Leon Panetta – The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

You Decide – Smoking Gun or No Smoking Gun

John R. Houk

© December 12, 2015

Much of the Conservative oriented media were using words like “smoking gun” in Judicial Watch’s discovery of an email from Jeremy Bash to the State Department informing them that Benghazi was under attack and the Defense Department is prepared act immediately. The email was sent a mere hours after the attack began. The attack began about 9:40 PM on September 11, 2015 with the last defenders dying in mortar fire shortly after 5:15 AM on September 12, 2015.

Considering the U.S. military had assets in Tripoli, in Rota Spain and Croatia. And since the Bash email demonstrates that this was NOT a spontaneous Muslim riot inspired by a badly acted anti-Mohammed movie trailer called the “Innocence of Muslims.” The Muslim terrorist attack was well organized AND the higher-ups in the Obama Administration KNEW it was an organized Muslim terrorist attack. The Jeremy Bash email is at least yet another chink in the chain showing we the American voters that Obama, his Cabinet and his staff are a bunch of liars.

As to the Bash email “smoking gun,” the Dem Party liars of the House Benghazi Committee have launched their spin counter-attack against the “smoking gun” accusation. Evidently the minority Dem Committee members released an unredacted version of the Bash email. The Dems think this shows there is no “smoking gun.” Here is a screen capture of Dem member Bash email:

Unredacted Bash Email

Below is the Judicial Watch redacted version:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM

To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R

Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John Lt Gen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

One glaring explanation the Dems fail to reveal that Judicial Watch does is the identity of “S”:

“apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”

The unredacted version includes the recommended forces to send and where they are located:

“… a SOF element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST team out of Roda, Spain.”

The other portion unredacted reveals names that follows “Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us”:

“Burns/Nides/Sherman to Miller/Winnefeld would by my recommended course.”

I am currently unfamiliar with what those people do that was special enough to be redacted. If someone has a revealing source on these people, let me know in the comment section.

Frankly I do not see anything in the unredacted portion that indicates the Dem Party spin propaganda that there is no “smoking gun.”

Consider what Bash told the State Department under then Sec. Hillary Clinton saying, “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

What? He wrote “spinning as we speak”. The official line is that Naval were too far away to provide relief. BUT what about Air Fighter Assets check out this map:

Map: Aviano Air Force Base to Sigonella Naval Air Station to Benghazi

No check out this remarkably plausible scenario that still makes this a “smoking gun” and that there are probably groups of people involved in a lying cover-up:

The Obvious Solution – Pit-Stop Sigonella

Now that we have an understanding of the tactical constraints facing the DOD, there is a (hopefully) obvious solution that more alert readers probably picked up on.

o Hour 0-1. While the F-16s at Aviano are not on strip alert, given the genuine emergency it’s reasonable to expect that within an hour of the order being given a sober pilot or two could have been located, an aircraft fuelled and in the air with a minimal default loadout. In this scenario the aircraft may have had only ammunition for its 20mm cannon and pilot would be given a simple briefing on the way to the plane: Get to NAS Sigonella.

o Hour 1-2. Given that the distance from AFB Aviano to NAS Sigonella is only 610 miles, the pilot would be able to quickly attain altitude and cruise at above the standard cruising speed of 577 mph. The F-16 would be on the ground at NAS Sigonella within an hour of its departure from AFB Aviano. During this one hour flight two important things would happen:

1. Via radio the pilot receives a more detailed briefing. The plan – a quick refuelling at NAS Sigonella and an immediate departure for Benghazi to fly a close air support (CAS) mission.

2. NAS Sigonella is informed of the incoming F-16 and told to prepare for immediate refuelling of the aircraft upon its arrival.

o Hour 2-2.5. The F-16 arrives at NAS Sigonella and is immediately refuelled. While it’s possible to refuel an F-16 without even stopping the engines (hot-pit refuelling), it’s also possible that NAS Sigonella didn’t have a refuelling team available that was trained for this. Thus, let’s assume that the refuelling process takes a full 30 minutes before the F-16 is again airborne and enroute to Benghazi.

o Hour 2.5-3.5. Given it is only 468 miles from NAS Sigonella to Benghazi the F-16 is on station and providing close air support within 3.5 hours from the initial order.

And, of course, subsequent F-16s could follow the same route at intervals to ensure that continuous air coverage was provided from that time on.

What Difference Would This Have Made?

