BENGHAZI UPDATE

This Brietbart story reveals that retired General Jack Ham, the man who was in command in Libya on the day of the Benghazi massacre on September 11, 2012 will testify before a Congressional Committee on June 26th.

General Carter Ham, US Army (Retired)

Gen. Ham was the Commander of the Africom command that should have responded to the attack at the consulate in Benghazi. He was or was not relieved of his command that day, after making preparations for an immediate rescue mission and retired from the military almost immediately thereafter. Gen, Ham was one of two theater commanders who were disciplined or retired in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack. Rear Admiral   Gaouette is the other commander. He was relieved of his command and rumored to have been in “mutiny” against the President. Neither of these men has spoken since that day. With Gen. Ham’s scheduled testimony on the 26th that all may be changing, at last!

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, US Navy

Admiral Gaouette has been the subject of numerous rumors and psuedo allegations about his conduct of his command. He was finally “reprimanded” for his alleged actions and speech after being summarily relieved of his command on that fateful day. The Russians have even run a story that he “mutinied”. We have reported in detail all known facts and events. Here is a complete list of what we have reported to date. Read for yourself the details known thus far about the actions of Gen. Ham and Adm. Gaouette.

The President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is our highest authority, with one exception: the American people for whom President Obama works and who elected him President. His authority is also limited by the rule of law. No one is above the law and all Americans, even the President, are subject to the law.

The truth about what did and did not happen at Benghazi; the truth about what President Obama did and did not do, say and order; the truth about the actions of those in the Obama Administration and the military both on September 11, 2012 and the ten months that have elapsed since; all are too little known and very little that is reliable and truthful has been revealed. Now, it is time for that to end. With the testimony of Gen. Ham, the American people can learn what took place that day. Hopefully, that will lead to a full inquiry into the actions of all those responsible, including our President.

The American people do not know the truth; the families of those slain do not know what happened or why their son’s died; the diplomatic and military communities do not know what their fate will be if they are ever put in harms way by our government. Let us all pray that this sad chapter in American military and diplomatic history will finally come to an end.

Those we elect; those we appoint and those to whom we delegate military and diplomatic authority are all subject to two ultimate authorities: the rule of law and the American people. The Commander in Chief is the highest authority in civil and military matters. Nevertheless, the President is subject to the rule of law and to the people of the United States who elected him. With the hearings on June 26th and any thereafter, those authorities will finally, for the first time, be in possession of facts and have the ability to judge the actions and inactions of those in charge that day and the days since then. It is about time!

Stay tuned. When there is more, we will bring it to you.

The Venerable Victor Davis Hanson on Obama and What He Is Doing to America.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ADDRESSING THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Today, An Excellent Spirit read two articles by Victor Davis Hanson that must be read by every American who wants the trajectory of our nation reversed and the nation taken back. To God!

We start by apologizing to Professor Hanson for the “venerable” tag. We were not suggesting that he or his wisdom was old, rather that both have stood the tests to time and “progressive”, leftist opposition from academia, politics and polemics well. Thank you, Professor Hanson. Like your colleague Professor Thomas Sowell, America is in your eternal debt, whether Americans know your name or not. An Excellent Spirit, for our part, will continue to do what we can to bring your wisdom to the public.

STANFORD’S HOOVER INSTITUTE PROFESSOR VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

The first is a scathing article on President Barack Obama. Hanson begins by celebrating the obvious “strengths of Barack Hussein Obama, 38th President of the United States of America: “If only Barack Obama had something to say… After all, we have never had a president who descended the steps of Air Force One with such catlike agility, hands almost as paws lightly bouncing in synchronization with each elfish footstep. Never has a commander in chief so casually, so confidently approached the podium as if he were popping open his own laptop, his jaw almost in Mussolini style thrust out, with eyes fixed three feet above the heads of the audience — all with just the right mixture of self-assurance and canned humility. No wonder that after all that we expect a “four score and seven years ago” that will match the perfect choreography.”

That accomplished, Hanson gets to the meat of Obama: “In short, Obama is the most impressive sophist of his age. In classical rhetoric, when the speaker was about to equivocate, he added an emphatic adjective or parenthetical that he was never more candid and sincere. Sometimes he inserted “on the one hand / on the other hand” to show his awareness of every point of view other than his own. Rhetoricians often projected their own base motives onto others, using straw men like “some will say” or “there are those who…”, as if illiberal enemies were so ubiquitous that there was no mundane need to name them all.  Obama has mastered all that and more.”

THE SOPHIST BARACK OBAMA AND HIS SOPHISTRY

An Excellent Spirit needed to look up “Sophists” and sophistry, so we turned to a dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sophistry They define sophist and sophistry as follows: Sophist: Philosophy) (often capital) one of the pre-Socratic philosophers who were itinerant professional teachers of oratory and argument and who were prepared to enter into debate on any matter however specious; a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound Plausible but fallacious argumentation. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. An instance of this; sophism”. Sophistry is no less to be applauded: a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading; the art of using such arguments; subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning; an instance of this; sophism. With that in mind, we return to Professor Hanson’s brilliant analysis of the sophistry of Barack Obama: “Sophists tip their hand in jest — and none better than Barack Obama. Beware when he jokes that he will send the IRS after you, or that Predators will guard his daughters. And be even more vigilant of the preemptory denial. Barack Obama can brag ad nauseam about killing Osama bin Laden, because he first swore that he would never “spike the ball” by referencing the hit.”

To get things done, first-person pronouns breed to show both concern and control where there is often neither: I just appointed my new team that reports to me about my concerns that I share with advisors of mine. In the world of rhetoric, the more “I,” “me,” “my,” and “mine” appear in the abstract, the more we suspect that the over-referenced speaker has been usually absent in the concrete. There is no “us” or “we” or “our” in Washington these days — although lots of “they” and “them,” the existential enemies of “I” and “me.”

Finally, Victor Davis Hanson points out that in Obama language, “Teachable moments are everywhere: yes, it is regrettable about tapping phone records, but the slip at least offers occasion to revisit the shield laws. Yes, the IRS has gone rogue, but just maybe some of these right-wing organizations are not really organizations at all. Yes, Benghazi was full of miscommunications, but that is what happens when David Petraeus’s CIA and Hillary Clinton’s State Department work at cross-purposes.”

The second article is this Jewish World Review piece by the same Victor Davis Hanson today, aptly entitled “The Old Order is Dying”. In it, Professor Hanson reviews the affects and consequences of time and changes in culture, especially when sophistry is factored into the equation: “Ideas of the 1960s have now grown reactionary in our world that is vastly different from a half-century ago. Take well-meaning subsidies for those over age 62. Why are there still senior discounts, vast expansions in Social Security and Medicare, and generous public pensions? Five decades ago all that made sense. There was no such thing as double-dipping. Seniors often were physically worn out from blue-collar jobs. They were usually poorer and frequently sicker than society in general. The aged usually died not long after they retired.”

Hanson opines that the cultural and legal affects of “progressive”, leftists in academia, government, media and religion have swayed our nation to a dangerous precipice: “Even if the 21st-century state could define who is a minority, on what moral grounds does the targeted beneficiary deserve special consideration? Is his disadvantage defined by being poorer, by lingering trauma from his grandparents’ long-ago ordeals, or by yesterday’s experience with routine racial prejudice?

If Latinos are underrepresented at the University of California, Berkeley, is it because of the stubborn institutional prejudices that also somehow have been trumped by Asian-Americans enrolling at three times their numbers in the state’s general population? Are women so oppressed by men that they graduate from college in higher numbers than their chauvinist male counterparts?”

Next Hanson takes on the terrible lot of today’s students, loaded with student loan debt and finding no jobs upon graduation. “Consider also the calcified assumptions about college education. The expanding 1960s campus was touted as the future gateway to a smarter, fairer, richer and more ethical America. Is that dream still valid? Today, the college-educated owe a collective $1 trillion in unpaid student loans. Millions of recent graduates cannot find jobs that offer much chance of paying off their crushing student debts. College itself has become a sort of five- to six-year lifestyle choice. Debt, joblessness or occasional part-time employment and coursework eat up a youth’s 20s — in a way that military service or vocational training does not.”

So we have covered the seniors and the young. What is left? Why, thank you for asking! It is the government and the “progressive” mind-set that permeates our national discourse, if you pay attention to the media (lamestream, as we call it) and those who testify before Congress or go to the White House to be wined, dined and influenced. “Scan the government grandees caught up in the current administration’s ballooning IRS, Associated Press and Benghazi scandals. In each case, a blue-chip Ivy League degree was no guarantee that our best and brightest technocrats would prove transparent or act honorably. What difference did it make that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had degrees from prestigious universities when they misled the American people or Congress? The now-aging idealists of the 1960s long ago promised us that a uniformly degreed citizenry — shepherded by Ivy League-branded technocrats — would make America better by sorting us out by differences in age, gender, education and race. It is now past time to end that ossified dream before it becomes our collective nightmare.”

There you have it, America. What we have wrought by our inattention to elections and by leaving our decisions to a few media creations and “progressive” sophists is now threatening nightmarish futures for our children and grandchildren, if we can survive terror and nuclear Iran and the Arab Spring. What is to be done?  If you listen to Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell and others of their “ilk”, the truth would be requisite. Unfortunately for America, the man in the White House and those he has appointed to his administration do not hold the truth in high esteem.

What is desperately needed is for all Americans to pay close attention. After that is prayer, hearing God Almighty speak to us and then, obeying God! It is time to become informed; to pray and hear; to obey: Stand up! Speak out! Get involved and stay involved! Teach our children by showing our children that our values, like our freedoms, come from our God! If we do not defend what is right, there will be no one righteous in God’s eyes and our nation will cease to exist. That is what the sophists want! That is what the people who hate America, God and the people want! That is what we, the people of the United States must defend. Every day for the rest of our lives! Stay tuned. There will be more. For now, we are indebted to Victor Davis Hanson, once again. Pray for America! Pray God bless America!

THE TIME HAS COME – APPOINT A JOINT HOUSE/SENATE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE WITH SUBPOENA POWER!

As we promised our readers, despite our health issues that prevent us from daily posts, An Excellent Spirit has carefully followed the various scandals that are plaguing the Obama Administration:

Benghazi- What was Ambassador Stevens really doing and what really happened on September 11, 2012 in Libya. Was there a cover up of what was done or what was not done? Where was the President on that fateful day? Why were our troops told to “stand down” and let four Americans die? What happened to General Jack Ham and Admiral Gaouette on that day/night? Who made these decisions? WHY?

An Excellent Spirit has previously provided extensive coverage of Benghazi. We invite you to review that here.

PJ Media’s Roger L. Simon

The latest stories come from PJ Media and its head man, Roger L. Simon here and here: Then there is the IRS Investigation and actions against Conservative (Christian) groups applying for or having tax exempt status.  Here are a sample of the many stories coming out that indicate this was a conscious strategy of the Obama Administration. Here and here  This story reveals the extent to which the IRS went with its questions.  Who instituted or approved these actions? Clearly, with the “testimony” of Ms. Lerner, we can presume that the activities were criminal and were NOT the independent actions of a few low level employees of the IRS in Cincinnati, Ohio. Why has a total black out of this Cincinnati office occurred?  Moreover, it would seem a systematic attempt was made to insulate the President from these actions. Why? That brings us to that question: What did the President know and when did the President know it?

