| |||
Living a life of "no regrets!"
Thursday, February 6, 2014
AMAZING GRACE ON A MOSCOW TROLLEY~ WOW~ BEAUTIFUL
New Website Vows to Show You the Benghazi Documents the ‘White House Doesn’t Want You to Read’
New Website Vows to Show You the Benghazi Documents the ‘White House Doesn’t Want You to Read’
Feb. 5, 2014 10:45pm Jason Howerton
The Republican Party has launched a new website dedicated to providing the American people an array of documents related to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on two U.S. compounds in Benghazi.
The website currently includes House and Senate committee reports of their investigations into the Benghazi attacks, transcripts and notes from several congressional committee hearings on the attack. However, the site will also be updated with new documents as they become available.
Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images
House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office said in a press release that the site was created to bring the “facts straight to the American people by way of hundreds of pages of documents and transcripts the White House doesn’t want you to read.”
“The investigation is ongoing, and the search for the truth continues, so new documents will be added as they are made available,” the release adds.
The homepage of GOP.gov/benghazi proclaims that the “fight for answers and justice” in the Benghazi investigation is still ongoing. The site accuses the White House of refusing to tell the “whole truth.”
GOP.gov/benghazi
As reported by the Washington Post, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its much-anticipated report on Benghazi, placing blame on the State Department and intelligence community for not doing enough to stop the “preventable” attack. The report found that the State Department under Hillary Clinton neglected to provide more security at the compound despite warnings.
However, the report failed to find irrefutable evidence proving a political cover-up in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Some lawmakers allege this is due to stonewalling efforts by the Obama administration.
Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images“The investigation is ongoing, and the search for the truth continues, so new documents will be added as they are made available,” the release adds.
The homepage of GOP.gov/benghazi proclaims that the “fight for answers and justice” in the Benghazi investigation is still ongoing. The site accuses the White House of refusing to tell the “whole truth.”
GOP.gov/benghaziHowever, the report failed to find irrefutable evidence proving a political cover-up in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Some lawmakers allege this is due to stonewalling efforts by the Obama administration.
6:32 PM (1 hour ago)
 | | |||
Lindsey Graham: Hillary Should Remain Focus of Benghazi Probes
Wednesday, 05 Feb 2014 05:43 PM
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should remain the focus of investigations into the Benghazi attack — a different take than that of Rep. Darrel Issa of California, who says prevention is the top priority.
"[Clinton] is likely to run for president . . . She has said repeatedly that she did not know of the additional security request to enhance security at the consulate from the time it was attacked in June until it was overrun on Sept. 11, even though the secretary of defense knew about the request," Graham told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"Are you telling me the secretary of state never asked any questions or made any inquiries about a consulate that had been previously attacked? How could the secretary of defense know about the request for security? So, she's either out of touch or that's not true . . . [It's] a question of accountability."
Story continues below video.
"[Clinton] is likely to run for president . . . She has said repeatedly that she did not know of the additional security request to enhance security at the consulate from the time it was attacked in June until it was overrun on Sept. 11, even though the secretary of defense knew about the request," Graham told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"Are you telling me the secretary of state never asked any questions or made any inquiries about a consulate that had been previously attacked? How could the secretary of defense know about the request for security? So, she's either out of touch or that's not true . . . [It's] a question of accountability."
Story continues below video.
On HBO's "Real Time" with Bill Maher, Issa said: "The fact is, Benghazi is a story of making sure it doesn't happen again. It's a story of, will the system work when an ambassador says, 'I need more security;' instead, he gets less security?"
But Graham says Clinton's culpability, along with an ongoing coverup of the real facts by the Obama administration, must be at the forefront.
"The noose is beginning to tighten. The president got away with it seven weeks before an election . . . trying to create a narrative that this was a protest caused by video [instead of] the truth that it was a preplanned terrorist attack by al-Qaida operatives," he said.
"It was the first sign of what's going on in the world today, the rise of al-Qaida. So, the real story in Benghazi beyond the four dead Americans, which is heartbreaking, tragic, is the failure of Obama's foreign policy.
"When the commander-in-chief and his team distort intelligence and basically cover up what happened to four people in the line of duty for political purposes, that's a very big deal," Graham said.
While Graham and Issa appear to differ on the top priorities of the Benghazi probe, the Palmetto State lawmaker praised his Republican colleague.
