Bill Marshall Judicial Watch interviews Jack Cashill relating to the yet to be released book “Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency”. After the video cross post I’m adding a Jack Cashill authored article from WND from 10/10/19 on the same Obama subject matter.
When or if you hear Obama, Biden or the MSM say there was not even a smidgen of a scandal, IT’S A FREAKING LIE!
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
Judicial Watch Senior Investigator Bill Marshall interviews Jack Cashill, author of “Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency” to discuss the corruption scandals of the Obama administration–and how they are still relevant to this day.
In researching the Obama presidency for my upcoming book, “Unmasking Obama,” I cannot help but see a leadership pattern that runs throughout.
Although concocted to explain America’s role in the misbegotten invasion of Libya, the phrase “leading from behind” just about wraps it up.
Barack Obama orchestrated almost nothing during his eight years in the White House. He fronted for stuff. That was his M.O.
He was not the kind of person to give orders. More like England’s Henry II, who reportedly said of Thomas Becket, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest,” Obama made suggestions.
Obama made one particular suggestion during an April 10, 2016, appearance on a Fox News Sunday morning show with Chris Wallace.
When asked about Hillary Clinton’s non-secure email system, Obama opined, “She has acknowledged – that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she … recognizes.”
That conceded, Obama added, “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security.”
The task fell to the now notorious Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead investigator on the email case, to align the FBI’s messaging with the White House’s.
On June 6, 2016, he changed the language in an earlier draft by his boss James Comey from “gross negligence” – the exact words in the Espionage Act – to “extremely careless.”
On July 5, Comey closed the curtain on Act I of Trump-Russia by accusing Hillary only of extreme carelessness and clearing her of criminal charges.
Like Obama, Comey insisted Hillary had no intent to damage national security, although her intent was clearly irrelevant in terms of the law.
Freed from his role in heading up the Clinton investigation, Strzok was conveniently appointed to head up Trump-Russia.
“You’re meant to protect the country from that menace,” his FBI lover Lisa Page texted him on Aug. 5, the “menace” being Trump.
“I’ll try to approach it that way,” the heroic Strzok responded. “I can protect our country at many levels.”
Strzok would have help. Later that same day, Aug. 5, he attended a major inter-agency gathering on the Trump investigation.
Obama’s near immunity from criticism encouraged his co-conspirators to think they could take out the newly elected president of the United States and get away with it.
Strzok quoted an unnamed big shot, possibly the CIA’s John Brennan (name redacted), as saying, “The White House is running this.”
Strzok told Page he pushed back. This was classic turf war. The White House, he believed, was intruding on FBI turf. Strzok wanted this job for himself.
On Aug. 15, Strzok memorably signaled the shared motive of all the conspirators. “There’s no way [Trump] gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” he texted Page. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
In June 2017, the Washington Post published an exhaustive article detailing the reason for the Aug. 5 meeting Strzok attended.
Brennan had sent an “intelligence bombshell” directly to Obama. This “eyes only” report allegedly had sourcing deep inside the Kremlin, and it outlined “Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.”
This bombshell was likely the absurd Steele dossier or some variation thereof. According to the report, Putin was not just meddling in the campaign but was actively trying to defeat Hillary and elect Trump.
“It took time,” said the still wide-eyed Post, “for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view.”
In June 2017, when this article was published, the Post believed “Russia’s interference was the crime of the century.”
It was no such thing, but in documenting the White House’s multi-level response to the alleged threat, the Post sheds light on what was the crime of the century, the White House’s framing of Donald Trump for collusion with Russia.
In his 2018 memoir, “The World As It Is,” Obama foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes provides a sneak preview of what may prove to be the last messaging campaign of the Obama presidency.
According to insiders, Rhodes was the most influential of Obama’s foreign policy advisers. In the waning days of the Obama administration no foreign policy issue was more critical than Russia’s alleged meddling in the American election.
From Fast and Furious to IRS abuse of the tea party, Obama insisted he learned about his administration’s assaults on justice and common decency only by hearing about them in the media.
The Washington Post article was headlined “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault.” After reading it, only the media will believe Rhodes’ claim that Obama “had no idea” the FBI was investigating Trump-Russia.
The memoir Obama was paid mega-bucks to write is reportedly way beyond schedule. Obama is in something of a bind. He does not yet know which crimes and misdemeanors he “had no idea” about.
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
Unmasking the Obama Administration | Inside Report
Last night I was watching my favorite Prime Time news show in Hannity. Sean Hannity’s opening monologue was AWESOME! Fox News (and a few other youtubers) posted the entire 12/6/17 show on Youtube. The Youtube of Hannity’s show is about 38 minutes long on the Davi Henrique Youtube Channel. The opening monologue begins roughly at the 2:25 mark.
The Hannity opening monologue is about Mueller and team being a Deep State manipulating operation with the goal of taking down President Trump. The Fox News Youtube Channel focuses just on the Opening Monologue and is about 16:55 minutes. Watch and be enlightened!
Michael Flynn ousted by Dem fake outrage and MSM fake news, WHY?
The experts I have heard claim to the best of their knowledge that Flynn broke no laws by communicating with the Russians prior to President Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017. Rather the resignation occurred because of the Dem harassment and Flynn apparently lied about the content to Vice President Pence.