According to the people on the ground and knowledgable about such matters, the appearance of U.S. warplanes would have been a total game-changer (see their testimony in Appendix A). Basically, the consensus is that a single low altitude pass by an F-16 at full afterburner would have put the fear of God into the attackers – these men had all seen U.S. airpower in action during the Libyan campaign and would have tucked-tail and run as soon as air support showed up.

So, By What Time Could the F-16s Have Arrived in Benghazi?

Going back to our timeline of the attack (which started at 21:42), we can see that by 21:59 DOD had already redirected a surveillance drone to Benghazi. This quick response is important because is shows us how efficiently orders could get relayed through the DOD chain of command. By 23:00 it was clear to DOD that the attack involved U.S. casualties and was ongoing. In my mind, there is no reason not to have scrambled the F-16s at this point. After all, the worst case would be that the situation resolved and the F-16s would turn around and go home. There was simply no reason not to deploy the F-16s and, conversely, every reason to do so.

… READ ENTIRETY (Benghazi – The Mystery of the Missing Air Support; By Greg; Passion for Liberty; 6/16/13)

The key to remember about the Democratic Party – they lie to stay in power.

See Also:

How will Media and American Left Spin Recent Email Exposé? – SlantRight 2.0; 12/9/15

Facts and questions about what happened in Benghazi – Fox News; 1/22/13

Another Benghazi Smoking Gun – Judicial Watch; 12/11/15

JRH 12/12/15

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

Tom Fitton email

Sent: 12/11/2015 5:55 PM

Email sent by; Judicial Watch

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:

• Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner puts it very well:

The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.

It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch’s release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee’s decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch’s supposed “rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers.” Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration – so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.

The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren’t deployed, specifically “a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain.” The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration’s dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.

All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch’s independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.
____________________

You Decide – Smoking Gun or No Smoking Gun

John R. Houk

© December 12, 2015

____________________

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

WWW.JUDICIALWATCH.ORG
425 3rd St, SW Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024

Contribute to Judicial Watch

CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before he Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 23, 2013 – “What difference does it make?”

Yesterday I cross posted the James Rosen article summarizing what Obama was actually aware of pertaining to the Benghazigate Scandal. To summarize what knowledge Obama had about the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Steven with one word – LIAR. Obama lied AND the President told his Administration surrogates to lie (such as Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney).

Undoubtedly the Mainstream Media will twist some propaganda to make lite of one these so-called Obama phony scandals so below is another perspective based on an interview with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) conducted by WND’s Garth Kant that focuses on the next Dem Party darling in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

JRH 1/16/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

CONGRESSMAN: HILLARY BUSTED IN MONSTER ‘LIE’

‘I heard her with my own ears’

By GARTH KANT

January 14, 2014

WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON — President Obama has problems with credibility, as the world well knows after he disingenuously insisted, “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan” about two dozen times in public.

Now, it turns out, the Democrat most political observers believe will try to replace Obama as president apparently also has problems telling the truth.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about Benghazi, a congressman who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Libya told WND.

He said she also lied to Congress.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was unequivocal when WND asked him, “What makes you so certain that Hillary Clinton lied?”

“Because,” King replied, “I heard her with my own ears.”

And, what contradicted her?

“The facts.”

King also had a blistering response to a famous question posed by Clinton.

During a Senate committee hearing Jan. 23, 2013, when asked what caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Clinton responded indignantly, “At this point, what difference does it make?”

WND asked King if he had an answer for her.

“The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people.”

WND VIDEO: Part 1 Kant Interviewing Rep. King

The congressman related how Clinton and other administration officials were dishonest when they briefed Congress within a week of the terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and CIA security contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

King said he could not divulge what was said during a classified briefing he attended, but, “I will just tell you that the administration’s officials told the same lies to members of Congress in a classified setting that they told the public five times on Sunday.”

He was referring to appearances on five political talk shows by then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sept. 16, 2012, during which she claimed the attack was a spontaneous protest inspired by anger over an obscure anti-Muslim video on the Internet.

“We know that’s false,” King told WND. “On top of that, we know they knew it was false. They knew within three hours that it was a calculated, strategized attack by an organized enemy on that compound and that annex in Benghazi.”

Strong confirmation of King’s version of events has just come to light, as newly declassified documents show top defense officials briefed Obama that a terrorist attack was underway in Benghazi not long after it began.