Perhaps the most glaring is The Associated Press/Fox News illegal investigation by US Justice Department subpoenas. The role of US Attorney General Eric Holder and others in all this is beginning to come out. Holder, we now know, signed the affidavit that was presented to a judge for these illegal subpoenas. This is huge!  Read about it here. But that is not all! This story in PJ Tatler is more than enough reason for the Attorney General to immediately resign and submit himself to the questions of the yet to be appointed Joint Congressional Committee.  Eric Holder, if the facts presented in the PJ Tatler story are true, has committed perjury, lied to Congress while under oath to tell the truth and that is only the beginning.

This is really funny! If we both keep our mouths shut, they will never know the truth! About anything!

Then there is the Fast & Furious Investigation, the intentionally withholding facts and truth due to an upcoming Election (remember Nixon and Watergate?) and the actions of Secretary Sibelius and others in ramming Obamacare down the throats of Americans. There are more issues/scandals that we do and do not know of, but the above recitation is surely enough to get all this off the front pages of the lamestream media that will go to absurd lengths to protect Obama and the “progressive” rule of a Middle/Right America, silent no longer majority and on to the agenda of a Special Congressional Committee!

LIARS are an affront to the American people and to GOD!

It is time for all Americans to become informed! It is time all Americans stood up and speak out on all these atrocities our government has committed against ALL Americans and the US Constitution that protects us from such criminal activities as illegal search and seizure of AP/Fox records, IRS intrusion into the tax exempt status of organizations and the resulting harm to ALL Americans and the rest of the growing litany of excesses of an out of control Obama Administration.

The last time this occurred in America it was during the Right reign of Richard Milhous Nixon. We had a Left/Progressive, anti-Nixon media. They did their job and, despite their obvious relish at Nixon’s fall, they did their job well. They saw to it that the truth came out and people who deserved it went to jail. Sadly, that is NOT the case today! We have a far Left President and a far Left, lamestream media. They have proven that they will not do the job of holding the Obama Administration to the fire and cause the whole truth to come out on even one of these scandals, much less five or more. We cannot trust them or anyone else. We must get the truth and the only way that can happen is if we demand that those who we have elected to represent us, the US Senators and US Representatives, the House and Senate convene a special investigative committee to protect our right to know the whole truth about everything done in our names.

Hillary Clinton at Watergate when she was fired for her actions and Hillary today when she should be fired and indicted for her actions and the cover up!

To everything there is a season. A time for understanding and a time for truth. This is such a time! The time is NOW!

FULL DISCLOSURE: In case it has escaped you, we are unabashed followers of PJ Media, PJ Tatler, Brietbart other sources of information and opinion that comes from a more Right and less Left perspective. That is our “bent” but it is also what we must do to get an even close to balanced viewpoint, with the massive and unsupportable Left, “Progressive” bias of the lamestream media. We have posted previously on these and other sources of information. We highly recommend our readers review that post here.

Stay tuned, America! An Excellent Spirit will keep you informed and up to date. God bless America!

Benghazi Hearings Preview

On September 14, 2012, An Excellent Spirit began our coverage of the events that took place in that Libyan diplomatic outpost with the murders of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Former US Navy Seals Glen Doherty and, Tyrone Woods and USAF Officer Sean Smith. Since that time we have filed fourteen stories covering facts and issues raised by the Obama Administration’s bungled handling of this attack on US soil in Libya, whether the deaths were necessary, the stories and cover up immediately begun by the Obama Administration, including the relieving of two line battle field commanders that were on duty that day and who were allegedly relieved to prevent them from coming to rescue the four dead Americans. Here is a complete round up of all our stories, chronologically.

Today, May 8, 2013, nearly nine months after that fateful day, Americans are no nearer to getting a truthful reckoning of what took place in Benghazi, what America was doing there and what was done to secure the persons before the attack and during the over 7 hours of fighting that led to the four deaths. There were approximately 30 survivors of the Benghazi attacks and most of these people have never been interviewed or reported on by our lamestream media. The almost total silence to date about any of these survivors leads one to conclude that they have been silenced by our government so the American people cannot know what they have to say took place.

Then there is the matter of the central actors in the American government, from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mike Mullen and the literally hundreds of state department, CIA, Army and Navy personnel that were on duty, deployed or available for deployment on that day. We know too little about what, if anything, almost all of these high officials did on that day. There have been few reports and almost nothing, save the State Department’s review of the events, a whitewash of epic proportions, as are most such covers up.

Finally, there is the truth. The unvarnished facts and statements that some or all of these actors made; the actions that they took or did not take and the activities they and others acting upon their behalves took to cover up their failures and dereliction of duty on that fateful day when four Americans sent into harm’s way by the President and Secretary of State died at the hands of murderers in Libya.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chaired by Representative Darrel Issa of California will hold hearings aimed at getting the truth out for the American people to see. Some are predicting a train wreck for the Obama Administration, for Hillary Clinton, even President Obama. Read more  At least three “whistleblowers”, people who were either in Libya or worked for the government agencies on that day and thereafter are expected to testify and the preliminary indications (witnesses are always questioned, under oath, prior to actual testimony, so a good deal of what they will say is known or expected) are that there will be much that contradicts the President’s statements, actions and handling of the issue as well as Sec. Clinton, Sec. Panetta and others. Hold onto your hats.

These hearings are never easy. There are always demands for a “smoking gun” and questions of motive, both of those investigated and those doing the investigation. Since the “I” word, Impeachment has already been variously written about, the matter of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will be bandied about, as that is the standard for any successful impeachment of any Federal Official. We will also most probably hear words like “gross negligence”, dereliction of duty, lying to the American people and it’s criminal counterpart, perjury. We already know that official statements given by one or more individuals, departments or agencies were “scrubbed” or cleansed by people to clean up the language and make it less newsworthy or more palatable for the press. We also know that September 11, 2012 was 56 days prior to the November 5th Presidential Election. What impact did that fact have on the decisions that were taken on September 11th? And, especially what impact did the Election have on those made between September 12th and November 5th and after Election Day?

There have been literally hundreds of reports, stories and accusations flying around for nine months. It is now time to land the squadrons of approbation and, hopefully, also land the air-wing of truth, so the American people can first know what happened to their four sons and what to expect of the hundreds of thousands of sons and daughters deployed around the world at this writing. Next, Americans are entitled to the truth: the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under oath, so help them God! That is the only reasonable standard of a Republic of truth telling men and women and the only way America can remain a free, brave nation!

There are two articles that An Excellent Spirit deems worthy of interest for those who want to prepare for the hearings, to have some context by which to understand better what will be said. The first is by Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard. It is a comprehensive timeline and review of what is known to date and will be most helpful to anyone interested in the truth. Here it is in three parts.  An Excellent Spirit highly recommends reading the article and paying close attention to the talking points memo that was scrubbed or changed materially to deny the American people even a modicum of truth about what happened.

The second article is by Brian Preston of PJ Tatler, a part of Roger L. Simon’s PJ Media group. This article is part speculation and part attempt to fit the results into a pattern of what is known about the actions taken by the key actors and come to some reasonable conclusion as to what actually took place on September 11th, 2012 and in the months following. It is quite good and less speculation than inference and deduction. Read the whole thing here.  For those who want more information, we recommend they go to Brietbart, PJ Media, PJTV, The Daily Caller, Drudge, The National Review Online and The Weekly Standard online. The lamestream media has, wonder of wonders, abdicated its duty to report the news to Americans if that news does Obama or his narrative harm. These organizations have proven themselves to be faithful and true information sources that are dependable.

Finally, we have a few questions that we are looking to have answered, based upon our research and previous coverage of the Benghazi Scandal and Cover Up. Two current stories assist us in formulating those questions. First by Roger L. Simon the boss man at the PJ Media group and this, by Michael Walsh. We recommend our readers go through each carefully. There are hundreds of stories that apply. Many from the blogs listed above.

For our part, An Excellent Spirit will be paying close attention to testimony dealing with what President Obama was doing that day and night. We know he was briefed at the White House that day by his National Security team and others. He was informed of the attack on Benghazi, real time. We also know that Panetta said he never spoke to the President again that day or night! Where was Obama? What was he doing after being told Americans in a foreign land were under attack and at risk? Who did he speak with and when? Echoes of Tennessee Senator Howard Baker “What did the President know and when did he know it” are beginning to reverberate in our heads.

Again, we know some irrefutable things. President Obama said, in a television interview, a few days after September 11th, “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people. “Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people.”  In another post, we even have a video of Obama saying the same thing. He gave orders to secure our people! That same post, “Benghazi – Did It Ever Happen also deals with three other questions we pray will be answered at tomorrow’s hearings. First there is the question of Cross Border Authority. As former Seal, Matt Bracken clearly set forth, anytime US Forces are ordered by their Commander into another nation, they must get, in advance, Cross Border Authority from the President of the United States! We can be pretty sure that it was never given with respect to Benghazi on September 11-12, 2012. Why? How does that square with Obama’s quote that he “ordered” our men be secured? The more recent speculation about what could have been done and that it might or might not have saved those lives does not change the fact. When your troops are under fire, you go get them. Whether you get there in time or not, that is for after battle review. No man left behind is and must be our Rules of Engagement (ROI)!

Finally there are the cases of two line commanders, in theater that night, both of whom were apparently relieved of duty in the field, during the fight! Gen Jack Ham and Admiral John Gaouette were both relieved of duty that night. Gen Ham has been permitted to retire and we have no current information about the current status of Admiral Gaouette. An Excellent Spirit covered all this in this post 

That is a lot to ask for in one hearing. Let us hope this first one goes on long enough to unearth answers to these and other questions. Let us hope and pray that the Obama Administration has answers and facts that lead away from dereliction of duty and impeachment. That President Obama is one of the least prepared men in our history to be President is established. The whole world, our friends and our enemies know his failings. It would be tragic if there were more to it than plain negligence and lack of understanding. That said, America, in this dangerous world had better begin to get to the bottom of all this and fast! We have been terrorized and threatened with more and increased terror. And we have been threatened with nuclear attack by North Korea and others (IRAN).

It is time America knew the whole truth. How else can America remain the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?  Stay tuned.

Whole Lot of Shaking Going to Happen!

With God’s help, An Excellent Spirit will post on the Benghazi Hearings beginning tomorrow and the increasing prospects that, unless President Obama begins to come clean and tell America the truth about what he did and did not do and did or did not order on the night of September 11, 2012, he could be impeached! Stories like these are beginning to come out. Here An Excellent Spirit posted at length about Cross Border Authority and how, if Obama ordered “everything be immediately done to secure the lives of the Americans on the ground in Benghazi” on the fateful night when four Americans died, apparently from gross neglect of duty by the President himself and Sec. State Clinton, Sec. Def. Panetta and others, NOTHING WAS DONE AND FOUR BRAVE AMERICANS DIED! Here

The other subject on which we feel led to post is the issue of LIARS and the LIES they tell. What happens to these demonic individuals? What can Americans begin to expect a Holy God to do in support of HIS OWN WORD? His Word is forever settled in Heaven(Ps119:89); It is exalted, even above HIS NAME! (Ps 138:2) His Word does not return to God void(Isaiah 55:11a); it accomplished ALL that God sets it to do!(Isaiah 55:11b) God is NOT a man that HE should LIE, not is God the son of a man that HE should repent` take back His Word! (Numbers 23:19)  Finally, God says, “Have I not said it (MY WORD) and shall I not bring it (My Word) to pass”? (Ezekiel 12:25) What will become of those who are revealed to be LIARS against the TRUTH and God’s Holy admonishment that we are to be Holy because HE, GOD ALMIGHTY, our Creator and Heavenly Father, IS HOLY?  An Excellent Spirit will attempt to set forth a few options and see what our readers think. Stay tuned, Mishpucka! Baruch HaShem!