AND YET the Dems are still crucifying both Flynn and Trump over a communication that was quite normal for a presidential transition team from election day through Inauguration Day.
The “WHY” has volumes to do with former President Barack Hussein Obama trying to destroy the Trump Administration alaAlinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.
President should rethink not going after traitors of the former Obama Administration in draining the swamp – AS IN GOING AFTER THE TRAITORS!
The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.
The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.
The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.
Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump’s inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump’s national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beaconfirst reported on this effort in January.
Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the situation and avoid interfering with the White House’s official narrative about Flynn, which centers on his failure to adequately inform the president about a series of phone calls with Russian officials.
Flynn took credit for his missteps regarding these phone calls in a brief statement released late Monday evening. Trump administration officials subsequently stated that Flynn’s efforts to mislead the president and vice president about his contacts with Russia could not be tolerated.
However, multiple sources closely involved in the situation pointed to a larger, more secretive campaign aimed at discrediting Flynn and undermining the Trump White House.
“It’s undeniable that the campaign to discredit Flynn was well underway before Inauguration Day, with a very troublesome and politicized series of leaks designed to undermine him,” said one veteran national security adviser with close ties to the White House team. “This pattern reminds me of the lead up to the Iran deal, and probably features the same cast of characters.”
The Free Beacon first reported in January that, until its final days in office, the Obama administration hosted several pro-Iran voices who were critical in helping to mislead the American public about the terms of the nuclear agreement. This included a former Iranian government official and the head of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which has been accused of serving as Iran’s mouthpiece in Washington, D.C.
Since then, top members of the Obama administration’s national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have toldreporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump’s foreign policy.
“It’s actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today,” said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. “They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced.”
Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.
Flynn is now “gone before anybody can see what happened” with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House.
Sources in and out of the White House are concerned that the campaign against Flynn will be extended to other prominent figures in the Trump administration.
One senior White House official told the Free Beacon that leaks targeting the former official were “not the result of a series of random events.”
“The drumbeat of leaks of sensitive material related to General Flynn has been building since he was named to his position,” said the official, who is a member of the White House’s National Security Council. “Last night was not the result of a series of random events. The president has lost a valuable adviser and we need to make sure this sort of thing does not happen again.”
Other sources expressed concern that public trust in the intelligence community would be eroded by the actions of employees with anti-Trump agendas.
“The larger issue that should trouble the American people is the far-reaching power of unknown, unelected apparatchiks in the Intelligence Community deciding for themselves both who serves in government and what is an acceptable policy they will allow the elected representatives of the people to pursue,” said the national security adviser quoted above.
“Put aside the issue of Flynn himself; that nameless, faceless bureaucrats were able to take out a president’s national security adviser based on a campaign of innuendo without evidence should worry every American,” the source explained.
Eli Lake, a Bloomberg View columnist and veteran national security reporter well sourced in the White House, told the Free Beacon that Flynn earned a reputation in the Obama administration as one of its top detractors.
“Michael Flynn was one of the Obama administration’s fiercest critics after he was forced out of the Defense Intelligence Agency,” said Lake, who described “the political assassination of Michael Flynn” in his column published early Tuesday.
“[Flynn] was a withering critic of Obama’s biggest foreign policy initiative, the Iran deal,” Lake said. “He also publicly accused the administration of keeping classified documents found in the Osama bin Laden raid that showed Iran’s close relationship with al Qaeda. He was a thorn in their side.”
Lake noted in his column that he does not buy fully the White House’s official spin on Flynn’s resignation.
“For a White House that has such a casual and opportunistic relationship with the truth, it’s strange that Flynn’s ‘lie’ to Pence would get him fired,” Lake wrote. “It doesn’t add up.”
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated in his daily briefing that “the evolving and eroding level of trust as a result of this situation and a series of other questionable incidents is what led the president to ask General Flynn for his resignation.”
A third source who serves as a congressional adviser and was involved in the 2015 fight over the Iran deal told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration feared that Flynn would expose the secret agreements with Iran.
“The Obama administration knew that Flynn was going to release the secret documents around the Iran deal, which would blow up their myth that it was a good deal that rolled back Iran,” the source said. “So in December the Obama NSC started going to work with their favorite reporters, selectively leaking damaging and incomplete information about Flynn.”
“After Trump was inaugurated some of those people stayed in and some began working from the outside, and they cooperated to keep undermining Trump,” the source said, detailing a series of leaks from within the White House in the past weeks targeting Flynn. “Last night’s resignation was their first major win, but unless the Trump people get serious about cleaning house, it won’t be the last.”
Blog Editor: Of interest of post-President Obama agenda:
Adam Kredo is senior writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Formerly an award-winning political reporter for the Washington Jewish Week, where he frequently broke national news, Kredo’s work has been featured in outlets such as the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and Politico, among others. He lives in Maryland with his comic books. His Twitter handle is@Kredo0. His email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
“How stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” —Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989
The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that is not being fully covered by other news organizations.
The Beacon’s chairman is Michael Goldfarb. Its editor in chief is…READ THE REST
Most Conservatives are very aware that President Barack Hussein Obama is a liar as well as his Executive Branch flunkies. The Dems and the American Left have been making excuses for those lies by denial of the obvious, deceptive misdirection and/or cover-ups.
