Tag Archives: Benghazi

Former Army Ranger who survived Benghazi has a few words for liberal celebrities

The word “courageous” gets tossed around a lot in very wrong contexts. Case in point: Hollywood celebrities like Meryl Streep or Rosie O’Donnell who make an ostentatious show of “standing up” to conservatives. (This is doubly true when said conservative is Donald J. Trump.)

However, one individual who actually merits the title of “courageous” — Benghazi survivor Kris Paronto, a former Army Ranger — is sick of the false comparisons. In an interview with the Independent Journal Review, Paranto had a challenge for “actors pretending to be someone else” — to try actually putting on a uniform.

Paronto, whose role in Benghazi was chronicled in the movie “13 Hours,” began by criticizing Obama and his continual striving to join the cult of celebrity.

“Obama turned the position of commander in chief into a pop culture thing and pulled away from what the office of the president is all about, which is leadership,” Paronto said.

“He wasn’t supposed to be a celebrity, he was supposed to be a dignified leader. But Hollywood was all over celebrity Obama.”

Paronto then criticized the celebrities who are being lionized by liberals for dropping out of Trump’s inauguration festivities. “You’re a monkey and somebody is turning the crank,” he said.

“The only time I have a real issue with this at all is when these people are looked at as role models. When they back out, and publications like The New York Times or CNN put them on a pedestal for dropping out, it does a major disservice to Americans,” Paronto said.

“They’re not role models. There’s nothing courageous about sitting in your $5 million dollar mansion and looking down upon us. It’s arrogant, it’s pompous, and it’s not bravery.”

The Benghazi survivor then threw down the gauntlet at liberal activists in Hollywood.

“They’re all actors pretending to be someone else. Just because you played a police officer or military veteran, doesn’t mean you understand what it’s like to be in our shoes,” Paronto said.

“So you know what, Meryl Streep, stop putting others down and go do something else. Be like Pat Tillman, drop everything you’re doing and put your life on the line. Robert De Niro, you played a cop in the movies, go be a cop on the streets.  The same principle applies to these other celebrities. You wore a uniform as a costume. Try putting one on to serve your country.”

Paronto made it clear who he thought should really be getting called courageous.

“The real role model is the guy who goes and puts his life on the line for his country, the police officer who jumps in front of a bullet, and the EMT who treats the wounded on the scene, people who put others before themselves,” he concluded. “Those are the true celebrities, the true heroes.”

 

[From an article published by CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Jesus said it best when He commented to His disciples, “This is My commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you.  Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”  (John 15:12-13)

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The folly of American exceptionalism … and why it presents an election made in hell

“Proudly overthrowing the Cuban government since 1959.”

 

If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.

My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted. And not much better can be expected on domestic issues from this woman who was paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs – one of the most reactionary, anti-social corporations in this sad world – for four speeches and even more than that in political donations in recent years. Add to that Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the board of Walmart while her husband was governor of Arkansas. Can we expect to change corporate behavior by taking their money?

The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial the day after the multiple primary elections of March 1 which began: “Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States,” and then declared: “The reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government.”

When I need to have my car fixed I look for a mechanic with experience with my type of auto. When I have a medical problem I prefer a doctor who specializes in the part of my body that’s ill. But when it comes to politicians, experience means nothing. The only thing that counts is the person’s ideology. Who would you sooner vote for, a person with 30 years in Congress who doesn’t share your political and social views at all, is even hostile to them, or someone who has never held public office before but is an ideological comrade on every important issue? Clinton’s 12 years in high government positions carries no weight with me.

The Times continued about Trump: “He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world.”

Again, knowledge is trumped (no pun intended) by ideology. As Secretary of State (January 2009-February 2013), with great access to knowledge, Clinton played a key role in the 2011 destruction of Libya’s modern and secular welfare state, sending it crashing in utter chaos into a failed state, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists.

What good did Secretary of State Clinton’s knowledge do? It was enough for her to know that Gaddafi’s Libya, for several reasons, would never be a properly obedient client state of Washington. Thus it was that the United States, along with NATO, bombed the people of Libya almost daily for more than six months, giving as an excuse that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States was thus saving the people of that city from a massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. (The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.)

The Western intervention in Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.” All the knowledge she was privy to did not keep her from this disastrous mistake in Libya. And the same can be said about her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported. Both policies were of course clear violations of international law and the UN Charter.

