#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

"No! Shut them all down!"

First, if you don’t recognize that line, I’m not sure we can be friends.

Second, go read this from Larry Kudlow, and then go read this from Ace.

I tend to be on Ace’s side here.  The Republican Establishment has been too open borders for too long, despite the grass roots’ very specific objections that our border situation was a National Security concern.  Either they are way too stupid to be in charge (for not realizing what us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise have realized for the last couple of decades), or they are simply trying to co-opt a position they don’t actually believe to make us rubes in fly-over land, free-market Jesus paradise a little less angry at them.

For over 14 years the Minute Men have been on the border between the US and Mexico attempting (voluntarily) to help US Border Patrol.  They understood (as did many of the rest of us) the danger posed by an open border way back then.  So is really that another terror attack on US soil finally got Larry’s attention, or is he trying to sound tough so that the grass roots will start trusting the Establishment again?

However, with all that said, I think Kudlow is an idiot even in his new hawkish opinion.  He reminds me rather of C-3PO telling R2D2 not to shut down “all the trash compactors on the detention level” but rather, “No! Shut them all down!”

We don’t have a problem with immigrants or visitors from England, France, or Sweden.  Not by and large, at any rate, and certainly not a recognizable terrorism problem from those countries.  Why should we prevent them from coming here and, potentially, even further alienate our allies?  Larry wants to pretend that this is not “about religion.”  To do so, he has to pretend it’s about “immigration” more generally, and so the only option is complete embargo.

Note to Larry Kudlow and the rest of the GOP Establishment:  It’s the Mohammedanism, stupid.

What is the common denominator among Iraq, Syria, Libya, Israel’s West Bank, and the rest of the Middle East?  Mohammedanism.  Who are the euphemistic “warlords” in Africa?  Mostly Mohammedans.  Who is throwing gays off of buildings, beheading Christians, and slaughtering innocents?  Mohammedans.  Who shot up a Christmas Party in San Bernadino, detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, and flew 3 planes into US landmarks?  Mohammedans.

It would be really nice if Mohammedanism really was “a religion of peace,” as its apologists claim.  It simply isn’t.  Mohammedanism, is an evil death cult.  Mohammed preached (and practiced) conversion by the sword, conquest, rape, and pillage.  Today, a majority of Mohammedans world-wide believe that violent jihad is a valid form of Mohammedanism.  A majority of US Mohammedans believe that Sharia Law, which has been called “completely incompatible with American Values, should be the law of the land.


Trump is certainly bombastic.  He’s a carnival barker, a narcissist, and a whole host of other unsavory things.  But between him and Larry Kudlow?  Trump is the one who is right.

SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?

On Assassinating US Citizens

Rand Paul's filibuster has everyone talking about domestic drone strikes.  This is a good thing, because domestic drone strikes would be A Very Bad Thing.  On the other hand, there are a fair number of conservatives who assert that Rand is wrong that the US Government should not be able to specifically target any US Citizen on US Soil.  They claim that if someone has "taken up arms against the US" they do not deserve Constitutional protections.

This is a highly dangerous position.  I'll even go further.  The US does not have the right to assassinate anyone on US soil- citizen or otherwise.  Let's break it down a little bit.

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

People Not Responsible For Wrong Doing Not Punished For Wrong Doing!

Shocking, I know, but people are breathlessly reporting that the four "State Department officials" who resigned over the Benghazi scandal didn't actually resign, and likely won't receive any real punishment.

Here's the thing: they didn't do it.  I know that at least half of the outrage is along the lines of "Hey, the Administration said these people are responsible, so why aren't they being held responsible."  I get it.  I also think it's silly and wrong-headed.

We know they aren't responsible.  They had no authority to be responsible.  The fact the Administration tried to tell us they were responsible in the first place is simply another crime and another part of the coverup.

When I went through the Benghazi Files, I pointed out that the minimum security standards were not met.  I pointed out that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked for additional security.  I pointed out that only one person, the Secretary of State, had the authority to waive those minimum standards, and therefore the authority to deny the requests for additional security.

That's it.  Hillary Clinton is the only person with the authority have done what was done- leave the Benghazi mission woefully unprotected.

Insofar as an investigation is called for, it is only called for to the extent that we should verify if Mrs. Clinton was acting under pressure from the President, or if she made those choices on her own recognizance.  Personally, I believe it taxes credulity to say that the President was not at least aware of, and therefore in a position to overrule, the decisions made regarding the Libyan missions' security.  This is why I think the President is directly responsible, and should be impeached.  But even if you don't believe that, it is even harder to believe that four mid-level staffers would make the decision not to provide adequate security all on their own.  That decision had to be made, and a signature given, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

So I don't care that these four staffers are not being punished.  They didn't do anything wrong, so far as we know.  All of the decisions which lead to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were made by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  They are the only ones who even had the authority to make them.

