Obama Drama - TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.15:
Donald Rumsfeld – TheBlazeTV - The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.15:
Dana Loesch v. Leslie Marshall Debate IRS Scandal on Sean Hannity – 5-16-13
Listen to the shamelessly hacktastic Jay Carney try to spin the Benghazi talking points release into a “victory” for the administration, calling the concern over the WH lies a ”faux controversy” drummed up by Republicans: Piers Morgan Grills Jay Carney About IRS, Benghazi: Has This Been ‘Your Toughest Week’ Ever?
ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports on the Obama Administration’s Release Benghazi Emails:
White House spokesman Jay Carney cautioned that he could not immediately respond to live testimony from the committee but went on to say that the administration remained unsure of the identity and affiliations of the attackers, noting that Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for it on Twitter but then later recanted.
“What I can tell you is that it was the assessment of our intelligence community that the attacks were participated in by extremists,” he told reporters at a regular daily briefing. “That’s what I’ve said. That’s what Ambassador Rice said. She said on that Sunday that extremists were involved. What we didn’t know is what their exact affiliation was.”
“As you know, with regard to this group, there was a claim of responsibility, then there was a disowning of responsibility. So anybody who pretends to have known all the facts instantly is just mistaken,” he continued. “And it is always the case that things like this require careful investigation.”
Of course, that didn’t stop Jay, or his boss, or Hillary from making some very definitive statements about Benghazi for days and weeks after the attack.
On September 14, Jake Tapper asked Carney if the anniversary of September 11 might have been a good time to have extra security around diplomat and military posts.
After assuring us that they are always very vigilant on anniversaries like 9/11 (no they’re not), Jay said, but “let’s be clear….these protests were in reaction to a VIDEO that had spread to the region….”
Jake: “In Benghazi?”
Jay: “We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” (Yes they had) ”The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that many Muslims find offensive, and while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified it is not a reaction to 9/11 or US policy.”
More Jay from Sept. 14 repeating the youtube video drumbeat, “the unrest in the region has been in response to this video”. …”the cause of the unrest was a video…”
Reading from his script, he said “We reject its contents, we find it both disgusting and reprehensible/ America has a history of religious tolerance and has respect for religious beliefs, and that respect goes back to our nation’s founding.”
Jay Carney on Sept. 19, argued that they didn’t have evidence that it was a pre-planned attack. “Bad actors” had come on the scene of a protest armed with RPGs and mortars. “We prefer to have an investigation…”
The reporter, clearly not buying it, said, “so a random crowd that had come together with their heavy weapons – got insulted by the film, and decided to – you know – blow up…”
Carney doubled down with, “there has certainly been precedent in the past where bad actors - extremists who are heavily armed who have exploited situations that have developed in order to attack Americans…”
This is the 19th of September now, mind you, and he’s refusing to admit the obvious because that would reflect badly on the regime.
Jay Carney October 10, 2012: Benghazi Terror Attack: Jake Tapper Presses Jay Carney on WH Misstatements on Consulate Attack:
Note how everything that they knew the night of the attack was “still under investigation”. Note also how much faith Carney was putting into the Regime’s ringer “Accountability Review Board” that was looking into the attacks.
“Given the fact, that so much was made of the video, that apparently had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi, there wasn’t even a protest, didn’t President Obama shoot from the hip?” Jake Tapper asked.
Carney responded that it was a moving picture, and some people were trying to politicize a situation that shouldn’t be politicized.
“There was a lot of talk about the video….” Jake persisted.
On November 9, 2012, Jake Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney if and when the White House is going to put out a detailed “tick-tock” surrounding its response to the Benghazi attacks.
Note, Jake asked a specific question about Obama’s actions and whereabouts on 9/11 and Carney launches into a long, defensive answer about “the investigation” that was taking place.
Carney fell back on the Regime’s boilerplate: “Nobody is more interested than the president in making sure the facts are collected, we find out exactly what happened, that we bring to justice those who killed 4 Americans and that we take measures to ensure that what happened in Benghazi does not happen again.”
“We’re never going to get a tick tock” complains one of the reporters.
“That’s not at all what I said”, Carney huffed.
Dec. 20, Carney Gets Testy Over Benghazi Questions:
Here, Carney took a question from Fox News’ Ed Henry, and got huffy at the idea that anyone higher up than a few low level State Department flacks should be held responsible. “What are you suggesting, Ed, Carney demanded, the disgust and contempt dripping from his voice. Based on the holy Gospel according to the ACB report, some reporting turned out to be wrong, Carney sneered, clearly alluding to Fox News.
