Muslim cannibalism: Syrian rebel cuts out, eats enemy’s heart

This is why we say Islam is an atavistic, primitive, 4th-century religion.

This is why we say the “god” of Islam is Satan.

The video below was smuggled out of Syria by a “rebel fighter” and obtained by Time magazine in April. Aryn Baker writes for Time magazine, May 12, 2013:

In the video a man who is believed to be a rebel commander named Khalid al-Hamad, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Sakkar, bends over the government soldier, knife in hand. With his right hand he moves what appears to be the dead man’s heart onto a flat piece of wood or metal lying across the body. With his left hand he pulls what appears to be a lung across the open cavity in the man’s chest. According to two of Abu Sakkar’s fellow rebels, who said they were present at the scene, Abu Sakkar had cut the organs out of the man’s body. The man believed to be Abu Sakkar then works his knife through the flesh of the dead man’s torso before he stands to face the camera, holding an organ in each hand. “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar,” he says, referring to supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Off camera, a small crowd can be heard calling out “Allahu akbar” — God is great. Then the man raises one of the bloodied organs to his lips and starts to tear off a chunk with his teeth.

Two TIME reporters first saw the video in April in the presence of several of Abu Sakkar’s fighters and supporters, including his brother. They all said the video was authentic. We later obtained a copy. Since then TIME has been trying to ensure that the footage is not digitally manipulated in any way — a faked film like this would be powerful propaganda for the regime, which portrays the rebels as terrorists — and, as yet, TIME has not been able to confirm its integrity. Abu Sakkar has not commented on whether the man in the video is indeed him because he is currently fighting on the front lines in Syria, according to fighters under his command. The video became public on May 12 when it was posted online by a proregime group and is indeed now being used as propaganda by regime supporters (and has already been shared 1,115 times on Facebook and has over 46,000 views on YouTube). These 27 seconds of footage provide a glimpse at how brutal the Syrian war has become….

WARNING: Graphic images!

Eye-mind bleach Alert!

You’ve been forewarned!

If the video doesn’t show, go to the YouTube site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eetcxBf7M8g&bpctr=1368901212

H/t FOTM’s joworth and my friend Sol.

See also FOTM’s other posts on Muslim savagery:

• “Video evidence of Muslim crucifixion in Yemen,” Aug. 30, 2012.
• “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood revives barbaric practice of crucifixion,” Aug. 20, 2012.
• “Sodomy widens your anus for Jihad!,” July 31, 2012.
• “Islamic cleric confirms Muslim men really are sodomites,” June 12, 2012.
• “Islam and the real war on women,” June 1, 2012.
• “Religion of Peace kills teens because of their haircuts,” March 11, 2012.
• “Saudi Arabia School Textbooks Teach Murder of Jews & Gays,” Dec. 27, 2011.
• “Islamic True-Believers Blow Up Nigerian Christians on Christmas Day,” Dec.26, 2011.
• “Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs,” Oct 10, 2011.
• “Religion of Peace Executes 8-Year-Old Boy by Hanging,” July 30, 2011.
• “Necrophilia is Okay for Muslims,” May 11, 2011.
• “Islam Says Marital Rape Is OK,” October 28, 2010.

~Eowyn

Let’s See who Else The I.R.S. Picked On.

let’s just pile on shall we.  :D    ~Steve~

—————————————————————————-

From the http://washingtonexaminer.com

May 15, 2013 | 2:40 pm | Modified: May 16, 2013 at 9:35 am

Report: IRS denied tax-exempt status to pro-lifers on behalf of Planned Parenthood

IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.

“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”

Planned Parenthood endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.

The IRS also pressured another pro-life group about its religious activities. “The IRS withheld approval of an application for charitable tax-exempt recognition of Christian Voices for Life, questioning the group’s involvement with ’40 Days for Life’ and ‘Life Chain’ events,” according to the law firm. “The Fort Bend County, Texas, organization was subjected to repeated and lengthy unconstitutional requests for information about the viewpoint and content of its educational communications, volunteer prayer vigils, and other protected activities.”

The IRS admitted last week to that some members of the agency targeted Tea Party groups for discriminatory reviews of their applications for tax-exempt status. The Justice Department has initiated a criminal investigation into the matter.

just thinking out loud, but that DOESN’T seem fair.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750

Benghazi, I.R.S. And Now For Your Viewing Pleasure, Scandal # 3: The A.P.

well it seems our justice dept. run by none other THAN that rock star eric holder had decided to hijack about 20 phone lines belonging to ap. in April and may of 2012.      kind of funny now that ap has been the target the media is up in arms. For years while justice and the admin have abused the american public it seemed they could care less, Well anyway if this is what it takes to shine the light on the vermin so be it. Benghazi, i.r.s., a.p.               seems like 3 strikes YOU’RE out in the ole ball game.

