The Daily Sheeple
The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.
This according to a scathing report entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” put together by Special Ops OPSEC, the same group that produced the viral documentary Dishonorable Disclosures.
Western Center for Journalism has analyzed this groundbreaking report and found that Hillary Rodham Clinton has indeed been implicated in murder.
– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/hillary-clinton-implicated-in-benghazi-murders_032014#sthash.ZrjSlDtY.dpuf
Obama’s Spineless Ideology!
Have many in the mainstream media looked into Obama’s background deep enough to see that maybe we have a Muslim for a President? Have they ever questioned President Obama about why he studied Marxism while he was at Occidental College in California? Has anyone even thought of asking President Obama just what he learned from Frank Marshall Davis, a devout Communist, who was on the FBI watch list? It seems that many are unwilling to question or make statements about Obama due to how he abuses the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies to silence his opponents. No matter, we are now going to pose a question of this man known as Barack Hussein Obama and demonstrate that he is not only a liar, but a coward as well, and how this may be the reason that the deaths of Americans occurred in Benghazi.
Let us begin with the list of lies from Obama compared to other Presidents and this list is not a total list of lies from the Liar- in-Chief.
Attorney Cleta Mitchell represents True the Vote, TEA Party Patriots and numerous others in the IRS targeting scandal. In the interview below, she is testifying before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. She tells Congress that the IRS has lied, that lying to Congress is a criminal act, a felony and she wants the FBI to investigate. She says the DOJ investigation is a “sham, a non-existent investigation.” Ever American should be asking why Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) why Congress is not dealing a harder, harsher hand. Why is there no Select Committee? Why is the FBI not investigating? Where are the subpoenas? Why aren’t you doing something with the truth you already know? Why has Lois Lerner not been given immunity, or whatever is needed, to force her to testify? Are we really so impotent — as impotent as we were in Fast and Furious, and as impotent as we are in Benghazi? Remember this: when the Oval Office changes, hopefully to another political party, the IRS needs to be scrubbed cleaned of all leadership, and downsized.
Via Free Beacon:
Former CIA Director Mike Morell may have altered the Benghazi talking points to benefit the Obama administration during the 2012 election, Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports.
On September 15 one day before Susan Rice made her infamous appearances on various Sunday shows, according to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report Morell received an email from the CIA station chief in Libya indicating the Benghazi attacks were “not/not an escalation of protests.” The report does not indicate when Morell read the email, but that same day Morell cut the word “Islamic” from the talking points and left the word “demonstration.”
On September 16, Morell emailed embassy staff in Tripoli asking for more information. The FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit footage on September 18 showing there were no protests. Yet, President Obama still employed the “demonstration” verbiage just days later.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Morell accompanied Susan Rice in a closed November meeting to discuss the attack. According to Graham, Morell defended Rice and tried to emphasize there was confusion about what happened in Benghazi.
- Newly declassified testimonies about what happened among Pentagon officials the night of the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012 have been obtained by Fox News.
- The documents show the U.S. military found out about 15 minutes after the attack – which killed four Americans – that it was an act of terror and communicated that to the Obama administration.
- However the government – including Obama and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who were in the throes of the 2012 US Presidential election – maintained for two weeks afterward the attack started as a protest against an anti-Islamic film and turned violent.
It sickens me to hear how anyone can defend Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when the topic of Benghazi is brought up!
Trey Gowdy gives it to the media and pretty much tells it like it is. My question is, will Congress do anything to those responsible ? 1 Dragon
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.
The basic foreign policy principles of various presidencies have been dubbed “doctrines.” In most cases such “doctrines” are gleaned from the practices of a given president’s foreign policy and pieced together from various official documents and even memos. One notable exception being the Monroe Doctrine which was put forward as a public doctrine and a warning to European countries.
Introduced on December 2, 1823, in President Monroe’s state of the union speech, it basically warned European nations to butt out of South America and the Americas generally. In return the US would butt out of European affairs. By contrast the Bush Doctrine was never put forward as a formal document but is a codification of Bush administration practices and the justification advanced defending those practices. Basically the Bush doctrine is that the US has the right to intervene in foreign countries and depose regimes that pose a threat to the US and to advance the cause of democracy in such areas of conflict.
Similarly, The Obama administration has never put forward a Monroe-like doctrine of its approach to foreign policy. Rather the public is treated to sonorous pieties about mutual respect and bringing old adversaries together in the spirit of mutual cooperation with benefit to all.
But now an Obama doctrine has emerged. And the irony is that the basics of the Obama doctrine have been revealed in a New York Times article designed to remove the Benghazi stain from Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. It is a revisionist piece claiming that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack on the American consulate. Here is an account from The Weekly Standard:
Family Security Matters
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
I always considered Barack Obama an empty suit, a coffeehouse communist, doomed to replay the tragic political and economic mistakes of the past because he lacked any sense of history beyond the clichés of fashionable and comfortable college Marxism.
Like the characters and events in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” written by unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama is a composite, the manifestation of a liberal fantasy, a man who, like his acolytes, exists in a political “Twilight Zone” somewhere between reality and narcissism.
Obama’s political talent is based on his mastery of the platitude; a banal or meaningless statement, generally directed at soothing the social, emotional, or cognitive unease of uninformed, easily misled voters or desperate liberals in search of a Messiah.
His ascension to the Presidency can largely be attributed to a combination of corruption and cowardice.
Family Security Matters
The State of the Union address by President Obama is a month away, but the content and orientation of that speech can be limned from White House briefings. Rather than discuss failures such as a healthcare website that still rejects applicants or ellipses such as the unrecorded conversations about the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi or political coercion such as the selective IRS vetting process for not-for-profit organizations, the president will concentrate on the deal with Iran as a major achievement.
He will not use the Neville Chamberlain rhetoric of “peace in our time” that could easily backfire, but he will make the dubious claim that the deal with Iran has reduced tensions in the Middle East. Moreover, he will maintain that his administration has accomplished with diplomacy what his adversaries believe can only be accomplished with war. The exaggerations come with the territory.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 2014, Benghazi, Corruption, Cover-up, Iran, IRS, Israel, Middle East, NSA, State of the Union address, Tyranny