Benghazi Files: The "Talking Points" Were Never The Issue

So, showing their usual complete absence of feck, Senate Republicans seem to have missed the point of the Benghazi scandal.  That, or they've actively decided to assist Barack Obama in covering up his treasonous behavior.

Because of the Senate investigation, all of the news around the Benghazi attack has been over the talking points.  Even I fell for it to some extent yesterday.  "Who changed the talking points?"  "Who is responsible for the talking points?"  "Why was Rice sent in front of cameras?"  People keep asking these questions, and the real question has gotten lost.

Here are the important questions: What did Barack Obama know about the substandard security for the Benghazi mission, and when did he know it?  What did Barack Obama know about the terrorist attack against the Benghazi mission, and when did he know it?  What did Barack Obama know about the orders not to send support during the attack, when did he know it, and why didn't he countermand them?

The talking points are tangential.  The talking points are about the lies after the fact.  Even investigating the "talking points" makes it seem like the problem was the lie, not the fact that 4 Americans were left to die.

Now, you know, and I know, and everyone paying any attention at all knows that the responsibility for all of this lies with Barack Obama.  Anyone with any moral character whatsoever knows that Barack Obama should resign in disgrace or be impeached for the Benghazi attack.  But I want it official.  I want Congressional Republicans to get it on the record that Barack Obama holds ultimate responsibility.  Then I want him impeached by the House. 

Yes, I know that Democrats, who control the Senate, won't vote to impeach him.  But I want that on record, too.  I want them to go on record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense to approve substandard security for a mission in an area where terrorist organizations were known to be.  I want them to go on the record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense not to have insured that the security at said mission was increased on the anniversary of 9/11 when Al Qaida and Al Qaida linked groups were known to a) want to attack us and b) be operating in the area.  I want them to go on the record explaining why it's not an impeachable offense to have authorized, whether at the time or through prior orders, two stand-down orders to the CIA on the scene, and to have prohibited help from Signolla Air Base.

I want that on the record.  And I want Conservative Media to scream about it so much that the Mainstream Media has no choice but to cover it.

Treason: Rice Admits White House Lied About Benghazi Attack

Via Ace

Here was Ms. Rice's Statement after speaking to a Senate Panel about Benghazi, and her roll in lying to the American People (Emphasis mine):

In the course of the meeting, we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community, and the initial assessment upon which they were based, were incorrect in a key respect: there was no protest or demonstration in Benghazi. While we certainly wish that we had had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. We stressed that neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the Administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved.

Get that, "neither I nor anyone else in the Administration intended to mislead."  But we already know the facts are that terrorist action, and not some YouTube Video, was already known to be the cause of the Benghazi attack.  We know that the CIA submitted talking points that addressed the terrorist attack.  So if they never "intended to mislead," did they instead believe that the CIA was lying to them?

No.  They didn't believe that, but they're hoping you'll believe that they believe that.

So, to be clear one more time:

The Secretary of State had to sign off on leaving the Benghazi compound under-defended.  Since Obama was routinely pointing to Libya as a foreign policy success, it is unreasonable to believe that he was unaware of that decision, and could have over-ruled his Secretary of State. 

When the attack occurred, the White House had immediate visual intelligence via drone and the compound's own security cameras.  They knew the nature of the attack.  Nevertheless, someone made the decision not to send help.  Remember, that was an active order: "stand down."  Barack Obama could have over-ridden that order.  He was either not available (and therefore derelict in his duty as President and Commander in Chief) or actively chose not to override that order, thus sentencing our people to death.

After the attack occurred, the White House approved a set of talking points to be delivered by Ambassador Susan Rice which explicitly excluded any reference to a terror attack, and instead referenced a "spontaneous demonstration" which they already knew had never existed.

Barack Obama consigned those men to death, and then lied to the American People about it.

He must be immediately impeached.

 Update: Commenter 'Jane D'oh' at the AoSHQ points out that Susan Rice is also partially responsible for Bill Clinton's decision not to take Bin Laden when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter.