During a classified, closed-door hearing last year, Gen. Carter Ham, who was responsible for U.S. forces in North Africa, testified that he very quickly got to the point and told then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest.

Panetta and Dempsey then met immediately with Obama.

Last February, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he told Obama “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.”

Panetta said, “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack.”

And yet, for the next few weeks, as the 2012 presidential election reached the crucial home stretch, a number of aides to both Clinton and Obama repeatedly insisted there was no evidence the attack on Benghazi was planned, but it appeared to be protest that turned violent.

That was contradicted by testimony on May 8, 2013, by U.S. diplomat Gregory Hicks, who was in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

He, and two other key witnesses agreed, there was no basis for Rice to claim the attack began as a protest of an anti-Islamic film. And yet, Obama and Clinton repeatedly made that claim in the hours and days after the incident.

Hicks pointedly said he was “stunned” by Rice’s response to the Benghazi attack.

“My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” he said.

Hicks was asked if there was any indication of a protest in Benghazi in response to the Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he said.

“We know from the testimony,” King told WND. “We know it wasn’t the movie. It is a fact that it wasn’t the movie.”

He also pointed out that people who worked in the intelligence community as well as the State Department have testified under oath that they knew the movie did not trigger the attack.

“And they (administration officials) have not retracted them. They were dishonest,” King flatly stated.

The congressman made the blunt assertions to WND in his first published remarks following a recent trip he organized to hotspots in North Africa and the Middle East, with Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

WND VIDEO: Part 2 Kant Interviewing Rep. King

The Iowan had more answers to Clinton’s question, “What difference does it make?”

He said, of course, the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans “who stood there bravely to defend that compound” was a “significant tragedy.”

But, he called the truth an even bigger casualty.

“[T]he biggest tragedy of this is this administration came forward within days and began to misinform the American people on what took place in Benghazi.”

That’s because, King insisted, “It’s a tragedy when the integrity of the presidency and the administration of President Obama, or any president of the United States, can be sacrificed for a political agenda.”

The congressman noted that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates described in his new book how then-senator and presidential candidate Clinton took a position against the surge in Iraq in the presidential primary contests in 2008 for political reasons.

“If political decisions are made on war policy in Iraq when you’re campaigning for office, and if political conditions were part of the decision as to whether there would be a surge in Afghanistan, that’s also part of Gate’s book, then those two things all but confirm that the story that the administration promoted coming out of Benghazi was a political story, designed to cover,” charged King.

And why did they need cover? Because they were in the peak of the president’s re-election campaign, said the congressman.

He said the administration “should have told the American people the straight-up truth as soon as they knew it,” but instead, “they continue to cover-up Benghazi and the only reason they’ve been allowed to do it is a media that is, for a large part, complicit.”

Conceivably, that could derail presidential ambitions Clinton might harbor.

Judge Andrew Napolitano says the former secretary of state could be prosecuted if she did, in fact, lie.

“Lying to Congress carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to Congress. I’m not suggesting that Mrs. Clinton lied, but I’m saying that a case could be made out, either legally in a courtroom if a prosecutor wanted to, and certainly politically in a public sphere should she decide to seek higher office,” Napolitano said, the day after Hicks testified to Congress that the video played absolutely no role in the Benghazi attack.

WMD VIDEO: Judge Andrew Napolitano on Benghazi Lies

When WND asked King if those he spoke with in Libya share his observations about the attack on Benghazi, he said it depends on who you talk to.

He had nothing but praise for U.S. Ambassador to Libya Deborah Jones, calling her “excellent” and “terrific.”

“She’s in a very dangerous place, and she has a very difficult task. She’s upbeat, she’s knowledgeable,” and King said all of their discussions encouraged him that “we’ve got a good State Department operating in Libya.”

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCgarth

________________________________

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

Unclassified documents of recent House investigations of Benghazigate clearly paints a different picture than the Obama Administration PR and also throws mud in the face of a NY Times investigation that vainly attempted to validate the Obama Administration. Obama at the top and a handful of high placed officials on the Military and government were fully aware that the Benghazi attack was an orchestrated Islamic terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous riot due to a sophomoric anti-Mohammed/anti-Islam film.

Fox News has an excellent summary of the revelations in the documents exposing Obama, Hillary and the Administration as a bunch of liars to the people of the United States of America. After I cross post the Fox News Story the website Stand Up America has PDF links to some of those documents which still has some redaction involved.