As Keith Koffler noted at White House Dossier, yesterday “there is no mention in the report of the what Clinton or Obama did related to Benghazi.”
In fact, Obama isn’t mentioned at all in the document, and Clinton only once – in the context of her appointing the Review Board. There is no suggestion that Clinton or Obama were interviewed or even examined by the investigation.
What’s more, Accountability Review Boards are part of statutory State Department process that is not legally permitted to investigate the president.
It’s not even clear that an Accountability Review Board is permitted to probe the Secretary of State. The purview of a Review Board covers “employees” of the State Department who could be subject to discipline by the Secretary of State, who presumably would not be tasked to discipline herself.
Yet Carney Wednesday suggested the Review Board report exculpated Clinton.
From the briefing:
Q So the White House is confident that Hillary Clinton acted appropriately throughout this process?
MR. CARNEY: We are. And I think I would point you to the Accountability Review Board and what –
Q Which didn’t –
MR. CARNEY: I think I would point you to the report the put out. I would point you to what the two heads of that board, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen — each highly praised by both sides of the aisle for their long, distinguished careers — put out in a statement this week: “From the beginning of the ARB process, we had unfettered access to everyone and everything, including all of the documentation we needed. Our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened, and that is what we did.”
Again, this is an unsparing report done by two career professionals, nonpartisan career professionals, that contain within it very serious recommendations, found shortcomings that needed to be corrected, and the State Department acted immediately on that.
Apparently that answer satisfied the reporters in the room. Koffler reports there was no follow up question.
Fresh evidence has emerged that senior Regime officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days and weeks before and after the attack.
The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.
As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.
Last September at Big Government, John Sexton highlighted four attacks that had preceded the Benghazi assault which he found mostly in British news sources:
A bomb thrown at the convoy of the head of the UN Mission to Libya during a visit to Benghazi.
An RPG fired at the Red Cross HQ in Benghazi in May.
A bomb thrown over the fence of our consulate on June 6.
An RPG fired at the convoy of the British ambassador a week later, also in Benghazi.
The original Regime talking points on the morning of the 14th referred to these attacks according to the Weekly Standard report.
Since April there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic] previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
By the next day, all of that information had been removed because the State Department was worried it would be criticized, and with a election only a few months away, they couldn’t have that.
an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.
Which superior could she have been talking about? What difference does it make, huh?
There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.
What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists”.
Since Benghazi happened “such a long time ago”White House Press Sec. Jay Carney obviously didn’t even want to bothered with it today in his daily press briefing.
But Fox News’ Ed Henry asked, so Carney told him ”both the State Department and Department of Defense have made clear that they are not aware of any requests for a security clearance for a private attorney.”
Unbelievable since it was only YESTERDAY that House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Issa released the FOUR letters he has written requesting that the Administration make information available for lawyers representing Benghazi whistleblowers:
“A lawyer for Benghazi whistleblowers has publicly stated that the State Department is blocking her client’s ability to talk freely with counsel. Over the past two weeks, I have sent four letters requesting that this Administration make information available about how lawyers – who already have security clearances and are representing Benghazi whistleblowers – can be cleared to fully hear their clients’ stories. I have yet to receive any response from the Obama Administration.
Click here to read about a counsel for a State Department whistleblower being blocked from helping her client.
The State Department has also deniedthat employees were being intimidated if they provided new information about the attacks to Congress, but since members of this Regime lie about everything, why should we believe them?
“The State Department is deeply committed to meeting its obligation to protect employees, and the State Department would never tolerate — tolerate or sanction — retaliation against whistle-blowers on any issue, including this one,” spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters at a briefing on Tuesday. “That’s an obligation we take very seriously — full stop.
Uh huh.
Carney actually accused Victoria Toensing, the lawyer who is representing one of the State Department employees, of spreading misinformation and politicizing this issue. {{{Attack-Watch!}}}
Toensing responded to the slander today. She finally got a letter, forwarded to her from Chairman Issa, dated May 1 from the State Dept. responding to the request for clearance of which the White House claims they were “unaware”. The letter stated they routinely give clearances and referred her to a legal advisor’s office, which thus far has been giving her the run-around.