Another foreign-policy “success” of Mrs. Clinton, which her swooning followers will ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America. The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to up to two centuries of oppression … and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States – if not the mastermind behind the coup – does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this “affront to democracy”. (See Mark Weisbrot’s “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras”.)

In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices”, Clinton reveals just how unconcerned she was about restoring Zelaya to his rightful office: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere … We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly, and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Washington, however, quickly resumed normal diplomatic relations with the new right-wing police state, and Honduras has since become a major impetus for the child migrants currently pouring into the United States.

The headline from Time magazine’s report on Honduras at the close of that year (December 3, 2009) summed it up as follows: “Obama’s Latin America Policy Looks Like Bush’s”.

And Hillary Clinton looks like a conservative. And has for many years; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, when she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua.

Then, during the 2007 presidential primary, America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, ran an editorial by Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett was a policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, and a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture? Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.”

During the same primary we also heard from America’s leading magazine for the corporate wealthy,Fortune, with a cover featuring a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”.

And what do we have in 2016? Fully 116 members of the Republican Party’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton! “Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto. Another signer, foreign-policy ultra-conservative author Robert Kagan, declared: “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The only choice? What’s wrong with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate? … Oh, I see, not conservative enough.

And Mr. Trump? Much more a critic of US foreign policy than Hillary or Bernie. He speaks of Russia and Vladimir Putin as positive forces and allies, and would be much less likely to go to war against Moscow than Clinton would. He declares that he would be “evenhanded” when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to Clinton’s boundless support of Israel). He’s opposed to calling Senator John McCain a “hero”, because he was captured. (What other politician would dare say a thing like that?)

He calls Iraq “a complete disaster”, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.” He even questions the idea that “Bush kept us safe”, and adds that “Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists.”

Yes, he’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?

CIA motto: “Proudly overthrowing the Cuban government since 1959.”

Now what? Did you think that the United States had finally grown up and come to the realization that they could in fact share the same hemisphere as the people of Cuba, accepting Cuban society as unquestioningly as they do that of Canada? The Washington Post (February 18) reported: “In recent weeks, administration officials have made it clear Obama would travel to Cuba only if its government made additional concessions in the areas of human rights, Internet access and market liberalization.”

Imagine if Cuba insisted that the United States make “concessions in the area of human rights”; this could mean the United States pledging to not repeat anything like the following:

Invading Cuba in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs.

Invading Grenada in 1983 and killing 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.

Blowing up a passenger plane full of Cubans in 1976. (In 1983, the city of Miami held a day in honor of Orlando Bosch, one of the two masterminds behind this awful act; the other perpetrator, Luis Posada, was given lifetime protection in the same city.)

Giving Cuban exiles, for their use, the virus which causes African swine fever, forcing the Cuban government to slaughter 500,000 pigs.

Infecting Cuban turkeys with a virus which produces the fatal Newcastle disease, resulting in the deaths of 8,000 turkeys.

In 1981 an epidemic of dengue hemorrhagic fever swept the island, the first major epidemic of DHF ever in the Americas. The United States had long been experimenting with using dengue fever as a weapon. Cuba asked the United States for a pesticide to eradicate the mosquito involved but were not given it. Over 300,000 cases were reported in Cuba with 158 fatalities.

These are but three examples of decades-long CIA chemical and biological warfare (CBW) against Cuba. We must keep in mind that food is a human right (although the United States has repeatedly denied this).

Washington maintained a blockade of goods and money entering Cuba that is still going strong, a blockade that President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, in 1997 called “the most pervasive sanctions ever imposed on a nation in the history of mankind”.

Attempted to assassinate Cuban president Fidel Castro on numerous occasions, not only in Cuba, but in Panama, Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

In one scheme after another in recent years, Washington’s Agency for International Development (AID) endeavored to cause dissension in Cuba and/or stir up rebellion, the ultimate goal being regime change.

In 1999 a Cuban lawsuit demanded $181.1 billion in US compensation for death and injury suffered by Cuban citizens in four decades “war” by Washington against Cuba. Cuba asked for $30 million in direct compensation for each of the 3,478 people it said were killed by US actions and $15 million each for the 2,099 injured. It also asked for $10 million each for the people killed, and $5 million each for the injured, to repay Cuban society for the costs it has had to assume on their behalf.

Needless to say, the United States has not paid a penny of this.