JRH 1/15/14 (Hat Tip: Infidels United)

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

By James Rosen

January 14, 2014

Fox News

Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

”

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -“

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives — is that the American people feel misled.”

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.

James Rosen joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 1999. He currently serves as the chief Washington correspondent and hosts the online show “The Foxhole.”

_______________________________

Top Secret Transcripts Revealed on Benghazi

Posted by SUAadmin

January 13, 2014

Stand Up America

Editor’s Note – We have been hearing that much is due to be released on Benghazi that to date has been hidden, lied about, or just plain stonewalled. Below is the official release from the Armed Services Committee, through its Chairmen, Buck McKeon (R-CA 25).

It is clearly time for all the facts to come out and for those who have broken the law, or tried to obstruct the committee’s investigation to be held fully accountable.

These recently de-classified documents relating to Benghazi, with some redaction, demonstrates an enduring power struggle between the Dept. of Defense and the State Department when it came to protection of U.S. sovereign territory in foreign countries. Due to the tacit and a non-agreed to agenda of the State Department, Hillary Clinton apparently prevailed at will.

Mrs. Clinton mobilized friends for the creation of an Accountability Review Board that performed a shallow and political investigation into the attack on the two U.S. compounds in Benghazi resulting in the death of 4 Americans, but what is most revealing is that the final decision to send military aid to Benghazi rested with Barack Obama.

In the end, Hillary Clinton kept her global reputation and Barack Obama never made a rescue call, telling us that politics were more important than saving the lives of the four and endangering up to as many as 40 others in Benghazi. They were left in abject peril for political reasons. Sadly, the lies of Benghazi are now proven.

Declassified Transcripts of Benghazi Briefings Released

Armed Services Committee Examined Actions Of Military Chain Of Command Before, During, and After Attack

WASHINGTON— The House Armed Services Committee today released a series of recently declassified transcripts of briefings on the September 11th 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The briefings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations then chaired by Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), though they were open to all members of the Committee and attended by Members off the Committee.

The briefings, which took place over the course of several months, were part of the Committee’s examination of the actions of the military chain of command before, during, and after the attack. A report summarizing the conclusion of the HASC Oversight & Investigations majority Members draw from these briefings is expected to be released later this week.

Read the transcripts linked below:

o Transcript #1 – 1_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part I, Session I, DOD), May 21, 2013.pdf (3.7 MBs)

o Transcript #2 – 2_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part I, Session II DOD), May 21, 2013.pdf (642.4 KBs)

o Transcript #3 – 3_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part II, AFRICOM), June 26, 2013.pdf (9.2 MBs)

o Transcript #4 – 4_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s preparation for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,” (Part III, Colonel Bristol), July 31, 2013.pdf (10.8 MBs)

o Transcript #5 – 5_Hearing transcript, “DOD’s posture for September 11, 2013,” (Part IV, Force Posture), September 19, 2013.pdf (691.9 KBs)

o Transcript #6 – 6_Briefing transcript (redacted), “DOD’s force posture in anticipation of September 11, 2012,” (Part V, General Dempsey), October 10, 2013.pdf (2.3 MBs)

_________________________________

The Benghazi Transcripts: Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

______________________________

Top Secret Transcripts Revealed on Benghazi

About SUA

The Standard Bearer for the Conservancy of the Constitution

Who We Are:

The Stand Up America US Project (SUA) was founded in 2005 by MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret), as a multi-media organization that involves publishing, radio, television, speaking engagements, web site, writing articles for publication as well as books. This site is meant as a resource for education, based upon the values and principles set forth by our founding fathers. It is our goal to inform, clarify, and speak truth to power. We are a network of patriotic Americans from all walks of life including former members of the military, former federal, state, and local employees of government, analysts, writers, world leaders, and our group extends across the globe.

SUA is also an intelligence gathering and analyzing group that is and has briefed our government leadership on all manners of international interest, terrorism, and anything that affects the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of our citizenry and way of life. SUA has briefed the FBI, Congress, law enforcement, and many other agencies. All our work is based on the following conservative values, and principals:

o The United States of America’s CONSTITUTION – The intent of our Founding Fathers;

o American Exceptionalism, and the grand experiment of representative republicanism;

o Upholding all our 1st Amendment Rights;

o Upholding all our 2nd Amendment Rights;

o Upholding all our 10th Amendment Rights;

o The Rule-of-Law, not of man or men, nor cult of personality;

o Strong National Defense and Secure Borders;

o National and State Sovereignty;

o Capitalism and Western economic values;

o A safe and secure Israel;

o Supporting Our Uniformed Services and Veterans;

o Individual Liberties and Personal Responsibility;

o Fiscally-Responsible, Limited Government;

o Reclaiming our Republic and returning to the original intent of the Constitution, and more!