As part of the Obama Administration lies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illegally used a private email server that included the use of emailing classified information. Hillary’s misdirection was other Secretaries of State used private email servers but failed to mention that most of Secretaries did not have restrictive laws in place. Hillary’s next misdirection was claiming nothing on her server was marked as classified at the time but only later. That deceptive lie was used even knowing that the potential emailing of information that might later be marked classified was and is illegal by law. Hillary also ILLEGALLY deleted thousands of emails trying to cover-up her blatant misuse of a private email server that combined both sensitive (later marked classified) and business dealings that included nefarious foreign fund raising for the Clinton Foundation in exchange for Hillary favors. Here are three journalistic claims of illegality by Hillary:
Trust me there are more lies and cover-ups but I want to get to the one in which the Obama Administration has been caught lying to the American people and to Congress about the Iran Nuke Deal which was only a deal for Iran with zero plausible vetting by the U.S. government. Most auspiciously the Iran Nuke Deal lies were exposed by Ben Rhodes flapping his mouth either unintentionally or “braggadociously” that lies were used on Americans to gain the deals acceptance. AND the cover-up was further exposed when the admission happened that some mysterious person ordered a portion of a Press Conference exchange between State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki and Fox News correspondent James Rosen was deleted from public viewing.
Psaki/Rosen press conference State Department cover-up is exposed:
Little more than a month ago, senior Obama adviser Ben Rhodes let slip, either unwittingly or braggadociously, that he and others had essentially lied to the media and American people about the Iran nuclear deal in order to advance the administration’s narrative.
This admission raised a number of questions regarding the truthfulness of prior statements from Obama officials about the deal, compelling some to go back and check archived video of past press conferences, which in turn led to the discovery that a pertinent exchange during a 2013 State Department press conference had been edited out of the record.
That edit of an exchange between Fox News reporter James Rosen and then-State spokeswoman Jen Psaki, in which she admitted with a wink and a nod that the administration lies to keep certain information private, was initially dismissed as nothing more than a “glitch.”
However, it has now been admitted by spokesman John Kirby that the edit was no glitch, but a deliberate erasure of the record on orders from on high in the administration.
Speaking to the crew of Fox’s “The Five,” Rosen said it was “significant” that the administration effectively admitted to lying about covering up a prior admission of lying.
“I think this is a significant moment insofar as we have the United States government essentially admitting here that its spokespeople lied from the State Department podium, that they then admitted that from the State Department podium, and then tried to cover up that admission by deleting the official archive of this material, and so I’m honored to play some small role in holding our public officials to account, and we’ll see if this is the end of it,” Rosen explained.
However, the new-found truthiness of at least one member of the Obama administration only went so far, for while Kirby admitted that the edit to the tape had been ordered, he claimed not to know who had given that order.
Rosen and the rest weren’t buying that excuse, though, with Rosen surmising, “If you remember being asked to do it, you probably have a very good chance of remembering who asked you to do it.”
“The Five” co-host Dana Perino, former spokeswoman for the Bush administration, thought Rosen was too nice in his assessment of the situation, saying, “I think that their explanation falls well short of acceptable, because one, it is a violation of the Federal Records Act. It has to be.”
This administration lies, the lies about lying, then lies about lying about lying. Then, on the rare occasion that it actually slips up and tells the truth, it quickly reverts to lies and subterfuge to counteract and cover up the truth with more lies and deception.
This from the “most transparent administration in history” no less.
Conservative Tribune is a news outlet that spreads conservative news and commentary across America. It hosts ConservativeTribune.com, a website dedicated to defending and advancing the principles of liberty, freedom, and prosperity.
Conservative Tribune delivers news to over 25 million people every month, ranking the site as a Top 250 most visited website in the United States, according the site metric tracker,Alexa. In fact, Conservative Tribune was the most shared publisher on Facebook in July 2015, according to Newswhip.
ConservativeTribune.com is a property of Liftable Media Inc., a Top 100 digital publisher in the U.S. (Quantcast)
News and stories on Conservative Tribune are curated by an excellent team of journalists who are dedicated to advancing the values of Conservative Tribune. ConservativeTribune.com is a Top 25 Facebook publisher, according toNewsWhip.
Interested in writing for us? Fill out an interest form.
Remarkably the New York Times (a Left-oriented News Paper) has exposed one of President Barack Hussein Obama facilitators between the Administration and the press. Ben Rhodes was tasked to selling the Iran Nuke deal and manipulated the press info on Iranian Navy boarding an American Navy vessel and humiliating U.S. sailors. Rhodes relationship to Obama is evidently chief liar to the American voter. David Samuels wrote a masterful profile on Rhodes showing that political manipulation and misdirection that painted a picture of dealings with Iran that simply and deceptively did not exist.
In essence the Obama-Rhodes team is a propaganda machine that sells a bill of goods based on deception. Since parallels in history tend to repeat over the years you should ask yourself, “What political duo in history reminds of present day Obama-Rhodes?”
I’ll tell you what time in history struck me. The Obama-Rhodes propaganda team reminds of the Hitler-Goebbels team that convinced Germans that the Nazi Party goals and ideals would transform Germany into a master of nations.
