We hope.
ABC News has in essence now reported that the Obama administration lied about Benghazi.
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the
White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
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.
Who knew what when?
The American people, at least those not distracted by American Idol and Dancing With The Stars, want to know.
The news is wide and seriously damaging to the Obama administration and particularly Hillary Clinton.
There was this from The Guardian about Obama's recent treatment of whistleblowers.
Not really surprising to those who've been paying attention.
Then there's this must see video of Trey Gowdy's promise to the American people.
Mr. Gowdy's gained a new fan.
I doubt seriously I'm the only newbie.
Then there's this testimony from Greg Hicks describing how he was ordered not to talk to Congressional investigators.
In Watergate, when Nixon obfuscated and lied, nobody died.
Then there's the news that a request for Special Ops to come to Benghazi was denied.
It's clear that a travesty has occurred, one that cannot, must not be covered up.
And for those not paying attention, there's this lie that is arguably the first of many told since 9/11/12.
I finish with what I started with in the title of this catch-all post on a very news heavy day.
This from Politico is par for the course:
The Washington Post's Paul Farhi has written a glowing profile of Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy award-winning CBS correspondent who has been the mainstream media's most persistent investigator of the events surrounding last year's attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Farhi's piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath: "Attkisson, who holds a third-degree black belt in taekwondo, takes a fighting stance when she feels she’s being stonewalled. Which is exactly what she thinks the White House has done to her on Benghazi," Farhi writes.
But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.
The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April.
This cannot be covered up.
This will not be covered up.
People died.
For their sake, and the sake of their loved ones, we need to get to the bottom of it.
Carry on.
I came across the following AP story today and, after you read the excerpt, I'll tell you why I found it most interesting:
J.C. Penney is sorry and it wants your business back.That's the gist of its latest ad, a public "mea culpa" which the mid-priced department-store put on its
YouTube and Facebook pages.
The ad, titled "It's no secret," shows shots of women working, playing with their children and doing other everyday activities.
"Recently J.C. Penney changed," a voiceover states. "Some changes you liked, and some you didn't. But what matters with mistakes is what we learn. We learned a very simple thing, to listen to you."
The ad comes after the Plano, Texas-based company last month fired its CEO, Ron Johnson, after 17 months on the job and rehired his predecessor Mike Ullman
Johnson's ambitious changes included getting rid of most sales and bringing in new, hip brands. The strategy was designed to attract younger, wealthier shoppers in a bid to reinvent the stodgy retailer, but it alienated Penney's loyal customers and caused sales to plummet.
The ad acknowledges the missteps and asks customers to return to its stores.
"Come back to J.C. Penney. We heard you, now we'd love to see you," the voice-over states.
The TV spot is in contrast with the chain's "fair and square" advertising campaign that accompanied Johnson's revamp. Those ads were colorful and whimsical and did not give specifics about products. In one spot, a dog jumped through a hula hoop held by a little girl. The text read: "No more jumping through hoops. No coupon clipping. No door busting. Just great prices from the start."
...
"When you are in a freefall, you sometimes need to call a time out and say, 'Wait a second. We're going to get this under control,'" he said. "The answer may be further down the road as to why they come back."
J.C. Penney Media Relations Director Daphne Avila said the idea for the ad began several months ago after an "extensive" review of customer feedback.
"We want to give customers our assurance that what they loved about J.C. Penney — trusted brands, great style and affordable prices — will be inherent to every shopping experience," she said.
What's not covered by the Associated Press, in any way, would seem to be central to why J.C. Penney was in a freefall. From Lifesite News less than a month ago:
Plenty of companies have argued that natural marriage is "bad for business"--but they'll have a tough time persuading J.C. Penney. After a series of radical decisions, the retailer is struggling to survive a 25 percent drop in sales.
It started in 2011 when the company hired Ellen DeGeneres, a vocal proponent of same-sex "marriage" as its spokesperson.
The choice drew fire from organizations like the American Family Association (AFA) because it was a departure from the store's longstanding values. When AFA's One Million Moms complained, J.C. Penney's new CEO, Ron Johnson, stubbornly dug in his heels.
Then, on Mothers' Day, the company shocked customers with a blatant endorsement of homosexuality in an ad that featured two moms--followed by a two-dads ad for Fathers' Day. Coupled with an overhaul of the stores' pricing system, the stock never recovered.
Now, months after the experiment failed, J.C. Penney has fired Johnson and replaced him with the former CEO, Myron Ullman.
