Saturday, February 16, 2013

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO

GOP HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE NEEDED!



BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for FRIDAY - SUNDAY Feb, 15 -17 2013

TELLING THE RIGHT WING MEDIA HOW TO DO ITS JOB in public is done on a regular basis casually online among conservatives, but it's time we stepped up the game and started making the activity a bit more formal and direct. Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest at FOX NEWS have created a pretty cute game: blaming "mainstream media" for faults of which they themselves are also guilty, while they themselves, with the highest ratings on cable, also absolutely qualify by any measure as "mainstream media". Repeat: Fox News is also Mainstream Media. Play-pretending to not be what they are while projecting their own failures on others has got to stop.

Here are 2 very recent examples of the media handling Benghazi, a right way and a wrong way, from February 14, 2013 - last night as of this writing.

The first one is HOW YOU DO IT RIGHT. It is the excellent Bret Baier on his nightly cablecast interviewing Benghazi hawk GOP Senator Lindsey Graham - Graham one of the few true heroes exposing the Benghazi outrage.

Baier asks Graham what needs to be asked: What about the survivors? Benghazi-Truth only gives this exchange a 70% approval rating because it discusses only procuring the now-hidden records of the FBI/CIA questioning of the witnesses the night of the killings, and not the more salient issue of demanding that the Obama administration release the names of the witnesses so Congress can call them to testify directly. But compared to other news outlets and Fox personalities, it's badly needed Manna From Heaven.



IMO here now is how it is not done. When some of us tweeted Greta Van Susteren, the 10:00 PM EST host of Fox News' "On The Record", she, in her brief responses, gets clearly snippy and asks us - the people - to basically set up an interview for her worth probably a million bucks. That instead of doing the kind of investigative journalism she has displayed on things such as the Van Der Sloot case. IMO, disgraceful responses (click each image for larger, easy-to-read images).







After this first exchange, Greta took what looks at first blush like a meaningful first step, but without mentioning this most important possible of political stories on her TV show, only the following Twitter post, she appears to be only throwing a bone to look busy so she no longer has to deal with the issue thereafter. In the new global town hall of Twitter, assuming your audience is stupid enough to not see this for what it is, is IMO not the way to do it. 



As always, I remain convinced, now, as do many others, that Obama wanted the people in Benghazi dead. With so many options to save them, it seems that the only way they could be dead today is if he wanted them dead. Here were just a few of Obama's options to save them:

1. Remove them from Benghazi when Britain realized the danger was so severe they pulled their people out.


2. Remove them from Benghazi when Stevens sent his first cable saying they could not survive an attack they felt was coming


3. Remove them from Benghazi when Stevens sent his second cable saying they could not survive an attack they felt was coming


4. Send them military protection when the first or second warning cable from Stevens came or when Britain got out.


5. Send them to the Annex and fortify the Annex with military when the first or second warning from Stevens came.


7. Send military immediately when attack first detected.


And now that we know there are 25-30 survivor witnesses, confirmed by Hillary Clinton in her congressional testimony, who have not been seen or heard from for 5 months after the military flew them out. Not one stepping forward to tell, not one requested by Obama to tell a story, Obama fighting Congress to keep their stories from being heard. For all we know Obama has had them all killed and is waiting for our interest to get distracted and go away from Benghazi. We have nothing to go on but a pop culture assumption that Obama must be too good for that because he's our President, and from Hitler & Stalin onward, we have seen what happens when "enlightened people" look away from the facts.


IMO, if left to people like Greta van Susteren, Obama will get his wish.


On Monday, President's Day, we want to get everyone who comes in once in a while and tweets with the crowd and make a huge crowd activity of it, Tweeting both GOP congress and Media.


Join us.




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


Here's another outstanding guest memo by BT's resident military expert, "Sergeant Major". Read this carefully: he makes some very important points no one else has made.


GUEST BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for Tuesday Feb 12, 2013
NOTE: Unsurprisingly, this has been a particularly popular Daily Memo, so Benghazi-Truth will keep it as the top memo until Feb 15. THIS IS A MUST-READ.  

By Sergeant Major

Last week the Senate Armed Forces Committee conducted a hearing into the #BENGHAZI Massacre. Five major players emerged: Senators McCain, Ayotte and Graham who "questioned" Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey. The hearing followed other #BENGHAZI hearings in that alibis were in abundance and true facts rare as a Bible in Baghdad  One such fact did emerge-a big one-so stand by for that.

General Dempsey was an embarrassment. In an ill tailored uniform (sleeves too short revealing 3" of shirt cuff where regs allow for no more than a half inch), the General slouched in his chair, leaned on his elbows and answered questions with a subtle smirk on his face. His testimony began with "Yes", "No", and multiple "Yeahs" (!) instead of "Yes Sir or No Ma'am" as required by military courtesy. More to the point, his sometimes confused responses were a smorgasbord of the "not my fault", "have a lot on my plate", "you'll have to ask someone else" variety. No wonder his command failed at #BENGHAZI. To quote Patton as he reviewed his new troops in Tunisia, "They don't look like soldiers. They don't act like soldiers. How do you expect them to fight like soldiers?"

Secretary of Defense Panetta was a little better. Affecting an avuncular, even lugubrious style, Panetta was rarely shaken or goaded into intemperate ("What does it matter how they died!?") remarks. He has survived around Beltway Power in a variety of positions and knows how it works. He realizes that OBAMA is his boss and must do what he can to protect him but not at the expense of his own career. In other words, Panetta won't stab OBAMA in the back but he won't fall on his sword for him either. As such, it was Panetta that gave up the new factoid.

Of the three senators, McCain was least effective  though he did take General Dempsey to task for his "surreal" testimony. This upbraiding was deserved but not germane to what happened at #BENGHAZI. Senator Ayotte was a touch too wordy, but her questions stayed on target-what was done to defend #BENGHAZI-which elicited a patronizing, disrespectful response from the General. 

It was Senator Lindsey Graham that tore Panetta/Dempsey a new one. His rat-a-tat questions, interruptions of filibustering answers ("I'm Sorry to interrupt you, but I have only so much time") and stern tone kept Panetta/Dempseys' feet to the fire. Graham's questions extracted a scenario of a command in disarray and confusion with no one truly calling the shots. Graham: "Who was in charge that night?" Panetta, shrugging:"I guess we all were in charge that night." 

But the best salvo came at the end.

Graham: "Was there any soldier...of any kind...deployed from any base... anywhere... enroute to support #BENGHAZI?" 

The Secretary of Defense and the General fumbled for an answer until Panetta stammered, "No, because we couldn't get there in time." 

To which Graham barked, "How did you know 'in time'? You didn't know before it was over when it would end."

The Big Fact revealed by Panetta was that OBAMA was AWOL that night. According to the Secretary, he and the General had a 20-30 minute briefing with the President at 5;00 pm Washington time where OBAMA was apprised of the deteriorating situation in #BENGHAZI. The President was distracted, detached and offered little guidance except, "Do what you can." All night long OBAMA did not ONCE talk to them either to ask or answer questions involving the staus of the situation at #BENGHAZI. This is important. Without rehashing a previous blog on Chain of Command, suffice to say before ANY rescue force of ANY kind can militarily enter Libyan airspace or violate Libyan boundaries these forces would first receive Presidential authorization, referred to as "Cross Border Authority". If OBAMA wanted #BENGHAZI to burn and the Ambassador to die all he need to do was make himself incommunicado, thus hamstringing the rescue effort. "Not To Act Is To Act" And that's exactly what a sleeping OBAMA did.

Still, the question remains. According to reports, a "Stand Down" order was given that night of 9/11/12. Since Hillary, Panetta, Demsey deny they gave the order, and OBAMA was sleeping, SOMEONE on the White House staff played President that night and Stood Down the rescue.

WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO STANDDOWN AT #BENGHAZI?

EDITOR: Since Sergeant Major's Memo has been up for 2 days, I don't feel too disrespectful to reiterate what my own feeling his here so the reader knows where this blog stands on the issue generally; in the second to last paragraph, Sergeant Major notes that if Obama wanted to kill everyone in Benghazi, he needed do nothing more than turn his back and remain uncommunicative to questions and answers. It has become my own conviction that Obama did, indeed, want everyone in Benghazi dead. After all these months, only one scenario seems to hold together and fit:  For whatever reason, possibly to cover gun-running, an operation Rand Paul believes was likely, IMO Obama, probably in concert with the Libyan Government whose propaganda about the killing being caused by a mob incensed by an anti-Muslim video was clearly the lead for Obama's own lie on the cause of the killings, decided that all in Benghazi must die. This seems extremely likely as Obama had many opportunities before and during Sept 11, 2012 to send reinforcements or get the people out and he very clearly intentionally did neither.  With so many options to help them, it seems clear that the only way those people could be dead today is if Obama wanted them dead. What would have gone wrong, then, is the two ex-SEALS breaking ranks and saving 25-30 unwanted witnesses, and that too holds, since Obama is steadfastly refusing to give up any information to Congress about the identity or location of the witnesses after 5 months, information usually offered to Congress within 48 hours of similar events. None of the witnesses have stepped forward, nor their families, and this is of course fraught with alarming, Nazi-esque implications of unconstitutional holding or worse. As melodramatic and truly unprecedented that may sound for a situation in the United States of America, that is how the facts shake out. The people of this country are not stupid. We need to hear the witnesses and we need to hear them now.

BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for FRIDAY - SUNDAY Feb 8-10 2013


THERE IS A LITTLE HOPE in this Benghazi murder cover-up scandal, and it's coming from a few Senators and GOP House Reps, whose motivation, I believe, is now coming from a successful growing movement, started here - and on Twitter, particularly,  where Kathy Amidon has volunteered to lead the charge. 

More and more people are dipping their toe into the water of online activism about Benghazi, and wake up the following morning still free and associating with the same friends from the night before. They awaken to the enraging realization that for years they have been terrified into political inaction by smoke and mirrors about black helicopters, activists disappearing into the night and impossible computer tracking technology that threatens to steal them away into the blackness from whence no man returns. But no, the following day the sun shines and after a week, then two, then three, and seeing that activists who have been at it for months are still free, they realize they were literally scared of nothing. Then they get angry. They then jump into the water fully. And therein lies the hope. The Tea Party is being reborn into a much more powerful force, driving our own Reps and Senators with a fear more legitimate than any left-wing paranoid fantasy: the people they need to elect them are getting mad - at them - and telling the world on social media where the lamestream media cannot save those politicians with mockery and silence.


So far this activity is just now picking up steam and the numbers are still very small: about a core of a dozen and a half regulars and maybe half that many poking their noses in once in a while to be sure the paranoid fantasies really were just lies after all. This memo is for you: It's safe - and America needs you to jump in fully. 


The activity is really ridiculously simple: just follow whoever is leading, usually @Kathy_Amidon on twitter in the early evenings, and simply voice your desire for the politicians being "spoken to" at the moment to get off their lazy asses, quite bluntly, and earn the tax money that pays them

and get to work on finding the missing Benghazi witness/survivors Obama has hidden somehow and made to "go away". The message is, do it or find new jobs in 2014. 

By posting in the reply areas of their own bragadocious posts where your displeasure cannot be erased or silenced, you humiliate them in front of their constituents and sow the seeds of discontent for the upcoming election.  In other words, we are back to the good old days when Americans in the town square could decide - themselves, without being at the mercy of a censoring media - whether a politician would survive the next election, motivating him to actually work hard enough that on occasional mornings he might even forget to stop at the shoeshine boy, lest he miss an opportunity and find himself back with the peasants earning an honest living like the rest of us.


So for your education and inspiration to get involved, here are a few illustrations of this activity. If a small proportion of my followers alone of 1,150 (I follow 20)when others have so many more, added just one comment to a few threads Kathy and others lead every day, it would absolutely and totally freeze their continued political ambitions cold in a heartbeat until they had convinced the world - to their own suddenly cold-sweat satisfaction - that Benghazi had been addressed to it's proportionate necessity compared to Watergate:  by a factor of 100.


It's so easy. It's incredibly easy. And yet we are already seeing a big uptick by the GOP in their attention to Benghazi. As our "Pal" GOP Representative Rohrabacher has volunteered, the GOP has started reading this blog - and they certainly read their own twitter threads. They know we're here, they know we're mad, they know we have figured out the secret to beating the media and they know we intend to lay their political futures to absolute waste in the next few months if they do not do their jobs on Benghazi to our satisfaction  That's not weird, arrogant, presumptive,  irrational or any other similar demeaning negative - this is nothing more or less than the way our Forefathers meant our country to be Governed. And we are doing it. With loud, angry and impatient determination. The shoeshine boy, bless his heart, can wait - there is work they need to do first. Here are a few examples (click on each image for the more-easily-readable full size):











   
This incredibly quick, simple, easy, harmless (to you) and absolutely, 100% necessary activity is not for squares, crazies, hyperventilating conspiracy theorists or people ridiculously dressed as Uncle Sam on the 4th of July. It is for any citizen who just maybe happens to give a damn about what is happening to America. 

Try it. You'll like it. After being marginalized by the media into believing your voice is a hopelessly mocked collection of noises and liberals have scared you into being sure that terror awaits any mere expression of political defiance, you will be astonished at how fresh and free you'll feel when you see your voice really is smart outside of your immediate group of friends, makes a difference, and has real power to change the world. You have waited a long time for this moment. 


Go for it.






BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for Sat/Sun/ Feb 2/3 2013-to-?


EDIT: Moderate my palpable anger  a bit given the above more recent Memo, but I am told by some of the more recently involved activists that this post, below, is what motivated them to take the action illustrated above, so it will remain.

ARE YOU BETRAYING AMERICA? It's a serious question because there is no neutral political inaction in America when the President is an obvious Marxist communist whose health care will determine if you live or die, wants to take your guns away, raise your taxes through the roof, limit your free speech, find any way possible to ensure liberal democrats outnumber everyone else and at the very least chose to allow our Ambassador and others in Benghazi to die and has somehow made the 30 witnesses to the atrocity vanish while a frightened and timid GOP congress dithers about and looks for easier subjects to make it appear that they are on the job today.  

Most of you, the 700 - 1,000 readers on an average day are here from Twitter. Others and myself have outlined how you can help. We've given you the GOP contact information. Suggested what you can say and the many ways to say it. Supplied you with talking points and warned you of the very real dangers associated with the implications of what happened in Benghazi. I've shown you how history is repeating itself toward Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany (the possible extent of that transformation depends on the media, and as someone who works in it let me tell you that most of the decision makers hate you so much that they will happily go down in flames just for the sick satisfaction of knowing they took you with them).

