Hillary’s Obscene Response to the Orlando Shootings

By John V. Walsh
Global Research, June 14, 2016
CounterPunch 13 June 2016

Region: USA
Theme: Militarization and WMD

Hillary2-400x266Hillary Clinton’s statement on the mass murder in Orlando is mostly a confection of the empty, saccharine pieties for which the entire American political class is known – but it concluded with a revealing statement.

There she said: “This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.” (Emphasis, jw)

But those “weapons of war” have been used on the streets of Iraq and in midnight raids on the civilian population in the war there that Hillary so ardently backed.

Does she even grasp what she is saying? She is saying that it is an atrocity to use such weapons on Americans – but not on the brown people, civilians in their homes, in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East and North Africa in U.S. wars of aggression and the occupation. To be horrified by the use of those weapons on Americans but not on Arabs qualifies as racism of the basest sort.

And what about the causes of the atrocity in Orlando? In attempting to discuss the cause, she mentions the lack of gun control and the discrimination against the LGBT community. But she forgets to say in her statement that ISIS laid claim to the atrocity, lauding one of its American followers for carrying out the deed. So ISIS is responsible, and the hatred of America on which ISIS thrives is responsible.

But where does ISIS come from? It did not exist before the war on Iraq that Hillary and her fellow neocons peddled so assiduously with lie upon lie. The war on Iraq, the divide and conquer tactic that the US invaders used to set Shia against Sunni to cripple the population are the factors that brought ISIS into being. The civil war in Syria, another pet project of Hillary’s, gave a further opening and impetus to ISIS.

And Barack Obama had pretty much the same message as his evil ex-Secretary of State. Gun control and LGBT rights were front and center, but nary a word about the devastation the U.S. Empire has wrought in the Middle East that brought about the rise of ISIS.

The word “blowback” was not to be found in Hillary’s or Obama’s statements.

But of course it goes deeper than that. The U.S. has long backed Saudi Arabia where the ideology for ISIS was concocted and promoted. Saudi Arabia and the other medieval monarchies of the Gulf who have so ardently supported ISIS have long been supported by the U.S. The secular governments in the region like those of Gaddafi, Hussein and now Assad, in contrast, are targets for regime change ops – brutal ones at that. These are the very governments that fought the Islamic fundamentalists – and the US has attacked every one of them. How deep does the hand of the U.S. government, or parts of it, go in the rise of ISIS? It is a question that needs to be answered by a full Congressional investigation, but chances of that are nil while Obama and Hillary and their neocon buddies are in charge.

Finally the U.S. alliance with Israel and the backing of the apartheid Jewish state in its long, slow genocide of an entire Arab people, the Palestinians, also stirs hatred for the U.S. Does Hillary think that has nothing to do with the hatred ISIS expresses for the U.S? She apparently thinks “the price is worth it,” to quote a protege of hers. Thus Hillary in her obeisance to AIPAC and the rest of the Israeli Lobby puts herself in the front ranks of those who have given birth to events like the ones in Orlando.

Atrocities breed atrocities. Or as Andrew Kopkind remarked in another context, the skies were dark in Orlando this past weekend with the chickens coming home to roost.
Prof. John V. Walsh, MD, can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com. He usually does not include his title in a little bio like this, but in this case the political essay above involved a bit about science. can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com
The original source of this article is CounterPunch
Copyright © John V. Walsh, CounterPunch, 2016

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

Hillary “Wins” Benghazi Bipartisan Bad Faith Boogaloo

To President Obama:

You know that I voted for you twice, and that I’d  vote for you again if you rebuff the neo-conservatives who now opened another front – this one against you.  I have critized you many times, signed petitions when you  asked me. But one thing I can’t do is to unite behind someone with a long career in corruption, a compulsive lier who claims experience in foreign policy, diplomacy and still has not been asked about the “body bags” (including the four Americans killed in Benghazi).  She flunked the D.C. bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar.  Add to this that Clinton emails contained “Operational” information and put lives at risk.

We have been closely following the Clinton email scandal and  additional information was leaked on the 22 “top secret” emails withheld by the State Department. An official is quoted as saying that “some of those emails contained “operational intelligence” and jeopardized “sources, methods and lives.”

We have long maintained that this was a serious scandal and that Clinton’s evolving defense does not track with national security rules or procedures. I consider the decision to use exclusively an unsecure server for “convenience” to be a breathtakingly reckless act for one of the top officials in our government.

I’m also deeply concerned about the level of “spin” coming from the campaign that is misrepresenting the governing standards and practices in the field. Much of what has been said in defense of Clinton’s use of the email system is knowingly misleading in my view.

Who can trust this person but the Wall Street Hawks? The people she sold weapons to?  The landowners and the Canadian mining corporations, which dominate the Honduras mining sector?  Was this the reason to kill a young activist in favor of the  abused workers, who was executed in her own bed?

The new president redoubled efforts to appeal to workersLandowners determined to fight reform; Military becomes concerned about potential murdered; Thousands disappeared and tortured; Military ruled by decree for 17 years; Supported by U.S. State Department,  Somoza’s National Guard reforms in Honduras. And what was the woman running for the presidency of the United States doing in Honduras?  Helping with a “regime change”?