Treason: DNI Clapper Goes Under the Bus

The Media continues to focus on "Who edited the talking points" instead of "Who ordered the stand-down" regarding the 9/11 Benghazi attack by Al Qaida, or Al Qaida linked terrorists.  Readers of this blog already know that the answer comes back to Barack Obama anyway, but let's play along.

According to CBS News, the talking points that Susan Rice received (talking points that blamed a YouTube video no one had heard of and fewer had seen) were edited by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and approved by the CIA and FBI. 

Now, what you're supposed to believe from this is that DNI James Clapper got the original talking points from the CIA that included language about the Al Qaida link, then that he changed that language.  You're also supposed to believe the following:

* Barack Obama never saw the original talking points.
* DNI Clapper never ran the updated talking points by the President for his approval.
* That the link to Al Qaida was too weak to for DNI Clapper to approve it, but the link to the YouTube video was somehow iron-clad.

These are all rediculuous on the face of them.  Worse than that, they're insulting.  Barack Obama knew what the CIA said.  He then knew what the DNI wanted to say- indeed, he probably instructed him to find some scape goat other than terrorism.  DNI Clapper then framed a man for exercising his first amendment rights, and Barack Obama approved that change.

Barack Obama is supporting terror and terrorists over the First Amendment Rights of legal US Residents.

He must be impeached.

H/T Ace of Spades (permalinked in sidebar)

Treason: Benghazi "Video" Talking Points came from White House

This is hardly news, but how many times does it have to be confirmed before Congress does something about it?  As the attack on the Benghazi compound was happening, the US Government already knew that Al Qaida, or and Al Qaida linked group, was behind the attack.  This information was communicated to the White House.  When Barack Obama chose to send US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice out to say "be calm, all is well," the talking points had been scrubbed of any reference to terrorism.

Now, Republicans confirm that those changes came "from the Administration."  Let me say something they are restrained (for a variety of reasons) from saying.  Barack Obama made that decision.  Barack Obama, the same man who mandated that references to "terror organization" and "terrorism" be scrubbed from FBI training manuals, chose to scrub the talking points of references to Al Qaida.  Why he did this I can only speculate.  Whatever his motive, however, the effect is the same: he aided our enemies by not sending help immediately to kill them and save as many American lives as possible, and then he provided them comfort when he refused to identify the attack as a terrorist attack, and waited nearly two weeks to send investigators to the compound.

Now, I've received some push-back on this "aid and comfort to the enemy" formulation, so let me illustrate it another way.

Let's say the US was in a war, and the Commander of a Forward Operating Base received an urgent distress call from a team in the field.  This call was corroborated by surveillance from a drone in the air, and other assets were already in the area.  Additionally, this commander had forces under his command he could order into the area, some of them would arrive in an hour, others after a few hours.  Then let's say he chose not to send help.  Okay, well, that's just dereliction of duty (which, by the way, should be enough to get the President impeached). 

But let's go further.  When he reports on the incident to his chain of command, he claims that he doesn't know what force was responsible for the attack, and hints that some completely unrelated event caused the fight.  He then waits for two weeks while the bad guys get further and further away, giving them plenty of time to regroup and organize further attacks.  Now he's lied to his superiors. 

At that point, we're beyond mere "dereliction of duty," we've found direct, conscious choices which provided aid and comfort to the enemy.  I don't think anyone would balk at charging that commander with Treason.

Well, that is almost exactly what happened with Benghazi, but "the commander" is the President of the United States.

Barack Obama is a traitor.

President Obama: I Instructed Ambassador Rice To Lie About Benghazi

Shorter Obama: Impeach me, please.

So President Obama had a press conference today.  As Ace explains it- he gave no real answers, but he did have time for "a smoghasbord of evasions and feigned outrage."

Here's the pull quote:

"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous," President Obama said at a press conference on Wednesday.

Now, Ace highlights a couple of things: that if President Obama is going to say "come after me, bro" then Senators McCain and Graham ought to say "Okay, we'll subpoena you for Friday."  He also points out the President's typically passive language.

I want to highlight something else:  Look at that formulation again.  Susan Rice "made an appearance at the request of the White House."  That would be President Obama, unless the physical White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC suddenly started talking.  "...She gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her."  In other words, despite the fact that we have documented that the White House knew before the terror attack was over that it was an Al Qaida linked terror attack, Ambassador Rice was given "intelligence" which indicated a YouTube video was to blame.

Now, I'm guessing that Susan Rice is not stupid.  I'm guessing she, like everyone else with a frontal lobe thought, "Seriously, that's the official line?"  And she did it anyway.  She lied- it doesn't matter whether or not she knew what the truth was, she certainly knew it wasn't the line she'd been fed.  She lied at the Presidents specific direction.