One of the most common Yankee criticisms of the state of human rights in Cuba has been the arrest of dissidents (although the great majority are quickly released). But many thousands of anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy Movement, which began in 2011, more than 7,000 people were arrested in about the first year, many were beaten by police and mistreated while in custody, their street displays and libraries smashed to pieces. ; the Occupy movement continued until 2014; thus, the figure of 7,000 is an understatement.)

Moreover, it must be kept in mind that whatever restrictions on civil liberties there may be in Cuba exist within a particular context: The most powerful nation in the history of the world is just 90 miles away and is sworn – vehemently and repeatedly sworn – to overthrowing the Cuban government. If the United States was simply and sincerely concerned with making Cuba a less restrictive society, Washington’s policy would be clear cut:

  • Call off the wolves – the CIA wolves, the AID wolves, the doctor-stealer wolves, the baseball-player-stealer wolves.
  • Publicly and sincerely (if American leaders still remember what this word means) renounce their use of CBW and assassinations. And apologize.
  • Cease the unceasing hypocritical propaganda – about elections, for example. (Yes, it’s true that Cuban elections never feature a Donald Trump or a Hillary Clinton, nor ten billion dollars, nor 24 hours of campaign ads, but is that any reason to write them off?)
  • Pay compensation – a lot of it.
  • Sine qua non – end the God-awful blockade.

Throughout the period of the Cuban revolution, 1959 to the present, Latin America has witnessed a terrible parade of human rights violations – systematic, routine torture; legions of “disappeared” people; government-supported death squads picking off selected individuals; massacres en masse of peasants, students and other groups. The worst perpetrators of these acts during this period have been the military and associated paramilitary squads of El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay, Haiti and Honduras. However, not even Cuba’s worst enemies have made serious charges against the Havana government for any of such violations; and if one further considers education and health care, “both of which,” said President Bill Clinton, “work better [in Cuba] than most other countries” , and both of which are guaranteed by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, then it would appear that during the more-than-half century of its revolution, Cuba has enjoyed one of the very best human-rights records in all of Latin America.

But never good enough for American leaders to ever touch upon in any way; the Bill Clinton quote being a rare exception indeed. It’s a tough decision to normalize relations with a country whose police force murders its own innocent civilians on almost a daily basis. But Cuba needs to do it. Maybe they can civilize the Americans a bit, or at least remind them that for more than a century they have been the leading torturers of the world.

 

[by William Blum, writing for David Stockman’s Contra Corner]

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Library of Lies, Part 2: Staggering collection of Obama and Clinton lies on the Benghazi attacks and embassy murders

People died. Hillary lied. Obama lied, too.

They lied early. They lied often. They lied deliberately.

They lied about the slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, at the hands of al-Qaeda-tied terrorists.

They lied, but not to protect vital national secrets or flummox America’s enemies. They lied to get reelected. And they lied directly, knowingly, and repeatedly to the American people.

Although I am a confirmed and consistent critic of Hillary and Obama, I long had cut them some slack regarding their first comments about the Benghazi attack. Thanks to the fog of war, I thought, they could not be blamed if they initially misattributed this deadly onslaught to a mob inflamed about an incredibly amateur Internet video that dissed the Prophet Mohammad. If they innocently got it wrong in, say, the first twelve hours after the assault began, they might deserve a grudging pass — at least for those early announcements.

Alas, I was unjustifiably generous toward Hillary and Obama. Instead, I should have been profoundly cynical.
As FactCheck.org chronicled on Friday, and L. Gordon Crovitz detailed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, Clinton issued a statement on the attack at 10:32 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 11, 2012. It read, in part: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” But that was a lie.
At 11:12 p.m., just 40 minutes later, Hillary e-mailed her daughter, Chelsea, with the truth: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group.” Hillary’s e-mail was addressed to “Diane Reynolds,” Chelsea’s code name. This smoking e-mail surfaced during Hillary’s October 22 hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

At 11:49 p.m., Hillary contacted Libyan president Mohamed Magariaf, also with the truth: “There is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar [al] Sharia is claiming responsibility for.” This group is al-Qaeda’s Libyan franchisee.

The next day, September 12, 2012, Hillary resumed her public lies: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” she said in a speech at the State Department. “America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.”
Echoing Hillary’s lie du jour, Obama chimed in with his own lie that day: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths,” he declared in the Rose Garden. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”
Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, lied even more explicitly that day: “We have no information to suggest that it was a planned attack.”