Does anyone think any particular piece or part of the Lifesite news might have been relevant to the folks at the Associated Press? Does anyone want to know why the AP considered it irrelevant?
I certainly would.
I doubt we will.
Doesn't fit the meme.
Carry on.
UPDATE: A friend found fault with my source (Lifesite News), stating that liberals would have problems with a conservative site and wouldn't find anything therein credible. I agree.
So here's an ABC News piece on the subject:
Is JC Penney trying to become GayC Penney, or is it just a smart marketer?
Last year, the company announced that Ellen DeGeneres, who is openly gay, would be its latest spokesperson. On Mother’s Day, it featured a lesbian couple in one of its ads. And now, just in time for Father’s Day, the retail chain has issued another print ad, this one with real-life couple Todd Koch and Cooper Smith, and their two young children.
The copy reads: “What makes Dad so cool? He’s the swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer and hug giver — all rolled into one. Or two.”
Once again, the ads have raised the ire of the conservative One Million Moms, that is again accusing JC Penney of promoting “sin” in its advertisements.”
“It’s obvious that JCP would rather take sides than remain neutral in the culture war,” OMM writes. “JCP will hear from the other side, so they need to hear from us as well. Our persistence will pay off! One day we will answer for our actions or lack of them. We must remain diligent and stand up for Biblical values and truth. Scripture says multiple times that homosexuality is wrong, and God will not tolerate this sinful nature.”
OMM has launched yet another boycott of JC Penney.
In an email to ABC News, JC Penney spokesman Joseph Thomas said that “In celebration of Father’s Day, we’re proud that our June book honors men from diverse backgrounds who all share the joy of fatherhood.”
The ad has received a ton of comments online, and Cooper and Koch have heard from long-lost friends who’ve seen their photo on Facebook and on TV.
“Ninety percent of the blog posts are very positive and heartwarming. But some of the ones that are so hateful shock me,” Smith, 37, who owns a public relations firm in Dallas, told ABCNews.com. ”I just don’t know how anyone could project so much hate toward something as loving as the relationship we have with our kids. That photo was just a moment in time that showed our affection toward our children and how we care toward them. Nothing is being shoved down anybody’s throats.”
Mark Shea points to the deception at play in the media and by the abortion defenders in the Gosnell case:
You probably thought that a butcher like Kermit Gosnell was emblematic of an abortion culture thatlooks the other way, not only when it comes to government oversight of Chambers of Horrors, but when it comes to our Vigilant Media studiously not reporting that story. You might even have thought that an Administration that hires Eric Holder to be AG has a certain conflict of interest when Holder’s wife makes money off renting to a chamber of horrors? You might even have detected a certain stench of hypocrisy when a President who can insert himself into a trial concerning a murder in Florida or weep for the children of Newtown has nothing whatsoever to say about this little taste of Dachau in Philly.
Ah! But there you’d be wrong. It turns out the real culprits in the Gosnell case are pro-lifers according to our vigilant media.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” – Adolf Hitler
Simcha Fisher is also writing about the lies being manufactured by those defending the murder of children in (and out) of the womb:
Maybe you've heard: what Kermit Gosnell did? It's pro-lifers' fault.
"[Gosnell's] business was able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself."
These patients had nowhere else to go for safe, compassionate, responsible abortion care, turning to Gosnell as a last resort. [T]his clinic existed in the first place because of restrictions on abortion access, not because of the supposed inherent evils of abortion. If Gosnell’s patients had been given another choice, they would have taken it ...This situation happened because of a failure of the regulatory system. Not because abortion is bad.
And back in 2011, Amanda Marcotte wrote for Slate:
[T]he pro-choice community exerts quite a bit of effort trying to improve the quality of abortion care, even under the remarkable constraints on provision. That shady abortion providers get patients at all is something we can safely blame the anti-choice movement for.
So, let's just answer these arguments one by one.
And she does.
Read it all.
Pass it on.
Truth will win out. Truth must win out.
A Sandy Hook resident writes a letter to the editor of the Newtown Bee, a letter I suspect resonates in the hearts of many today:
This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth
Esty, and Harry Reid
I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends weren't harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.
Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I'm not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers' circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George's successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it's as threatening as ever.
That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA's actions.
You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can't afford and you've never read. You claim it's critical because health care costs are killing this country... no they're not, you are! You are killing this country. You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You can't lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you'll be out of office before the bill comes due… you don't care and have no integrity nor honor.