Then, the fact that other Administration officials supported this story- again, despite the fact we know know what the truth was, and knew even then what the truth wasn't- means that "the White House" (read: President Barack Hussein Obama) had given them that story and told them to repeat it.  Not only did they repeat it, they repeated it under oath.

So add that to the list. 
Barack Obama knew that the mission in Benghazi was woefully under-protected, and he did nothing.
Ambassador Chris Steven begged for more security, and Obama did nothing.
When the attack occurred, local support was ordered -twice- to "stand down."
When the attack occurred, a military response was never mounted, despite the fact that fighter planes could have arrived in an hour or less, and commandos in 3 hours or less.
When the attack occurred, Barack Obama WENT TO BED.
When questions started being asked, Barack Obama suborned perjury.

Okay, Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, and McCain.  You heard the man, go after him.  When can we expect the articles of impeachment?

Benghazi Files: A Deadly Delay

You've probably seen the newly released CBS video from 9/12 in which Barack Obama is directly questioned about his unwillingness to call the Benghazi Attack an act of terror.  Many are criticizing CBS for not releasing the clip earlier- a clear attempt to cover up for the President.  This criticism it right and proper, but I want to focus on something mentioned in this corresponding FoxNews report.

1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they've hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don't leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.

So a whopping 4 officer team of "reinforcements" arrive in Benghazi at 1:15 AM.  They are then delayed for over 3 hours while Libyan and American officials dither and bicker about "permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and... a clear mission plan."  Fox focuses on the fact that they already knew the culprits were Ansar al-Shariah, an Al Qaida linked terror group.  Based on the information chronicled on this blog, I'm much more furious about a three hour delay.

By that time, Ambassador Stevens was almost certainly already dead.  Certainly he was believed to be dead.  That three hour delay allowed Ansar al-Shariah to mount an attack on the CIA compound where former SEALs Woods and Doherty were eventually also killed.  Now, recall, fighters from Signolla Air Base in Sicily could have arrived within one hour.  Commandos could have been on the ground in three hours.  That means, had the Administration not made the active choice not to respond militarily to an assault on our Ambassador, that while the Administration and Libyan officials were dickering about the fate of the CIA team at the Benghazi airport, US Military resources could have already dealt with the problem.

All of this because Barack Obama believed that treating this action as the terrorist attack it was would have been a political liability for him.

Benghazi Files: State Department Never Requested DoD Support

This actually came out yesterday from the Daily Beast.  This is just a short post, because it links back to one yesterday, wherein it was revealed that the Embassy in Tripoli did attempt to notify Washington, DC immediately, but were unable to raise help.

The Military is saying the reason they didn't go in was that they were never requested to go in.  Typically, it is the duty of the Ambassador to request assistance.  In this case, he could not.  So it then fell to the deputy chief of mission- who did make the request.  However, that request has to go through State Department channels.  Considering we know that the Administration was monitoring the whole situation, that means (once again) that President Obama knew of the decision not to forward the request to DoD, and chose not to over-ride it.  As the article points out:

The president, however, would have the final say as to whether or not to send in the military. By 11 p.m. Benghazi time, 90 minutes after the assault began on the U.S. mission, Obama met with the National Security Council to discuss the attack. NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor said the president “ordered Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey to begin moving assets into the region to prepare for a range of contingencies” at that meeting.

One problem with that idea, though.  We know that, during the second (actually a continuation of the first) fire-fight at the CIA compound, repeated requests for support were made.  So the military saying they weren't asked to support the actual Mission compound is technically correct, but if they are suggesting they never went to Benghazi because they never received any request, they're lying.

And notice the obfuscation: "the State Department never requested."  Not, the State Department never did, but the CIA contractors did.  And it was actively denied them three separate times.

I simply do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn.  Barack Obama issued active orders which condemned four Americans to death.

Treason: Active Choices, Not Mere Negligence

On September 11, 2012, Islamic Terrorists from a group affiliated with Al Qaida attacked the US Mission in Benghazi, Libya.  They attacked using automatic rifles (including AK-47s), bombs, and mortars.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi instead of Tripoli to meet with leaders from other nations, including a Turkish General.  We do not know the purpose of those meetings.  We do know that when shots were first fired, Ambassador Stevens called the Tripoli Embassy, who then attempted to call Washington, DC, but could not get through for some time.