She brags about being the first woman to run for United States President,  and not even the first to run for a major party’s nomination. Here’s a list of the women:

Victoria Woodhull – Belva Lockwood – Laura Clay -Grace Allen –

Margaret Chase Smith  – Charlene Mitchell – Shirley Chisholm –

Patsy Takemoto Mink – Bella Abzug – Linda Osteen Jenness

Mrs. Clinton did not win Benghazi. She won the shadow of American ambassador Chris Stevens being dragged by terrorists, raped, tortured and burnt — for the rest of her life.

You still have a friend here President Obama; regards to Michelle and the girls.

~Ainhoa

 Here is an excellent post by William Boardman

Region:
In-depth Report: NATO’S WAR ON LIBYA

What is “Benghazi,” Washington’s long-running kabuki circus, really about?

Is it about dead diplomats and CIA mercenaries? Foreign service security? Terrorist attacks and Islamaphobic movies? Emails and Sidney Blumenthal? Whether Hillary Clinton cares, or whether she spends the night alone? Does the Benghazi committee, or anyone else, really know what “Benghazi” is about?

On September 11, 2012, as Libya fell deeper into chaos, one of the organized and well-armed jihadi groups used outrage at an Islamaphobic movie as a cover for attacking the “special mission compound” (not the embassy in Tripoli, not a consulate) that served as a cover for the nearby CIA mission station. The jihadis in that attack killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and his information officer Sean Smith. One of the missions Stevens was working on was retrieving weapons in Libya before they fell into the hands of jihadi groups like the one that killed him. So far, for three years, no one has seemed to wonder whether the jihadis were aware of Stevens’ mission and his presence in Benghazi that night.

What gave “Benghazi” legs from the start was not any curiosity about why things happened as they did, but why the Obama administration started obfuscating immediately. One obvious reason was the 2012 presidential campaign, which might be hurt by admitting a “terrorist” attack. Republicans and mainstream media greeted the event with accusations and blame for the president. So the administration bobbed and weaved and sent UN ambassador Susan Rice out to TV land, where she told a long line of talking heads an unforthcoming and variable story that was essentially inaccurate. Rice’s talking points were vetted by the CIA, which had things to keep hidden. At the Benghazi hearing Republican congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio cited evidence that Clinton had spread the same false story while knowing it was false:

“You can’t be square with the American people. You tell your family it’s a terrorist attack but not the American people. You tell the Libyan president it’s a terrorist attack but not the American people. You tell the Egyptian prime minister it’s a terrorist attack but not the American people.”

Clinton denied Jordan’s interpretation of the evidence, but offered no alternative. No one mentioned the CIA. When the committee chair invited Clinton to respond at greater length, she ducked and plugged her book instead: “I wrote a whole chapter about this in my book, Hard Choices. I’d be glad to send it to you, congressman.”

Hillary Clinton’s performance was well prepared and impressive

From her opening statement on, Clinton made it clear what her talking points were and she maintained them with remarkable composure and occasional good nature. She began slickly, acknowledging the “terrorist attacks” and then taking the high ground of honoring the fallen:

“The terrorist attacks at our diplomatic compound and later, at the CIA post in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, took the lives of four brave Americans…. I’m here to honor the service of those four men. The courage of the Diplomatic Security Agency and the CIA officers who risked their lives that night. And the work their colleagues do every single day all over the world.”

Then she spent some time on Chris Stevens, whom she knew and admired as “one of our nation’s most accomplished diplomats.” In 2012, Stevens had been in the Foreign Service 21 years and was named to his first ambassadorship that May. By then he was well known for his sometimes unorthodox ingenuity and effectiveness, as Clinton said:

“When the revolution broke out in Libya, we named Chris as our envoy to the opposition. There was no easy way to get him into Benghazi to begin gathering information and meeting those Libyans who were rising up against the murderous dictator Gadhafi. But he found a way to get himself there on a Greek cargo ship, just like a 19th-century American envoy. But his work was very much 21st-century, hard-nosed diplomacy….

“I was the one who asked Chris to go to Libya as our envoy. I was the one who recommended him to be our ambassador to the president….

“Chris Stevens understood that diplomats must operate in many places where our soldiers do not, where there are no other boots on the ground and safety is far from guaranteed. In fact, he volunteered for just those assignments.”

A lawyer who never practiced law, Stevens had a resume that included stints as an embassy political officer in Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo, and Riyadh. He had served with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and with Senator Richard Lugar. At the State Department, he was special assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs and was in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs as the Iran desk officer. And he had worked in Libya twice before, in 2007-2009 and in 2011, as envoy to the opposition during the Libyan revolution.

One of Stevens’ jobs in Libya was running guns to Syrian rebels

Since Chris Stevens was a smart, savvy, alert operative who was surely aware of the significance of the 9/11 date, the obvious question is: why did he decide to be in Benghazi, with limited security, on that date? What seemed important enough to him to take such an obvious risk? Hillary Clinton answered the question this way:

“Nobody knew the dangers of Libya better. A weak government, extremist groups, rampant instability. But Chris chose to go to Benghazi because he understood America had to be represented there at that pivotal time. He knew that eastern Libya was where the revolution had begun and that unrest there could derail the country’s fragile transition to democracy. And if extremists gained a foothold, they would have the chance to destabilize the entire region, including Egypt and Tunisia. He also knew how urgent it was to ensure that the weapons Gadhafi had left strewn across the country, including shoulder-fired missiles that could knock an airplane out of the sky, did not fall into the wrong hands. The nearest Israeli airport is just a day’s drive from the Libyan border.”

