#benghazicoverup – read the archive
On September 11, 2013, Charles Woods appeared on Fox News’s Hannity and read aloud four questions about Benghazi from a letter he’d sent to President Obama.
Woods, whose son, ex-SEAL Tyrone Woods, was one of four Americans killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, added: “What we want are not just answers. We also want the truth.”
President Obama has now written in reply to Woods’ letter. This marks the president’s first response to direct questions about Benghazi since May of this year when he answered one question at a press conference. That particular question concerned aftermath “talking points,” not the attack itself.
Charles Woods’ questions for the president are very different. Rather than address post-attack spin control or even pre-attack security – as most press and politicians are wont to do – Woods’ questions for the president concern the attack itself.
These questions, which Woods would discuss later in September before the House Oversight Committee, are:
Why did the president not give “cross-border authority” to rescue the 30 Americans that needed to be rescued?
Cross-border authority is an order only the president can give to enable U.S. forces to cross an international border in action.
Who made the decision to “stand down,” and when and why was that decision made?
Woods told the House committee that while there is disagreement over whether an order to “stand down” was issued, credible evidence suggests that his son Ty and Ty’s fellow CIA security contractors, after registering the distress signal from the US compound under attack, were ordered to “stand down” not once but three times. In Charles Woods’ telling, it was after the third “stand down” order that Ty and his team disobeyed orders and finally left the CIA Annex to go rescue Americans, including Amb. Christopher Stephens, under fire at the compound.
Is it true that General Ham was relieved from duty for refusing to follow the order not to rescue?
Woods related to Congress that a general has told him that Carter Ham, then AFRICOM commander, was relieved of duty in the middle of the Benghazi attack. Immediately after the distress signal was relayed to Ham, and Ham was then told to stand down, Ham’s words, according to this general, were “Screw it.” “And within moments,” Woods recounted before the committee, “General Ham was relieved of his duty by an inferior officer.” Woods continued: “Now, the spin that was given by the administration was that this was a `pre-scheduled rotation’ of generals. Well, I think it’s an insult to the intelligence of the American community to say that a general in the middle of a battle would be relieved because of a `pre-scheduled rotation’ and especially by an inferior officer.”
Woods went on: “We need to have that direct testimony by General Ham — and it needs to be public so that the public, so that voters, can [assess] the credibility of who is telling the truth.” Woods added that the State Department report on Benghazi, also known as the ARB report, contradicts this claim about Ham, reporting on p. 37 that there was no denial of support by anyone in Washington. All the more reason for Congress to resolve this discrepancy by calling General Ham to testify in public testimony, Woods maintains, along with other witnesses who were actually on the ground, including “Ty’s friends.”
Woods’ final question for the president was father to father:
If the president’s child had been in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt have been more aggressive?
On September 27, Obama answered Woods with a five-paragraph letter. Four of the paragraphs are devoted to presidential boilerplate: “prayers,” “challenges,” “courage,” “security,” “justice,” “commitment,” and “service.”
One paragraph pertains to Woods’ questions about Benghazi.
On that tragic day, I directed my national security team to do everything possible to respond to the attacks against our people and facilities in Benghazi. The United States Government considered a range of options and deployed additional military capabilities, but as our military leaders have said, the military forces needed to carry out the type of operation you describe were not close enough to have made a difference. Please know that my actions would have been the same if the attack had been against my own family. The sad truth is that attacks happened so rapidly that U.S. forces could not arrive in time to prevent the loss of our brave Americans.
Notice there are no answers to Woods’ very specific operational questions. Not one. In fact, the only question Obama addresses is Woods father-to-father “child” question, which Obama broadens into a “family” answer to assert that his “actions would have been the same” regardless.
We know from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony before the Senate in February that after briefing President Obama about Benghazi, Panetta never heard from the president again during the attack. It’s hard to imagine that a commander-in-chief with a teenage daughter in Benghazi wouldn’t have checked in at least once with his SecDef to find out whether she had been rescued yet. But that’s just conjecture.
We know for a fact, however, that President Obama’s other answers to Charles Woods are either hotly disputed, demonstrably false, or an illogical evasion.
“On that tragic day, I directed my national security team to do everything possible to respond to the attacks against our people and facilities in Benghazi.”
There is no evidence of such a presidential directive. Nor is there evidence it was carried out.
“The United States Government considered a range of options and deployed additional military capabilities”
But not during the attack. Not a single Pentagon asset was “in motion before the attack concluded,” as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put it on questioning both Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, both of whom could only point to the aircraft that were dispatched to evacuate survivors after the attack.