 

Benghazi Eruption Next Week

Wow! An Excellent Spirit has not posted in over three months due to our health issues. As promised, we have kept current on all topics and issues beleaguering America and our posts on Benghazi now seem to be coming true. Here is a round up of those previous posts. The last post we did was on our see no evil, hear no evil, know nothing about Benghazi President, the Appeaser in Chief. Today with this WAPO story by the indefatigable Jennifer Rubin, on her WAPO blog, The Right Turn, the bloom is off that rose! Here This one is a must read! Put simply, the blue ribbon panel headed by former Asst US Sec. State Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chief of Staff General Mike Mullen has come in for more than a little public criticism in how they did not do their job to investigate the US government’s role in the Benghazi murders, the resulting cover up and the roles of President Obama, Sec. State Hillary Clinton and others.

According to Rubin’s blog, “Fox News, which broke the story, reports: “The IG’s office is said by well-placed sources to be seeking to determine whether the Accountability Review Board, or ARB — led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.” The report observes, “This disclosure marks a significant turn in the ongoing Benghazi case, as it calls into question the reliability of the blue-ribbon panel that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened to review the entire matter. Until the report was concluded, she and all other senior Obama administration officials regularly refused to answer questions about what happened in Benghazi. Now the methodology and final product of the ARB are themselves coming under the scrutiny of the department’s own top auditor.”

As one observer, the veteran, credible John Bolton put it, “This is unprecedented. Or, as a former national security figure critical of the president put it, “Zowie!” Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton wrote in an email to me, “I’ve never heard of anything like it!” He emphasized, “I’ve never heard of an IG investigating an ARB. I don’t think there have been that many ARB’s which is what makes it unusual.”

There is more, “Some Republican lawmakers allege that the review board, led by retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, was rigged to protect Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender who wasn’t interviewed as part of the probe. Doug Welty, a spokesman for the IG’s office, said the office is responsive to lawmakers’ concerns; he said this is the first time the office will review an ARB process, although it has in the past reviewed how well the State Department has followed through on the recommendations of other review boards formed after security breaches.”

Rubin concludes her post “We will see if the mainstream media cover “the cover-up of the cover-up,” which is what the headlines would surely blast in a Republican administration. I doubt it. Jay Carney had the gall this week to brush off questions about Benghazi, saying it happened a long time ago. That’s akin to the man who kills his parents and throws himself upon the mercy of the court as an orphan. If the administration, including the White House, had come clean on precisely what happened, what Obama and Clinton were up to on the night of the attack, how they missed the threat of al-Qaeda in Libya (now we hear three al-Qaeda operatives ran the attack) and why a false narrative was perpetrated for so long, we wouldn’t, seven months later, still not have answers to basic questions. And if the press had done its job, we would have gotten to the root of this mess before the presidential election.

What difference does it make? Well, that’s a question that no reporter or pol would dare ask about a Republican national security failure and scandal of this magnitude. As with the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, the mainstream media have tried to avert their eyes, label it non-news and blame it all on partisan politics; but, as with Gosnell, that trick won’t last forever. All Emphasis ours!

For your information, here are a few recent articles on Benghazi and the upcoming hearings next week.

A review of previous post on An Excellent Spirit will make us look good, but we are reminded of a time past in 1973, when we were at dinner in Jimmy’s Restaurant in Manhattan on 52nd St. For you really old timers, Jimmy’s was the successor to Toot’s Shore’s Restaurant and fabled watering hole in NYC. At that dinner were four nationally known reporters. Three are alive and cannot be named. One has passed, Jack Newfield, of the Village Voice, a man I was privileged to call friend. The other three were a national reporter for Newsweek, a New York Times political reporter/editor and a WAPO political reporter. We were having dinner and the subject was Watergate, which was just starting to heat up. It would be at least a year before it mushroomed into the nuclear devastation that ended Richard Nixon’s Presidency. At that dinner the Newsweek and WAPO reporters told us, “We have got him!” “We know enough to know that he is toast and we will drag this out, revelation by revelation until impeachment. If Nixon does not quit, he will go to jail. Whether he quits or makes a deal, we have Dean spilling his guts and Colson, H.R. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Stans and Mitchell and many more are going to jail. It is a done deal!” This was months before any of this was known publically, before the Watergate impeachment hearings in Congress, Grand Juries and the like. The media knew then and the media knows now.

The media, now known as our “lamestream media for its obvious, tragic and treasonous desertion of its own guiding principles (which includes our national press) knows what they know and those who know the media are clued in variously. The times however have changed. Today, they do not uncover and unearth the scandalous, illegal behavior of the High and Mighty. Today they cover it up because the leftist, anti-American narrative they have totally bought into demands it. Their editors, unlike Ben Bradley and publishers, unlike Martha Graham, are more interested in their political bona fides than in their journalistic integrity.

And that is the whole truth, America as best as we can determine and bring it to our readers. Stay tuned, health permitting, An Excellent Spirit feels obligated to bring the truth to an America choking on the awful lies told by a gaggle of liars who are supposed to lead America and tell us only truth.

Benghazi Update – New Shocker: President Obama Knew Nothing!

The See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak Nothing About Evil Trio

Know Nothing About Any Evil President Obama

Say No Evil – “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton

Testify About No Evil Secretary of Defense Panetta today in Congress

For months, ever since the Benghazi murders on September 11th, 2012, the American people have been fed a steady diet of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” by the three highest officials of our government. Today, soon to be former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified before Congress and raised more questions than he answered. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin has this story today.  An Excellent Spirit will follow up at length, but for now, the shocking points (not talking points) are:

1. “Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified today that the president was absent during the Benghazi, Libya, attack(s) and neither he nor Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to anyone in the White House after briefly telling the president an attack was underway.” This is shocking because of the stories we have previously reported about the President’s orders given to his people upon learning of the attack. Here , Here  and here. It seems the new narrative, thanks to Panetta’s testimony today, will have to include some excuse or explanation of the President’s clear words, ““Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people.”  This excerpt, taken from from An Excellent Spirit’s comprehensive coverage (here) of what the lamestream media still refuses to cover, will be quite troublesome to the President.

4 Dead Americans in Benghazi. No story of what, if anything President Obama knew or said or did about their safety.

Either President Obama was told of the attack that threatened the lives of our Ambassador and his security detail immediately or not. That must be established by sworn testimony from his advisors and, ultimately, from his own Presidential lips. Whenever that happened is crucial because of his words above that he gave three orders as a result. The video we linked is also quite in need of clarification based on Panetta’s testimony. We will see.

2. Next, we see that the role of the lamestream media has been key in this cover up the largest scandal in our history. Rubin’s article makes that point well: “The last item is stunning, in part, because no reporter or debate moderator asked the very simple question many conservative critics were asking (Where was the president?) and because no senior official came forward before the election to say, “Ya know the president wasn’t around.” It is almost like the press and the administration together helped conceal gross irresponsibility by the president until after the election.

The President as Commander in Chief of American Forces

Ms. Rubin then asks the question most thinking people (not in the media- they don’t think, they help their man) ask: “Isn’t it time someone not under the thumb of the White House or the Justice Department investigate exactly what the president was up to, what knowledge he had before the incident of the deteriorating situation in Libya, whether he was receiving briefings leading up to Sept. 11, 2012, on Libya and security precautions and why he and his staff kept telling the American people a false narrative about the incident?” Rubin, really the only conservative voice on the nation’s second most far left newspaper, goes on to mention a few other pertinent questions and subjects that are apparently taboo: “And maybe outside eyes should look at the leaking of national security secrets. It is one thing to say that the president’s appointees missed cables or got their talking points mixed up. It is quite another to say the president was AWOL during the entire episode and then went to Las Vegas the next day for a campaign event. At some point — is it now? — events, negligence and plain old incompetence do have a way of catching up.” An Excellent Spirit could not agree more.

America has been inured to parsing, dissembling and even out right lying for years. It has come to the point that the boldness with which our leaders lie to the people is not even a little shocking, so frequent and constant that it is. Four Americans were murdered on September 11, 2012. The President, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Panetta, former CIA Director Patraeus all have made statements or testified under oath or both. We still do not know the truth, much less what the facts were. The worst thing is, that with each additional witness statement or revelation, we have more questions leading to more prevarication and dissembling, leading to less confidence in our government, our President, his Cabinet and our security. We have a President more at home on the golf course, on vacation on our dime or hob nobbing with Hollywood royalty. We deserve better. Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods deserved much better. As Obama’s favorite President, Abraham Lincoln said, those who are serving America deserve and are entitled to “our last full measure of devotion”. In the time that has passed since September 11th, 2012, about the only thing that is certain is that those four men received much less than that.

The President commanding his troops: Beyonce and Jay Z.

Wherever our President was that night, we know he went to Las Vegas early the following morning, September 13th for a campaign fund raiser with his adoring devotees. That is what he does best. Sadly, he does not lead nearly as well or respond to the needs of our patriotic men and women whose lives are at risk every day. Four dead is the toll this time. What will it be next time?

This circus of mis-information, prevarication and just plain lying and intentional confusion must end, but no one has any confidence that it will. An Excellent Spirit will not let it simply pass into the fog of memory. We will either get answers or keep asking questions. That is all we can do. That is all every American should do! Stay tuned.

Benghazi – Did It Ever Happen?

U. S. Consulate in Benghazi Libya under attack on September 11, 2012

An Excellent Spirit has followed the events that took place in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, 2012 when a United States “Consulate” was bombed, fired upon and set ablaze and the U. S. Ambassador to Libya and three American soldiers assigned as security to the Ambassador were murdered. Go here and here for a complete round up of the stories that An Excellent Spirit has carried to date.

Now that the Election is over and the New Year has begun, Americans still do not know what happened in Libya on September 11th. The families of those murdered still have no explanation of why their loved ones died in the service of the United States of America. The President has promised to bring those who perpetrated the murders to justice and Congress has promised a full investigation to inform the American people. Little or nothing has been done to date.

General David Patraeus, CIA Director, resigned on November 9th 2012 after a scandal about his personal life was made public. He met with US Senators thereafter. Here  He testified before Congress on November 16th about Benghazi and his opinion that it was the result of terrorism, but the testimony was behind closed doors and sealed to keep secret the facts from our enemies and the American people from knowing what happened. That all was by Thanksgiving, last year.