You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don't trust you as far as we can spit. You're a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.
I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. You'll stop restricting guns when only you have them.
Brendan Duffy
4 Chestnut Knoll Drive, Sandy Hook January 8, 2013
As if to underscore Mr. Duffy's rightness, Bookworm brings us news that ought to infuriate the honest and further reveal the dishonesty that reigns in the halls of power today:
The Marin YMCA just wanted to host its annual “Healthy Kids” day. “Organizing for America,” the perpetual Obama campaign, had a different idea, crashing the event by setting a table in an adjacent parking-lot in such a way that it looked like part of the YMCA sponsored event. To itscredit, the YMCA said “Leave!”...
Read the rest.
May more like Mr. Duffy and like those running the YMCA in Marin rise up.
Please.
By now, you've likely seen the video. No, it's not a snuff film. It's not radical Muslims stoning a woman to death or beheading an infidel. It's not a gang of bullies beating a victim senseless. It's none of those things.
It's worse. It's worse because the evil in those videos are obvious.
The video of Alisa LaPolt Snow, a spokesperson and lobbyist for the Alliance of Planned Parenthood
Affiliates in Florida, calmly and confidently suggesting that a baby born alive in a botched abortion could be killed if the mother, her family and the doctor involved decide to do so, is insidiously treacherous. You see, Ms. Snow considers herself a child and family advocate. And there are many out there who would agree with her.
Kathy Schiffer lays it all out for us:
On the clip, Florida State Senator Jim Boyd queries Snow about Planned Parenthood’s objection to the bill. “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question,” said Rep. Boyd, “because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
Snow answers unequivocally: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Wait, wait—What about current laws which outlaw infanticide?
State Representative Daniel Davis seemed to be thinking about that, as he asked Snow: “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving? What do your physicians do at that point for that child that’s struggling for life?”
Lobbyist Snow, seeming a little less confident than she had at first, responded, “I do not have that information. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Representative Jose Oliva needed clarification. “You stated,” he began, “that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion—that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
“That decision,” Snow repeated, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
And here, Representative Oliva delivers what I think is the best line in the hearing. He says, “I think at that point, the ‘patient’ would be the child struggling on the table. Wouldn’t you agree?”
The video follows. Watch it. Watch her demeanor. Then understand what it is you just witnessed.
Unadulterated evil.
This whole thing has been a charade from the beginning, a tragic farce:
George Zimmerman's attorneys on Monday formally accused prosecutors of being unethical, saying that
for seven months, they hid a pair of lies by their most important witness, and that they should be punished for it.
The allegations, spelled out in a new court pleading, mark a new low in the case.
Defense attorneys Mark O'Mara and Don West have complained for months about Assistant State Attorneys Bernie de la Rionda and John Guy, saying they have refused repeated requests to turn over key pieces of evidence. This time, they've asked Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to fine and admonish them.
Prosecutors are required to release in a timely fashion information to a suspect if it might help prove his innocence. In this case, according to paperwork filed by O'Mara, de la Rionda and Guy have flouted that rule.
For seven months, they knew that the state's most important witness, a young Miami woman who was on the phone with TrayvonMartin just moments before he was shot, had lied about going to a hospital a few days later, according to the new paperwork.
De la Rionda learned the truth during an August 2 interview with her, O'Mara wrote, but although defense attorneys had asked de la Rionda and Guy's office for months about that fact and for records to support her claim, they did not disclose it until March 4.
They also hid for six months that she had lied when she claimed to be 16, something she told Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon's family, in a recorded interview March 19, 2012.
She was 18 at the time and is 19 now.
In the new paperwork, defense attorneys also complained that de la Rionda and Guy mislead the judge and them at an Oct. 26 hearing when they claimed they had turned over all reports generated by the FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Two weeks later, they surrendered 45 more, according to the pleading.
Those things were That was unethical and cost defense attorneys an enormous amount of time, as they tried to track down the truth, O'Mara wrote.
He asked the judge to order prosecutors to pay for all the hours defense attorneys have spent trying to prove what they should have disclosed. O'Mara did not offer that dollar figure but said he'd have it ready for an April 2 hearing.
De la Rionda's and Guy's office did not have an immediate response Monday evening.
Someone needs to kick this circus out of town and George Zimmerman allowed to resume what's left of his life.
Recent Comments