“but as our military leaders have said, the military forces needed to carry out the type of operation you describe were not close enough to have made a difference.”
This remains one of Benghazi’s disputed points. Defense of the Obama line, though, includes such hard-to-believe statements as when Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey declared to the Senate that it could have taken up to 20 hours to get an F-16 from Aviano, Italy to Libya.
“Please know that my actions would have been the same if the attack had been against my own family.”
Hard to imagine, but impossible to know.
“The sad truth is that attacks happened so rapidly that U.S. forces could not arrive in time to prevent the loss of our brave Americans.”
However often we hear this line, it makes no sense. When the Benghazi compound came under attack on September 11, 2012 at around 5 PM Washington time, there was, of course, no projected end-time, nor could there have been. No one knew or could have known that the fighting would span roughly eight hours. Not a single Pentagon asset, and not a single NATO asset, however, was deployed by the Obama administration to rescue Americans as the attack unfolded.
Why not? We still don’t know.
President Obama’s letter to Charles Woods provides more answers—but not the truth. source – Breitbart
Obama’s Groundhog Day nightmare for the American people
For four years now, we have been telling you and telling you, over and over, the astonishing parallels between the rise of Adolf Hitler and the rise of Barack Obama. We mapped out 13 similarities between Hitler and Obama that make our case clearly and concise. Now Bloomberg today puts out a story that Obama’s government would be the ONLY nation since Nazi Germany to declare default. Are you surprised…not even a little? Didn’t think you would be. Germany’s past is America’s future.
From Bloomberg: Reneging on its debt obligations would make the U.S. the first major Western government to default since Nazi Germany 80 years ago.
Germany unilaterally ceased payments on long-term borrowings on May 6, 1933, three months after Adolf Hitler was installed as Chancellor. The default helped cement Hitler’s power base following years of political instability as the Weimar Republic struggled with its crushing debts.
“These are generally catastrophic economic events,” said Professor Eugene N. White, an economics historian at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “There is no happy ending.”
The debt reparations piled onto Germany, which in 1913 was the world’s third-biggest economy, sparked the hyperinflation, borrowings and political deadlock that brought the Nazis to power, and the default. It shows how excessive debt has capricious results, such as the civil war and despotism that ravaged Florence after England’s Edward III refused to pay his obligations from the city-state’s banks in 1339, and the Revolution of 1789 that followed the French Crown’s defaults in 1770 and 1788.
Failure by the world’s biggest economy to pay its debt in an interconnected, globalized world risks an array of devastating consequences that could lay waste to stock markets from Brazil to Zurich and bring the $5 trillion market in Treasury-backed loans to a halt. Borrowing costs would soar, the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency would be in doubt and the U.S. and world economies would risk plunging into recession — and potentially depression.
Senate leaders of both parties are negotiating to avert a U.S. default after a lapse in borrowing authority takes effect Oct. 17, even as senators block legislation to prevent one and talks between the White House and House Republicans have hit an impasse. Democratic lawmakers said Oct. 12 that the lack of movement may have an effect on financial markets. After Oct. 17, the U.S. will have $30 billion plus incoming revenue and would start missing payments sometime between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Germany, staggering under the weight of 132 billion gold marks in war reparations and not permitted to export to the victors’ markets, was a serial defaulter from 1922, according to Albrecht Ritschl, a professor of economic history at the London School of Economics. That forced the country to borrow to pay its creditors, in what Ritschl calls a Ponzi scheme.
“Reparations were at the heart of the issue in the interwar years,” Ritschl said in a telephone interview. “The big question is why anyone lent a dime to Germany with those hanging over them. The assumption must have been that reparations would eventually go away.”
While a delinquent corporation may go out of business, be broken up, sold to a competitor, or otherwise change its shape, sovereign defaulters are different. Weimar Germany deferred payments, stopped transfers, reformed the currency and wrote down debt, wringing a series of agreements from its creditors before the Nazis repudiated the obligations in 1933.
It took until the 1953 London Debt Agreement to lay to rest the nation’s reparations difficulties, essentially by postponing any payments until after reunification in 1990 of East and West Germany, according to Timothy Guinnane, Professor of Economic History at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. The U.S., eager to ensure Germany was a bulwark against communism, pressured creditors to agree to debt relief, according to Guinnane.
“The U.S. was not being generous or magnanimous in the London Debt Agreement, it rarely is,” Guinnane said in an e-mail. “Rather, it understood that if Germany was forced to repay all the debts it technically owed, it would put the new Federal Republic under intolerable political and economic strain.”
