FBI still refused access to Benghazi – Why? Instead of answering questions, Obama admin creating them…

It has been more than two weeks since the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the FBI is still unable to access the US Consulate. Why? There was inadequate or no security to protect Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. Why? The White House lied about the murders being an act of terrorism. Why?  And why is the FBI being denied access to the crime scene?  Instead of answering questions, the Obama administration is creating them.

The Obama administration has continually lied to us.  They have either outright lied or withheld information on the Ft. Hood shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center shooting, the shameless security leaks, Fast and Furious,  and now the Benghazi massacre.  Nixon was forced to resign for lying to us – so should Obama!  If he won’t resign (which we know the narcissist would never do), he needs to be fired – before he destroys us all.

In a CNN interview Former Bush advisor Fran Townsend tells us:

“They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They’ve now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi.”

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.

“The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, ‘If we get there now, it’s not clear that it will be of any use to us,’” Townsend said.

The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the FBI’s request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in custody was denied.

 

And this from Hot Air:

Former CIA analyst Bob Baer also thinks the Libyans are being uncooperative, and says he can’t remember a case where the FBI’s been barred from the scene of an attack since Iran 1979. Why the Libyan government would refuse to let the feds in to look around, I have no idea, but it’s highly suspicious given that they’re potentially risking U.S. foreign aid by refusing the request. The alternative explanation, that they want to let the feds in but simply can’t reliably secure the area with so many militias running around, is actually worse because it underscores just how perilous the situation was for Chris Stevens and the consulate without a serious American security detail. That’s what ABC says is happening: Benghazi’s just too dangerous for a U.S. government agency to be picking through the rubble, even though CNN and other media have found ways to gain access to the site. And yet, apparently, Stevens’s superiors decided he’d be better off with less security, not more. Huh.

The coverup continues – worse than Watergate?  You decide – in November!  Your security, and that of your family and country depend on it.

CNN’s Don Lemon Skewers Wasserman Schultz on DNC’s ‘Accidental’ Omission of God and Jerusalem

The queen of lies has a tough time trying to wiggle out of CNN’s Don Lemon’s continued pressure to answer questions about her outright lies regarding The Examiner’s Phillip Klein interview and the DNC’s ‘accidental’ omission of God and Jerusalem from their platform.

 

When her candor was questioned, DWS answered “I have never been accused of being anything less than candid.”  That may be true Debbie, but you HAVE been accused of being less than truthful!

 

 

The Democrats must be soooooo proud of DWS and their God-booing abortionfest.  The Republicans had Clint Eastwood and an empty chair, the Democrats had Sandra Fluke and an empty head.  Yeah, I’d be proud of that record too Debbie!

 

If their motto is ‘FORWARD’, why are Dems walking so much back?!?

Now that all the excitement and hoopla have died down following the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, I have been trying to understand why the Democrats have spent so much time walking back recent comments and actions.  Isn’t their motto ‘FORWARD’?

 

Let’s take Obama’s remarks in Roanoke, VA in which he proclaimed that if you were successful in life “You didn’t do that on your own” and “You didn’t build that”.  Although the MSM and team Obama have consistently refuted his comments and claimed they were ‘taken out of context’, he is on record saying exactly that!

 

 

Then we had the DNC poster child, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was caught in a big lie by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.  After DWS accused the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein of taking her out of context, Klein released the audio proving her a liar.  Here is her interview with Anderson Cooper.

 

This was followed by the DNC’s sudden change of Thursday night’s venue from the Bank of America Stadium (seating 70,000) to the Time Warner Cable Arena (seating 20,000). The official reason was a prediction of possible severe weather. However, according to Charlotte’s WCNC TV Chief Meteorologist, Brad Panovich, the chance of rain was only 20% and there was no prediction of severe weather. Many wonder if the change of venue was more about ’empty chairs’ and less about the weather.

 

 

And who didn’t love the supposedly heartfelt speech by  ‘Steelworker’, David Foster, who told the story of how he and 750 steelworkers lost their jobs when the Bain-controlled company GST steel filed for bankruptcy in the early 1990s.  Funny thing, Foster never worked for GST!  According to ABC News, “David Foster was never an employee of GST Steel’s Kansas City plant. He was employed by the United Steelworkers of America as their regional union director to represent GST Steel.”  BUSTED!!!