The difference between Obama-Rhodes/Hitler-Goebbels are the tactics of global domination. Hitler viewed military power to impose Nazism in ruthless world domination coloring every nefarious action as a glorious moment for the Aryan race. Obama is a Leftist globalist utilizing Gramsci’s Marxist principles of stealth to transform nations from within by delegitimizing the indigenous culture slowly. If slow delegitimizing of culture is successful in a democratic-style government, the people have the illusion they voted in a more favorable Marxist cultural paradigm rather than the individual rights of innovation and property goals as a pursuit of happiness. Thus the pursuit of happiness is taken from the people and turned over to the government to make all the decisions for how a person lives materially and ethically.
Briefly look at Joseph Goebbels’ art of manipulation and you will see how Obama used Ben Rhodes.
Goebbels’ most famous quote (ironically some historians believe is wrongly attributed) that is still the paradigm of Leftist manipulation in the 21st century:
A Goebbels quote that is probably closer to what he actually said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (Ibid.)
And a Goebbels quote I was less familiar with but discovered in my research that is most applicable to Obama-Rhodes:
“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” (Ibid.)
The last Goebbels quote is exactly the manipulation used on the press, Congress and American voters!
Fred Fleitz made this observation pertaining Obama-Rhodes and foreign policy in the National Review:
It would do you well to read that entire Fleitz article.
Something to think about is that a Hillary Clinton presidency would simply be a continuation of the Obama Administration deception to the American public as well as the furthering of Obama’s Gramsciesq transformation of America and a New World Order.
YOU NEED to understand what a Gramsci transformation agenda looks like:
Specifically, Gramsci called for Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely without being noticed, in the popular mind. This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long marchthrough the institutions.” Among the key institutions that would need to be infiltrated were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society’s “superstructure,” which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection. (From Determine The Networks but cross posted at SlantRight 2.0 – Gramsci the Eurocommunist and Obamunism; posted by John R. Houk; 4/2/13)
Antonio Gramsci photo 79th Anniversary of Death
You clueless American voters that support Obama and Hillary YOU are supporting the Gramsci Marxist Transformation. Ergo you millennial voters that think Hillary or Sanders will make your life better are deceiving yourselves into Marxist slavery.
Here is a good look at what Marxist slavery looks like from the excerpted thoughts of Chuck Braman:
Karl Marx claimed that economics determines history, and that one’s economic class determines one’s ideas. Ironically, he proved himself wrong, in a deadly way. The twelve-thousand word propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto was a concise summary of many ideas which Marx himself created. These ideas proceeded to shape the history of the twentieth century, including its political and economic history, as well as the ideas of most twentieth century intellectuals. This history included approximately one hundred million innocent citizens slaughtered by Marxist governments, millions more enslaved by Marxist governments, international conflicts on an unprecedented scale, and an intellectual tradition that, at present, is thoroughly entrenched in the humanities and is in the process of destroying the ideas and ideals of the West. …
The underlying epistemological error that Marx commits early in the Manifesto is the advocacy of a form of intellectual determinism and relativism which denies both free will and objectivity by claiming that the truth and falsehood of one’s ideas bear no objective status and are determined by, and their truth relative to, one’s economic class. He says, “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property… don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply… the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.” And: “Law, morality and religion are… bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.”
What Marx is claiming here is that the entire Western philosophic and intellectual tradition, as it had developed up until his time (and on which, ironically, he was entirely dependent for his own ideas), is a subjective rationalization used to justify the “exploitation” of the workers by the capitalists, a tradition consisting of ideas which are neither consciously chosen by the capitalists, nor have any basis in fact. Thus, in a single swoop, Marx himself rationalizes the destruction not only of entire fields, such as law, but of Western culture as such, including its most fundamental concepts. (Contemporary manifestations of these Marxian premises taught in modern universities include the doctrines of “Deconstruction,” “Neo-Pragmatism,” and “Multiculturalism.”)
… Having dismissed freedom, culture, morality and law as subjective myths, Marx then feels free to advocate their outright destruction by the totalitarian State, which he refers to as the “Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products,” resulting in the elimination of “class culture.”
… The random killing of groups of people, linked by class status or profession (such as homeowners and high school teachers) immediately followed. The “bourgeois notion” of freedom was eliminated by throwing those who were not murdered outright into concentration and labor camps. Consistent with Marxian subjectivism, objections to slave labor were brushed aside by Lenin’s associate Karl Radek as “the bourgeois prejudice of ‘freedom of labor'”.
Hitler, of course, would soon apply the same methods on a larger scale in his National Socialism, adapting the Soviet model to his own ideology by substituting the concept of race for class. Thus, in Marx’s epistemological ideas, began the intellectual subjectivism, the moral relativism, and mass murder of the totalitarian governments in our century.
The “Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products” in order to eliminate “class culture” were made a reality both in the Soviet Union and Red China, whose leaders, Stalin and Mao, systematically smashed Western culture in “Cultural Revolutions” in 1946 and 1966-67 respectively. During these intellectual purges, Western-influenced “bourgeois” scientists and artists were killed or imprisoned, while their works were destroyed.