Once Washington finally did pick up the phone, a host of things should have happened that didn't.  Among those was the convening of the Counterterrorism Security Group, an interagency coordination and control group with knowledge of what assets would be available to assist any given area during a terrorist attack.

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

According to CBS, the CSG was not convened because more senior officials, with less direct knowledge, attempted to direct the response.

As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."

Without that group, the response faltered early, and only got worse as the night continued.

"The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted."

This yet further paints a picture of active choices which were made to circumvent the normal military response of "leave no man behind."  It just makes sense that you would rely on experts on terrorist attacks for coordination of the immediate response.  Even if it didn't "just make sense," it also happens to be a Presidential Directive.

The official says a protocol set forth in a classified presidential directive calls for the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) to be convened in the event of a possible terrorist attack. According to a public military document, the directive was designed to "synchronize the efforts of all the government agencies that have a role to play in the Global War on Terrorism.

If it was a Presidential Directive, then the only person who could override it is the President.  Only the President could have chosen to reject the very possibility ("event of a possible terrorist attack") of a terror attack and refuse to convene the CSG.  Only the President could have made the order that the Senior Administration officials, and not the CSG, would attempt to coordinate the response.

This was not mere Negligence.  This was a series of active choices made by the President and his team, sentencing four brave Americans to their needless and vain deaths.

Treason: Embassy Tripoli Called for help During DC Working Hours

H/T: PJ Tatler

Representative Jason Chaffetz was on with Greta van Susteren last night talking about Benghazi.  Now, both Greta and Rep. Chaffetz are much more restrained than I tend to be, but, once again, we have people who "Know About This Stuff" who are saying the same things I've been saying.  They stop short of "treason," because they think it's disrespectful or over-the-top or some such.  But they make same case.

Specifically, Rep. Chaffetz relayed this anecdote, heretofore unknown:

CHAFFETZ: You know, he related this story which I haven't shared before. He's a good man. His name's Gregory Hicks. And I -- I think he's trying to do the right thing.

He said that shortly after 9: 0 PM, what happened is his phone rang. And he didn't recognize the number, so he didn't answer it. Then it rang again. Again, he didn't answer it because he didn't recognize the number.

But then, given the persistence, he did answer it. It was Ambassador Stevens. And Ambassador Stevens was saying, We're under attack. We're under attack.

Now, I can't say that he told me specifically that he was asking for help, but that's kind of what I -- I read into it. He hung up the phone. He immediately called in to Washington, D.C., to trigger all the mechanisms that needed to be put on, and then he wasn't able to contact them. And there were hours and hours where we didn't know where our ambassador was.

But the trauma, the -- the real-life trauma that he went through -- I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was -- it was hard to listen to. He's -- he's gone through a lot, but he did a great job.

Let's break that down.  Rep Chaffetz was on a fact finding mission to Libya after the murder of Ambassador Stevens.  There, he spoke with Gregory Hicks from the Tripoli Embassy.  Mr. Hicks says that he started calling Washington, DC "shortly after 9 PM" (Note: I believe this is a transcription error, and that the actual time was shortly after 9:40 PM).  Now, that was either 9:40 Washington, DC time, or 9:40 Libya time- but which is it?

It seem more logical that it would be Libya time for three reasons.  First, Mr. Hicks would have been talking about local time.  When he looked at his phone (and probably clock, given the lateness of the hour), he would have been thinking in local time.  He would almost certainly have relayed the story the same way.  Second, it is unlikely that Rep. Chaffetz would convert the times on-air.  Among other things, it would require that he have two times in his head at the same time, which could lead to confusion.  For another, he was relating the story, not giving an "official" report.  So local time seems more reasonable that way.  Finally, the time difference between Tripoli and Washington, DC is pretty close to 6 hours.  We know the attack occurred on the evening of September 11, not the morning of September 12.  Six hours after 9 PM would be 3 AM, on 9/12.

So, Libya local time seems most likely.  But that means that the Libyan mission started calling for help no later than 4 PM, Washington, DC time.  People would still have been at work.  You wouldn't even be interrupting dinner.  There is absolutely no reason that he shouldn't have been able to contact those "mechanisms." 

That alone, would just prove the Criminal Negligence, that I first believed.  That, alone, should be an impeachable offense for the President.  But then we look further in the interview:

CHAFFETZ: Yes, Buck McKeon, in fact, I chatted with him this morning. He's chairman of Armed Services, doing a great job. And his letter, in essence, says, Mr. President, you said you gave a direct order to protect all of those people and make sure that we secure those people in Benghazi, but the military does -- you know, needs an order from you.