4 Star General David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

The Holidays are over and the New Year begun and still little has been revealed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has suffered a concussion and other injuries that prevent her, all these months later, from giving testimony. Republicans in the US Senate quite correctly have signaled that they will not vote to confirm her successor, US Senator John Kerry, unless and until Clinton gives that testimony. Brietbart has this story that a report lays the blame squarely at the feet of the State Department Clinton heads. “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The State Department made a “grievous mistake” in keeping the U.S. mission in Benghazi open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before a deadly attack by militants, a Senate committee said on Monday. A report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission and a nearby CIA annex, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died, faulted intelligence agencies for not focusing tightly enough on Libyan extremists. It also faulted the State Department for waiting for specific warnings instead of improving security. The committee’s assessment, “Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi,” follows a scathing report by an independent State Department accountability review board that resulted in a top security official resigning and three others at the department being relieved of their duties.” Read the whole Brietbart story and learn how little we know and how much the President and Congress are doing to assure that we never learn the truth. Oh. yes. Hillary Clinton has been released from the hospital in New York, but with a new Congress about to be sworn in, a re-elected President who cared little for reveling his part in the Benghazi attack and aftermath and the families of the dead 2 Americans that much further from their grief and agony, what do you think the chances are that the promised investigation will ever take place?

The facts remain. Four US State Department officials died. A US Consular compound in Libya was over run by Al Qaeda terrorists and weapons stolen from that compound. The President and his advisors were provided with “real time” video of the attack that lasted over 7 hours and watched in the White House and State Department and at the CIA and other locations while our people were murdered.

The President of the United States, running for re-election, told the media that he gave orders that everything be done to secure our people within minutes of finding out of the attack. This October 26, 2012 story, by White House correspondent Jake Tapper details the President’s “orders”. “President Obama Begs Off Answering Whether Americans in Benghazi Were Denied Requests for Help”  In an interview with a Denver TV reporter Friday, President Obama twice refused to answer questions as to whether the Americans under siege in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, were denied requests for help, saying he’s waiting for the results of investigations before making any conclusions about what went wrong. After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened. These are folks who served under me who I had sent to some very dangerous places. Nobody wants to find out more what happened than I do.” President Obama told KUSA-TV’s Kyle Clarke large that “we want to make sure we get it right, particularly because I have made a commitment to the families impacted as well as to the American people, we’re going to bring those folks to justice. So, we’re going to gather all the facts, find out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again but we’re also going to make sure that we bring to justice those who carried out these attacks.” Clark pressed again. “Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.

“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. These were our folks and we’re going to find out exactly what happened, but what we’re also going to do it make sure that we are identifying those who carried out these terrible attacks.” Here is one of but a few videos of President Obama responding to questions about what he did following the Benghazi attack. These videos of the President clearly saying that he gave instructions (orders?) about the Benghazi attack upon learning of it are irrefutable evidence that President Obama’s as President and Commander in Chief of US military forces, gave “very clear directives” to secure our people.

There is also much that calls those statements into question. An Excellent Spirit wrote about this story by Matt Bracken, a retired SEAL that appeared in PJ Media. In our story, we referenced Bracken’s authoritative piece and the stunning information it contained. It seems to contradict the President’s words about “orders”. “The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut. Once the alarm is sent  – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.”

Former SEAL and author Matthew J. Bracken

An Excellent Spirit has had some contact with the author, Matt Bracken, and believes this hero has it right. All the way. But there is more. Once the attack was known by the President and his team on the night of September 11th, a few even more curious events took place that have never been explained or investigated, to our knowledge. We refer to the relieving of commands of two senior U. S. flag rank commanders who were on active duty and were in the process of coming to the aid of our Libyan people early in the 7 hour massacre.  The Washington Times reported that General Jack Ham, the commander of AFRICOM, the US military command for the Libyan region, was summarily relieved of his command because he was in the process of going to the aid of those in Libya in time to do them some good. Here The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready. 

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command. 

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.  This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention. But so far there is nothing solid to back it up. Maybe Ham attempted to send a reaction force against orders, or maybe he simply said the wrong thing to the wrong people. Perhaps he gave whomever he was talking to up the chain a piece of his mind about leaving Americans to die when there was a chance of saving them. At the very least U.S. forces might have made those who killed our people pay while they were still on the scene. The Obama White House is famously vindictive against perceived disloyalty – the administration would not let Ham get away with scolding them for failing to show the leadership necessary to save American lives. The Army’s ethos is to leave no man behind, but that is not shared by a president accustomed to leading from that location. The question remains why the repeated requests – which is to say desperate pleas – to send a relief force were refused. Perhaps Mr. Obama and his national security brain trust thought the terrorist assault would be a minor skirmish and quickly blow over. When it became clear that the attack was something more serious, they may have had visions of the rescue team getting involved in a Mogadishu-like firefight, a “Blackhawk Down 2.” This would have been too much for the risk-averse Mr. Obama, particularly in a Muslim country, and less than two months before the election. Instead they simply watched the live video hoped for the best. If there were American fatalities, they felt they could shift blame for the circumstance to the supposed Youtube video which they had already blamed for the riot at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours earlier. In fact the Embassy had sent out its “apology” tweets even before the Cairo riot commenced.”

Four Star U.S. General Carter Ham, Ret. Deposed AFRICOM commander over Benghazi Murders Response

It gets even “curiouser”.  An Excellent Spirit covered this story of the relief of Admiral Gaouette of his command. This strange incident even had some vague hints suggesting this naval hero had been mutinous against the President. Here There have been few follow up articles on either of these two commanders being replaced, so we do not know what actually happened. It is just part of the intentional confusion and obfuscation being systematically conducted by our government and the lamestream media. Still the American people have no facts or information being provided. How are we to understand what happened if no one testifies, no one follows stories up and no one gives answers to the questions that already linger?

America is in trouble. Things are going boom in the night and no one is doing anything about it. Worse, what is being done is to sweep everything under the rug as quickly as possible. The two main actors are our own government (the “most transparent” in our history) and the lamestream media, the see nothing, print nothing, know nothing media that is losing readers and watchers by the millions as “we” get what news we can from the Internet. Stay tuned. Maybe someday Hillary Clinton will recover and testify. Maybe someone will explain how two flag commanders were relieved and why. Maybe someone will get a copy of President Obama’s order to secure our folks. Maybe. But maybe not. My Grandmother used to say, “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

America is beginning to look like a beggar nation. God forbid!

A people who are in the dark as “we” are cannot expect to know the truth, get understanding or operate as those who understand the times and know what to do. It is up to the Body of Christ in America to lead the way back from darkness and ignorance by praying and by doing what God intended for each of us to do. That certainly must include becoming informed, involved and speaking up and speaking out. Think about it, America. Think about it. Christian. Then do something! Before it is too late. Benghazi is a tragedy that explains more than we think. It shows how deceived we are, not knowing what our government is doing. How helpless we are, not deserving of the truth or anything approaching the truth, such as a few facts here and there about our concerns. It shows how corrupt we have become when senior flag commanders are relieved on duty and seemingly disappear from our radar, never to be heard from or about again. It shows how useless Congress is, demanding facts, threatening investigations, receiving who know what behind closed doors and telling the American people that there will be more, only to fall silent and clueless upon the New Year.

It is time for Americans who know God and are disciples of Jesus Christ to act like it. We must pray about all this. We must hear from God what He wants each of us individually and all of us collectively, filled as we are with His Spirit of Truth, to do. We must pray with one another and plan to take action right where we are, in our neighborhoods, cities, counties and states. Begin with small actions. God’s Word tells us we are not to despise the day of small beginnings because “it is not by might, nor power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord of Hosts.” (Zechariah 4:6, NKJV) The Word of God is awesome and it is completely and utterly able to accomplish what God intends for it and for us, when we act upon His Word, to accomplish. God is telling all of us that what is ahead may be daunting and the forces behind evil may be strong, but are not to oppose them by “might” (our own strength, guile and knowledge), nor power (guns, weapons of war and armies of men) but by God’s Spirit (The Holy Spirit, our comforter, guide, revelator of God’s truth to His people). Zechariah 4:6-b says, “the Lord of Hosts”. This designation is throughout the Bible. It means God, the Lord of Armies and Battles vastly greater than anything man has ever created. God’s “army” is “us”! We are those upon whom the God of Hosts, Armies and Battles will confer His Great Strength, but only if we enlist in His Army by showing up, ready for war and prayed up and pressed in for the battle that God will win for us. God told Zerubbabel that the “great mountain” would become a plain and that the hands of men and women of God (you and me) had laid the foundation of God’s Temple on Earth and would finish that Temple of God’s Habitation on the Earth!

2013. The “day of small beginnings”. Benghazi and the scandal that is yet uncovered may offer one of the “small beginnings”, but only to those who know that the battle is the Lord’s. Stay tuned. Stay alert and stay connected to God and one another. God bless America.

Fiscal Cliff Update – Victor Davis Hanson and Scott Rasmussen

An Excellent Spirit continues our coverage of the Fiscal Cliff with this Jewish World Review article by Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson begins by reviewing the past four years. “We are still borrowing more than $1 trillion a year. Barack Obama has added more than $5 trillion to the national debt in just his first term alone. Such massive borrowing is unsustainable. Someone somehow at some time has to pay it back.  Obama would agree. He once alleged that George W. Bush’s much smaller deficits were “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Obama himself vowed to cut the budget deficit in half by the end his first term. Instead, Obama’s annual deficits have never gone below $1 trillion.” Having said that, Hanson suggests that there are three ways to overcome the problem and avoid the cliff. “Three ways to establish a long-term trajectory toward a balanced budget were under discussion. One was to adopt the proposals of the nonpartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission appointed by Obama. The commission offered a balanced mix of tax reform and greater revenues, along with cuts in federal spending. But the president was not interested. The commission’s findings now seem stale just two years after they were issued. Another way would have been to adopt the Bill Clinton-Newt Gingrich compromise formula of the 1990s that balanced the budget through a series of across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts. But while the administration talked grandly of a return to higher “Clinton-era tax rates,” it never mentioned the necessary second half of the old equation — “Clinton-era spending cuts.” That balanced solution is dead, too. Finally, we might have just enacted the income-tax rates of the Clinton era now and work on the spending cuts later. But the administration did not wish to take that third approach either. Instead, it prefers returning to Clinton-era rates only for those who make more than $250,000 a year, while leaving the lower Bush-era income-tax rates — once soundly ridiculed — on all other Americans.”

Stanford University Professor Victor Davis Hanson

Those were the possibilities before Barack Obama was re-elected. Sadly, as weak and ill suited to solving the massive problems with our economy as the three choices are and were, they are no longer on the table and the Fiscal Cliff is a mere three and a half weeks away. Thus far, the only proposed solution is to “tax the rich”. Obama and his billions of dollars in negative campaign advertising have had their effect. The American people firmly believe that the way out of our fiscal problems is to start by taxing the rich. Those same people, however, do not believe that this will produce enough to even make a dent in the overall problem. As Hanson points out, “The problem is that such a soak-the-rich move would only give the treasury about $80 billion a year in new revenue — about 7 percent to 8 percent of the money needed to make up for the massive annual borrowing. Even with proposed accompanying tax hikes on capital gains and larger estates, we still would fall hundreds of billions of dollars short. There simply are not enough affluent sheep who make more than $250,000 to shear.”

Rasmussen Reports confirms these figures. This Gopusa story by Scott Rasmussen tells us more. “President Obama is winning the messaging wars in the “fiscal cliff” debate largely because Republicans aren’t even in the game. The GOP leadership in Washington keeps talking as if the issue is deficit reduction, while the president is talking about fairness. Consider the numbers. Sixty-one percent of voters want to see a deal reached to avoid the big Jan. 1 tax hikes and across-the-board spending cuts, and 68 percent want the deal to include a combination of both tax hikes and spending cuts. By a 2-to-1 margin, voters would like to see more spending cuts than tax hikes. Instead, the president’s proposal includes $4 of tax hikes for every dollar of spending cuts, and the spending cuts are nothing more than a promise to work something out next year. If the issue was really deficit reduction, the president’s proposal would leave the GOP in fine shape. But the president has the upper hand politically, and voters see him as more willing to negotiate in good faith.”