Toensing also noted that it’s the lawyers who should get the clearance. ”Why are they asking for this employee to come in and expose herself/himself?” she asked.
She said she couldn’t predict whether or not they would be able to get the clearance they need, but she promised that she wouldn’t give up.
Unbelieveable what we’re living through, right now, folks.
How much respect does this White House have for low info Americans? None. They expect them to have already forgotten that the Republicans agreed to a massive tax hike on January 1.
White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest whacked Republican lawmakers for their refusal to consider passing more tax hikes, saying that remains the “chief impediment” to progress on a budget and deficit reduction deal.
“For some time now, the chief impediment to reaching a grand bargain has been the refusal of Republicans to ask the wealthiest and well-connected to pay even a dime more to help us deal with our deficit challenges. I’m sad to report that, even months later, that, that continues to be the case, that we are seeing a group of Republicans in the Congress who are refusing to compromise on this,” he said.
I’m even sadder to report that Republicans DID compromise months ago with the Fiscal Cliff tax hike:
The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income — another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.
The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.
Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.
The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.
Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:
A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.
Ordinary Americans, as President Obama often refers to the majority of Americans, were by no means spared the tax increases allowed in the fiscal cliff deal. Americans’ disposable income is getting cut any way you look at it. The higher Social Security payroll tax is just one direct example. Higher taxes on investors and small businesses will trickle down to other Americans primarily in the form of lower wages and salaries and fewer opportunities for career advancement.
Americans dreaming of starting their own businesses will particularly be affected. Among the 13 tax increases for 2013, investors providing much of the capital for start-up firms to get off the ground took multiple hits. The rate on dividends and capital gains increased from 15 percent to 20 percent for taxable incomes over $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers).
Additionally, Obamacare imposed—for the first time ever—a surcharge on investment disguised as payroll tax. It raised a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for taxpayers with taxable income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles). This brings the top rate on capital gains and dividends to 23.8 percent. And this represents a second layer of tax on capital gains. Most capital gains in the U.S. are first taxed at the highest-in-the-world corporate income tax rate of 35 percent.
Someone tell Josh, the REAL impediment to reaching a “grand bargain” is Obama’s intransigence on spending.
By the way, you tea partiers out there: remember back in 2009 when liberals kept telling us that Obama was a big tax cutter? All us “tea-baggers” were crazy to be saying “taxed enough already” because Obama was the biggest tax cutter the country had ever seen, and he wouldn’t raise taxes “one single dime.” Remember how we laughed and laughed because we knew that he was going to raise taxes big time to pay for the already bloated government leviathan he was so hellbent on expanding?
Bill Whittle puts into words as only he can, the diabolical sequester scheme of the Narcissist in Chief, which he says is the most “petty, malicious, mean spirited, cowardly and hateful thing” he’s done, so far.
“He’s deliberately inflicting as much pain on the American people as he can possible muster so he can accelerate our way into bankruptcy,” Whittle says.
Obama and his cohorts are doing lasting damage to this country, and these ruthless Alinskiites won’t stop until the people wise up…and that probably isn’t happening anytime soon…
I don’t know why we make light of this. It really isn’t funny. The Regime lies to the American people every day, and hardly anyone gives a damn. There have been so many sequester lies, it’s hard to keep track of them all.
They were caught, last week lying about who decided to cancel the White House tours. Carney admitted it was the White House while Obama tried to pass the buck to the Secret Service.
But the most egregious sequester lie had to do with the DHS illegal immigrant prisoner releases. The Regime said they were “low risk, non criminal detainees”. LIE. As Pirro established last week, they wouldn’t have even be detained if they didn’t pose some kind of risk to the general public – per ICE written policy.
The Regime also maintained that only “a few hundred detainees have been released (“as you know”, Jay Carney likes to tell reporters.) No we don’t know, Skippy. It turns out the original reporting was correct. It was over 2,200.
Jay. Quit already. If you have an ounce of decency, dignity, self respect — if you have a soul – QUIT. This has got to be eating you up – going out there and lying to everyone’s faces like that every single damn day. I don’t know how these people sleep at night. I really don’t.
There”s also the Fast and Furious lies, the Benghazi lies, and their lies about the debt crisis – (there is no crisis.)
Pirro had Congressman Randy Forbes (VA) to talk about the problem of this administration’s non stop lies.
On tonight’s Justice with Jeanine Pirro, the Judge started off the show by commenting on the Regime’s decision to release 2000 dangerous illegal immigrant detainees.
“The first order of government is the protection of its citizens”, she said. “But what is unbelievable is how reckless this administration has been in releasing dangerous criminals onto our streets.”
She played a clip of White House Spokesdweeb, Jay Carney back-peddling, prevaricating and deferring blame.
“That less expensive form of monitoring”, Jay Carney mentioned, “is opening up the prison doors and letting them walk,” Pirro asserted.
The Regime has been claiming that they’re low risk – non-criminal detainees. “Jay, if they’re low level low risk detainees, why are they in custody?” Pirro queried. Somebody’s lying.
How does Ms. Pirro know this? She produced the memowritten by Ice’s “top dog”, John Morton, to field office directors and all special agents, providing guidance to on when to issue detainers against illegal immigrants charged with crimes.
persons with three or more prior misdemeanor convictions
persons charged with assault, DWI, unlawful flight from the scene of an accident
drug distribution or trafficking
sexual abuse or exploitation
In addition, an ICE hold can only be placed on a person who appears subject to removal or deportation. There are others who may be subject to ICE holds, including persons who have been previously deported or convicted of illegal entry.
There are, however, some notable exceptions to the list of persons subject to ICE holds.
Notable exceptions: Persons not subject to ICE detainers
First, ICE may not place holds or detainers on persons charged with minor misdemeanors or traffic violations, as long as they have a clean immigration history. Thus, a person arrested for littering, with no previous deportation order, is not subject to an ICE hold.
Second, a person charged with misdemeanor drug possession, with no allegation of distribution or trafficking, is also not subject to an ICE detainer. This category will include thousands of non-citizens charged every day for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Pirro offered her own theory as to what’s going on. “This release plan was hatched and acted on even before the mandated cuts were signed into law – it’s part of what I call the Obama Amnesty Program.”
She played a clip of Napolitano complaining that she can’t pay for the beds of so many illegal immigrants, because — sequester.
“How do you pay for them?!” Pirro Asked incredulously. “That’s your question?!!
At the end of this year, it’s estimated that they will have a carry over of nine billion dollars. How about the 70 million you have in unobligated user fee balances?
And I have an idea…How about you reduce staff bonuses and performance awards. How about you spend those unspent funds from state and local grant programs instead of releasing criminals. How about you NOT spend money on ridiculous things like that $98,000 for an underwater robot for Columbus OH, where there are no major rivers and few lakes near by. And that $24,000 for a latrine on wheels in Ft. Worth Tx, and by the way if you release those detainees, make me feel better – give them a bill for those transgender hormone treatments, those new teeth and those abortions they had while in our custody.”
…”But no problem! – These criminals are going to voluntarily come back to face their own deportation – the same ones who snuck into the country and have been determined to be a danger to the rest of us. Hope springs eternal, doesn’t it?”
She had Iowa Congressman Steven King and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu on to talk about the issue.
King said that he would like to get John Morton to appear before the House Judiciary hearings to explain the prison releases.
Some of the detainees, Babeu noted had been “convicted not just charged – convicted for weapons violations, drug smuggling, (these are cartel members, these are narcotic traffickers!), drug dealers, these are people who have been in fights, and aggravated assaults against police officers…. How in the world can you say these are low risk, non criminal detainees?! These are the worst of the worst. These are people who have been convicted of child molestation! We have people who have been released, I’ve been told by ICE agents, who have been charged with man-slaughter.”
Pirro brought up the whistleblowers who want to come forward and expose what’s going on. But Babeu said several memos have been sent out to ICE agents about the prisoner releases - anyone who talks about it “outside our agency shall be disciplined up to and including termination, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.” He said, “these federal agents, who swore an oath to protect our country, are being intimidated from doing the right thing.”
On tonight’s Special Report with Bret Baier, the panel discussed Obama’s “change in strategy” now that his sequester demagoguery has fallen flat, and he’s taking a hit in the polls. They expressed doubts that his new-found interest in “aggressively reaching out” to Republicans was anything but more than theatrics but A.B. Stoddard for one hoped that it would be otherwise.
The Hammer noted that Obama doesn’t have to worry about his base, as a second term president. His concern was to neuter the Republicans, and beat them in 2014. Obama tried the class warfare demagoguery during the election and it worked, he did it on the fiscal cliff and it worked, but when it came to the sequester, it crashed, Charles maintained. “The apocalypse he predicted made him look ridiculous and cynical and when you close the White House, and you keep out these Iowa kids, everybody understands that you’re not leading, you’re playing games. That’s really hurt him in the polls.”
Baier proceeded to run a clip of the Iowa kids Facebook videoand then Jay Carney’s comments on the canceled White House tours.
Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal decried all of the stunts the president has pulled to demagogue the sequester, and made a point that should still shock us, even though we already know it: “the president is trying to inflict the maximum amount of pain as a result of these sequester cuts in order for the public to help pressure Republicans into into agreeing to more tax hikes. We know that is his goal, and we know that every effort that the Republicans have made to try to ease the pain of these cuts, the White House has rejected.”
Krauthammer saved his best stuff for last, as usual. After A.B. criticized Republicans for bungling their sequester messaging, he said, “yeah, but that Carney explanation was truly jumping the shark.... He’s talking about kids in the White House, and then all of a sudden he ends with throwing orphans in the snow – ‘we don’t really want to, but we have to – ’cause Republicans forced us.’ I have an idea if you want to have kids in the White House and support it with funds….the president’s travel expenses alone for the golfing outing with Tiger Woods would pay for a year of White House visits. So I suggest that perhaps he curtail the travel or perhaps auction off a set of the clubs and that would allow the tots to come to the White House.”
President Obama and his family are likely headed to Martha’s Vineyard for a summer sojourn again this year.
It doesn’t look like King Barack I plans on curtailing his vaycay travel expenses, but maybe, at least he’ll hit the breaks on the permanent campaign outings for now. Since it was backfiring.
The phrase “jumping the shark” describes that gimmicky moment when something once considered significant is exposed as ludicrous. This is the week the White House jumped the sequester.
The precise moment came Tuesday, when the administration announced that it was canceling public tours of the White House, blaming budget cuts. The Sequesterer in Chief has insisted that cutting even $44 billion from this fiscal year will cause agonizing pain—airport security snarls, uninspected meat, uneducated children. Since none of those things has come to pass, the White House decided it needed an immediate and high-profile way of making its point. Ergo, it would deny the nation’s school kids a chance to view a symbol of America.
The act was designed to spark outrage against Republicans, yet the sheer pettiness of it instead provided a moment of clarity. Americans might not understand the technicalities of sequester, but this was something else entirely. Was the president actually claiming there was not a single other government item—not one—that could be cut instead of the White House tours? Really?
The cancellations were an open invitation for the nation to dive into the gory depths of the federal budget—and re-emerge with a debate over waste and priorities. Over the past week, an entire cottage industry has sprung up of journalists, watchdog groups and average citizens reporting on the absurdities of federal spending. Republicans have lit up Twitter with examples of indefensible projects (#SequesterThis).
The Regime’s sequester lies continue to get debunked.
Here’s the White House EMAIL about the canceled tours with helpful annotations.
ATTN Interested Parties,
Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, (thanks to intransigent Republican Hostage takers) we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. (or Obama decides he needs to go golfing again). Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours. (Tough @#$%& blame the Republicans)
We very much regret having to take this action, particularly during the popular Spring touring season. (The teabag contingent in Congress forced our hand – we’ve got their names and contact info if you want to leave them a message.) For updates regarding this situation, please contact the White House Visitors Office 24 Hour Hotline at (202) XXX-XXXX. (Yes, that employee still has a job, but the volunteers have been let go.)
Sincerely,
White House Visitors Office
Gateway Punditgrabbed this video of Mary Madelin, who worked for the Bush White House, explaining to Hannity that the White House tours that were supposedly canceled due to the sequester - are done by volunteers – for crying out loud!
Will Obama’s poll numbers continue to slip as more and more people catch on?
Although Big Sis, the Head of the Dept. of Homeland Security claimed that “she had no part” in the decision to release thousands of illegal immigrant detainees, House investigators have now learned that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had developed plans to release about 5,000 illegal immigrant detainees.
“An internal document obtained by the House Judiciary Committee shows that Administration officials at ICE prepared cold calculations to release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets and did not demonstrate any consideration of the impact this decision would have on the safety of Americans,” committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., announced.
The ICE document contains a table that proposes “reduc[ing] invoiced daily population by 1,000 weekly.” Between February 22 and March 31st, this plan would drop the number of detainees from 30,748 to 25,748.
“The decision to release detained aliens undermines the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to keep our homeland secure and instead makes our communities less safe and more vulnerable to crime,” Goodlatte said. “[R]egardless of sequestration, DHS actually has plenty of funding to pay for the detention of criminal aliens. Unfortunately, it seems Administration officials are more interested in using sequestration to promote their political agenda than as an opportunity to get our nation’s fiscal house in order.”
Janet Napolitano said, yesterday, that the idea that DHS released 2,000 detainees because of sequester’ was “mythology” and the several hundred illegal immigrants who were released from detention centers last week were, “very low-level, low-risk detainees.”
In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.
He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”
“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the Sequester cuts for political gain,” said Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas Republican.
Same thing is going on with the prisoner releases. This should be an impeachment level offense.
The impending sequester did not prevent the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from acting in late February to seal a $50-million deal to purchase new uniforms for its agents–uniforms that will be partly manufactured in Mexico.Soon after this new investment in TSA uniforms, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned Americans that the lines are already lengthening at airports due to the sequester.”We are already seeing the effect on the ports of entry, the big airports for example,” Napolitano told Politico on Monday. “Some of them had very long lines this weekend.”
“Look people, I don’t mean to scare, I mean to inform,” Napolitiano said.”If you’re traveling, get to the airport earlier than you otherwise would. There’s only so much we can do with personnel and please don’t yell at the customs officers, the TSA officers. They aren’t responsible for sequester.”
Beware of any mentions of the word “myth” or mythology” by members of this regime. They like to use that word when the ugly truth escapes through the media gatekeepers. Lies = truth, truth = mythology.
During a Politico Playbook breakfast in Washington D.C. this morning, DHS Sec Janet Napolitano lashed out at the news media last week for reporting that the agency released over 2,000 illegal immigrants ahead of the sequester cuts.
“There was a story that ran last week that said ‘we released 2,000 detainees because of sequester’ Napolitano said, mocking the hype inferred by the headline.
“That is really not accurate,” she insisted.
“That was not a Politico story by the way,” Allen responded.
“It was not a Politico story, I will hasten to say, and I won’t say who put it out there,” Napolitano added. “But as in all things immigration it develops its own mythology.”
She would later admit that there were releases and they were due to the sequester:
When Allen questioned Napolitano about the timeline of the program, she admitted that the actions were related to the sequester cut deadlines, complaining about the “perfect storm” of budgetary problems.
“Several hundred were related to sequester but it wasn’t thousands,” Napolitano said sharply, although she admitted that the program would continue in the “foreseeable future.”
The law requires ICE to maintain an average of 34,000 illegal immigrant detainees in its detention facilities. However, Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Wednesday that DHS reported fewer than 31,000 detainees as of last week, “in clear violation of the statute.”
According to Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center for Immigration Studies, ICE was recently ordered to reduce its detainee populations even further.
“Last week, ICE field offices all over the country were ordered to reduce the number of detainees from 34,000 to 25,000 by March 1,” Vaughan said in a post on the group’s website.
Now Napolitano says that only several hundred of those were related to sequester. As for the budget woes she says DHS is experiencing:
According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, DHS is slated to finish the year with more than $9 billion in unobligated funds.
Critics of ICE’s detainee release rejected the budget constraint explanation. Some suggested the administration was using detainee releases to accentuate the supposedly catastrophic effects of the sequester.
Arizona is high on Obama’s list of enemies. It’s the state Obama’s Justice Department sued to set aside the state law that enables the arrest and detention of illegal aliens. The Supreme Court struck down part of the law, but left in place the part that allows state law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they’ve stopped for other reasons.
He talked to Sheriff Babeu, who told him that neither he nor the county’s police chiefs were given notice of the release.
I asked Babeu if he even knew who these people were. He said that he’s asked for that information numerous times, including by letter, and ICE has refused to tell him. “These people were released into the community. We don’t know their names, we don’t know what charges they were held on or their criminal history.” He added, “But we do know this: this is the same group that Janet Napolitano and Barack Obama have all agreed that these are the worst of the illegals.”
ICE is saying that some of these illegals were released on terms that supposedly provide some supervision. Sheriff Babeu is, to say the least, skeptical.
“They’re saying that they’re going to put them on supervised release, meaning some of them wear an ankle bracelet or they have to check in with authorities. Are you kidding me? These people have broken the law countless times and now they’ve got their chance. They’re out of prison.”
He added, “There’s no incentive for them to report in because what’s the worst thing we can do to them? Deport them?”
Sheriff Babeu apparently learned from ICE and Border Patrol agents who called him unofficially. He said, “Good people who work for ICE, work for Border Patrol, they call me all the time.…They said, ‘Sheriff, help us. We’re releasing all these criminals. This order just came down from Washington and now they’re all out in the streets.”
***
The release of criminal illegal aliens is probably illegal itself. Under our muddled immigration law, Napolitano has the authority to release illegal aliens individually when her department determines that they pose no danger to public safety. But mass releases, such as the one into Pinal County, are beyond her power.
The only answer to this is for Sheriff Babeu — perhaps joined by other concerned law enforcement officers around the country — to sue Napolitano to stop the releases. That lawsuit would reveal who the illegals are, what crimes they’ve committed before, and just who within ICE, the Justice Department, Homeland Security, or possibly the White House ordered the releases.
My question is probably a stupid one and has an easy answer. Why aren’t they sending these illegal immigrants back to Mexico?
Answer: (Of course) They are in removal proceedings but it takes awhile…
UPDATE:
Another lie she told at that Politico breakfast has been exposed:
Airports have denied a claim by Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, that the sequester is already causing long delays for travelers at security screening checkpoints.
Ms Napolitano said today that major airports were seeing lines “150 to 200 per cent as long as we would normally expect” as result of the federal spending cuts that went into force on Friday.
Like I said, yesterday – why would any reporter believe a word anyone from this administration says about anything? Shouldn’t the assumption always be that they’re lying to us at this point?
Incredibly, liberal legend Bob Woodward has now become a bete noire to the left, and a darling to the right. So much so, he’s been invited to attend the CPAC 2013 Blogbash. So much so that The GOP House Conferencecreated this “Adventures of Bob Woodward comic strip:
President Obama and His Operatives at the White House Proposed the Sequester
“Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had initially decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seemed tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from Defense, and the other half from domestic programs.” (The Price Of Politics, Bob Woodward, 2012, p. 341)
“What the president said is not correct (regarding sequestration),” Woodward told POLITICO Tuesday. “He’s mistaken. And it’s refuted by the people who work for him.” (Bob Woodward: Obama ‘mistaken’ on sequester, Politico, Leigh Munsil, October 23, 2012)
“Woodward reports in his book that White House Office of Management Director Jack Lew and Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors took the proposal for sequestration to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and then it was presented to congressional Republicans.” (Bob Woodward: Obama ‘mistaken’ on sequester, Politico, Leigh Munsil, October 23, 2012)
“Republicans demanded spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit last summer. The White House and Democrats in Congress insisted that steep cuts to the Defense Department accompany the domestic-spending reductions favored by the GOP.” (President Obama’s big sequester gamble, Politico, Jonathan Allen and Scott Wong, October 23, 2012)
President Obama Doubled-Down on His Sequester
“My message to [Congress] is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one.” (President Obama,Super Committee Statement, November 21, 2011)
House Republicans Acted to Replace the Obama Sequester
House Republicans took steps to replace President Obama’s sequestration, passing bills on two separate occasions. Neither of which the Democratic-controlled Senate considered.
In case you missed him on Hannity, last night, Woodward said that although he never used the word, “threat” to describe Sperling’s email, it’s no way for a White House to operate. He’s standing by everything he has said regarding the sequester, including his charge that Obama’s moving the goalposts.
Whether Capus resigned or was forced out because someone on the NBC board finally decided his moral illiteracy needed to come to an end doesn’t matter. What matters is that a management style that either encouraged this fraud or was helpless to stop it is out.
Now, less than three weeks later, we have yet another example of journalistic fraud, coming not from the MSNBC primetime clowncar lineup, but from the supposedly straight daytime news.
Today, when hosting a “serious” discussion about immigration reform, Roberts focused on the leaked plan from the White House this weekend which Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) decried and labeled as “dead on arrival.”
Roberts set his entire segment up under the premise that Republicans had no real substantive opposition to the President’s plan; they just opposed it because they hate Obama. His question to his guest, Rep. Henry Cueller (D-TX) was, “Is this strictly because President Obama’s name is attached to it?”
To set up his question, Roberts showed a clip of Rep. Ryan on ABC News’ “This Week.” The clip was meant to make it look like the Wisconsin congressman was opposed to the bill simply due to the fact that the President is for it, and not on any substantive level. However, take a look at the clip. MSNBC selectively edited Ryan in a very deceitful way. The transcript of the Roberts edit is as follows:
Ryan: ”Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction …EDIT… This particular move, very counter-productive.”
That quote certainly helps Roberts’ premise, doesn’t it?
But, read the full quote from Ryan. Read what MSNBC deceptively removed from the congressman’s statement (in bold):
“Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction. Look, the question that we always have to ask ourselves, particularly with this White House, is the president looking for a partisan advantage, or is he looking for a bipartisan law?
And by putting these details out without a guest worker program, without addressing future flow, by giving advantage to those who cut in front of line for immigrants who came here legally, not dealing with border security adequately, that tells us that he’s looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution. There are groups in the House and the Senate working together to get this done, and when he does things like this, it makes it much more difficult to do that, and that’s why I think this particular move, very counterproductive.
So Roberts plays the deceptive clip as a premise for a full segment on how Republicans only oppose the President’s plan because Obama’s name is on it. But Ryan had very specific, policy related reasons why he opposed it.
Watch video at link.
The culture of corruption and left-wing bias is so strong at MSNBC, it really doesn’t matter who’s steering this ship of fools. They just can’t help themselves….
National and internationalmedia are up in arms today over the story of Neil Heslin, father of slain Sandy Hook student Jesse Lewis, being heckled yesterday during a Connecticut legislative meeting. During his testimony, in which he called for stricter gun control measures, Heslin was reportedly interrupted by shouts from Second Amendment activists:
“The Second Amendment!” was shouted a couple of times by as many as a dozen gun enthusiasts in the meeting room as Neil Heslin, holding a photo of his slain 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, asked why Bushmaster assault-style weapons are allowed to be sold in the state.
***
Except no. Not really. MSNBC is propping up its story with a blatantly edited video. In fact, Heslin was not heckled. Gun rights advocates in the audience indeed voiced their support for the Second Amendment — after he asked why anyone would need “assault-style weapons or high-capacity clips.” You’d never know based on the MSNBC version, which completely cut out the footage of Heslin’s question.
How desperate are the ObaMedia to get their fubar candidate reelected?
How about this. They resurrect a tired old meme about rich Republican candidates being “out of touch” with the average American because the modern supermarket electronic technology befuddle and “amaze” them. Andrea Mitchell wants us all to remember poppy Bush’s “supermarket scanners moment”…Now all these years later, we find that Mitt too, is “confused and frightened” by modern technology because these “out of touch” Republicans are just like SNL’s Caveman Lawyer or something.
But MSNBC “selectively edited” the tape to make it look like Romney was bringing up Wawa’s touchtone ordering system for no other reason than to express surprise.
Reacting angrily to selective editing by NBC that suggested racial animus by George Zimmerman, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell complained to Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night that NBC News was engaged in an “all-out falsehood.” The story in question was a March 27 Ron Allen report on NBC’s ‘Today’ in which 911 audio was edited to make it sound like George Zimmerman said “he looks black” immediately after saying “this guy looks like he’s up to no good.”
In the actual 911 audio, Zimmerman only described Martin’s race after the dispatcher asked, “And this guy: is he white, black, or Hispanic?” “To edit that out is so distorting,” Hannity complained. “Sean, it’s not distorting, it’s advancing a falsehood, it’s worse,” Bozell corrected the Fox News anchor. [see video below page break]
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally…wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip….there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.”Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.
Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: “…there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president….we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.” Ratigan agreed: “…then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks.”
Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.
GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry calls President Obama a black cloud over our economy. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz edits the clip to make it look like Perry is calling Obama a “black cloud.”
After confiding that she took dance classes as a girl, Jeanine Pirro feels qualified to spot a good dancer when she sees one. “There is one woman who can reeeeally dance,” Pirro purred, as she introduced the “What difference does it make!” clip from Hillary’s Senate testimony, last week. “She can do a two step better than anyone!”
Watch as Pirro proceeds to rake Clinton over the coals for her evasive answers.
“What difference does it make? It makes a difference to Pat Smith still waiting to find out how her son died. It would have made a huge difference to Ambassador Stevens had he been warned to prepare for an attack as a result of a video inciting violence in the region. It makes a difference to that lone schmuck sitting in jail for making the video which YOU blamed the murders on….and if it didn’t make a difference, why did you use the taxpayers’ money to apologize to the Arab world for the video? And by the way…you’re right! It would not have made a difference if you hadn’t misled us about it in the first place.”