"Darrell Issa has done as much as anyone to get to the bottom of Benghazi, and I really admire what he's done on the Oversight Committee," Graham said.
Obama Lied about Libya and People Died
The Obama doctrine is a failure. It is time for a change before more Americans die at the hands of Al-QaedaObama Lied about Libya and People Died
|
Now that is a slogan the liberals would chant if the shoe was on the other foot. But the bottom line is why did Obama and his people lie about Libya? Was Obama afraid of Al-Qaeda?
Did Obama think he would lose the election if the truth was known about the Al-Qaeda attack. If he lied about Libya without any hesitation, what else has he lied about?
The usual stuff is what’s hiding in the transcripts? The Donald will pay a fortune to find out. But what is hiding in those darn hills.
The story about Libya is quite scary. The story seems to be changing every day. As I recall first it was just a plain vanilla demonstration that is normal in Libya. Obama claimed it was all about the movie. Well, actually about the trailer… not sure anyone has seen the movie. They locked up the author for a parole violation.
But now we find out it was all about a planned attack. This attack went on for hours. And there was a call for help and the help came too late. The help was told to stand down.
So it’s hard to imagine that Hillary and Obama have set a certain standard or rules of engagement. I get the feeling we are sitting on a powder keg that can blow at any moment. So instead of protecting the Ambassador and his staff, they reduce the security. Twice I believe it was stated. If they couldn’t protect them, Obama should have gotten them out of there! Maybe Obama was too busy… Campaigning!
So we have to ask Why? The only reason that I can come up with is the liberal mindset. They actually thought that if they were well protected it would invite trouble. Duh, that didn’t work out too well. I guess they never heard the speeches by President Reagan. The best way to prevent confrontation is to have an army that is so superior, no one would dare to confront the United States.
Well, Obama and Hillary must have been absent that day. Don’t keep an unsecured Ambassador in Libya on 911.
Alright, we can understand that Obama and Hillary do not have a good track record with confrontation. Heck, she knew for a decade that Billy Bob was sexually harassing women, but it was best to look the other way and go after the female accusers when necessary.
But there was a call for help in Benghazi and the help was told to stand down. Watergate was a big thing. It was about a photograph. Nobody died, at least physically. But in the Libyan scandal we know that 4 Americans died. The most important question is, if the United States answered the first call for help would there be more dead al-Qaeda and no Americans killed!
Obama was against the war in Iraq and in favor of the war in Afghanistan. It is great to be hiding in the White house while the SEALs assassinated Osama. It is ok to take credit for something Obama had no part of. But is that the Obama doctrine?
The Bush Doctrine was if you mess with us, we will make you pay many times over. But what is the Obama Doctrine.? Would you be my friend if I look weak and cooperative. If our people call for help in the middle of a campaign, we don’t want to look like the aggressor in a Muslim country that has a crap load of Al-Qaeda terrorists within its borders.
And when in doubt, just lie. There is ample proof that Obama knew within an hour of the attack that it was a terrorist attack. There were no people in the situation room. Instead they were singing Kumbaya at the campaign stops.
Where’s Michael Moore? He should have a movie out there by now. I have a title for him. Where was Obama when the Americans were dying on American soil in Libya?
Obama is quick to file lawsuits against other states. Obama was quick to sign almost a thousand executive orders. Obama is quick to make speeches. But Obama was not there when we needed him most. Where was Obama when it was time to protect the ambassador?
The ambassador thought help would come. He hid in the smoke filled room. Help never came. Unconsciousness came instead.
Why wouldn’t an ambassador in a place like Libya be protected by the most and the best. There were no apologies. The usual rhetoric about we will get to the bottom of this. We will get those responsible. I think Obama should look in the mirror.
Is there any way we can blame this on President Bush. We actually can. Most of Obama’s successes have come from policies instituted by the Republicans. So it’s President Bush’s fault because he did not foresee that we would have an ambassador in Libya at a time like this.
Obama should know that even an embassy in Denmark is so well equipped that it can hold off an army for a long period of time until help arrives. That is in Denmark! And Obama had no security in Libya. They were told to stand down until the ambassador was almost dead!
Obama was asleep at the switch. He failed to protect America. Just like Clinton it appears that the terrorists have grown again. Maybe a change in leadership will do the terrorists some good.