The point is the elites of the Democratic Party have already transformed that political party that is democratic-socialist at best and at worst a Gramsci-style Marxist destroyer of the founding principles of America’s Founding Fathers. And that which is even more heinous the Marxist elites of the current Dem Party are using the same instruments of governing from the Founding Fathers to undermine America’s founding principles and destroy what has made America an exceptional nation among nations. A HILLARY VOTE OR NON-TRUMP VOTE IS A VOTE TO END AMERICA as it was meant to be as a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The New York Timesprofile of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, had plenty of shocking moments from his attempt to cover up Iran’s abduction of US sailors to his blatant gloating over the stupidity of the journalists whom he manipulated into spreading his lies in support of the Iran deal.
But the larger revelation is also simpler. Ben Rhodes knows next to nothing about foreign policy. He has no idea whether Iran will get nukes and couldn’t care less whether it’s moderate or not. He’s a failed fiction writer whose goal is “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely”.
That’s another way of describing a foreign policy built on isolationism.
Obama’s interviews are liberally spiced with contempt for the Europeans, whose foreign policy he adopted, and even former Islamist allies like Turkey are being treated with disdain. He despises both traditional US allies such as the UK and Israel, but he also has little use for the enemies, such as Russia and the Sunni Islamists, whom he tried to court. About the only enemy nation he still likes is Iran.
The first wave of Democratic backlash to the Iraq War was to champion diplomacy over military intervention. But diplomacy without intervention proved toothless. All that’s left now is a warped isolationism in which the US still pays the bills, signs all sorts of meaningless international accords that compromise our interests, but completely abandons its leadership role as a world power.
Rhodes sneers at the reporters whom he manipulated as knowing nothing. And he’s right. But he also doesn’t know anything. The condition is typical of an American left which has no foreign policy. It only has an anti-American domestic policy which it projects internationally without regard to its relevance.
The Iran deal had to happen to defeat “neo-conservatives”, the “war lobby” and whatever other leftist boogeyman was lurking around the premises. The men and women doing the defeating, like Rhodes, had zero interest in what was actually happening in Iran or what its leaders might do with nuclear weapons. They would tell any lie to help sell the deal because they were fighting a domestic battle of narratives. Iran wasn’t a real place. It was a fictional counter in a domestic ideological battle.
This problem did not begin yesterday.
Senator Ted Kennedy’s infamous letter to the Soviet leadership was seen as treasonous. But as a practical matter it revealed that an aspiring president had no interest in the USSR except to use it in a domestic battle against Reagan. Democrats had similarly supported and then turned against the Iraq War over domestic politics. Not only had they backed the removal of Saddam Hussein in the past, but Obama’s regime change in Libya showed that they did not believe any of their own critiques of regime change or unilateral intervention. Their foreign policy was based entirely on a domestic agenda.
Earlier generations of Democrats did have a comprehensive foreign policy based on ideas. It might be wrong, but it did exist. The Clinton-Kerry generation was very interested in talking about foreign policy, but viewed it purely in terms of opposing the Vietnam War as a critique of American power.
They had no other ideas to offer and it showed.
Without the Cold War, the Clinton era reduced foreign policy to multilateral diplomacy that existed to resolve conflicts and prevent genocide. But diplomacy proved useless in Rwanda and Bosnia. So Clinton ignored the former and used ruthless force casually for the latter. Meanwhile his foreign policy couldn’t process the rise of Al Qaeda and the growing threat of Islamic terrorism which led inevitably to 9/11.
Hillary Clinton is offering up a freezer fresh version of the same thing. The policies that failed her badly in Syria, Libya and across the Middle East are the only foreign policy offerings that she has for sale.
Bill Clinton had no foreign policy. Like Obama, he viewed foreign policy in terms of his domestic conflicts with Republicans. He tried to engage diplomatically while retreating militarily. His botched intervention in Yugoslavia had strong similarities to Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya.
And a Clinton was behind both.
Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position to build up credibility for a presidential run. The invasion of Libya was a platform to take her to the White House. Libya did not matter to her. While the State Department blew through fortunes to finance her self-promotion, the Benghazi mission lacked basic security. Even the Jihadists who were hired on to provide security weren’t getting paid.
And that led to the murder of four Americans.
It’s a short distance from Ted Kennedy trying to figure out how he could use Soviet officials to undermine Reagan and become president to Hillary Clinton seeing regime change in Libya as a campaign commercial right down to the punchy media-friendly slogan, “We came, We saw, He died.”
Democratic foreign policy is animated by political careerism and the conviction that American power is the problem. Beyond that lies a deep and abiding ignorance of the actual conflicts and issues abroad.
The left’s reflexive anti-Americanism makes it easy to be ignorant while appearing knowledgeable. It allows the conflation of domestic policy critiques with foreign policy by blaming America for everything. Anything that doesn’t fit into the neat anti-American box can be waved away with some clichés about the importance of global communication, global poverty, trade policies, global warming and reform.
Democrats didn’t have to understand Iraq. They just had to know it was Bush’s fault. First it was Bush I’s fault for not removing Saddam Hussein, as Democrats and the media instead he should have. Then it was Bush II’s fault for removing Saddam, which Democrats and the media had now decided he shouldn’t have. But blaming Bush I and II didn’t actually teach them anything about Iraq. And so they had no idea what to do about it.