Payments on about 150 million euros ($203 million) of bonds issued to fund reparations ended in October 2003, according to the Associated Press.
After sovereign defaults and before a nation is allowed to borrow again, some sort of repayment is typically made, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff wrote in their 2009 book on sovereign bankruptcies “This Time Is Different.” While Russia’s Bolshevik government refused to pay Tsarist debts, when the country re-entered debt markets it negotiated a token payment on the debt, according to the book.
Germany and France have both defaulted eight times since 1800, according to Reinhart and Rogoff. While Germany was sufficiently big and strategically important to be helped to peaceful prosperity by its creditors, default typically doesn’t end well for smaller nations.
Serial defaulters Argentina and Greece have retained political, if not economic independence. The Latin American nation failed to meet its commitments five times since 1951 and in 2001 gained the record for the largest-ever restructuring, a distinction it held until overtaken by Greece in 2012. Argentina’s bondholders are still pursuing the nation through the courts.
Including 2012, Greece has defaulted six times since 1826, three years before it gained independence, and has spent more than half the years since 1800 in default, according to Reinhart and Rogoff.
The biggest emerging-markets defaults in the past 15 years illustrate the cycle of contagion that typically marks sovereign debt crises.
Russia halted payments on $40 billion of local debt in 1998 after oil, its main export, plunged 42 percent amid a global economic slowdown triggered by the Asian financial crisis. By the time it devalued the ruble and defaulted that August, the government had drained about half its foreign reserves and made an unsuccessful bid to increase the $22.6 billion international aid package it had received.
Russia’s debt restructuring prompted investors to pull out of emerging markets, plunging Argentina into recession. By December 2001, when the South American country halted payments on $95 billion of bonds, the economy had contracted three successive years, cutting into tax revenue and pushing foreign reserves down to almost a six-year low.
Those defaults took place because events had rendered the nations insolvent, something that doesn’t apply to the U.S., said the LSE’s Ritschl. “The only situation that really parallels the U.S. situation at present is the U.S. situation,” he said. “There’s really no doubt about the solvency of the U.S. Treasury.” source – Bloomberg
WASHINGTON – Thousands of people converged on the World War II Memorial on the National Mall on Sunday morning and tore down the barricades blocking it off, protesting the closure of the memorial during the federal government shutdown.
Beginning at about 9:30 a.m., Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, as well as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, were among the luminaries in a crowd that chanted “Tear down these walls!” and sang “God Bless America” as well as other patriotic songs as they entered the memorial, which has been closed since the government shutdown that began Oct. 1.
Tractor-trailers headed down 17th Street toward the Mall, blaring their horns. The Metropolitan Police Department blocked off the street, prompting the crowd to head up the street, shouting at the police to move their vehicles.
Cruz said that President Obama was using veterans as political pawns in the shutdown.
By 11 a.m., the group had headed back to the memorial, and dozens congregated around World War II veterans, shaking their hands and thanking them for their service.
Later in the morning, veteran Mike Lauriente was accepting handshakes from demonstrators. He served in Sicily and French Morocco, and declared the memorial, which he was seeing for the first time, beautiful. “The spirit that I see here is overwhelming.” source – WTOP
Dems calling for martial law
Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee used obscure language to characterize the push for a clean resolution which would end the government shutdown, labeling it a form of “martial law.”
Advocating for the passage of a clean continuing resolution that would, at least temporarily, end the current standoff in Washington and reopen the government, Lee said there were enough members of Congress who would vote for the resolution.
“It’s something called a continuing resolution, but it’s a bill that you put on the floor that has been passed already by Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate….that we could vote on today,” said Lee, adding, “We have martial law – what that means – and my colleagues know what it means – is that you can put a bill on in just minutes.”
The term “martial law” in a legislative context is somewhat obscure but it has been used before to define lawmakers’ ability to “fast track” bills without going through the usual congressional process.
However, Lee’s insistence that a Senate-approved resolution to fund the federal government be fast-tracked via “martial law” appears to conflict with Article I, Section 7, Clause I of the Constitution, which states, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
This clause was included by the founders to ensure that decisions related to the power of the purse reside with the legislative body which is closest to the American people.