Finally, we have the DNC’s removal of ‘God’ and ‘Jerusalem’ from their platform.  Following criticism and pressure from conservatives, the DNC hastily moved to add them.  Following three votes (which in the opinion of many did NOT meet the 2/3 majority requirement) and multiple ‘boos’, God and Jerusalem were reinstated.  I wonder just how prophetic the following scenario was – the majority of attendees ‘denied’ God three times……

 

 

In spite of a slate of young Hollywood stars and abortion supporters, the D ‘n C appeared to be more of a convention of contradiction than conviction. They seem to be perfecting the ‘Moonwalk’ – even though they are supposed to be moving FORWARD!

The Top 10 Most Outrageous Media Attacks Against Paul Ryan

By Randy Hall via Newsbusters

Now that Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has been named Mitt Romney’s running mate in the upcoming presidential election, we can expect the Democrats and the media to set new lows in their attacks on him.

Unfortunately, over the years, liberally biased journalists have had plenty of practice. Here’s our look at the top 10 most outrageous media attacks on Paul Ryan.

10. Ryan, GOP House wasting time making budgets

On the April 1 (no fooling) edition of “The Diane Rehm Show” on National Public Radio, the host could not bear to hear any Republican receive praise — especially Paul Ryan.

After her on-air guest, columnist Doyle McManus, called the Congressman’s budget “a huge, ambitious, bold budget that would restructure the tax system,” the host replied that the proposal is “going nowhere.”

Rehm then denounced Ryan for wasting “precious time” on his spending-cut proposals.

“You know what I don’t understand, frankly, is that everybody knew it was not going to go anywhere in the Senate. Why waste what precious time there is to pass a bill like this?”

Um, maybe perhaps because it is the job of the House of Representatives to create a budget per the U.S. Constitution and because the Democratically controlled Senate has literally refused to generate any kind of budget for the past three years?

9. David Gregory: Is Paul Ryan ‘a little too incendiary’ to be vice president?

During the Sunday, June 24, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked his guest, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), to comment on Ryan’s eligibility to become vice president:

“[T]he question, chairman, is whether a guy like Paul Ryan is a little too incendiary,” he said. “Would the left be able to really go to work on him because of his views about Medicare, because of his budget? Do you think Romney looks at that and says, ‘Boy, he’s attractive, he doubles down on my message, but he’d just be too much of a lightning rod?’ ”

Issa’s answer was perfect:

“This is a person of substance that I serve with in the House, I’m very proud to serve with, who has a lot of great ideas,” he stated. “If he’s not the vice president, he still is one of the people on the short list for key cabinet positions.

8. CNN cheers liberal nuns protesting Ryan budget

The Cable News Network praised a group of nuns lambasting the Ryan budget without bothering to include any response from the Wisconsin Congressman, who is a longtime Catholic.

“You go, girls!” CNN’s Carol Costello cheered the “Nuns on the Bus” tour, which received eight different mentions on the network from June 13 through July 3.

“Congressman Paul Ryan. I mean, he is a faithful Catholic, but he’s misguided,” asserted Sr. Simone Campbell. “Many politicians offer deeply flawed justifications for the federal budget. They ought to get some theological help.”

7. CBS anchor laughs in Ryan’s face after he won’t accept her ridiculous premise

During the CBS This Morning program on Friday, July 20, host Norah O’Donnell challenged Ryan’s correct assertion that keeping the current tax rates, instead of raising them as President Obama wants, ought not to be called cutting taxes.

“We’re just talking about keeping taxes where they are.”

“You’re afraid to call them tax cuts now?” O’Donnell laughed when Ryan confirmed his response and she replied: “Oh, Congressman, come on!”

Watch the video here.

6. Radio lunatic Thom Hartmann: Paul Ryan a ‘sociopath’

Liberal radio talk show host Thom Martmann, known for saying things that would have gotten Rush Limbaugh hounded off the air in minutes, decided to engage in a little bit of psycological projection about Ryan this past December:

“I am of the opinion that Paul Ryan is actually a sociopath, and I use that word very, very, very carefully,” Hartmann said. “And sociopaths are people who are typically, you know — Smart sociopaths can be incredibly charming. Ted Bundy, who was a sociopath and a serial killer, his sociopathy came out as a murderer.

“Sociopaths think that everybody else in the world is just an object to be manipulated, and that they’re the only people in the world who actually experience real emotions… and they can be very, very, very charming,’ he added

5. Schultz: ‘Republicans want violence to take place in our society’

Last October, Ed Schultz stated during his hour-long weekday program on MSNBC to accuse Ryan of nothing less than inciting a civil war.

