Benghazi Attack was Blow-back for Obama's Secret Ops; Brennan Appointed CIA Chief to Cover-Up, Control Mess

The New York Times, and we hope Seymour Hersh in particular (see his articles on JSOC secret operation and stealth wars), will likely be all over this breaking story (see below) and new book which proves that the Obama Administration deliberately lied about the reasons for the Benghazi attack while tying together the loose ends that show why former CIA Chief Petraeus was removed (yes, by his own folly, but disclosed for a purpose) and why John Brennan has been appointed by Obama as CIA chief. 

These secret JSOC black ops (outside of CIA oversight and authority) that are taking place under Obama's Executive Authority are similar to precisely what Hersh exposed was happening under the Bush Administration.  Only the targets are different.  This "connects the dots" as to why the Benghazi story was so (deliberately) muddled officially and the sudden (convenient) scandal which ousted David Petraeus from being CIA chief (who was kept in the dark about these ops).

Hey liberals, do you still trust Obama now?  You did think that the scandal that brought down Petraeus and the official Benghazi story were a bit strange and somewhat related, didn't you?  They did not pass the smell test and this article and book sheds a lot of light on these two controversies.

Like we posted earlier about the Benghazi attacks (see article below), it was a classic case of what the CIA calls "blow-back" for the Obama Administration's secret policies.  Now you know the real reason that an "anti-Islamic video" on YouTube was blamed and why former Ambassador Susan Rice said what she said, when she did, in the running commentary.  It's called Plausible Deniability of covert operations by insertion of a "cover story" into the official narrative of the Executive Branch.  (It was for her personal loyalty that Obama staunchly defended Susan Rice against critics of her nomination for Secretary of State).  And
now we know that even the CIA, namely Petraeus, was in the dark about what was going on and why they "needed him removed" (so they could cover their tracks with Brennan in an official capacity).

Brandon Webb, a former Navy SEAL, and Jack Murphy, a former Green Beret, reveal the new claims in their book 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Petraeus was humiliated after a 'palace coup' by high-level intelligence
officers who did not like the way he was running the CIA

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276139/David-Petraeus-CIA-directors-bodyguards-exposed-affair-Paula-Broadwell-claims-Benghazi-The-Definitive-Report.html#ixzz2KXfJVTQ6

Behind closed doors, President Obama had given his counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, carte blanche to run operations in North Africa [i.e. including Libya] and the Middle East, provided he didn’t do anything that ended up becoming an exposé in The New York Times [e.g. by Seymour Hersh] and embarrassing the administration. In 2012, a secret war across North Africa was well underway.

The pieces all fit together so nicely now don't they?  The Truth always eventually Emerges!

The Cato Institute Fact-Checks, Responds to President Obama’s State-of-the-Union Address

Were you deceived by President Obama's speech? It actually began very well and sounded very good. The war in Iraq over, "all the troops home", the auto industry was saved by the great GM bailout and "millions of jobs were saved".

Listen to Cato's non-partisan analysis (which won't necessarily make war-mongering republicans who are stupidly eager to spark conflict with Iran happy either) and think again:


The Cato Institute Fact-Checks, Responds to President Obama's State-of-the-Union Address

Governor Flipper? Manchin Goes National with FOX Against Obama Policies

FOX News did a nationally broadcast interview (see video below) with Governor Manchin pressing him whether he has now flip-flopped in support of President Obama's policies, primarily health care reform, to save his political hide from Republican challenger John Raese who is presently leading in the polls by 6 points (with early voting starting soon). This directly addresses the ad campaign Raese has leveled at Manchin, justly pointing out that he would likely become a political partisan in Washington and "rubber stamp for Barack Obama" (as Rep. Shelly Moore Capito was accused of by state democrats with Bush), because that is what tends to happen there for anyone who desires to gain power and personal advancement. (And make no mistake, Manchin's ego insists on personal advancement above all). Raese struck a nerve, and it is working. Watch Manchin play defense, desperately.



So does he really mean what he says? Or, has John Raese forced the Governor into it, through political threat, and now Manchin is playing the pragmatist to win. Manchin has everything riding on this as far as his political future, and he was arrogant enough to think it would be easy. Well guess what. Governor Joe is finding out that the Tea Party movement in fact is non-partisan, and he is now shifting with the political wind.