Politicians versus press: Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference on Tuesday to address the story that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months worth of journalists phone records

—————————————————————————————————-

Eric Holder points finger at his DEPUTY who secretly obtained journalist’s phone records as Obama is forced to say he has ‘confidence’ in the Attorney General

• Justice Department obtained records listing incoming and outgoing calls and duration of calls for more than 20 telephone lines used by journalists
• Lines included the main number used by reporters in the House of Reps press gallery and general AP numbers in Washington and New York
• Stems from AP article talking reporting a thwarted terror attack
• Attorney General Eric Holder said he had recused himself from the investigation into the leak to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest
• Said that his deputy made the decision to obtain the records

By ASSOCIATED PRESS and DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 13:40 EST, 14 May 2013 | UPDATED: 17:55 EST, 14 May 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder went on the defensive on Tuesday explaining why the Justice Department secretly obtained two months worth of reporters’ telephone records in an ‘unprecedented’ search for a confidential source.

‘This was a very serious leak and a very, very serious leak,’ Holder said at a press conference explaining the department’s actions which have been criticized for going against the constitutional right to a free press.

Holder said that he recused himself from the making the controversial decision to subpoena the phone records of Associated Press journalists, saying that it was made by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

He said that he was ‘confident that the people involved in this … followed all applicable Department of Justice regulations’ even though he claimed not to actually know the details of the decision-making process as a result of his recusal.

President Obama was forced to follow Holder’s press conference with the release of a statement saying that the incident does not shake his faith in his close friend and the country’s top legal adviser.    (Whoopsie)

‘The president has confidence in the attorney general,’ press secretary Jay Carney said.

The controversy came when the Associated Press reported that two months worth of reporters’ telephone records without their knowledge, obtaining a wide breadth of records that had nothing to do with the leak of information that they were concerned about. 

The Justice Department has spoken in the past about how they were upset over the leak of information about a foiled al Qaeda plot where the terrorist group planned to detonate a bomb on a plane bound for the United States.

‘I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen,’ Holder said.

It put the American people at risk. That’s not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.’

That isn’t enough to satisfy critics, as top Republicans are already calling for Holder’s resignation over the incident.

‘Because Attorney General Holder has so egregiously violated the public trust, the president should ask for his immediate resignation,’ Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said. 

‘If President Obama does not, the message will be unmistakable: The President of the United States believes his administration is above the Constitution and does not respect the role of a free press.’

The records listed journalists’ incoming and outgoing calls, as well as the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Connecticut, and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.

News of the probe into one of the largest news organizations in the world immediately sparked outrage among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

‘The First Amendment is first for a reason,’ Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, told MailOnline. 

‘If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.’

A spokesman for Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the move is representative of a broader ‘pattern of intimidation.’

‘Whether it is secretly targeting patriotic Americans participating in the electoral progress or reporters exercising their First Amendment rights, these new revelations suggest a pattern of intimidation by the Obama Administration,’ Doug Heye said.

The American Civil Liberties Union was equally critical. 

( You Know you screwed up if even the ACLU is on your butt.)

‘Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power,’ said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. ‘Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources.’

AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation.

He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

‘There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,’ Pruitt wrote in a letter of protest to  Holder. 

‘These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s news gathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.’

The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.

The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al Qaeda plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. 

He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an ‘unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.’

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt’s letter and attorneys for the AP.

The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

~Steve~

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324501/Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-defends-deputys-decision-secretly-obtain-journalists-phone-records-saying-searching-leak.html#ixzz2TMlgvGVJ

55 Questions IRS Asked of Tea Party Groups. It’s A Doozie.

all I have to say is “duct Tape” Lots and lots of duct tape. You can borrow some of mine.     ~Steve~

3 layers should do it.

Oh, one more thing. i really love to watch skippy sweat.

From the http://www.dailymail.co.uk

By DAVID MARTOSKO IN WASHINGTON

PUBLISHED: 16:18 EST, 13 May 2013 | UPDATED: 16:20 EST, 13 May 2013

The Internal Revenue Service wrote to the Richmond Tea Party last year demanding to know the names of all its financial donors and volunteers, as part of a 55-question inquisition into its application for tax-exempt status, MailOnline has learned.