After playing a clip of the Congressman describing the way President Obama is “sowing social unrest and class resentment,” the host stated:

“It’s outrageous what that guy just said! He is inciting civil war! That’s what he’s doing,” Schultz bellowed. “You take his comments, and you see exactly what they mean. It’s almost as if Republicans want violence to take place in our society.”

Schultz’s guest was fellow lunatic and former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, who added:

“For Paul Ryan or any Republican to talk about this, to talk about the president inciting the politics of division is much like O.J. saying he’s going to devote his life to finding the real killer. They’re the real killers,” he stated.

So in other words, accusing someone else of inciting civil war by promoting resentment and dividing people against each other is actuallya way of inciting civil war. I guess you must need a secret liberal decoder ring to understand the logic.

4. Bill Maher: Ryan a ‘heartless, smirking bastard’

No list of attacks on a Republican would be complete without a comment from self-described funnyman Bill Maher, who discussed Ryan last June:

“On the plus side, he has piercing blue bedroom eyes,” he stated. “On the minus side, he’s a heartless, smirking bastard, and the only people who can stand him are heartless, smirking bastards, and Mitt, you already have that vote locked up.”

Read the rest at Newsbusters

“Morning Joe” Takes Obama Camp To Task For Not Telling Truth On Obama Super PAC Ad – CNN Hammers Them

When MSNBC and CNN raise questions about the veracity of the Obama Super PAC Ad claiming Mitt Romney was responsible for the death of a female cancer victim, you know the Obama camp screwed up!   They also question the validity of Jay Carney and Stephanie Cutters’ denials of any involvement or knowledge of the ad.  Here is what Morning Joe had to say:

 

 

And this from CNN:

 

For those of us who do not believe for a moment that the White House had no involvement or knowledge of the ad, Matt Hadro at Newsbusters reports:

For the second straight day, CNN blew the whistle on a nasty and misleading Obama super PAC ad that ABC, CBS, and NBC entirely ignored as of Wednesday night. CNN hammered the ad, which links Mitt Romney to a woman’s death from cancer, each hour from 6 p.m. through 10 p.m. and twice grilled the man responsible for the ad, Bill Burton of Priorities USA.

“I think it is deliberately mendacious,” stated CNN’s Piers Morgan on Wednesday. “It is a deliberate attempt to lie and smear about Mitt Romney. And I find it contemptible. I mean I’m really appalled.” The three networks showed no such disdain for the ad which will air in battleground states, because they failed to even mention it on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Bill Burton was President Obama’s national press secretary during the 2008 campaign, a connection that CNN reported and which makes his super PAC’s ad all the more relevant during an election season where the media should be policing false and misleading ads.

“The President cannot hide behind a Super PAC on an ad as nasty as this one when that Super PAC is run by a friend and longtime deputy,” stated Erin Burnett. “Bill Burton knows the President’s ethics very well and it is fair to hold him up to this standard.”

“The facts on this ad don’t even add up,” reported Burnett. Anderson Cooper called it “a factually bogus ad from the leading pro-Obama super PAC.” Correspondent Brianna Keilar, whose critical fact-checking first aired on Tuesday evening, stood by her reporting on Wednesday.

“So it just seemed like there was very much an incomplete picture in this ad,” she said, adding “I think it’s inaccurate” and “there are a number of factors that aren’t mentioned in the ad.”

“When you do an ad that seems to leave the impression that he [Romney] was at least indirectly responsible for a woman dying from cancer, that is so powerful, that is so tough, that goes beyond what you guys should be doing,” host Wolf Blitzer lectured Burton.

Overall, CNN devoted over a half-hour of coverage to criticizing the ad on Wednesday from 6 p.m. through 9 p.m, although some of that airtime went to scrutinizing the Romney campaign’s campaign ad that CNN had whacked for dishonesty.

Read more at Newsbusters.

Here is the GOP ad in response to the Anti-Romney ad:

Will Obama Defy Supreme Court If ObamaCare Is Ruled Unconstitutional?

By Via Western Journalism

For 2 years, champions of ObamaCare have been careful to lay out the advantages of their federal dictatorship before handpicked audiences of organized labor and supportive media transcriptionists, at events where applause lines have been rehearsed and questions carefully pre-approved.

As a result, the Regime had little idea that anyone of importance might actually disapprove of their 3,000 page effort to separate Americans from their liberty.

