Tag: CIA

Hitlery Not Only Received CIA Source Name, But Forwarded It Over Unsecure Email

Clinton Not Only Received CIA Source Name, But Forwarded It Over Unsecure Email – Weasel Zippers

.
…………….

.
The information was inherently classified. Can we say Valerie Plame, folks? I knew we could…

Via Yahoo:
.

On March 18, 2011, Sidney Blumenthal – Clinton’s longtime friend and political adviser – sent the then secretary of state an email to her private account that contained apparently highly sensitive information he had received from Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official with whom Blumenthal at the time had a business relationship.

“Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods],” the email states, according to Gowdy’s letter.

The redacted information was “the name of a human source,” Gowdy wrote to his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”

“Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague – debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address,” wrote Gowdy in a letter to Cummings.

Clinton has repeatedly said she never sent or received classified information on her private email server “that was marked classified at the time that it was sent or received.” But the FBI, at the request of the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department, is investigating the handling of classified information on the private server.

And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it, the sensitive nature of its contents should have been a red flag and never should have been passed along, according to a former veteran CIA officer.

“She is exposing the name of a guy who has a clandestine relationship with the CIA on her private, unprotected server,” said John Maguire, who served for years as one of the CIA’s top Mideast officers.

Keep reading

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hillary Clinton Crime Spree News Roundup

Hillary’s State Department Routinely Hid Emails On Purpose – Big Government

.

.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department routinely failed to preserve its own emails in order to intentionally hide them from official records.

Clinton-era email use at the State Department was fraught with widespread, intentional concealment, according to an October 2014-March 2015 semiannual report to Congress filed by the State Department’s office of inspector general (OIG).

Only a fraction of the messages sent by email were stored as “record emails,” according to the report.

“The review of the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) and Record Email found that, out of the more than 1 billion emails sent in 2011, employees created just over 61,000 official emails; and they created even fewer – 41,000 – in 2013,” the inspector general found. “OIG recommended that the Department establish policies governing usage and that system designers engage with focus groups to enhance the system’s efficiency.” (p. vii)

Clinton’s administration did nothing to teach people how to store emails and oversaw the widespread cover-up of emails that should have been kept.

“A 2009 upgrade in the Department’s system facilitated the preservation of emails as official records. However, Department employees had not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve ‘record emails,’” according to the OIG report.

“Record email usage varied widely across bureaus and missions. The Bureau of Administration needed to exercise central oversight of the use of the record email function. OIG found that some employees did not create record emails because they did not want to make the email available in searches or feared that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions.”

Former Secretary Clinton has turned over thumb drives and a private email server containing her emails from her tenure at the State Department. An inter-agency government task force led by the Department of Justice and the FBI is currently investigating how classified information ended up on Clinton’s server, and whether foreign agents were able to obtain any of the information on Clinton’s server.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
CNN National Security Analyst Unloads On Hillary Over Email Scandal: ‘I Wonder Whether She Is Capable Of Being President’ – Daily Caller

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal should disqualify her from the Oval Office.

At least so says former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, who is not known for being a political partisan.

“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.

“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good – and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.

“If this in fact were on her hand held [phone] – was sent to her or she forwarded it in any way – I wonder whether she is capable of being president,” he added.

Pressed by the host as to whether he really thought this situation was a “deal breaker” for Clinton’s presidential candidacy, Baer said, “As a national security employee, a former one, yes.”

“I can’t tell you how bad this is,” he went on. “A lot of things get talked about, a lot of gossip, but having documents like this sent across the Internet, it could be hacked very easily and probably were hacked, is a transgression that I don’t think the president of the United States should be allowed to, you know, have committed.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Number Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Flagged For Classified Data Grows To 60 As Review Continues – Washington Times

While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.

That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months.

The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.

Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.

Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

State officials and the intelligence community are working to resolve questions about those and other emails with possible classified information, a process that isn’t likely to be completed until January.

That will be right around the time Mrs. Clinton is slated to face voters in the Iowa caucuses in her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

As the number of suspect emails grows and the classification review continues, it is clear that predictions contained in a notification Mr. McCullough sent Congress this summer is likely to hold true: Mrs. Clinton’s personal emails likely contained hundreds of disclosures of classified information.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
How Did Hillary’s Lawyers Search A Server No Longer In Her Possession – Legal Insurrection

There is a time gap which may hold the key to Hillary’s hide-and-seek email game.

According to the Washington Post and other reporting, a Colorado server company obtained possession of Hillary’s server in 2013, transferred the data, leaving a blank server with no usable data at a storage facility in New Jersey.

Yet, in a letter filed on August 12, 2015 with the federal Court in the Judicial Watch FOIA litigation regarding Huma Abedin’s outside employment, Hillary’s lawyer, David Kendall. represented that Hillary did not ask counsel to review her emails until late 2014. [Full embed at bottom of post.] He also confirmed that the Colorado company has had possession of the original server since 2013.

.

.
* * *

.

.
David Kendall letter Clinton Emails 8-12-2015 excerpt 2

So how could Hillary’s lawyers review a server no longer in Hillary’s possession, and which had been wiped clean?

It’s worth noting that at her March 10, 2015, UN press conference, when a reporter noted that some people suggested an independent review of the server, Hillary did not say that she no longer had the original server or that it had been wiped clean.

Instead, she said “the server will remain private.”

The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private…

.

.
(transcript)

It is that original server that apparently has been turned over to the federal government. Plus a thumb drive, which purportedly only has work-related emails.

If the data was transferred to some other server, where is that one?

On Friday, August 14, 2015, the State Department is required to provide additional information to the Court.

Maybe that will shed some light.

But I’m not hopeful.

Judicial Watch Foia Case Huma Abedin – Defendant’s August 12, 2015 Status Report

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Fox Poll: Two Percent Of Voters Think Hillary Told The Truth About E-mail Server, And Only Three Percent Of Democrats – Hot Air

Six months ago, Hillary Clinton insisted that her private e-mail system contained no sensitive material, and that the federal government had no need of her server. With federal investigators trying to track down all of the records from her private e-mail server and revelations about Top Secret/compartmented material on her unauthorized system, Hillary’s public statements look like lies to a majority of those polled in the latest Fox News survey. In a poll of 1,008 registered voters, 58% say Hillary lied about the e-mails, and 54% believe she damaged national security:

A Fox News poll released Friday finds a 58 percent majority thinks Clinton “knowingly lied” when she announced in a March press conference that no emails on her private server contained classified information. A third says there is “another explanation” for internal government investigators determining secret info was in fact on Clinton’s server (33 percent).

Moreover, by a 54-37 percent margin, voters feel Clinton put our national security at risk by using a private email server.

The poll gave three options: Clinton lied, There’s another explanation, and Clinton told the truth. Only 2% overall think Hillary told the truth, a staggeringly bad number, and only 33% overall think there’s another explanation than Hillary lying. On option 3, the internals on this poll are instructive. The highest that Clinton told the truth polls in the demographics is 5% among black voters, where 63% choose another explanation. Among Democrats, the number is a whopping three percent. And among younger voters – who are presumably very familiar with e-mail – the “Hillary’s honest” option didn’t get enough responses to register.

Frankly, this question is designed to let respondents get off the hook for deciding whether Hillary lied or not. The middle option of another explanation implies incompetency – not exactly a good look for a presidential candidate – or some milder form of dishonesty. And yet, not many voters took the middle option. Self-described liberal, Democrats, and black voters all had majorities choosing the less-bad option, but almost none of them chose told the truth.

Instead, majorities in almost all other demos believe Hillary lied, even when given a softer option. Younger voters under 35 years of age were especially harsh on this judgment at 63/30/0, but the next age demo (35-54) was almost as dismissive, 61/31/2. In a rare show of consensus, those with (59/34/1) and without (58/33/2) college degrees agree on Hillary’s dishonesty. Two-thirds of independents believe she flat-out lied (67/23/2), and even a majority of women agree (51/40/2).

The responses to the question of harm to national security fall into the same pattern. This was presented as a yes/no, and 54% overall chose yes. The key demos all have yes majorities:

* Independents – 54/36
* Women – 50/40
* College degree – 53/38
* No college degree – 55/37
* 18-35YOs – 61/34

In other words, she’s rapidly approaching Richard Nixon levels of trust in, say, August 1973 or so.

A couple of other notes in the poll will have an indirect impact on Hillary, who’s going to be a continuity candidate based on her participation in the Obama administration. A recent trend toward the positive in Barack Obama’s job approval reversed itself in this poll, the first taken since the Iran deal was announced. He slid from a 46/46 in the beginning of July to 42/51, his worst showing since March. Voters want Congress to reject the Iran deal 31/58, and substantially more of them believe Iran can’t be trusted, 18/75, which is actually a slight improvement from the historical trend. With that hanging in the air, Hillary would have had trouble gaining trust from voters anyway – but the e-mail server scandal all but moots the point now.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

More August headlines:
.

Exclusive: Hillary’s IT Contractor Did Not Have Proper Security Clearance – Daily Caller


The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now – Sidney Powell


Tech Company Which Maintained Hillary’s Secret Server Was Sued For ‘Illegally Accessing’ Database And ‘Stealing White House Military Advisers’ Phone Numbers’ – Daily Mail


Hillary Clinton Emails Contained Signal Intelligence From Spy Satellites – Washington Times


*VIDEO* Judge Andrew Napolitano Describes Hillary Clinton’s Crimes


FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post


Judge Orders Hillary Clinton To Answer For ‘Home-Brew’ Server – Gateway Pundit

.
.

.

*VIDEOS* Your Daley Gator Democrats-Are-Traitors CIA “Torture” Report Update


.

.

.

.

Obama CIA Director Admits Enhanced Interrogations Helped Lead U.S. To Bin Laden (Video)

Boom! CIA Director Brennan Admits Info From Enhanced Interrogations Led US To Osama Bin Laden – Gateway Pundit

.
………………….

.
CIA Director Brennan just admitted that the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) provided information that was useful & was used in the ultimate operation to go against bin Laden.

“There was information obtained from the EIT that was useful in the Bin Laden operation.”

.

.
On Monday CIA Director John Brennan rebutted two of the central premises of the Democratic Senate report on CIA’s enhanced interrogating techniques. Brennan said the controversial program produced evidence that helped avert potential strikes against the U.S. Today he admitted the information led to Bin Laden.

.

.

*VIDEOS* Senate Leftists To Release Hotly Contested CIA Interrogation Report Despite Threat To Americans


.

.

.

.

.

.

British Intelligence Specialist: Obama Born In Kenya; CIA, American Politicians Knew It Before ’08 Election



(see unedited version below)
.

Michael Shrimpton Résumé:

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

.
Unedited Version

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles:

.
Barrister Michael Shrimpton: Obama Born in Mombasa Kenya In 1960, CIA DNA Testing Confirms Obama Dunham Grandparents Not Linked, Wikipedia Scrubs Shrimpton Profile, British Intelligence Files – Citizen Wells

Barrister Michael Shrimpton Obama born in Mombasa Kenya in 1960, CIA DNA testing confirms Obama Dunham grandparents not linked, Wikipedia scrubs Shrimpton profile, British intelligence files

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.” …Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” …George Orwell, “1984″

I had to treat this story with skepticism.

Barrister Michael Shrimpton is real.

Are his claims?

His profile was scrubbed on Wikipedia.

From Birther Report February 25, 2014. – Bombshell: British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton; Obama Born In Kenya In 1960; CIA DNA Test

“Shrimpton reported Obama’s purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960. He said Kenya was under British intelligence files and that Obama’s father ran guns for the Mau Mau. He then dropped a bombshell claiming the CIA did covert DNA testing on Obama at a fundraising dinner and the test came back with no match to the claimed grandparents.”

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/02/bombshell-british-intelligence-advisor.html

Wikipedia scrubbed the Michael Shrimpton profile.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

23:46, 11 August 2012 Uncle G (talk | contribs) deleted page User: Michael Shrimpton (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Michael Shrimpton)

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Michael Shrimpton. If in doubt, please verify that “Michael Shrimpton” exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

From Wikipedia October 10, 2010.

User: Michael Shrimpton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michael Shrimpton : A short resume

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. Michael has earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organisations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Masters Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers. He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.

His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake. His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005. He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit Washington DC February 2006.

Michael has a life-long interest in aviation which is informed by his knowledge of intelligence and defence affairs. His first solo was in 1979 on the British aerospace Bulldog T MK 1 aircraft, University of Wales Air Squadron. He is an Honorary Life Member Bomber Command Association, member of the Air League, member of Friends of the Royal Air Force Museum and RAF Historical Society. He has flown in many types of classic aircraft including a DC-3 (ex-RAF Dakota), Auster MK6 and a Stearman biplane.

He has contributed to aviation by combining intelligence related materials with original analysis of the history of various aircraft types. Notably Michael thinks he identified the covert programme of sabotage against de Havilland Comet airliners Yoke Peter and Yoke Uncle, which crashed in January and April 1954 off the Italian island of Elba (BOAC Flight 781) and in Stromboli (South African Airways Flight 201).

Michael also has other Defence interests and is a member of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the Defence and Security Forum, London, Military Commentator Circle, London and the United States Naval Institute. This wide range of high-level western defence, security and intelligence contacts has not only been of relevant to the War on Terror but has also taken him to some interesting locations.

In February 2006, Michael was flown to the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) at sea in the North Atlantic as part of the US Navy’s Distinguished Visitor Program. He completed his first arrested carrier landing and catapult take-off cycle. In June 2003 he was on the Israel / Lebanon border when he came to within 50 yards of operational Hezbollah terrorists.

He has also travelled extensively by rail, is one of AMTRAK’s few UK Guest Rewards members having crossed Canada by train on the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver and on the Alaska Railroad from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Some other journeys include the Orient Express from Paris to Istambul, the Frederick Chopin from Warsaw to Berlin, the Moscow Express from Moscow to Berlin via Minsk and Warsaw, the Alpine Express in New Zealand and the Brisbane Limited and Sunlander in Australia. He has driven many thousands of miles by car in the USA, visiting over 30 states, twice driving coast to coast.

Michael’s reputation is not restricted to the aviation, intelligence and defence communities. With extensive media experience, including live radio and television, he has appeared on Tom Marr’s talkshow for WCBM Baltimore January 2004 and again in February 2006; on the John Batchelor Show; on BBC, ITV, Sky (UK), Danish, French, Italian, German, Swiss, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand television. He appeared in a CNN special on the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano for CNN’s Latin American service with a first appearance on Fox News March 2006. He was also Intelligence Consultant to BBC TV’s Spooks series, broadcast in the USA as MI5.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101010175917/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Shrimpton

More on Barrister Michael Shrimpton to come.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Barack Hussein Soebarkah? – Dr. Jason Kissner

One of the unexplained mysteries in the scanty documentation of the early life of the 44th President of the United States is the appearance of the name Soebarkah as his last name on an official document filled out by his mother.

In a recent contribution to American Thinker, Nick Chase offers very persuasive evidence that the long-form birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery.

While in the midst of developing an argument supporting the idea that Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, Chase states:

Finally, we have Stanley Ann Soetoro’s 1968 application to extend her 1965 passport (now destroyed) for an additional two years, as shown in Figure PPA.

On the second page of the application, Ann moved to exclude her son Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the item has been crossed out – perhaps on the advice of the consulate in Jakarta, as this would have left seven-year-old Barry passportless – so it didn’t happen.

The appendage “(Soebarkah)” has never been satisfactorily explained by anyone, and I certainly don’t know what “Soebarkah” means, but it does seem to indicate a name change or change in citizenship status for the boy.

Clearly, just what constitutes “a satisfactory explanation” varies with respect to persons, subject matter, context, and so forth.

And yet, there is a very good – and simple – explanation for the seemingly random appearance of the sobriquet “Soebarkah” on Mother Soetoro’s passport application.

Believe it or not, the reason may be linked to one Loretta Fuddy.

Yes, that Loretta Fuddy – the Hawaii state health director who approved the release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate and who has apparently succumbed to a nasty case of post random plane crash induced arrhythmia.

Ann Soetoro and Loretta Fuddy appear to have one very odd thing in common: both have been linked to the Subud cult, which originated in, of all places, Indonesia and was founded by the Javanese Muslim Muhammed Subuh.

The smallish cult appears to have had, at least circa 2001 and according to this profile of sorts in the Honolulu Advertiser, 20,000 members worldwide. Notice the picture of Deliana Fuddy, then “regional helper” and member of the faith? Let’s return to her Subud status in a second.

Note also that the World Subud organization seems to have been based in, of all cities… wait for it…Chicago. Indonesia… Chicago… Hawaii… three locales linked to Obama’s life.

Next, observe that the Advertiser article states that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s (more on this in the conclusion).

Now to Ann Soetoro. She was linked to Subud by her biographer (and New York Times reporter) Janny Scott (Harvard ’77) in the book A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” reviewed by the New York Times here.

Loretta Fuddy was more than merely a follower of Subud; she worked her way up the ranks and became chairwoman of Subud USA, based in Seattle from 2006 to 2008, and was known to Subud not merely as Loretta Fuddy, but as “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy. In fact, you can see that in its headline, the official Subud “memorial” page drops “Loretta” and refers simply to “Deliana” Fuddy.

Ann Soetoro’s close association with members of the Subud cult will be documented below. But first, note in passing that of all the persons – Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu, or you-name-it – that could have been installed as Director of the State Department of Health in Hawaii, Hawaii alighted on Fuddy – a leader of a small cult with roots in Indonesia and connections to Ann Soetoro – Obama’s mother. Second, observe that Fuddy assumed the Director position in Hawaii in January 2011, just a few months before the release of Obama’s long form birth certificate.

Now to Ann Soetoro’s links with Subud and to a brief discussion of the Barry “Soebarkah” mystery associated with Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application.

Read the following excerpt from SubudVoice in 2011 (and please note that I have italicized a couple of sentences to emphasize that the Subud “Staff Reporter” is drawing on material from Janny Scott’s biography of Ann Soetoro; they aren’t simply making an anonymous, empty assertion that can’t be substantiated.)

Obama’s mother and Subud

By Staff Reporter…

A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,a biography of the mother of US President Obama, Ann DunhamSutoro, contains several references to Subud. As is generally known Obama lived with his mother in Jakarta for some years…

Arianne (no second name) wrote to me to say, “Talked to Irin Poellot who is reading the book about Obama’s mother and has already run into several literal mentions of Subud!!! I remember the late Mansur Madeiros mentioning he knew her in Indonesia and he is mentioned in the book! I can’t help wondering if we will get inquiries about Subud since it is mentioned often in a book which probably will be widely read. It also is a delicious fact that our Subud sister, Ms Fuddy, just was appointed to her post in the Health Dept in Hawaii in time to be involved in the documentation of fact that Obama was born there.”

I wrote back asking for more specific information and Arianne replied, “Irin kindly supplied some quotes:In chapter 4 “Initiation in Java” the Subud members are quoted. And then (on page 116): “…she (Ann) was hired to start an English-language, business-communications department in one of the few private non profit management-training schools in the country.”

Ann “found a group of young Americans and Britons enrolled in an intensive course in Bahasa Indonesia, the national language, at the University of Indonesia recalled Irwan Holmes, (a member of the original group). She was looking for teachers. A half dozen of them accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud, with a residential compound in a suburb of Jakarta..”

And… Mohammad Mansur Madeiros, a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts, and Harvard, whom Ann hired as a teacher, had immersed himself so deeply in Javanese culture, language and religion that friends nicknamed him Mansur Java. When he died in 2007, friends recalled his preference for the company of ordinary Indonesians – street vendors and becak drivers – over that of other Subud members and expatriates.”

But what might the Ann Soetoro, Deliana Fuddy, Subud links really have to do with the sobriquet Barry Soebarkah?

To help answer that, transport yourself backward in time and sit at the feet of the Indonesian Subud master Bapak circa 1963:

Question:1 Many people in Subud change their names. Is this necessary? Is it important? How does the change of a name affect us? Physically, spiritually or both?

Bapak: Brothers and sisters, whether it is necessary or not depends on what you want…

If changing one’s name for “spiritual reasons” was something frequently done by followers of Subud’s Bapak, and Stanley Ann Soetoro was in fact closely associated with Subud, it is reasonable to suppose that “Soebarkah” arose in the same way new names for others (like “Deliana” Loretta Fuddy?) associated with Subud did: as a matter of course depending on the case.

Readers might agree that the above is a quite reasonable account of the origin of Barry “Soebarkah.”

But there is something else. The above biographical material bonds Ann Soetoro to Subud members via an English language, business communications department post. According to the New York Times here, that would have been around 1970 or 1971. However, the passport renewal application with the name “Soebarkah” dates to 1968. This suggests that either the “Soebarkah” handle came from nowhere, or that matters are as we have discussed and that Ann Soetoro in fact came to Subud before 1970 – perhaps in Hawaii.

Clearly, we might want to recall that the above linked Honolulu Advertiser Subud profile indicates that Subud was introduced to Hawai’i in the 1960s.

In closing, the Ann Soetoro’s 1968 passport renewal application raises the spectre of possible Obama birth certificate fraud yet again. Have a look at page 2 of the document:

“Sorebarkah” appears in the section labeled “Amend to Include (Exclude) Children.”

The name Barack Hussein Obama (Sorebarkah) is crossed out.

Nick Chase has concluded that this signifies that Ann Soetoro had improvidently decided to exclude Barack from her passport renewal. Chase thinks that Soetoro changed her mind about exclusion after having been informed by the Consulate that doing so would leave Barack passportless.

But there is another possibility – one just as valid on its face.

What if Soetoro was trying to include Obama in the renewal, but she wasn’t able to produce a birth certificate, and the Subud name “Soebarkah” just didn’t do the trick? (hat tip Louise Hodges for the “inclusion” possibility; one can’t be certain why she did not link the inclusion possibility to Soebarkah).

That could explain why the name Subud name “Soebarkah” appears nowhere else (that we are aware of anyway),

Of course, we might then have to wonder exactly how Obama did his traveling at certain points in time, but then perhaps Subud is, at least at times, more than a mere cult?

Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Something About Benghazi Stinks, and it has Cover-Up Written All Over it

Stacy McCain has four words. Most Transparent Administration Ever

In May, we began to learn the truth about what the Benghazi cover-up was all about: The State Department had a secret program to provide weapons to the Libyan insurgents who overthrew Gaddhafi. Once the dictator was gone and it became apparent that some of the “insurgents” the U.S. had armed were, in fact, dangerous radicals with ties to al-Qaeda, there began an effort to disarm these groups.

It was these negotiations that brought U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens to the Benghazi consulate on Sept. 11, 2012, in what appears to have been a carefully planned trap by the radical groups the U.S. was trying to disarm. It seems quite likely that the ambassador and three other Americans were killed with U.S.-supplied weapons. The fact that Benghazi was crawling with CIA operatives is something the Obama administration doesn’t want to talk about, for reasons that should be obvious enough.

That was last September, and there was an election to win, so transparency was far too inconvenient. Come to think about it, this administration has been the polar opposite of transparent, but, given the president’s lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people, that comes as no surprise. Then there is this insulting “phony scandals” lie the president used recently. Stacy links Johnathan Tobin who asks the obvious question Why do you try to cover up a phony scandal?

President Obama has been a broken record lately claiming over and over again that Republicans are promoting “phony scandals,” the chief of which is the effort to keep asking questions about the Benghazi terror attack that left four Americans dead last September. The White House has continued to insist that the notion that there was anything sinister about the administration’s conduct during or after attack is simply a political red herring not based in fact. Though many are still troubled by the failure to provide adequate protection for Americans in Benghazi, the decision not to send help as the attack unfolded as well as by the clearly false “talking points” that led current National Security Advisor Susan Rice to put out a false story about the incident being a case of film criticism run amok, for the most part the mainstream media has agreed with the White House’s conclusions and dropped the issue entirely.

But thanks to CNN’s Jake Tapper, there are new questions being raised about Benghazi that can’t be dismissed by presidential scorn or a catch phrase:

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”

Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

But, sadly, as Tobin notes, that is not all

Just as frustrating is the fact that just a few days earlier CNN interviewed one of the people identified by the FBI as a suspect in the Benghazi attack. That suspect has never been interviewed by the FBI or the Libyan government but was somehow tracked down by a journalist. At present, not a single one of the many terrorists who were responsible for killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans has been brought to justice and, to date, the American people haven’t received a serious answer as to why that should be.

 Go read all of Tobin’s piece, it is very good. Recall, as you read this, that the first lie the administration out out was that this was a spontaneous demonstration over an offensive YouTube video. We know now, and have for months, that that was a lie. that lie has been followed up by more lies, more deflections, and now the “phony scandal” lie. See a pattern here? From early in the Obama administration we have been forced to ask if the handling of the economy, energy, foreign affairs, and pretty much everything else is incompetence or deliberate. Folks, I do not know about you, but that whole incompetence argument went out the window a long time ago. 

 

*AUDIO* Mark Levin And Ted Cruz Discuss The Benghazi Cover-up And The CIA’s Role In The Scandal


.

Suspicions Growing Over Death Of Journalist Probing NSA And CIA Abuses

Suspicions Growing Over Death Of Journalist Probing NSA And CIA Abuses – New American

Weeks after the fiery death of investigative journalist Michael Hastings (shown), who was probing abuses by the CIA and NSA and had recently informed others that he was being investigated by federal authorities, suspicions about his mysterious car crash are still swirling around the Internet. While police officially ruled the death an “accident,” serious questions are still surfacing – even in the establishment media and among prominent officials. Based on e-mails Hastings sent out shortly before he died about working on a “big story” and needing to go “off the radar,” it has become clear that he was worried, too.

.

Hastings, who wrote for Rolling Stone, BuzzFeed, Gawker, and other publications, was probably best known for his award-winning 2010 article “The Runaway General.” The piece helped bring down U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Despite his establishment credentials and what analysts called his “Democrat-friendly” reporting, Hastings had become extremely alarmed about the “surveillance state” and other troubling developments in recent months. His last published story: “Why Democrats Love To Spy On Americans.”

When the Obama administration was exposed spying on journalists earlier this year, the investigative reporter blasted what he referred to as the president’s “war” on journalism. “The Obama administration has clearly declared war on the press. It has declared war on investigative journalists – our sources,” he said during a recent TV interview, blasting the administration’s lawless behavior, obsession with secrecy, and vicious persecution of whistleblowers. Beyond simple criticism, though, Hastings openly said it was time for journalists to fight back.

“I think the only recourse to this kind of behavior by the government is to say back to the government, ‘we declare war on you,’ and from this point forward, we should no longer – the media as a whole – cooperate in any manner with the government,” he continued. “We should withdraw all our cooperation and we should publish everything we know, because it’s a free press, it’s not a free-except-for-when-the-government-tells-me-to-do-it press, and we’ve been way too easygoing with these guys.”

Less than 24 hours before his death, Hastings made it crystal clear that he was concerned about his own well-being. In an e-mail sent to numerous contacts and his employer, for example, Hastings noted: “The Feds are interviewing my ‘close friends and associates.’” He also said that if authorities show up, it “may be wise to immediately request legal counsel before any conversations or interviews about our news-gathering practices or related journalism issues.” The subject line read: “FBI investigation re: NSA.” Perhaps most alarming of all, the e-mail concluded with this: “Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the rada[r] for a bit.”

While some friends and family members are reportedly too frightened to speak out, at least one recipient of the e-mail has gone public. Staff Sgt. Joseph Biggs, who became friends with Hastings while the journalist was embedded with his unit in Afghanistan in 2008, told KTLA that the “very panicked” message “alarmed me very much.” According to Biggs, “I just said it doesn’t seem like him. I don’t know, I just had this gut feeling and it just really bothered me.”

Biggs has spoken to Fox News and other major media outlets as well, saying Hastings was working on “the biggest story yet” about the CIA and that Hastings’ wife vowed to “take down whoever did this.” Apparently Hastings “drove like a grandma.” In an extended interview with radio host Alex Jones, Biggs also said he knew Hastings was receiving “death threats” from military brass. The retired staff sergeant added that he was extremely suspicious about his friend’s death and vowed to do everything in his power to find out what happened.

Heavy-hitters from the government sector have expressed concerns, too. Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke, for example, told The Huffington Post in late June that the deadly car crash was “consistent with a car cyber-attack.” Intelligence agencies for major powers – including the U.S. government – almost certainly know how to remotely seize control of a car, he added.

“What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it’s relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn’t want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn’t want the brakes on, to launch an air bag,” Clarke continued. “You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard… So if there were a cyber-attack on the car – and I’m not saying there was – I think whoever did it would probably get away with it.”

So far, the FBI has denied that it was investigating Hastings. However, on June 19, the day after the mysterious crash, WikiLeaks released what has been interpreted as a bomb-shell to some analysts monitoring the investigation. “Michael Hastings contacted WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before he died, saying that the FBI was investigating him,” the whistleblowing organization said through its official Twitter account, sparking worldwide press coverage. The allegation has not been independently confirmed.

According to the official investigation of the crash, Hastings ran a red light and was driving over 100 miles per hour in his brand-new Mercedes in the early morning when he suddenly crashed into a tree, causing his car to burst into a bizarre fiery inferno. The engine was found more than 150 feet from the wreck. Local news outlets in California, meanwhile, are reporting that the police report is still not publicly available and that officials have been ordered not to comment on the case. The crash itself has also been ringing alarm bells among experts and analysts.

On San Diego 6 News, national security reporter Kimberly Dvorak, for example, recently took to the air and talked about her conversations with sources surrounding the crash after spending a day in Los Angeles investigating. Noting that the police report was not available, she said law enforcement and fire department officials refused to comment, with some saying they had been instructed not to say anything. “That kind of stands out; we look at the NSA, the government says if you have nothing to hide, don’t worry,” she said.

Military officials, meanwhile, told Dvorak that the fire was “extremely hot” and “not something we normally see,” the reporter continued. The fact that the engine was between 150 and 250 feet behind the car was also strange, according to university physics professors she spoke with – it should have been in front, if anything. Another interesting fact highlighted in the report: There were no skid marks at the accident scene.

Mercedes, she added, insists that their cars do not blow up. In fact, the company has a reputation for building some of the safest cars in the world, but Mercedes has not yet been contacted by authorities, according to a statement. Citing a 2010 study from a California university, Dvorak also noted that it is possible to “hack into the car system and operate the accelerator, the brakes, windshield wipers, light, steering,” and more using a simple iPad.

Car experts have also expressed skepticism about the official narrative. “I’m here to state that I’ve seen dozens of cars hit walls and stuff at high speeds and the number of them that I have observed to eject their powertrains and immediately catch massive fire is, um, ah, zero,” noted Jack Baruth, editor of The Truth About Cars. “Modern cars are very good at not catching fire in accidents. The Mercedes-Benz C-Class, which is an evolutionary design from a company known for sweating the safety details over and above the Euro NCAP requirements, should be leading the pack in the not-catching-on-fire category.”

“Nor is the C-Class known for sudden veering out of control into trees and whatnot,” continued Baruth, who has a professional racing license as well. “Mr. Hastings’ aggressively Democrat-friendly storytelling has the Internet already considering the idea that his death was engineered somehow. I can’t say it’s totally unlikely. As noted above, the reported (and videotaped) behavior of the C250 was not in line with what we’d expect.”

It would not be the first time that a prominent journalist taking on the establishment has died under suspicious circumstances. Conservative-leaning alternative-media giant Andrew Breitbart, for example, promised to reveal information that would destroy the Obama machine. Shortly before the highly anticipated release, the 43-year-old died of “heart failure.” Two months later, the county coroner who conducted Breitbart’s autopsy was poisoned. Before that, investigative journalist Gary Webb, who exposed CIA cocaine trafficking, supposedly “committed suicide” with two bullets to the head after publicly expressing his concerns that he would be killed. The list could go on.

Of course, it is now common knowledge that the administration believes it can extra-judicially murder anyone – including Americans – whom Obama claims is a threat to the “Homeland.” No charges or trial are required, and indeed, the president has already openly murdered Americans like Anwar al Awlaki and his young son without even charging them with a crime – let alone securing a conviction by a jury in a court of law. Whether Hastings was murdered remains uncertain, but there is little doubt that the circumstances of his death were extremely suspicious.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazi Bombshell: CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack

Bombshell In The Benghazi E-mails: The CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack – World Tribune

The White House recently released more than 100 pages of e-mails between the CIA, State Department and the White House regarding the now infamous talking points.

.

President Barack Obama insists “there is no there, there,” as he stated during a May 13 press conference. Yet, the opposite is true. There is a bombshell there.

The CIA had warned on Sept. 10, 2012, one day before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, of the possibility of a jihadist attack on an American embassy.

We now know that on Sept. 15, 2012, when then-CIA Director David Petraeus read the final version of the talking points, he wrote in an e-mail: “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s (National Security Staff) call to be sure…”

At that point, all references to the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack, Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan Al Qaida affiliate, had been redacted. The cable to Cairo contained a warning that Al Qaida-linked jihadists might strike the American embassy there, according to The Weekly Standard.

As an earlier version of the talking points put it: “On September 10 we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy Cairo and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

In other words, America’s intelligence community feared there was danger in Cairo even before the rally occurred the following day. On September 11, there was no “spontaneous demonstration” protesting an anti-Muslim video in Egypt (or in Benghazi for that matter), as the administration would later claim, especially by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice who misled the public Sept.16 on five Sunday talk shows.

Instead, there was a rally in Cairo organized by five well-known Al Qaida-linked jihadists who had previously been jailed for terrorist activity, according to an Oct. 26 report by Thomas Joscelyn in The Long War Journal. This rally was an Al Qaida love-fest. Flags floated in the crowd honoring Al Qaida and the crowd chanted: “Obama, Obama! We are all Osama!” The five senior jihadist organizers were simply using the anti-Muslim video to gin up even more outrage and anti-American sentiment. The video was merely an appendage in their greater quest to proclaim, loudly and boldly that “Al Qaida’s ideology lives,” according to the detailed report.

Thus, Mr. Petraeus expressed his dismay on Sept.15 that a key piece of information – the essential context – was omitted. Without this, the talking points were one giant mess.

Yet, if this key piece of information were indeed revealed, the Obama administration would be exposed as having lied about the receding Al Qaida threat around the world. They would also appear to be incompetent in preventing another attack on sovereign American soil, right after having been warned that it might occur.

It was precisely this that Mr. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were determined to conceal amidst the heated and closely contested 2012 presidential campaign. If they could convince the American people that both the Cairo and Benghazi events were spontaneous, then they could not be accused of failing to prevent the violent outbreaks that occurred.

The truth is now simple, stark and a scathing indictment of the Obama administration: On Sept. 10, the CIA knew that Al Qaida-linked jihadists posed a threat; they were stirring animosity, possibly endangering the American embassy in Cairo.

The Obama administration did not heed the warning of the intelligence community, nor have the good sense to fortify defenses in a “high-risk” outpost such as the consulate in Benghazi. Hence, when jihadists struck in Libya and four Americans died, Mr. Obama and his entourage grasped immediately that if the public understood the correct sequence of events, the Obama team would be lampooned out of office.

Every part of this story reveals the glaring failures of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy: The pro-jihadist rally in Cairo exposed the president as having badly miscalculated from the start of his term. There, in the very place where on June 4, 2009, he had proclaimed “a new beginning” for America and the Muslim world, terrorists now spewed hatred on the United States and celebrated Osama bin Laden as their champion and hero. And they also continued to threaten imminent violence.

In addition, the emails and cables the intelligence community had sent, warning of danger to a U.S. embassy on Sept. 11, 2012 (even if it was that in Cairo) should have put every security team in every American outpost on high alert for a possible strike, with contingency plans in place to counterattack and rescue Americans who might be in harm’s way. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s staff was caught completely flat-footed when jihadists struck in Benghazi.

When terrorists attacked in Libya, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens called his second-in-command, Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and said, “Greg, we are under attack.” Mr. Hicks, as he testified in a May 8 congressional hearing, then called Mrs. Clinton and relayed that the U.S. diplomatic mission was besieged. And somewhere, somehow, as the horror unfolded, in the middle of that fateful night, an evil order to “stand down” was issued. A military rescue would not even be attempted. For the dark secret had to be preserved at all costs. If Americans had to die, so be it. In other words, the plot to conceal Mr. Obama’s glaring failures was concocted.

Thus, Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty became four casualties in the glorious cause of the re-election of the very man whose entire foreign policy had just gone up in smoke.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi – The Blaze

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday it’s an “irrelevant fact” where exactly President Barack Obama was while the Benghazi attack was unfolding.

Pfeiffer told “Fox News Sunday” that Obama was “kept up to date on this as it was happening” last September, “from the moment it started until the very end.”

But host Chris Wallace, who had asked what specifically Obama did during the night of the deadly assault, said Pfeiffer didn’t answer his question.

Pfeiffer said Obama “was in constant touch that night with his national security team” and repeated that he “was kept up to date with the events that were happening.”

Wallace asked whether Obama was in the White House Situation Room.

“I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night. That’s a largely an irrelevant fact,” Pfeiffer replied. “The premise of your question is that somehow there was something that could have been done differently and would have changed the outcome here. The accountability review board has looked at this, people have looked at it. It’s a horrible tragedy what happened and what we have to do is make sure it never happens again.”

Continuing to press the point, Wallace said “no one knows where he was or how he was involved.”

“The suggestion of your question that somehow the president – ” Pfeiffer began.

“I just want to know what the answer is,” Wallace said.

“The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen or didn’t take action is offensive,” Pfeiffer said. “It is absolutely offensive. And there’s no evidence to support it.”

“I’m simply asking a question,” Wallace said. “Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond – who told him you can’t deploy forces and what was his response to that?”

Pfeiffer repeated, “The president was in the White House that day, he was kept up to date by his national security team, he spoke to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs earlier, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Report: Special Forces Team ordered not to help in Benghazi

Via The Daily Caller

As the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya raged on for more than seven hours, a team of U.S. special forces in Tripoli was blocked from flying in to attempt a rescue, according to a top American diplomat who was in the region.

In previously secret testimony given by Gregory Hicks — the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya — to congressional investigators last month, Hicks revealed two possible courses of action that could have saved American lives that night: allowing U.S. special forces to enter Benghazi and flying a fast-moving U.S. military aircraft over the scene of the attacks.

“So Lieutenant Colonel Gibson, who is the [Special Operations Command South Africa] commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now,” Hicks told congressional investigators, “and so they missed the flight,” which would have gotten the team inserted prior to the second attack on the CIA annex.

If this is true, then I do not recognize my country anymore

 

Clap on, Clap off, James Clapper deleted terrorism from Susan Rice talking points

The Lonely Conservative has the scoop

Just out from CBS, sources are saying that the Director of National Intelligence was the office responsible for editing the talking points.

CBS News) WASHINGTON – CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to “al Qaeda” and “terrorism” from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack – with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.

Clearly CBS is trying its best to insulate Obama from culpability and deflect the real issue to make it sound like this is really not a scandal. CBS does not do that good a job at that with this news:

However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too “tenuous” to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information — the reference to al Qaeda — in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.

“The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level — which Rice, as a member of President Obama’s cabinet, would have been privy to.

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of “standard procedure”.

Something stinks here. David Patraeus testified that he did not know who removed the mentions of terrorism that he approved of, so it seems unlikely that the CIA approved of the changes. The Lonely Conservative also notes that editing of the information was not just about editing out

What CBS conveniently leaves out is that while the DNI edited out terrorists from the talking points, the DNI is not being blamed for editing IN the idea that a protest occurred and violence was the fault of a video. Petraeus made it clear last week that the CIA knew there was no protest and the violence was not related to an escalating protest due to the video. The CIA knew from the beginning that this was an organized terrorist attack. CBS also makes it clear that even Rice was aware the CIA suspected it to be a terrorist attack.

All the media is trying to do here is again change the subject. The subject is why security was pulled from Libya, why the Ambassador had to go to Benghazi (a known terrorist hot bed) without security to meet a Turkish official, and why the administration blamed a video that no one in the intelligence community ever blamed.

So, basically, we are back to what we already know. The powers that be knew very early this was a terror attack, and not a protest. We know it had nothing to do with a video, and we know Team Obama bent over backwards to delete the truth and instead blame a video. The Director of National Intelligence is James Clapper, and he may get thrown under the bus, but I would not imagine that he took out the references to terrorism without being told to do so. For whatever reason (election) Team Obama did not want to admit that their sloppy handling of security had allowed a terror attack. Maybe Obama wanted his “Al Qaeda is on the run” line to go unchallenged. Maybe he did not want this to hurt his campaign, either way, this is looking progressively worse.

 

Before you go vote on Tuesday, remember Benghazi

Via Weasel Zippers, more evidence that Obama let Americans out to dry die in Benghazi

Via Fox News:

Sources who have debriefed the team that was at the CIA annex the night of the attack in Benghazi say that the CIA operators from the Global Response Staff, or GRS, were equipped with Mark 48 machine guns and had two types of laser capability. Each weapon had both a “passive” as well as a “visible” laser that could be used against the Libyan attackers.

The presence of laser capability on the roof of the CIA annex confirms what Fox News sources that night in Benghazi originally said, which is that they had laser capability and for 5 hours and 15 minutes were wondering where the usual overhead air support was, especially since, according to this source, they radioed from the annex beginning as early as midnight asking for it.

The presence of lasers raises more questions about why air support was not sent to Benghazi even protectively once it became clear that the fighting had followed the CIA rescue team back to the annex.

U.S. military officials say they “thought the fighting was over” after the team left the consulate and that there was a lull in the fighting.

Fox News has learned the guns were fitted with PEQ-15 lasers. The “passive” laser is not visible to the naked eye but can help team members identify hostile forces when the shooter is wearing NODS, or Night Observation Device attached to their helmet. The visible laser system places a red dot on the attacker and warns the attacker not to shoot, encouraging them to flee the scene.

 

Oh, Martin Bashir is just jealous the Secret Service never “checked him out”

Via Gateway Pundit!

Bashir says Sarah Palin was “bragging” about being checked out by Secret Service because she openly condemned the Secret Service agent’s actions.
Mediaite reported:

YEP! Someone has low self-esteem

BLACKJACK!

Great news from Yemen. CIA drones exterminated 21 terrorists in air strikes

Via LWJ:

Unmanned US strike aircraft killed 21 al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula fighters in two separate strikes in southern Yemen over the past several days. One of the strikes took place in an area where Yemeni troops have been battling the terror group for nearly a week.

The Predators or the more heavily armed Reapers killed seven AQAP fighters as they traveled in a vehicle in the province of Al Baydah,according to The Associated Press. Yemeni officials claimed the AQAP fighters were traveling to the neighboring province of Abyan, where Yemeni troops have been fighting AQAP in the city of Lawdar for the past week.

In a separate strike on April 11, US drones killed 14 AQAP fighters in an attack on a convoy in Lawdar, according to Xinhua. “Foreign nationals,” or AQAP fighters from outside of Yemen, were reported to have been killed in the strike.

Oh yes! Happy Dance time!

Smells like BS to me!

Pat Austin thinks she smells it too! She just cannot buy that Eric Holder has gone rogue.  

 

CNN via Memeorandum is quoting an anonymous administration official who says Dick Cheney is all wrong; that Barack Obama is NOT the chief law enforcement officer of the land but Eric Holder is. He also says that Holder is acting on his own “based on the facts and the law.”

 

 

 

Does anyone really believe Holder would undertake such a serious action such as reopening an already investigated and closed investigation if Obama didn’t give the okay? He wouldn’t necessarily have to DIRECT Holder to undertake such action, but by not forbidding him to do so because it might be divisive or unnecessary is a sort of tacit approval.

 

No one with a brain will buy this. Pat is absolutely correct. Obama is playing political games here. He is playing both sides of the issue. He can say to those that are against this they “hey, it is Holder’s call, not mine”. And he can placate the radical Left by having Holder pursue this dangerous course of action. They know he supports it, no matter what lip service he plays to being against it.

 Every American should be outraged over the thought of going after OUR CIA agents for defending our people and land. Do not fall for Obama’s BS!

Obama set to release pics of detainee treatment

This news has me so freaking pissed I cannot see straight! Oh, but the Lefties, will be having multiple Obamagasms, and likely Jihadigasms too. Gee, I wonder how the ACLU, which is as anti-American as it gets, will choose to use these photos? I think we all know the answer to that! And at the link, we can see EXACTLY where this is going to lead

Courts had ruled against the Bush administration’s attempts to keep the photographs from public view. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh tells ABC News that “the fact that the Obama administration opted not to seek further review is a sign that it is committed to more transparency.”

Singh added that the photographs “only underscore the need for a criminal investigation and prosecution if warranted” of U.S. officials responsible for the harsh treatment of detainees

Of course, there are always those pesky “unitnded consequences” aren’t there?

Calling the ACLU push to release the photographs “prurient” and “reprehensible,” Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, tells ABC News that the Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

“They should have fought it all the way; if they lost, they lost,” said Lowenthal, who retired from the Agency in 2005. “There’s nothing to be gained from it. There’s no substantive reason why those photos have to be released.”

Lowenthal said the president’s moves in the last week have left many in the CIA dispirited, based on “the undercurrent I’ve been getting from colleagues still in the building, or colleagues who have left not that long ago.”

“We ask these people to do extremely dangerous things, things they’ve been ordered to do by legal authorities, with the understanding that they will get top cover if something goes wrong,” Lowenthal says. “They don’t believe they have that cover anymore.” Releasing the photographs “will make it much worse,” he said.

H/T Ace