The Obama doctrine is a failure. It is time for a change before more Americans die at the hands of Al-Qaeda. Killing Osama and bragging about it every day globally is a great way to piss off our enemies.
I think we have had enough of this Obama Doctrine. It is much better to be proud to be an American! What do you think? Do you think we can be safe with the Obama Doctrine for another 4 years?
Dr. Phil is the author of YourDemocracyChange.Com. and “Is Now the Time for Revolution or Aggressive Reform: Volume 1”. Dr. Phil seeks a solution to the bipolarization of America and a common sense solution to bringing peace to the political anger. He has hosted talk radio shows and has written newspaper and internet columns.
Dr. Taverna has presented seminars nationally. He has attended Utica College of Syracuse University, Wagner College, NYU School of Dentistry, and Seton Hall School of Law.
Dr. Taverna can be reached at: drphil@yourdemocracychange.com
http://canadafreepress.com/
Dr. Taverna has presented seminars nationally. He has attended Utica College of Syracuse University, Wagner College, NYU School of Dentistry, and Seton Hall School of Law.
Dr. Taverna can be reached at: drphil@yourdemocracychange.com
http://canadafreepress.com/
Fox News report raises new questions about Benghazi attack talking points
Opinion
Fox News report raises new questions about Benghazi attack talking points
By Charles Hoskinson | FEBRUARY 6, 2014 AT 2:15 PM
One of the key questions about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans was why Obama administration officials insisted for so long on calling them the result of spontaneous demonstrations rather than a planned terrorist strike, as they turned out to have been.A new Fox News report suggests former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell removed any mention of terrorism from administration talking points about the attacks for political reasons.
The report quotes findings from a SenateIntelligence Committee investigation released Jan. 15 that say Morell edited the administration talking points to cut about half the text, including references to any prior warnings to the State Department. "The word 'Islamic' was cut, but 'demonstrations' stayed in," the Fox report noted.
This occurred on Sept. 15, 2012, four days after the attacks and the same day the CIA received an email from its station chief in Libya insisting they were not an escalation of protests as administration officials had been saying.
Republicans on the Senate intelligence panel slammed Morell in the report for being dishonest with the committee and raised the possibility that politics had played a role in the editing process.
But Morell, in a statement to Fox, said the Senate report "...strongly supports the CIA's long-standing position — that neither the unclassified talking points nor the classified analysis on which they were based were in any way politicized. While not perfect, neither the talking points, nor the analysis, were produced with any political agenda in mind. None. Both the analysis and the talking points represented the view of analysts at the time — a view that evolved in the days that followed as more information became available."
But the key question remains unanswered: Where did the idea of blaming the attacks on a spontaneous protest come from?
Who drafted the first version citing the demonstrations of the White House talking points on which then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice based her controversial statements on Sundaytelevision news shows in the aftermath of the attacks?
There's never been any clear evidence that a protest led to the attacks which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, while proof that the attacks were a planned terrorist strike has been mounting.
Even a recent New York Times investigation that concluded the attack were "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam" contained reporting indicating the protests were organized and guided by people who had planned all along to attack the two U.S. compounds in Benghazi.
It's time for the administration to come clean on this important issue.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/
The report quotes findings from a SenateIntelligence Committee investigation released Jan. 15 that say Morell edited the administration talking points to cut about half the text, including references to any prior warnings to the State Department. "The word 'Islamic' was cut, but 'demonstrations' stayed in," the Fox report noted.
This occurred on Sept. 15, 2012, four days after the attacks and the same day the CIA received an email from its station chief in Libya insisting they were not an escalation of protests as administration officials had been saying.
Republicans on the Senate intelligence panel slammed Morell in the report for being dishonest with the committee and raised the possibility that politics had played a role in the editing process.
But Morell, in a statement to Fox, said the Senate report "...strongly supports the CIA's long-standing position — that neither the unclassified talking points nor the classified analysis on which they were based were in any way politicized. While not perfect, neither the talking points, nor the analysis, were produced with any political agenda in mind. None. Both the analysis and the talking points represented the view of analysts at the time — a view that evolved in the days that followed as more information became available."
But the key question remains unanswered: Where did the idea of blaming the attacks on a spontaneous protest come from?
Who drafted the first version citing the demonstrations of the White House talking points on which then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice based her controversial statements on Sundaytelevision news shows in the aftermath of the attacks?
There's never been any clear evidence that a protest led to the attacks which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, while proof that the attacks were a planned terrorist strike has been mounting.