Hillary toggled back to private-truth mode at 3:04 p.m., when she phoned Hisham Qandil, prime minister in Egypt’s Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government. She told him: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest. Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda.”

“You can’t be square with the American people,” Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said about Hillary’s initial statements on Benghazi. “You tell your family it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. You can tell the president of Libya it’s a terrorist attack, but not the American people. And you can tell the Egyptian prime minister it’s a terrorist attack, but you can’t tell your own people the truth.”

Hillary reverted to public lies that September 14, during the ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base in which she and Obama welcomed home the flag-draped caskets of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, technical officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,” Hillary said.

Hillary took things a totalitarian step further when — according to Tyrone Woods’s father, Charles — Hillary told him, “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

“You had a video released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammad and Islam,” Obama told TV host David Letterman on September 18. Obama added that “extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”
Fully 14 days after learning that the Benghazi attack was a coordinated, al-Qaeda-linked Islamic-terrorist broadside against American territory and personnel, Obama stood before the United Nations General Assembly and lied, lied, lied: “There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy,” Obama said that September 25. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Just two days into that future, Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies fulfilled Hillary’s chilling prophecy to Charles Woods. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Egyptian Coptic Christian who created the notorious Internet video, Innocence of Muslims, was arrested, supposedly because he used a pseudonym and thereby violated parole on an unrelated bank-fraud conviction. He subsequently was sentenced to a year in the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas. Never mind that the First Amendment should have shielded his right to produce whatever video he wanted on Mohammad or any other religious figure. (Rather than molder behind bars, the producers of Broadway’s The Book of Mormon still laugh all the way to the bank, as hard as their audiences howl nightly.) Nakoula was a convenient patsy. As such, Hillary appears to have transformed him from a poor-quality filmmaker into a political prisoner.

Hillary and Obama buried the truth beneath an Oriental rug of lies. It covered up painful facts, lest they contradict the comforting campaign theme that Obama unveiled at the Democrat National Convention just five days before Benghazi: “al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.” And it worked!

The truth about Benghazi, what Hillary and Obama knew, and when they knew it, remained obscured until last week. This helped Obama win the White House in November 2012, and put Hillary in a comfortable position from which to run as his successor.

Regardless, with this much of the truth now out in the open, nothing that either of these two liars utters can be taken at face value ever again. They already were unbelievable, thanks to the Liar-in-Chief’s “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” serial deceptions on Obamacare and other multifarious matters. Ditto Hillary’s decades of mendacity, from cattle futures to “there is no classified material” on the clandestine e-mail server that she willfully hid from scrutiny for seven years.

Whatever embers of credibility either of these reprobates may have possessed were extinguished with the ice water of Hillary’s testimony last Thursday.

Obama’s and Hillary’s lies about the Benghazi massacre confirm, once and for all, that they are twin moral vacuums. They deserve all of the scorn, disrespect, and rejection that such a disgraceful distinction demands.

[by Deroy Murdock, writing for NATIONAL REVIEW]
NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Maybe, just maybe, some members of the US Press Corps are becoming willing to examine and disclose the truth about all the years of Obama Administration lies. Maybe.
…………………………………………
As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by
NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Hillary Clinton’s name may well NOT appear on any 2016 ballot”…

Will the real Hillary please stand up?

In much the same manner as we hoped would happen in 2012 concerning Obama’s name not being on a ballot due to multiple court cases involving his fraudulent identification, now a judge has spoken out and says that the current political and legal issues that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been embroiled in will ultimately see her name not on the ballot in 2016.

I’ve always appreciate much of what Judge Andrew Napolitano has written and said with a few exceptions. Even in what I’m about to write, I agree with his legal opinion, but am skeptical that the people will even bat an eyebrow, considering they have not done so yet even with knowing all they know about Hillary Clinton. Yet, I do find his observations worthy of print.

Napolitano pointed out in a recent column that Hillary’s political problem is one of “credibility.”

“We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida,” he wrote. “We know from the public record that the Obama administration’s narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd’s spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.”

Though her own embassy staff in Tripoli said the video was not an issue, Hillary marched right out, alongside Hussein Obama and Susan Rice to declare that the video was the reason for the Benghazi attacks. Her State Department even spent $70,000 of your tax dollars America to apologize for it!

Even after receiving the bodies of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others who died attempting to fight off Islamic jihadists, Clinton, along with Rice and Obama, continued to promote the lie that Benghazi was about a video.