Bill Clinton ricocheted from bombing Iraq to trying to trying to ignore it. Obama followed the same course, first trying to ignore it and then bombing it. Neither of them understood anything about Iraq. While Obama still boasts of having gotten Iraq right, that’s because no one reminds him that back in the Senate he was insisting that Iraqis would achieve a political solution once American soldiers had left.
The political solution they achieved was a bloody civil war culminating in ISIS.
But Obama’s understanding of Iraq was limited to blaming America for its problems. He didn’t know anything else and he didn’t feel that he had to.
The rise of ISIS happened because Democrats didn’t feel they had to know anything about Iraq except that it was Bush’s fault. When Bush tried to get Assad to cut off the flow of Al Qaeda terrorists into Iraq, leading Democrats, including Pelosi and Kerry, rushed to support Assad against President Bush.
That flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq eventually became the basis for ISIS.
It’s no wonder that Obama has never been able to come up with a working plan for Syria. Blaming Bush is not a plan. And it’s a particularly bad plan in this case.
Anti-Americanism, like most prejudices, is a license for ignorance. By embracing a prejudice against their own country, Democrats have lost any skill at foreign policy that they once had. Instead of learning anything about the world, they resort to the easy answer of turning away from the confusing problems of other countries to blame them all on us. Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that they need.
Anti-Americanism is the foreign policy of fools. It’s not smart power. It’s ignorance and prejudice with a dictionary.
FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER
The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror. The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded. Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.
FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites. The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.
DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks. It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so … READ THE REST
Justin Smith lays out the picture excellently that the White House Memo to Susan Rice to talk Mohammed video and spontaneous riots in relation to the nefarious murder of four Americans protected by the international protocol of Diplomatic Immunity.
There are a couple of questions that too many seem to fail to ask.
The most obvious is, “Is it not a crime to manipulate a Presidential election with an obvious lie claiming Mohammed video caused spontaneous Muslim riots rather than the truth? The truth is Islamic terrorists with connections to al Qaeda orchestrated an attack on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
Then since the White House Memo is a bold face lie, there must have been more to the Benghazi murders then a mere incompetent failure to provide adequate protection in an obvious dangerous location for a diplomatic mission. The Dem Party line it was the GOP fault by cutting some funding for diplomatic protect is a load of bunk. It would have been more plausible to place budget cuts on security where the host nation has a good reputation in protecting Embassies and diplomatic staff. Benghazi was not one of those places. Of course Dems to consider voters idiots or they would not postulate a blame game theory.
Some of the biggest questions which Mainstream Media and the reputable Conservative leaning media outlets will not touch has to do with the ‘why’. Why did Ansar al Sharia (SEE Also HERE) attack Benghazi diplomatic mission? Was it to kidnap Stevens to exchange for the Blind Sheik in prison in the USA? Was the Obama Administration involved in a Libyan arms scheme to send to Syrian Rebels to fight Assad’s government? If the answers could be traced back to the White House, it would have cost Obama the November 2012 election.
On April 30, 2014 Judicial Watch, a conservative non-profit group, released a new email from Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor, along with other documents, that created a chain of events through which the American people may soon receive many new insights and answers to questions surrounding the fiery attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 and the murders of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. These documents have already prompted the revelation from Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council spokesman, that Obama was not in the Situation Room on that night, and they perfectly illustrate one more case for the American people, in which Obama and his administration have calculated in a cold, insensitive and arrogant manner to perpetrate the lie of an anti-Islam video, as they abuse their power and manipulate the military and intelligence communities for their own political gain.
The Rhodes email came shortly after the Congressional Oversight Committee, chaired by Darrell Issa, had reopened hearings on Benghazi, after being stonewalled for twenty months, and in it, Ben Rhodes tells Susan Rice, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to blame the 2012 Benghazi attack on local anger over an “anti-Muslim video.” Although the email was initially heavily redacted, a federal judge and an independent judiciary found in favor of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and Freedom of Information Request; and now, the American people have proof-positive that the narrative towards an angry protest rather than a coordinated terrorist attack was the creation of White House staffers, if not Obama and Hillary Clinton themselves. Thank God for this independent judiciary.
This email only verifies what many already knew from great reporting by numerous news agencies such as ‘The Independent’. And during the televised (FoxNews) Oversight Committee hearing on May 1, 2014, Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell, former deputy director of intelligence at African Command, stated, in response to a question from Representative Jason Chaffetz, that the attacks at Benghazi were attributable to Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda affiliate, as early as 3:15 am local time on September 12, 2012.
Recently, Tommy Vietor retorted, “Dude, that was almost two years ago,” in response to Brett Baer’s (FoxNews) question about documents pertaining to Benghazi, and Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-D) was heard saying, “Diversion, subterfuge – Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi – Why aren’t we talking about something else?” This typifies precisely the cavalier, callous and arrogant manner of Obama, the Progressives, Secretary of State John Kerry and Hillary “what-difference-does-it-make” Clinton, when it comes to Benghazi, the murders of four patriotic Americans and Republican insistence on receiving answers.
Repeatedly Jay Carney, White House press secretary, has denied that the Rhodes email pertained to Benghazi or that a White House cover-up has been ongoing from day one. If the Rhodes email is not about Benghazi, then why is the third goal of the email bringing to justice those who harmed Americans? This shows that Ben Rhodes and the Obama administration were clearly worried about how four dead Americans were going to affect Obama’s presidential campaign, especially in light of Obama’s statements that “Al Qaeda has been decimated and is on the run.”