But why then did he have Bill Clinton campaign with him in Morgantown today? Campaigning with Clinton was a stupid move and sends an entirely different message than to the one in this interview with FOX.

It is also sickening to hear him brag about West Virginia's good financial situation, as if he deserves the credit, when it was done only by passing Table Games legislation and expanding the State government via gambling revenues, when the majority in the state opposed it, and the State Constitution does not permit it, nor was amended. So make no mistake, the state finances were fixed only by dishonest, unconstitutional dirty dealing to create more Gambling Revenues, not by job expansion or attracting employers. So, "Governor Soprano" (as Raese called him once) seems to fit the way Manchin operates, and he is not above using slick shady dealings to get done what he wants. The governor is more pragmatist than principled, which makes where he stands uncertain.

Credibility will be the issue here, for if Manchin was critical of Obamacare and fiscal policies he did not say anything about it until now, when his Senate race is on the line. Voters will decide soon.

The Royal Presidency: The Cult of Modern Presidents

Since the founding of America the idea of the Divine Rights of Kings has been held as abominable and a doctrine that turned Kings into tyrants who could do whatever they pleased contrary to the common national will.  The idea of having kings became repugnant and the founders' Constitution installed the Presidency instead in a three-way balance of power.  Today, however, with Barack Obama coming before the public via various media constantly, the presidency has been expanded and enlarged to almost a dictatorial position.  Historically, this is a recent phenomenon. 

This excellent podcast is about how the role of U.S. president has radically changed in America in contrast to what the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers had in mind.  Especially beginning in the 20 century (as wars increased to a global scale) American presidents began to usurp more and more power and have become a "national leader" in attempt to control and set the agenda for the entire country instead of the more limited role originally intended.

This pod cast from Cato is a real eye-opener to just how excessive and dangerous presidents have become, irregardless of party.

Watch this at cato

CoerciveCare: 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Below are the first five. See the source for the rest. Then ask yourself why insurance companies (who establish rates by mathematical models of probabilities of risks and costs) would lower premiums, and not raise them, when they are forced to provide insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, or for all irregardless of physical condition or health risk. Answer: they will immediately begin to raise rates, like Blue Cross has done, irregardless of the number of new enrollees (which will increase their revenues significantly), because the number of enrollees never effects health insurance rates and premiums, which are built upon individual and collective risks.

Further, mandating that everyone buy health insurance from private companies, under threat of law, is not "providing better health care" for "millions of Americans", it is violating their Constitutional rights and freedom from arbitrary government powers for which Attorney General Darrell McGraw (who swore to uphold the Constitution when entering office) should join the other 13 States in suing for an injunction. McGraw stated that he would not join the lawsuit because the lawsuit is "political". But this is dishonest, for it is for "political" reasons that he will NOT join the lawsuits, even though his duty as AG is to uphold our legal rights and the U.S. Constitution, irregardless of political pressures, including the 10th amendment and the principles of private property. The government has no lawful power to command free American citizens to purchase anything whatsoever from private companies.

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

Obama Comes Clean on Coal With Capito and Republicans: To Be "Put Out of Business...Not Right Away"

Here in this MSNBC video where President Obama met with Republicans to square off in some debate (where he proves to be extraordinarily skilled at both recitation and rhetorical presentation of facts for debate purposes, without a script or teleprompter) he finally comes clean on his policy for coal.  This clip shows Rep. Capito questioning Obama on this issue important to all West Virginians and his response.  This should remove any doubts that in the long term Obama's goal is to "put the old [i.e. energy source--coal] out of business", just not "right away".  These are his words addressed directly to Capito's forthright question below (after mentioning he has met and enjoyed working with Governor Manchin, a "divide and conquer" strategy).  Note Obama ducks for water and prepares himself as if he knows the question coming.

The ambiguity is now removed.  The Obama administration wants coal phased out "in the long run".  Governor Manchin should mark this whenever he deals or meets again with the President or his EPA administration.  Senator Byrd has already alluded to this long term policy by pushing back West Virginians from making harsh criticism.  Is this why Obama never campaigned in West Virginia?  Will West Virginia be "phased out" as a major energy supplier "in the long run"?  This is what "change" is all about in the energy policy front, and here in West Virginia.  Now everyone knows for certain which way the "powers that be" are pushing.