Hanson agrees. “Spending is the real problem but goes largely unaddressed. Obama’s first-term borrowing of $5 trillion was, in part, designed to stimulate the dormant economy while expanding entitlements to those suffering from the recession. But despite the addition of millions of Americans to those who already were receiving unemployment insurance, disability insurance or food stamps, and despite massive loans to green industries, the unemployment rate and GDP growth are about where they were four years and $5 trillion ago. Now the president wants another $50 billion in new borrowing. But why would borrowing another $50 billion jump-start the sluggish economy when 100 times that figure in deficit spending so far has not? “Pay your fair share” was a winning Obama campaign theme — given that nearly half of all Americans do not pay any federal income tax and receive some sort of federal or state entitlement. Yet if the targeted 5 percent of American taxpayers already pays almost 60 percent of all federal income tax revenues, what would the president consider their proper “fair share” — 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent or 100 percent?”

Forget about the fact that many of the uber-rich (Obama supporters all) have already begun to park their wealth outside the US tax reach. Here. Forget about the fact that those that have not or cannot will find other ways (tax accountants, lawyers and other fiscal manipulators) to protect themselves that “we” do not have the wherewithal to employ. Rasmussen continues, “To understand why, start with the fact that 57 percent of voters favor raising taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 a year. Republicans complain that this isn’t enough to make a dent in the deficit. Voters understand that already: Just 19 percent of voters think it is possible to balance the federal budget primarily by raising taxes on upper-income Americans. Add to that the fact that voters don’t expect much substance to emerge from the fiscal cliff debate. If no deal is reached, taxes will go up on just about everyone, and there will be modest reductions in proposed spending growth. If a deal is reached, six out of 10 expect the deal to lead to higher middle-class taxes, and only one out of three think spending will go down. In other words, most people expect pretty much the same result whether or not a deal is reached. In this environment, the president has proposed a policy that addresses a perceived level of unfairness in the nation’s economic arrangements. Whether it’s the best approach doesn’t even matter because Republicans in Washington haven’t even tried to address the fairness issue. They keep arguing about economic theories. As a result, 52 percent of voters now prefer a candidate who promises to raise taxes on the wealthy, while just 34 percent favor a candidate who opposes all tax hikes. This highlights a larger problem faced by the Republican establishment. While most voters see Democrats as the party of big government, Republicans spend more time talking about government. They complain that it’s too big, imposes too many regulations and has unsustainable deficits. Under Obama, Democrats talk less about government and more about how their policies will affect life in America. It’s the end result that a pragmatic nation cares about, not the policies. For Republicans to succeed, they need to recognize that most voters don’t care about limited government. But voters care deeply about the type of society a limited government makes possible. Applying that logic to the current debate over the fiscal cliff, Republicans in Washington need to recognize that few voters believe this is a serious debate about deficit reduction. The president has made it instead a debate about fairness, and they need to respond on that level.

The President has many allies in his camp, the most effective of which are the lamestream media. “We”, the people never hear what anything but the President is saying. Even when they do portray the President’s opposition, the lamestream media do so with gross and unified mendacity (lying in plainer English). Thus, as Rasmussen’s analysis of the numbers support, “we” do not believe anyone about anything, except that “we” will pay for it all.

As Hanson writes, “We are now entering a rare, revolutionary period in American history. The present administration is not just re-examining the traditional physics of taxing and spending, but the very basis by which Americans are compensated in the workplace. For Obama, it is inherently unfair that a few — a surgeon, a small-business woman, an investor or a lotto winner — should make so much. Thus it is the government’s obligation, along with state and local governments, to take much of it away from the suspect few and redistribute it to far more deserving others. All the old criteria that decide in a free-market economy how much we are able to make — education levels, hard work, personal responsibility, particular tastes and values, skill sets, self-discipline, or even sheer luck, accidents, relative health or inheritance — now matter far less. Instead, Obama’s all-knowing, all-powerful federal government, through higher taxes, more spending and greater deficits, will set right what the unfair marketplace has so skewed. At last, we learn what Obama really meant when, in unguarded moments, he sermonized about “redistributive change,” the need to “spread the wealth,” knowing the proper time not to profit, and at some point making too much money. Do we need any longer to heed the ancient advice — scrimp to leave something behind for your kids; try to get a promotion; make sure your savings account is larger than what you owe — if some inequality results? There is now only one commandment in the new Kingdom of Fairness: Make less than $250,000, and the government will ensure that you, the deserving, get your fair share. Make more than that, and the government will demand that you, the undeserving, will pay your fair share. That is all ye need to know. All Emphasis ours.

It seems that it has come to this America. Until and unless, “we” get tired of listening to the same old narratives, by both sides, the prevaricating President who must only “sell” his policies to a people that have just re-elected him and the losing Republicans who have just lost all of the major arguments in the minds of the people that voted, as Rasmussen clearly demonstrates, we cannot hope for anything different and things will never get better. Only worse and worse. Stay tuned. An Excellent Spirit will continue to report the truth to all who desire truth instead of mendacity and talking points. God bless America!

Benghazi Gate: Just Getting Started

An Excellent Spirit has reported on the Benghazi Gate scandal to the best of our ability utilizing our considerable resources. Here We saw this great and cogent PJ Media story by Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen. They ask some really good questions and provide some answers that An Excellent Spirit has speculated about. “Most of the questions related to the Benghazi debacle are about the mechanics, both offensive and defensive. What did the White House know and when? What assets were available to the military? Did someone order a stand down, and if so, who? Why was “the video” blamed long after the administration knew the truth — and didn’t the administration know the truth from the beginning? If it didn’t, why didn’t it? All reasonable questions, but a generally unasked one deserves attention: “Why did al-Qaeda want to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens?”  The ambassador had good relations with some of the most extreme Libyan militias, including those with al-Qaeda ties. Did he upset them with something he did, or didn’t do? Was the White House fully apprised of his connections and dealings with the militias? Was he killed because of something the administration told him to start doing or to stop doing? There are things we know and things upon which we must speculate, including the entry of surface-to-air missiles to the Levant. Emerging from the chaos is a dim understanding that the U.S. was operating a clandestine arms operation from the CIA post that was loosely — and incorrectly — described as a “consulate.” Before and during the revolution, Ambassador Stevens had helped arm the anti-Gaddafi militias, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIF), whose leader Abdulhakim Belhadj later became the head of the Tripoli Military Council.”

That something like this was going on in Benghazi and almost certainly led to the death of 4 Americans on September 11th, is now inescapable. What is now known is why the Obama Administration from top to bottom misled the American people. To be sure there was an Election less than two months away. There were also four people dead. There was enough there that President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, CIA Chief Patreaus and others could have slowly and steadily released the truth, in parts, to the American people. This would have taken all the time that was left before the Election, but they chose not to do that. Instead, it appears that, with the full complicity of the lamestream media, the Obama Administration intentionally lied, over and over again! An Excellent Spirit asks, “WHY??”

The PJ Media article may give us some indications. At least, it provides facts that heretofore were unknown. “In 2011, it was reported that the Libyan rebels had acquired surface-to-air missiles from Gaddafi’s arsenal, and smuggled them into their own. They were not used in the revolution because the skies were filled with allies of the militias, but American sources worried that as many as 15,000 MANPADs (man-portable air defense systems — or mobile surface-to-air missiles) might have “gone missing.” Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro told USA Today: The frank answer is we don’t know (how many are missing) and probably never will. He added that the Obama administration took “immediate steps” to secure the weapons, launching an effort to recover them even before collapse of the regime. Which is interesting, because the U.S. claimed to have no “boots on the ground.” So who was looking for them? And if they found them, what did they do with them?”

The article continues: “Some, at least, appear to have emerged in Syria — in August there was a report of a Syrian government plane downed by the rebels. In October, the Russians claimed the rebels had U.S.-origin Stinger missiles. (Stingers are designed to hit helicopters and low-flying planes — they wreaked havoc with Russian aircraft during the war in Afghanistan.) The BBC reported that the Syrians had old Soviet SA-7 missiles that can destroy an airplane flying at higher altitudes. Whether Russian or American, the introduction of MANPADS into the region would be cause for alarm. The Levant is not isolated to Afghanistan, and the multinational nature of the Syrian rebels puts a number of countries and their interests in harm’s way. A stray shot — or a deliberate diversion — could be used against Israeli commercial or military aviation. Or American aviation. Turkey would have to worry that the Kurdish part of the anti-Assad revolution might divert its energies to assist in the Kurdish guerrilla movement against Turkey; Turkey’s war against the PKK is largely conducted with helicopters. Jordan would have to worry that the Muslim Brotherhood part of the Syrian rebellion could divert its energies to assist the MB in Jordan against U.S. ally King Abdullah II. Russia would worry that missiles could be diverted to the anti-Russian Sunni jihadists of the Caucasus or Central Asia.”

Then, the Bryens throw in an informed speculation: “In October, the IDF confirmed that a surface-to-air missile, said to be an SA-7, was fired at a helicopter from Gaza. Iran had not provided such weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, perhaps understanding that such an escalation would produce Israeli retaliation. The fact that Israel struck the Sudanese Yarmouk rocket/missile factory at the end of October may have been a reminder of the consequences of escalation. So far, only the last bit is speculation. Emphasis ours.

Overhead of Benghazi “consulate” and Libyan cities.

“But what if Turkish, Jordanian, Russian, or Israeli concerns about the appearance of MANPADS close to their borders made the administration decide that it had to exercise more control over weapons shipments to the Syrian rebels? What if the State Department told Ambassador Stevens to clamp down on the shipments or to stop them all together? If Stevens had told his militia allies that he was cutting back or cutting off the CIA-organized shipments to Syria, could they have been angry enough to kill him?” Now, we are getting to some of the questions the American people have.

The end of the article is even more fascinating and ominous, if true, to the Obama Administration. “Al-Qaeda operatives knew of the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi — either because they had operatives in Tripoli or because they had them in Benghazi. They knew where he was and they attacked after the Turkish ambassador left the compound. This raises the question of why Stevens and the Turkish ambassador were meeting in Benghazi at all, when both are stationed in Tripoli. Another “what if” involves the administration response to the attack, both initially and when senior members — including the secretary of State, the president’s press secretary, and the U.S. ambassador to the UN — all insisted that the attack was the result of “the video.” Two full weeks later, President Obama pounded the lectern at the United Nations and denounced “the video.” What if they needed for Ambassador Stevens’ death to be part of a larger event, unrelated to the specifics of arms, militias, al-Qaeda, and Syria? Remember, we’re speculating here. But if the truth of an arms relationship came out, the administration would have been caught in a major falsehood right before the election — that’s not speculation. Mrs. Clinton had flatly told CBS News in February that the U.S. would not arm Syrian rebels, specifically because of the potential for arming radicals with which the U.S. would not be associated: What are we going to arm them with and against what? We’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. … We know [al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri] is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria? It may still fall into the realm of speculation, but it seems we were, and if we were there would be a price to pay. In what appears to be a related event, in early November Secretary Clinton withdrew U.S. support from the Syrian National Council and proposed a differently comprised coalition that would reduce the SNC’s influence. She said it was needed in part because: We need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution. There are disturbing reports of extremists going into Syria and attempting to take over what has been a legitimate revolution against a repressive regime for their own purposes. She didn’t mention their American interlocutors. That appears to be the final backing-away from an American relationship with al-Qaeda-related militias in Libya that ultimately resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Greg Doherty, and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith.

An Excellent Spirit has said that Benghazi Gate may be more lethal to the Obama Administration than Watergate was to the Nixon Presidency. Hearings are just beginning today and they are taking place behind closed doors due to the obvious security issues we have discussed. That will not last. With a scandal that is this big; with a President an active player in the underlying actions from the start (Nixon was passive and only became involved in the cover up) and the State Department at the very center of the failure in Libya, Benghazi Gate is certain to grow bigger until it, like a humongous infection, is lanced, the blood and gore coming out and a strong astringent and antibiotic applied. Difficult times are here and the pain and suffering is just beginning. Stay tuned America. We will bring it to you.

Dr. Stephen Bryen has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and headed the Defense Technology Security Administration. Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center. They have years of experience as defense policy analysts.

Retired SEALs and Officers Want Benghazi Investigation. Now!

An Excellent Spirit in keeping with its promise to inform our readers about the Benghazi scandal, the murders of four heroes, the government complicity with the lamestream media to keep “us” in the dark, the high level military firings and the outright lies that the Obama Administration has been telling all of “us”, has seen this website of retired “special operations” officers that is calling for the immediate investigation of the President and his administration. The site, Special Operations Speaks, was first noticed back in June by Townhall’s Austin Bay in connection with the Obama Administration’s leaking of documents and details of the bin Laden raid that killed the terrorist in Pakistan. “Which brings us to SOS. A Vietnam vet friend tipped me to its unfinished website, Special Operations Speaks.com. The message: A cadre of retired U.S. special operations personnel is fed up with leaks that compromise covert U.S. operations and imprison pro-American sympathizers. Their mission: stop the leaks by firing the leaker-in-chief. A former SEAL and commandant of the SEAL training center, retired U.S. Navy Capt. Larry Bailey, organized the group. I asked him, over the phone, why he formed it. He replied: “I’m pissed.” Bailey knows the leaks put U.S. security and the lives of American spies and SEALS at risk, so he’s fighting a political fight, seeded with his own money. He’ll take donations, you bet. Yes, he expects dirty personal attacks impugning his motives. Bailey and his shoestring SOS are Obama’s worst election year nightmare — special ops guys who publicly question his leadership and judgment. Obama’s most potent campaign tout is “I got bin Laden.” With SOS in the mix, the potent tout suddenly sounds just a tad pathetic.”

Retired Navy Seal Bailey

That was June. Now, in November, the updated site is calling for a full investigation and, if warranted, prosecution and even impeachment. “Special Operations Speaks Demands An Investigation To Uncover Potential High Crimes And Misdemeanors In Benghazigate” The statement by Larry Bailey, Captain (SEAL), USN (Retired), the Co-Founder, Special Operations Speaks and Joe Stringham, BG, USA (Ret), Special Forces/Ranger and Chairman of Special Operations Speaks PAC says, in part that “The President and his administration told outrageous lie after outrageous lie to the American people and at the United Nations for weeks after the 9-11-12 attacks. He will never be trusted again to speak the truth. That is why it is essential to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the scope of Obama and his administration’s culpability and total incompetence if not complicity with regard to these grave losses,” said Dick Brauer, Col, USAF (Ret), Air Commando. The statement concludes, “The question remains, do these actions constitute High Crimes and Misdemeanors? SOS PAC believes that an independent investigation with a special prosecutor is the only way Americans will learn the truth. If Obama is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors we implore Congress to take every action in their power to hold this President and his administration accountable – up to impeachment and/or indictments. “No matter how November 6th plays out, Obama must be held responsible for his actions as a failed Commander in Chief,” said Joe Stringham, BG, USA (Ret), Special Forces/Ranger and Chairman of Special Operations Speaks PAC.”

Retired Gen. Joe Stringham

An Excellent Spirit recalls “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” in 2004 when John Kerry was lambasted by a group of retired “truth tellers” as he ran for President. This is vastly different. This group is apparently much deeper and better funded. That group was led by a few former veterans of Viet Nam and Cambodia who served with Kerry. The SOS group lists over 50 retired officers of high rank (Colonels and Majors). Other information on their site refers to retired Generals. These men and women are asking for investigation into “high crimes and misdemeanors”. That is the legal standard for the impeachment of a President.

The Special Operations Speaks has posted on the story that President Obama may not have given Cross Border Authority as we detailed for our readers. “As more information comes to the light about the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up, a former Navy SEAL officer who once took a military detachment to Libya suggests President Barack Obama was either AWOL — essentially an “empty chair” — or deliberately denied Americans under siege in Benghazi the aid they needed by not authorizing “cross-border authority,” without which rescue operations could have taken place. Matt Bracken, the former SEAL, writes “only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission.” He notes that Obama granted “cross-border authority” for Americans to enter Pakistani airspace to take out Osama bin Laden but, “in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi,” all Obama had to do was not grant the authority and any rescue missions would not have been able to go forward without the CBA. As soon as terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya, dozens of headquarters — including AFRICOM  and EUROCOM — are notified so they can begin their planning for rescue operations, but, as Braken writes, “there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.”

An Excellent Spirit has reported many other extraordinary details of the Benghazi mess and we believe that this scandal may well be as bad or worse than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined. The timeline, the relief (arrest?) of front line commanders on the battlefield is unprecedented and demands full disclosure and accountability. The fact that there is an Election in the midst of all this is about to be removed on November 6th. The Obama Administration’s failure or refusal (or both) to recount a true, cogent explanation for all events in Benghazi is the principal reason that the fire is building from the ashes of the murders in Libya to a conflagration of massive size and destruction in the aftermath of tragedy. Stay tuned for more. And more. And more.

The Unmaking of President Obama

An Excellent Spirit has just read this new revelation on what happened on September 11th when our consulate in Benghazi was attacked that augers even more badly for the President. This PJ Media story raises a new issue: “Cross-Border Authority”.  The story “Benghazi’s Smoking Gun? Only President Can Give ‘Cross-Border Authority’ by Matt Bracken begins “Sending additional forces into a foreign country always requires the president’s approval. He was either absent, or refused “CBA”.” Bracken, a former Navy Seal officer details protocols that have heretofore been withheld from the reports. “The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut. Once the alarm is sent  – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission. That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace. On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already “in country” in Libya — such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already “in country,” so CBA rules do not apply to them.”

An Excellent Spirit has detailed how two front line military commanders of flag rank were relieved of their commands in conjunction with the Benghazi debacle. Here  Could this information further inform those two delicate and astonishing situations?  We all will have to await the Congressional Investigations that will follow the Election. Meanwhile, as Bracken states “Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his “standing orders” not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella. Perhaps the president left “no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority” standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don’t yet know where the president was hour by hour. But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders

And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives. The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur’s Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.”  There are numerous reports that US forces were ordered to “stand down” at least three times that fateful night as Americans waited in vain for support that never came. Four of them died. Go Here and here for videos of that night. President Obama has said that he “ordered that everything possible be done to help our people”. This You Tube video shows the President saying he ordered those in Benghazi be helped.

An Excellent Spirit finds it hard to reconcile the President’s comments with the lack of a clear Cross border authority. Either that order was given and exists or it was not given and the President is lying to the American people. There is no other possible explanation and Americans will find out, even if it after the Election. When “we” do find out, there will be consequences!

The Obama Confidence Scam on Benghazi

Thomas Sowell is perhaps our best and clearest thinker. He has debated and deflated the best academicians and politicians of the left for a half century. Professor Sowell has this Townhall article today, “Cooling Out” The Voters. It is on the coming Election and Benghazi. Sowell begins by letting us in on the inside baseball of confidence game methods. “Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone. So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the mark.”

In case An Excellent Spirit’s readers are wondering, the confidence game is the Election and the events that could cost the Obama team defeat. The mark is “us”. “We” have been treated as the mark and nothing will change that. And, by “cooling” “us” out, the good Professor is referring to the systematic distortions, lies and liars who have been speaking to the public for the past 6+ weeks about what actually happened in Benghazi Libya when Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

After discussing the example of the Clinton White House’s skillful avoidance of Impeachment over his lies about Monica Lewinsky, Thomas Sowell gets down to it: “We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year. The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead. About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there. Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America? The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.”

The good Professor even gives us motive and reason for our government playing this cynical, mendacious game with “us”. “The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty — “cooling out” the voters — the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.”

Exposing the scam played upon “us”, Professor Sowell concludes, “From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism. The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to “cool out” the voters until after election day.”

Thank you, Thomas Sowell, “we” needed that! Read the whole thing here.

Is Benghazi Worse Than Watergate? Did Someone Commit Treason?

An Excellent Spirit has wondered what will happen if President Obama manages to win the Election and the Benghazi lies, liars and immense cover up ever get exposed to the American people. PJ Media’s Roger Simon apparently thinks the same way. In this article today, Simon goes even further. Its title may give a hint: “Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi”. Mr. Simon in his inimitable style asks: “Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi. Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Then the purveyor of the Pajamas Media empire really gets down to brass tacks: “When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria. How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.” 

Watergate was really all about the stupendous and unwarranted egos of the President and those who worked for him. Once the scandal got out, they thought they could cover it up through the upcoming Election and forever, so they began the actions that led to the impeachment, then resignation of President Nixon and the jailing of many of his closest associates in the White House.

Nixon leaves after resignation.

Those were crimes. People went to jail and Nixon may have been spared jail by President Ford’s pardon upon assuming the Presidency. No one died and Watergate was not about the military, Nixon’s role as Commander in Chief or what was done in a theater of war during wartime. Benghazi is different in that critical respect. Simon is, therefore, correct in discussing treason because that is the crime that could have been committed here by those in the White House and covered up by “all of this President’s men and women”.

Watergate scandal meeting at White House. Nixon, Erlichman, Halderman and Chapin

Another difference is that in 1972, The Washington Post was led by Editor Ben Bradley who assigned two cub reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to the story and let them go where the evidence led. Today, those lamestream media outlets are part of the cover up, choosing not to cover the story because it might lead to President Obama losing the Election.  If Simon is right or anywhere near right, it may turn out that the lamestream media has done America no favor, as the number of high Administration people lining up for jail may exceed Watergate’s awful tally in that respect.Simon notes that the escalation to treason is almost unavoidable. When “left” denizens like Carter pollster Pat Caddell begin to speak out against what the lamestream media is not reporting and against what the President knew and when he knew it, things will probably get worse. “Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them. As Pat Caddell noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends at least have some semblance of honor left, writing: It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.” 

Then there is this. Whether or not the Senate changes hands, the House will almost certainly remain in Republican control. The House Committee on Government Oversight is chaired by Rep. Daryl Issa (R-Ca), one of the richest, self-made men in Congress. Issa is already on the Fast & Furious Scandal and the likelihood that “gunwalking” was a major part of the Benghazi mess is looming larger by the day. Issa and his Committee have subpoena power, jurisdiction and will certainly hold hearings after Election Day. Whether the press covers them or not, the US Attorney will be forced to monitor those hearings and will have to take action if and when criminal activities are revealed, under oath before Congress. 

Rep. Daryl Issa (R-Ca.) House Oversight Committee Chairman

Roger Simon is no “loose cannon”. He is a veteran journalist, Hollywood writer and thinker. When Simon talks treason, Americans should pay attention. Simon has some facts. Facts that An Excellent Spirit has already begun to develop: “Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times, …one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.” Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez article at RadicalIslam.org, …that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis. Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time. None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field. Many questions remain to be answered. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong. 

This Patriot Action Network (Tea Party) Alert, if true could blow the lid off the Pentagon and the Obama Administration. The alert references stories in The Washington Times about Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. “On October 18th, 2012 Sec. of Defense, Leon Panetta announced that President Obama would ill nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.” That was over a months after Benghazi and the Obama Administration was in full spin mode about what really took place and what they did. Few people noticed that Ham’s AFRICOM Command included Benghazi.”

The Washington Times was not so blind. This story on October 28th asked if General Ham lost his command over the Benghazi affair. “Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.”

Two days before the Times piece, on October 26th, “Ambassador” posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft): I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below. “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” This quote was widely circulated in the news and on TV clips as the reason that no rescue was ever attempted at Benghazi.

General Carter Ham

Now, it seems, that too was a horrible untruth. The TigerDroppings post continues, “The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready. 

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command. The Pentagon and all other Obama Administration sources vehemently deny the Times story. General Ham has been silent, although this story says that Ham has decided to retire. “However on Monday October 29 a defense official told The Washington Times that “the decision [to leave AFRICOM] was made by General Ham. He ably served the nation for nearly forty years and retires after a distinguished career.” Previously all that was known was that General Ham would be rotating out of AFRICOM at some future date, but not that he was leaving the service. General Ham is a few years short of the mandatory retirement age of 64, but it is not unusual for someone of that rank to retire after serving in such a significant command. The questions concerning General Ham’s role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz’s account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta’s statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. “General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways,” Mr. Bolton concluded. “Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh.”

It has become sadly but abundantly clear that much has been systematically and intentionally kept from the American people by the Obama Administration with the avid assistance of their lamestream media lapdogs. It is also becoming clear that many witnesses will be lined up before the House Oversight Committee after Election to testify, under oath, about what really happened. God help those who have lied to “us”. There will be no place they can hide, no matter who they are or how high the office they hide in. Enough said, for now. An Excellent Spirit hopes sincerely that it does not come to treason and criminal action or impeachment, but even if President Obama is defeated a week from today on November 6th, Benghazi promises to be with “us” for some time and will go where those in power have led it, just as Watergate did in 1972-1974. Stay Tuned.

The President We Didn’t Want – Final Part of Series

An Excellent Spirit has told our readers much that was not known about President Barack Obama before “we” elected him in the first five parts of this series. Go here to review parts 1-5.  We told you that our series is based, in part, on The Washington Examiner Special Report, “The Obama You Don’t Know. An Excellent Spirit highly recommends that series to our readers. Here In this final installment of An Excellent Spirit’s vetting of the President  we cover the President’s ties to the Arab networks and his Chicago political roots. We do so less than two weeks before the November 6th Election Day.

President Obama’s connections to Arab, anti-American networks begin with now imprisoned Obama financial connection Tony Rezko. Born in Syria, Rezko is our starting point in this sad saga. It was Rezko who was at the center of the Arab network that no one in the lamestream media thinks is of any importance whatsoever to the American people. “Chief among them was Obama mentor Tony Rezko. Born in Aleppo, Syria, home of strongman Bashar al-Assad, Rezko migrated to the U.S. in the late 1970s and built a political and financial empire in Chicago and Springfield, the Illinois capital.”  This network did not evade Chicago notice. “Less well-known is a cluster of Chicago businessmen who formed an Arab-American network at the heart of Obama’s political apparatus. Ray Hanania, a Chicago-based Arab-American journalist and activist, described the network in a 2007 interview with Chicago magazine as “a small cluster of activists” in the business community who were politically involved.” Why, if the media in Chicago wrote about them and Rezko was indicted and convicted, was there no mention or investigation of these shadowy others?

 Ray Hanania, a Chicago-based Arab-American journalist and activist, described the network in a 2007 interview with Chicago magazine as “a small cluster of activists.” Chief among them was Obama mentor Tony Rezko, above. Stuart Levine, right, Rezko’s former partner and the government’s star witness in the Rezko trial, testified that Obama met Nadhmi Auchi at a private Rezko reception held at Chicago’s Four Seasons hotel.

President Obama’s education was also almost totally obscured from America. There were myths, official bio’s and other misinformation, but little truth. It is only recently that anyone paid any attention to “President Obama’s controversial relationships with radical figures like Columbia University professor Rashid Khalid.” It turns our that “(P)rior to his academic career in the United States, Khalidi worked for Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization when it was classified by the State Department as a terrorist group.” Emphasis ours. The Examiner article details several key relationships Obama had with suspect figures, among them, “Rezko partner, Ali Ata, was a key witness during Rezko’s 2008 federal corruption trial. He donated $5,000 to Obama’s campaign and claimed to have given an additional $10,000 in “straw donations.”

Ata was a former president of the Chicago Chapter of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Ata also was an investor with Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-British businessman and former Iraqi Baathist who was on a terror watch list and thus barred from entering the United States. Associations like this have been completely obscured by the lamestream media from the American public. It gets worse. “Rezko asked federal authorities in 2004 to permit Auchi to join him in Chicago for a business deal, according to the New York Times.

Stuart Levine, Rezko’s former partner and the government’s star witness in the Rezko trial, testified that Obama met Auchi at a private Rezko reception held at Chicago’s Four Seasons hotel.

Auchi wired $3.5 million to Rezko during the 2008 trial. Federal prosecutors asked for Rezko’s bail to be revoked when they discovered the Auchi wire transfer.” Did Obama meet with this Auchi when he was on a terrorist watch list?

Finally, we have “the Arab American Democratic Club, or AADC, and the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

Rezko was involved in the AADC with Khalil Shalabi. Shalabi was fired from a state government job in 2007 after the Illinois inspector general reported he had been fundraising at work for Rezko and Blagojevich.

The Obamas attended several AAAN dinners, including one honoring Khalidi. More recently, Hatem Abudayyeh, AAAN’s executive director, attended an April 22, 2010, Obama policy briefing, according to White House visitor logs.

In September 2010, FBI investigators raided Abudayyeh’s Chicago home reportedly seeking evidence of AAAN being used as a conduit for funding to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups.” These are more than mere casual ties and relationships for a President of the United States to have almost completely unknown to the American people. President Obama becomes, more each day, The President We Never Knew!

Finally, we look at President Obama’s intimacy with the corrupt and corrupting Chicago political machine. In their final part, The Examiner says, “Consider the following facts about the city from which President Obama rose through the ranks of American public life, from community organizer and local lawyer to the Illinois state legislature to the U.S. Senate and finally the Oval Office: 

» Chicago’s 2.7 million residents make up only about 21 percent of the state of Illinois’ population of nearly 13 million. Yet the city and its suburbs have accounted for 84 percent of the state’s public corruption convictions in federal courts since 1976, according to a study released earlier this year by the University of Illinois at Chicago.

» Four of the state’s previous seven governors went to jail on public corruption charges, as did a third of Chicago aldermen who served during the period.

» New York and California have higher totals for public corruption convictions, but Illinois leads the nation on a per capita basis.”

Columnist Michael Barone has looked into the Obama-Chicago connection. “Barone defined gangster government as using the powers of public office “to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored.”

Obama was a little more direct during the 2010 congressional campaign, saying, according to the New York Times, “we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” The Chicago “way” politics also led to enormous benefits to unions and other Obama friends. “The GM and Chrysler bailouts favored the UAW, an unsecured creditor, over secured creditors in the financial community by putting the union ahead of the financiers in the bankruptcy line for reimbursement of losses under the Obama-sanctioned March 2009 bailout.

And, as Barone predicted in 2009, taking care of his friends was Obama’s characteristic approach when dealing with domestic issues.”

Everyone has heard of the failed “green energy” venture known as Solyndra. The Examiner has more than we have seen reported anywhere. “Obama’s “clean energy” loan program that gangster government has been repeatedly on display, most famously in the $573 million Solyndra bankruptcy debacle.
Solyndra’s main investor was Oklahoma billionaire and Obama campaign bundler George Kaiser. Solyndra was the first but no means the most egregious energy loan deal that benefited Obama’s friends.
While researching his blockbuster 2011 book “Throw Them All Out,” Hoover Institution fellow and Stanford University professor Peter Schweizer and his researchers found 31 Obama bundlers and big donors whose firms received more than $16 billion in clean energy loans and grants.
The list of recipients unearthed by Schweizer includes such luminaries as former Vice President Gore, Silicon Valley venture capital king John Doerr, Sergey Brin, Dan Reicher and Larry Page of Google, Jim Rogers of Duke Energy, Tesla Motors’ Elon Musk and CNN founder Ted Turner.” Some list. The only thing we could think of is “birds of a feather”.

It gets much worse. “But one of the lesser-known names in the Solyndra scandal perhaps tells the story better than the celebrities. Cathy Zoi was a senior White House environmental adviser during the Clinton administration, then CEO of Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection.
Under Obama, she was appointed assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy, a position that put her at the center of the approval process for green energy loans and grants.
Following the Solyndra debacle, Zoi left the government to work for George Soros as head of a new clean energy investment fund he started. Soros had gotten on board with Obama in 2004 by contributing more than $60,000 to his U.S. Senate race. Soros was then one of Obama’s earliest and most generous financial backers in 2008.

After Obama won the White House, Schweizer notes, Soros “had regular private consultations and meetings with White House senior advisers while he was making investment decisions related to the stimulus program.An Excellent Spirit has reported on Soros. Here http://www.anexcellentspirit.com/?s=George+Soros&submit=Search Billionaires like Soros collect people like Zoi. They are like charms on very expensive charm bracelets. “As The Washington Examiner‘s Tim Carney wrote in February 2011, Zoi’s tenure at the Energy Department “was rife with conflicts of interest.”
Her husband’s firm, environmental windowmaker Serious Materials, benefited from presidential and vice presidential visits to its factories and was “the first window company to pocket a stimulus tax credit — worth $584,000 — for investing in new equipment.”
Soros was born in Hungary and made his first fortune in Europe’s money markets, but it appears that he understands the way gangster government works in Washington in the age of Obama. He ought to, he paid enough for his knowledge, to the detriment of Americans and our economy.

This concludes our series, but not our vetting of President Obama. An Excellent Spirit will continue to bring our readers all the information we have on how our government works and how it is prevented from serving the very people it was created to serve, “us”! Stay tuned.

Update: The Election-Nine Days to Go

With 9 days to go An Excellent Spirit brings our readers these articles on the Election. We do so to encourage each American to vote. Some of you will like the content; some will be depressed by the opinions. We pray that each of you will be resolved to VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6TH! That is the only way “we” win!

Brietbart says the race in crucial swing state Ohio is tied. “Yet another poll has shown the presidential race in Ohio tied, with President Barack Obama dropping below the crucial 50 percent mark. The latest Akron Beacon Journal/Ohio Newspaper Organization poll shows the race in a 49%-49% tie, with Republican Mitt Romney erasing the 51%-46% lead Obama enjoyed as of late September. Read the whole thing here.   

The Washington Examiner has these two articles. First on how Romney’s people see the Election. “Mitt Romney has led Barack Obama in the Gallup national tracking poll for nearly three weeks.  He has led the Rasmussen national tracking poll for about the same time.  And now that the Washington Post and ABC News are publishing their own tracking poll, he’s leading in that one, too.  It seems reasonable to conclude that, at this moment in late October, Romney is leading the presidential race. Naturally, the Obama campaign sees it differently. “No matter what the national polls say, they argue, President Obama is still leading in those states that will lead to victory in the Electoral College.  Their hopes are focused on Ohio, where the RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Obama leading by 2.3 points.  The president also leads in New Hampshire by 1.4 points and Iowa by 2.3 points, while Romney leads in Florida by 1.8 points and Virginia and Colorado are tied, all in the RealClearPolitics averages.” Read the whole thing here. The second Examiner piece says Democrats are fearful that a recent Romney spot on Medicare will hurt their chances. ““This could cost us the election,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) political director Kelly Ward wrote today. “The Romney campaign is up with a new ad campaign trying to confuse voters into thinking that Republicans are the ones trying to protect Medicare. You and I know that Romney and Paul Ryan are dead set on slashing seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for more millionaire tax breaks — but we have to get the facts out to voters immediately.” The whole article is here

Finally this Powerline post says that Minnesota, long thought to be safe for the President is now uncertain and could go Romney. “MINNESOTA, NOW IN PLAY-Over the last couple of weeks we have toyed with the idea that Minnesota could be competitive in this year’s presidential election. While certain data have been tantalizing, on balance we have concluded that it just isn’t in the cards. Today, however, the Minnesota Poll finds that Romney has closed to within the margin of error. Obama leads 47%-44%, and the margin of error is 3.5” It is all here.

Powerline is the long running blog of John H. Hinderaker, Scott W. Johnson and Paul Mirengoff, among others. It is authoritative, accurate and especially good on the Northern states that make up the “Northern Alliance” a group of blogs from that region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Line When they talk, we listen. Stay tuned, there will be more.

 

We Told You, Don’t Tempt The Thing From Whatever!

An Excellent Spirit told our readers that none of us should tempt fate or “the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.” That said, we have seen these recent stories that indicate that something is going on. Commentary Magazine said “Some Democrats are apparently not waiting for Barack Obama to lose the presidential election before starting the inevitable recriminations about whose fault it was. Whether writing strictly on his own hook or as a result of conversations with campaign officials, New York Times political writer Matt Bai has fired the first shot in what may turn out to be a very nasty battle over who deserves the lion’s share of the blame for what may turn out to be a November disaster for the Democrats. That the Times would publish a piece on October 24 that takes as its starting point the very real possibility that the president will lose, and that blame for that loss needs to be allocated, is astonishing enough. But that their nominee for scapegoat is the man who is almost certainly the most popular living Democrat is the sort of thing that is not only shocking, but might be regarded as a foretaste of the coming battle to control the party in 2016.” Read the whole thing hereStanley Kurtz of National Review Online had this “Let the pre-criminations begin! Clive Crook asks why on earth Obama ceded the center to Mitt Romney by running a class-warfare-based campaign. Crook sees Obama as a centrist mysteriously cowed by his party’s leftist base. I think we can clear this mystery up: Obama ran a leftist class-warfare campaign because . . . well, he’s a leftist class-warrior. I’ve been struck by commentators on both the right and left treating Obama’s leftist campaign as a matter of strict necessity. For a couple of years, conventional wisdom has held that the weak economy left Obama little choice but to turn this into a base election. Then conventional wisdom was upended by the conventions. Bill Clinton’s dubious but effective attempts to exonerate Obama from economic blame could easily have been combined with a centrist campaign — and presidency. Obama’s class-warfare campaign was a choice, not a necessity. But to see that is to suggest that Obama is a leftist by conviction, and many have been reluctant to do that.” Read it all here

Like we said, it is too early to risk tempting fate, but any update on what is happening will bring our readers an inkling of what is being said on the blogosphere about what is happening in this momentous Election. Stay tuned. 

 

What Mitt Romney Does When No One Looking

An Excellent Spirit has long held that what a person does when no one is looking is a good indicator of what he or she will do when everyone is looking. That is what legendary UCLS Coach John Wooden said “The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.” 

In the case of President Obama, everyone is looking and what we see is what we are getting. 

In Mitt Romney’s case, this Brietbart story and the embedded video tell a lot. See it for yourself and remember to VOTE on November 6th

 

Benghazi Update: Even Lamestream Media Says Obama Lied

Brietbart has this story about the now infamous President Obama 60 Minutes appearance and the questions put to the President by Steve Croft that night.  “CBS News has released a clip of an interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes on Sep. 12 with President Barack Obama that indicates Obama knew the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was a premeditated terror attack–and suggests the White House later deceived the public by blaming protests against an anti-Islam video. 

The Lamestream media bias for the President is proven by the fact that CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month–but did air Obama’s attack on Romney that same night. “Obama told Kroft that the attack in Benghazi was different from the violent protest at the U.S. embassy in Cairo: ‘You’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.’ Obama’s remarks pointed towards a premeditated attack, in contrast to the story the White House went on to tell for weeks. CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama–not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant–first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start.” According to Fox News, the clip first appeared online on Oct. 19. It was embedded Oct. 24 in an article by CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson. What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obama’s attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administration’s apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration. Obama said Romney “seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.” That portion of the interview aired immediately, and drove the news for days. Obama’s comment suggesting that the attack had been premeditated was not aired.”

During an interview shown on Comedy Central, Obama responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the assault by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

Brietbart’s story continues, “Attkisson revealed this week that “emails linking an Al Qaeda affiliate to the Benghazi attack had been sent to the White House Situation Room just over two hours after the attack had begun. The emails suggest that the Obama administration knew from the outset that the Benghazi attack had been a terrorist attack–and that it knowingly misled the public when it repeatedly claimed there was no evidence of terrorist involvement. When the video story unraveled, the White House tried to argue that President Obama had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror all along. In the second presidential debate, the President famously pointed to his Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden as proof, though his reference to “acts of terror” on that occasion had been general and not specific to the Benghazi attack, which he implied had been provoked by the video. The new CBS footage suggests that Obama did, in fact, describe the Benghazi attacks as premeditated terrorism–not in the Rose Garden but in the White House itself, in a portion of an interview that did not air until more than a month later. During that time, both CBS and Obama could have referred to the interview, but did not–likely because doing so would have vindicated Obama at the cost of exposing his subsequent deceit.”

The Brietbart story lays the responsibility at the hands of President Obama and the Lamestream media. “The fact that CBS refrained from publishing the critical clip from the interview widens the political scandal surrounding Benghazi into a media scandal.”  Even some members of the media are beginning to air the truth. “National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson criticized CBS on Fox News Special Report yesterday, saying that CBS ought to have made the entire interview with Obama available immediately, in the public interest. Together with the president, CBS has much to explain.”

Don’t hold your breath, America. The strategy that seemed to get Nixon in 1974 is clearly at play here: Tell them nothing until after we are re-elected. It got Nixon impeached and he had to resign, because that strategy can only be implemented by a massive cover up. It is beginning to look like the cover up is in full swing here. The familiar echoes of “what did the President know and when did he know it” have begun. Sadly, “we” have to make up our minds about who our next President without knowing what “they” knew. Stay tuned.  

Benghazi Follow Up : Stevens Killed Over Weapons US Supplied to Terrorists

An Excellent Spirit reported yesterday that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11th in connection with huge amounts of weapons that the United States was supplying to Islamist Terrorists.

We reported that sources developed by Frank J. Gaffney had revealed that the Obama Administration had engaged in “gunwalking” weapons captured or discovered after the death of dictator Gadaffi. Apparently, Chris Stevens and four Americans were murdered because Islamists wanted weapons that were stored on the Benghazi site by Americans for transfer to terrorists we deemed worthy and the whole thing came undone, tragically. Now, comes this confirmation from The Rubin Report. “The official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird. Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador arrived back in the country and immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war. It is quite true that the State Department and ultimately Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the ambassador being in Benghazi and for ensuring his protection. The president would not be consulted on such a “minor” event. But the story hinges on why the ambassador was in Benghazi that day. If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons’ system that was Washington’s highest priority to buy back but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it.”

Barry Rubin is a veteran observer of the Middle East that An Excellent Spirit has referenced many times. For a round up of previous posts, go here.  Rubin continues, “Obama said he did three things but in fact he did four: he and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it. –They said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in Libya. –They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault. –They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaida.”

In the final Presidential Debate on foreign policy, Obama charged: “While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening. Yet, as Rubin reports, “all three of the above lies were precisely a matter of turning “national security into a political issue,” and that is what Obama has done throughout his term. Emphasis ours. 

Barry Rubin correctly observes what the lamestream media should know, but will never tell the American people: Obama could not acknowledge the real cause of the attack because that “would have been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now doing precisely the same thing in Syria. To acknowledge the nature of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure—on September 11 of all days—in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi. This includes the fact that the guards were untrained; that they had—according to one of them—been aware of the danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan regime sources had apparently tipped off the attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no U.S.-provided security. Was that last shortcoming due to an attempt not to “offend” the Libyans by showing they weren’t trusted? If so, that arises directly from the themes Obama has set in his foreign policy.”

President Obama is clearly over his head in foreign policy issues. He had no real experience organizing communities and representing slumlords in Chicago when he came into the Presidency and events and the incompetence of his own Administration are overwhelming the United States today, all over the world. So the President’s narrative that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is too was being exploded and he was helpless. Rubin continues, “To admit that al-Qaida is still very much in business would show that Obama’s claim the group had been defeated was false and demonstrate the limited value of killing Usama bin Ladin. Al-Qaida is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.” So, at the debate, the President dissembled and accused Romney of lying and politicizing Benghazi. 

To his credit, Mitt Romney stuck to his guns. As Rubin observed, “The real questions, however, were raised by Romney in his response: “There were other issues associated with this—with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn’t know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn’t we know five days later when the ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice, acting of course on administration directives] went on TV to say that this was a demonstration. How could of we not known?” “In other words, the Obama Administration deliberately lied to the American people.”  Emphasis ours.

Romney continued at the debate, “But I find more troubling than this that on…day following the assassination of the United States ambassador — the first time that’s happened since 1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn’t know what happened, that the president the day after that happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event.” Emphasis ours.

Update: “It has now come out that the State Department hired a small, relatively unknown British firm (how’s that for outsourcing jobs?) which in turn hired 20 untrained, unarmed Libyans who were told to sound the alarm and run away if there was an attack. That’s what they did, leaving the ambassador defenseless.  So according to the official U.S. plan, the ambassador had no protection whatsoever.  Two brave Americans sacrificed their lives in the ensuing battle. The Obama Administration sacrificed all three and then misrepresented what had happened not for any national security interest but purely for their own partisan political and personal benefit.” 

In 1973-74, it took months of leaks, testimony, indictments and more that led to a Presidential resignation. Partly, that is because President Nixon was re-elected in November of 1972. By that timetable, if Barack Obama is re-elected, his resignation should come in 2014 after another period of national shame and disgust. Stay tuned.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.