For months enough suspicion has existed to warrant an intense investigation. On May 2, 2014, Chairman Darrell Issa announced a Select Committee would be formed, and he also issued a subpoena for Secretary of State John Kerry to testify on May 21. Issa stated that Kerry needs to explain why previous congressional subpoenas of documents to the State Dept. were defied, and Issa went further stating “such contempt of Congress may constitute a criminal offense.”
Speaker of the House John Boehner announced his support of the Select Committee, far too long in coming, by stating: “The administration’s withholding of documents – emails showing greater White House involvement in misleading the American people – is a flagrant violation of trust…..it forces us to ask the question, what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration hiding from the American people?”
More than the Rhodes email, millions of Americans (61% believe a cover-up is in progress – FoxNews poll) especially Armed Forces veterans, are demanding for Obama to explain why an In Extremis force, FAST team or any Special Forces group at all was not immediately sent to the aid and rescue of the Americans at the Consulate and CIA Annex. When Rep John Mica (FL-R) asked on May 1, if we had the capability to respond over the six hour period between the time Ambassador Stevens was murdered and the Americans at the CIA Annex were killed, General Lovell stated, “The military should have made a response of some sort.” Later in the Oversight Committee hearing, somewhat rhetorically General Lovell speculated, “Could we have got there in time (to save them)? We may have – We’ll never know,” whereupon, Rep Jason Chaffetz interjected, “Because we never tried.”
Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith, asks “What are they covering up?” She told Sean Hannity (FoxNews) a story of being forgotten and ignored by the Obama administration, which has basically told her they cannot tell her anything else, after feeding her the same false video story.
Sen. Lindsey Graham asked, “Remember when Obama told us as things became available about Benghazi, we will be transparent and share them with the American people? Remember that statement?” (NewsMax)
AFRICOM’s effectiveness was most certainly compromised by not having enough boots on the ground in Libya, as well as the Consulate not having a Marine security contingent in place, however, as Gen Robert Lovell so eloquently and succinctly stated, “…the question is not in the ‘could or could not’ in relation to time, space and capability – the point is we should have tried…’Always move to the sound of the guns.'”
In the worse scandal and cover-up in American history, surpassing by far the third-rate burglary of Nixon’s Watergate, Ben Rhodes, who also holds a master degree in fiction from NYU, according to Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller, has had the fiction behind his email, “RE: PREP Call with Susan” Rice, exposed. Continued denial of any White House cover-up by the Progressives and the White House’s blatant lies about its role in the Benghazi cover-up, along with their acts of treason, should make it apparent that the Democrats never had any plans to delve further into Benghazi. And twenty months later, the murdering islamofascists responsible still roam free, as the Democrats engage in diversions and subterfuge of the most sinister kind. Such a lack of respect for the dead of Benghazi, their families and all America cannot stand, if any honest Democrats still exist – willing, along with Chairman Issa and the Congressional Select Committee, to seek the truth about Benghazi.
“It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” –Thomas Jefferson (1785)
One year ago, The Patriot Post published an investigative piece identifying the key players who altered the Benghazi talking points. It was a brazen charade to provide Barack Hussein Obama political cover just ahead of the 2012 presidential election.
A foundational pillar of Obama’s re-election campaign was promoting the myth that he was a great statesman, having killed Osama bin Laden and having made the nation and world safe from Islamic terror groups like al-Qa’ida.
However, on September 11, 2012, just eight weeks before the presidential election, a highly organized terrorist attack claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans: Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. This brazen attack threatened to derail Obama’s muscular foreign policy façade, so his White House spin machine – funded by taxpayers and not campaign donations – set about to alter the Benghazi talking points. In doing so, they hoped to provide Obama with vital political cover, thereby ensuring that the debacle didn’t tip the balance in a very tight presidential race.
We wrote then, “State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland warned that the original CIA talking points ‘could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that?’ We believe that Nuland and Ben Rhodes, who is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, were the key conspirators in the talking point alterations, though the Rhodes alterations were certainly signed off by someone much further up the White House chain of command. If sufficient evidence is ever uncovered to implicate Rhodes and Nuland, they will likely become Obama’s ‘cutouts,’ who will be encouraged to ‘fall on their swords’ in order to provide Obama plausible deniability.”
We also wrote, “The primary CIA architect of the politically motivated alteration of the Benghazi narrative was undoubtedly then-CIA Deputy Director, Michael J. Morell, who has deep ties to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and is vying for a key post in her administration if she is victorious in 2016. Morell claims that the talking points were sent to the White House for informational purposes only, and nothing was ‘produced with any political agenda in mind.’ But it is clear from our sources, that Morell, Nuland and Rhodes all had a hand in altering the talking points with the specific objective of providing political cover for Obama and Clinton.”
This week, the assertions in our analysis last year have been vindicated.
On Tuesday, as a result of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Obama White House staff released a briefing email, which exposes the conspiracy to alter the Benghazi talking points ahead of scheduled media appearances by Obama’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice, during which she asserted that “protests over an Internet video” resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and his security personnel – that it was not a highly organized act of Islamist terrorism.