Mission Statement

Stand Up America US was created to be an educational forum based upon the values and principles that our founding fathers intended for the creation of the greatest form of government ever conceived and implemented. Based upon the convictions set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the creation of the Constitution, and the rights endowed by our creator, basing our future on such things as the Federalist Papers, The Law Of Nations, and the … READ THE REST

Benghazigate and Impeachment

John R. Houk

TheTeaParty.net sent a paid advertisement from the Conservative Daily with the hook that Senator James Inhofe the Republican Senator from Oklahoma is calling for an impeachment investigation of President Barack Hussein Obama of Benghazigate because of a cover-up.

Since I believe BHO is the most crooked President since Slick Willie Clinton and Tricky Dick Nixon the word ‘impeachment’ caught my attention. Unfortunately a Google search did not turn up any articles or quotes in which Senator Inhofe intended to initiate or call for investigative hearings that could lead to impeachment of President BHO. However, I can see why the word ‘impeachment’ was used as a hook with Senator Inhofe’s name. Senator Inhofe did say Benghazigate had all the appearances of a nefarious cover-up on a scale that was worse on past Presidential scandals such as Watergate, Iran-Contra and so on:

One day after Senate Republicans held a press conference to question this week’s State Department’s report on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said the scandal is bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra.

“I have made a study of different cover-ups – the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Iran-Contra. I’ve never seen anything like it. I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,” the Oklahoma Republican said in an interview Saturday night on Fox News. (Emphasis Mine – Inhofe: Benghazi cover-up bigger than Watergate, Iran-Contra; by David Eldridge; Washington Times; December 22, 2012)

When a Senator uses such strong words in reference to an Obama cover-up like, “I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,” the implication is definitely a probe leading to impeachment. We are in late February and as I write this I have not heard if Inhofe has pursued a Senate investigation that would be on the scale of the Watergate investigation that brought down President Nixon.

As far as Benghazigate goes I have written or cross posted about the potential conspiracies of Benghazigate was about the Obama Administration working a deal to send arms to al Qaeda Syria and of the angle that the Administration got cold feet on supporting al Qaeda influenced Syrian rebels and was about to allow those arms to sift through Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and into the hands of Hamas.

I had heard of other conspiracy angles as well but have not paid close attention to those angles until I tried to find if Senator Inhofe actually said he was going to pursue an impeachment investigation into Benghazigate and President Barack Hussein Obama.

This is what I discovered:

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Some will say that Admiral Lyons’ accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that’s exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.

Moreover, we firmly believe the problem with Admiral Lyons’ assertion is that he is only scratching the surface the full and complete truth may be much, much worse.

… We are dealing with something much more sinister… something potentially treasonous… and the following questions, posed in an article in The New American, go to the heart of the matter: (READ IN ENTIRITY – Is This The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down?; by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown; GOP USA; 1/11/13 6:53 am)

The conspiracy implication here is Admiral Lyons believes four Americans met their deaths because the Obama Administration made a deal with al Qaeda Libya to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens then use the kidnapping as the cover deal in a prisoner exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman who was convicted for brainstorming the first World Trade Center bombing.

I am guessing the Foreign Policy prerogative provided by the Constitution to the Office POTUS does not cover bogus deals to release convicted felons out of jail. The cover the backside of the deal would be not to outrage the public for giving up the Blind Sheik to a bunch of Islamic murdering terrorists; ergo create a situation that placates Obama’s Islamic pals and hides the deal from the public.

That indeed would be treasonous, right?

Adding to the Benghazigate prisoner exchange Conspiracy Theory is the mysterious relieving of command of military officers who either made the attempt to ignore orders to stand down or exposed those ‘stand down’ orders given when they felt they could rescue Ambassador Stevens who did ask for help:

…

I would call Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was removed from command of the USS Stennis Carrier Group, designated Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3). Gaouette was replaced over “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” after he refused to stand down when he ordered his forces to assist ground troops being sent on a rescue mission to Benghazi. According to several stories I have read it is extremely unusual for a commander to be removed from command while at sea. The usual action is to replace them when they return to port. Admiral Gouette is reported to be in the Obama dog house for refusing to “stand down” after hearing the call for help from Ambassador Stevens during the attack caused by “a video offensive to Islam”. I would ask Admiral Gaouette what he knew and when he knew it, what his actions were in regards to the attack, and finally, when he was told to stand down and who gave that order.