The agency wanted to know ‘the names of the donors, contributors, and grantors’ for every year ‘from inception to the present.’

It also demanded ‘the amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.’

‘How did you use these donations, contributions, and grants?’ the IRS asked. ‘Provide the details.’

And in addition to the names of board members, officers and employees, the nation’s taxing authorities insisted on knowing the names of everyone who helped the Richmond Tea Party without compensation.

‘Please identify your volunteers,’ the January 9, 2012 letter from the IRS read.

The agency also required the Virginia conservative group to provide copies of sections of its website that only its members can access.

The IRS came under fire on Friday when its Office of Inspector General released a draft of an investigative timeline showing that the agency had played political favorites with nonprofit groups seeking tax-exempt status.

In 2010, according to that investigation, the Cincinnati-based IRS office responsible for vetting tax-exempt applications began targeting groups with ‘Tea Party or similar’ words in their names – including words like ‘patriots’ and ’9/12′ – for tighter scrutiny.

The Richmond Tea Party received this demand along with dozens of others from the IRS, asking for a list of its donors and the amounts they had contributed. The group refused, citing their donors’ right to privacy

The IRS ultimately identified approximately 300 such organizations, many of which were independently organized in 2009 and 2010 under the larger ‘tea party’ banner. Those groups had a decisive impact in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, and became a thorn in the side of the Democratic party, costing it race after race, especially in the House of Representatives, which shifted to Republican control.

In the nearly three years since the IRS began looking more closely at conservative nonprofit groups than others, 125 of the 300 target organizations have been approved for tax-exempt status. Another 25 withdrew their applications. The remainder are still waiting.

The Office of Inspector General’s timeline shows that in Washington, senior officials with the IRS were made aware of the practice by at least August 4, 2011. On that date, the chief counsel of the IRS met with the agency’s Rulings and Agreements unit ‘so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.’

But during a press gaggle about Air Force One on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the White House was unaware of the investigation or its political implications until last month.

The Rest Of The Story Here..       

Below is Link to list  . Sorry as it gets all jumbled when I try and paste it in. Trust me it’s a good read, providing you have your head protection on.

Link To LIST!!

 

 

Gosnell verdict: Guilty of 3 counts of 1st degree murder!

The jury just delivered a verdict in a murder case virtually suppressed by the State Run Media.

Vince Lattanzio reports for NBC10 Philadelphia that after 10 days of deliberations and an announcement that they were deadlocked on two charges, the jury in the murder trial of former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell just reached a verdict.

Guilty! – on 3 of 4 counts of first-degree murder.

Guilty! – of involuntary manslaughter in the death of former patient Karnamaya Mongar.

The jury of seven women and five men weighed more than 250 counts against Gosnell with the most serious being four counts of first-degree murder.

Gosnell, a resident of West Philadelphia, was charged on January 14, 2011 with 263 crimes, including first-degree murder in the deaths of four babies. Prosecutors allege Gosnell delivered the babies alive during abortion procedures and then killed them by snipping their spinal cords with scissors.

The 72-year-old is also charged with third-degree murder in the of former patient Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who died after she was given a lethal dose of pain killers and anesthesia during a 2009 abortion procedure at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, the Women’s Medical Society.

The majority of the 268 charges levied against Gosnell are related to Pennsylvania abortion-law violations. Whereas his defense attorney argued Gosnell would inject a drug into his patients’ uterus to stop the fetuses’ hearts before they were delivered, prosecutors Joanne Pescatore and Ed Cameron say Gosnell regularly performed late-term abortions on babies older than 24 weeks — the cutoff age in Pennsylvania.

At 24 weeks, a baby can hiccup and begins trial breathing with his own lungs. The baby can now survive outside of the mother’s womb with medical help.

This is what a 24-week-old baby looks like. His name is Toby and he was born premature. Toby is now a healthy 4-year-old boy:

Kermit Gosnell’s crimes came to light on February 10, 2010 after investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency raided the inner-city clinic at 3801 Lancaster Avenue following a tip that a prescription pill mill was operating inside.

Agents were met, not with an illegal narcotics drug operation, but rather, unsanitary conditions. Investigators testified they found blood-stained rooms, filthy and old equipment and untrained staff. Aborted fetuses were stored in a basement freezer in plastic food containers and bags next to employee lunches. Severed feet from aborted babies were found preserved in jars around the clinic.

Warning! Pictures below!

†

The conditions found inside the clinic led Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams to call the clinic a “house of horrors” in a 2011 grand jury report.

Over the course of the trial which started on March 18 and lasted two months, former clinic employees testified against Gosnell.

Adrienne Moton, 35, was the first to testify that several abortion procedures in court including one where the mother delivered the baby into a toilet. The baby struggled in the bowl before she snipped its neck with scissors. Moton admitted to cutting 10 babies’ necks, calling the snipping  “common practice” at the clinic. One baby boy was nearly 30 weeks old when he was aborted. Gosnell even joked about the baby’s size saying he was so big the baby could have walked to the bus stop.

Lynda Williams, 44, with no formal training and only an 8th grade education, testified how she would administer pain killers and anesthesia acting as the clinic’s anesthesiologist. Williams was the person who delivered four doses of drugs to Mongar during her procedure. She described how the woman’s skin turned gray and her breathing slowed following the last dose. She also admitted to snipping the neck of one of the babies Gosnell is charged with murdering.

Both women pled guilty to third-degree murder in exchange for their testimony against Gosnell. They face 60-120 years in prison.

Other workers described babies being born alive, watching them breathe and seeing their limbs move before being “snipped.” Some described the babies as “aliens” who squealed and made odd noises, others said it would “rain fetuses” in the clinic.

During her opening arguments on March 18, prosecutor Pescatore told jurors that for Gosnell, his abortion practice was all about the money. “He had high volume and maximum profit,” she said. Police found $250,000 in cash during a 2010 search of his home.

Prosecutors claimed Gosnell would upcharge for pain killers and let the patients choose the amount of anesthesia they wanted. They were broken down into four categories — local, heavy, twilight and custom.

Pescatore also said Gosnell, who is black, would treat patients differently based on their race. White women would be taken to cleaner exam rooms and be treated directly by Gosnell. Black women would get dirty rooms and unlicensed workers.

†

This is for all the babies murdered by Kermit Gosnell, and for the hundreds of millions of babies aborted in America and across the world:

~Eowyn

Gosnell Jury: “We’re Hung on 2 Counts”

I’m hoping the 2 counts they’re hung on are like maybe

“Jay walking”

Guilty on the other 248 charges 

After 10 days deliberating the case, jurors say they can’t reach a consensus on two 

By Vince Lattanzio

|  Monday, May 13, 2013  |  Updated 11:40 AM EDT

Defense attorney Jack McMahon delivers his closing argument in the capital murder trial of former abortion doctor Jack McMahon.

The jury deliberating in the capital murder trial against former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell says they’re hung on two counts.

The jury of seven women and five men are weighing more than 250 charges against the Gosnell with the most serious being four counts of first-degree murder.

It is currently unclear on which charges the jury is deadlocked, but the group told the court it has reached unanimous decisions on all other counts.

Around 10:00 a.m. Monday, the jury passed a note to Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart explaining their situation. The admission came on the 10th day of deliberations.

By law, according to attorneys for both sides, Judge Minehart is required to re-instruct the jury to deliberate on the two charges a second time and attempt to reach a verdict.

Around 10:00 a.m. Monday, the jury passed a note to Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart explaining their situation. The admission came on the 10th day of deliberations.

By law, according to attorneys for both sides, Judge Minehart is required to re-instruct the jury to deliberate on the two charges a second time and attempt to reach a verdict.

udge Minehart brought the jury into the courtroom on the third-floor of the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center around 11:15 a.m.

Over a five minute meeting, he reminded the jury they must be unanimous on all counts and asked the group to return to the jury room and discuss the charges further. The group was grim-faced as they were led from the court.

Judge Minehart called the jury sincere, considerate and serious. The judge also said he wanted to make sure the group was not confused over the charges.

The jury now has three options: return to court with a question, request to re-examine evidence to try and break the deadlock or re-iterate they’ll be unable to reach a consensus on the charges.

Gosnell faces four counts of first-degree murder for his alleged role in the deaths of four babies. Prosecutors allege Gosnell delivered the babies alive during abortion procedures and then snipped their spinal cords with scissors to end their life.

The 72-year-old is also charged with third-degree murder in the of former patient Karnamaya Mongar.

Mongar, 41, died after she was given a lethal dose of pain killers and anesthesia during a 2009 abortion procedure at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, the Women’s Medical Society.

The former doctor’s defense attorney has argued Gosnell would inject a drug into his patients’ uterus to stop the fetuses’ hearts before they were delivered.