I talked specifically to General Ham. He's a four-star general. He told me personally he did not get a directive from the White House from the president of the United States to engage in the firefight to help protect those people.

Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're doing everything you can to protect the people in Benghazi, when we're under attack, a firefight that starts at 9:40 at night, goes until the wee hours of the morning, and say you did everything when the military did not engage.

Now, this seems to be saying, "Oh, the President didn't give an order."  I expect this is Rep. Chaffetz hedging.  Here's why: we know from multiple other sources that the first reaction of the Military would be to move in.  We know that the White House was monitoring the attack in the Situation Room.  We know that a "stand-down" order was given, not once, but twice.  We know that assistance was requested and denied three times.

Those all required specific orders.  The default military position would be to rescue our personnel.  Other sources say that the military has plans, and practices drills, for exactly the kind of situation that occurred in Benghazi.  So in the absence of orders, a rescue mission would have been mounted.  It was only under specific orders that our military would not have done so.  And the ultimate authority and responsibility for those orders rests with the President.  The President who was monitoring in the Situation room.  The President who went to bed with the status of our Ambassador still unknown.  The President who then jetted out to Las Vegas for a fund raiser.  The President who then lied for more than a week to claim that the attack was a "spontaneous event" caused by a YouTube video.

That's not Criminal Negligence, that's Murder.  That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Benghazi Files: The Evidence Mounts

Fox News is doing incredible work investigating the events leading up to, and on the night of, September 11 in Benghazi.  This piece by Catherine Herridge is no exception.

Honestly, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, but at some point there has to be a critical mass of evidence that pushes this onto national headlines.  So far, the only national paper I know of that has covered Benghazi at all is the Washington Post, but even that coverage has problems.

That said, I think this is important to note.  It is important for two reasons- one, because it provides concrete proof that the State Department (and therefore Hillary Clinton) knew about the security threats to the Benghazi mission, and knew that it was woefully under-defended.  The second reason is that it proves what I said in my analysis of the already released Benghazi documents: however clinical and calm the words in official reports were, the Benghazi mission was doing the bureaucratic equivalent of getting on their desks and screaming to get more security.

I could say more, but the report sums it up quite well with this quote:

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

Benghazi Files: Welcome to the party, WaPo.

Remember the beginning of Die Hard when Bruce Willis's character is trying to get help from the police, but they don't believe him?  Eventually they send one patrol car over, the cop gets out, asks if there's a problem- is told "no" by the bad guys, and starts to leave?

Then Bruce Willis shoots the patrol car with a sub-machine gun, causing said cop to realize there really is a problem?

This article from David Ignatius in the Washington Post is a cross between that cop and the clueless FBI agents who show up later.

David, this information has been around for weeks.  Some of it for just under one week, some for more than that, but please actually do some fact checking before you try to stick up for the Administration while appearing to praise Fox News.

Let's break this down.

Mr. Ignatius starts with the first line of defense that everyone used when questions first started being posed about what happened that 9/11, and what lead up to it.  It is, apparently, "a political football."  No, Mr. Ignatius, it's thoughtful questions raising serious doubts about the abilities of our current Commander-in-Chief to fulfill that role.  Insofar as it is a "political football," it is such because you, and those like you, refuse to actually act as journalists regarding the matter.

He then tries to say that Fox's "Stand Down" story was inaccurate, because the CIA said the order didn't come from them.  Here's his full quote:

The Fox “stand down” story prompted a strong rebuttal from the CIA: “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

One little problem with that, we know that the Stand Down order came.  The only thing the CIA says is that they didn't order it.  Mr. Ignatius never gets around to asking, "Well, if the stand down order didn't come from CIA, who had authority to give it?"

Instead, he tries to write his own timeline.  Problem- we already know the timeline.  Bret Baier did an excellent job of assembling one.

He claims the delay in the local CIA response was due to trying to contact the February 17 Brigade  the local militia which was "in charge" of security in that part of Benghazi.  He then inserts the non sequiter "The United States depends on local security to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities everywhere..."

No, Mr. Ignatius, we don't.  We rely on local military forces to protect the exterior of our diplomatic compounds.  And Ambassador Stevens had made quite clear that he did not believe any security force native to Libya could provide adequate security.  Why weren't there Marines inside the compound?  And, even if you were correct, sir, why would we wait to get permission from a local militia to save our own personnel?  Are you really that credulous, or do you just want us to be?

Then, to cover himself, he says this:

Here’s my question: Was it wise to depend on a Libyan militia that clearly wasn't up to the job? Could it have made a difference for those under attack at the consulate if Woods had moved out as soon as he was, in one official’s words, “saddled and ready”?

Mr. Ignoramus Ignatius, we don't even depend on the English, French, or Germans for security in those nations.  They supply security for the exterior of the Embassies.  We supply our own security for the interior of the compound.  If we had done that, we wouldn't be talking about 4 dead Americans today.  So the question is "Why were the minimum security requirements for all diplomatic missions waived in the case of Benghazi?"

He then says this:

Second, why didn’t the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately? This one is harder to answer. The CIA did dispatch a quick-reaction force that night from Tripoli, with about eight people, but it had trouble at first reaching the compound. One of its members, Glen Doherty, died along with Woods when a mortar hit the roof of the annex about 4 a.m.

What more could have been done? A Joint Special Operations Command team was moved that night to Sigonella air base in Sicily, for quick deployment to Benghazi or any of the other U.S. facilities in danger that night across North Africa. Armed drones could also have been sent. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta summarized last Thursday the administration’s decision to opt for caution: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

Here, he accepts two known lies as truth.

First: "why didn't the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately."  Mr. Ignatius, perhaps you should actually have done some research.  If you had, you might have found that Mr. Woods was killed when the mortar he'd been illuminating with a laser guidance system finally managed to hit his position with ordinance.

Now, maybe you don't realize this, because you're an oik, but those who stop to think about it realize that a former SEAL and current CIA contractor would not be pointing what amounts to a glorified laser pointer at a mortar for several minutes if he did not believe that support was mere minutes away.

You might also have found out that the President, and others from his administration watched the whole event (we'll come back to this later, too) unfold live on a... drone.  Was that drone armed?  Maybe not, but we don't know, because you and your friends in the media have been helping the White House cover this up from the moment it happened.

Before we get to the next lie he accepts, I need to address a piece of misdirection he inserts himself.  "A Joint Special Operations Command team was moved that night to Sigonella air base in Sicily..."  Note "moved that night" which would imply it wasn't there on time.  Problem- it wasn't "moved that night."  It had been there for at least a little while.  Fighter support could have arrived at Benghazi in just about an hour, with ground support only a couple of hours behind.

Now, the second lie he accepts at face value was Leon Panetta's laughable statement "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

Excuse me.  So now we don't send our forces out on patrols?  Isn't that the very definition of sending them "into harm's way without knowing what's going on?"  We'll never mount a rescue mission without having 100% reliable knowledge of every single fact on the ground?  Of course not.  That's stupid.  It deserves mocking, not credulous acceptance.

Further, we did know what was going on.  The White House was monitoring by drone video feed.  They were receiving frantic phone-calls for help.  Former SEAL Woods was in contact with his superiors telling them what was happening.  You don't get better in-situ intelligence than that.  The line is a bald-faced lie, and everyone knows it.

Then Mr. Ignatius gets to this stupid statement: "Looking back, it may indeed have been wise not to bomb targets in Libya that night.  Given the uproar in the Arab world, this might have been the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a burning fire."  Hmm... "uproar?"  Over what, Mr. Ignatius?  We wouldn't be falling back on the discredited "video" story-line are we?  That would simply be pathetic.

Of course, that would be in keeping with the whole piece, so maybe you are.

Then there's the little problem where no one was talking about bombing anyone.  The fighter support doesn't have to use bombs or missiles, they still have machine guns.  Strafing runs work.  Then there's the AC-130U which could have been deployed.  I don't think they even have bombs.  But they can rain hot lead on a relatively small area like almost no other war machine in anyone's inventory.  Or the special forces commandos who could have been sent?  Does Mr. Ignatius believe they'd all be Rambo, shooting indiscriminately at everything that moves?

In his final paragraph, Mr. Ignatius doubles-down on the stupid "we needed better intelligence."  Better intelligence, Mr. Ignatius?  We had prior warning that an attack was possible, even probable.  For nearly a year Ambassador Stevens had been begging for more security for both Tripoli and Benghazi.  There was no reason this attack should have taken us by surprise at all.  Once the attack began, we had a drone in the air watching it unfold.  We had resources involved in the action calling in with reports and pleas for help.  You can't ask for more intelligence than that.

All-in-all, it's nice that the media is finally being forced to cover the Benghazi story.  Unfortunately, they're more than a day late, and way more than a dollar short when it comes to their coverage.  There was a time when journalists were skeptical of anything the Government said, and sought concrete proof.  And Watergate didn't even have a body count.