That’s a nice bit of hide-in-plain sight deflection. Stevens was in Benghazi for two days. He wasn’t “representing” America there, his post was Tripoli. But it sounds good to have him in Benghazi to protect Egypt and Tunisia (even though Tunisia was blessed to avoid American “help” and is perhaps the most stable country in the region now). Clinton even throws in Israel to further blur her listeners’ minds with an imaginary and rather dangerous “day’s drive from the Libyan border.” That’s chutzpah! And well done, with a straight face.

The nugget of reality embedded in largely fatuous rhetoric is the urgency to secure “the weapons Gadhafi had left strewn across the country, including shoulder-fired missiles….” That seems one of the most likely reasons Stevens was in Benghazi, to secure those weapons somehow. Storing them at the special mission compound was not a good option, and even the CIA annex was only temporarily safe. These weapons had to go somewhere safe, or useful, and there was an operational stream already in place, from Benghazi through Turkey, to some of the Syrian rebels the US thought might be worth supporting there. Syrian rebels, with no air force of their own, were at the mercy of the government air force, and surface-to-air missiles would be helpful (we knew the technique worked, having supplied surface-to-air missiles to the mujahedeen to shoot down Russian aircraft in Afghanistan some 35 years ago).

In his last official action on September 11, 2012, Chris Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat thought to be involved with shipping Libyan weapons through Turkey to Syrian rebels.

Weapons flowed along a CIA rat line established in early 2012

Officially denied, but credibly reported by Seymour Hersh and others, the idea of US shipping arms to Syrian rebels without Congressional authorization is hardly radical or shocking. It’s a condition best assumed to be true, since means, motive, and opportunity are all aligned. In the London Review of Books of April 17, Hersh wrote:

“The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida.”

In early 2012 President Obama signed a secret order authorizing support for Syrian rebels. In early 2011, President Obama had signed a secret order authorizing support for Libyan rebels. Some of the subsequent covert action was known as Operation Zero Footprint. It was widely known within the intelligence community, the administration (including Clinton), and Congress. There’s no credible explanation of where the Libyan weapons went, and almost no one asks. When Republican congressman Mike Pompeo of Kansas brought these covert operations up at the Benghazi hearing, his three questions to Clinton were all framed as “awareness” questions. His second question was about weapons to Syria (the other two were about weapons to Libyan rebels):

“Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons, directly or indirectly, or through a cutout, to any Syrian rebels or militias or opposition to Syrian forces?”

That’s a softball question with so many moving parts (and bad grammar) that any decent lawyer would have no trouble evading. The repetition in “U.S. efforts by the U.S. government” is a huge loophole, since the Libyan operation was run by NATO. Clinton answered the Syrian question and the other two with a single word: “No.” There were no follow-up questions. Clinton no doubt has credible deniability on Stevens’ involvements in gun-running, but that doesn’t explain why a Kansas Republican went out of his was to ask her cover-your-butt questions.

Living in denial means not having to explain what’s real

The official story, the consensus narrative for most of Washington and the mainstream media, is that gun-running out of Benghazi is “bogus” or a “fantasy” or a “myth.” Using all these words in Newsweek on October 21, Kurt Eichenwald goes on at some length to defend the official story. Late in his piece he gets to the gun-running and explains it away with a counter-myth of his own:

“No one advancing this fantasy ever explains how a secretary of state could be directing an intelligence operation that would be handled by the CIA.”

As if Clinton and almost anyone else in a position of intelligence authority in any administration wouldn’t know better than to make secret operations obscure. This is a classic strawman argument with Clinton as the strawman. The Newsweek story also cites a Republican report from the House Permanent Select Committee that said in part:

“All CIA activities in Benghazi were legal and authorized. On-the-record testimony establishes that CIA was not sending weapons (including MANPADS) from Libya to Syria, or facilitating other organizations or states that were transferring weapons from Libya to Syria.”

Yes, perhaps all CIA activities were legal and authorized by secret presidential findings. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. “On-the-record testimony” is pretty weak evidence for anything in the intelligence world. And even if the testimony is technically accurate, it’s hardly relevant to an operation run by NATO. The best evidence that we’re being lied to is the amazing amount of smoke and mirrors deployed to assure us we’re being told the truth. And that smoke and mirrors includes the Benghazi committee’s reluctance (as well as previous investigations’ failure) to look at the core issues with integrity – which is understandable, since that might well lead to a constitutional crisis. But while failure of integrity is quieter and calmer than confrontation, that failure is itself a constitutional crisis that we have lived with for decades now.

The Newsweek story castigates Republicans for refusing to “accept facts over fantasies,” which is fair enough as far as it goes. But when the alternative is a set of facts equally fantastical, that’s really no help. But Eichenwald piles on, virtually accusing Republicans of being terrorists:

“No doubt, the terrorists set on attacking America are cheering them on. Nothing could delight some terrorist sitting in a Syrian or Libyan or Iraqi hovel while hearing a top Republican congressman brag on television that a relatively small attack on a U.S. compound continues to threaten to transform a presidential election in the most powerful country in the world.”

That is shameless fearmongering. That is an intimidation tactic designed to enforce silence and reinforce denial. He could call for honest questions designed to get honest answers. That would be new. But the official answers have already been decreed, so everyone just needs to move on. And to add shamelessness to shamelessness, Eichenwald’s final, irrelevant, blatantly manipulative emotional appeal is to “allow the dead to finally rest in peace.” That offends the living and the dead.

Does anyone really want a serious exploration of the deeper issues?

Democrats on the Benghazi committee have outlined the omissions in the investigation (such as key witnesses from the defense and intelligence hierarchies) that demonstrate its lack of seriousness to date. It’s not that the Democrats were unduly concerned about the lack of a serious investigation, it took them months even to mention it, and their letter of July 15, 2015, was far from a call for integrity of process. What motivated the Democrats, understandably, was the appearance that the Republican majority had shifted its focus to make Hillary Clinton the primary target of the Benghazi committee.

The received wisdom on Benghazi is that, as The New Yorker dutifully put it: “There have now been seven full investigations of the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack, five in the House and two in the Senate.” This formulation omits other investigations by the State Dept.’s Accountability Review Board and news media, etc. Each previous investigation seems to have reached a conclusion that the events in Benghazi were somewhere between “untidy” and “a mess,” but none recommended any indictments. However the assumption that any investigation has been “full” is a false assumption. None of them have yet explored the shared assumptions that made Benghazi possible, if not inevitable.

In her opening statement, Hillary Clinton referred to the current shared assumptions that shape American behavior in the world. No one on the committee contradicted her.

“America must lead in a dangerous world….

“We have learned the hard way when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences. Extremism take root, aggressors seek to fill the vacuum and security everywhere is threatened, including here at home. That’s why Chris [Stevens] was in Benghazi. It’s why he had served previously in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jerusalem during the second intifada….

“Retreat from the world is not an option. America cannot shrink from our responsibility to lead…. ”

This mantra is a variation on the creed of American exceptionalism, but it is only a belief system. This is not an analytical assessment of anything. “America must lead” is not a clearly self-evident proposition, it is only an article of faith. Others believe otherwise. Some surely believe the world would be a less dangerous place without American leadership, certainly without the kind of leadership America has provided for the past 35 years.

Clinton herself points to the contradiction inherent in her doctrine of American goodness. To defend her belief, she resorts to fearmongering. She is objectively wrong to assert, as a universal truth, that “when America is absent,” bad things happen. Tunisia is only the most obvious example of places where America’s absence is a blessing. Her list of places where Chris Stevens served is a list of horrors and failures – Syria is a failed state, Jerusalem continues to suffer, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are brutal dictatorships that we have helped sustain for decades.

“Retreat from the world” is, in fact, an option. But it is an option with a range of meanings from reduced engagement to isolationism. What we’ve been doing for decades has not helped make the world a better place. Our most engaged interventions have made the world a much worse place, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. When Hillary Clinton claims, as she did, that “America is the greatest force for peace and progress the world has ever known,” she must known that’s not true. And she must also know it’s especially not true for Libya, where she was the prime architect for the “peace and progress” that has produced yet another failed state.

Opposition to rampant American militarism is rare, but not unknown. At a hearing little more than a month after the Benghazi attacks, at an October 16, 2012, hearing, Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio spoke eloquently to the wider context in which Chris Stevens died, in an intervention taken without constitutional authority:

“We bombed Libya. We destroyed their army. We obliterated their police stations. Lacking any civil authority, armed brigades control security. Al-Qaeda expanded its presence. Weapons are everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air missiles are on the loose. Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya….

“We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Let’s stop trying to overthrow governments. This should not be a partisan issue. Let’s avoid the hype. Let’s look at the real situation here. Interventions do not make us safer. They do not protect our nation. They are themselves a threat to America.

Pity the poor Republicans. They want to pillory Hillary Clinton without denigrating her rash rush to war in Libya. They want to blame Democrats for casualties without abandoning their policies designed to shed more blood. That’s a tricky tightrope, and it’s entertaining, at first, to watch them cling to it. The fun stops when you realize what the real stakes are for our nation, that USA that everyone at the hearing purports to love, even as they do it varying forms of grievous harm. Honest answers about “Benghazi” won’t be had until someone asks honest questions.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Hitlery Campaigns to Violate Constitution and Make Law Herself if Elected As People Applaud

 

freedomoutpost

 

hillary-clinton-400x301

It’s up to the americans to decide if they want a true leader in the White House or this clown that will make the United States of America a joke to laugh about among the world leaders.