However, Napolitano doesn’t point to that as the reason that Clinton’s name will not be on the ballot in 2016.

“That’s because each time she addresses these issues – her involvement in Benghazi and her emails – her legal problems get worse,” Napolitano continues. “We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government) and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).”

“Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee,” the Judge added. “In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put “boots” on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.”

He then concludes, “So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they’d be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.”

“After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Gadhafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya,” added the judge. “When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the “off with his head” hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn’t care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.”

While many have come to the same conclusion, Napolitano adds that both Catherin Herridge and Pamela Browne scrutinized Clinton’s testimony and point out that Obama vetoed Sidney Blumentahl‘s hiring at the State Department, so she then had the Clinton Foundation pay him a larger salary to work at the State Department to be her, in the words of Napolitano, “silent de facto adviser.”

Though Clinton called Blumenthal just a “friend” during testimony, nothing could be further from the truth. Both engaged in emails back and forth over intelligence issues, some of which she acted on, including a Libyan no-fly zone.

Napolitano then concludes, “It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.”

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  While we agree with the judge’s assessments, we wonder if he has taken into consideration the amount of corruption in our government…since it has allowed a known usurper and proven liar, Barack Hussein Obama, to stay in office for seven years, with NO congressional action at all toward impeachment even in the face of mountains of evidence showing impeachment is called for. And even with Hillary’s repeated lies and her well demonstrated lack of caring for American citizens at large, there are still many Democrats, both voters and sympathizers, who continue to overlook all that and support her.

 

[by Tim Brown, writing for FREEDOM OUTPOST]

 

…………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton tells Benghazi committee Ambassador Stevens was “responsible for his own security” decisions at the embassy in Libya…

Hillary: not hillarious now

Ambassador Stevens must have misunderstood the “you’re responsible” memo, and contacted the State Department over and over again about the full-of-holes security at the embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya, repeatedly wasting his time and that of Clinton and her State Department staff.  Is that what we’re supposed to believe?

 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton brushed aside emails Thursday that showed she privately told family and world leaders that the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi was a terrorist assault, and said Ambassador Christopher Stevens was responsible for his own decisions regarding skimpy security ahead of his death.

Testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, a composed and controlled Mrs. Clinton said she was involved in the big decisions of deploying Stevens to Libya and pressing President Obama to lead the war effort that ousted Moammar Gadhafi. But she deflected responsibility for much of what went wrong, saying the ambassador’s requests for more protection, which were denied, were handled at levels beneath her.

 Mrs. Clinton also revealed that she gave orders for her lawyer and aides to go through her emails, but she did not “look over their shoulder” and didn’t know exactly how they decided which emails were work-related business. And she declined to agree to release any emails recovered from her server.

In a hearing that lasted more than eight hours, Mrs. Clinton escaped without the kind of major gaffe that plagued her 2013 appearance before the Senate.

But she seemed unsure of whether she spoke with Stevens in the months between swearing him in as ambassador and the attack, in which he died of smoke inhalation.

And she stumbled over her relationship with family confidant Sidney Blumenthal, who repeatedly sent her messages about Benghazi at her special email account, and she struggled to explain her department’s public stance blaming the anti-Islam video with what her own staffers — and she herself — were saying in the immediate aftermath of the attack, which left Stevens and three other Americans dead.

Mrs. Clinton said her statement, issued the night of Sept. 11, that appeared to attribute the violence to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” was actually meant to be a warning to others not to blame the video — something that came to pass anyway.

Republicans were incredulous at that explanation, saying her official statement was belied by an email she sent to her daughter and a phone call she made to the Egyptian prime minister, where she said the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda.

“State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that’s not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why,” Rep. Jim Jordan told Mrs. Clinton in a heated exchange.

Mrs. Clinton rejected the line of questioning, saying the intelligence community itself was conflicted.

“I believe to this day the video played a role,” the former secretary said.

A short distance away from Mrs. Clinton’s marathon appearance, FBI Director James B. Comey fielded a question from the House Judiciary Committee about his agency’s criminal investigation into her use of a server she kept at her home in New York, including classified government business. He made clear the case is a top priority.

“As you also know about the FBI, we don’t talk about our investigations while we do them. This is one I’m following very closely and get briefed on regularly,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton defended her handling of the emails, repeating again that none of the emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them. And she defended the way she decided which emails to return to the government, saying she tasked her lawyers and aides, rather than doing it herself.