It appears that Rep. Capito formed her Coal Caucus just in time, which just added Rep. Mollahan (D) to its ranks to form a defense against this aggressive (and rather Statist) policy to control energy industries for a Utopian global agenda.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tuning out the State of the Union--A Historical Perspective on the Modern Ritual

Tuning out the State of the Union | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary

...for most of the Republic's first century, the SOTU was a modest, informational affair. Presidents sent the written address to Congress, to be read aloud by a clerk. That was thanks to President Jefferson, who thought delivering the speech before Congress assembled smacked too much of a king's "Speech from the Throne."

When the power-hungry Woodrow Wilson overturned the Jeffersonian tradition in 1913, one senator cursed the revival of "the old Federalistic custom of speeches from the throne," calling it a "cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty."

The speech only got worse from there, especially after the advent of television and LBJ's decision to move the address to prime time. That sealed the SOTU's transformation into the modern ritual, in which the president stands at the front of the House chamber making exorbitant promises that would shame a carny barker, while congresscritters stand and clap like members of the Supreme Soviet cheering a Brezhnev speech.

 Cato Experts Live-Blogging Obama’s State of the Union Address

Barack W. Bush--Obama's "Preventive War" in Afghanistan

Obushma's Afghanistan war policy--the BUSH DOCTRINE CONTINUES. The word "terrorism" was hardly invoked, but "essential for our national interests....and attacks on our HOMELAND" implied the same thing. It's still all about the 9/11, and only the rhetoric has changed slightly.

See Rachel Maddow's MSNBC video analysis about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and proof that the Bush Doctrine continues. Powerful analysis.

clipped from www.theweek.com Afghanistan: Barack W. Bush? With his plans for an Afghanistan troop surge, some say Obama is embracing the "extremist" war policies of George W. Bush Obama's plan evokes Bush at his most despicable: "This year's Nobel Peace laureate just escalated the war in Afghanistan for the second time," says Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC talk show. Though Obama tried to frame the troop increase in his own terms, he called Afghanistan a preventative war. And "that's the Bush doctrine in all its Orwellian extremism…the concept of America at war, globally, indefinitely, against anyone at our own digression." (Watch the clip from "The Rachel Maddow Show") Same words, different president: If you compare Obama's Tuesday’s address with Bush’s January 2007 speech outlining his Iraq "surge," says Glenn Greenwald in Salon, you’d be hard pressed to find anything "new and innovative" in Obama’s rhetoric.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Copenhagen Treaty: US Sovereignty vs. Global Government

A remarkable oratory warning of a dangerous treaty about to be signed by Obama that will alter America's own self-government forever.

clipped from www.youtube.com

Alarmism vs. Realistic Threat Assessment of Terrorism--The Government Lies

CATO Institute offers some sanity in this short podcast from the typical propaganda and exaggerated threats about Terrorism that seem to justify the neoconservative (and now Obama) "war on terrorism" and Homeland "Security State" agendas. In fact they prove that the government's latest "WMD report" was based upon nothing, and therefore a fabricated lie to justify policy decisions.

West Virginia Ballot: Chuck Baldwin for President, Constitution Party

There is another choice for President, and we are not talking about Ralph Nader. These two brief videos outline the sharp contrast between Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate on West Virginia's ballot, versus John McCain, and Barack Obama.

West Virginians should consider a much better option for President and vote their conscience, for what they really want, instead of being herded into a compelled choice between a Nanny State (Communism) and Security State (Fascism), by two major party candidates who are both rated badly on gun rights, illegal immigration, the Constitution and our liberties, and especially unjust wars on pretenses of UN resolutions.

Both McCain and Obama are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that are moving America away from the Constitution and national sovereignty toward a new world order of global government from which no nation can opt out. (This is what is really behind the "war on terrorism"). Neither McCain nor Obama talk at all of changing the "war on terrorism", and outside of Iraq they both sound almost identicle in their willingness to continue to invade sovereign countries and continue battles for "regime change", now including even against Russia. Is not one of the primary "changes" desired by many Americans to stop unconstitutional, perpetual, and unjust wars against or within sovereign nations under pretense of a "war on terrorism", which is really a Democratic Jihad for global Democracy? Both McCain and Obama will continue or expand this war policy, which also ruins the economy by driving up oil prices (war fears drive the speculators trading of oil futures), national debt (now at a record high), which in turn leads to economic domestic inflation!

The neoconservatives in particular (originally from the radical left) have hijacked the republican party (which offered nothing more than RINO primary candidates, except Ron Paul) and have destroyed true conservative and Constitutional principles under the plea of "necessity" for a radical global revolution consistent with CFR purposes toward Global Democracy. While Obama is justly being vetted for his communistic collectivist principles McCain's own dangerous corruptions and socialist policies (like taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street banksters and foreclosing homeowners) are are of the same bad principles. The truth be said it is the neoconservatives who have provoked the "blow-back" against Bush government and republicans for their unconstitutional radicalism which is driving the "change" support to give Democrats a supra-majority in Congress, and perhaps take the White House for Obama. The fall of republican majorities, therefore, can be laid directly at the feet of the radical neoconservative RINOs that infiltrated hiding behind George W. Bush.

Republicans have also almost entirely lost their plank for "individual liberty" by supporting and pushing the most liberty-killing, anti-constitutional legislation (PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security, REAL ID, domestic spy powers, military for domestic policing, etc.) for a Security State that makes the Nanny State look almost tame. That government expanded under the watch of republicans supposedly against Big Government, increasing the national debt to over $10 Trillion, perhaps was the final straw that discredited and forfeited republicans authority to rule in the eyes of those who supported them. Neither McCain nor Obama offer anything to change this course. If Americans are not truly free from their own government's intrusiveness under the plea of "necessity", what freedom will there be left to defend?

McCain is no true conservative and his policies are scary. Between Obama and McCain you have a choice only of Socialism or Socialism Lite. But there is a third option, and if people do not vote for Principle they will only get corrupt Party representatives and never obtain what is just and right for themselves. Why support candidates whose principles you plainly do not believe in, just because they are the "lesser of two evils"? Continuing to vote for two parties and candidates that never bring the change you want is irrational and political insanity. Both play the Fear card to drive you to chose ONLY between one of them.

Take a look for yourself before you vote and then vote Principles over Party, unless you really do not want the real "change" that many of you say that you are really looking for.

Are you a Globalist or an American? Chuck Baldwin vs McCain and Obama

Obama, Clinton Secret Meeting--Bilderberg Conference Nearby

Why the secret meeting, ditching the press corps? After both made speeches to AIPAC it is worthwhile to note where their secret meeting subsequent took place, in Virginia. The annual Bilderberg Conference was 3 miles away from Dulles in Chantilly, VA. How convenient! And the article goes on to talk of Feinstein's much publicized alibi about meeting in her home (but not the entire time). Of course attending publicly would paint a "global elite" label on both of them. (Both of them are in fact members of the Council on Foreign Relations). This indeed would be a real contrast between what Obama campaigns on (supposedly against NAFTA and big corporations that outsource, etc.) when Bilderberg members represent the very anti-thesis of his position.

Still trust Obama or Hillary? (This is not an endorsement of McCain either). Read the article in full.

Note the source here is World Net Daily (not just the maligned "conspiracy sites") and the entire press reported the secrecy and ditching of Obama's press entourage in particular.

clipped from www.worldnetdaily.com Speculation about Obama, Clinton attending Bilderberger meeting WASHINGTON – Sen. Barack Obama ditched his unsuspecting press entourage yesterday to attend a secretive meeting with Sen. Hillary Clinton. But where did that meeting take place? Was it at the secretive Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Va.? So far, neither campaign is talking. The 56th Bilderberg meeting is still going on this weekend at the Westfields Marriott, according to various sources. But attendance is a well-guarded secret – along with the agenda, which tends toward the promotion of globalist ideas. Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed Clinton and Obama met but declined to inform the press of the location of the meeting. Members of the press were outraged over the way Obama's campaign organizers covered up the meeting. Dulles is just three miles from the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, where Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, among other globalists, are gathered for the annual Bilderberg Group

Obama, The Secret Six, and Black Liberation Theology--Civil War Continues

Obama has come under closer scrutiny due to his close association with, and membership in the church of, his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright who teaches what is being exposed as radical Black Liberation Theology.