The majority of the 268 charges levied against Gosnell are related to alleged Pennsylvania abortion-law violations. Prosecutors say Gosnell regularly performed late-term abortions on babies older than 24 weeks — the cutoff age in Pennsylvania.

Jurors are also deliberating a handful of crimes against Gosnell’s co-defendant Eileen O’Neill. Prosecutors say O’Neill deceived patients and insurance companies by pretending to be a licensed physician and billing for those services.

Her defense has said while O’Neill was not licensed, she did have a medical degree and would always have Gosnell sign off on her recommendations and prescriptions. O’Neill’s attorney also said there is no evidence of the 56-year-old charging for her services.

The trial, which began on March 18, stretched on for nearly two months before being handed off to the jury.

The alleged crimes came to light on February 10, 2010 after investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency raided the inner-city clinic at 3801 Lancaster Avenue following a tip that a prescription pill mill was operating inside.

Agents were met, not with an illegal narcotics drug operation, but rather, unsanitary conditions. Investigators testified they found blood-stained rooms, filthy and old equipment and untrained staff. Aborted fetuses were stored in a basement freezer in plastic food containers and bags next to employee lunches. Severed feet from aborted babies were found preserved in jars around the clinic.

The conditions found inside the clinic led Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams to call the clinic a “house of horrors” in a 2011 grand jury report.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Gosnell faces the death penalty.

 http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Gosnell-Murder-Deliberations-Stretch-into-10th-Day-207178491.html

~Steve~

 

General Petraeus To Testify On Benghazi This Week

Yep, I’m going to beat Benghazi Like A Dead Horse.

OK,   This article looks like things are going to rock and roll when

General Petraeus Testifies this week. Seems he may have an ax to grind with skippy. I’d like to pull one paragraph out and highlight how Jay Carney answers a reporter’s question. It just amazes me how these people can say so much and not even come close to answering your question..LOL

I’ll run the whole story after the pull out. Am I confusing you? Cause I’m sure as heck confusing myself.           ~ Steve~

OK,  This is reporter’s question.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

And this is Carneys response.

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

 Just what in the hell is he saying? I know he did not answer the question, and seems he threw the C.I.A. under the bus. Now if memory serves who was the director of CIA at time of Benghazi? Hmmmm-

—————————————————————————————————

Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi                    scandal

http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/joseph-curl/

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world — the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready — burning — to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode — and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case — again, led by the CIA — involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there — fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week — nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

General (Retired) Petraeus

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/curl-watch-out-petraeus-benghazi-scandal/?page=2#ixzz2TB1BiC00

Judge Jeanine on Benghazigate: Obama lied and left Americans to die

See also:

• “Whistleblowers confirm Obama regime lied about the Benghazi attack,” May 8, 2013.
• “BENGHAZI = TREASON,” May 8, 2013.
• “Benghazi Witness: Special Forces Told “You Can’t Go” To Benghazi,” May 8, 2013.

~Eowyn

“Can’t We All Just Get Along”

 

Jiggs McDonald, NHL Hall of Fame broadcaster speaking in Orillia, Ontario, says, “I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in Toronto. I think it should be the goal of every Canadian to be tolerant regardless of their religious beliefs. Thus the mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.”

“That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque, thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque. We could call one of the clubs, a gay club, ‘The Turban Cowboy,’ and the other a topless bar called ‘You Mecca Me Hot.’”

“Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbecue pork restaurant, called ‘Iraq o’ Ribs.’”

“Across the street there could be a lingerie store called ‘Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret,’ with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.”

“Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toyshop, ‘Koranal Knowledge’ its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store called ‘Morehammered.’”

“All of this would encourage Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so their mosque issue would not be a problem for others.”

~  Steve ~                                           H/T     Big Bad  I_Man              :D

Yes we should promote tolerance, and you can do your part by passing this on…

 

MSM Start To Turn On Benghazi . Could Get Interesting Real Quick.

This is encouraging. This will be the only way to take him down. Kinda wish the media would have done their jobs say…about 5 yrs ago.

~Steve~

——————————————————————————————

MAY 10, 2013  POSTED BY ALEX KOPPELMAN

http://www.newyorker.com

SPINNING BENGHAZI

——————————————————————————————

                          Poor wittle Jay Carney. Busted lying thru his teeth.    :D

                        I definitely have a case of Schadenfreude on this.  LOL

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a <href=”#.uy1gksebagw.twitter”>secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.