“I thought that was the appropriate way to proceed,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for Democrats’ presidential nomination, kicked off her testimony with remarks that tended toward campaign policy speech, saying she led a State Department committed to a forward-leaning posture.
“Retreat from the world is not an option,” she said.

As she gave her testimony, Mrs. Clinton was surrounded by some of her closest longtime aides who served under her at the State Department and now hold key posts in the Clinton campaign.

Reserved seats in the row immediately behind the witness desk were filled by Huma Abedin, who was Mrs. Clinton’s personal assistant at the department and now serves as national vice chair of the campaign; Jake Sullivan, who went from being a director of policy planning at the State Department to being the campaign’s top foreign policy advisor; and Nick Merrill, who went from a communications official at the State Department to a campaign spokesman.

Democrats on the Benghazi committee repeatedly sprang to Mrs. Clinton’s defense, questioning the very existence of the probe — an inquiry they have threatened to quit.

“We have learned nothing substantively new about what happened in Benghazi,” said Rep. Adam Smith, Washington Democrat. “This committee in all that time and effort has unearthed nothing. Instead, they want to prosecute you and rip apart your every word, your every e-mail.”

Later in the hearing he said the GOP was asking “vicious” questions in an attempt to wear Mrs. Clinton down — drawing a chuckle from the former secretary.

Republicans said Democrats never intended to pursue the inquiry, and have tried to thwart the investigation at every turn. The GOP lawmakers said previous investigations by the State Department and other congressional committees didn’t go far enough, for example failing to discover Mrs. Clinton’s tens of thousands of emails, which she shielded from public disclosure by taking them with her when she left office.

Under questioning by Rep. Susan Brooks, Indiana Republican, Mrs. Clinton said believed she spoke with Stevens at some point after she swore him in as ambassador, though she couldn’t remember when or what they talked about. Republicans said there was no record of any communication.

But Mrs. Clinton said the lack of better security in Benghazi at the time of the attack was the responsibility of Stevens himself and the security professionals she trusted to advise her, and who rejected some of the ambassador’s requests.

“Chris Stevens had an opportunity to reach me directly any time he thought there was something of importance,” the former secretary said.

Republicans said it appeared Mrs. Clinton lost interest in Libya after the 2011 U.S.-led effort to oust Benghazi. Rep. Susan Brooks, Indiana Republican, laid a massive stack of Libya-related emails on the dais that she said were from 2011, then placed beside them a skimpy stack from 2012, saying the lack of attention showed.

Mrs. Clinton countered that she didn’t do much of her business by email.
As the hearing extended beyond eight hours, Mrs. Clinton stood her ground and kept her cool against increasingly aggressive questioning.

Rep. Peter Roskam, Illinois Republican, said she was shifting blame for what happened, and asked her if she was responsible for the deaths of Stevens and the other Americans.

“Of course I would not say that,” Mrs. Clinton said firmly, “and I think it is a disservice for you to make that comment. … It is a disservice to people who are charged with making difficult security decisions.”

Facing questions about her own actions the night of the attack, Mrs. Clinton said she did not call Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, saying there was no reason because they were already doing what they needed to do to try to support the Americans on the ground.

Mrs. Clinton’s relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a controversial figure she characterized as an old friend, also took center stage. She revised her earlier statement that she never solicited information from him, correcting herself to say that she didn’t initiate the first inquiries but listening as investigation Chairman Trey Gowdy read emails she wrote asking for Mr. Blumenthal’s advice and opinions.

Mrs. Clinton said she didn’t vet Mr. Blumenthal’s sources, but struggled to explain why she then deleted him as the origin of emails she forwarded on to others.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the probe, said that line of questioning was a disservice to the families of the Americans who died.

“I mean, if you’re a family member, and you’re sitting out there waiting for answers to your questions, you’re going to have to wonder why it is that the first questions that come forth are about somebody who knows nothing about Benghazi, has never been to Libya,” Mr. Cummings said.

 

[by S. A. Miller and Stephen Dinan, writing for THE WASHINGTON TIMES]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  What Mrs. Clinton, and her husband Bill Clinton, and Mr. O in the White House, and a vast horde of politicians in Washington do not seem to realize, is that most Americans know when they are being lied to.  If you are a politician who tries to adhere to the truth but who is used to being lied to, you are even more apt to know truth from lies.  In addition, if you make it a practice to tell the truth, then you don’t have to try to remember who you lied to and what lies you told.  The more lies you tell, the more you have to remember who you lied to and what you said to whom.  It soon becomes an impossible burden to keep it all straight in your mind.  NOBODY can successfully master it all the time forever.  Or to put it another way, eventually your lies will become obvious, Mrs. Clinton.

 

……………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The truth about Benghazi…and why Democrats are determined to hide it

Liars lineup...If you’re an American, YOU DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH about everything your government does (unless knowing that truth compromises national security). Mr. O came into office promising “the most transparent administration in history” but soon gave us the most inept, unprepared, and dishonest administration in history…and the most NON-transparent. Mr. O thinks you deserve to know NOTHING unless he is forced to disclose it to you.

Unless it threatens national security, Americans deserve to know the truth. So it is with Benghazi. Therefore, the rapidly approaching testimony by Secretary Clinton has the potential of finally providing some of the answers we ought to have had years ago. Why was security was so lax, why was no military help sent in a timely manner, and why did the Obama Administration attempt to blame an internet video for the attack even though they knew this wasn’t true?

The answers to all three questions are actually pretty obvious, but without definitive proof, getting the major media motivated enough to report the facts won’t happen. This is why the Democrats are so determined, even desperate, to hide what really happened and why. Consider how the Democrats are seizing on the recent statement by Rep. McCarthy to bolster their claim that the Benghazi hearings are nothing but a political witch hunt by Republicans. That, along with the claims that the matter has already been investigated and that we shouldn’t be wasting taxpayer’s money, are all pretty pathetic if you stop to examine each assertion.

For starters, the McCarthy comment, while ill-advised, is like a homeowner chortling about finding a stash of gold coins while remodeling his house. The Benghazi committee wasn’t looking to find that Sec. Clinton had a private email server any more than the homeowner was looking for the gold when tearing down a wall. However, by claiming that motive, the Democrats hope to discredit the Benghazi committee’s potential findings. It also keeps the narrative away from the truth. As for the claim that all this has already been investigated and no misconduct was proven, that goes against common sense. We now know that many emails and other evidence and testimony were deliberately withheld by the Obama Administration before those earlier hearings. Finally, the contention that the Democrats don’t want to “waste” taxpayer money is ludicrous considering how much taxpayer money Democrats routinely squander on things like the Cowboy Poetry Festival, Star Trek training videos, and studies of shrimp on treadmills.

The reality that the Democrats want concealed is that this is an incompetent administration. Ignoring the facts on the ground regarding security in Libya was just one of many examples of ineptitude by the Obama Administration. From little things like misspelling the Russian reset button to major problems like the pathetic Obamacare website rollout, too many people President Obama has put in important positions of authority have performed poorly. Responsibility rolls downhill like snowballs and other stuff. Admitting that the State Department dropped the ball on Libyan security wouldn’t just have made Hillary look bad, it would have reflected poorly on the president who put her in charge. That would hurt the Democrat Party and so they wanted to hide the truth.

The same thing accounts for the lack of a quick response to an attack that went on for hours. That Hillary Clinton was right about Obama not being up to responding to a 3:00 a.m. phone call was ironic since she wasn’t ready either. Neither Obama nor Clinton was able to make a quick and decisive response. Their excuse was that help wouldn’t have gotten there in time. That couldn’t have possibly been known in advance, and at the very least should have tried. Whether there was a “stand down” order given, or whether a “go” order was withhold while they dithered, either would have made them look bad. So, again, Democrats wanted to hide the facts.

Finally, remember at the time this happened the election was in doubt. The Obama narrative was that Bin Laden was dead and that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat. Further, they claimed that the “Arab Spring” was going to bring peace and democracy to the area. Admitting that organized terrorists were able to attack and kill an American ambassador would have made that assertion look as foolish as it has turned out to be. Therefore, blaming a video, which the Administration absolutely tried to do, would prevent embarrassing facts from affecting the election.

The problem is that only definitive confirmation of these truths will motivate the major media to cover this. I have high hopes, but low expectations, that Sec. Clinton’s testimony will finally provide enough evidence to force the mainstream media to report the truth. However, we have no idea how much evidence is still hidden or destroyed, so this may not happen.
Whether Clinton or Biden is the ultimate nominee, the Democrat Party and their media allies will continue to deny, delay, and hope the public never becomes aware of the truth.