Treason: Expert Testimony

I've written here why I believe that Barack Obama is a traitor to the United States.  I've almost certainly made some people uncomfortable by saying it so bluntly, but I believe it's necessary to call a spade a spade, and not just a "manual digging tool."

With more evidence, though, and from a much more credible source than me, is an article in the Washington Times.  Its author is Admiral James A. Lyons (Ret), the former commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet and senior US military representative to the United Nations.  It's safe to say he knows of what he speaks.

And what does he speak?

Once the attack commenced at 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. EST), we know the mission security staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli.  It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from an overhead drone. The cries for help and support went unanswered.

What I've already said here numerous times: They knew.  They watched.  They didn't send help.

But that's not enough for treason.  That could simply be gutlessness, or "vapor lock" preventing a good order.  No, we need something active- some active decision to prevent help to make it up to treason (emphasis mine).

I know those Special Forces personnel were ready to leap at the opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind they would have wiped out the terrorists attackers. Also I have no doubt that Admiral William McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, would have had his local commander at Sigonella ready to launch; however, apparently he was countermanded—by whom? We need to know.

With all due respect to the Admiral, we don't need to know who made that decision.  We don't need to know who made the decision, because we do know the White House was monitoring the situation.  That means that, whoever made the call, Barack Obama agreed with it.  Barack Obama agreed with the active order not to provide support to our own personnel under attack.

His last paragraph begins this way (again, emphasis mine):

Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed. The person who made that callous decision needs to be brought to light and held accountable.

Indeed he's right.  Someone high up in the administration did make that decision.  But the person who ultimately made the decision- the one setting the rules such that anyone would even think for a moment of forbidding assistance- is the President.  Moreover, even if someone else made that decision "on their own," the President was there an knew about that order.  Had it been one with which he disagreed, he could have countermanded it.  He did not.

Barack Obama made the conscious choice to prevent an operation which would have saved at least two lives, and possibly 4 that night.  Barack Obama made the conscious decision to favor terrorists attacking our Benghazi mission over the lives of our own personnel.

Barack Obama is a traitor.

Benghazi Files: Special Report with Bret Baier

I'm not going to link the separate parts, instead I'll just send you to the Ace of Spades HQ.

I can't even really discuss this right now, my blood pressure is so high.  Barack Obama didn't just abandon those men to their deaths, he bears direct responsibility for the order which prevented their rescue.

By his authority, 4 good men are dead.  By his authority, the monsters responsible were not stopped and killed in the act.  By his authority, they were able to avoid blame and scrutiny for 14 days while a YouTube video was blamed, and its maker thrown in jail.

By providing this aid and comfort to our enemy, Barack Obama has made himself a Traitor to the United States of America.

Treason: Weasel Words from Obama

Let's get it out there at the beginning.  I believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at least, are guilty of Treason against the United States of America.  By not providing additional security to the Libyan diplomatic delegation, especially the Benghazi office, they paved the way for the September 11th murder of 4 Americans, including our Ambassador.  By pushing the narrative that a YouTube video was to blame, including having the maker of the movie arrested during a midnight raid, they provided crucial cover for more than a week for the terrorists who killed our personnel.  And, as of Friday, we know that someone in the administration gave the "Stand Down" order to prevent a rescue operation from attempting to save the Ambassador and other staff.  Given that Mr. Obama was in the Situation Room with a live feed of the events, even if he is not the one who gave the order to stand down, that order was issued on his authority; had he disagreed with the order, he was in the position to over ride the order and authorize the rescue attempt.  He chose not to do so.
Can there be any greater "aid and comfort" than not sending our forces to kill the enemy while they are engaged in an attack on our personnel, and THEN attempting to shift blame from the monsters responsible to a video? 

And now the spin and weasel words begin.  Actually, they began on Friday.  In an interview with a Denver TV Station, Barack Obama was asked directly if he denied requests for assistance during the 7 hour attack.  Here's the exchange:



No direct answer.  And why didn't he answer directly?  Because he couldn't.  If the answer is yes, that the requests were denied, the uproar would be heard for an immediate impeachment.  Failure to answer that call would doom Democrats for years to come.  If the answer was "no," then the follow-ups would have started.  "Then who did deny the request?"  "If the requests weren't denied, why didn't help arrive?"  And so forth.

The truth is that Barack Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, as well as head of the diplomatic corps.  That means the buck stops with him.  He either ordered the stand down, or accepted it.  Now, will anyone else- anyone in the National Media, perhaps, ask these same questions?