The second person I would call would be General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, the top commander on the African continent. General Ham was reportedly relieved of his command and detained by his second-in-command, General David Rodriquez, when he refused to stand down in his moves to provide support to Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans at the Benghazi consulate. Rodriquez quickly received a promotion for his loyalty to the regime rather than to his fellow Americans who were under attack. After General Ham I would pull Gen. Rodriguez in for a “consultation”.

…

The idea that we could not intervene in an attack that lasted for 7 hours is beyond preposterous. There is much that could have been done had the regime had the desire to save those who were killed. The two Navy Seals that died disobeyed orders to help. One had a laser designator “painting” a mortar crew firing on the compound. I know enough about special operations to know he would never “lase” a target if he knew there were no assets available. (READ IN ENTIRITY – The Benghazi Hearings: A Bipartisan Whitewash; by Bob Russell; Conservative Daily News; 2/9/13)

The Obama Administration is definitely hiding something. A different state of existence is with Obama than there was with the Nixon Administration cover-up scandal; viz., the Press loves Obama and hated Nixon. Obama has gone through to major election victories in 2008 and 2012 and there was plenty of questionable issues the Mainstream Media could have asked the tough questions on issues Obama has not been forthcoming. The MSM did not ask in 2008 and 2012. I doubt they will ask post-2012.

As long as the Dems control the Senate I have grave doubts that anything to do with impeachment will come from that chamber. EVEN IF the House manages to get the correct percentage to impeach Obama it would only take 51 Senate votes to acquit President Obama of wrong doing. Clinton pulled off an impeachment acquittal in the Senate and the GOP was the majority Party at the time.

JRH 2/23/13

Please Support NCCR

**************************************

Inhoffe (sic) Confirms Benghazi Cover-up; Impeachment Next?

By Tony Adkins

Sent: February 23, 2013 12:30 PM

Sent by TheTeaParty.net

Sent from: Conservative Daily

Original posting: February 13, 2013

Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

First off, we want to thank our readers for applying pressure to Congress and demanding hearings regarding the tragic events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. You sent thousands of faxes and emails to Congress and those in power were forced to listen. You demanded that Hillary Clinton and Leon Pannetta testify and after months of your voices demanding answers, they were forced to speak under oath, in front of the American people.

The families of those that lost their lives are surely thanking you for your actions. But as you will see, the job is not done. We must keep pushing Congress until we justice has been served on those in our government who refused to act and allowed our citizens to be murdered at the hands terrorist savages.

At Conservative-Daily, we have been keeping you abreast of the Benghazi massacre and the questions surrounding the White House’s response. We were one of the first theorize that the Obama Administration was engaging in a cover up and we reported this cover up contemporaneously; while President Obama and his Cabinet were lying to the American public, we were one of the few media outlets raising the alarm. Not because we wanted the scoop, but because we care about our fellow Americans abroad who sacrifice their safety on a daily basis to keep our families safe. We owe them a debt of gratitude. We owe them justice.

Click HERE to follow the conversation on Facebook

Last week, Secretary of Defense and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Pannetta testified on Capitol Hill. His testimony was as shocking as it was heart breaking. The night Americans were under attack, the night Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed and their dead bodies desecrated in the streets of Benghazi, on the night that our Embassy was under siege for more than seven hours by terrorists, President Obama was AWOL as Commander-in-Chief.

Let us be incredibly precise: according to Sec. Pannetta, on the night that four Americans were killed and our embassy was attacked, neither President Obama nor ANY White House staff contacted the Secretary of Defense nor any other person or organization that was monitoring the situation in Libya.

However, President Obama was in the White House and working that evening. He made an hour long politically motivated phone call. Even as Americans were under attack and being killed, Obama was more concerned about his own ambitions. He couldn’t be bothered to give the orders to send in Marines, who were only one hour away.

Let us say that again: it was a seven-hour siege and Marines were only one hour away. President Obama refused to contact the Secretary of Defense; he knowingly and willingly let our people die proving that he is as much of a moral coward as he is a dictatorial presence in the White House.