By Freedom Outpost
Trend setters. You know who they are. These are the individuals who parade out in thrown together garb; then, next thing you know, everyone is wearing it. It happens with hairstyles too — men and women. Anything that someone who is highly visible in the media, such as Holly Weird dimwits, begin to parade around in, with or on becomes a trend for emulation. Unfortunately, it works that way in politics as well.
Unfortunately, it works that way in politics as well.
With Obama’s ever increasing use of executive orders and fiats to change law or enact law to get what he wants, many called at each violation for the impeachment of Obama or else a precedent, read trend, would be established for future occupiers of the office to act like a dictator. The calls to impeach were ignored by Congress due to Boehner disagreeing with impeachment and Gowdy wondering if anyone had met Joe Biden. A complicit Congress has made it so that 2016 Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, stated she would use executive orders to do a work around Congress to force Republicans to respond to her agenda.
Obama has had such success with his “lawmaking” abilities through executive orders that Hillary Clinton is campaigning, promising and declaring to use the same to “execute her domestic policy agenda on issues such as gun control, ending corporate ‘inversion’ deals and immigration, where she promises to shield more people from deportation.” She has repeated this intention on three different occasions. Appearing on the NBC Today Show, Hitlery stated in regards to gun control, “I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints. I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president,” to impose her agenda.
On corporate inversion deals, where US companies buy foreign companies then moves it headquarters abroad to avoid US taxes, Hitlery called for the need to use executive action, decree, to “get the job done” if Republicans on Capitol Hill would not. Granted, the issue of corporate inversion is a problem and it might appeal to many citizens to support Hitlery in her idea. However, it is a usurpation for her to do so.
Speaking at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, she stated, “This is not only about fairness, this is about patriotism. If Congress won’t act, then I will ask the Treasury Department when I’m there to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.”
Regarding immigration, Clinton declared her intent to go further than Obama to protect illegal alien invaders’ rights through executive action.
Speaking at a Democratic Fundraiser in Iowa, Hitlery said, “I am going to back and support what President Obama has done to protect [young immigrants] and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation. And I have said that if we cannot get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy — then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families.”
Republicans have huffed and puffed at Obama regarding his use of executive order to make law and end run around Congress. The presidential memorandum, a form of executive order, has been used by Obama more times than any other president in history. As Obama navigates around Congress using the memorandum and executive orders, Republicans cry “foul” yet refuse to follow the law and impeach the man. Instead, Republicans filed lawsuits challenging a few of Obama’s orders, such as the recess appointments and the unilateral delay of the employer mandate of Obamacare. The Supreme Court found Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. It didn’t matter. The House refuses to do their duty and file articles of impeachment.
Hitlery has taken notice. Now, she can campaign on a pledge to violate the Constitution, with impunity, as Republicans will not bring impeachment against Obama, and be the Democratic front-runner for the nomination. She has skirted any charges in the Benghazi attacks. Email-gate will go nowhere. Nothing will stop her; therefore, she proudly pledges to violate the Constitution, commit treason, and people applaud this woman.
It was predicted by many that Congress’s failure to hold Obama accountable by filing articles of impeachment would result in future presidents violating the Constitution in the same manner, which basically means a dictatorship. Just so happens, Hitlery is now campaigning on that platform — the use of executive “decree” to enact law without Congress — to act as a dictator. People are applauding in support of this intention. She is admitting she will violate the Constitution, break the law and the oath of office should she be elected.
Make no mistake; she’ll use dictatorial edict on more than the three issues she’s mentioned while campaigning.
In response, Congress will remain silent in complicity. They would not impeach Obama for whatever lame reason given to the public. More than likely, it was due to being blackmailed, coerced or threatened, while believing the media would slam-dunk them using the term “racist.” Should Hitlery win the presidency, Congress will follow the same pattern as with Obama. Only this time, the accusation would be “sexist.”
With what America has witnessed during the Hussein administration, it is obvious that Republicans have squarely placed themselves in bed with Democrats/Communists/Socialists. Nothing changed when Republicans were given a majority in the Senate to match the House. The same game was played with different players. Americans can expect the same thing in 2016 and forward from Congress as an emboldened Obama moves along with the agenda.
Unfortunately, many in America have become stupid, ignorant, lazy, and brainwashed due to indoctrination that they applaud someone declaring to violate the law. These people cannot be helped. And, voting Republican will change nothing. Again, the same game will be afoot with different players.
 
With Obama’s ever increasing use of executive orders and fiats to change law or enact law to get what he wants, many called at each violation for the impeachment of Obama or else a precedent, read trend, would be established for future occupiers of the office to act like a dictator. The calls to impeach were ignored by Congress due to Boehner disagreeing with impeachment and Gowdy wondering if anyone had met Joe Biden. A complicit Congress has made it so that 2016 Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, stated she would use executive orders to do a work around Congress to force Republicans to respond to her agenda.
 
Obama has had such success with his “lawmaking” abilities through executive orders that Hillary Clinton is campaigning, promising and declaring to use the same to “execute her domestic policy agenda on issues such as gun control, ending corporate ‘inversion’ deals and immigration, where she promises to shield more people from deportation.” She has repeated this intention on three different occasions. Appearing on the NBC Today Show, Hitlery stated in regards to gun control, “I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints. I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president,” to impose her agenda.
 
On corporate inversion deals, where US companies buy foreign companies then moves it headquarters abroad to avoid US taxes, Hitlery called for the need to use executive action, decree, to “get the job done” if Republicans on Capitol Hill would not. Granted, the issue of corporate inversion is a problem and it might appeal to many citizens to support Hitlery in her idea. However, it is a usurpation for her to do so.
 
Speaking at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, she stated, “This is not only about fairness, this is about patriotism. If Congress won’t act, then I will ask the Treasury Department when I’m there to use its regulatory authority, if that’s what it takes.”
 
Regarding immigration, Clinton declared her intent to go further than Obama to protect illegal alien invaders’ rights through executive action.
 
Speaking at a Democratic Fundraiser in Iowa, Hitlery said, “I am going to back and support what President Obama has done to protect [young immigrants] and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation. And I have said that if we cannot get comprehensive immigration reform as we need, and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy — then I will go as far as I can, even beyond President Obama, to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families.”
 
Republicans have huffed and puffed at Obama regarding his use of executive order to make law and end run around Congress. The presidential memorandum, a form of executive order, has been used by Obama more times than any other president in history. As Obama navigates around Congress using the memorandum and executive orders, Republicans cry “foul” yet refuse to follow the law and impeach the man. Instead, Republicans filed lawsuits challenging a few of Obama’s orders, such as the recess appointments and the unilateral delay of the employer mandate of Obamacare. The Supreme Court found Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. It didn’t matter. The House refuses to do their duty and file articles of impeachment.
 
Hitlery has taken notice. Now, she can campaign on a pledge to violate the Constitution, with impunity, as Republicans will not bring impeachment against Obama, and be the Democratic front-runner for the nomination. She has skirted any charges in the Benghazi attacks. Email-gate will go nowhere. Nothing will stop her; therefore, she proudly pledges to violate the Constitution, commit treason, and people applaud this woman.
 
It was predicted by many that Congress’s failure to hold Obama accountable by filing articles of impeachment would result in future presidents violating the Constitution in the same manner, which basically means a dictatorship. Just so happens, Hitlery is now campaigning on that platform — the use of executive “decree” to enact law without Congress — to act as a dictator. People are applauding in support of this intention. She is admitting she will violate the Constitution, break the law and the oath of office should she be elected.
Make no mistake; she’ll use dictatorial edict on more than the three issues she’s mentioned while campaigning.
 
In response, Congress will remain silent in complicity. They would not impeach Obama for whatever lame reason given to the public. More than likely, it was due to being blackmailed, coerced or threatened, while believing the media would slam-dunk them using the term “racist.” Should Hitlery win the presidency, Congress will follow the same pattern as with Obama. Only this time, the accusation would be “sexist.”
 
With what America has witnessed during the Hussein administration, it is obvious that Republicans have squarely placed themselves in bed with Democrats/Communists/Socialists. Nothing changed when Republicans were given a majority in the Senate to match the House. The same game was played with different players. Americans can expect the same thing in 2016 and forward from Congress as an emboldened Obama moves along with the agenda.
 
Unfortunately, many in America have become stupid, ignorant, lazy, and brainwashed due to indoctrination that they applaud someone declaring to violate the law. These people cannot be helped. And, voting Republican will change nothing. Again, the same game will be afoot with different players.
 
It’s time for Americans to begin to hate the game and the players. Politicians are playing a game that is about to finish the transformation of this nation from a constitutional republic to whatever they have decided. The players are set and the people being the pawns are moved about with little difficulty. Either American citizens support, uphold and defend the Constitution in its entirety, whether agreeing with all tenets or not, or be prepared to live under a government decreed to us. Remember, it is not the Constitution that is the problem. It is those in government, who are violating it, that are the problem.

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What’s Next?

hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480

Make no mistake. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous – the worst of all possible deplorable choices, none worthy of any public office, all aspirants beholden to wealth, power and privilege exclusively.

 

By Margaret Sullivan – Public Editor’s Journal

July 27, 2015 10:00 am

Updated: July 28, 2015 | The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

1) please repost the original reporting;
2) provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.
3) what are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?
4) are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

The story developed quickly on Thursday afternoon and evening, after tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill. The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as “multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,” including some “in law enforcement.” I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department.

The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially.

“We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,” Mr. Purdy told me. “That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.”

By Friday afternoon, the Justice Department issued a terse statement, saying that there had been a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information, stating clearly that it was not a criminal referral. Mr. Purdy says he remains puzzled about why the initial inaccurate information was confirmed so clearly. (Update: Other news outlets also got confirmation of the criminal referral as they followed The Times’s story. They did not report, as an earlier version of this post suggested, that she herself was the target of the referral.)

There are at least two major journalistic problems here, in my view. Competitive pressure and the desire for a scoop led to too much speed and not enough caution. Mr. Purdy told me that the reporters, whom he described as excellent and experienced, were “sent back again and again” to seek confirmation of the key elements; but while no one would discuss the specifics of who the sources were, my sense is that final confirmation came from the same person more than once.

The reporters and editors were not able to see the referral itself, Mr. Purdy said, and that’s the norm in such cases; anything else would be highly unusual, he said. So they were relying on their sources’ interpretation of it. All at The Times emphasized that the core of the initial story – the request for an investigation – is true, and that it was major news, as was the later development.

Hindsight’s easy, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Here’s my take:

First, consider the elements. When you add together the lack of accountability that comes with anonymous sources, along with no ability to examine the referral itself, and then mix in the ever-faster pace of competitive reporting for the web, you’ve got a mistake waiting to happen. Or, in this case, several mistakes.

Reporting a less sensational version of the story, with a headline that did not include the word “criminal,” and continuing to develop it the next day would have been a wise play. Better yet: Waiting until the next day to publish anything at all.

Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy.

What’s more, when mistakes inevitably happen, The Times needs to be much more transparent with readers about what is going on. Just revising the story, and figuring out the corrections later, doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Baquet, who is a former Times Washington bureau chief, told me Sunday by phone that he faults himself on this score, and he would do it differently now.

“We should have explained to our readers right away what happened here, as soon as we knew it,” he said. That could have been in an editor’s note or in a story, or in some other form, he said.

“The readers of The New York Times got whipsawed,” by all the conflicting reports and criticism, he said.

He agreed, as Mr. Purdy did, that special care has to come with the use of anonymous sources, but he believes that the errors here “may have been unavoidable.” And Mr. Purdy said that he thought The Times probably took too long to append a correction in the first instance.

But, Mr. Baquet said, he does not fault the reporters or editors directly involved.

“You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Mr. Baquet said. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”

None of this should be used to deny the importance of The Times’s reporting on the subject of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, a story Mr. Schmidt broke in March. Although her partisans want the focus shifted to these errors, the fact remains that her secret email system hamstrung possible inquiries into her conduct while secretary of state both by the news media and the public under the Freedom of Information Act and by Congress. And her awarding to herself the first cull of those emails will make suspicion about what they contained a permanent part of the current campaign.

Nevertheless, the most recent story is both a messy and a regrettable chapter. It brings up important issues that demand to be thought about and discussed internally with an eye to prevention in the future.

Mr. Baquet and Mr. Purdy said that would happen, especially on the issue of transparency to readers. In my view, that discussion must also include the rampant use of anonymous sources, and the need to slow down and employ what might seem an excess of caution before publishing a political blockbuster based on shadowy sources.

I’ll summarize my prescription in four words: Less speed. More transparency.

After all, readers come to The Times not for a scoop, though those can be great, but for fair, authoritative and accurate information. And when things do go wrong, readers deserve a thorough, immediate explanation from the top. None of that happened here.

(Update: An editors’ note, explaining the errors and stating that corrections should have been handled differently, was published late Monday, and appeared in Tuesday’s paper on page A2.)

The Many Faces and Lies of Hillary Clinton

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE - OCTOBER 5: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about gun violence and stricter gun during a townhall meeting at Manchester Community College Monday October 5, 2015. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

For four years she was Obama’s loyal secretary of state. Her critics call her an interventionist, her admirers tough-minded. What kind of president would she be?   The worst?

This woman should be prosecuted for denying help to U.S. Ambassador Stevens

 

Obama Wanted Ambassador Stevens DEAD. Nevada Governor 2014 David Lory VanDerBeek

 

Michael Savage: Ambassador Stevens Raped and Sodomized Before Murder.

REP. Lynn Westmoreland Slams Hillary: ‘Christopher Stevens Asked Numerous Times For Extra Security!

 

Hillary Testifies And Caught Lying About Emails Stack By Mrs Brooks

 

Excerpts from FP – The Hillary Clinton Doctrine

On Jan. 13, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave what turned out to be a remarkably prescient speech in Doha, Qatar. “The region’s foundations are sinking into the sand,” she warned. If you do not manage to “build a future that your young people will believe in,” she told the Arab heads of state in the audience, the status quo they had long defended would collapse. The very next day, Tunisia’s dictator was forced to flee the country. Almost two weeks later, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians thronged Cairo’s Tahrir Square demanding that then-President Hosni Mubarak step down. Over the following week, Clinton and her colleagues in the Barack Obama administration engaged in an intense debate over how to respond to this astonishing turn of events. Should they side with the young people in the streets demanding an immediate end to the deadening hand of autocratic rule, or with the rulers whom Clinton had admonished, but who nevertheless represented a stable order underpinned by American power and diplomacy?

The young national security aides whom Obama depended on heavily for advice, including Denis McDonough, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power, saw the Arab Spring as a supreme opportunity for a president who had often spoken about “the arc of history” to align himself with the forces of change.

Secretary Clinton thought they were naive. She told her deputy, James Steinberg, that she saw no reason to believe that the Tahrir crowd would or could govern Egypt in Mubarak’s absence. She was close to the Mubaraks, and especially to the president’s wife, Suzanne. And, most decisively, recalls Dennis Ross, then the National Security Council senior director for the Middle East, “Her feeling was that Mubarak has been a friend for 30 years, and if you walk away from your friends, every other ally in the region is going to doubt your word.” Even Ross, a hard-headed realist, thought Clinton was putting too much stock in her old friends. Mubarak, he told her, “is blind to what’s going on, and it’s going to get worse.”

On Jan. 28, at a national security meeting in the White House Situation Room, Clinton pushed back against those who urged Obama to put himself on the right side of history. Two days later, she went on NBC’s Meet the Press to make her case to the public, commending Mubarak as a source of regional stability and calling for an “orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy.”

The debate pitted hope against caution and young against old: then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden sided with Clinton. The president chose hope. On Feb. 1, he stated publicly that the “orderly transition” of which his secretary had spoken “must begin now.” Several days later, Egypt’s military deposed Mubarak, ushering in a brief era of euphoria in the Arab world — and in the White House.

This episode matters today, of course, because Hillary Clinton is seeking to become the first secretary of state since James Buchanan to ascend to the presidency. Several different narratives about her tenure have begun to cohere. Among Republicans prepared to say anything to discredit her, the most salient event from her time in office is the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, which allegedly demonstrates that she was asleep at the switch, self-absorbed, indifferent to the welfare of her own diplomats, and so on. One investigation after another has shown that these claims are preposterous. The far more serious claim, advanced most recently by, of all people, Vice President Joe Biden, is that Clinton was an ”interventionist” — all too inclined to believe that “we just have to do something when bad people do bad things.”

A President Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be more confident about the utility of force than President Obama has been (or a President Biden would have been). She was the most enthusiastic of all of Obama’s senior civilian advisors about the counterinsurgency plan his generals proposed for Afghanistan in 2009; she helped persuade a very reluctant commander in chief to bomb Libya to prevent atrocities there. Clinton is a Cold War-era patriot who believes unambiguously that America is a force for good in the world. At the same time, it’s clear from conversations I had this summer with most of her senior staff members, as well as White House officials and outside advisors, that Clinton is a cautious figure who distrusts grandiose rhetorical formulations, is deeply grounded in the harsh realities of politics, and prefers small steps to large ones. Her belief in the use of American power has less to do with the humanitarian impulse to prevent injustice abroad than with the belief that only coercion works with refractory nations and leaders.

Is that good or bad? Perhaps that depends on how one thinks about how the Arab Spring turned out. Clinton is proud of her role — she tells the story in her memoirs at great length — because she thinks history has vindicated her judgments. Egypt quickly spun into a maelstrom of confusion and political incompetence, and has now emerged as a harsher dictatorship than it was in 2011. The hope that Obama offered, above all in his first year in office, often seemed untethered to the grim realities of the world, putting his rhetoric at odds with his actions. Clinton’s optimistic vision is less soaring, less idealistic, less transformative in its goals. Perhaps that will turn out to be well suited to our own diminished expectations of America’s ability to shape the world beyond its borders.

On one of her first trips abroad, in April 2009, Clinton went to London with Obama for the meeting of the G20 group of nations. Obama was about to hold his first meeting with Hu Jintao, then China’s president, and he informed Clinton that he was going to tell Mr. Hu that he was prepared to visit China that fall for a state visit on the margins of the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Clinton suggested he withhold the offer. The president then turned to Jeffrey Bader, then his chief national security aide for Asia, who urged him to do just as he planned — which Obama then proceeded to do. Afterwards, Bader told me, Clinton pulled him aside — in order, he assumed, to instruct him never again to contradict her before the president. In fact, she said, “I just want to explain my thinking to you,” Bader says. “The essence of it was leverage to her mind. A presidential visit is a big deal, and you don’t give it away lightly.”

Bader had supported Obama during the campaign, and he subscribed to the collective view of the Obama camp that Clinton was petty and vindictive. He was startled to find, as many people are when they meet Clinton privately, that she was considerate and warm. He also realized that she thought about diplomacy largely in transactional terms. “She’s an immensely pragmatic person,” Bader says. “She is not an ideological person. She’s a deal-maker. Her attitude is: How can we get this done?”

Virtually everyone I spoke with who has worked closely with Clinton speaks of her this way. Philip Gordon, Clinton’s former assistant secretary for Europe and Eurasia and later a national security advisor to Obama, says, “Obama is, instinctively, not liberal, but almost revolutionary. Clinton is instinctively more conservative.” He uses the example of America’s relationship with Russia. Clinton was always on the bleak side of the spectrum of opinion about what could be gained from the “reset,” though she was eager to explore the possibilities. The corollary of the reset was the need to reassure Eastern European allies and preserve NATO solidarity. Clinton, as Gordon puts it, “was quite happy to be the guardian of the corollary.”

The temperamental difference between the president and his secretary of state was foreshadowed in a famous exchange during a campaign debate in July 2007. They were asked whether as president they would be prepared to meet “without preconditions” with the leaders of rival states including Iran and North Korea. “I would” said Obama. Clinton said that she would not; the next day, she called Obama’s answer “irresponsible and frankly naive.” As I reported at the time, the Obama team found the exchange “orienting.” He was a different kind of Democrat, free from Cold War protocols and prepared to take the first step to break the paralytic grip of rivalry. Yet it turned out to be telling for Clinton as well. For her, there was nothing artificial about state rivalry, nothing that could be overcome by acts of mutual understanding. Rivalry was to be managed, not transcended.

And yet this presents an incomplete picture. Bruce Jentleson, a political scientist who worked as a senior advisor to the State Department’s Policy Planning director from 2009 to 2011, says that in Clinton, “you see elements of 20th century thinking and 21st century thinking.” Clinton sought to consistently redefine America’s national interest to include not just classic geopolitical calculations but the economic and institutional development of other states. She made the status of women a central concern of her tenure. She sought to transcend the simple-minded distinction between “hard” and “soft” power by adopting the term “smart power,” to describe a form of statecraft that combined development, diplomacy, public-private partnerships and, yes, military power. One of her signal initiatives was the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an effort to re-think the organization of the State Department in order to harmonize all of these elements. The exercise generated a great deal of noise and a few modest outcomes: State now has officials directly responsible for “cross-cutting” issues including energy, women’s rights, and information technology.

It’s an unusual combination. Clinton thinks about the relationship between states pretty much the way Henry Kissinger does. But she thinks about America’s global agenda pretty much the way Barack Obama does. This sounds like a contradiction, but could also be regarded as an adaptation to a world in which the United States faces both rival states, as it long has, and a new class of problems without borders.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C) meets with Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba (L) and South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan during a tri-lateral aside the 67th UN General Assembly in New York, September 28, 2012. AFP PHOTO/Emmanuel DUNAND (Photo credit should read EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/GettyImages)

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C yellow teeths) meets with Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba (L) and South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan during a tri-lateral aside the 67th UN General Assembly in New York, September 28, 2012. AFP PHOTO/Emmanuel DUNAND (Photo credit should read EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/GettyImages)