Even a recent New York Times investigation that concluded the attack were "fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam" contained reporting indicating the protests were organized and guided by people who had planned all along to attack the two U.S. compounds in Benghazi.
It's time for the administration to come clean on this important issue.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/
First criminal charges filed in Benghazi attack probe
First criminal charges filed in Benghazi attack probe
Improvement in the value of the Iraqi dinar encourage some countries want to handle it
Improvement in the value of the Iraqi dinar encourage some
countries want to handle it
Wednesday - February 5 (February 2014) - second year - Issue 482 Wednesday-5 Feb 2014 No. 482
BAGHDAD - My Day
A member of the Finance Committee MP / coalition of Kurdish blocs / Dler capable, that the relative improvement of the value of the Iraqi dinar against the U.S. dollar during the current period, making some states want to deal with it. He is capable of: that the Iraqi dinar is improving day after day, thanks to the new monetary policy pursued by the central bank, prompting some countries such as India and neighboring countries wishing to deal in the business processes. He pointed out that the increase in the confidence of the world in Iraqi dinar will make it difficult international currency, likely that the coming weeks will see an improvement over the value of the dinar against the dollar, and this will enhance the confidence of the world do. India has approached the Iraqi government, the adoption of dealing in local currencies in the process of exchange of Commerce of the two countries instead of the dollar in order to support the Iraqi and Indian currencies. The Finance Committee has confirmed that 2014 will see the deletion of zeros from the Iraqi currency, are described: The delete will be in coordination with the Central Bank. Said committee member Abdul Hussein al-Yasiri in a press statement: The process of deletion of zeros from the national currency will begin during 2014, through an agreement with the central bank, noting: This project will lead to reducing the proportion of the national currency in circulation from four billion to one billion. Added: The value will be reduced to the size of the quarter and this will enhance the value and easy to transport, pointing out that fraud or manipulation of currency cash, it will be very difficult. The CBI identified earlier in the beginning of this year will see the implementation of the project to delete the three zeroes from the national currency, but the Iraqi government has demanded the bank to wait to apply the project, fearing the emergence of counterfeit currency during the switching process.
http://beladitoday.c...news&id22=15548
Wednesday - February 5 (February 2014) - second year - Issue 482 Wednesday-5 Feb 2014 No. 482
BAGHDAD - My Day
A member of the Finance Committee MP / coalition of Kurdish blocs / Dler capable, that the relative improvement of the value of the Iraqi dinar against the U.S. dollar during the current period, making some states want to deal with it. He is capable of: that the Iraqi dinar is improving day after day, thanks to the new monetary policy pursued by the central bank, prompting some countries such as India and neighboring countries wishing to deal in the business processes. He pointed out that the increase in the confidence of the world in Iraqi dinar will make it difficult international currency, likely that the coming weeks will see an improvement over the value of the dinar against the dollar, and this will enhance the confidence of the world do. India has approached the Iraqi government, the adoption of dealing in local currencies in the process of exchange of Commerce of the two countries instead of the dollar in order to support the Iraqi and Indian currencies. The Finance Committee has confirmed that 2014 will see the deletion of zeros from the Iraqi currency, are described: The delete will be in coordination with the Central Bank. Said committee member Abdul Hussein al-Yasiri in a press statement: The process of deletion of zeros from the national currency will begin during 2014, through an agreement with the central bank, noting: This project will lead to reducing the proportion of the national currency in circulation from four billion to one billion. Added: The value will be reduced to the size of the quarter and this will enhance the value and easy to transport, pointing out that fraud or manipulation of currency cash, it will be very difficult. The CBI identified earlier in the beginning of this year will see the implementation of the project to delete the three zeroes from the national currency, but the Iraqi government has demanded the bank to wait to apply the project, fearing the emergence of counterfeit currency during the switching process.
http://beladitoday.c...news&id22=15548
UNITED STATES incorporates in England In 1871
Was governed entirely by private corporate law,
dictated by the banks as creditors.
UNITED STATES incorporates in England In 1871 the default again
loomed and bankruptcy was eminent. So in 1871, the ten miles square was
incorporated in England. They used the constitution as their by-laws. Not as
authority under the Constitution but as authority over the
constitution. They copy righted, not only the constitution but also many names
such as, THE UNITED STATES, U.S. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA and many
other titles as their own. This is the final blow to the original constitution.
From here on out, the UNITED STATES was governed entirely by private corporate
law, dictated by the banks as creditors.
More Bankruptcy Re-organizations Then, in 1909, default loomed
once more. The US government went to the Crown of England and asked for an
extension of time. This extension was granted for another 20 years on several
conditions. One of the conditions was that the United States allow the
creditors to establish a new national bank. This was done in 1913, with the
Federal Reserve Bank. This, along with the 16th Amendment,
collection of Income tax, enacted February 25, 1913, and the 17th
Amendment enacted May 31, 1913, were the conditions for the extension of time.
The 16th and 17th Amendment further reduced the states
power. The UNITED STATES adopted the Babylonian system.
The people of the 50 Union states together maintain foreign
sovereign immunity
First, an important point needs to be made clear here. In law, a
fictitious entity can only deal with another fictitious entity, because only
parties of equal standing can communicate in law. Read that again!
The rights of the individual…are restricted only to the extent
that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
"A sovereign (the lawgiver) is exempt from suit, not because
of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical
ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the
law on which the right depends." "A suit presupposes that the
defendants are subject to the law invoked. Of course it cannot be maintained
unless they are so." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907) 205 U.S. 349.
This is known as the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. The
government uses this all the time to protect itself against lawsuits. They
create the statutes, and they only agree to be bound by certain statutes. If as
a U.S. citizen, you do not have that right because you are property of the
federal government. As a freeborn spirit, an American man/woman, you are the
creator of the government, so you are immune from suit, unless you agree to
waive this right and enter into a suit. Every time you file an legal action in
a court, you agree to be bound by the rules of the court and the statutes of
the jurisdiction you are acquiescing to. You waive any inalienable rights you
may have and agree to be bound by the statutes. Read that again!
SOVEREIGN PEOPLE defined: the political body, consisting of
the entire number of citizens and qualified electors, who, in their collective
capacity, possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them through their
chosen representatives [see Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.]
Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1396)
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ACT defined: subject to existing
international agreements to which the U.S. is a party, and to certain statutorily
prescribed exceptions, a foreign nation is immune from the jurisdiction of
federal and state courts. [28 U.S.C. Sec. 1601-1611] Black's Law Dictionary
Sixth Edition (page 1396) Read that again!
FOREIGN STATES defined: Nations which are outside the United
States. Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state. The term
"foreign nations," as used in a statement of the rule that the laws
of foreign nations should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to
mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and
hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule.
A "foreign state" within statute providing for expatri ation of
American citizen who is naturalized under laws of foreign state is a country
which is not the United States, or its possession or colony, an alien country,
other than our own. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C., 111 F.Supp. 593, 598.
WITHIN defined: Into. In inner or interior part of, or not
longer in time than. Through. Inside the limits of; during the time of. When
used relative to time, has been defined variously as meaning any time before;
at or before; at the end of; before the expiration of; not beyond; not
exceeding; not later than. Glenn v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 515, 516.
Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1692)
WITHOUT defined: Outside; beyond; in excess of. Black's
Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1692)
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule,
regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required
or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn
declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in
writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of
office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than
a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported,
evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by
him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the
following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify,
verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature).”
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories,
possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature).”
TELL US THE TRUTH IN 2014
WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO AND THEN
SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!
ALL THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD ARE
LYING TO US EVERY DAY...AND MOSTLY OUR
WELLS FARGO BANK STORY
I received this from a friend, Feb 6, 2014. It was his story
personally.
Betty
I went to my WF branch this morning in the Phoenix metro area, to do some regular banking business. I have known a banker there for years, and she is fully aware I have IQD, and I told her to let me know if she hears something.
As I was walking out of the bank, she quickly abandoned the
couple she was helping at her desk, and stopped me. She told me she received a
memo this morning, (Feb 6) that stated that "The position of WF was that
they would NOT, absolutely would NOT be doing currency exchange for the
IQD." Then, she stated, "That the IQD would ONLY be worth anything
"in country", in Iraq." She made certain I knew that. That was
it, and she went back to her desk.
What I get from that, assuming the memo put out by WF, is that
the RV has/is/will be happening shortly, but WF is not going to do a currency
exchange for it, means that maybe other banks will, but I clearly picked up
that in Iraq, the IQD will have value again shortly!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