The last time martial law was mentioned by a member of Congress was back in 2008 when Rep. Brad Sherman revealed how lawmakers were threatened with “martial law in America” by then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson if they rejected the TARP bailout package. source – InfoWars
RELATED STORY: Barack Hussein Obama and the Rise of Adolf Hitler
We have had 65 years of newsreel footage to show us, teach and instruct us on how Hitler was able to create Nazi Germany with the consent of the German people by virtue of his hypnotizing demonic speaking ability. Have we learned nothing from all that?
Today, Barack Obama is changing times and laws in America, giving himself unprecedented power never before seen. His ObamaCare bill, now the law of the land, empowers him to create his own private army, forces citizens to abide by unconstitutional laws, and will use the IRS in much the same way that Hitler used his brown shirts to make people get in line behind his policies. Americans are awakening – too late! - to the fact that Obama has subverted the United States Constitution, and stolen our precious liberties and freedoms.
Obama has done the unthinkable. He has created a National Socialist State Of America, and you, the American people allowed him to do it.
Orlando: Many people signing up for health care in Florida through the Affordable Care Act have been shocked when they have to give proof of their credit score before they finish the process.
Anne Packham, one of many people licensed by the state to help people navigate the government’s website, said on Tuesday that the credit check occurs so providers can make an educated decision about who to insure.
“If someone is defaulting on all of their bills they may not want to have them as part of their health plan,” said Packham, the lead Navigator in Florida.
Participants with low credit scores could end up paying higher premiums, according to Packham, who said that ultimately the insurance company makes the call.
The government website healthcare.gov has regularly been bogged down, oftentimes showing users a message saying, “We have a lot of visitors on the site.”
“We have a mixed bag right now,” said Packham, referring to users being able to successfully navigate the site. source – WKMG Orlando
Sending a message
What you see happening here in our story today illustrates a larger principle. By doing this, Obama was showing two things, and they are:
- His desire to make 11,000,000 illegal immigrants citizens, thereby swamping the entitlement system until it snaps in half. Cloward-Piven 101.
- His utter contempt for America, our way of life, and for our service men and women. What better way to show that then to publicly arrest war veterans as they visit war memorials?
Fox News: A pro immigration reform rally was underway Tuesday on the National Mall despite the fact that national memorials have been closed during the government shutdown. The development comes in the wake of outrage over the fact that several groups of World War II veterans had to resort to breaking down barriers to gain access to the monument built in their honor.
It wasn’t immediately clear why the rally was allowed to be held during the shutdown but David Bossie of conservative non-profit group Citizens United speculated that it was being claimed as a “First Amendment issue.”
The park police told Camerota in an email that their officers are “at full capacity during the shutdown to protect life and property.” source – Fox News
The Obamacare nightmare
The policy contains many standard statements about information automatically collected regarding Internet browsers and IP addresses, temporary “cookies” used by the site, and website accessibility. However, at least two conditions may give some users pause before proceeding.
The first is regarding personal information submitted with an application for those users who follow through on the sign up process all the way to the end. The policy states that all information to help in applying for coverage and even for making a payment will be kept strictly confidential and only be used to carry out the function of the marketplace. There is, however, an exception: “[W]e may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.” Here is the entire paragraph from the policy the includes the exception [emphasis added]:
Should you decide to apply for health coverage through Maryland Health Connection, the information you supply in your application will be used to determine whether you are eligible for health and dental coverage offered through Maryland Health Connection and for insurance affordability programs. It also may be used to assist you in making a payment for the insurance plan you select, and for related automated reminders or other activities permitted by law. We will preserve the privacy of personal records and protect confidential or privileged information in full accordance with federal and State law. We will not sell your information to others. Any information that you provide to us in your application will be used only to carry out the functions of Maryland Health Connection. The only exception to this policy is that we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.
The site does not specify if “appropriate authorities” refers only to state authorities or if it could include the federal government, as well. Neither is there any detail on what type of law enforcement and/or audit activities would justify the release of the personal information, or who exactly is authorized to make such a determination. An email to the Maryland Health Connection’s media contact seeking clarification has not yet been answered
The second privacy term that may prompt caution by users relates to email communications. The policy reads:
If you send us an e-mail, we use the information you send us to respond to your inquiry. E-mail correspondence may become a public record. As a public record, your correspondence could be disclosed to other parties upon their request in accordance with Maryland’s Public Information Act.
Since emails to the marketplace could conceivably involve private matters regarding finances, health history, and other sensitive issues, the fact that such information could be made part of the “public record” could prevent users from being as free with their information than they might otherwise be. However, as noted, any requests for such emails would still be subject to Maryland’s Public Information Act which contains certain exceptions to the disclosure rules. source – Weekly Standard