A greater in depth look at the history of what is now called Black Liberation Theology has its roots and foundation in the original promoters of radical Abolitionism to end slave-holding, led by the Secret Six (see the book in Bookstore at bottom of blog) and the insane terrorist madman named John Brown, who advocated and did murder innocent whites families (including women and children) and raided the Federal Armory in Harpers Ferry (now West Virginia) in attempt to lead an Insurrection. (John Browns execution for treason was attended by both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, a kind of foreshadowing of the bloody conflict to come). This nakedly is what "liberation" in these radical minds is all about, i.e. social upheaval and revolution. It was this radical minority of Marxist terrorists that fueled a needless "Civil War", which cost over 600,000 lives (more than all US wars combined). Dishonest "Abraham" Lincoln (joining the radical "Red Republicans") promoted such Insurrection (as historians interpret it) in his Emancipation Proclamation which encouraged slaves to rise up and murder in the South with impunity, (while he admitted he had "no authority" to set free any slaves). Then "Martin Luther King", who painted himself as "Moses", leading the "children into the promised land" (of communist Utopianism, through trespassing, insurrection and revolution) continued what the radical Abolitionist terrorists left unfinished. (May we not exercise our right to "free inquiry" and "liberty of conscience" about these so-called "great men" today without being branded as "racists" by the politically-correct Inquisition?)

The Abolition movement of the communists and Red Republicans led to the Feminism and further insurrection in the so-called "Civil Rights" movement (that was neither Civil nor Right), and continues to promote a radical socialist and communist agenda that pushes government toward Collectivist policies, including taxation and welfare. Its radical roots reveals its true character.

When will Americans, resisting the power of coercive political-correctness, be willing to study and discuss this and be willing to trace it all to its core in Abolitionism, and its natural successor Feminism? Marxist revolutionary communism entered America in 1861 and seeks further revolution today under Black Liberation theology and the socialist agenda within the government since Reconstruction.

See also the article, The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology, whose author (a black theologian from Covenant Theological Seminary) was interviewed today on 58Live by Michael Agnello on WCHS talk radio. Also we highly recommend the book The Real Lincoln, also in the bookstore at the bottom of the blog.

clipped from www.law.umkc.edu The Trial of John Brown: The Secret Six Theodore Parker Liberal Transcendentalist Boston minister Theodore Parker was a strong supporter of Slave revolts, women's rights, temperance, and prison reform. His radicalism fueled by enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act, Parker participated in attempted rescues of fugitive slaves and formed a vigilance committee in Boston to fight those seeking to capture fugitive slaves. Parker wrote at the time of the Harper's Ferry attack, "One held against his will as a slave has a natural right to kill everyone who seeks to prevent his enjoyment of liberty." Dr. Samuel Gridley Howe Thomas Wentworth Higginson Franklin Sanborn Sanborn first provided money, arms, and books for Brown's activities in Kansas, then later at Harper's Ferry. Gerrit Smith He became so fearful that his connections to Brown would be exposed that he spent time in a lunatic asylum. George Luther Stearns Stearns hosted "the John Brown party" to celebrate the Emancipation Proclamation

OBAMA UNCOVERED: A Citizen's Guide to Barack Obama

This article is worth reading in its entirety and shows just how naive most democrats are. Following the crowd led by enthusiasts is just how things are done in a society that worships "American Idol(s)". The people are so easily misled, and they love it.

"AIPAC approved" should tell you most of what you need to know. Why do you think neocons like William Kristol (founder Project for New American Century) and Bill Bennett speak highly of him? Of course Hillary was even being coached via the backdoor by Bush in order to continue the neoconservative war agenda.

READ IT and see what "change" means, and what it does not. Democrats should be as dissatisfied with their two candidates at large as traditional republicans are with McCain.

clipped from onlinejournal.com He ain’t a saint: A citizen’s guide to Barack Obama By Carolyn Kay Online Journal Guest Writer Feb 13, 2008, 00:15 We Illinois progressives sent Obama to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. He’s not a progressive. But he’s a master at pretending to be one. “Obama is a company man.” His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics. My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, caught Obama using right-wing talking points on what to do about Social Security and about his health care plan. His voting record is pro-business and pro-war. He glorifies American imperialism. He flip-flopped on the Palestinians and Israel, and now is AIPAC-approved. He misuses history, according to a prominent historian. He, uh, stretches the truth. His chief political adviser is a Daley machine strategist. When are we Americans going to stop getting fooled and fooled and fooled again?