On September 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack (despite the fact that CIA operatives on the ground said the attack had nothing to do with an Internet video, a claim that was clear to all concerned), Ben Rhodes drafted and sent a key talking points memo on Benghazi to top White House officials including Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist Davie Plouffe.
That email was entitled “PREP CALL with Susan,” as in Susan Rice.
The memo noted the “Goal” was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy,” and instructs the recipients to portray Obama as “steady and statesmanlike” and to “reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
Though she clearly knew this was not the truth, Rice repeated this assertion in five TV news interviews in one day: “What happened this week in Benghazi was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video….”
There are two key questions this White House fabrication raises.
First, who provided and signed off on Ben Rhodes’ Benghazi talking point lies to protect Obama’s re-election campaign?
Second, who authorized the cover-up of Rhodes’ cover-up by redacting the emails sent to congressional investigators in order to conceal the fact that the Benghazi lies originated in the White House?
In retrospect, for more context of the gravity of this cover-up, let’s review what has been said to advance the Obama administration cover-up.
Three days after the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood in front of the flag-draped caskets of four dead Americans and asserted, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless and totally unacceptable.” Clinton shamelessly assured Charles Woods, the father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, Obama himself told the UN General Assembly, “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”
In November 2012, just before the election, and seven weeks after receiving Rhodes’ talking points, Jay Carney declared, “It has been repeatedly said by some of the critics on this issue that the White House provided talking points and that has been categorically refuted not just by us but by the intelligence community and yet it is still periodically said on the air, um, and it’s just wrong. The White House involvement and any changes made to the so-called talking points was extremely minimal and non-substantive.”
Carney also insisted, “The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
In January 2013, responding to Senate Foreign Relations Committee questions about the altered talking points, Clinton rebutted in anger, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The difference, of course, is that we know she and Obama were lying.
In May 2013, Obama said, “The whole issue of this, uh, of talking points frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow.”
That month, Carney insisted again, “The only edits made here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building, or the facility in Benghazi, from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like.”
Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State, John Kerry, who as you recall launched Obama into the national limelight by featuring him as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democrat Convention, lamented, “I hate to see it turned into a pure, prolonged, political process that really doesn’t tell us anything new about the facts.”
Clearly it is Obama who fabricated this lie and turned it “into a pure, prolonged, political process.”
As late as February of this year, Susan Rice insisted, “that information, uh, turned out in some respects not to be 100% correct, but the notion that somehow I, or anyone else in the administration, misled the American people, is patently false and I think that’s been amply demonstrated.”
Clearly it was not “100% correct” but, rather, 100% fabricated.
Let me now pose a third question about this White House fabrication: Does anyone believe that Barack Obama was not fully aware of the first cover-up, and then the cover-up of that cover-up?
Obama mastered the “Art of the BIG Lie” long before he had presidential aspirations, but the Benghazi cover-up, and the subsequent cover-up of that cover-up, is a terrible affront to the memory of four dead Americans and a grievous insult to their friends and families.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton notes, “Now we know the Obama White House’s chief concern about the Benghazi attack was making sure that President Obama looked good.”
According to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Rhodes’ email is “a smoking gun proving beyond any doubt that the story told by the administration about Benghazi was politically motivated and fabricated.” That assessment is now echoed by other Republicans.
So, is there enough journalistic integrity remaining in the Leftmedia to call Obama out on this conspiracy and follow the chain of command to the top? Probably not – I suspect they will just yawn and move on. The MSM has substituted style for substance, and most of their consumers have swallowed the bait.
For the record, in 1972, Richard Nixon did not know about the politically-motivated plan to break into DNC headquarters at the Watergate. However, once the burglary plan pointed toward White House staff, Nixon DID know about White House staff efforts to fabricate political cover so it would not undermine Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign. Notably, that political cover did not involve the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans. The question now, as Sen. Howard Baker famously asked during the Senate Watergate investigation two years after the break-in: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” When that question was answered, Nixon had the decency to resign rather than put the nation through an impeachment trial.
Investigative journalists with The Washington Post played a key role in exposing that White House cover-up to protect Nixon in advance of his re-election campaign. Where are they today?
In that profile, Rhodes told the Post, “I very much wanted to be a fiction writer.”
Apparently, he became just that.
Rhodes is the author of Obama’s opening apology tour speeches in Berlin and to the Muslim world in Cairo. He also wrote Obama’s Afghanistan retreat speech and his acceptance speech for that utterly unearned Nobel Peace Prize.
And second, a month before the 2012 election and amid the presidential candidate debates, we sent our “Grassroots Memo to Mitt Romney” to his campaign communications director in order to provide critical grassroots perspective on the issues WE needed Romney to address.
Key among the issues we insisted he should address in the last debate, we wrote, “Some of the 24-hour news recyclers are asking question about the Benghazi, Libya attack, but have yet to ask the right questions. … Obama and his key administrators insisted that protests over a web video led to attack in Libya, knowing full well that it was actually a well-executed terrorist assault. This obfuscation clearly was, and remains, a political calculation in advance of his re-election, to sustain the façade that Obama is a ‘statesman’ and wise Commander in Chief.”
We know Romney’s communications director received our memo, and she and her staff summarily ignored it – and the rest, as they say, is history.
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis