosing to leave him in his chair, to keep interviewing politicians on the left and right of the political spectrum as if he can be objective and as if viewers will afford him an ounce of credibility.

Said ABC News:

As George has said, he made charitable donations to the foundation to support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public record. He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports about the foundation. He’s admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him.

ABC News stands behind a man who no longer has any credibility as a news host?

And so this is the true cancer gripping our nation: the quality of information for us citizens is still very good, yet we as a nation don’t hold anyone accountable anymore.

The Benghazi deaths of four Americans on September 11th, and Barack Obama’s borderline treasonous attempts to cover up his and his administration’s dereliction of duty in the Benghazi infamy, were widely known in the weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and yet mr. Obama was re-elected anyway.

Benghazi Obama

ABC News seems to know and understand this, and so they brazenly leave a fraud in place to go on perpetrating sham interviews.

What will awaken the slumber in which a majority of Americans find themselves?

Read Full Post »

If you’ve never read Michael Kelly’s brilliant deconstruction of Bill Clinton’s chronic lying in the face of endless scandals that imperiled not only his presidency but the office of the presidency and the rule of law itself, you can do so here [link].

Gail Trotter of the Daily Caller just published a version of the Kelly style in regards to a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton [link], and I must say it’s a tour de force. Here it is, in its entirety (the photos were added by me), and may I suggest bracing yourself for the onslaught of scandals and bad acts committed by this current presidential candidate:

In February 1998, the incomparable Michael Kelly wrote one of his most memorable columns on the scandal-ridden administration of President Bill Clinton. I have written this update to Mr. Kelly’s brilliant essay not because I think myself equal to his talents but because his remarks on the Clinton years, updated for today, are particularly apt.

Gayle TrotterI believe Hillary Clinton. I have always believed her. I believed her when she said that her own investment savvy allowed her to realize a 10,000 percent profit by turning a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into nearly $100,000 within ten short months with help from an Arkansas crony, James Blair, just as her attorney general husband was about to become governor. I believed her when she said that Blair did not arrange to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit her account, even though economists calculated the odds of such a return happening as, at best, 1 in 31 trillion.

I believe Mrs. Clinton and her husband did not pressure David Hale, when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to the Clintons’ business partner in the infamous Whitewater land deal. I believed Mrs. Clinton when she reported as missing hundreds of pages of her law firm billing records and other documents in response to a grand jury subpoena seeking to investigate the Whitewater matter.

I believe there was nothing ethically suspect about the Whitewater real estate development, for which Mr. Clinton’s successor as Arkansas governor, Jim Guy Tucker, was convicted and went to jail for his role in the fraud. I believe that the Clintons had nothing to hide in the matter. I believe that their business partner, Susan McDougal, who served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about Whitewater and later received a pardon by President Clinton on the very last day of his presidency, was motivated by nothing other than the search for truth.

I believe that it is normal for a First Lady, such as Mrs. Clinton, to become involved in summary firings of longtime White House travel office employees and their replacement with an Arkansas-based travel company with close ties to the Clintons. I believed Mrs. Clinton’s view that it was appropriate for friends of the Clintons to become involved in a matter with which they had a business stake. I believed Mrs. Clinton when she said that the report by the Government Accountability Office incorrectly indicated that she played a significant role in the travel office firings, quoting a witness who said she had urged “to get ‘our people’ into the travel office.”

I believe that the White House memo regarding the travel office was misunderstood when it said “there would be hell to pay” unless “swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady’s wishes.” I believe it is typical for a First Lady to take charge of White House personnel matters by firing longtime civil servants and replacing them with campaign hacks. I believe that it was difficult for Mrs. Clinton to remember details of these events in her deposition by the independent counsel reviewing the matter.

I believe it is perfectly plausible that, after nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, a White House staffer “unexpectedly discovered” Mrs. Clinton’s long-missing billing records and other documents in the Clintons’ private residence in the White House in January 1996, just days after relevant statutes of limitations had elapsed. I believe that personal animus, rather than the evidence surrounding the cattle futures profit, Whitewater and travelgate, motivated New York Times columnist William Safire, who had earlier endorsed Mr. Clinton’s candidacy, to conclude that Mrs. Clinton is a “congenital liar.”

I believe that Mrs. Clinton bears no responsibility for the gross security lapses in Benghazi, Libya that led to the murders of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in a terrorist attack while Mrs. Clinton was our nation’s top diplomat. I believe it was appropriate for Mrs. Clinton’s State Department to blame the incident on a non-existent protest supposedly fomented by an obscure YouTube video and that Mrs. Clinton rightly refused to acknowledge those attacks, on September 11, 2012, as acts of terrorism. I believe that she aptly bellowed, “What difference at this point does it make?” in response to a senator’s question whether “a simple phone call” would have “ascertained immediately that there was no protest.”

Clinton Benghazi What Does It Matter

I believe that Mrs. Clinton’s multimillion-dollar tax-exempt organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, is a model of legal compliance and ethical standards. I believe it is appropriate for her Foundation to have accepted eye-popping donations from foreign governments despite Mrs. Clinton’s calls for campaign finance reform and despite the fact that current law forbids campaign donations from foreign nationals. I believe that major donations to the Foundation from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates were motivated by altruism and, in the Foundation’s phrase, “the power of creative collaboration.”

I believe it was entirely appropriate for Mrs. Clinton to install a private email server in her home to conduct government business as Secretary of State. I believe that most high federal government officials have their own private email server at home for use in conducting official federal government business. I believe that Mrs. Clinton permanently deleted from her personal server only “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.”

I believe that none of the deleted emails could shed light on any of the dozens of questions about her tenure as Secretary of State. I believe that most Americans incorrectly think that Mrs. Clinton purposely deleted or withheld emails relevant to her State Department work.

I believe that The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and NPR are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Especially NPR.

Read Full Post »

Is this a picture of a future president?

Tired Hillary

So tired, even exhausted.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »