Post Scripts

Posted by Jack

Re White House and Amb. Susan Rice talking pointed scripted and heavily edited to avoid the (t) word …terror.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Related: ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl Answers Your Questions About Benghazi

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions.”

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Related: Diplomat Says Requests For Benghazi Rescue Were Rejected

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said none of this contradicts what he said about the talking points because ultimately all versions were actually written and signed-off by the CIA.

“The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points,” Carney said. “The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn’t the substance here.”

UPDATE: A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point: The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

Posted by Tina

Promiscuity just got another big thumbs-down in my book. I hope people will take this warning to heart.

Breitbart reports:

A new deadly “sex superbug” has been found in two individuals in Hawaii, after surfacing in Japan in 2011. H041, a form of gonorrhea that is resistant to all antibiotics presently available, is considered as deadly as AIDS, and is much faster at killing people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants upward of $50 million from Congress to find an antibiotic that will kill the virus, which has also been found in California and Norway.

Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine, said:

This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly. Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days. This is very dangerous. People need to practice safe sex, like always. Anyone beginning a new relationship should get tested along with their partner. The way gonorrhea works, not everyone knows they have it. And with this new strain it’s even more important than ever to find out.

It’s better to be aware…it’s too bad we have come to this.

by Jack

The FBI is probing whether suspected Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s widow knew about his deadly marathon plot, a law-enforcement source told the media yesterday.   Obviously they have to consider she knew her husband was building a bomb to hurt people, but proving it may be much harder.  They found radical Islamic material on her computer, they found residue of bomb making material all over their 800 sf apartment and now Katherine Russell has lawyered up with an attorney who specializes in defending terrorists.   

Federal agents yesterday made three visits to the Rhode Island home of the parents of Katherine Russell, 24, an all-American-girl-turned-terrorist’s-bride.

During the first encounter, the agents were in the home for about 10 minutes.   A couple of hours later,  the same agents — two men and a woman — briefly speaking with Russell’s mom, Judith, through the door. Russell, who has a 3-year-old daughter, Zahara, with Tsarnaev, 26, is believed to have been inside.

What turns a happy, average college student in a submissive, depressed and fearful woman, hiding under her hijab?   She’s expressed no remorse for the victims, said nothing helpful to the investigation and has basically just shut down, taking a defensive posture.   She’s one sick, weak minded chump.   She dropped out of college,   essentially kicked Christianity to the curb as she renounced that religion to become a good Muslim wife living on welfare.   Next thing you know her jihadist husband is dead, 4 innocent people are murdered and hundreds injured with limbs torn off and she still doesn’t get it?   She’s still playing the roll of the submissive Muslim wife.  I think this says a lot about what she knew before the attacks happened.        

by Jack Lee

A cursory fact finding has revealed 36 attacks on US embassies and personnel since 1956.   So, we’ve had long history (57 plus years) for dealing with terror attacks on US diplomatic facilities.  Yet, in all this time we’re now asked to believe that what happened in Benghazi was not foreseeable.  That no planning was done in the event that if this embassy  should come under attack and that we might need to respond with military force?   If you can buy that BS I’ve got a bridge in Libya to sell you.

More questions:  If the US mission in this high risk country did not warrant a military response, then why were our personnel there, why were they not removed until their safety could be more assured ?   Who was responsible for that decision – I want to know and I am sure you do too!  Maybe we’ll find out at the hearings, but the Obama administration has been reluctant to cooperate.

Security staffing had been much higher in Lybia prior to the 9-11-2013 attack a Benghazi according to testimony today.  So, who pulled those security forces out at a time when the threats against our embassy were increasing?   Why was Benghazi left with only 3 security personnel?   Why was there only 6 security personnel left in Tripoli?   

Nobody has ever taken responsibility for any of these questions, why not?   And who is it that is now obstructing and intimidating witnesses?   Instead of the truth coming out, we’ve seen high ranking officials from Obama to Hillary Clinton claiming ignorance and deniability of any knowledge beforehand.   

The facts now tell us the White House was briefed that this was a terrorist attack by a group linked to Al Qaeda almost immediately.  Even the President of Libya declared this before the press just a day later.  He said this was a terrorist attack and he was rebuffed and undermined by the White House who said it was not.  Why? 

It appears that all the disinformation that came from the White House early on was a deliberate attempt at damage control just like we thought.  That it was a carefully crafted strategy done solely to minimize the Obama Administration accountability and that it was done for political purposes during the close of a presidential election.   That sucks.

If you have been listening to the Benghazi hearings today in Washington and you have a brain, you  must see what a betrayal of the trust and ideals of American people this has been?  

 This is a brewing scandal of the worst order.  It is full of lies, deceit, incompentence, denial and indifference.  This scandal has ramifications that are potentially far worse for America than a hundred Watergate’s.   Ranking officials supporting Obama have acted to intimidate witnesses from testifying.  Those who have come forward have done so under duress.   The US Department of State Deputy Chief of the Libya Mission,  Gregory Hicks stepped up to give critical information and was immediately demoted to a Foreign Service Officer Grade…this is the kind of intimidation being used to warn other potential whistle-blowers to shut up.  This is outrageous and it should be unacceptable to the American people.  We deserve better and the victims deserve justice.   The person who made the decision to demote Deputy Chief Hicks must be exposed and removed from service.  This is a person we don’t want in our government.

This is a shoddy cover up by cheats and liars and any fool can see that now.

Posted by Tina

The Daily Caller:

Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistle-blower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.

The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.

At least three officials will testify today at a House hearing about the scandal, and are expected to say top officials at the Department of State took actions to minimize political damage to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the days after the attack, officials claimed the attack had resulted from a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muslim film. That story was quickly refuted, although the filmmaker was arrested on a probation violation and remains in prison.

Toensing’s client will not be able to testify at public or closed-door hearings because he or she has not been able to prepare classified testimony with the aid of a lawyer, Toensing told The Daily Caller.

Virginia Toensing is a highly respected Lawyer and she knows the ropes. She is clear that she is being given the run around by this administration to block her clients testimony.

What are they hiding?

What are they covering up?

Why isn’t the media rabid about this?

The American press should know they too will be held accountable.

Posted by Tina

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

“The administration, facing the election, went into panic mode, wanted to contain it,” Peters posited. “Don’t send in the military, don’t blow this into a bigger thing. They put politics above the security of our diplomatic personnel.”

Plainly stating “I’m angry,” Peters criticized the administration for “telling so many lies” that “they make Nigerian phone scammers look like paragons of integrity.” He further hoped that the witnesses at the hearing will “objectively lay out those lies.”
The pair then revisited White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s response to Fox News’ Ed Henry, who asked about witnesses being blocked from talking to Congress. (Carney denied having knowledge of any intimidation.)

Saving the lives of the four Americans who died in the attack would have been very difficult if not impossible, Peters conceded — but they should have at least tried.

“You don’t sit back and say, ‘Well, gee, I hope the smoke blows over,'” he charged. “The Obama administration in this case was cowardly, duplicitous — and they sacrificed American lives for politics. And the American people need to understand that despite the fact that the establishment media would cover for Obama no matter what he did.”

Posted by Tina

What happens to Democrats when they are part of a scandal? Quite often they are rewarded and promoted. That’s certainly the case with President Obama’s choice for director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Rep. Mel Watt, according to the
Daily Caller:

In 2002, Watt teamed up with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Bank of America, BB&T, and UJAMMA Inc., to announce Pathways to Homeownership, a pilot initiative designed to give home loans to welfare recipients.

A press release from Watt’s campaign office in October 2002 said that the loans to the welfare recipients would require “as little as $1,000 of the down payment to come from their own funds ” and that the city of Charlotte would help borrowers obtain a “down payment subsidy” to cover the rest of the 3% down payment.

If approved to head up Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Watt will be regulating the very government agencies whose rules he negated in 2003.

I suppose one could argue that he’s qualified to run this agency because he knows how to scam the system and avoid scrutiny from regulators but it’s rather like letting the fox guard the chicken coop.

How far did Representative Watt go to keep this sub-prime loan outrage alive? In 2007 he helped Barney Frank block efforts by the Bush administration to reduce Fannie and Freddie’s exposure to risk and after the market began to turn sour He and Frank sponsored a bill forcing Fannie and Freddie to meet even higher quotas of high risk lending for inner city communities. His district’s forclosure rate was twice the national average.

This man should not be given the position but I doubt his nomination will be blocked. Unless the American people demand better from our representatives we deserve the leadership we get and the lousy conditions that bursting bubbles and financial collapse bring.

Posted by Tina

This is fantastic!

Tumors deep in the brain long have challenged neurosurgeons such as Dr. Ronald Young. Instruments existed to reach that far, but the problem lay in getting there without doing damage to the brain.

Now, a new technology developed in Indianapolis allows Young and other surgeons to prop open the folds of the brain to reach the problem sites below.

The device opens the door to minimally invasive surgery for thousands of patients suffering from brain tumors or certain types of strokes who might have no other treatment option.
The first time Young saw a prototype of the small device, he was intrigued. After using it for a few months, he is sold on it.

The Nico BrainPath could prove to be for some brain surgery patients what arthroscopy has been for knee surgery patients.

Wow!

by Tina Grazier

The President spoke to Ohio students recently and it’s clear from his remarks that he listens to his critics. Well, I doubt he actually listens himself but his support team certainly does. Those who oppose his policies need only repeat a current theme and the President will show up in some venue, usually in front of college students, to explain how what they are hearing from his opponents is all wrong. I think it makes him appear small but as we have seen, it seems to work pretty well for him. After four years of an economy that stinks this man was enthusiastically reelected with about 60% of the youth vote. This is incredible! College grads are working for minimum wage at Taco Bell…if they can even find a job…they are living back home with mom…I would think this generation would be seeking out alternative ideas! Yet they still show up to applaud the soaring rhetoric that has become the mainstay for the eternal campaigner.

President Obama was elected to lead our nation, not his party. He promised to bring people together, not divide them. Yet at every turn he has worked for his party over the nation using his, now famous, divisive approach. Since campaigning and agitating are this man’s resume we shouldn’t be surprised by his constant campaign style, but I’m not sure everyone who voted for him expected him to be such a poor leader. I think they believed him when he spoke of bringing people together. I think they believed him when he said he would cut the deficit and create jobs. But he has broken these promises…and he always resorts to class or race warfare; he always positions himself as smart and his opponents as “other”. I expect this in the midst of campaigns but not in the leader of the nation. I’m particularly affronted when our President speaks in this way before young people. An example can be found in recent remarks to Ohio State College students:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.
We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems; we shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us; it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And, Class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.

The founders trusted us with this awesome authority. We should trust ourselves with it, too. Because when we don’t, when we turn away and get discouraged and cynical, and abdicate that authority, we grant our silent consent to someone who will gladly claim it. That’s how we end up with lobbyists who set the agenda; and policies detached from what middle-class families face every day; the well-connected who publicly demand that Washington stay out of their business — and then whisper in government’s ear for special treatment that you don’t get.

That’s how a small minority of lawmakers get cover to defeat something the vast majority of their constituents want. That’s how our political system gets consumed by small things when we are a people called to do great things — like rebuild a middle class, and reverse the rise of inequality, and repair the deteriorating climate that threatens everything we plan to leave for our kids and our grandkids.

First things first, Mr. President, we have a republic, not a democracy. Our republic was founded to serve and unify the various states: providing for a common defense, securing liberty, and providing a legal structure to settle disputes. Some of your more communal friends have made sure that students have been misinformed about that for more than a couple of generations but, it is still a republican form of government we were given:

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” – Benjamin Franklin

I have to ask, does our President know we have a republic or does he simply choose to ignore that we are a republic? Is the fact that we are a republic a problem, given his agenda to fundamentally transform this country? Is it responsible for a man serving as president to misinform and misrepresent the nation he serves before a group of college students? It is, at the very least, factually errant.

But let’s examine some of the remarks the President made in Ohio taken from the excerpt above.
He begins by denigrating some of his fellow citizens for having different views. He then whines that people who are opposed to big government solutions and oppose his ideas are only “gumming up the works because they have the nerve to say so! Does the President not understand the value of free speech and petition?

President Obama goes on to implore these students to reject opposing voices. Is this really a grown up thing to say to college students? Wouldn’t it be more adult to suggest students should examine all political positions and decide for themselves? These words are unseemly for a sitting president. Unfortunately, they don’t represent the worst of his remarks:

And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us; it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

The President suggests that government is the route by which everything that “can be done by us, together” is accomplished. This is, pardon the expression, a tyrannical view of our Republic. Our republic was founded on individual liberty, the right to be free from authoritative kings, to have the space to freely pursue happiness as we see fit. We are not compelled by our Constitution to “work together”. In fact, it was expected that we would be at odds and disagree which is why we were given a republic and separate branches of government rather than a democracy. The President attempts to incorporate the idea of freedom into his communal message when he asserts “hard” and “frustrating” work “together” is the necessary stuff of “self-government”. But this is such an arrogant machination that presupposes the Presidents views are, by their very nature, always right. One might say it’s downright kingly on his part to twist the meaning behind the words of our founding.

But there’s more to consider; let’s move on:

Because when we don’t, when we turn away and get discouraged and cynical, and abdicate that authority, we grant our silent consent to someone who will gladly claim it. That’s how we end up with lobbyists who set the agenda; and policies detached from what middle-class families face every day; the well-connected who publicly demand that Washington stay out of their business — and then whisper in government’s ear for special treatment that you don’t get.

Is he kidding? Does he not recall his promotion of green energy businesses like Solyndra? Does he believe no one noticed when he awarded a large share of GM and Chrysler to the unions, fleecing bond holders in the process? How about the waivers that were granted certain businesses in ObamaCare? Or his appointment to the National Labor Relations Board, a former union head? Wasn’t it the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the country, General Electric, that had his ear representing business interests? And then there’s good ol’ Warren Buffet who gladly played the clown to hock tax hikes for the President, knowing his company would benefit. How about the corporations that donated to his relelection and paid for his inauguration?

Does this man think he’s invisible?

Finally, our President resorts to the only thing he knows and we’re back to campaigning:

That’s how our political system gets consumed by small things when we are a people called to do great things — like rebuild a middle class, and reverse the rise of inequality, and repair the deteriorating climate that threatens everything we plan to leave for our kids and our grandkids.

Mmmm…sure…what-ever! Just throw a few billion more at green energy companies that go bankrupt and a few billion more into the college loan fund and the middle class will be magically “rebuilt”!

The President’s soaring rhetoric attempts to mimic the leadership of former President Ronald Reagan but this toy replica lacks both the foundational principles and the leadership qualities to pull it off. He has no idea how things work in the business world or the republic. He does not experience the true magic behind the entrepreneurial spirit. The middle class could and would rebuild itself if the big, complex, costly, intrusive, government were reformed and downsized…if it just got the heck out of the way. Given free space and a clear path the middle class citizens of America will build wealth for themselves and for others with creativity and enthusiasm. And if our government restrains itself and lets the people keep what they earn, the fruits of their labors, they might even grow the economy enough to make our nation strong once more. It might sound like a novel idea to college students that have been brainwashed into the communal mindset of the collective “we” but it is an idea that is steeped in the heritage of those who came before us to create this great republic when they devised the Constitution which begins, “We the people…”,  not we the group or we the government.

Note to college students: Explore your American heritage. Embrace freedom as the ideal and individual responsibility as the means to best defend individual rights and opportunitites. A nation of strong individuals naturally creates a strong, vibrant, productive nation.

Source of the Presidents remarks: Jonah Golberg – National Review