And where have you been? Sometimes we have to beg you to so much as retweet a Benghazi message. Is your thumb so weak that you have to stagger your clicks on the mouse? While you posture like heroes and call those more moderate "sheeple", what have you been doing? have you contacted your congressman? Yes? really? That one letter, four telephone calls and 5 e-mails? You really think that is fractionally enough to make a dent? 

You need to contact as many GOP House members as you can - in public, on Facebook and twitter where you can effect public opinion and the politicians can see that and act accordingly to save their careers. What happened today that set me off on this? I ask for people to gather together tonight and help. Out of the 1,050 followers I have (most came to the message, I only follow 22 myself) I see Kathy, Stan, Janson and Deb taking the time to do anything. I may have missed a few, but So what?

Is this entertainment for you, to watch, be intrigued,  watch others play the show out while you comment and play critic and let everyone else do the damn simplest things in the world so basic a moron could do them, and yet illustrate by your inaction that such minuscule efforts are simply too much trouble for you to bother, while expending volumes of energy complaining at your friends?

I have heard "Frank/Proe, we need you to lead!" I've done it plenty professionally over the years, so I know how, certainly. Unfortunately, I also recognize a company full of people who should be fired. But I cannot fire you and cannot replace you. All I can do is watch you watching me and a few others while doing nothing yourself. Therefore, I say this: " I need you to do something."

I'm not Rush Limbaugh who pontificates like a pompous ass while never rallying the energy of his millions of listeners,  probably because if they do not need saving, he is no longer relevant.  Know this: IMO Rush is the white conservative Jesse Jackson: he's out of business without a collective people to save, so the balance remains tight to keep the people baited while making sure they remain in a perpetual state of needing to be saved. 

I am not Sean Hannity, a kid from Long island New York who, IMO, acts like he grew up on country music and pickup trucks while he sucks the conservative stereotype dry for millions a year, complaining about gossip but never calling attention to the few things that could actually damage Obama, like Arpiao's citizenship/records investigation or the missing banghazi survivors. 

If you want to make a good resolution, stop patronizing them: You are in the habit of passively listening to them and offering your own watered-down versions of the act on the internet but not doing what the left is doing and beating the living shit out of us by doing it: engaging themselves politically actively.

Remember, Obama has apparently secreted away 30 witnesses to an atrocity and even Congressional members have acknowledged it while at the same time treating it as no more than a political curiosity. You could be next, and as long as no pressure is put on the GOP House, they will walk through their halls of marble, smelling like expensive cologne and too much starch, concentrating on one thing: to keep the game going at election time, for God forbid, having been spoiled on a life like that, they should ever return to a world requiring them to get a real job.

To show I mean what I say, I am going to start to sit back and watch you for awhile, and that's fair, because I started this effort to win by helping us all to expose the Benghazi cover-up to America, not so you would have a little extra casual entertainment revolving around a subject that happens to interest you. If that's all it is I'll spend my evenings on the town and join the millions in this city who won't awaken until the next 9/11. Maybe next time it will be your city. Maybe you'll be the one killed when they strike again. Maybe in that last second you'll think that you could have done more to expose a cancer in which the DNA was made clear in Benghazi, and you were too busy waiting for Rush to save you to bother.

So no more memos, no more Benghazi Day Counts - nothing from me. If you are offended by this and want to unfollow me, be my guest, because in this town fair weather friends are a dime a dozen and I have more than I can use as it is.

Will Benghazi be exposed and see Obama prosecuted and end this nightmare, or will Obama simply toss his head back and laugh in private, knowing you could have stopped an agenda as outrageous as his, and failed because you sent one e-mail, made three calls, chatted to your friends and listened to Rush and thought that was enough.

They say you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Well, drink heavily from the internet while you can, because if you think that if Obama regains the House in 2014 and won't restrict your internet for the good of the state and imprison everyone against the state like he imprisoned the film maker on whose video he blamed Benghazi, knowingly putting that man's life in mortal danger for the rest of his life, then, quite frankly, it might just be that with there being no such thing as a neutral inaction, you have worked hard to earn his same fate.




BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for Thursday/Friday, Jan 31/Feb 1, 2013

Please share so we're all on the same page strategically.



Ancient bamboo copy of "The Art of War" at the University of California, Riverside
"KNOW THY ENEMY" is a famous quote attributed to an ancient Chinese military treatise by General Sun Tzu called "The Art of War". It states, fully, "Know thy self, know they enemies. A thousand battles, a thousand victories." In The Art of War, there are several chapters which even today are regarded as a pretty good template for winning a war. While those who physically murdered our people in Benghazi reside in other countries, those who are keeping us from knowing the truth live and operate right here in the United States. Obama once referred to Republicans to an Hispanic audience as "the enemy", while feigning, Satan-like, the accent of those to whom he was speaking to gain their trust. By Obama's own political precedent  then, we can refer to Obama as "the enemy" who is keeping us from knowing the truth, and keeping us without the facts he is, clearly deliberately. Therefore, it might be of some value to apply the tactics outlined in "The Art of War": to the legal and political strategies to find out what happened in Benghazi. 

First, we need to understand that we have two enemies: Obama, and the GOP House which seems determined to do nothing. This is not an assumption wrongly concluded: Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator John McCain, Senator Kelly Ayotte and other very high-ranking Senators are furious about the Administration's handling of Benghazi. Graham has vowed not to confirm any Obama appointment until the person presently in that point, if in anyone way knowledgeable about Benghazi, has testified before the Senate, and this includes Leon Panetta.

However, the House is a different matter. The degree to which they are not fulfilling their exclusive congressional oversight obligations is becoming a nightmare. Nowhere is this better illustrated than the following exchange from three nights ago between patriots, led by Kathy Amidon, and so-called ranking Republican House member Dana Rohrabacher, whose insensible defenses for not issuing subpoenas, rude and sarcastic demeanor and absolutely not credible claim - illustrated in these screenshots - that was not even aware of the Benghazi survivors until the time of this conversation - three days ago - is infuriating, clearly punctuated by untruth and makes him a clear example of someone who is an "enemy" (your first instinct may be to assume that this is not the real Representative Rohrabacher, but if you check that account, you will see it is followed by his daughter and at least one other rep, Jason Chaffetz, so this is the real deal):

Click on any of the images for a larger, easy-to-read version.



What we have here, absolutely incredibly, is this: a confirmed ranking Republican member of the US House of Representatives, the job of which is oversight and investigation, claiming - literally - to be unaware of the fact that Benghazi survivors even existed - not until Hillary testified months after everyone else was talking about the survivors, but - until after  when a video of Hillary confirming the fact, was made available to him by - pardon my french, but I must -  shoving it under his big fat face on Twitter at Two O'Clock in the frigging morning - a time of day, IMO, which  demonstrates that the Rep does not take his job seriously. That is what we're up against, and it's pathetic, infuriating, and screams "replace me in 2014", whether because of seeming unbelievably lazy oversight incompetence or apparent lies because for whatever he may not want Benghazi investigated while Senators of far greater prestige than he has are demanding it. For anyone anxious for  justice for the Benghazi slain and the release by Obama of the Benghazi witnesses who remain - where, nobody knows, not even congress - Rohrabacher is an 'enemy".

What would Sun Tzu say about this? Let's apply the themes of the chapters of his masterwork to the quest for attaining Benghazi-Truth:

Laying Plans/The Calculations explores the five fundamental factors (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership and management) and seven elements that determine the outcomes of military engagements. By thinking, assessing and comparing these points, a commander can calculate his chances of victory. 

Way: motivate GOP House; Season: Now; Terrain: varied depending on Rep's political constituency leanings; Leadership: Find the Benghazi hawks and support them; management: motivate yourself into taking action on twitter to talk to the Reps as soon as you are finished reading this article.

Waging War/The Challenge explains how to understand the economy of warfare and how success requires winning decisive engagements quickly. This section advises that successful military campaigns require limiting the cost of competition and conflict.

Way: Convince the GOP House to act quickly and stress that our money is being wasted by their delays as surely as it will be spend investigating and prosecuting. More money, still, will be wasted by repeating these mistakes if we do not find out not just how they were caused, but who caused them, because those mistakes will continue until that Person is legally removed from his authority to make such murderous blunder - if it all wasn't intentional anyway - and that includes Obama.

Attack by Stratagem/The Plan of Attack defines the source of strength as unity, not size, and discusses the five factors that are needed to succeed in any war. In order of importance, these critical factors are: Attack, Strategy, Alliances, Army and Cities.

Way: Attack: convince the GOP House to prosecute Benghazi; Strategy: Tell them Tea Party candidates will be found NOW to challenge them in 2014 primaries if action is not taken immediately. There is no longer any reasonable excuse to delay.

Tactical Dispositions/Positioning explains the importance of defending existing positions until a commander is capable of advancing from those positions in safety. It teaches commanders the importance of recognizing strategic opportunities, and teaches not to create opportunities for the enemy.

Way: Never give an inch of ground in an argument, as Kathy demonstrated above. It's easier to get-long, harder to fight, easier to destroy, harder to create. They work for us. You are the boss. Give it to them straight: work or be fired, not give excuses and be re-hired. It's as simple as that.

Energy/Directing explains the use of creativity and timing in building an army's momentum.

Way: Get all your friends involved on Twitter, Direct message them and Group tweet to set up times to gather on the reply area of a GOP House member and have a discussion between yourselves. Talk of how the GOP needs to get to work on Benghazi, and name any great replacements from the tea Party that could be offered in in 2014 to replace them. Do it in public on twitter. In other words, scare the living shit out of them so they get off their asses and get to work.

Weak Points & Strong/Illusion and Reality explains how an army's opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of the enemy in a given area.


Way: This was demonstrated by Kathy who boxed in Rohrabacher by fairly exploring his own claim to not know that survivors existed by making him appear ignorant in front of his constituents, either by pointing out the true ignorance or by causing to backfire the lie of ignorance. Either way, it put the Rep into an untenable position which can now be fairly exploited forever.


Maneuvering/Engaging The Force explains the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon the commander.

Way: There are few direct disadvantages in confrontation in this war, but if you are uneasy about it, get a friend or two to join you in  conversation in the response area of the Rep's latest post; talk about how poorly they are performing on Benghazi and agree with each other that a tea party alternative must be found quickly to replace that Rep. Doing so in public like that is good motivation for the rep to do his or her job of oversight and investigation.


Variation in Tactics/The Nine Variations focuses on the need for flexibility in an army's responses. It explains how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.

Way; once again, Kathy showed how by throwing a video up when the Rep made the astonishing remark of being unaware of the survivors. Ask twitter friends for a video that makes your point if you feel stuck - we'll be at your side in moments.(I DM'd a video link to Kathy, for example)

Start talking to your twitter friends now, choosing a Rep or group of Reps, and start calling them out now. Re-election to their easy jobs on the backs of the people is all politicians have ever cared about. Threaten that and they will work. This is nothing new. Doing it on twitter may be.

See you on the battlefield.


DAILY BENGHAZI-TRUTH EXCLUSIVE DAY-COUNT GRAPHIC JAN 29, 2013, DAY 143


DAILY BENGHAZI-TRUTH EXCLUSIVE DAY-COUNT GRAPHIC JAN 29, 2013, DAY 142


BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMO
Filed for Monday Jan 28 and Tuesday Jan 29, 2013
(I am leaving this Daily Memo up for two consecutive work week days because the issue of the Benghazi survivors is really becoming extremely important. Media and related topics and the like are my business and IMO this country is in very big trouble, now. Don't doubt it until you read this)
EDIT: First things first - for the doubters, there are Benghazi survivors. In this video at 1:40 Johnson and Clinton discuss them - Clinton says 25 - 30 people evacuated - before Hillary explodes

DESPITE THE TEPID CONCERN DEMONSTRATED BY MOST GOP CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS and the deafening silence of the mainstream media on the issue, it is Benghazi-Truth's opinion that the 25-30 missing Benghazi survivors' missing status - missing because Obama has taken them out of society -  poses the potential for the greatest crisis of freedom the United States has ever known. 

"Over-the-top"? Unfortunately, no. 

The missing Benghazi survivors exist and that fact has been confirmed by congress and even Hillary Clinton herself  who in her Congressional testimony claimed to know they existed and are in the possession of the U.S. Government (but not know anything else despite the fact that the survivors, employed at the Benghazi Consulate, worked directly for her.) So right away we know something true and manifest and now undeniable: for over four months, 20 - 30 U.S. citizen Government employees - not military - are being hidden from society, not allowed to walk free among their fellow citizens, in almost certain alarming violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. This is not a conspiracy theory; they are citizens of the United States and the Obama administration will not tell even Congress who or where they are after over four months, even when Congressional members press them for an answer, as some have claimed to do. Our response, shouted loudly and anxiously, must be "NO".  That cannot be allowed to continue in the U.S. after Obama and Clinton lied patently about the cause of the murders in the first place, a fact that even mainstream media has been forced to acknowledge. This situation constitutes a crisis because people in this country cannot be spirited off on the whim of a President, lest such casual, dictatorial activity be extended to you and me.

This kind of thing is not new in the rest of the world, however, and as always, it's time to learn some lessons from the past. At no time in world history have citizens been whisked out of their society to good moral and legal effect by the state - the reasons have always been bad and usually horrendous. Let's look at some. But first, let's put the narrative in perspective. Let's call the survivors by their significant function  relative to the Benghazi investigation; let's stop calling them "survivors" now and call them what we need to begin calling them: "The Witnesses".

When witnesses are made to vanish by a Government, history teaches us without exception that what happened to them was very bad. And let's remind ourselves at every point that what happened to the Benghazi witnesses can happen to you or me. 

Also, we need to correct assumptions that have led to a form of suicide by the millions: people have always assumed "the past" is always some distant and primitive epoch on the timeline, measured today as though the citizens of Nazi Germany and Communist countries like Russia and Cuba lived in some barbaric state like cave men. No. They  too, believed they were in an enlightened age in which mass communication like radio, telephones and widespread published media made it absolutely impossible - they would assure themselves with a confident and bemused chuckle - for another Caesar to emerge, and their hubris about the sophistication of their society cost them the lives of tens of millions, slaughtered mercilessly in mass bloodbaths by their own governments.  Cable TV, the internet and Skype will not save us from the next Hitler or Stalin. Current and future murderous tyrants will not be stopped by those technological advances, they will utilize them, and propagandists,  anxious for the approval of cold-blooded dictators, will carry their water today and into the future just as they have for thousands of years past; human nature will not change, nor has it been  or will be changed by our "enlightened society", as defined by better technology and mocking sarcasm about those on whose accomplishments we today live a better life. 

Hitler's minister of "Public Enlightenment", Joseph Goebbels, said, "We .. intend a principled transformation in the worldview of our entire society, a revolution of the greatest possible extent that will leave nothing out, changing the life of our nation in every regard ... It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio and the airplane. It is no exaggeration to say that the German revolution, at least in the form it took, would have been impossible without the airplane and the radio." 

Sound familiar?

It is generally assumed that the concentration camps in Nazi Germany were reserved for Jews and their torture and extermination. Untrue. Some were used to condition, brainwash and re-create the minds of the opposition in their society so they would become, in turn, those who then, too, torture, murder - and brainwash - others. The first step is that these people would vanish from society, as the Benghazi witnesses have vanished from our society. In their day, too,  politicians did what they are doing now: timid of the unknown repercussions of difficult decisions, did nothing while people vanished and leaders with uncertain pasts and the worst possible political associations rose to absolute power.




This is Theodor Eicke, who developed, ran and oversaw the Nazi concentration camp system.


Prisoners stand at attention in the Nazi concentration camp Dachau. It was famous for killing Jews. It was also one of the places used to indoctrinate political dissidents into becoming "useful servants of the Fatherland". These dissidents - and witnesses - did not enroll to be there. They were taken out of society, seemingly as Obama has taken out of society the 30 Benghazi witnesses.



Here is an example of the result of being "trained" at Dachau: SS guards assigned to the notorious concentration camp Mauthausen. After four months we have no idea where the Benghazi witnesses are. Are they being likewise 'trained"? The longer we wait and be timid about shouting for the answers the American people deserve and to which they have every right, the more difficult it will be to stop whatever is happening to the witnesses, for certainly, something must be happening; people do not exist in a literal state of limbo, their friends and families silenced as surely as they have been.

For more about Dachau, though the information is everywhere, you might be interested in this BRIEF HISTORY.


  
When Goebbels fell out of favor with Hitler for a while,  this was the result: removed from photographs - removed by people working for Hitler, and a comparison could be drawn to whoever did the airbrushing to people like Chris Matthews  who in my opinion is a perfect example of what Goebbels himself advocated: self-censorship on the part of the media for the good of the Fatherland. Photos courtesy Dartmouth Edu & used via the Fair Use Act.


"It's impossible" is the refrain when witnesses vanish because people refuse to suffer the emotional pain of disappointment today to save themselves and their country from annihilation tomorrow.


Stalin was a truly dashing and smoulderingly handsome, charming revolutionary hero in Russia 1902.


He grew into the epitome of the kind and benign leader whose only concern was to help the people whom he loved and who loved him back, reading and listening to him in their media, convinced that only lunatics would accuse him of....

... murdering 40 million of his own people for purely political purposes, two of whom lie dead here in the frozen snow - a mother and her young son. I will spare the reader the displeasure of photographs of Communist Stalin's atrocities so vast they make Hitler's murders of the Jews look like a mere admonishment for wrongdoing.

History sees the same pattern in the beginning of Stalin's rein of terror as Hitler and now Obama: Lies about the causes of deaths of politicians - and ambassador's - are discovered,  media controlled by willing accomplices censor themselves to gain favor with the tyrant and information re-created to suit the desires of the Government.




And witnesses to Stalin's crimes vanished, just as surely as the Benghazi victims cannot be identified or found, though all agree they do - or did - exist. The people under Stalin were just as aware and awake as you are reading this now. They were not uneducated. They were talented, well-versed, often highly sophisticated who were well-read in the classics, could quote without effort the great philosophers and excelled in all the arts. They worshiped God publicly before Christian references were outlawed in public. They listened to media commentators praise Stalin for his leadership and mock the "crazy people" who made claims so awful that they could not possibly be true to a reasonable mind. They were not barbarians. They lived in an enlightened, technological age in which no well-meaning citizen needed a gun because Caesars were impossible. They loved and wrote, played and performed, engaged in style and fashion, worked and thrived and laughed at the town criers without checking the facts of their presumed political absurdities. And the streets eventually ran deep in their own blood. 

You can read an interesting little thing along these lines at the New York Times, HERE




Communist China's Chairman Mao: the same pattern. Witnesses to atrocities vanish, guns taken from people who collectively believe their world is too sophisticated for Caesars and trust the media which voluntarily censors itself to gain favor with the tyrant and the image the media painted of the benign, handsome, loving and well-meaning leader. The photographs of the many thousands of human heads of Mao's victims - the political opposition -  stacked in giant piles are too horrifying and nauseating to even begin to contemplate publishing here. 



Cuba's murderous Castro in 1968; guns taken from people, media complicit - fawning over the handsome, loving leader of all good people - and censoring itself before being taken over by the tyrant they tried to please, murders millions of the political opposition, and as seen here, witnesses are made to disappear, and as always, their families also said nothing when they vanished.

This could go on forever. The pattern of Obama's political activity is clear. But the fact that there are Benghazi witnesses who have vanished means we can stop this madness legally right now; we can, though the GOP House, demand all information on the witnesses who must then be medically/psychologically evaluated and made sure to be who it is claimed they are. This is not fun and games anymore. If Obama's pattern - now including the hiding of witnesses to an atrocity - are half of what it seems, then we must demand action - and make sure we get it - to simply save ourselves. That means we have to do what most other citizens in times past failed to do: we must motivate frightened and feckless politicians to show courage they do not possess by instinct. Warn them in the most severe possible terms of political loss in 2014 - and put meat into the threat by openly, loudly and immediately calling for tea party recruits to challenge them in the 2014 primaries.  This is all we have left. If we fail, we risk living - or worse - under another Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Castro.


Look at this simple video collection of bizarre public statements by Obama and ask yourself if he should be trusted with the Benghazi witnesses merely on faith of his good intentions and the picture of him painted by the media.


"Over the top"? Ask all those who also mocked the "crazy person" who warned of horrific dangers because in their enlightened age, Caesars were impossible; history books are full of pictures of their stiff, naked corpses piled high by the millions.

FIND THE BENGHAZI WITNESSES and be sure they have not been 'conditioned" and are who they say they are. The time for good manners is over. The pattern is clear and absolutely irrefutable with the advent of the missing/hidden Benghazi witnesses: From any historical perspective whatsoever, this is past a series of coincidences being a reasonable explanation; this country appears to be on the verge of the worst crisis in its history. But it can still be stopped.


I never ask you to share and tweet these Daily Memos. I am asking you to share this one. IMO  this entire country is in much worse trouble than all but a few may fully realize and appreciate. FIND THE BENGHAZI WITNESSES and at least set this country back into some small sense of balance before it's too late. Do it now.

**********************************************
SHOULD THE CONGRESS 
AND RIGHT-WING MEDIA EVER CARE:
**********************************************
Originally posted on Dec 22, 2012
PROVED WITH VIDEO EVIDENCE:
THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S BOGUS STORY ABOUT THE 
BENGHAZI KILLINGS BEING DUE TO ANTI-MUSLIM VIDEO
Where did Obama's story about the Benghazi killings come from, which blamed a previously unknown video for the murders? OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION SIMPLY PARROTED - VERBATIM - THE DETAIL-RICH BUT ENTIRELY UNTRUE LIBYAN PROPAGANDA COMING FROM EASTERN NEWS/TELEVISION SOURCES MERE HOURS AFTER THE KILLINGS ,ON SEPT 12, 2012.
If you don't think this is important, you need your head examined.
The video of news sources from the Middle East, above, proves it (check the upload date: Sept 12, 2012). Our media and leaders continue to ask and wonder,"Where did the talking points come from - the ones about the video that supposedly outraged the Muslim world?" 

It came from Libyan Government Propaganda - released mere hours after the Benghazi attack - which Obama, Clinton and Rice repeated to everyone including the United Nations by Obama himself.

Incredibly, this evidence was found easily by doing a Youtube search of publicly available international news sources. This is something our media and politicians should have checked first. 

It is clear that the Obama Administration  appears to have been acting knowingly as the US distribution office of Libyan propaganda which blamed the US for instigating the killings of our own people. Interesting, it should be noted that worded differently, the part about blaming the victims for their own deaths is the same conclusion reached by the State Dept's own internal investigation which, in so doing, cleared itself. It's all coming from the same source: corrupt Libya propaganda sources.

Watch the video linked at the top of this article. Should this video, linked above, vanish from the internet, it will be replaced by our own copy which we will upload via the Fair Use Act. This is important.


ADDITIONAL 

The Libyan talking points in the eastern television news reports are extremely precise and well-informed for the reporting on a "mob event" that occurred less than 12 hours before the Government made its explanation. They had supposedly in less than 12 hours pin-pointed a video which caused an outrage. But that video caused no mob protest and outrage, which suggests it had already been chosen to be the scapegoat "cause" of premeditated murders by the - presumed - Libyan government through terrorist operatives, otherwise the chances of all this hand-in-glove timing would be extremely unlikely.

This probably explains why Obama and Clinton sent Rice out to repeat the bogus Libyan talking points. They did not want to be found to be officially repeating the Libyan propaganda - which in-part accuses the west of starting the violence via an imaginary scenario which never occurred.

We continue to know that seven (7) hours went by in which Obama did not issue orders to help, but did apparently issue orders to stand down. There has been much speculation that Stevens was either involved in or became aware of gun-running sanctioned by the United States. 

Therefore, for Bengahzi-Truth, for whatever it may mean, there appears to be only one likely scenario now, as mind-bending as it may sound: This was a premeditated set-up to kill Stevens by the Libyan Government and the United States was either complicit in the plan/murder itself or a cover-up after the fact. The Libyan government has too many of the usual unknowns accounted for less than a day after the murders for an outfit claiming to be unaware of who committed the actual crimes. Obama and Clinton were much too quick to jump onto a false explanation clearly already developed by the Libyan government in advance of the killings for which they wanted someone else to be the official face. And Clinton's and Obama's absolute avoidance at speaking about this in a way in which they cannot exclusively control the narrative - such as House hearings - simply reeks of suspicion which now everyone except the most fringe-element Obama water-carriers openly recognize. EDIT: as of Jan 23, 2013, Hillary Clinton has offered her explanation: she simply never got the memos - plural - from Stevens anxiously requesting military assistance - an excuse so absurd that it insults the intelligence, but she clearly doesn't care as long as what she says keeps the law from grabbing her.

It appears certain that Obama and Clinton were very intimately involved in either the killing or cover-up on some level, as evidenced incontrovertibly by the fact that they parroted the monumentally untrue recounting of the events by Libya and initially sold it hard on a very large scale; sending Rice out to five (5!) different TV shows on the same day to repeat the lie essentially proves it. They clearly attempted to overwhelm any truth to the contrary by saturating the media with this one story fast to make the truth otherwise invisible.


Bear in mind, also, that all the surviving witnesses remain hidden by the Obama Administration - the most alarming fact after the murder - since it reeks of a Soviet style silencing of the witnessing. Even Congress does not know who they are, where they are or why, though Congress has started to make it clear they're getting impatient on this matter, particularly, though even that seems Johnny-come-lately. Congress is usually apprised of the info of such info, according to House Rep Jason Chaffetz (R- Colorado), within 48 hours. It's going on 4 months. Edit: More than 4 months. Unfortunately, this, too, plays into the idea that Libya and/or Obama wanted Stevens dead, as in the presumed original plan all would die. Then ex-seals Woods and Doherty screwed up the plan by disobeying stand-down orders and rescued 20 - 30 unwanted witnesses with whom the administration has no plan to deal with - witnesses Obama clearly does not want to speak, since witnesses from Algeria, for example, were made available immediately. So, while the House dithers, what happens to these survivors? Will they turn up with "tragic brain damage sustained in the attacks" or will the world be told that the original records were wrong, there was only one survivor, in Walter Reed, and that all doctors agree that his brain damage was caused by the attack? ("How dare you think otherwise? this Administration finds such speculations offensive") 


The GOP House needs to issue subpoenas for Clinton (to return), a Grand Jury for Obama,  immediately subpoena the records that will identify the remaining witnesses and subpoena them to testify and should not stand on ceremony. The GOP House needs to find its inner rage and they need to issue subpoenas for all of the above and they need to issue them now.

             
AT READER REQUEST, PRIOR BENGHAZI-TRUTH DAILY MEMOS NOW HAVE THEIR OWN REPOSITORY SITE, THE "DAILY MEMO FILE CABINET" .CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS WITH GOP REP DANA ROHRABACHER UPDATES CAN BE READ IMMEDIATELY BELOW THIS NOTICE.

****************************
SCROLL DOWN FOR THE NAMES AND CONTACT INFO FOR ALL THE REAL GOP HOUSE HAWKS REGARDING BENGHAZI
****************************


SPECIAL MEMO: OPEN LETTER TO HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER; CONTINUING THE TWITTER CONVERSATION WITH REP ROHRABACHER HERE
12/30/2012 - 1/4/2013

Edit: The Representative has since responded back to me on twitter again citing that such matters take a long time to handle the legalities properly. My response: At least talk on TV like you mean business to keep America tuned-in to issue. EDIT 1/4/2013: the Rep & I are having an interesting back-and-forth on Twitter now. He says in effect, "be patient and learn your history" and I say "Watergate took 1 year from start to finish and House Benghazi 'investigation' has used up 1/3 of that much time in tech-savvy 2013 and so far we have not seen so much as a single subpoena & house is manifestly falling down horribly on the job for which they were elected." Which point of view do you agree with? Comment at bottom of page if you want.

Rep Rohrabacher, you have been one of the more outspoken voices regarding Benghazi, and as a media man, I personally like your onscreen television persona, which is all-at-once straightforward and approachable. No one I know wants to find himself or herself at odds with you in a confrontational discussion online. However, you posted something in response to someone I know pretty well online, Janson Smithers, which, considering you are one of the most outspoken voices regarding Benghazi, I found unsettling-to-alarming: 

"Watergate not quick event. perjury only crime. Benghazi maybe same but this coverup includes killing & perhaps blackmail."

I certainly agree with the second part, but the first sentence is in response to Janson demanding quicker action. The fact is that things are not so austere in the Halls of Power that they work fundamentally differently  from the rest of the world in regard to things that can be done now. Here is a short list of same regarding Benghazi. If I am in error on any point, I look forward to being corrected in a way that makes sense. 

1. Subpoenas can be issued now. They can be issued to Hillary Clinton; Joe Biden - who as expert on international affairs in the 2008 election for Obama - can be subpoenaed on his probable consultation during Benghazi; White House aides who were on duty at the time;for White House security videos of the halls leading to the situation room so we know if Obama, Clinton and whoever else was there and when. If this sounds like fantasy to anyone reading,  Nixon and Clinton, both,  found that they had to abide by subpoenas - you can read about it here (and elsewhere). Read the last paragraph particularly. We are not talking about the President, here, only those under him. This can be done now, so what are you waiting for?

Do subpoenas somehow seem extreme to the GOP House? Remember the fuss the Democrat-led Senate made over Bush simply eaves dropping? Click Here. We have a dead Ambassador, others with him and twenty witnesses whose names have not even been released to your House of Representatives by the White House after four months.

2. You can find out the identity of the rumored survivor from Benghazi currently supposedly at Walter reed Hospital according to Greta Van Susteren, on whose show you have appeared repeatedly. What have you done to find out who he is? He has information about Benghazi and America would like to know. Since no one in the House has said a thing about this, I must assume the House has no idea what to do. Therefore, here is Walter Reed Hospital's published telephone number and address if your fellow GOP reps need help in establishing a starting point. Call the hospital as a US rep and ask if there is a survivor there from Benghazi. Then take the next step, whatever it may be. Tell your GOP fellows to do their legwork or you can show them how it's done!  
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
8901 Wisconsin Avenue | Bethesda, MD 20889-5600
1-800-526-7101 | (301) 295-4611


CLICK HERE for their website. Yes, I am being a little bit sarcastic for effect here, but only barely, as four months is too damn long to hear nothing but, ultimately at this stage,"Hillary will testify".


3.
GRAND JURY FOR OBAMA. Obama's now very widely recognized lie about the cause of the Benghazi murders (we have discovered where he got the story he used to cover the truth, as you can see in the "Breaking News", below) is, it seems to us, in itself probable cause enough of obstruction of justice to warrant getting the gears rolling for an eventual Grand Jury appearance and testimony by Obama. If you recall, on August 17, 1998, a Grand Jury was called in which Bill Clinton testified about obstruction of justice in the comparatively insignificant civil case, Jones V Clinton. You can read it at the left-leaning Washington Post HERE or watch it, edited, below.

Rep Rohrabacher,that is plenty regarding intentions and potential scenarios that can at least be openly discussed in the media as an indication of the GOP House Rep's seriousness about pursuing the Benghazi murders to justice within the boarders of this nation.

This blog, started a mere three weeks ago with no more advertising than a few people initially tweeting the address to their followers, has now grown to a rough average of 1,000 views a day. We expect that to increase dramatically rapidly as that now appears to be the trajectory. I say this so you and your esteemed colleagues in the House will understand that with each day that goes by, people grow more impatient  because none of the above appears to have been mentioned to the media by the House, and we, the people, need to know that you are as serious about the murders of an Ambassador and three others in Benghazi - as well as the twenty missing American witnesses still unaccounted for- as the Democrats were about a second-rate break-in and as much as your GOP predecessors were about a president perjuring himself in a deposition about a civil suit stemming from no more than an extramarital affair.

People are dead, the American people were lied to and the press is covering for Obama with a veil of silence on this issue. Please inform your esteemed fellow House Representatives that we expect them to begin to at least look as though they are serious about doing their jobs.

You may wish to also read the memo, below, dated Dec 29, 2012. If Boehner is the stumbling block, use the upcoming vote to get that stumbling block out of your way. We pay Congress to work, not enjoy the Country Club.

We all look forward to strong and determined statements from the House supplanting the complaining and grandstanding which has thus far been the pattern. Thus far the House seems to have one mantra: "Hillary will testify". The obvious truth is that relying on a single - in my opinion - cold-bloodedly politically ambitious rattlesnake - who has certainly been less than gracious in the past to the House - to tell the world exclusively the truth of what happened on the night our people were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi is infuriatingly naive and below-par for what needs to be done in the bigger picture. People died in Benghazi; Watergate and the Clinton affair were given hundreds of times more diligent attention than the House is outwardly giving to Benghazi.

I remain, myself, still supportive of your efforts. But as you can see online - as you do something your GOP fellows might try - keep your finger on the pulse, four months is too long to stumble around focusing on a single, big-name witness, and people are getting angry and impatient and for very good reason. Annoyance is turning into fury, and fury will be remembered at the polls in 2014.

As do many, I look forward to your strong and determined leadership on the issue of the Benghazi terrorist murders.

EDIT: Rep Rohrabacher responded on Twitter saying in effect that this is a slow process to ensure all is done properly, legally. What he does not address is why they are being so silent about it in the media. The smartest thing he could do is telegraph their intentions to subpoena to the world, rattle Obama into making a political mistake and/or someone else into coming forward to get ahead of the oncoming tsunami to cover themselves and raise public awareness so people get angry and demand answers loudly. The quiet the House is exhibiting may be good in the country club-style cocktail dinner parties in Georgetown (been there) which are marked by low volume, placid conversations, but if these guys don't want to mishandle this into a complete failure which results in Obama turning into the next Hitler because he feels he is invincible to everything, they better get some surface energy going. Media is my business, GOP House members, and you are doing a terrible job so far and your sense of superior esteem will not change that.

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

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




Benghazi-Truth original editorial graphic about 
Clinton. Please spread it everywhere 
and don't worry about giving credit, 
just so Obama and his pals & all people 
everywhere know the American people 
aren't buying it for a second.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
CONTACT GOP LAWMAKERS AND DEMAND BENGHAZI COVER-UP HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS


MANY IN THE GOP-CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE HAWKS ON 
BENGHAZI AND MEAN REAL BUSINESS!

Here are a few of the more outspoken GOP House Reps. CONTACT THEM! THE HAWKS ARE THE KEY TO THE GOP SELECT COMMITTEE, and the select committee is the key to the open hearings and investigations and the hearings.



DON'T WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO CALL AND E-MAIL AND TWEET THEM FOR YOU! THEY WON'T REACH OUT AND BITE YOU! YOU CAN CALL REP/HAWKS WHO ARE NOT IN YOUR DISTRICT! THIS IS A NATIONAL LEADERSHIP CRISIS! YOU HAVE A RIGHT MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!

All videos and media material used via Fair Use Act

GOP HOUSE

GOP REP JASON CHAFFETZ
This video was upload by Jason Chaffetz himself
on his own YouTube channel on Dec 6, so you 
know he means business! Call and support him!

GOP REP JASON CHAFFETZ

Washington office

Washington, DC 20515  
Phone: (202) 225-7751
Fax: (202) 225-5629 

Provo Office

51 S University Ave., Suite 318 Provo, UT 84601
Phone: (801) 851-2500
Fax: (801) 851-2509

Twitter: @jasoninthehouse


GOP REP JOE HECK
Rep Heck took the time to make a special video 
FOR YOU on YouTube pledging determination 
to get to the bottom of the Benghazi cover-up!
Return the favor and call and tell him you 
appreciate his efforts!

GOP REP JOE HECK

132 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3252
Fax: (202) 225-2185

8485 W. Sunset Road, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Phone: (702) 387-4941
Fax: (702) 837-0728
 Twitter: @RepJoeHeck


GOP REP JAMES LANKFORD
A no-nonsense leader who says it in a no-nonsense 
way, direct to YOU right after a meeting Benghazi.
Call and tell him you love his video and to keep
pressing on Benghazi

JAMES LANKFORD, GOP HOUSE, another Hawk 
who is NOT PLEASED with Benghazi.

Washington
509 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 

Phone: (202) 225-2132 
Fax: (202) 26-1463

Oklahoma
Oklahoma City1015 N. Broadway Avenue, 

Suite 310 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 
Phone: (405) 234-9900
Fax: (405) 234-9909

 Twitter:@RepLankford 



GOP REP PETER KING
Rep King does not mince words.

REP PETER KING has been VERY strong on 
calling for a select committee and other 
investigations on Benghazi. CONTACT HIM! 
E-mail included! Tell him you support his
efforts on Benghazi 100%!

Email:Pete.King@mail.house.gov


Washington Office 

339 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 
Phone: 202-225-7896 
Fax: 202-226-2279

Massapequa Park 

1003 Park Boulevard Massapequa Park, NY 11762 
Phone: 516-541-4225 
Fax: 516-541-6602 

Twitter: @RepPeteKing 

GOP REP FRANK  WOLF
Makes the point clear as day: ESTABLISH 
SELECT COMMITTEE.

GOP REP FRANK  WOLF SENT A LETTER  TO SPEAKER 
BOEHNER DEMANDING A HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE. 
The demand is under consideration. Contact Rep Wolf 
and TELL HIM YOU SUPPORT HIS ACTIONS!

Washington Office 
241 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5136
(202) 225-0437 fax

Herndon Office

13873 Park Center Rd Ste.130 Herndon, VA 20171
(703) 709-5800 or (800) 945-9653 in state

 Twitter @RepWOLFPress


GOP HOUSE investigation chairman DARRELL ISSA
 Issa: "100% of our answers are coming from 
whistle-blowers who can't take the lies coming out 
of the State Department and out of the White House." 
Call his office and tell them you want answers!

THE INVESTIGATION BOSS!  GOP HOUSE 
investigation chairman DARRELL ISSA!

Washington DC 

2347 Rayburn House Office Building • Washington, DC 20515  
Phone: 202-225-3906 
Fax: 202-225-3303

California District Office 

1800 Thibodo Road, #310 • Vista, CA 92081 
Phone: 760-599-5000 
Fax: 760-599-1178

Twitter: @DarrellIssa




* GOP REP TREY GOWDY

* MUST WATCH
Another Hawk who is NOT PLEASED with Benghazi, said that 
if Obama didn't want Susan Rice to testify, he would gladly 
subpoena him in her place! (hat tip to Saska Mare) Call his
offices and tell them you admire his dedication to Benghazi 
and that you expect congressional hearings!

Washington, DC
1237 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6030
Fax: (202) 226-1177
Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern time



South Carolina 4th District
gowdy.house.gov
Greenville
104 South Main St.
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 241-0175
Fax: (864) 241-0982
Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM


Contact via internet: 
https://gowdy.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/default.aspx

Twitter: @TGowdySC

GOP REP LOUIS GOHMERT
Special Operation Speaks (SOS) leadership presented 
Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) with a petition containing the 
names of more than 100,000 Americans which he will 
deliver to the U.S. House of Representatives.The petition 
demands that a special prosecutor be appointed to fully 
investigate the events in Washington and abroad surrounding 
the murder of the US ambassador to Libya, the ambassador's 
aide, and the two Navy Seals attempting to defend US 
property in Libya.

Call him and express your admiration for him and

that you expect him to get to the bottom of the Benghazi
cover-up! 

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE 
2440 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 
T (202) 225-3035 
F (202) 226-1230 
TX Toll Free (866) 535-6302

Twitter: @replouiegohmert 



GOP SENATE

GOP SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
 Polite, but Not Happy.

GOP SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM 
Call him and tell him you admire his courage and
expect him to see Senate Committees are formed!
 
Washington Office 

290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5972

Upstate Regional Office
130 South Main Street, 7th Floor
Greenville, SC 29601
Main: (864) 250-1417

Twitter  @GrahamBlog


SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 
McCain tells it like it is.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 
Call the office of this great war hero and tell him you
expect him to be a war hero in the senate and speak
out on the Benghazi nightmare and cover-up every day!

Washington Office: 
241 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 
Main: (202) 224-2235 
Fax: (202) 228-2862

Phoenix Office:
 
2201 East Camelback Road Suite 115 Phoenix, AZ 85016 
Main: (602) 952-2410
Fax: (602) 952-8702

Twitter @SenJohnMcCain


SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE
Not happy, has sent letters which are still 
unanswered by the White House. 

SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE

Let this lovely, no-nonsense lady know you

support her as she speaks the truth about

the Benghazi cover-up! 



D.C. Office
144 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: 202-224-3324
Fax: 202-224-4952


Manchester Office
1200 Elm Street, Suite 2

Manchester, NH 03101-2503
Phone: 603-622-7979
Fax: 603-622-0422


Twitter: @KellyAyotte


SENATOR RICHARD BURR (Senate intelligence committee)

Washington, DC  
217 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: (202) 224-3154  
Fax:  (202) 228-2981

Twitter:  @SenatorBurr


SENATOR DAN COATS

Washington Office
United States Senate 
493 Russell Office Bldg Washington, DC, 20510
P: (202) 224-5623
F: (202) 228-1820

Twitter:  @DanCoats 

SENATOR ROY BLUNT, a true friend of conservatives! He's all over all of it!


Washington
260 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 

Phone: (202) 224-5721 
Fax: (202) 224-8149


Twitter: @RoyBlunt


THIS LIST WILL GROW ALMOST DAILY, BUT YOU CAN STARTED WITH THIS. CONTACT THEM TODAY!

WHAT TO ASK THEM FOR!
1. GOP HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE.

2. OPEN HEARINGS WITH CLINTON AND EVEN, YES, OBAMA. SUBPOENA IF NECESSARY, IMPEACH IF REFUSES (House of Representatives, controlled by the Republicans, has full impeachment authority and does not need the Senate).

3. WHITE HOUSE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO of the halls in the White House, PARTICULARLY OUTSIDE OF THE STRATEGY ROOM, SO WE KNOW WHO WAS WHERE AND WHEN DURING THE 7 HOURS WHEN OUR PEOPLE CALLED FOR HELP and were ultimately murdered by terrorists in BENGHAZI while Obama failed/refused to give them assistance to save their lives.

4. SOME PEOPLE WERE SAVED - EVENTUALLY (IN PART BY A SOLDIER WHO DISOBEYED STAND DOWN ORDERS AND SAVED THEM BEFORE HE, HIMSELF, WAS KILLED IN SO DOING). We need the survivors to testify in open Select Committee hearings.

5. ALL TAPES OF THE CALLS FOR HELP, THE ATTACK, ETC NEED TO BE SEEN AND AIRED IN OPEN SELECT COMMITTEE HEARINGS.

6. ALL SOLDIERS  WHO WERE WITH OUR SOLDIERS who were later killed trying to save the people in Benghazi must testify in open hearings as to what they saw and heard that night regarding Obama Administration denials for assistance. 

6. ALL HEARINGS NEED TO BE TELEVISED LIVE FROM GAVEL-TO-GAVEL FOR EVERY U.S. CITIZEN TO SEE.

CO-ORDINATE AND WORK TOGETHER TO CONTACT THE GOP HOUSE, GOP SENATE AND GET THE WORD OUT TO THE MAINSTREAM. USE THE MESSAGE BOARD BELOW IF YOU LIKE. WE NEED TO WORK AT THIS EVERY DAY.


LadyRaven's Twitter List 
(hat tip to Proud American)
HOUSE Twitter (copy/paste)

This list is intended to allow you to copy, then paste, multiple Representatives into a single tweet.  They are NOT linked and do not need to be, twitter does it automatically. Republicans ONLY.
    ….
The beauty of twitter is that unlike when contacting a Rep by phone or e-mail, they do not know what area of the country you hail from and therefore cannot just write off your concerns because you are not in their state!  With a short message like BOEHNER MUST GO!you can probably tweet four or five at a time.


@RepJoBonner @RepMarthaRoby @RepMikeRogersAL @Robert_Aderholt @RepMoBrooks @BachusAL06 @repdonyoung @RepGosar @RepTrentFranks @benquayle @RepDavid @JeffFlake @RepRickCrawford @RepTimGriffin @rep_stevewomack @RepDanLungren @RepMcClintock @RepJeffDenham @eltongallegly24 @BuckMcKeon @DevinNunes @GOPWhip @RepEdRoyce @RepJerryLewis @RepGaryMiller @KenCalvert @MaryBonoMack @DanaRohrabacher @RepJohnCampbell @DarrellIssa @BilbrayCA50 @RepTipton @repcorygardner @RepDLamborn @RepDLamborn @Rep_Southerland @AnderCrenshaw @RepRichNugent @RepCliffStearns @micaforcongress @RepWebster @Bilirakis @RepDennisRoss @VernBuchanan @RepConnieMack @congbillposey @TomRooney @RosLehtinen @MarioDB @AllenWest @RepSandyAdams @RepRivera @JackKingston @RepWestmoreland @RepTomPrice @AustinScottGA08 @RepTomGraves @RepPaulBrounMD @RepPhilGingrey @Raul_Labrador @CongMikeSimpson @PeterRoskam @RepJoeWalsh @RepDold @RepKinzinger @JudyBiggert @RepHultgren @RepTimJohnson @donmanzullo @RepSchilling @repaaronschock @RepShimkus @RepStutzman @ToddRokita @RepDanBurton @RepMikePence @RepLarryBucshon @RepToddYoung @TomLatham @CongHuelskamp @RepLynnJenkins @RepKevinYoder @RepMikePompeo @RepEdWhitfield @RepGuthrie @RepHalRogers @repjefflandry @RepFleming @USRepAlexander @BillCassidy @RepBoustany @Harris4Congress @Roscoe_Bartlett @CongressmanDan @RepHuizenga @repjustinamash @RepDaveCamp @RepFredUpton @RepWalberg @RepMikeRogers @CandiceMiller @repjohnkline @RepErikPaulsen @MicheleBachmann @RepChipCravaack @RepAlanNunnelee @GreggHarper @CongPalazzo @RepToddAkin @VickyHartzler @SmallBizGOP @auctnr1 @JoAnnEmerson @DennyRehberg @JeffFortenberry @LeeTerry2012 @RepAdrianSmith @AmodeiNevada @RepJoeHeck @RepFrankGuinta @RepCharlesBass @RepLoBiondo @RepJonRunyan @RepLanceNJ7 @RodneyforNJ @RepStevePearce @RepPeteKing @RepNanHayworth @RepChrisGibson @RepRichardHanna @RepBuerkle @RepTomReed @RepReneeEllmers @RepWalterJones @RepVirginiaFoxx @SueMyrick @PatrickMcHenry @RepRickBerg @RepSteveChabot @RepMikeTurner @Jim_Jordan @boblatta @RepBillJohnson @SteveAustria @TiberiPress @SteveLaTourette @RepSteveStivers @RepJimRenacci @RepBobGibbs @USRepSullivan @tomcoleok04 @RepLankford @repgregwalden @MikeKellyforPA3 @CongressmanGT @JimGerlach @RepMeehan @RepFitzpatrick @RepBillShuster @RepTomMarino @RepLouBarletta @RepTimScott @CongJoeWilson @RepJeffDuncan @TGowdySC @RepMickMulvaney @RepKristiNoem @DrPhilRoe @RepChuck @DesJarlaisTN04 @RepDianeBlack @MarshaBlackburn @RepFincherTN08 @replouiegohmert @JudgeTedPoe ‏ @SamsPressShop @RepHensarling @RepJoeBarton @CongCulberson @RepKevinBrady @McCaulPressShop @ConawayTX11 @RepKayGranger @MacTXPress @RepRonPaul @RepBillFlores @RandyNeugebauer @TX20CharlieG @LamarSmithTX21 @PeteOlson @RepCanseco @RepKenMarchant @michaelcburgess @farenthold @RepJohnCarter @PeteSessions @jasoninthehouse @RobWittman @RepScottRigell @Randy_Forbes @RepRobertHurt @RepGoodlatte @EricCantor @RepMGriffith @RepWOLFPress @HerreraBeutler @DocHastings @cathymcmorris @davereichert @RepMcKinley @RepShelley @RepPaulRyan @JimPressOffice @RepSeanDuffy @RepRibble @CynthiaLummis
- oh, and of course @SpeakerBoehner

YOU NEED THIS PHONE LIST!
JUSTICE FOR THOSE MURDERED 
IN BENGHAZI! IT'S UP TO YOU!
GIVE THEIR FAMILIES CLOSURE! CONTACT YOUR REP TODAY!

Federal Court Has Issued ‘Greatest Indictment of an Incumbent President’

Subscribe to EIR

Lyndon LaRouche January 25 Webcast:

Federal Court Has Issued ‘Greatest Indictment of an Incumbent President’

Feb. 12, 2013 (EIRNS)—Since Lyndon LaRouche's Jan. 25, 2013 LaRouche PAC webcast has since gone viral on youtube, we provide here the written transcript.
Dennis Mason: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. You're watching the continuing series of Friday webcasts featuring Mr. LaRouche. Tonight we'll follow the usual format. We'll have an opening statement by Lyn, and then a question period. The questions tonight will be conducted by Leandra Bernstein and Jason Ross. So, without any further delay, I'm proud to bring you Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Lyndon LaRouche: Well, there was some very interesting news that was given to me today, earlier, and that is that I never have seen in my life such a parade of implicit indictments of a President of the United States as was reported to me today. I'm not going to comment on the details of this report [see the text of the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals decision], but I simply say that it comes as a blessed sign from Heaven, or something like that, and it should be greeted as such. What is obvious, without going into the details which were better stated by relevant legal and judicial authorities than by me, but I can say that what I've heard today—and I do understand what I've heard—that this is probably the greatest indictment of an incumbent President of the United States that I've ever heard. If there's one that occurred more ominous than this one, I don't know what it was! And I think I know the history of the United States pretty well. But that comes not as a finality of anything, because this situation is subject to all kinds of reversals back and forth, but the fact that such a counter to the President's behavior has been stated, publicly, by a Federal court, is in itself a very important development, even without trying to interpret what has been said.
But the implications, as any plain-language view would say, is this man has been slapped down back and forward repeatedly through the whole reading of these charges. And that does mean there is a qualitative shift in the political situation inside the United States, which the reading of these charges—conclusions I presume—have been delivered. I don't think any President could withstand what has been read against them with such precision, in the history of the United States. Some people may have hated someone more than they hated this fellow, but they certainly have placed the charges, and I don't think that without the equivalent of some kind of coup d'état in support of the President, that he can withstand this. If these charges are presented and concluded, and if the consequences follow, this man is probably on the way out of office, barely since the time he was re-installed in it. So, that's probably a double whammy in this case.
What this does show, with conclusion, which I can speak to on that account, is that after these charges have been placed and reported by the Federal court, that this President is in deep trouble. And that much is clear. Now, what it means for the rest of us is, that the situation was so bad, in terms of the Congress, that the Congress should have delivered precisely these kinds of charges beforehand. And undoubtedly, there were people inside the Congress, particularly the Senate, who would have proceeded on these charges, if encouraged to do so. And I think that has to be considered a factor: that all the ideas that somehow Obama has come off clean on the basis of his re-installation as President, that that is in doubt now. I don't believe that any President, unless he has the powers to conduct a coup d'état, could remain in office under the continuation of the list of charges which have been presented as conclusions by the Federal court.
So, this is a new situation, and it means also a new situation for us, in terms of things like troubles, as much as anything we might find pleasant in this whole proceeding. The United States is in deep trouble. Our economy is in the process of disintegrating. We are about at the point that an actual breakdown of the Congress could occur, and of the courts. And therefore, Bernanke: What's going to happen to Bernanke? The courts are against him, and probably that will be effective. It's not a guarantee, but it probably will be effective. And the citizens of the United States are going to have to wake up; and that's quite possible that they will. Because the usual way that people talk about Presidential institutions, Congress, and so forth, is nonsense. There actually has been usually not more than 5% of the voting population which has had the guts to do anything serious—actually do it. Many members of the Congress, for example, will gripe privately behind the scenes, but they won't do anything. And generally, it's between 5% and 10% of the total membership of the Congress which is likely to take on an issue such as this one. Perhaps the implication is—and I say perhaps—is that the presentation of these charges brought by the court, will give some courage to a lot of people who have otherwise scampered as cowardly heroes shall we say, before.
But the point is, on the other hand, you take the British monarchy, and certain elements of the U.S. government and population, and they are going to fight back. They're going to fight back hard, and they would even try coups d'état and things of that nature. So, we must be aware of the fact that there is, without doubt, apart from what the Federal court has decided on the case of Obama, is that there is going to be a big kickback from forces in certain parts of Europe. The British monarchy in particular, will be enraged by this. Other parts in France will be enraged; some people in Germany will be enraged. You will have a certain factor of rage from the bad side in Italy. You will have also the anger in Spain and Portugal, and other places. This means a sudden turn in the strategic situation and role of Russia in this period. All these things have been made open by this decision, the rendering of this decision by the Federal court. And this is something new which did not exist for me two days ago, and probably did not exist for a lot of other people. But it shows that in the system, the Federal court has acted in a way which portends the opportunity for getting out of the mess we've been digging into for so long. This is a new opportunity, and it is a time for the citizens of the United States to rally to the cause of our nation, and prepare to support the actions of the Federal court. And with that, I will leave it to you for a moment.
Leandra Bernstein: Well, thank you for those opening remarks. You've anticipated a number of our questions here, but I would like to get some more clarity because of the importance of what has taken place, and I'm going to hold the question on the recent ruling until Jason Ross asks it. But I would like to get you on the record here in response to what took place earlier this week with the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committee hearings, featuring Hillary Clinton—outgoing Secretary of State Clinton. And your initial remarks on it were to call the hearings a "perfunctory performance, irrelevant to the facts of the case." You said there was "no discussion of the crucial facts of relevance," and you indicated that the members of Congress were told to shut up, that what they intended to raise as questions they never asked.
Now, that is given certain knowledge that we had in the organizing that the LaRouche Political Action Committee has been doing on Capitol Hill. And also an indication given by Hillary Clinton herself that the day of, or the day prior to the hearings, the FBI had decided to take the opportunity to finally brief these committees.
So, just to go through some of the highlights of these hearings, the most notable was Hillary Clinton's enraged response to a series of questions coming from Republican Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, who insisted that you have deceived—not you, but the American people have been deceived as to the facts around the second 9/11 attacks. And she responded saying, "What difference does it make? We're dealing with four dead Americans. What difference does it make if they were killed by somebody walking down the street who decided to kill Americans?" And then this statement was then backed up by Obama's press secretary Jay Carney the following day at a press conference. The first question at the press conference, where he basically said Secretary Clinton was correct. What difference does it make? What difference does it make if the President of the United States deceives the American people? So, and then the statement of intention: What difference does it make, so long as we bring those who are responsible for the act to justice?
And it was interesting, because just recently after the hostage taking in Algeria, there were a number of press reports—one from the New York Times referring to a senior Algerian official, who said that the individuals who laid siege to the Algerian gas complex had also taken part in the deadly attack on the United States mission in Libya in September. And then another report from the Tripoli Post, which was entitled "Terrorists Who Attacked Algerian Gas Complex May Have Been Trained in Libya." So, as long as those who are responsible for the attack are brought to justice.
So, since we have you in this format, I would like to get you on the record: your response to what took place this week with the hearings, and the overall situation.
LaRouche: Well, clearly in fact, what Hillary Clinton said was entirely untrue—simple fact.
Now the other side of that, is the speculation on why she said what she said. For about two years, I have watched a fundamental change in attitude respecting the President by Hillary Clinton. In other words, half of her term, approximately, has happened under conditions which can be explained by the fact that she was terrified: that she confronted him; she changed her attitude after this occasion. After that point, she was humiliated in every sense of the word by Obama. And she caved in. And her husband, the former President, caved in massively.
Which means that there was something very ugly, very, very, very ugly about the Presidency of Obama after the midterm of his first term. So, that's the first thing to take into account. I would conclude that she was terrified, because there was such a sudden change in behavior on her part, considering that her husband had been a two-term President of the United States, that this man would dare to attempt to intimidate her. And he did intimidate her, there's no question of that.
So, this, of course, must be in the minds of people like members of the D.C. Federal District Court, who must be aware of this gross, and so obviously gross monstrosity as that behavior by him. And the question is then posed: What's wrong with the Congress? Well, we know what's wrong with the Congress. More than half of them are cowards and opportunists, and therefore the Congress was not able to do the job that had to be done. And under those conditions, it was up to the D.C. Federal District Court to see that the job was done, or the basis for having the job done was presented by a higher authority. And the particular list of things that I heard all go to that point.
So, we're now presented, because higher authorities have realized, as I have, that this President Obama is a whore. He's a whore-or story. And the members of the Congress didn't have the collective guts to do anything about it. They've swallowed every indecency imposed upon them as a Congress, both in the Senate and in the House. Now, we know, as I know, for example, that you've had between 5% and 15% approximately of the members of the Congress have the guts to do anything. And therefore, the fact that the majority of the members of the Congress are by disposition, they tend to be opportunists. They see which way the wind blows, and they blow with it.
So that therefore, we had reached the situation where the United States was going to be destroyed by this President. And he was even sworn in for a second term, but the fact remains, as in the Nixon case, that this is an extreme version of the old Nixon case, the old Nixon impeachment. When in this case, some authority other than the Congress was required to initiate the action which was required. And what I heard, from the reading of the conditions of the charges of the conclusions of the court, those conclusions were all in correspondence to the requirements. And I go into his first term, the President's first term in office, and also to the second. So, there was every reason that reason they would demand that this President should be impeached under those circumstances. The impeachment as a form has not been realized; the impeachment in terms of the indictment has. And that's the conclusion we have to draw.
Now, that does not mean— Now, you're going to have the British Empire, as represented by the Queen, is going to be very angry about this. Because her whole role, her intention, is on the edge. She cannot continue to do this if the United States continues to defy her. And the Federal courts have implicitly defied her. Something deeper inside our system of government has acted to attempt to defend the United States against the travesties and crimes committed by this President. And therefore, that's the conclusion to be drawn. We now stand at a point where we're on the edge. The court has done pretty much what it should have done, and maybe a bit more in this case. That's good! That restores the confidence in the institutions of our government, contrary to this President. At the very minimum, the intention of the court has to be to recognize that what it has said is an honest and fair conclusion, set of conclusions, and these conclusions lead to but one further conclusion: That this guy must be impeached now! And that will probably occur.
But there are other factors in the thing, there are always coup d'état possibilities and things like that. So we don't know this has any finality to it, but it comes so damn close to it, that you almost have to say it is.
Jason Ross: All right. Well, it's a happy duty to get to report, and ask you a question about what the court's ruling was. Let me start by reading part of Article II, Section 2 of a very important document, the Constitution. This is about what the President does. It says:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint, Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
So today, he said this is almost like a gift from heaven, and you might think that the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. is an unlikely source for a gift from heaven, but that's how it happened this time. They had a 47-page ruling that came out today around a lawsuit that originally came from the operation of the National Labor Relations Board. It's a five-person board, and one of the rulings it made was being challenged, because three members of the board—a majority—had been appointed as recess appointments by Obama on January 4th, when the Senate wasn't actually in recess.
I want to read you some quotes from this court ruling, it's very important. They note that their ruling is very important. They say, "while the posture of the petition is routine as it developed, our review is not." They point out that what Obama is doing, is extending the power of the Executive Branch far beyond what is allowed in the Constitution, and that this is oppressive to the rights of not just the legislature, but the American people. They rejected Obama's Office of Legal Counsel, which said that "The President has the discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise and consent function, and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
The Court said, no, the President doesn't get to decide when the Senate's in recess, the Senate does! If the President can decide, then when they leave for the weekend, or when they go to lunch, he could say, "Well, they're in recess, they're unavailable, I'm going to appoint five new members of the Cabinet." So, very importantly, they refer back to Marbury v. Madison, which established the precedent of judicial review. That although obviously the Constitution applies to all branches of government, it is the courts that determine the meaning of that document—that's their job. They wrote, that "while we recognize that all branches of government must, of necessity, exercise their understanding of the Constitution, in order to perform their duties faithfully thereto, ultimately, it is our role to discern the authoritative meaning of the supreme law."
A little bit more: They said that "The Administration's claim that if they had to wait for the confirmations, it would have made the government less efficient," they said, "well, too bad!" "The convenience and the efficiency are not the primary objectives, or the hallmark, of our government." So, it's a very interesting rebuke. They point out that the recess of the Senate means the Recess, when they really go home, not when they're gone for a few days.
So, as you said, this is an impeachment, implicitly. It's not a conviction yet, that's up to the Senate. But what's laid out in the court ruling, very aggressively makes the case, that Obama has violated the Constitution, blatantly, in this action of his. So, you've already said a lot about this in your opening, but I guess I'd like to ask you to comment further, and then talk about where does this go now, what does this open up for us?
LaRouche: If you take the whole thing— I had heard that specifically, earlier today. But the key thing here is, what has been said, by the court's statements as a whole—not only this issue, but other issues also—is a challenge to the Presidency. It's a challenge to the occupation of the Presidency by this President. Because he is the one who has taken the open responsibility for asserting this authority, above the courts. Therefore, his very action is impeachable by nature. That much I will say is for what I am, and let the courts say what it wants to say about this. But that's what I say, as a citizen. That this is the situation.
Now, I also base my judgment on my knowledge of the crimes which have been committed by this President—he's a criminal, as far as I'm concerned. He's said things and done things which are criminal in their nature. He's also practiced intimidation, which is in his nature, but not in the nature of our government. Their is nothing that he has done of this nature—
For example, his violation of the war powers of the President, his violation of the restrictions on those war powers. First of all, he was not entitled to put troops into action in Libya—not entitled to do that. That's a violation. And to go into armed conflict in Libya, is a violation of the Constitution. He had no authorization to do that. He acted as a dictator. And that's a violation of our Constitution.
Now, the fact that our Congress was cowardly, and didn't do anything about it, and that one Senator [John Kerry] got by with supporting this crime of this President, doesn't alleviate the responsibility of anyone. You know, the President should have been impeached for doing that. That was an impeachable offense. He should be impeached. Otherwise, the politer term common to most people's knowledge is, he should have been thrown out of office, promptly and immediately on the first time he did that. He should have been slapped in the face first, and if it continued, he should have been slapped out of office. It's the obvious fact! So, the problem here, is the fact of a cowardice shown by the Congress. The Congress permitted, to one Senator, permitted a violation of the Constitution, in terms of the War Powers Act. And therefore, that Senator should have been impeached, too, because he was complicit in a violation of the Constitution. He's not fit to be appointed to a more significant position. Maybe a rebuke, an official rebuke for what he had done, would be sufficient. But he should not be promoted to an office with higher powers than he's enjoyed heretofore.
This is the kind, the nature of the situation. And fortunately, the Federal courts exist. And the Federal court, with the series of actual indictments of this President—and there are a series of them, as you know. This man is no longer fit for the office. Nixon was a mild offender, compared to this President! And on these charges alone, to certify it. The problem is, somebody's going to try to reverse this, on some kind of appeal.
On the case of the Hillary case, it's just the same problem. She's intimidated, she was abused—intimidated, that much I know. Her husband was thrown into a tizzy, a former President—thrown into a tizzy, by what his wife had gone through—made terrible decisions, in terms of mistakes, which were terrible decisions on his part. But his wife was in danger—in danger from this President.
And on the basis of one moment in her record as, in State, that that was a case, visibly, of pure intimidation. And the President of the United States— I mean, she should have resigned: Actually, her only option was to resign the office! And then go back to the Senate, body of the Senate, and run a campaign against this President! That was her moral duty. It was a mistake for anyone to push her into taking that position under that President. Because they shared—at least Bill did—Bill Clinton shared the knowledge of what my view was: that she should not have capitulated, to taking the position, considering the monstrous nature of the character of this person, this President. She should have gone outside, and said what she said, and denounced him up and down. Because she had been the only legitimate Presidential candidate on the Democratic side. He was not. And she should have gone outside, and rejected that, in the first place, and stayed in the Senate. That's what she should have done. She had colleagues when she was a Senator, in the Senate, who could fight this issue better than she could from inside the position she took. So, that's the kind of situation we face.
So, that's the way we have to react to this. And we have to this. We all have, especially someone in my position. I'm supposed to have guts to deal with things like this, and I always will as long as I'm alive. I've a lot of experience with this sort of thing, with the history of our nation, and I would back up anyone, including her and Bill, on this issue.
He should not have ever been appointed President! I do not consider him honestly elected as President, on the basis of what I know. Foreign powers were using the proceeds of drug distributions, illicit drug distributions, in order to finance him to become the President of the United States! I would say, this man himself is now purely a drug on the market, and he should be removed from office immediately. Because I know, I know on personal knowledge, where this present situation is going under this President. And anyone who's a true patriot, with the guts and knowledge to be a patriot, would support me, in saying, he must be thrown out of office now!
Bernstein: Now, I would like to follow up Jason's question, with another potential gift from the D.C. Circuit Court. And that is coming at the beginning of February, Feb. 7th, where there's going to be a hearing in a lower court in D.C. Circuit, to hear the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the case by the House of Representatives against the stonewalling by the Eric Holder's Justice Department on revealing facts on the "Fast and Furious" case. That's something that's also in the background of this decision.
And it's very interesting that this case is going to be heard: the use of Executive privilege announced by the Obama Administration through Eric Holder, to withhold evidence subpoenaed by the House of Representatives. There's some discussion that this is also at the root of the sudden, announced resignation of the Deputy Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who just in the past 24 hours, I believe it was, announced that he was going to be leaving the Justice Department, and he's someone who has been implicated in the coverup of the "Fast and Furious" documents. And he's also the subject of a recently released PBS Frontline special, titled "The Untouchables," which documents the failure of the United States government, of leading officials, to prosecute any of the guilty parties, provably guilty of fraud, massive fraud, in the financial crisis of 2008, and on, but especially 2010 and onward, after the Angelides Commission Report.
And I think it's interesting, because at a certain point in this documentary, the interviewer for Frontline asks Breuer, "You gave a speech before the New York Bar Association, talking about your use of non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements," so, the slap on the wrist. And in that speech you made a reference to "losing sleep at night" over worry about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution. Is that really the job of a prosecutor, to worry about anything other than simply pursuing justice?
And the Deputy Attorney General, Lanny Breuer responded that if I bring a case against Institution A, and as a result of bringing that case there's some huge economic effect, it affects the economy, so that employees who had nothing to do with the wrongdoing of the company are affected. If it creates a ripple effect, so that suddenly, counterparties and other financial institutions or other companies that had nothing to do with it, are affected badly, it's a factor we need to understand.
Now, this also being released in the wake of the $1.9 billion slap on the wrist a little over a month about to HSBC, who—if there were any kind of honest investigation, they were culpable of massive fraud, massive money laundering, the most horrible money laundering imaginable, and it was Lanny Breuer who announced this $1.9 billion fine.
So, I just wanted to point this out in background, as a continuation off of your previous question, but to really get to the point, a number of institutional contacts have been dying to ask you the question over the past weeks of development around the push to reinstate Glass-Steagall. So, if you could address this situation as well as the recent statements in support of Glass-Steagall, please do.
LaRouche: Quite gladly. The key issue here of the Obama Administration, the crucial issue apart from his violations of the law, and his intent to violate the law, as in the War Powers Act, and things of that sort, is the fact that the U.S. economy is about to disintegrate. One of the factors in this action by the Federal courts, is the fact that the United States government is hopelessly bankrupt. There's no possibility of a survival of the U.S. government, under a continuation of this Presidency. Because the rate of hyperinflation, now, is such that we're on the brink of a trans-Atlantic, general breakdown crisis of the entire world system! As long as this Bernanke idiot is in a powered position to continue what he's done, with the backing of Obama, there's no likelihood of the survival of the United States as a nation.
So therefore, you have a concrete crime, which is very specific to the question of the survival or collapse of this nation. And the collapse of this nation in that form would be mean mass death, among the population of the United States, as we see already in the food supply question, and the measures by this Administration, which will increase the death rate, massively, as in the farm district and elsewhere of the United States! So, the ouster of this President is, itself, a cause for removal of the President, of the urgent removal of this President.
Now, we have in this connection, we have observations from sections of the Federal courts and the Federal agencies which are concerned with this matter. And you have leading members of the department, who actually share that, and express that concern: It's necessary to shut down Bernanke! Now, there's only one successful way you can do that: You can shut down Bernanke, that's one action, but you've got to do more than that. What you've got to do is essentially put through Glass-Steagall immediately. And the existence of the United States, as a nation, now depends among other things, but specifically, once thing: You must shut down Bernanke! And you must have, at the same time, you must install Glass-Steagall.
Now, Glass-Steagall means three principal things. Number 1, you must do it, you must enact the law as a law, in that thing, you must put Glass-Steagall into practical immediately, without any change from what the proposed act is now. No modifications, no going around maneuvering things, no compromises: Slam it down now, put Glass-Steagall, as proposed, into action immediately.
That will stop the crisis in one sense, but that's not enough. You also have to establish a credit system. We haven't seen one of those for a long time. We need a credit system, under which the Federal government gains the power, to create an institution which is a credit institution, which gives credit for things which are warranted under that policy. In other words, going back to a credit system, of the type which existed under the first Presidency of the United States! The first and second term of the United States, under the first President Washington, set up a credit system! That credit system was then taken down by the successor Presidents. It has to be restored.
Under a credit system, the United States, organized with backing of the Federal government, on credit for useful projects which will rebuild the U.S. economy. In other words, we put into effect Glass-Steagall. That means the Federal government no longer owes any money on that kind of banking system, which has ruined us. Those banks are put on their own. Those private banks are on their own; if they survive on their own, they can survive. If they can not survive on their own, we're going to be rid of them, and a lot of debts!
So, we're going to cut the debt of the United States, from its present form, down to a minimal, its new form. Instead, since we can not increase production much, simply by Glass-Steagall, you have to do something else under Glass-Steagall! You have to create a credit system authority, under which Federal credit is used to finance promissory notes for large-scale investments over fixed terms of time. In other words, it may be one year for this kind of help, it may be five years for that; it may be Glass-Steagall comes in and is used for a NAWAPA project. A NAWAPA project would be at least 20 to 25 years' duration. And believe me, that would really change the direction of the United States, and the conditions of the people of the United States!
And there are other things that can be done as well, in addition to that. So these measures, which can be taken under a revision, could mean an immediate turnabout in direction! Now we have lost a lot of skills in the United States over these years, because of this — especially since the cancellation of Glass-Steagall. We have lost tremendously. We're almost bankrupted as a result of the cancellation of Glass-Steagall. So that becomes the issue.
Now, you have the same thing is true in Europe. Europe cannot function; continental Europe is about to break down, to disintegrate.
So, these are the kinds of conditions which we have to take into account. We must move immediately, to shut down everything that Bernanke and the current President of the United States represent: There's no redeemable quality in either place. We must strip ourselves of obligations we should never have undertaken, by going back to Glass-Steagall. But we must supplement Glass-Steagall with other measures, such as the creation of a credit system and also the development of public credit through projects like NAWAPA.
And these things will be sufficient to cause a survival of the United States, and a movement toward recovery. Because we're going to have to train a lot of people. Remember, we have several generations that have really not had the opportunities of experiencing the glories of progress. So therefore, we need that. And that's the way you have to look at it.
You can not simply say there, "Don't, don't, don't, don't!" You have to do more. You have to say what you're going to do, that will put the United States back in the direction of recovery. And we've reached the point, that without that program, there's no chance the United States can survive. So, therefore our obligation goes accordingly.
Bernstein: Now, since we have you here, we are going to have to keep you for a few more questions that we'd like to fire your way. And I just want to follow up on the Glass-Steagall, because what our organization has been doing, has given us certain knowledge where we have a pulse on meters of the United States, in economy, in government. So, you have a certain insight into where the progress on Glass-Steagall is going, and you've stated at the opening of this webcast, where the potential breaks on the Obama front. But I think the individuals from institutions who wanted to know your reading, where you do see the tide going? Because we had the statements from FDIC vice chair Thomas Hoenig, we had the proposal from the current Dallas Fed President Fisher on bank separation. And we've had the alignment of the Tea Party and the more liberal MoveOn crowd, the alignment of them on the policy of Glass-Steagall.
So, there is this wave of support, but where do you see it going? Because you've just stated what must happen. But would you give your assessment of what you see currently happening?
LaRouche: Yeah. Well, I wouldn't say what's currently happening, but I say what can be currently happening. There's a difference.
We are at a point, where we no longer think in terms of trends, as such. In other words, the question is not whether there's a trend in a possible direction or not. The question is whether there's the will to force the creation of a new trend, and that's our only hope. We have to force the change in direction, from the present trend, to an entirely reversed trend. And that's the only way this nation will survive.
Now, that depends upon moving the intention of the emotions of the American people, away from what they believe now, to what they believe is possible.
Now, this depends upon something that has to be understood, and it's in the nature of the history of humanity, as far as we know that history. We have intimations of things, you know, like we had things that were going on in the area of Mexico, for example, in ancient times, which are far better than they've been in modern times, generally! We have reversals of trends: Mexico, for example, under a former President who was a personal friend of mine, had adopted measures and was instituting measures which the United States and Britain crushed! And the entire destruction of Mexico which has been going on since then, is a result of the crushing of my friend, that Mexican President [José López Portillo], who had guts.
We had also people in Argentina, who have guts and had guts, and they were crushed, too. We had possibilities in Brazil, of improvements in the Brazilian problem, and that was crushed in effect—not crushed openly, but crushed in effect, in terms of the economic effects of what was going on there.
So, often it's the case, it is not trends which bring you better news. Often, when you get better news, it's because you reversed the trends! And now, the question is: Are we willing to reverse the trend? That means: Is the Federal government going to recognize this problem, and is the Federal government going to take actions under law, which cause a reversal of those trends? In other words, we're under a trend now, which, if continued, will destroy the people of the United States, essentially. Have we got the guts, to take the measures which will reverse that trend? And that's the crucial thing.
See, the problem here is really a scientific one. Most people do not know what humanity is. They have ideas, and experience which they call humanity, but most people do not understand that, don't understand it at all. And that's where the shortfalls come. In a great crisis, it comes by a sudden reversal of trends. It does not mean a sudden return to glory, it means reversing a bad trend by moving upward, and that's where we have to go now.
We have to promote the things, as Franklin Roosevelt did. See, Franklin Roosevelt was a real hero in this respect, not only because of what he did, but because of the precedent he set. What he did, is he took a United States that was about to be chopped to pieces, about to come under a fascist rule, like that of Hitler, and it was an attempted coup, against President Franklin Roosevelt under these circumstances. And Roosevelt found allies who crushed the would-be crushers. And that was part of the whole program which saved the United States. Otherwise, the United States would have gone quickly into the same trend as Adolf Hitler. And Franklin Roosevelt's actions prevented that from occurring.
And so, similarly now, our job, and the job of the President—or the future President, shall we say?—is to immediately do the same thing: Is to take all those laws and trends and tendencies and opinions, which have moved us in the direction of self-destruction, and say, "We are a sovereign people. We have the power of Reason, and the power of Reason may show us, that we have to adopt certain resolutions which completely reverse the present trend!"
And we must do that—because we are about losing our population. We've gone through several generations, since I came out of military service, and during those periods, and after the assassination of President Kennedy, the United States has gone consistently in the direction of self-destruction. The time has come to reverse that tendency, by understanding what that effect on Kennedy was, what that meant, the killing of Kennedy—what that meant. And it was coverup of the real cause of the assassination, of John F. Kennedy, which sent us into a long war. And from there into Hell itself for most of our people! We're going to have to reverse that! And that's the thing that counts: Do you have the guts, not to try to find a way of riding a trend, like riding some kind of big fish on the ocean, but reversing the trend, rather than to try to ride one? And that's what has to be considered.
Ross: Well, there's just a lot of things coming in. You don't mind taking two more, do you?
LaRouche: No.
Ross: Okay. Well, first one, then, on a military aspect of things, regarding the conflicts that are spreading in Africa right now. It refers back to— You were discussing the impeachable acts of Obama, including the violation of the War Powers Act. Now, sometimes, he's defending this, from the standpoint of "Oh, I didn't put any troops directly at risk, therefore I didn't violate this aspect of the Constitution." As though, when you look at the powers of the Senate, in that part that I'd read earlier, including the declaration of war by the Congress, this isn't just about putting troops in harm's way! It's like treaties, it's a part of foreign policy! Even if you're not making American troops possibly in danger of losing their lives, you're still using violence as a means of politics, and that requires the Congress in our country.
Interestingly, the War Powers Act of 1973: You'd mentioned Nixon, he vetoed it, and that was overridden by the House and Senate, to be made into law.
I want to ask you about what's going on in Mali and other places right now. As you've pointed out, Obama had effectively allied with al-Qaeda in Libya. What we've then been seeing in Syria, where an opposition movement which maybe at first had some potential to go somewhere, as just an honest popular uprising has now become increasingly dominated, if it wasn't from the beginning, by Islamist forces, al-Qaeda forces. You know, people remember the people saying, "We're all al-Nusra." Then we've had the attacks in Algeria, the hostage-takings; we've got what's going on in Mali now, where France is intervening to help clean up some of this.
And Russia had made the interesting point that said, well, what you're doing in Mali, it sounds good to take care of terrorists, but—you know, that's who you're supporting in Syria, don't you?
So, I wanted to get your thoughts on this. Is this just something that's unintentionally spreading out of control? Is there something more sinister at work here? And how is this conflict being used on purpose, if it is?
LaRouche: Okay. Well, this goes into a longer and deeper question. The question of the British Empire.
Now, contrary to popular suspicions, the British Empire is not the empire of the British Isles. It is a world empire. It became established as a world empire through a war, and this war, which defeated France and other countries, established an empire, and the key empire it established, was that over India! So that even before the British Empire had taken over England, as such, Great Britain as such, the empire had already established itself in place such as North America, Canada, for example, and in terms of India, and other locations, and throughout Africa! And to the present day, the majority control in Africa, is by the British Empire. While the Indian government itself resists, to a great degree, the degree of control which the British Empire had over it, then, it still has an indirect influence over India. It has a very strong influence over Pakistan, it has a strong influence throughout Asia, and so forth.
We have Mexico is controlled by the British, by the British drug runners right now! It's almost unsafe to live in Mexico, because of the British drug-runners! Which also include, of course, the Obama Administration, which is one of the biggest drug-runners in the whole operation, is part of it! That's what that "Fast and Furious" was all about!
And you have, also, in South America, you have British influence. The United States has been controlled by British financial influences, since Andrew Jackson! And while that was set back a bit by President Lincoln and others, nonetheless, in the course of the 20th Century, the British influence had a lion's share of control, over the United States, in terms of U.S. finances! Morgan, for example, what the heck do you think the House of Morgan is! The House of Morgan is nothing but a branch of the British Empire! And most of this Wall Street crowd, it's nothing but the British Empire, which controls most of Europe, as well as in the United States, in that respect.
What do you think this operation is that we're fighting against, now, for freeing the United States of this gambling money? What do you think Bernanke is, but an agent of British influence? He's printing money for nothing! Bankrupting the United States with debts, which the United States really does not owe! This crooked business!
So, therefore, we have to understand that we are faced with a British domination of the planet, since the victory of Britain in establishing its empire. That empire still exists. It's not an empire of the people of the United Kingdom, though people of that kingdom are included. The Queen herself, of course, is the epitome of that particular relationship. But that does not mean that the British citizens, or subjects, actually are benefitting from this process; most of them are in terrible condition. Their living conditions are not good. Their opportunities are not good. They've been crushed as much as anybody else. Britain, at one point, had a greater role as an industrial power, by far, than its economy represents today! And what's happening now, under British influence, as in the control of the United States, by a whole series of Presidents who were also more British than they were anything else, in terms of money factors, or Wall Street, or Boston, the Boston bankers, are British agents; the New York bankers, largely British agents. The whole system is one of British agents.
So, the thing we have to do, is recognize that our country, our nation has been betrayed in this way, and in other ways. And that the nations of Europe are victims of the British Empire! What do you think the euro system is? You have a whole group of nations; they were individually, sovereign nations. But all of the nations of this region no longer have sovereignty! They're controlled by the euro system! And this is killing them! It's killing, literally, the people of Greece! It's killing the people of Spain, it's killing the people of Portugal! It's starving people. Italy's about to go under the same kind of garbage unless it resists!
So, the problem is this problem: We are still dominated by a system which has an imperialist basis. Its basis was the same basis that was established in the Roman Empire. After Rome collapsed, we had a new empire. Then after that empire collapsed, we had the first Venetian empire. And then after that, we had the New Venetian Empire, which was started as the British Empire.
So, you have a continuity of imperialism, over this extended period of history, and it's that imperialism which adapts itself to different disguises and different kinds of pretensions and appearances and so forth. This is the problem. What we must understand, is we must end this system of empire! Not for one-world nonsense! One-world is nonsense, because the basis of society is people have their own cultures. The cultures may converge in terms of things they do, in laws they adopt and so forth, but the important thing, since the people of this empire, so-called, have their own culture, their own language culture, their own history, that the way to run the world is to have a confederation, of respectively sovereign nation-states, and to bring the whole system into a system of governance, in accord with the famous Westphalian Treaty. Go back to the Westphalian Treaty.
You have the British situation and the policy of this current President of ours, are both British! The President of the United States is nothing but a stooge for the British Queen! And that's a hard fact!
Ross: Thanks! So, here's the last question for you. The Greenies view is that the past was better—that moving forward is only done in a good way if you're actually moving backwards. There's also this idea now that progress actually makes people unhappy!—maybe if the idea of progress is McDonald's and suburbia, and alienation, etc.—so, they say, well, things used to be better, things used to be better.
I want to ask you to comment on the conclusion of the paper you just wrote today, "An End to Reductionism." You wrote that
"... the human species, has the inherent right to defend itself by any required means necessary ... to defend mankind from any intrusion on mankind's unique right to defend its position against threats presented against it. The right of unbounded expansion of the power of the human species must be recognized as a natural law inherent in the unique nature of our human species."
Could you say more?
LaRouche: Yes, yes, I could give you a very specific example, which will make it simpler that way: We are now faced with a growing threat to life on Earth. It's increasing, it's nasty, but what do you expect? That in the course of the universe, you imagine that universe has fixed characteristics? Do you not understand that the universe is changing, that the Solar System in particularly, has always been changing? It has never been in an unchanging manner! The manner is also directed—that is, it is impulsely, inherently projected. That's been its history.
Now, we come to a period in which it is estimated by the relevant people who are scientists, that we're now going into a period of increased risk, and this has been understood since especially the 1970s, a period of increased from various objects floating around inside the Solar System and beyond. So, therefore, we now have a problem, that if we're going to maintain humanity on Earth, and not have some barrage of objects battering us, and probably causing in some cases, the cessation of human life on Earth! We're in that kind of a period!
Exactly how it's going to work out, why, and so forth, that's not certain. But it is now a problem: Therefore, the defense of Earth against these kinds of problems, these threats, is a crucial factor for all mankind.
Now, it is possible, feasible, in conception, to organize defense of Earth in such a way that we might be able to secure life within the Solar System, or large parts of the Solar System would in net effect on Earth. Now, this will mean, undoubtedly, that we're going to have to have capabilities based on Mars, but under the direction of us on Earth. Just as we've sent a few things to Mars, a few objects and processes to Mars, we're going to have put more up there! Because we have a very poor ability to control the threats from meteorites and asteroids, from within the Solar System, and beyond. So, therefore, it's necessary for us to take steps to build up a defense. Some of this defense will have to be based on objects, functioning objects on Mars itself. I don't think we can say at this point, we're ready to put human beings as colonists on Mars. But we can put devices as colonists on Mars, as human representatives are controlled devices on Mars, and these devices can be very useful, even indispensable, in our ability to try to control all these asteroids running around loose in that space.
So, therefore, mankind must see itself as a factor in the Solar System! We're not just managing ourselves on Earth; we have to defend ourselves against the known types of threats, which threaten mankind from within the Solar System itself. And the obvious place to put our foot, is first of all, directly on the Moon. If you want to control the processes we have to control in respect to Mars, we've got to do it on the Moon first. We've got to get our tunnels on the Moon going! It means, we're going to have to go to thermonuclear fusion, as a power driver, so you have make trip from the Moon to Mars, in probably 30 days, or less.
So these are the kinds of things we have to think about and begin to do, if we're going to protect the possibility of a continuation of human life on Earth. And therefore, this is normal for us; it's normal for us as human beings. Our direction, whenever we're civilized, is to increase the power of humanity to manage and defend itself, and to develop itself in its powers and prowesses.
That doesn't mean we're going to go to Mars right away. I don't recommend any of my friends going to Mars right now, except on emergency visit! But we can put things on Mars, which are operating functions, like Curiosity, but on a much larger scale than Curiosity, with more advanced purposes. We can begin to explore this area between Mars and Earth, for example, and explore that, and do something about the problems. We'll plant things, just like Curiosity, we'll plant things on large asteroids, and things like that, and start to map this process, and try to get some kind of control over the whole thing.
And this is the direction which we have been doing, since the end of the 1970s. And there's no reason it should not be continued and accelerated now. In fact, it probably is necessary. It probably is indispensable.
But we can not accept the idea that there may be no risk. If there's a possibility of risk, we must act! We must act on behalf of humanity: And that's the way to look at it. If we accept that responsibility, that mankind on Earth must take control, of threats to mankind of Earth within the immediate areas of the Solar System, accept that, that gives us a motivation, a direction in policymaking, which is appropriate to our desire, for a continuity of the existence of humanity. And that's the way to look at things.
If you adopt that standpoint, then you're on the right track in thinking! Don't worry about the exact details about the program: If you're doing that, you're doing the right thing! And mankind has often acted that way. Mankind has often acted, on the basis of knowing, we should be doing the right thing! And we should not be not doing the right thing! And that's where we should stand.
Mason: Well, that brings this broadcast to a close. I'd like to thank you for joining us tonight, and invite you to stay tuned to LaRouche PAC's site, and also to join us in this fight, and become a member of the LaRouche Political Action Committee. You can do that via the site, or also through your local organizer.
Again, thank you very much, and good night.







$200 Million Muslim credit card scam busted in New Jersey

$200 Million Muslim credit card scam busted in New Jersey

via Shariah Finance Watch
Eighteen people have been charged in what federal prosecutors in New Jersey called one of the largestcredit card fraud schemes ever uncovered by the U.S. Department of Justice, spanning 28 states and eight countries.
“The defendants are part of a massive international fraud enterprise involving thousands of false identities, fraudulent identification documents, doctored credit reports and more than $200 million in confirmed losses,” FBI Special Agent James Simpson said in court records.
According to court records, the scheme involved three basic steps: The defendants allegedly created thousands of fake identities, pumped up the credit histories of those fictitious people and then racked up charges on fraudulently obtained credit cards.
The scam began in 2003 as false identities were used to create credit profiles with major credit bureaus, prosecutors say. Some were completely fictitious; others were created using Social Security numbers matched to someone with the same name. In other instances, fake pay stubs and tax returns were used to get credit cards.
Prosecutors say the accused pumped up their credit worthiness by making small purchases and paying off the charges, enabling them to run up credit lines and make large charges that were never repaid.
By 2012, they had created more than 7,000 false identities to obtain more than 25,000 credit cards. Millions in cash were wired to Pakistan, India, the United Arab Emirates, Canada, China and Japan.
“Due to the massive scope of the fraud, which involved over 25,000 fraudulent credit cards, loss calculations are ongoing and final confirmed losses may grow substantially,” Simpson said.
The proceeds, authorities said, were used for luxury automobiles, electronics, spa treatments, high-end clothing and millions of dollars in gold. Authorities said the fraudsters also stockpiled large sums of case and approximately $70,000 in cash was found in one defendant’s oven.
Though the scheme targeted credit card companies, Paul Fishman, U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, said customers everywhere could feel the impact.
“Through their greed and their arrogance, the individuals arrested today and their conspirators allegedly harmed not only the credit card issuers, but everyone who deals with increased interest rates and fees because of the money sucked out of the system by criminals acting in fraud rings like this one,” Fishman said.
At least eight in the group — Babar Quresh, Muhammad Shafiq, Ijaz Butt, Qaiser Khan, Shafique Ahmed, Muhammad Naveed, Khawaja Ikram and Nasreen Akhtar — have been unemployed since 2008.
Prosecutors identified Qureshi and Shafiq were identified as the group’s ringleaders, and linked Shafiq and his brother, Naveed, to 464 credit cards and nearly $2.6 million in losses. Some of those charged also stockpiled cash. At one defendant’s home, arresting officers found $68,000 in a kitchen oven.
Quereshi alone made a wire transfer of $500,000 last September — and more than $1 million has flowed through one of many personal bank accounts since 2005, the complaint alleges. One has to wonder if this scheme at least partially funded jihad…
According to the complaint and officials, most of the 18 defendants have ethnic ties to Pakistan. Six of them live in New Jersey (including four in Iselin); one in Philadelphia, and the rest in New York. Some of the defendants may be related, officials also said, while adding that the entire scheme had strong ties to Jersey City — including to three jewelry stores on Newark Avenue named Ashu Jewels, Tanishq Jewels and Raja Jewels.
Elsewhere in Chris Christie‘s sharia paradise also known as New Jersey an Egyptian Muslim beheaded two Christians.
Related:

Ohio imam gets just 1 year in $3.8M food stamp fraud

Detroit: Muslim doc arrested in Medicaid fraud, shipped cash to Lebanon

Illinois, Nevada and Utah – Multi-million dollar Muslim food stamp fraud busts

Maine: Somali Muslim couple arrested in welfare fraud scheme

Minnesota: Iraqi Muslim’s food stamp fraud costs taxpayers $3.1M

Virginia: $1.5M theft estimate revised after Muslim says she “didn’t steal during Ramadan”

More Muslims arrested in massive Medicare fraud schemes

Just search our archives for the word “fraud” and many more posts will pop up.

Anti-Sharia Laws 0 0 A First Amendment Analysis of Anti-Sharia Initiatives A First Amendment Analysis of Anti-Sharia Initiatives Asma Uddin & Dave Pantzer From the ISPU Website: Executive Summary

Anti-Sharia Laws

 0 0
 


A First Amendment Analysis of Anti-Sharia Initiatives
Asma Uddin &  Dave Pantzer
From the ISPU Website:
Executive Summary

Ten years after September 11, 2001, the American Muslim community continues to be surrounded by a fear created and promoted mostly by a small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals. Collectively, these groups have spread their message in twenty-three states through books, reports, websites, and blogs. Other anti-Islam grassroots organizations have utilized this propaganda to “educate” their constituency. The Center for American Progress defines Islamophobia as an “exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.” This Islamophobia movement’s ability to influence politicians’ talking has made mainstream that which was once considered marginal, extremist rhetoric.
The impact of the Islamophobia campaign upon the American public’s perception of Islam and Muslims has been very negative. Approximately half of all Americans hold an unfavorable view of Islam. To date, dozens of bills have been introduced in more than half of the states to ban Sharia and/or international law. Some of these bills are overly broad, and some in essence would outlaw any organization that adhered to any Islamic jurisprudential school. The Muslim community pushed back, specifically because the regulations on common activities such as how to wash before prayer or how much money to give to the poor emanate from these same schools of thought and would cause great restrictions on their ability to practice their faith.

This report describes the broader climate of anti-Muslim sentiment, as promoted by anti-Islam grassroots organizations, and examines the various manifestations of this hate in light of the First Amendment. More specifically, this report analyzes the anti-Sharia bills and ballot measures proposed by numerous states and determines the extent to which they comply with free exercise and establishment principles and jurisprudence.

Key Findings:

The American legal system has built-in safeguards
The crucial feature of any kind of arbitration is that an arbitrator, whether religious or not, has no ability to enforce the arbitral decision; only state or federal courts have that power. Moreover, there is an array of carefully crafted safeguards in place to protect individuals. For example, arbitral decisions are annulled when there is evidence that the arbitrator completely disregarded the law or when the arbitrator refused to consider material evidence. Courts also review the arbitral decision to ensure that arbitrators are neutral, that the resulting arbitral decisions are neither grossly unfair nor undermine public policy, and that the parties agreed to take part in the arbitration of their own free will.

The anti-Sharia laws violate constitutional principles
The First Amendment to the American Constitution includes two Religion Clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Together, these Clauses provide guidelines for the relationship between the government and religion.

For one, the government may not officially choose among religions, or between religion and non-religion, in creating law. A significant purpose of the Religion Clauses is to protect religious groups from the overreaching of the state. They protect minority religions from state interference, which could arise where a religious (or secular) majority uses the democratic process to punish a minority, and they protect all religions, popular or unpopular, from state encroachment into purely religious matters. Moreover, the government may not generally prevent a person from believing and advocating a religious message; nor may the government prevent behavior simply because it is religious in nature.

Oklahoma’s “Save Our State Amendment,” the only anti-Sharia initiative to be challenged in court thus far, is a good example of how these laws violate the above-mentioned constitutional principles. The legislative history and the actual text of the Amendment make clear that its purpose is to treat Muslims differently than members of other faiths—it seeks to outlaw use of Sharia principles but does not mention principles of any other faith. It also places numerous burdens on Muslims’ religious exercise. For example, if the Amendment were to become law, it would be impossible to enforce a will that is based on Sharia principles or to engage in Sharia-based arbitration. This unequal treatment of Muslims and burdens on their free exercise contradict core Religion Clause principles.

Broader Implications
When religious freedom is limited for one group, it necessarily affects religious freedom for all groups. Although anti-Sharia measures name Sharia specifically, if allowed to stand, they can limit the freedoms of Christians, Jews, and other faith groups in the United States who turn to religious arbitration as the preferred method of dispute resolution.

Recommendations
1. Clarify the meaning of Sharia: The American Muslim community should engage the broader public on Sharia’s meaning and role. It should articulate what this word means generally and what it means to them specifically—that is, the articulation of the concept should not be merely theoretical but explained in concrete terms.

2. Differentiate Sharia from laws in Muslim-majority countries: Even more to the point, the American Muslim community should differentiate the ways Sharia is applied in differing cultural contexts. It is important to emphasize that the way it is applied in some Muslim-majority countries is very different than what is possible, or even preferable, in the American context. How does the American legal and social framework shape the application of Sharia law?

3. Disseminate information on religious arbitration and the First Amendment: Legal think tanks should organize lay-accessible information sessions on the First Amendment and religious arbitration. Many Americans are unaware that religious law is incorporated into the American legal system. How does this work in the case of Sharia? In the case of other religious laws? Americans need answers to these questions.

Is the FBI’s Community Outreach Program a Trojan Horse?

Is the FBI’s Community Outreach Program a Trojan Horse?

By Mike German, ACLU, Washington Legislative Office at 3:33pm
In December 2011, the ACLU released FBI documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, which showed that San Francisco FBI agents were exploiting community outreach programs for intelligence-gathering purposes. Now it appears FBI agents in Minneapolis have adopted this ruse, and may be using it in even more sinister ways.
As the nation’s predominant federal law enforcement agency, the FBI has a duty to communicate with the public—both to provide information about FBI activities and to hear grievances—so it can address specific community concerns. The FBI’s community outreach program, organized under its Office of Public Affairs, was established to fulfill this obligation, and much of its work is laudable. But the FBI documents we received show that at least since 2005, in an increasingly formal and systematic process that lasted  well into 2011, the FBI used community outreach programs to collect information about First Amendment-protected activity for intelligence and investigative purposes.
In 2008, the FBI Directorate of Intelligence formalized the intersection of community outreach and intelligence gathering by creating its own “community outreach” files under its Domain Management program (identified by an 800-series case file number), to “enhance the . . . network of contacts with community leaders . . . who can assist the FBI and fellow federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies in combating terrorism.” Under this program, intelligence agents either make their own community outreach presentations, as documented in this 2008 memo, or accompany FBI community outreach specialists to meetings to collect intelligence, as documented in this heavily-redacted 2009 memo. The San Francisco FBI also had a “mosque outreach” program that it exploited in similar ways.
In response the FBI issued a press statement quoted in the Los Angeles Times that defended the collection as “within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity,” but also suggested that new rules would prevent repetition. “…Since that time, the FBI has formalized its community relations program to emphasize a greater distinction between outreach and operational activities.” The new rules appear to be an improvement, but only if FBI agents follow them.
A new report from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest American-Muslim civil rights organization, indicates they aren’t. On January 30, 2013, CAIR issued a press release welcoming the initiation of an internal FBI investigation into its allegation that two FBI agents threatened and harassed a Somali immigrant in Minnesota in an attempt to coerce him into becoming an informant. The happiness didn’t last long, however.
According to a new complaint filed by CAIR, days later an FBI agent arrived unannounced at the doorstep of its Minneapolis chapter director, Lori Saroya. When later contacted by a CAIR representative, the agent claimed that the purpose of the visit was community outreach.
Suspicious—based on the ACLU’s reporting on the FBI’s misuse of community outreach and the absence of reports that other homes in the community were visited—a CAIR attorney called the agent back. Here’s how CAIR described the interaction:
“When CAIR-MN's [attorney] later called [the agent] and asked if he was assigned to the division’s community outreach program, [the agent] responded that he was not and stated that he is a field law enforcement agent who wanted to speak to a member of Ms. Saroya's household for a ‘meet and greet.”
So once again, it appears FBI agents are improperly exploiting the good will established through its community outreach programs as a method of gaining access to community members for investigative purposes. Trained FBI investigators know that showing up unannounced at someone’s home is intimidating, and they could have contacted Ms. Saroya by telephone or at her office to set up an appointment if the true purpose was a simple “meet and greet” with a member of her household. Coming as it did days after CAIR’s success in triggering an investigation into Minneapolis FBI activity, Ms. Saroya requested Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether the visit was an “attempt to intimidate a highly-regarded community leader” after the field office received  “negative media attention” as a result of CAIR’s advocacy.  We agree that this matter deserves Justice Department scrutiny. The ACLU has previously called on the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate the FBI’s illegal information-collection practices at community events in its San Francisco and Sacramento divisions.
For others who are approached by FBI agents claiming to be engaged in a community outreach effort, this episode provides a good example of how to respond. First, seek legal representation because any statements made to FBI agents, even community outreach agents, may be used against you.  And second, be sure your lawyer asks whether the person is assigned to the community outreach program. The agent should be able to provide documentation to verify his role, and should be willing to explain the information collection regulations that will apply to any conversation. Such formality might seem unnecessary, but unfortunately, the FBI already undermined the trust in its community outreach programs. The only way it can recover this trust is for the Justice Department and the Inspector General to conduct full investigations of these FBI practices. Most importantly, the FBI must come clean and engage with the public in a forthright and transparent manner.
Learn more about government surveillance: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

FL Bar Opposes HB351

6 9
 


Earlier this month, we asked you to contact legislators to prevent the Anti-Religious Freedom bills from passing. Florida State Senators Alan Hays and Greg Evers sponsored SB 58: Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases. Florida Representative Larry Metz sponsored the companion HB 351.

You were not alone in opposing these bills. The Florida Bar's International Law Section released its official stance in opposition of HB 351 and SB 58:

Senate Bill 58 and House Bill 351 are the latest iterations of proposed legislation that, for the past three years, has been introduced to address a perceived problem that in fact does not exist -- "to protect American citizens' constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law."

In fact, SB 58 and HB 351, the newest anti-Sharia bills, offend Florida's separation of powers and public policy. We didn't say that, the International Law Section did: 

SB and HB 351 prohibit trial court judges from applying foreign laws, or in some cases, even religious laws, in divorce or child custody proceedings unless the foreign law/religious law is the "same" as Florida law... the ILS opposes these bills.