So, much of the left entered the 3 day, oral argument phase of ObamaCare before the Supreme Court with the same arrogant exuberance which accompanied the passage of the law. After all, as they saw it, only the ruling of a couple of rogue jurists on the 11th Circuit had placed the left’s dream legislation in front of the 9 DC Justices anyhow. And as liberal CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin put it in 2010, challenges against the law were STILL unlikely to succeed, even before the Supremes.

But apparently, no one warned liberals like Toobin that arguing on behalf of an unprecedented assault on freedom before honest Supreme Court justices might result in a glitch or two in the left’s plans.

And that glitch has now been described as a “trainwreck” as Toobin and other ObamaCare cheerleaders mourn the reportedly disastrous Tuesday and Wednesday sessions before the Court.

For each of the conservative Justices brought up the same question in his own way: “What is the limiting factor in the law?” That is, if the Federal Government has the power to force the American people to buy insurance, what can it NOT force them to buy? What can it NOT force them to do?

The answer is NOTHING! For ObamaCare was never about health insurance. It’s about POWER. Healthcare was chosen simply as the most effective means of implementing and controlling it.

With congressional super-majorities and a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, the radical left was at last in position to affect the most audacious and comprehensive power grab in the nation’s history. And make no mistake, these people will not let it go easily.

Should the Court find the mandate unconstitutional and perhaps take down the entirety of ObamaCare, an assault will be launched against the voting justices, the legitimacy of their ruling, and the credibility of the Court itself. Obama’s media advocates will claim the usual victim classes of women and minorities to have once again been oppressed by the Right.

And Obama himself will pledge to fight the Supreme Court ruling for the good of the people always most sorely abused by the politics of the Right—blacks! Claims of genocide and racism will be repeated by the White House and Democrats in Congress. And their media “echo chamber” will make certain that the phony message is received across the nation.

In short, a correct and necessary ruling by the Supreme Court will be shamelessly utilized for the same hypocritical purpose as the death of Trayvon Martin—the motivation of black voters for the November election.

And should Obama win in November, he will continue the assault on the ruling, hoping to force the notoriously weak-kneed Republican leadership into revamping the law just enough to pass Constitutional muster. The American people will remain the slaves of deliberately thuggish legislation.

Of course, should the election go to Willard, Americans will have nothing to fear. After all, he would NEVER institute a mandatory healthcare scheme now, would he?!

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

For more information click here.

Hillary Clinton Urges Muslims To ‘Not Pay Attention’ To Republicans

Published in Fox News

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Sunday she may have been less  than diplomatic when she told an audience in Tunisia to “not pay attention” to  the rhetoric coming from the Republican presidential primary race. But she  doesn’t take back the gist of her comments.

Speaking Saturday in the first country to undergo the transformation of the  “Arab Spring,” the nation’s top diplomat was answering a question from an  audience member who asked how Arabs can trust candidates on both sides who “run  toward the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the states. And afterward,  once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like  Tunisia and Egypt.”

Without addressing the audience member’s question about supporting the Arab  “enemy,” Clinton, who was vanquished by Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary,  said that Tunisians will learn as their democracy grows that “a lot of things  are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention.”

“There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States,  don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean,  if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see  Muslim-Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to  the rhetoric,” Clinton said.

She then added that the audience should “watch what President Obama says and  does.”

“He’s our president. He represents all of the United States, and he will be  reelected president, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the  entire world as to what our values are and what our president believes,” she  said, adding that she is sometimes “a little surprised that people around the  world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most  Americans.”

“So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what  we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our president  represents,” Clinton said.

Clinton, whose post is supposed to be non-political, acknowledged Sunday that  her comments may have been overly exuberant.

“Probably my enthusiasm for the president got a little out of hand,” Clinton  told CNN when asked about the remarks, claiming that her remarks stem only from  wanting what’s best for the country.

Clinton said sometimes her political juices get  flowing and she needs to rein them in.

“I tried to dampen them down, get them taken out in  a blood transfusion, but they occasionally rear their ugly heads,” she said,  adding that the comments on the campaign trail don’t represent America.

“I know what happens in campaigns. I’ve been there,  done that, and I know that things are said that are not going to be put into  practice or policy,” she said. “I did think I needed to point that out to the  audience.”

Clinton’s partisan remarks, made after the president  this week was criticized for apologizing to Afghanistan’s president over the  unintentional mishandling of Korans by U.S. military personnel, are the third  this week from the administration declaring that Obama will win  reelection.

In an interview that aired Thursday, Obama stated in  a Univision interview that he will have “five more years” in office.   White House spokesman Josh Earnest followed that on Friday during the daily  press briefing, saying the president “will win.”

For more information click here.