In the days and weeks following Benghazi, there was clearly a cover up. Senator Inhoffe (sic) (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated “as bad as everything that I’ve stated is, what I think is worse is the cover-up…It was obvious from the information we had on Sept. 11 that the second wave … of attacks on the annex was unequivocally a terrorist attack, and we knew it right at the time”.

For six months Americans have demanded to know what exactly transpired in Libya on September 11, 2012. We demand to know why our countrymen died defenseless, sacrificing their lives for their country. Of course the White House won’t comment. What? Did you expect Obama to tell the truth and relinquish power? The cover up was a knee jerk response from an Administration for which such un-American activities have become commonplace.

Click HERE to follow the conversation on Facebook

Obama’s purposeful obfuscation is easy to understand: he had an election to steal. He didn’t want the American people to know that the Embassy lacked armed security even though it resided in a nation known for harboring terrorists and has been historically antagonistic to the United States. He didn’t want us to know that the Embassy had petitioned for added security and had been denied. He didn’t want us to know that on the day of the attack, Ambassador Stevens had begged for more security, only to be denied and then killed by the very men he feared; betrayed by the country Ambassador Stevens swore to protect. Obama wanted so badly to win this election that he allowed Americans to be killed and created a cover up surrounding the attacks.

Effectively, he committed electoral fraud and stole the election; climbing on the backs of four dead American heroes. Now, Obama the Coward sends in his Secretary’s to speak for him since he is too scared to do it himself.

Last month, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released a damning report on the Benghazi fiasco. The report says it all; in discussing the security of the embassy and the danger in the country, the report states that Benghazi was “increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely”. This information did not lead to increased security at the Benghazi consulate or closing the operation altogether. The report called both of these options “more than justified by the intelligence presented”. In fact, the report stops just short of placing all the blame for the failed security on directly on President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

Don’t believe that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were at fault for the security failures in Benghazi? The Senate Report goes on to state that “In the months leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented.”

Let’s not forget, Libya is the same country where President Obama spiked the football after former Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi was deposed and later killed. In typical Obama fashion, he took credit for the success of others. Unfortunately, after the celebration, he didn’t bother to properly secure the American Embassy. The US Ambassador killed in the attack, J. Christopher Stevens, wrote in his diary that he was on an Al-Qaeda kill list and feared an imminent terrorist attack. Did the President or Secretary Clinton pay attention to the Ambassador’s concerns? Nope. In fact, the week before the terrorist attack, Obama didn’t bother to attend a single intelligence briefing, despite actionable intelligence warning of a possible active terror cell in Libya ready to strike American interests.

Think that’s bad? Since President Obama was first inaugurated he has skipped over 66% of his intelligence briefings. Unbelievable! In a post 9/11 world, it is unfathomable that a sitting President would care so little for the lives of the American people that he would put their safety on the backburner so that he might keep his job.

There are even reports saying that there was actionable intelligence more than a week before the tragic events transpired. Yet Obama did NOTHING. He allowed Americans to die so that he could save his job. His Presidency will forever be marred with the blood of American martyrs.

Click HERE to follow the conversation on Facebook

Stand with us and demand a FULL Congressional investigation into the Benghazi cover up. President Obama must answer for his actions even if that requires impeachment. Lives have been lost, lies told, and injustice has been served. It is time Congress reigns in the Obama Administration. Barack Obama must not be allowed to use dead American patriots as cannon fodder. Demand CRIMINAL charges for any wrongdoing. We hope that you will stand with us. Our fallen patriots deserve better and we hope you will add your voice to ours so that their sacrifice won’t be made in vain. Fax Congress today and demand a full investigation!

Click Here to Fax Congress Today!

And, Join the Conversation on Facebook

Sincerely,

Tony Adkins

Conservative-Daily

________________________

Benghazigate and Impeachment

John R. Houk

____________________

Inhoffe (sic) Confirms Benghazi Cover-up; Impeachment Next?

About Us

We are Conservative

We believe in “We the People of the United States”. Many areas in our government have gone awry. But we the people can fix it. We can exercise our rights to contact and influence our elected officials. We can vote. We can speak out; not with negative sound bites but with sincere love for our nation. At Conservative Daily, we are dedicated to the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States of America. We focus on the United States constitution and the Bill of Rights as our foundation. We are dedicated to maintaining freedom and liberty for all Americans and … READ THE REST

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: