[Editor’s Note: The Narrative about Benghazi were Edited to remove the fact mentioning a planned Terrorist attack in order to follow the White House and Secretary of State version : The ‘story about the spontaneous riots’ due to the youtube anti-muslim film. This False version, this LIE was sustained by the Secretary of State, the Defense Secretary and the President until after the U.S. elections. CIA Director David Petraeus confirmed during House Hearings that it was not the CIA who edited The Narrative. It could only have been done by DHS NAPOLITANO under order of OBAMA.]

Susan Rice Lays All Blame on Intel Community for Her Misleading the American People


BY DANIEL HALPER, The Weekly Standard

Ambassador Susan Rice has finally explained, in her opinion, why she misled the country about what happened during the September 11 terror attack against Americans in Benghazi, Libya. According to Rice, all the blame should be given to the intelligence community for her misleading comments made five days after the attack, since she was just repeating what they had told her.

A reporter asked, the American ambassador to the United Nations, “Ambassador Rice, would you explain your view of the controversy concerning your comments about Benghazi? And have—is Senator McCain fair in what he has said?”

“As a senior US diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities—American diplomatic facilities—around the world and Iran’s nuclear program. The attack on Benghazi—on our facilities in Benghazi—was obviously a significant piece of this,” Rice explains.

Continue reading

ANALGATE: The Tit Clouded Cover Up


By Lame Cherry

Now that ANALGATE has moved to BUTTRAEUS GATE and on to ABSCAM, this blog has a few more Lame Cherry matter anti matter exclusives.

First, this blog is thankful for Janet Naps Napolitano in finally, since this has moved from the fag file of Obamaland, we are finally getting a criminal scandal due to lesbian Napolitano’s great choice in undercover operatives.
That Lebanese hussy, Jill Kelley is a prime example of how big tits produce a shadow cloud that blinds all lookers on to the Obama operative details.

Look at Paula Broadwell, a graduate of Maddy Albright’s communist school in Denver. One can see now that sweaters can not hide such massive amounts of breasts. Her nipples even are trying to explode thorugh the bra and the sweater. One can see her poised like that for Director Patraeus, and he just doing a “cum for ya” moment that ran into his socks. This North Dakota Germanatrix is what every naughty little soldier wants to dive into that fox hole.

So we know Janet Napolitano employes big breasted women to entice men with lots of brass. That my children is a forensic profile of the people dispatching and involved….they like bitchy MILF’s to get the wood on…..who have dark hair and big tits.

That is important as now the person behind this in Naps will have jokes made at her expense as she moves up to control of all covert black operations at the Department of Agriculture in the next 4 years……yes one moves up from Homeland to Ag, because USDA is where all the real dangerous projects are funded through.

Where was I in this matter anti matter exclusive?

Oh yes this New York Post quote was fascinating about the CIA edits which Director General Patraeus testified to:

The edits would have been made after the statements had left the CIA for review by the Defense and State departments, ultimately landing at the White House.

That is most interesting in the chain of command, as CIA is under the direction of Naps Napolitano, the employer of large chested women for minding large brassed males.
Follow this now in Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton are being drawn into this. Panetta who was Monday Morning Arm complaining and Clinton who was taking all the blame…….

Continue reading

Petraeus ‘Knew Almost Immediately’ Al Qaeda-Linked Group Responsible for Benghazi


By Daniel Halper, Weekly Standard

David Petraeus is going to tell members of Congress that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks,” CNN reports.

In his closed door meeting on the Hill, “[Petraeus] will also say he had his own talking points separate from U.N. ambassador Susan Rice. [Hers] came from somewhere other in the administration than his direct talking points,” Barbara Starr of CNN reports, referencing a source close to Petraeus.

The former CIA director will move to further himself from comments that didn’t accurately characterize the terror attack that Rice made 5 days after on national television shows.

“When he looks at what Susan Rice said,” CNN reports, “here is what Petraeus’s take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus — it is believed — will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information.”

[Editor’s Note: Guess from Whom Susan Rice got her info to describe the Attack on Benghazi as spontaneous riots due to the Anti-Muslims Film ? It could have only come from Obama as He did say the same on his press conference after the attack but also in his interview to 60 minutes.]

OBAMA & HOLDER Watergate to Fast and Furious

“Despite being given multiple opportunities to provide the documents necessary for Congress’ investigation into Fast and Furious, Attorney General Holder continues to stonewall. Today, the Administration took the extraordinary step of exerting executive privilege over documents that the Attorney General had already agreed to provide to Congress.” – House Speaker John Boehner


By SARTRE at Breaking All The Rules

The Department of Justice has a long record of acting as the dictatorship of jurisprudence. Acting like council to the mob, the “Consigliore” Attorney General plots protection rackets for the ultimate organized crime syndicate. Eric Holder is the latest in a long line of lawyers that distort and stretch credibility to the theater of the absurd. Making up legal arguments to distort or conceal culpability is a prime prerequisite to serve as the chief law enforcement thug for the current President.

Some four decades ago, the nation suffered through the most critical constitutional crisis of recent times. The Watergate calamity tormented the nation on a daily basis, resulting in a new level of cynicism and disgust. What started as a third rate burglary concluded in the resignation of Richard. M. Nixon. The flawed life of the symbol of the imperial presidency, shamed into submission, vacated office to avoid conviction. Sadly, the prospect that Barack Hussein Obama has the dignity of ignominy to fade away from the White House is most remote.

Nixon’s Attorney Generals John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst earned their disgrace for the cover-up, while Holder has built an entire career on sleaze and treason. Some of the inglorious achievements of Holder include his finger prints all over the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Marc Rich Pardon and the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.Therefore, when the

Fast and Furious scandal became a thorn in the side of the Obama administration, the lackey fixer was called upon to do his stonewall dance. From the contempt vote in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Holder’s tiptoe is not exactly getting rave reviews from the political pundits.

Continue reading

Note To Eric Holder: Murder Is Illegal

by R.F. Goggin /PPJ Gazette New World Reporter

(NWR) – After reading only a few excerpts of a recent speech by the U.S. Attorney General at Northwestern University law school in Chicago, I find myself at odds with his justifications of the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen), five months ago – via a drone strike by the U.S. Government.

What struck me as being most outrageous and uncomfortable about Holder, was his stating:

“The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process..”

The problem for me with the above statement, even if one doesn’t consider how the Attorney General chose to hair-split the words of the U.S. Constitution, is that ‘due process’ or any legal process for that matter, was not in fact exercised in this case by the Obama administration. And since it is that Congress has not yet to my knowledge declared war on the country of Yemen, then what any fair-minded American must conclude actually took place in this instance was the absolute assassination of an individual of which the Constitution of United States had undoubtedly granted protection to.

According to Webster’s dictionary, ‘due process’ is defined:


: a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process


: a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process

Of course, without the three words which the Obama administration has hitherto been so reluctant to utter: ‘War On Terror’, which for all intents and purposes – gives carte blanche these days to the U.S. Government to commit terrorist attacks itself by virtue drone strikes anywhere it sees fit, then Holder’s entire presentation before a throng of law students would not have had a leg to stand on. So, while in my view, even as the Attorney General nonsensically rejected the idea that the Constitution’s due process protections require the President to get permission from a federal court before taking lethal action upon an American citizen, he nonetheless went on to say:

“When such individuals take up arms against this country and join al-Qaida in plotting attacks designed to kill their fellow Americans, there may be only one realistic and appropriate response. We must take steps to stop them in full accordance with the Constitution.”

Although I am admittedly blue-collar and as far as can be from an aspiring lawyer; such as those eagerly in attendance to the patronizing travesty of Holder’s words, at the heart of the man’s argument, I must nonetheless, sadly enough, poignantly arrive at an American legal conundrum for me. That being, how one can both reject the applicability of the Constitution and claim to be in accordance with it at the same time? As far as I can determine at least, the words ‘legally or not’, seem to have been profoundly omitted from such a frighteningly simplistic assessment of the deed in question.

If the U.S. Federal Government does not consider the Constitution (ratified and adopted by 50 American States) to be a binding legal document, as it clearly did not in the case of al-Awlaki, then what if anything is to stop its military drones from also seeking out supposed terrorist targets in the hills of Idaho someday?

Shouldn’t it stand to reason that assassinations of American citizens anywhere, might only serve to perpetuate the inevitably of future American born terrorists; or the eventual elimination of suspected American citizen terrorists – on U.S. soil?

What I find equally disturbing as possible drone attacks on American citizens within the U.S. itself, is why it is that the bulk of the American people are content to condone or simply ignore the fact that because of a more than decade-old terrorist attack on our homeland in 2001 (as tragic as it obviously was), that we seemingly have become a nation forever freed from any manner of accountability to commit cowardly acts of murder upon those opposed to our geopolitical policies, or who may be unhappy with our very existence (even before they have committed any crime) to this day? If as Americans, we choose not to hold our government responsible to the very the law of the land, and require our leaders to present evidence for their offenses upon individuals in a separate but equal court of law, then why will the citizens whom they are supposed to represent be inclined to themselves act within the law?

According to Holder: “Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced. Assassinations are unlawful killings..”

Despite any public servant whomsoever asserting that there was no assassination which took place under President Obama, once it is that a person (or a country) starts to secretly go after people by name in order to eliminate them, could there be possibly be some other word in the whole of the English language to better define such an act?

Continue reading

WELCOME TO 1984’S OBAMA: AG Holder Defends Drone Killings Of Americans

Attorney General Eric Holder defends killing of American terror suspects


Eric Holder said the US had authority to kill American citizens suspected of plotting terror

US Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday defended the government’s use of lethal force against Americans suspected of being plotting terrorism while abroad.

The speech marked the first time a senior US official has publicly justified in legal terms the drone attacks that are believed to have killed at least three US citizens on foreign soil in recent months, including key al-Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki.

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Mr Holder said in a speech at a law school in Chicago.

“In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

Mr Holder said there were circumstances under which “an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a US citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful.”

Such circumstances included that a thorough review had determined the individual posed “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and that “capture is not feasible.”

Thirdly, the “operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles,” Mr Holder told the audience at the Northwestern University School of Law.

“Some have called such operations ‘assassinations.’ They are not… assassinations are unlawful killings,” Mr Holder said.

“Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefield in Afghanistan… We are at war with a stateless enemy, prone to shifting operations from country to country,” he added.

“Our government has both a responsibility and a right to protect this nation and its people from such threats.”

Civil rights groups have cried foul since the killing of Awlaki in Yemen in September in a US raid.

Some argued it was illegal for the US military to kill an American citizen on the battlefield, following no attempt to indict him.

US intelligence officials believed Awlaki was linked to a US army major charged with shooting dead 13 people in 2009 in Fort Hood, Texas, and to a Nigerian student accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, 2009.

President Barack Obama said in September that Awlaki’s killing was a “major blow” to Al-Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, and marked “another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last month filed a lawsuit seeking the release of documents authorizing targeted drone strikes.

US citizen Samir Khan was killed in the same attack on Awlaki, and the cleric’s US-born teenage son was killed in October in a separate strike in Yemen.

(Source: The Telegraph)

Obama Admin Seeks Permission To Lie In Response To F.O.I.A. Requests – Even To The Courts

by Jerry Policoff


Pathological liar obsessed by secrecy


One of the President Obama’s first promises after becoming President of the United States was a commitment to usher in a new era of unprecedented government transparency.

Instead the Obama administration has exhibited what may be an unprecedented obsession with government secrecy including blocking numerous law suits by invoking the doctrine of “State Secrets.”

The administration has even come up with an interpretation of the Patriot Act which many in Congress who have seen it claim is overly broad and bestows more power on the Executive Branch than was intended by Congress when they passed it.

Unfortunately those in Congress who have seen this document are are not permitted to divulge its content, and we, the public, cannot see it because the administration has chosen to classify it as a “State Secret.” In other words, you might be doing something that the Obama Administration believes violates the Patriot Act, but you won’t know it until they indict you for breaking a law you did not know existed (I might be breaking it just by penning and publishing this article).


Fast & Furious liar Eric Holder

Now the Obama/Holder Justice Department is attempting to re-write the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), empowering or even compelling government agencies to deny the very existence of records they know to exist if they believe they are legitimately exempted from disclosure.

Of course they are most likely the sole arbiter of whether they are indeed exempt from disclosure. In effect the Obama/Holder Justice Department wants to be free to legally lie about the existence of records in response to FOIA requests.

Continue reading