[by Nicholas Wishek, writing for EAGLE RISING]
NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  The Democrats want to “conceal that this is an incompetent administration”? Of course they do…but it’s MUCH TOO LATE for that. Americans have realized for years now that they voted into office the most incompetent president ever to occupy the Oval Office. We can only hope the lesson has been well learned that the office demands a man of principles and experience. Mr. O had neither…and still does not have the first of those two qualities.
………………………………………….
As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by
NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary “provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful”

Judge Andrew Napolitano gives us insight into Hillary Clinton’s actions while she was Secretary of State

 

In the course of my work, I am often asked by colleagues to review and explain documents and statutes. Recently, in conjunction with my colleagues Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne, I read the transcripts of an interview Ms. Browne did with a man named Marc Turi, and Ms. Herridge asked me to review emails to and from State Department and congressional officials during the years when Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state.

What I saw has persuaded me beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Mrs. Clinton provided material assistance to terrorists and lied to Congress in a venue where the law required her to be truthful. Here is the backstory.

Mr. Turi is a lawfully licensed American arms dealer. In 2011, he applied to the Departments of State and Treasury for approvals to sell arms to the government of Qatar. Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country whose government is so entwined with the U.S. government that it almost always will do what American government officials ask of it.

In its efforts to keep arms from countries and groups that might harm Americans and American interests, Congress has authorized the Departments of State and Treasury to be arms gatekeepers. They can declare a country or group to be a terrorist organization, in which case selling or facilitating the sale of arms to it is a felony. They also can license dealers to sell.

Mr. Turi sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of arms to the government of Qatar, which then, at the request of American government officials, were sold, bartered or given to rebel groups in Libya and Syria. Some of the groups that received the arms were on the U.S. terror list. Thus, the same State and Treasury Departments that licensed the sales also prohibited them.

How could that be?

That’s where Mrs. Clinton’s secret State Department and her secret war come in. Because Mrs. Clinton used her husband’s computer server for all of her email traffic while she was the secretary of state, a violation of three federal laws, few in the State Department outside her inner circle knew what she was up to.

Now we know.

She obtained permission from President Obama and consent from congressional leaders in both houses of Congress and in both parties to arm rebels in Syria and Libya in an effort to overthrow the governments of those countries.

Many of the rebels Mrs. Clinton armed, using the weapons lawfully sold to Qatar by Mr. Turi and others, were terrorist groups who are our sworn enemies. There was no congressional declaration of war, no congressional vote, no congressional knowledge beyond fewer than a dozen members, and no federal statute that authorized this.

When Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, asked Mrs. Clinton at a public hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 23, 2013, whether she knew about American arms shipped to the Middle East, to Turkey or to any other country, she denied any knowledge. It is unclear whether she was under oath at the time, but that is legally irrelevant. The obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Congress pertains to all witnesses who testify before congressional committees, whether an oath has been administered or not. (Just ask Roger Clemens, who was twice prosecuted for misleading Congress about the contents of his urine while not under oath. He was acquitted.)

Here is her relevant testimony:

Mr. Paul: My question is, is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Mrs. Clinton: To Turkey? … I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Mr. Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the [Benghazi] annex that was close by . Were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons transferred to other countries any countries, Turkey included?

Mrs. Clinton:  Senator, you will have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. And I will see what information is available and ahhhh .

Mr. Paul: You are saying you don’t know .

Mrs. Clinton: I do not know. I don’t have any information on that.

At the time that Mrs. Clinton denied knowledge of the arms shipments, she and her State Department political designee, Andrew Shapiro, had authorized thousands of shipments of billions of dollars’ worth of arms to U.S. enemies to fight her secret war. Among the casualties of her war were U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three colleagues, who were assassinated at the American consulate in Benghazi, by rebels Mrs. Clinton armed with American military hardware in violation of American law.

This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?

Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can [and certainly would (-NORM ‘n’ AL)] pardon herself?

 

[by Judge Napolitano, who wrote this for The Washington Times]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Hillary Clinton, like her husband Bill and like her former boss, Mr. Obama, has no respect for the law. The mere fact that she would use her own unsecured email account for official government business, when she knew this was easily compromising to US security, is proof of that. Hillary is like Bill and Obama, and only respects the law when it comes back to bite her…which it is now doing. Why is it that when people get elected or appointed to high national office, they decide the laws apply to others, but not to them? Is there no one left in our entire US government who is willing to tell — and live by — the truth?

 

……………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized